Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been running virtually neck-in-neck through much of the Democratic primary season. I say “virtually” because, at this point, Barack Obama has enough of an edge to almost mathematically eliminate Hillary from contention. Because of the peculiar rules of the Democratic Party, neither candidate has been able to score a full victory over the other. The existence of superdelegates that can overrule the popular vote is Hillary’s only chance to win the nomination at this point.
So Hillary cannot be counted completely out, but her chances of winning the nomination are currently nestled somewhere between slim and none, with slim rapidly leaving town. The big question is why Ms. Clinton continues to stay in the race, and spend millions of dollars on the campaign, when the odds are so heavily against her. The most likely possibility is that Mrs. Clinton is positioning herself for an Independent Democratic campaign for the presidency.
An independent campaign is not without precedent. In 2006, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to radical leftist, Ned Lamont. Lieberman continued his re-election campaign as an Independent Democrat and eventually won the election with 50% of the vote.
Like Lieberman, Hillary Clinton is losing the Democratic primary to a much more radical leftist. Obama’s radical connections and far-left platform, which help him in the Democratic primary, are likely to make him unpopular with moderate American voters in the general election. His inexperience and foreign policy gaffes will make him vulnerable to Republican nominee John McCain, especially as the war in Iraq winds down toward an American victory.
Hillary began preparing for her presidential campaign as shortly after leaving the White House in 2001, if not before. Her successful Senate campaigns in 2000 and 2006 were dress rehearsals for her run for the presidency. She did not expect serious opposition in the primary, especially from a political unknown. Her lack of preparation is the reason for her early losses and Obama’s early momentum. Recent primaries have been closely contested as Hillary fights for political survival.
Hillary realizes that her time is now. She knows that if Barack Obama is elected, it will be eight years before she has another chance at the presidency. Obama would be certain to run for re-election in 2012 and it is unheard of for a sitting president to lose the nomination. She also realizes that after eight years of Obama’s neophyte foreign policy and economic socialism, the country would be unlikely to elect another Democrat. If Obama loses the nomination, she stands to take a large share of the blame from Democrats because of her persistence in the divisive primary campaign. Therefore, she would be an unlikely choice for the nomination in 2012.
Mrs. Clinton’s continued participation in the primary is an attempt to build justification for her attempt to mount an independent campaign. She is attempting to show that she, and not Obama, offers the Democratic Party the best opportunity to win the swing states that are necessary for a successful White House run. Any Democratic candidate will win states like California, Massachusetts, and New York, but Hillary’s point is that she is more likely to win states that might fall into either column, such as West Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.
On this point, Mrs. Clinton is correct, and not for racial reasons. Swing state voters like moderate candidates and Barack Obama is no moderate. Obama was ranked the most liberal member of the US Senate by National Journal. Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th on the list. In 2006, her rank was a very moderate 32, while Obama never got higher than 16th on the list.
Additionally, Obama has just started to feel the effects of his associates. His relationship with Jeremiah Wright, which had little effect in the primary, is likely to hurt him in the general election. Michelle Obama, Barack’s wife, has also made statements that many interpret to be, if not anti-American, definitely out of the American mainstream. His association with Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers, Weather Underground terrorists and bombers, has not been widely reported, but may become and issue later. Similarly, the fact that his mentor and father figure was Communist Party member, Frank Marshall Davis, has also not been widely discussed yet.
Finally, Obama has his own ideas and statements to overcome. His statements about “bitter” people clinging to guns and Bibles offended many of the voters that he needs to win the presidency. His comment that “I won’t wear that [American flag] pin on my chest” likewise offends many moderate Americans. Obama’s anti-war views may also be an increasing liability as an American victory draws nearer. His plans to talk directly with Iranian and North Korean leaders seem naïve to many in light of the continued work on nuclear weapons by both countries in spite of years of negotiations.
In spite of his success in the primary, Barack Obama faces an uphill battle in the general election. Hillary Clinton is a more moderate candidate who would be more likely to win the swing states so important in a close election. By running an Independent Democrat campaign, she would offer an alternative to moderate voters who are uncomfortable with Obama’s radicalism on the left and John McCain on the right. She would be able to draw a significant amount of Obama’s leftist base as well as moderates from the center. If her bid is successful, she would be able to position herself as the person who rescued the Democrats from another presidential defeat.
Remember: You heard it here first.
Showing posts with label hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hillary. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Making Every Vote Count (But Some More Than Others)
Ever since the 2000 Presidential election, the Democratic Party has repeatedly emphasized election reform. We have heard calls to ensure that every vote counts as well as proposals to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a strict popular vote. The 2008 primary campaign season has shown the hypocrisy of some of these positions and the impracticality of others.
The Democrats commitment to making every vote count did not even survive until the beginning of the primaries. Prior to the start of the primaries, states began competing to have the earliest primary in order to capture national attention and prestige. When Michigan and Florida moved their state primaries beyond February 5, the date imposed by the Democratic National Committee, the Democrats decided to strip both states of their delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Through no fault of their own, Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan were denied representation in the Democratic convention.
Both states held elections anyway. Hillary Clinton won the primaries of both states. In Michigan, many of the other candidates were not even on the ballot. With the close race for the Democratic nomination, there is much discussion of having another election in both states, but problems with paying for and getting approval for second elections makes this unlikely.
A second problem with the Democratic primary system is that Democratic delegates are awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote that they won in each state. This means that, unlike the Republican winner-take-all system, neither candidate can score a complete victory. This means that the Democratic primary drags on, costing both candidates money and wearing down their supporters, while the Republican nominee can raise funds and consolidate his base of supporters.
The Democratic system of apportionment does have exceptions. In Nevada, Clinton won 51% to Obama’s 45%. Ordinarily, this would mean that Hillary Clinton would win more delegates, but in Nevada, Obama won thirteen delegates to Hillary’s twelve. This is because Nevada delegates are apportioned by congressional district and Obama won more districts.
A decidedly undemocratic policy of the Democratic Party is the use of superdelegates. Superdelegates are not elected by primary voters and are not bound by the results of the primary vote. Superdelegates are party leaders and elected officials and are free to vote for any candidate they choose. A superdelegate vote is equivalent to approximately 10,000 primary votes.
Superdelegates were introduced in 1984 to re-establish the role of party leaders in the primary process. Changes in the Democratic delegate selection process after 1968 had put more control in the hands of voters and less in the hands of party leaders. Superdelegates currently make up about 20% of delegates to the Democratic convention.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are openly courting superdelegates because they are free to vote for anyone and for any reason. Much like the 2000 presidential election, the winner of the Democratic primary popular vote may not necessarily become the Democratic nominee.
The situation is made even more confusing because some superdelegates can appoint other superdelegates. In many states, these super-duper-delegates, chairmen of state Democratic Parties, can appoint anyone they choose to be “unpledged add-ons.” The 76 unpledged add-ons are distributed based on population and Democratic strength. Each state gets at least one add-on.
The Democratic primary process does not instill me with confidence that Democrats would be capable of finding simple and workable solutions to the problems that America faces. Voters should carefully the Democratic primary mess before allowing the Democratic Party to tackle such important issues as healthcare, tax reform, and the War on Terror.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/jon_ralston_on_the_delegate_si.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_el_pr/super_sized_delegates
The Democrats commitment to making every vote count did not even survive until the beginning of the primaries. Prior to the start of the primaries, states began competing to have the earliest primary in order to capture national attention and prestige. When Michigan and Florida moved their state primaries beyond February 5, the date imposed by the Democratic National Committee, the Democrats decided to strip both states of their delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Through no fault of their own, Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan were denied representation in the Democratic convention.
Both states held elections anyway. Hillary Clinton won the primaries of both states. In Michigan, many of the other candidates were not even on the ballot. With the close race for the Democratic nomination, there is much discussion of having another election in both states, but problems with paying for and getting approval for second elections makes this unlikely.
A second problem with the Democratic primary system is that Democratic delegates are awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote that they won in each state. This means that, unlike the Republican winner-take-all system, neither candidate can score a complete victory. This means that the Democratic primary drags on, costing both candidates money and wearing down their supporters, while the Republican nominee can raise funds and consolidate his base of supporters.
The Democratic system of apportionment does have exceptions. In Nevada, Clinton won 51% to Obama’s 45%. Ordinarily, this would mean that Hillary Clinton would win more delegates, but in Nevada, Obama won thirteen delegates to Hillary’s twelve. This is because Nevada delegates are apportioned by congressional district and Obama won more districts.
A decidedly undemocratic policy of the Democratic Party is the use of superdelegates. Superdelegates are not elected by primary voters and are not bound by the results of the primary vote. Superdelegates are party leaders and elected officials and are free to vote for any candidate they choose. A superdelegate vote is equivalent to approximately 10,000 primary votes.
Superdelegates were introduced in 1984 to re-establish the role of party leaders in the primary process. Changes in the Democratic delegate selection process after 1968 had put more control in the hands of voters and less in the hands of party leaders. Superdelegates currently make up about 20% of delegates to the Democratic convention.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are openly courting superdelegates because they are free to vote for anyone and for any reason. Much like the 2000 presidential election, the winner of the Democratic primary popular vote may not necessarily become the Democratic nominee.
The situation is made even more confusing because some superdelegates can appoint other superdelegates. In many states, these super-duper-delegates, chairmen of state Democratic Parties, can appoint anyone they choose to be “unpledged add-ons.” The 76 unpledged add-ons are distributed based on population and Democratic strength. Each state gets at least one add-on.
The Democratic primary process does not instill me with confidence that Democrats would be capable of finding simple and workable solutions to the problems that America faces. Voters should carefully the Democratic primary mess before allowing the Democratic Party to tackle such important issues as healthcare, tax reform, and the War on Terror.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/jon_ralston_on_the_delegate_si.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_el_pr/super_sized_delegates
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Clinton and Obama Realize the Truth About Taxes
WASHINGTON — Both Democratic presidential candidates, who promise to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists in Washington, helped enact narrowly tailored tax breaks sought by major campaign contributors.
-USA Today
USA Today is reporting that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both used their influence as senators to win tax breaks for companies in their home states. The revelation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama passed tax breaks for their contributors is proof of the fact that their desire to raise taxes would be harmful to the country.
Obama's campaign had it right when they said that tax breaks "lower costs for customers and create jobs." If they trule believe that to be the case, then why not allow the whole country to reap the benefits instead of select companies in their home states?
If tax breaks create jobs and lower costs, then tax increases must eliminate jobs, raise costs, and generally be bad for consumers. To raise taxes or let the Bush tax cuts expire would cause the economy to shrink and raise the chances of a recession.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm
-USA Today
USA Today is reporting that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both used their influence as senators to win tax breaks for companies in their home states. The revelation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama passed tax breaks for their contributors is proof of the fact that their desire to raise taxes would be harmful to the country.
Obama's campaign had it right when they said that tax breaks "lower costs for customers and create jobs." If they trule believe that to be the case, then why not allow the whole country to reap the benefits instead of select companies in their home states?
If tax breaks create jobs and lower costs, then tax increases must eliminate jobs, raise costs, and generally be bad for consumers. To raise taxes or let the Bush tax cuts expire would cause the economy to shrink and raise the chances of a recession.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Problem With Clinton and Obama
The Democratic presidential primary is down to two leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The party is split almost evenly between the two and the competition for the nomination is fierce. The nation is focused on who would be better for the party and who would be better for the country.
The two candidates are remarkably similar. They both lack experience in leadership roles and both have short resumes when it comes to government service. Both were elected to the senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. More importantly, the platforms of both candidates share many of the same ill-advised planks.
There are several areas in which the proposed policies of Clinton and Obama would be disastrous for the United States. The most obvious is that both candidates have repeatedly voiced their intention to end the war in Iraq.
The Iraq War can end in only one of two ways. The first possibility is that the United States can defeat the terrorists and create a free and stable Iraq. The second is that the United States can unilaterally withdraw and leave Iraq at the mercy of Al Qaeda and Iranian backed Shiite extremists.
If US troops leave Iraq, the war would not end immediately. The terrorist groups, which today are largely defeated and demoralized, would regroup. Fighting would erupt between Sunni terrorists and Shiite militias for control of the country. The war would most likely spread throughout the region as Saudi Arabian forces intervene to protect Iraqi Sunnis, Iranian forces assist Shiites and Turkish troops attack Kurds. The probable outcome would be that Al Qaeda or Iran would gain control of Iraq and it huge oil reserves. This would put the United States economy at the mercy of Muslim extremists as well as providing financing for either terrorist attacks against US targets or Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Clinton and Obama’s second problem area is with their proposals for government mandated health care. A government takeover of the healthcare industry would mean that the government is taking control of 17% of the gross national product. This is an unprecedented government foray into the marketplace.
The plans for federalized healthcare are based on the mistaken assumption that the government can solve the problem when in reality, as Ronald Reagan said, the government is the problem. Government mandates for health insurers have been a prime reason that health insurance costs have increased. If insurers were given the freedom to tailor policies to consumer demands, prices would drop and more consumers would choose to buy health insurance. Instead, state governments pass laws that force costs to rise. Some of these laws require that Viagra be covered, that insurance pay for chiropractors and massages, and that pregnancy coverage be provided regardless of whether the consumer wants it. Simple policies with high deductibles for major medical coverage are increasingly hard to find.
Similarly, current tort law makes it extremely expensive to practice medicine. Rising malpractice insurance premiums and large punitive judgments have driven many doctors into other fields and have discouraged many students from pursuing medical careers. In several states, OB/GYNs have almost been driven completely out of business. Even if a doctor stays in business, they often choose to run more tests than necessary to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit.
People who see government action as a panacea usually do not think about the unintended consequences of government actions. To control healthcare costs, the government would have to impose price controls on the industry. When price controls are imposed, people will realize that they won’t be able to make as much money as a doctor and decide that the years of college and residency are not worth the low pay. When the supply of doctors decreases, it will inevitably lead to the rationing of healthcare and long waits for treatment. This scenario has occurred repeatedly in countries where the government provides free healthcare.
Nothing that the federal government does suggests that it would be able to provide healthcare more efficiently or more cheaply than private business. Instead, the opposite is true. Veteran’s Administration hospitals have been plagued by scandals of poor conditions and long waits for treatment. Other government organizations, from the post office to the DMV, are equally poor examples of customer service and efficiency.
The Democratic plans for the repairing the economy have a similarly utopian view of government action. There have been proposals for a freeze on mortgage interest rates, a moratorium on foreclosures, and a government bailout of homeowners and mortgage companies coupled with strict new regulations on lending. These plans again fail to realize that relaxed lending rules are partly the result of government desires to make home ownership available for more people.
The current economic problems are the result of a free economy in which mortgage companies made loans to people who were not likely to be able to repay them. The consumers who accepted the loans are equally at fault because they did not reconcile the terms of their mortgages with their ability to repay. In many cases, the mortgage problems are the end result of years of financing a lifestyle with debt. Both the mortgage companies and the consumers made bad decisions, but neither was forced to become a party to the mortgage.
This is what the free market is all about. If people and companies are given the freedom to choose, some will make bad choices. People and companies who make bad choices need to suffer the consequences of those choices so that they will learn not to make the same mistake in the future. To teach that the government will use the money taxed from people who made good choices to bail out people who made choices sends the wrong message. Such policies perpetuate bad behavior and cause problems in the economy rather than alleviating them.
Finally, Clinton and Obama are also alike in their desire to pay for their programs by instituting new taxes ostensibly on the rich. The problem here is that taxes hurt the economy as well. Over the past hundred years, taxes have been cut by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. Each time tax revenues increased in spite of the fact that tax rates were reduced. When taxes are increased, the opposite is true. The reason is simple. Tax cuts allow people and companies to keep more of their earnings and encourage productivity and investment, while tax hikes remove money from the economy.
Countries around the world are moving toward free economies and lower tax rates so it is ironic that one of the major parties of the United States is advocating a move toward the types of polices that have been proven failures in numerous communist and socialist countries. Many former Soviet bloc nations in Eastern Europe are experiencing booming economies due to their low flat taxes. The difference can even be seen from state to state in the US among states with high tax rates, such as Michigan, California, and New York, when compared with states that have no income tax, such as Tennessee, Texas, South Dakota, and Nevada. The high tax states have sluggish economies, high costs of living, and many are experiencing a decline in population.
When Americans go to the polls, they should remember that change in itself is not a worthy goal. Democratic policies can lead to higher gas costs, global insecurity, rising healthcare costs and declining benefits, higher taxes, and a shrinking economy. The United States should not repeat the mistakes that communist and socialist countries have made over the last hundred years. Instead, we should renew our commitment to free markets, lower taxes, and personal freedom, including the freedom to make your own mistakes, The best thing that the government can do for the economy is to get out of the way.
The two candidates are remarkably similar. They both lack experience in leadership roles and both have short resumes when it comes to government service. Both were elected to the senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. More importantly, the platforms of both candidates share many of the same ill-advised planks.
There are several areas in which the proposed policies of Clinton and Obama would be disastrous for the United States. The most obvious is that both candidates have repeatedly voiced their intention to end the war in Iraq.
The Iraq War can end in only one of two ways. The first possibility is that the United States can defeat the terrorists and create a free and stable Iraq. The second is that the United States can unilaterally withdraw and leave Iraq at the mercy of Al Qaeda and Iranian backed Shiite extremists.
If US troops leave Iraq, the war would not end immediately. The terrorist groups, which today are largely defeated and demoralized, would regroup. Fighting would erupt between Sunni terrorists and Shiite militias for control of the country. The war would most likely spread throughout the region as Saudi Arabian forces intervene to protect Iraqi Sunnis, Iranian forces assist Shiites and Turkish troops attack Kurds. The probable outcome would be that Al Qaeda or Iran would gain control of Iraq and it huge oil reserves. This would put the United States economy at the mercy of Muslim extremists as well as providing financing for either terrorist attacks against US targets or Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Clinton and Obama’s second problem area is with their proposals for government mandated health care. A government takeover of the healthcare industry would mean that the government is taking control of 17% of the gross national product. This is an unprecedented government foray into the marketplace.
The plans for federalized healthcare are based on the mistaken assumption that the government can solve the problem when in reality, as Ronald Reagan said, the government is the problem. Government mandates for health insurers have been a prime reason that health insurance costs have increased. If insurers were given the freedom to tailor policies to consumer demands, prices would drop and more consumers would choose to buy health insurance. Instead, state governments pass laws that force costs to rise. Some of these laws require that Viagra be covered, that insurance pay for chiropractors and massages, and that pregnancy coverage be provided regardless of whether the consumer wants it. Simple policies with high deductibles for major medical coverage are increasingly hard to find.
Similarly, current tort law makes it extremely expensive to practice medicine. Rising malpractice insurance premiums and large punitive judgments have driven many doctors into other fields and have discouraged many students from pursuing medical careers. In several states, OB/GYNs have almost been driven completely out of business. Even if a doctor stays in business, they often choose to run more tests than necessary to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit.
People who see government action as a panacea usually do not think about the unintended consequences of government actions. To control healthcare costs, the government would have to impose price controls on the industry. When price controls are imposed, people will realize that they won’t be able to make as much money as a doctor and decide that the years of college and residency are not worth the low pay. When the supply of doctors decreases, it will inevitably lead to the rationing of healthcare and long waits for treatment. This scenario has occurred repeatedly in countries where the government provides free healthcare.
Nothing that the federal government does suggests that it would be able to provide healthcare more efficiently or more cheaply than private business. Instead, the opposite is true. Veteran’s Administration hospitals have been plagued by scandals of poor conditions and long waits for treatment. Other government organizations, from the post office to the DMV, are equally poor examples of customer service and efficiency.
The Democratic plans for the repairing the economy have a similarly utopian view of government action. There have been proposals for a freeze on mortgage interest rates, a moratorium on foreclosures, and a government bailout of homeowners and mortgage companies coupled with strict new regulations on lending. These plans again fail to realize that relaxed lending rules are partly the result of government desires to make home ownership available for more people.
The current economic problems are the result of a free economy in which mortgage companies made loans to people who were not likely to be able to repay them. The consumers who accepted the loans are equally at fault because they did not reconcile the terms of their mortgages with their ability to repay. In many cases, the mortgage problems are the end result of years of financing a lifestyle with debt. Both the mortgage companies and the consumers made bad decisions, but neither was forced to become a party to the mortgage.
This is what the free market is all about. If people and companies are given the freedom to choose, some will make bad choices. People and companies who make bad choices need to suffer the consequences of those choices so that they will learn not to make the same mistake in the future. To teach that the government will use the money taxed from people who made good choices to bail out people who made choices sends the wrong message. Such policies perpetuate bad behavior and cause problems in the economy rather than alleviating them.
Finally, Clinton and Obama are also alike in their desire to pay for their programs by instituting new taxes ostensibly on the rich. The problem here is that taxes hurt the economy as well. Over the past hundred years, taxes have been cut by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. Each time tax revenues increased in spite of the fact that tax rates were reduced. When taxes are increased, the opposite is true. The reason is simple. Tax cuts allow people and companies to keep more of their earnings and encourage productivity and investment, while tax hikes remove money from the economy.
Countries around the world are moving toward free economies and lower tax rates so it is ironic that one of the major parties of the United States is advocating a move toward the types of polices that have been proven failures in numerous communist and socialist countries. Many former Soviet bloc nations in Eastern Europe are experiencing booming economies due to their low flat taxes. The difference can even be seen from state to state in the US among states with high tax rates, such as Michigan, California, and New York, when compared with states that have no income tax, such as Tennessee, Texas, South Dakota, and Nevada. The high tax states have sluggish economies, high costs of living, and many are experiencing a decline in population.
When Americans go to the polls, they should remember that change in itself is not a worthy goal. Democratic policies can lead to higher gas costs, global insecurity, rising healthcare costs and declining benefits, higher taxes, and a shrinking economy. The United States should not repeat the mistakes that communist and socialist countries have made over the last hundred years. Instead, we should renew our commitment to free markets, lower taxes, and personal freedom, including the freedom to make your own mistakes, The best thing that the government can do for the economy is to get out of the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)