How Voters Think

[Harlan Huckleby]

HH, what is the liberal core? What do they believe in? Why should we vote for any of them?

Liberals are often accused of engaging in class warfare. I believe the warfare is already there, quietly, in that our society takes care of people with high income. Remind me again why homeowners can deduct their mortgages on their federal taxes, and renters can not deduct rent? Why do working people support the social security system with a high proportion of their paycheck, while people who earn through investment pay nothing at all towards social security? Why is the quality of a public school dependent upon the wealth of the neighborhood it is located in? What is this bullshit of people working for $8 per hour and not having health insurance? Are we a third world country?

BTW, I do not resent or envy wealthy people one bit. Why, some of my best friends are rich, and I wouldn't mind if my sister married one of their kind.

The people with the best ideas on foreign policy tend to be in the Democratic Party. George Bush has operated with the full support of the Republican Party, if you like our current position in the world, vote Republican.

[Joemailman]

Hopeless candidates have been playing the spoiler since electoral politics began. What makes Edwards so different from his umpteengazillion precedesors?

I never admire any spoiler. Edwards is a little worse than most because not only is he fuzzying-up the will of the people on the central decision of the campaign (Clinton vrs Obama), he is seeking to later leverage his thin slice of the pie to play the system.

And it's not being done honestly. He is pretending that he still trying to win the Presidency, and some supporters believe him. Even an observor as keen as Postal Joe just argued that Edwards has a slight chance to win because few delegates have been allocated at this point. Well, on closer inspection this is nonsense: to actually win the presidency, Edwards would have to win first place in several February 5 primaries. Edwards doesn't have a realistic shot to win a single state. South Carolina was his strongest state and he was creamed.

Edwards could be far more than a spoiler if none of the 3 candidates can get a majority of delegates prior to the convention. If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations. In that scenario, Edwards could win the nomination especially if he finishes the primary season strong. I realize it's highly unlikely that that would happen, but I see nothing wrong with Edwards continuing the fight as long as he has the money to compete.

By the way, I disagree that South Carolina was Edwards' strongest state. It was in 2004, but not in 2008. Black voters are a huge part of the Democratic vote in South Carolina, and it is virtually impossible for him to compete for the black vote against Clinton and Obama. In 2004, he was running against Kerry and Dean. He has a better chance in states with a smaller black population, especially those that have been badly hurt by losses of jobs overseas.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations. In that scenario, Edwards could win the nomination especially if he finishes the primary season strong.

This scenario is so far-fetched I don't believe it is anybody's mind. The notion that the convention would choose a candidate who was just rejected by the voters is unthinkable. A deadlocked convention might theoretically turn to some noncontroversial party stalwart, Sam Nunn type. But forget about it, they will find a way to choose between Clinton & Obama. And that way could include Edward's support for one candidate or the other - now THIS is thinkable.

He has a better chance in states with a smaller black population, especially those that have been badly hurt by losses of jobs overseas.

no need to answer this, it is too hard to know, but the following are the Feb 5 states. Which ones do you think he might have a chance to win? If he's just going for 2nd place finishes, then the run for the nomination is disingenuous, he's just trolling for delegates for his personal benefit.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia

[Kiwon]

Oh boy! I can't wait for free health care.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oh boy! I can't wait for free health care.

There are 58 million Americans without health care. If they get a serious injury, medical bills will prevent them from accumulating any assets, they will ultimately become wards of the state. And people without health insurance often get sicker and end up draining the health care system as emergency room free loaders.

What is your plan to deal with the problem? Oh ya, you got yourself taken care of, fuck 'um. God Bless the Republican Party! The party of high morals and family values.

[MJZiggy]

Just because Canada has an inefficient health care delivery system does that necessitate the US adopting the exact same system that notably isn't working in Canada? Is there no country on the planet that has a universal health care system that works efficiently for us to model such a program after?**

**Please let it be noted that I'm in no way suggesting that our government is an efficient entity, however inefficiency is better than the wads of money I'm paying for crappy insurance and those people that Harlan mentioned that are completely screwed if their appendix bursts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just because we provide health care through the government would not preclude people who can afford it from purchasing private insurance.

We're the only country (of means) in the world that doesn't provide a basic level of health care for all its citizens.

[MJZiggy]

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.

[Joemailman]

We're obviously much better off with our health care system. Canadians are only 11th in the world in life expectancy. USA is...um...well...come on...42nd? WTF!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

[Kiwon]

Oh boy! I can't wait for free health care.

There are 58 million Americans without health care. If they get a serious injury, medical bills will prevent them from accumulating any assets, they will ultimately become wards of the state. And people without health insurance often get sicker and end up draining the health care system as emergency room free loaders.

What is your plan to deal with the problem? Oh ya, you got yourself taken care of, fuck 'um. God Bless the Republican Party! The party of high morals and family values.

Yeah, right, like you care about anyone but yourself.

What is your plan to deal with the problem?

Who are you? Secretary of Health and Idiocy?

The answer is the government, of course. It's always the answer.

High morals and family values are passe since Clinton. Britney Spears hasn't endorsed a candidate yet so I'm going Barack Hussein Obama. It's time for a change.

¡Si, Se Puede! - Yes, we can!

[MJZiggy]

That was helpful. Those will be great options when my money runs out and I can't afford the massive premiums any more. Be glib all you want, but I'm not finding it funny at the moment.

[RashanGary]

I think you have some good points, HH.

Here's my current view on the issue of our economic and political system.

There is only so much to go around. There really isn't enough for everybody in this world. There will be haves. There will be have nots. Either that or everyone will be the same, motivation to work harder will go down and everyone will be have nots. That's how I see it. WE have to split up the pie some how.


How should the haves and have nots be separated? I say ability and ambition. I think less should be done for the poor. I think under the table earnings by the extremely wealthy should be taxed because it oppresses those who are acctually contributing to society by working or striving. It's one thing to earn a living and quite another to just roll up wealth with nothing more than using inherited wealth. Again, the goal is to empower the able and ambitious, not the circumstance they were born into. I think it should be easier to get an education for those who want it and are capable of getting it (even if it's 6 or 8 years). I think corperate scandals and political scandals should be investigated and prosecuted at a higher level. I think the laws in statues should be in place in a way that prevents frivilous law suits by holding lawyers accountable which will lower the risks of doing buisness in any field.

I don't think any of the politicians running for president do what I want them to do. Newt was the closest thing, but he's not running. Mit seems intent on helping buisnesses succeed in the world wide market place. I think some of the liberals have the right idea as far as finding ways to tax the extremely wealthy. I want people to be able to achieve and sustain wealth. I just want it to be based on their actions, not an aristocratic system and limiting the abilty to steam roll wealth based on power will force everyone who wants wealth to earn it rather than be given it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is only so much to go around. There really isn't enough for everybody in this world. There will be haves. There will be have nots. Either that or everyone will be the same, motivation to work harder will go down and everyone will be have nots. That's how I see it. WE have to split up the pie some how.

I'm not suggesting a socialized economy, or making everyone equal economically. But I am for pooling resources to provide everyone a baseline of health care. This can be done, it is done in every other modernized country in the world. And it will be cheaper overall, the current system is highly inefficient.

And this policy is NOT in conflict with your value of individual initiative. It empowers people who want to start their own businesses. Under the current system, there is a crushing pressure to get a government job or work for a big corporation. Promote entreprenaurial spirit!

[RashanGary]

I'm starting to develop opinions on what I believe. I think there are answers but the political system is set up in such a way that enacting them or finding the right ones is nearly impossible. Interest groups and polarized politics lead to bickering and manipulating.

I'm pretty discouraged with the entire political system. I have some ideas, but they're constantly changing and not based in enough knowledge to really have conviction in them. I really hope we find a way to become more efficient and more competitive in the world wide market place. Our economy is in danger IMO.