Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal
You can read it pretty much anywhere, but Clinton took Ohio and Texas meaning that the democratic primaries are far from over. Unlike the Dems, McCain has locked his nomination for the Republicans by breaking the 1,191 delegates necessary. So there it is. Talk amongst yourselves.
It never ceases to amuse me how McCain supporters will paint Clinton & Obama as hardcore Democrats and call McCain a moderate conservative while Clinton & Obama supporters paint McCain as a hardcore Republican and argue their candidate being a moderate liberal. Because they know the moderate will garner the most votes. I guess one thing they're split on should be the war though if McCain's smart, he'll promise to remain strong in our fight yet distance himself from Bush's attitude towards it (somehow).
I keep hearing people telling me that I shouldn't worry, that everyone's fed up with the war and it's time for a change--there's no way the Democrats could lose this one! Unfortunately, it's shaping up to be all too much like the last election which left me pretty dissappointed, especially in retrospect. Well, at least Clinton & Obama aren't as stoic, wealthy and lifeless as Kerry was. One thing's for sure, I would gladly welcome McCain over Bush as president any day even if people call him a maverick senator.
My work here is dung.
Indeed, not counting the Texas caucus results (which are likely to favor Obama), Clinton's likely to come out of last night's victories net'ing less than 10 delegates, and possibly even losing ground if the caucus goes particularly well (60-40 or better) for Obama.
I'm not a registered Democrat, though I do vote for their candidates more often than not. The inconsistencies of the state party mechanisms, plus the proportional voting, does seem highly illogical. In the general, it's winner-take-all, and there's no superdelegates (unless you count the Supreme Court - 2000 election says hi). I hope the party recognizes this flaw in the system, which only stands to keep them stigmatized as the party of political procedure and not of coherent action.
That all said, if John McCain makes it through to Election Day without a single health scare, I would be very surprised. He's 72, and has a relatively poor health history. I certainly wouldn't wish ill health on him, but I do think there's a strong likelihood of at least one incident on the road.
RW
The super delegates will decide it all - the actual raw numbers don't make much difference. Winning Ohio and Texas wasn't important to Clinton due to the number of delegates she would win, but rather has very strongly reinforced the stall she is going to set out to the supers, namely "I win in the "big" states, Obama wins in the "little" states". A piece in the NYT laid it all out yesterday, pointing out that if she lost both Texas & Ohio it wouldn't make a vast difference to the numbers - due to PR - but it would leave her with virtually no storyline to present to the supers. Since she won them she has now quite a potent storyline to present - and it may end up handing her the title.
Well, Texas has a caucus. She took the primary but Obama took more in the caucus which is a smaller percentage of the delegates. As to her actually *winning* one must wonder if Rush Limbaugh may have contributed to Republicans cross-voting just to up the contention between Clinton and Obmana and further muddy the outcome for the Dems. --cally
--Cally
Sometimes I really hate being a Democrat. Sitting back and watching party leaders who seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again can make you want to weep.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Politics continues to sicken me, although not more than before. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm less sickened that I was in the past, because I now place the blame on where it should be placed: on the voters.
I don't vote (actually, I anti-vote, writing my own name in where possible). Voting is an act that provides the PTB a simple request from the voter: "Lead me as you think I should be led." I don't need a leader. My life is in my hands, as are the lives of my family. Instead of spending out of control, we save. Instead of relying on insurance for regular medical visits, we pay cash on the barrel and pay a low insurance premium just for emergencies. We eat healthy, exercise, and try to stay in shape so as not to need expensive medical visits and medication that many of our friends take (and want discounts for). Rather than being angered by people that are different from ourselves, we travel the world every year and meet those that the PTB say are our enemies. Most of the time they are people not so different from ourselves.
The country demands a leader, and they'll get one. Individuals, even the most pious and charitable, generally look out for themselves first. A leader is no different. A leader generally doesn't listen to those that he/she leads. A leader may only have said position for a few years, but will always be thinking about what they will do after their leadership position is over. In some situations, the most egomaniacal leaders may be thinking about how history will support their positions and actions.
