Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal 898
You can read it pretty much anywhere, but Clinton took Ohio and Texas meaning that the democratic primaries are far from over. Unlike the Dems, McCain has locked his nomination for the Republicans by breaking the 1,191 delegates necessary. So there it is. Talk amongst yourselves.
why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it NEEDED to be asked (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tim, we all know that a lot of people who like kicking dogs and throwing puppies off cliffs are big fans of yours. We also know that you are widely respected in the child porn industry. What do you have to say about that?"
That's not a hard question, that's a loaded question. A hard question would be:
"Our economic advisers believe that your economic policy will fail for reasons X, Y, and Z. Explain how your plan will work to avoid X, Y, and Z."
But watching a man defend an economic policy is no where near as fun as watching him defend himself from accusations of being a terrorist, a Black Panther, Muslim, corrupt, Jewish, antisemitic, etc... If you want some tough questions, get some English interviewers over here to badger the candidates on the issues. If you want BS and fluff, stay tuned to American TV for it's 'Entertainment Value'.
-Rick
Re:No, it NEEDED to be asked (Score:5, Insightful)
No one ever gave Ron Paul much air time to begin with, and we all know it.
This whole "guilt by association" thing is one of the most ridiculously flawed arguments in political discourse, whether we're talking about specific issues, parties, or individuals. The frequency with which this propaganda technique is used however highlights the unfortunate fact that it must be an effective one.
1. Person/Group A is BAD
2. Person/Group A supports P
3. Therefor P must also be BAD
It's utterly and completely absurd.
1. Hitler was evil
2. Hitler was a vegetarian
3. Therefore vegetarianism(vegeterians) must be evil.
Right?
It's an emotional BS argument that has no place in an intelligent debate. In fact, the Nazis and Hitler are used for this purpose so often that someone coined a term "Reductio ad Hitlerum" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) to define the phenomenon.
We definitely need a new term in the lexicon of U.S. politics to represent the frequent attempts to associate people and organizations with racists/racism because of such ridiculously tenuous connections.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just have to wonder if Limbaugh's advice is counterproductive.
From what I've seen in this election cycle, more than any other is that people are basically led around by the talking heads on TV. The will vote for whoever is getting the most press. With the Republican nomination cynched by McCain, the only thing that will be in the news will be Obama/Clinton. Come November, people will be saying, "McCain? Who is that?"
It isn't a matter of the media reporting badly about McCain. It is a matter of them simply overtly shutting him out of the news coverage altogether, like they did with Paul, Kucinich and later Huckabee. The talking-head, 24-hour news cycle is an extremely powerful tool that amounts to free political adds for whoever the network controllers consider a "front-runner", whether that be Giovanni or Thompson. Having Obama/Clinton being the "news of the day" for the next few months will not help McCain.
Media exposure could be bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw the effects of this in 2006 when the two candidates did their absolute best to turn voters away from the other candidate. The end result after the primary was a lot of people who were so burned by the attack ads, that they refused to aid the winning candidate against the opposition with campaign donations. (Many also refused to vote in the upcoming election, but most said that they'd hold their nose and vote for our candidate but that they intended to donate money to other members of the party in other elections.)
The net result: A landslide victory for the opposition as the candidate who won the primary was never able to reenergize the party base and unable to match the opposition's funding afterwards. Our candidate tried to run on issues and on the corruption of our opponent, and the opposition ran on personality and won hands down after the sour note left by the primary.
If voters are left saying, "Who's McCain?" then that's not necessarily a good thing if all they can remember about Clinton or Obama is months of attack ads. Brand recognition isn't a good thing when the product's tainted.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not counterproductive for Rush. He's salivating for a Clinton presidency, as it means ratings for his show go through the roof for the next 4 years.
Barack Osama (Score:4, Funny)
If they get to change one letter of Obama's last name in order to make a comparison, I get to change one letter of Huckabee's.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Informative)
I usually vote Republican but after the last 8 years under GWB (I confess that I voted for him the first time. Who knew he was going to turn into "Big Bubba" on us?) I am so disappointed in the right that I'm actively searching for a Democrat to support. I like Obama and I'm voting for him in the general election if he gets the nomination. If he doesn't I'm going to go ahead and throw my vote behind McCain. I know several people who feel the same way I do, in particular my wife. She's a lifetime Democrat but she swears that if Hillary gets the nomination she's voting for McCain.
I can't believe the Democrats will be stupid enough to run Hillary. She's the one candidate that the Republicans will pull together to keep out of the White House. Obama's pulling in Independents and liberal minded Republicans (yes, we exist). Hillary will send us all into McCain's camp.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why no one much talks about coattails -- if Obama is the nominee then a lot of dems will get into Senate, House, and state offices. If Clinton is the nominee then a lot more Republicans will show up just to vote against her. That's why I don't understand why more of the superdelegates aren't behind Obama -- the coattails are amazing there.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Interesting)
She goes into a series of primaries with agreeing to certain terms (like Florida and Michigan not counting for instance) and then when it seems like she might not get her way she starts making noises about changing those terms. She enters a primary in Texas fully aware of how the primary works in Texas (and any protests otherwise she might make border on being insulting in my opinion) and then again you start to hear rumblings from her campaign about the possibility of filing suit to have this changed because it does not favor her. She goes into debates talking about being "co-President" and trying to leverage her husbands coat tails (which I do not fault her for doing mind you) but then denies any real involvment when failures or negatives from his administration are brought up. I see this and think "You were either the co-President or you weren't so what's it gonna be?"
This is the kind of behavior that makes me just cringe at the thought of her being President of the United States.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Interesting)
She wants to garnish my wages if I can't afford medical insurance, eh? She wants to fight the war (any war) in XXXX (wherever) because she has vested interested in defense spending? She wants me to feel comforted in her experience by the fact that she's been cherry picked by her husband to be in positions of power for a shorter period of time that Obama has been doing public service-oriented work?
I'm sorry, her story just does not check out. I want nothing to do with her platform or her reforms. Her rhetoric reeks of a lack of substance and a motive for her own personal advancement.
Check the exit polls. The more educated, the more likely the vote was for Obama. This statement is not elitist and does not assume a college degree could trump reality or a good common sense, but the averages should speak for themselves. With a college education one ought to be able to seek truth more effectively. I've researched my candidates come to my own conclusions, and I wish everyone could do that, but that's just not realistic for 300 million people to do. So we rely on the media and the game and hope it all works out in the end.
If politics were about qualifications, I'd suspect we'd have heard more about Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich and a few others. I personally would prefer their going to the Whitehouse based off of solid records, good experience, and most important character trait a politician could have: they can't be bought. Obama has yet to be seen, though his discipline with his investments give me a good feeling. Hillary has been bought before, I'm sure it can and will happen again (keywords: walmart board labor union).
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Informative)
Obama leads in actual vote overall by 600,000. After all is said and done last night Obama leads by about 150 Delegates.
Before last night, Obama lead by more than 160 Delegates, and 1000 delegates where left to picked, about a third were picked last night. Clinton picked up about 10 possibly 15. Clinton needs =/- 150 delegates from the remaining =/- 660 delelgates available. Obama would need to be kept to about 200 for HRC to win. Meaning she would need, on average, to win roughly 70% of the vote. Although it is not a statistical absolute, I cannot imagine Obama to start getting 30%.
The race is over, Obama has won, except for the ugly fighting that is about to come. Im sure you can see what kind of tactics are about to be launched.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination by only the super delegates vote, and have lost the popular Democratic vote, would it be fair then for the opposition (Democratic as well as Republican) to label her the "Selected" rather than "Elected" Nominee?
Will Democratic Party leaders think that the risk of ignoring the popular vote is worth the possible reward of nominating someone who the party leaders think may be the more "electable" candidate in the general election?
Regardless of the above, it looks to be an interesting Democratic Convention coming up.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm betting that there are some Democratic party leaders who really wish Obama had won Texas and Ohio yesterday, just so they wouldn't have had to deal with the possibility of the scenario you lay out.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
I now view the republican party as the party of corporatism (a flavor of fascism), oligarchy, lost personal freedom to live as I want, irresponsible spending (wildly more so than... say bill clinton was), and foreign intervention.
And I was a reagan republican- brought into voting by him basically.
Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:4, Interesting)
We are still awaiting the returns on the caucus, but that only accounts for a mere 1/3rd of the delegates awarded to each candidate, and the early returns indicate that whatever meager advantage that Obama may have in caucus votes will be all but swallowed up by Hillary's more impressive win in the primary election. Really we're talking about hundreds of extra Obama caucus votes vs. Hillary's hundreds of thousands of extra primary votes.
Now for some light editorializing: The reason we're still waiting on caucus results in many counties is because Texas had roughly double the expected turnout. The antiquated system we have in place requires that everyone in a precinct vote in the primary election before the caucus can be held. And the inability of many precincts to deal with the added influx of voters made it so that, in many cases, caucus voting could not start until 11 pm that evening.
Obama will likely fare slightly better in the caucus in Texas, only because the core of the Democrat party--the baby boomers who constitute the majority of Hillary supporters--had families to get back to and jobs they had to get up for the next morning. Hillary supporters simply didn't have the ability to "two-step" all the way into the early morning hours, while it apparently is far easier for the young, first time voters who make up Obama's base to spend literally six hours of their time at their local middle school or fire station.
If you think it's silly to have both a primary election followed by a caucus that runs into the late hours, then you've just joined the ranks of many Texans who think it's ridiculous as well. Not only is it hard for people to get a handle on the vote once / vote again thing, but it does tend to disenfranchise hard-working Democrats who can't be out all night caucusing. A 19 year-old UT student and Obama supporter who would just be out all night anyway? Welcome to the party. A 46 year-old mother of two and Hillary supporter who has to prepare for a shift working at the hospital? Congratulations, you effectively have no say in the caucus. So that's why there is a slight disconnect between the primary and caucus results.
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
A ton of republicans crossed over last night and voted for clinton on Rush Limbaugh's suggestion. They are all crowing about it on the Laura Ingram show this morning. And none of them will vote for clinton in the real election.
It's a very cynical and effective move. It drains both campaigns of cash- keeps both candidates hammering at each other- and may even force a brokered convention (which I view as a good thing).
I agree that working families have to go home- but i also say a lot of republicans didn't stick around for the democratic caucus and it is my opinion that the caucus's are closer to what the popular vote would be without Rush's brilliant, if twisted idea. Voting insincerely undercuts the entire process. In this case, many votes for Clinton were really votes against her and for McCain.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Democrats were told to vote for Mitt Romney to drag out the Republican race and hurt the Republican party. Democrats who voted for McCain, like me, did so because we genuinely thought he was the Republican who would make the best president (of those running -- I kinda like Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe).
Now, I had been on the fence about whether to vote for McCain in the Republican primary or Miller (if he looked viable) or Obama in the Democratic primary. But then there really wasn't a Democratic primary in Michigan, so that was easy.
What's wrong with the two parties getting to choose their candidates without interference from outsiders?
It's not fair to independents. It's also not fair to people trying to knock out lunatics like George W. Bush, Rudy Guliani or Hillary Clinton (I don't mind her but I realize many do) at every possible stage. I'll be voting Democratic in November, but this year was the second time I've voted for McCain in for president. In 2000, I might even have voted for him in the general election.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Troll.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah? Well the church my precinct's caucus was held in was packed to the freaking gills -- standing room only, they had to open up an annex which they also completely filled -- and it took over an hour after the sign-in began for everyone to sign the books for Obama. If you were Clinton supporter, you were done in about two minutes because there simply weren't many people in line in front of you.
And despite your stereotype, these were by and large middle aged working-class adults with families. Many of them had brought their families with them so that they could caucus -- some even had infants in papooses strapped to their chests. You can say whatever crud you want about baby-boomers with families; the ones who cared, the ones who were passionate about their candidate, they made it to the caucus.
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see.
Of course, objectively made-up stereotypes. And here's a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes:
Texas has an open primary. With the Republican nomination essentially decided, there was no point for a Republican to vote in their party's primary, meaning they were free to vote in the Democratic primary. A strategic vote for the candidate most likely to lose the general election is a way to strengthen their own candidate. However it wasn't worth going to the trouble to caucus just for the sake of a strategic vote. This is the supposed advantage of the caucus -- that it attracts only those who are truly passionate about their candidates. Nobody's going to crowd into a packed church and stand for hours as the heat rises from all the bodies just to cast a "strategic" vote. But as they finish up their shopping at Randals? Sure, why not sabotage the other party.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not that far-fetched. Certainly some of her support came from Republicans. Rush Limbaugh is Hillary Clinton's most visible campaign supporter at the moment. He thinks Republicans will get blasted if they try to hit Obama, so they'll let Hillary fight it out with him instead. Though really, they'd deserve a blasting if they pulled another Swift Boat maneuver.
"RUSH: No, the strategy is... Yes. The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party. Look, there's a reason for this. Our side isn't going to do this. Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. That's good. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words. It's about winning, folks!" Rush Limbaugh's theory. [rushlimbaugh.com]
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:4, Informative)
Southern Ohio is a hotbed of racist sentiment. It's really rather infuriating at times.
I could also go on about how foolish it is for the general populace in this area to be so conservative because it only hurts them economically and in other ways, but there's really no point...
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who showed up for the Clinton caucus were mostly old enough that they probably didn't have young children at home. The Obama supporters had a lot of people who were the right age to have kids at home (including myself.)
If the problem is that the Clinton supporters all had families to take care of, it's funny that the Obama supporters did too -- and yet they made it out anyways. I saw _zero_ children in the Clinton camp, but perhaps 15 in the Obama camp.
To be fair, I live in Travis county, which is traditionally an island of blue in a state of red, and Travis county voted for Obama vs Clinton by a large margin. But if I recall correctly, the number of delegates per area is based on the voter turnout in the last election -- and the urban areas (and Travis especially) voted in very large numbers, so they'll get more delegates. And the urban areas are generally supporting Obama.
Ultimately, it looks like even if Clinton wins the popular vote in Texas (well, not if -- she has), it appears that she will not get more delegates. Which is pretty weird if you ask me, but it's the way it is. So, both Clinton and Obama will declare victory in Texas ...
Obama won Texas (Score:4, Informative)
Hillary won the popular vote, yes, but as we all know from the 2000 election, the popular vote doesn't matter in the end. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DELEGATES, and Obama has won the majority of Texas delegates [nytimes.com], when the caucus is figured into the equation.
Let me repeat, Obama won the majority of delegates from Texas, therefore, in all the ways that matter, HE WON TEXAS.
The newsmedia gave Hillary the 'victory' checkmark for Texas b/c it makes a better 'story' and allows them to tie everything up in a nice bow before it gets too late into the evening. I don't want to hear any more bitching about a pro-Obama bias from the media.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
We are young, employed, new parents, and my wife goes to school. We had a sick child at home (stuffy nose, nothing major... thanx for your concern). We would not have been able to attend had it not been for my mother-in-law being in town to watch her.
Many people there had their kids with them. Someone brought up a motion that those with kids should be allowed to go first. It was denied.
There were not enough sheets for everyone to fill out their votes on. (ballots, if you will, but this is not a private vote. Everyone filled out the same sheets, 12 per page).
There was a lot of screeching from the two sides (Clinton and Obama) claiming the other may have an advantage. "There are too many Obama supporters running this. We need a Clinton supporter to observe..." and so on.
I kept thinking to myself. "These people can not run a local, one party caucus in a small town. What makes them think they can run the country?"
Besides, I'm sorry if you disapprove us having children, jobs, and going to school to better ourselves. We bust our asses to make ends meet and make sure we have a table, are able to put food on it and have a roof to cover it all. It was a pain in the ass for us to be there so late and disarray of the whole thing made it worse. So don't give me, the OP, or anyone else any shit if they had more important things to do than to vote in the primary. Not all of us can simply tell our mom we are going to vote and close the door to the basement. Some of us have obligations that take precedence over politics.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:4, Funny)
Diebold strikes again!
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Informative)
Ralph Nader put it best: Republicans and Democrats are competing to serve their corporate masters.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's Randian sophistry. If a corporation acquires a monopoly on food distribution in my town, then while it isn't rifling through my pockets and then dumping food into my bags, I may well have no practical option other than to shop there. It real terms it is not much different from a country where the communist party owned the local store. Of course, right wing people will delight that I am free to starve to death, but I'm sure the communists would have said the same.
I love it how Randians try to blame corporate corruption on governments. "There's only corruption because of government regulation!!". It's like saying: "There's only murders because the police are trying to prevent crime!!". Of course no corporation would ever bribe officials or suppliers, or blackmail people or hire goons to beat workers or journalists, or to sabotage its competitors, or spread malicious rumours about the content of rival's products, or hire or sell a car that would blow up if you backed it into a post, or impale you on the steering column if you went in frontwise.
No... that would never happen. Like that time all those people in Eastern Europe got poisoned because the food companies were all grinding up lead paint into their products to make them look nicer.
It would result in a nation of Al Capones.
I'd love to see a Randian country come into being. It'd be like Cambodia in less than a week.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this company maintain its "monopoly" without the help of the government?
What make you think they need any help from the government.
What's stopping you from starting your own competing food business, with your own supply chain all the way up from the growers?
Economies of scale, competing against a larger better financed organisation, the competition can modify prices to run you out of business, do I need to go on.
What's stopping anyone from doing so, if the "monopoly" is indeed engaging in price gouging?
Refer to above.
Why have we allowed ourselves to become dependent on having immediate access to the food we need to buy for that day, or else we starve? What happened to canned food, gardening, canning, hunting, and deep freezes? Isn't it better to save and plan ahead, so we don't actually need the monopoly's products, since it must then adjust prices downward to maximize profit at the lower level of demand?
Whinging about why society is they way it is doesn't do anything for your point.
Have you considered that without the "monopoly" providing you food at a price higher than you feel is fair, you'd starve just like your ancestors did in a famine?
Have you considered that with some competition the same thing could happen but for a lower price. Have you considered that a monopoly might choose to starve you?
Go ahead, vote in more bureaucrats, and price-fix their asses. That's what you want, right?
No. Nice strawman, make it yourself.
Wait, now they don't seem to have as good of a selection on the shelves, the food isn't as fresh, and the items you want are always in short supply.
Monopolies do that.
Now you use your bureaucrats to mandate that they must have product on the shelves at your fixed price.
Back to strawmen.
Wait, now they're packing up and going home because they have more profitable ventures to pursue? Outrage!
Cause that is what happens on "socialist" europe?
Here is where you can insert the favorite government program some politician promotes because, quote, "the free market has failed".
Here is where I insert my comment: Libertarianism is both unworkable and a way of justifying personal selfishness. Libertarianism ensures and entrenches the domination of the weak by the strong.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Informative)
Nash Equilibrium (Score:4, Interesting)
It never ceases to amuse me how McCain supporters will paint Clinton & Obama as hardcore Democrats and call McCain a moderate conservative while Clinton & Obama supporters paint McCain as a hardcore Republican and argue their candidate being a moderate liberal. Because they know the moderate will garner the most votes. I guess one thing they're split on should be the war though if McCain's smart, he'll promise to remain strong in our fight yet distance himself from Bush's attitude towards it (somehow).
I keep hearing people telling me that I shouldn't worry, that everyone's fed up with the war and it's time for a change--there's no way the Democrats could lose this one! Unfortunately, it's shaping up to be all too much like the last election which left me pretty dissappointed, especially in retrospect. Well, at least Clinton & Obama aren't as stoic, wealthy and lifeless as Kerry was. One thing's for sure, I would gladly welcome McCain over Bush as president any day even if people call him a maverick senator.
Re:Nash Equilibrium (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with your assessment that the Democrats will have a real challenge, regardless of the candidate they choose. McCain does not really suffer from the huge impopularity of president Bush as much as the other republican candidates (bar Ron Paul) would have. He's got some character, everyone from left to right has to respect a guy who survived five years of torture. And the republicans can start organizing while the Democrats are in disarray. I'm really rooting for Obama but it looks like there will be no Democratic candidate until the convention.
I'm for the liger party (Score:4, Funny)
Don't blame me. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't blame me. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
Note, after you fill out the form, you have to print out the PDF they give you, sign it, and fax it to the appropriate county voter registration office. The form is pre-populated with your values, and includes a barcode to help them process it faster.
Again, your registration has to be processed by March 24, so do not delay, fill out, print, and sign it today so that you don't get caught in a backlog and miss your chance to shape the future of our country!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not at all certain that Obama is the tougher candidate to beat -- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.
The bigger problem for both of them is that they both have to keep left to win the primary, delaying their inevita
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
>-- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press
>hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.
Obama's strength in beating Mccain is tactical in nature and has nothing to do with "how the press is treating him."
Obama and Hilary are extremely similar candidates in that they both have very little experience compared to Mccain; however, Obama has a number of strong points that work well in a general election.
1. He delivers better speeches than either candidate. (btw, It's ridiculous Hilary deprecates this considering what an important skill this is for a head of state).
2. He has strong appeal to centrist voters which are typically Mccain's base. Without the centrist voters, Mccain has to rely entirely on the party base which has already made moves to desert him.
3. He appeals to the young vote, and so is likely to bring more total voters into the democratic side, many of whom despise Hilary over her stance over net neutrality, video game censorship, and general hostility towards the baby boomer generation. In contrast, Hilary's elderly party regulars voting for her in the primary can be counted on to show up at the polls no matter what democratic candidate ends up in the general election.
4. He's demonstrated that he can raise way more money than any other candidate out there, and has run a much better organized campaign than Hilary, despite all of her claimed political experience.
5. He can honestly say he was opposed to the war from day one. Hilary on the other hand is going to get *nailed* for flip flopping in the general election the same way it happened in the 2004 election. After all, if the war was a mistake, it was *her* mistake, and that is not an endorsement for presidency.
Hilary complains that the media went after her more harshly than Obama in part because she is a genuinely weak candidate with lots of points to attack her on. If this were any year other than 2008, when the general election may just be handed to the democrats, no one would take her candidacy seriously. She's just not that strong.
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
Carry on.
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm very much against not voting for someone due to a single issue, but with McCain I am going to ignore my advice. If nothing else, there is a big reason why you shouldn't vote for him. McCain is adamently opposed to Net Neutrality. His reasoning?
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Network_neutrality [wikipedia.org]"
I'm sorry, but I refuse to support someone who is so engrained in thinking about big buisness that they would risk the freedom of the Internet over profits. I'm all for getting the government out of our daily lives, but this is one area where the government needs to step in and slap the telcoms in the face. Hard.
Yes, I understand that they are a buisness. Yes, I understand that it is their goal to make money...and I'm all for that. That is, after all, democracy in action.
Attempting to control the internet in the hopes of increasing profit, however, is inexcusable. The internet wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't open the way that it is, and it will crumble even further into a pile of corporate bullshit moreso than it already has if Net Neutrality is not maintained.
Republicans voting against Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Lest ye forget (Score:3, Informative)
Good for Clinton (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes I really hate being a Democrat. Sitting back and watching party leaders who seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again can make you want to weep.
Still about Florida and Michigan. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only question left is Florida and Michigan. Particularly the latter. If she manages to seat her Michigan delegates and none for Obama (since he wasn't on the ballot), I will be disappointed if Detroit doesn't take to the streets.
Re:Still about Florida and Michigan. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people make this mistake. Hillary Clinton is a woman[Tm], not a time machine. Slashdotters should know the difference. Time machines have more knobs and gages.
Even if she were a time machine, it would be very difficult to reproduce the conditions which allowed a decade of prosperity despite the actions (or lack of) of two corrupt and stupid presidents. Imagine going back to 1992 and making sure you don't step on a fly, lest you change these conditions:
- The reasonably peaceful breakup of the Soviet empire. (Clinton and Bush just watched, they didn't even take advantage of the once in a lifetime opportunity!)
- The invention of computer and internet technology which allowed JIT warehousing, enabled globalization and led to vast improvements in efficiency. (Neither Clinton, nor Bush nor Gore can take credit for this)
- Opening up of China, Latin America and other markets and their cheap labor while deficit spending and cheap credit allowed us to isolate our labor force from potential deflationary impacts on wages. (O.K Clinton did sign NAFTA and seemed to have a good relationship with Chinese campaign donors so maybe he did have something to do with this, but Nixon, Carter and Reagan probably had more of an impact on China.
- Global wage arbitrage and productivity increases resulting from computers and internet also allowed the Fed to keep interest rates low, spurring growth here but offshoring the inflation.
- Oil prices were less than $20/bbl (Clinton signed the "SUV loophole" laws which created the demand for such beasts and helped drive oil back up to $102/bbl where it apparently belongs.)
- The bulk of our population (Baby boomers) were in their peak earning years so Clinton/Bush et al could sweep the Social Security insolvency under the rug for another 12-18 years... and whistle in the dark, hoping no one would notice. (Gingrich was the perfect diversion from Clinton's numerous non sex related shenanigans, so he took the fall but I assure you that had mother Theresa suggested a Social Security fix as early as the mid 90s, she would have also been put on a skewer.)
It could work, but don't step on any flys and keep your hands inside the vehicle at all times, it is moving at the same speed as reality.Re:Still about Florida and Michigan. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you tried your local public library?
Texas is hardly a win (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA: In the Texas primary, [Clinton] won with 51 pecent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Obama.
3% is winning the state? Remember that Democratic state delegates are divided up by vote percentages, unlike the Republican "winner take all" delegate process. So Clinton's win in Texas is fairly thin, and frankly a poor showing after all the money and campaigning she's spent lately in a state that was always considered an automatic win for her.
Ask and ye shall receive (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't vote (actually, I anti-vote, writing my own name in where possible). Voting is an act that provides the PTB a simple request from the voter: "Lead me as you think I should be led." I don't need a leader. My life is in my hands, as are the lives of my family. Instead of spending out of control, we save. Instead of relying on insurance for regular medical visits, we pay cash on the barrel and pay a low insurance premium just for emergencies. We eat healthy, exercise, and try to stay in shape so as not to need expensive medical visits and medication that many of our friends take (and want discounts for). Rather than being angered by people that are different from ourselves, we travel the world every year and meet those that the PTB say are our enemies. Most of the time they are people not so different from ourselves.
The country demands a leader, and they'll get one. Individuals, even the most pious and charitable, generally look out for themselves first. A leader is no different. A leader generally doesn't listen to those that he/she leads. A leader may only have said position for a few years, but will always be thinking about what they will do after their leadership position is over. In some situations, the most egomaniacal leaders may be thinking about how history will support their positions and actions.
The surprise to me is that we United States citizens believe we need a leader, at least in government. The Constitution doesn't give the President power to lead, only to execute the laws which we wanted put in place; equitable laws that infringe on everyone equally, rather than giving preferential treatment to the few at the cost of the many (or vice versa). The President is not the Commander-in-Chief until Congress actively declares war. We declared war in WW2, but since then, we have not had a legal CiC. The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States. The President isn't supposed to take positions on what he or she will support or wants to do, because the President merely reviews signed bills and their Constitutionality, and only then making the decision to support future execution of said bills into law if the bills mass Constitutional muster. Most don't.
It is sad when people demand a leader, but are too fearful of being leaders themselves. This is why I am disgusted -- not with politics -- but with you voters who have your head so far up your rears that you think your leader can lead me. I'll be forced to follow.
Re:Ask and ye shall receive (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the public is never going to get this through their thick skulls as long as they thing their candidate will set up a system whereby they are able to get things slightly cheaper at other people's expenses. Everyone thinks they'll cheat the system but they're only cheating themselves as long as they let the government have its fingers in the economy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think some do. Maybe not many, but in all honesty, let's look at the long term viability of my posting on slashdot:
1. People add me as their friend. This means they have some respect for my style of writing, even if they disagree with the content.
2. People email me often. My real name is up there, not a fake name or worse "Anonymous Coward." I appreciate that people connect me to my posts on slashdot, and when future customers Google me, they will get literally t
Re:Ask and ye shall receive (Score:4, Insightful)
I can not imagine any problems that can't be prepared for in some way. In fact, I've personally spoken with many hundreds of people over the past 5 years or so, and heard of some real doozies, and in every case, I've made preparations that will cover me if those same problems should happen to me. Again, there are numerous ways to prepare for MANY unlikely situations, but most people don't care. They just want to spend today (and spend tomorrow's income today) and ignore the bad things that may happen. Then, when they do happen, we all have to pay for them. We don't share in their joy of overspending and irresponsibility, but we have to share in their problems.
What about problems that don't stem from the person who has them making a bad decision ? Or do you follow the "You've got problems, so you must have made a bad decision." line of thinking ?
No, I don't always believe that bad things come of bad decisions, but they do come from bad planning.
6 figures doesn't really require HUGE mistakes. Some car accidents will be right in that range (especially when people are injured). You just don't realize that you've been lucky so far.
Don't even get me started on car accidents, which are completely harmed by government intervention in the insurance and tort/civil industries. First of all, the only insurance that should matter is YOUR insurance, based on YOUR needs. A very wealthy individual should be buying uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance to cover what HIS loss would be in a near-fatal accident. If you earn $250k per year, and a car accident could ruin your future, PLAN FOR IT. Buy insurance. The same is true for medical malpractice liability: it should not exist. Instead, people should buy "negative outcome" insurance based on what their needs are in the event of a negative outcome. The insurers have gotten together with the State to protect their assets, while requiring ridiculous insurance for all so that everyone's insurance options are limited. Why should you FORCE people to get auto insurance? Instead, give others the chance to protect themselves against the possibility of an uninsured motorist. Easy enough.
In every case where people say "I never saw it coming," I'll say "Then you didn't research your decision well enough." I got castigated here on Slashdot for YEARS when I recommended people rent or buy a mobile home in 2004 and 2005, and hundreds of people told me I was wrong. Well, I researched it, and in the end, I was right. I've told hundreds of people to consider NOT going to college if it will cost them $150,000 out of pocket in student loans, and some listened, got good jobs, and in 4 years are making well more than the college graduates who now have $500,000 to pay over the next 15 years (in interest and principle). Again, I researched it. I've explained to many friends that marriage is a terrible idea unless their religion requires it. Now, more than 55% of those who got married are going through horrible divorces because they did not think things through. Again, research will give you the statistics for you to protect yourself against.
Unemployment? That's why you SAVE. Disability? Get good disability insurance (one friend of mine bought a $10k a year policy that would pay $1.5 million. When he went blind 6 years later, he thanked me for the idea) to cover the remaining years of income. Divorce? Don't get married without a prenup. Death? Life insurance. Illness? High deductible medical emergency insurance, with your regular visits paid at the cash-on-the-barrel discount rate (as much as 80% off with minimal negotiations).
It is endless: the excuses people make for why they didn't prepare for negative outcomes. Yet the information is there, and people just don't listen. They want things NOW, but the important things they want others to pay.
If I were a democratic strategist... (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternatively, put forth the strongest dream-team, a Regan/Bush 1980 style team. Idealist speechgiver as the main ticket, the strong and reasoned seasoned senate veteran in the VP chair. Push forward using the collapsing economy as your footprint. Forget the war, people don't think of war when they're worried about their jobs! It's the economy stupid!
Re:If I were a democratic strategist... (Score:4, Interesting)
Economies at the national level are always cyclical. This is true everywhere, not just of the United States.
It is ignorant to believe you can avoid all recessions. Economics simply do not work that way.
With the Bush stimulas package on the way, the economy should rebound nicely just like it did 6 years ago with the Bush tax cuts.
Expected it (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that. If you look at the facts, Obama is a better speaker, more motivational, more liked overseas, less divisive. Obama has more experience in public service, he's made better decisions, and he's more likely to win against McCain. He's run a more organized and effective campaign. So given that he pretty much outclasses her in every way as a candidate, you have to ask yourself why people are voting for Clinton, and is it right.
Some people say that Obama is benefiting from being half-black by winning the black vote 10:1. I don't think that's really true, I think he'd be winning the other groups that much if not for the factors working against him. For instance, the Hispanic community has historically been at odds with African Americans. And whites and women, obviously, have a bias for a white woman. It seems to me that by merit he should be winning close to that ratio among most groups.
Looking Forward.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is about time Obama had to face some of the issues instead of a free media pass. What is all this change he keeps carping on? All talk and no substance. His campaign is staffed by some seriously questionable folks as well. So remember.. Pennsylvania on April 22'nd folks.
Re:Looking Forward.. (Score:4, Informative)
Are you insane or just inane? (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Dems love to hurt themselves (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:These polls mean nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
It is obvious that a good chunk of your statement is pure FUD and not a shred of truth. The question is, what about the rest. In particular, what real dirt do you have? Keep in mind, that ppl like me can be changed. But I want to see proof. There is far too much FUD and BS all over (and
If Clinton has proof of these things, and not just BS, she absolutely should bring it up. Better her, than later.
Delegate Math (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751 [dailykos.com]
This assumes that Hillary somehow magically wins by 10% in every race. Which is NOT going to happen unless Barack gets caught with a dead girl or live boy.
Number of 3 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 4 delegate districts left: 19 (including all 8 in Puerto Rico)
Number of 5 delegate districts left: 21
Number of 6 delegate districts left: 14
Number of 7 delegate districts left: 10
Number of 8 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 9 delegate districts left: 3
Number of 10 delegate districts left: 1 (Montana)
Setting aside Guam with its 4 delegates, there are 11 delegate apportionments based on statewide popular vote totals.
Wyoming - 5 statewide
South Dakota - 6 statewide
Montana - 6 statewide
West Virginia - 10 statewide
Mississippi - 11 statewide
Kentucky - 17 statewide
Oregon - 18 statewide
Puerto Rico - 19 islandwide
Indiana - 25 statewide
North Carolina - 38 statewide
Pennsylvania - 55 statewide
In order to cross all thresholds except the initial break that give you a +2 delegate swing, you need to win by an extra 200/X%, where X = the number of total delegates at stake. Let's see how this works by easy example - West Virginia and its 10 statewide delegates. 200/10 = 20%. To go from 5-5 to 6-4 there you have to win by over 10% (55-45). But to get ANOTHER +2 you need to add 20% to your win and win by 30% (65-35).
To work through one more example, Indiana and its 25. You start with someone winning 13-12. To get an additional +2 swing (ie, 14-11), you have to win by 200/25%, or 8% even. 54-46 + 1 vote is a 14-11 split. You can also calculate this way: 13.5/25 =
So, let's look at if Clinton wins every statewide total by 10%:
Wyoming +1
South Dakota 0
Montana 0
West Virginia +1, giving her the +1 vote benefit of the doubt.
Mississippi +1
Kentucky +1
Oregon +2
Puerto Rico +1
Indiana +3
North Carolina +4
Pennsylvania +5
Total +19 delegates.
Do you see how totally impossible it is, and how completely significant Obama's South Carolina and February blowouts were? Remember, Obama beat Clinton by 8% in Iowa (a huge win) and netted only 1 extra pledged delegate.
Now, let's assume, in a very unsurgical way, that this 10% is exactly the margin in all the congressional districts.
1 3-delegate district: +1
19 4-delegate districts: 0
21 5-delegate districts: +21
14 6-delegate districts: 0
10 7-delegate districts: +10
1 8-delegate district: 0
3 9-delegate districts: +3
1 10-delegate district: +1, let's give her the 1 extra vote benefit of the doubt.
Total +36 delegates
Overall total +55 delegates.
And it probably is +58, see below.
Obama currently leads by 160 pledged delegates.
Not by delegate count (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama's campaign ran hard and organized even in the states where he was way ahead. The result was blowout victories, which makes a difference in the primaries, because the apportionment of delegates depends on the margin of victory. Clinton scored one blowout yesterday and was blown out in another state, so the net effect is probably about 1 net delegate for Clinton. In the bigger states, Clinton scored two narrow victories, and in Texas, the combined primary-caucus may end up giving Obama a net win in delegates.
Clinton's campaign has tried to change the rules during the contest more than once, which is really lame. There's talk that the Clinton campaign will now sue over the nature of the Texas caucus-primary, but they had the same access to the rules as the Obama campaign did. They just seem not to have planned as well.
Obama appears to be more of a party-builder, like Howard Dean and his "50 State Strategy." While moron pundits like Paul Begala derided paying party workers to "pick their noses" in places like Montana and Mississippi, Dean set up the structure not only for the Democrats' retaking both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, but also for extending their majorities and making gains in the state legislatures nationwide. Obama seems to have embraced that strategy, and it would make a difference in places like Texas, where Rick Noriega could have a chance of unseating Senator Cornyn if the presidential candidate doesn't ignore the state, and at the very least the Democrats could force the Republicans to spend money to defend what previously would have been considered a very safe seat. Clinton's campaign, as recently as last week, when it thought she might lose in Texas, was saying that "Texas does not figure into the electoral calculus of a Democratic (Presidential) candidate." That is a ridiculously narrow view, and since so many of Hillary's advisors and consultants also worked for Bill, I wonder if the Clintons' philosophy is responsible for the fact that Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, but then the Democrats almost immediately lost control of both houses of Congress, setting the stage for the Bush presidency, when White House power was basically unchecked by a Congress all too willing to let Bush and Cheney do whatever they wanted. Including taking a surplus and making it into record deficits. Oh, and a multi-trillion dollar war that destabilized the region and created more terrorists by making bin Laden and his ilk look really smart as the US government acted just as al Qaeda and others said it would.
Here's the thing: I'm pushing 40, and Bill Clinton was far and away the best president of
Fraud - AGAIN! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.click2houston.com/news/15492166/detail.html [click2houston.com]
Seems that someone "helped" seniors register to vote, and then filed absentee ballots in their names.
Thing is, every election, every vote, every ballot that happens in the US seems to be tainted by fraud of some sort. Identity theft, ballot stuffing, turning away voters, rigged machines, middle-of-the-night changes to the law, you name it--it's all going on, and seems to be going on all the time. The worst part is that it hardly ever raises an eyebrow from the voting public or the media. In this example, there is solid evidence of election fraud, and it's getting a few column-inches on a local website. Why isn't this on the front page of the Houston Chronicle?
Don't you people even CARE about the failure of your democracy anymore?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
That statement is only valid for the few rights that haven't already been annihilated by the current administration.
Which would leave one to assume that the situation can only get better, but that was also what we thought when approaching the 2004 presidential election. Yet somehow we were proven wrong.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to the current system where the ER is often the first, last and only choice for the poor, resulting in increased medical bills that are unpaid and passed onto wealthier hospital patrons who do have insurance?
There are places that capitalism fails. Healthcare looks like it is one of them. Even if doctors could refuse treatment until after they were paid (what a dystopic thought!), the lack of access to healthcare would decrease the total health of the population, resulting in a population that is more prone to infectious diseases and epidemics.
PS: We have the ability to wipe out polio from the world relatively easily. That's due to government, not private practice footing the bill. We also have the ability to eradicate the MMR trio if we are willing to push for an international campaign to do so.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, an argument can be made that insurance is already forced upon you. Most post-secondary institutions in this country require all students and employees to carry insurance. Many private companies also require insurance as a condition of employment.
Even more so, what fundamental right is being violated in universal health care? The right to die? The conservatives have attacked that many times already (see the Terri Schaivo case, for example).
Well, somebody [whitehouse.gov] made the invasion of Iraq their chosen cause. I never supported it. I didn't support it before it was done, and I certainly don't support it now. But I don't get to chose to withhold the portion of my tax dollars that go to the war because I don't support it.
If I can't withhold the part of my tax dollars that are used to kill people, why do you get to withhold the part of your tax dollars that could be used to heal people?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, your rights to have everything you want. I take it you won't drive on any bridges, flush your toilet into any sewers, or rely on any police to keep you safe, because the government shouldn't be "clawing away" your money. And definitely you wouldn't want to put that money into a bank insured by the FDIC, or take a mortgage backed by the same federal guarantees (explicit and implicit), or participate in a stock market where liars and thieves are kept (somewhat) at bay by the SEC. Nor do you want any assurance that your medicines are not contaminated, your foodstuffs safe, and your children's teachers are not psychopaths.
The "market will solve everything if you only you set it free" meme was new (and woefully simplistic) in 1971. Now it's tired, overused and foolishly simplistic. Your whole lifestyle is made possible by a profound set of government-run or backed institutions. If they're broken, the answer is to fix them and work for fair, well-regulated markers, not scrap everything we've learned and go back to the 1860s (as appealing as them sometimes seems from within a fluorescent-lit cube). I'm all for leaner and more effective government (as, in fact, are almost all of us who think government has a key role in society), but the nonsense about greedy government taking all your tax dollars sounds increasingly petulant when bridges are falling down, tainted food and drugs are being allowed into our stores, and people are losing their homes in droves, and the top marginal tax rate is the lowest its been in decades.
Government regulation of healthcare is indeed a gigantic mess, and the Blues are a great example of that mess. And yes, government intervention in a market can indeed make a problem worse. But it takes two to tango, so let's recall Gingrich-led cuts to Medicare in the 90s, and permanent resistance to Medicaid's existence (because after all, that's just more poor - read "lazy" - people clawing your government-backed money away) and general conservative opposition to every government program that doesn't involve fat contracts for their buddies don't really to much to promote fair, orderly and efficient markets either.
Sure, comparison shopping for healthcare would improve the system and make the market for healthcare more efficient, if there were choices real humans could afford. Have you ever priced non-employer sponsored "insurance" (the quotes are because health coverage is much more a bundled service agreement that it is insurance against unlikely adverse events)? The prospect of paying $10,000-$15,000 per year sounds like great set of choices, huh? I've learned a fair bit about the dysfunction of the medical reimbursement system in my current job, and I'm not sure a government-run healthcare program is all peaches and cream, primarily because the current incarnations sidestep the hard questions we need to debate about how much care should really cost and who should pay for what. There is a cost control element to healthcare that's deeply difficult to answer once your parent gets cancer or your sibling gets a debilitating disease. But that's a debate about how to structure things well within government and the private sector, not a worn-out screed about drowning government in the bathtub.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
A system of healthcare exactly like what you described existed in the developed world from antiquity up until 1930 or so. There was no insurance, no regulation, no licensure, no anything; healthcare was exactly like any other trade, and those who would provide healthcare competed solely on the basis of price and advertising. The result was nothing short of miserable. Those who could afford it had the best medical and surgical treatment they could buy, although that generally wasn't much (no training requirements, remember?) Those who couldn't relied on folk remedies (what we now call "alternative medicine") and their own physiological reserves, and if they became seriously ill or injured, too bad. Oh, and the average lifespan was about 35 years give or take, and the sick were left to rot on the public streets - or, if they were very, very lucky, they were taken in by charitable groups and largely treated with benign neglect. I sincerely hope that you can figure out why we abandoned that model of healthcare.
In public health, it has been proven hundreds of times that when you have large numbers of sick people in circulation, the general health of the population tends to decline, and the diseases they suffer tend to increase in severity. In short, sick people make the people around them sick as well. If nothing is done about the sick (i.e. they're left to die), the population's health rapidly becomes so severely compromised that any suitable crisis - a plague, a famine, a drought, whatever - can kill off the entire population in one shot. Luckily, though, the reverse is also true: when a population is maintained at a certain level of health, the illnesses suffered by each individual tend to be less severe than they would be otherwise, and the lifespan, working capacity and general health of that population tends to increase. Thus, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint, you'd actually be smarter to provide a certain, basic level of healthcare to each individual out of the common treasury, since it costs far, far less to treat the minor illnesses than the severe illnesses, and it also results in massive net gains in productivity when everyone is healthy enough to work. Everything else, of course, the individual can pay for, but providing basic care - an annual physical, immunizations, emergency care when necessary, etc - ought to be a no-brainer.
Our current system is far from perfect - anyone will tell you that. However, throwing it out the window for some mythical "free-market" solution is just as foolish and ultimately even more harmful than single-payer care could hope to be. It is true that people in good health, who can be expected not to incur any particularly egregious health expenditures in their lifetimes, would pay less for their care at first. However, people in poor health, who not only cost more to care for but generally aren't physically capable of working hard enough or long enough to earn the required amount of money to pay for their healthcare and all their other expenses, will be in even worse straits. Meanwhile, thanks to the masses of sick people in circulation, now all of a sudden the healthy people are getting sick more often and more severely, which throws your putative cost savings right out the window. You're right back to the Middle Ages - either the sick would be rotting on the streets, or you'd be asking physicians, nurses and allied health providers to shoulder those patients' costs through charity care. How is that fair to me and my colleagues, for us to subsidize a tax break for you? Are we not entitled to the fruits of our labors?
I find it amusing how you and your ilk tout the wonders of the free market, without ever realizing that what you propose is neither free nor market-driven. You're just demanding that someone else pay the bill for you, whether through taxes or charity. Funny how that's so often true - the people who yell the loudest about free markets are also the ones who demand the biggest handouts, breaks and subsidies from said markets.
I'll thank you to take your trolling elsewhere, and good day to you, sir.
(Full disclosure: The author is a healthcare professional.)
Re:Damn (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a registered Democrat, though I do vote for their candidates more often than not. The inconsistencies of the state party mechanisms, plus the proportional voting, does seem highly illogical. In the general, it's winner-take-all, and there's no superdelegates (unless you count the Supreme Court - 2000 election says hi). I hope the party recognizes this flaw in the system, which only stands to keep them stigmatized as the party of political procedure and not of coherent action.
That all said, if John McCain makes it through to Election Day without a single health scare, I would be very surprised. He's 72, and has a relatively poor health history. I certainly wouldn't wish ill health on him, but I do think there's a strong likelihood of at least one incident on the road.
Re:Damn (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Damn (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, I wish they would just go the way of the Whigs (and take the Republicans with them while they're at it). This country desperately needs a REAL party for liberals, libertarians, and progressives. And God knows neither the undisciplined, spineless Democrat party nor the bible-thumping, war-mongering Republican party are truly serving the people.
Wanted: Liberal party and Conservative party (Score:5, Insightful)
It could use a party for real conservatives, too since this latest batch of Republicans is a spend-happy, big-government social-engineering disgrace. But even that would be a short-term solution as the real problem is that our Federal government is no longer bound by the limits of the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment. The Federals are supposed to just run the Navy, print the money, and mostly stay the hell out of our lives. Instead, well, we have our current situation of Bread & Circus.
10th Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant an authority, the Federals can't do it. What a quaint notion.
Re:Damn (Score:4, Insightful)
So tell me, what did the strong party discipline of the Republicans get us? Let me list you a couple: tax cuts at the same time at the same time as deficit spending, the Iraq War, & nominations for high office (including the supreme court) whose only qualification is loyalty to the Republican party or Bush. What you're calling weak party discipline is actually a rational debate about what the best policy is, in this case, who the best candidate would be. This is governing in the interest in the public because policy decisions are discussed in the open rather than ruling by fiat which is what the Republicans do, where the real decisions are made behind closed doors without public input and the result is presented fait accompli. Open and transparent government is not a bad thing!!
Re:Damn (Score:4, Informative)
IMO it's because libertarians are in general socially liberal, and so is the average Democrat voter, while your average Republican is socially conservative/authoritarian. Libertarians know that neither large party is going to curtail spending, so it's a case of holding one's nose and going with... yes... the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul Not A Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Ron Paul SHOULD still be in at this point. That's not trolling.
There are a lot of Republicans who just WON'T vote for McCain. Ron should and will stay in the race, and those McCain haters are going to vote for him, just like they did for Huckabee. Hopefully they'll also learn something. The current election is always about the next one for the candidates who don't win. I think that inspite of what we know here, and the best efforts of many on this board, there are about 300 million citizens in the US [census.gov] who don't know anything more about Ron Paul's positions than that he is completely against the Iraq war. If the nation becomes better informed about the REAL cost of lowering interest rates and devaluing the dollar [fishdan.com], things might actually change.
Re:crank crank crank (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:crank crank crank (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:crank crank crank (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:crank crank crank (Score:5, Funny)
Freudian slip? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
How does that follow? Unless you mean it literally, in the sense that these individuals will send more of our taxes overseas to support the underprivileged. Other countries have had their share of female and black presidents, both good and bad (and very bad: Idi Amin).
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets put this stupid liberal guilt shit to rest. A black man has been tearing up the campaign trail and looking like a possible win on the Democrat side if not the whole race for the top. Can we PLEASE get over this sensitivity crap. I think having a black man with a pretty viable shot at the oval office pretty much means that the whole slavery thing is long over. It's time to quit the apologizing.
Stunningly ironic is that the party that goes on about those "poor minorities that need our help" has a black man making a damned good run. Seems kinda counter to the nonsense about the minorities need our help and handouts.
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Funny)
What the hell? I am so sick of these nebulous terms. Let's get it right. He is #935C33, I am #FEE497.
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Hogwash. He is white. You say Barak Obama is "black" because his father was "black". I say he is "white" because his mother was "white".
Someone who is truly cutting through the "political correct cry baby crap" would say he is "multiracial".
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. Completely wrong.
Do we still have cotton plantations where white rich men are whipping blacks in the fields? Are we we still bringing black people from africa stuffed like sardines in the hulls of ships? Are we still lynching hundreds of black folks a year? Are blacks not allowed to vote, or have a good paying job, or make decisions that impact the entire country? Are blacks not allowed to talk back to white people?
Please. Slavery is long over. Black people today do not know the meaning of the word racism. Racism isn't having a hard time getting a cab or having trouble becoming a CEO. Racism is getting the shit beat out of you because you weren't picking fast enough.
Slavery is finished, in the past...accept it.
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in Mexico, and often refer to Hispanics. My girlfriend at the time gave me crap because some group of them (I'm assuming it was The Council of the Wise) decided that Hispanic reminded them of the Spanish conquest, and they preferred Latino. Which I think is ridiculous, because when I say Hispanic, I mean a Spanish-speaker (which excludes Brazilians), and when I say Latino, I mean a Latin American (which excludes Spaniards).
Also, Iranians are caucasians, so calling white people caucasians is stupid. So hey everybody, let's just stop being insulted by things that aren't insulting, and stop bowing to unfounded, ridiculous reactionary pressure. And if you find out that one person prefers Latino over Hispanic, use the word they prefer when referring to them. It's super easy.
Close enough for the popular opnion.
Re:In the end, does it reallyl make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Referring to centrists like Hillary and Obama as Socialists indicates an intense and pervasive ignorance of all matters social and political. Socialism does not encourage private property or corporate participation, just for starters. You really should visit some places that embrace Socialism before you make pronouncements like that, but like most Americans staying fearfully within your own borders is as much as you can handle. With ignorance on this scale being commonplace it is amazing that we can do this well.
Re:You'd think... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:weird election (Score:4, Interesting)