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.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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
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
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
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.
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).
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.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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
> what experience does she have being in charge of anything?
You're not married, are you?
Max.