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
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.
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").