For those who are not familiar with the Colorado Alcohol Beverage Control laws, it is prohibited by law to buy liquor, wine, or beer stronger than 3.2% alcohol by volume on Sundays in Colorado. This has been the law in Colorado since the repeal of the 18th Amendment in 1933.
It is a silly law, to the point that you cannot take freshly brewed beer home, from one of our many fine micro-breweries, in a to-go container known as a growler. The only exception is for wine, which is corked at a table in a restaurant.
Every time the issue has been brought up at the state level, through the legislature or through the ballot initiative process, the liquor store owners have lobbied heavily against the repeal of the prohibition. It takes a moment to understand why.
Liquor stores also have a monopoly on liquor sales throughout the state, other than 3.2 beer. You cannot buy anything but 3.2 beer in a grocery or convenience store. So, if you want liquor, wine, or decent beer, you have to buy it from a liquor store. Due to this monopoly, the Sunday prohibition doesn't cost the liquor stores anything. Thirsty consumers will buy what they need on Saturday, or wait until Monday. The Sunday prohibition is therefore nothing but a free day off.
Of course, there is the religion thing. As if devout Christians througout the state would skip church service and rush to the liquor store to get themselves wasted on a Sunday morning. WWJD?
The following is a letter to the editor, from me, printed on January 22, 2008 in the Canon City Daily Record:
This week, the Colorado Senate is likely to consider repealing the Sunday liquor sales ban.
The Sunday liquor ban is an antiquated government regulation that restricts consumer freedom of choice. I understand the concern from liquor store owners that the Sunday ban gives them an automatic day off. However, it should not the province of the Colorado Legislature to grant or deny days off to independent business owners. Business owners should have the choice to be open or closed on any day they wish. Likewise, consumers should have the choice to buy legal goods and services on any day they wish.
If the rigor of owning a liquor store and being open seven days a week is too great, there is nothing preventing a liquor store owner from selling his business and doing something else that doesn’t require the same time commitment. By law, liquor store owners must be adults, it’s time they started acting like it.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Bush's Arab Arms Sale: A Few Thoughts
In the midst of the 2008 Presidential Election it is easy for real news to slip through the cracks in the main stream media. On President Bush's recent sightseeing trip to the Middle East, he managed to offer some $20 Billion worth of American advanced weapons systems to the blood brothers of some of our worst enemies. Eventually, this might prove to be a very bad idea.
Of course, the administration touts this weapons sale as a positive step in our ongoing conflict with Iran. In the geopolitical paradigm of Cold War era strategy, it makes since: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Unfortunately, as the Bush Administration has learned time and time again, Cold War era thinking does not work in the Middle East.
Included in the weapons systems proposed for sale are some of our gems, systems that have been proven to be effective in battle. The systems include: patriot missle batteries, smart bomb kits, and the Navy's Littoral Combat system (a naval weapons system devised around the Navy's global littoral defense strategy as the next generation of US Navy strategy).
History proves that meddling around in that region, particularly by arming "friendly" factions and nations, has not always served the United States well. Here is a brief history of American arms transfers to the Middle East.
In the 1970's, in an effort to quell the Soviet military advance and occupation of Afghanistan, the United States armed the Afghani rebel group, not quite famously known yet as The Taliban. Fortunately, this strategy had some initial benefit as American arms helped turn Afghanistan into the Russian Vietnam. The losses sustained by the USSR in Afghanistan, no doubt, hastened the eventual self-destruction of the USSR.
However, in the long term, this arms transfer has proven to be a bad strategic move for the United States. Throughout the 1990's, and until the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, the Taliban used the weapons and money obtained from the United States to reign over Afghanistan. As we know today, the Taliban has presided over one of the most anti-democratic, oppressive, and most religiously fascist governments in the history of the modern world.
In the 1980's Iran and Iraq were engaged in a vicious war. Iran was not a friend of the United States at that time. In the late 1970's, the secular government of Iran under the Shah, which had been propped up by the United States, was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini. In the process of seizing control of the country, the Islamic radicals took control over the US Embassy and took 66 hostages. Although the hostage crisis was resolved (largely by the United States agreeing to sell arms to Iran) the diplomatic ties between the US and Iran were virtually severed.
