Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Super Tuesday, McCain Leads Reps, Dems Undecided

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the i-sure-have-my-opinions dept.

Politics 188

Following the so called Super Tuesday primary mega bash yesterday, McCain has solidified a strong lead in the primary race over his rival Republicans. Things aren't so clear for the Democrats: while Clinton leads, the race is still too close to call.

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obama truely the big winner. (5, Interesting)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22319914)

While Clinton won California, New york, new Jersey and Mass, Obama really comes out as the winner here. Why? because not a month ago he was hugely behind, and now he's only narrowly been defeated. Clinton also has won all her states, there is not much left for her. While Obama however has plenty of states left to go where he typically is a winner. If you look at the pledged delegate count, he's tied with her, AFTER she won all those large states.

Also, in money, Clinton is getting tapped out, while Obama is gaining speed. 35 Million last month? In SMALL party donation? Thats amazing.

So while they will go on for a few more months.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (3, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320016)

Actually, since it now appears that NM may go to Obama, along with a few other delegate gains, the Obama camp is now claiming that they won more delegates (along with more states). Clinton has to be reeling from this. Obama is also positioned to do well in next Tuesday's primaries - Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia. A sweep of all 3, in addition to Louisiana this weekend could push him further towards front-runner status.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (2, Insightful)

mrxak (727974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322050)

Yeah, if it wasn't for Hillary's superdelegates, she'd be losing right now, 590 to 603. And he's won 15 states to Hillary's 12 (10 not including MI and FL). I think it's definitely looking good for Obama.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (2, Insightful)

CubeNudger (984277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320026)

I totally agree. The smart money was that Clinton had to build at least a 100 delegate (not counting super delegates) lead to have a good shot at the nomination. She came up far short of this. Obama has a very favorable schedule until two toss ups (Texas and Ohio) on March 4, and unlike Clinton, many of his contributors have yet to give the maximum amount. If I were a betting man, my money'd be on Obama right now.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (2, Informative)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320050)

I don't think California was counted yet. She'll probably have the hundred. Though I wish Obama did win.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (3, Interesting)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320244)

The interesting thing about CA is that they have a lot of absentee voters who voted more than a week ago, before it was clear how well Obama was going to do. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it's interesting.

I also heard my first political radio ad in the Washington DC area for Obama. The primaries for DC, VA and MD are next Tuesday. There has been no advertising and very few roadside signs so far.

I'm voting for Obama, not that I'd mind Clinton so much. But I REALLY hope they can battle it out without damaging the eventual winner in the general election.

Texas on March 4th... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22321182)

...will go to Obama. Texas Democrats can't stand Hillary and a large number of (unregistered) Texas Republicans are planning to vote in the Democratic Primary for Obama to help keep Hillary from getting the delegates because they already know McCain has cinched their own party's nomination. We're looking forward to a McCain/Obama contest come November and hope to hell that Obama doesn't pick Hillary as a running mate, which he probably is smart enough not to.... because that would lose most of the swing-vote states to McCain for him. I predict McCain's running mate to be Giuliani, which would be a very smart move on his behalf, though personally I'd rather see a McCain/Huckabee ticket myself.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (5, Interesting)

div_2n (525075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320388)

Obama narrowly defeated? Apparently you haven't examined the numbers.

1) He won the majority of states with 13 to 8 and New Mexico looks like he might win that too.

2) He won the majority of delegates if only by a slim margin.

3) He won 40% of the vote in Clinton's home state. He was polling as low as 15% there just a couple of months ago.

4) He won 8 states with over 60% of the vote (AK, CO, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND). She did that with only one state--Arkansas (not even NY).

5) He won 3 states with over 70% of the vote (AK, ID, KS). She didn't manage that feat.

Given these facts, I just don't see how anyone calls this a win for her. I am not convinced you can call this a tie either.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (1)

Beefaroni (1229886) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320666)

Also, in money, Clinton is getting tapped out
my guess Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie and Wang Jun have plenty of PRC / PLA cash handy. i do wish Obama the best of luck defeating the machine the Clintons have built over the past couple decades. it would be nice to have a new face in the White House and have kicked around the idea to vote for him especially after last night's performance. more than likely i will go third party as i have lost faith in both parties.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (1)

amper (33785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320708)

I entirely disagree here. I think it's quite clear that Hillary Clinton has a decisive edge in nearly all the most populous states, with their correspondingly high electoral college vote counts, including California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, and Michigan. You should remember that the delegates from Michigan and Florida have not been in the official counts because of the short-sighted decision of the DNC to refuse recognition in the primaries. There is no reason to suggest that Hillary Clinton will not continue this advantage into Ohio and Texas. As long as this continues, not only will Barack Obama find it increasingly difficult to bridge the gap, but more and more Democratic voters will come to realize that Obama's wins have been mostly in states where a Democratic candidate is unlikely to prevail in the general Presidential election.

I'm an independent, not a Democrat. The Democratic Party disgusts me quite as much as the Republican Party. I like aspects of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but the only candidates that I could have seen myself truly considering are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Barack Obama may be entertaining to observe in his oration, but talk is cheap. Results are what this country needs right now, and Obama simply doesn't have a reputation among the populace for experience or results. This is the choice of the Democrats--the sure thing, or the daring leap of hope. One thing I will hand to Obama...his speech last night was brilliant.

Since I'm an independent, I wasn't allowed to vote in the primaries in my home state of New Jersey. But come November, I don't see myself supporting either Clinton or Obama, because my generally libertarian values don't align closely enough with either of the Democratic candidates on key issues.

