Primaries

Remove all ads!

Not when the only choices on the Ballot were Clinton, Kucinich, Gravel, and "other". Including Michigan, where Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot, now would be incredibly unfair. If Hillary can't win without the benefit of free delegates due to the fact she was the only major candidate on the ballot, she doesn't deserve the nomination. No one has campaigned in Florida or Michigan. We already know that states where no one campaigned lean towards Clinton on the basis of name recognition. Unless the other candidates get to campaign there (and have their names on the ballot) Florida and Michigan should not count.

 

Drew beat me to it. Yeah, what he said.

 

Sure, if I lived in Michigan or Florida, then I'd want my vote to count. However, like Drew and DR have pointed out, doing it after the fact is no solution. Sure if the Dems had said from the beginning that it was OK to count delegates from those states then it would be different. However, given that most of the canidates pulled their names from the ballots in those states, we have no way of knowing how to divide up the 40% of democratic voters who selected "other/uncommitted/undecided/whatever". Presumably those were votes for Edwards or Obama, but how much for each?

I also don't understand why the Democratic Party took such a hard-line stance on this. The Republican Party also was displeased with Michigan and Florida for moving their primary up, but they decided that the penalty would be that they would only receive half of the delegates that they otherwise would. Completely disenfranchising all the voters in the state seems like a much too harsh penalty.

 

McCain's win last night gives him the delegate lead and some momentum going into Feb 5th. He's really looking like the Republican nomination at this point.

 

I am happy that it appears that kook Giuliani is out, with his entourage of nut cases, first of all 'pod man' Podhoretz, and those morons who wasted their money on him. Good riddance.

I don't have much of an opinion on Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. I for my part would be totally content if there is some adult supervision again. I don't know if that would be possible with the GOP, so I'd prefer Democrats, not for their program but for the more thorough change they'll bring. I do not expect a significant change in foreign policy goals per se, which are largely bi-partisan consensus (which is what selfishly interests me most because it concerns me most). The main difference would be the means chosen to achieve it.

 

From the Edwards article above:

Am I the only one pissed off by this? Clinton is not the delegate leader. The total they are giving includes pledged super-delegates from states that haven't voted yet, but they make no mention of this fact. As it stood before Edwards dropped out, Obama had 70 actual set-in-stone delegates, Clinton had 51, and Edwards had 29.

 

No, you are not alone in this. I strongly believe that neither party will get the candidate they want. Instead both parties will get the candidate that the media handpicked for them. The Democrats will get Clinton and the GOP will get McCain. It should make the final election interesting as it is quite possible that many conservatives will stay home rather than vote for McCain and many liberals may stay home rather than vote for Clinton.

 

In that case it will be Obama, the media's darling of the moment. Even FOX seems ot like him (OMG!). The media despises both the Clintons; always have, and probably always will.

 

It's vaguely depressing, though not at all surprising, that the candidates speaking seriously about deporting 12 million people aren't laughingstocks.

 

I don't understand this at all. If I change your "concern" into

It's vaguely depressing, though not at all surprising, that the candidates speaking seriously about putting 12 million criminals in jail aren't laughingstocks.

who would be the laughingstock?

This issue and McCain-Feingold are the two major reasons that conservatives are in a state of dismay about McCain being the possible GOP nominee. A nation that fails to secure its own borders may soon cease to be a nation. Immigration policies and laws are there for a reason. It is a slap in the face to all of the millions of immigrants who are here legally and striving for citizenship that our politicians will pander to illegals. It is even more shameful that McCain (who is from Arizona) isn't following the approach that Arizona is taking to deal with the problem that the federal government ignores. (They have basically passed laws that will strip businesses of the right to do business if they are caught using illegal immigrants. This has caused multiple protests by the Mexican government to the state house in Arizona, and it is causing emigration of illegal immigrants back to Mexico and into California. When the federal government fails to act, it is good to see the states pick up the responsibility.)

 

I don't even understand the concept of super-delegates, and how they are able to pledge support for one canidate or another, when the state hasn't even voted. Can someone clear this up? When a super-delegate pledges their support does that mean that the only thing a canidate has to do to get their vote is still be in the race at the National Convention? In other words they can still give their support to the pledged canidate even if the majority of the voters in the state voted for the other canidate?

That would be fine by me. Edwards was my first choice, but Obama was second for me. If it truly comes down to Clinton and McCain, I'm not sure what I'd do. They are like too slightly varying shades of gray. (Note - Yes, I know Clinton is far more to the left than McCain, it's just that she's probably the most moderate of all the Democratic canidates, while McCain is probably the most moderate of the Republican ones. I really don't want someone that close to the middle.)

 

Aldeth - Just about anyone would be an improvement over what we have now. Obama is just a bit too slick, too much of a fast-talker, for me to feel really comfortable with him. But he would be a vast improvement over GWB - so would McCain, so would Clinton - even Mitt would be a marginal improvement. So, I don't think the country stands to lose with any of them. With MCCain, it would depend on if he would try to block UHC. If it's Hill there would be no doubt about UHC. I don't think McCain would block it either, cause everyone can see that it's coming. The big insurance companies won't be able to save themselves this time, because even some corporations would love to shed those benefits which they currently pay out billions collectively to maintain. The time has come.

But I think the field is pretty strong. The problem is that it's coming down to personality for a lot of people - who likes whom, or who is for whom - who doesn't like so-and-so.... That's a big mistake, because that's how we ended up with what we have now. The more things "change," the more they stay the same, it seems.

 

Super delegates are basically the muckety-mucks of the DNP and make up about 20% of the total delegates. They are not bound, even after their state votes, to a candidate and can change their mind right up until they vote at the convention. This is why it's silly to count super delegates until the convention because they can still change their votes. Of the super delegates that have stated a preference, though, Clinton does lead Obama by about 2:1. CNN's election 08 page has a pretty good rundown, including a count of 'pledged' super delegates.

Delegates won by primaries/caucuses are bound to the candidate that earned them though I'm not entirely clear what happens if their candidate drops out.

I'm more annoyed that NH and NV are considered Clinton wins, even though they tied for delegates in NV and Obama got one more in NH.

 

Don't get me wrong Chandos, just because I feel McCain and Clinton are uninspiring choices doesn't mean that I don't think both of them are far more intelligent, qualified, and competent than what we have now. The problem with saying something like that is we're setting the bar way too low. Since, as you pointed out, just about anyone would be an improvement, then I would like to shoot for something better than a simple improvement.

I hope that you are correct about UHC. While I would like to think the time has come, UHC is still a topic where I'll believe it when I see it. You are well aware of how deep the pockets of the insurance industry are, and I'm sure there are more than enough lobbyists - and dollars - to go around to prevent the enactment of UHC. As recently as this past year we turned down covering more of our KIDS for god's sake - even though the cost of the program for a year was equal to what we spend in Iraq every three weeks.

You're assuming we can run when I've yet to see evidence that we've even learned how to crawl.

I think you answered your own statement there. That's how it's always been. Just look at the last 50 years. At a bare minimum Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II won pretty much on charisma alone. That's 9 out of the last 12 presidential elections. In two of the remaining three presidential elections, any Democrat would have beat in Ford in '76, and any Republican would have beat any Democrat in '88. Meaning the last time we've had a president who was elected for something other than personal charisma was LBJ in '64, which predates most of the people on this board. I'm not even sure Nakia was of voting age in 1964.

