# Obama willing to go "more than half-way" on Florida and Michigan



## Jon (May 21, 2008)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/21/obama-willing-to-‘go-more-than-halfway’-on-fl-mi/

This is really disgusting.

He is offering her half-way, knowing good and damn well that ALL the votes should count. And he knows she is not going to take a compromise. He will then turn it on HER and make it seem as if she is the one holding the voters in those states back.

He really disgusts me. CHANGE we can believe in? This is the same old dirty politics I've always known.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

What's more than halfway? 3/5? So Florida voters count as 3/5ths citizens?

So ironic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> What's more than halfway? 3/5? So Florida voters count as 3/5ths citizens?
> 
> So ironic.



You must be aware that the last time 3/5ths was used was Slaves ( good play there Ravir)


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

If they do not come to a fair agreement and it goes to the DNC rules committee on May31st, then the selection of the nominee could go all the way to the convention in August, is what I heard last night.

This May 31 committee, has procedures and a timeline schedule to follow, in order to resolve these rules issues writen in to the bilaws that would bring this nomination to the convention.

Hillary has this in her favor to bargain with.

There is no way in my opinion that Obama wants it to go all the way to the convention....

Politically, the favorable decision for him to do is to count all of Florida and Michigan imo...maybe splitting the michigan votes between him and hillary as a compromise, so he can appear to care about the disenfranchised voters....

And then, let the Primary contest go from there....more than likely Obama would still be leading, and will still win the delegate count to win the nomination.

Care


----------



## MsWikia (May 22, 2008)

Well I guess it's ok for states to do as they please when it comes to primaries; FL has been having issues for a minute now. Plus Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, but I guess that doesn't matter either.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

MsWikia said:


> Well I guess it's ok for states to do as they please when it comes to primaries; FL has been having issues for a minute now. Plus Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, but I guess that doesn't matter either.




Obama withdrew himself from the Michigan ballot, thinking it would help him politically, because he was going to lose it I would suppose?  This is a political contest, thus my thinking it was a political decision....

He did keep his name on the florida ballot by choice.

Who knows why he made these political decisions and what he was thinking when he and his team of advisors made them.

It is NOT Hillary's or the people of Michigan's fault that Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, and leave it on the ballot in Florida is it?

Very early on, when there was time for a recount, Hillary offered up such, but Obama balked at splitting the costs of it....his team advised him NOT TO give these states a recount i suppose?  

I am not certain it is as clear cut as you seem to think it is...Wikia.

And for Michigan, maybe obama should be given 1/2 or 1/3 of the delegates, but this would be guessing and taking away from the people of Michigan that did vote for Hillary...perhaps?  

I think the two teams will work it out before the May 31st cut off, Obama will not want to continue this contest and bring it to the convention imo.



Care


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Obama withdrew himself from the Michigan ballot, thinking it would help him politically, because he was going to lose it I would suppose?  This is a political contest, thus my thinking it was a political decision....
> 
> He did keep his name on the florida ballot by choice.
> 
> ...



So if I rebut this crap again, will you actually respons as opposed to just saying the same shit on other threads?

The bullet points:

Obama withdrew from MI as a sign of good faith (so did Edwards).

He legally COULD NOT withdraw from FL.  

You are advocating a continuance of the crap primary system we have.  

You don't change the rules AFTER the vote has been held.   Thats just dishonest.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> So if I rebut this crap again, will you actually respons as opposed to just saying the same shit on other threads?
> 
> The bullet points:
> 
> ...



You don't seem to understand Larkin, IT IS IN THE RULES.

When there is a situation like this, if it had not been settled by the candidates and the DNC by the May 31st date, the rules committee meets and starts the process IN THE RULES to settle these disputes to determine the fate of unseated delegates....which is on a specific schedule that leads to the convention.  THESE ARE THE RULES, they are not outside of the rules Larkin....which will just drag this thing on.....giving the candidates a reason to come to a compromise before that process starts.

As far as in "good faith" crud for him withdrawing from michigan, *malarky*!!!

*It was done because it was in his best political interest*, for the people of the USA NOT see obama lose to the front runner, Hillary at the time.... and to think otherwise is politically naive imo.  I am not trying to "have one up " on ya Larkin, but this is just simple logic.

How did Edwards and Biden and Richardson and Kucinich and all of the other candidates manage to take their names off the ballot in Florida, they were still legally in the contest at that time... Larkin....since it was illegal, the others should be charged with a crime for doing such....?

His decision WAS A POLITICAL decision Larkin....a bad political decision.  It has also been a political decision of his, to Balk and Postpone Hillary getting the delegates due to her through a compromise until this point....it has been to his political advantage to not have the media reporting the total delegates of Hillary's with Florida in it, that's for certain....sooooooooo, he played politics, as expected, in a political race, i would suppose...?

But it is down to the wire now and he needs to make a decision to compromise.

the leaders of the DNC need to be fired over this fiasco.

The people of Florida and Michigan FOLLOWED THEIR LEGAL RULES and voted the day their state delegated according to LAW....they should have never been disenfranchised of their votes, the DNC should have compromised upfront and settled the dispute when it happened last march-may of 07...they FAILED at their jobs of ensuring their members, ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS, get a chance to vote.



care


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> You don't seem to understand Larkin, IT IS IN THE RULES.
> 
> When there is a situation like this, if it had not been settled by the candidates and the DNC by the May 31st date, the rules committee meets and starts the process IN THE RULES to settle these disputes to determine the fate of unseated delegates....which is on a specific schedule that leads to the convention.  THESE ARE THE RULES, they are not outside of the rules Larkin....which will just drag this thing on.....giving the candidates a reason to come to a compromise before that process starts.



I'm aware of that.  Its also the rules that these delegates should NOT be seated.   They might change those rules, which is unfair and stupid.  



> As far as in "good faith" crud for him withdrawing from michigan, *malarky*!!!
> 
> *It was done because it was in his best political interest*, for the people of the USA NOT see obama lose to the front runner, Hillary at the time.... and to think otherwise is politically naive imo.  I am not trying to "have one up " on ya Larkin, but this is just simple logic.



Obama isn't an idiot.   The media counted hillary v. no candidate votes and assigned those to Obama.   He surely knew that was going to happen, so how exactly did this help him politically again?  



> How did Edwards and Biden and Richardson and Kucinich and all of the other candidates manage to take their names off the ballot in Florida, they were still legally in the contest at that time... Larkin....since it was illegal, the others should be charged with a crime for doing such....?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008

Candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson dropped out of the presidential race before the Florida primary. *However, they remained on the ballot.*



> His decision WAS A POLITICAL decision Larkin....a bad political decision.  It has also been a political decision of his, to Balk and Postpone Hillary getting the delegates due to her through a compromise until this point.



You are aware that it was HILLARY who said no to Michigans solution, right?  

By the way, tell me your version of a fair compromise.  



> ...it has been to his political advantage to not have the media reporting the total delegates of Hillary's with Florida in it, that's for certain....sooooooooo, he played politics, as expected, in a political race, i would suppose...?



As opposed to Hillary, right?   Do I need to remind you, again, that Hillary supported not counting the delegates until she needed those states to win?  



> But it is down to the wire now and he needs to make a decision to compromise.
> 
> the leaders of the DNC need to be fired over this fiasco.



Hillary needs to compromise as well.   Actually it doesn't really matter what they think, since the DNC will decide on May 31st, and then Hillary will lose this election.  

And no, the leaders of the DNC did nothing wrong.   The state reps of Florida and Michigan played chicken with their peoples votes, and lost.   Not the DNC's fault.   



> The people of Florida and Michigan FOLLOWED THEIR LEGAL RULES and voted the day their state delegated according to LAW....they should have never been disenfranchised of their votes, the DNC should have compromised upfront and settled the dispute when it happened last march-may of 07...they FAILED at their jobs of ensuring their members, ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS, get a chance to vote.
> 
> care



Thats not their responsibility.   Their responsibility is to set up a system to decide who will be the democratic candidate in the general.   They can do that however they want.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

MsWikia said:


> Well I guess it's ok for states to do as they please when it comes to primaries; FL has been having issues for a minute now. Plus Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, but I guess that doesn't matter either.



He wasn't the Leader at the time either.

He CHOSE to leave his name on the ballot in Florida, while other candidates managed to remove their names.  He chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan because it was politically benefitial to him, there is no other reason than a political one imo.

There absolutely was NO PLEDGE to the 4 early states by the Candidates to take their names off the ballot and for people to claim such is simply not true.

There was also not a pledge: to not have fund raisers and a team working in said states....before that stuff gets thrown out AGAIN at us....both Hillary and Obama held fund raisers in Florida and had campaign teams working there and Obama spoke to the press in Florida and he also ran ads in florida...supposedly by mistake for the press conference and on the Ads he ran, he said he could not pull them from the florida region, it was a package buy or something like that....?

Care


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> I'm aware of that.  Its also the rules that these delegates should NOT be seated.   They might change those rules, which is unfair and stupid.  *yes and no.  It is in the rules not to seat them IF THE CANDIDATES do not come to a compromise before the May 31st date, it is also in the rules for them to hear the State's case and a number of others and then decide how the delegates will be distributed or seated, or not seated.  In everyone's mind, they know and have known, that some sort of compromise would come in to play and the RULES allow for that compromise to come in to play.
> 
> So the contention that Hillary is "changing the rules" midstream is absolutely ridiculous...but go ahead and continue disparaging her for her stance to have all votes count.*
> 
> ...



*It was and is elitist for them to choose who can and can not vote and who they are going to disenfranchise.  Sure it may be what they have writen in to their own rules, but it was and is undemocratic*


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> He wasn't the Leader at the time either.
> 
> He CHOSE to leave his name on the ballot in Florida, while other candidates managed to remove their names.


 Care with all due respect your making stuff up.. which of these candidates that appeared on the florida ballot managed to remove their names...

Florida Candidate Votes Percentage National delegates 
Hillary Clinton 870,986 49.77% 0 [105] 
Barack Obama 576,214 32.93% 0 [67 (69)] 
John Edwards 251,562 14.38% 0 [13 (11)] 
Joe Biden 15,704 0.90% 0 
Bill Richardson 14,999 0.86% 0 
Dennis Kucinich 9,703 0.55% 0 
Christopher Dodd 5,477 0.31% 0 
Mike Gravel 5,275 0.30% 0 
Totals 1,749,920 100.00% 0 [185] 



> He chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan because it was politically benefitial to him, there is no other reason than a political one imo.


 Nope.. I actually think he would have beat her had his name been on the ballot..



> There absolutely was NO PLEDGE to the 4 early states by the Candidates to take their names off the ballot and for people to claim such is simply not true.


guess its coincidence that just Hill and Kucinich were present...didnt hill plege that the votes in FL and Mi wouldnt be counted?



> There was also not a pledge: to not have fund raisers and a team working in said states....before that stuff gets thrown out AGAIN at us....both Hillary and Obama held fund raisers in Florida and had campaign teams working there and Obama spoke to the press in Florida



O speaking to the press was a disengenuous comment. 




> and he also ran ads in florida...



Nope.. another disengenuous comment... 



> supposedly by mistake for the press conference and on the Ads he ran, he said he could not pull them from the florida region, it was a package buy or something like that....?
> 
> Care



Christ Care.. that was no press conference on any scale and .. you know that the ads were part of a nationwide ad.. 

You hill fans sure know how to grasp at the thin straws, ignoring the facts while manufacturing false controversy.. If hill takes this fight past June 4rth she will have successfully commited political suicide.. I will now pledge to move to NY and actively support any campaign against her...


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> *It was and is elitist for them to choose who can and can not vote and who they are going to disenfranchise.  Sure it may be what they have writen in to their own rules, but it was and is undemocratic*



Dont be so obtuse Care... I know you understand that in floridas case it is their own lawmakers to blame. Why is it that the DNC has these primary date rules.... read this quote below from the NYT. 

"...But officials in other states said Floridas move would only create more chaos around the nominating process, which has already been upended by other states decisions to hold earlier primaries. New Hampshire may move up its primary as a result  possibly even to this year  and in South Carolina, Republican officials said they, too, would advance the date of their primary.

South Carolina will name a date that keeps us first in the South, said the party chairman, Katon Dawson. It could be as early as Halloween and our version of trick-or-treat, if we have to....


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Dont be so obtuse Care... I know you understand that in floridas case it is their own lawmakers to blame. Why is it that the DNC has these primary date rules.... read this quote below from the NYT.
> 
> "...But officials in other states said Floridas move would only create more chaos around the nominating process, which has already been upended by other states decisions to hold earlier primaries. New Hampshire may move up its primary as a result  possibly even to this year  and in South Carolina, Republican officials said they, too, would advance the date of their primary.
> 
> South Carolina will name a date that keeps us first in the South, said the party chairman, Katon Dawson. It could be as early as Halloween and our version of trick-or-treat, if we have to....



As I said Jeepers, they should have settled this BEFORE the primary campaign went full force.  florida's Majority republican congress made this decision to move the Primary up last March of 07 and Michigan was early on too, and many other states talking of moving theirs up....

The DNC Neglected their responsibility and shirked the states and the citizens of all states by not facing their problem head on and come to a NEW SCHEDULE to make ALL states happy.

This could have been a ROTATION of the First Four early states.

The DNC FAILED bigtime to consider ACTUAL CITIZENS and their VOTES, and they failed to address this problem and tried to put it off for the next leaders of the DNC on the next election....that is unacceptable and as said, a failure to be LEADERS on their part....imho!

care


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> yes and no. It is in the rules not to seat them IF THE CANDIDATES do not come to a compromise before the May 31st date, it is also in the rules for them to hear the State's case and a number of others and then decide how the delegates will be distributed or seated, or not seated. In everyone's mind, they know and have known, that some sort of compromise would come in to play and the RULES allow for that compromise to come in to play.



No, actually its the State Democrats and both parties that have to come to an agreement.   



> So the contention that Hillary is "changing the rules" midstream is absolutely ridiculous...but go ahead and continue disparaging her for her stance to have all votes count.



Really?  What did Hillary think of FL and MI's votes last October Care?  



> HOW did he KNOW that the "no candidate" votes would be counted for him at the time he withdrew his name Larkinn? Obama was not even a front runner at the time? And as I said, it was HIS POLITICAL decision to take his name off the ballot in Michigan and i don't know WHY he chose to do such, i can only guess it was because he was not the front runner, and this is why.



*shrug* this is mere speculation either way.



> No, i did not know this Larkinn....I would need a link on that from the main stream media. What was the compromise? Giving Hillary her fair share and Obama taking ALL of the no candidate votes when some of them could have been support for other candidates like Edwards, who got 14% in Florida's primary, I believe....and you say he was out of the race by then..... so if Obama got all of the "no candidate" votes it actually would be giving him more than what he probably really got...



http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080508/pl_cq_politics/politics2719785;_ylt=Agx9HUKqgJWCk4v_7C3X7xOs0NUE

Considering Hillary was running unopposed, she likely got more than she would have gotten otherwise as well.   



> Actually, I would need proof of this....I know the candidates agreed to sign the pledge to the 4 early primary states not to campaign in those states which they agreed to larkin...



Honestly?   You don't seem to know anything negative about Clinton, where do you get your news, from the Clinton campaign website?   

http://www.slate.com/id/2188985



> It was a different story in October. Back then, Clinton was far and away the national front-runnerby some 20 points in a number of polls. With much less at stake in the matter, she told a New Hampshire public-radio audience, *"It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything." *Clinton was unwilling to take her name off the Michigan primary ballot, as Obama and her other significant rivals did, but like them she agreed not to campaign in Michigan or in Florida before their primaries.
> 
> On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. *Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of themmost notably strategist Harold Ickesvoted for Florida's full disenfranchisement.* (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)





> HOWEVER, there was no pledge to the democratic party from these candidates to not seek the seating of these delegates. Even Obama in his little press meet suggested to the press that the delegates of Florida will be seated by the convention. It would have been POLITICAL SUICIDE for these candidates to pledge to the Democratic party that they would seek the disenfranchisement of millions of voting members of the party and citizens of the united states.



Yeah, it would have been.   Unfortunately, because Florida and Michigan fucked up bigtime, and their leaders should be held responsible for this debacle.



> The DNC did PLENTY WRONG....by insisting the 4 early states take priority over other states without hearing the cases of other states to vie for that spot....



Theres a limit to how much they can fix the primary system at once. 



> and by not coming to a decision on this issue with Florida and Michigan BEFORE the primaries began, to ensure that every democratically registered voter in the united states had the right to vote in their primary.



They DID come to a decision.   You don't seem to realize that the DNC can't force Florida or Michigan to have a primary on a certain day, they can only threaten them in other ways.   Well not after this fiasco.   So much for trying to fix the primary system, its fucked from here on out.



> It was and is elitist for them to choose who can and can not vote and who they are going to disenfranchise. Sure it may be what they have writen in to their own rules, but it was and is undemocratic



Its THEIR party, they get to make the rules, not the states.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Obama spoke to the press. He broke the rules. Funny how the rules are only applicable to Clinton.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> As I said Jeepers, they should have settled this BEFORE the primary campaign went full force.  florida's Majority republican congress made this decision to move the Primary up last March of 07 and Michigan was early on too, and many other states talking of moving theirs up....
> 
> The DNC Neglected their responsibility and shirked the states and the citizens of all states by not facing their problem head on and come to a NEW SCHEDULE to make ALL states happy.
> 
> ...



So instead of disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, it would have been disenfranchising Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, etc, etc.   Because you know damn well those states weren't going to give up their front runner positions.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Obama spoke to the press. He broke the rules. Funny how the rules are only applicable to Clinton.



The rules apply to BOTH candidates.   The delegates should not be counted because if they are, we will have a fucked primary system next year.   That and its obviously patently unfair to have a set of rules where Obama wins, and mid-course change those rules so Hillary wins.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> The rules apply to BOTH candidates.   The delegates should not be counted because if they are, we will have a fucked primary system next year.   That and its obviously patently unfair to have a set of rules where Obama wins, and mid-course change those rules so Hillary wins.



Which is exactly why they should have disqualified Obama in Florida when he broke the rules.

It isn't rocket science.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Which is exactly why they should have disqualified Obama in Florida when he broke the rules.
> 
> It isn't rocket science.



Wow, thats quite a harsh punishment you want to mete out for one press conference.   

Oh, and by the way, not campaigning isn't a DNC rule, it was a voluntary pledge by the candidates.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Wow, thats quite a harsh punishment you want to mete out for one press conference.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, not campaigning isn't a DNC rule, it was a voluntary pledge by the candidates.



I get it, now the pledge doesn't matter either.


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> As I said Jeepers, they should have settled this BEFORE the primary campaign went full force.  florida's Majority republican congress made this decision to move the Primary up last March of 07 and Michigan was early on too, and many other states talking of moving theirs up....


You keep ignoring this part care....

"...The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. 
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there. But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and weve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html



> The DNC Neglected their responsibility and shirked the states and the citizens of all states by not facing their problem head on and come to a NEW SCHEDULE to make ALL states happy.


They tried and tried but there is no making all states happy under the current system.



> This could have been a ROTATION of the First Four early states.
> 
> The DNC FAILED bigtime to consider ACTUAL CITIZENS and their VOTES, and they failed to address this problem and tried to put it off for the next leaders of the DNC on the next election....that is unacceptable and as said, a failure to be LEADERS on their part....imho!
> 
> care


The DNC considered EVERYONES vote.. the dem leaders in Florida did not... We need a primary system revamping but this is not the way to go about it.. Why is a hillary supporter getting all hot and bothered over this...


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Care with all due respect your making stuff up.. which of these candidates that appeared on the florida ballot managed to remove their names...
> 
> Florida Candidate Votes Percentage National delegates
> Hillary Clinton 870,986 49.77% 0 [105]
> ...



*If Obama does not come to a compromise with Hillary on florida and michigan and the dnc before may 31st, it is out of Hillary's hands and Obama's too I think....unless the rules committee has it that they are a part of the process somehow, which I am uncertain on?*

care


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Which is exactly why they should have disqualified Obama in Florida when he broke the rules.
> 
> It isn't rocket science.


What did the DNC say about this supposed press conference again...


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> *If Obama does not come to a compromise with Hillary on florida and michigan and the dnc before may 31st, it is out of Hillary's hands and Obama's too I think....unless the rules committee has it that they are a part of the process somehow, which I am uncertain on?*
> 
> care


Dont seat them then according to the rules they shouldnt be sat... I do however like they way you keep ignoring the same facts in every post.. 

#1.. who is to blame?
#2.. who should be involved in the solution?
#3.. what were all candidates positions [except Gravel] about the delegates from florida and michigan..
#4.. what were all candidates positions on the weight of popular vote and delegates prior to oct.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I get it, now the pledge doesn't matter either.



*shrug* if thats how you want to grossly misinterpret what I said, go for it.

It does matter.   He fucked up.   But disqualifying him in Florida is way overboard, especially since it wasn't a rule in the first place.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

It was cleared up before primary season.  They were told in no uncertain terms that if they hold their primaries early, they forfeit their delegates.  They thought the DNC was bluffing...but they weren't.  If they didn't understand the risk they were taking, they're fuktards.  If they did and chose to take it anyway, they should live with the consequences and STFU.

If I were a resident of either state, I'd be pissed at the state officials that put their delegates at risk, not the DNC for making good on their warning.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

If it is a state issue I have to wonder why anyone outside of the state feels justified in expressing an opinion.


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> If it is a state issue I have to wonder why anyone outside of the state feels justified in expressing an opinion.


Let alone a presdential candidate..


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> If it is a state issue I have to wonder why anyone outside of the state feels justified in expressing an opinion.



It's just the way it is.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Let alone a presdential candidate..



Since they both are they pretty much cancel each other out.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> If it is a state issue I have to wonder why anyone outside of the state feels justified in expressing an opinion.



Its not just a state issue.   The DNC decides whether to seat delegates or not, not Florida or Michigan.   Florida and Michigan are the idiotic states that caused this whole brouha, they shouldn't be the ones who have all the power to decide what happens next.  

By the way...3 possibilities and how many undeclared delegates Obama will need to clinch the nomination...







In the BEST case scenario for Hillary...she still needs to get 80% of remaining superdelegates to go for her.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Calling us idiots isn't going to help with the general. Though I did read elsewhere that we aren't considered an important swing state this election...nor are Ohio or PA.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Calling us idiots isn't going to help with the general. Though I did read elsewhere that we aren't considered an important swing state this election...nor are Ohio or PA.



Somehow I doubt anything I say is going to have an effect on the general.   And yes, the individuals in FL and MI who made the primary date Jan 29th are idiots.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

I find it hilarious that people say Clinton is breaking the rules by wanting to count Michigan and Florida. She's not breaking anything. She wants the DNC to change the rule. There's a big difference.

BREAKING the rules is campaigning in Florida when the rules state that you cannot. Guess who did that? Obama. Oh, did I just say Obama made a booboo? Lynch me now.  

Seriously, Obama supporters are fucking hypocritical retards. EVERYTHING Clinton does is just selfish and destructive to the Democratic party, but everything Obama does is for the good of every person in the whole entire universe. Give me a fucking break. They're both politicians, they're both selfish, they both want to win and will do whatever it takes to do so. Get off your fucking high horses, people.

Wanna talk about fair? Had Michigan and Florida counted originally, Obama would not have surpassed Hillary on Super Tuesday. A LOT of his success comes from the media declaring him the winner before the contest was even getting started. If Michigan and Florida had counted all along, Clinton would have had the comfort of that delegate lead. A lot of people gave up thinking she couldn't win, a lot of people voted for Obama just to get it over with. Had Florida and Michigan counted from the beginning, this race would be upside down.

And I laugh at whoever said Obama could have won Michigan. Get real.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> I find it hilarious that people say Clinton is breaking the rules by wanting to count Michigan and Florida. She's not breaking anything. She wants the DNC to change the rule. There's a big difference.



And you don't find anything suspect about having a set of rules where Obama wins, then changing it after the votes are in so that Hillary wins?   



> BREAKING the rules is campaigning in Florida when the rules state that you cannot. Guess who did that? Obama. Oh, did I just say Obama made a booboo? Lynch me now.



Actually thats not a DNC rule.  



> Wanna talk about fair? Had Michigan and Florida counted originally, Obama would not have surpassed Hillary on Super Tuesday.



Considering Clinton was one of the driving forces behind not counting Michigan and Florida, how exactly is is not fair?  



> A LOT of his success comes from the media declaring him the winner before the contest was even getting started. If Michigan and Florida had counted all along, Clinton would have had the comfort of that delegate lead.



Complete speculation.  



> A lot of people gave up thinking she couldn't win, a lot of people voted for Obama just to get it over with. Had Florida and Michigan counted from the beginning, this race would be upside down.



What?   Where are you all getting this stuff where everyone was saying Obama was the winner early on?   I didn't hear anything like that until April, well into the primary season.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> And you don't find anything suspect about having a set of rules where Obama wins, then changing it after the votes are in so that Hillary wins?



Of course I do, but it doesn't matter. Because I know, just like you do, that Obama would do the same thing. 



> Actually thats not a DNC rule.



Actually, you're right, it applies to candidates of any party. In fact, the rules state that campaigning in a state that is in violation would cause a candidate to forfeit all of their delegates in that state (I do not now if that includes superdelegates, it's not clear). But, Jim Roosevelt decided there would be no sanctions held against those that campaign since, technically, no delegates were at stake. So, if they decide to count Florida and Michigan, legally, Obama should not receive any delegates from Florida, if we're playing by the rules.



> Considering Clinton was one of the driving forces behind not counting Michigan and Florida, how exactly is is not fair?



"A driving force" is a bit much. She didn't actively campaign to stop them, she just said she would abide by it. She assumed she could win the nomination without them, unfortunately it was one of her biggest mistakes.

I'd say the driving force in Florida was the Republican controlled congress. The DNC in Florida actually TRIED to fix the problem, but they were overruled by a Republican majority Florida Congress. It's funny that Obama is basically letting the Republicans decide who the Democratic candidate is.



> What?   Where are you all getting this stuff where everyone was saying Obama was the winner early on?   I didn't hear anything like that until April, well into the primary season.



April is still early on. But it started early in March, after he won what...11 or 12 states in a row?


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Dont seat them then according to the rules they shouldnt be sat... I do however like they way you keep ignoring the same facts in every post..
> 
> #1.. who is to blame?
> #2.. who should be involved in the solution?
> ...



1. NOT the citizens, and certainly not hillary and not the democratic party in florida completely either jeepers...the repubs put a piece of legislation, in this same bill that determined the date, that was MUST PASS legislation for the democrats....it was a political move on the republican legislature's part that put the dems in the position where every one of them should have voted yes.....had to vote for it.

The florida dem leaders were in discussion with the repub leaders on moving their primary up, BUT NOT BEFORE new hampshire, but earlier than where they had been slotted....then, at the last minute the repub majority stuck the must pass legislation in to the bill and moved it up before new hampshires....if you go to the florida democratic party's site, it goes in to all of this, along with telling the voters to get the heck out and vote, that their voices would be heard and counted....

2.  The Dnc should have found a means to solve the problem....nh could have moved their primary up a week, the dnc could have made commitments to those states wanting to primary earlier that they would revamp it but after this election, they could rotate the four early states, a number of things the DNC could have done, instead of being steadfast like bush on his stances, they could have diplomatically solved this issue instead of being ARROGANT and ELITIST about it.

3. I don't know about the other candidates or about obama, but Hillary Clinton HAS ALWAYS SAID they should be seated, from the very beginning and i read in your link provided to me that none of the candidates were too happy with the dnc's position on this...

from the link you gave me:



> An official with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clintons (D-N.Y.) campaign said the senator would campaign and compete in every primary, but was hopeful the state party and national committee will find common ground.
> 
> The official hastened to add that the candidates dont set the schedule.
> 
> Other campaigns seemed to be struggling with how to deal with the state partys weekend decision to embrace the early primary.



4.  the popular vote along with caucus vote, is how the delegates are divied up... delegates do not just ''appear'' at the convention based on nothing but an appointment?

but a majority of delegates including super delegates who can vote as they please and are not held to the popular vote, wins the nomination, according to the rules.

------------------------------------------
this also came from your link from June of last year...



> Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said yesterday that if the party follows through on its threats, it would effectively throw Florida, which is crucial in electoral terms, to the Republicans.
> 
> The senators warned Dean to avoid the perception that the national party is silencing Florida voters by enforcing the Democrats strict proscriptions against states that jump ahead.
> 
> *As things stand, any Democratic candidate who campaigns in Florida, will have his or her delegates divided among candidates who refrain from venturing into the forbidden territory.*



If what I bolded is true, then Obama should give up his delegates in Florida to Hillary Clinton, for running national ads in florida before the florida primary....what the heck is with that special glove treatment to obama by the DNC?

care


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Um.. when was this supposed campaign in Florida.... Cause I only saw hill campaign for the two days preceding the primary...


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Of course I do, but it doesn't matter. Because I know, just like you do, that Obama would do the same thing.



Thats nice.   I wouldn't support it if it was Obama doing it either.   



> Actually, you're right, it applies to candidates of any party. In fact, the rules state that campaigning in a state that is in violation would cause a candidate to forfeit all of their delegates in that state (I do not now if that includes superdelegates, it's not clear). But, Jim Roosevelt decided there would be no sanctions held against those that campaign since, technically, no delegates were at stake. So, if they decide to count Florida and Michigan, legally, Obama should not receive any delegates from Florida, if we're playing by the rules.



Link to the decision?  



> "A driving force" is a bit much. She didn't actively campaign to stop them, she just said she would abide by it. She assumed she could win the nomination without them, unfortunately it was one of her biggest mistakes.



12 of the 30 members were active Clinton supporters.   Terry McAuliffe strongly supported not counting MI or FL.   



> I'd say the driving force in Florida was the Republican controlled congress. The DNC in Florida actually TRIED to fix the problem, but they were overruled by a Republican majority Florida Congress. It's funny that Obama is basically letting the Republicans decide who the Democratic candidate is.



I'm talking about the national DNC.  



> April is still early on. But it started early in March, after he won what...11 or 12 states in a row?



Its always been back and forth.   He's been the front runner for some time, but people didn't start saying he really won until North Carolina.   Bloggers were saying that, but it wasn't picked up in the MSM.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Um.. when was this supposed campaign in Florida.... Cause I only saw hill campaign for the two days preceding the primary...


according to their pledges to the 4 early states, no campaigning with the public and no campaign ads were to be run in florida, BUT CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISERS were PERMITTED.

Hillary DID NOT CHEAT or break the rules, HOWEVER Obama did jeepers, by running campaign ads there prior to the primary.

Obama ALSO had FUND raisers there, in fact he was at one of his own fund raiser when he went outside and spoke to the press.


care


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

If Obama wouldn't do the same thing, wouldn't that make him a quitter?


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Thats nice.   I wouldn't support it if it was Obama doing it either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



just one thing, could you please supply the link to this statement of yours, maybe i missed it?:



> 12 of the 30 members were active Clinton supporters.   Terry McAuliffe strongly supported not counting MI or FL.



care


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Thats nice.   I wouldn't support it if it was Obama doing it either.



And, to my dismay, I WOULD support it, either way. The voters in Florida and Michigan deserve to have their voice heard.



> Link to the decision?



This is the best I could find. I'll find a better explanation later:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/25/politics/main3204004.shtml

Fourth paragraph from the bottom.



> 12 of the 30 members were active Clinton supporters.   Terry McAuliffe strongly supported not counting MI or FL.



What's your point?



> I'm talking about the national DNC.



Clinton NEVER campaigned to keep these votes from counting. She simply said she would abide by the rule if everyone else did. She changed her mind. Sue her.



> Its always been back and forth.   He's been the front runner for some time, but people didn't start saying he really won until North Carolina.   Bloggers were saying that, but it wasn't picked up in the MSM.



We'll agree to disagree. The media has been declaring him the winner for a very long time.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> just one thing, could you please supply the link to this statement of yours, maybe i missed it?:
> 
> 
> 
> care



Post #15


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> according to their pledges to the 4 early states, no campaigning with the public and no campaign ads were to be run in florida, BUT CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISERS were PERMITTED.
> 
> Hillary DID NOT CHEAT or break the rules, HOWEVER Obama did jeepers, by running campaign ads there prior to the primary.
> 
> ...


Umm yeah.. that footage I saw of those "wink wink" fundraising events of hills where some ten thousand people attended... 

Again.. repeat after me... OBAMAS ADS WERE RUN NATIONALY....maybe if Hill had the money she could have afforded some NATIONAL airtime....

Obamas speaking to the press was NOT a planed event and was NOT a press conference. Rumor had it he was going to plan one but with the snipers planted in the orange groves it would have been way to dangerous.... 

One more thing....please post where the DNC repremanded Obama for violating the rules...


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> This is the best I could find. I'll find a better explanation later:
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/25/politics/main3204004.shtml
> 
> Fourth paragraph from the bottom.



So they said there would be no sanctions and then Obama broke the rule?   Seems that he shouldn't be sanctioned then.   



> What's your point?



That Clinton had a hand in it.   Read the Slate article I posted before.  



> Clinton NEVER campaigned to keep these votes from counting. She simply said she would abide by the rule if everyone else did. She changed her mind. Sue her.



She changed her mind when it became politically expedient to do so.   So spare me the holier than thou bullshit about respecting voters rights.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Um.. when was this supposed campaign in Florida.... Cause I only saw hill campaign for the two days preceding the primary...



Wow, that's pretty cool that you saw something that didn't exist. She attended two private fundraisers, something that was clearly defined in their agreement not to campaign. Obama aired television ads in Florida, which was clearly defined as being in VIOLATION of the agreement.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> She changed her mind when it became politically expedient to do so. So spare me the holier than thou bullshit about respecting voters rights.



I never gave any holier than thou bullshit. It's the Obama camp that makes him seem untouchable. The truth is, and we all know it, if the shoe were on the other foot, he'd be doing the same thing.

Frankly, I don't see why it was ever an issue. The Democrats of Florida are being held accountable for the actions of Republicans in Florida. Why the votes were never supposed to count in the first place boggles my mind.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Post #15




the link on #15 said nothing regarding terry mcC or the 12 out of 30 being clinton supporters?????????????

a link to your statement regarding that, is what i asked for....the link on that post was about how to seat michigan....?

care


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> the link on #15 said nothing regarding terry mcC or the 12 out of 30 being clinton supporters?????????????
> 
> a link to your statement regarding that, is what i asked for....the link on that post was about how to seat michigan....?
> 
> care



Please don't make me do your work for you.   There were 2 links on that post.  

Here is the text...again.   



> It was a different story in October. Back then, Clinton was far and away the national front-runnerby some 20 points in a number of polls. With much less at stake in the matter, she told a New Hampshire public-radio audience, "It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything." Clinton was unwilling to take her name off the Michigan primary ballot, as Obama and her other significant rivals did, but like them she agreed not to campaign in Michigan or in Florida before their primaries.
> 
> On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. *Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of themmost notably strategist Harold Ickesvoted for Florida's full disenfranchisement.* (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> I never gave any holier than thou bullshit. It's the Obama camp that makes him seem untouchable. The truth is, and we all know it, if the shoe were on the other foot, he'd be doing the same thing.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see why it was ever an issue. The Democrats of Florida are being held accountable for the actions of Republicans in Florida. Why the votes were never supposed to count in the first place boggles my mind.



Actually it would be the people of Florida who are held accountable for the actions of their elected representatives.   Thats how it usually works in a Republic.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Umm yeah.. that footage I saw of those "wink wink" fundraising events of hills where some ten thousand people attended...



Those 10,000 people paid upwards of around $2,000 to attend those events, too.

Larkinn, in regards to the committee, 12 out of 30 is not a majority. Even if the 12 Clinton supporters voted against the measure, it would not have been enough.



> Actually it would be the people of Florida who are held accountable for the actions of their elected representatives. Thats how it usually works in a Republic.



Are you suggesting that Democrats in Florida elected the Republican officials? That's like telling me I'm responsible for Bush's bullshit. Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> So they said there would be no sanctions and then Obama broke the rule?   Seems that he shouldn't be sanctioned then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



now YOU are making up stuff, she never changed her mind, she was always behind seating the delegates from these states.

she deserves all of obama delegates in florida for obama BREAKING THE RULES by campaigning there with a national ad plan, and IF these national ads ran in michigan, he should forfeit those delegates to hillary according to the rule also....

THOSE WERE THE RULES.....not changing anything midstream....

i'd say, hillary is in the LEAD if they followed the damn rules.....!!!!!!!!!  hahahahaha! 

but obama's the little darling, and of course he will probably get away with the cheating....

guess you have nothing to say on that, huh?

care


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Larkinn, in regards to the committee, 12 out of 30 is not a majority. Even if the 12 Clinton supporters voted against the measure, it would not have been enough.



Yeah, but they didn't.   They supported it, and so did she.   Those were only her direct backers.   You know damn well she could have changed it if she had wanted too.   



> Are you suggesting that Democrats in Florida elected the Republican officials? That's like telling me I'm responsible for Bush's bullshit. Give me a fucking break.



You aren't responsible for it, but you have to deal with it, like it or not.   You having to deal with Bush doesn't mean you were disenfranchised.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

JIMINNEE CHRISTMAS ALMIGHTY jeepers, FUND RAISERS were permitted and in their pledges as being permitted....

stop deflecting!  

OBAMA had fumdraisers THERE IN FLORIDA ALSO.......

sheesh....no need to make up lies or rules that were never in place, fund raisers were ALWAYS permitted!

campaigning in the public and running campaign ads were not.

care


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Wow, that's pretty cool that you saw something that didn't exist. She attended two private fundraisers, something that was clearly defined in their agreement not to campaign. Obama aired television ads in Florida, which was clearly defined as being in VIOLATION of the agreement.


LOL.. two private fundraisers in auditoriums packed with thousands of signwaiving hill fans.. I wonder how many of these people actually gave money... 
If Obamas ad was in violation please post where the DNC repremanded him... 

btw... "...But Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton disputes the pledge was broken. He said the campaign asked CNN and MSNBC to pull Florida from the ad buy, but the networks said they could not..."

Maybe this is why she did so well in florida... well that and maybe educated voters stayed home because when someone says it dont count, they may actually comprehend that it dont count...

"AFSCME, the nation's largest public employee and health care workers union, is campaigning on behalf of Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state of Florida, even as the Senator herself has pledged not to do so.
The union has sent two mailers to an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 people, touting Clinton and urging its members and retirees to vote for her in the January 29 primary. One piece of literature proclaims Clinton a "seasoned fighter" who "knows how to win." 
"AFSCME recommends Hillary Clinton for President," the mailer reads. "Hillary Clinton earned AFSCME's support after a rigorous ten month endorsement process. Our members endorsed Hillary because she will change the direction of our country


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> now YOU are making up stuff, she never changed her mind, she was always behind seating the delegates from these states.



Which is why she said



> It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything.



Right?   



> she deserves all of obama delegates in florida for obama BREAKING THE RULES by campaigning there with a national ad plan, and IF these national ads ran in michigan, he should forfeit those delegates to hillary according to the rule also....
> 
> THOSE WERE THE RULES.....not changing anything midstream....
> 
> ...



Sure, lets stick to the rules.   So Obama gets 0 delegates, and so does Hillary, and Hillary can have all 0 of Obamas delegates.   Cheers.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is 12 a near majority of 30?

Also, if it doesn't matter that Obama broke his pledge to not talk to the press, why does it matter that these people changed their minds?


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Yeah, but they didn't.   They supported it, and so did she.   Those were only her direct backers.   You know damn well she could have changed it if she had wanted too.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't responsible for it, but you have to deal with it, like it or not.   You having to deal with Bush doesn't mean you were disenfranchised.




you realize that YOU are taking the exact stance of katherine harris in the 2000 election, the position of the republicans at the time, and the OPPOSITE POSITION and stance of the democratic party, which said that as long as the citizen;s vote could be discerned, it should be COUNTED......?


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> you realize that YOU are taking the exact stance of katherine harris in the 2000 election, the position of the republicans at the time, and the OPPOSITE POSITION and stance of the democratic party, which said that as long as the citizen;s vote could be discerned, it should be COUNTED......?



You are realize that was for GOVERNMENT OFFICE, and this is not, correct?


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Which is why she said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NOPE, the rules ALWAYS had provisions that could seat the delegates.....like this may 31st meeting scheduled that begins the vetting of such....!!!  

no need for the DNC to have in their rules that candidates lose their delegates if they campaigned there....if the delegates never had a chance of being seated.....LOGIC tells us that.....!

care


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> You are realize that was for GOVERNMENT OFFICE, and this is not, correct?


who cares if this is a primary?  IT IS THE GIST OF DEMOCRACY!


