<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Taken For Ranted&#187; Taken For Ranted Categories</title>
	<atom:link href="http://takenforranted.com/category/politics/elections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://takenforranted.com</link>
	<description>Proud member of the vast liberal conspiracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:20:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Clinton is NOT ahead in popular vote</title>
		<link>http://takenforranted.com/clintonpopular-vote-113/</link>
		<comments>http://takenforranted.com/clintonpopular-vote-113/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 20:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TheRanter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://takenforranted.com/?p=113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please, let&#8217;s all tell Hillary Clinton to shut up with her false claims to be ahead in the popular vote (forgetting for the moment when she was ahead in delegates, she consistently said that the popular vote didn&#8217;t matter). If you believe her rhetoric, please do yourself a favor and read Jonathon Alter on The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please, let&#8217;s all tell Hillary Clinton to shut up with her false claims to be ahead in the popular vote (forgetting for the moment when she was ahead in delegates, she consistently said that the popular vote didn&#8217;t matter). If you believe her rhetoric, please do yourself a favor and read Jonathon Alter on <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138109?rf=nwnewsletter">The Problem With Clinton’s Popular Vote Math</a>.  In brief and in rough, it goes like this.</p>
<p>Obama is 450K votes ahead not counting caucus states, 560K ahead if you count them. He is 63K behind if you count FL and MI where he was not on the ballot of course. If you count the uncommitted votes from Michigan, though, that brings him up by almost another quarter million voters. Leaving those votes aside, if the expected settlement happens &#8211; FL and MI get 50% of their votes/delegates counted &#8211; O is still ahead 325K in pop vote.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Clinton is keying her people up to say the nomination was &#8220;taken away&#8221;. For reasons I&#8217;ve discussed ad nauseum, I won&#8217;t support Clinton because of past votes, but for a while in the middle of the campaign, I was starting to warm to her. Recent events such as claiming a popular vote lead and positioning herself as the candidate of white workers who think the black dude is a Muslim are just so crass it suddenly makes me understand the Clinton haters of the 1990s (when I was partly out of the country and never really got it). In short, they will do anything for power, no matter how damaging to the causes they believe in.</p>
<p>Before these last weeks I had nothing particular against Hillary Clinton except my commitment to not vote for any senator who voted in favor of giving Bush unlimited war power. Now I actually fear seeing her in the White House.</p>
<img src="http://takenforranted.com/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=113&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://takenforranted.com/clintonpopular-vote-113/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Tax Break for Bill Gates</title>
		<link>http://takenforranted.com/gas-tax-110/</link>
		<comments>http://takenforranted.com/gas-tax-110/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 01:23:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TheRanter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://takenforranted.com/?p=110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four Nobel-winning economists and over 280 other economists just posted a letter arguing that the best studies suggest that the gas-tax holiday is a bad idea that will lead to windfall profits for the oil companies, will encourage consumption and provide little relief to consumers. One thing I didn&#8217;t hear on the news report or [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Four Nobel-winning economists and over 280 other economists <a href="http://gastax08.blogspot.com/">just posted a letter</a> arguing that the best studies suggest that the gas-tax holiday is a bad idea that will lead to windfall profits for the oil companies, will encourage consumption and provide little relief to consumers. One thing I didn&#8217;t hear on the news report or on their site, that I also object too, is that it provides a tax break to everyone, whether they need it or not. Bill Gates gets the same break as Joe Schmoe. Why should Bill get a break on gas? Makes no sense.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton just denounced the Nobel-winning economists&#8217; advice as elitist talk and said she won&#8217;t be throwing her lot in with economists. Bill Clinton was criticized as a closet Republican because he hired the best economists he could find and tended to follow their advice whether it fit his ideology or not. Some people say he went too far, but one can make a good argument that part of the reason that the economy was so strong under Bill was because, less than most presidents, he didn&#8217;t play politics with the economy. Apparently, Hillary would rather adopt ill-advised policies that will do little or no good for working people rather than taking the tough road and doing what makes sense.</p>
