News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[chemisttree]

Any friend that doesn't support her nomination over Obama's is stabbing her in the back?

Uhhh, yeah! cough, cough, Richardson cough, McGovern cough, cough, Johnson cough...

 

[chemisttree]

The headline in the link says:


The story begins:

But there is nothing in the story that supports these two statements. Well actually, she did hold a fundraiser.

She did say this:

"We did not go through such a long and rigourous campaign to see four more years of Republican leadership in the White House," she said. "Senator [John] McCain will be a formidable candidate in states like Ohio and Kentucky and Pennsylvania -- states we've got to win. And so therefore I'm grateful for your help tonight, but let's stay with it, let's keep going, I believe we are going to prevail."

Most would think that she meant that Obama can't win.

 

[Gokul43201]

Most would think that she meant that Obama can't win.

That's an assertion. It is hardly much of an argument or an explanation.

 

[turbo]

She knows that Obama can win and doesn't carry her huge negatives. She is doing her best to poison the well, and playing the race "unelectable" card.

 

[G01]

Will she really have a majority of the popular vote after Kentucky? I can't possibly believe that is true, unless they count Florida and Michigan as is. (Which I don't think they will, since Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I liked this one from a pundit:

She's winning in all demographics but one. Delegates.

 

[chemisttree]

That's an assertion. It is hardly much of an argument or an explanation.

It is a perfectly reasonable and obvious assertion, argument and explanation to all but the uber Omama supporters.

 

[chemisttree]

Why did Obama lose so big in WV and KY? Doesn't everybody know that Hillary can't win? Why are Democrat voters continuing this bloodletting? Why did Hillary raise 22 million in April? Who would pay to keep this going?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It is a perfectly reasonable and obvious assertion, argument and explanation to all but the uber Omama supporters.

The headline said:
Clinton Argues That Obama Can't Beat McCain

The story said:
ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton held a fundraiser in Ft. Mitchell, Ky., tonight and went a bit further than she's gone before in explaining why she believes Sen. Barack Obama cannot win in the fall.

This is false advertising. The article promises an argument and an explanation, but only provides an assertion.

 

[chemisttree]

The headline said:
Clinton Argues That Obama Can't Beat McCain

The story said:
ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton held a fundraiser in Ft. Mitchell, Ky., tonight and went a bit further than she's gone before in explaining why she believes Sen. Barack Obama cannot win in the fall.

This is false advertising. The article promises an argument and an explanation, but only provides an assertion.

Here is your argument/explanation.

Senator [John] McCain will be a formidable candidate in states like Ohio and Kentucky and Pennsylvania -- states we've got to win.

What she didn't say (because it is obvious) is that she polls better than McCain in Ohio (Obama loses to McCain), she polls better than Obama in KY (but McCain wins anyway... for now) and she polls slightly better than Obama (1% better! Whoo hoo!) in PA. Both she and Obama beat McCain in Pa.http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Is that a weak argument or simply succinct?

 

[chemisttree]

She knows that Obama can win and doesn't carry her huge negatives. She is doing her best to poison the well, and playing the race "unelectable" card.

I thought this would be the case as well but now it can be argued that she is simply quoting the polls. I think that the race card (from the Clinton side) part of the race is behind us and now is the time for the 'sexist' phase of the campaign.

 

[chemisttree]

Kentucky Thwarts OpChaos?

Did this long-standing law thwart Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? The law prevents anyone who swaps parties after Dec. 31 from voting in the May primary. First time voters are unaffected.
Republican crossover voters have voted for Obama over Clinton in most of the early primary states this year and now it appears that http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24437039/" They aren't going to get a chance this year unless they made up their minds before Dec. 31.
Could this explain Hillary's HUGE win in KY?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032808/content/01125114.guest.html"

 

[Gokul43201]

Why did Obama lose so big in WV and KY?

1. Racists
2. Obama didn't campaign much in either state
3. Bill was extremely popular in both states
4. Low education and income levels compared to national average
5. Negligible black populations
6. More crazy women?

Doesn't everybody know that Hillary can't win? Why are Democrat voters continuing this bloodletting?

Because there are two candidates in the race, and people vote for who they like better.

Why did Hillary raise 22 million in April? Who would pay to keep this going?

Who? Bill and Hillary, to name a couple of folks. They loaned the campaign $6.4 million in April; that's 30% of that month's intake. Almost all the remaining money came after the PA win on the 22nd. She made about $10 million in just the one day after the primary, little before, and very little after that initial response.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

4. Low education and income levels compared to national average.

I figure President Obama will be a strong supporter of higher education.

 

[chemisttree]

1. Racists
2. Obama didn't campaign much in either state
3. Bill was extremely popular in both states
4. Low education and income levels compared to national average
5. Negligible black populations
6. More crazy women?

This needs to go on Obama's website! Classic...

I would make the following editorial changes, however. (he says in jest...)

1. Democrat Racists
2. Obama didn't campaign much in KY and WV but held a rally in OR that attracted 72,000.
3. Bill was extremely popular in both states (sorry, I lost my mind there for a minute... What was the question?)
4. Any Democrat who doesn't vote Obama is just stupid and probably has a low paying job.
5. There aren't enough racist black populations in KY and WV.
6. Women who vote for Hillary are crazy! (and they shouldn't be allowed to own guns either!)

I am assuming that Gokul offers his list in the spirit of sarcastic jest (as have I the editorial changes). Good one, Gokul!

 

[Gokul43201]

1. Democrat Racists

Too long have the Repubs dominated racism. Time for the Dems to start cutting into that demographic.

2. Obama didn't campaign much in KY and WV but held a rally in OR that attracted 72,000.

Your point (hope I'm not going too far in assuming there is one)?

3. Bill was extremely popular in both states (sorry, I lost my mind there for a minute... What was the question?)

Put a net around your head and I'll read it back to you...slowly.

4. Any Democrat who doesn't vote Obama is just stupid and probably has a low paying job.

You think so? I wasn't going to go that far...

5. There aren't enough racist black populations in KY and WV.

That too, but they typically make up a negligible fraction of the population. Racist whites, however, are a huge demographic.

6. Women who vote for Hillary are crazy! (and they shouldn't be allowed to own guns either!)

Interesting opinion. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Art]

Will she really have a majority of the popular vote after Kentucky? I can't possibly believe that is true, unless they count Florida and Michigan as is. (Which I don't think they will, since Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.)

For an insight into her arithmetic agility to make this claim see the table in this link http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

 

[turbo]

Yes, with Clinton claiming all the MI votes that she "won" and with Obama getting 0% after withdrawing his name from the ballot, Clinton might have some twisted belief that she is "winning" in the popular vote. It should be noted that she made a well-publicized visit to Florida on the day of the primary despite promising not to campaign in the state. The lies just keep coming.

We should note that the popular vote does not decide the Democratic nominee. That is decided by a combination of the apportioned pledged delegates and the super delegates. Since many of the super delegates are themselves elected officials, I doubt that they will overturn the pledged delegate count to suck up to the Clintons, especially since the Obama team has demonstrated superb grass-roots organizing skills and can carry some big up-and-down-ticket coattails into the general election. Republicans are pretending to be scared of Clinton with all the sincerity of Brer Rabbitt pleading not to be thrown into the brier patch.

 

[Art]

Republicans are pretending to be scared of Clinton with all the sincerity of Brer Rabbitt pleading not to be thrown into the brier patch.

I guess they feel it would be a shame to have to shelve all those files of dirt on her they have spent years accumulating in anticipation of her nomination.

 

[turbo]

Let's see:
Rose law-firm billing records
Vince Foster's suicide
Fortune made in speculation in cattle-futures
Whitewater development profits
Bill's infidelities
Her role in travel-gate

No there's not much to tar her with, is there? Rove et al have been drooling over a Clinton candidacy for a long time. Obama may just give them a well-deserved wedgie.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, I'm from O-ree-gone, and Bill Clinton came up to where I work a while back, and he said all sorts of strange things that I'd never would have believed I would hear come out of a future president's husbands mouth. He talked reality. I think we should repeal the 22nd amendment and re-elect Bill.

No Monica dress jokes please...

 

[turbo]

Bill was always a rock-star on the "vision" thing, while helping multi-nationals and Wal-Mart export jobs to places where people earn a lot less and there are no pesky benefits like overtime, health coverage, retirement, etc. He's a creep, and I had to hold my nose to vote for the creep because the Republican creeps looked worse. The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies. We are being screwed by leeches and the press is in on it and is unwilling to buck the trend because they have given up on investigating and reporting and are falling back on printing the crap being fed to them by their patrons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That too, but they typically make up a negligible fraction of the population. Racist whites, however, are a huge demographic.

