What happens to Hillary if people think this is all for 2012?

let me start by saying I do NOT think she is doing this with eyes on 2012, and i think everyone who does think this is flat out wrong or just a conspiracy theorist.

but with that said....

I am noticing more and more that on blogs and what not people are beginning to say that Hillary is staying in only to ensure Obama loses so she can run in 2012 and save us from Mccain.


but lets be honest we don't have some of the smartest voters in this country and if something is repeated enough it starts to become the truth.

so what happens to Hillary if Obama does become the nominee and loses?

at this point is she setting herself up where for the next 4 years, anything Mccain does wrong would also be blamed on Hillary for killing Obama's chances?

I do not think that is what she is doing, but the idea is starting to spread so ignoring it won't do anything.

so thoughts?

There's more...

Monster Manipulations and Mutual Damage

Great relief to be away from KOS.  Too much support for monster there.  Now we see the polls.  HRC has inflicted mutual, possibly irreversible damage on both Obama and herself by underhanded, brazen tactics, particularly the willingness to compare a fellow-Democrat negatively as Commander-In-Chief vs. John McCain.  How in the world did she ever expect Obama then to embrace her subsequent olive-leaf offer of a Dream Team ticket?  Who's she kidding?  She just abandoned the Democratic Party as a team, and then she is crowing about an eventual team together?  She just wrecked the team, and picked the Republican over her Democratic colleague!

Damage done, Hillary!  

Not reversible.

Game Over!

(Go to original full entry March 15 to participate in poll on HC 2012 strategy.)

There's more...

A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Plan' - Terrifying

I've been looking at Obama's platform on health care issues and I am quite bluntly, extremely dissapointed that others have not too.

Here are some things I think that we all should be considering.

This is from http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/issues/index.html

"Require that all children have health insurance; pay for it by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for households earning over $250,000; aims for universal coverage." (note, he 'aims' for universal coverage - by 2012 - when he is leaving office.)

In the meantime, this is what he says he will do.. not much..

Require employers to provide insurance or contribute to the cost. Exempt smallest businesses. Reimburse employers for catastrophic health costs. Provide subsidies for low-income people. Create purchasing pool with choice of competing private plans and one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"The main disagreement with John [Edwards] and I is John believes that we have to have mandatory insurance for everyone in order to have universal health care. My belief is that most families want health care but they can't afford it. And so my emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage -- that we make sure the drug companies have to do what's right by their patients instead of simply hoarding their profits. If we do those things then I believe that we can drive down the costs for families. In fact, we've got very conservative, credible estimates that say we can save families that do have health insurance about a thousand dollars a year, and we can also make sure that we provide coverage for everybody else." (But, they make no promises HOW MUCH IT WILL COST, many states have high risk pools, but coverage in them is often thousands of dollars a month. And often these plans do not provide drug coverage. Drugs can cost some people huge amounts of money.)

According to a number of recent studies, MEDICAL COSTS are the highest, and FASTEST RISING cause of bankruptcy in the US. Obama makes a number of good suggestions on how he might help address some of those costs, for example, he proposes to make purchasing prescription drugs from overseas legal.

"And we do provide mandatory health care for children."

There's more...

National Primary Day

This won't mean anything for this election, but for next time, the idea of a National Primary day, proceeded whatever sort of events the states want to hold, sounds good:

The simplest and most direct way to correct the worst elements of the current system would be to eliminate the entire charade of electing delegates to the conventions. Instead, we should hold one national primary, on one day, for both parties.

The national primary is not a new idea. It is a Progressive Era innovation first proposed by Alabama Congressman Richard Hobson in 1911 and endorsed by political science-professor-turned-president Woodrow Wilson. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt proposed it to William Howard Taft to settle which of them would be the Republican nominee; Taft, the incumbent, refused. From that time until 1979, the national primary has been put forward in Congress 126 times by a determined, dedicated, and tiny band of reformers, including Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Al Ullman (D-Ore.), the last big proponent of the idea.

But despite its small amount of support on Capitol Hill, the national primary has garnered majority support in nationwide polls. From 1952 until 1988, Gallup consistently polled Americans on their support for various nominating process reforms; the national primary always had wide support and never had opposition in excess of 27 percent. More recently, a 2007 New York Times poll found that 72 percent of Americans favored a single day for all primaries.

More here.

There's more...

Do Population Shifts Doom the Democrats in the 2010 Reapportionment?

In the past few days there has been a raft of stories in the political press warning of the  potential harm population shifts from the blue states to the red states will have on the Democratic Party, both in its quest to win presidential elections as well as its ability to maintain control over the House in the decade to come. Donald Lambro, for one, writing in the conservative rag that is The Washington Times, explains under the headline "Population shift likely to boost GOP" that,

Ongoing population shifts from the North to the Sun Belt states will benefit Republicans more than Democrats in future House races and could enlarge the Republican Party's electoral count in presidential elections, political analysts say.

Analysts say Democrats have offset the Republicans' Sun Belt advantage with gains in the Northeast and parts of the South and Southwest, but that the size of the migration by the end of this decade likely will give the edge to Republicans.

Louis Jacobson, writing for the more non-partisan Washington paper Roll Call (sorry, subscription required), reports,

When Election Data Services late last month released projections of which states are poised to gain and lose Congressional seats based on the 2010 Census, Republicans cheered.

The numbers showed that GOP-leaning states in the Sun Belt continue to outpace the more Democratic Northeast and Midwest in population growth. But projecting whether the Republicans truly will gain ground after the post-2010 reapportionment requires a more micro-level look at the states in question.

According to the EDS, the states that are set to gain at least one seat after 2010 - if current demographic trends hold - are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah. Each voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, and the GOP controls both the Legislature and the governorship in Florida, Georgia, Texas and Utah. The GOP also controls one chamber plus the governorship in Nevada.

The explosive population growth in traditionally Republican states coupled with the relatively lower rate of growth (and even decline in population, in some cases) in states that tend to back the Democrats, certainly could, in and of itself, redefine the national political environment in ways that make it more difficult for the Democratic Party to succeed. In particular, the prospect of growing electoral and congressional clout for states like Utah and Georgia, which both of which are among the 10 states that give President Bush his highest approval ratings, should cause real concerns for Democrats both inside and outside of Washington.

Nevertheless, it would be wholly improper for Democrats to embrace a defeatist mentality or even to become pessimistic about their chances in the next decade without keeping a number of things in mind. First, the people moving into these so-called "red states" are not necessarily similar demographically to the current residents. In fact in many cases these new voters are significantly more amenable to Democrats -- or at least less tied to the Republican Party -- than the current inhabitants. To take Texas as an example, the exploding growth of Hispanics is already having a tangible effect in both congressional and statewide elections, with Democrats picking up two seats in the state in 2006, one of which was clearly swung in the Democrats' favor as a result of increased support from Mexican-American voters, and incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry being held below 40 percent of the vote in a four-way race, including barely more than 30 percent among Latinos, who he actually lost to Democrat Chris Bell. If these trends hold, it's not inconceivable that the Democrats will be able to at least maintain their current number of Representatives from the state in the next decade and perhaps even have a serious chance at carrying the state in presidential elections in the future, which they haven't done in some 30 years. To take another example, in Arizona, Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano won a second term by close to 30 points and Democrats picked up two US House seats in 2006, so clear shifts within the electorate are already beginning to be seen. What's more, the redistricting process in the state is controlled by an independent commission, so even if the Republicans were to continue to control the legislature in the state and win back the governorship in 2010 they would not have the capacity to gerrymander their way to success.

A second equally important point to keep in mind is that the Democrats are solidifying their positions in blue states, not only in the Northeast but also in the Great Lakes region and along the Pacific Coast. Following the 2010 reapportionment, it's quite possible that they will be able to squeeze more Democratic seats out of states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, California and even New York, more than offsetting the loss of seats from states like Massachusetts. What's more, the changing political climate within individual states could move some like Ohio from being a pure swing state to one that has a Democratic lean (as perhaps presaged by overwhelming Democratic victories in the state's governor and senatorial races last fall).

In short, these population shifts, both in and of themselves but also taken in combination with other political changes around the country, should not necessarily worry Democrats about their future in the next decade. Rather in some ways, they present the Democrats with new opportunities to reshape the electoral map in their own favor to perhaps help them achieve a new political reality in the country.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads