![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For those of you looking to make a little more sense of the US primaries...
AP's comparison of where the candidates stand on major issues
AP's map of which primary is when (click each state for vote totals and delegate allocations)
The Green Papers, a good site for vote totals and estimates of the delegate count
And, just for fun, a 2005 list of possible candidates. Note the man listed dead last, under "Vice Presidential Fodder at best."
The Green Papers is a site I came across a week or two ago. It's the best site I've seen for delegate totals. They have several different estimate columns. "Pledged" votes are delegates bound to vote a certain way. "Unpledged" votes are free agents - people who have said they intend to vote a certain way, but aren't obligated to do so. The "soft" total is an estimate based on vote totals, exit polls, and the announced support of unpledged voters. The "alternative" vote is the soft total with the addition of currently sanctioned votes. (Some votes don't count, as punishment for party rules violations, but it's theoretically possible that party leaders could change their minds and allow the votes after all.)
Basically, the "soft" total is the current best guess.
And, as of now, things haven't changed much in the totals.
On the Republican side, McCain still has a commanding lead, and will almost certainly be the Republican nominee. Huckabee would have to win every state from here on out to even have a chance, and even then he might need all of Romney's votes to put him over.
For the democrats, things are still pretty much neck and neck, with different estimates (different people or same people with different assumptions) alternately giving Obama and Clinton a slight lead. Obama is ahead in the delegates elected by popular vote, but Clinton has more endorsements from unpledged "superdelegates." The superdelegates only make up 20% of the total delegate votes, but with the race this close, they could well be the deciding factor.
(Quick summary of superdelegates: They're kind of a leftover of the old guard. It's shameful, really. Democratic party leaders and democrats elected to high office get to vote as delegates at the final primary meeting. That basically means that their votes count more than anyone else's. Their votes are equal to any other delegate, but the delegates elected by popular vote each represent the votes of thousands of ordinary people. And the superdelegates are allowed to vote however they want, for whatever reason they want, even if they've publicly stated an intent to vote otherwise.)
Looking beyond the tie, though...
There have been 8 Democratic primaries since Super Tuesday, and Obama has won them all, by 60/40 or more. (75% in DC and nearly 90% in the Virgin islands.) That means a 20 point lead. Nearly 2 to 1 in several cases. He's built up a lot of momentum. He has a huge amount of grassroots support. And a recent AP poll indicated that he has a better chance of beating McCain than Clinton would:
Clinton, meanwhile, lent that $5 mil to her campaign for Super Tuesday. And then, after the string of losses, fired her campaign manager. The next day, her deputy campaign manager stepped down, claiming that he didn't want to get in the way of the new boss's style. She's focusing her efforts on Texas and Ohio, two big states with primaries coming up soon. But if she doesn't win big there, she's in trouble. Obama seems to have a lot of small state support.
Thoughts on Clinton vs Obama: Their policies are, on the whole, very similar. Pretty much identical on several major issues. (Take a look at that chart I linked up top.) But I like that he's got the grassroots support. (Over 400,000 individual donors so far this year, and he's aiming to hit 500,000 by March 4.) I love that he won't take money from lobbyists, corporations, or special interests. I like his talk about reforming DC and the political process. He's got the popular support and momentum to have a chance at doing it. Not just a chance. Almost an obligation, given the nature of his funding and support. And, as I've said before, he's new enough to DC that he hasn't been jaded by it yet. On top of that, he's got charisma and goodwill. There are a lot of swing voters out there who don't like Hillary Clinton, who don't respond well to her. (As evidenced in part by that poll.)
In all, things are looking up for Obama right now. And I'm happy about that. I think he's got the best chance of getting into office and doing what needs to be done.
But, if Hillary wins the nom, well, she'll have my support for the general election.
Meantime, one thing that confuses me about Obama's campaign...
I made a donation to him last week. The first time I've done so during a primary. Quite possibly the first time I've ever contributed to a political campaign (can't remember if I donated to Kerry or not). That put me on an email list. So I got a notification about a matching donor program. It's really short on details. It's not advertised anywhere on the site. You have to know the secret URL to even see it. I emailed for more info, but haven't heard back.
Basically, I think they're taking donations from people who have donated before and "matching" them to donations from first-time donors (you get to send a brief message to your match about who you are and why you're donating), to encourage both groups to donate a little more (and to help reach that 500,000 donor goal). Telling each that his or her contribution has been "doubled" because it was matched by a fellow donor. Makes sense, but I don't understand the secrecy. And I'm not even sure that's how it works. I wish they had more details.
AP's comparison of where the candidates stand on major issues
AP's map of which primary is when (click each state for vote totals and delegate allocations)
The Green Papers, a good site for vote totals and estimates of the delegate count
And, just for fun, a 2005 list of possible candidates. Note the man listed dead last, under "Vice Presidential Fodder at best."
The Green Papers is a site I came across a week or two ago. It's the best site I've seen for delegate totals. They have several different estimate columns. "Pledged" votes are delegates bound to vote a certain way. "Unpledged" votes are free agents - people who have said they intend to vote a certain way, but aren't obligated to do so. The "soft" total is an estimate based on vote totals, exit polls, and the announced support of unpledged voters. The "alternative" vote is the soft total with the addition of currently sanctioned votes. (Some votes don't count, as punishment for party rules violations, but it's theoretically possible that party leaders could change their minds and allow the votes after all.)
Basically, the "soft" total is the current best guess.
And, as of now, things haven't changed much in the totals.
On the Republican side, McCain still has a commanding lead, and will almost certainly be the Republican nominee. Huckabee would have to win every state from here on out to even have a chance, and even then he might need all of Romney's votes to put him over.
For the democrats, things are still pretty much neck and neck, with different estimates (different people or same people with different assumptions) alternately giving Obama and Clinton a slight lead. Obama is ahead in the delegates elected by popular vote, but Clinton has more endorsements from unpledged "superdelegates." The superdelegates only make up 20% of the total delegate votes, but with the race this close, they could well be the deciding factor.
(Quick summary of superdelegates: They're kind of a leftover of the old guard. It's shameful, really. Democratic party leaders and democrats elected to high office get to vote as delegates at the final primary meeting. That basically means that their votes count more than anyone else's. Their votes are equal to any other delegate, but the delegates elected by popular vote each represent the votes of thousands of ordinary people. And the superdelegates are allowed to vote however they want, for whatever reason they want, even if they've publicly stated an intent to vote otherwise.)
Looking beyond the tie, though...
There have been 8 Democratic primaries since Super Tuesday, and Obama has won them all, by 60/40 or more. (75% in DC and nearly 90% in the Virgin islands.) That means a 20 point lead. Nearly 2 to 1 in several cases. He's built up a lot of momentum. He has a huge amount of grassroots support. And a recent AP poll indicated that he has a better chance of beating McCain than Clinton would:
When [Clinton] is paired against McCain in a general election matchup, she gets 46 percent to his 45 percent, a tie, according to the poll. Obama edges McCain, the Arizona senator, 48 percent to 42 percent in their pairing.
Clinton, meanwhile, lent that $5 mil to her campaign for Super Tuesday. And then, after the string of losses, fired her campaign manager. The next day, her deputy campaign manager stepped down, claiming that he didn't want to get in the way of the new boss's style. She's focusing her efforts on Texas and Ohio, two big states with primaries coming up soon. But if she doesn't win big there, she's in trouble. Obama seems to have a lot of small state support.
Thoughts on Clinton vs Obama: Their policies are, on the whole, very similar. Pretty much identical on several major issues. (Take a look at that chart I linked up top.) But I like that he's got the grassroots support. (Over 400,000 individual donors so far this year, and he's aiming to hit 500,000 by March 4.) I love that he won't take money from lobbyists, corporations, or special interests. I like his talk about reforming DC and the political process. He's got the popular support and momentum to have a chance at doing it. Not just a chance. Almost an obligation, given the nature of his funding and support. And, as I've said before, he's new enough to DC that he hasn't been jaded by it yet. On top of that, he's got charisma and goodwill. There are a lot of swing voters out there who don't like Hillary Clinton, who don't respond well to her. (As evidenced in part by that poll.)
In all, things are looking up for Obama right now. And I'm happy about that. I think he's got the best chance of getting into office and doing what needs to be done.
But, if Hillary wins the nom, well, she'll have my support for the general election.
Meantime, one thing that confuses me about Obama's campaign...
I made a donation to him last week. The first time I've done so during a primary. Quite possibly the first time I've ever contributed to a political campaign (can't remember if I donated to Kerry or not). That put me on an email list. So I got a notification about a matching donor program. It's really short on details. It's not advertised anywhere on the site. You have to know the secret URL to even see it. I emailed for more info, but haven't heard back.
Basically, I think they're taking donations from people who have donated before and "matching" them to donations from first-time donors (you get to send a brief message to your match about who you are and why you're donating), to encourage both groups to donate a little more (and to help reach that 500,000 donor goal). Telling each that his or her contribution has been "doubled" because it was matched by a fellow donor. Makes sense, but I don't understand the secrecy. And I'm not even sure that's how it works. I wish they had more details.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I don't think any media outlet is really fair. Everyone has a bias.
even-handed joking turns out to have very different approaches with regards to the various sides, with Republicans getting more hostile ones and Democrats getting more mild ones.
Maybe. I don't know. Not sure which jokes you're talking about. As a democrat, I probably wouldn't notice because I agree with that bias. As a republican, you might be seeing certain jokes as more hostile because they're attacking things you believe in. These things are very subjective.
Moving on... I'm not going to debate the merits of socialism just now. Not really feeling up to it. As Western countries go, I think we're probably one of the least socialist countries around. The socialist measures we have came into play because of the Depression, and a lot of the measures created at the time were banned as unconstitutional.
What it comes down to is the role and nature of government. Obviously, we have differing ideas there. I believe that a government has a responsibility to look out for the needs of its citizens. I also believe that if we, as a society, have a moral responsibility to do something, then there's nothing wrong with using the government as a tool, to let it do some of the work on our behalf.
From:
no subject
*nods* Everybody does have biases, and I definitely won't argue with that! The biggest issue I've seen has been that a liberal bias is socially acceptable in the media, and a conservative one is not (this is different from being socially acceptable in specific areas of the country--there will always be places where a conservative bias is "the only way to go" among people, just as there will always be places where anything other than a liberal bias gets you looked at as an idiot). Typical media practice is to enclose a quote from both--but the conservative one being from someone that's obviously ill-informed or who can't verbalize well. Then a good "expert" liberal to finish up with. OSC mentioned specifically jokes during Leno's coverage of the 1992 elections, I believe, where ones on Republicans attacked how conservative handling of the economy has worked badly (and on the elder Bush's character, calling him a liar), and ones on Democrats poked fun at Clinton's wilder behavior and generally apologized for it and asked people to look past it and elect him. I don't really care if media people here or there are only liberal and that's all they'll present to the public (it's always good to hear various POVs, even/especially when you don't agree), it's that it's overwhelmingly biased in one direction. At the moment, I'd see if I could pull up more examples, but school's kinda taken over, lol. I can't remember looking at much news lately beyond the one spurt of odd news I went through the other day. *sigh*
I actually would agree with you on what government *should* be doing, if it weren't for one thing: people are inherently corrupt--give anyone power, and eventually (with very very few exceptions), they will use it unwisely or illegally, even if many times they had not meant it. It's the whole "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing. People just aren't perfect, and the more power we give a government, the more that power-hungry people are going to get in control and misuse funds (not including the making bad laws to their benefit). Government tends to turn into this insatiable behemoth, sucking up more and more funds, few which return in the form of useful help of some sort. Hence, the less we give the government, the better. I guess that's kind of where I come from. (Then there's the whole "how would you agree on the best way to help people"--approaches to reducing poverty vary widely, and even if someone agrees that their money should be used for that, they might not agree with *how*.)