During the course of the Iran/Iraq war, the Reagan Admistration decided that our dog in the race was to be Iraq. Iraq was secular; our hope was that the secular government of Iraq would prevail over the sectarian government of Iran. The President of Iraq at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein. The Reagan Administration sold arms, and other supplies, to Iraq so that Iraq would win the war. The war turned out to be a stalemate and although hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians died, there was no clear victor.
In the early 1990's, the short sighted policy of arming our "friends" in the Middle East would once again turn around and bite us in the ass. The world's attention was once again turned to the Middle East as Iraq took unprovoked and aggressive military action against Kuwait. The concern was that Saddam was attempting to build Iraq as a military hegemony over the Middle East region. The United States, under the first Bush Administration, was not about to let Saddam take control over the world's oil supply. Bush took aggressive action in the Gulf War. The Coalition forces, under the command of General Norman Schwarzkopf, drove Iraq's forces back from Kuwait in the most successful military campaign since Patton drove his 3rd Army through France and into Germany, and in the process saving the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne.
Despite the resounding military success of the Desert Storm campaign, it might never have been necessary if the US didn't help arm Saddam's army a few years earlier in the Iran/Iraq war. In 1990, Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world, acquired with a little help from Uncle Sam.
We know the story after that. In 2002, the United States invaded Afghanistan which was being defended by the very group that was propped up by American arms and support a few decades earlier.
We will have to wait for history to determine whether the current arms sale being proposed is another in a long line of short-sighted, eventual failures of foreign policy. The problem will be isolating this event from the many other foreign policy failures of the United States since the end of the Cold War.
Do we really want another 4/8 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush... foreign policy? Awareness is the key to prevention.
Of course, the administration touts this weapons sale as a positive step in our ongoing conflict with Iran. In the geopolitical paradigm of Cold War era strategy, it makes since: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Unfortunately, as the Bush Administration has learned time and time again, Cold War era thinking does not work in the Middle East.
Included in the weapons systems proposed for sale are some of our gems, systems that have been proven to be effective in battle. The systems include: patriot missle batteries, smart bomb kits, and the Navy's Littoral Combat system (a naval weapons system devised around the Navy's global littoral defense strategy as the next generation of US Navy strategy).
History proves that meddling around in that region, particularly by arming "friendly" factions and nations, has not always served the United States well. Here is a brief history of American arms transfers to the Middle East.
In the 1970's, in an effort to quell the Soviet military advance and occupation of Afghanistan, the United States armed the Afghani rebel group, not quite famously known yet as The Taliban. Fortunately, this strategy had some initial benefit as American arms helped turn Afghanistan into the Russian Vietnam. The losses sustained by the USSR in Afghanistan, no doubt, hastened the eventual self-destruction of the USSR.
However, in the long term, this arms transfer has proven to be a bad strategic move for the United States. Throughout the 1990's, and until the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, the Taliban used the weapons and money obtained from the United States to reign over Afghanistan. As we know today, the Taliban has presided over one of the most anti-democratic, oppressive, and most religiously fascist governments in the history of the modern world.
In the 1980's Iran and Iraq were engaged in a vicious war. Iran was not a friend of the United States at that time. In the late 1970's, the secular government of Iran under the Shah, which had been propped up by the United States, was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini. In the process of seizing control of the country, the Islamic radicals took control over the US Embassy and took 66 hostages. Although the hostage crisis was resolved (largely by the United States agreeing to sell arms to Iran) the diplomatic ties between the US and Iran were virtually severed.
During the course of the Iran/Iraq war, the Reagan Admistration decided that our dog in the race was to be Iraq. Iraq was secular; our hope was that the secular government of Iraq would prevail over the sectarian government of Iran. The President of Iraq at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein. The Reagan Administration sold arms, and other supplies, to Iraq so that Iraq would win the war. The war turned out to be a stalemate and although hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians died, there was no clear victor.
In the early 1990's, the short sighted policy of arming our "friends" in the Middle East would once again turn around and bite us in the ass. The world's attention was once again turned to the Middle East as Iraq took unprovoked and aggressive military action against Kuwait. The concern was that Saddam was attempting to build Iraq as a military hegemony over the Middle East region. The United States, under the first Bush Administration, was not about to let Saddam take control over the world's oil supply. Bush took aggressive action in the Gulf War. The Coalition forces, under the command of General Norman Schwarzkopf, drove Iraq's forces back from Kuwait in the most successful military campaign since Patton drove his 3rd Army through France and into Germany, and in the process saving the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne.
