brokenrecord | (no subject)

Ok, so I have to rant about politics related stuff again. I am prefacing this by saying I am totally biased towards Obama, and that if the situations were reversed, it probably wouldn't bother me as much. Additionally, I'm sure there's plenty of things Obama's doing that could be criticized that I'm ignoring because I support him more and this point. I am totally aware of this, but that doesn't stop me from being bothered by it anyways.

Ok, so what I'm really tired of hearing about is that Clinton can win the big states. Particularly her referencing Texas, California, and New York.

First off, California? Are you really implying that you can win California in the general election but Obama can't? Do you REALLY think California is going to go Republican? Seriously. The same goes for New York. Does anyone really think that New York would not go for Obama during the general election? Maybe if McCain were from either state or served as a Senator/Representative for either state, but he didn't, so... I'd be shocked if either state didn't go for the Democratic candidate. Feel free to mention that you won those states, because I mean, that's significant, but don't use the fact that they're big states as reasoning that you should be the nominee. Maybe if the general election awared delegates proportionally, like the Democratic primaries, because then Clinton could argue that she would be more likely to win more delegates than Obama, but... they're not. It's winner-takes-all, and a Democrat is going to take all the delegates in New York or California, no matter who it is.

Her referencing Texas bothers me for two reasons. First, the opposite of what I said in the previous paragraph: does anyone really think Texas is going to go to a Democrat? It's going for McCain whether the Democratic nominee is Clinton or Obama. But the other reason, which is much more important and why this is irritating me even more, is CLINTON DIDN'T WIN TEXAS. She won the primary (although not by a huge margin; only 4 points), but she didn't win the caucuses. Texas has a two-step primary system, which... is kind of ridiculous in my opinion, but whatever, I didn't make the rules. The caucuses took longer to count for whatever reason, so they weren't reported on. But Obama won the caucuses, so you can't way that Clinton won Texas outright. Additionally, Obama won the caucuses by a greater margin, and as a result, Obama actually gained more delegates from the Texas primary than Clinton! Obama won Texas! Now, I don't think he should use Texas as a reason why he should win the nomination because, really, Texas is not going to go for Obama. BUT SHE NEEDS TO STOP SAYING SHE WON TEXAS. And ok, I don't expect any differently from her (Obama would probably do the same if the situations were reversed); really, it's the news media that needs to stop talking about her "big wins" in Ohio and Texas. I mean, even without the caucuses, it's only 4 points in Texas, so that's not a HUGE win. But more importantly, STOP LABELING IT AS A WIN FOR HER. At BEST, she tied. At worst, Obama won due to netting more delegates.

She also cites Ohio as a big win for her, and that's totally valid. Ohio will probably be a swing state, and it's totally understandable that she would use that as justification. It is more likely that it would go for her in the general election than for Obama. And if the same thing happens in Florida and Pennsylvania, then fine. Totally fair. But stop using Texas, California, and New York as examples of big state wins, because it's totally irrelevant (and in the case of Texas, flat-out wrong).

(Oh god I shifted point of view so many times in this rant and it's bothering me, but I don't want to go back and fix it.)

I totally know nothing about politics outside of what I've learned just from watching the news and from taking political science in high school, so keep in mind that this is all just based on my opinions and my reactions. And I'm totally biased to Obama, I'm admitting that, so if you're a Clinton supporter... don't hate me? (I don't think anything I said would cause you to hate me, but I feel like I needs to be said anyways.)

Anyways. Essay test tomorrow, other test Friday, need to study. Have I mentioned how much I want it to be Friday? Because I really want it to be Friday.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Personally if he's won 30/44 of the states and she's only won 14...I think whoever wins a majority of the states should win the democratic nom...but that's probably too simple.

I agree that if he has more delegates, more states won, and more of the popular vote (all of which he has), then he should definitely be the nominee. It gets a little murkier if she has the popular vote and he has more delegates because then it's kind of like Bush/Gore all over again, and that would put the superdelegates in a harder position. Still, I think he's likely to keep the popular vote and the delegate lead.

