Why Hillary Should Be Winning

Dave NoCal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Posts
2,719
Media
1
Likes
2,576
Points
333
Location
Sacramento (California, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Both candidates (presumably) knew the system when they decided to go for it. If one of them wants new rules, he/she can begin working on it next year.

Back to Freddie's original question, it's my opinion that Obama presents a very rare opportunity to start a whole new generation of young people voting democratic. Plus, real or not, he projects himself as a class act while Clinton has been caught again and again playing with known facts. Plus, all this after-the fact whining about the rules makes her look like a poor sport.

My prediction is that Obama will win, or nearly win, Pennsylvania denying Clinton her must have big win there. Of course, next week she'll start talking about how Pennsylvania is really so important after all. Most polls show Obama closing on her and a couple have actually shown him ahead. Also, while I haven't studied it, it seems to me that Obama tends to do better in elections than in polling, perhaps because a lot of his demographic uses cell phones to the exclusion of land lines. Thus they are unreachable to the pollsters. Alright, I've gone on long enough except to add that I will vote for ANY democrat over ANY republican. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Dave
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Keep in mind that while Gore had over a 200,000 lead in popular vote over Bush, Bush barely won the electoral college vote count in 2000.


Can't keep saying it enough: the popular vote means nothing. meant nothing in 2000, will mean nothing 2008.

If it did the outcome(s) of popular votes would of been COMMMMMMMMMMMMMPLETELY different. Campaigns are built around the electoral process. It's a completely pointless moot point to bring up. It like saying one candidate won more states that end in vowels. Seriously.
 

blkmwbp

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Posts
108
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i will vote for obama come november as long as bush and his gang are outta there...mcain cant be trust
 

blkmwbp

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Posts
108
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i will vote for obama come november as long as bush and his gang are outta there...mcain cant be trusted either
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,363
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama
Hogwash.

If Clinton weren't in the race, then Obama would win those states as well. There's no way to tell if it were Clinton vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain in those states.

Democrats are going to vote Democrat and either of the candidates could carry the states by the narrow margin that Hillary did win in the few that she did.
 

TinyPrincess

Mythical Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Posts
15,819
Media
2
Likes
31,002
Points
368
Location
Copenhagen (Capital Region, Denmark)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Obama and McCain can be somewhat trusted... Hillary never. Your lefty biasm shining through here.

I agree - both Obama and McCain can be trusted (well, to an extend). No such thing with Billary, she's 100% liar.

So this election is between a young somewhat unproven candidate, who might be a really great president, and a candidate, who should have been president 8 years ago, but might just be to old now - I really like McCain, but I'm really having difficulties seing him as president for one or two terms. Or is the Oval Office a retirement home?
 

D_Cyprius Slapwilly

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Posts
313
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
103
The fundamental flaw with the article is that this all comes from polling data, and it's banking on the polls being the same come November. A lot of people say they'll vote the other party if their candidate doesn't win in a tough primary, but that doesn't happen very often once the candidate that loses starts campaigning on behalf of the nominee (and make no mistake that it will take rigorous campaigning for either of them to fully heal these wounds). But aside from that, we still have 7 months to November. Look at what the polls said about McCain 7 months ago. Try to find ANYONE that would be willing to wager big bucks on an Obama primary win 7 months ago. These polls change like dirty diapers, so just keep that in mind.
 

littledickboy111

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Posts
558
Media
11
Likes
117
Points
263
Location
Phoenix (Arizona, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree - both Obama and McCain can be trusted (well, to an extend). No such thing with Billary, she's 100% liar.

So this election is between a young somewhat unproven candidate, who might be a really great president, and a candidate, who should have been president 8 years ago, but might just be to old now - I really like McCain, but I'm really having difficulties seing him as president for one or two terms. Or is the Oval Office a retirement home?

It's time for change - McCain style!

Oval office desk? No more!
Oval office craftmatic adjustable bed!

Meeting with foreign leaders? No more!
Meeting with fig newtons.

Press conferences? No more!
He'll just yell things out the window of the white house about "those stupid teenagers"
 

TinyPrincess

Mythical Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Posts
15,819
Media
2
Likes
31,002
Points
368
Location
Copenhagen (Capital Region, Denmark)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
It's time for change - McCain style!

Oval office desk? No more!
Oval office craftmatic adjustable bed!

Meeting with foreign leaders? No more!
Meeting with fig newtons.

Press conferences? No more!
He'll just yell things out the window of the white house about "those stupid teenagers"

LOL :biggrin1:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Originally Posted by Freddie53

I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless who he/she is come November.