Despite the resounding military success of the Desert Storm campaign, it might never have been necessary if the US didn't help arm Saddam's army a few years earlier in the Iran/Iraq war. In 1990, Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world, acquired with a little help from Uncle Sam.
We know the story after that. In 2002, the United States invaded Afghanistan which was being defended by the very group that was propped up by American arms and support a few decades earlier.
We will have to wait for history to determine whether the current arms sale being proposed is another in a long line of short-sighted, eventual failures of foreign policy. The problem will be isolating this event from the many other foreign policy failures of the United States since the end of the Cold War.
Do we really want another 4/8 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush... foreign policy? Awareness is the key to prevention.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Newt on Hillary
It has been widely reported on cable news that Newt Gingrich, on his podcast, recently praised Hillary Clinton. The question remains: why?
It is well known that Newt Gingrich is one of the most outspoken conservative republicans of the last 25 years. He championed the 1994 "republican revolution" and was one of the principle architects of the "Contract with America." The Contract was a 10 point list of policy goals that the 1995/1996 repulican led Congress promised to accomplish in their first term in office. Many of the goals were direct rebutals of policies promoted by the Clinton Administration.
Gingrich flirted with the possibility of running for President in 2008 on the Republican ticket. Last year Gingrich warned the country against another Clinton Administration. Why then would he praise Hillary on his pod-cast at a time when she is struggling to maintain her position as the democratic front runner?
Gingrich recently praised Hillary on her political acumen, and her "courage to learn" saying that learning during a campaign is a sign of a great candidate. Has he flip flopped? Has the great anti-Clinton republican swiched sides?
No. Gingrich was praising Hillary in order to help the republican nominee (whoever it turns out to be) to win the general election.
The fact is, if Hillary is the democratic nominee, the republicans have a pretty good shot at winning in the general. Her negative polling numbers (people who dislike her) have never really changed regardless of what her positive polling numbers have done. She stands a very poor chance of winning among male voters, particularly among white male voters. Moreover, she has a more difficult time hiding her leftist views than Obama, and therefore will have trouble winning independent, and alienated republican votes.
If Barack Obama is the nominee he will probably win, regardless of who the republican candidate turns out to be. He is very popular among young people and minorities - voting groups that traditionally do not turn out to vote as much as older, white voters. He comes off as somewhat of a moderate, avoiding policy and speaking in vague platitudes. His vague speaches have great effect because he is a fantastic orator. It has been decades since a great orator has run for president. His oratorical ability and stage presence will win him millions of votes from the undecided, from the unengaged, and from young voters who have never seen an inspiring leader at the national level, except of course in the movies.
Newt Gingrich wants Hillary to win the democratic nominee because she is clearly more beatable in the general election than Obama.
It is well known that Newt Gingrich is one of the most outspoken conservative republicans of the last 25 years. He championed the 1994 "republican revolution" and was one of the principle architects of the "Contract with America." The Contract was a 10 point list of policy goals that the 1995/1996 repulican led Congress promised to accomplish in their first term in office. Many of the goals were direct rebutals of policies promoted by the Clinton Administration.
Gingrich flirted with the possibility of running for President in 2008 on the Republican ticket. Last year Gingrich warned the country against another Clinton Administration. Why then would he praise Hillary on his pod-cast at a time when she is struggling to maintain her position as the democratic front runner?
Gingrich recently praised Hillary on her political acumen, and her "courage to learn" saying that learning during a campaign is a sign of a great candidate. Has he flip flopped? Has the great anti-Clinton republican swiched sides?
No. Gingrich was praising Hillary in order to help the republican nominee (whoever it turns out to be) to win the general election.
The fact is, if Hillary is the democratic nominee, the republicans have a pretty good shot at winning in the general. Her negative polling numbers (people who dislike her) have never really changed regardless of what her positive polling numbers have done. She stands a very poor chance of winning among male voters, particularly among white male voters. Moreover, she has a more difficult time hiding her leftist views than Obama, and therefore will have trouble winning independent, and alienated republican votes.