And I don't think that if he does have more delegates and she uses swing state wins as justification that the superdelegates should vote for her anyways, that they should. I just understand the reasoning behind it more. But I would be very upset if they went for her for that reason; I do think that they should go with what the people vote for. I just find it incredibly ridiculous to use those particular states as justification, but I keep reading articles and hearing her talk about those states, and everytime I just have to go "...seriously? You think Obama's not going to win California? You think you WOULD win Texas?!" And the Texas thing is bothering me the most because SHE DIDN'T WIN TEXAS. But she keeps using it for justification and the news outlets keep citing it as a big win for her, and it's kind of driving me crazy. (Part of the problem was that I watched way too much of CNN last night while they were reporting on the Mississippi primary and it kind of drove me insane.)

but, michelle! don't you know? caucuses aren't real elections! (according to hillary clinton.)

Oh, duh! I can't believe I forgot that she said that! And I also forgot that all the states that Obama won aren't real states (or at least not important states) while all the states that Clinton won are critical states and huge wins, as she's also (basically) said. I take back everything I said in this post; I don't know what I was thinking!

My gripe with caucuses is that you have to want to stick around after you vote and hang out in a room with a bunch of avid fans of one candidate or the other. What I object to is the way Obama and his supporters use winning the caucus as proof that he won the state. He didn't. Clinton bested him by close to 100,000 votes there. So, she won the popular votes, but because her supporters may not have been willing to enter a room of bouncing Obama/Clinton supporters, she didn't win the caucus. You can't say she didn't do well in Texas, 100,000 extra votes is kind of a big deal, but I see your point.

I just feel like neither candidate is either all that qualified or progressive enough to make the changes that need to be made. I guess, because Clinton's my Senator, I tend to sympathize with her more. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I know of people were directly helped by her. At this point, I'm just going to say "buyer beware" to anyone who falls too much in love with the Obama campaign. And trust me, I don't hate you, you're certainly entitled to a differing opinion, if we agreed on everything how boring would the world be?

I actually wasn't aware that she had more votes, I was just going to by delegates, so thanks for that information. So now I feel a little less irritated by her and the media calling Texas a win for her. It is still a win for Obama in terms of delegates, but it is a win for her in terms of votes. And yeah, I'm not denying she did well in Texas, because she did. I just think it's kind of stupid to use winning the state as justification for giving her the nomination since I would be shocked if either she or Obama won it in the general election.

Honestly, I find the caucus system totally ridiculous, and it does favor Obama over Clinton. I wasn't even aware that they had caucuses before this primary season. However, they are in place, so they do count, and it annoys me when Clinton treats caucuses as they don't count. I think that the system does need to be reformated, but this system is already place, and it's not like we can just change it in the middle of the primaries (not that I'm saying that she's saying that at all). I think the whole voting system needs to be redone, though (awarding delegates proportionately kind of makes no sense when the general election isn't by proportion. Actually, I'd rather that electoral votes in the general election be awarded proportionately, or, even better, just go on the popular vote alone, with no electoral system. But that's an entirely different topic).

Heh, well, I'm glad you don't hate me. And I haven't fallen in love with the Obama campaign, I don't think. I don't know. For a long time, I was really undecided and kind of switched back and forth between them frequently. I mean, I voted for Clinton in my primary (way back in late January; the primary was on Super Tuesday, but we had early voting in my area, so I did that), and I don't think she would be a terrible president; she would certainly be a better president than Bush is or McCain would be. At the time, I voted for her because I thought she would have a better chance in the general election than Obama; recently, though, I saw a national poll that showed both of them beating McCain, but Obama by a slightly greater margin, so that's influenced me just a bit in switching to support Obama. And I know that polls change (a year or two ago, the same poll had Obama winning only Massachusetts against McCain, so obviously things can change drastically, and it's a long way till November), so that's not the best basis to make a decision, but it has influenced me. But mostly I feel like a lot of comments Clinton's been making (like I already talked about in that other post about McCain being a better commander-in-chief than Obama) are only going to serve to hurt the Democrats in November no matter who the nominee is.

Anyways, even though I am irritated with a lot of things related to the Clinton campaign right now, I will vot for her if she gets the nomination. I honestly don't feel like Obama's and Clinton's policies are very different, and my reaction right now is mostly just a reaction to, well, what I stated in the previous paragraphs.

(Oh god, sorry, this is a ridiculously long comment.)