democratic side

The Right And Wrong Of Krugman

Posted 3/24/08 at 8:54am by jamie

First the wrong:

On the Democratic side, it's somewhat disappointing that Barack Obama, whose campaign has understandably made a point of contrasting his early opposition to the Iraq war with Hillary Clinton's initial support, has tried to score a twofer by suggesting that the war, in addition to all its other costs, is responsible for our economic troubles.

The war is indeed a grotesque waste of resources, which will place huge long-run burdens on the American public. But it's just wrong to blame the war for our current economic mess: in the short run, wartime spending actually stimulates the economy. Remember, the lowest unemployment rate America has experienced over the last half-century came at the height of the Vietnam War.

Krugman would be right on this, if it was during the Vietnam war. He seems to forget that we now have this new "global economy". Most of our bullets are made in Israel, and now we got our planes being made in Europe. War doesn't benefit our economy the same way it used to. Basically we have outsourced the "benefits of war" to other nations.

Big Turnouts And Big Gains

Posted 2/20/08 at 9:06am by jamie

First to the turnouts. In Wisconsin, Obama won 58%-41%. That's not the only big news though. Look at these turnout numbers:

Democratic: 1,099,004
Republican: 403,300

The Democrats had almost 3 times the turn out as the Republicans did yesterday. That is in Wisconsin - a state the Kerry and Gore won by only 1%. That is awesome news for the Democrats when we head into the general election.

Obama also won Hawaii 76%-24%. Almost 40,000 Democrats turned out to vote, which is four times the amount state party officials expected. Again - huge momentum on the Democratic side of things.

According to a new Reuters/Zogby poll released this morning, Obama now has a 14% lead over Clinton nationally. In a general match up, Obama beats McCain 47% to 40%, however a match up of Clinton/McCain has McCain winning 50% to 38%.

I don't care how much the Clinton campaign tries to spin it today, they are about done. Obama is catching up to Clinton in Texas, and if she looses there she needs to drop out and take one for the party. That would be the noble thing to do, and her best chance at having a future run.

UPDATE:

Here is the latest delegate counts

Why The Clinton/Obama Battle Hurts

Posted 2/8/08 at 9:38am by jamie

In my earlier post, someone asked a very good question:

I don't really understand how it hurts the Democrats to not have a
nominee yet? It shows how much the Democrats are involved in this
election and wanting things to change.

Let me take a moment to explain further why it's harmful for Democrats to have a long, drawn out nomination for our candidate.

During the primaries the candidates are focusing on winning the nod of their party. That means they are campaigning to the base and trying to rally them behind their platform. This phase of the fight is over for McCain. Now he doesn't have to worry about playing "the most conservative", instead he can focus on getting voters from the Democratic side along with, and the most important, the independent vote.

While McCain is out doing that we will still have Obama and Clinton out trying to cut down one another. Independents won't pay as much attention to that, and everything used by each campaign will get echoed by McCain, who now has a much larger audience.

Now I know some people are thinking "but McCain needs the conservatives". That isn't entirely true. If McCain needed the conservatives so badly, we wouldn't be talking about him being the nominee. McCain has been cleaning house in the latest primaries, so that proves the conservative base isn't as important as once thought. It also means McCain has more time to try and get those conservatives to come over to him, without having to sell out to them. Instead of saying "I am most conservative", he can now say "I am a better choice than the other side".

In elections it's all about equal time. We no longer have that, and every day this nomination process lingers on, the more time McCain has to rally a nation, instead of a base. That's why we need a nominee as soon as possible.

Super Delegates To Decide Democratic Nominee?

Posted 2/5/08 at 11:29am by jamie

That's what Chris Bowers is thinking:

It can no longer be avoided: super delegates will determine the
Democratic Presidential nominee this year. 

That is also what I been fearing. Considering the proportional breakdown of delegates on the Democratic side, there will be no clear front runner after today. It's also looking like there might not be one after any other race.

The problem is that the Republicans could have a front runner, if not today then by March. That means that person has from March until August to campaign as the nominee, while the Democrats are still deciding. This could actually end up hurting the Democrats chances of winning the White House this fall, unless party leaders decide to take some action to get us a nominee sooner.

Today's Must Read

Posted 8/18/07 at 8:24am by jamie

Retirement ‘Wave’ Building Among House Republicans?

The announcement Friday by former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that he will not seek re-election in 2008 capped a week in which three veteran House Republicans in a 24-hour span declared that the current 110th Congress would be their last.

Hastert’s announcement — coupled with similar ones Thursday by Ohio Rep. Deborah Pryce and Mississippi Rep. Charles W. “Chip” Pickering Jr. — brought to five the number of House Republicans who are not seeking re-election next year, compared with two on the Democratic side.

While nearly 15 months remain until the November 2008 election, the retirement decisions of Hastert, Pryce and Pickering will stoke speculation of a larger “wave” of GOP departures that would seriously hamper the party’s quest to make the 16-seat gain that they need to regain the House majority they lost last November.

Democrats pounced on the retirements as evidence of sagging morale in House Republican ranks and public disenchantment with President Bush and his party, which ran the House for a dozen years before the 2006 elections.

It is amazing how many Republicans are calling it quits this early. It appears that they see the writing on the wall and next year will not be easy for them.

Pages

Comments



blog advertising is good for you

Tip Jar

Follow Me On Twitter


Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter:
Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter