US Elections 2008

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Xacual

I wasn't aware of this but apparently McCain supported the idea that immunizations can cause autism. That idea has been so discredited and disproved by all medical researchers that I can't believe a presidential candidate would say that.

Just to expand on that for those who aren't aware, vaccines used in immunization have a relatively short shelf life. In order to make them last longer before they are used they are made with a compound (forgot the name) containing trace amounts of mercury, which is a neurotoxin. Given that there has been an apparent rise in autism, people linked it to the fact that we have increased vaccines as compared with the past. The idea was that the mercury-containing compound affected children deeply.

There are two reasons that could discredit that which I am aware of (and there are likely more). First, with regard to the rise in autism cases it is suspected that we are simply more aware of it and thus better able to diagnose it than before - the rates of autism may actually be the same. Second, it was noted that autism seems to have higher rates in urban centers. Everyone is being vaccinated, but there are disproportionately higher rates in certain regions as compared with others.

Either way, a president isn't a scientist (sad sigh...) and they're bound to have the same biases and beliefs as most average people. As long as he has knowledgable people determining policies and advising him, that's what counts.

[Autumn Demon]

The vote tallying isn't done yet, but it's expected that Obama will win Texas by three delegates. Clinton won the primary, but a third of Texas's delegates are awarded based on the outcome of the caucus, which was like a second round of voting that day. Obama does a lot better in caucuses (he's won every single one so far), so although Clinton won the combined primary and caucus popular vote in Texas, she'll probably have less delegates than him (currently the delegate count in Texas is tied between them, but some caucus delegates haven't been awarded yet).

Obama is expected to win Wyoming tomorrow and Louisiana by a bigger margin on Tuesday. After that the next contest won't be until April 22 in Pensylvania, which is said to be a lot like Ohio and another expected Clinton win.
After Pennsylvania, the only big state left will be North Carolina, which votes May 6, and is expected to be won by Obama.


Currently, overall, Obama leads Clinton by 140 elected (pledged) delegates. As it's been said, Clinton will only be able to close that lead by winning the rest of the primaries and causes 60-40, which is extremely unlikely to happen.

However, the Democratic Party nomination process has crazy, horrible, undemocratic rules that give 800 prominent Democrats (mostly elected politicians like senators and governors) each a vote in deciding the nominee. They're called super delegates and make up 20% of the total amount of delegates. They're allowed to vote for whomever they want to at the convention, and because there are so many of them, neither Obama or Clinton will be able to get a majority of the delegates needed to clinche the nomination with elected delegates alone.

So far, Clinton has about 40 more super delegates backing her than Obama does. 350 super delegates still haven't backed either candidate.
Even people in the Clinton campaign realize that they'll need between 75 and 115 more super delegates than Obama to win the nomination.
It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party if the super delegates decided the nomination by letting the candidate who has less elected delegates and votes to receive the nomination. If they did that then the Democratic Party would be hated so much that they'd lose the general election in November no matter what, and would probably have to change their name to the Oligarchal Party or something.

But things are a little complicated. Obama will most likely have the most elected delegates, but he may not win the total popular vote (adding the votes up from all 50+ primaries and caucuses). This is because he has won all of the caucuses so far, which have small turnouts so voters' votes count more so than in states with primaries. Obama is currently in the lead in the total popular vote, but when you add Michigan and Florida in, Clinton is winning.

And those two states are another problem. They voted before February 5, against party rules, and thus had all their delegates stripped (as opposed to the Republican Party which only took away half of the delegates from states that violated voting date rules). Clinton won both those states, and is trying to get her wins there to count for delegates, but that chance is very low. There is some talk of doing the Michigan and Florida primaries over, but that prospect is small too, primarily because of costs. If they were to be done over, Clinton might win them again.

There's also the issue of electability (lol my spell check underlines that word): which candidate has a better chance of beating John McCain in the general election. It would seem that Obama is the obvious choice for that, as he appeals to a lot of independents, and most of the states that Clinton won will go to the Democrats regardless of who they nominate. The exception is Ohio, which Clinton won and was sort of the "deciding" state in 2004. Obama won Virgina however, which has been Republican for a very long time but it may soon have a Democratic governor and both of its senators as Democrats. It is expected to be fiercely contested in the general election.



In short: Clinton doesn't have a chance of winning the most elected delegates. She only has a few things to hope for:
-winning the total popular vote,
-her win in Ohio being deemed extremely significant,
-and the Michigan and Florida primaries being counted, or redone and winning them again.
If those things happen, she may be able to persuade enough super delegates to back her and give her the nomination. Otherwise, Obama is the clear winner.


here's a good article about the division in the Democratic Party:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ry_id=10808693

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Just to expand on that for those who aren't aware, vaccines used in immunization have a relatively short shelf life. In order to make them last longer before they are used they are made with a compound (forgot the name) containing trace amounts of mercury, which is a neurotoxin. Given that there has been an apparent rise in autism, people linked it to the fact that we have increased vaccines as compared with the past. The idea was that the mercury-containing compound affected children deeply.