If Barack Obama is the nominee he will probably win, regardless of who the republican candidate turns out to be. He is very popular among young people and minorities - voting groups that traditionally do not turn out to vote as much as older, white voters. He comes off as somewhat of a moderate, avoiding policy and speaking in vague platitudes. His vague speaches have great effect because he is a fantastic orator. It has been decades since a great orator has run for president. His oratorical ability and stage presence will win him millions of votes from the undecided, from the unengaged, and from young voters who have never seen an inspiring leader at the national level, except of course in the movies.
Newt Gingrich wants Hillary to win the democratic nominee because she is clearly more beatable in the general election than Obama.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The Clintons' Race Card
There are reports all over the web about the "backlash" from the black community to the Clinton campaign's racial slips in the days surrounding the New Hampshire primary. The racially charged statements were not mistakes, but were carefully crafted messages designed to inflame the black community.
What does the Clinton campaign have to gain from inciting racial tension in the Democratic primary?
The answer is simple, it is taken straight from the Clinton playbook: to divide and conquer.
Hillary Clinton is up against the biggest political threat that she has ever had to deal with. The Obama campaign has literally taken on a life of itself and has forced the Clinton campaign back on its heals - a position the Clinton's are not at all used to or comfortable with. Part of the reason that the Clinton campaign is facing this uphill battle against the Obama campaign is because of the minority vote, which will overwhelmingly favor Obama in the coming primary elections.
In classic Clinton style, the Clinton campaign has responded with somewhat unnoticable and unremarkable statements which have just been offensive enough to inflame some of the more outspoken and high profile individuals from the black community.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html
The Clinton campaign knows that if race becomes an issue in the Democratic primary it will likely turn off white voters to the Obama campaign. Obama cannot win without the support of white voters, but Clinton can win without the minority vote. By that simple logic, the more the Clinton campaign can slit the Democratic Party along racial lines, the better it is for Clinton.
The Clinton's have succeeded in their first attempts to divide and conquer the Democratic Primary race: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/2008_democratic_presidential_primary
Here is the Clinton strategy at the moment: 1) The Clinton campaign divides the party along racial lines. 2) The black community voices their outrage at Clinton's comments - solidifying the minority vote for Obama. 3) The media reports heavily on the racial divide and racial tension by airing the backlash from the black community. 4) The Obama campaign is forced to respond to racial comments from Clinton campaign, and from black community. 5) The Obama campaign is off message, no longer racially neutral in the eyes of white voters. 6) The division of the Democratic Party along racial lines is complete - white Democrats support Hillary, minority Democrats support Obama. 7) Clinton wins Democratic Party nomination.
If this seven point strategy succeeds, as planned, by the Clinton Campaign, Clinton will win the Democratic Party nomination.
Awareness is the key to prevention.
What does the Clinton campaign have to gain from inciting racial tension in the Democratic primary?
The answer is simple, it is taken straight from the Clinton playbook: to divide and conquer.
Hillary Clinton is up against the biggest political threat that she has ever had to deal with. The Obama campaign has literally taken on a life of itself and has forced the Clinton campaign back on its heals - a position the Clinton's are not at all used to or comfortable with. Part of the reason that the Clinton campaign is facing this uphill battle against the Obama campaign is because of the minority vote, which will overwhelmingly favor Obama in the coming primary elections.
In classic Clinton style, the Clinton campaign has responded with somewhat unnoticable and unremarkable statements which have just been offensive enough to inflame some of the more outspoken and high profile individuals from the black community.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html
The Clinton campaign knows that if race becomes an issue in the Democratic primary it will likely turn off white voters to the Obama campaign. Obama cannot win without the support of white voters, but Clinton can win without the minority vote. By that simple logic, the more the Clinton campaign can slit the Democratic Party along racial lines, the better it is for Clinton.
The Clinton's have succeeded in their first attempts to divide and conquer the Democratic Primary race: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/2008_democratic_presidential_primary
Here is the Clinton strategy at the moment: 1) The Clinton campaign divides the party along racial lines. 2) The black community voices their outrage at Clinton's comments - solidifying the minority vote for Obama. 3) The media reports heavily on the racial divide and racial tension by airing the backlash from the black community. 4) The Obama campaign is forced to respond to racial comments from Clinton campaign, and from black community. 5) The Obama campaign is off message, no longer racially neutral in the eyes of white voters. 6) The division of the Democratic Party along racial lines is complete - white Democrats support Hillary, minority Democrats support Obama. 7) Clinton wins Democratic Party nomination.
