[afransen]

I find that kind of oratory to be exceedingly easy to snooze by.

 

[adma]

At least he wasn't absently preoccupying himself with Lewinsky nostalgia

 

[Brandon716]

After wrestling back and forth for months, and theorizing about this or that, I've decided to back Hillary Clinton. Obama doesn't offer the change he says he offers, and Edwards hasn't supported any number of things he is for now. Clinton has proven she's for universal health care (albeit an "American" form of it that has issues) and I think she'll be far more masterful in fixing our broken foreign policy and war problems than Obama can be.

I was considering voting for Kucinich as a protest vote, I had voted for him in the 2004 primaries, but this year a lot is at stake and I didn't think the others would be as competitive.

 

[Brandon716]

I beg your pardon, it most certainly is a primary and it is called that by both parties.

The Caucus is a method of selecting a candidate, and there are variations of the causus method for the Republicans versus the Democrats.

The Iowa Caucuses are alternately called the "first primary" in this election year.

I certainly can't be the only person on this forum who is an American native and knows our political system well.


...Iowa is NOT a primary. New Hampshire is the first primary. The Nevada caucuses that were just held also are not primaries.

There is a simple difference between primaries and caucuses. A caucus is when you get people in caucus locations and they hold their hands up as a group and manually get counted to see who has the most votes. Whoever wins the most votes then wins that precinct's STATE delegates to go vote in the state party convention for that candidate. The state party convention then votes for national delegates to go to the national party convention and represent that state.

A primary is a private ballot election in where individuals actually vote for the candidate of their choice, and its different for each party. The Republican party is winner-takes-all. If one candidate gets 38% and that's the largest percent, they get that state's total delegate count at the national convention. The Democrats are proportional, the Democratic National Committee states that when a winner gets 38% of the vote, they get 38% of the state's delegates.

For this reason, Republicans tend to know who has their party's delegate count much earlier in the process. Democrats have a much more competitive primary and caucus system for choosing a candidate, and it by nature makes the party more divided. Candidates have a much harder time getting the needed delegates to get to the 50% or higher threshhold for being the chosen candidate.

The delegates from each state convene at the party convention to vote their candidate - and they are not legally bound to vote for the candidate that the people chose - its just a traditional honor system where the faithful vote based on recommendation of the people in either the caucus or the primary. In this way, its not so very different from the actual electoral college that elects the President in the general election. As most people in the world now know, only 538 people actually vote for the US President on recommendation of the people, and it isn't always the person who gets the majority popular vote (as we all saw in November 2000 when Al Gore got more popular votes nationwide, regardless of the disputed outcome in Florida over only a few hundred votes).

Actually, something similar just happened in Nevada on Saturday. Hillary Clinton got thousands more votes and won by a sizable 6% in the caucus meetings. But Barack Obama actually got 13 delegates vs Hillary Clinton's 12 delegates.

Most people don't realize how un-democratic the US system actually is.

That's how the caucus and primary system works.

 

[Hydrogen]

Interesting.

I've never thought of the U.S. system as undemocratic per se; just confusing.



Did anyone catch the rather spirited debate between Clinton and Obama on Monday?

 

[Brandon716]

Interesting.

I've never thought of the U.S. system as undemocratic per se; just confusing.



Did anyone catch the rather spirited debate between Clinton and Obama on Monday?

Maybe I shouldn't have said un-democratic. I just think people idealize the US system who live here without really understanding how the US works. And i'm not talking about people outside the US, I'm talking about the patriotic flag waving Americans who think we're perfect and everything else is tantamount to soviet communism or tribal anarchy such as African nations with little rule of law.

For the record, and for all its faults, I prefer the Canadian Parliamentary model of government to ours. I rarely say such things on a forum with mostly Americans, but I've felt that way for a long time after intensely studying the variations of each system.

Regarding the debate last night, I watched it and feel Hillary won strongly. Now, will that mean South Carolina is voting for Hillary? We'll know this saturday, but with its high african american population the SC primary is stacked against Hillary as the politics down there tend to divide on race and John Edwards was born in SC. I bet the white vote will be split and Obama will actually win South Carolina, but he'll come back to lose it all on Super Tuesday on the Feb 5th primaries.

I'm ready for it to be over, I don't like seeing the divisions of the party. I kind of blame Obama for the division, because he came in and just had to run, everyone else be damned. He's pretty selfish and cocky at times when you hear him speak, he really thinks he is the Democratic Reagan.

With that said, should Obama win the February 5th Super Tuesday states and actually become the nominee, I'll support him 100% for President. He's clearly the better option vs. the Republicans.

But as far as the debate? Hillary performed well. She offered specifics on what she would do, why she's doing it, and why its better. Obama is caught up in big ideas, themes, and vague policy answers. All he ever says is that he can bring people together to effect change. It sounds 100% identical to another politican by the name of George W. Bush back in 2000 when he ran. Obama is smoking crack if he thinks he can roll into town and just magically change everything with a magic wand.

My biggest bone to pick with Obama is that his health care plan doesn't cover everyone, Hillary guarantees that everyone is covered. Her health plan is considerably more expensive (Obama's plan is estimated to cost $60 billion, Hillary's plan $100 billion), but that's because Hillary creates a public single-payer insurance plan alongside the private options, and if people can't afford the premium associated with the public plan she subsidizes it and the government pays the tab.

Obama creates a single-payer plan to co-exist with the private plan options, but he has no program to fund people with lower incomes that can't afford the monthly premium required to participate in the plan. This means millions of people will still "choose" not to have health insurance, thus his insurance plan has a fatal flaw. When you leave money out of the system it becomes unsustainable, and he has already proven a few flaws on the details of policy.

Hillary is concise, specific, and has matured plans. She's learned from past mistakes.

She's offering the best plan to fix our ailing, half-baked system that has the western world's highest mortality rates.

The Democrats have to be smart in order to convert our health care system to single-payer, it can't be done in one brush stroke of the pen signing one bill. The Hillary plan carefully creates a single payer plan that is the most affordable option for every citizen (and she subsidizes half the population anyway), and she basically leaves the private insurance system in tact. If you can afford private insurance, you can keep your existing plan, but the single payer plan she's creating is so low cost that citizens and businesses alike will flock to it, automatically leaving the private for-profit plans to go under.

Its a way to create single-payer in baby steps. Hillary is a genius, and she's my candidate.

 

[Hydrogen]

Interesting post, heckles.

I'm watching this contest with increasing interest, and while I have not picked a favourite, I think that either Clinton or Obama could make good presidents.

 

[Desi_Doubkle]

well i would choose obama because clinton seems like the kind of upper class person who would ignore needs of the people lower on the ladder


edit- concerning USA saw article in Star yesterday that said Iraq War will cost 2 trillion and for ~10% of that money we could basically achieve universal literacy, stop aids, bring much of world to acceptable living standard, reach 2000 world developement goals, bring clean water etc. WOW

http://www.thestar.com/article/295870

edit- included beacuse i remember many us candidates calling for more war not less if only they could see that article

 

[Hydrogen]

well i would choose obama because clinton seems like the kind of upper class person who would ignore needs of the people lower on the ladder

I think her push for universal health insurance would suggest otherwise.

 

[JasonParis]

well i would choose obama because clinton seems like the kind of upper class person who would ignore needs of the people lower on the ladder

Obama's firmly in the upper class camp as well.

Basically, people down the ladder will continue to be ignored in America's two-party system. However, the Democrats are different enough from the GOP to make a slight difference.

 

[Brandon716]

well i would choose obama because clinton seems like the kind of upper class person who would ignore needs of the people lower on the ladder

Obama's policy, as he publicly admits, will leave an estimated 15 million people still without insurance due to costs. These are the poorest of the poor that will be left out.

Hillary Clinton has plans, provided we have a Democratic majority in the Senate and Congress, that will cover everyone.

This is the largest domestic issue we have to tackle, and Obama has already shown he's a little to the right of the Clintons on it.

^Darkstar has it right on the two party structure. Unless we pass public financing of campaigns and get lobby money completely out of government policy decisions the two party system will be two corporate parties, one slightly more compassionate, the other completely uncompassionate.

 

[lordmandeep]

Don't assume a democratic certain victory already.


McCain may piss off a ton of people, but this guy is well liked and respected by moderates and independents.

 

[adma]

Hey, we can still do that Simpsons thing and support Ralph Wiggum for President

And just as Bush had Blair, Ralph can have his British equivalent, too

 

[billonlogan]

Don't assume a democratic certain victory already.
McCain may piss off a ton of people, but this guy is well liked and respected by moderates and independents.

Makes you wonder how many of those moderates and independents are put off at the level of squabbling, backbiting and bitter give-and-take between Obama and Clinton. They both come off as being unpresidential in my humble opinion.

 

[Hydrogen]

They both come off as being unpresidential in my humble opinion.

Even after the likes of Bush?