![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Outcome of Super ____ Tuesday primaries:
McCain extended his ridiculously huge lead. It's really looking like the other republicans are wasting their time and money.
Clinton maintained her lead, but, according to this AP article, used $5 mil of her own money to do it.
Obama really closed the gap. He's still behind, but not by much. And he's got more money.
Right now, according to that same article, Clinton has (an estimated) 1,045 delegates to Obama's 960, and they're racing to 2,025 (the number needed to get the nom). It could easily go either way.
Either way, it'll be an historic first. And either way, we'll have a good candidate with a good shot at winning and promised policies that will, IMO, go a long way to getting this country back on track.
Personally, I'm still pulling for Obama. He hasn't been as jaded by politics. He's done a lot of talking about reforming the political process. He's a lot more charismatic than Hillary. I like what he has to say on a lot of issues. And I found this interesting:
(The $13.5 mil doesn't count the $5 she added herself.)
But, more importantly, from this article:
It's inspired me to consider adding in a little something. Another drop in the bucket. But this is real grassroots support. Proof that the torrent approach can work. That little bits, here and there, actually can add up. Especially with the race as close as it is. And I think it says a lot that such a significant portion of his money is coming from individuals. Those "maxed out" donors are often representatives of big corporations and special interests.
It's not a definitive thing, but I consider it a good sign.
Meanwhile, the democratic votes took a lot longer to tally than the republican ones. This is because a lot of the democratic primaries had some kind of proportional distribution of delegates. As opposed to the republicans, who tend to have a winner-take-all approach. I think that says a lot about the two parties. The democratic way is more complicated and takes more time, but gives a better representation of the will of the voters. Even though Hillary "won" NJ, the votes were about 60/40. As one of the 40% who voted for Obama, I know that my vote wasn't just discounted and thrown away. It contributed to that 40%, and there'll be a delegate representing my vote.
I think the next step is to get rid of the delegate system entirely. Go to a direct popular vote. We have the computing and communications ability to make it practical. And it's not like the delegate/electoral college system actually does what it was designed to do. Delegates have the power to change the votes that they were supposed to cast, but, in reality, they never do.
Unless, that is, they're told to. Part of the reason Huckabee won West Virginia is that McCain, at the last minute, told his delegates to vote for Huckabee. McCain was behind in the polls in WV, and he thought Romney was more of a threat to him than Huckabee. So, basically, he took the votes that had been cast for him and changed them into votes for Huckabee, thus depriving Romney of a victory that would have gotten him a chunk of votes in the final national tally.
It's an interesting strategy, but, personally, I think that comes questionably close to an abuse of the system. Legal, but morally gray. And one more reason to get rid of the extra step in the process.
So, anyway... yay for democracy! And good luck to the dems in picking the right candidate and getting that person in office. After all the absolutely unbelievable stuff that has happened in the last 7 years, we really need it...
McCain extended his ridiculously huge lead. It's really looking like the other republicans are wasting their time and money.
Clinton maintained her lead, but, according to this AP article, used $5 mil of her own money to do it.
Obama really closed the gap. He's still behind, but not by much. And he's got more money.
Right now, according to that same article, Clinton has (an estimated) 1,045 delegates to Obama's 960, and they're racing to 2,025 (the number needed to get the nom). It could easily go either way.
Either way, it'll be an historic first. And either way, we'll have a good candidate with a good shot at winning and promised policies that will, IMO, go a long way to getting this country back on track.
Personally, I'm still pulling for Obama. He hasn't been as jaded by politics. He's done a lot of talking about reforming the political process. He's a lot more charismatic than Hillary. I like what he has to say on a lot of issues. And I found this interesting:
Officials with both campaigns have said Obama raised $32 million in January and Clinton $13.5 million, a significant gap between the two that allowed Obama to place ads in virtually every Super Tuesday state and get a head start on advertising for the next primaries and caucuses.
(The $13.5 mil doesn't count the $5 she added herself.)