There are two reasons that could discredit that which I am aware of (and there are likely more). First, with regard to the rise in autism cases it is suspected that we are simply more aware of it and thus better able to diagnose it than before - the rates of autism may actually be the same. Second, it was noted that autism seems to have higher rates in urban centers. Everyone is being vaccinated, but there are disproportionately higher rates in certain regions as compared with others.

Either way, a president isn't a scientist (sad sigh...) and they're bound to have the same biases and beliefs as most average people. As long as he has knowledgable people determining policies and advising him, that's what counts.

All we have is a bunch of statistical correlations .... nothing causal other than some genetic tendencies. There are better cases to be made for autism increasing from environmental degradation, chemical exposure, prenatal diet -- almost anything including a broadening of what is *considered* autism.

EVERYTHING is a risk/benefit analysis -- in the case of vaccinations in general, the benefits so outweigh the risks that it makes anti-vaccine folks look just as ridiculous as people who worry more about a terrorist attack than getting into a car wreck... o wait....

Average Joe/Jane simply does not have the skill-sets of critical thinking and risk/benefit analysis under their hood. That's either a serious flaw in the education and raising of the population ... or the intended result of it.

On topic: nice summation of the situation by Autumn Demon --- though I could see a "buyout" or "call in the favors" by Clinton of the super-delegates more easily. The Democrats have managed to blow their chances on their own three major times in the last 50 years. They could certainly do it again.

[Tonytime20]

Not Hillary. Huckabee's a little weird too. Obama or McCain are the best for the job out of the main four.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Tonytime20

Not Hillary. Huckabee's a little weird too. Obama or McCain are the best for the job out of the main four.

I'm surprised no one has said it's here yet, but Huckabee is out. He conceeded as soon as it was clear that McCain had he delegate votes needed to secure the nomination.

[Alleluia_Cone]

It should be noted that Barack Obama is poised to win the Democratic nomination having lost (or likely to lose) the primaries in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, or, in other words, seven out of the eight biggest states in the United States (the exception being his home state of Illinois). Many of these states, especially California and New York, constitute the foundation on which the electoral strategy of the Democratic Party depends on, while others (i.e. Florida and Ohio) are crucial swing-states that the Democrats must capture in order to insure victory in the November general election. Moreover, and as a continuum to this point, many of the states that Senator Obama has achieved victory in, and which are responsible for the large lead in delegates he maintains over Senator Clinton, are traditional Republican strongholds, that, even in the rosiest of scenarios, the Democrats have little chance of capturing in the general election.

There is also to consider the fact, that, even in those states in which Senator Obama has clearly bested Senator Clinton, and which can likewise be said to sway to the Democratic Party in the general election, several factors have worked to the advantage of the junior senator from Illinois that are not present in the general election. Of those advantages, the most obvious is that the African-American vote constitutes a far greater proportion of the vote in a Democratic primary than it would in a general election because African-Americans are overwhelmingly registered as party members of the Democratic Party. Thus, while African-Americans may account for 40% of registered Democratic primary voters in a state such as, say, Georgia, they would only amount to something on the order of 15% in a general election environment. The other advantage which has allowed Senator Obama to capitalize in left-leaning states over the candidacy of Senator Clinton, and which is not indicative of the circumstances expected in a general election, is his near invincibility in states wherein there is no statewide primary but instead an electoral caucus, that is, by definition, inclusive only to active party members and is not representative of the statewide voters as a whole. An example can be found in a state like Minesota, which although going to Barack Obama, had a total turnout of something on the order of 300,000 voters in a state with a population of close to four million eligible voters.

As a way of summarizing, I would submit that the above mentioned factors and my reasoning throughout is intended as a stern warning regarding the viability of Barack Obama, not only as a presidential candidate, but even as a genuine victor of the Democratic ticket. I strongly believe that the Senator from Illinois has exploited patently ridiculous idiosyncrasies that can only be found in such an archaic system as the one the Democrat Party uses to choose their presidential candidate. He also disingenuously cloaks his campaign in the guise of appealing to a higher political ground, while in truth being very much about identity politics (i.e. garnering 90% of the African-American vote). This final point, ironically itself, may prove Mr. Obama’s final undoing, as his inability to appeal to two of the more significant voting blocks in the country, namely, Latino-Americans and Senior Citizens, could cost him in the general election in several crucial states, with Florida in particular coming to mind.