If this seven point strategy succeeds, as planned, by the Clinton Campaign, Clinton will win the Democratic Party nomination.
Awareness is the key to prevention.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The Unstoppable Obama
You heard it here first, Barack Obama will go wire to wire in the 2008 Presidential Election.
There are several factors that lead me to this prediction. The first is, of course, Obama's stunning landslide victory in the Iowa Caucuses. The second is, for the first time since JFK and RFK, the most youthful demographic in the electorate, 18-30, has a candidate that not only they can get excited about, but also one that they will turn out and vote for. The third is that, for the first time, a minority candidate has proven his political ability and popularity among white, mid-western voters.
The Youth Factor
I am twenty-six years old. The first president I have any cognizable memory of is George Bush I. I was just a child for most of the Reagan administration. My generation has no real memory of any president who was not named Bush or Clinton. Although President Clinton was wildly popular during most of his presidency, he was anything but inspiring. His impeachment is maybe one reason why. He did little to excite my generation, and even if he could have excited us it would have meant little because most of us were not old enough to have voted for him in 1996.
My generation, what Thomas Friedman calls the "Q generation" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10friedman.html, has always been fairly disinfranchised from the American political system. The first Presidential Election that my generation was old enought to have voted in was the 2000 election. This election will always be remembered by my generation as the election in which George W. Bush was elected, although he lost the popular vote.
My generation was rattled on the morning of September 11, 2001. The news came while most of us were preparing for the schoolday. The president became immensely popular in the wake of the tragedy, but how did he inspire us with his leadership? Did he ask us to enlist, which many of us would have? Did he ask that we volunteer? Did he ask that we sacrafice? No. He did nothing to inspire our strength and ambition. He asked us to shopping.
The Iraq war was another downer. A surprising number of us probably supported the war effort in the beginning, like a surprising number of Congressmen and media personalities. Unfortunately, for more important reasons than just the voter turnout rate of my generation, the war has been managed very poorly. For those of my generation involved in it, many of my close friends, it is not only a downer because they are over there fighting it. It is a downer because of the frustrating rules of engagement. Even people who didn't live through the Vietnam era know that waiting to fire until fired upon is not the way you win a war.
The 2004 Presidential Election was anything but an exciting contest. John Kerry could not have seemed more inept against the Karl Rove machine if he had stood idly while one of us was held down by Bush goons and tazed while exclaiming: "Don't taze me bro!"
But now, for the first time in our generation, we have a man worth getting behind. He is a commanding orator. He doesn't look like the same tire old men we're used to. It doesn't sound forced when he speaks of hope. He is the first presidential candidate that we have seen who looks like he could play the President in a movie or television show.
The youth factor, more than any other, is why Obama cannot be beat. Polls do not represent the Q Generation. Pollsters usually don't bother calling cell phones and many of us don't own traditional land-line telephones. A poll of "likely voters" almost by definition excludes my generation. If Iowa illustrates anything it is that we are showing up this year, and conventional wisdom has no way of accounting for the ramifications of it.
The Minority Factor
Even more than Obama appeals to young people, he appeals to racial minority groups, particularly African-Americans who have just been waiting for their candidate who can compete with white candidates in states where the electorate is dominated by white people. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did not fit the bill.
For the first time in history, minority voters have a viable candidate. They have a candidate that can win it all.
Obama's appeal to minorities is important for two reasons. First, it will solidify the so called "minority vote" which is typically split among democratic candidates. Second, it will add to the minority voting demographic by turning out the minority vote.
Like young voters, minority voters have been disenfranchised from the system. It would require no less than the entire racial history of the United States to fully understand why. However, the fact remains that they neither register to vote nor turn out as much as their white counterparts, particularly in the primaries.
The minority factor was not proven empirically in Iowa, and it probably won't be proven in New Hampshire. Neither state has enough minority voters to really illustrate the effect of Obama on minority voter registration and turnout. Michigan and South Carolina, however, will show that in 2008, minority voters are showing up.