But, more importantly, from this article:
An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton. She has raised about half of her money from "maxed out" donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.
It's inspired me to consider adding in a little something. Another drop in the bucket. But this is real grassroots support. Proof that the torrent approach can work. That little bits, here and there, actually can add up. Especially with the race as close as it is. And I think it says a lot that such a significant portion of his money is coming from individuals. Those "maxed out" donors are often representatives of big corporations and special interests.
It's not a definitive thing, but I consider it a good sign.
Meanwhile, the democratic votes took a lot longer to tally than the republican ones. This is because a lot of the democratic primaries had some kind of proportional distribution of delegates. As opposed to the republicans, who tend to have a winner-take-all approach. I think that says a lot about the two parties. The democratic way is more complicated and takes more time, but gives a better representation of the will of the voters. Even though Hillary "won" NJ, the votes were about 60/40. As one of the 40% who voted for Obama, I know that my vote wasn't just discounted and thrown away. It contributed to that 40%, and there'll be a delegate representing my vote.
I think the next step is to get rid of the delegate system entirely. Go to a direct popular vote. We have the computing and communications ability to make it practical. And it's not like the delegate/electoral college system actually does what it was designed to do. Delegates have the power to change the votes that they were supposed to cast, but, in reality, they never do.
Unless, that is, they're told to. Part of the reason Huckabee won West Virginia is that McCain, at the last minute, told his delegates to vote for Huckabee. McCain was behind in the polls in WV, and he thought Romney was more of a threat to him than Huckabee. So, basically, he took the votes that had been cast for him and changed them into votes for Huckabee, thus depriving Romney of a victory that would have gotten him a chunk of votes in the final national tally.
It's an interesting strategy, but, personally, I think that comes questionably close to an abuse of the system. Legal, but morally gray. And one more reason to get rid of the extra step in the process.
So, anyway... yay for democracy! And good luck to the dems in picking the right candidate and getting that person in office. After all the absolutely unbelievable stuff that has happened in the last 7 years, we really need it...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
This might sound weird, but: Thanks a lot for keeping us updated :)
You know, with all the profoundless (is there such a word?) stuff we (as in "The Old world people", or even more as in "I" ;)) hear in the media, it's a bit hard to understand the whole system and even harder to get the Americans' opinions towards it.
So thanks for sharing your thoughts about that topic - it's really interesting and gives me a small insight in your way of life :)
From:
no subject
And lol, I don't think "profoundless" was a word, but I say it is now. It's a good one, too!
As for US opinion/way of life... I think that varies quite a bit. We're a big country. The size of all of Europe, more or less. And we're a country of immigrants. From all over the place. There are a lot of subcultures and cultural pockets and suchlike. Things are never as simple as they try to make them sound.
And yeah, we have the same problem with our media.
But if you ever want to know what I make of something like this, just ask!
From:
no subject
Last night I gave my first ever campaign contribution. A measly $25, but every drop in the bucket counts. The funny thing is that Hillary had to lend herself $5MM but according to Obama's website last night (when I last checked) he'd received donations of over $6MM in just 24 hours.
Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less.
That is awesome! A firestorm indeed.
From:
no subject
It's really cool. I'm hoping it'll be enough to get him into the White House, and hoping even more that, once there, he'll live up to it...
From:
no subject
I didn't vote in the primary. Hilary was the only big bid on the ballot and, y'know, I'd forgotten about the handy little 'Uncommitted' choice. I'm really hoping it goes to Obama. Like you've said, he's a lot less jaded. He's fresher to the process and has a better chance of making any changes that are really needed. I don't doubt Hilary's ability, but I do doubt her passion.
Either way, though, it's going to be a big one. :)
From:
no subject
For this, though, I also went to AP.org. It's where most of the media outlets get their info anyway. It's a good way to get the raw, relatively unbiased info.
But yeah. Hoping for Obama. And, either way, it's going to be big. Historic. And critically important. Here's hoping...
And... coming really close to Daily Show time. G2G!