Super Tuesday, McCain Leads Reps, Dems Undecided

Following the so called Super Tuesday primary mega bash yesterday, McCain has solidified a strong lead in the primary race over his rival Republicans. Things aren't so clear for the Democrats: while Clinton leads, the race is still too close to call.

Comments

Obama truely the big winner.

[arkham6]

While Clinton won California, New york, new Jersey and Mass, Obama really comes out as the winner here. Why? because not a month ago he was hugely behind, and now he's only narrowly been defeated. Clinton also has won all her states, there is not much left for her. While Obama however has plenty of states left to go where he typically is a winner. If you look at the pledged delegate count, he's tied with her, AFTER she won all those large states.

Also, in money, Clinton is getting tapped out, while Obama is gaining speed. 35 Million last month? In SMALL party donation? Thats amazing.

So while they will go on for a few more months.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Actually, since it now appears that NM may go to Obama, along with a few other delegate gains, the Obama camp is now claiming that they won more delegates (along with more states). Clinton has to be reeling from this. Obama is also positioned to do well in next Tuesday's primaries - Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia. A sweep of all 3, in addition to Louisiana this weekend could push him further towards front-runner status.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[CubeNudger]

I totally agree. The smart money was that Clinton had to build at least a 100 delegate (not counting super delegates) lead to have a good shot at the nomination. She came up far short of this. Obama has a very favorable schedule until two toss ups (Texas and Ohio) on March 4, and unlike Clinton, many of his contributors have yet to give the maximum amount. If I were a betting man, my money'd be on Obama right now.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[DigitalisAkujin]

I don't think California was counted yet. She'll probably have the hundred. Though I wish Obama did win.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[FuzzyDaddy]

The interesting thing about CA is that they have a lot of absentee voters who voted more than a week ago, before it was clear how well Obama was going to do. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it's interesting.

I also heard my first political radio ad in the Washington DC area for Obama. The primaries for DC, VA and MD are next Tuesday. There has been no advertising and very few roadside signs so far.

I'm voting for Obama, not that I'd mind Clinton so much. But I REALLY hope they can battle it out without damaging the eventual winner in the general election.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[div_2n]

Obama narrowly defeated? Apparently you haven't examined the numbers.

1) He won the majority of states with 13 to 8 and New Mexico looks like he might win that too.

2) He won the majority of delegates if only by a slim margin.

3) He won 40% of the vote in Clinton's home state. He was polling as low as 15% there just a couple of months ago.

4) He won 8 states with over 60% of the vote (AK, CO, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND). She did that with only one state--Arkansas (not even NY).

5) He won 3 states with over 70% of the vote (AK, ID, KS). She didn't manage that feat.

Given these facts, I just don't see how anyone calls this a win for her. I am not convinced you can call this a tie either.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[Beefaroni]

Also, in money, Clinton is getting tapped out my guess Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie and Wang Jun have plenty of PRC / PLA cash handy. i do wish Obama the best of luck defeating the machine the Clintons have built over the past couple decades. it would be nice to have a new face in the White House and have kicked around the idea to vote for him especially after last night's performance. more than likely i will go third party as i have lost faith in both parties.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[amper]

I entirely disagree here. I think it's quite clear that Hillary Clinton has a decisive edge in nearly all the most populous states, with their correspondingly high electoral college vote counts, including California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, and Michigan. You should remember that the delegates from Michigan and Florida have not been in the official counts because of the short-sighted decision of the DNC to refuse recognition in the primaries. There is no reason to suggest that Hillary Clinton will not continue this advantage into Ohio and Texas. As long as this continues, not only will Barack Obama find it increasingly difficult to bridge the gap, but more and more Democratic voters will come to realize that Obama's wins have been mostly in states where a Democratic candidate is unlikely to prevail in the general Presidential election.

I'm an independent, not a Democrat. The Democratic Party disgusts me quite as much as the Republican Party. I like aspects of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but the only candidates that I could have seen myself truly considering are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Barack Obama may be entertaining to observe in his oration, but talk is cheap. Results are what this country needs right now, and Obama simply doesn't have a reputation among the populace for experience or results. This is the choice of the Democrats--the sure thing, or the daring leap of hope. One thing I will hand to Obama...his speech last night was brilliant.

Since I'm an independent, I wasn't allowed to vote in the primaries in my home state of New Jersey. But come November, I don't see myself supporting either Clinton or Obama, because my generally libertarian values don't align closely enough with either of the Democratic candidates on key issues.

However, my belief at this point is that this contest is going to come down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obviously, there will need to be a role for Barack Obama in a Hillary Clinton administration, given the strength of his support, but I think that the VP slot might not be right place--perhaps our next Supreme Court Justice?

As for the Republicans, it is extremely hard to imagine John McCain requesting any of his rivals for the running mate on his ticket. My guess is he will seek to reinforce his strengths rather than minimize his weaknesses. Just as with Clinton, McCain is winning nearly all the high electoral count states. Voters in the predominantly Democratic states are choking on the idea of a Mormom President or a religious minister in the White House. McCain is clearly the choice of the old-line conservatives in these states, and I expect that will continue into states such as Pennsylvania, which in 2004 was won by Kerry by a slimmer margin than Ohio was won by Bush, a fact that seems to receive little play in the press. The rest of the Republican party will fall into line behind McCain. The alternative is too terrible for them to consider.

Still, it's Clinton with the edge. McCain may be the most palatable of the Republican candidates, but the entire Republican party still has the weight of the Bush Mistake around the neck of the entire country, and this will be difficult to overcome.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[magical_mystery_meat]

If there's anything the last eight years should have taught us, it's that the President SHOULD be all talk. For all of his faults, Bush was able to push his agenda, and look where it got us.

The President is the Chief Executive. An executive's job is to fly the flag and make tough decisions, while their staff actually gets things done. One of the main reasons that I believe Obama could make a great president is that he has the capability of attracting the best cabinet in years.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[BoomerSooner]

So you're an independent libertarian?

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[dopplex]

The big flaw in this argument - which you are not the only one making - is that CA, NY, NJ, MA et al. are NOT contested states in a general election. Therefore, Hillary's strength in them is largely irrelevant, as either she or Obama would easily carry them in the General.

More relevant - and a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole, really - is the strength that Obama (and to a lesser extent Hillary) have shown in some battleground states. Obama got 300,000 votes in Alabama - a VERY red state. Huckabee - the winner on the GOP side, got 225,000. Both of them easily outpolled the nearest Republican in Missouri.

It's these states which have to be the bread and butter of any electability argument. Obama could put Alabama and Georgia in play in a general election - a laughable idea in a 2000 or 2004 frame.

Lastly, you say there's not much that can change in the month prior to Texas and Ohio. That's manifestly incorrect. Just look at the shift in national polls that has occured since Jan 5th: at that time, Clinton had a roughly 15 point lead nationally, and is now in a statistical dead heat with Obama as of the latest CNN poll.

The next month of primaries and caucuses is very favorable to Obama - he is polling at a 13 point lead in Washington, the biggest of the weekend's caucuses (via SurveyUSA, which was by far the most accurate of the Super Tuesday pollsters). What is more, he now has a significant cash advantage. A month of momentum building smaller wins can certainly change the situation on the ground in Texas and Ohio when combined with the media advantage Obama will have due to his cash advantage. It may or may not happen - but Obama's track record when he's had time to actively campaign in a state is quite solid, and he has excellent ground operations.

There's plenty of reason to believe the situation will change. Predicting how it will change is difficult, but expecting things to remain as they are is doomed to failure.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I'm an independent, I wasn't allowed to vote in the primaries in my home state of New Jersey.

So what was the reason for regestering independent as opposed to unaffiliated (which would have allowed you to vote in NJ's semi-open Democratic primary)?

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[mrxak]

Yeah, if it wasn't for Hillary's superdelegates, she'd be losing right now, 590 to 603. And he's won 15 states to Hillary's 12 (10 not including MI and FL). I think it's definitely looking good for Obama.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[The One and Only]

More relevant - and a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole, really - is the strength that Obama (and to a lesser extent Hillary) have shown in some battleground states. Obama got 300,000 votes in Alabama - a VERY red state. Huckabee - the winner on the GOP side, got 225,000. Both of them easily outpolled the nearest Republican in Missouri.

First, outpolling a Republican is a bad metric: a candidate in a 2 way race will outpoll a candidate in a 3 or 4 way race if the populations are anywhere near even. Second, a lot of Obama's wins in the South are due to the fact that he has attracted a lot of black voters. Black voters in the South already vote for the Democrat in the general election and the Democrat never wins.

The sad fact is, the exit polls pretty well indicate that this year is the heyday for identity politics. Middle-aged/old women vote for Hillary, black people vote for Obama, evangelicals vote for Huck, Mormons vote for Mitt, and the rest of the population (mainly white males) decides among themselves which of the white male candidates to vote for. Since the majority of voters are older white women, Hillary has the best chance to win it all.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[mxs]

"While Clinton won California, New york, new Jersey and Mass, Obama really comes out as the winner here. Why? because not a month ago he was hugely behind, and now he's only narrowly been defeated."

Thanks for playing, but that is not the definition of "winner". You either win, or you loose. Even if you are "narrowly defeated", you still have not won -- unless you can pay for the lawyers to make it so.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[Neoprofin]

Winning big states actually doesn't do much for them. The DNC issues delegates proportionately, so if Obama get 49% of the vote in California and Clinton gets 50% the number of delegates they each receive is almost identical. 50% in a big state obviously means more than 50% in a small state, but as long as they both show up they're very likely to keep things close.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[Copid]

Second, a lot of Obama's wins in the South are due to the fact that he has attracted a lot of black voters. Black voters in the South already vote for the Democrat in the general election and the Democrat never wins.

Looking at the turnout over the past few elections, I'm starting to believe that the person who has the edge is not necessarily the one who takes the undecided voters in the center, but rather the one who brings out votes on their side who might not vote otherwise. Being strong with a base that you already have "in the bag" isn't necessarily meaningless if that base has a historically low voter turnout and you're able to get people to the polls better than your opponent.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[opec]

3) He won 40% of the vote in Clinton's home state. He was polling as low as 15% there just a couple of months ago.

Check your facts. CNN reports Obama claims around 27% of the vote in Arkansas. (source)

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[KirkH]

He's talking about NY. A lot of these candidates are considered to have more than one home state... somehow.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your facts. CNN reports Obama claims around 27% of the vote in Arkansas. (source) He means New York (where she's senator). CNN has New York at 57% Cliton, 40% Obama, 1% Edwards at time of writing.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[ink]

They live in New York now:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NY

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[flyingsquid]

Thanks for playing, but that is not the definition of "winner". You either win, or you loose. Even if you are "narrowly defeated", you still have not won -- unless you can pay for the lawyers to make it so.

That's true at the end of the race, when you count up all the delegates and votes. In an ongoing race, perception is everything. If you win by a narrower margin than expected, that can be a "lose" and if you lose by a narrower margin than expected, that would be a "win". For instance, if Obama won by 51-49 in Illinois, or Clinton won by 51-49 in New York, that would show weakness on their home turf and be percieved as something of a loss, since it is an indicator of that nebulous idea of "momentum", whether a candidate is rising or falling in the polls.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[barracg8]

Statistically this was a win for Clinton because she took 582 delegates, while Obama only took 562 (see here). Given how close the delegate counts are, you could call this a tie.

From the original posters comment it would look like they would agree with you (as would I) that Barack Obama probably woke up this morning felling a lot more positive about how Tuesday went. But statistically Hillary Clinton had the edge.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[ji777]

There were people holding Hillary signs standing outside of the metro station this morning.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[SECProto]

havent you listened to anything obama said? there are no "red states" or "blue states," there is only the "United States" :)

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[amper]

You seem to have some misconceptions about New Jersey's primary process. The primary is closed. The only exception is that unaffiliated voters who have never before voted in a New Jersey primary election, may declare a party affiliation at the polling place on election day. This by no means makes New Jersey "semi-open". You don't simply get to decide on a whim to vote in one party or the other. From that moment on, you are now an affiliated voter. While you may change affiliation later, this does not make New Jersey an open primary state. I have no interest in declaring a party affiliation (and certainly not a affiliation with either of the two popular parties), therefore, I cannot vote in a New Jersey Democratic Party or Republican Party primary election.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[debatem1]

I'm sorry, but you're very, very wrong. First off, factually, Obama won yesterday- coming out ahead in the -actual- delegate counts. Superdelegates continue to shift until the convention. Secondly, this is politics, not policy, and good PR is all-important. Simply discounting the effects of bandwagon politics because you don't like them is flatly ridiculous.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[Dark_MadMax666]

If there's anything the last eight years should have taught us, it's that the President SHOULD be all talk. For all of his faults, Bush was able to push his agenda, and look where it got us.


Next president will have to fix and keep the country from derailing into disaster (at worst) or 2nd depression (at best). If he will be ALL talk (which seems Obama will be) then US is doomed. In fact for me choice is clear if Hillary>McCain>Obama.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[mxs]

Oh brother ...

First of all, my comment was based on data that suggested he had been defeated, as mentioned in the OP. I was, of course, referring to winning and loosing in the actual senses of those words (not politico spindoctor doublespeak).

Simply discounting the meaning of words just because you don't like them is flatly ridiculous.

PR is all good and well, but winning is winning, loosing is loosing, and no looser is also the winner. Then again, you knew that, and you probably also did knew that the counts were not in when that comment was made. Classy sir, classy.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[debatem1]

Ever heard the expression "you may have won the battle, but you've lost the war"?
Winning a tiny number more delegates (as Obama did) is trivial at this point. In a race this close, after losing two previous Presidential elections to a thoroughly despised man, the candidate who appears most likely to win, will win- the nomination if not the presidency. Look back to the Kerry candidacy- the man had next to no actual support, but he won the nomination on the appearance of inevitability. The same dynamic is playing itself out right now. The size of Clinton and Obama's committed voter base is roughly equal, but in exit polls the issue ranked as being the most important to voters who decided in the last week (ie, undecideds) was whether they had the best chance to win the general election.
You can claim otherwise all day long, but without a *decisive* victory, the group which walks away with the bigger PR boost in this contest is the actual winner.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[Anonymous Coward]

winning and loosing

"losing".

loosing is loosing

"losing", "losing".

no looser is

"loser".

SuperDelegates

[Dr. Eggman]

I know it's up to the party to decide how to run their own primaries and it doesn't even have to be democratic, but doesn't the concept of superdelegates irk anyone else? The idea that you should get special treatment and privileged voting rights just for who you are seems... well, unamerican.

Re:SuperDelegates

[The Aethereal]

I must admit I do not fully understand the electoral college. Are there super delegates in the general election? The primaries are run by the parties. People didn't use to get to vote for who their parties candidate would be at all, so we have actually come a long way since then. Though with the way things have been going, I'm not so sure things wouldn't be better if we went back to just letting the party leaders pick the candidates. Could the candidates really get any worse/corrupt?

Re:SuperDelegates

[Anonymous Coward]

On Larry King Live it was compared to the British house of lords. There definitely is something unamerican about some people's votes counting more than other people's. In the Republican party they do something similar on a smaller scale. Some states give people who hold different positions and offices automatic rights to be a delegate. The end result is the same. An individual gets a much more important vote than the people.

We need major reform. I'm hoping that some of these new Ron Paul Republicans will stay in the Republican party and push for change in that party. I don't know who will on the Democrat side. It's always hard to get people with power to voluntarily hand it over, so this isn't going to be an easy fight. It is so important though. Especially considering our two party system. If the people can't choose the candidates fairly how is the system fair?

Re:SuperDelegates

[FuzzyDaddy]

Yes, it's incredibly annoying. Like so many things, most people shrug it off because it usually doesn't matter. It's just that occasionally it's the only thing that matters. This might be one of those times.

Re:SuperDelegates

[mikael]

Superdelegate

They are the highest level elected officeholders and party officials, just not through the party primaries or caucuses. The idea is to have a say in the selection of candidates in line with the party objectives. Party activists at the lower ranks of the party would tend to select the most extreme candidate, who would ultimately lose to a more mainstream candidate.

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3034

superdelegates.org

Re:SuperDelegates

[dkleinsc]

The purpose of superdelegates was to prevent the Democratic Party from nominating another George McGovern. However, that seems like an unnecessary step given that one of the reasons McGovern was nominated in 1972 was that some nice fellows over in the White House and CRP were derailing his competitors' campaigns. (For instance, the "Canuck Letter" along with a front-page attack on Ed Muskie's wife ended the Muskie campaign.)

Re:SuperDelegates

[stranger_to_himself]

It's actually closer to the way the British House of Commons appoints party leaders. The Labour party's leadership is decided by a bizarre combination of Labour members of parliament (think congressmen), trade unions, and party members, except for this time when Gordon Brown succeded without any contest at all. The Tory party I think only poll their own members of parliament, but sometimes ask the party membership for their opinion in some kind of unofficial non-binding way.

The Lords are directly appointed by the government. The Queen was appointed by God (or by her ancestors hacking other people to death, which is kind of the same thing).

Re:SuperDelegates

[Kjella]

Only because the US system is so geared towards a two-party system that this is the "election" of what'll be on either side of the coin. In a system where there's room for more parties, I wouldn't care if someone formed a party where they were chief overlord and appointed minions dictatorically. It'd be a "take it or leave it" choice where you'd have no control over the composition, but I don't see how that's a threat to democracy. In a normal democracy, a new party would form if the old was lousy and they'd work together in coalitions and such while both trying to attract voters. However, no matter how fucked the primaries would get, I don't see either the "New Democrats" or "New republicans" forming. I would say that's a disturbing sign for democracy, but somehow it hasn't fallen apart yet.

Re:SuperDelegates

[roystgnr]

Party activists at the lower ranks of the party would tend to select the most extreme candidate, who would ultimately lose to a more mainstream candidate.

Ah, so if it turned out that one candidate beat John McCain in six out of nine of this year's opinion polls, whereas the other candidate lost to John McCain in seven out of ten polls this year, the one who was more likely to win would be chosen by the superdelegates, even if the one who was more likely to lose had better party connections?

That sounds like a wonderful system, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that it will actually work that way.

Re:SuperDelegates

[Valdrax]

Yes. It bugs the heck out of me. Especially as an Obama supporter since before Super Tuesday, Obama has an elected delegate lead but Clinton had a superdelegate lead, if I recall correctly.

I really like the facts that the Democratic Party has proportional voting, unlike the Republicans, but why do we have such a patrician system for power brokering? Superdelegates need to go.

Re:SuperDelegates

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this really any different than the electoral college? Very likely all the superdelegates will do is try to determine where momentum is going and then vote for that person. Most likely, they will choose which candidate they thing will have a better shot at winning the election rather than the person they would prefer to be in office.

Of course, my knowledge of the super delegates is not even 12 hours old. The only part that really irks me is that I never learned about them in school.

Damn you Slashdot!

[SatanicPuppy]

I see that AGAIN, no one bothered to report on Ron Paul's stunning 3rd place finish in Alaska, solidifying his popularity in all of the coldest states. WHY ARE YOU ALL SO PREJUDICED?

Re:Damn you Slashdot!

[The Aethereal]

That wasn't a very skillful troll. Anybody can start a Ron Paul flamewar.

Re:Damn you Slashdot!

[SatanicPuppy]

Meh. I was just making a joke. The damn Paulites take themselves way too seriously.

Re:Damn you Slashdot!

[IndustrialComplex]

I voted for Ron Paul as a fuck you to the other republican candidates. I don't really care for Ron Paul, but the more it irks the others that he is there snagging votes, the better.

Now, if we could get someone who could speak like Huckabee, wanted to cut the bloat of the federal government, and didn't come across as a manchurian candidate of the evangelical christians...

Re:Damn you Slashdot!

[dkleinsc]

I'd say a better argument for actual prejudice can be found by scrolling to the bottom of TFA, and noticing that they have pages all about every candidate remaining in the race except Gravel and Paul.

Retail vs. Machine

[malchus842]

To me, it looks like Obama does better when politics are retail and Clinton when politics are machine. No surprise there, really. The question is, I think, can her machine bring in enough delegates to seal the deal. I don't think so.

I would say we are in for a brokered convention, and anything could happen. Heck, they could nominate Al Gore!

