Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Demented But Determined.
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?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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!
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.
Who thinks Obama will be Hillary's VP?
It would certainly produce a powerful ticket (or vice versa).
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?).
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
This sig all sigs devours
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.
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.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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.
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.
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
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]
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I guess I should take comfort in the fact that Obama (who came in second here) got twice as many votes as Romney.
And he's endorsed by Chuck Norris!
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?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
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.
...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?
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.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
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.
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.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
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"
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
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.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
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.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
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.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
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.
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
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.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
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.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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)
... that means 4 of the 5 Democrats in Idaho voted for Obama.
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.
We don't need Ron Paul to appoint any more.
Mark Anthony Collins
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.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
> what experience does she have being in charge of anything?
You're not married, are you?
Max.
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!
Max.
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?
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.
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.
I write sci-fi for metalheads