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.
Now that McCain has clinched the nod, expect all those that would have voted for McCain 'when it mattered' to now vote for Clinton when possible. Clinton is by far the easier candidate to beat and everyone knows it. It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary.
We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.
The media was playing it up as Clinton's "last chance", so naturally that will energize people who are emotionally involved with that candidate and get them out to vote... just like in New Hampshire, where women came out strong for their candidate.
Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that. If you look at the facts, Obama is a better speaker, more motivational, more liked overseas, less divisive. Obama has more experience in public service, he's made better decisions, and he's more likely to win against McCain. He's run a more organized and effective campaign. So given that he pretty much outclasses her in every way as a candidate, you have to ask yourself why people are voting for Clinton, and is it right.
Some people say that Obama is benefiting from being half-black by winning the black vote 10:1. I don't think that's really true, I think he'd be winning the other groups that much if not for the factors working against him. For instance, the Hispanic community has historically been at odds with African Americans. And whites and women, obviously, have a bias for a white woman. It seems to me that by merit he should be winning close to that ratio among most groups.
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.
Both sides are fascism. As Ron Paul said : "We're not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism: Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military-industrial complex, you have the medical-industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars."
Ralph Nader put it best: Republicans and Democrats are competing to serve their corporate masters.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
I grew up in Mexico, and often refer to Hispanics. My girlfriend at the time gave me crap because some group of them (I'm assuming it was The Council of the Wise) decided that Hispanic reminded them of the Spanish conquest, and they preferred Latino. Which I think is ridiculous, because when I say Hispanic, I mean a Spanish-speaker (which excludes Brazilians), and when I say Latino, I mean a Latin American (which excludes Spaniards).
Also, Iranians are caucasians, so calling white people caucasians is stupid. So hey everybody, let's just stop being insulted by things that aren't insulting, and stop bowing to unfounded, ridiculous reactionary pressure. And if you find out that one person prefers Latino over Hispanic, use the word they prefer when referring to them. It's super easy.
Close enough for the popular opnion.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
As opposed to the current system where the ER is often the first, last and only choice for the poor, resulting in increased medical bills that are unpaid and passed onto wealthier hospital patrons who do have insurance?
There are places that capitalism fails. Healthcare looks like it is one of them. Even if doctors could refuse treatment until after they were paid (what a dystopic thought!), the lack of access to healthcare would decrease the total health of the population, resulting in a population that is more prone to infectious diseases and epidemics.
PS: We have the ability to wipe out polio from the world relatively easily. That's due to government, not private practice footing the bill. We also have the ability to eradicate the MMR trio if we are willing to push for an international campaign to do so.
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
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751
This assumes that Hillary somehow magically wins by 10% in every race. Which is NOT going to happen unless Barack gets caught with a dead girl or live boy. After today, there are 10 states left, plus Guam and Puerto Rico.
Number of 3 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 4 delegate districts left: 19 (including all 8 in Puerto Rico)
Number of 5 delegate districts left: 21
Number of 6 delegate districts left: 14
Number of 7 delegate districts left: 10
Number of 8 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 9 delegate districts left: 3
Number of 10 delegate districts left: 1 (Montana)
Setting aside Guam with its 4 delegates, there are 11 delegate apportionments based on statewide popular vote totals.
Wyoming - 5 statewide
South Dakota - 6 statewide
Montana - 6 statewide
West Virginia - 10 statewide
Mississippi - 11 statewide
Kentucky - 17 statewide
Oregon - 18 statewide
Puerto Rico - 19 islandwide
Indiana - 25 statewide
North Carolina - 38 statewide
Pennsylvania - 55 statewide
In order to cross all thresholds except the initial break that give you a +2 delegate swing, you need to win by an extra 200/X%, where X = the number of total delegates at stake. Let's see how this works by easy example - West Virginia and its 10 statewide delegates. 200/10 = 20%. To go from 5-5 to 6-4 there you have to win by over 10% (55-45). But to get ANOTHER +2 you need to add 20% to your win and win by 30% (65-35).
To work through one more example, Indiana and its 25. You start with someone winning 13-12. To get an additional +2 swing (ie, 14-11), you have to win by 200/25%, or 8% even. 54-46 + 1 vote is a 14-11 split. You can also calculate this way: 13.5/25 =
So, let's look at if Clinton wins every statewide total by 10%:
Wyoming +1
South Dakota 0
Montana 0
West Virginia +1, giving her the +1 vote benefit of the doubt.
Mississippi +1
Kentucky +1
Oregon +2
Puerto Rico +1
Indiana +3
North Carolina +4
Pennsylvania +5
Total +19 delegates.
Do you see how totally impossible it is, and how completely significant Obama's South Carolina and February blowouts were? Remember, Obama beat Clinton by 8% in Iowa (a huge win) and netted only 1 extra pledged delegate.
Now, let's assume, in a very unsurgical way, that this 10% is exactly the margin in all the congressional districts.
1 3-delegate district: +1
19 4-delegate districts: 0
21 5-delegate districts: +21
14 6-delegate districts: 0
10 7-delegate districts: +10
1 8-delegate district: 0
3 9-delegate districts: +3
1 10-delegate district: +1, let's give her the 1 extra vote benefit of the doubt.
Total +36 delegates
Overall total +55 delegates.
And it probably is +58, see below.
Obama currently leads by 160 pledged delegates.
I wish there was a fscking blue pill
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
Where I work I've spoken to 6 different dedicated Republicans who said they also voted for Clinton on the Democrate side. They all agreed that they did so for no other reason than that they'd rather face her than Obama in the general election.
I usually vote Republican but after the last 8 years under GWB (I confess that I voted for him the first time. Who knew he was going to turn into "Big Bubba" on us?) I am so disappointed in the right that I'm actively searching for a Democrat to support. I like Obama and I'm voting for him in the general election if he gets the nomination. If he doesn't I'm going to go ahead and throw my vote behind McCain. I know several people who feel the same way I do, in particular my wife. She's a lifetime Democrat but she swears that if Hillary gets the nomination she's voting for McCain.
I can't believe the Democrats will be stupid enough to run Hillary. She's the one candidate that the Republicans will pull together to keep out of the White House. Obama's pulling in Independents and liberal minded Republicans (yes, we exist). Hillary will send us all into McCain's camp.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
"He is black, call him black."
What the hell? I am so sick of these nebulous terms. Let's get it right. He is #935C33, I am #FEE497.
(excuse the wording)? What the hell? This is what is wrong with America. I swear to God I am so sick of this political correct cry baby crap. He is black, call him black. I am white, why the hell is it perfectly acceptable to call me white instead of "Irish-American" or some other hypenated nonsense, but its a big deal to call a black guy black. Why the hell would you need to be excused for calling him black?
Hogwash. He is white. You say Barak Obama is "black" because his father was "black". I say he is "white" because his mother was "white".
Someone who is truly cutting through the "political correct cry baby crap" would say he is "multiracial".
I hear child molesters and dog abusers are big fans of Tim Russert. They watch his show religiously and purchase products from his advertisers. There for, every guest who come on his show has the responsibility to ask him for his side of the story, in a similar fashion:
"Tim, we all know that a lot of people who like kicking dogs and throwing puppies off cliffs are big fans of yours. We also know that you are widely respected in the child porn industry. What do you have to say about that?"
That's not a hard question, that's a loaded question. A hard question would be:
"Our economic advisers believe that your economic policy will fail for reasons X, Y, and Z. Explain how your plan will work to avoid X, Y, and Z."
But watching a man defend an economic policy is no where near as fun as watching him defend himself from accusations of being a terrorist, a Black Panther, Muslim, corrupt, Jewish, antisemitic, etc... If you want some tough questions, get some English interviewers over here to badger the candidates on the issues. If you want BS and fluff, stay tuned to American TV for it's 'Entertainment Value'.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Ah yes, your rights to have everything you want. I take it you won't drive on any bridges, flush your toilet into any sewers, or rely on any police to keep you safe, because the government shouldn't be "clawing away" your money. And definitely you wouldn't want to put that money into a bank insured by the FDIC, or take a mortgage backed by the same federal guarantees (explicit and implicit), or participate in a stock market where liars and thieves are kept (somewhat) at bay by the SEC. Nor do you want any assurance that your medicines are not contaminated, your foodstuffs safe, and your children's teachers are not psychopaths.
The "market will solve everything if you only you set it free" meme was new (and woefully simplistic) in 1971. Now it's tired, overused and foolishly simplistic. Your whole lifestyle is made possible by a profound set of government-run or backed institutions. If they're broken, the answer is to fix them and work for fair, well-regulated markers, not scrap everything we've learned and go back to the 1860s (as appealing as them sometimes seems from within a fluorescent-lit cube). I'm all for leaner and more effective government (as, in fact, are almost all of us who think government has a key role in society), but the nonsense about greedy government taking all your tax dollars sounds increasingly petulant when bridges are falling down, tainted food and drugs are being allowed into our stores, and people are losing their homes in droves, and the top marginal tax rate is the lowest its been in decades.
Government regulation of healthcare is indeed a gigantic mess, and the Blues are a great example of that mess. And yes, government intervention in a market can indeed make a problem worse. But it takes two to tango, so let's recall Gingrich-led cuts to Medicare in the 90s, and permanent resistance to Medicaid's existence (because after all, that's just more poor - read "lazy" - people clawing your government-backed money away) and general conservative opposition to every government program that doesn't involve fat contracts for their buddies don't really to much to promote fair, orderly and efficient markets either.
Sure, comparison shopping for healthcare would improve the system and make the market for healthcare more efficient, if there were choices real humans could afford. Have you ever priced non-employer sponsored "insurance" (the quotes are because health coverage is much more a bundled service agreement that it is insurance against unlikely adverse events)? The prospect of paying $10,000-$15,000 per year sounds like great set of choices, huh? I've learned a fair bit about the dysfunction of the medical reimbursement system in my current job, and I'm not sure a government-run healthcare program is all peaches and cream, primarily because the current incarnations sidestep the hard questions we need to debate about how much care should really cost and who should pay for what. There is a cost control element to healthcare that's deeply difficult to answer once your parent gets cancer or your sibling gets a debilitating disease. But that's a debate about how to structure things well within government and the private sector, not a worn-out screed about drowning government in the bathtub.
I saw the effects of this in 2006 when the two candidates did their absolute best to turn voters away from the other candidate. The end result after the primary was a lot of people who were so burned by the attack ads, that they refused to aid the winning candidate against the opposition with campaign donations. (Many also refused to vote in the upcoming election, but most said that they'd hold their nose and vote for our candidate but that they intended to donate money to other members of the party in other elections.)
The net result: A landslide victory for the opposition as the candidate who won the primary was never able to reenergize the party base and unable to match the opposition's funding afterwards. Our candidate tried to run on issues and on the corruption of our opponent, and the opposition ran on personality and won hands down after the sour note left by the primary.
If voters are left saying, "Who's McCain?" then that's not necessarily a good thing if all they can remember about Clinton or Obama is months of attack ads. Brand recognition isn't a good thing when the product's tainted.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
Yeah? Well the church my precinct's caucus was held in was packed to the freaking gills -- standing room only, they had to open up an annex which they also completely filled -- and it took over an hour after the sign-in began for everyone to sign the books for Obama. If you were Clinton supporter, you were done in about two minutes because there simply weren't many people in line in front of you.
And despite your stereotype, these were by and large middle aged working-class adults with families. Many of them had brought their families with them so that they could caucus -- some even had infants in papooses strapped to their chests. You can say whatever crud you want about baby-boomers with families; the ones who cared, the ones who were passionate about their candidate, they made it to the caucus.
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.
Of course, objectively made-up stereotypes. And here's a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes:
Texas has an open primary. With the Republican nomination essentially decided, there was no point for a Republican to vote in their party's primary, meaning they were free to vote in the Democratic primary. A strategic vote for the candidate most likely to lose the general election is a way to strengthen their own candidate. However it wasn't worth going to the trouble to caucus just for the sake of a strategic vote. This is the supposed advantage of the caucus -- that it attracts only those who are truly passionate about their candidates. Nobody's going to crowd into a packed church and stand for hours as the heat rises from all the bodies just to cast a "strategic" vote. But as they finish up their shopping at Randals? Sure, why not sabotage the other party.
The enemies of Democracy are
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
A system of healthcare exactly like what you described existed in the developed world from antiquity up until 1930 or so. There was no insurance, no regulation, no licensure, no anything; healthcare was exactly like any other trade, and those who would provide healthcare competed solely on the basis of price and advertising. The result was nothing short of miserable. Those who could afford it had the best medical and surgical treatment they could buy, although that generally wasn't much (no training requirements, remember?) Those who couldn't relied on folk remedies (what we now call "alternative medicine") and their own physiological reserves, and if they became seriously ill or injured, too bad. Oh, and the average lifespan was about 35 years give or take, and the sick were left to rot on the public streets - or, if they were very, very lucky, they were taken in by charitable groups and largely treated with benign neglect. I sincerely hope that you can figure out why we abandoned that model of healthcare.