Clinton versus Obama

[Henry V .009]

I know that Clinton hate is big on the internet, but she may actually be the best democratic candidate. Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama (see Krugman) and she won both California and New York yesterday, which matters a lot for the general election. My own opinion about Obama is that Bill was right, he is a fairy tale. People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate. It's almost straight out of Shawshank Redemption or the Shining. Sure, he distinguishes himself by being out front on the Iraq War, but Clinton has a pretty good record on Iraq for the past several years, which does matter.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[n0dna]

A lot of people also support him just because he isn't Hillary. As most of the pundits have stated thousands of times before, Hillary is no one's second choice. She has had all of her supporters from day one. As the other candidates drop out, their supporters go to whichever non-Hillary candidates are left.

For my part, I'll be sitting this election out unless Hillary gets the nomination. If that happens, I'll go just for the purpose of voting against her.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SatanicPuppy]

Screw that. Their heath plans are practically identical, and neither one of them has a chance in hell of being passed "as is" by even a Dem congress.

As for Hillary being the "best" candidate, she wouldn't even be in the running if her last name wasn't Clinton, and I for one am sick to death of nothing but goddamn clintons and bushes. She represents nothing but special interests and a half-assed political status quo.

What Obama has, above and beyond his "magical blackness" (which is some nice racism there, since he's got nothing more or less than Bill Clinton had on the way into office, but that wasn't a big deal apparently) is the ability to actually undo some of the goddamn partisan hackery that has dominated our political process for the last 30 years or more. Another Clinton can only make that worse, if that's even possible.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[timster]

Krugman is campaigning for Hillary, so it's not surprising that he'd try to confuse people about Hillary's mandatory health-care plan. The major difference is that with Hillary's plan, bureaucrats in Washington are going to decide how much you can "afford" and pull it out of your paycheck, pretending it's not a tax. Obama's plan is to work to make the coverage affordable, but people will get to choose on their own.

Krugman's response is little more than "but... but... Obama mandates care for children!" Yeah, he does, but there's a difference between children and responsible adults.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Henry V .009]

Whoa, accusing me of racism because I disagree about your candidate. Fuck you. You really prove that the Obama candidacy has nothing to do with race.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[RedK]

No, he's accusing you of racism because you made a racist remark. Obama is more than just "that black guy running". If you'd bothered to actually listen to him and read up on his campaign plan, you'd know that.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama

Sadly, her health care plan is irrelevant. The republicans hate her and have spent years saying her health care plan is horrible. There's no way they'd let her do anything one health care. Rationality isn't in play here. It's all about ego and revenge.

I support Obama, because he's not a babyboomer. I'm sick the of 1960's political division. I don't consider someone who is half Kenyan to have much in common with urban blacks in America. Then, I get most my news from the radio, so I don't really know who's black and who isn't except the few days I listen to the right wing station.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[geminidomino]

For my part, I'll be sitting this election out unless Hillary gets the nomination. If that happens, I'll go just for the purpose of voting against her. That's funny. I'll be sitting it out if she does.

I'm finished with the self-defeating "voting against" game.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Steve525]

People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate.

I don't think race is a big reason why white people are voting for or against Obama. (Race might be important for other groups, but I don't know enough to speak intelligently about that). I think people like Obama because, well, he's likable. He comes across as very personable and very intelligent (and not in that "I know more than you" way that other Democratics can sometimes come across). I think he comes across as too idealistic (and often says little of substance), but I still think he's a good candidate.

With these two candidates, there has been a stong preference depending on age. The young like Obama and the old like Clinton. I fall somewhere in the middle, and I'm somewhat torn. I'd be happy with either, so my biggest concern is who can win against McCain. (Honestly, I wouldn't be too unhappy with McCain as long as he doesn't begin to pander to the religous right - which may happen by taking Huckabee as a VP on his ticket).

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I know that Clinton hate is big on the internet, but she may actually be the best democratic candidate. She's the best if you want an unprincipled centrist who will say anything to get votes. She's the best if you don't mind the Presidency being passed from one family to another (Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, Bush to Clinton). She's the best if you want yet another Baby Boomer who knows bugger-all about modern technology, and is willing to interfere with adults in the name of "protecting the children". If the rumors are true, the only good thing about Hillary Clinton may be her taste in women.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[dalutong]

Um... winning New York and California in the democratic primary has little to do with who should be president when considering electability. The only question is, did McCain's success indicate that he could beat Obama but not Hillary? I suspect both of those states are going to Democrats no matter what, so it doesn't matter if Hillary won them. I think it is much more notable how well Obama did in the not-necessarily-blue states. He had some states with ~50% difference between the two. That, I think, indicates that those states might be ones that would elect Obama but not Hillary. (You'd have to do more analysis of whether those were independents, etc, since the democrats would, at least in large part, probably stick to party.)

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Henry V .009]

Obama's plan is more expensive because it's not mandatory (healthy 20-somethings won't sign up). It will actually cost more. Where does the money for Obama's plan come from? I'll give you a hint: Not the tooth fairy. It will come from taxes: people's pay checks.

As House likes to say, "everybody lies." Even Obama.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SuiteSisterMary]

But the election *IS* about race. And gender, for that matter.

All the coverage I've seen and heard points out that Hillary gets the woman vote, Obama gets the Black vote, Hillary gets the Latino vote, Obama gets the 'educated' vote (which, according to all the news outlets, is separate from the Black vote) and that it's a big surprise in Mass, because people rejected Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

In other words, according to American news coverage, it's expected to vote along racial and gender lines, and a suprise when people don't vote for who they're told to vote for.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[timster]

Now the liar is you -- Obama's plan is cheaper.

See Krugman himself: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/ -- $102 billion from taxpayers from Obama's plan, $124 billion for Hillary's.

Hillary's plan costs taxpayers less PER PERSON, but the dodge is that she forces people to pay in who don't want to. This doesn't help those people, and only serves to make the numbers look better and let her brag about "universal" care.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Ambidisastrous]

Certainly it's not the appeal in California and New York that matters, it's the appeal in swing states in the Midwest. Hillary's states will vote Democratic no matter what; it's states like Ohio and Colorado that will decide the winner in November.

Krugman is right that the Clinton plan is a much better way to get universal coverage. But if Obama wins, that plan won't just vanish in a puff of smoke; Congress (who actually draft the bill) will still have access to it. And, the key strength of the plan -- a mandate requiring everyone to have insurance -- will probably be a weakness in getting the bill past small-government Republicans.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[AIkill]

Alright, thats it. Shut it the both of you. Can we stop acting like a bunch of bickering bureaucrats? Now with that out of the way, I say that both have some good ideas, but I have to support Obama. Fact is, we have to consider what kind of influence Bill will have over Hillary if she gets elected. In a way, it her election could become an indirect way for Bill to get back into office (abet indirectly). I think what we need is a president that is a relatively fresh face, one who does not have parents or family that were presidents or similar. And Obama's openness is something I think we could all use (instead of the never ending 'black ops'). The main reason I won't support Clinton, though, is that she was for the bills against violent video games (I can't remember where, but I think she also said at one point in time that violent video games should be banned outright) Thats it for my short rant (preps for flames, trolls, et al.)

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[bwalling]

I'm sorry, but the significant hate against Clinton is exactly the reason not to vote for her. She will get absolutely zero done because the Republicans will fight every breath she takes. It will be the nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember. You cannot be a good leader if you are extremely divisive. How can you effectively lead when half the people you are trying to lead truly hate you?

They may have some policy differences, but they really aren't that different, and people actually like Obama and he inspires people. That's a really important point. Positive is better than negative in more ways than just feel good BS. One of Reagan's biggest benefits was his positive, likable personality. Same with the previous Clinton.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[bendodge]

Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama I quit reading there. Her health care plan is socialism, plain and simple. Everyone pays for everyone else. The government has no business whatsoever taking charge of healthcare or other personal responsibilities.

If you want to see how that works, just visit the UK, where they have Hillary-style healthcare and it takes five weeks to get heart surgery.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Henry V .009]

This doesn't help those people

I take it that you don't have health insurance? Because everyone knows that 20-year-olds never get appendicitis and need to pay for unexpected medical expenses.

And "universal" care is something to brag about, you dumbass.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[hal2814]

"Sadly, her health care plan is irrelevant. The republicans hate her and have spent years saying her health care plan is horrible. There's no way they'd let her do anything one health care. Rationality isn't in play here. It's all about ego and revenge."

They'd have a lot less ammunition if her previous stab at universal health care wasn't horrible. Hillary's current proposed version of universal health care is a lot closer to Romney's current Massachusetts plan than it is to her previous fiasco. People think Hillarycare equates to not being able to chose your own doctor. That's not the case anymore but since it once was the case, she's going to have to fight that image and she has no one to blame but herself for that.

Revenge? For what? For helping deliver the Republican majority in 94 by very publicly championing an asinine health care package just before the mid-term elections? They ought to to be thanking her. She ought to be a hero to the Republicans.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Mongoose Disciple]

She's the best if you don't mind the Presidency being passed from one family to another (Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, Bush to Clinton).

Regardless of who you think should be president, I think this particular argument is terrible, since it essentially equates Bill Clinton's presidency, which -- whether you think Bill deserves much/any of the credit for it or not -- was probably the most prosperous America has been in my lifetime -- with the G. W. Bush presidency, which has been craptacular on many levels.

I mean, if you think Obama or McCain or whoever will be a better president, by all means, vote for them, but you've got something loose in the head if you're doing it because OMG the Bush dynasty needs to end.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SatanicPuppy]

Please, a black man running for president and it has nothing to do with race? Don't be naive. Of course it's an issue. But saying that the only reason he's anything is because he's black? That's pretty racist; I'm from the South, I know racist when I hear it. I think the way it is in this country, especially on a national level, a black candidate still has to be "better" than an equivalent white candidate to be elected to national office.

I voted for him because I think his experience is interesting, I think he's a smart guy, and I find his message compelling. I think he's a uniter not a divider, and I think he has good intentions and good ideas. I sure as hell didn't vote for him because of his race, because that doesn't mean anything to me. This'll be the 4th presidential election for me, and the first time I've ever had the opportunity to vote (even if only in a primary) for someone I honestly believed would do a good job, and not just a slightly less bad job.

