How Voters Think

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wouldn't that suck to spend all that money on campaigning only to have them hand the nomination to Gore.

ya, but if they're deadlocked - what are they gonna do, flip a coin? Actually, I would think that delegates not committed to the big two could be swayed.

I have a hunch that a frontrunner is going to come out of Feb 5.

[digitaldean]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

I'd suggest a hybrid system where people or employers can purchase insurance plans to provide services beyond what the government will cover. And ya, health care generally works well for people in Europe, they look at us and think we are insane.

Employer-provided health care is just a horrible system. The unintended consequence is that it makes it extremely difficult for people to be entreprenarial, start small businesses.

There needs to be some reform. It's true it does hold back entrepreneurs and startup small businesses.

Without going into great detail, a family member of mine has MS. Like it or not, I am shackled to my present employer due to the health insurance. I can't afford to be without it, but if I went on my own or with a much smaller company the premiums (if I could get coverage at all for being self employed) would be astronomical.

There should be these available options:
1.) Buying pools of multiple companies (even if in different states) should be enabled to allow more choices.
2.) Allow for importation of drugs from Canada.
3.) Allow for interstate commerce for health insurance. If I can buy the same insurance cheaper in another state, then I should be allowed to.
4.) Present all citizens with 2 options
a.) Have a government health care option that you could buy into (or provided for you if you prove you can't afford it)
b.) If option a's coverage doesn't suit you, buy your own on the open market.
5.) Outlaw subsidies/kickbacks to doctors and pharmacies who subscribe certain medication. It's corrupt, leads in some cases to over medication, plus drives up insurance costs because of the over prescribing.

Though I don't like the government running the health care system (e.g., look at how vets were treated at Walter Reed), so little has been done by both sides that we WILL end up with some form of universal system. It's not if, but when.

</rant>

[hoosier]

Sounds great to me. The idea of not allowing voting in a state is absurd. All they did wrong was move-up their primary to a date no earlier than other primaries. And group punishment - disenfranchising an entire population because of technical violations by party officials - is worse than absurd.

Isn't that ("disenfranchisement") basically what happens to states that hold primaries so late in the season that the candidates have almost always been decided by the time they go to the polls?

In any case, I'm not sure you can say a state's voters are being disenfranchised by not having their votes counted in a primary election. Parties aren't obliged by law to hold primaries; they could perfectly well hold a members-only meeting or choose a candidate in a smoke-filled room somewhere in Chicago. National parties organize the selection process and can do damn well pretty much what they please. If the Floridians get too uppity they'll be reduced to irrelevance.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Isn't that ("disenfranchisement") basically what happens to states that hold primaries so late in the season that the candidates have almost always been decided by the time they go to the polls?

Of course it depends on how the election plays out, the later primaries could easily end up being the decisive ones this year.
I think there should (and will be) some reform, rotating the order that primaries occur in the future.

In any case, I'm not sure you can say a state's voters are being disenfranchised by not having their votes counted in a primary election. Parties aren't obliged by law to hold primaries; they could perfectly well hold a members-only meeting or choose a candidate in a smoke-filled room

You are correct in a technical, legalistic sense. There is nothing in our constitution requiring parties to behave democratically. But the parties have to respond to the values and expectations of the people to remain viable, and democracy/fairness is a shared value.
Not allowing people in a state to vote in a primary certainly is disenfranchisement as a practical matter.

If the democratic race is close coming out of February 5, I expect both Michigan & Florida will organize caucuses (cauci? caucatooee?) for March. And I certainly support them, democracy is the American way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race today. I am relieved. He comes out better by not dragging this out for purposes of political maneuvering. Good man. Impossible to say whether his supporters will fall to Clinton or Obama. They have an Obamaesque anti-status quo bent, yet they also tend to be from Hillary's lower income demographic.

I'm also glad that Guiliani is gone. Since the race really comes down to McCain or Romney, its better to know what the voters really think. This probably gives McCain a little bump. Many pundits are talking like McCain has nomination sewed up now. I look forward to hearing Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, he's cute when he's mad.

[The Leaper]

When you look at how expensive it is to hire professors and provide all those facilities, I can understand why college is expensive. I really don't think there is much cost-cutting to be done. If you want college costs to come down, you have to raise taxes and fund it at higher level.

How is letting the government oversee it going to make it cheaper?

I'm sorry, but a 100% increase in the costs of a basic 4 year education over the last 20 years is an outrage IMO. Inflation has been extremely low over that that time span...roughly 2-3% most years. There is no justification for why a college degree costs so much more today when you factor inflation into it than it did 20 years ago.

Cost of professors? You mean the ones who don't really teach...and let teaching assistants lead most of their low level classes? Please.

While you might have enjoyed your liberal arts education, I really don't see how it is worth $75k. I can go to the library and learn all that stuff on my own for next to nothing. The world is a different place today...getting students involved in their industry rather than sitting in a classroom is the key to the future.

I don't discount that true higher education is costly...going for a PhD or MBA should be a significant investment. Getting a BA in criminal justice isn't worth $75k. College today is what high school was 60 years ago.

[The Leaper]

I agree that Gore would be a logical choice in that event.

God...I couldn't bear to watch Gore-McCain debates. Those two are probably among the worst personalities in that kind of format.

ZZZZzzzzzzzz...............

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm sorry, but a 100% increase in the costs of a basic 4 year education over the last 20 years is an outrage IMO.

What is your theory on what is driving the cost of college? I suspect that the government is subsidizing higher ed at a lower rate. That's certainly is true of state funding for UW.

While you might have enjoyed your liberal arts education, I really don't see how it is worth $75k.

75K doesn't sound like very much to me, if you are talking total tuition cost. I unfortunately didn't have a liberal arts education, I was in physics & electrical engineering. But the courses that I remember, that changed me, were in liberal arts. Best class I ever took was in Greek Mythology. If I could do it all over, I would major in English.

[RashanGary]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race today. I am relieved. He comes out better by not dragging this out for purposes of political maneuvering. Good man. Impossible to say whether his supporters will fall to Clinton or Obama. They have an Obamaesque anti-status quo bent, yet they also tend to be from Hillary's lower income demographic.

I'm also glad that Guiliani is gone. Since the race really comes down to McCain or Romney, its better to know what the voters really think. This probably gives McCain a little bump. Many pundits are talking like McCain has nomination sewed up now. I look forward to hearing Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, he's cute when he's mad.

haha, I only heard a little talk radio today. I love hearing them pissed off. It was just a few months ago that Rush said "I know I am powerfull and have influence. I know I can change elections".. . . ." I used to be too embarassed to accept these comliments, but I have to learn to accept them."

hahahahahah..... now he's squirming, cussing out the media for saying he can't change the election. His ego just got shot. Ah well, he makes a lot of money doing what he does. I'm sure he's not effected too greatly.


Go McCAin.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I liked McCain's response in 2000 when he was asked if he would consider the vice presidency:

"I spent years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam where I was kept in the dark and fed scraps. Why would I want to go through that all over again?"

[Joemailman]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race today. I am relieved. He comes out better by not dragging this out for purposes of political maneuvering. Good man. Impossible to say whether his supporters will fall to Clinton or Obama. They have an Obamaesque anti-status quo bent, yet they also tend to be from Hillary's lower income demographic.

I'm also glad that Guiliani is gone. Since the race really comes down to McCain or Romney, its better to know what the voters really think. This probably gives McCain a little bump. Many pundits are talking like McCain has nomination sewed up now. I look forward to hearing Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, he's cute when he's mad.

You're glad Giuliani and Edwards are gone, but what about Huckabee? Do you still think he has a shot at the nomination? If not, is it right for him to stay in the race and pull social conservative votes away from Romney?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're glad Giuliani and Edwards are gone, but what about Huckabee? Do you still think he has a shot at the nomination? If not, is it right for him to stay in the race and pull social conservative votes away from Romney?

In general I care less about the Republican side. One reason I am glad Edwards is out is that the Dems will have a much better chance of avoiding a deadlocked convention, and can choose a candidate sooner.

I find it a little sour that Huckabee is staying in the race, it makes me uneasy. The role he is playing in deflecting votes from Romney blurs the will of the people. He has been buttering-up McCain when he is on the stump, it seems that he is possibly maneuvering for a VP under McCain. It is not entirely honest when he speaks to his backers about how the contest has just begun, and he is competitive with delegate count. BS, he's out of it.

I guess there is a lot of deception in politics.

I have no problem with the Ron Paul's of this world, he is promoting a distinctive political voice.

[RashanGary]

I think Huckabee is taking votes away from McCain, acctually. The hard core, closed minded evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon no matter what (esspecially a mormon who goes back and forth on the abortion issue).

I have no faith in politics. I think the U.S. is run by big spending interest groups. However, I would love to see the upset just because I'd love to hear Rush and Sean cry about it.

[The Leaper]

I guess there is a lot of deception in politics.

That's just how the process works. Huckabee would like to be involved in a potential McCain administration, so he is sticking around to garner as much clout as he can. Edwards would be doing the same thing if he had any interest in being VP...but he clearly doesn't, nor should he considering his ailing wife.

[The Leaper]

You're glad Giuliani and Edwards are gone, but what about Huckabee? Do you still think he has a shot at the nomination? If not, is it right for him to stay in the race and pull social conservative votes away from Romney?

I'm not sure Huckabee is truly hurting Romney. Romney is an establishment candidate...neither McCain nor Huckabee is an establishment candidate. Most very evangelical voters won't vote for Romney anyway, as they view his religion as a cult...and that is where Huckabee's strength lies.

Huckabee is remaining in the race because I think he feels he has a decent chance of being the VP for McCain, so keeping his name in the political discussion is an advantage for him...and ultimately the GOP if McCain does select him as a VP. He's also relatively young and unknown...with little cash...so he's doing what he can to make himself a name for future elections as well. Elections aren't just about who will win this year, but who will compete the next time around as well.