However, my belief at this point is that this contest is going to come down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obviously, there will need to be a role for Barack Obama in a Hillary Clinton administration, given the strength of his support, but I think that the VP slot might not be right place--perhaps our next Supreme Court Justice?

As for the Republicans, it is extremely hard to imagine John McCain requesting any of his rivals for the running mate on his ticket. My guess is he will seek to reinforce his strengths rather than minimize his weaknesses. Just as with Clinton, McCain is winning nearly all the high electoral count states. Voters in the predominantly Democratic states are choking on the idea of a Mormom President or a religious minister in the White House. McCain is clearly the choice of the old-line conservatives in these states, and I expect that will continue into states such as Pennsylvania, which in 2004 was won by Kerry by a slimmer margin than Ohio was won by Bush, a fact that seems to receive little play in the press. The rest of the Republican party will fall into line behind McCain. The alternative is too terrible for them to consider.

Still, it's Clinton with the edge. McCain may be the most palatable of the Republican candidates, but the entire Republican party still has the weight of the Bush Mistake around the neck of the entire country, and this will be difficult to overcome.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (1)

magical_mystery_meat (1042950) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320990)

If there's anything the last eight years should have taught us, it's that the President SHOULD be all talk. For all of his faults, Bush was able to push his agenda, and look where it got us.

The President is the Chief Executive. An executive's job is to fly the flag and make tough decisions, while their staff actually gets things done. One of the main reasons that I believe Obama could make a great president is that he has the capability of attracting the best cabinet in years.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321168)

So you're an independent libertarian?

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (4, Insightful)

dopplex (242543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321284)

The big flaw in this argument - which you are not the only one making - is that CA, NY, NJ, MA et al. are NOT contested states in a general election. Therefore, Hillary's strength in them is largely irrelevant, as either she or Obama would easily carry them in the General.

More relevant - and a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole, really - is the strength that Obama (and to a lesser extent Hillary) have shown in some battleground states. Obama got 300,000 votes in Alabama - a VERY red state. Huckabee - the winner on the GOP side, got 225,000. Both of them easily outpolled the nearest Republican in Missouri.

It's these states which have to be the bread and butter of any electability argument. Obama could put Alabama and Georgia in play in a general election - a laughable idea in a 2000 or 2004 frame.

Lastly, you say there's not much that can change in the month prior to Texas and Ohio. That's manifestly incorrect. Just look at the shift in national polls that has occured since Jan 5th: at that time, Clinton had a roughly 15 point lead nationally, and is now in a statistical dead heat with Obama as of the latest CNN poll.

The next month of primaries and caucuses is very favorable to Obama - he is polling at a 13 point lead in Washington, the biggest of the weekend's caucuses (via SurveyUSA, which was by far the most accurate of the Super Tuesday pollsters). What is more, he now has a significant cash advantage. A month of momentum building smaller wins can certainly change the situation on the ground in Texas and Ohio when combined with the media advantage Obama will have due to his cash advantage. It may or may not happen - but Obama's track record when he's had time to actively campaign in a state is quite solid, and he has excellent ground operations.

There's plenty of reason to believe the situation will change. Predicting how it will change is difficult, but expecting things to remain as they are is doomed to failure.

Re:Obama truely the big winner. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22321374)

Since I'm an independent, I wasn't allowed to vote in the primaries in my home state of New Jersey.

So what was the reason for regestering independent as opposed to unaffiliated (which would have allowed you to vote in NJ's semi-open Democratic primary)?

SuperDelegates (4, Insightful)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22319924)

I know it's up to the party to decide how to run their own primaries and it doesn't even have to be democratic, but doesn't the concept of superdelegates irk anyone else? The idea that you should get special treatment and privileged voting rights just for who you are seems... well, unamerican.

Re:SuperDelegates (1)

The Aethereal (1160051) | more than 6 years ago | (#22319956)

I must admit I do not fully understand the electoral college. Are there super delegates in the general election? The primaries are run by the parties. People didn't use to get to vote for who their parties candidate would be at all, so we have actually come a long way since then. Though with the way things have been going, I'm not so sure things wouldn't be better if we went back to just letting the party leaders pick the candidates. Could the candidates really get any worse/corrupt?

Re:SuperDelegates (2, Informative)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320242)

Superdelegate [wikipedia.org]

They are the highest level elected officeholders and party officials, just not through the party primaries or caucuses. The idea is to have a say in the selection of candidates in line with the party objectives. Party activists at the lower ranks of the party would tend to select the most extreme candidate, who would ultimately lose to a more mainstream candidate.

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3034 [minnesotamonitor.com]

superdelegates.org [superdelegates.org]

Re:SuperDelegates (2, Interesting)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322238)

Party activists at the lower ranks of the party would tend to select the most extreme candidate, who would ultimately lose to a more mainstream candidate.

Ah, so if it turned out that one candidate beat John McCain in six out of nine of this year's opinion polls [wikipedia.org] , whereas the other candidate lost to John McCain in seven out of ten polls this year, the one who was more likely to win would be chosen by the superdelegates, even if the one who was more likely to lose had better party connections?

That sounds like a wonderful system, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that it will actually work that way.

Re:SuperDelegates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22320012)

On Larry King Live it was compared to the British house of lords. There definitely is something unamerican about some people's votes counting more than other people's. In the Republican party they do something similar on a smaller scale. Some states give people who hold different positions and offices automatic rights to be a delegate. The end result is the same. An individual gets a much more important vote than the people.

We need major reform. I'm hoping that some of these new Ron Paul Republicans will stay in the Republican party and push for change in that party. I don't know who will on the Democrat side. It's always hard to get people with power to voluntarily hand it over, so this isn't going to be an easy fight. It is so important though. Especially considering our two party system. If the people can't choose the candidates fairly how is the system fair?

Re:SuperDelegates (2, Informative)

stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320744)

It's actually closer to the way the British House of Commons appoints party leaders. The Labour party's leadership is decided by a bizarre combination of Labour members of parliament (think congressmen), trade unions, and party members, except for this time when Gordon Brown succeded without any contest at all. The Tory party I think only poll their own members of parliament, but sometimes ask the party membership for their opinion in some kind of unofficial non-binding way.

The Lords are directly appointed by the government. The Queen was appointed by God (or by her ancestors hacking other people to death, which is kind of the same thing).

Re:SuperDelegates (1)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320024)

Yes, it's incredibly annoying. Like so many things, most people shrug it off because it usually doesn't matter. It's just that occasionally it's the only thing that matters. This might be one of those times.

Re:SuperDelegates (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320740)

The purpose of superdelegates was to prevent the Democratic Party from nominating another George McGovern. However, that seems like an unnecessary step given that one of the reasons McGovern was nominated in 1972 was that some nice fellows over in the White House and CRP were derailing his competitors' campaigns. (For instance, the "Canuck Letter" along with a front-page attack on Ed Muskie's wife ended the Muskie campaign.)

Re:SuperDelegates (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321884)

Only because the US system is so geared towards a two-party system that this is the "election" of what'll be on either side of the coin. In a system where there's room for more parties, I wouldn't care if someone formed a party where they were chief overlord and appointed minions dictatorically. It'd be a "take it or leave it" choice where you'd have no control over the composition, but I don't see how that's a threat to democracy. In a normal democracy, a new party would form if the old was lousy and they'd work together in coalitions and such while both trying to attract voters. However, no matter how fucked the primaries would get, I don't see either the "New Democrats" or "New republicans" forming. I would say that's a disturbing sign for democracy, but somehow it hasn't fallen apart yet.

Re:SuperDelegates (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322278)

Yes. It bugs the heck out of me. Especially as an Obama supporter since before Super Tuesday, Obama has an elected delegate lead but Clinton had a superdelegate lead, if I recall correctly.

I really like the facts that the Democratic Party has proportional voting, unlike the Republicans, but why do we have such a patrician system for power brokering? Superdelegates need to go.

Damn you Slashdot! (5, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22319934)

I see that AGAIN, no one bothered to report on Ron Paul's stunning 3rd place finish in Alaska, solidifying his popularity in all of the coldest states. WHY ARE YOU ALL SO PREJUDICED?

Re:Damn you Slashdot! (1)

The Aethereal (1160051) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320006)

That wasn't a very skillful troll. Anybody can start a Ron Paul flamewar.

Re:Damn you Slashdot! (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320358)

Meh. I was just making a joke. The damn Paulites take themselves way too seriously.

ARGH! Your tom foolery stops here! (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320624)

You jerk! I was just campaining the "facts" you posted on all of the 180 message boards I'm subscribed to. Do you realize how much time it will take to log into 180 different sites and hit the delete button!? Oh, what great pains my passions cause me. I'll have to cancel my special youtube video tapings now. At least I didn't quote you in my signature. Then I would really be ticked.

[end joke here]

Loyal Gentoo User/Paul supporter
[no here maybe]

Re:Damn you Slashdot! (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320788)

I voted for Ron Paul as a fuck you to the other republican candidates. I don't really care for Ron Paul, but the more it irks the others that he is there snagging votes, the better.

Now, if we could get someone who could speak like Huckabee, wanted to cut the bloat of the federal government, and didn't come across as a manchurian candidate of the evangelical christians...

Re:Damn you Slashdot! (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320942)

I'd say a better argument for actual prejudice can be found by scrolling to the bottom of TFA, and noticing that they have pages all about every candidate remaining in the race except Gravel and Paul.

Retail vs. Machine (1)

malchus842 (741252) | more than 6 years ago | (#22319936)

To me, it looks like Obama does better when politics are retail and Clinton when politics are machine. No surprise there, really. The question is, I think, can her machine bring in enough delegates to seal the deal. I don't think so.

I would say we are in for a brokered convention, and anything could happen. Heck, they could nominate Al Gore!

Clinton versus Obama (1, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22319944)

I know that Clinton hate is big on the internet, but she may actually be the best democratic candidate. Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama (see Krugman) and she won both California and New York yesterday, which matters a lot for the general election. My own opinion about Obama is that Bill was right, he is a fairy tale. People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate. It's almost straight out of Shawshank Redemption or the Shining. Sure, he distinguishes himself by being out front on the Iraq War, but Clinton has a pretty good record on Iraq for the past several years, which does matter.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320080)

A lot of people also support him just because he isn't Hillary. As most of the pundits have stated thousands of times before, Hillary is no one's second choice. She has had all of her supporters from day one. As the other candidates drop out, their supporters go to whichever non-Hillary candidates are left.

For my part, I'll be sitting this election out unless Hillary gets the nomination. If that happens, I'll go just for the purpose of voting against her.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320730)

For my part, I'll be sitting this election out unless Hillary gets the nomination. If that happens, I'll go just for the purpose of voting against her.
That's funny. I'll be sitting it out if she does.

I'm finished with the self-defeating "voting against" game.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320104)

Screw that. Their heath plans are practically identical, and neither one of them has a chance in hell of being passed "as is" by even a Dem congress.

As for Hillary being the "best" candidate, she wouldn't even be in the running if her last name wasn't Clinton, and I for one am sick to death of nothing but goddamn clintons and bushes. She represents nothing but special interests and a half-assed political status quo.

