Log in

No account? Create an account
Cat Fight (Safe)

Politics Blech

So I'm getting around to my morning reading (yes, slow start on the day, blame work for no sleep this week). And I see an article on Clinton (Mrs not the ex-Pres) and her continued campaigning.
The title is

Clinton presses on, urges supporters to ignore calls to quit

And I realize, how is this not, in many ways, just like Bush's persistence to continue on with the frackin' war he started? (And yes I know its not as serious, but overlooking that detail.) It just nailed home for me how similar the politicians can be, despite which of the party labels they pin to their lapel. I mean I know persistence is in many ways a quality personality trait, but blindly pushing forward to the point of obstinance is not. That's just arrogant, trust me I know, I'm equally guilty of it at times. Maybe I missed my calling, politics. This doesn't change who I was going to vote for, if anything it just reminds me why I'd like to vote in a little change into the system, hope it pans out in the end.


strong chance might be a bit of an overstatement but I concede the point as accurate.

strong chance?

I wouldn't call it strong, I wouldn't even call it much of a chance anymore. There are only about 225 delegates left that haven't pledged, and she would have to win about 200 of those to pull ahead of Obama. Considering that since about Super Tuesday, they have just about evenly split all of the delegates (Obama increased his lead from about 100 to about 150 in that time), the chances of that are slim to none.

However, it is also true that the democratic nominee doesn't necessarily HAVE to be the one chosen by the voters in the primary election...the party can nominate whoever they want, i.e. whoever they think will win. They usually go with the voters, since those are the people who will be voting for or against their choice...but the fact remains that they can choose whoever they deem most "electable", and since Obama is closer to being a Centrist than a true dyed-in-the-wool Democrat...
There is no Iraq War; it's an occupation. As such, there's no 'winning' or 'losing'. The U.S. will keep forces there until:

a) they can no longer afford to pay the soldiers and mercenaries
b) the people of the U.S. compel the government to withdraw; or
c) the country ceases to be strategically significant (i.e., the oil runs out).
Semantics, but true enough.

a) we already can't afford to pay them, hence why the country is running in debt.
b) the people don't seem to have a common voice to convince the gov't to do anything
c) the significance seems to be secondary to the show of 'promoting democracy' at this point
"Promoting Democracy" is B.S. Empires like the U.S. actually prefer authoritarian regimes; because they keep the rabble in line, and the money going in the right direction....and when they outlive their usefulness, these regimes are suddenly discovered to be awful authoritarian Nazis.
won't argue there, hence why the term was quoted, to imply that its made up crap that just helps them sell themselves to the everyday public
Mrs. Clinton does actually have a point in her refusal to concede defeat. She has won the large electoral-count states almost without exception. Obama has won the larger number of states, but not the big ones.

However, her argument is flawed in that she keeps touting the "fact" that she can beat McCain, whereas Obama "cannot." Although there are sporadic reports of supporters of either Obama or Clinton who say they will not vote for the other Democrat in the general election, or would rather vote for McCain than the other Democrat in the general election, I don't see that happening on a large scale. Regardless of who the Democratic candidate is after the Convention, the competition between these two has energized the party to a level of involvement not seen in the last thirty years or more. Democratic turnout has been huge, precisely because the primaries actually MEAN something this time around. And I don't think that energy is going to wane come November.

What I do see happening, possibly, is a money war between the Democrats and the Republicans, which the Republicans are SURE to win. McCain and his contributors have not had to spend nearly as much as the Democrats, because their candidate is all but decided (Ron Paul is still running, but even his supporters like myself admit that he's not really "in the running"). In the ad-war between August and late October, the GOP can throw a lot more money at their campaign, simply because they haven't already spent it all.

I do think that the Democrats will be able to rally behind whichever candidate gains the nomination, but what they need to do is ensure voter turnout in November. The Republicans have been able to laze about for the past several months, and if that trend continues, all the Democrats need to do is make sure they turn out in larger numbers.

October 2014

Powered by LiveJournal.com