Print Story Ding, dong, the witch is dead. Which old witch? The wicked witch!
Diary
By lm (Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:24 AM EST) (all tags)
I tried to like her. I really did. I failed.

Update [2008-5-7 9:2:27 by lm]: Now, with link exit poll.

Update [2008-5-7 13:59:47 by lm]: George McGovern agrees with me.



I suppose Clinton's not quite finished melting so maybe I shouldn't gloat yet. But less than a two percent victory in a state she set expectations high for and a double digit defeat in one of the last large states? It's statistically improbable that she can win enough of the remaining votes to have the popular vote from the nation as a whole. Weirder things have happened in US politics, but I think unless someone has a photo of Barack and Bill together in bed, Clinton is done for.

And I can't help but wonder if her slim victory in Indiana consisted entirely of people who won't be willing to vote for her come fall should she be the Democratic nominee against McCain. They did a lot of exit polling about how many who voted for her would support McCain over Obama. But I didn't see any coverage of how many of her supporters liked her over McCain.

The nail in the coffin for me was Clinton's defense of her rather misguided gas tax plan. After months of spouting off about how professional economists thought that her health care plan was The One True Plan, she turns around and says that virtually every economist in the country is nuts because She Knows Better about what happens if you remove a tax from a limited resource during a season of high demand. That sort of lack of judgement and reasoning ability is exactly what you don't want in a chief executive.

In other news every US patent judge appointed in the last 8 years may be serving unconstitutionally and, if they are found to be so, every ruling they've made may be struck down. Hurray for chaos in the world of intellectual property!

Awesome article on the science of treating people as if they were not rational economic agents. Thank you Arts and Letters Daily for giving me such fun reading matter. Thank you ni for pointing AL Daily out to me!

One reason among many why Scalia is an asshatted moron and judicial relativist. Of course, this comes on top of the discussion in the comments from the day before where the opposite is being argued. The comments in each are a nice back and forth.

What kind of monster asks for props for keeping his family alive in a dungeon?

Fritzl, 73 claimed that media coverage was ``unfair'' and ``entirely one-dimensional'', given the fact that he did not kill his daughter and the children he produced with her during 24 years of sexual abuse in a subterranean bunker in Amstetten.

The French know how to take care of traffic cameras: ``They smashed the lens, poured gasoline inside and set it on fire.''

I've been tired and drained of energy the past couple weeks and haven't written much and have slacked off of studying and have struggled to stay awake at work. I think stress is the biggest culprit. Who knows? I think I'm starting to feel better. I woke up at about 4AM this morning. After an hour of not being able to get back to sleep, I stumbled out of bed.

Time for me to start farting around and get ready for work.

Update [2008-5-7 9:2:27 by lm]: According to MSNBC's exit polling, 41% of the people who voted for Clinton in Indiana are intending to vote for McCain in the fall if Clinton wins the nomination.

< How much do Europeans save on healthcare by just letting people die? | Hello Boris voters! >
Ding, dong, the witch is dead. Which old witch? The wicked witch! | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
statistically improbable by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #1 Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:46:09 AM EST
It's been statistically improbable since Iowa... She planned on sweeping Super Tuesday and, when she didn't, she had no backup plan. Middle class white people, like me, voted against her. The black vote went heavily against her, not an inevitable result, Salon had an interesting article about that.

When she started working closely with Scaife and the rest of the Vast right Wing Conspiracy types she really turned off lots of people (like, again, me) who might otherwise have accepted her.

While I probably wouldn't vote for McCain over Clinton, it could be close. Looks like I won't have that worry.

I wonder who President Obama will appoint to his cabinet?

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

I would have used `implausible' before last night by lm (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:32:23 AM EST
As for McCain v. Clinton, it all depends on the veep slot for me. I don't think there is much question that McCain would make a better president than Clinton. But I can't help but think that McCain is likely to choose somebody utterly repugnant as his running mate. I'd vote for almost anyone rather than have a Giuliani or Romney a heartbeat away from the presidency.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
if he picks anyone he ran against by garlic (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:00 AM EST
then the choice was a bad one.


[ Parent ]
McCain would make a better president by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:51:53 AM EST
I dunno. McCain has been ruinning, seemingly, on a platform of "If you liked the last 7 years, I'll give you 4 more of the same!"