What Obama has, above and beyond his "magical blackness" (which is some nice racism there, since he's got nothing more or less than Bill Clinton had on the way into office, but that wasn't a big deal apparently) is the ability to actually undo some of the goddamn partisan hackery that has dominated our political process for the last 30 years or more. Another Clinton can only make that worse, if that's even possible.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (0, Troll)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320376)

Whoa, accusing me of racism because I disagree about your candidate. Fuck you. You really prove that the Obama candidacy has nothing to do with race.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (4, Insightful)

RedK (112790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320456)

No, he's accusing you of racism because you made a racist remark. Obama is more than just "that black guy running". If you'd bothered to actually listen to him and read up on his campaign plan, you'd know that.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1, Insightful)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321008)

But the election *IS* about race. And gender, for that matter.

All the coverage I've seen and heard points out that Hillary gets the woman vote, Obama gets the Black vote, Hillary gets the Latino vote, Obama gets the 'educated' vote (which, according to all the news outlets, is separate from the Black vote) and that it's a big surprise in Mass, because people rejected Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

In other words, according to American news coverage, it's expected to vote along racial and gender lines, and a suprise when people don't vote for who they're told to vote for.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

AIkill (1021773) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321406)

Alright, thats it. Shut it the both of you. Can we stop acting like a bunch of bickering bureaucrats? Now with that out of the way, I say that both have some good ideas, but I have to support Obama. Fact is, we have to consider what kind of influence Bill will have over Hillary if she gets elected. In a way, it her election could become an indirect way for Bill to get back into office (abet indirectly). I think what we need is a president that is a relatively fresh face, one who does not have parents or family that were presidents or similar. And Obama's openness is something I think we could all use (instead of the never ending 'black ops'). The main reason I won't support Clinton, though, is that she was for the bills against violent video games (I can't remember where, but I think she also said at one point in time that violent video games should be banned outright) Thats it for my short rant (preps for flames, trolls, et al.)

Re:Clinton versus Obama (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322024)

Please, a black man running for president and it has nothing to do with race? Don't be naive. Of course it's an issue. But saying that the only reason he's anything is because he's black? That's pretty racist; I'm from the South, I know racist when I hear it. I think the way it is in this country, especially on a national level, a black candidate still has to be "better" than an equivalent white candidate to be elected to national office.

I voted for him because I think his experience is interesting, I think he's a smart guy, and I find his message compelling. I think he's a uniter not a divider, and I think he has good intentions and good ideas. I sure as hell didn't vote for him because of his race, because that doesn't mean anything to me. This'll be the 4th presidential election for me, and the first time I've ever had the opportunity to vote (even if only in a primary) for someone I honestly believed would do a good job, and not just a slightly less bad job.

Clinton? I used to live in New York. Do you know what it takes to get elected as a New York politician? They play the game with the best up there. I am damn tired of the game. Her whole campaign has been about the game. Screw that.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

Jaeph (710098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322242)

As an independent (color me libertarian, if you like), I see Clinton's and Obama's stated platforms as essentially identical. However, I view Clinton's debate and campaign tactics with such disgust that I really hope Obama cleans her clock. At least Obama works to be civil and consistant, and presents himself relatively as-is.

On a sidenote, I'm also amused at the whole affair. The democrats, supposedly the party of equal rights, free thinkers, intellectuals, are actually robotically lining up along gender/racial lines. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning after a primary. :-)

-Jeff

P.S. Do not infer from this that I consider the republicans any better. Their primary is proceeding along different, but equally amusing lines.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (3, Informative)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320140)

Krugman is campaigning for Hillary, so it's not surprising that he'd try to confuse people about Hillary's mandatory health-care plan. The major difference is that with Hillary's plan, bureaucrats in Washington are going to decide how much you can "afford" and pull it out of your paycheck, pretending it's not a tax. Obama's plan is to work to make the coverage affordable, but people will get to choose on their own.

Krugman's response is little more than "but... but... Obama mandates care for children!" Yeah, he does, but there's a difference between children and responsible adults.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320944)

Obama's plan is more expensive because it's not mandatory (healthy 20-somethings won't sign up). It will actually cost more. Where does the money for Obama's plan come from? I'll give you a hint: Not the tooth fairy. It will come from taxes: people's pay checks.

As House likes to say, "everybody lies." Even Obama.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321094)

Now the liar is you -- Obama's plan is cheaper.

See Krugman himself: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/ [nytimes.com] -- $102 billion from taxpayers from Obama's plan, $124 billion for Hillary's.

Hillary's plan costs taxpayers less PER PERSON, but the dodge is that she forces people to pay in who don't want to. This doesn't help those people, and only serves to make the numbers look better and let her brag about "universal" care.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (0, Flamebait)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321606)

This doesn't help those people
I take it that you don't have health insurance? Because everyone knows that 20-year-olds never get appendicitis and need to pay for unexpected medical expenses.

And "universal" care is something to brag about, you dumbass.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322210)

I have kidney disease, diagnosed at the age of 19, which required transplantation and still requires prescription drugs that would cost thousands of dollars a month if I didn't have health coverage.

Let's back off for a second. First, you accuse people of voting for Obama only because he's black. As proof you offer Krugman's diatribe claiming that Hillary's health care plan is superior. I offer you some counter-arguments and you make a false statement while calling Obama a liar. Then I say that forcing people who cannot afford health care to purchase it doesn't help them much, and you call me a dumbass. We've gotten a long way from your original theory that people only vote for Obama because he's black. Care to issue a retraction?