[Vexx]

Oooooh, that deserves a cookie regardless of my opinion of the content (though I find it pretty incisive).

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

It should be noted that Barack Obama is poised to win the Democratic nomination having lost (or likely to lose) the primaries in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, or, in other words, seven out of the eight biggest states in the United States (the exception being his home state of Illinois). Many of these states, especially California and New York, constitute the foundation on which the electoral strategy of the Democratic Party depends on, while others (i.e. Florida and Ohio) are crucial swing-states that the Democrats must capture in order to insure victory in the November general election. Moreover, and as a continuum to this point, many of the states that Senator Obama has achieved victory in, and which are responsible for the large lead in delegates he maintains over Senator Clinton, are traditional Republican strongholds, that, even in the rosiest of scenarios, the Democrats have little chance of capturing in the general election.

Several key points are overlooked in this analysis. A couple of notes first:

• Note: Stronghold means that the state will very likely go for the party regardless of the candidate in the general election this year. (The state has voted the same way for the past 4 elections.) However, see the end paragraph for why this is not a guarantee even this year.
• Note: I am going to apply your note on African-Americans in your the second paragraph to Latinos instead. (40% of registered dem, only 25% of population overall.)

Firstly, regarding Florida and Michigan:

• Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. It is likely he would have lost Michigan anyway because of its demographics. Michigan is a stronghold for the democrats.
• Florida is a even more complex. Obama did not do anything in Florida. Clinton ran 2 fund raisers(?), as was allowed by the rules in Florida. Also, Florida has a large latino population who tend to vote for Clinton regardless.

Secondly, regarding New York:

• New York is Clinton's "home" state. She has a ~60% approval rating in the state. She could not have lost that without a major screwup. New York is also a stronghold for the Democrats.

Thirdly, regarding Texas and California:

• Texas is a stronghold for the republicans. If you are going to claim Obama winning in republican states means nothing, then Hillary winning in this state is equally meaningless. Also this state has a large number of Latino voters.
• California is, again, a stronghold for the Democrats and has a large number of Latino voters.

Fourthly, regarding Pennsylvania:

• Pennsylvania is by the definition being used, a stronghold for the Democrats.

The other advantage which has allowed Senator Obama to capitalize in left-leaning states over the candidacy of Senator Clinton, and which is not indicative of the circumstances expected in a general election, is his near invincibility in states wherein there is no statewide primary but instead an electoral caucus, that is, by definition, inclusive only to active party members and is not representative of the statewide voters as a whole. An example can be found in a state like Minesota, which although going to Barack Obama, had a total turnout of something on the order of 300,000 voters in a state with a population of close to four million eligible voters.

The true reason he is invincible in the caucus is because the people who support him are more likely to go to a caucus and go in mass. In a caucus, all that matters is the proportion. If Obama can bring out 100 voters in one precinct and Clinton can only bring out 10, he wins the entire precinct. Clinton may have 50 supporters in the precinct, but if they don't show up at the exact time, they don't count. It is easier for younger people to make it to the caucuses.

As a way of summarizing, I would submit that the above mentioned factors and my reasoning throughout is intended as a stern warning regarding the viability of Barack Obama, not only as a presidential candidate, but even as a genuine victor of the Democratic ticket. I strongly believe that the Senator from Illinois has exploited patently ridiculous idiosyncrasies that can only be found in such an archaic system as the one the Democrat Party uses to choose their presidential candidate. He also disingenuously cloaks his campaign in the guise of appealing to a higher political ground, while in truth being very much about identity politics (i.e. garnering 90% of the African-American vote). This final point, ironically itself, may prove Mr. Obama’s final undoing, as his inability to appeal to two of the more significant voting blocks in the country, namely, Latino-Americans and Senior Citizens, could cost him in the general election in several crucial states, with Florida in particular coming to mind.

One thing you aren't factoring in is the "shed" factor. If Clinton or Obama don't get the nomination, there are going to be democrats who end up voting for McCain because either a) his name isn't Clinton or b) (I don't know the Clinton supporter's reason for not voting Obama over McCain). As per MSNBC last Tuesday, Clinton's shed factor is over 20%. If she does not win the nomination, over 20% of her supporters will vote for McCain. Obama's shed factor is around 10% if I recall what was reported. Note that, despite this, in the head to head polls, Clinton is still statistically tied with McCain while Obama is leading.

Another is the question of whether the democratic party will continue to be able to get the voters out in mass. If they keep the mass they have in the primaries, they will win just by numbers. However, a number of these states are open and semi-open primaries. These allow independents and even republicans to vote in the democrat's primary. Whether they will keep voting for a democrat in the general election is a total unknown. On the same note, Obama pulls in a large number of people who identify as independent. One of McCain's strong points is getting independent voters. Which way they end up going could decide everything.