<p>By the way, if you have a car that gets 20mpg and commute 40 miles per day, <strong>the gas tax holiday will save you 36 cents per day</strong>. Most people could save that much by using cruise control and checking tire inflation. For the people who can&#8217;t afford gas, this won&#8217;t fix it. If you really want to help working class people, give them a transportation subsidy, which can be used for gas or mass transit, and phases out as income rises, so that people who make more than a certain amount don&#8217;t get the subsidy. That way, unlike Hillary and John, my plan does not give a tax break to Bill Gates. Nothing personal Bill, I just don&#8217;t think you or Steve Jobs (or The Ranter for that matter) need the $0.18 per gallon tax break (assuming the oil companies don&#8217;t just skim that profit).</p>
<img src="http://takenforranted.com/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=110&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://takenforranted.com/gas-tax-110/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Voted for Barak in South Carolina?</title>
		<link>http://takenforranted.com/sc-results-106/</link>
		<comments>http://takenforranted.com/sc-results-106/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TheRanter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://takenforranted.com/sc-results/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I recently said that race wouldn&#8217;t hurt Obama, unless it was the racism of the North. Then I got a shock in South Carolina. Despite Obama&#8217;s landslide victory, he came in third among whites. THIRD! I should say that I meant that race wouldn&#8217;t hurt him in a general election when up against a Republican, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently said that race wouldn&#8217;t hurt Obama, unless it was the racism of the North. Then I got a shock in South Carolina. Despite Obama&#8217;s landslide victory, he came in third among whites. THIRD! I should say that I meant that race wouldn&#8217;t hurt him in a general election when up against a Republican, because any Democrat is likely to lose the South (unless Obama gets 80% of the black vote as he did in the SC primary; Clinton has no such advantage).</p>
<p>So then I looked at the real breakdown of the SC results and found them not as discouraging as one might think.</p>
<ul>
<li>Clinton beat Obama by <strong>one percent</strong> among white males. Edwards trounced them both among white males (45%) but even that is not that discouraging. Obama got 80% of black males. So we&#8217;ve progressed to the point that white males are more willing to vote against their race and gender. Clinton won among white females by an even smaller margin (42% to 36% for Edwards and 22% for Obama).</li>
<li><strong>Things are getting better</strong>. Only 15% of non-black voters 60 and over voted for Obama. 52% of non-black voters 29 and under voted Obama.  That suggests that race is becoming a less significant lense through which to see the world. Maybe we&#8217;ll see the Confederate flag disappear from South Carolina some day (why are Confederate flags allowed on government property in America, but the Nazi flag is not allowed anywhere in Germany?)</li>
<li>Obama won among poor people, which is no doubt a result of the fact that blacks tend to be poor, but it suggests that the Edwards agenda of looking out for the poor will have to be on Obama&#8217;s agenda too. Edwards did best among those earning over $200,000/year, which suggests that his war on poverty message fell on deaf ears.</li>
<li>49% of Democratic voters who identify themselves as conservative voted for Obama. That bodes well for the general election.</li>
<li>Obama polled 64% of those who go to church more than once a week. That is likely partly because of black religiousity (always undercounted when talking about the &#8220;religious&#8221; vote), but still bodes well for going up against a Republican in November.</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: <a href="http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/exitPoll.shtml?state=SC&#038;race=P&#038;jurisdiction=0&#038;party=D">CBS Exit Polls</a></p>
<img src="http://takenforranted.com/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=106&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://takenforranted.com/sc-results-106/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Six Reasons I Will Not Vote for Clinton</title>
		<link>http://takenforranted.com/six-reasons-clinton-101/</link>
		<comments>http://takenforranted.com/six-reasons-clinton-101/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TheRanter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://takenforranted.com/2008/01/09/six-reasons-clinton/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
 Yes vote on Public law 107-40 authorizing the use of military force anywhere and against anyone closely or remotely associated with the September 11 terrorists. The text says that this law does not supercede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution, limiting the president&#8217;s ability to use military force, but it effectively gave a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ol>
