2008-02-13, 17:41 | Link #181 | |
^.^
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
|
Quote:
Actually, I wonder what McCain is going to do period.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-13, 21:09 | Link #183 |
Somehow I found out
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
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?
__________________
|
2008-02-13, 21:35 | Link #184 | |
It's the year 3030...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 39
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-02-13, 21:46 | Link #185 | |
Dancing with the Sky
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-02-13, 22:40 | Link #186 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
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.
__________________
|
2008-02-13, 22:47 | Link #187 |
^.^
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
|
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..
__________________
|
2008-02-14, 00:24 | Link #188 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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).
__________________
|
2008-02-14, 00:30 | Link #189 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Some Sources: Here, here, here, and Poole ratings Quote:
|
|||
2008-02-14, 00:49 | Link #190 | |
Somehow I found out
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-14, 02:54 | Link #191 | |
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 35
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-14, 08:47 | Link #192 | ||
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. 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.
__________________
|
||
2008-02-14, 12:19 | Link #193 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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.....
__________________
|
2008-02-14, 15:37 | Link #194 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Life is more precious than money and it almost seems criminal. |
|
2008-02-14, 15:56 | Link #195 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-02-14, 16:11 | Link #196 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
(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. 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.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-14, 16:22 | Link #197 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-02-14, 16:35 | Link #198 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
You're mentioning cost and resources in the same sentence, though - what do you suggest as a corrective measure?
__________________
|
|
2008-02-14, 16:35 | Link #199 | ||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by Kyuusai; 2008-02-14 at 17:19. |
||
2008-02-14, 23:26 | Link #200 | |
Somehow I found out
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
Tags |
debate, elections, politics, united_states |
|
|