Politics: United States Democratic Primary

[butterfly]

So, the total number number of delegates needed to win the nomination is 2,025, yes? That's the lowest number for a majority. Obama is currently leading Clinton by 143 delegates, with his total number at 1,631 and hers at 1,488. That's... not insurmountable by any means. Certainly not a good reason for her to curl up and go home.

Pennsylvia's primary is on the twenty-second of this month. Then Indiana and North Carolina on the 6th. West Virginia on the 13th and, finally, the 20th of May, Oregon gets to vote (along with Kentucky). The fact that my primary is so far away is a source of frustration to me.

I like Clinton's health care plan. When she and Obama talk specifics about issues and votes, I tend to find myself agreeing with her more often than with him when they differ (many times, they don't). Of course, in any race between Obama and McCain, Obama would get my vote in a heartbeat, but between him and Clinton... yes, I plan to vote for her.

The world that we live in is not post-racism or post-sexism (or, for that matter, post-classism and it certainly isn't post-homophobia). Either Clinton or Obama as our President will be a major step forward for this country. I'll be proud to call either of them my President.

Comments

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

That's... not insurmountable by any means.

My understanding is that it is virtually impossible thanks to the way delegates are allocated -- ie proportionally. There's a calculator (http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/) here, and to get Hillary a lead in the delegate count you have to have her win with 90% of the vote in every contest left.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Well, as long as she's still in the race, I'll still vote for her. Since voting for her won't cause any bizarre side effects like some random third party winning, there's no reason not to vote with my conscience and my head, even if she's probably going to lose.

Though I played around with that calculator and put her in the lead with only 60 and 70 percent vote wins per state/location (and that, I notice, counts none of the superdelegates and though we don't know for certain how they will vote, I don't think that all of them will vote for Obama).

And if you pull the red one at the top, she hits the lead if she averages 65% per delegate district that's left. Which again, could be hard but not impossible. Particularly not if she pulls a big enough majority in the two biggest states left.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Hmm, you're right -- they must have changed their algorithm since the last time I played with it. That said, if she does average 65% in every remaining contest it'll be a huge upset. That said, of course you should vote with your conscience!

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Too true! But like I said, I don't mind Obama being President at all, so I feel much less... pressure (not sure if that's the best word) than many people who feel so strongly for their choice that they'll be miserable with the other (my aunt and uncle are very vocal Obama fans).

[fanaddict.livejournal.com]

Since voting for her won't cause any bizarre side effects like some random third party winning, there's no reason not to vote with my conscience and my head, even if she's probably going to lose.

I voted for her already, but at this point... I don't know if she should stay in. The reason I say that corresponds to your above statement - will her staying in lead to a 3rd party candidate winning? No. However the continued in-fighting in the Dem party is certainly losing whichever one becomes the nominee votes that will go to McCain most likely (the Dems are slipping with Independents who are now starting to trend toward McCain when previously it had been Obama). I'm pretty opposed to another Rep presidency and so while I prefer Clinton, it's not by enough to make me think her staying in and causing more lost Dem votes in the fall is the best option.

Essentially/mathamatically, for Clinton to win the nomination, Obama has to screw up big time. The problem is, with Clinton nailing him on smaller issues, these issues get called to the public's attention to his detriment. And by still having an ongoing race, Obama is forced to campaign more aggressively and therefore have more potential problems with "misspeaking". I think at this point, let PA vote but after that if she hasn't gotten >65% of the vote there, she should consider the needs of the party over her individual desire to be Pres.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I think whatever he may go through in the primaries, the Republicans will be exponentially harder on him than Clinton ever could, so if he can't handle the pressure, I'd rather know now.

[fanaddict.livejournal.com]

Of course the Rep will be as hard as Clinton. My point is that by continuing in the race at this point, Clinton is forcing Obama to be more reactive to her and this creates more opportunities for him to mess up in some way - which is her only hope right now. The problem is, it's mostly small missteps that don't help her enough but cumulatively lower the voters' regard for Obama enough to help McCain.

