Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Meanwhile, Stateside, Red State Obama derangement reaches right over...
he can look forward to a lot more of that.
One the Obama fans, if you check out MyDD (thee best non-tribal Dem site), at the top left of their homepage there's a map illustrating Obama vs McCain. Up til a few days ago Obama was trailing McCain significantly - he's now leading.
That polling info is as good as you get - it's a pretty sophisticasted decanting of opinion polls combined with voter trend analysis.
Clinton still does better but that shift to Obama is pretty significant.
-
"great meals for less than $7 per head"
like the sound of that, even more money for the wine.
-
Well I like Lone Star. The Newmarket one has been my after gym watering hole for a while - it's handy and has Steinlager on tape.
The food is what it is - once it dawns on you that "Lone Star Oven" is code for pre-deep fried and then deep fried when you order, it all makes sense. But I've found the steaks fine, the fish usually very good and the spare ribs what one wants from spare ribs.
It lacks finesse and it pays steer clear of anything that sounds a bit fancy but it's not bad value for money given that you generally don't have to buy sides.
The staff have been great - although often very young and a bit inexperienced but if they hang around they improve and the ones motivated to get into the industry get good support from the management.
I've been disappointed, and paid more money for the privilege, by a lot more sophisticated eateries. We just consider it all too expensive for what you get - outside of Asian food courts. In fact my partner and I don't eat out much since we've found it much more satisfying to cook at home and spend the money on good wine.
-
And of course, the "Tibetan brand" carries a lot of weight, thanks for the Dalai Lama...
It's interesting how some liberation movements have gotten a tremendous boost because a prominant figure is marketable - for want of a better term. The Dalai Lama, Mandela, Ghandi, even Castro when he didn't go in for 6 hour speeches.
I've always had a (from a distance of 1/2 a planet) soft spot for Arafat for that reason. He really did market the Palestinian cause. The face (albeit a Woody Allenish one) of the Palestinian struggle.
But some liberation movements like the Tamil Tigers and the FARC just come across as thugs - maybe because that's all they are or turned out to be.
-
What's to stop the Chinese student replying, 'Well, it seemed to work pretty well for your ancestors coming to New Zealand in the 19th century, didn't it?
There's an interesting exchange in Dissent between Michael Walzer and Daniel Bell about making these sorts of analogies.
-
Mao was a sociopath
and the agreement wasn't titled Agreement of the British Crown and the Local Tribes of NZ on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of New Zealand
That was a bit of a giveaway.
In the long run it could be more about how much of Tibet culture can be saved. Some sort of autonomy might emerge but will the language and other aspects of culture survive. China's is still trying to extinguish this in much the same we as what happend in NZ before we had a change of heart, or go forced, to depending on how you look at it.
-
That National Journal article looks like a fair description of the state of play at present.
Such a close race really does highlight the faults of the Dem selection process. Maybe they would be better off just having the supers make the decision. It's great so many people get to be involved, NC voters are now pleased that they get a meaningful say for the first time ever, but it's so time consuming for the candidates. It might be better to get it over with in a weekend and let every one get back to the business of running a country.
There's a big problem now the person most likely to get the nomination is the least likely to succeed on Nov. Not because of any faults on their part but because of how the demographics of the candidates' voter base have divided up.
MyDD has a good breakdown on that.
-
...but it would be a delicious irony if the woman who coined the phrase 'vast right wing conspiracy' ended up becoming it's new best bud.
and maybe that's what those dastardly Reps want you to think. (joke - but if they're gaming this then why stop at the first move?)
Anyway, here's the basis of the Dems dilema at the moment, aggregataing all recent polls gives the electoral college votes in presidential match ups as -
Obama 269 McCain 254 Ties 15
Clinton 289 McCain 239 Ties 10Tricky. Obama's present voting coalition isn't doing as well as hers. I suspect that they will have to bring these togther to win (I'm assuming he gets the nomination).
-
Do you really think that any Super Delegate should consider being swayed by the idea that 40%+ of democrats in Michigan voting against Clinton really means that Obama has 0.0% support there?
I agree Michigan is much less of an argument than Florida.
Here's another reality check...
Well it all gets a bit complicated. From what I've read the big defection concern is the blue collar vote which at present are voting Clinton but could, as they have in the past, switch to Republican. It's unlikey that liberal woman, another strong Hillary demographic, would vote McCain.
I'm going way out on a limb here but if Obama and Clinton can end this amicably (which will no doubt be with Obama as candidate) then the Hillary organisation may very well be able to keep the blue collar vote in the fold - which might not have happened had Clinton not been contesting so strongly - she's got their loyalty. That's pretty wild but no more wild than a lot of the claims about her destroying the Dems prospects.
-
So if you overturn the rules, ignore the delegate count, and count votes from two banned primaries where Obama didn't even campaign, the supers could declare Hillary the winner? That'll go down well ...
It's not a matter of overturning rules - the states invloved have the right to appeal their punishment. And the DNC already broke the rules by making the punishment the not seating of 100% of the delegates when the actual punishment was supposed to be 50%.
Neither Obama nor Clinton campaigned in these 2 states, but their supporters did - why do think so many people turned out to vote.
But that's not the argument - at this moment (unlikely to last past the next primary) it's Clinton who has got more Dems out to vote for her. That's not something any super can disregard.
That's what the supers are there for - to consider such issues as electability. I suspect that if they have to make the decision then on balance they'll decide for Obama but that doesn't mean there isn't a case for Clinton. I'm just presenting it and I'd prefer to stay away from the That'll go down well snarkery.
diddums
And my reply - WILL DISAPPOINTED DEMS VOTE FOR MCCAIN?