The surprise to me is that we United States citizens believe we need a leader, at least in government. The Constitution doesn't give the President power to lead, only to execute the laws which we wanted put in place; equitable laws that infringe on everyone equally, rather than giving preferential treatment to the few at the cost of the many (or vice versa). The President is not the Commander-in-Chief until Congress actively declares war. We declared war in WW2, but since then, we have not had a legal CiC. The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States. The President isn't supposed to take positions on what he or she will support or wants to do, because the President merely reviews signed bills and their Constitutionality, and only then making the decision to support future execution of said bills into law if the bills mass Constitutional muster. Most don't.
It is sad when people demand a leader, but are too fearful of being leaders themselves. This is why I am disgusted -- not with politics -- but with you voters who have your head so far up your rears that you think your leader can lead me. I'll be forced to follow.
If the Fascists wins, it will mean higher taxes on individuals, more unregulated business monopolies and more of a Big Brother state.
The candidates can say all they want to get elected, but as history has shown, words are cheap.
When I see the candidates, all I can think of is the line from 'Armegeddon' where Bruce Willis' character sees who NASA wants to send up and he comments:
In my case, all I can think is:
This is the best we can do? I mean, we're the United States of America. You're telling me that of all the people in the country eligible to run for President, these shills are the best we can do? That's what you're telling me?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Pennsylvania on April 22. If Clinton can take Pennsylvania then she will most likely get the nomination. :=)
It is about time Obama had to face some of the issues instead of a free media pass. What is all this change he keeps carping on? All talk and no substance. His campaign is staffed by some seriously questionable folks as well. So remember.. Pennsylvania on April 22'nd folks.
Clinton and McCain are like the frat brothers Bush and Kerry. Its a scorecard power players really like.
Frankly, I wish they would just go the way of the Whigs (and take the Republicans with them while they're at it). This country desperately needs a REAL party for liberals, libertarians, and progressives. And God knows neither the undisciplined, spineless Democrat party nor the bible-thumping, war-mongering Republican party are truly serving the people.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
At a minimum we'll lose by either having a cranky old geezer who likes to throw his weight around in office through wars and limits on the Bill of Rights. The flipside is that we will end up with two tax-and-spend leftists who are both weak on civil liberties.
Those of us who remember the Clinton years from a civil liberties side remember that it was only less bad that the Bush years because the Clintons didn't have the convenient excuse of terrorism. OKC doesn't count because they dismantled the group responsible for that without much effort. McVeigh did not have the sort of connections that justified making him into the sort of boogeyman that Bin Laden could be.
I for one am sick and tired of hearing about change from everyone. No one is proposing change, unless by change you mean making us worse off than we already are. Here's a thought for all three: real change would be running on a campaign to severely limit the ability of the federal government to tax and regulate American citizens' lives instead of coming up with grandiose policies for spending our money and telling us what to do.
As I said, we'll lose no matter who wins, short of all three of these candidates dropping dead and Ron Paul being the last man standing with appeal to both sides.
one must wonder if Rush Limbaugh may have contributed
I just have to wonder if Limbaugh's advice is counterproductive.
From what I've seen in this election cycle, more than any other is that people are basically led around by the talking heads on TV. The will vote for whoever is getting the most press. With the Republican nomination cynched by McCain, the only thing that will be in the news will be Obama/Clinton. Come November, people will be saying, "McCain? Who is that?"
It isn't a matter of the media reporting badly about McCain. It is a matter of them simply overtly shutting him out of the news coverage altogether, like they did with Paul, Kucinich and later Huckabee. The talking-head, 24-hour news cycle is an extremely powerful tool that amounts to free political adds for whoever the network controllers consider a "front-runner", whether that be Giovanni or Thompson. Having Obama/Clinton being the "news of the day" for the next few months will not help McCain.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
While I believe that Gore was winnable, kerry never stood a chance. Dean did, according to polls of the time. Now, the polls show Obama will beat McCain handily, while Clinton has just an even chance (in fact, may actually lose). Yet, these dems vote for Clinton. If Obama wins, I hope that he realizes how close things are and pushes to change election laws that favor a 2 party system. We need to be multi-party system. It is the only way that we can prevent our nation from being hijacked by ppl W. or Clinton.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
On the issue of racial slurs, a noteworthy footnote in Ohio (IMHO) is that according to MSNBC 1 in 5 white voters considered race an important factor in their voting choice, and somewhere between 75% and 80% of those voted for Clinton. That comes out to something like a 10% overall spread in favor of Clinton due to racism. Of course, there's a reasonable counterargument that 1 in 5 voters in the same contest were black, and voted equally heavily for Obama. The whole "Obama is really a 5th column Muslim" thing was definitely circulating heavily as well.
And living in the Cleveland area, there were there usual problems with white suburbs like mine being easy to vote at, and black urban areas like East Cleveland being very difficult to vote at.
I am officially gone from
The Obama campaign appears to be much better organized than the Clinton campaign. Clinton tried to run an "inevitability" campaign like Bush did in the Republican primaries in 2000. When that didn't work as well as expected for Clinton, it really looked like they weren't ready with any kind of backup plan. Also, Hillary Clinton is still following the strategy that allowed Bill Clinton to win the presidency twice: ignore huge parts of the country, take others for granted, and focus on a few "swing" states to get the minimum amount of votes to win. Obama's team appears to have understood the rules of the primaries and caucuses better than Clinton's, which is surprising, given how much Clinton plays up her experience as a Senator, an activist, and yes, as the wife of Bill Clinton. I can't imagine how they could not know how Texas's apportionment of delegates works, and yet they claim they didn't. While Clinton won the popular vote in three of four states (Rhode Island, Texas, and Ohio, but not Vermont), Rhode Island and Vermont basically canceled each other out (each was a blowout and both states have few delegates). Clinton won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio, but the final delegate count will be either a very small (single-digit) number of net delegates going to Clinton or even possibly Obama padding his three-digit lead by a few more delegates.
Obama's campaign ran hard and organized even in the states where he was way ahead. The result was blowout victories, which makes a difference in the primaries, because the apportionment of delegates depends on the margin of victory. Clinton scored one blowout yesterday and was blown out in another state, so the net effect is probably about 1 net delegate for Clinton. In the bigger states, Clinton scored two narrow victories, and in Texas, the combined primary-caucus may end up giving Obama a net win in delegates.
Clinton's campaign has tried to change the rules during the contest more than once, which is really lame. There's talk that the Clinton campaign will now sue over the nature of the Texas caucus-primary, but they had the same access to the rules as the Obama campaign did. They just seem not to have planned as well.
Obama appears to be more of a party-builder, like Howard Dean and his "50 State Strategy." While moron pundits like Paul Begala derided paying party workers to "pick their noses" in places like Montana and Mississippi, Dean set up the structure not only for the Democrats' retaking both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, but also for extending their majorities and making gains in the state legislatures nationwide. Obama seems to have embraced that strategy, and it would make a difference in places like Texas, where Rick Noriega could have a chance of unseating Senator Cornyn if the presidential candidate doesn't ignore the state, and at the very least the Democrats could force the Republicans to spend money to defend what previously would have been considered a very safe seat. Clinton's campaign, as recently as last week, when it thought she might lose in Texas, was saying that "Texas does not figure into the electoral calculus of a Democratic (Presidential) candidate." That is a ridiculously narrow view, and since so many of Hillary's advisors and consultants also worked for Bill, I wonder if the Clintons' philosophy is responsible for the fact that Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, but then the Democrats almost immediately lost control of both houses of Congress, setting the stage for the Bush presidency, when White House power was basically unchecked by a Congress all too willing to let Bush and Cheney do whatever they wanted. Including taking a surplus and making it into record deficits. Oh, and a multi-trillion dollar war that destabilized the region and created more terrorists by making bin Laden and his ilk look really smart as the US government acted just as al Qaeda and others said it would.
Here's the thing: I'm pushing 40, and Bill Clinton was far and away the best president of
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
This is why you aren't a democratic strategist.
Economies at the national level are always cyclical. This is true everywhere, not just of the United States.
It is ignorant to believe you can avoid all recessions. Economics simply do not work that way.
With the Bush stimulas package on the way, the economy should rebound nicely just like it did 6 years ago with the Bush tax cuts.
He was saying that RP could win NEXT election. He has a point too. Most people still don't know anything about RP and why he said the things he did.
I am a Texas resident who voted in both the primary and caucus, and so I naturally had a stake in closely following the primary results. At no time did Obama ever lead when the primary results came in, nor is he the leader in some ubiquitous Texas "popular vote." Hillary won that as well. Texas was a victory for Hillary in every sense of the word.
We are still awaiting the returns on the caucus, but that only accounts for a mere 1/3rd of the delegates awarded to each candidate, and the early returns indicate that whatever meager advantage that Obama may have in caucus votes will be all but swallowed up by Hillary's more impressive win in the primary election. Really we're talking about hundreds of extra Obama caucus votes vs. Hillary's hundreds of thousands of extra primary votes.
Now for some light editorializing: The reason we're still waiting on caucus results in many counties is because Texas had roughly double the expected turnout. The antiquated system we have in place requires that everyone in a precinct vote in the primary election before the caucus can be held. And the inability of many precincts to deal with the added influx of voters made it so that, in many cases, caucus voting could not start until 11 pm that evening.
Obama will likely fare slightly better in the caucus in Texas, only because the core of the Democrat party--the baby boomers who constitute the majority of Hillary supporters--had families to get back to and jobs they had to get up for the next morning. Hillary supporters simply didn't have the ability to "two-step" all the way into the early morning hours, while it apparently is far easier for the young, first time voters who make up Obama's base to spend literally six hours of their time at their local middle school or fire station.
If you think it's silly to have both a primary election followed by a caucus that runs into the late hours, then you've just joined the ranks of many Texans who think it's ridiculous as well. Not only is it hard for people to get a handle on the vote once / vote again thing, but it does tend to disenfranchise hard-working Democrats who can't be out all night caucusing. A 19 year-old UT student and Obama supporter who would just be out all night anyway? Welcome to the party. A 46 year-old mother of two and Hillary supporter who has to prepare for a shift working at the hospital? Congratulations, you effectively have no say in the caucus. So that's why there is a slight disconnect between the primary and caucus results.
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see.
The parent post makes a good point, and I'd like to add something. It's pretty clear from the delegate count that Obama will be the nominee unless Clinton can convince an overwhelming majority of the superdelegates to effectively overturn the primary and caucus results by joining her even though Obama will have won more delegates. I've seen analyses showing that even if Clinton wins all the remaining contests by 16.5%, she can't catch Obama in pledged delegates. So should they wrap this up? No, I think it's good for the Demcoratic party and the eventual nominee to have the contest go on.
First, as the parent post noted, it's free press coverage for Obama and Clinton.
Next, both campaigns will be organizing and helping build a stronger party infrastructure in the remaining states. That can only help Obam... er... the Democratic nominee in November.
Also, either Clinton can keep attacking Obama like she has been (she even went so far as to say she and McCain were ready to be president, but Obama wasn't) or she can stop and "campaign" against him in a less-nasty way. Since "hope" is a big Obama campaign theme, it seems appropriate to see the glass as half full and notice the good things that can come from either one. The benefits of the second scenario are obvious - the two can play up some small differences, but also point out that the differences between them are much smaller than the differences between them and McCain, who basically appears to be running for 4 more years of the George W. Bush administration. Under the first scenario, Obama gets his response teams and processes warmed up for when the Republicans crank up the "great wurlitzer" (AKA the "noise machine") and start attacking "Barack Hussein Osama... er... Obama" and trying to associate him with Farrakhan and telling us he is a Muslim and studied in a Madrassah and is going to be a "Manchurian Candidate" kind of plant for terrorists or boogeymen or whatever. Remember how Bill Clinton was being painted as a plant of the Soviet Communists in the 1992 campaign? Yeah. Multiply that by a jillion (they've got FOX News now to do free Republican campaign commercials 24-7) and you've got an idea of how SCARY they're going to try to make Obama in the Fall.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
And Texas also allocated delegates based on turnout in the past 2 elections. Clinton won mainly in 1-delegate districts, Obama in 3-delegate districts. Clinton winning by 51% is a net-win for Obama.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
In the short run, those centrist voters may swing to Obama, but when it comes out that he is further left than McCain is right - which is true - they will be heading to McCain in droves. Americans are center-right as a rule, NOT center-left. The youth vote is ALWAYS overrated - it hasn't made an impact since JFK, and was hardly one then because he may not have won without LBJ on board, and a questionable result in Illinois which Nixon didn't pursue.
If economies are cyclical, why is it that the bad economic policies always precede the down cycles? Wouldn't they mistime it and hit an up cycle once in a while?
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
So after hearing about Clinton winning Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island, for that matter), the second thing I read about the crazy pre-election election that seems so popular in the US right now was this article:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/15492166/detail.html
Seems that someone "helped" seniors register to vote, and then filed absentee ballots in their names.
Thing is, every election, every vote, every ballot that happens in the US seems to be tainted by fraud of some sort. Identity theft, ballot stuffing, turning away voters, rigged machines, middle-of-the-night changes to the law, you name it--it's all going on, and seems to be going on all the time. The worst part is that it hardly ever raises an eyebrow from the voting public or the media. In this example, there is solid evidence of election fraud, and it's getting a few column-inches on a local website. Why isn't this on the front page of the Houston Chronicle?
Don't you people even CARE about the failure of your democracy anymore?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
IMO, this is exactly what the super-delegates *should* be used for, to counter the influence from the republican strategists. I was always under the impression that the super-delegates were in place for the good of the party. Supporting a easily beaten candidate in Nov is clearly not in the best interest of the democratic party, so what is the purpose of the super-delegates anymore?
I'm very much against not voting for someone due to a single issue, but with McCain I am going to ignore my advice. If nothing else, there is a big reason why you shouldn't vote for him. McCain is adamently opposed to Net Neutrality. His reasoning?
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Network_neutrality"
I'm sorry, but I refuse to support someone who is so engrained in thinking about big buisness that they would risk the freedom of the Internet over profits. I'm all for getting the government out of our daily lives, but this is one area where the government needs to step in and slap the telcoms in the face. Hard.
Yes, I understand that they are a buisness. Yes, I understand that it is their goal to make money...and I'm all for that. That is, after all, democracy in action.
Attempting to control the internet in the hopes of increasing profit, however, is inexcusable. The internet wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't open the way that it is, and it will crumble even further into a pile of corporate bullshit moreso than it already has if Net Neutrality is not maintained.
Living With a Nerd
You know, I spent a lot of time pondering that as well. Why does this candidate rub me the wrong way so badly? I didn't mind her husband as President and so I naturally started wondering if it was because of her gender. Was I being sexist without recognizing it? Ultimately I concluded that my biggest problem with Hillary Clinton was her personality and the almost palpable ambition she seems to give off. It's like the woman is just starving for power and will step over just about anybody or anything to get it. I haven't had this kind of negative feeling about a candidate or President since Nixon. Despite his actions I don't much get it from GWB. I do get a sense of it from Cheney however.
