So after all this time and all the money spent campaigning it still comes down to super delegates. In other words, all the votes cast in the democratic primary did not matter. Old white men in a smoke filled room (the super delegates) chose the party nominee. Way to be democratic….
Separate subject: Obama is running based upon “change” and how he will change politics and dc right? In Capital Hell’s blog, though sarcastic, raises a good point. Obama did not leave his church for personal reasons, he left because of political ones. He did not disassociate himself with his spiritual adviser because of something he just said, but because it was politically prudent to do so. Obama is the same as all the other politicians, let me take a public opinion poll and do what is best for me.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics
Yes, the nomination process is flawed (especially in this year with Michigan and Florida), but I think it your statement is not wholly accurate. The votes cast by the regular, non-superdelegate voters were not inconsequential. The most oft-cited rational of superdelegates siding with Obama was “following the will of the people” and most chose Obama because of his lead in pledged delegates. Seems to me that on a simplified level the superdelegates served the purpose for which the were created: to be a check and balance on the primary process.
I beg to differ….So Clinton has 1926 delegates (super and regular) and Obama has 2160 total delegates. Lets remove Old white men…that gives us a total number of delegates for Clinton of 1640 and for Obama 1765. Lets remove caucuses because those disenfranchise working voters as well as military voters that are not able to caucus. That gives us Clinton 1629 delegates to Obama 1455 delegates, so by ACTUAL VOTING in a DEMOCRATIC system Clinton trounces Obama.
I have the excel sheet here if you have any questions
And the follow-up for Obama being a politician
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/On_day_one_McCain_camp_pounces_on_an_Obama_weakness.html
Appears they are a HUGE threat right? But yet when he had a chance to designate them as a threat he voted against it and did the politically prudent vote.
I don’t understand how you took out caucuses. Yes, true they disenfranchised certain groups of voters, but you are trying to tell me that caucuses do not at least give some indication of how a primary would go? I argue that they do and if a primary was held, Obama would have had a great chance at winning those as well.
And last time I checked, Republicans also have caucuses. In addition, the Republicans also seem to have this ridiculous event called the Ames straw poll which to my understanding is a gathering of a thousand activists where they come together and bbq in mid August. But apparently, this poll actually gets publicity and yields some influence. Talk about being undemocratic.
I completely agree. If it is republican or democrat either doing a straw poll or a caucus are undemocratic and horrible institutions that need to be changed. The main difference though is McCain did not win because of his results via the caucus or the straw poll (Huckabee did well in those) where as Obama ONLY won because of these.
Well, again, I believe Obama would have done well in those caucus states if they held primaries. You can’t just cut those states out of the analysis.
Also, if Obama was running against Mike “I don’t believe in math, I believe in miracles” Huckabee, Rudy “president of 9/11″ Guiliani, and Mitt Romney, Obama would have wrapped this thing up a long time ago. However, he had to take out an American political dynasty. This comparison you make is like comparing the NBA Eastern and Western conferences. Not very valid.
I would rather have ANY of the individuals you just listed over Obama as President. Besides John Edwards (he is crazy) there really isn’t anyone else I would prefer to NOT be President rather than Obama. At least I know where those individuals stood. With Obama it is all rhetoric. The only examples of anything he has actually done is EXTREME LIBERAL or horrible associations. He is the MOST liberal senator. While Illinois state senator he did what? He got 200 million dollars to go to a RACIST priest. He made a crap load of money by doing a shady business deal with a CONVICTED Tony Rezko, and he had a spiritual adviser for over 20 years that he could not disown when it was leaked to the media how crazy he was like he could disown his mom, but once it became politically prudent he then disowned him. He referred to his grandmother as a “typical white person.” What else has he done? Ohhh ya that is right he his friends and has had a convicted TERRORIST host a party for him before he ran for state senate. GREAT CANDIDATE DEMS!!!! What else has he done? He is running on change and being able to unite, but give me examples of when he has done this in office?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121254834844844045.html
Two can play this game. Let me the list reasons I love John McCain:
1. A campaign team full of advisers for dictators including I the Myanmar junta. At least Obama had the sense to not put his troublesome affiliations on his CAMPAIGN team. Haha.
2. Supported a gas tax holiday to appease the American people, hoping that the people are too stupid to realize it’ll do nothing.
3. Opposed Bush tax cuts but now supports it to pander to his party. What a flip flopper.
4. Divorced and then married a woman more than 20 years his junior who also happened to be really rich. True love? I doubt it. I wonder if that helps his position on family values that Republicans care so much about.
5. Obama worked his way up from a family of single motherhood. McCain was born into a prestige family, a family of admirals and then almost failed out the naval academy, despite getting in because of his pops. Talk about silver spoon and a life of privilege. He definitely knows nothing about the common man.
6. McCain is also extremely temperamental. I hope he doesn’t piss off our allies or the opponent in delicate negotiations that may lead to embarrassment or even war.
I could go on, but my main point is that it’s easy to pull out these attacks on any candidate. I just hope the people have enough sense to critically think about all the points John and I have mentioned about the two candidates and decide for themselves whether they are important or true.
I never said that I loved John McCain…but instead of what you do (which is never answer any questions about substance about Obama, but attack McCain in stead which is exactly what Obama does (never talk substance)) I will respond to your points. And I do not know if it is because you left the country or not, but I feel I have to constantly educate you, which is funny because you have done nothing but academia your whole life…anyways on with today’s lesson.
1. How does one vet every affiliation one’s company has before putting them on their campaign? NO really think about this. It is not realistic. Take for example, if Joe Bob was running for a campaign, and his friend Steve wants to help out on his campaign. Steve works for a large company we will say BobbaDuck. BobbaDuck has over 10,000 employees and twice that amount of contracts with different organizations. Now is it Joe Bob’s responsibility to vet all 10,000 employees and all of BobbaDuck’s contracts before he allows Steve to help on his campaign? Now that is ridiculous to think Joe Bob does, but what Joe Bob can do is as soon as he finds out, is make Steve leave his campaign (which is exactly what McCain did). Now what would be worse is if say Joe Bob had two RACIST spiritual advisers for the past 20 YEARS that think the US Government is behind AIDS, and did not disassociate himself from them until it was politically prudent (Obama).
2. For someone as rich as you yes maybe a few cents a gallon will not help out, but for a large chunk of Americans something is better than nothing. It is better than the plan put out by Obama to tax the oil industries (which will then just turn around and raise prices even more to offset this new tax).
3. No you are stupid. He was opposed to them back in the early 2000’s because he saw that they were going to cut taxes WITHOUT cutting costs. He is still against this. What he wants to do is make them permanent and make government smaller. (GET RID OF PORK SPENDING!!!!)
4. He has a pre-nup on his second marriage, so none of that money is his. He cannot get it at all. Yes he admits fault in his first marriage, but don’t you think that coming home from being a POW (for what 6 years?) would affect one’s marriage? I am not making excuses for him, but at the same time I am not going to vote for him because of his family life, but because how he will lead this country.
5. Prestige family? I have never heard a military brat family be regarded as prestige. If you or the democrats really think this, then that just proves how out of touch you are with the military. Ya silver spoon, he was offered freedom as a POW because his father was the commanding officer over Vietnam, but he refused and was tortured daily because he would not let himself be freed before others that were captured before him. Ya that is a silver spoon. While he was serving his country, Obama was smoking crack.
6. What piss of our allies and countries we are trying to negotiate with, with a stupid comment like Jerusalem should be united under Israeli control, only to then have to backtrack because he is naive? http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSN05476731
And I hope people do decide, lets see someone who is not even a McCain supporter can at least answer the questions, but yet an Obama supporter and advocate and someone who works for his campaign, only deflects basic questions without ever answering anything of substance…just like his candidate. Today’s lesson is over, and this may be my last post for June, until later, please go back and educate yourself Fang, you really are looking dumb
If you want to learn more about McCain check out wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
My list was not the point. Perhaps I didn’t make it clear that I didn’t necessarily believe those points but that it as been cited in the media before with little evidence and thought to them, just as your points about Obama have been in the media, but if you would just think about them, they are ridiculous. Again, my list was just to show that one could easily pull out stupid points against McCain (and get a rise out of you) just as you have pulled out stupid points against Obama.
But it is funny how you have defended McCain and his affiliations, but most of the points you make against Obama are about his affiliations. Apparently it’s OK for McCain to have shady affiliations whereas when Obama has affiliations it somehow really reflects on his character.
And the only other point you make about Obama is about being the “most liberal” senator. First of all, what does that even mean? Second of all, if that was true why would that be bad in of itself. Lastly, it just signifies that you were too lazy to actual look through his voting record and decide which you agreed with and which you didn’t and instead just wanted to put a easy tag on him. That is sure good critical analysis. Haha.