Finally, Obama does not play identity politics. This is the nature of the beast. African-Americans are voting 9:1 for him because of race. Bill Clinton used to be very popular among the same voters. However, the news claims that they feel used and would likely not support a Clinton ticket in the same numbers as an Obama ticket. Obama is able to pull in white males and in some places, white females too. The latino population will likely not vote for a republican in the general election if Obama is nominated. Whether they will vote for him or not vote remains to be seen. Senior-citizens are likely going to vote for the democrat, regardless of who it is. However, I wonder whether young vs old or healthcare is the real reason they are picking Clinton.

(Disclaimer since this reads pro-Obama: I distrust Obama, am very displeased at how Clinton has been acting, and definitely do not want Gore.)

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Several key points are overlooked in this analysis. A couple of notes first:

• Note: Stronghold means that the state will very likely go for the party regardless of the candidate in the general election this year. (The state has voted the same way for the past 4 elections.) However, see the end paragraph for why this is not a guarantee even this year.

I believe this actually strengthens my point, which is that Senator Clinton can exert a tighter grip on these states than Senator Obama can.

Originally Posted by bayoab

• Note: I am going to apply your note on African-Americans in your the second paragraph to Latinos instead. (40% of registered dem, only 25% of population overall.)

I do not group Latino voters with their African-American minority counterparts because the former group is a much more volatile voting group; which is another way of saying that it is doubtful that African-Americans will bring themselves to vote for John McCain or any other Republican candidate if they are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party (they will stay home if anything). Not since before the times of FDR have African-American voters gone the way of Lincoln’s Party.

Originally Posted by bayoab

Firstly, regarding Florida and Michigan:

• Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. It is likely he would have lost Michigan anyway because of its demographics. Michigan is a stronghold for the democrats.
• Florida is a even more complex. Obama did not do anything in Florida. Clinton ran 2 fund raisers(?), as was allowed by the rules in Florida. Also, Florida has a large latino population who tend to vote for Clinton regardless.

The only thing I am going to add to these points is that you are making an error in your analysis of Florida voters in so far as their Latino vote is concerned because they are unique in their Latino vote being Cuban and primarily Republican. This stems mostly from the fact of Fidel Castro’s existence, but they also have prejudice in particular against the Clinton family because of the Elian Gonzalez incident and Janet Reno’s botched handling of that situation, which severely alienated the Cuban community in the United States against Democrats in general.

Originally Posted by bayoab

Secondly, regarding New York:

• New York is Clinton's "home" state. She has a ~60% approval rating in the state. She could not have lost that without a major screwup. New York is also a stronghold for the Democrats.

Thirdly, regarding Texas and California:

• Texas is a stronghold for the republicans. If you are going to claim Obama winning in republican states means nothing, then Hillary winning in this state is equally meaningless. Also this state has a large number of Latino voters.
• California is, again, a stronghold for the Democrats and has a large number of Latino voters.

Fourthly, regarding Pennsylvania:

• Pennsylvania is by the definition being used, a stronghold for the Democrats.

The true reason he is invincible in the caucus is because the people who support him are more likely to go to a caucus and go in mass. In a caucus, all that matters is the proportion. If Obama can bring out 100 voters in one precinct and Clinton can only bring out 10, he wins the entire precinct. Clinton may have 50 supporters in the precinct, but if they don't show up at the exact time, they don't count. It is easier for younger people to make it to the caucuses.

My intention in highlighting the big states victories of Senator Clinton while degrading the victories of Senator Obama in small state and caucus contests is to demonstrate the success of the former at achieving victory in true broad, diverse, and representative voting blocks while Mr. Obama is basically restricted to beating Mrs. Clinton when the conditions are tailored to his needs (i.e. high proportion of African-American voters, exclusive voting rules, low-and-enthusiastic turnout, etc.).

Originally Posted by bayoab

One thing you aren't factoring in is the "shed" factor. If Clinton or Obama don't get the nomination, there are going to be democrats who end up voting for McCain because either a) his name isn't Clinton or b) (I don't know the Clinton supporter's reason for not voting Obama over McCain). As per MSNBC last Tuesday, Clinton's shed factor is over 20%. If she does not win the nomination, over 20% of her supporters will vote for McCain. Obama's shed factor is around 10% if I recall what was reported. Note that, despite this, in the head to head polls, Clinton is still statistically tied with McCain while Obama is leading.

Another is the question of whether the democratic party will continue to be able to get the voters out in mass. If they keep the mass they have in the primaries, they will win just by numbers. However, a number of these states are open and semi-open primaries. These allow independents and even republicans to vote in the democrat's primary. Whether they will keep voting for a democrat in the general election is a total unknown. On the same note, Obama pulls in a large number of people who identify as independent. One of McCain's strong points is getting independent voters. Which way they end up going could decide everything.

Finally, Obama does not play identity politics. This is the nature of the beast. African-Americans are voting 9:1 for him because of race. Bill Clinton used to be very popular among the same voters. However, the news claims that they feel used and would likely not support a Clinton ticket in the same numbers as an Obama ticket. Obama is able to pull in white males and in some places, white females too. The latino population will likely not vote for a republican in the general election if Obama is nominated. Whether they will vote for him or not vote remains to be seen. Senior-citizens are likely going to vote for the democrat, regardless of who it is. However, I wonder whether young vs old or healthcare is the real reason they are picking Clinton.

(Disclaimer since this reads pro-Obama: I distrust Obama, am very displeased at how Clinton has been acting, and definitely do not want Gore.)

As an added note, I think you are dismissing the Latino factor much too easily and assuming they will vote for a Democrat regardless. I think it is true that a majority will, but not a landslide on the order expected from African-American voters. In 2004, before the anti-immigration rhetoric spewed by the Republicans had hit full throttle, George W. Bush won 40% of Latino voters, which is a significant amount and enough to sway an election. Barack Obama, being African-American, has a natural tendency to repel Latinos, whether fairly or not, and this is a much more dangerous problem than would be the case if African-Americans were being repelled, because, as noted above, Latinos will vote Republican if they do not like the Democratic candidate.

In any case, I rail mostly against the manner that the Democratic candidate for President is chosen. It seems to me a process that is riddled with unfairness and at war with itself—its workings seem to have a schizophrenic condition. In one respect it wants to be as democratic as possible by awarding delegates in a proportional basis as opposed to the mostly winner-take-all Republican example, but then it completely undermines itself by the awarding of Super Delegates, which is completely and wholly un-democratic. The rules seem to matter way too much as to who will actually win the contest. For example, imagine if the Democratic Party system was replaced by that of the Republicans, with Hillary Clinton winning all the big states, this contest would have been over a month ago.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

I do not group Latino voters with their African-American minority counterparts because the former group is a much more volatile voting group; <snip> As an added note, I think you are dismissing the Latino factor much too easily and assuming they will vote for a Democrat regardless.

They are volatile, but they are also one of the bases of the democratic party during the primary. The assumption that they would vote democrat was based on McCain flip flopping on immigration so much and being lumped in with Bush a lot. It is possible that they will go republican, but there are only a few states where it may actually make a difference. (Florida is one.) There is no guarantee that they will support Clinton either. There were cries of racism and that they were being used when she fired her campaign manager. These people were calling for others to vote Obama in Texas which has open primaries so they could have voted republican too. (And Texas was supposed to be a tight race between McCain and Huckabee.)

The rules seem to matter way too much as to who will actually win the contest. For example, imagine if the Democratic Party system was replaced by that of the Republicans, with Hillary Clinton winning all the big states, this contest would have been over a month ago.

Each one is using the rules to their own advantage though. Clinton macromanages and Obama micromanages. Obama attempts to win all the smaller places big and keep the big ones close. This way he picks up many small groups that can equal out any one large group. Clinton attempts to throw all the small ones under the wheel and win the big ones. Like the general, she is just trying to win the big states to get to the magic number and not caring about the smaller ones.

As an aside: If you grind it down, the general election really comes down to who wins a selection of about 10 states. The other 40 don't really don't matter at all as they will swing the same way every time.

Also, in absolutely no surprise, Obama took Wyoming.

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by Tonytime20

Not Hillary. Huckabee's a little weird too. Obama or McCain are the best for the job out of the main four.

McCain is going to be no better than Bush. Democrats MUST have this one. America fails if McCain is elected.

Often times, I'm sure many people forget that the President doesn't run the country, rather it's the President's party that dominates. With this being said, of course Bush's Presidency co-exists with Bush's Republican Leadership. Although Bush does have the power to veto and stuff at times, he is ultimately a pet of the Republican party when it all comes down to it. Without the support of his party, Bush is nothing. Now with this said...

McCain is not a reliable candidate IMO. Come on.... His runner-ups are Huckabee and Romney... I wonder if any of these people have a sense of how the middle class work. Why do McCain's supporters support him? Militarism and Nationalism. Properties and qualities which I find in Bush, I feel are reflected in this McCain character as well. Truth be told, McCain would fail worse than Ron Paul (who actually knows and is willing to do something) in the polls, if it weren't for his "Vietnam Hero" stuff. That really shouldn't be accounted for in the polls for presidency, but I guess this is a big popularity contest when it comes down to it..

Now, Hillary is very political and very knowledged in the matters present. She does have experience, especially because she was somewhat a co-Chief when Bill was Chief. Her influence on Bill was tremendous, and Bill wouldn't make decisions without consulting her first. Of course, we all know that the Clinton Administration was quite successful in generic terms, as well as in comparison to Bush's Administration. However, as Obama put it, Hillary was on a corporate lawyer on the board of Walmart while he was coping with the streets of Illinois. From what I know, Chicago and Detroit are few of the worst places in America (amongst the gang territories and other places like Conneticut, Compton, L.A., Brooklyn, Atlanta, Miami, etc.)

Obama is young in terms of presidency. However, he's demonstrated his ability to speak, and like Reagan, I think Obama understands that sometimes, Words are more important than Actions. Now, just listening to him speak would make him nothing more than your average politician of modern society. However, he's not only put forth his ideas and plans, but he's also made accomplishments in the cold streets of Illinois.

All in all, the election is a big one, but I'm rooting for Obama. I wouldn't mind if Hillary got in, I mean she's a tough one, seemingly unsentimental at times, but people would just ridicule her if she used her -femininiimiminism- and got all girly and stuff. But man, Hillary has to lighten up at the right times. She's too "all-business" looking. It's like a facade, yet it seems like the real her. I really hope Democrats stick with the democrat nominee, even if it's not who they were rooting for from the start. Otherwise, America is going to have itself another 4 years of war and ... Meh, we've all seen Bush, right?

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

McCain is not a reliable candidate IMO. Come on.... His runner-ups are Huckabee and Romney... I wonder if any of these people have a sense of how the middle class work.

I'm going to ignore the rest of the post and focus on this...

Do you really--REALLY--think that the democratic candidates are more "qualified" to understand how the middle class works?

Let me go ahead and say that ANY ONE who buys into the "Republicans are rich fat-cats, Democrats are for the little guy" cliche IMMEDIATELY fails in the areas of political understanding, economics, research, and critical thinking.

What does it take to understand how the middle class works, though? Does it take the experience of living with middle-class hardships, or does it take economic understanding that almost no one in the middle class has?

If it's the hardships of living as middle class, well... McCain and Huckabee win that contest. McCain's father and grandfather were very well paid admirals, but not so well paid thatn he was born into riches, and he received military officer pay for his entire pre-politics career. Huckabee was raised by a fireman in small town Arkansas and then worked as a small-town pastor prior to running for governor.

Obama and Hillary both had comfortable middle-class childhoods, and went into law and politics right out of college.

And all of them know #$^@ all about economics. Experience in the middle class does not provide an inherent understanding on how to solve middle class problems! Huckabee at least understood some basics about sound finance and applied those principles to great success in Arkansas, but he hasn't really expressed an understanding on a higher level. I always get the impression that Hillary might understand economics to some degree, but if she does she has other priorities.

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I'm going to ignore the rest of the post and focus on this...

Do you really--REALLY--think that the democratic candidates are more "qualified" to understand how the middle class works?

Let me go ahead and say that ANY ONE who buys into the "Republicans are rich fat-cats, Democrats are for the little guy" cliche IMMEDIATELY fails in the areas of political understanding, economics, research, and critical thinking.

What does it take to understand how the middle class works, though? Does it take the experience of living with middle-class hardships, or does it take economic understanding that almost no one in the middle class has?

If it's the hardships of living as middle class, well... McCain and Huckabee win that contest. McCain's father and grandfather were very well paid admirals, but not so well paid thatn he was born into riches, and he received military officer pay for his entire pre-politics career. Huckabee was raised by a fireman in small town Arkansas and then worked as a small-town pastor prior to running for governor.

Obama and Hillary both had comfortable middle-class childhoods, and went into law and politics right out of college.

And all of them know #$^@ all about economics. Experience in the middle class does not provide an inherent understanding on how to solve middle class problems! Huckabee at least understood some basics about sound finance and applied those principles to great success in Arkansas, but he hasn't really expressed an understanding on a higher level. I always get the impression that Hillary might understand economics to some degree, but if she does she has other priorities.

That just makes Huckabees a more reliable candidate than McCain.

You shouldn't have ignored the rest of the post. It describes my reasoning as to why I believe McCain should not be President, as well as how Democrats this year, such as Hillary and Obama, do realize the issues more than just from a broad perspective.

I'll say it again. Without American militarism and nationalism, do you think someone like McCain who only understands the broad concepts, obviously from the things he wants to do and all, and his "I don't know much about economy" should bubble up sympathy from Americans enough to swap their votes? So I mentioned that it was a popularity contest.

As I said, Hillary is probably most experienced about the whole thing. And yes, experience does play a key role in all this. I'm not for Republicans or Democrats specifically - I'm not even American. So I don't follow that "Republicans are rich fat-cats, Democrats are for the little guy" cliche or whatever you would like to call it. However, judging from the campaigning so far, who would you say is seemingly a more profound and knowledgeable character in the election? Honestly, at this point, I would say one of the Democrats. Not McCain.

My ignorance to Republicans is simply because #1. Repubs ain't getting media this election. #2. Ron Paul is being ignored in the Republican community. That's really about it. But when it comes down to it, McCain is winning, and since he's openly mentioned his failure to understand certain key aspects of the American Commonwealth, he's just going to be another Bush representing the Republican party. This was touched upon in my "rest of the post" as well. Sorry if my opening statement seemed too blunt for you. .

Now that the history has been mentioned, let's go to the present.

How is McCain doing now? After torture, how is he living? How's Romney doing now? How's Huckabee doing now? And how's Obama doing now?

You say Hillary and Obama both had comfortable middle class childhoods, but Obama's left that to help the streets. Hillary took the additional step and somehow ended up being First Lady.

Economics, it's as you say, but also not. Often times, you see the budget and you say, "Wow, things really got to go up here, go down here, etc. etc." But that's not the key. Things change. It's inevitable. It doesn't remain balanced as long as the economy grows or shrinks. Now, experience in the middle class doesn't mean you know economics right off the bat, because everyone has their own bias and opinions. However, it does give a better understanding in comparison to the higher class. Hillary knows economics because with Bill, she succeeded on this matter. Obama doesn't only have his own experience, but he's studied and experienced other opportunities to learn more as well. I don't know about you, but I can't really say the same about the Republican candidates right now.

I guess thats about it..

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

That just makes Huckabees a more reliable candidate than McCain.

You shouldn't have ignored the rest of the post. It describes my reasoning as to why I believe McCain should not be President, as well as how Democrats this year, such as Hillary and Obama, do realize the issues more than just from a broad perspective.

I ignored it in the sense that I wasn't going to respond to it. I really don't have the time to be drawn into such long, and ultimately fruitless, debate.

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

I'll say it again. Without American militarism and nationalism, do you think someone like McCain who only understands the broad concepts, obviously from the things he wants to do and all, and his "I don't know much about economy" should bubble up sympathy from Americans enough to swap their votes? So I mentioned that it was a popularity contest.

This entire process is a popularity contest, with different "charm points" each candidate is banking on.

You can't simplify that as "militarism" and you CERTAINLY can't simplify it as "nationalism". It's just not that simple. It is true, though, that McCain has support as being the pro-military candidate. That's about all he has that puts him in the same camp as the rest of the republicans, anyway.

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

As I said, Hillary is probably most experienced about the whole thing. And yes, experience does play a key role in all this. I'm not for Republicans or Democrats specifically - I'm not even American. So I don't follow that "Republicans are rich fat-cats, Democrats are for the little guy" cliche or whatever you would like to call it. However, judging from the campaigning so far, who would you say is seemingly a more profound and knowledgeable character in the election? Honestly, at this point, I would say one of the Democrats. Not McCain.

Experience counts for something, but ALL of the candidates (Obama excepted) are quite well experienced, but let's be honest: EVERY electable position requires a MINIMUM of political experience. Experience can help, but it's not required, and it borders irrelevant when compared to the issues of character and policy.

As for political cliches... You may say you don't follow the cliche, but everything you've said so far lines up with it.

And the campaigning so far has given NOTHING to judge these candidates by, unless you judge mud-slinging as a negative factor. Just by their speeches so far, they're full of nice words with minimal explanation of plans or ideas, spotted with bickering about the other candidate. Vague platitudes don't tell us anything.

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

My ignorance to Republicans is simply because #1. Repubs ain't getting media this election. #2. Ron Paul is being ignored in the Republican community. That's really about it. But when it comes down to it, McCain is winning, and since he's openly mentioned his failure to understand certain key aspects of the American Commonwealth, he's just going to be another Bush representing the Republican party. This was touched upon in my "rest of the post" as well. Sorry if my opening statement seemed too blunt for you. .

If you're ignorant on the issue... why do you speak on it with such vigor and confidence? Again, I did read the rest of your post. Some one being anti-Bush or anti-republican doesn't really bother me (they've done enough to hack me off, too), but the REASONS why a person feels that way reveal much.

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Now that the history has been mentioned, let's go to the present.

How is McCain doing now? After torture, how is he living? How's Romney doing now? How's Huckabee doing now? And how's Obama doing now?

You say Hillary and Obama both had comfortable middle class childhoods, but Obama's left that to help the streets. Hillary took the additional step and somehow ended up being First Lady.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. They are ALL living quite well now, far above the middle class "standard". Obama "left that to help the streets"? If you mean "briefly took an average salary to work as a community organizer in between his work at lucrative jobs and beginning law school", sure... which although it's not as you describe, is nonetheless quite commendable, I think, but as I've said, having lived middle class doesn't mean that you have any idea how to help the middle class--just that you can sympathize. That's an important quality, but not everything.

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Economics, it's as you say, but also not. Often times, you see the budget and you say, "Wow, things really got to go up here, go down here, etc. etc." But that's not the key. Things change. It's inevitable. It doesn't remain balanced as long as the economy grows or shrinks. Now, experience in the middle class doesn't mean you know economics right off the bat, because everyone has their own bias and opinions. However, it does give a better understanding in comparison to the higher class. Hillary knows economics because with Bill, she succeeded on this matter. Obama doesn't only have his own experience, but he's studied and experienced other opportunities to learn more as well. I don't know about you, but I can't really say the same about the Republican candidates right now.

I do think that experience with Bill gives Hillary a lot of perspective on economics, but there's more to it than that (and no, the Clintons don't get credit for a booming economy in what was the spiral up the mountain of overvaluation that resulted in an inevitable crash--neither the up nor the down were their fault). What policies has she supported, and what does this tell us about her political and economic philosophy? The same questions need to be asked of Obama and McCain. For what it's worth, I'm not fond of ANY of them. They're all going to play party politics.

These sorts of decisions can't be made on emotional impressions.

[KholdStare]

I've found something interesting here. I think there is some truth to this, but as Kyuusai said, living in the middle class does not mean you know how to help the middle class, but only that you can sympathize. However, the campaigns boast of having been in the middle class (Edwards, Obama), so is this just talk? Also, according to what I've read, economics play an important role, so that means the wealthy and famous (aka experienced politicians who know most about economics, and I'm not talking about Romney either) are best suited to help the middle class? If this is true, then it would change a lot of my opinions...just something to think about.

[bayoab]

Yet again, in no surprise, Obama took Mississipi. This means he has undone what Clinton gained with Ohio. She ended up coming out behind on delegates in Texas.

Florida will be having a mail in primary. This contains the interesting quote:

If Florida does not have a delegation to the national convention, 5% of those surveyed would not vote in November and 14% would "seriously consider" voting Republican. He said another 12% weren't sure what they might do if Florida is unrepresented. Geller said that means about 25% of Democrats would probably stay home or vote for John McCain, R-Ariz. "That means we can't win," he said.

And in a fun read, why it doesn't matter which states you win the primary in.

[Sorrow-K]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Yet again, in no surprise, Obama took Mississipi. This means he has undone what Clinton gained with Ohio. She ended up coming out behind on delegates in Texas.

Florida will be having a mail in primary. This contains the interesting quote:

And in a fun read, why it doesn't matter which states you win the primary in.

Well, that's kind of disturbing.

I find it surprising that Democrats in Florida are so incensed over their delegates not being counted at the national convention (since they did break DNC rules after all), that numbers that significant would consider not supporting the Democratic nominee. I would have thought most people in Florida would have realized that their state probably isn't going to decide the Democratic nomination. They are going to have a big say in deciding the Presidency, though.

[KholdStare]

Well it's been talked about. The present problem is if Obama wins but did not win big states like California, Pennsylvania, New York, etc..., then there's a good chance he won't win it in the general election. There were some good arguments to this, such as NY was Clinton's state so duh, California will vote democrat no matter who the candidate is, and Illinois, another big state, is Obama's. However, other big states such as Florida and Ohio might be "disappointed" Clinton didn't win and those independent voters might switch to McCain. That's pretty much a short rundown of what's going on.

Note that this is a summary, not an analysis.

[Aya Reiko]

The Young Turks calls the Nomination for Obama for good reason.

Clinton is essentially running a scorched earth campaign now.

The present problem is if Obama wins but did not win big states like California, Pennsylvania, New York, etc..., then there's a good chance he won't win it in the general election.

Uhhh... The big states are, for the most part, DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLDS! The only "Big States" that might not go to the Dems are Texas and Florida, neither are expected to go to the Dems in November.
The question should be who wins the swing states, like the Mid-West and the West? In case you haven't noticed, Obama has been winning those states, often blowing HRC out of the water.

[Reckoner]

Honestly if the Democratic nomination voting system wasn't such crap, Obama wouldn't be winning this easily. See Alleluia_Cone's posts for details as he pretty much describes everything very well.

Obama does have a better chance of winning the entire election that Hilary, but that doesn't mean he's the best candidate for the Democrats in my eyes. I almost think Mccain is better than Obama... And I detest republicans!

Like I've said before though, it's a sad day when Oprah can decide our next president.

And btw it doesn't really matter if Mccain has a better understanding of the economy than the democrats because he wants to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years (if that's what it takes), which is wasting billions of dollars every week. National debt just keeps getting worst baby.