Clinton? I used to live in New York. Do you know what it takes to get elected as a New York politician? They play the game with the best up there. I am damn tired of the game. Her whole campaign has been about the game. Screw that.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[timster]

I have kidney disease, diagnosed at the age of 19, which required transplantation and still requires prescription drugs that would cost thousands of dollars a month if I didn't have health coverage.

Let's back off for a second. First, you accuse people of voting for Obama only because he's black. As proof you offer Krugman's diatribe claiming that Hillary's health care plan is superior. I offer you some counter-arguments and you make a false statement while calling Obama a liar. Then I say that forcing people who cannot afford health care to purchase it doesn't help them much, and you call me a dumbass. We've gotten a long way from your original theory that people only vote for Obama because he's black. Care to issue a retraction?

Sure, 20-year-olds can get diseases by surprise. But that doesn't mean that the government healthcare is automatically a good deal. In Hillary's plan, the government makes it "affordable" by demanding that you afford it. Obama's plan ensures that if the government healthcare isn't a good deal, people don't have to buy it. I think this is a fundamental matter of personal choice, that's all, and that's one reason I prefer Obama to Hillary. It's not because he's black; it's not because he's a liar; it's not because I'm a dumbass.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Jaeph]

As an independent (color me libertarian, if you like), I see Clinton's and Obama's stated platforms as essentially identical. However, I view Clinton's debate and campaign tactics with such disgust that I really hope Obama cleans her clock. At least Obama works to be civil and consistant, and presents himself relatively as-is.

On a sidenote, I'm also amused at the whole affair. The democrats, supposedly the party of equal rights, free thinkers, intellectuals, are actually robotically lining up along gender/racial lines. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning after a primary. :-)

-Jeff

P.S. Do not infer from this that I consider the republicans any better. Their primary is proceeding along different, but equally amusing lines.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[n0dna]

Me too, and I've been saying it for years. There's no point choosing or not choosing between the candidates we get. Believe it or not, if it was/is anyone but her, I'm content to just ignore it.

Call it what you will, but I'm Anti-Hillary. I don't like her stance, I don't like her agenda, I don't like her politics, and I don't like her ties. She's the only person on earth that I would like to slap harder than G.W.

Maybe I'm spoiled on the system, but I first voted in "Wimp vs. Shrimp." It hasn't gotten any better since.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Henry V .009]

You called me a liar, and now you whine when I respond with something as mild as "dumbass?" Hint: Don't start shit.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[DesScorp]

"What Obama has...is the ability to actually undo some of the goddamn partisan hackery that has dominated our political process for the last 30 years or more"

Christ Jesus, if I hear one more time how Obama is going to unite the country...

Look, NO ONE is going to unite this country. This country is too divided among large groups of people with very strong, and very different ideas of how to do things. You think just because Obama is a good speaker that all of the sudden, Republicans are going to go "hey, this guys speaks well, just like Reagan! Let's get behind him!". That's a fantasy. It's not going to happen.

Look at the front runners; McCain and Hucabee....Clinton and Obama. None of them can even unite their own fucking parties, and you expect one of them to unite the country? Are you kidding me? Here's what going to happen. If a Republican wins, the Democrats will fight a scorched earth campaign against him. If a Democrat wins, Republicans will fight a scorched earth campaign against him/her.

That's it. That's the way it is.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[pnuema]

Disclaimer: I am pro-Obama.

That said, Hillary's health plan is better, for the primary reason that people without health insurance still get treatment. The only way non-universal health care will work is if medical providers can refuse treatment - which is currently against the law, and with good reason.

Say I run a hospital, and one of the treatments I offer, once I figure out costs and profits, should cost $100. I'm going to treat five people a month.

However, of those five, one will not have insurance, so I know I will not get paid. So what do I do? I raise the price to $125. I still get the same money as if all 5 paid. The difference is that I have just made the insured patients pay for the uninsured.

There are only two ways to fix this. Universal health care is the only one we can live with.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Praseodymn]

When, exactly, will people realize that the press run a STORY?
So he's black, she's a woman.
Who really cares? Only THE PRESS.
Why? Because ooh, ooh, it's a STORY.

Yes, I dislike Clinton because she plays up the fact that she's a girl.
Yes, I like Obama because he downplays the fact that he's black.

Was either of those responsible for how I voted?
No.
Issues were.

This male/female, black/white thing is over.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

Pras

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[nutshell42]

I don't think race is a big reason why white people are voting for or against Obama. (Race might be important for other groups, but I don't know enough to speak intelligently about that).

So what you're saying is that white people aren't racist. Only non-whites might be racist but how should you know what all those people with funny colored skins are thinking. I see.

Keep up the good work, we need more colorblind people like you.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SatanicPuppy]

Of course it is, to the people. But it shouldn't be to the candidates. To look at the returns from the South Carolina primary and see that Obama dominated among white people younger than 30, but in the 30+ demographics, Edwards came out of nowhere to catch a suspicious majority of the votes...Well, that makes you think. A lot.

I like Edwards, and I certainly don't think that everyone who voted for him is racist (I voted for him myself, the last time around, and I'd like to see him as someone's VP) but I think he caught a serious boost from Bubbas who couldn't handle a woman or a black man as president. In that 30-40 demographic, somewhere, there is a year where racism lost the upper hand, and as a Southerner (and South Carolina native) that makes me pretty happy.

So yea, clearly an issue for people. But to have the candidates pulling the race/sex card? That's intolerable, because they're playing to prejudices that damn well do exist, and if they're willing to do that to win, then they're scum. We've seen enough of that shit.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you either intentionally lied or you were ignorantly spouting as fact something that you were merely bullshitting about. Either way, you were in the wrong.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SuiteSisterMary]

So yea, clearly an issue for people. But to have the candidates pulling the race/sex card? That's intolerable, because they're playing to prejudices that damn well do exist, and if they're willing to do that to win, then they're scum. We've seen enough of that shit.

Is it? And I'm being serious here. Is it 'racist' or 'wrong' for, say, a Black candidate to point out that, being Black, they probably have a better handle on 'Black issues' than a non-Black candidate? Or that a female candidate might be a bit more inclined to deal with 'female' issues, like, say, promoting Woman's Health, possibly revising sexual assault laws, maybe working toward getting rid of a notional 'glass ceiling?'

In other words, is it racist to say 'I'm not voting for the Black candidate, because he's Black (and I, by inference, am not) versus is it racist to say 'I'm voting for the Black candidate because he's Black (and I, by inference, am) versus 'I'm voting for the Black candidate (even though I, in this case, am not Black) because it's 'time for a change' and we've never had a Black President'?

Seriously. What's the difference between voting for, say, an industrialist, because you're in industry, voting for, say, a pro-'tough on crime' candidate, because you're of a 'tough on crime' mindset, and voting for a Black candidate, because you're Black?

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

What a moron you are. The guy completely destroys your argument and shows you as the fool you are, and all you can say is "don't start shit".

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[timster]

Well, there is another possible way that's been suggested, though the details haven't been ironed out. Suppose you don't have coverage and go to the hospital with appendicitis. They treat you and present a bill for $5000, which you can't pay.

These days they just write it off and throw a debt collector at you, which makes other people pay for your care as you say. Under Hillary's plan there would presumably be less of this, though it's hard to eliminate entirely (illegal immigrants? foreigners? the homeless?)

The other way is to give you the option of joining the government system to get the bill paid, but with a penalty. Maybe you'll pay double premiums for five years or something, or lose the option to leave the program, or heck, the government could take it out of your social security later on. There are a lot of options in between sticking the hospitals with the costs and forcing people to buy coverage from the government.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Copid]

If you want to see how that works, just visit the UK, where they have Hillary-style healthcare and it takes five weeks to get heart surgery.

Or hang around here where our solution to the problem is just not to perform necessary heart surgery on some people at all. No system is without its costs.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Steve525]

So what you're saying is that white people aren't racist.

Oops, my statement kind of came out that way, didn't it? No, it's more that most white racists aren't registered Democrats. (insert smiley face here). If you look at the polls, race doesn't seem to that much of a factor for white people voting. Women favor Clinton, older people favor Clinton, young people favor Obama, white males are pretty well split.

Only non-whites might be racist but how should you know what all those people with funny colored skins are thinking. I see.
Yes, the truth is I'm much better at understanding what's happen in my culture than someone else's. In addition, if you look at the polls, black people do favor Obama over Clinton to a large extent. I could have pointed that out before, but I didn't want to be accused of being racist.

Keep up the good work, we need more colorblind people like you.
Like it or not, we all have our prejudices. The best we can do is do our best to treat people fairly (and equitably) despite them.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Steve525]

I just want to add that, you are right. It is impossible to know how much race is impacting the white person's vote. It could be that if an equally charismatic young senator was running instead, he would be doing much better or worst. There's no real way of knowing. My original point was, I don't believe that race is that much of a factor (with white people, at least), and I still believe that to be true.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Poppa]

Listening to the local alternative radio station, expecting the typical anti-conservative lies. But, Oh My God, one (female) DJ was going on like "I don't know whether to vote for the african-american or the woman. Can you imagine the difficult choice if I was a black woman!"

Uh, maybe the Leader of the Free World should be chosen by their stance on the issues instead of whether they are black or female?

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[msheekhah]

Yeah, I'm tired of the Bush and Clinton dynasties. I'm hoping Obama can bring some real... change (shoots himself)...

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[The Analog Kid]

She will get absolutely zero done because the Republicans will fight every breath she takes.

So good government is suddenly a bad thing? Having a government that is too fast is a bad thing, we've seen this from 01-06, earmarks ballooned, and Congress bent over for whatever the Bush administration wanted. The only problem is that it would be difficult reversing the damage done by the current administration, and I think Hillary would like the power a bit too much to give it up.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[bwalling]

A government that relentlessly fights is not a good thing. The only thing that comes out of that government is whatever was brokered through deals, which means that each bill will come with another bill that was passed solely to get votes on the other. We need reasonable, rational, and moderate people who can think intelligently about issues and come up with measured, but effective responses instead of spending four years with each group pandering to their party's "base". Politics is ridiculous, and it's time to see something change instead of allowing the RNC and DNC to continue to feed us the BS that we have.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

better or worst

"worse".

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be the nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember.

You obviously weren't around during Nixon's second term. I was. Maybe you should replace "anyone" with "anyone under 30".

OTOH, Nixon's second term didn't last four years.