In public health, it has been proven hundreds of times that when you have large numbers of sick people in circulation, the general health of the population tends to decline, and the diseases they suffer tend to increase in severity. In short, sick people make the people around them sick as well. If nothing is done about the sick (i.e. they're left to die), the population's health rapidly becomes so severely compromised that any suitable crisis - a plague, a famine, a drought, whatever - can kill off the entire population in one shot. Luckily, though, the reverse is also true: when a population is maintained at a certain level of health, the illnesses suffered by each individual tend to be less severe than they would be otherwise, and the lifespan, working capacity and general health of that population tends to increase. Thus, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint, you'd actually be smarter to provide a certain, basic level of healthcare to each individual out of the common treasury, since it costs far, far less to treat the minor illnesses than the severe illnesses, and it also results in massive net gains in productivity when everyone is healthy enough to work. Everything else, of course, the individual can pay for, but providing basic care - an annual physical, immunizations, emergency care when necessary, etc - ought to be a no-brainer.
Our current system is far from perfect - anyone will tell you that. However, throwing it out the window for some mythical "free-market" solution is just as foolish and ultimately even more harmful than single-payer care could hope to be. It is true that people in good health, who can be expected not to incur any particularly egregious health expenditures in their lifetimes, would pay less for their care at first. However, people in poor health, who not only cost more to care for but generally aren't physically capable of working hard enough or long enough to earn the required amount of money to pay for their healthcare and all their other expenses, will be in even worse straits. Meanwhile, thanks to the masses of sick people in circulation, now all of a sudden the healthy people are getting sick more often and more severely, which throws your putative cost savings right out the window. You're right back to the Middle Ages - either the sick would be rotting on the streets, or you'd be asking physicians, nurses and allied health providers to shoulder those patients' costs through charity care. How is that fair to me and my colleagues, for us to subsidize a tax break for you? Are we not entitled to the fruits of our labors?
I find it amusing how you and your ilk tout the wonders of the free market, without ever realizing that what you propose is neither free nor market-driven. You're just demanding that someone else pay the bill for you, whether through taxes or charity. Funny how that's so often true - the people who yell the loudest about free markets are also the ones who demand the biggest handouts, breaks and subsidies from said markets.
I'll thank you to take your trolling elsewhere, and good day to you, sir.
(Full disclosure: The author is a healthcare professional.)
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
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.
Many people make this mistake. Hillary Clinton is a woman[Tm], not a time machine. Slashdotters should know the difference. Time machines have more knobs and gages.
Even if she were a time machine, it would be very difficult to reproduce the conditions which allowed a decade of prosperity despite the actions (or lack of) of two corrupt and stupid presidents. Imagine going back to 1992 and making sure you don't step on a fly, lest you change these conditions:
- The reasonably peaceful breakup of the Soviet empire. (Clinton and Bush just watched, they didn't even take advantage of the once in a lifetime opportunity!)
- The invention of computer and internet technology which allowed JIT warehousing, enabled globalization and led to vast improvements in efficiency. (Neither Clinton, nor Bush nor Gore can take credit for this)
- Opening up of China, Latin America and other markets and their cheap labor while deficit spending and cheap credit allowed us to isolate our labor force from potential deflationary impacts on wages. (O.K Clinton did sign NAFTA and seemed to have a good relationship with Chinese campaign donors so maybe he did have something to do with this, but Nixon, Carter and Reagan probably had more of an impact on China.
- Global wage arbitrage and productivity increases resulting from computers and internet also allowed the Fed to keep interest rates low, spurring growth here but offshoring the inflation.
- Oil prices were less than $20/bbl (Clinton signed the "SUV loophole" laws which created the demand for such beasts and helped drive oil back up to $102/bbl where it apparently belongs.)
- The bulk of our population (Baby boomers) were in their peak earning years so Clinton/Bush et al could sweep the Social Security insolvency under the rug for another 12-18 years... and whistle in the dark, hoping no one would notice. (Gingrich was the perfect diversion from Clinton's numerous non sex related shenanigans, so he took the fall but I assure you that had mother Theresa suggested a Social Security fix as early as the mid 90s, she would have also been put on a skewer.)
It could work, but don't step on any flys and keep your hands inside the vehicle at all times, it is moving at the same speed as reality.