What Iowa did illustrate was that Obama can win, and win big, in a predominately white state.
In short, Obama is going to win not only because he is popular among established voting groups - rural, white, and middle class, but also because he is popular among groups that have yet to be fully represented in the American electorate - young, urban, and minority.
There are several factors that lead me to this prediction. The first is, of course, Obama's stunning landslide victory in the Iowa Caucuses. The second is, for the first time since JFK and RFK, the most youthful demographic in the electorate, 18-30, has a candidate that not only they can get excited about, but also one that they will turn out and vote for. The third is that, for the first time, a minority candidate has proven his political ability and popularity among white, mid-western voters.
The Youth Factor
I am twenty-six years old. The first president I have any cognizable memory of is George Bush I. I was just a child for most of the Reagan administration. My generation has no real memory of any president who was not named Bush or Clinton. Although President Clinton was wildly popular during most of his presidency, he was anything but inspiring. His impeachment is maybe one reason why. He did little to excite my generation, and even if he could have excited us it would have meant little because most of us were not old enough to have voted for him in 1996.
My generation, what Thomas Friedman calls the "Q generation" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10friedman.html, has always been fairly disinfranchised from the American political system. The first Presidential Election that my generation was old enought to have voted in was the 2000 election. This election will always be remembered by my generation as the election in which George W. Bush was elected, although he lost the popular vote.
My generation was rattled on the morning of September 11, 2001. The news came while most of us were preparing for the schoolday. The president became immensely popular in the wake of the tragedy, but how did he inspire us with his leadership? Did he ask us to enlist, which many of us would have? Did he ask that we volunteer? Did he ask that we sacrafice? No. He did nothing to inspire our strength and ambition. He asked us to shopping.
The Iraq war was another downer. A surprising number of us probably supported the war effort in the beginning, like a surprising number of Congressmen and media personalities. Unfortunately, for more important reasons than just the voter turnout rate of my generation, the war has been managed very poorly. For those of my generation involved in it, many of my close friends, it is not only a downer because they are over there fighting it. It is a downer because of the frustrating rules of engagement. Even people who didn't live through the Vietnam era know that waiting to fire until fired upon is not the way you win a war.
The 2004 Presidential Election was anything but an exciting contest. John Kerry could not have seemed more inept against the Karl Rove machine if he had stood idly while one of us was held down by Bush goons and tazed while exclaiming: "Don't taze me bro!"
But now, for the first time in our generation, we have a man worth getting behind. He is a commanding orator. He doesn't look like the same tire old men we're used to. It doesn't sound forced when he speaks of hope. He is the first presidential candidate that we have seen who looks like he could play the President in a movie or television show.
The youth factor, more than any other, is why Obama cannot be beat. Polls do not represent the Q Generation. Pollsters usually don't bother calling cell phones and many of us don't own traditional land-line telephones. A poll of "likely voters" almost by definition excludes my generation. If Iowa illustrates anything it is that we are showing up this year, and conventional wisdom has no way of accounting for the ramifications of it.
The Minority Factor
Even more than Obama appeals to young people, he appeals to racial minority groups, particularly African-Americans who have just been waiting for their candidate who can compete with white candidates in states where the electorate is dominated by white people. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did not fit the bill.
For the first time in history, minority voters have a viable candidate. They have a candidate that can win it all.
Obama's appeal to minorities is important for two reasons. First, it will solidify the so called "minority vote" which is typically split among democratic candidates. Second, it will add to the minority voting demographic by turning out the minority vote.
Like young voters, minority voters have been disenfranchised from the system. It would require no less than the entire racial history of the United States to fully understand why. However, the fact remains that they neither register to vote nor turn out as much as their white counterparts, particularly in the primaries.
The minority factor was not proven empirically in Iowa, and it probably won't be proven in New Hampshire. Neither state has enough minority voters to really illustrate the effect of Obama on minority voter registration and turnout. Michigan and South Carolina, however, will show that in 2008, minority voters are showing up.
What Iowa did illustrate was that Obama can win, and win big, in a predominately white state.
In short, Obama is going to win not only because he is popular among established voting groups - rural, white, and middle class, but also because he is popular among groups that have yet to be fully represented in the American electorate - young, urban, and minority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