Sure, 20-year-olds can get diseases by surprise. But that doesn't mean that the government healthcare is automatically a good deal. In Hillary's plan, the government makes it "affordable" by demanding that you afford it. Obama's plan ensures that if the government healthcare isn't a good deal, people don't have to buy it. I think this is a fundamental matter of personal choice, that's all, and that's one reason I prefer Obama to Hillary. It's not because he's black; it's not because he's a liar; it's not because I'm a dumbass.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22320658)

Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama

Sadly, her health care plan is irrelevant. The republicans hate her and have spent years saying her health care plan is horrible. There's no way they'd let her do anything one health care. Rationality isn't in play here. It's all about ego and revenge.

I support Obama, because he's not a babyboomer. I'm sick the of 1960's political division. I don't consider someone who is half Kenyan to have much in common with urban blacks in America. Then, I get most my news from the radio, so I don't really know who's black and who isn't except the few days I listen to the right wing station.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321808)

"Sadly, her health care plan is irrelevant. The republicans hate her and have spent years saying her health care plan is horrible. There's no way they'd let her do anything one health care. Rationality isn't in play here. It's all about ego and revenge."

They'd have a lot less ammunition if her previous stab at universal health care wasn't horrible. Hillary's current proposed version of universal health care is a lot closer to Romney's current Massachusetts plan than it is to her previous fiasco. People think Hillarycare equates to not being able to chose your own doctor. That's not the case anymore but since it once was the case, she's going to have to fight that image and she has no one to blame but herself for that.

Revenge? For what? For helping deliver the Republican majority in 94 by very publicly championing an asinine health care package just before the mid-term elections? They ought to to be thanking her. She ought to be a hero to the Republicans.

Spicks versus Niggers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22320698)

Spicks hate niggers. Since there are so many spicks in America, Barack "Reg Nig" Obama has no chance of winning the nomination.

This is all the more reason to hate spicks and niggers, and vote for Ron Paul.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (3, Insightful)

Steve525 (236741) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320798)

People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate.

I don't think race is a big reason why white people are voting for or against Obama. (Race might be important for other groups, but I don't know enough to speak intelligently about that). I think people like Obama because, well, he's likable. He comes across as very personable and very intelligent (and not in that "I know more than you" way that other Democratics can sometimes come across). I think he comes across as too idealistic (and often says little of substance), but I still think he's a good candidate.

With these two candidates, there has been a stong preference depending on age. The young like Obama and the old like Clinton. I fall somewhere in the middle, and I'm somewhat torn. I'd be happy with either, so my biggest concern is who can win against McCain. (Honestly, I wouldn't be too unhappy with McCain as long as he doesn't begin to pander to the religous right - which may happen by taking Huckabee as a VP on his ticket).

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320806)

I know that Clinton hate is big on the internet, but she may actually be the best democratic candidate.
She's the best if you want an unprincipled centrist who will say anything to get votes. She's the best if you don't mind the Presidency being passed from one family to another (Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, Bush to Clinton). She's the best if you want yet another Baby Boomer who knows bugger-all about modern technology, and is willing to interfere with adults in the name of "protecting the children". If the rumors [observer.com] are true, the only good thing about Hillary Clinton may be her taste in women [npr.org] .

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321866)

She's the best if you don't mind the Presidency being passed from one family to another (Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, Bush to Clinton).

Regardless of who you think should be president, I think this particular argument is terrible, since it essentially equates Bill Clinton's presidency, which -- whether you think Bill deserves much/any of the credit for it or not -- was probably the most prosperous America has been in my lifetime -- with the G. W. Bush presidency, which has been craptacular on many levels.

I mean, if you think Obama or McCain or whoever will be a better president, by all means, vote for them, but you've got something loose in the head if you're doing it because OMG the Bush dynasty needs to end.

Dynasties? (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321968)

I mean, if you think Obama or McCain or whoever will be a better president, by all means, vote for them, but you've got something loose in the head if you're doing it because OMG the Bush dynasty needs to end.
So, how many times would you have voted to re-elect FDR, if you had been around in the 30s and 40s?

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

dalutong (260603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320866)

Um... winning New York and California in the democratic primary has little to do with who should be president when considering electability. The only question is, did McCain's success indicate that he could beat Obama but not Hillary? I suspect both of those states are going to Democrats no matter what, so it doesn't matter if Hillary won them. I think it is much more notable how well Obama did in the not-necessarily-blue states. He had some states with ~50% difference between the two. That, I think, indicates that those states might be ones that would elect Obama but not Hillary. (You'd have to do more analysis of whether those were independents, etc, since the democrats would, at least in large part, probably stick to party.)

And biasing ourselves in the *other* direction... (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321242)

I know that Obama support is overstated when looking at the internet, but he may actually be the best democratic candidate. His health care plan is miles ahead of Clinton (see entire economic profession except for Krugman) and he won the South and Illinois yesterday, which matters a lot for the general election. My own opinion about Clinton is that Rush was right, she is evil. People don't seem to support her because of issues or anything like that, they support her because she's the magical woman candidate. It's almost straight out of Shawshank Redemption or the Shining. Sure, she distinguishes herself by being behind most of the former Pres. Clinton's policies, but Obama has a retty good record on Iraq for the past several years, which does matter.

*crosses fingers and hopes this will revive my karma...*

Re:And biasing ourselves in the *other* direction. (0, Troll)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321886)

I think Obama is the best available candidate as well, but for purely practical reasons. Republicans would stand in opposition to Hillary throughout her presidency on principle, Huckabee is a frightening and shallow bastard, McCain is insane and warmongering, and Romney believes in space jesus so he's pretty much out in my book. Obama wins by default. It doesn't hurt that he's likable, although it doesn't help that like all politicians, it's infuriatingly difficult to get a straight answer from him until his back is against the wall.

Oh, and Ron Paul. Yeah, like he'll even come close.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1)

Ambidisastrous (964023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321246)

Certainly it's not the appeal in California and New York that matters, it's the appeal in swing states in the Midwest. Hillary's states will vote Democratic no matter what; it's states like Ohio and Colorado that will decide the winner in November.

Krugman is right that the Clinton plan is a much better way to get universal coverage. But if Obama wins, that plan won't just vanish in a puff of smoke; Congress (who actually draft the bill) will still have access to it. And, the key strength of the plan -- a mandate requiring everyone to have insurance -- will probably be a weakness in getting the bill past small-government Republicans.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (4, Insightful)

bwalling (195998) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321418)

I'm sorry, but the significant hate against Clinton is exactly the reason not to vote for her. She will get absolutely zero done because the Republicans will fight every breath she takes. It will be the nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember. You cannot be a good leader if you are extremely divisive. How can you effectively lead when half the people you are trying to lead truly hate you?

They may have some policy differences, but they really aren't that different, and people actually like Obama and he inspires people. That's a really important point. Positive is better than negative in more ways than just feel good BS. One of Reagan's biggest benefits was his positive, likable personality. Same with the previous Clinton.

Re:Clinton versus Obama (1, Troll)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321540)

Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama
I quit reading there. Her health care plan is socialism, plain and simple. Everyone pays for everyone else. The government has no business whatsoever taking charge of healthcare or other personal responsibilities.

If you want to see how that works, just visit the UK, where they have Hillary-style healthcare and it takes five weeks to get heart surgery.

So..... (1)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 6 years ago | (#22319980)

Who thinks Obama will be Hillary's VP?

It would certainly produce a powerful ticket (or vice versa).

Re:So..... (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320150)

I think if it comes down to it, that might be the best ticket, but at this point it's hard to see how they could campaign together.

Still, they'd do a hell of a job splitting up the votes...Obama with the southern, male, black, and youth vote, Clinton with the northern, female, latino, and old people vote...Their support is clear cut and wildly divergent...If all those groups were pulling together?

Re:So..... (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320220)

I don't think it's hard to see at all. Right now they're competing for who gets the driver's seat and who gets shotgun.

Re:So..... (2, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320316)

Honestly? I think Clinton already cut a deal with Edwards in the hopes that she can win outright, and bring him in as VP...With Edwards splitting up the EC votes, that would have been impossible; she'd never have managed to score a majority. If she manages to score one now, then she can choose whoever she wants.

I think the only way they'll be a team is if its really too close to call, and it gets brokered.

Dems vs McCain/Giuliani GOP ticket. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22321648)

I have a pretty good hunch that McCain has already picked Rudy Giuliani as his running mate, and it's pretty solid that McCain will become the GOP candidate.

This presidential election is going to be just as tight of a race as the last two were, and it will once again be decided by the swing-vote states, not the big ones that are always decidedly one party or the other.

This year the swing-vote states mostly all distrust Hillary Clinton, she would turn their votes to McCain, so here's what I see happening in the swing-vote states:

McCain/Giuliani vs Clinton/Obama ticket - McCain would win most all of the swing-vote states simply due to Clinton distrust and despisement.

McCain/Giuliani vs Obama/Clinton ticket - McCain would win the swing-vote states, by a fair margin, obviously due to Clinton distrust and despisement.

McCain/Giuliani vs Clinton/SomebodyElse - McCain would totally dominate the swing-vote states for obvious reasons.

McCain/Giuliani vs Obama/SomebodyElse - McCain would be sweating blood over the swing-vote states, Obama could easily get enough Electoral College votes out of the swing-vote states to beat McCain.

Re:So..... (4, Funny)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320852)

I don't think it's hard to see at all. Right now they're competing for who gets the driver's seat and who gets shotgun.

Before Cheney, I would never have considered that statement to be literal.

Re:So..... (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322340)

I know Obama likes to draw parallels between himself and JFK, but with Hillary as VP he may be pushing his luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_foster [wikipedia.org]

Re:So..... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320804)

It would certainly produce a powerful ticket (or vice versa).

I don't doubt that from the voter point of view it would be indeed a powerful and federating combination, but from Obama's point of view well I'm pretty sure he'd like Edwards or actually anyone but Clinton as his VP.

Oh wait, you said Obama being Hillary's VP? My pro-Obama bias again, sorry. Yeah I totally see that happening.

Re:So..... (1)

AmaDaden (794446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321378)

After all the shit she said about him? I doubt it. In fact if they joined up after the primarys I would totally lose my faith in Obama. I can't help but see Hillary as more of the same. She has said some nice things but in the past she seems just as bad as your average politician. I know Obama might also be more of the same but at least we have a chance of change with him.

Re:So..... (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321732)

Who thinks Obama will be Hillary's VP?
Nobody. Ever. Not in a million years. Nope. No Way. Probably Not.

I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from MA (1, Flamebait)

Enry (630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320046)

How did Romney win this state? The lone newspaper in MA that endorsed Bush in 2004 over Kerry endorsed McCain and Hillary. The editor of the paper went off about how bad Romney was [lowellsun.com] when he was governor. Though the reasoning for voting for Hillary is just stupid (Bill was a bad guy, but Hillary gets credit for sticking by him, therefore she should be the Dem nominee?).

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320216)

Because he used to be governor there? I don't know if MA has closed elections, but if so, Romney was the most popular candidate among Republicans, not the whole state. If not, people like to vote for people they know, that's why (among many other reasons) incumbents win more often than not.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320236)

It's a really liberal state, so the conservative nomination is bound to be something of a toss up, and the state liked him enough at one point to make him governor, so it can't be that surprising.

Seriously, you should win your own state as a given. If Hillary had lost New York, she might as well have conceeded on the spot, and if Al Gore had won Tennessee we'd be arguing about what repub would be running against Lieberman...God, preisdent lieberman...I just threw up a little.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M (1)

Enry (630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320634)

It's a really liberal state, so the conservative nomination is bound to be something of a toss up, and the state liked him enough at one point to make him governor, so it can't be that surprising.
I lived through him being governor here, and it was pretty bad. As said in the link I gave above, Romney spent most of his time as governor going to conferences or otherwise campaigning for president. It's pretty blatant. When he said he'd announce if he was going to run, everyone pretty much already knew he was going to run - it was like Bush deciding to attack Iraq. As for health care here (his one actual accomplishment), it was merely requiring that everyone in the state get insurance. Now I have even more forms that I have to deal with at tax time to prove I had insurance last year and the costs to the state are running about 2x what was projected when the law was passed. Good jorb!

I guess I should take comfort in the fact that Obama (who came in second here) got twice as many votes as Romney.

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320922)

How is that surprising? There were enough people total that liked him to elect him Governor; when you take away all the people who voted against him (because they probably weren't voting in the Republican primaries) why would you be surprised that there'd still be a lot of people who liked him?

Re:I've never been so embarrased to say I'm from M (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22320936)

Wait, your state voting for the former governor is the most embarrassing thing you can think of?

Not the evacuation of Boston over Mooninites?

Not the police almost killing an MIT student after sighting LEDs on her shirt?

Not stealing billions of federal dollars in a worthless project to replace a working highway with a tunnel?

Not the inability to match even a kindergartener's understanding of marriage?

Not the minor incident in 2001 where Logan Airport failed to stop a few people from boarding planes?

You may need to check your priorities again.

Sick of Huckabee (1)

daninspokane (1198749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320098)

He needs to drop out. It is a 2 man race... and Huckabee is being a chump. People should know when they are defeated!!!!! He's just leeching votes away from who they should REALLY go to, Romney.

Re:Sick of Huckabee (1)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320166)

Sorry, but when the man wins entire states he has a right to keep trying, especially since he's spent so much less money than Romney.

Re:Sick of Huckabee (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320822)

And he's endorsed by Chuck Norris!

Re:Sick of Huckabee (1)

daninspokane (1198749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321090)

I.. Did... not know that... Well freak I think I might change my vote. Any friend of Chuck Norris is a friend of ass kickery.

Re:Sick of Huckabee (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321510)

No way. I don't want Norris' man as president. That's a waste of resources. I say Obama (when he wins) should make a Dept. of Ass-Kickery and put Huckabee in there. He won't need a budget: he can get Chuck to shake down the IRS for their lunch-money.

Re:Sick of Huckabee (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320382)

Yes, it is a two-man race. McCain and Huckabee. Romney has no base except for Mormons and the ultra-right wing talk radio crowd.

Re:Sick of Huckabee (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320446)

Exactly, if you look at states that caucus and states that vote, Romney has won almost all of the caucus state (with Huckabee getting a few) and McCain the primary states. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I'd imagine that the makeup of caucuses have a lot more party-faithful than a primary.

It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November (3, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320222)

At least for the Repubs. The conservative right, while bloviating at the top, is more practical at the bottom. so here is how the equation is going:

McCain>Hillary
McCain=Obama
Romney=Hillary
RomneyObama

In this equation, McCain has the best chance of winning, and conservatives would rather get half a loaf than none at all.

Re:It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22320872)

Try listening to conservative talk radio. They hate McCain and constantly ridicule him. It's as bad as what they do with Hillary. As far as the rest, they seem to have no clue. Rush is even scared to state any opinion among the rest and maintained his "sacred right" to not tell people who he voted for. So much for his godly talent to always be right. I'm laughing my ass off. I've never seen the right wing nut jobs in such a tizzy.

Re:It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November (3, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321198)

I guess you missed where I said "The conservative right, while bloviating at the top"

The "celebrities" of the right harbor a dirty secret - the NEED Hillary to win. Their shows and blogs do best when there is someone to rail against. And what do they lose if Hillary or Obama is elected? Nothing.

They aren't afraid of socialized medicine - they can afford paying cash out of pocket for the best private care.

They aren't afraid of losing 2nd amendment rights - they have bodyguards who carry guns for them, or already have their concealed weapons permits (I'm looking at YOU, Feinstein - OK, not a conservative, but the principle applies).

So it's in their best interests to try to damage McCain, as he has the best chance of winning. But the rank and file, who ARE worried about these things, see the Dems as an unmitigated disaster, where McCain is merely tolerable.

McCain / Giuliani ticket in November (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22321340)

In this equation, McCain has the best chance of winning, and conservatives would rather get half a loaf than none at all.

Yep, especially when McCain announces his running mate to be Rudy Giuliani, that will get even the staunchest ultraconservatives to buy into accepting him.

Re:McCain / Giuliani ticket in November (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321976)

Giuliani is nobody's candidate. He's pro-abortion, anti-guns, pro-war and anti-freedom. Conservatives dislike him for the first two, liberals dislike him for the last two.

Only New Yorkers who like him for cleaning up crime and those who still think it's appropriate to live in a state of constant fear of random terrorist attacks would vote for him.

Thus he's no longer in the running.

BTW - I'm not arguing that McCain will choose Giuliani, he probably will, I just doubt it will help get him any votes.

Does this mean...? (2, Funny)

mike2R (721965) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320238)

Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?

It's a somewhat radical concept for outsiders to get our heads around, but I have to say I think it's a good plan.

Re:Does this mean...? (3, Funny)

vonPoonBurGer (680105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320538)

Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?
He's 71, there's plenty of time between now and next November for him to work up a good, solid old-man-dementia crazy.

Re:Does this mean...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22320808)

I don't think John "Stay the Course" McCain should be automatically considered sane. The only time he has ever stood up to Bush was when he thought it would help his presidential bid.

Re:Does this mean...? (1)

Beefaroni (1229886) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322240)

i am paraphrasing McCain here so bear with me... 'bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran' (from when he spoke at an American Legion) staying the course - does that mean we occupy a third nation so we get an extra army on our next turn like in Risk?

Delegate counts still short (5, Insightful)

Egdiroh (1086111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320458)

Looking at CNN, a lot of the delegate counts are still short for the democrats, based on the total number of delegates they've assigned for a lot of the super tuesday states and a the number of delegates tha they say the state has tied to yesterdays elections and caucuses. So the balance could still shift some.

Generally I've been disappointed with the reporting on the elections so far. Before super tuesday, Obama had gotten the most pledged delegates or tied with clinton in all the contests, but there were a few were they called Clinton the winner. It would be like declaring the the super bowl winner based on the number completed passes and not the score, which according to espn would make the Patriots the winner, which we all understand they are not.

Beyond my general dismay at the misrepresentation of the democratic primary results, I am frustrated with the confusion that this type of reporting causes. The outlets glaze over the actual electoral mechanics and come as close as they can to portraying each contest as a statewide popular vote. Then when the presidential election comes around they will do their best to portray it as a national popular election. First in the US not all votes are equal, electoral votes are based on # of members of both houses of congress from the state so because of each state getting two senators, the ratio of electoral votes to population, means that they people in low populace states have votes that are worth more of an electoral vote each. After that because most states are winner take all when it come to electoral votes if a candidate wins 100% of the vote in states that make up 40% of the electoral college and loses the other 60% of the electoral vote worth of states in a 48%/52% split then he would lose the election but would have won the make believe nationwide popular election by a pretty good margin, and people would be pissed, and feel cheated. And most of the time they would blame it on the disparity of the states in the electoral college.

The worst part about all this electoral confusion is that blaming the electoral college is how you make sure the system never changes. The electoral college is based on squarely in the constitution and would be a major undertaking to change. However the constitution has nothing at all to do with how each state allocates there votes. That can be addressed on a state by state level. Currently most states are winner take all. Which means that a thousand or so voters (or the fraud perpetrated on a thousand or so voters) can decide millions of peoples worth of vote. If all the states switched to proportional voting then the margins for how much the popular vote can differ from the results would decrease. It would also severely reduce the rewards for disenfranchising voters, and candidates would have to do a better job of appealing to the majority. If you don't like the elections don't bitch about the electoral college, work for change at the state level. Once we have the state elections behaving more inline with our expectations and at this point our desired system, we can see if we really need to tinker with the much harder to tinker with constitution.

Re:Delegate counts still short (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321248)

CNN in particular has been guilty of completely misrepresenting what counts and what doesn't count, as well as covering the horse race rather than what the candidates are saying and doing (Wolf Blitzer, I'm looking at you). For instance, they devoted significant coverage to the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries, despite the fact that those don't count. They covered the Democratic primaries and caucuses as if what counted was how many states candidates "won", not how many delegates they picked up.

Other news organizations have generally been better about explaining that it's delegates that count, and that the vote differences make a big difference.

Re:Delegate counts still short (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22321826)

They also take polls of the voting population and report on the results, even though the polls have no power to grant delegates. They also show the candidates' victory speeches, even though they have no official power to grant delegates either.

at this point (1)

kevgaxxana (1197617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320544)

hillary has enough delagates that obama can come back from; besides, he lost cali. new york and nj, and all the north states. he has lost. as for the reps, the only way huckabee or romney can win is if the south heavily outvotes the north.

Re:at this point (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320776)

* Disclaimer : this is neither trolling, nor flamebait.

Ok, now that's out of the way... You clearly have no idea how the primary/caucus system, and nominating conventions work if you're declaring Hill-dog the winner now. Why are you so misinformed?

Re:at this point (1)

kevgaxxana (1197617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22320918)

texas will be the deciding vote in the dem run

I love the Obama campaign... (1)

Paiev (1233954) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321848)

...with all their signs for "change". Anyone is going to be a change from the Bush administration. Also, I love those commercials for Obama where they talk about universal healthcare. They *do* realize that their competitor, Clinton, is also for universal healthcare, right?

Meh. (1, Funny)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#22321870)

In a dead heat between Clinton and Obama, Clinton will end up the winner as she's far more entrenched than her competitor and has the support the important people in the party. So then we'll end up with an election contest between her and McCain, leaving the voters to decide between the candidate that quietly supported war and torture, and the candidate that quietly supported war and torture.

Yay democracy.

comments (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22322312)

I think among Democrats, Clinton may have a slight overall lead. However, it seems to me that Obama is a more palatable choice for independents. In polls, Obama beats McCain, but Clinton doesn't. On the other hand, just about anything that can come out about Clinton has come out; there are no surprises there. With Obama, there may be issues that come up during the general election that we aren't aware of yet.

On the Republican side, McCain worries me. He seems to be breaking with some of the recent Republican traditions, but I don't see a vision for the country, he seems prone to picking more international fights that we can't afford, and I don't see what he would be doing for the economy. Still, he's a much better choice than Romney or Huckabee.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?