Dem and GOP: Who do you think will win the nominations?

This thread poses a tough question, and I think the bottom line is that the importance of the early states is yet to be determined. The media's role in this election will be as big -- or bigger -- than in any that I can remember. CNN and cable love Hillary and will pimp her at all costs. That bodes well for positive coverage despite her likely early losses. The internet leans towards Obama. We saw the media sink The Communist Bone Sawing Doctor last Presidental election after Iowa. I really doubt they do that to Hillaroid this time around, or Half-Balack Hussein Osama this time around. So on the libs' side, to be determined. Will be fun to watch. If the media goes softly on Hillaroid early, then she'll do well on Super Tuesday and win. If not, then all bets are off. As a Republican and a believer in freedom, I hope Hillaroid wins on the lib side so that we can maul her in the General.

For the good guys, I think Huckabee fizzles out after Iowa. Once he loses his momentum, he goes t*** up rather quickly. Romney will need to make big in-roads into Giuliani's strong positions in the big Super Tuesday states by winning NH/SC/MI. That's his key and his early states strategy. Without success there, I think Giuliani takes it.

 

Right on cue...

 

curious whether you think the the absence of the florida and michigan, two obama strongholds, delegations at the DNC would change your projected order of finish? and if obama supporters feel shafted, will they just stay home, or hold their noses an vote for the shafter?

 

Sam, if you believe this to be true, then you have identified a market inefficiency and you stand to profit from your information advantage. Put your money where your mouth is and bet on the winner based on what polls say. Then you can retire and spend all day on the message boards instead of playing boy esquire. Oh wait, nevermind

 

Yeah I think they reformed the system in the 70s to make it the way it is now. It was after the nasty Chicago Democratic convention when all hell broke lose.

Although there are a couple of things to note. There was a Supreme Court case a few decades ago that ruled that the national parties (The DNC and RNC) had control over the whole process. Both the DNC and RNC subsequently gave up the power they gained by delegating it out in the form of primaries. Its kind of funny that the DNC and RNC have no real power anymore over the process. They can't even say what candidate they would support and basically have to support everyone equally because of the decision to de-evolve power back to state parties.

However, one thing both parties have done is institute a group of people known as "superdelegates" that are chosen by the national party as opposed to being sent by local primaries. And the amount of superdelegates has increased to about 1/3 of the total convention, so theoretically if the race gets close, the DNC and RNC themselves could decide who wins with their own delegates that they send.

 

I didn't say I strongly disagreed with some of Obama's positions in that post, although I've said that recently in another thread. One is his position on NASA and manned space flight. I've gone over that enough. I will certainly vote for him, or any other candidate of the Democratic Party over the field in the GOP. I just won't vote for Obama in the primary because of that issue. Other issues? Here's one, and this fellow explains it better than I could.

For your reading pleasure...


December 7, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

The Mandate Muddle

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Imagine this: It’s the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they’ve concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance — a so-called mandate.

Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.

But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he’ll have trouble responding — because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.

O.K., before I go any further, let’s be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan — although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans — is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.

But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.

First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable. Mr. Obama’s advisers have seized on the widely cited statistic that 15 percent of drivers are uninsured, even though insurance is legally required.

But this statistic is known to be seriously overstated — and some states have managed to get the number of uninsured drivers down to as little as 2 percent. Besides, while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn’t perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.

Anyway, why talk about car insurance rather than looking at direct evidence on how health care mandates perform? Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work.

The second false claim is that people won’t be able to afford the insurance they’re required to have — a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.

In fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance unaffordable under these plans, they’ll find it even less affordable under the Obama plan.

By the way, the limitations of the Massachusetts plan to cover all the state’s uninsured — which is actually doing much better than most reports suggest — come not from the difficulty of enforcing mandates, but from the fact that the state hasn’t yet allocated enough money for subsidies.

Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”

Look, the point of a mandate isn’t to dictate how people should live their lives — it’s to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn’t think you’d actually need Medicare when you got older — except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare’s finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

So how much does all this matter?

Mr. Obama’s health plan is weaker than those of his Democratic rivals, but it’s infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

I’d add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Sorry for bolding all of it. When I started to bold the most important parts, I realized that the entire column deserved reading. At any rate, Krugman raises some very good questions about Obama's stand on universal health care coverage, and to me they are very troubling.



Impeach Bush.

 

I did not identify this - others have.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/10/presidential_fu.html

If you would read this, you would know the very reason why poltical futures markets are not as accurate as you claim is the reason why it's impossible to make millions of dollars trading in them - the total traded volume is a pittance.

Anyway lets look at their performance last time around:




The Iowa futures market flamed out like Howard Dean.

 

An interesting analysis. I agree with a lot of it, but you do have to look at it as more of a snapshot of sentiment, as the article claims. It's impossible to predict how things will unfold this far out, but the futures markets provide an accurate depiction of the prevailing status. Intrade is much more liquid (more $$ traded) than the Iowa thing, by the way.




Bill Clinton was already impeached. Keep the impeached out of the White House

 

Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic Nomination. I don't think it will be really close.

Republican will be closer. I'm still hoping for Ron Paul, unlikely as that might be. I'd think his supporters are much more likely to caucus than anyone else's, and his views match the views of the stereotypical New Hampshire voter almost identically. On the crazy notion that he comes in 1st or close 2nd in Iowa, he could easily win New Hampshire, and then all bets are off.

That's all a long shot, so I'll make my prediction Mike Huckabee.

By the way, for all of you predicting McCain: He won't finish above 4th. I wouldn't be surprised to see a marginal candidate like Tancredo finish above him.

 

Intrade is quoting hilary clinton at 59.60 on a volume of 0.033k - Since they apparently price at 10% of their number, that is roughly $200 worth of volume. Even on the absolute biggest day, the total volume is not more than 15,000 contracts at 50, which comes out to $75,000 changing hands. A nice chunk of change, but that's probably less than it costs to run part of one Gallup poll.

 

Not sure how Intrade does it, but when I buy options, each contract buys you control of 100 units of the underlying security. So when you buy 10 contracts at $1 each, you aren't spending $10, you are spending $10*100*1, so $1000.

 

Intrade's microvolume market does the opposite:

 

It will be Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney!


Because Americans just loooove family dynasties; and nice hair!

There have been a lot of wives of popular former leaders elected. Everybody who loved Bill will vote for Hillary.

Everybody who loves Jesus and wants a handsome man as president will vote for Mitt.

Quite the ringing endorsement for American Democracy.





Guliani? How will this play on the front page of the host city newspaper of his first G8 conference?



He'd a been better off admitting the only reason he got dressed up like that was because he inhaled...crack.

That makes this look positively regal:



Probably worse than even this one:

 

Hillary will win the dem nomination

As far as the GOP it's pretty wide open, I sure hope it's McCain imo he is the best man/woman for the job from either party. His age will be a major factor though

 

I think it is telling that my post of the Krugman column has been completely ignored by those who lean towards Obama. As I said, I haven't made up my mind who I'll vote for in the primary, except that it won't be for Obama (as I said, I'll for in the '08 election for whoever gets nominated by my party, for reasons at least obvious to me), but I would be interested in why the Krugman column wasn't troubling to any of his supporters. Just don't care? Don't believe it? Think it isn't a big deal? Don't want to dwell on anything that reflects poorly, at least in my mind, on Obama?

What? I'm curious.



Impeach Bush.

 

Perhaps because I don't find his healthcare program to be as disturbing - or see all that much difference between hilary's and his own.

Also - you and krugman are making the same mistake that republicans make when they try to scaremonger us into saying "X-democrat will take away your guns and quadruple your taxes according to his plan if elected!" Sure he will - if you presume congress will rubber stamp everything he does. This almost never happens (save for the last republican congress) in the real world, where compromise is inevitable

 

Before going into more detail (I guess I'll have to break down Krugman's column into points), what you posted above was, in my opinion and with all due respect, very naive. And it isn't just attacking Clinton's plan, but Edwards plan, as well.

From you... you and krugman are making the same mistake that republicans make when they try to scaremonger us into saying "X-democrat will take away your guns and quadruple your taxes according to his plan if elected!" Sure he will - if you presume congress will rubber stamp everything he does. This almost never happens (save for the last republican congress) in the real world, where compromise is inevitable. The GOP will use his own words to try and scare the public into voting for the GOP candidate. Golly, I know they never do that. I know that's a tactic they never use. I know using fear to frighten voters into their column would never occur to them.

Please, give me a break! It doesn't matter whether compromise is inevitable. Of course it is. What matters is passing out ammunition to the GOP machine to use in the election, and that Obama is deliberately distorting, to be kind, his opponents healthcare plans.

Sam, he claims that "a mandate is unenforceable," which is in practical terms untrue and proven to be untrue. Typical "political" bending of the truth (Isn't he the "good guy?") to "score points" on his opponents.

Obama also claims that "people won’t be able to afford the insurance they’re required to have," patently false, because "all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient." This will play right into the GOP playbook for attack points in '08. And "in fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance unaffordable under these plans, they’ll find it even less affordable under the Obama plan." So why should Obama distort the truth?

And Krugman's third point is, "Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.” Krugman elaborates... "Look, the point of a mandate isn’t to dictate how people should live their lives — it’s to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn’t think you’d actually need Medicare when you got older — except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare’s finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

By the way, the limitations of the Massachusetts plan to cover all the state’s uninsured — which is actually doing much better than most reports suggest — come not from the difficulty of enforcing mandates, but from the fact that the state hasn’t yet allocated enough money for subsidies."

Pretty harsh condemnation by Krugman. Are you saying he hasn't a leg to stand on?


So there are real differences here and troubling claims by Obama that play right into 15 years of the GOP, and the health and insurance industries, attacking any form of universal healthcare. 15 years of savage attacks and distortions by them to prevent universal healthcare. And Obama hands them further ammunition on a platter, either by trying to score points on his opposition for the nomination, ignorance, or both.



Impeach Bush.

 

The list of candidates from both parties is very underwhelming to say the least. None have truly impressed me and strike me as solid, democratic leaders. Who I expect to get the nominations are: Rudy and Hillaroid.

 

A mandate isn't a law. Am I missing something? I don't understand the Krugman example. In Texas, it is a law to have car insurance, if you have car obviously. I'm pretty sure if obama says mandates are unenforcable, he's right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(criminal_law)

I hate to go wiki but this is what it has to say



A criminal court may impose a "mandate" on a person accused of a crime consisting of an obligation to engage in certain conditions or activities in exchange for suspension or reduction in penalty; such as, conditions of [probation]], conditional discharges, or other conditional sentences. For example, a defendant convicted of driving while intoxicated or drug possession may be mandated to engage in alcoholism or substance abuse rehabilitation. The term is paradoxical because acceptance of the "mandate" is, in fact, a voluntary act by the defendant, who also has the option of serving what would most generally be viewed as a harsher alternative, such as incarceration. In this sense, the mandate is in fact not truly mandatory, but is instead a type of legal fiction wherein the court assumes an illusion of power which, in actuality, is constrained by the defendant's free will.

now I know this example is not the same exactly the same as what the health insurance mandate would be. But I'm just using this to say its unenforcable.