OTOOH, things started getting nasty before his second term started.
So, let's see... Nixon resigned in August, 1974, so the nastiness would have had to start in (or before) August, 1970 for it to be the "nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember". The Kent State "massacre" (if you can call the murder of four people a massacre) occurred in May, 1970, which was pretty nasty. Jane Fonda did her pose with the North Vietnamese AA gun sometime in 1970 or 1971, IIRC, which was pretty nasty. The Mei Lai (sp?) Massacre (which really was a massacre) occurred around then, too. So I would have to say that, yes, there were four years in there that were pretty nasty.

Conclusion: It [a Hillary Clinton presidency] may be the nastiest four years that many people, but not all people, will be able to remember.

So.....

[DigitalisAkujin]

Who thinks Obama will be Hillary's VP?

It would certainly produce a powerful ticket (or vice versa).

Re:So.....

[SatanicPuppy]

I think if it comes down to it, that might be the best ticket, but at this point it's hard to see how they could campaign together.

Still, they'd do a hell of a job splitting up the votes...Obama with the southern, male, black, and youth vote, Clinton with the northern, female, latino, and old people vote...Their support is clear cut and wildly divergent...If all those groups were pulling together?

Re:So.....

[tbannist]

I don't think it's hard to see at all. Right now they're competing for who gets the driver's seat and who gets shotgun.

Re:So.....

[SatanicPuppy]

Honestly? I think Clinton already cut a deal with Edwards in the hopes that she can win outright, and bring him in as VP...With Edwards splitting up the EC votes, that would have been impossible; she'd never have managed to score a majority. If she manages to score one now, then she can choose whoever she wants.

I think the only way they'll be a team is if its really too close to call, and it gets brokered.

Re:So.....

[4D6963]

It would certainly produce a powerful ticket (or vice versa).

I don't doubt that from the voter point of view it would be indeed a powerful and federating combination, but from Obama's point of view well I'm pretty sure he'd like Edwards or actually anyone but Clinton as his VP.

Oh wait, you said Obama being Hillary's VP? My pro-Obama bias again, sorry. Yeah I totally see that happening.

Re:So.....

[IndustrialComplex]

I don't think it's hard to see at all. Right now they're competing for who gets the driver's seat and who gets shotgun.

Before Cheney, I would never have considered that statement to be literal.

Re:So.....

[AmaDaden]

After all the shit she said about him? I doubt it. In fact if they joined up after the primarys I would totally lose my faith in Obama. I can't help but see Hillary as more of the same. She has said some nice things but in the past she seems just as bad as your average politician. I know Obama might also be more of the same but at least we have a chance of change with him.

Re:So.....

[kellyb9]

Who thinks Obama will be Hillary's VP? Nobody. Ever. Not in a million years. Nope. No Way. Probably Not.

Re:So.....

[cthulu_mt]

I know Obama likes to draw parallels between himself and JFK, but with Hillary as VP he may be pushing his luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_foster

Re:So.....

[Stradivarius]

I think having the two on the same ticket would actually work to their disadvantage.

Suppose Obama wins the nomination. His whole message is about change, a break from the usual partisan bickering. Clinton epitomizes the partisan combativeness and "politics of personal destruction" he's arguing against. If she was on his ticket, she would undermine the primary source of his appeal to independents and Republicans. He'd end up spending time either defending her (looking hypocritical), or trying to avoid those issues (looking weak or dishonest), neither of which is a good place to be in.

Suppose Clinton wins the nomination. It's hard to see what Obama brings her. As above his unity appeal is largely negated by her reputation. And even if it wasn't, the VP role is usually to play "bad cop" to the President's "good cop", which is especially important if Hillary's going to try to seem less divisive. Bad cop is not Obama's strength, and Hillary really needs someone to do her dirty work for her, so she can try to improve her image.

Re:So.....

[Kjella]

Wait... you mean there is a driver's seat to the United States, with steering wheel and pedals? And can we please have a driver's license exam? Or do you mean the ride shotgun" expression, which refers to the quite literal armed defender on a stagecoach? Or maybe I'm just being an asshat picking on a good joke :)

I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from MA

[Enry]

How did Romney win this state? The lone newspaper in MA that endorsed Bush in 2004 over Kerry endorsed McCain and Hillary. The editor of the paper went off about how bad Romney was when he was governor. Though the reasoning for voting for Hillary is just stupid (Bill was a bad guy, but Hillary gets credit for sticking by him, therefore she should be the Dem nominee?).

Sick of Huckabee

[daninspokane]

He needs to drop out. It is a 2 man race... and Huckabee is being a chump. People should know when they are defeated!!!!! He's just leeching votes away from who they should REALLY go to, Romney.

Re:Sick of Huckabee

[timster]

Sorry, but when the man wins entire states he has a right to keep trying, especially since he's spent so much less money than Romney.

Re:Sick of Huckabee

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Yes, it is a two-man race. McCain and Huckabee. Romney has no base except for Mormons and the ultra-right wing talk radio crowd.

Re:Sick of Huckabee

[k_187]

Exactly, if you look at states that caucus and states that vote, Romney has won almost all of the caucus state (with Huckabee getting a few) and McCain the primary states. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I'd imagine that the makeup of caucuses have a lot more party-faithful than a primary.

Re:Sick of Huckabee

[EveryNickIsTaken]

And he's endorsed by Chuck Norris!

Re:Sick of Huckabee

[daninspokane]

I.. Did... not know that... Well freak I think I might change my vote. Any friend of Chuck Norris is a friend of ass kickery.

Re:Sick of Huckabee

[halivar]

No way. I don't want Norris' man as president. That's a waste of resources. I say Obama (when he wins) should make a Dept. of Ass-Kickery and put Huckabee in there. He won't need a budget: he can get Chuck to shake down the IRS for their lunch-money.

Re:Sick of Huckabee

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Its much closer to a one man race now, if that makes you happier. Its a much smaller margin between Romnney and Huck in delegates, than between them and McCain. Really, toss a coin to pick the "second Man" in the race.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M

[k_187]

Because he used to be governor there? I don't know if MA has closed elections, but if so, Romney was the most popular candidate among Republicans, not the whole state. If not, people like to vote for people they know, that's why (among many other reasons) incumbents win more often than not.

It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November

[R2.0]

At least for the Repubs. The conservative right, while bloviating at the top, is more practical at the bottom. so here is how the equation is going:

McCain>Hillary
McCain=Obama
Romney=Hillary
RomneyObama

In this equation, McCain has the best chance of winning, and conservatives would rather get half a loaf than none at all.

Re:It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November

[Anonymous Coward]

Try listening to conservative talk radio. They hate McCain and constantly ridicule him. It's as bad as what they do with Hillary. As far as the rest, they seem to have no clue. Rush is even scared to state any opinion among the rest and maintained his "sacred right" to not tell people who he voted for. So much for his godly talent to always be right. I'm laughing my ass off. I've never seen the right wing nut jobs in such a tizzy.

Re:It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November

[R2.0]

I guess you missed where I said "The conservative right, while bloviating at the top"

The "celebrities" of the right harbor a dirty secret - the NEED Hillary to win. Their shows and blogs do best when there is someone to rail against. And what do they lose if Hillary or Obama is elected? Nothing.

They aren't afraid of socialized medicine - they can afford paying cash out of pocket for the best private care.

They aren't afraid of losing 2nd amendment rights - they have bodyguards who carry guns for them, or already have their concealed weapons permits (I'm looking at YOU, Feinstein - OK, not a conservative, but the principle applies).

So it's in their best interests to try to damage McCain, as he has the best chance of winning. But the rank and file, who ARE worried about these things, see the Dems as an unmitigated disaster, where McCain is merely tolerable.

Re:It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November

[Anonymous Coward]

In this equation, McCain has the best chance of winning, and conservatives would rather get half a loaf than none at all.

Regardless of who he goes up against, McCain is going to have a hard time winning a general election with a promise of a hundred more years of war in Iraq. A chance to go back in time and win Vietnam may appeal to McCain's old army buddies but, for the general populace, Vietnam is a war best left in the past.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M

[SatanicPuppy]

It's a really liberal state, so the conservative nomination is bound to be something of a toss up, and the state liked him enough at one point to make him governor, so it can't be that surprising.

Seriously, you should win your own state as a given. If Hillary had lost New York, she might as well have conceeded on the spot, and if Al Gore had won Tennessee we'd be arguing about what repub would be running against Lieberman...God, preisdent lieberman...I just threw up a little.

Does this mean...?

[mike2R]

Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?

It's a somewhat radical concept for outsiders to get our heads around, but I have to say I think it's a good plan.

Re:Does this mean...?

[vonPoonBurGer]

Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?

He's 71, there's plenty of time between now and next November for him to work up a good, solid old-man-dementia crazy.

Re:Does this mean...?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think John "Stay the Course" McCain should be automatically considered sane. The only time he has ever stood up to Bush was when he thought it would help his presidential bid.

Re:Does this mean...?

[Beefaroni]

i am paraphrasing McCain here so bear with me... 'bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran' (from when he spoke at an American Legion) staying the course - does that mean we occupy a third nation so we get an extra army on our next turn like in Risk?

Re:Does this mean...?

[morari]

Like in Risk? Awe, man! Does that mean we're going to conquer Australia and horde all of our forces there, while using New Zealand as a convenient bottleneck against any attacking army?

Re:Does this mean...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?

No.

Re:Does this mean...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but how much longer does McCain have? You'd really have to wait until he announces the VP of his ticket. If that person is bat-shit crazy, you're just a heart attack, stroke or other malady away from our current predicament. As he'll be 72 if and when he becomes president, you really can't discount that possibility.

Delegate counts still short

[Egdiroh]

Looking at CNN, a lot of the delegate counts are still short for the democrats, based on the total number of delegates they've assigned for a lot of the super tuesday states and a the number of delegates tha they say the state has tied to yesterdays elections and caucuses. So the balance could still shift some.

Generally I've been disappointed with the reporting on the elections so far. Before super tuesday, Obama had gotten the most pledged delegates or tied with clinton in all the contests, but there were a few were they called Clinton the winner. It would be like declaring the the super bowl winner based on the number completed passes and not the score, which according to espn would make the Patriots the winner, which we all understand they are not.