She goes into a series of primaries with agreeing to certain terms (like Florida and Michigan not counting for instance) and then when it seems like she might not get her way she starts making noises about changing those terms. She enters a primary in Texas fully aware of how the primary works in Texas (and any protests otherwise she might make border on being insulting in my opinion) and then again you start to hear rumblings from her campaign about the possibility of filing suit to have this changed because it does not favor her. She goes into debates talking about being "co-President" and trying to leverage her husbands coat tails (which I do not fault her for doing mind you) but then denies any real involvment when failures or negatives from his administration are brought up. I see this and think "You were either the co-President or you weren't so what's it gonna be?"
This is the kind of behavior that makes me just cringe at the thought of her being President of the United States.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I was standing in the 500 strong mob when the caucuses were supposed to open in Houston, but hadn't opened yet. They didn't open for 5 hours. The one thing I do know is the ratio didn't exactly change much, since from the beginning we were separated into groups depending on whom we were voting for. While waiting for the caucus to begin in the small public library, I asked a black woman in her 30's about her 7 year old pigtailed child sleeping in her lap: "She learning about democracy?"
"Elsewhere in the world, people walk for a day and stand in line for hours just to have a chance to vote. We're just spoiled. No one ever said change was easy" she replied.
Our ethnically and age diverse precinct (559) went 19-2 for Obama and the other precinct meeting in our library (620) went 25-7 Obama. The judge who was supposed to officiate the caucus is still MIA.
Off to work for a fortune 500....
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Third time, not second. Note that Bill Clinton, the governor of a minor State, had no real qualifications for the Presidency either.
Note also that Bill and Hillary ran in 1992 on the grounds that he wasn't a Washington insider. That was considered a good thing. Now, Hillary is running on the grounds that's she's been a Washington insider for years. That's considered a good thing.
Which is, of course, typical for politicians.
Note, finally, that there isn't any real measure of "qualification" for the Presidency that puts either Obama or Hillary at the top of the list. Luckily for all concerned, noone gives a rat's ass about "qualifications" for the Presidency....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
The Republican playbook is a general turn-off for me. Character assassination and fear mongering instead of forging plans for the future tends to be the dead giveaway. When Obama had more free reign over his campaign with all the candidates involved, he spoke of plans for the future that he was passionate about and which made sense to me in terms of feasibility. Hillary, for what little she's actually done, has little personality except for what she thinks will get her ahead.
She wants to garnish my wages if I can't afford medical insurance, eh? She wants to fight the war (any war) in XXXX (wherever) because she has vested interested in defense spending? She wants me to feel comforted in her experience by the fact that she's been cherry picked by her husband to be in positions of power for a shorter period of time that Obama has been doing public service-oriented work?
I'm sorry, her story just does not check out. I want nothing to do with her platform or her reforms. Her rhetoric reeks of a lack of substance and a motive for her own personal advancement.
Check the exit polls. The more educated, the more likely the vote was for Obama. This statement is not elitist and does not assume a college degree could trump reality or a good common sense, but the averages should speak for themselves. With a college education one ought to be able to seek truth more effectively. I've researched my candidates come to my own conclusions, and I wish everyone could do that, but that's just not realistic for 300 million people to do. So we rely on the media and the game and hope it all works out in the end.
If politics were about qualifications, I'd suspect we'd have heard more about Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich and a few others. I personally would prefer their going to the Whitehouse based off of solid records, good experience, and most important character trait a politician could have: they can't be bought. Obama has yet to be seen, though his discipline with his investments give me a good feeling. Hillary has been bought before, I'm sure it can and will happen again (keywords: walmart board labor union).
A series of absurdly racist newsletters were printed under Ron Paul's name.
Ron Paul knew about it for many years, and did absolutely nothing to stop it.
You could hardly call that "guilt by association."
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
You're not alone. I changed my registration from Libertarian to Democrat, specifically so I could vote for Obama.
It's not that I think Obama is some magical guy, I just think he's the only candidate who might not be a complete schmuck. The others have all sewn up that they're for corporate welfare (which I view as far more harmful than social welfare) and bigger government.