Could I get an elaboration of this?

You've always seemed like an intelligent, careful & balanced thinker, so this surprises me a bit.
Yeah you can get an explanation. I don't really see anyone other than Hillary or Obama being the nominee. While I am for Hillary, I have no problem supporting Obama if he is the nominee.

The only dark horse I see as a posssibility is Gore. And I would support him as well.

I won't vote for McCain. So, I don't have much of a choice but support the Democratic nominee.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
getting back to the issues, proposed healthcare policies seems to be the greatest delineation among the candidates, so I have copied the WSJ article in toto, as the article may be subscriber only content, and, hence, possibly not accessible were I to post a link to non-subscribers


not a particularly strong issue for me, but wondered how the rest of you thought about it





Parties' Split Most Apparent on Health Care

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Democrats, Republicans Differ
Over Roles of Government
And Market to Revamp System
[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times,serif][FONT=times new roman,times,serif]By LAURA MECKLER
April 19, 2008; Page A4
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Washington
As the presidential candidates respond to increasing economic anxiety about many issues, some of the sharpest differences in this fall's debate are expected to involve health care.
While the Democratic candidates want to use government as a lever to aid the 47 million people in the U.S. without health insurance, Sen. John McCain would rely much more heavily on the free market. The likely Republican nominee has begun charging that his Democratic rivals "want government to take over the health-care system."
SHARP CONTRASTS

• Campaign Issue: Democrats and Republicans differ widely in their proposals for reforming the U.S. health-care system.
• Democrats' Approach: The two candidates want to use government as a lever to aid those without health insurance.
• Republican View: John McCain would rely more heavily on free-market forces.




With Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama focused on their own contest, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former candidate John Edwards, has stepped in and begun attacking the McCain plan.
Though Mrs. Edwards says Democrats aren't proposing government-run health care, she finds it ironic that Sen. McCain is so averse to it given that he has had nothing but such coverage since birth. A young John McCain was first insured as the son of a Navy man, then as a Navy officer himself and finally as a member of Congress.
"He has not spent a single day not protected by a federal health plan, not a single day of his entire life, and yet he denigrates this care," said Mrs. Edwards, who recently joined the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress as a senior fellow.
While Sen. McCain agrees with the Democrats on some issues, such as climate change and, after some initial resistance, aid for struggling homeowners, differences on taxes and other economic issues, including health care, are likely to be a sharp contrast.
The Democrats' priority is to cover all, or nearly all, the uninsured, except for several million illegal immigrants. Both candidates would have government set up a marketplace where people could buy coverage from private companies or the government, with subsidies for lower-income earners. The candidates also would bar insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions or charging them more.
While Sen. Clinton would mandate that everyone be insured, Sen. Obama wouldn't -- a difference that has been a source of debate between them.
Sen. Clinton has charged that Sen. Obama's plan would leave millions of citizens uninsured; Sen. Obama has countered that people will get insurance once it is affordable. Many health economists agree with the New York senator, but Sen. Obama's position might be easier to defend in a general-election debate.
While Sen. McCain regularly attacks both Democrats together, he has made clear he is particularly prepared to attack Sen. Clinton on the issue of mandates, which, he says, bolsters his argument that Democrats are heavy-handed and would leave citizens with less choice.
The Arizona senator dismisses the fact that people could choose which health plan to sign up for under either Democrat's plan. "If you mandate, as Sen. Clinton wants to do, then, yeah, you've got a choice, but you still have a mandate. That's like saying, 'You're going to be executed -- do you want a knife or a bullet?' " Sen. McCain told reporters aboard his bus.
Sen. Clinton's policy chief, Neera Tanden, replied: "That's a great choice of words when literally people are dying."
McCain aides concede that their case against Sen. Obama could be weaker, given that the Illinois senator's plan doesn't have mandates.
Sen. McCain doesn't think it is up to government to ensure that all citizens are insured. He simply wants to give people more control and, like Sen. Obama, says people will buy insurance if it is affordable.
The centerpiece of his plan is severing the link between health insurance and employment. Under existing law, citizens get a tax break on the cost of their health insurance only if it comes through an employer. That partly explains why 170 million citizens get insurance through an employer.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AQ107_HEALTH_20080418171613.gif Sen. McCain would replace the existing tax break with a refundable tax credit ($2,500 for an individual; $5,000 a family) that would go to all citizens with insurance, no matter how they got it. The result would likely be an erosion of employer-sponsored insurance and an increase in plans bought on the open market.
"The biggest fear people have when they lose their job is losing their health insurance," Sen. McCain said last week in an economic speech. "I have proposed comprehensive reforms that will lead to innovative, portable insurance."
Democrats say his plan would be great for young, healthy people who could get a good deal on their own. But he hasn't solved the difficulty faced by older people and people with pre-existing conditions buying insurance on the open market.
Mrs. Edwards notes that the McCain plan could leave both him and her out were they forced to seek insurance on the open market. Both have had cancer, and insurance companies typically won't offer insurance to people applying on their own who have had serious medical problems.
Sen. McCain said last fall that he would help people with particularly expensive health-care needs by offering special subsidies administered through Medicaid, the state-run health program for the poor. But how that would work or who would qualify is unclear.
Sen. McCain also would let people buy health insurance across state lines. That would allow health-insurance companies to escape state regulations they don't like, such as rules allowing for appeals when companies deny coverage and rules requiring insurers to cover people with various conditions or to cover particular types of treatments. The companies would likely gravitate to the states with the regulations they most favored.
The result is that health-insurance companies would all operate out of states with few regulations, effectively stripping state rules built over decades, Mrs. Edwards said. "We can expect all our health-care policies to be written in states where little is required of them."
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Dear Freddie53:

