Hi there, B-Bob. I'm glad you value my opinion enough to specifically request it. Regarding McCain's economic policies, I favor his stances on 1) free trade issues and 2) private social security accounts. I also support his stance on immigration, which I feel is a necessary part of our country continuing to have access to low-cost labor from south of the border. Please enjoy the rest of your day, sir
thanks, bigtexxx. Agree on 2, maybe not so much on 1. I assume you would prefer Romney for GOP candidate in November. But I do think McCain gives your party its best shot at continued possession of the Whitehouse. And enjoy your day too. I hope you have big money on the Pats to cover, and on the over.
In Texas, do we just show up at the polls on March 4th and vote in one party or another? Today is the last day to register, but I don't see anything different about the registration other than registering any other time. //been registered //always vote in the general elections // don't know if I'd vote against Romney or for Obama in the primary
on march 4th you can choose to vote in the dem or rep primary... meaning if one party's candidate has already been chosen but the other one hasn't, we could go and sway the vote
The big question is whether Obama will do the right thing and concede the race should he lose most states on Tuesday. A long protracted struggle for the dem nomination is a big disadvantage for them against the Republicans in the General.
No, it's really not. It means tons of extra free media coverage that John McCain doesn't get. If the battle goes all the way to the convention, it means 5 months of free media coverage, along with sky-high viewership of the convention. On the other side, you have a candidate that has accepted matching funds (I think he can cancel that - I'm not positive). If he does keep the matching funds, he will be severely limited in terms of spending until the convention, meaning McCain will basically be on a media blackout for 5 months.
One person's evaluation of everyone's stimulus plans: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../01/22/AR2008012202614.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Bush George W. Bush: B-minus. The president gets extra credit for signaling flexibility on his roughly $145 billion package and for not insisting on extending his tax cuts, which made no sense as stimulus and would have doomed its chance of passing. A tax rebate -- the White House has floated $800 per individual -- is a good approach. Bush loses points, however, for excluding those without income tax liability, even if they pay hefty payroll taxes. Points off, also, for failing to extend unemployment benefits. In efficiency and fairness, both are exactly backward. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke explained, "If you're somebody who lives paycheck to paycheck, you're more likely to spend that extra dollar." Bush says tax incentives for business investment must be a significant part of the package. But such breaks didn't have nearly the positive effect anticipated after they were adopted from 2001 to 2003; the Congressional Budget Office found the impact of those provisions to be "relatively modest"; Moody's Economy.com put it at 27 cents for every dollar spent. Obama Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan. He would speed a $250 tax credit to most workers, followed by another $250, triggered automatically, if the economy continues on its sour path. Obama would direct a similar rebate to low- and middle-income seniors, who are also apt to spend and could get checks quickly. One demerit: Obama omits any increase in food stamp benefits, which Moody's estimates would have the greatest bang for the buck, $1.73 for every dollar spent. Clinton Hillary Clinton: C-plus. Clinton, too, raised the issue early, then turned in a faulty first draft with a $70 billion stimulus plan that didn't provide much immediate stimulation. It included a $25 billion increase in the program to help low-income Americans with heating costs -- an excessive amount (the current program is under $3 billion) that probably wouldn't kick in until next winter. Even worse was her housing plan, including a five-year freeze on subprime mortgage rates that could produce higher interest rates and reduce liquidity. Four days later, Clinton said she would immediately implement a $40 billion tax rebate plan she had put in reserve in her first draft. Fine, but overall, the Obama plan devotes a far greater percentage to spending that is more likely to jump-start the economy. McCain John McCain: D-plus. The senator should have his plan sent back with "Did you read this assignment?" scrawled in red ink. There's a respectable argument that stimulus isn't needed, wouldn't be effective and could be counterproductive. But the normally straight-talking McCain doesn't make it. Instead, he proposes permanent tax cuts -- cutting corporate rates, increasing investment breaks, eliminating the alternative minimum tax -- masquerading as a stimulus plan. Combined with McCain's "I need someone to teach me about economics" quote from a year or two ago and his responding to economic questions in the debate by tangenting off to Iraq, it's not a good sign of his economic understanding.
From Achellius's article: Unlike Republicans, though, Democrats distribute delegates in proportion to their vote statewide and in individual congressional districts. That means candidates can come away with big chunks of delegates even in states they lose. The fat lady will not be singing for the Democrats on Tuesday
Interesting, but I still have to wonder if the fight can't get vicious again and then I don't think 5 months would be an advantage. Hopefully Hillary, I believe primarily, and Obama, too, have not just decided to stop it till Tuesday.
you also need to realize that there is a difference b/c winner take all states like new york and states who give delagates in proportion, such as california. in the california primary, both candidates will get a bunch of delegates, making the actual win of that state's primary less important
On the Dem side, ALL states are proportional - there's no winner take all. The main benefit to winning states is that it will likely shape the media coverage for the next week or so. But regardless of who wins the individual states, they are going to come out very close in delegates.
Latest polls have gone nuts. Either voters are lying, there's some kind of crazy bias in the latest batches (but they are from a variety of companies), or something REALLY changed in the last two days. National polls - the last 5 polls show: Obama up by a combined 9 in two of them (6 and 3), Hillary up by a combined 9 in two of them (8 and 1), and tied in the 5th. Some polls also show Obama leading in Massachusetts, California, and Missouri. But no one cracks 50% in basically any of these, meaning there are a ton of undecideds out there. Turnout and last minute decisions are going to swing this thing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html
I think it means undecideds are abound. They are a huge wild card, that will swing some states to one candidate or the other. I think it's going to remain close. I'm going to vote tomorrow in CA. I know of three people who are pro Obama, and one who is Anti-Obama. The three pro Obama folks are going to vote, as am I. The anti-Obama person will not be voting. I wish that actually meant something in the totality of things. I think its going to be a nail biter.
My political science professors believe that the Democratic Party nominee will be decided by Texas and the other states primaries on March 4. It's really a toss-up thus far between Obama and Hilary. Hilary genearally leads in the nation polls but a lot has changed over the past week. Whoever wins Texas might win on the Dem's side. They've also all come to the conclusion that McCain is going to win the Republicans and dominate both Romney and Huckabee in the polls.
Here we go again... http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_crys_in_connecticut.html Hillary Clinton teared up in Connecticut today.
I predicted a Hillary win several months ago (for president). A McCain nomination will almost assure that. I don't know what to think about Obama, because he's not any different than Hillary, but he comes across much more palatable- McCain would have a little bit of a chance against Obama so I don't think he will get the nod. Look for Hillary to be crowned queen Jan. 2009
are you sure that every democratic primary is proportional and there arent any winner take all states?