He is, I think, somewhat more likely to order an attack on Iran than Hillary.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Dunno by lm (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:53 AM EST
Clinton seems pretty into leveling Tehran.

The question in my mind is more `if we do go to war, which candidate will most competently prosecute it?' I think McCain wins on that. Policy-wise he may be very close to Bush '43, but the cardinal problem of the GWB administration isn't policy decisions, it's the way those policies were enacted. For example, I don't have reason to think that McCain would use personal loyalty to the exclusion of almost every other criteria when filling appointments.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Actually by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:04:09 AM EST
GWB's foreign policy has been fairly bad. From my layman's point of view his economic policies don't seem to be very responsible either.

Frankly I think GWB fails both on policy and the implementation of said policy.

Can you give some examples of what you think his good policies are?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

[ Parent ]
I didn't say he had good policies by lm (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:40 AM EST
I'm saying that he wouldn't be as bad of a president if he weren't incompetent at implementation. For example, the mess in Iraq has gone on far longer than it would have if someone competent had been in charge from the start. It would still have been a mistake, but a far less costly one to both US soldiers and the people of Iraq.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
That's part of the problem by theboz (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:55:11 AM EST
There was no reason to go into Iraq, and it was a bad idea.  Implementing it the "right" way would have been nothing more than an exercise in turd polishing.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
I think Iraq could have been a good thing by lm (1.00 / 1) #20 Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:11:22 AM EST
Regardless of having a reason why, if Iraq had been properly invaded, governed and rebuilt, the world could very well be a better place.

But that is really neither here nor there. I think McCain would have been smart enough to properly finish Afghanistan before going into Iraq.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Eh? by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:04:09 AM EST
Why would McCain have invaded Iraq?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

[ Parent ]
Why did the Republican cross the road? by Scrymarch (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:41:54 AM EST
I disagree by theboz (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:59 AM EST
I disagree only because I'm not aware of any nation being successfully invaded from the outside and made successful by their occupiers.  Even the two most modern examples I can think of, Japan and Germany, were not really successful for a long time after the war, and even then it was a true multinational force involved.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
flamebait by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
The Brits took a bunch of wilderness and Indians and started something that turned in the USA.

[ Parent ]
So the U.S. is an occupation or colonization? by theboz (2.00 / 0) #47 Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:32:17 AM EST
How many Americans are moving permanently to Iraq and forming their own cities again?
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
I hope you're not looking for serious conversation by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #48 Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:46:49 PM EST
I did title my post flamebait after all...

Didn't the US snarf Texas and New Mexico from Mexico back in the day? Everyone living there today is almost certainly better off.

The other obvious one I'm thinking of is the dude who unified China way back when, founded the first dynasty. 1 enormous China did very well for itself up until the 1800's or so, arguably better then the 4 or 5 squabbling wee kingdoms could have done.

When the Romans acquired Britain they beat down a bunch of unlettered savages living in mud huts. When the Roman empire collapsed Britain was left on its own, but now they had highways, new towns and infrastructure, new ideas about governance and institutions, a new religion, etc. etc. etc.

The missus just suggested the UN intervention in Cyprus has kept them from killing each other for 40 or 50 years now.

And yeah none of those is a good comparison to Iraq, and you could quibble about any or all of it, but that's history for ya.

[ Parent ]
Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:58 AM EST
McCain is like Bush Lite from all things I see.

That said - I can't see anyone (McBush) thinking an attack against Iran is a good idea. I think some politicians would like to make Iran think it's a possibility - but given our current state of quagmire in Viet Nam there's just no way we can rationally take on another third world country in fisticuffs.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

[ Parent ]
We can't take on what we've got now. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:48 AM EST
See this Slate article for details on how we can't handle Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Right-O by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:29 AM EST
That's why, in my simple mind anyways, the whole "McBush is going to invade Iran" talk is a red herring. Not that I like McCain but I don't think he's as much of an idiot as Bush.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

[ Parent ]
You picked the wrong song by sasquatchan (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:21:05 AM EST
I think "The bitch is back," would be more appropriate..

Oh the bitch is back
Stone cold sober as a matter of fact
I can bitch, I can bitch
'cause I'm better than you


Wouldn't that be more apropos if Clinton won? [nt] by lm (4.00 / 1) #4 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:50 AM EST


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
She did win. by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:51:16 AM EST
"On to the White House."  Didn't you hear her victory speech?

Oh, and congratulations to the many Republican voters who took the time to turn up and vote for her in the open primary.  I can see why you Colonials like your system; it's replete with opportunities to screw the other side over.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

[ Parent ]
Gas tax plan by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:55:11 AM EST
That's a purely political ploy aimed at the common man. That's what politicians do.

That said - any half-baked rube with half an ounce of cognitive resources knows it won't do jack to help the common man because if anything it will only increase demand and further drive the gas prices up.

Did you happen to catch Al Gore on Fresh Air last night? Al wants to increase gas taxes in an effort to decrease demand for fossil fuels. Smart guy that Al.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

I didn't catch yesterday's fresh air by lm (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:05:54 AM EST
It's not on my lunch time commute anymore.

But I agree with Gore on that issue. Gas taxes ought to be raised. On the one hand, it will decrease demand for gas. On the other, it will provide more money for sorely needed investment in transportation infrastructure.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Gas taxes should reflect externalities by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:33:42 AM EST
The National Defense Council Foundation estimates importing oil cost us 825 billiong USD in 2006.


[ Parent ]
Heehehehaha by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:40 AM EST
Yes, because that's working out so well in Soviet UKistan.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
Doesn't the UK have trains and sidewalks? by theboz (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:57:38 AM EST
There's not much of that here.  We do have plenty of interstates though.  Some of them are even in ok shape and not crumbling into rivers and killing people.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
The trains are a tad expensive by Phage (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:30:17 AM EST
My annual ticket (ie massive discount) for a 1 hour commute is >USD6k

[ Parent ]
Bah....that's cheap by theboz (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:02:19 AM EST
My annual commute can be broken down as such:

  • $6,000/yr in car payments

  • ~$2,000/yr in toll road fees (which I just successfully eliminated by finding other roads that take just as long to get to work.)

  • ~$3,650/yr in gasoline.

  • An unknown (off the top of my head) amount in vehicle maintenance.

So that's more than $11,650 each year in getting to and from work, not including maintenance and not including my wife's car (which is paid off already but requires more maintenance.)

I could reduce those numbers if I had bought a house closer to work.  My mortgage is a little over $1,800 per month, which includes taxes and my homeowner insurance.  If I had moved to a house within a few miles of my office, my mortgage would have been over $1,200 more per month in the mortgage alone, not including taxes and insurance, which are pretty high and would have jacked it up at least a couple hundred dollars more.  We're barely able to live off of my salary as it is, which is more than twice the median salary of both the U.S. and the state of Texas.

Anyway, sorry for ranting at you and giving too much of my personal financial information out, but the lack of public transportation here frustrates the hell out of me.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

[ Parent ]
I have to drive to the station by Phage (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:18:29 AM EST
And your car is not solely for commuting.
But I agree the train is a better solution.

[ Parent ]
Actually by theboz (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:46:01 AM EST
Most of the driving I do is to and from work, with some trips for shopping, but we're not like the average American family that goes shopping or on long trips a lot.  Plus, they're building some shopping centers within walking distance of my home, so we will be driving even less soon.  Even without that, the grocery store is nowhere near the distance work is.  According to Mapquest, my office is about 16 miles from my house.  Still, it takes between 30 minutes and an hour to commute every morning, and the same amount of time to go home.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
He said that mainly to stop by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #36 Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
people putting his name up as a "compromise candidate". He can call himself a "recovering politician" all he wants, but until he pulls a Carter, nobody believes him.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
Exit poll. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:08 AM EST
Interesting that you didn't point out that, according to the poll, in an overall accounting Clinton does a few points better in a McCain match-up than Obama.

Combine that with the fact that less than half the supporters of either candidate claim they'll stick with the party if their person loses (which actually makes Clinton's faithless votes less damning - a sizable chunk of her defectors were seemingly not going to vote for her anyway and she still does better in the projected match-up with McCain) and you've got a pretty crappy situation headed into November.

Is this how the Democratic party manages to lose an election coming off the least popular presidency since those numbers were even tracked?

Seems to me the song you should be singing is "I Just Can't Let You Say Goodbye" and you should be singing it to the GOP.

Oh, and as for Clinton's misguided gas tax . . . by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:12:31 AM EST
Obama was for it before he was against it.

"While an Illinois state senator, Obama supported a state tax holiday very much like Clinton's proposal, but without the saving mechanism of a windfall profits tax.

CBS News says Obama voted for the temporary lifting of the tax three times in the state Senate. The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago. The moratorium lifted the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline through the end of 2000.

Obama told constituents that gasoline prices would drop: 'Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas.'

During one state Senate floor debate, Obama joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, 'Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.'"

[ Parent ]
Meh by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #27 Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:25:30 AM EST
People say all sorts of silly stuff in the heat of battle. When push comes to shove the Dems will rally around Obama just like the right is going to rally around McCain.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

[ Parent ]
I agree. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #28 Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:31:22 AM EST
Though I think McCain will end up slipping by Obama in the national election.

[ Parent ]
i don't. by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:50:35 AM EST
the polls right now show him doing that, but every congressional election this year has shown that this is a terrible year for republicans.

bush will hang around mccain's neck like a millstone and drag him down.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
I disagree. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM EST
The Congressional elections for the 110th didn't prove all that rough for the GOP as a whole.

The Republicans have dominated or held equal numbers in the Senate in every Congress since 1995. The Dems haven't had a majority in the Senate in more than decade. Even after the disaster that is Bush they couldn't wrest dominance from the Republicans.

In the House they lost 30 seats, but that still doesn't entirely erase the 54 seat gain they made in 1994. They've held on to the House since 1995 every Congress but this one. And the lead the Dems have going into the 110th (31 seats) is considerably smaller than the lead they lost a decade ago (85 seats).

The dominant political trend of our times has been a steady march of Republican dominance and the slow retreat of Democratic power. Most presidents since the Civil War have been Republicans. From the 1950s to 1995, Republicans held less than 200 seats in the House. Now they regularly hold more than 300, even after the 2008 defeats. In the Senate, They've steadily upped their numbers. Prior to Reagan, the last time the Republicans held more than 50 seats was during the Second World War. Now, for the past three decades, they've typically held 50 or more. That's longer stretch of success then they had during the Civil War, when most of the Democrats were in an actual state of illegal rebellion.

Overall, the Bush years have been relatively good to the GOP. In fact, he's been better for the GOP than Clinton was for the Dems. The GOP has seen nothing like the collapse the Democrats saw during Clinton.

The right is still strong, organized, and has the numerical superiority.

I assume that, faced with a strictly binary choice, the right will end up supporting McCain and the left will end up supporting Obama. We've seen that happen in the last two elections and we know how that particular scenario ends.

On top of that, Obama will fold under tough campaign questions. The worst will be when his plan for getting out of the war is proven to be BS. As his former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power has already stated, Obama's plan is a "'best- case scenario' subject to substantial revision when he takes office." Democrats will have a hard time rallying around him when McCain makes him reveal that his campaign working-group on Iraq produced a plan that leaves 60,000 to 80,000 American troops in Iraq through 2010 (NY Sun), with a "strike force" of another 20,000 stationed near Iraq to continue strikes against terror cells (WSJ). That's a "pull out" of only about 40,000 troops.

In spending, Obama will have to answer for the fat checks he pork-barreled to the hospital his wife worked on the board for. McCain, on the other, has a big old "0" for the number of pork-barrel earmarks hes requested (his name is one one earmark, but he didn't originate it).

Obama will have to explain why he's missed 20% of the votes that have come up in the Senate, including votes on the re-authorization of the crappy Rockefeller Amendment and the renewal of the PATRIOT Act.

Despite his rhetoric, his record and proposals are mediocre and uninspiring.

He's got the tide against him, he's facing a much stronger candidate, and he's a middling candidate at best. I don't hold high hopes.

[ Parent ]
I don't think by garlic (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:24:46 AM EST
obama has to worry about missing votes in the senate, since McCain has missed more votes than he has.


[ Parent ]
True. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:03:55 PM EST
But Obama will be running against the legislative actions taken in past eight years. McCain can say that he approved of what went on and didn't need to be there.

How important could overturning the PATRIOT Act be to a guy who couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote about it?

Still, you're right in that it probably is a dead end issue for the GOP. If we could edit comments, I'd retract that part of my statement.

[ Parent ]
no problem. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #46 Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:19 AM EST
it doesn't happen as often as I'd like, but it's good to here reasoned disagreement on the internet.


[ Parent ]
alrighty then by lm (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
  1. The difference between named matchups between McCain and the two Democrats is statistically insignificant and irrelevant to the point I was making. The relevant number to compare is the 12% of those who voted for Obama who intent to vote for McCain in the fall.
  2. You can't extrapolate the face-to-face numbers from voters in the Democratic primary to the general election.
  3. That Obama had supported a reduction in gas taxes at some point in the past is irrelevant unless you've got a link to where economic opinion offered to him at the time entirely was against it and he refused to listen. The article also points out that prices lowered by significantly less than the amount of the tax and doesn't get into the effects of the tax reduction on highway funds within the state. Further, in the case of Illinois, the tax cut happened for a single state, not for the nation as a whole so there were factors at play that would not be at play for a nationwide cut.
  4. Just about every set of calculations I've seen suggest that when it comes to electoral college votes, both Obama and Clinton presently beat McCain. Given the increase this year and last over the percent of people who self-identify as Democratic, the results of 2006 and present polling, I don't see any good reason to think that the Republicans are going to maintain control over the White House. Things could certainly change between now and November.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
You betcha, ace. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:28:16 PM EST
  1. My point was that any bit of data pulled out of the poll is "statistically insignificant and irrelevant." As a wise philosopher once said: "You can't extrapolate the face-to-face numbers from voters in the Democratic primary to the general election." What exactly was your point?
  2. We agree here. We should look at national polls. See #4.
  3. It is significant because a study of the tax holiday he supported suggested that the savings were passed on to the consumer and he understood that then. Further, he's confusing the McCain/Clinton plans in an effort to mislead armchair policy wonks into thinking Clinton's plan is some sort of cash cow for oil companies. The significance is that he has experience that the gas plan works (though it is hardly the end-all solution to our oil/money woes), he's saying that his experience is that the don't work, and he's lying about the details of Clinton's plan. If somebody is pulling the wool over the eyes of the rubes it is Obama.
  4. You are correct. Out of the 7 national polls, Obama wins 5 with an average of 2.4 points. By the same token, those same polls suggest Clinton is the better choice for a win. She wins in 6 out of 7 polls with an average of lead 3.5 points. On a national level, she wins more polls and wins them all by a bigger margin. Why go into this fight with the weaker candidate?
To be honest, I'm just being contrary because you called her a witch, which I feel is somewhat lame. At least the trolls on K5 have got the stones to hand slurs out evenly to both candidates. When will Hulverites start calling Obama "George" and "That Tom"?

[ Parent ]
In other words by lm (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:57:04 AM EST
  1. My point is that 40% of the people that voted for her don't want to vote for her. Also, you're taking the point about extrapolation out of context. You were taking the face to face match up numbers to prove a point about how the entire voting public might vote. I was using the face to face match up numbers to make a point about how the people how voted for Clinton feel about Clinton.
  2. National polls are irrelevant except to the extent that they happen to coincide with state by state polls that show how the electoral college is likely to vote. The last time I looked, fair (but different) arguments could be made to say that either candidate is stronger. At present, Clinton is ahead in sheer number of electoral votes against McCain but the electoral votes Obama wins are won by a larger margin and the ones McCain wins against Obama, he wins with a smaller margin.
  3. Virtually every economist in the US disagrees with your assessment of Obama's beef with Clinton's gas tax plan. Further, the evidence you claim Obama has isn't as clear as you make it out to be. The article you linked to says that gas prices lowered by less than the tax decrease and doesn't address at all the economic consequences of the loss of funds to the state. If you can tell me how much money the state of Illinois lost, where the money would have went and make a decent case that where the money would have went would have had zero economic impact, I'm willing to change my mind. Also, if you're convinced that Obama is lying about the details of Clinton's plan, I'd like to see his own words compared to Clinton's with regards to the details.
Lastly, I think it perfectly acceptable, within a casual forum, to call public figures names when I think they are unsavory. I'm sorry if I've offended you by calling someone you respect a witch. I just happen to think she acts like one.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Responses. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:53:28 AM EST
According to the polling data you cite, how people feel about Clinton is that she'd win. No matter who they voted for or who they will vote for in November, according to that poll, Clinton is the strongest candidate. I don't understand what you're trying to imply with the 40% stat. Collectively, no matter how people did or will  vote, most felt she was the strongest candidate.

So you're admitting that in the number of electoral votes - the votes that would determine who wins an election - Clinton is projected to be the stronger candidate?

Finally, the loss of funds to the state is part of the dodge. He claims that he felt the pain of the states $175 million loss in revenues (an estimate of the Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission). But what he doesn't say is that the Illinois plan, unlike the Clinton plan, didn't include a provision for regaining lost revenue.

The McCain plan for a gas holiday assumes that alternate funds will have to be pulled from somewhere in the budget. This is what Obama and the state legislature did in 2000.

Obama has deliberately confused in his ads by conflating the two plans. From the Washington Post: "The Obama ad quotes from a Paul Krugman column in the New York Times on April 28 to support the claim that Clinton's tax holiday will merely 'boost the profits' of the oil company. The trouble is, Krugman was not attacking the Clinton plan in his column, he was critiquing a proposal by Republican candidate John McCain. While the two plans have a lot in common, they are different in one respect: Clinton has also called for a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies."

Here's the youtube link to the Obama ad that uses the false attribution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBWKYgHuWh4
It even ends with Barack helpfully reminding us that he approves this message.

You could argue that you think "windfall taxes" won't amount to much and it really isn't a plan for recovering lost revenue. But then you've got to take a look at Obama's energy plan. Barack clearly thinks such taxes are gold mines. He expects to pull the $150 billion he's going to invest in alternative energy out of just such windfall taxes on oil companies. Obama likes windfall fees and taxes, he just doesn't like using them on this.

I won't contend against your claim that most economists think the plan is insignificant. At most, we're talking $40 or $50 bucks over the summer. My bone to pick is with Obama shady handling of the details, all under the guise of showing how Clinton misleads working class voters.

[ Parent ]
Just one clarification by lm (2.00 / 0) #50 Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:28:51 AM EST
``So you're admitting that in the number of electoral votes - the votes that would determine who wins an election - Clinton is projected to be the stronger candidate?''

I'm admitting that there is reasonable arguement for that, yes. Just as one can also make a good argument that Obama is stronger by the same metric. It all depends on how you define `stronger.' Stronger as in `would be more likely to win if the election were held today' are stronger as in `is more likely to retain existing support while encroaching upon McCain's existing support come November.' IMO, both are decent arguments.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
witch or "witch"? by dmg (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:04 PM EST
according to some people on the David Ickes forums hillary is an actual bona fide spell casting witch...
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
Some people think a lot of things about her by lm (4.00 / 1) #38 Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:04:06 AM EST
From lesbianism to murder, there isn't much she hasn't been accused of. So I'm not surprised that some people would accuse her of witchcraft. But, as much as I dislike Clinton, that wasn't what I had in mind. To cite the OED, I had in mind a contemptuous appellation for a malevolent or repulsive-looking old woman. While I don't think repulsive-looking describes her, I think malevolent does.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I guess it goes with the territory... by dmg (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:26:27 AM EST
After all, our good Queen has been accused of being a shape-shifting reptilian child-murderer...

On the other hand, no smoke without fire eh?
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.

[ Parent ]
I really, really, really want a woman President. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #45 Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM EST
If that means I have to vote for Cruella de Vil, so be it.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Here's the thing by lm (2.00 / 0) #49 Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:16:33 AM EST
I think that's fine. I'm not one of those people who argue Clinton could never win the general (I used to be but my mind has been changed on that) or think that she's done nothing good or hold that there are no good reasons to vote for her. Nor am I someone who thinks that voting for her just because she's a woman is necessarily sexist or irrational.

I just think that she's a lying, cold-hearted witch that I can't get behind unless all the alternatives are clearly far worse.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Ding, dong, the witch is dead. Which old witch? The wicked witch! | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback