Links: Texas Primaries Edition
So rather than make this all political with my opinions and such, I thought I would just throw out some good links on the upcoming Democratic primaries in Texas. As big a state as this is, it tends to stay under the national radar when it’s not having its vast ranch lands cleared by a vacationing George Bush. Yet when something does happen, the inevitable deluge of articles begins trying to reason out just how this state manages to exist when everything is so…big.
New York Times
The New York Times is first up with its article titled Pieces of Texas Turn Primary Into a Puzzle - an article that’s amusing enough simply for betraying Northerners’ utter confusion about the Lone Star State. The rest of the world seems to be coming to terms with what locals have known for quite some time: Texas is weird. Quote:
In a 1968 essay, Larry McMurtry wrote that Texas was divided but “not yet fragmented to a degree that would raise difficulties for the novelist.” Forty years later, you could sympathize with the writer, but you should feel really sorry for the presidential candidate, trying to make sense of a state as large as New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina combined, and probably even more diverse.
Electoral-Vote.com
Next up is a great article from everyone’s favorite computer-scientist-turned-pundit election website, Electoral-Vote.com. In the news posting from today, Mr. Tanenbaum makes a few good points on the Texas primary system and how absolutely confusing it really is. He starts by writing that because of the way Texas divides its delegates for the voting portion of its election, it’s unlikely either candidate will pick up a substantial lead. He thinks we will see at most a 15 delegate spread.
Beyond his concerns about the delegate spread, he also thinks that very few people will actually attend the caucus portion of the election. I think his point about the caucuses is the most interesting, in large part because so few Texans understand their own primary system. This may have much to do with the fact that Texas has voted mostly Republican for so long that people have simply forgotten about how the Democratic primaries work. Most likely, however, only the die-hard voters will attend the caucuses on the evening of the 4th. For those who do attend, 90% of them will be attending for the first and almost certainly the last time for quite a few elections to come.
Houston Chronicle
Last up is an article from the Houston Chronicle titled In Democratic primary, expect a GOP turnout that confirms what a lot of people from around here already know but what for some reason seems to be a complete surprise to people elsewhere: Republicans really hate Hillary Clinton. What’s more, a good chunk of them may be voting for Obama in the Democratic primary simply because they absolutely don’t want Hillary to even possibly think about winning the election. How many Republicans? As many as 15 percent of them! That’s an awful lot of Republican voters, and a good chunk of them will vote for McCain in November.
I’d like to attend a caucus . . . if only I could figure out where they’re located.
Also, I owe you a phone call. I was out this wknd papering the town w/ Hillary for President signs and dodging bullets, in response. (Not really, but that Chronicle article makes me wish I had . . . )
Locate your voting precinct (where you’re supposed to vote on March 4) and be there at 7:00 PM. This handy website, courtesy of Obama’s ground organization, should help you out.
I feel tainted gathering info from this site.
And I attended this Baker Institute healthcare lecture this evening that seriously would’ve convinced anyone in the audience to run out right afterwards and vote for McCain.
Care to summarize?
There were two speakers: one who runs a health policy think tank and a traditional academic economist.
Speaker 1 was obviously the more compassionate/politically realistic (not to mention about a 10x better speaker). She showed the potential savings offered by a proposal somewhat similar to the sorts of ideas that the Dems are proposing. Universal coverage, coupled w/ improvements in the medical system. Unfortunately, however, even w/ all the maximal cost savings employed by IT improvements, etc., the 10-yr-costs curve was still exponential, and it was kind of hard to overlook that fact, even as you felt warm and fuzzy about insured kindergarteners.
Speaker 2 was the traditional economist, looking at people as merely economic datapoints. But nonetheless, he had a valid point, particularly by being the second speaker of the evening, after SCARY EXPONENTIAL GRAPH. We should be worrying a lot less about universal coverage right now and a lot more about cold, soulless medical cost-cutting measures, which, of course, is all McCain, all the way.
Interesting. So the upshot is that the Democratic healthcare plan is essentially going to cost a lot?
What were some of the points from the second guy?
There’s an argument (popular with the auto manufacturers) that says that by allowing companies to outsource their healthcare problems to the government, they can grow faster and be more internationally competitive. Did that come up at all?
Okay, this may be a really silly question, but: why do some people hate the Clintons so much? I wasn’t paying attention to politics back in the day, so I seemed to miss the part where Bill screwed over our country. Aside from the Monica scandal, what did he do? I seem to remember the economy being on the rise and the rest of the world liking us (and some folks *really* liking us)…what was the downside?
Depends on who you ask. I’m sure some people just dislike Bill Clinton’s politics and identify the two of them together. That and her failed health care plan was a disaster for her and her relationship with conservatives.
Beyond that, however, there was always a deep distaste for the perceived sleaze and corruption of the Clinton years. With everything from foreign donations from China to the Democratic party to Hillary’s magical prediction powers over the futures market to all the Clinton insiders who went to jail (including a few Bill Clinton pardoned on the way out of office), there’s a deep distrust of the Clinton’s and their network among conservatives.
My belief is that talk about the Clinton “machine” exacerbates this perception and reminds voters about all of those issues they would rather forget. Whether she’s raising money with elaborate dinners or consulting with expensive political strategists that have been “loyal to the Clintons,” it just bugs people. At least it bugs me.
Aw, now I’ve gone all political.
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/files/documents/Camp08HC_KDavis.pdf
Realized I never responded . . . here’s a link to Slide Pack #1. See slide 11, in particular.
[...] true, the most Republican districts favored Hillary Clinton. However, as I pointed out in my earlier post, many Republicans were voting against her as well, leading me to believe the Limbaugh effect [...]