Now you are going to say - he would mess up with McCain too as the nominee. And of course that's true - but McCain would have to be reactive right back to Obama's criticisms of his plans, etc and that gives McCain more chance to misstep as well. They would be on an even playing ground. Right now McCain is coasting because Clinton is doing what he would otherwise have to do - mess up Obama. So this whole thing is helping McCain by keeping him clean while dragging Obama through the mud when, if Clinton dropped out, they would both be muddied. At this point despite my preference for her, I can't see how her staying in the race beyond PA is anything other than detrimental. To each her own though.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I would simply like the chance to vote for the person that I would most like to see in the Oval Office.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

I must say I'd vote for almost anyone over Hillary Clinton. Her health care plan scares the snot out of me. Any government operated health care of any kind will result in badness. I've seen how unemployment benefits, and worker's compensation, and disability benefits, and other forms of welfare, earned or not, always favor the people willing to lie to work the system, while screwing over honest and deserving individuals.

Of the last five unemployment cases to cross my desk, all five have been decided by the government in a way that I consider unfair. One, a woman with two children to support, who was fired for her boss for blatantly unfair reasons, was initially given her unemployment, only to have it taken away in an appeal. The government is now demanding that she pay back this money, which was used to support her family, by an extremely unreasonable deadline. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have Drunk Forklift Operator. He was fired by his employer after he arrived at work intoxicated, swore at a female coworker, grabbed her boob and called her a whore, drove a forklift through a plate glass window, and then spent the remainder of the day sleeping it off in an employee bathroom, blocking access for others, until the police came to cart him off. He then offered fellow employees a cut of his benefits if they'd lie for him, and those that refused repeated this at a hearing, but he was still granted benefits, which he seems to be spending primarily on booze.
Until the government can get their act together enough to tell apart these two individuals, and get it straight which one to pay and which one to dump, I have zero confidence that they can handle health care.

No, neither of these examples was Clinton's fault, but these are by no means isolated cases and in my experience all government-controlled anything works pretty much like that. Our health care system is messed up enough without making it worse. The notion that it'll save us from paying $800/month for insurance we're afraid to use sounds nice in theory, but it'll just come out of the working class in the form of hidden taxes. Like, for example, Unemployment Insurance, which the government makes us feel good about, since only "wealthy business owners" pay for that, when in fact it reduces what those business owners can afford to pay their employees.

Every week, I do a report for each of my clients, breaking down their payroll costs. Of the total they're shelling out each week, only 45% of the money is actually ending up in their employees' net paychecks, while the rest goes to various taxes and other taxes disguised as "insurances" and the cost of processing all the government paperwork related to them.

As for Hillary personally, I don't think she's ever adequately explained a number of shady business dealings, such as Whitewater and that thing with the cattle futures. I don't consider her trustworthy, and I don't consider a single term as a senator to be enough experience in public service to qualify her over Obama in this race. People call him inexperienced, when she's really not done that much more.

And I didn't mean to turn this into a rant, or accuse you of being wrong or anything. I'm just mildly baffled by your support of Clinton when I generally agree with your political positions.

As for making America healthier, I think the first step is to stop putting corn syrup in the coffee creamer. If a candidate suggests that, I'll vote for them.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

My roommate has spent several needed years on welfare and food stamps (she has three children) and has never lied to or abused the system. This, I'm certain, does influence my opinion of it, as it has helped someone about whom I care deeply.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

And have they treated her like scum? All of the honest people I know who have tried to collect benefits of any kind from any government agency have been made to feel like criminals.

I remember one girl I met while I was in college, who had a baby fathered by a rapist at the age of 15, and lost her mother to suicide not long after that. She ran out of money trying to finish high school, and went to social services for food stamps for her three year old, and got called a "lazy slut" by a state employee.

ETA: And yes, that incident among many others has influenced my view of things.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

No, they have not. And even if they did, I'm... baffled at this being your primary bastion of anger when you yourself say that Clinton is not the cause of people being assholes.

You don't trust governments -- I'm wary of the government but I trust corporations even less. I simply don't trust business to run health-care. The prices that people have to pay in America for simple health care is proof enough of that to me. I know people who cannot afford to buy basic care because of corporate greed. And that's influenced my view of things.

