In the latest census done by Strategic Vision Political in Pennsylvania, Clinton is expected to lead the polls with 48 % and Obama close behind with 41%. But with 11% still undecided this close to voting day this primary election for the democratic nominee can go either way.
Where does the problem stem from? Why can’t voters make their final decision? After numerous discussions with people from all walks of Pennsylvania the same issue keeps coming up. Policy-wise each Democratic candidate appears to be a great choice, with few differences. So, now it comes down to picking candidates based on the personal characteristics rather than their plans for the country.
Today, in the United Press International an analyst sated, “Undecided voters tend to pick U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., which could help her win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania presidential primary.” However, after an interview this morning, April 21, with CBS’s The Early Show, I reevaluated what I said. I said that the candidates’ characteristics are playing the defining role in many voters selection. I know that I am only one of many voters who have just made up their mind less than a day away from the polls opening.
Although I have taken the time to inform myself on each candidate’s plans I am going with Obama because I simply trust him more. It goes much farther than his ability to give a good speech; but rather that once he makes a mistake he is willing to admit, apologize, and fix it. Also if Clinton is caught in the wrong, Obama doesn’t constantly harp on the situation. In several debates Clinton resurrected issues that have been laid to rest, to the point of slowing down the progression of the discussions. I can’t remember Obama ever bringing up Clinton lying about having to find cover in Bosnia from “sniper fire.” And when Clinton finally chose to apologize she didn’t portray someone that made a human mistake and was genuinely sorry. More accurately, I saw a candidate that got caught in a lie and would have kept the lie going if she didn’t get caught. This situation along with her conduct in various debates made my perception of her turn from respectful into her being unnecessarily hostile.
The biggest difference between them is in their ability to compromise. Ask yourself this question, if either candidate was in office and they realized a policy that they set in place might not go according to plan, which one would admit that they might not have the best policy and adjust it to better suit the circumstances? And who would be stubborn and try to push their policy knowing it might not work?
Clinton won hands down the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia. The wear and tear of the 15 months campaign showed clear as Obama. Clinton appearance was great and answered each question effortlessly; it looked as if it was her first day on the campaign. And for her sake I wish it was. I’m sorry, Senator Clinton it is a little too late. The damage is already done, you crack under pressure and you’ve got a hot head.
Raquel Wheby '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Showing posts with label super delegates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label super delegates. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Undecided in Pennsylvania Primary
In the latest census done by Strategic Vision Political in Pennsylvania, Clinton is expected to lead the polls with 48 % and Obama close behind with 41%. But with 11% still undecided this close to voting day this primary election for the democratic nominee can go either way.
Where does the problem stem from? Why can’t voters make their final decision? After numerous discussions with people from all walks of Pennsylvania the same issue keeps coming up. Policy-wise each Democratic candidate appears to be a great choice, with few differences. So, now it comes down to picking candidates based on the personal characteristics rather than their plans for the country.
Today, in the United Press International an analyst sated, “Undecided voters tend to pick U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., which could help her win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania presidential primary.” However, after an interview this morning, April 21, with CBS’s The Early Show, I reevaluated what I said. I said that the candidates’ characteristics are playing the defining role in many voters selection. I know that I am only one of many voters who have just made up their mind less than a day away from the polls opening.
Although I have taken the time to inform myself on each candidate’s plans I am going with Obama because I simply trust him more. It goes much farther than his ability to give a good speech; but rather that once he makes a mistake he is willing to admit, apologize, and fix it. Also if Clinton is caught in the wrong, Obama doesn’t constantly harp on the situation. In several debates Clinton resurrected issues that have been laid to rest, to the point of slowing down the progression of the discussions. I can’t remember Obama ever bringing up Clinton lying about having to find cover in Bosnia from “sniper fire.” And when Clinton finally chose to apologize she didn’t portray someone that made a human mistake and was genuinely sorry. More accurately, I saw a candidate that got caught in a lie and would have kept the lie going if she didn’t get caught. This situation along with her conduct in various debates made my perception of her turn from respectful into her being unnecessarily hostile.
The biggest difference between them is in their ability to compromise. Ask yourself this question, if either candidate was in office and they realized a policy that they set in place might not go according to plan, which one would admit that they might not have the best policy and adjust it to better suit the circumstances? And who would be stubborn and try to push their policy knowing it might not work?
Clinton won hands down the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia. The wear and tear of the 15 months campaign showed clear as Obama. Clinton appearance was great and answered each question effortlessly; it looked as if it was her first day on the campaign. And for her sake I wish it was. I’m sorry, Senator Clinton it is a little too late. The damage is already done, you crack under pressure and you’ve got a hot head.
Where does the problem stem from? Why can’t voters make their final decision? After numerous discussions with people from all walks of Pennsylvania the same issue keeps coming up. Policy-wise each Democratic candidate appears to be a great choice, with few differences. So, now it comes down to picking candidates based on the personal characteristics rather than their plans for the country.
Today, in the United Press International an analyst sated, “Undecided voters tend to pick U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., which could help her win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania presidential primary.” However, after an interview this morning, April 21, with CBS’s The Early Show, I reevaluated what I said. I said that the candidates’ characteristics are playing the defining role in many voters selection. I know that I am only one of many voters who have just made up their mind less than a day away from the polls opening.
Although I have taken the time to inform myself on each candidate’s plans I am going with Obama because I simply trust him more. It goes much farther than his ability to give a good speech; but rather that once he makes a mistake he is willing to admit, apologize, and fix it. Also if Clinton is caught in the wrong, Obama doesn’t constantly harp on the situation. In several debates Clinton resurrected issues that have been laid to rest, to the point of slowing down the progression of the discussions. I can’t remember Obama ever bringing up Clinton lying about having to find cover in Bosnia from “sniper fire.” And when Clinton finally chose to apologize she didn’t portray someone that made a human mistake and was genuinely sorry. More accurately, I saw a candidate that got caught in a lie and would have kept the lie going if she didn’t get caught. This situation along with her conduct in various debates made my perception of her turn from respectful into her being unnecessarily hostile.
The biggest difference between them is in their ability to compromise. Ask yourself this question, if either candidate was in office and they realized a policy that they set in place might not go according to plan, which one would admit that they might not have the best policy and adjust it to better suit the circumstances? And who would be stubborn and try to push their policy knowing it might not work?
Clinton won hands down the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia. The wear and tear of the 15 months campaign showed clear as Obama. Clinton appearance was great and answered each question effortlessly; it looked as if it was her first day on the campaign. And for her sake I wish it was. I’m sorry, Senator Clinton it is a little too late. The damage is already done, you crack under pressure and you’ve got a hot head.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Dump the Delegates: It’s Time for a Direct Democracy
There are many things in life that I’ll never understand. These are things such as the fluctuation of gas prices as an election is near, how our economy solves its problems by increasing the price of everything, and most importantly, why we have delegates in a presidential election.
Please don’t misunderstand me, for I know the theory behind why we do these things, but they really don’t make any sense for success in the long term.
A few days ago, I was sitting in my Controlling Spin class listening to my professor explain to me why we have delegates in the presidential race. As I listened, my mind began formulating thoughts on why we even vote during the primaries or the November election if our votes don’t directly elect nominees or candidates.
In the 2000 presidential election we had Al Gore win the popular vote, but our current President won the Electoral College. How does that make any sense? Well, I have a solution, and that solution involves getting rid of delegates’ altogether and having a direct democracy. Let the people vote for who they want to see as the next President of the United States without having gatekeepers.
It does not make sense that we have to elect a small number of select individuals to represent our state as a whole in the upcoming convention.
During the Democratic primaries the winner and loser get a proportion of the delegates no matter the outcome. And it’s worse on the Republican side. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, in most cases he or she gets all the delegates, regardless if one candidate got one less vote. How does that make sense? In a direct democracy it would be straight votes from the American people. If five million people vote for Barack Obama and five million plus two vote for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary wins the nomination. It’s that simple and the people have a voice. George Bush’s vote counts just the same as the creepy guy who stares at you while you eat dinner at a restaurant.
I read an article on the Internet that included how delegates play a role in the election besides voting for a candidate they endorse. The article, from the International Herald Tribune on February 10, stated that “In this supercharged atmosphere, the disputed delegate count is more than a statistical exercise - it can influence a candidate's ability to raise money, sway party leaders and get out the vote.” That seems highly unfair. People become manipulated by the numbers. They see that Hillary is in the lead and they hop on the bandwagon.
That’s not to mention super delegates, who consist of leaders of Congress and powerful political figures who may make or break one of the Democratic candidates this year. These super delegates confuse the situation even further. I’m told that these power figures will choose who they want to see win the nomination with no average Jane or Joe in mind. How does that make sense?
Let’s throw out the numbers, throw out the delegates, tell the super delegates to focus on the important issues inside the Beltway, and let the people live the American dream that we talk about by chooing the next leader from the ground up. Now that makes sense!
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Please don’t misunderstand me, for I know the theory behind why we do these things, but they really don’t make any sense for success in the long term.
A few days ago, I was sitting in my Controlling Spin class listening to my professor explain to me why we have delegates in the presidential race. As I listened, my mind began formulating thoughts on why we even vote during the primaries or the November election if our votes don’t directly elect nominees or candidates.
In the 2000 presidential election we had Al Gore win the popular vote, but our current President won the Electoral College. How does that make any sense? Well, I have a solution, and that solution involves getting rid of delegates’ altogether and having a direct democracy. Let the people vote for who they want to see as the next President of the United States without having gatekeepers.
It does not make sense that we have to elect a small number of select individuals to represent our state as a whole in the upcoming convention.
During the Democratic primaries the winner and loser get a proportion of the delegates no matter the outcome. And it’s worse on the Republican side. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, in most cases he or she gets all the delegates, regardless if one candidate got one less vote. How does that make sense? In a direct democracy it would be straight votes from the American people. If five million people vote for Barack Obama and five million plus two vote for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary wins the nomination. It’s that simple and the people have a voice. George Bush’s vote counts just the same as the creepy guy who stares at you while you eat dinner at a restaurant.
I read an article on the Internet that included how delegates play a role in the election besides voting for a candidate they endorse. The article, from the International Herald Tribune on February 10, stated that “In this supercharged atmosphere, the disputed delegate count is more than a statistical exercise - it can influence a candidate's ability to raise money, sway party leaders and get out the vote.” That seems highly unfair. People become manipulated by the numbers. They see that Hillary is in the lead and they hop on the bandwagon.
That’s not to mention super delegates, who consist of leaders of Congress and powerful political figures who may make or break one of the Democratic candidates this year. These super delegates confuse the situation even further. I’m told that these power figures will choose who they want to see win the nomination with no average Jane or Joe in mind. How does that make sense?
Let’s throw out the numbers, throw out the delegates, tell the super delegates to focus on the important issues inside the Beltway, and let the people live the American dream that we talk about by chooing the next leader from the ground up. Now that makes sense!
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)