When I first learned about the Electoral College back in 4th grade social studies I thought it seemed a terribly unfair way to elect a president in a country that yells "Democracy!" every chance it gets. Also, Adalai Stevenson had just lost (for the second time) to Eisenhower -- a nice enough guy, but ineffectual president.

At 57 years-old I still think the Electoral College is a piss poor way to elect a president, even if it's used for some kid running for 7th Grade Student Body President.

However, it is the very best means to take away the value of an individual's vote.

As for the Hillary/Obama drama. I finally discoverd an organization that will allow me to file an absentee vote (US Embassies used to offer this service, but not anymore) for all of the candidates running for office in my little part of Nevada -- from County Sherrif, City Treasurer, to Hillary or Obama -- which ever Democrat makes it as the party candidate. Can't tell you the relief I feel, knowing I don't have to return to the USA during an election year and suffer the fear, loathing, and ducking of flying shit.

PS: Nice post, Nick444 regarding the advantages McCain has enjoyed from public health care. I never would have heard about that if you hadn't posted it. One of the BIG reasons I live as an expat is that no insurance company in the USA will touch me now that I'm a "cancer survivor."
 

D_Thoraxis_Biggulp

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Posts
1,330
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
181
The fact that Hillary took the majority in the electoral-heavy states doesn't mean she would have any better of a chance at winning them in November than Obama would. The number of voters at the primaries is not going to be the same as at the polls, nor were the numbers at the Republican and Democratic primaries the same. In some cases, Obama could very well have gotten (or get) more popular votes in some of those states than McCain. Also, even if McCain takes California, Obama could easily sweep the smaller states and build up to a victory piece by piece.

And maybe another way to look at it is that Obama should continue to hold the lead because of his winning the popular vote. Popular. People. It means more individual people want him in office. For those of you who have forgotten, that was kind of supposed to be the idea behind a democracy. The majority of the people agree on something, and that's what happens. Not this electoral Rube Goldberg bullshit converting and manipulating the data. I don't know, call me crazy, but I like the idea of having a President that atleast 50% of the voters actually elected to have in office. Eight years of a politically split nation is quite enough for me.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
You make some valid points there.

It is time to seriously consider another way to elect our president than the system we are using.

I hope you realize that as I explained the electoral college system, I was endorsing it. It still bothers me that Gore had more votes than Bush but the Supreme Court using the Electoral College system was able to but Bush in office instead of Gore.

We are the same age. I hope we see this change within our livetime.

The fact that Hillary took the majority in the electoral-heavy states doesn't mean she would have any better of a chance at winning them in November than Obama would. The number of voters at the primaries is not going to be the same as at the polls, nor were the numbers at the Republican and Democratic primaries the same. In some cases, Obama could very well have gotten (or get) more popular votes in some of those states than McCain. Also, even if McCain takes California, Obama could easily sweep the smaller states and build up to a victory piece by piece.

And maybe another way to look at it is that Obama should continue to hold the lead because of his winning the popular vote. Popular. People. It means more individual people want him in office. For those of you who have forgotten, that was kind of supposed to be the idea behind a democracy. The majority of the people agree on something, and that's what happens. Not this electoral Rube Goldberg bullshit converting and manipulating the data. I don't know, call me crazy, but I like the idea of having a President that atleast 50% of the voters actually elected to have in office. Eight years of a politically split nation is quite enough for me.