Obama won Texas if super-delegates counted
The New Zealand MSM is still reporting that Clinton won Texas in the Democratic primaries, even though NPR has been doing some tallying and found, with the super-delegates, that Obama probably took the state:
The Texas Democratic Party says Obama’s wider caucus margin will probably give him a 37–30 break in the delegates allocated from the caucuses. The primary had almost twice that many delegates at stake, but Clinton’s primary margin there was much narrower. So when the two steps are all done, the projection is for Obama to emerge with 98 delegates to Clinton’s 95.
Guess some journalists don’t like going back on premature, possibly erroneous reports. Aw, come on, we’ll love you no less (or we’ll hate you no more) if you ate some humble pie, people!
Some American media outlets are publishing corrections, such as this clarification in a northwestern Arkansas paper:
With about half the caucuses counted, Obama appeared to have picked up seven delegates, erasing his four-delegate deficit from the primary. That moved him ahead of Hillary in Texas by three delegates. If the trend generally holds for the other half of the caucuses, he’ll move up three more delegates, putting him up on her in Texas by six.
As clear as mud, but from what I read, it sure looks like Sen. Clinton did not win Texas.
Looks like the media never learned from calling the 2000 presidential election prematurely—or, they are so intent on a Hillary Clinton win. Maybe they are scared of Arkancide, too?
Comments
I'm old enough to know that politics cannot make anything fair or function more efficiently. Bureaucratic management drives up costs taking away resources away from the actual services and the money is taken either in taxes or an extra cost of insurance premium. I do not think that any tangible property or service which is provided by another at their expense is a "right" that another person can rightfully claim. That would make the first party a slave of the second who is receiving it without just compensation to the first party. There is no free lunch.
I am in Britain, I am said tax paying first party. We pay high taxes, but then anyone in the country who has an accident or illness knows that there is healthcare available to them. I don't like that the taxes are so high, but I'd rather that than live in a country without the health and social support system we have. It's not their right to have some of my money, you're correct, but I find it basic human decency to see that the worst off in society are looked after. It's social responsibility. Why should someone starve while the rest of us feast, etc? People don't choose to be born into cyclical poverty, through health and education systems we can give these people some chance of working there way out of it, which only benefits society as a whole, and from a capitalist point of view - the economy as a whole.
Pete:
Look up what a Ponzi scam is because this what the US Government is perpetrating on the American people. Every program: Social Security, Medicare, and a nationalized health care system if it comes to this is what I am facing and what my children will have to shoulder in taxes for their entire life. Our government has no responsibility for its promises or future consequences. The demographics in my country are such that as the population ages there are not enough working age people to replace my generation and shoulder the tax burden to pay benefits for people born between 1945 and 1965. This is a downward spiral, which there is no viable solution other then either a completely private and voluntary system or a public one where fewer taxpayers will have to pay for ever escalating costs.
Take your top rate tax band - 35% why not increase that to 36.5%? That is paid only on income over $350,000, that would mean an increased revenue of $9,750 from every person earning one million. For every million earned over that initial million it would be an increased revenue of $15,000. So while a small proportion of the population earns these figures, the total sum raised would be a very good start into providing basic level health care for those who can't afford it. The extra 1.5% would be peanuts to someone earning those sums yet has the potential to help hugely.
The more people that can be freed from the poverty trap the more people contribute to the economy. Think about it, the more people earn enough to live the more money they're putting back into the economy, the more jobs become available. The whole economy grows as a result. There can be conditions attached - as in Wisconsin, for example - to ensure that the system can't be taken advantage of by free loaders.
It's not perfect that some people have to pay more, but it seems to me that in the modern world it's the only economic system that can cope with our social issues without causing extremes of poverty. It's a long term game plan - look at FDR's new deal - the idea is to stimulate the economy to become more fruitful for all.
Because there are unintended consequences of every policy, people don't live static lives. They have goals and dreams they need to be motivated such that they won't fear that some politician will escalate the tax rates and take away what they have worked so hard to achieve. Capital flight is the greatest enemy of every society that sacrifices the individual for the benefit of the state. Sure it's in the name of the poor but in reality it goes to the state, its bureaucracy and leaders who build monuments to their glory.
However, what you say about bureaucracy is true - were we talking British Politics I'm actually in favour of tax cuts (I'm a conservative) but that is because I know the British system so see how much is wasted and could be saved. I don't know the USA system so can't suggest cutting waste to provide money for healthcare as y'all could be very efficient for all I know!
What you say about leaders is true too - I believe in the old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm a paradox in that some days the knowledge that this prevents real change makes me think we should give up trying, because politicians will always be that way, but then other days I think that it's better to try and fail than to give up.
This is a slippery slope, who defines the “rich”? 1% today may become and additional 15% later. Why would the government do a better job distributing goods and services then people independently living their life? The economy isn’t a fixed pie, a zero sum game, it is dynamic a result of human action. Public policy should not create a closed system where only the politically astute can become successful. I started out with little resources of my own and what I have or will achieve is due to my skills and risk taking. There must be economic freedom to allow people to rise to the level of their talent and effort.
Neither do I suggest the government would do a better job distributing goods and services, that's communism and it doesn't work. However as independent people have proved quite adept at making themselves rich and tacitly ignoring the fact that others have nothing, struggle to have money for food, live with treatable illnesses because they can't afford the most basic healthcare, the Government stepping in to ensure they're provided for seems to me the only way.
The problem with the Capitalist system is that just because it's far better than communism people seem to have decided it's perfect, companies and people set out to maximised their own profits and to hell with the rest. There is also a case to be made that society owes it to the very poor because often they ended up in that trap because they were underpaid by people making a whole lot of money from their work.
Doesn't your humanity suggest something should be done to help them? Or should the poor be left to their basic existence without hope of improvement or help?