I keep wondering if enough new black voters will come out to offset the racist white vote. My guess is that where there are large black populations, yes, by at least an order of magnitude. I expect this will be the largest black turnout in history...and by a very large margin.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Bill was always a rock-star on the "vision" thing, while helping multi-nationals and Wal-Mart export jobs to places where people earn a lot less and there are no pesky benefits like overtime, health coverage, retirement, etc. He's a creep, and I had to hold my nose to vote for the creep because the Republican creeps looked worse. The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies. We are being screwed by leeches and the press is in on it and is unwilling to buck the trend because they have given up on investigating and reporting and are falling back on printing the crap being fed to them by their patrons.

If you don't vote for Nader, then you are gaming and twisting your own desire for a getting beyond a 2-party system. If the voters won't support it, why should anybody else?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Nader? What about Libertarians? I bet my candidate could kick your candidate's ass!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Nader? What about Libertarians? I bet my candidate could kick your candidate's ass!

Turbo-1 wrote:
"Bill was always a rock-star on the "vision" thing, while helping multi-nationals and Wal-Mart export jobs to places where people earn a lot less and there are no pesky benefits like overtime, health coverage, retirement, etc."

He sounds more like a Nader guy than a Barr guy to me. Nader is right on every issue that turbo mentioned. He's right on multi-nationals, he's right on Wal-Mart, he's right on exporting jobs, and he's right on pesky overtime. He's right on the war, the economy, global warming, and second-hand smoke. What's Barr's position on the Corvair? But if Turbo, Nader's core constituent, won't vote for him, then whobody will? Without action, talk about a desire for third party candidates is masturbatio#. It feels good, but it doesn't produce life. (That's a line from a movie. Sidney Poitier delivers it better than I.)

 

[turbo]

Voting for Nader is throwing your vote away because there is no way he's going to pull more than a percent or so. The reasonable option when we're locked into a two-party system is to vote for Obama. He has very effective outreach and organization and can pull in a lot of new voters for the Dems - that translates into some pretty big coattails all the way down the ticket. If his campaign helps Dems get larger majorities in Congress, they will owe him, and maybe they will implement some progressive initiatives instead of simply doing the bidding of the lobbyists. I don't foresee sweeping changes in the the good-old-boy network, but Obama should be able to call in his markers on at least a few initiatives. If the Dems can stick together with their majorities and send Obama legislation that he wants, there is little likelihood that he will veto it, apart from the inclusion of some "poison pill" amendment that he would have to reject. Under such circumstances, the Dems would not need a veto-proof majority to pass progressive legislation and have it signed into law.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Voting for Nader is throwing your vote away because there is no way he's going to pull more than a percent or so.

The election is not a quiz to see if you can guess who will win. It is an opportunity to express what you want. If you want one thing and vote for another, you are throwing your vote away.

 

[mathwonk]

its not that simple. in the last election to have voted for nader, you had to have wanted him badly enough to accept bush. voting is not just about expressing yourself, it is also about helping choose a good leader for the country, and prevent a bad one. in that case a vote for nader was far worse than thrown away, it was a vote for bush.

 

[lisab]

The election is not a quiz to see if you can guess who will win. It is an opportunity to express what you want. If you want one thing and vote for another, you are throwing your vote away.

From a strictly logical point of view, that's correct, but reality is more nuanced. Since there will never be a candidate who will agree with me on every single issue, there will necessarily be compromise with every vote I cast. I'm not going to let excellent be the enemy of good.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

its not that simple. in the last election to have voted for nader, you had to have wanted him badly enough to accept bush. voting is not just about expressing yourself, it is also about helping choose a good leader for the country, and prevent a bad one. in that case a vote for nader was far worse than thrown away, it was a vote for bush.

Don't you stand for anything enough to vote for it? No wonder negative campaigns abound. Turbo says "The US has to get beyond a 2-party system". That being the case, what does turbo have to do?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

From a strictly logical point of view, that's correct, but reality is more nuanced. Since there will never be a candidate who will agree with me on every single issue, there will necessarily be compromise with every vote I cast. I'm not going to let excellent be the enemy of good.

So between Nader and Obama, which is excellent and which is good?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

its not that simple. in the last election to have voted for nader, you had to have wanted him badly enough to accept bush. voting is not just about expressing yourself, it is also about helping choose a good leader for the country, and prevent a bad one. in that case a vote for nader was far worse than thrown away, it was a vote for bush.

The point of voting is to express your opinion and excersize your ability to make change. People have given that up to play someone elses game. They hold the power because people have been convinced that they have to vote the way they want you to, the way that continues to support the two party system. There will never be a third party candidate with even a snow balls chance in hell of getting elected if everyone keeps looking at it as a thrown away vote.

 

[Art]

If you want to do away with a 2 party system you start at the bottom not the top.

Elect independents for local office then congressional seats etc.. Eventually if and when you break the voting bloc of the main parties then you can elect an independent president.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you want to do away with a 2 party system you start at the bottom not the top.

Unless, of course, you start at the top, not the bottom.

 

[Art]

Unless, of course, you start at the top, not the bottom.

Reminds me of the Enid Blyton character, Noddy, who wanted to build the roof of his house before the walls in case it rained

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I note that the Libertarian party runs a great many candidates at all levels of government and some of them are in office. That's bottom up. Nader on the other hand seems to be running without party affiliation this time 'round. That's top down. Neither approach satisfies turbo. Your suggestion that we start with independents seems unusual to me, perhaps that's outside in. I doubt though that pronouncements on how it must be done are really what's wanted. When successful parties come into existence, we can look at how they did it. The Republican party ran a Presidential candidate two years after its first meeting, and won the Presidency (Lincoln) four years after that. The Whig party ran a successful candidate (Harrison) seven years after it was formed.

 

[Art]

I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.

Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.

 

[Art]

Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.

And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.

It is hard to see how an independent president could be effective with a party oriented congress.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.

It is hard to see how an independent president could be effective with a party oriented congress.

How about it turbo, will you vote for independents for congers?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.

Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.

 

[BobG]

I note that the Libertarian party runs a great many candidates at all levels of government and some of them are in office. That's bottom up.

Not only should a party build from the bottom up, but they should have a controlled growth. For several years, the Libertarian Party engaged in an undisciplined 'body count' approach. Anyone could be a Libertarian candidate as long as they ran for an office that didn't already have a Libertarian candidate running. They tended to attract a lot of flakes who's only qualification was having a lot of time on their hands.

The important thing was having a lot of candidates running for office gave the appearance of a vigorous party. They needed to do a little screening, which is hard to do with a small staff and a lot of candidates.

Quality is more important than quantity when it comes to building a party's reputation.

A Libertarian candidate (John Hospers) won his party's only electoral vote for President only a year after formation of the Libertarian Party, but was eclipsed by the Reform Party just 20 years later (Hospers VP candidate, Theodora Nathan, is still the only female to earn an electoral vote).

I have no explanation for the collapse of the Reform Party other than Pat Buchanon is a really, really horrible candidate. Come to think of it, the worst problems of the Republican Party came after Pat Buchanon left the Reform Party and rejoined the Republican Party.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not only should a party build from the bottom up.

Why should a party build from the bottom up?

 

[Art]

Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.

Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from this

The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies.[

I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.

A lot of constitutionalists would like to see party politics done away with and elected members to vote according to their conscience which I believe was the original intention of the authors of the US constitution

 

[BobG]

Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from this I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.

A lot of constitutionalists would like to see party politics done away with and elected members to vote according to their conscience which I believe was the original intention of the authors of the US constitution

Or at least remove party designations from ballots. Restricting membership in a political party would be unconstitutional, but there's no more right to putting party designation on a ballot than there is to putting your income on a ballot.

Voters wouldn't have to know any more about their candidates than they do now, but at least the completely uninformed votes would be spread out more randomly.

 

[turbo]

We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.

This two-party system is ridiculous - it poses a false dichotomy that appeals mostly to the uninformed. As an independent, I vote for the candidates that I prefer, regardless of party affiliation. This election cycle, the false dichotomy is going to hurt some Republicans because many people just want to get the Bush-Cheney years behind us, and they blame the party for a lot of the trouble. That's too bad, because there are some decent Republican candidates that may get booted just because their districts are fed up with the administration.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.

In a parliamentary form, how do local politicians fare when the populace is fed up with the PM?

 

[mheslep]

We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions. ...

How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?

 

[turbo]

How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?

Do you want me to guess what "various criticisms" you are referring to or would you like to clarify? There are faults and weaknesses with all types of government - it's the nature of the beast.