Beyond my general dismay at the misrepresentation of the democratic primary results, I am frustrated with the confusion that this type of reporting causes. The outlets glaze over the actual electoral mechanics and come as close as they can to portraying each contest as a statewide popular vote. Then when the presidential election comes around they will do their best to portray it as a national popular election. First in the US not all votes are equal, electoral votes are based on # of members of both houses of congress from the state so because of each state getting two senators, the ratio of electoral votes to population, means that they people in low populace states have votes that are worth more of an electoral vote each. After that because most states are winner take all when it come to electoral votes if a candidate wins 100% of the vote in states that make up 40% of the electoral college and loses the other 60% of the electoral vote worth of states in a 48%/52% split then he would lose the election but would have won the make believe nationwide popular election by a pretty good margin, and people would be pissed, and feel cheated. And most of the time they would blame it on the disparity of the states in the electoral college.

The worst part about all this electoral confusion is that blaming the electoral college is how you make sure the system never changes. The electoral college is based on squarely in the constitution and would be a major undertaking to change. However the constitution has nothing at all to do with how each state allocates there votes. That can be addressed on a state by state level. Currently most states are winner take all. Which means that a thousand or so voters (or the fraud perpetrated on a thousand or so voters) can decide millions of peoples worth of vote. If all the states switched to proportional voting then the margins for how much the popular vote can differ from the results would decrease. It would also severely reduce the rewards for disenfranchising voters, and candidates would have to do a better job of appealing to the majority. If you don't like the elections don't bitch about the electoral college, work for change at the state level. Once we have the state elections behaving more inline with our expectations and at this point our desired system, we can see if we really need to tinker with the much harder to tinker with constitution.

Re:Delegate counts still short

[dkleinsc]

CNN in particular has been guilty of completely misrepresenting what counts and what doesn't count, as well as covering the horse race rather than what the candidates are saying and doing (Wolf Blitzer, I'm looking at you). For instance, they devoted significant coverage to the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries, despite the fact that those don't count. They covered the Democratic primaries and caucuses as if what counted was how many states candidates "won", not how many delegates they picked up.

Other news organizations have generally been better about explaining that it's delegates that count, and that the vote differences make a big difference.

Re:Delegate counts still short

[Anonymous Coward]

They also take polls of the voting population and report on the results, even though the polls have no power to grant delegates. They also show the candidates' victory speeches, even though they have no official power to grant delegates either.

Re:Delegate counts still short

[dkleinsc]

Polls are generally used to describe why delegates are the way they are, or what the delegate count is likely to be. The victory speeches fall into the category of what the candidates are saying and doing, which I consider perfectly legitimate.

at this point

[kevgaxxana]

hillary has enough delagates that obama can come back from; besides, he lost cali. new york and nj, and all the north states. he has lost. as for the reps, the only way huckabee or romney can win is if the south heavily outvotes the north.

Re:at this point

[EveryNickIsTaken]

* Disclaimer : this is neither trolling, nor flamebait.

Ok, now that's out of the way... You clearly have no idea how the primary/caucus system, and nominating conventions work if you're declaring Hill-dog the winner now. Why are you so misinformed?

Re:at this point

[kevgaxxana]

texas will be the deciding vote in the dem run

ARGH! Your tom foolery stops here!

[pizzach]

You jerk! I was just campaining the "facts" you posted on all of the 180 message boards I'm subscribed to. Do you realize how much time it will take to log into 180 different sites and hit the delete button!? Oh, what great pains my passions cause me. I'll have to cancel my special youtube video tapings now. At least I didn't quote you in my signature. Then I would really be ticked.

[end joke here]

Loyal Gentoo User/Paul supporter
[no here maybe]

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M

[Enry]

It's a really liberal state, so the conservative nomination is bound to be something of a toss up, and the state liked him enough at one point to make him governor, so it can't be that surprising. I lived through him being governor here, and it was pretty bad. As said in the link I gave above, Romney spent most of his time as governor going to conferences or otherwise campaigning for president. It's pretty blatant. When he said he'd announce if he was going to run, everyone pretty much already knew he was going to run - it was like Bush deciding to attack Iraq. As for health care here (his one actual accomplishment), it was merely requiring that everyone in the state get insurance. Now I have even more forms that I have to deal with at tax time to prove I had insurance last year and the costs to the state are running about 2x what was projected when the law was passed. Good jorb!

I guess I should take comfort in the fact that Obama (who came in second here) got twice as many votes as Romney.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M

[porcupine8]

How is that surprising? There were enough people total that liked him to elect him Governor; when you take away all the people who voted against him (because they probably weren't voting in the Republican primaries) why would you be surprised that there'd still be a lot of people who liked him?

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, your state voting for the former governor is the most embarrassing thing you can think of?

Not the evacuation of Boston over Mooninites?

Not the police almost killing an MIT student after sighting LEDs on her shirt?

Not stealing billions of federal dollars in a worthless project to replace a working highway with a tunnel?

Not the inability to match even a kindergartener's understanding of marriage?

Not the minor incident in 2001 where Logan Airport failed to stop a few people from boarding planes?

You may need to check your priorities again.

Texas on March 4th...

[Anonymous Coward]

...will go to Obama. Texas Democrats can't stand Hillary and a large number of (unregistered) Texas Republicans are planning to vote in the Democratic Primary for Obama to help keep Hillary from getting the delegates because they already know McCain has cinched their own party's nomination. We're looking forward to a McCain/Obama contest come November and hope to hell that Obama doesn't pick Hillary as a running mate, which he probably is smart enough not to.... because that would lose most of the swing-vote states to McCain for him. I predict McCain's running mate to be Giuliani, which would be a very smart move on his behalf, though personally I'd rather see a McCain/Huckabee ticket myself.

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[Remus Shepherd]

Don't forget the hispanic factor. Obama lost California due to women and hispanics voting overwhelmingly for Hillary. Texas, with its large hispanic population may skew the same way.

For those of us who are political junkies, this is exciting. But I can only imagine how stressful this is for people who just want someone sane in the White House.

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama lost California due to women and hispanics voting overwhelmingly for Hillary.

Some times it's good to be the wise man and objectively examine the complexity of life. Other times, it's good to be the fool and address your simple emotional needs. Generally, I think the Hispanics bring a lot to the table in California by being less of the wise man and more of the fool (emphasis on food, family, romance, etc). In this particular instance though, I sure wish the Hispanics had been a bit more of the wise man and a bit less of the fool (emphasis on a critical and objective analysis of the inconsistencies in Hillary's campaign statements - on one hand she's the experience candidate but on the other hand she got tricked into supporting the war. WTF?).

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[flyingsquid]

But I can only imagine how stressful this is for people who just want someone sane in the White House.

Which is why the Cult of Obama frustrates me. As a young, white, left-wing male, my demographics predict I should be an Obama supporter, but I'm not: he's my #3 choice; Hillary is my #1 choice and McCain is #2.

After eight years of the incompetent Bush presidency, I don't care about charisma. I don't care if the candidate is someone who'd I'd like to have a beer with. I don't give a rat's ass if they can make fancy speeches. I want someone who can get shit done, right.

Sure, Obama's speeches are laden with inspiring messages of hope... I don't give a damn. We've suffered enough from eight years of well-meaning idealists. Replacing a bunch of right-wing idealists with left-wing idealists is not going to help, we need realists in power. I want someone who can implement practical policies to deal with the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, repair international relations, and get legislation passed. Hillary strikes me as a smart, shrewd, competent political operator. McCain strikes me as a very level-headed guy. Obama strikes me as bringing platitudes and inspiration to the tables, not policy solutions. Until he's convinced me that he's the best guy to solve problems, not just take principled stands and make stump speeches, he can be as articulate as he wants, he remains a distant third.

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[ConceptJunkie]

Hillary Clinton can game the political system, no doubt. In that aspect, she is smart, shrewd and competent. But when it comes to "getting things done", what's she got to show for herself? In that regard, I don't see any difference between her and Obama. Their positions on the "issues" are almost identical. She never held an elected, or even an appointed position before 2000. She wants to take credit for all of her husband's successes, but always has a bullet-proof alibi when it comes to his failures, after all, she wasn't in on the security briefings, etc, etc. So while you point is well-made, I don't see how Senator Clinton fits your bill as someone who can get something done. She's never _run_ anything, and her record in the Senate has been lackluster at best.

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[techno-vampire]

emphasis on a critical and objective analysis of the inconsistencies in Hillary's campaign statements - on one hand she's the experience candidate but on the other hand she got tricked into supporting the war. WTF?

Here in California, I heard a lot of Romny ads asking a very pertinent question: just what experience does Hillary really have? Except for Senator, what public office has she held, and what experience does she have running anything? And you know what? I think that's a very good question. I'd like to know just what this experience is that she claims to have, because from where I sit, it doesn't look like it exists.

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[flyingsquid]

Except for Senator, what public office has she held

Because, you know, being a senator doesn't count. And of course, all she ever did when Bill was in office in Arkansas and D.C. was bake cookies and iron shirts.

In my field I've gotten to know a couple of men, academics who were near the top of their field in terms of their accomplishments and reputations. And what both of them had in common were very hardworking, intelligent, capable wives. One in particular would see his research basically grind to a halt overnight if she ever left him, because she's the person who does the organizing, the networking, the making sure things get done, she edits papers, she's basically on the Blackberry 24/7 keeping his entire career running. These wives do a hell of a lot of the hard work, and their husbands get all the credit, and I'm sure if either were to apply for a job, people would say, "but what did she ever do? She doesn't have that much experience," because he was the one who got the title, even though they were a team. I could be wrong, but I get the impression that much of the time, Hillary and Bill's relationship was a lot like that. If so, then that means she has picked up one hell of a lot of valuable experience, probably almost as much experience as Bill has, even if it's not the kind of experience you can put on a resumé. And frankly, I think that if the contributions women make to their husband's careers are so casually written off and belittled, well, it just underlines the extent to which misogyny and sexism linger in our society.

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[techno-vampire]

Because, you know, being a senator doesn't count.

It counts just as much for Barak Obama as it does for Hillary Clinton. I also agree that she's been a great help to her husband. However, what experience does she have being in charge of anything? What has she ever run on her own except, possibly, her campaigns?

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[dwater]

> what experience does she have being in charge of anything?

You're not married, are you?