<li> Yes vote on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists">Public law 107-40 authorizing the use of military force</a> anywhere and against anyone closely or remotely associated with the September 11 terrorists. The text says that this law does not supercede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution, limiting the president&#8217;s ability to use military force, but it effectively gave a blank check to the president, allowing him to attack anywhere he pleased. This is an unforgiveable breach of the public trust in the legislative branch to maintain a system of checks and balances and no less so because not a single senator had the backbone to stand up and say that the resolution was too broad and too vague.</li>
<p><span id="more-101"></span></p>
<li> Yes vote on the use of force in Iraq.  In her <a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html">speech on the senate floor</a>, Senator Clinton noted that attacking Iraq was fraught with danger and set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. She said that international support was crucial. And yet, she voted to give Bush the power to attack Saddam without international support, without an exit plan. Yes, <a href="http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/cops-of-the-world.html">we are the cops of the world</a>, like Phil Ochs said, and like it or not you have to be free. We have been violently &#8220;spreading democracy&#8221; for decades now, and which of these actions has succeeded? Putting the shah in power in Iran?  Yup, they&#8217;re democratic allies of the US now, right? Assassinating the leader of South Viet Nam and waging war against the communists in North Viet Nam? Yup, they&#8217;re an enlightened democracy and good friends of ours (actually, they are friendly to us, but that&#8217;s despite our actions). Effectively waging war against Cuba first with the Bay of Pigs and then economically?  Yup, we&#8217;re friends with them and they have a free and open democracy. Putting our buddy Pinochet in  power in Chile?  That certainly spread democracy in South America and stabilized the region. Think of one war or coup d&#8217;état that the US initiated that made us safer and made the world more stable and democratic. It has never worked anywhere to my knowledge. The cases where our use of military force ultimately led to freer and more democratic societies would basically be limited to joining the fray in the Great War and World War II.</li>
<li> Recent bellicose statements saying that she would consider using <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154256">military force against Iran</a>. I remember many years ago a leftist commentator (Alexander Cockburn) said that if you listen to any Democrat long enough he (or she) will promise to invade somewhere.  Since I heard that about 15 years ago, it has basically held true.  Prior to WWII, the Republicans at least had the virtue of being isolationist. Now that the Republicans are imperialists and the Democrats are too except in the liberal wing (and sometimes even there), the only check on the US use of military power seems to be lack of funds. I will only vote for someone with a slight sense of history who understands that Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is NOT the only episode in history from which one can draw lessons.    </li>
<li> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154256">Clinton&#8217;s utter inability to give a straight up, non-political, non-nuanced answer to any question</a>, but especially her bullshit refrain about how Bush misled the nation and she would not have voted yes for the use of force if she knew then what she knows now.  Well DUH!  Bush probably wouldn&#8217;t vote for the use of force in Iraq if he knew then what he knows now either.  This answer is so aggravating that I could scream. Ms. Clinton is a US senator from the opposition party. It is her responsibility to make sure that the administration has vetted their intelligence and demand that they have their plans carefully considered. I didn&#8217;t believe Bush had sufficient proof or an adequate war plan.  If I had been in the Senate I would have used my power to make Bush present his intelligence more fully prior to writing him a blank check to drive our nation into the ground. Hillary is packaged and prepared like a Big Mac.  She has had so much practice being in the public limelight and biting her tongue that I just don&#8217;t believe she even has the capacity to say what&#8217;s on her mind anymore. Granted, that&#8217;s an improvement over Mister Bring-it-on, but I would like a straight answer from time to time that nevertheless has a bit of thought behind it.</li>
<li> Then of course, there&#8217;s the wolf in wolf&#8217;s clothing argument.  We are talking, after all, about a <a href="http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=1195">former Wal-Mart lawyer</a>. Even as her husband centered his campaign around criticizing Arkansas Power, she was the lawyer representing them, which is fine except for the fact that she carefully avoided all of this on her official First Lady biography.    </li>
<li> Did she do anything about <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2132979/?nav=ais">her husband&#8217;s use of Guantanamo for illegal detention</a> of Haitian refugees?  I don&#8217;t think so. Suddenly Bush does it and it&#8217;s terrible.</li>
</ol>
<img src="http://takenforranted.com/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=101&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://takenforranted.com/six-reasons-clinton-101/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
