(no subject)
Mar. 12th, 2008 12:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brokenrecordOk, 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 07:46 pm (UTC)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.)