US Elections 2008

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by Quzor

South Park said it best:

"It's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich."

It was true last year, it'll be true this year. It was probably true for all of the elections before that, but we didn't have round-the-clock paparazzi to exploit every single moment of every candidates lives for us before 2004 or so.

Yeah, go Military Hero and Militarism. I wonder what McCain will do about the war really..

Actually, I wonder what McCain is going to do period.

[solomon]

He'll keep the boys in Iraq as needed. Other then that he hasn't said much on other things, he's not knowledgable about the economy he says.

Hopefully he'll keep his even handed stance on immigration.

[Sorrow-K]

Is Clinton finished, or is it still too early to say? She's had a number of consecutive losses recently and it looks like she's retreated to Guiliani tactics of focusing on big states like Texas and Ohio. I was watching Fox News this morning (lol Torie media, etc, etc) and they pretty much implied that she'd have to win those two to have any chance, and that she'll struggle in both.

So, from someone who's an outside observer, the question is, what's the status on the Dem side? Is it too early to say we have a winner in Obama? Is there any chance that Hillary can get momentum back on her side, or is it over for her?

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Sorrow-K

Is Clinton finished, or is it still too early to say? She's had a number of consecutive losses recently and it looks like she's retreated to Guiliani tactics of focusing on big states like Texas and Ohio. I was watching Fox News this morning (lol Torie media, etc, etc) and they pretty much implied that she'd have to win those two to have any chance, and that she'll struggle in both.

So, from someone who's an outside observer, the question is, what's the status on the Dem side? Is it too early to say we have a winner in Obama? Is there any chance that Hillary can get momentum back on her side, or is it over for her?

Most news is reporting that she's about finished. Theoretically, there are enough states left that she could win the nomination, but she'd have to pretty much sweep, and that's less than likely. I'd say it's a safe bet that Obama has the Democratic nomination.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Sorrow-K

Is Clinton finished, or is it still too early to say? She's had a number of consecutive losses recently and it looks like she's retreated to Guiliani tactics of focusing on big states like Texas and Ohio. I was watching Fox News this morning (lol Torie media, etc, etc) and they pretty much implied that she'd have to win those two to have any chance, and that she'll struggle in both.

So, from someone who's an outside observer, the question is, what's the status on the Dem side? Is it too early to say we have a winner in Obama? Is there any chance that Hillary can get momentum back on her side, or is it over for her?

Sorrow-K it could be too early to tell but there is alot of factors that come in that is in the favor of Obama, First of all, if he sweeps Hawaii, Wisc, Washington Primaries, he will be hard to beat even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, she has to blow him out to get alot of delegrates and keep the super-delegrates that she has now(they maybe jumping ship if she contiunes to lose) and right now, that is going to be hard. It is too early to tell but the fat lady is getting ready to sing.

[SeijiSensei]

It's way too soon to rule out a Clinton victory. It appears mathematically impossible that either candidate will have a majority of the convention delegates at the end of the primary season. Clinton is much better connected to the Democratic party establishment than Obama, so we might expect her to do better among the undeclared "superdelegates" who may well determine the winner.

That said, I thought David Broder's comment on Meet the Press the other day was especially insightful. He reminded us all that many of the superdelegates will be facing election battles themselves (House Members, some Senators, a few governors, etc.). For them the most important question will be who they want to be running at the top of the ticket. (This is the so-called "coattails" effect which, though usually small, could swing close elections.) Right now the polls suggest that Obama stands a better chance against McCain than does Clinton, but it's way too early to put much faith in these "trial-heat" questions. Obama may have broader coattails than Clinton because he is mobilizing new Democratic voters as much as attracting existing ones.

We haven't yet seen the full force of the Republican campaign machine running against the candidate with the most "liberal" (in US terms) voting record in the Senate, with little national political experience, essentially no foreign policy experience, and who, despite being raised a Christian, has a middle name of "Hussein." Oh, and by the way, he's African-American. Come August I'm not so sure that he won't be seen as carrying even more baggage than Mrs. Clinton, whom fully two-fifths of the electorate wouldn't support unless they were threatened with water-boarding.

I hope the Obama campaign is clear-headed enough to know that the campaign is far from over. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Patton just before the Ardennes battle when he observes that the German counterattack could still change the course of the war.

[ApostleOfGod]

I find that the collision between Hillary and Obama reaching such a peak is very unfortunate.

Although they are both democrats, it is likely that some Obama supporters, in the case of Hillary gaining the candidacy, will turn over to the Republicans. It is the same visa-versa. However, I don't see too much of this happening with the Republicans. I just don't.

I personally want Obama to get this, I think he's the man for the job, but oh well..

[Vexx]

Both Obama and Clinton platforms are highly similar. Its a question of whether one wants a Senator who leans a bit to the right or whom leans a bit to the left. Which one is which depends on the topic. Clinton has got some voting history baggage and baggage from her husband's administration to deal with. But the Republicans have the antics of the last seven years to deal with (too many to list but start with DeLay and work up).

I'm *really* unhappy with the votes from both parties concerning telco immunity -- these politico idiots are either just admitting they're bought and paid for or they're just fscking stupid... yay for Ex Post Facto law (expressly forbidden by the way).

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

It's way too soon to rule out a Clinton victory. It appears mathematically impossible that either candidate will have a majority of the convention delegates at the end of the primary season. Clinton is much better connected to the Democratic party establishment than Obama, so we might expect her to do better among the undeclared "superdelegates" who may well determine the winner.

However, Clinton needs to do something like pick up 66% of the remaining delegates in every state she wins to actually come out ahead in pledged delegates. And then there is Michigan and Florida which who knows what is going to happen with their delegates in the end.

We haven't yet seen the full force of the Republican campaign machine running against the candidate with the most "liberal" (in US terms) voting record in the Senate, with little national political experience, essentially no foreign policy experience, and who, despite being raised a Christian, has a middle name of "Hussein."

I hope this "most liberal" voting record is based on something other than the National Journal study which was proved to made up. For one, it was made by republicans. Secondly, Clinton and Obama barely differ in voting record and yet he is number one. And lastly, was the same one that concluded that, surprise surprise, Kerry had the most liberal record in 2004.

Some Sources: Here, here, here, and Poole ratings

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Although they are both democrats, it is likely that some Obama supporters, in the case of Hillary gaining the candidacy, will turn over to the Republicans. It is the same visa-versa. However, I don't see too much of this happening with the Republicans. I just don't.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Hillary supporters will vote for Obama if he ends up with the nomination against McCain. People don't straight out hate Obama like they hate Hillary. The hatred for Hillary starts right at her name. They don't even know or care where she stands on the issues.

[Sorrow-K]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

I find that the collision between Hillary and Obama reaching such a peak is very unfortunate.

Although they are both democrats, it is likely that some Obama supporters, in the case of Hillary gaining the candidacy, will turn over to the Republicans. It is the same visa-versa. However, I don't see too much of this happening with the Republicans. I just don't.

I personally want Obama to get this, I think he's the man for the job, but oh well..

You really think so? Has it been that heated of a battle? Since it seems to me, there isn't all that much that separates Obama and Clinton so far as political philosophy is concerned, and the debate has generally avoided personal attacks, outside of the occasional snipes which are part and parcel of the electioneering process (eg, President Clinton's veiled racial comment on the media's kind portrayal of Obama). I was always pretty much certain that the winner would take the loser as their running mate.

I can't see Democrats being so fickle as to walk away en masse if their candidate of choice doesn't the selection. I think Democrats will eventually rally behind whoever gets the nomination. Two consecutive presidential election loses and off the back of a presidency that some have labeled the worst in living memory... I just can't see Democrats risking the possibility of another Republican presidency (even if it is a relative moderate like McCain) over something like the choice of candidate when they're not all that different in the first place, and the sting of two close loses are still fresh in memory.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Quzor

Most news is reporting that she's about finished. Theoretically, there are enough states left that she could win the nomination, but she'd have to pretty much sweep, and that's less than likely. I'd say it's a safe bet that Obama has the Democratic nomination.

Oh good, a candidate I might actually vote for. I might even consider voting for McCain, but if he's not that knowledgable on the economy, I'm not so sure. But heck, at least he's honest about it.

There looks to be a few good candidates out there, so I just may yet decide to register. Maybe. I'm not sure how my residency works into all of this.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by bayoab

And then there is Michigan and Florida which who knows what is going to happen with their delegates in the end.

Another reason why it's too soon to call the race over.

I hope this "most liberal" voting record is based on something other than the National Journal study which was proved to made up. For one, it was made by republicans. Secondly, Clinton and Obama barely differ in voting record and yet he is number one. And lastly, was the same one that concluded that, surprise surprise, Kerry had the most liberal record in 2004.

I'm not going to defend the National Journal other than to say it's been in the business of scoring Congress for many years now. I wasn't endorsing their score for Obama, just discussing how it's playing out in the campaign. In comparison, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, who have been scoring Congress for decades, put both Obama and Clinton at 75%. Of course, which scores you get depend a lot on which roll-call votes you select.

Keith Poole's method placed Obama tied with Biden at 10th; Clinton, and her fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer, tied for 20th. Unlike the NJ, ADA, and similar scoring methods, Poole uses all essentially non-unanimous roll calls which is certainly a more defensible method. Still he places Obama to the left of Clinton, which may not correspond to how voters would place them.

I'd argue it doesn't much matter whether the technique is sound or not, what matters is how it's played out in the media and the campaign. Regardless of whether it's "valid" or not, we'll be hearing about the NJ scoring from the Republicans whenever Barrack Obama's name comes up.

Originally Posted by Sorrow-K

I was always pretty much certain that the winner would take the loser as their running mate.

I don't see this happening because I don't see anything in the Vice Presidency that would tempt either of them. Hillary's not a good choice because she carries too much baggage, and Obama won't gain anything from being VP he doesn't have now. I think he should pick one of those white, female Democrats from the Midwest, some like Missouri Senator Claire McCaskell or perhaps Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius who gave the response to Bush's State of the Union speech last month. I don't know what kind of running mate will help Clinton, but an Hispanic might bring states like Texas into play.

[Vexx]

My observation *has* been that many people who hate Hillary seem to lack any rational reason for doing so. I suspect its the "strong woman" problem, just concealed under some righteous b.s.

I have problems with her because of her overly-coziness with the corporate lobbyists, that recent dinner with the enemy of free press Murdoch was not helpful. Obama has more than his share of corporate shadowers as well though. I was NOT amused by the recent telco immunity vote that the Dems fell over in line for. I had strong hopes for Edwards but the mega-corp media considered him their enemy and he got hardly any airplay.

Though wouldn't it be rich if the new President appointed him Attorney General.....

[Kaioshin Sama]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Agreed, but people get afraid when they hear "socialized healthcare." I guess it brings up images of Communism to them, even though our police force and fire department are socialized as well. I don't hear anyone complaining about that, and I dare say that having paid-for fire and police services would probably be disastrous.

I love how they've managed to spin Universal Healthcare as something evil and communist in the U.S. I mean I'm glad knowing that if I get sick I can be guaranteed Health Care and attention. All those stories that you hear about shortages of hospital beds just aren't true. What is true is that they will usually send you home as soon as they know you are well enough to leave, which is often overnight since many emergency room visits are quicky prescription fixes. Sometimes people complain that they are sent home to soon because they think they are still ill and sometimes the waiting list for certain procedures can be several months, but you are ultimately going to get the procedure, whereas in a private health care system if you can't afford the procedure or your insurance company won't cover it then you never will. I can't even fathom how to justify a system that will let it's citizens get really sick and sometimes die just because they can't afford to pay a bill.

Life is more precious than money and it almost seems criminal.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

All those stories that you hear about shortages of hospital beds just aren't true. What is true is that they will usually send you home as soon as they know you are well enough to leave, which is often overnight since many emergency room visits are quicky prescription fixes.

It depends on your region. In my corner of Los Angeles there are probably a lot of illegal immigrants, there are many homeless, and probably plenty of other uninsured and/or people who can't afford to pay medical bills. Many of the community hospitals here that service those people are incredibly overloaded. We had the closure of a major hospital within the past five years, which made the problem even worse. However, these problems are more about illegal immigration and the homeless - people who probably wouldn't be covered by socialized healthcare regardless.

I can't even fathom how to justify a system that will let it's citizens get really sick and sometimes die just because they can't afford to pay a bill.

Life is more precious than money and it almost seems criminal.

I agree with you. Also, it is at least partly because life is more precious than money that the industry charges so much.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It depends on your region. In my corner of Los Angeles there are probably a lot of illegal immigrants, there are many homeless, and probably plenty of other uninsured and/or people who can't afford to pay medical bills. Many of the community hospitals here that service those people are incredibly overloaded. We had the closure of a major hospital within the past five years, which made the problem even worse. However, these problems are more about illegal immigration and the homeless - people who probably wouldn't be covered by socialized healthcare regardless.

I think he meant in Canada, actually, but "it depends on your region" was going to be my response, anyway. Whether Canadian healthcare is described as a utopia or a nightmare seems to depend on the location of the observer. It's financial breakdown and doctor-flight are more general issues, but far off topic.

(Ledgem, I'm sure you know the rest of this, but I'm also sure many don't.)
Illegal immigrants and homeless generally can get care, assuming the hospital has the capacity for them, because they can walk into the emergency room and not be denied care, even if the hospital knows it will never be able to collect money for it.

The US's problems generally come for people financially "in between" the income with which their health care service will be provided for by welfare and the income with which they can afford appropriate insurance.

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

Life is more precious than money and it almost seems criminal.

I agree wholeheartedly, but it takes resources to care for life. If we try to provide care by methods that will only continue to escalate the problems of rising costs, the available resources will shrink and ultimately reduce the availability of effective health care.

[Kaioshin Sama]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I agree wholeheartedly, but it takes resources to care for life. If we try to provide care by methods that will only continue to escalate the problems of rising costs, the available resources will shrink and ultimately reduce the availability of effective health care.

In Canada we pay for it all with taxes. Ontario currently has a 13% sales tax on top of income tax and a lot of other methods for generating tax revenue. Canada's annual health care expenditure is currently in the $160 billion region so essentially we all have to come together to pay for each others health care as a society and community. I guess that's the "Socialized Medicine" that some pundits find so offensive.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I agree wholeheartedly, but it takes resources to care for life. If we try to provide care by methods that will only continue to escalate the problems of rising costs, the available resources will shrink and ultimately reduce the availability of effective health care.

I don't know about that - perhaps if people weren't so afraid of going to the hospital they'd be better about getting things checked out early. As you probably know, an earlier diagnosis usually equates with a higher chance of success with less intensive treatment involved. In theory, this could cut costs. The only problem with this is that it would make the current shortage of general practitioners more apparent than it already is - it's too bad that every single person with medical ambitions wants to be highly specialized (specialization is where the higher salaries are, after all).

You're mentioning cost and resources in the same sentence, though - what do you suggest as a corrective measure?

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

In Canada we pay for it all with taxes. Ontario currently has a 13% sales tax on top of income tax and a lot of other methods for generating tax revenue. Canada's annual health care expenditure is currently in the $160 billion region so essentially we all have to come together to pay for each others health care as a society and community. I guess that's the "Socialized Medicine" that some pundits find so offensive.

And that works... for now. Costs continue to rise with no end in sight. Kind of like anything else with government funding. There's nothing to combat the cost increases, so we rob Peter to pay Paul to put off a complete implosion of the system as long as possible.

Aside from that, there's the issue of what to do should the system fail (to any degree, major or minor). Health care is too important to put all the eggs in one basket.

If it were as simple as "pay a bit more in taxes", I'd be all for it.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

You're mentioning cost and resources in the same sentence, though - what do you suggest as a corrective measure?

That's a question with a very, very large answer (or field of answers). This is essentially the core issue of rising health care costs. Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Anarchist, whatever: The costs will rise to consume the available resources. Good regulation creates incentives for being more efficient and productive and allows adaptation in the face of inefficiency and lack of productivity. A great deal of current regulation does just the opposite.

Just some US-centric examples to start:
- End the scam of employer-provided insurance (currently something employers are required to do for full-time employees) and and the "group buys" that led to it. Insurance is not produce. While insurance becomes more effective over a broader base of contributors, offering group buys reduced competition severely, hides the true cost of insurance from the patient (not to mention fosters the mentality that some one else should be responsible), and prevents people from seeking better insurance due to astronomical individual rate. Considering the nature of insurance, all individuals of a similar risk should be paying the same price. Switching to putting that money into the employee's paycheck and switching the service to the employee's name is much a matter of paperwork. Competition returns to the marketplace, power returns to the individual patients, and the cost-cutting that will ensue for insurance companies moves back up the line as equilibrium is found between the insurance companies' ability to reduce the amount they pay to hospitals meets with the hospitals' need to charge.
- Start devoting more of medicaid (US state medical welfare) to preventive medicine and requiring medicaid recipients to adhere to a regular schedule of routine, preventive primary care.

It's a much larger issue than that, but solving it starts with applying some basic economic principles to the industry at various levels in order to bring the cost down to the range that the average person can afford health care and that medicaid can cover those who can't.

[Sorrow-K]

Originally Posted by Vexx

My observation *has* been that many people who hate Hillary seem to lack any rational reason for doing so. I suspect its the "strong woman" problem, just concealed under some righteous b.s.

I have problems with her because of her overly-coziness with the corporate lobbyists, that recent dinner with the enemy of free press Murdoch was not helpful. Obama has more than his share of corporate shadowers as well though. I was NOT amused by the recent telco immunity vote that the Dems fell over in line for. I had strong hopes for Edwards but the mega-corp media considered him their enemy and he got hardly any airplay.

Though wouldn't it be rich if the new President appointed him Attorney General.....

I think, whatever happens, I'd like to see Edwards in the Cabinet. His strong anti-special interest policies certainly should be the crux of this "change" Democratic nominees keep brandying on about, tempered for Clinton, flagrant for Obama.

I always have found it interesting how Edwards wasn't ever seen as a serious contender. I mean, he's so passionate about the influence of corporate lobbyists on government. I would have thought the left would embrace him. Is it really just a case of media portrayal, or is there something about him that just doesn't click with voters, like lack of charisma or something superficial like that? Please don't say it's got anything to do with Ann Coulter calling him a faggot. Not even I'll believe Americans are that small-minded... just some of them.