The Gambit on the Re-election

[nickgutierrez]

I posted this to my blog a few minutes ago, and it's perfectly possible (even likely) that there may be a few grammatical errors as well as factual errors here. Feel free to comment however you like, naturally, but I would like it if you pointed out whatever you find along the way. Also, because it is a blog post, I wrote it in a more objective style than I might have liked, and when I say "Democrats" I'm referring to the ones in Congress, not you or I.



I've had a few days to process what I learned last Thursday, the day the Democrats filed their objection to the result of the Ohio election. The cooperation of Senator Barbara Boxer with the objection of Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones of Ohio, and spearheaded by John Conyers meant that both chambers had a two-hour debate on the widespread voter fraud in Ohio and its significance on the way future elections should be administered. The Democrats had an interesting tactic: they were not out to win this election, and they made that clear from the start. They planned to use this forum as a way of getting the charges out there, and to drill the need for a verifiable voting system, complete with credibility and a paper trail.

I still think that John Kerry won the election. I also believe that proving it at this point is less than impossible, as it's impossible to know just what the extent of the voter fraud turned out to be. But the Democrats' strategy appeared for all the world to me, as a chess player, to be a common chess tactic known as a "gambit".

In a gambit, a player offers a pawn in the early parts of the game in order to gain some other significant advantage over the course of the rest of the game. It is a huge part of what is referred to as "opening theory", and there are about a handful of gambits that every good player knows inside and out. So goes the Democrats -- they know that their strategy isn't completely not on solid ground, as if their strategy succeeds, it puts them on a more even ground in the next election cycle (what with the verified voting systems and all).

It seems to me that the idea is not so much to win this election, but to take the complaints about this past election and leverage it into such extreme political pressure for the verifiable system that the Republicans have to oblige, even in the position of extreme power they find themselves in at the moment.

There's a catch, though. There always is.

To further the chess analogy, the Democrats are playing at "Knight odds", or starting the game with one of their Knights off of the table. The Republicans own the House, the Senate, and the White House, and it may be only a matter of time before the Supreme Court falls into the hands of rabid partisans as well. It is incredibly risky. But sometimes, when you're playing at Knight odds, your best chance to win is to develop your big pieces quickly and get after your opponent's King before he has a chance to castle.

Whether or not the strategy works out is something that only time will tell. In order to win, the Democrats need to throw caution to the wind and attack early and often, else they will end this particular game of chess in the same situation in which they started. Let's hope checkmate comes soon.

[forgethell]

1. An interesting idea, but

two objections occur to me.

First, a gambit is a risk. You give up a solid material asset, the pawn, for a speculative future advantage. As you say, all the good players know the gambits. And their defenses. Whatever else you say about them, you have to admit that the Repukes are grand masters at political chess.

Second, a game of chess has an end. Then it stops and that game is written into history forever, unchangeable. Politics has no end, but will last as long as the human race endures. I think you need to get your victories when you can.

Still, you might be onto something, because I am a master neither of chess nor political strategy.

;)

[nickgutierrez]

2. Oh, it's a huge risk

But the risk is probably a better strategy than trying to beat a player who has the extra knight in a more traditional opening. And that analogy works both ways as well. :)

My point was that the objection was a good move, but that the real bit of strategy was in deciding to not directly challenge the outcome of the election during the course of the objection.

[forgethell]

4. well, you're probably right that directly challenging

the elction results were not a good idea. In fact, I've said so before. There was no chance of success minus some hard evidence of a type that has not yet been seen.

And I think keeping this in the public eye is also a good idea. But challenging is somewhat more serious than reporterage of blogging. I think we did ourselves harm because it was just the "loonies", but people with serious credibility in the Democratic Party. And they blew it. No real evidence.

But maybe I'm wrong. We'll see in 2008, maybe 2006

[corbett]

3. Kerry Is No Pawn

Your theory makes sense but I can't believe that Kerry would be willing to take a dive, even with the fate of the whole planet at stake. If the January 20th coronation takes place as scheduled, I will have disproved my point but am pleased to know that you have our best interests at heart.

I also know unequivocally that we can prove, and quite easily, that Kerry won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and South Dakota by resounding margins, given some time. If only that time were before January 20th!