Claiming Huckabee is doing something questionable is pretty far-fetched IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Big Clinton-Obama debate on CNN tonight. I expect Clinton will best him, Obama is an awful debater and has shallow knowledge of issues. But it won't matter too much, I think the political elites - journalists, politicians - have turned against the Clintons to a degree that will help Obama to gradually overcome her strong support with voters. Bill's excessive behavior pushed people past a tipping point the past two weeks.

A McCain-Obama general election will be close and unpredictable. I'd guess that the democratic party's desire for faster withdrawal from Iraq will be decisive in their favor.

Forget about Obama as the great unifier of Republicans and Democrats, it never has worked that way and never will. Remember, George Bush came into office as the great healer, with a track record of bipartisian support as Texas governor. Presidents have always been bashed and villified by the opposition party since George Washington, there is nothing new under the sun.

BTW, are you aware that Senator Clinton has a strong reputation for working well with Republicans, she is an effective coalition builder? And did you know that Obama is strongly disliked in the Sentate, he is viewed as an arrogant lone wolf? (His unpopularity may be largely due to jealousy at all the attention he recieves, first term senators are supposed to be humble back-benchers paying their dues.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Claiming Huckabee is doing something questionable is pretty far-fetched IMO.

Is he being honest about his intentions? No, he is misleading voters, feeding them the line that he still has a chance to win the presidency and intends to do so.

The irony is that if Thompson had not stayed in the race in South Carolina, Huckabee would have won that primary and he'd be a first tier candidate now with McCain & Romney! Thompson is a longtime ally with McCain, was one of only two Senators to endorse him in 2000.

[Scott Campbell]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

I'd suggest a hybrid system where people or employers can purchase insurance plans to provide services beyond what the government will cover. And ya, health care generally works well for people in Europe, they look at us and think we are insane.

Employer-provided health care is just a horrible system. The unintended consequence is that it makes it extremely difficult for people to be entreprenarial, start small businesses.

There needs to be some reform. It's true it does hold back entrepreneurs and startup small businesses.

Without going into great detail, a family member of mine has MS. Like it or not, I am shackled to my present employer due to the health insurance. I can't afford to be without it, but if I went on my own or with a much smaller company the premiums (if I could get coverage at all for being self employed) would be astronomical.

There should be these available options:
1.) Buying pools of multiple companies (even if in different states) should be enabled to allow more choices.
2.) Allow for importation of drugs from Canada.
3.) Allow for interstate commerce for health insurance. If I can buy the same insurance cheaper in another state, then I should be allowed to.
4.) Present all citizens with 2 options
a.) Have a government health care option that you could buy into (or provided for you if you prove you can't afford it)
b.) If option a's coverage doesn't suit you, buy your own on the open market.
5.) Outlaw subsidies/kickbacks to doctors and pharmacies who subscribe certain medication. It's corrupt, leads in some cases to over medication, plus drives up insurance costs because of the over prescribing.

Though I don't like the government running the health care system (e.g., look at how vets were treated at Walter Reed), so little has been done by both sides that we WILL end up with some form of universal system. It's not if, but when.

</rant>

Sorry about your family member. I'm kind of interested in insurance portability.

[The Leaper]

Claiming Huckabee is doing something questionable is pretty far-fetched IMO.

Is he being honest about his intentions? No, he is misleading voters, feeding them the line that he still has a chance to win the presidency and intends to do so.

The irony is that if Thompson had not stayed in the race in South Carolina, Huckabee would have won that primary and he'd be a first tier candidate now with McCain & Romney! Thompson is a longtime ally with McCain, was one of only two Senators to endorse him in 2000.

So you are telling me he is this close to being a first tier candidate...but that he is misleading voters?

What do you want him to say? "I'm still in this because I'm auditioning for the role of VP?" Who is going to say that? Please show me any historical evidence of that ever happening.

The reality is that this kind of posturing by a candidate who realizes he has no realistic chance of winning, but has a good chance to potentially be a VP or cabinet member, is typical and happens almost every election cycle. Huckabee isn't misleading anyone...we all know what is going on.

IMO, Paul is more misleading. The guy acts like people give a crap about his ideas...when the guy can't muster much more than 3% of the vote in most relevant states.

[The Leaper]

BTW, are you aware that Senator Clinton has a strong reputation for working well with Republicans, she is an effective coalition builder?

She wasn't much of a coalition builder in 1992 when she was trying to stuff socialized medicine down everyone's throat. She did some things in the Senate because she knew she would have to if she had any chance in becoming President. It certainly wasn't because of her warm, fuzzy nature that attracts people to her and her ideals.

Hilliary does whatever it takes to get where she wants to go. She's a bitch...there is no other word for it. Her and Ann Coulter should have a PPV bitchoff. That is why Clinton's negatives are so high, and why most who worked with her husband's administration did not view her in high esteem.

If you are going to talk about coalition builders, John McCain trumps Clinton by a landslide. McCain has been one of the most active politicians in Washington for over a decade, and has worked with people on both sides of the aisle. That is precisely why moderates chose him in droves.