James Ostrowski has surprised me this political season by predicting almost every single thing that has happened to a ‘T’. When he said McCain would be the nominee in late December, I told him he was a fool. I take back my accusation publicly now that McCain has secured it. He has been favorable to Obama this season but he really thinks Clinton has the better chance now:
Note to liberals: She has more experience; he’s slightly to the left, but not much difference on policy really. A tossup.
She has a better chance against McCain though many are in denial on this including right-wing Hillary haters and left-wing Obama lovers.
The race is a statistical dead heat and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t studied the numbers carefully.
Obama is ahead in delegates because the delegate selection rules are arbitrary and stupid. E.g., O got more delegates in at least two states where H got more votes!
The nomination will be decided by the super delegates and there is no compelling legal, logical, political or moral reason why they should vote for Obama.
From their own perspective, they should vote for Hillary because she has the better chance in November.
Note to libertarians who favor Obama. Personally, I see little difference on foreign policy and expect none in practice. In any event, Obama is slightly worse in domestic policy. Since I believe in a holistic analysis of policy–all sectors of policy tend to reinforce statism, it’s a wash. (That is, presidents tend to logroll away their libertarian tendencies to get more statism where they want it.)
Hillary is less likely to serve two terms since she lacks O’s Pied Piper-like hypnotic ability and Teflon suit.
Filed under: Politics
One is a hawk and one is a dove. It is sad to me how this is not readily apparent to people or seemingly an issue. Probably cause the media is pro war.
But then again, in New Hampshire people for the war voted for McCain above Ron Paul which I don’t understand either.
I find his argument to be flimsy at best. First, he claims Hillary has a better chance, but then he continues by saying that the race is a “statistical dead heat.” Then he says that Obama is only ahead in delegates because of a technicality – continuing his point that the race is basically a tie – and points out that the super delegates will decide the race. He basically says that there is no compelling reason to vote for Obama over Hillary, ergo, the super delegates should vote for Hillary.
Did this man learn to argue from intelligent design advocates, or what?
None of your “phrases” make a bit of sense Ryan. Who and what are you? I do not take apart any flawed arguments where no part makes any sense. Been there, done that. Surprisingly though, I perhaps am making much ado about nothing as i am convinced that it matters little who is presdient, in the sense that “not having a president” (my choice) is an impossibility. Let us live with the garbage we choose as we have for well over a hundred years. Perhaps these choices will mold us into something useful in a million years or so.