Super Tuesday (and the other primaries)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I honestly don't think either one of them will ever withdraw troops from Iraq like they say they will. Iraq will go to complete shit and it will be their fault. No way does either of them want that to happen, on their watch at least. I think it's just pandering on both of their parts.

[Olo401]

There is obviously some guess work going on because every source is giving something a little different. Stems back to not having winner take all races I guess.

I was reading this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23034102/) and it breaks down how they calculate delegates. The discrepancy seems to be in the delegates won for carrying particular districts. I always thought the 'proportional' system was by district, sort of like a mini electoral college, but I now know it is actually more complex.

Caucus states are also handled differently. Man, there are a lot of rules.

The rules are so complex, nobody can really tell you what they really are.

The simple answer is: Do away with the electoral college.

And change it to... popular vote? Perhaps give some reasons and alternatives because not only is it not going to change, but I have yet to see an alternative that is 1) realistic, and 2) better. And I don't see how electoral college has anything to do with delegate count.

I don't quite agree with the idea of doing away with the Electoral College as I do with the ideas of making it both larger and proportional. Explaining this will take a bit of detail, so bear with me here..

The number of votes in the Electoral College is equal to the number of members of Congress - that is the House and Senate combined. At the moment, the US House of Representatives seats 435 members, the Senate has 100, totalling 535.

The formula for determining how many representatives there are is not fixed by the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution only maintains that each state must have at least one representative - otherwise it delegates that authority to the House itself (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3). This authority also allows the House to determine how many representatives each state should have via the Census, though technically the states themselves determine the boundaries of each district. The last time the House amended this formula was, I believe, in the 1940s.

With the population of the country now at about 300 million, each representative speaks for between 400,000 and 650,000 citizens, depending on which state you live in. In my opinion this is far too few representatives - it should be closer to one rep for every 250-300k citizens. That would mean changing the formula to expand the number of representatives to about 1,000.

Sure it'd be a pain in the ass, you'd have that many more representatives to pay with taxpayer money, and where would you put them all because I don't think the House chamber would hold them all.. (I have an idea for this as well) You'd also have to redistribute the reps to the states and have them redraw their districts to match. Even with these logistical downsides I personally think it needs to be done, because the people of this country simply do not have adequate - or competent - representation in Congress.

[Xavier]

I honestly don't think either one of them will ever withdraw troops from Iraq like they say they will. Iraq will go to complete shit and it will be their fault. No way does either of them want that to happen, on their watch at least. I think it's just pandering on both of their parts.

While I'm fairly upset at the justifications for entering the war, only an idiot would withdraw our troops before the country could somewhat take care of itself. Everytime Obama or Hillary talks about withdraw in 60 days, I just shake my head. Hillary seems to be more cautious than Obama though, speaking more about gradual withdraw than immediate.

[Beckwin]

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Neither are talking about a complete withdrawal within 60 days; the gist seems to be that both are going to get things rolling within 60 days of being sworn in. If we wait until "the country could somewhat take care of itself", we have ourselves there for years, arguably, until we could start withdrawing.

[Jefe]

About two-three weeks ago I attended one of Obama's speeches. His plan is to bring back some of the troops in late 2009, along with "improving" relations with the iraquis.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

So he either thinks Iraq can handle itself now, or that it's not our responsibility to make sure that they can. This only tells Al Qaeda to wait before they do anything else.

Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.

No one wants that, not even Bush. That's not "change." (Yea, that was cheapshot, I know.)

if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

"He will keep troops in Iraq," oops. And why not kill them all while were there now so we don't have to do anything else?

viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration

So she also either think thats Iraq can handle itself now or that it's not our responsibility. Again, this only tells Al Qaeda to wait to do anything else.

[aurik]

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

So he either thinks Iraq can handle itself now, or that it's not our responsibility to make sure that they can. This only tells Al Qaeda to wait before they do anything else.

What is the US goal in Iraq? Set up infrastructure so that the Iraqis can govern, or help the Iraqis govern?

PS. There was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq pre-invasion, so much for winning the "war on terror".

Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.

No one wants that, not even Bush. That's not "change." (Yea, that was cheapshot, I know.)

McCain wants us to occupy Iraq for 50-100 years.

if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

"He will keep troops in Iraq," oops. And why not kill them all while were there now so we don't have to do anything else?

Why are you so dense that you can't see that he's committing troops to fight al Qaeda wherever they may be, regardless of his overarching plan for US involvement in Iraqi affairs?

viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration

So she also either think thats Iraq can handle itself now or that it's not our responsibility. Again, this only tells Al Qaeda to wait to do anything else.

I bet you think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks too.

[Beckwin]

Swamp: Are you dense? The idea is that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq to begin with (kinda like WMDs) and there isn't much of a presence (if at all) currently. Obama said he will use military action against al Qaeda if they do come to Iraq, so you're whole "omg now they know to just wait" argument falls flat. Obama wants for America to stop being the standing security force for Iraq and to instead focus only on direct threats to the US. Direct terrorist attacks on America have been few and far between for long before the sham called "The War on Terror", so do a little thinking and lay off the fear-mongering for a bit.

[Rhinox]

viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration

So she also either think thats Iraq can handle itself now or that it's not our responsibility. Again, this only tells Al Qaeda to wait to do anything else.

Genius! lets do the alternative, Wait 50-100 years and all the terrorist will either a. blow themselves up to the point where there are no terrorist alive b. they die of natural causes c. Stay there long enough to the point they forget what they fighting for!

I'm seriously at a lose for words on exactly this so called war on terror is actually fighting. Terrorism cannot be defeated its not an entity where it can be destroyed. its an Idea that will always come up in times of struggle when a people who is at a disadvantage want to turn the tide. You can call it a War on the Taliban or the War in Iraq but to call it a war on terror is misleading and very polarizing. How many people want to say "Hey, I don't want to go to war with terror". sad part in all this is that almost Every nation has used a form of terrorism at some point in time.

[Olo401]

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Neither are talking about a complete withdrawal within 60 days; the gist seems to be that both are going to get things rolling within 60 days of being sworn in. If we wait until "the country could somewhat take care of itself", we have ourselves there for years, arguably, until we could start withdrawing.

Logistically it would be impossible to pull everyone out within 2 months anyways. It'd probably take about a year from the moment they start, a bit less if they leave equipment behind.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think addressing aurik will address everyone else as well.

What is the US goal in Iraq? Set up infrastructure so that the Iraqis can govern, or help the Iraqis govern?

PS. There was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq pre-invasion, so much for winning the "war on terror".

Yes, thats the goal.

Yep, your right, but they are now.

McCain wants us to occupy Iraq for 50-100 years.

I find that hard to believe, but I never supported him anyways.

Why are you so dense that you can't see that he's committing troops to fight al Qaeda wherever they may be, regardless of his overarching plan for US involvement in Iraqi affairs?

I don't see the point in pulling troops out before Al Qaeda is defeated, otherwise you'd have to just go back in.

I bet you think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks too.

And?

Obama wants for America to stop being the standing security force for Iraq and to instead focus only on direct threats to the US.

So do I, but who's going to do it if we pull out before the Iraqi's are ready?

Edit: I'll admit I may read into something a bit much, I have been studying for the logical reasoning part of the LSAT.

[Charla]

And what better incentive to get ready than the certainty that we're planning on pulling out?

McCain's actual quote was along the lines of "we'll stay there until we win, whether it takes 10 years or a hundred." People just keep saying "He wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years!"

[Khamsin]

And what better incentive to get ready than the certainty that we're planning on pulling out?

McCain's actual quote was along the lines of "we'll stay there until we win, whether it takes 10 years or a hundred." People just keep saying "He wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years!"

What if it takes the full 100 years to achieve a complete and true win in Iraq?

[Charla]

I have a feeling he'd settle for most of a win and just call it a complete victory in a speech. And it could still be taken as a figure of speech or as a justified hyperbole.

[evilbau]

Setting aside the iraq thing for a second, the new hillary campaign is starting to come out and shes finally playing to some of her strengths, showing her intelligence (i don't think many can deny how smart she is), the depth of knowledge of all the issues. If the message carries, it could be a second wind.

"I've never seen a candidate so wealthy in information," Martha Hanon, a retired teacher, gushed to Clinton during a discussion Friday of economic issues in a packed chili restaurant here.

Clinton did show off her grasp of details, easily reciting facts and figures on subjects from foreclosure to foster care. The occasion was a round-table session designed to feature Clinton's proposal to address credit card abuses, but the discussion strayed to a variety of economic issues.

[Blarg]

Isn't it 60 days to -start- withdrawing, not to be completely withdrawn?

[Xavier]

And what better incentive to get ready than the certainty that we're planning on pulling out?

McCain's actual quote was along the lines of "we'll stay there until we win, whether it takes 10 years or a hundred." People just keep saying "He wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years!"

What if it takes the full 100 years to achieve a complete and true win in Iraq?

McCain will be dead in 10-15, who cares!

[evilbau]

I don't think they will pull out as fast as they are implying on the campaign trail, and thats a good thing. People don't want to hear the reality, and it will make you a far weaker candidate if you did (unless you are a republican, which coincides with McCain's remarks). Once you are the president, then you can think about realistic solutions to pull out of Iraq. Don't look for real plans in their stump speeches right now, I think more people should realize this.

[evilbau]

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archiv ... 66102.aspx

Chris Matthews on why not to count clinton out. good points. He didn't mention bill's sax jam on arsenio after bungling the dukakis nomination intro. Everyone thought he was dead nationally then also...

MATTHEWS: THE CLINTONS ALWAYS PERFORM WELL UNDER PRESSURE

[evilbau]

Necrobump for 'Junior Super Tuesday'

McCain Wins Ohio and Vermont, and he also has the pledges of about 100 of Romney's delegates. After Texas, he will probably be officially the presumptive Republican nominee (finally).

Obama wins Vermont, Ohio polls remain open because they ran out of ballots (lol), it looks like his delegate lead is insurmountable. If Hillary doesn't drop out of the race, it is increasingly looking like it will go all the way to the convention, and it seems the only way she will get the nomination is if she does what I originally predicted on Feb 5th, lobby superdelegates to clinch the nomination.

I'm gonna be following this for most of tonight