 

I can understand a nation being serious about its borders, but what I see and hear makes me wonder if some of the GOP delegates aren't putting too much stress on illegal immigration. No one is saying that the US should dismantle all its border posts and leave only a sign saying "Bienvenida a Estados Unidos*"; as far as I know most candidates like some control on what's happening on the southern border. However, managing a state is a matter of allocating limited (even for the US government) resources, and mass rounding up or deportation of illegal aliens is not the best use of state funds imo. At least some of the money and effort to deport 12 million people, most of whom would happily mow someone's lawn or clean dishes, is imo way better spent on combatting, say, violent crime, natural disaster effects or poverty. If the police or federal agents are going to mount hundreds of thousands of manhunts, I'd say everyone would be better off if those manhunts are aimed at people who have committed a bigger crime than residing in the US without having a permit.

Also, just as practically all American citizens - or their ancestors - have come from another country at one time or another, it would be only to have a good and inclusive program to grant US citizenship to at least the better part of those millions: the honest, hardworking people who would pay taxes and help their new country become a better place. I know many candidates offer those, but I think some of the more radical ones are against that.

That's how I stand on the issue, for all it counts.

*: I do not know Spanish, so I suppose I might have made a grammar mistake there. If so, I apologize in advance.

 

It would have passed were it not for the GWB. But I've been playing off Obama's slogan, "Change you can Believe In." Perhaps I've just become way too cynical over the last few years. What I'm looking for is serious, substantial change, not a trip to Oz.

 

Election time in the us. The horror some say, but I like it. The rest of the world would be very pleased whit a democrat. I think that more than half of them would trow a good party if a third choice was available so they can choose. A party left of the democrats will be great for the USA. Please do not export your political system to us.

But after that rant I hope it will be Hillary, and later Obama after her 8 year reign. I hope for all americans that things like social security, social housing and social health care, things I sometimes take for granted in my country, will not only make it to the agenda, but yield conclusive results.

 

Fair enough. Just because our President thinks wars of choice are within budget, but health care for kids is not - even if the latter is a fraction of the cost of the former - does not mean that all politicians think that way or even all Republicans. It is just further proof of how screwed up GWB's priorities are. What a heartless prick.

If a democrat wins in November I will be optimistic about UHC, but it will be tempered with a healthy dose of skepticism until I see some genuine results.

Believe it or not, the Democrats used to be a liberal party. It's just that in the years since Clinton left office, the entire political landscape has grown more conservative. People who were considered moderates a decade ago are considered liberal by today's standards, even though their ideas haven't undergone dramatic change. They moved to the left by staying in place - as odd as that sounds.

That said, I'm a bit surprised that you want a more liberal leader for the US, yet you think that Hillary is the best choice, as she is the least liberal of all the Democrats seeking the nomination. Kucinich was probably furthest to the left, but he never had a realistic chance. Of the three main canidates though, if you were going to order them from most to least liberal it would be Edwards, then Obama, then Clinton.

 

How about we stop living in a fantasy land where we think it's actually possible and feasible to track down and deport 12 million people in a few short years? Aside from being impossible to pull off, it would also be a colossal waste of money. Setting up a path for illegals in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and get in the back of the line for citizenship isn't amnesty.

It is, however, a far more plausible way to take care of our nation's undocumented workers than trying to deport all 12 million of them and their kids (most of whom are American citizens and will not, upon "returning" to Mexico, be considered Mexican citizens). Fix the border. Everyone wants to do that. Penalize employers who hire undocumented workers. That's a no-brainer, but if you think that we somehow have the time or resources to successfully deport 12 million people in a coordinated effort, you need to have your head examined.

If we were to go on an "alien hunt", undocumented immigrants would just go farther underground, and catching and deporting them at that point would be all but impossible. It's far better to get these people (back) on the rolls since it's, you know, actually possible.

Yeah, that irritated me, too.

Barack Obama is not his slogan, Chandos. Some (Clinton) would have us believe that he's all soaring rhetoric and no substance, but a look at his policy proposals and his record in the Illinois State Senate and US Senate shows otherwise. I kind of doubt that a man who is all talk and no action would have been able to pass the most sweeping ethics reform in nearly 30 years during his first term in the US Senate.