And I like Clinton in part because she has many more years of public record available (I can judge her not just based on her time in the Senate but for her time as First Lady) -- what she's said compared to what she's done. I tend to approve of her thoughtfulness -- she makes mistakes sometimes and rethinks positions, but I never feel that she does it heedlessly. Some of her speeches have touched me deeply, though she is not quite the master of rhetoric that Obama is. Generally, I feel that I understand and agree with her and her positions a great deal better than Obama's (he tends to be... more vague than I'd like) and that I agree with her stance on the issues at hand in the places where they differ (and I do feel that their politics are far more similar than dissimilar which is why I'm personally baffled when either Clinton or Obama supporters say that they plan to vote for McCain if their choice loses out).

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

No, my opinion of Clinton's health care plan (or any health care plan) is influenced by my experience with the government. My opinion of Clinton herself is influenced by her failure to explain her involvement in illegal business dealings, and her campaign's willingness to make untrue statements about her opposition, and of course her changing viewpoint on the Michigan and Florida primaries.

As for corporate greed, that's what puts corn syrup in our coffee creamer and hikes up the price of fuel, so I'm all for distrusting them as well. However, if a corporation treats an individual badly, the individual has the option of going elsewhere. Once the government has control of health care, that will no longer be the case.

Those same people who cannot afford health care now will not be better off under a government health care program. They might possibly get something like the care they need (you'll have trouble convincing me that the government won't be forcing specific treatment plans in some sort of complex maze of red tape, taking choices away from the patient to save pennies while wasting thousands), but they'll discover that the money they "saved" is still not in their pockets, because the government will raise taxes to pay for such a program. Instead of failing to afford a doctor's visit, they'll find themselves short of cash to deal with rising energy costs to heat their homes, rising gas prices to get to work, and a shrinking list of options at the grocery store as the healthier, and more expensive, options will be out of their price range.

It's always the working class that hurts from tax increases, and this health care plan cannot be accomplished without billions of dollars in increased government revenue. A national health care plan sponsored by the government is impractical. It will force businesses to reduce their payroll costs with layoffs, and it will force smaller businesses out of business entirely. Self employed individuals will find themselves paying the government even more, when they're already often struggling under the burden of self-employment taxes. For those folks, the government gobbles up thirty percent of their income even if their income falls under the poverty line.

This country is headed for financial crisis, and what it needs is decreased taxes, not an astronomical increase.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Decreasing taxes has not appeared to have helped so far. Increasing taxes in the right places might. But that depends on believing Clinton when she speaks. If you don't trust her to try her hardest to adjust taxes to actually aid the economy rather than aiding merely the rich, then you don't trust her. That's not the sort of thing that can really be argued one way or the other, I think.

Obama's campaign hasn't been run spotlessly either. Like I say below, they're both politicians and there are certain things that I don't trust them about. Either of them.

Honestly, I think the whole system could do with being torn down and rebuilt but that's... not practical or really even feasible for a country as large as the US of A.

[thegrungediva.livejournal.com]

<

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i'm>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<<I'm wary of the government but I trust corporations even less.>>

Therein lies the rub.

Will the government screw it up? Undoubtedly. Will they do a better job than the corporations have been doing? Without even trying, they will.

Has Obama rejected Clinton's health plan? To my knowledge, he has not. I suspect if elected, he will start with her plan (why reinvent the wheel?) and work at it until it's something that can get through both houses.

I'm against Clinton because she voted for the war, and she had no excuse: she was either a fool or a villian. As a pacifist, it goes against my beliefs to support her. If she makes it to the ballot, I probably won't campaign as hard for her (as I would Obama), but I will vote for her.

Maybe Obama would have been just as foolish/villanous had he served on the Senate that year. Maybe I'm deluding myself in supporting him. Still, either one is better than McCain.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Still, either one is better than McCain.

Absolutely true no matter what.

[radioreverie.livejournal.com]

Government-operated healthcare is the only way to ensure that everyone can not actually just afford healthcare, but actually be accepted for it.

I can afford healthcare. However, I don't have any because there is not an insurance company in the entire country that will take me. Not even for a catastrophic plan. This is the problem with corporations running insurance. I am seen as a risk to their profits, not as a human being. And economically, healthcare should never have been a privatized business in the first place, just like fire, police, etc. Healthcare is a public issue with public concerns (infectious diseases, unemployment, etc.) which is ill-served by private corporations with profit motives and ultimately costs everyone more in the long-run.

Part of the reason that some government-run things don't run as well as they should right now is because they have been gutted, underfunded, and deliberately rendered incompetent over the past 8 years so that the people in power could say, "Look, government doesn't work! Only privatization works! Plz sell my friend here a contract to run this privately."

And even though privatization results in even more incompetent operation, it matters little to them, because they can manipulate it for maximized profits without once pausing to think about how it serves anyone they're supposed to be serving.

And government is never going to be perfect. There will always be issues and unfairnesses. But the issues and unfairness of PRIVATE CORPORATIONS far outweigh these issues. The fact that unemployed and already disabled or ill Americans cannot get insurance is unconscionable. The way most HMOs function is unconscionable. The fact that insurance companies seek the slightest loophole to deny coverage is unconscionable. The way people can go into millions of dollars of debt or bankruptcy if they become ill while uninsured is unconscionable. Tossing those who cannot pay out into the street is unconscionable.

I don't see how, given all these things, government-run health insurance is the bad alternative or a big and scary thing. Almost every other country in the world, even third world countries, has public healthcare. And it has its problems, but it still works better than this.


P.S. I am not a Clinton supporter, but for other reasons.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

There need to be laws. I don't have health insurance either, because I was paying a fortune for it, and it didn't cover any of my actual needs. I was giving up my ability to see a chiropractor, buy groceries, etc., so that I could give money to a health insurance company, who then made me go see a doctor who demanded a two thousand dollar test, told me I had a problem I already knew I had, and then did absolutely nothing to treat it. In the meantime, the health insurance company refused to pay for the test. So trust me, I know the problems with the system as it stands.

The very notion of health insurance is absurd, actually. For any insurance system to work, the incoming premiums must outweigh the outgoing claims. That works with car insurance. It doesn't with health insurance, because almost everyone who has it is going to use it, pretty much regularly. Which means it's not really "insurance" at all, is it?

Insurance should be there for the big stuff -- the really big expensive stuff that nobody who works for a living could afford -- and we should pay out of pocket for the rest. It would actually be cheaper. (Think about what "insurance" costs per month, and then imagine having 75% of that money to spend on doctors yourself, while paying a much smaller premium for catastrophic insurance.) Then the portion of the population that needs additional help could be eligible for a government program that works like food stamps. That's the type of plan I would view positively, but the last I looked at Hillary's plan, it was nothing like that.

Granted, I haven't paid attention lately, as primaries are over where I am, and I avoid unnecessary stress, usually.

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

So true. There's also the problem that it's often much more profitable to treat symptoms when you can sell a product to people that they depend on for their lives over a long period of time, rather than to actually cure disease. (Prozac, blood pressure medication, the AIDS cocktail, and diabetes paraphernalia are all hugely profitable - so profitable that it may not be in a company's best interests to cure any of the underlying issues)

And then, too, just the notion of profiting on human misery is distasteful.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

Additionally I'm going to comment to apologize for being extra-cranky, which is why I try not to talk about, or even think about, politics. I get all wound up and stressed out, and if you'll note the calendar, you can probably guess what I spent the last 11 hours or so doing, which makes me especially in favor of anarchy.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Politics are stressful. I only posted because there's a couple of very vocal Obama folk on my flist and I was feeling a lack of balance. I wanted to show that the other side still exist.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

Obama's the first politician in a long time who fails to trigger my slimeball radar. And if that's not a ringing endorsement, I don't know what is. My general opinion is that no one capable of getting themselves elected to anything should be allowed any power or responsibility whatsoever. But then we're right back to my cynical anarchist point of view.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

There you go!

I think he... he talks great. He's got a lot of charisma. But he also feels generally like a politician to me. So does Clinton, and I just don't feel any inherent difference in whether or not I'd trust her as opposed to him -- I trust both of them, to a certain extent.

[nic]

My concern with Obama is his age and comparable history. i.e. We've seen Clinton as a public figure for a long time and I truly admire her for some of her actions. Many people argue that it's great to bring fresh blood into the arena but I think it's more advantageous to have someone who KNOWS the system and can work within it.

(If I could vote, I'd vote for Clinton.)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

That's one of my reasons for voting for her. We just know so much more about the way she reacts and the way she votes for things and the choices she makes. There's been more time to build up trust.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I think Obama will win it. Because he does talk extremely well, and he says the things that young people want to hear, and what they are passionate about.

Whether there is substance behind it, only time will tell. I'm interested to see how he will go against McCain, and what challenges the Republicans will throw his way, and how he responds.

Which ever way it will go, it will be one of the most entertaining elections for as long as I can recall, in Australia and the USA.

[tenaya.livejournal.com]

I haven't played with the calculator but I believe that primaries alone will not settle the contest. I think choice is important and she should stay in until all the states have voted. I'm flabbergasted that people want the competition to just give up before everyone has voted.

Even though I was grumpy a while back when Obama said Wright's views were unknown to him which made me think Obama was either too clueless or lying, but then he at least dealt with the issue head on. I would actually not vote for McCain.

Clinton is best suited for the job. None of these politicians are clean, and that includes Obama, too. The country is in crisis and I wish people would vote for who can do the job instead of who gives the best speech.

I don't see that the Democrats are destroying their voter base like the frantic Obama supports are predicting. Obama and Clinton are very similar in their stands. If the Obama supporters think Clinton is playing hard ball, just wait until the Democrats have decided on their candidate and the Republicans can let loose their hounds. It's better to have all his dirt come out now because, yes, it is possible for him to lose the election if he missteps during that critical window.

See, you're not the lone Clinton supporter. I even gave another donation to her campaign. *g*

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I'm flabbergasted that people want the competition to just give up before everyone has voted.

Me too. I just... can't ever get to a place where I could agree with that point of view. If it weren't possible for her to win, then I could see the argument, but she could still win. Why the hell should she give up?

Everything you said, I totally agree. Especially about how the Republicans will tear apart whoever grabs the Dem nom. If Obama can't handle that, I'd rather know now.

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

Word! They've been telling her to quit since the Iowa primaries. Actually, they've *always* been telling her to quit. I have no great personal fondness for her, but that pisses me right off. I voted for her in the primaries for two reasons - 1) I think that we're not going to get anywhere on universal health care without at least opening the biding at mandatory coverage for everyone, and 2) I absolutely can't stand the way she's talked about by pundits, journalists, and other politicians.

That and I've long been suspicious of any cult of personality. Granted that's how hr husband got in too, and I'll be pleased as punch if that's how Obama keeps the White House out of Republican hands, but I find it inherently problematic that we give our highest office to "the person you want to have a beer with" or the person who's best in front of cameras.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

At this point, it really does kinda sound like "get back to the kitchen" (which some assholes actually have said, point-blank). Like trying to kick the woman out of the "man's job". It pisses me off, too.

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

Exactly!!

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I'm not American, so my opinion is...just that, an opinion. But I find that Clinton sounds like she knows what she's talking about.

I've become very jaded working around policy workers in Government, and I've seen what Politicians do to move things along, it's not pretty, but pragmatism and a good working knowledge of the system does count for a lot.

I see Obama as an idealist, and I agree with a lot of what he says, but I keep saying 'So, how are you going implement this, how is this going to work down on the ground, do you know anything about the machinery of government? '.

Social policy takes a lot of work to swing things around, it's not a matter of signing a piece of paper. I don't know if Obama quite grasps that reality as yet.

And who knows, maybe he'll be very good at it, and I don't know how pluralist democracy works in America, apart from some vague concepts of working Federalism and what I've seen in episodes of the 'The West Wing'.

I'm a little terrified*, from watching your system, of the way the election system sets up factional party infighting, but I've been told by people who know more then I do that it's very normal, so I'll go along with that ;)

(OK, sometimes a lot terrified when I see people who support the same party getting into flame wars)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

A large part of why I'd like to vote for her is because she does, indeed, know what she's talking about from front-line experience. I don't doubt Obama's enthusiasm in the least, but his record is far from as proven as hers is.

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

I am of two minds when it comes to telling Hillary to quit.

1) she is not electable, never was and never will be. Even if she had managed to take the Democratic nomination, she would never ever ever be President. Sure she may have been able to take the democratic base, but she could not swing the swing voters, even if she went against Bush himself. She has too much baggage. Her husband has too much baggage. The Republicans would have been able to solidify their base against her and pulled in the swing voters. Even against Bush.
(I've made my opinion of her negative qualities on my journal as well as Obama's positive ones, and it is interesting watching her self-destruct)

2) by attacking Obama, we see what is his best quality, his way to deal with attacks. The BS she is pulling in Pennsylvania hasn't made a dent in the polls. Why? Because unlike Kerry, Obama knows how to handle attacks. His sense of humor (I loved whem he said "Shame on you Hillary" with that huge smile) and ability to build on the attacks, like he did with his race speech after the attacks for Re. White show what an excellent President he will make.

Personally, at this point the Clintons are in the same boat Nader is in, their legacy is gone. I proudly stood in the freezing DC air to watch his first Inauguration. She was going to be a first lady in the vein of Eleanor Roosevelt. Now I wouldn't cross the street to shake either's hand. I want my daughters to have good female role models, like Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who I'm hoping will get the VP slot.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Never ever ever is a strong phrase. She's gone further in the process than any other woman before her has -- even if she doesn't get the nomination, I'll be proud of her for that. If she were truly not electable, she wouldn't have made it out of the gate.

I find Obama's speeches to be very impressive rhetorical arguments. He's a wonderful speaker. I've seen less evidence that he will make a wonderful President.

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

Yes never, ever is a very strong phrase, but that is just how strongly some feel against her. I will give a rather crude example of the feelings that some have against her. At my husband's duty station, whenever her picture comes on the TV, the reactions are harsh and crude to say the least, yet these same men want to vote for Obama. Even Democrats don't want to vote for her. I know several who would have voted for McCain if she had won the nomination. There is a very strong Hillary sentiment (whether deserved or not is not the issue) that the opposition can use to unite against her.

Lots of never evers have made it out of the gate. Like Mondale, Goldwater, McGovern, Dukakis, and these are people who had their party's nomination. Hillary got as far as she did because of the Clinton machine. Even the man from Hope cannot stand up to someone who offers genuine hope.

The tactics that Hillary has been willing to sink to show that she is not someone I want anywhere near the White House and barely want her in Congress. I started losing respect when she ran for Senate in NY, rather than wait for the Senate seat in Illinois (and guess who has that now. I think that is poetic justice). What she said about her trip to Bosnia has me offended to the point where I can feel where the negativity about her comes from. If you think you were in danger when you weren't (especially when that should be a sweet memory), there is a term for that, psychotic or in her case, opportunist

My in-laws, who have never ever voted Democrat, will this Fall when Obama wins the nomination. My BIL who never wanted to vote is a huge Obama fan. Obama is electable because he wins the swing voters and expands the Democratic base, something Hillary cannot do.

Michelle Obama will be the First Lady that Hillary thought she could be, if for no other reason, then she isn't auditioning for another office and therefore doesn't have to care about public opinion. Talk about a strong female that is a good role model. I would be willing to bet that Obama picks a female VP (Kathleen Sebelius hopefully) to help heal the split.

Someone once said, actually lots of somebodies, that if you want to see what a person is really like, look at their activities before they were in office. Obama's history shows him to be a good man. I've done lots of research into his days at college, both as a student and a teacher. I want that student and teacher in the Highest Office in the land.

Obama is not just a wonderful speaker. He writes his speeches, especially the big ones. These are his ideas and his heart out there. The speeches are so beautiful because his heart is.