McCain / Giuliani ticket in November

[Anonymous Coward]

In this equation, McCain has the best chance of winning, and conservatives would rather get half a loaf than none at all.

Yep, especially when McCain announces his running mate to be Rudy Giuliani, that will get even the staunchest ultraconservatives to buy into accepting him.

Re:McCain / Giuliani ticket in November

[grahamd0]

Giuliani is nobody's candidate. He's pro-abortion, anti-guns, pro-war and anti-freedom. Conservatives dislike him for the first two, liberals dislike him for the last two.

Only New Yorkers who like him for cleaning up crime and those who still think it's appropriate to live in a state of constant fear of random terrorist attacks would vote for him.

Thus he's no longer in the running.

BTW - I'm not arguing that McCain will choose Giuliani, he probably will, I just doubt it will help get him any votes.

Dems vs McCain/Giuliani GOP ticket.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a pretty good hunch that McCain has already picked Rudy Giuliani as his running mate, and it's pretty solid that McCain will become the GOP candidate.

This presidential election is going to be just as tight of a race as the last two were, and it will once again be decided by the swing-vote states, not the big ones that are always decidedly one party or the other.

This year the swing-vote states mostly all distrust Hillary Clinton, she would turn their votes to McCain, so here's what I see happening in the swing-vote states:

McCain/Giuliani vs Clinton/Obama ticket - McCain would win most all of the swing-vote states simply due to Clinton distrust and despisement.

McCain/Giuliani vs Obama/Clinton ticket - McCain would win the swing-vote states, by a fair margin, obviously due to Clinton distrust and despisement.

McCain/Giuliani vs Clinton/SomebodyElse - McCain would totally dominate the swing-vote states for obvious reasons.

McCain/Giuliani vs Obama/SomebodyElse - McCain would be sweating blood over the swing-vote states, Obama could easily get enough Electoral College votes out of the swing-vote states to beat McCain.

Re:Dems vs McCain/Giuliani GOP ticket.

[great om]

why would he pick guilani? Unless I am mistaken, he can't deliver McCain anything he needs, as evidenced by his horrible primary showing. McCain is going to pick a conservative, possibly Huckabee to shore up his support amongst the conservatives who might stay home if he's not running against the "Hilary-devil"

Re:Dems vs McCain/Giuliani GOP ticket.

[The One and Only]

McCain's not gonna pick Giuliani, probably because Giuliani appeals to the Republican base almost less than McCain himself, and on top of that, Giuliani is unlikable. He could play the Spiro Agnew to McCain's Nixon, but no one wants that. I actually think Huckabee is a more likely choice: they already work together (they made a backroom deal in West Virginia to sink Mitt Romney and keep him from winning there) and Huckabee helps McCain nail down more of the base, which he needs to do to prop up Republican turnout and keep conservatives from revolting against him.

I love the Obama campaign...

[Paiev]

...with all their signs for "change". Anyone is going to be a change from the Bush administration. Also, I love those commercials for Obama where they talk about universal healthcare. They *do* realize that their competitor, Clinton, is also for universal healthcare, right?

Re:I love the Obama campaign...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you're thinking this through. Universal heathcare is a huge amount of money to divert from the taxpayers to the private parties who fund the candidates. Multiple candidates can run on the idea, but still be vastly differentiated when it comes to who gets the money. This is going to make some people very, very rich, and if you are one of the investors who benefits from one candidate's corruption but not the other, then it fucking matters.

Politicians can run on identical platforms, but be on completely different payrolls. The differences in their plans, even if minor, suggest they came from different special interests: same industries, but different people.

Re:I love the Obama campaign...

[Paiev]

The candidates are supposed to be convincing us why they're better than their opposition (in theory, anyway). While it's very heart-warming to hear Obama talk about his mother and her cancer, his healthcare plan really isn't very different from Clinton's. (note: the only reason I'm calling out Obama is because I've seen far too many of his universal healthcare commercials leading up to super tuesday and it's irritating to see him trying to win votes from his opposition by saying basically the same thing as them)

Meh.

[Guppy06]

In a dead heat between Clinton and Obama, Clinton will end up the winner as she's far more entrenched than her competitor and has the support the important people in the party. So then we'll end up with an election contest between her and McCain, leaving the voters to decide between the candidate that quietly supported war and torture, and the candidate that quietly supported war and torture.

Yay democracy.

Re:Meh.

[Valdrax]

Woah, woah, woah!
McCain is the only Republican candidate that's actually tried hard to *do* something to oppose torture. He's was the author of several bills and amendments to ban torture, which faced strident opposition from the Bush administration. McCain was tortured himself, after all.

If you're going to slam the guy, don't lie about one of his well-known positions that define the differences between him and the alternatives.

Re:Meh.

[Chris Burke]

That's true, and while overall I've lost a lot of respect for McCain in the last four years, his vocal opposition to torture, and willingness to flat-out call torture techniques* torture with the authority of a former POW, has allowed me to retain some of that respect.

So anyway, given that he is still far more hawkish and pro-Iranian-invasion, what this means is that your choices are like this:

McCain: Less torture, more war!
Clinton: Less war, more torture!

Man it's going to be a tough choice if it comes down to those two.

* Seriously, like you need to be a POW to call waterboarding torture. If anybody doesn't think that's torture, I'd bet you a million bucks I could change their mind with a chair, some leather straps, a hose, and five minutes with which to "persuade" them.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad (to say the least) that Republicans are only capable of opposing torture if they have been tortured themselves. Says a lot about their worldview...

Re:Meh.

[Copid]

It's sad when one's position on torture actually differentiates him from anybody in the field of candidates in a modern election. I shudder to think of us reaching a point where being "anti-crime" isn't a universal position among political candidates.

Re:And biasing ourselves in the *other* direction.

[heinousjay]

I think Obama is the best available candidate as well, but for purely practical reasons. Republicans would stand in opposition to Hillary throughout her presidency on principle, Huckabee is a frightening and shallow bastard, McCain is insane and warmongering, and Romney believes in space jesus so he's pretty much out in my book. Obama wins by default. It doesn't hurt that he's likable, although it doesn't help that like all politicians, it's infuriatingly difficult to get a straight answer from him until his back is against the wall.

Oh, and Ron Paul. Yeah, like he'll even come close.

Dynasties?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I mean, if you think Obama or McCain or whoever will be a better president, by all means, vote for them, but you've got something loose in the head if you're doing it because OMG the Bush dynasty needs to end. So, how many times would you have voted to re-elect FDR, if you had been around in the 30s and 40s?

Re:Dynasties?

[Copid]

So, how many times would you have voted to re-elect FDR, if you had been around in the 30s and 40s?

Not to get into the "dynasties" debate, but there's a big difference between electing the same person over and over again because you think he's doing a good job and electing somebody else from the same family because you liked the last guy.

Re:Dynasties?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Not to get into the "dynasties" debate, but there's a big difference between electing the same person over and over again because you think he's doing a good job and electing somebody else from the same family because you liked the last guy. You're right, but let me ask you a question. Do you think it's in anybody's best interest to tolerate the existence of professional politicians? I know it's a romantic fantasy, but politics should be a dirty, thankless job that one should take on only because it has to be done. One should do the job, and then go back to real life. Instead, we have people who focus all of their ambition on getting people to give them authority over others. I can understand the impulse to want to reelect an incumbent because you think he's doing a good job. George Washington probably could have been President for the rest of his life, if he wanted to. FDR died in the middle of his fourth term. I can understand wanting to stick with a known quantity, but I don't think this is a good idea. I think it's dangerous to let somebody hold authority over others for too long. Power corrupts, remember?

Re:Dynasties?

[Copid]

You're right, but let me ask you a question. Do you think it's in anybody's best interest to tolerate the existence of professional politicians?

In an ideal world, no, but I also think that there's something to be said for not losing a particularly adept employee. I can understand the impulse for term limits, but I see it as a lazy way of implementing democracy. We should be getting rid of corrupt politicians by voting them out rather than waiting them out. If incumbency provides so much of an electoral advantage that we need term limits to crowbar the bad guys out of office, we need to reform the system or limit their powers. Otherwise, it's really our own fault.

The other practical problem for me is that the presidency is a hard job. There aren't many people qualified to do it, and the people who can do it can often make a lot more money doing it elsewhere. We're left with a field of people who want to serve and people who are attracted to power. I think that artificially limiting that field further than it has already been limited is an unhealthy idea. If you get a good one who seems to actually be serving, why knock him out of the running when you know that 95% of the possible replacements are already just bad people looking for power?

Re:Dynasties?

[Mongoose Disciple]

So, how many times would you have voted to re-elect FDR, if you had been around in the 30s and 40s?

Depends on how good of a job I thought he was doing, really.

But what you're saying a few posts above is less like that and more like saying people should never have elected FDR at all, because Teddy Roosevelt had been president previously.

comments

[nguy]

I think among Democrats, Clinton may have a slight overall lead. However, it seems to me that Obama is a more palatable choice for independents. In polls, Obama beats McCain, but Clinton doesn't. On the other hand, just about anything that can come out about Clinton has come out; there are no surprises there. With Obama, there may be issues that come up during the general election that we aren't aware of yet.

On the Republican side, McCain worries me. He seems to be breaking with some of the recent Republican traditions, but I don't see a vision for the country, he seems prone to picking more international fights that we can't afford, and I don't see what he would be doing for the economy. Still, he's a much better choice than Romney or Huckabee.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M

[cthulu_mt]

Seriously, you should win your own state as a given. If Hillary had lost New York, she might as well have conceeded on the spot Hillary is not a New Yorker. Thank you and good day.

Paul is irrelevant at this point.

[Valdrax]

Both of whom didn't manage to pick up a single state.

If the Republican Party had proportional voting, then maybe Ron Paul would have a chance of being relevant with some of his 2nd & 3rd place wins last night, but with 16 delegates and the gap between the 1st & 2nd place candidates at nearly 300 delegates, he doesn't even have a chance of influencing the convention at all.

Paul is irrelevant at this point.

Against the interests of many

[internic]

The worst part about all this electoral confusion is that blaming the electoral college is how you make sure the system never changes. The electoral college is based on squarely in the constitution and would be a major undertaking to change. However the constitution has nothing at all to do with how each state allocates there votes. That can be addressed on a state by state level. Currently most states are winner take all. Which means that a thousand or so voters (or the fraud perpetrated on a thousand or so voters) can decide millions of peoples worth of vote. If all the states switched to proportional voting then the margins for how much the popular vote can differ from the results would decrease. It would also severely reduce the rewards for disenfranchising voters, and candidates would have to do a better job of appealing to the majority.

While I basically agree with you, I think it's important to realize that changing to proportional allocation of electors is also often against a state's self interest. Basically, when the state votes for president as a block it has much more power and is more likely to get candidate attention (and promises). This might not be immediately clear, but you can look here for a good explanation of what influence the electoral college (under the winner-takes-all system currently used in most states) has based on the Banzhaf power index. Another point is that in any state with a clear majority for one party, it is against the interests of their party to switch to proportional allocation of electors. The issue of party power might be resolved by making a pact among many states (with different party dominance) to do it, but you'd still be faced with the fact that it would simply make some states less powerful.

Still, you're correct that changing the electoral college is even less likely.

Heath plans doesn't matter anymore

[Wooky_linuxer]

The guy is dead. Get over it. I didn't realize this Aussie was so popular as to have so much importance in American politics. Brokeback Mountain must've been a huge success.

Obama - Richardson

[Chris Burke]

So first off I hope Obama gets the nomination, and second I think Bill Richardson would make a great running mate. Richardson has the experience to offset what is Obama's biggest perceived weakness, and the foreign policy chops to at least stand up to what will obviously be McCain's major campaign thrust.

Ideally it'd be the other way around with Obama given a chance to get some experience as VP, but "ideal" and "U.S. election system" aren't even in ICBM range of each other. While Richardson's complete lack of exposure was crippling in his race for the nomination, that wouldn't matter in the main race as he'd automatically get air time.

Charlie Crist

[Anonymous Coward]

Charlie Crist will be McCain's running mate. That will help deliver Florida's EC votes to the GOP, which will lessen the impact of the flyover states carrying the Dems in the general election.

I mostly agree with your other assessments of the Dem vs Rep tickets. Hillary would win both the northeast and west coasts, but not enough of the flyover states to beat McCain if he cinches Florida. Obama could beat McCain today as long as he picks a non-controversial running mate.

agree 100%

[BitterAndDrunk]

Particularly since Bill would do wonders for the Hispanic vote AND was a governor, offsetting the whole "senator" thing. Not that that will really matter unless it's Romney as the Repub candidate which seems quite unlikely.

A vote for a Republicrat is a vote for Restriction

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

more than likely i will go third party as i have lost faith in both parties.

Roger that. Both sides are so focused on taking away rights, rather than protecting them, now days that you'd think they were both filled with Stalinites. If it ends up Clinton v. McCain there won't be enough differences to tell them apart. If it ends up Obama v. McCain, I will at least have to consider voting for a Democrat before finally checking off for an American instead of a Republicrat.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that surprising? There were enough people total that liked him to elect him Governor; when you take away all the people who voted against him (because they probably weren't voting in the Republican primaries) why would you be surprised that there'd still be a lot of people who liked him?

It is surprising because there should have been enough people who remember what he was like as governor. Fortunately for him, he didn't do much of anything, so people have forgotten everything but his name. And considering that half of registered voters are independent, plenty of people who didn't vote for him before could have been voting in the Republican primary. Unfortunately, all of the women voted in the Democratic primary instead, even though many of them had no idea what a primary is. When asked which ballot she wanted, the woman in front of me was totally confused, even asking "Are they different?" They had no idea why they were there or what Hillary stands for (well, that's at least understandable considering that nobody knows what she really stands for), they just wanted to vote for a woman. If you've ever driven on a road in Massachusetts, you would know that the people here are borderline brain dead when it comes to anything other than sports. Leave it to Massachusetts to pick the two sleaziest candidates.

I must not have made myself clear.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I must not have made myself clear. I said nothing about term limits. I would prefer that the people themselves did not allow people to remain in office too long. A person who is unwilling to step down after a term or two should be voted out of office because allowing him to remain only increases the probability that he will be corrupted by his authority.

The other practical problem for me is that the presidency is a hard job. There aren't many people qualified to do it, and the people who can do it can often make a lot more money doing it elsewhere. We're left with a field of people who want to serve and people who are attracted to power.

I'm not sure that anybody is qualified to be President, but that's a different argument. Frankly, I think that both elected office and traditional civil service jobs tend to attract the power-hungry. I would prefer to do away with elections, at the very least. If we're willing to fill our juries from pools of randomly selected citizens, then why not other positions in government? Why not use a lottery to choose the President from a pool of every native-born citizen over the age of 35? Why not fill the Senate and the House in the same way, using state-wide lotteries to pick from a pool of eligible citizens?

Frankly, I think political office should be as onerous as possible for those who occupy it. If office is no longer a prize to be won after months of media-saturated campaigning, but a burden to be thrust upon an unlucky individual who can only be excused if he has already served a term, the power-hungry might have to go elsewhere to get their fix.

Re:A vote for a Republicrat is a vote for Restrict

[Beefaroni]

i hear ya - unfortunately most folks see their parties as sports teams and cannot see the faults that exist within them as they are blinded by the letter beside their name. (R or D)

Obama took 80% of the Democrats in Idaho...

[srobert]

... that means 4 of the 5 Democrats in Idaho voted for Obama.

Re:Obama took 80% of the Democrats in Idaho...

[JimboFBX]

Actually its because he showed up in person while Clinton didn't.

The fact Obama is currently only 4 delegates ahead is pretty interesting, quite literally the votes from any state matter(even ones like Alaska, with only ~405 Democratic voters representing 13 delegates).

Our SC Judges Are Conservative Enough

[msheekhah]

We don't need Ron Paul to appoint any more.

ron paul

[dwater]

i don't know why anyone would consider voting for anyone other than Ron Paul.

I first heard about him when I read that he did not accept 'contributions' from corporations. I hope that is true.

I've listened to quite a few of his speaches.

No, he does not make me proud to be American.

Better than that.

He makes me want *to become* American.

Now *that's* a foriegn policy America needs!

reasons to vote for her

[r00t]

1. In the Smithsonian institution, there is a lovely display of the dresses worn on inauguaration day. The fancy inaugeration dress is a major part of tradition here in the USA. (might as well be in the Constitution) I'm dying to see Bill in a dress.

2. Inquiring minds want to know: will the interns be male? What services will they perform?

term limits

[r00t]

Better might be to allow unlimited terms, none consecutive.

Maybe even: office holders may not run for any office (the difference being whether or not they can go from one office to a different office)

Include immediate family members, of course.

The office holders supposedly have jobs to perform. If we do in fact want them doing their jobs (not true if they make things worse, but...) then we certainly don't want them running around trying to get votes.

maybe torture, but not anything serious

[r00t]

We routinely waterboard our own special forces as part of training.

Gee, it can't be that bad. I'm damn sick of these ideas that waterboarding mentally ruins a person for life, that waterboarding is pure evil, etc.

Sure, it's not nice treatment. It's a little more severe than changing a prisoner's diet to cold mush, maybe. (is that torture?)

Keeping people in prison is not nice treatment. Is that torture? Personally, if I got to choose between that and waterboarding, I'd go for the waterboarding.

Re:maybe torture, but not anything serious

[Chris Burke]

We routinely waterboard our own special forces as part of training.

Yes we deliberately torture our special forces because we are training them to endure some of the worst conditions imaginable, including being captured by the enemy.

Which means it isn't torture... how? In any event it's pretty obvious that voluntarily undergoing training exercises from people who in the end are trying to strengthen you is different than being involuntarily tortured by people who intend to break you.

Gee, it can't be that bad. I'm damn sick of these ideas that waterboarding mentally ruins a person for life, that waterboarding is pure evil, etc.

Oh, so now as long as it doesn't mentally ruin them for life, it doesn't count? It's okay? No (permanent) harm, no foul?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Sure, it's not nice treatment. It's a little more severe than changing a prisoner's diet to cold mush, maybe. (is that torture?)

Depends -- does eating cold mush instill the instinctual panic of impending death? Would you scream and beg not to be forced to eat cold mush?

I don't think you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about. I don't think you've ever so much as been lightly choked, much less nearly drowned. Give me 5 minutes, and I could clear up this cold mush vs waterboarding issue for you, I promise.

Keeping people in prison is not nice treatment. Is that torture? Personally, if I got to choose between that and waterboarding, I'd go for the waterboarding.

The part where we tacitly, and with a snicker, allow prisoners to be raped is in fact torture imo yes. Bet that has a lot to do with your decision, too.

Or maybe it has to do with you not wanting to be imprisoned for years, and thinking anything that only lasts 5 minutes is worth it. Well what if that wasn't the deal. What if you were already imprisoned, you had no idea when you were going to be released, and after they waterboarded you they just threw you back into your cell, maybe to do it again the next day? Walk in the park? Or maybe one of those other prisons where they just feed you cold mush is starting to sound good?

Honestly, people like you, I'd love to give you a taste of your own medicine. I'd love to try out a variety of techniques that don't "mentally ruin" you, see how long it takes before you decide that they're "serious", at least when they're happening to you. Most people like that are chickenhawk pussies and wouldn't last 30 seconds. People who've actually gone through it, like McCain, don't have that problem of wondering which tortures are serious or not.

Re:maybe torture, but not anything serious

[r00t]

Look, we actually kill people. (and, BTW, they often try to kill us) A little harmless torture is nothing by comparison.

Waterboarding is just some temporary misery. There is no injury. It doesn't even occupy much time.

I think you greatly underestimate the impact of things like cold mush. Stuff like that can lead to depression and ultimately suicide.

All this stuff is rather wimpy. It's that way for an American public that is too squeamish to do what needs to be done. I'd have the bastards getting giant syringes of pig blood, botfly larvae placed in or near the ear, bukkake, needless dentistry, whatever... and if it kills them I don't care. If they survive, burn them alive.

BTW, I'm not terribly unusual. About 2/3 of republicans and 3/4 of Catholics support torture.

Theodore and Franklin

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

But what you're saying a few posts above is less like that and more like saying people should never have elected FDR at all, because Teddy Roosevelt had been president previously. Not quite. Franklin would have been a distant cousin to Theodore at best, and old Teddy was long dead when Franklin ran. The Bushes are father and son, the Clintons husband and wife.