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.

[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.

[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.

[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*

[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.

[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)

[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.