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> NOPE, the rules ALWAYS had provisions that could seat the delegates.....like this may 31st meeting scheduled that begins the vetting of such....!!!



Of course they have provisions to change it if necessary.   But surely even a Hillaryphile like you recognizes the danger of changing the way you count the votes AFTER the votes have already been cast, yes?  



> no need for the DNC to have in their rules that candidates lose their delegates if they campaigned there....if the delegates never had a chance of being seated.....LOGIC tells us that.....!
> 
> care



Quote where it says in the rules that candidates lose their delegates in they campaigned there.   



> who cares if this is a primary? IT IS THE GIST OF DEMOCRACY!



Spare me the hysterics.

You should care that its a primary.   Its a different standard than a general election, and the DNC should have complete control over the process of how they pick a DEMOCRATIC nominee.   

I don't hear you bitching that you don't get to choose a Libertarian candidate.  Or Green Party.   How about those folks who are disenfranchised?  Where's the "gist of democracy" for them?   

The party gets to decide who their nominee is.   They've allowed voters to have a say.   The DNC is a PRIVATE organization.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Of course they have provisions to change it if necessary.   But surely even a Hillaryphile like you recognizes the danger of changing the way you count the votes AFTER the votes have already been cast, yes?
> 
> *There are no rules on how to count the votes that have changed midstream...they counted the voted according to Florida Law....NOTHING WAS CHANGED MIDSTREAM?  The Primary in florida and the Election in Florida were held and counted according to Florida Law, just as all other states counted their votes according to their law.*
> 
> ...



Bullcrud.  I'd like to see the Democratic Party try to put a person as the nominee for president  on the ballot that never had been elected by the people and just chosen by the 30 on a commitee in this day and age....there could be some lynchings....  

WHY was it in the rules that the candidates would be punished if they advertised or campaigned there if the delegates were not going to be seated, at least by the convention?  Seems contradictory?

care


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Care, from your post:

_
As things stand, any Democratic candidate who campaigns in Florida, will have his or her delegates divided among candidates who refrain from venturing into the forbidden territory._

Would that also include talking to the press, I wonder. Because, IMO, that's campaigning.

So we are back to the question...why did the DNC bend its own rules to benefit Obama?


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> There are no rules on how to count the votes that have changed midstream...they counted the voted according to Florida Law....NOTHING WAS CHANGED MIDSTREAM? The Primary in florida and the Election in Florida were held and counted according to Florida Law, just as all other states counted their votes according to their law.



Saying they won't count before the vote is taken, and then saying it will count once hillary is losing is changing the vote midstream.



> As things stand, any Democratic candidate who campaigns in Florida, will have his or her delegates divided among candidates who refrain from venturing into the forbidden territory.



And whats forbidden territory?  



> I am a member of the Democratic Party, I have every right to speak out on how the Democratic Party handles their primary for my choice of President of the United States....



Then why are you blaming the party and not the states?   



> Can the democratic party tell me what to do in this democracy, sure they can try to be elitists, but i can kick their asses out too and these loons that messed this up, and especially Howard Dean for not taking leadership, need to be booted out on their asses.



Oh?  And how are you going to kick out the DNC leadership?



> they have ruined and divided the Party because of their lack of concern for the citizen vote and their lack of leadership in handling this whole matter.



Then give me a real plasuble solution.

The four state rotation is nonsense.  New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina etc al, will never stand for it.   They will just keep moving their dates earlier.  How do you get them to comply if you can't threaten them?

This has effectively made the DNC powerless to the will of the states, and you've been complicit in this debacle.



> Bullcrud. I'd like to see the Democratic Party try to put a person as the nominee for president on the ballot that never had been elected by the people and just chosen by the 30 on a commitee in this day and age....there could be some lynchings....



Wait...you mean unelected superdelegates who might over-ride the majority of pledged delegates?   

Wheres your outrage over that?   Oh wait, its going to benefit Hillary.   Right...



> WHY was it in the rules that the candidates would be pounished if they advertised or campaigned there if the delegates were not going to be seated, at least by the convention? Seems contradictory?



Probably because the rules were formed piecemeal.


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

"...So we are back to the question...why did the DNC bend its own rules to benefit Obama?..."

I am having a dejavu moment here.. this could hardly be considered a campaign moment....it was no more a campaign event than hillary landing in bosnia was a dangerous event...

Thats why the DNC did not repremand Obama...


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> "...So we are back to the question...why did the DNC bend its own rules to benefit Obama?..."
> 
> I am having a dejavu moment here.. this could hardly be considered a campaign moment....it was no more a campaign event than hillary landing in bosnia was a dangerous event...
> 
> Thats why the DNC did not repremand Obama...



I don't believe you. He clearly crossed the street and talked to the press. If it were a Republican you'd be up his ass in a heartbeat, I'm guessing. 

The Dems once again have ruined their chances at the presidency.


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I don't believe you. He clearly crossed the street and talked to the press. If it were a Republican you'd be up his ass in a heartbeat, I'm guessing.
> 
> The Dems once again have ruined their chances at the presidency.



Ummm no... that was a non event... You know that and the DNC confirmed it...z


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Ummm no... that was a non event... You know that and the DNC confirmed it...z



No, I don't know that, and if they did...how is that not bending the rule?

I'd like to think Obama can win in the general but I really can't see how because of things like this. Not even mentioning McCain.

Lets hope Howard gets his head out of his tush and figures out a way to un-piss off Hillary supporters.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> No, I don't know that, and if they did...how is that not bending the rule?
> 
> I'd like to think Obama can win in the general but I really can't see how because of things like this. Not even mentioning McCain.
> 
> Lets hope Howard gets his head out of his tush and figures out a way to un-piss off Hillary supporters.



Oh ye of little faith.  You're pissed off and you still say you'll vote for Obama over McCain.  Assuming you're being honest, why don't you think others will do the same?


----------



## Jeepers (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> No, I don't know that, and if they did...how is that not bending the rule?
> 
> I'd like to think Obama can win in the general but I really can't see how because of things like this. Not even mentioning McCain.
> 
> Lets hope Howard gets his head out of his tush and figures out a way to un-piss off Hillary supporters.


Umm I'd be more concerned about Hill ruining her own political career... I used to be a supporter.. now I will never vote for her.. I just wish I can get back the money I gave her early on...


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Oh ye of little faith.  You're pissed off and you still say you'll vote for Obama over McCain.  Assuming you're being honest, why don't you think others will do the same?



You're forgetting I'm an agenda ho, lol.

And you're assuming that all Hillary supporters think like me. A lot of them are moderates that think McCain is a-okay. And a lot of them are indies.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> You're forgetting I'm an agenda ho, lol.
> 
> And you're assuming that all Hillary supporters think like me. A lot of them are moderates that think McCain is a-okay. And a lot of them are indies.



Just wait until Obama hands McCain his wrinkley old ass in debate.  That'll win back more than enough IMO.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Umm I'd be more concerned about Hill ruining her own political career... I used to be a supporter.. now I will never vote for her.. I just wish I can get back the money I gave her early on...



Regardless of what you think of her, and regardless if she ruins her career, Dean has a problem he needs to solve.

It really is the voters that matter, not the candidates.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> It really is the voters that matter, not the candidates.



Don't forget the super delegates.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Just wait until Obama hands McCain his wrinkley old ass in debate.  That'll win back more than enough IMO.



We'll see. If Bush can "win" a debate, anyone can.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Don't forget the super delegates.



The one's you switched position on? I've always believed they should pick the candidate they think can beat the Republican, and I still do.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> The one's you switched position on? I've always believed they should pick the candidate they think can beat the Republican, and I still do.



I switched position on???

I have no idea what you're talking about...honestly.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> I switched position on???
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about...honestly.



What is your position on them?


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> What is your position on them?



I've never considered it to be honest.

But off the top of my head, I'm going to have to cop-out and say that they should use their best judgement and do what they think is best, individually.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> I've never considered it to be honest.
> 
> But off the top of my head, I'm going to have to cop-out and say that they should use their best judgement and do what they think is best, individually.



I could swear you made a case that they should do what the voters in their districts decided.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I could swear you made a case that they should do what the voters in their districts decided.



I don't think so.

If that were one's position, what would be the point of having them at all?


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Just wait until Obama hands McCain his wrinkley old ass in debate.  That'll win back more than enough IMO.



Obama can't debate his way out of a paper bag.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> If that were one's position, what would be the point of having them at all?



Beats me. The Obamabots were all screaming that for awhile and it never made any sense.


----------



## Shogun (May 22, 2008)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGXQElOq-j0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGXQElOq-j0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

FUCK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXQ...ww.jedreport.com/2008/05/senator-clint-1.html


----------



## Shogun (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Obama can't debate his way out of a paper bag.



 


And Clinton couldn't VOTE her way into the white house.

check mate.


----------



## jillian (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Obama can't debate his way out of a paper bag.



I really hate that stuff... you disagree with someone so you can't acknowledge anything good about them. Obama's a great orator. You can dislike him all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the man is magnificent on his feet.

Now, I can tell you McCain deserves props for his service and for being one of the few repubs to depoliticize climate change.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

jillian said:


> I really hate that stuff... you disagree with someone so you can't acknowledge anything good about them. Obama's a great orator. You can dislike him all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the man is magnificent on his feet.
> 
> Now, I can tell you McCain deserves props for his service and for being one of the few repubs to depoliticize climate change.



No, you're right, I give Obama major credit on his oratory skills. He has a silver tongue like no other. But when it comes to being knocked off your feet on a difficult question, he's terrible. I remember his deer in headlights look when the open question was asked about what he and Hillary thought about Medvedev, and his eyes grew real big and he just turned and looked at Hillary. After she finished speaking, he repeated what she said and thought he looked smart.


----------



## Annie (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why should the voters pay for the boneheaded choices of the state Democrats?  Which of course brings the discussion full circle to the DNC rules.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Why should the voters pay for the boneheaded choices of the state Democrats?  Which of course brings the discussion full circle to the DNC rules.



The thing is, it wasn't just the Democrats elected in Florida, it was all policitians.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Why should the voters pay for the boneheaded choices of the state Democrats?  Which of course brings the discussion full circle to the DNC rules.



Actually that would be boneheaded choices of the state Republicans who have power in Florida.   But if you aren't being partisan about it, it would be phrased as, why do voters have to deal with boneheaded choices of their elected representatives.   Because we live in a Republic, and thats how our system works.


----------



## Annie (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Actually that would be boneheaded choices of the state Republicans who have power in Florida.   But if you aren't being partisan about it, it would be phrased as, why do voters have to deal with boneheaded choices of their elected representatives.   Because we live in a Republic, and thats how our system works.



Ok, I'll bite. What do the Republicans have to do with the Democrats rules in the states?


----------



## jreeves (May 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> What's more than halfway? 3/5? So Florida voters count as 3/5ths citizens?
> 
> So ironic.



Good post....


----------



## Annie (May 22, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Good post....



This hit this morning, early. So apropos.


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Ok, I'll bite. What do the Republicans have to do with the Democrats rules in the states?



Kathianne, it wasn't just the Democrats who pushed their primary forward. The entire Florida legistlature voted on the measure. That's why Republicans also lost some of their delegates from Florida.

Some Florida Democrats claimed they took steps to fix this error and to make a case for their delegates to count, but all the measures they tried to pass were turned down due to a Republican majority in Florida.


----------



## Annie (May 22, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Kathianne, it wasn't just the Democrats who pushed their primary forward. The entire Florida legistlature voted on the measure. That's why Republicans also lost some of their delegates from Florida.
> 
> Some Florida Democrats claimed they took steps to fix this error and to make a case for their delegates to count, but all the measures they tried to pass were turned down due to a Republican majority in Florida.



Okay, explain the Republican side of it, I didn't know. Are they excluding the votes for McCain? Are they looking to count the votes? 1/2? 3/5?


----------



## Jon (May 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Okay, explain the Republican side of it, I didn't know. Are they excluding the votes for McCain? Are they looking to count the votes? 1/2? 3/5?



The GOP is seating half of their delegates in Florida and Michigan. They only punished their party 50% for moving the primaries forward.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-22-gop-delegates_N.htm

The reason I'm so adamant about Florida and Michigan counting is because it will ultimately decide the outcome of this race. If Obama was so far ahead that they wouldn't matter at all, I'd say screw it. But the fact is, no one thought disqualifying these delegates would make a difference. Well, it does make a difference, and if we don't count them, voters in these states (and other supporters of Clinton) will claim they were screwed out of their nominee. It won't just be voters from these two states that vote McCain out of spite, it will be voters nationwide.


----------



## Larkinn (May 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Ok, I'll bite. What do the Republicans have to do with the Democrats rules in the states?



They aren't Democratic rules.   The state decides when the primary is.   Not the state DNC, the state of Florida, Michigan, etc, etc.


----------



## Annie (May 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> They aren't Democratic rules.   The state decides when the primary is.   Not the state DNC, the state of Florida, Michigan, etc, etc.



Well, duh! That is the problem for the Dems, obviously. You seemed to insinuate the same for the GOP, but I admit to not seeing that.


----------



## Ravi (May 23, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Good post....



Thanks. The irony was too hard to pass up.


----------



## Gunny (May 23, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Obama withdrew himself from the Michigan ballot, thinking it would help him politically, because he was going to lose it I would suppose?  This is a political contest, thus my thinking it was a political decision....
> 
> He did keep his name on the florida ballot by choice.
> 
> ...



Obama withdrew his name from the Michigan primary voluntarily.  He should get ZERO.

You're wasting your breath on Ms Wikia.  She's so far up Obama's posterior nothing to do with reality is going to get through.


----------



## Ravi (May 23, 2008)

The latest lawsuit claims, among other things, that the DNC is violating equal protection since it allowed NH and Iowa to hold early primaries without penalty.


----------



## Larkinn (May 23, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Well, duh! That is the problem for the Dems, obviously. You seemed to insinuate the same for the GOP, but I admit to not seeing that.



Republicans have control of the Florida state government.


----------



## Larkinn (May 23, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Obama withdrew his name from the Michigan primary voluntarily.  He should get ZERO.
> 
> You're wasting your breath on Ms Wikia.  She's so far up Obama's posterior nothing to do with reality is going to get through.



So punish him for trusting that the rules won't be changed after the contest is held?   Amazing idea.


----------



## Care4all (May 25, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> So punish him for trusting that the rules won't be changed after the contest is held?   Amazing idea.


The question should be, is WHY did he take the stance that disenfranchising Florida Voters was the RIGHT decision in the first place?  Why has he always supported such, the opposite position which the Democratic Party took in 2000 when they believed that EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT, regardless of previous Rule cutoffs for recounting the Vote?

This maneuver of not wanting to count the people's vote for some power struggle between the DNC and the States, is the position the Republicans took in 2000....only a struggle to win the election, AT ANY COST, including the discerning of WHO the people actually voted for....was thrown to the side, for the "sake of the win" but "forsaking" the citizen's true will.

That's NOT democratic, but a system of elitists....

This sure doesn't seem like he is the "Candidate of Change", but a DNC butt licker, like the rest who are not FIGHTING for the CITIZEN and their chance to participate, in our Democracy, by NOT disenfranchising them, just for some control freaks in the Democratic Party that refused to negotiate on old time Party favoritism of some states?


Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.....shame on you and shame on Obama, and the biggest Shame on the DNC!

Care


----------



## Larkinn (May 26, 2008)

Care4all said:


> The question should be, is WHY did he take the stance that disenfranchising Florida Voters was the RIGHT decision in the first place?  Why has he always supported such, the opposite position which the Democratic Party took in 2000 when they believed that EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT, regardless of previous Rule cutoffs for recounting the Vote?



I find it extremely telling that you feel the need to ask why Obama felt that way, when Hillary felt that way as well, and may well have influenced the decision to not count those votes.

And I don't know why he personally held that view, but I've explained why I hold that view.   



> This maneuver of not wanting to count the people's vote for some power struggle between the DNC and the States, is the position the Republicans took in 2000....only a struggle to win the election, AT ANY COST, including the discerning of WHO the people actually voted for....was thrown to the side, for the "sake of the win" but "forsaking" the citizen's true will.



No, its really not.   This is not the same thing the Republicans did in 2000.



> That's NOT democratic, but a system of elitists....



And the hysterics come out again.  



> This sure doesn't seem like he is the "Candidate of Change", but a DNC butt licker, like the rest who are not FIGHTING for the CITIZEN and their chance to participate, in our Democracy, by NOT disenfranchising them, just for some control freaks in the Democratic Party that refused to negotiate on old time Party favoritism of some states?



I've asked you numerous times for a realistic solution.   All you've given me is some rotating crap.   You really think that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would agree to some rotating crap?

By the way...if Hillary is so ethical and the like, why did she wait until after the early states to say that FL and MI should count?   I'll let you figure that one out on your own.  



> Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.....shame on you and shame on Obama, and the biggest Shame on the DNC!
> 
> Care



 

Have fun with the broken primary system from now on.


----------



## Ravi (May 26, 2008)

_I've asked you numerous times for a realistic solution._

Get Obama to give his delegates to the other candidates since he is the only one that violated the rules. Probably not realistic, but certainly the most ethical solution.


----------



## Care4all (May 26, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> I find it extremely telling that you feel the need to ask why Obama felt that way, when Hillary felt that way as well, and may well have influenced the decision to not count those votes.
> 
> And I don't know why he personally held that view, but I've explained why I hold that view.
> 
> ...



she ALWAYS KNEW they would count, the rules allowed for the seating of these delegates by a Dnc called committee, where they in the majority, would be represented by the Democratic Presidential nominee...is what I had read.  

She was always the front runner in the early polling and she was always the leading Presidential Nominee early on....so she knew that she would have her people that would be put on this committee that had to choose whether to seat these delegates or not, that she would have her people do such....

There was no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton has ever been against Florida counting....she did make a statemnt about Michigan later on in the process, after some other DNC meetings that showed the DNC not willing to compromise with the states and also when being question about the future Michigan ballot, and why she did not take her own name off the ballot, and pressured on it, somelike, 'it is clear that the micigan votes won' t count.....yahdeedah", but THAT NEVER MEANT she took the POSITION of being against seating the delegates....  

Even on the June announcement of the DNC regarding Florida, she said she was campaigning in EVERY STATE.....going against the DNC's proposals coming out....  only until the DNC made it's final meet and final decision in August sometime did she agree with the "Early States" that she would not campaign there, but SHE NEVER, EVER said that Florida and Michigan SHOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED as Obama is touting, for mere political posturing.

so enough of this shit that Hillary was for their votes not counting...she would NEVER BE SO POLITICALLY STUPID to take that position, and OBAMA should NOT take that position EITHER.

So if they seat the Delegates, are they going to follow the rule that the ones that broke the rule to campaign there give up their delegates to the other candidates?


----------



## Larkinn (May 26, 2008)

Ravir said:


> _I've asked you numerous times for a realistic solution._
> 
> Get Obama to give his delegates to the other candidates since he is the only one that violated the rules. Probably not realistic, but certainly the most ethical solution.



Sure, the 0 delegates from Florida?   Done.   

And I was asking for a realistic solution to the broken primary system, not for FL and MI.


----------



## Yurt (May 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Obama withdrew his name from the Michigan primary voluntarily.  He should get ZERO.
> 
> You're wasting your breath on Ms Wikia.  She's so far up Obama's posterior nothing to do with reality is going to get through.



exactly.  that wuss decided to ignore voters on purpose.  to bad obama..... you reap what you sow.


----------



## Larkinn (May 26, 2008)

Care4all said:


> she ALWAYS KNEW they would count, the rules allowed for the seating of these delegates by a Dnc called committee, where they in the majority, would be represented by the Democratic Presidential nominee...is what I had read.



Really?   So why did she specifically say early on that MI didn't count for anything?   Are you calling her a liar?  



> She was always the front runner in the early polling and she was always the leading Presidential Nominee early on....so she knew that she would have her people that would be put on this committee that had to choose whether to seat these delegates or not, that she would have her people do such....



Yeah and the committee decided BEFORE they voted.   When she had all the power, they decided NOT to count the votes.   You still haven't explained why she changed her mind, and why you accept that.  



> There was no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton has ever been against Florida counting....she did make a statemnt about Michigan later on in the process, after some other DNC meetings that showed the DNC not willing to compromise with the states and also when being question about the future Michigan ballot, and why she did not take her own name off the ballot, and pressured on it, somelike, 'it is clear that the micigan votes won' t count.....yahdeedah", but THAT NEVER MEANS she took the POSITION of being against seating the delegates....



So why did she sign a pledge to honor the DNC's rules exactly?  She not only took a position on being against seating the delegates, she signed a pledge stating as much.   



> so enough of this shit that Hillary was for their votes not counting...she would NEVER BE SO POLITICALLY STUPID to take that position, and OBAMA should NOT take that position EITHER.



You mean like going back from signing a pledge?   That kind of politically stupid?  

You mean like losing a massive edge against Obama to lose the nomination?   That kind of politically stupid?  



> So if they seat the Delegates, are they going to follow the rule that the ones that broke the rule to campaign there give up their delegates to the other candidates?



So you want to break some rules, but not others, eh?   What a surprise.


----------



## Larkinn (May 26, 2008)

Yurt said:


> exactly.  that wuss decided to ignore voters on purpose.  to bad obama..... you reap what you sow.



Actually they both ignored voters in FL and MI.


----------



## Yurt (May 26, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Actually they both ignored voters in FL and MI.



the same?  are you sure?


----------



## Larkinn (May 26, 2008)

Yurt said:


> the same?  are you sure?



Well one ignored them 59% and one ignored them 61%.   No, they didn't do the exact same thing, but Hillary said that the votes shouldn't count in FL and MI before they voted, so did Obama.   Neither did any major campaign stops, despite the claims that Hillary's "fundraisers" were bogus, or that Obama talking to reporters for 5 minutes was campaigning.


----------



## shan83 (May 26, 2008)

Obama is most fomous in all nationalities but hilary is not
.......................
shan


----------



## jillian (May 27, 2008)

Yurt said:


> the same?  are you sure?



why do you care? just wondering, since you want them both to lose.


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Really?   So why did she specifically say early on that MI didn't count for anything?   Are you calling her a liar?
> 
> *no, the Dnc said that they wouldn't count, but they still were negotiating with the states...she was answering a question where she was hounded on why others took their names off the ballot and she didn't...*
> 
> ...



*The rules have always allowed for this DNC meeting on May 31, to make the final decision on whether to seat Florida and Michigan...

Clinton did not make up this rule, Clinton did not organize the May 31st meeting, clinton just KNEW the rules BETTER than oBAMA and knew that this meeting on May 31 has always been part of the rules and she has always counted on the seats of the floridians and Michiganites being seated....Politically, she has always known it would be the right thing for the DNC to do...*


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2008)

Also Larkin...

WHY DID OBAMA run a National Ad in Florida/Michigan if Florida/Michigan Democratic voters were not going to count?

Can you explain that....hmmmmm?

Doesn't make any sense to me, coming from the Marketing and Advertising arena, that was a whole bunch of WASTED MONEY running ads in states that would SUPPOSEDLY NOT COUNT?

don't fool yourself...your guy Obama is a POLITICIAN, as with the rest of the candidates and is NO CANDIDATE of Change....don't want you to be let down in the future on that....pay attention now and get that notion out of your head.  They are all Politicians and they all bastardize themselves....

Care


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Sure, the 0 delegates from Florida?   Done.
> 
> And I was asking for a realistic solution to the broken primary system, not for FL and MI.



No, according to the article posted somewhere on this thread, violating a rule automatically gave all the delegates to the other candidates.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Care4all said:


> no, the Dnc said that they wouldn't count, but they still were negotiating with the states...she was answering a question where she was hounded on why others took their names off the ballot and she didn't...



Hounded?   You mean asked.   And regardless of whether she was "hounded" or not, she said that MI didn't count for anything if she KNEW they would count?   How can you reconcile those two positions?



> You are being soooo disingenuous it is pathethic. HILLARY WAS THE FRONT RUNNER in both Michigan and florida....SHE HAD NO REASON to NOT WANT these votes to count....only a brain dead or brain washed individual can not recognize THIS.



And you know nothing about primary politics.   How about the reason that South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa would feel fucked if those votes did count?  Gee, I wonder if those 3 states are just a teensy weensy bit important in primary politics, and Hillary didn't want to make them feel like they were getting screwed.



> ALSO, Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties spent an incredible amount of time advertising and getting out the message that EVERY VOTE COUNTED, regardless of WHAT THE DNC was saying....they campaigned on getting out to vote for their presidential candidate and were TOLD that being an earlier state, their voices would be HEARD on who they wanted as President.



Thats nice.   Also irrelevant.



> Those votes in Michigan and in Florida were votes for WHO THESE DEMS WANTED as President, and in Michigan they were told how to handle the candidates that did not leave their name on the ballot....(which was TOTALLY FOOLISH of Obama to take his name off the ballot when he was still in the race, he spat in the voters faces and as the Candidate of Change, of breaking away from the bureacracy of Wahington DC, he stuck with the DC'ers and with the INSIDERS and pulled his name off...choosing bureacracy OVER THE PEOPLE.)



Really?   So tell me how its "for the people" to have the primary usually decided before 75% of the states vote?   Because that is the system you are perpetuating with your nonsense about bureaucracy and washington politics.   Just because it was made in Washington DC (which it wasn't, by the way, thats a stupid claim since we aren't talking about the federal gov, we are talking about the DNC), doesn't mean its actually bad.   



> How many times does this have to be said? Are you that dense? What's up with you?
> 
> The Candidates signed a pledge with the 4 early states to not campaign there as punishment....
> 
> They did not sign a pledge with the DNC, They did not every agree with the DNC that these delegates would not be seated....not be counted.



Statement by the Clinton campaign:



> "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.



Except after they've voted, shes willing to throw them under the bus.



> And we believe the DNCs rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
> 
> Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."



What does this mean to you:



> WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.



So is she against finality, predictability and common sense?   Or did she flip flop when it was politically expedient, and think those things are no longer true?



> What the heck are you talking about? The PLEDGE WAS WITH THE 4 EARLY STATES to NOT campaign there.....?
> 
> And Hillary DID NOT CAMPAIGN THERE, but Obama DID with his National ads...



It was also recognizing the finality and common sense of excluding MI and FL.  



> For the last time, YOUR CANDIDATE is the one who BROKE HIS PLEDGE with the Early states...
> 
> NOT Hillary, but Obama....now swallow THAT!



You are being obtuse and overly semantical.   Tell me, Care, what was the purpose of the pledge?  



> When you have every media outlet, supporting one candidate over another, and hounding one candidate to quit, when the race was not even won yet, it makes it a tad difficult to get the money one needs to run a solid race....



And this was happening in January and February?   Thats a load of bullshit.



> The rules have always allowed for this DNC meeting on May 31, to make the final decision on whether to seat Florida and Michigan...



No, the rules have always allowed for the rules to be changed later on.   Thats not a "final decision", thats a change of the rules.



> Clinton did not make up this rule, Clinton did not organize the May 31st meeting, clinton just KNEW the rules BETTER than oBAMA and knew that this meeting on May 31 has always been part of the rules and she has always counted on the seats of the floridians and Michiganites being seated....Politically, she has always known it would be the right thing for the DNC to do...



Well, cheers.   Your candidate did the "politically" right thing to do.   Mine did the morally right thing to do.   Congratulations on that.  



> WHY DID OBAMA run a National Ad in Florida/Michigan if Florida/Michigan Democratic voters were not going to count?
> 
> Can you explain that....hmmmmm?



Its called a National Ad.   One that runs nation-wide.   



> Doesn't make any sense to me, coming from the Marketing and Advertising arena, that was a whole bunch of WASTED MONEY running ads in states that would SUPPOSEDLY NOT COUNT?



A lot of things don't seem to make sense to you.   Like how the primary system works.



> don't fool yourself...your guy Obama is a POLITICIAN, as with the rest of the candidates and is NO CANDIDATE of Change....don't want you to be let down in the future on that....pay attention now and get that notion out of your head. They are all Politicians and they all bastardize themselves....



You are an idiot.   Do try in the future to avoid taking a generalized view of "obama-ites" and assuming I share those views.   I've always said he is a politician.   No shit he's a politician, what incredibly obvious fact would you like to share with me next?   That being said, hes better than Hillary, and while he is a politician, I don't think he would sell his soul to win.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Ravir said:


> No, according to the article posted somewhere on this thread, violating a rule automatically gave all the delegates to the other candidates.



All the delegates?   In the race?   Thats absurd.


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> All the delegates?   In the race?   Thats absurd.



In the state.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Ravir said:


> In the state.



Which was reduced to 0, since FL and MI broke the rules.

By the way...since Care is saying the pledge is NOT to the DNC, then how is Obama breaking the pledge breaking the "rules of the DNC"?


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Which was reduced to 0, since FL and MI broke the rules.
> 
> By the way...since Care is saying the pledge is NOT to the DNC, then how is Obama breaking the pledge breaking the "rules of the DNC"?



No, if a rule was broken it meant the delegates in the state would go to the remaining candidates. That's how the DNC was able to enforce them not campaigning. None of them wanted to lose Florida.

I don't know the answer to your question, but if you are so bent on enforcing the rules you should enforce them all.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Ravir said:


> No, if a rule was broken it meant the delegates in the state would go to the remaining candidates. That's how the DNC was able to enforce them not campaigning. None of them wanted to lose Florida.



The pledge was NOT a DNC rule.   



> I don't know the answer to your question, but if you are so bent on enforcing the rules you should enforce them all.



Ok, like the rule that FL and MI delegates don't count? 

Done.


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> The pledge was NOT a DNC rule.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



According to the article posted, it was a DNC rule.



> As things stand, any Democratic candidate who campaigns in Florida, will have his or her delegates divided among candidates who refrain from venturing into the forbidden territory.
> 
> Thus the candidates are forced to choose whether they must ignore a motherlode of delegates that could win them the presidential nomination.



http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Ravir said:


> According to the article posted, it was a DNC rule.
> 
> 
> http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html



No, the PLEDGE was not a DNC rule.   Obama and Clinton signed the pledge to appease the voters in the first 4 primary/caucuses.   Then Clinton went back on her word and tried to let FL and MI have early primaries.

As I said...if you want to enforce the rules, I'm happy to enforce the rule that FL and MI don't count.


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2008)

So who made up that rule that I posted above? The State of Florida? Not bloody likely.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Ravir said:


> So who made up that rule that I posted above? The State of Florida? Not bloody likely.



According to the article it seems to have been a DNC rule at the time.   Has it changed since then?   Why is it there?   Is it even relevant since there are ZERO delegates being given in Florida?  

Tell me why you are willing to break the rule of zero delegates being given in Florida, but not willing to break the rule of Obama campaigning?   Tell me why you are so insistent on punishing Obama, but want to let Florida off the hook?


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No, the PLEDGE was not a DNC rule.   Obama and Clinton signed the pledge to appease the voters in the first 4 primary/caucuses.   Then Clinton went back on her word and tried to let FL and MI have early primaries.
> 
> As I said...if you want to enforce the rules, I'm happy to enforce the rule that FL and MI don't count.


they took a pledge with the 4 early states....

the DNC, also had its own rules regarding it of which they did not have to sign a pledge with, but is a rule none the less...

here is a tidbit about it, and a link to the pdf on DNC rules and byaws:

_*Presidential Candidate Sanctions on the Window 
There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on. 

Currently, the only punishment for states that violate the window was on State Parties. This new enforcement provision recognizes that presidential candidates must also bear a responsibility in enforcing the window or face sanctions.

http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/


http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf*_

so, just maybe you need to become a tad more informed on this Larkin....?

care


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> According to the article it seems to have been a DNC rule at the time.   Has it changed since then?   Why is it there?   Is it even relevant since there are ZERO delegates being given in Florida?
> 
> Tell me why you are willing to break the rule of zero delegates being given in Florida, but not willing to break the rule of Obama campaigning?   Tell me why you are so insistent on punishing Obama, but want to let Florida off the hook?



It wouldn't be zero delegates if one of them broke the rule.

Why do I want to let Florida off the hook? I don't want to let the state, the DNC or the candidates off the hook. I want to let the voters off the hook. They are the only ones that matter, imo. And they are the only ones that weren't guilty of anything.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Care4all said:


> they took a pledge with the 4 early states....
> 
> the DNC, also had its own rules regarding it of which they did not have to sign a pledge with, but is a rule none the less...
> 
> ...



will "face sanctions".   What are those sanctions, Care?   

And considering the massive fact-related blunders you've made, don't talk to me about becoming more informed.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Ravir said:


> It wouldn't be zero delegates if one of them broke the rule.



According to who, exactly?  



> Why do I want to let Florida off the hook? I don't want to let the state, the DNC or the candidates off the hook. I want to let the voters off the hook. They are the only ones that matter, imo. And they are the only ones that weren't guilty of anything.



The voters decided who their state government would be.   They must abide by the state governments decisions, and fuckups.


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> will "face sanctions".   What are those sanctions, Care?
> 
> And considering the massive fact-related blunders you've made, don't talk to me about becoming more informed.


i had ONE misunderstanding, of which i immediately fessed up to....larkin, otherswise, all that i have said is true, to the tee, and contrary to what you may believe, or try to twist.   

care

ps.  read the pdf rules and find the sanctions yourself....it is not my problem that the dnc did not spell it out on the cover letter regarding the rules and bylaws.....?


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> According to who, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> The voters decided who their state government would be.   They must abide by the state governments decisions, and fuckups.



 That's just plain silly Larkin.

Do you want the states with a republican majority to be able to move up any democratic primary to where it is Braking the Dnc rules, so that the citizens in these states that are Dems not get represented, and since it was their congress, you want to hold thenm, the citizen, responsible?

What is to prevent Republicans in all states where they have the m,ajority, to do what Florida did aND purposely disenfranchise the Dems by breaking the DNC rules?


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Care4all said:


> i had ONE misunderstanding, of which i immediately fessed up to....larkin, otherswise, all that i have said is true, to the tee, and contrary to what you may believe, or try to twist.



Actually its been several.   Oh, and you were stupid enough to imply I was sexist.   Tell me, Care, was I sexist when I voted for Hillary in 2006?   




> ps.  read the pdf rules and find the sanctions yourself....it is not my problem that the dnc did not spell it out on the cover letter regarding the rules and bylaws.....?



Considering I spoon fed you information multiple times which had already been posted on the thread, which you were unable to read, its really the least you can do.


----------



## Yurt (May 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> why do you care? just wondering, since you want them both to lose.



do you want to stifle my free speech?  do you want to stifle my questions?  what is it to you if i care?


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Care4all said:


> That's just plain silly Larkin.



Not really.  



> Do you want the states with a republican majority to be able to move up any democratic primary to where it is Braking the Dnc rules, so that the citizens in these states that are Dems not get represented, and since it was their congress, you want to hold thenm, the citizen, responsible?



Yes.   The citizens have to deal with the people they vote in, and the results of that.   Thats how it works.   



> What is to prevent Republicans in all states where they have the m,ajority, to do what Florida did aND purposely disenfranchise the Dems by breaking the DNC rules?



Nothing.   But if you think the Republicans would purposely disenfranchise large numbers of the electorate in a primary, just to disenfranchise them your an idiot.   You have any idea of the political fallout?   Its barely politically viable to claim that FL and MI shouldn't be counted, and any reasonable person who wants a primary system thats not completely fucked, would agree not to count them.   But if Republicans disenfranchised voters on purpose?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2008)

Yurt said:


> do you want to stifle my free speech?  do you want to stifle my questions?  what is it to you if i care?



Only CERTAIN people are allowed freedom of speech. Only certain people have opinions which matter....


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Only CERTAIN people are allowed freedom of speech. Only certain people have opinions which matter....



Apparently in you and Yurts world, those people wouldn't include Jillian.   She has the freedom of speech to question Yurts speech.


----------



## Jon (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> The voters decided who their state government would be.   They must abide by the state governments decisions, and fuckups.



How silly. This argument of yours is so paper thin, to claim that the people are to suffer for the actions of the elected officials. Do you realize how blatantly ridiculous it is to claim: "Tough shit, you shouldn't have voted for these people."

Citizens of any state have the right to make their voices heard. They voted on the day they were told to vote, and thus they should not be punished.

Furthermore, if we're talking about following the rules, it's easy. The rules now state that Florida and Michigan don't count. Rules can be changed, and they will be. When the rules change, it should be said that the delegates will be seated according to the number of votes they received in each state. In Florida, Clinton received 50% of the vote, Obama received 33%, and Edwards received 14%. Seat these delegates accordingly, and allow Edwards's delegates to vote their will. In Michigan, Clinton received 55% of the vote, 44% voted undecided, Kuchinich received 4%, Gravel received 0%, Obama received 0%, and Edwards received 0%. So seat 55% of the delegates for Clinton, seat 4% for Kuchinich and allow them to vote their will, seat 0% of Obama, Edwards, and Gravel, and make a decision on what to do with the other 44%. After all, that's how they would have been divided anyway.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

jsanders said:


> How silly. This argument of yours is so paper thin, to claim that the people are to suffer for the actions of the elected officials. Do you realize how blatantly ridiculous it is to claim: "Tough shit, you shouldn't have voted for these people."



Umm, its called a Republic.   You don't like how your Senator, House rep, State reps do?   Vote them out.   You suffer for their actions until you vote them out.   Thats how it works.   



> Citizens of any state have the right to make their voices heard. They voted on the day they were told to vote, and thus they should not be punished.



They have the right to make their voices heard, but not their votes.   Not in a primary.   



> Furthermore, if we're talking about following the rules, it's easy. The rules now state that Florida and Michigan don't count. Rules can be changed, and they will be. When the rules change, it should be said that the delegates will be seated according to the number of votes they received in each state. In Florida, Clinton received 50% of the vote, Obama received 33%, and Edwards received 14%. Seat these delegates accordingly, and allow Edwards's delegates to vote their will. In Michigan, Clinton received 55% of the vote, 44% voted undecided, Kuchinich received 4%, Gravel received 0%, Obama received 0%, and Edwards received 0%. So seat 55% of the delegates for Clinton, seat 4% for Kuchinich and allow them to vote their will, seat 0% of Obama, Edwards, and Gravel, and make a decision on what to do with the other 44%. After all, that's how they would have been divided anyway.



Except for the people who didn't vote in MI and FL get disenfranchised and fucked over, because the DNC is now going back on its word.

Ohios turnout: 27.0%
Wisconsins turnout:  26.3%
Indianas turnout:  27.0%
Michigans turnout:  7.8%.

But yet somehow it should count?


----------



## Jon (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Umm, its called a Republic.   You don't like how your Senator, House rep, State reps do?   Vote them out.   You suffer for their actions until you vote them out.   Thats how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting a revote? I'd be all for that, but it is not financially capable. If a revote isn't possible, the only thing that can be done is to count the votes that were cast. Period.


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Are you suggesting a revote? I'd be all for that, but it is not financially capable. If a revote isn't possible, the only thing that can be done is to count the votes that were cast. Period.



No, I'm suggesting they punish MI and FL for moving their votes early, and not count them.   People have to deal with the choices their government makes.   I didn't want to invade Iraq, but here we are.   If MI and FL don't like the choices their reps made, then vote them out.


----------



## Yurt (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Apparently in you and Yurts world, those people wouldn't include Jillian.   She has the freedom of speech to question Yurts speech.



wrong, again.  she wanted to shut me up.  she was not merely questioning my speech, she was ridiculing my speech....why do i care... hence she wanted to quiet my speech....hello


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Yurt said:


> wrong, again.  she wanted to shut me up.  she was not merely questioning my speech, she was ridiculing my speech....why do i care... hence she wanted to quiet my speech....hello



Oh, well I see.   Freedom of speech is A OK with you then...unless of course your ridiculing someones speech.    

Shes a mod.   If she wanted to shut you up, she could.   By the way, this is a private message board, there is no freedom of speech here.


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No, I'm suggesting they punish MI and FL for moving their votes early, and not count them.   People have to deal with the choices their government makes.   I didn't want to invade Iraq, but here we are.   If MI and FL don't like the choices their reps made, then vote them out.



Just curious...does that mean it's your fault that we torture people?


----------



## Larkinn (May 27, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Just curious...does that mean it's your fault that we torture people?



I'm glad your learning the difference between what the elected representative wants and what the people want.    

But yes, we do need to deal with the fact that Bush invaded Iraq.   Shutting your eyes and saying "well hes not my president" doesn't do much except make you look like an idiot.   Hes there and he makes decisions for the nation, like it or not.


----------



## Ravi (May 28, 2008)

I take it that means yes?

Now, how about that black face link?


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2008)

here is the copy of dnc rule on candidates running an ad in florida/michigan...

OF COURSE THE BIASED NEWS DOESN;T COVER THIS!



> b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a states government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. Campaigning for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.



ALSO, i just found the rule on seating half the delegates....the son of a bitch DNC and MEDIA not covering this opportunity to seat half the delegates ACCORDING TO THE RULES, FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN EARLIER , really pisses me off........

ALSO, another deceitful act on obama camp, spreading the rumor that it is HILLARY making up and changing all these rules midstream....they are in the fricking handbook....of course obama knew them....

what a scumbag....and they speek of hillary.....just unbelievable bunch of sheep, repeating lie after lie....  i just don't get it, as i didn't with the bush supporters???



> a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
> fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the states delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the states delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.



will obama lose all of his delegates from those states?  

if the dnc plays by the rules, the rules that obamaites INSIST on being played as writen....then he does lose them, and we once again, have a horse race!


----------



## Jeepers (May 28, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Obama can't debate his way out of a paper bag.


Youve got to be kidding me.. debate before last he buried her.. there was a moment where she looked at him and said under her breath... Damn.. hes good....

That last debate I actually scored for Obama as well.. it seemed like the moderators where asking the tabloid questions.. Clinton was saying yeah.. what he said...and Obama was saying america doesnt care about this crap.. get to the real questions...

Initially he sucked.. but after what 49 debates.. I'd say he's a pro...


----------



## Jeepers (May 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No, I'm suggesting they punish MI and FL for moving their votes early, and not count them.   People have to deal with the choices their government makes.   I didn't want to invade Iraq, but here we are.   If MI and FL don't like the choices their reps made, then vote them out.


Ding Ding Ding...SC having been given permission to hold the first primary in the south said they'd move it all the way to halloween if they had to..


----------



## Jeepers (May 28, 2008)

> if the dnc plays by the rules, the rules that obamaites INSIST on being played as writen....then he does lose them, and we once again, have a horse race!



Why is it that only a handfull of random bloggers think that Obama campaigned in fla... 

Face it ..this race is done... an unbiased press would have called this long ago...


----------



## Ravi (May 28, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Why is it that only a handfull of random bloggers think that Obama campaigned in fla...
> 
> Face it ..this race is done... an unbiased press would have called this long ago...



Because he spoke to the press. As far as I can tell, it's the only legitimate violation of the rules. What makes you think the press is unbiased?


----------



## Glori.B (May 28, 2008)

Care4all said:


> ALSO, i just found the rule on seating half the delegates....the son of a bitch DNC and MEDIA not covering this opportunity to seat half the delegates ACCORDING TO THE RULES, FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN EARLIER , really pisses me off........
> 
> ALSO, another deceitful act on obama camp, spreading the rumor that it is HILLARY making up and changing all these rules midstream....they are in the fricking handbook....of course obama knew them....
> 
> what a scumbag....and they speak of hillary.....just unbelievable bunch of sheep, repeating lie after lie.... i just don't get it, as i didn't with the bush supporters???



 i'm with ya!

i saw this article on cnn.com this afternoon:


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/28/dnc.memo/index.html
*
"Counting the two states' votes could bring Clinton close enough to Obama's total among pledged delegates which in turn could help persuade the party's "superdelegates" that she is the more electable general election candidate.

Superdelegates are party officials who can cast their ballots for the candidate of their choice. They hold the balance of power in the party at the moment."*


----------



## Jeepers (May 28, 2008)

Um.. there really wasnt a legitimate election in either state.. split the delegates 50/50 and seat em...if your only going to seat 50% then split that amount 50/50.


----------



## Nate Peele (May 28, 2008)

Blogger Jon Swift had a great article on why Obama should just go ahead and concede.

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/05/barack-obama-should-concede-nomination.html


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Um.. there really wasnt a legitimate election in either state.. split the delegates 50/50 and seat em...if your only going to seat 50% then split that amount 50/50.



I don't know what's worse: not counting the votes at all, or not counting the votes the way they were cast.


----------



## Jeepers (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> I don't know what's worse: not counting the votes at all, or not counting the votes the way they were cast.


what about those that stayed home cause they were told the votes wouldnt be counting...

How are you going to reinfranchise those cats.. do you just tell them that they are shit out of luck.. ooops, sorry..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> what about those that stayed home cause they were told the votes wouldnt be counting...
> 
> How are you going to reinfranchise those cats.. do you just tell them that they are shit out of luck.. ooops, sorry..



Sour Grapes. A Vote was held, a legally binding vote, one that is CLEARLY covered by the rules in play BEFORE the vote. At the very least half of the delegates must be seated BY the rules the DNC established BEFORE the event or election. And as I read it ALL the Super Delegates from those two States DO NOT count.

They enforce that and howling will start half a second later.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> here is the copy of dnc rule on candidates running an ad in florida/michigan...
> 
> OF COURSE THE BIASED NEWS DOESN;T COVER THIS!
> 
> ...



What is all this whining?  The DNC stripped the states of their votes.  That was within their purview.  The candidates based their campaign strategies on this understanding.  Those were the rules in effect at the start of the primary season.

The DNC has the authority, should it choose to exercise it, to restore 50&#37; of the votes.  That is what the excerpt you cited (and the legal opinion commissioned by the DNC) says.  

Obama losing his share of the 50% of the delegates for speaking to the press on one occasion?  That is just silly.  Clinton abided by the letter of the rule, but held very large fundraisers, and probably skirted the spirit of the rule.  I don't begrudge her that.  Obama arguably violated the letter of the rule, but in a de minimus way that probably had no effect on the subsequent vote, which was always acknowledged not to count anyway. 

If you want to argue that the votes should be counted because the states are important in the general election, then fine, argue it from the political point of view.  That I can see.  But don't argue that it is unfair to count the votes in states where there wasn't campaigning, and in which the populations beforehand were told their votes don't count.  There is no way you can draw the conclusion that the results that occurred are representative of what would have happened in a fair scenario.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> ALSO, another deceitful act on obama camp, spreading the rumor that it is HILLARY making up and changing all these rules midstream....they are in the fricking handbook....of course obama knew them....
> 
> what a scumbag....and they speek of hillary.....just unbelievable bunch of sheep, repeating lie after lie....  i just don't get it, as i didn't with the bush supporters???



He is not a scumbag for taking the very reasonable view that the votes as cast should not count.  The complaint with what Clinton is doing is that it reflects a change in point of view from that she had before the primary season started, and that this change clearly is in response to the benefits that would accrue to her in counting the votes.

Here is Clinton's position in 2007:



> During an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio, a caller asked Clinton what was up.
> 
> "Now, just this week most of your Democratic competitors removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot. But you didn't, and my question is why?" said the caller, who identified herself as Elaine. "It strikes me as this is politics as usual, where the politicians say one thing and they end up doing something else."
> 
> ...


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90907222

Clinton could have strenuously argued that Florida and Michigan should count at the time the DNC stripped them of their votes.  She did not.  In fact, quite a few of her most ardent supporters were part of the committee that voted to strip the votes.  She only took this position when it became clear that she would need these votes.  Fine.  She is a politician and this is what I would expect.  However, how one goes from this to the idea that Obama is underhanded for not wanting to count the votes escapes me?


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> He is not a scumbag for taking the very reasonable view that the votes as cast should not count.  The complaint with what Clinton is doing is that it reflects a change in point of view from that she had before the primary season started, and that this change clearly is in response to the benefits that would accrue to her in counting the votes.
> 
> Here is Clinton's position in 2007:
> 
> ...


Good morning Reilly,

To me, this is a MAJOR TWIST AND TURNER of the Obama camp and the media against her...

She was VERY CLEAR in her message of why she kept her name on the ballot and how she felt about the disenfranchisement of the Michigan voters and not wanting the republicans to sweap the state...

AND SHE WAS RIGHT....

The Democratic party did not make their final decision on disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, until the week this supposed interviewer asked Hillary this question, and AT THAT POINT it was clear that the votes would not count in Michigan, BECAUSE the DNC had just made the FINAL decision on their stance.

Hillary Clinton HAS ALWAYS stood for the votes/delegates to be seated for those states....  you can go back to comments of hers from when the DNC first said they were going to punish them back in June of 2007, at that time, punishments for campaigning were not discussed yet, she said she would be campaigning in ALL STATES....this link was posted earlier in this thread...

She knew that she could have a huge shot at having these delegates seated, based on the rules that came out...where as the front runner, people from her camp, would be seated on the rules and bylaws committee making this final decision in May of 08....

THIS WAS IN THE RULES set out, and as the front runner, she knew that these delegates WOULD HAVE TO BE SEATED in order to win the General....

And guess what, they DO HAVE TO BE SEATED in order to win the General Election or the back fire from this will comeback to bite them, and we may lose to mccain.

Obama was ALSO AWARE of the May 31 meeting that were part of the rules, to seat the delegates from the states that broke their primaries early....

Obama also was aware that in the DNC rules that he was not allowed to run any Campaign ads in Florida and michigan before their primary or his delegates would be taken away from him, but he CHOSE TO RUN his national ad spread IN THOSE FORBIDDEN STATES prior to their primary and prior to the Feb 5th date....2 days before the florida election....

If the DNC does actually follow the rules, Obama would be STRIPPED of all of his delegates for his breaking the DNC rule regarding these states and Hillary would get all of his delegates...

You don't ever hear the Obama camp regarding their msnbc and cnn advertising campaign run there prior to the primary....and him breaking the rules of the DNC and the sanctions that come with breaking the rules....

Hillary has always been for the votes to count in those states....THERE IS NO REASON for her not to want this from the very beginning because she was ALWAYS the front runner.....and she knew she would have the chance to plead her case for Florida and Michigan being counted before the board on May 31.

This WAS PUT in to the rules of the DNC....Obama should have been aware of it and it was NOT Hillary's job to tell them.

NO ONE, NOT ONE Presidential Candidate signed an agreement NOT TO HAVE THEIR NAMES ON THE BALLOT....

This was a CHOICE that the LOSING CANDIDATES in that state, chose to do....

THIS WAS NOT, in any agreement...Obama chose to do this for ONLY POLITICAL REASONS, thinking it would better position him in the long run because it would NOT SHOW UP as a loss if he did not have his name there...

Well hells bellls Reily...that is NOT Hillary's fault that some of these guys did what they thought was best for them politically, and they turned out to be wrong?

And taking the side of the DNC as Obama did from the very beginning, in my humble position was the wrong decision....he should have always taken the position of siding FOR THE PEOPLE of those states and not some DNC bureacracy that wanted to disenfranchise them because they were too lazy to negotiate with them and find a solution?

Florida and Michigan, if the DNC does not change their rules will NEVER EVER COUNT in any future presidential elections, their vote will NEVER COUNT AGAIN...their dates are what they are, and the DNC better damn well do something about it or they will lose MILLIONS of Democratic members for a generation to come...

Care


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Good morning Reilly,
> 
> To me, this is a MAJOR TWIST AND TURNER of the Obama camp and the media against her...
> 
> ...



She was very clear in 2007 that those votes would not count.  I have no doubt that she believed that when the nomination was wrapped up, the DNC would reverse and let those delegations participate.  However, the nomination was never wrapped up, so it appears that she miscalculated in not pushing for those votes to be counted in the beginning.  Obama only miscalculated if those votes end up counting, but in all likelihood they won't (at least to a degree for it to matter in the nomination process).

It may turn out that taking the position that the votes shouldn't count will hurt Obama in the general election. Time will tell.  However, Clinton has no one to blame so much as herself that the delegations were stripped in the first place.  At the time it happened, there was no stronger force in the DNC than the Clintons and their supporters, and they acquiesced from the beginning.  In this sense, it was her miscalculation that she is now trying to correct.

Perhaps the people of Florida and Michigan are being screwed, but that is partly the fault of their own representatives.  I have no doubt that this situation will be corrected for the next presidential primary season, but that is besides the point for the moment.

Yes, Obama and his camp are currrently doing what is best for them politically.  Clinton is doing the same thing, and both would be doing the very opposite if it suited them better.  I see no reason to demonize Obama any more than I see a reason to demonize Clinton.

On a side note, I doubt this will have much affect on any future general elections than the one we are currently involved in.  The situation will be corrected, and people have short memories.  It is not as if people are not being given the chance to vote because of their race or gender.  It is purely a technical situation of the nomination process.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

By the way, Care, good morning.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> By the way, Care, good morning.



btw, the link / article you gave from NPR has a very deceiving header....

it says Hillary clinton's shift of the florida and michigan votes counting...

The article indicates she had been taking a stance on these votes counting from the VERY BEGINNING, only now to chnage her position.

IF YOU BELIEVE what npr is saying, then it is as I have said, she always stood for the votes of florida and michigan counting, as I mentioned there was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for her personally taking the position of NOT having them count because she WAS THE FRONT RUNNER, BIGTIME, in these states...OF COURSE SHE wanted those votes to count...silly really, for the Obama camp to play her response to this woman about the stance of the dnc just taken for michigan as HER PERSONAL POSITION?

Just a twist and turn to no end....

And no, she did NOT make the decision to ban these states...just because the people on the board did such, does not mean it was her stance.

She had NO REASON to ever take that stance of not counting the votes of these states because she knew they would be needed in the general election to win and she also knew there was no threat of any other candidate of beating her there.

Also, please note that on the michigan and Florida Democratic Party's websites before their primaries they went in to detail of how the voters MUST come out and vote and how they had a grassroots effort going to get people out to vote for president, that they would be heard in this Presidential election and they would be heard first...

Michiganians were told to vote for hillary or any of the other candidates by selecting the other column...55% chose hillary, some chose others on the ballot 5%,  and 40% picked other....that was Obama and Edwards and a couple of others running at the time...that did take their names off.

to take hillary's votes completely away from her because obama and edwards chose to try to make themselves look better is a real problem to me.....

here is what the Florida Democratic Party said after the election:



> News Room Amazing Night For Democrats Everywhere
> No campaigns? No delegates? No problem. Florida Democrats prove America is ready for change
> 
> For Immediate Release: January 29, 2008
> ...



They HAD RECORD NUMBERS on their turn out to vote for president...what happened to counting every dimple and every hanging chad, if it was to discern what the voter really wants, the citizen really wants?

Florida.....look at the darn numbers there....ALL OF THE 4 EARLY STATES that were permisted to run  ALL COMBINED do not come to the total turnout of voters in Florida....

The DNC has got a problem on their hands alright...a huge one and we will lose this election in November if they don't do something.

Btw, Hillary DID NOT CAMPAIGN in those states...Obama did....yet she still won...he should lose all of his delegates there for doing such if the rules are really played by....

sure, Michigan bothers me a little, but truthfully, it was NOT hillary's fault and Obama has taken the wrong stance on this and has made the wrong moves like taking his name off the ballot...a slap to michigan, when it was not called for by the RULES, if he really wants to be our president he needs to take it on the chin and fight for these disenfranchised voters imho.

care


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> By the way, Care, good morning.




mornin'


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

Not seating all the delegates in Florida brings the exact same result as changing the votes to reflect that the majority in Florida voted for Obama.

No matter what they do on Saturday, the DNC fukked up big time and there is no way to fix it without pissing people off.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> what about those that stayed home cause they were told the votes wouldnt be counting...
> 
> How are you going to reinfranchise those cats.. do you just tell them that they are shit out of luck.. ooops, sorry..



Yep, you do. You can't cast votes that weren't cast. And you can't place delegates based on "what would have happened if the people of Florida really thought this was going to count." You can only count the votes that were cast.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> btw, the link / article you gave from NPR has a very deceiving header....
> 
> it says Hillary clinton's shift of the florida and michigan votes counting...
> 
> ...



I am sorry.  I read that article very differently from you.  It seems clear to me that she acknowledged the votes (or at least Michigan's votes) would not count, but that she was keeping her name on the ballot so as not to alienate the population for the general election.  While that may have been a smart move, it doesn't negate her acknowledgement that the vote wouldn't count.



Care4all said:


> And no, she did NOT make the decision to ban these states...just because the people on the board did such, does not mean it was her stance.



No, she personally did not.  However, the DNC board, which was disproportionately packed with her supporters, did make that decision.  The proper time to use her influence to get those votes counted would have been before the DNC decision, not after.  If she couldn't change the minds of the DNC board before there had been a vote, why should the DNC board reverse itself now, when the result of including the essentially uncontested primaries could overturn the results of the other primary contests (assuming Obama will eventually win on the backs of these contests).



Care4all said:


> She had NO REASON to ever take that stance of not counting the votes of these states because she knew they would be needed in the general election to win and she also knew there was no threat of any other candidate of beating her there.



She personally would have had no reason, but the DNC had a reason (and I think a good one), and she may not have felt that Obama posed large enough of a threat to her to consider the long-term ramifications of this decision.



Care4all said:


> Also, please note that on the michigan and Florida Democratic Party's websites before their primaries they went in to detail of how the voters MUST come out and vote and how they had a grassroots effort going to get people out to vote for president, that they would be heard in this Presidential election and they would be heard first...



That's nice, but posting on the DNC website is less influential than the open statement that your votes will not count.



Care4all said:


> Michiganians were told to vote for hillary or any of the other candidates by selecting the other column...55% chose hillary, some chose others on the ballot 5%,  and 40% picked other....that was Obama and Edwards and a couple of others running at the time...that did take their names off.



I do not believe the option of "uncommitted" necessarily produces the same result as actually having the name on the ballot.  More important to me, however, is that the candidates didn't campaign in the contest, which was held early in the primary season, so it is likely the populace was not as familiar with the candidates as they are today.



Care4all said:


> to take hillary's votes completely away from her because obama and edwards chose to try to make themselves look better is a real problem to me.....



It isn't just Clinton.  Votes towards all candidates were stripped.  That was the rule of the DNC.  Hence, there was no campaigning.  Clinton did say that she didn't think it was important that she kept her name on the ballot.  She said it wouldn't make a difference.  Apparently, she has changed her mind on that.



Care4all said:


> They HAD RECORD NUMBERS on their turn out to vote for president...what happened to counting every dimple and every hanging chad, if it was to discern what the voter really wants, the citizen really wants?
> 
> Florida.....look at the darn numbers there....ALL OF THE 4 EARLY STATES that were permisted to run  ALL COMBINED do not come to the total turnout of voters in Florida....



Florida is a big state.  Would the turnout have been different if the votes had been acknowledged to be counted?  I would think so.  How would it have been different?  Who knows?  Would the results of the contest been different if all the candidates had campaigned in the state?  I think so.  How would it have been different?  Who knows?



Care4all said:


> The DNC has got a problem on their hands alright...a huge one and we will lose this election in November if they don't do something.



Perhaps, but it is a little early to tell.



Care4all said:


> Btw, Hillary DID NOT CAMPAIGN in those states...Obama did....yet she still won...he should lose all of his delegates there for doing such if the rules are really played by.



No she did not campaign, but she did hold very large fundraisers that may have had some of the same effects of campaigning.  It is arguable whether Obama campaigned.  The nationwide ad buy could not exclude Florida.  Regardless, I don't think either did the sort of campaigning necessary to really effect the vote, coupled with the fact that we don't know which parts of the population didn't vote that would have were the results to have counted.



Care4all said:


> sure, Michigan bothers me a little, but truthfully, it was NOT hillary's fault and Obama has taken the wrong stance on this and has made the wrong moves like taking his name off the ballot...a slap to michigan, when it was not called for by the RULES, if he really wants to be our president he needs to take it on the chin and fight for these disenfranchised voters imho.
> 
> care



The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place.  Let's not confuse this with blacks in the 1950s.  Besides, Clinton said that leaving her name on the ballot was essentially symbolic, since the vote wouldn't count anyway.  Obama only made a miscalculation if the delegates are seated to his significant detriment, which they likely won't be.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Yep, you do. You can't cast votes that weren't cast. And you can't place delegates based on "what would have happened if the people of Florida really thought this was going to count." You can only count the votes that were cast.



Or not. Recognizing that the Florida vote may not be representative of the will of Floridians, and that the candidates didn't campaign, one could take the reasonable step of not counting the votes at all - which is essentially (50% shenanigans aside) what will happen.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> However, the DNC board, which was disproportionately packed with her supporters, did make that decision.



Actually, moreso, it was the Florida state legislature that ultimately made the decision to screw over the voters in Florida. The DNC and the RNC told them to change their primary date, they refused.



> The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place.



Not true. I think a LOT of voters in Florida knew they should vote that day because they knew that ultimately the DNC could decide to count their votes. I also think that Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dean, and the rest of the Democratic party knew the delegates would be seated eventually, because they knew they wouldn't want the voters in these two states to feel left out. What I don't think anyone expected was that seating the delegates could decide the outcome of the race. But, here we are, now what are they gonna do about it?


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Not true. I think a LOT of voters in Florida knew they should vote that day because they knew that ultimately the DNC could decide to count their votes. I also think that Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dean, and the rest of the Democratic party knew the delegates would be seated eventually, because they knew they wouldn't want the voters in these two states to feel left out. What I don't think anyone expected was that seating the delegates could decide the outcome of the race. But, here we are, now what are they gonna do about it?



All true, but all that I meant is that in a party primary system, one doesn't have the legal right to vote, although the vote cannot be denied on some specific criteria such as race, gender, et.

I am sure that lots of voters did vote for precisely the reasons that you state.  However, we will never know how many voters did not vote who otherwise would have, and we don't know who they would have voted for, and we don't know that the results wouldn't have been different had the candidates campaigned.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

I absolutely agree. But we can't seat delegates on what might have been, either. We have to seat delegates on the votes that were cast, period.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

_The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place._

hmmmmmmmmmm?


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> _The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place._
> 
> hmmmmmmmmmm?



That is right.  Disenfranchisement technically assumes a right to vote that existed in the first place.  Illegal aliens are not disenfranchised because they have no right to vote in the first place.  Legally, people have no right to vote on the nominee of any particular political party.  Thus, states can be stripped of their opportunity to vote for a nominee, and yet they haven't been disenfranchised.


----------



## Jeepers (May 29, 2008)

> Hillary has always been for the votes to count in those states....THERE IS NO REASON for her not to want this from the very beginning because she was ALWAYS the front runner.....and she knew she would have the chance to plead her case for Florida and Michigan being counted before the board on May 31.



Good morning Care...


I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> I absolutely agree. But we can't seat delegates on what might have been, either. We have to seat delegates on the votes that were cast, period.



True, but in light of the uncertainty of the Florida vote, whether it was fair to the candidates and the people, whether all those who would have voted did so, we can choose to not factor in these votes to the nominating process.  No delegates must necessarily be seated from these states.  It would be nice if they can be, but it is reasonable to have questions about the representativeness of the vote in light of the circumstances.


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Good morning Care...
> 
> 
> I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....



The Clintonista are mired in desperation and denial.  In such circumstance, facts necessarily take a back seat.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> All true, but all that I meant is that in a party primary system, one doesn't have the legal right to vote, although the vote cannot be denied on some specific criteria such as race, gender, et.
> 
> I am sure that lots of voters did vote for precisely the reasons that you state.  However, we will never know how many voters did not vote who otherwise would have, and we don't know who they would have voted for, and we don't know that the results wouldn't have been different had the candidates campaigned.


Absolutely right, HOWEVER that was FAIR AND SQUARE....

no Candidate, (other than Obama) campaigned there....how do you know if Hillary had broken the rules and run her national campaign ads there prior to the election as Obama DID DO, that she would have not gotten even more votes than she did?

soooooo, it was fair and square, other than obama's act of running ads there, no one had the opportunity to campaign there and 1.7 million people came out to vote in that primary, where 1.2 million was the largest primary in their history before this...

The Democratic party had a very long explanation on their site PRIOR to the election, every paper in florida covered it, over and over again...THEY WERE TOLD to go out and vote, they were assured that their votes and voices would be heard....

there was absolutely NO REASON for the voter to not go out and vote, NONE.

No one in florida thought it was a Beauty Contest, no one.

If Hillary was allowed to campaign there, she would have whooped Obama's and edwards butt even moreso.....  it was her state to win, always....


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> That is right.  Disenfranchisement technically assumes a right to vote that existed in the first place.  Illegal aliens are not disenfranchised because they have no right to vote in the first place.  Legally, people have no right to vote on the nominee of any particular political party.  Thus, states can be stripped of their opportunity to vote for a nominee, and yet they haven't been disenfranchised.



I don't see it that way. If they had no right to vote then there would have been no election.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Absolutely right, HOWEVER that was FAIR AND SQUARE....
> 
> no Candidate, (other than Obama) campaigned there....how do you know if Hillary had broken the rules and run her national campaign ads there prior to the election as Obama DID DO, that she would have not gotten even more votes than she did?
> 
> ...



Perhaps if there had been campaigning, Clinton would have won by even more.  Who knows?

I contest that the fact that no campaigning by any candidate makes a primary fair and square.  

Do you think it would be a fair primary system that allowed no campaigning in any state?  If that had been the rule, Clinton probably would have gone 50 for 50.  However, campaigning matters and it has a strong effect on the outcome, as we have seen.  It allows candidates with less name recognition (e.g., Obama) to make themselves familiar to the voters and to explain their positions.

I do not view a primary without campaiging to be fair and square.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Good morning Care...
> 
> 
> I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....



Explain, please. Which facts?


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I don't see it that way. If they had no right to vote then there would have been no election.



One can hold an election whose results don't matter.  It is a waste of time and money, but it can be done.  See Michigan.

From a strictly legal point of view, these voters were not disenfranchised.


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Perhaps if there had been campaigning, Clinton would have won by even more.  Who knows?
> 
> I contest that the fact no campaigning by any candidate makes a primary fair and square.
> 
> ...





Especially when one candidate enjoyed the benefit of 16 years worth of branding and name recognition.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> One can hold an election whose results don't matter.  It is a waste of time and money, but it can be done.  See Michigan.
> 
> From a strictly legal point of view, these voters were not disenfranchised.



Perhaps. But not including them gives Obama an unfair advantage because not counting them is the same result as awarding them to Obama.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Perhaps. But not including them gives Obama an unfair advantage because not counting them is the same result as awarding them to Obama.



How is not counting them giving the delegates to Obama? No one gets those delegates, which is what was decided in August 2007.  Why is following through with what was decided 7 months before the primaries in those states unfair to Clinton?  It is only unfair because she ended up doing well in those states, where there was no campaigning and it was understood the votes wouldn't count.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Good morning Care...
> 
> 
> I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....



what facts jeepers, I know for a fact that she was always going to win florida, now michigan i could be mistaken but Florida, that early on in the process, she absolutely was going to blow the other candidates away...?

and good morning to you also!

Why isn't obama being punished for breaking the campaign rule of running ads there before the Primary in these states?

It IS IN THE RULES....will he be stripped of all of his delegates as the rules stated is my concern...after all, we gotta ALL follow the rules.....?  

care

here is the rule in case you did not see it:  I don't even see the option for the DNC to strip them of all of their delegates, which was probably in violation of the DNC rules in the first place....

_C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, *the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent.* In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the states delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the states delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.


b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a states government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. *Campaigning for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic *organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section._


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> How is not counting them giving the delegates to Obama? No one gets those delegates, which is what was decided in August 2007.  Why is following through with what was decided 7 months before the primaries in those states unfair to Clinton?  It is only unfair because she ended up doing well in those states, where there was no campaigning and it was understood the votes wouldn't count.



It's unfair because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> It's unfair because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.



Yes, it's unfair not to seat the delegates because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Why isn't obama being punished for breaking the campaign rule of running ads there before the Primary in these states?
> 
> It IS IN THE RULES....will he be stripped of all of his delegates as the rules stated is my concern...after all, we gotta ALL follow the rules.....?



1. It is debatable whether he broke the rules
2. It is arguable that even if he did, it was a violation that didn't matter.
3. It is up to the DNC to sanction him if they wish.
4.  Since all the delegates were stripped, it is irrelevant.  She would get 100%of zero.


The DNC felt it was within their power to strip all the delegates.  They voted overwhelmingly to this effect.  However, it appears that they will reverse themselves and award 50% anyway, so they appear to be within the rule under even the strictest interpretation.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> It's unfair because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.



Why does that make it unfair?  The delegates were stripped prior to the Florida and Michigan primaries.  Somebody was going to win them.  That doesn't mean that it was unfair to the winner, whoever that may be, merely because they won.  These were the rules going in.

I would argue that it is perfectly fair, just unfortunate for Clinton.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Why does that make it unfair?  The delegates were stripped prior to the Florida and Michigan primaries.  Somebody was going to win them.  That doesn't mean that it was unfair to the winner, whoever that may be, merely because they won.  These were the rules going in.
> 
> I would argue that it is perfectly fair, just unfortunate for Clinton.



I would argue that it would be equally unfair to Obama if the situation was reversed.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I would argue that it would be equally unfair to Obama if the situation was reversed.



I don't see how it would be unfair to either one of them.  If you say that a primary isn't going to count, and the candidates essentially rely on this (and hence don't compete for votes in those states), then it just doesn't count.  Someone will surely win the vote, but so what?  Someone has to win.  The primary still doesn't count.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

Obama said that he got permission from Sc DEM PARTY, who he signed a pledge with, to run the ads in Florida before their primary....

Obama is the ONLY candidate to break his pledge and run his national ads before the florida and michigan primaries.

Obama did NOT go to the DNC for permission when the RULES clearly state that this would be breaking their rules...

Looks like Obama cheated, or tried to sweet talk his way thru the rules, doesn't it?  I am not imagining this am I?

NO OTHER CANDIDATE, put their national campaign ads in the schedule before the rules allowed for florida and michigan, other than Obama...

Also, his team was counting on our ignorance on saying his national ads had to run in all states, which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE, he could have made a state by state buy with cnn and msnbc, I have done it many a time...yes, it takes a little more work to set it up that way, but not enough extra work that would have prohibited them to do it this way...



> Clinton camp: Obama's Florida ads bust pledge
> 
> By Jeremy Wallace
> 
> ...


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I would argue that it would be equally unfair to Obama if the situation was reversed.



  

You lying sack of you know what!


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

WHAT RULE in the DNC Primary rules allowed the rules and bylaws committee to strip Florida and michigan of all of their delegates???

I have read the whole rule book and there is nothing that i have seen that allowed this committee to do such....the only rule that i have seen is the rule that says these states SHALL have their delegates cut in half....

Did the bylaws committee actually break their OWN RULES?

Man oh man, this thing is so messed up....

Howard Dean really needs to be fired, he showed NO LEADERSHIP in this situation and has HURT the democratic party more than he helped it, with what is going on in this fiasco....imo!

care


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> I don't see how it would be unfair to either one of them.  If you say that a primary isn't going to count, and the candidates essentially rely on this (and hence don't compete for votes in those states), then it just doesn't count.  Someone will surely win the vote, but so what?  Someone has to win.  The primary still doesn't count.



Sorry, I actually meant to the voters that voted for either Hillary or Obama.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

manifold said:


> You lying sack of you know what!



This is what happens when you start thinking you know what I think.


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> This is what happens when you start thinking you know what I think.



In this case, I think I actually know better than you.  Sometimes we don't see ourselves as clearly as others may.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Obama said that he got permission from Sc DEM PARTY, who he signed a pledge with, to run the ads in Florida before their primary....



Well, it actually says that he consulted with the Chair of the SC DNC, and that she didn't think this violated the pledge.  I don't see that being a big deal.



Care4all said:


> Obama is the ONLY candidate to break his pledge and run his national ads before the florida and michigan primaries.



He was behind in many states with Super Tuesday coming up.  I can see why he would want to make a national buy.



Care4all said:


> Obama did NOT go to the DNC for permission when the RULES clearly state that this would be breaking their rules...
> 
> Looks like Obama cheated, or tried to sweet talk his way thru the rules, doesn't it?  I am not imagining this am I?
> 
> NO OTHER CANDIDATE, put their national campaign ads in the schedule before the rules allowed for florida and michigan, other than Obama...



He had more money, and more to gain from a nationwide buy.



Care4all said:


> Also, his team was counting on our ignorance on saying his national ads had to run in all states, which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE, he could have made a state by state buy with cnn and msnbc, I have done it many a time...yes, it takes a little more work to set it up that way, but not enough extra work that would have prohibited them to do it this way...



Okay Care.  I see no reason to quibble about this because I don't see how it is important.  Fine.  I am willing just to accept that he violated the rule.  I am not sold on this point, but for the sake argument, let's assume that he did.  So what?  First, did this likely make much of a difference in the Florida vote?  I doubt it, but who knows.  Is the DNC going to punish him for this?  It is probably in their power, but they won't and everyone knows this.

Where does that leave us?  Florida will still probably count for 50% and it won't make a dent in the delegate count.  Michigan will probably count the same (which, frankly, I think is insane), but it won't be enough either.  There you have it.  Game over.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Sorry, I actually meant to the voters that voted for either Hillary or Obama.



Okay.  Unfair to the voters I concede.  That is the fuckup of the legislatures of the states and the DNC.  Neither candidate can really be blamed for that one.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

manifold said:


> In this case, I think I actually know better than you.  Sometimes we don't see ourselves as clearly as others may.



Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> WHAT RULE in the DNC Primary rules allowed the rules and bylaws committee to strip Florida and michigan of all of their delegates???
> 
> I have read the whole rule book and there is nothing that i have seen that allowed this committee to do such....the only rule that i have seen is the rule that says these states SHALL have their delegates cut in half....
> 
> ...



I doubt they broke their own rules, but it is possible.  In any event, half of the delegates will probably be restored, and Clinton (who is behind) will reap some benefit, so in this case, I don't see much of an issue.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> what about those that stayed home cause they were told the votes wouldnt be counting...
> 
> How are you going to reinfranchise those cats.. do you just tell them that they are shit out of luck.. ooops, sorry..



they were ALL TOLD to come out and vote.

The parties had a major campaign to go out and vote, regardless of what national party was saying that their voices WOULD BE HEARD....

all news in their states emphasized going out to vote...

Anyone that was going to vote, voted Jeepers...they had record numbers at their primaries...the message was out that they would be heard...and counted.

i read the democratic party's sites in these states before their primaries, they had a HUGE EFFORT telling all voters to get out and vote and that their vote would count to determine the Presidency.


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Keep telling yourself that.



Plagiarist.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Well, it actually says that he consulted with the Chair of the SC DNC, and that she didn't think this violated the pledge.  I don't see that being a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If he was punished as the rules state, for breaking their rule on running ANY PAID campaign ads there, THEN he would lose his delegates for the States and Hillary would still get all of hers...that would put her in the legitimate, TRUE BY THE RULES, lead....i believe... when the florida and michigan delegates are reinstated by half...

this makes this a horserace again, and a Super Delegate fight, with their votes as the final decision makers i would suppose?


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Okay.  Unfair to the voters I concede.  That is the fuckup of the legislatures of the states and the DNC.  Neither candidate can really be blamed for that one.



No they can't. But I just thought I'd let you know that people will hold it against Obama. It's just human nature.

Especially since he did speak to the press.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

manifold said:


> Plagiarist.



YOU made that up?

Doubtful.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> If he was punished as the rules state, for breaking their rule on running ANY PAID campaign ads there, THEN he would lose his delegates for the States and Hillary would still get all of hers...that would put her in the legitimate, TRUE BY THE RULES, lead....i believe... when the florida and michigan delegates are reinstated by half...
> 
> this makes this a horserace again, and a Super Delegate fight, with their votes as the final decision makers i would suppose?



Well, it would only apply to Florida I believe.  I don't think that the ads ran in Michigan.  However, it doesn't matter. He will not be penalized.  Both states will probably get 50% of the delegates seated, with the uncommitted Michigan voters going to Obama.  I don't think this is a particularly fair way to handle this, but Solomon would be proud. It is what it is.  I just don't see any point blaming Clinton or Obama for any of this.  They are both working with the system as much as they can to get as many delegates as they can.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Well, it would only apply to Florida I believe.  I don't think that the ads ran in Michigan.  However, it doesn't matter. He will not be penalized.  Both states will probably get 50% of the delegates seated, with the uncommitted Michigan voters going to Obama.  I don't think this is a particularly fair way to handle this, but Solomon would be proud. It is what it is.  I just don't see any point blaming Clinton or Obama for any of this.  They are both working with the system as much as they can to get as many delegates as they can.



why won't the rule be followed, would they have followed it if it were the Hillary camp breaking the rule......I'll answer ...OF COURSE!

the Media and Obama camp would have been ALL OVER IT imo!!!!  Calling Hillary a cheater from here to kingdom come!!

The rules are the rules as the Obama side has been touting and if he did break them, in both Michigan and Florida....of running an ad before they were permitted by the dnc, then follow the rules damnit, things should not be changed MIDSTREAM....

(as the Obamaites have been saying about Hillary, when it turns out, she IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE, left in the race that did NOT break the rules.

And why should obama get the votes casted for edwards in Michigan?  That is unfair too ya know, and Hillary nor the rules made him and his buddy edwards, take their names off the ballot....they did this all on their own for their own political purposes, as stated previously.

And yes, the Obama camp is "playing dumb" when they say they got permission from SC, well the SC Dems have nothing at all to do with breaking the DNC RULES...., that was a pledge the candidates made to them separately....and even in that, there was no rule to take his name off the ballot....

I am sorry i keep arguing these points, but it turns out, with all things, the Devil is in the detail...

care


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> why won't the rule be followed, would they have followed it if it were the Hillary camp breaking the rule......I'll answer ...OF COURSE!
> 
> the Media and Obama camp would have been ALL OVER IT imo!!!!  Calling Hillary a cheater from here to kingdom come!!
> 
> ...



First, I don't think it is clear that any rules were broken.  

Second, if Clinton had done the same thing, I expect that the DNC wouldn't take any action in that case either.  The DNC doesn't want to change the expected outcome due to a technical violation that likely had no effect on the vote.

Finally, I don't think Obama should get any votes from Michigan.  Only one name was on the ballot.  I don't think it can be called a fair primary by any stretch of the imagination.  No one should get votes from Michigan, or perhaps the delegates should be allotted according to current polling.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Of course, the Democrat party is a private organization.  They can choose a nominee by letting a chimp pull names out of a hat if they want to.  So there isn't much room for arguing with whatever the DNC decides to do.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Of course, the Democrat party is a private organization.  They can choose a nominee by letting a chimp pull names out of a hat if they want to.  So there isn't much room for arguing with whatever the DNC decides to do.



True.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> First, I don't think it is clear that any rules were broken.
> 
> Second, if Clinton had done the same thing, I expect that the DNC wouldn't take any action in that case either.  The DNC doesn't want to change the expected outcome due to a technical violation that likely had no effect on the vote.
> 
> Finally, I don't think Obama should get any votes from Michigan.  Only one name was on the ballot.  I don't think it can be called a fair primary by any stretch of the imagination.  No one should get votes from Michigan, or perhaps the delegates should be allotted according to current polling.



Actually it would be very UNFAIR to not give Hillary the delegates that she earned by the voters voting for her...

And I repeat, OBAMA CHOSE to take his name off this primary in Michigan for his OWN POLITICAL POSTURING, there was no rule for him to do such....

Hillary and the voters of Michigan should not be punished for what Obama as a candidate CHOSE to do...

your way, is extremely unfair to Hillary, who got actual votes that need to be represented.

The DNC RULES were writen in the year 2006 for this 2008 primary, he SHOULD HAVE READ THEM...

And as far as the ad in florida and michigan...

I can assure you that people do not run ads and spend the boocoos and boocoos of money for them, if they DID NOT KNOW that advertising GIVES RESULTS....

His ads and mini press meet, both broke the rules and both will go unsanctioned.... by the good ole boys club of the DNC....I don't see that as playing fair or within our own private party rules....


And btw, we are the private party...we the Democratic member formed the party...there is no they against us, we members are the they, which the committees are suppose to represent, I thought?

care


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> No one should get votes from Michigan, or perhaps the delegates should be allotted according to current polling.



If that's the case, there should be revotes in all the states that voted before Edwards, Kucinich, and Gravel dropped out. It's arguable that Clinton or Obama may have received more votes if those names were on the ballot.

Get real, fella. Polls are just polls, and have nothing to do with actual votes. One person can take 15 different polls and skew the numbers, but they can only vote once. Votes are what count.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> And btw, we are the private party...we the Democratic member formed the party...there is no they against us, we members are the they, which the committees are suppose to represent, I thought?
> 
> care



The Dems put in Super Delegates precisely so they wouldn't be stuck with the decisions of you voting members of the party


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> The Dems put in Super Delegates precisely so they wouldn't be stuck with the decisions of you voting members of the party



Precisely the reason the electoral college was formed, too. Politicians used to not care what certain people thought. They gave favor to larger states, which used to mean richer, whiter people, and they wanted those voices heard more.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Precisely the reason the electoral college was formed, too. Politicians used to not care what certain people thought. They gave favor to larger states, which used to mean richer, whiter people, and they wanted those voices heard more.



The States were supposed to determine the President, not the citizenry at large.  That's because the States were supposed to be a union of Sovereign states and the President the head of the Federal government that had limited duties with respect to these States.  Works well enough if that's the type of government you actually have, but we don't have that any more.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

DNC lawyers have ruled no more than half the delegates from the two states can be recognized:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/05/28/AR2008052803093.html?nav=rss_politics


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> The Dems put in Super Delegates precisely so they wouldn't be stuck with the decisions of you voting members of the party




I KNOW!

I am so ready for the rules to be changed to one primary, some time in may, for both repubs and Dems, so that everyones vote from every state will count, so that it would reduce the amount of shenannigans from cross over votes like what happened this time when the repubs already had a winner and the repubs that had not had primaries yet could switch over and paly around....

And because I do think that the way the Dem party has it set up is unfair to many states in many ways...

Caucuses are a joke too, imo...like texas where Hillary overwhelmingly won the actual vote of the citizens there, then at the caucus that afternoon/evening where there were not even 1/10 of the amount of people that voted that day, and Obama wins their caucus, and guess what, Obama got more of the delegates, caucuses somehow with much fewer people actually discerning their will, GET MORE DELEGATES, than races where a primary is held....THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME????

The whole thing is just crazy, crazy crazy, all twisted up and confusing so that as you say, those in the limelight for the party had all the power in the end....  scarey to me....that this is the way it is....  

maybe i just don't understand their reasoning on this fully?

Care


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> maybe i just don't understand their reasoning on this fully?
> 
> Care



A lot of it is just political reasoning.  Some of it historical as well I suppose.

You'll likely never get just one nationwide primary for both parties.  Small states that are now politically important aren't going to want to give up that kind of power.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> DNC lawyers have ruled no more than half the delegates from the two states can be recognized:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/05/28/AR2008052803093.html?nav=rss_politics



Which is understandable and expected, now it's just a matter of how they allocate those delegates. Clinton should at least receive the percentage she won in both elections, but that's not to say Obama should receive all the rest, either.

Bad news for Obama is...Clinton's got more support on the rules committee. That is, unless at least 8 of the 9 uncommitted members rule in his favor, which is highly unlikely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/meet-the-dnc-rules-commit_n_102924.html


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Which is understandable and expected, now it's just a matter of how they allocate those delegates. Clinton should at least receive the percentage she won in both elections, but that's not to say Obama should receive all the rest, either.



Clinton is done anyway.  

They'll come up with some political compromise for the delegates I guess, but it will be a compromise that does not end up changing the current result in terms of who is winning.  If they made a decision that actually changed things, there'd be too much political hell to pay.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Clinton is done anyway.
> 
> They'll come up with some political compromise for the delegates I guess, but it will be a compromise that does not end up changing the current result in terms of who is winning.  If they made a decision that actually changed things, there'd be too much political hell to pay.



Al Sharpton wouldn't get to make jokes about riding donkeys anymore.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> If that's the case, there should be revotes in all the states that voted before Edwards, Kucinich, and Gravel dropped out. It's arguable that Clinton or Obama may have received more votes if those names were on the ballot.
> 
> Get real, fella. Polls are just polls, and have nothing to do with actual votes. One person can take 15 different polls and skew the numbers, but they can only vote once. Votes are what count.



Fair enough.  Michigan wasn't a fair contest for anyone, so its votes shouldn't count.  I just thought that if you wanted to gauge the will of the voters of Michigan, and another primary election isn't possible, polls are the best that you have got.  I personally think the vote shouldn't count at all.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Actually it would be very UNFAIR to not give Hillary the delegates that she earned by the voters voting for her...
> 
> And I repeat, OBAMA CHOSE to take his name off this primary in Michigan for his OWN POLITICAL POSTURING, there was no rule for him to do such....
> 
> ...



The DNC said it wouldn't count.  At least some of the voters and the campaigns acted on the assumption that the vote would not count.  I don't see how anyone can possibly think it is fair to count them anyway.  

Ads do matter, but don't overstate it. I doubt a couple of days of ads in a national buy didn't have much effect here.  However, we can never know, since the vote wasn't fair by pretty much any standard of the primary process.

The democratic party is controlled by the leaders of the democratic party.  Perhaps you think they should respond to you.  I am sure Obama supporters think the party should also respond to their desires.  In fact, it does pretty much what it wants.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> The DNC said it wouldn't count.  At least some of the voters and the campaigns acted on the assumption that the vote would not count.  I don't see how anyone can possibly think it is fair to count them anyway.



Yeah, that's the problem.  There's no way to tell how the votes would have gone if the DNC hadn't ruled the votes wouldn't be counted. There's no way to tell how many people stayed home and who they would have voted for.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> A lot of it is just political reasoning.  Some of it historical as well I suppose.
> 
> You'll likely never get just one nationwide primary for both parties.  Small states that are now politically important aren't going to want to give up that kind of power.


They can ban candidates from campaining in the larger states until March, let the smaller states have the candidates visit them first and campaign there first....

The whole issue was that smaller states thought that the candidates would never visit them if it was all popular vote, but there certainly are ways around this, to make this happen, without sticking to the elitist system they have...

Shoot, I am a nobody, not even that involved in politics outside of message boards like this, and even i could come up with one way of handling the smaller states where they would not be ignored, even if the primary was held on one day in May...  certainly those in the know, the insiders could put their thinking hats, coupled with a little ingenuity and come up with some kind of reform that would better serve ALL CITIZENS, both small state and large state, for the Primaries?

Sometimes everything needs to be blown up and we need start back from square one, from scratch, and i am beginning to think we are getting near to that point.....  

care


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Clinton is done anyway.
> 
> They'll come up with some political compromise for the delegates I guess, but it will be a compromise that does not end up changing the current result in terms of who is winning.  If they made a decision that actually changed things, there'd be too much political hell to pay.



The results actually could make a difference. With a primary coming up that Clinton is slated to win by a large margin (Puerto Rico), and two other primaries (Montana, South Dakota) that will probably be an about even split, getting a majority of the delegates from Michigan and Florida would further close the delegate gap. This could put her within 100 or so delegates of Obama. Furthermore, if turnout in Puerto Rico is as big as expected, Clinton is likely to close the gap on the popular vote (counting Florida, of coures) and possibly even take the lead. With those things in mind, along with the polls showing Clinton beating McCain by larger margins in important states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - we could see a lot of unpledged delegates leaning her way.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Sometimes everything needs to be blown up and we need start back from square one, from scratch, and i am beginning to think we are getting near to that point.....
> 
> care



True.  There are many such things that could stand to be blown up.  Getting the collective will together to do it is another story...


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> They can ban candidates from campaining in the larger states until March, let the smaller states have the candidates visit them first and campaign there first....
> 
> The whole issue was that smaller states thought that the candidates would never visit them if it was all popular vote, but there certainly are ways around this, to make this happen, without sticking to the elitist system they have...
> 
> ...



I actually like the time frame the DNC set up.  It allows candidates with fewer resources and less name recognition to focus their efforts on a few states to demonstrate their viability.  If we started with something like Super Tuesday, the best known candidates would always pull out a victory because lesser known candidates wouldn't have the resources to compete.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> However, we can never know, since the vote wasn't fair by pretty much any standard of the primary process.



You're absolutely right, the vote was not by any means fair, for any candidate. But since the DNC has refused to pay for revotes (and the Obama camp, unlike Clinton, hasn't offered to help raise money for one), the only option we have is to count the votes that were cast. Period.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> This could put her within 100 or so delegates of Obama. Furthermore, if turnout in Puerto Rico is as big as expected, Clinton is likely to close the gap on the popular vote (counting Florida, of coures) and possibly even take the lead. With those things in mind, along with the polls showing Clinton beating McCain by larger margins in important states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - we could see a lot of unpledged delegates leaning her way.



It could, but I don't see the DNC letting it happen.  If the unpledged delegates throw the election to the white candidate, regardless of what you want to argue about how close they are in popular vote or whatever, the Dems are going to do serious damage to their relationship with a constituency they need to win.  I think the DNC is probably going to do anything it can to ensure that doesn't happen.

I could be wrong, however.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> The results actually could make a difference. With a primary coming up that Clinton is slated to win by a large margin (Puerto Rico), and two other primaries (Montana, South Dakota) that will probably be an about even split, getting a majority of the delegates from Michigan and Florida would further close the delegate gap. This could put her within 100 or so delegates of Obama. Furthermore, if turnout in Puerto Rico is as big as expected, Clinton is likely to close the gap on the popular vote (counting Florida, of coures) and possibly even take the lead. With those things in mind, along with the polls showing Clinton beating McCain by larger margins in important states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - we could see a lot of unpledged delegates leaning her way.



I highly doubt the superdelegates are going to flip back towards Clinton.  I think it is especially unlikely if the basis for doing so is the result of the Fla/Michigan primaries and the popular vote total of Puerto Rico, which won't even vote in the general election.  I am pretty sure this thing is done, but only time will tell I guess.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> I actually like the time frame the DNC set up.  It allows candidates with fewer resources and less name recognition to focus their efforts on a few states to demonstrate their viability.  If we started with something like Super Tuesday, the best known candidates would always pull out a victory because lesser known candidates wouldn't have the resources to compete.



Your argument that lesser known candidates don't fare as well against a hugely popular candidate like Clinton falls flat on its face when you consider that Obama won Iowa - the first state to vote.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> ...the only option we have is to count the votes that were cast. Period.



Or to count none of them.  That's an option.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Or to count none of them.  That's an option.



You're right, it's an option that will upset millions of voters in both state and likely hand two large electoral states to the Republicans in November. Novel idea.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> You're absolutely right, the vote was not by any means fair, for any candidate. But since the DNC has refused to pay for revotes (and the Obama camp, unlike Clinton, hasn't offered to help raise money for one), the only option we have is to count the votes that were cast. Period.



No, the other option is not to count the votes, or to give a 50% delegate count that won't effect the outcome of the nomination process, which is what they will probably do.

I don't understand your reasoning.  You say that because the vote wasn't fair, it must be counted?


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> You're right, it's an option that will upset millions of voters in both state and likely hand two large electoral states to the Republicans in November. Novel idea.



Florida seems headed for McCain, but Michigan is still essentially neck and neck, with several months to the election.  I don't think anything has necessarily been handed to anyone.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> You're right, it's an option that will upset millions of voters in both state and likely hand two large electoral states to the Republicans in November. Novel idea.



Count them all and throw the election to Hillary and you upset millions of other voters the Dems need and throw the election to McCain.  Not a good idea either.  They've painted themselves into a corner.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> It could, but I don't see the DNC letting it happen.  If the unpledged delegates throw the election to the white candidate, regardless of what you want to argue about how close they are in popular vote or whatever, the Dems are going to do serious damage to their relationship with a constituency they need to win.  I think the DNC is probably going to do anything it can to ensure that doesn't happen.
> 
> I could be wrong, however.



The racial undertones of this election are really, really annoying.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> The racial undertones of this election are really, really annoying.



Yes.  But the DNC has to be aware of them realistically.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> No, the other option is not to count the votes, or to give a 50% delegate count that won't effect the outcome of the nomination process, which is what they will probably do.



Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know what's worse: not counting the votes at all, or not counting the votes the way they were cast. Either way goes against the will of voters in both states.



> I don't understand your reasoning.  You say that because the vote wasn't fair, it must be counted?



No, my reasoning is since it's the only vote that we have to go by, it's the vote that should count.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Florida seems headed for McCain, but Michigan is still essentially neck and neck, with several months to the election.  I don't think anything has necessarily been handed to anyone.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html

Errr....headed for McCain if you put Obama on the ticket, it seems.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, that's the problem.  There's no way to tell how the votes would have gone if the DNC hadn't ruled the votes wouldn't be counted. There's no way to tell how many people stayed home and who they would have voted for.



In Florida, 1,700,000 came out to vote in the Democratic Primary...it broke ALL RECORDS or previous primaries, the largest previously 1.200,000...

They broke that record by more than  +45&#37; in turn out this time....

Certainly near everyone that was GOING to end up voting, voted.

Sure there are people that are registered that may not have voted, but no moreso than any other election where registered voters CHOOSE not to vote...

This should NEVER be held AGAINST the people who did take their responsibility of voting seriously and went to the polls to cast their votes.

Care


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Certainly near everyone that was GOING to end up voting, voted.



I don't think you can say that's "certain" at all.  Just showing a record turnout isn't hard evidence of this assertion.  Florida has something like 10 million registered voters.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html
> 
> Errr....headed for McCain if you put Obama on the ticket, it seems.



Similar problems in Michigan.

What bemuses me is that I don't think Obama supporters really care anymore if the Dems win. Otherwise they'd be considering the fact that Clinton is the more likely winner against McCain.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html
> 
> Errr....headed for McCain if you put Obama on the ticket, it seems.



That is what I meant, but the margin isn't that large, and there is still plenty of time before the general election.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> It could, but I don't see the DNC letting it happen.  If the unpledged delegates throw the election to the white candidate, regardless of what you want to argue about how close they are in popular vote or whatever, the Dems are going to do serious damage to their relationship with a constituency they need to win.  I think the DNC is probably going to do anything it can to ensure that doesn't happen.
> 
> I could be wrong, however.



A constituency they need to win? Blacks will vote Democratic, I think that's a safe assumption, or they won't vote at all. If Obama wins the nomination, do you realize how many voters in Southern states (and many other states) will go to the polls just to keep a black man out of office? Trust me: a lot.

Racial undertones do suck, but they're life. We have to deal with them, and they don't bode well in Obama's favor.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think you can say that's "certain" at all.  Just showing a record turnout isn't hard evidence of this assertion.  Florida has something like 10 million registered voters.



Except that in 2000 about 500,000 voted in the primary. In 2004, about 750,000 did. And this time it was about 1,750,000.

Just Dems, mind you.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Similar problems in Michigan.
> 
> What bemuses me is that I don't think Obama supporters really care anymore if the Dems win. Otherwise they'd be considering the fact that Clinton is the more likely winner against McCain.



I support Obama, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.  I'm not going to vote Dem just to vote Dem.  Your assumption is that everyone who supports Obama would have Hillary as their second choice, and therefore they should do what is best for the party and just support her as the stronger candidate.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> A constituency they need to win? Blacks will vote Democratic, I think that's a safe assumption, or they won't vote at all. If Obama wins the nomination, do you realize how many voters in Southern states (and many other states) will go to the polls just to keep a black man out of office? Trust me: a lot.



A lot of them have been saying they won't vote at all.  In swing States that could kill the Dems and throw the election to the GOP.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> That is what I meant, but the margin isn't that large, and there is still plenty of time before the general election.



You're right, so realistically, McCain's lead over Obama could increase, or Obama could jump ahead, or Clinton could increase her lead over McCain, or McCain could jump ahead.

But we don't know what could happen, so isn't it smarter to go with the safer bet? If Clinton's already ahead, isn't it more likely that she's got a better chance to increase or maintain her lead than it is for Obama to make up an approximately 9% deficit?

Plus, there's also the idea that a lot of people say McCain over Clinton in that election just because they assume she's not going to win anyway.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Except that in 2000 about 500,000 voted in the primary. In 2004, about 750,000 did. And this time it was about 1,750,000.
> 
> Just Dems, mind you.



Yes, but this has been a different election everywhere in terms of turnout.  You'd get a better idea of things if you compared the % turnout in MI and FL to other States.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> I support Obama, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.  I'm not going to vote Dem just to vote Dem.  Your assumption is that everyone who supports Obama would have Hillary as their second choice, and therefore they should do what is best for the party and just support her as the stronger candidate.



You aren't a typical Dem then. I wouldn't say all of Obama's supporters, but most of them.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Similar problems in Michigan.
> 
> What bemuses me is that I don't think Obama supporters really care anymore if the Dems win. Otherwise they'd be considering the fact that Clinton is the more likely winner against McCain.



Many of us aren't convinced that Clinton is the stronger candidate.  However, before you start suggesting that Obama supporters aren't interested in winning, you should ask yourself who here has considered not voting if their candidate is not the nominee.

Uh..huh.  Oh yes I did just did that. Snap! Can you take it?!


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> But we don't know what could happen, so isn't it smarter to go with the safer bet? If Clinton's already ahead, isn't it more likely that she's got a better chance to increase or maintain her lead than it is for Obama to make up an approximately 9% deficit?



The only problem with that argument is that means a few months ago it would have been smarter to dump Hillary and go with Obama.  It's fluid.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> A lot of them have been saying they won't vote at all.  In swing States that could kill the Dems and throw the election to the GOP.



I'd rather they didn't vote at all than for them to vote for McCain. More than 50&#37; of Clinton voters (myself included) have said they would vote McCain if Obama were the nominee, in some states.

Which do you think is more likely to hurt the Democratic party?

Plus, the swing states don't have large populations of blacks. Southern states like Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama do. Do you honestly see those states voting Obama in the general anyway?


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> You aren't a typical Dem then. I wouldn't say all of Obama's supporters, but most of them.



I'm not a Dem but an Independent.  But I know some other independents who feel likewise.  Hell, I even know a Republican who SAYS he is going to vote for Obama, but he'd never vote for Hillary.

I don't know how prevalent my view is, however.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> You're right, so realistically, McCain's lead over Obama could increase, or Obama could jump ahead, or Clinton could increase her lead over McCain, or McCain could jump ahead.
> 
> But we don't know what could happen, so isn't it smarter to go with the safer bet? If Clinton's already ahead, isn't it more likely that she's got a better chance to increase or maintain her lead than it is for Obama to make up an approximately 9% deficit?
> 
> Plus, there's also the idea that a lot of people say McCain over Clinton in that election just because they assume she's not going to win anyway.



You are right.  We don't know what would happen.  There are plenty of reasons to think that one candidate or the other would do better in the general election.  I don't see anything compelling on either side.  Couple this with the fact that Obama is winning by the objective metrics, and I see no reason that Obama supporters should jump ship.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Many of us aren't convinced that Clinton is the stronger candidate.  However, before you start suggesting that Obama supporters aren't interested in winning, you should ask yourself who here has considered not voting if their candidate is not the nominee.
> 
> Uh..huh.  Oh yes I did just did that. Snap! Can you take it?!



That's true, Reilly, but I'm not the typical Dem either.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> I'd rather they didn't vote at all than for them to vote for McCain. More than 50% of Clinton voters have said they would vote McCain if Obama were the nominee, in some states.
> 
> Which do you think is more likely to hurt the Democratic party?
> 
> Plus, the swing states don't have large populations of blacks. Southern states like Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama do. Do you honestly see those states voting Obama in the general anyway?



Don't get me wrong, I think Hillary is the strongest candidate.

Swing States like Missouri have enough of a black population that it can change the election. 

The mid terms in 2006 gave the Senate to the Dems by what, a couple thousand votes total?  Less?

It doesn't take many people in some key states where the election is going to be close anyway.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think Hillary is the strongest candidate.
> 
> Swing States like Missouri have enough of a black population that it can change the election.
> 
> ...



A state as rural as Missouri (excluding areas like Springfield and St. Louis) is going to be competitive even without the black vote. Clinton has a huge following in southern Missouri, which is basically the same demographic as most of Arkansas.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> That's true, Reilly, but I'm not the typical Dem either.



I think it is probable that both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters will end up voting for the other democratic candidate should they win.  I am not terribly concerned about it at this point.  However, the sooner this wraps up and the party divisions can be breached, the better.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> You are right.  We don't know what would happen.  There are plenty of reasons to think that one candidate or the other would do better in the general election.  I don't see anything compelling on either side.



Look at it statistically. What is more likely to happen? Is Obama more likely to close a 9 point gap, or is Clinton more likely to maintain a 6 point lead?


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> I think it is probable that both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters will end up voting for the other democratic candidate should they win.  I am not terribly concerned about it at this point.  However, the sooner this wraps up and the party divisions can be breached, the better.



Polls suggest otherwise. A little under 40% of Obama supporters said they would vote McCain over Clinton, while more than 50% of Clinton supporters said they'd vote Clinton over McCain.

Obama is a true liberal. Clinton is a moderate leaning liberal. McCain is a moderate leaning conservative.

It makes sense that more Clinton supporters would be in favor of McCain than Obama supporters.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Look at it statistically. What is more likely to happen? Is Obama more likely to close a 9 point gap, or is Clinton more likely to maintain a 6 point lead?



It is the primary season, I don't know - and not just with Florida.  I also don't know about many of the other states.  As Steerpike noted, these things are fluid.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> I think it is probable that both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters will end up voting for the other democratic candidate should they win.  I am not terribly concerned about it at this point.  However, the sooner this wraps up and the party divisions can be breached, the better.



I'm not so sure. A pretty big portion of Dems in my state are swing voters and see McCain as a moderate.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> A state as rural as Missouri (excluding areas like Springfield and St. Louis) is going to be competitive even without the black vote. Clinton has a huge following in southern Missouri, which is basically the same demographic as most of Arkansas.



Go look at the last few years of Missouri elections.  Senatorial elections, Presidential in 2004.  You take away a significant percentage of black voters in Missouri, the State goes to McCain.  It barely went to McCaskill in the 2006 Senatorial election.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Polls suggest otherwise. A little under 40% of Obama supporters said they would vote McCain over Clinton, while more than 50% of Clinton supporters said they'd vote Clinton over McCain.
> 
> Obama is a true liberal. Clinton is a moderate leaning liberal. McCain is a moderate leaning conservative.
> 
> It makes sense that more Clinton supporters would be in favor of McCain than Obama supporters.



I don't put much stock in that.  The candidates are roughly the same in terms of policy.  Perhaps Clinton supporters are a little less magnaminous right now because it looks like she is going to lose.  It is easier to say you would support the other candidate when you don't really think it is going to be an issue.  I still think both sides will rally around the eventual nominee.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> It is the primary season, I don't know - and not just with Florida.  I also don't know about many of the other states.  As Steerpike noted, these things are fluid.



I haven't seen many polls change drastically without some unforeseen event influencing them. So unless one of the candidates has a major "misspeak" between now and November, I don't see the polls changing much.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I'm not so sure. A pretty big portion of Dems in my state are swing voters and see McCain as a moderate.



McCain has been having an easy ride of late.  All of that will change in about a month or two.  Then we will begin to have a better sense of the candidates strengths against one another.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> Look at it statistically. What is more likely to happen? Is Obama more likely to close a 9 point gap, or is Clinton more likely to maintain a 6 point lead?



Keep in mind that the error margin in these polls is usually 3% or more.  If you're talking about 6 points versus 9 points then they are statistically tied unless the error margin is less than 3%.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Go look at the last few years of Missouri elections.  Senatorial elections, Presidential in 2004.  You take away a significant percentage of black voters in Missouri, the State goes to McCain.  It barely went to McCaskill in the 2006 Senatorial election.



The thing about Missouri is...I see McCain winning it no matter who runs. He already holds significant leads over both candidates, but his lead over Obama is much larger.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...issouri_mccain_opens_lead_over_both_democrats


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> The thing about Missouri is...I see McCain winning it no matter who runs. He already holds significant leads over both candidates, but his lead over Obama is much larger.
> 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...issouri_mccain_opens_lead_over_both_democrats



Yes, he'll probably win Missouri.  But the point remains that there are other swing States, and I guarantee you the DNC is cognizant of what it could mean to lose the black vote in those places.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> I haven't seen many polls change drastically without some unforeseen event influencing them. So unless one of the candidates has a major "misspeak" between now and November, I don't see the polls changing much.



Look at the Clinton/Obama race and see how they changed over six months.  Even take a state like Missouri and look at the general election polls.

SurveyUSA had Obama beating McCain by 3 in December.
In March, McCain was beating Obama by 14.
In May, McCain's lead over Obama was back to 3.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/missouri.html

It changes pretty quickly all the time.  We won't have any idea of the solidity of the support for a few months when the Democrats actually have a nominee and the general election campaigning is under way.


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> The thing about Missouri is...I see McCain winning it no matter who runs. He already holds significant leads over both candidates, but his lead over Obama is much larger.
> 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...issouri_mccain_opens_lead_over_both_democrats



That poll is old.  His lead has shrunk considerably just within the last 2 months.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> McCain has been having an easy ride of late.  All of that will change in about a month or two.  Then we will begin to have a better sense of the candidates strengths against one another.



Who won Florida in 2004 without an easy ride?


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, he'll probably win Missouri.  But the point remains that there are other swing States, and I guarantee you the DNC is cognizant of what it could mean to lose the black vote in those places.



What states are we looking at? Even in a state with as large a black population as Alabama and Georgia, Clinton polls better than Obama. And Obama WON those states in the primary.

Clinton is also more likely to win states like Kentucky, Nevada, and Arkansas.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> What states are we looking at? Even in a state with as large a black population as Alabama and Georgia, Clinton polls better than Obama. And Obama WON those states in the primary.
> 
> Clinton is also more likely to win states like Kentucky, Nevada, and Arkansas.



Swing states:

NH, PA, AR, FL, WV, V, IA, MI, MO, OH, WI, CO, NV, NM

Polls between now and November are going to change a lot.  The DNC has to take into account that it may need every vote it can get in Nov.  I don't think alienating a large portion of the base is the way to do it.  

To justify giving Hillary the nomination, she would have to make substantial inroads into pledged delegates and popular vote.  That just isn't going to happen realistically.


----------



## Jeepers (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> they were ALL TOLD to come out and vote.
> 
> The parties had a major campaign to go out and vote, regardless of what national party was saying that their voices WOULD BE HEARD.....


What was the national party saying?



> all news in their states emphasized going out to vote....


What again was the national party saying...



> Anyone that was going to vote, voted Jeepers...they had record numbers at their primaries...the message was out that they would be heard...and counted..


Pure conjecture and they've not been counted as of yet have they.. Its not a fair election because we really dont know how many did not turn out to vote because they saw it as a lesson in futility... Since the polls show that obama voters are smarter than hill's I can see more Obama supporters staying home.. 



> i read the democratic party's sites in these states before their primaries, they had a HUGE EFFORT telling all voters to get out and vote and that their vote would count to determine the Presidency.


Where was all this concern when they were supporting the primary date move....

btw... HILLARY SAID THAT THE VOTES IN BOTH STATES WOULD NOT BE USED IN DETERMINING A NOMINEE... are you cats calling her a flip flopping hypocrite. Kinda makes me wonder which side of any of the issues she will adhere to... she already said she would obliterate Iran and get involved in any conflict between nations in the middle east... I wonder how long it would take for her to flip flop on abortion and healthcare... hell maybe McCain isnt bush term three.. maybe bush term three is a Hill presidency... who knows where she is going to stand on any issue tomorow...Karl Rove is already drawing electorial maps for her


----------



## ReillyT (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Who won Florida in 2004 without an easy ride?



Bush won Florida, but I don't understand the significance of your post.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> NH, PA, AR, FL, WV, V, IA, MI, MO, OH, WI, CO, NV, NM



It's funny, because Clinton won all of those states except Virginia, Missouri, and Wisconsin. You forgot Kentucky, which could go either way depending on the nominee. Clinton won that, easily, too.

Here's a fun game:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/calculator.html

Plug in the states based on what the current polls show. Do McCain versus Obama, and then McCain versus Clinton. See how it turns up for you.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> It's funny, because Clinton won all of those states except Virginia, Missouri, and Wisconsin. You forgot Kentucky, which could go either way depending on the nominee. Clinton won that, easily, too.
> 
> Here's a fun game:
> 
> ...



Yeah.  Current polls are meaningless though.

The DNC has to look at it from a broader view.  You've got one candidate ahead in every marker that counts in terms of deciding the nominee.  You want to he DNC to turn that upside down?

I agree that Hillary has a better chance of winning in November, so I'm not arguing that point.  But I think it is virtually impossible that the nomination is going to go to her.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> What was the national party saying?
> 
> What again was the national party saying...
> 
> ...



you are twisting her words on that one jeepers, i read the context of that quote....find any other quote where she has said that she did not WANT the votes of the people of michigan to count.....they were trying to corner her, but not dodd for some reason, on not withdrawing their names....

here is what michigan sent out to all democratic registered voters....

THAT'S ALL that matters....they are citizens of michigan first...it is MICHIGAN'S primary for the democratic party....

florida and michigan ALWAYS KNEW that they would only lose 1/2 of their delegates because this IS WHAT WAS IN THE WRITEN RULES, of which i have shown NUMEROUS TIMES already....

everyone knew they would count....everyone but Obama, it seems, because obama was never, ever going to accept their delegates because no one, hardly anyone, was going to vote for him....THAT was his politiking....thus pulling his name off and pretending there was no seating 1/2 the delegates rule....i digress...

yes, the dem rules committee OVER PUNISHED the states not following the rules, trying to scare all the other states not to change, but the RULES since 2006, writen for this 2008 primary, SAYS SO.....that 1/2 shall be lost only, never does it say all delegates...*

but no one, NO ONE IN THE MEDIA, covered the true story....boosting obama up while squashing hillary....  

like i have pointed out, the dnc rules would not give a loss of delegates as the sanction for candidates running ads there, if there never were any delegates to sanction....?

care

here is the michigan thing....it was IMPORTANT for dems to come out and vote, because they neede the turn out for the most delegates to be seated....  YES, DELEGATES to be seated....  

i am not crazy here, both states and the citizens within it, were told to ignore what the DNC was saying and get out and vote!



> News from
> THE MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Jason Moon
> ...


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah.  Current polls are meaningless though.
> 
> The DNC has to look at it from a broader view.  You've got one candidate ahead in every marker that counts in terms of deciding the nominee.  You want to he DNC to turn that upside down?
> 
> I agree that Hillary has a better chance of winning in November, so I'm not arguing that point.  But I think it is virtually impossible that the nomination is going to go to her.



Oh, I TOTALLY agree with you. I don't think she will get it, either. But, it makes more sense that she should.

If Florida and Michigan are seated in a way that gives her a boost in delegates, and Puerto Rico turns out in massive numbers to allow her to take the popular vote (or at least close the gap some), you could see superdelegates rethinking their positions. I'm not saying anyone is going to jump off the Obama train openly, but if Clinton stays in until August (which I think she should do if thinks go as I have mentioned), you could see people vote in a way other than they publicly pledged.

It actually makes more sense for the nomination to go as long as possible. As has been mentioned, current polls don't mean as much as future polls. So why not see where voters stand in November and decide then? I don't think it's going to hurt Democrats at all to wait that long.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2008)

I don't know.  I think it will hurt the party to be tied up in the nomination process right up to the convention.  It's better to get on with the general election.  

But who can say for sure.

We'll see what June holds.


----------



## Jeepers (May 29, 2008)

So what... I dont care what these renegade states sent out... the DNC said the votes wont count.. [U]all candidates agreed[/U]... Hill just decided to flip flop on this cause she is losing... 

Blind hill supporters are starting to sound like blind bush supporters.. they have their opinions though the facts of the matter show otherwise... this race is over... hill will not take this fight to the convention and risk blowing the general..


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> So what... I dont care what these renegade states sent out... the DNC said the votes wont count.. [U]all candidates agreed[/U]... Hill just decided to flip flop on this cause she is losing...
> 
> Blind hill supporters are starting to sound like blind bush supporters.. they have their opinions though the facts of the matter show otherwise... this race is over... hill will not take this fight to the convention and risk blowing the general..



Actually, she will. Because I think in the back of her mind, she supports McCain. She can't openly show it, because that blows her chances in 2012. But I don't think she wants Obama to win, and I support her in that decision.


----------



## Jeepers (May 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> I don't know.  I think it will hurt the party to be tied up in the nomination process right up to the convention.  It's better to get on with the general election.
> 
> But who can say for sure.
> 
> We'll see what June holds.




History has shown this to be the case... any true democrat would be against such a selfish manuever....


----------



## Shogun (May 29, 2008)

While a black man against a republican might be a steeper hill than a white woman versus a republican I see no reason why Clinton's dead horse should continue when she has been pwned again and again and has to resort to manipulating statistics like a 1940s tobacco company.  

peurto fucking rico?  give me a break.


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

Shogun said:


> While a black man against a republican might be a steeper hill than a white woman versus a republican I see no reason why Clinton's dead horse should continue when she has been pwned again and again and has to resort to manipulating statistics *like a 1940s tobacco company. *
> 
> peurto fucking rico?  give me a break.



  

Or pink-lunger fascists!


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Shogun said:


> she has been pwned again and again



I could say the same for Obama.


----------



## Shogun (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> I could say the same for Obama.



no, you really cant without having to manipulate the date like silly putty in the hands of a 12 fingered kid.


----------



## Shogun (May 29, 2008)

manifold said:


> Or pink-lunger fascists!



that gets you Pos Rep.




well, after I spread it around, apparently.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Shogun said:


> no, you really cant without having to manipulate the date like silly putty in the hands of a 12 fingered kid.



No, I can. Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New York, Florida...states that matter, tell me, how many of those states did he win?

Right, none.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Bush won Florida, but I don't understand the significance of your post.



Just pointing out that Florida is a swing state and so are most Florida Dems swing voters north of South Florida. If Bush can win Florida, McCain can easily over Obama.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Just pointing out that Florida is a swing state and so are most Florida Dems swing voters north of South Florida. If Bush can win Florida, McCain can easily over Obama.



Especially after what happened in 2000.


----------



## jillian (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Just pointing out that Florida is a swing state and so are most Florida Dems swing voters north of South Florida. If Bush can win Florida, McCain can easily over Obama.



the election's going to come down to a bunch of old jews in century village in boca raton.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2008)

jillian said:


> the election's going to come down to a bunch of old jews in century village in boca raton.



Hey, at least we don't have butterfly ballots anymore.


----------



## jillian (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Hey, at least we don't have butterfly ballots anymore.



Thank goodness for little favors, eh?


----------



## Shogun (May 29, 2008)

jsanders said:


> No, I can. Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New York, Florida...states that matter, tell me, how many of those states did he win?
> 
> Right, none.



Oh, you mean "win" or WIN?  Indeed, let's all just look to those 5 states and disregard everyone else who has made a CLEAR choice.


Poll	Date	Sample	Obama 	Clinton 	Spread
RCP Average	05/08 - 05/28	--	51.0	40.5	Obama +10.5
Gallup Tracking	05/25 - 05/28	1279 V	52	42	Obama +10.0
Rasmussen Tracking	05/25 - 05/28	900 LV	47	44	Obama +3.0
Newsweek	05/21 - 05/22	608 RV	50	42	Obama +8.0
Reuters/Zogby	05/15 - 05/18	516 LV	59	33	Obama +26.0
Quinnipiac	05/08 - 05/12	864 RV	45	41	Obama +4.0
ABC News/Wash Post	05/08 - 05/11	620 A	53	41	Obama +12.0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html


You don't have the Majority of anything.  ANYTHING.  nadda.  zilch.  zip.  5 weighted states...   whooptyfuckingdo.  I mean, it's not like there are 50 states in the union or that every indication from delegate count to popular vote is all that important when a clintonite wants to masticate the data.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Oh, you mean "win" or WIN?  Indeed, let's all just look to those 5 states and disregard everyone else who has made a CLEAR choice.
> 
> 
> Poll	Date	Sample	Obama 	Clinton 	Spread
> ...



Are you naive enough to suggest that Obama can't lose this election because more Americans would vote for him?

Obviously you forgot the travesty of 2000. Look to the electoral college, it is strongly in McCain's favor.


----------



## Nate Peele (May 29, 2008)

_Are you naive enough to suggest that Obama can't lose this election because more Americans would vote for him?

Obviously you forgot the travesty of 2000. Look to the electoral college, it is strongly in McCain's favor._

Haha, you're so naieve.  He might not even win the primary even with more Democrats voting for him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 29, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Hey, at least we don't have butterfly ballots anymore.



You are aware the design and the placement of names and holes was decided by DEMOCRATS?


----------



## manifold (May 29, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are aware the design and the placement of names and holes was decided by DEMOCRATS?



Democrats got to decide where you place your hole?  That's really too bad man, you have my sincerest condolences.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are aware the design and the placement of names and holes was decided by DEMOCRATS?



you are aware that the secretary of state, katherine harris , was ultimately responsible to assure the ballot was acceptable and had to sign off on what this democratic chairman chose as a ballot, along with the ballots sent in by all chairmans for the final, official, state sign off?

 

care


----------



## jillian (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> you are aware that the secretary of state, katherine harris , was ultimately responsible to assure the ballot was acceptable and had to sign off on what this democratic chairman chose as a ballot, along with the ballots sent in by all chairmans for the final, official, state sign off?
> 
> 
> 
> care



yes, but to be fair... it was also signed off on by a dem rep who was too oblivious to realize how bad the ballot was.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

jillian said:


> yes, but to be fair... it was also signed off on by a dem rep who was too oblivious to realize how bad the ballot was.



fair enough, but her office, failed to protect the votes of thousands of west palm beach citizens, and was the ultimate overseer of the entire florida election, by Law....and if ya gotta place, Where the Buck stops....

those at the very top need to take responsibility is kinda how i look at it....

but you are right, there were flub ups all around!!!

care


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 29, 2008)

Care4all said:


> fair enough, but her office, failed to protect the votes of thousands of west palm beach citizens, and was the ultimate overseer of the entire florida election, by Law....and if ya gotta place, Where the Buck stops....
> 
> those at the very top need to take responsibility is kinda how i look at it....
> 
> ...



Absolute revisionist bullshit, that type ballot was used for YEARS and no cared one whit till Gore lost. I wonder why that is?

Ohh ya what happened to all those claims that in 2002 and 2004 electronic machines were being rigged by Republicans? Ohh wait I remember, they got dropped when in 2006 the dems won. After that, until this election they are fine, now if the dems lose again we will once again be reminded about those bad machines.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2008)

Nate Peele said:


> _Are you naive enough to suggest that Obama can't lose this election because more Americans would vote for him?
> 
> Obviously you forgot the travesty of 2000. Look to the electoral college, it is strongly in McCain's favor._
> 
> Haha, you're so naieve.  He might not even win the primary even with more Democrats voting for him.



How's that for irony?


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute revisionist bullshit, that type ballot was used for YEARS and no cared one whit till Gore lost. I wonder why that is?
> 
> Ohh ya what happened to all those claims that in 2002 and 2004 electronic machines were being rigged by Republicans? Ohh wait I remember, they got dropped when in 2006 the dems won. After that, until this election they are fine, now if the dems lose again we will once again be reminded about those bad machines.




THAT BALLOT was KNOWN to be ineffective in a presidential race, it was used and acceptable in special elections and other issue votes and in other races where there are not so many candidates, but it was well known NOT to work, and to cause confusion if there were multiple candidates such as president and vice president on the same ticket and multiple total candidates in a race.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute revisionist bullshit, that type ballot was used for YEARS and no cared one whit till Gore lost. I wonder why that is?
> 
> Ohh ya what happened to all those claims that in 2002 and 2004 electronic machines were being rigged by Republicans? Ohh wait I remember, they got dropped when in 2006 the dems won. After that, until this election they are fine, now if the dems lose again we will once again be reminded about those bad machines.




it stopped because florida passed election reform last year or late 2006, where the repub majority tied this 5 years and some, legislation on election reform to moving their primary up before the allowed date....this forced the dems to vote yes for this bill....ultimately, leading to their sanction on delegates in this primary...

no need to worry, dems got the election reform needed, but repubs got the Dem party delegates disqualified....this is why i have always believed the dnc was wrong in sanctioning them, it was not the fla dem legislator's fault!

sorry for the tangent....

care


----------



## Gunny (May 29, 2008)

Obama doesn't deserve "halfway."  He lost FL and withdrew from Michigan.  If they're going to count, count them as they went down instead of allowing this smarmy bastard to dictate terms.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Obama doesn't deserve "halfway."  He lost FL and withdrew from Michigan.  If they're going to count, count them as they went down instead of allowing this smarmy bastard to dictate terms.



You don't think "smarmy bastard" is a bit much?  The DNC said these votes wouldn't count.  To count them now would be unfair and prejudicial to Obama's campaign.  Why should he be willing to let them count?  To the extent he has any say in the matter, he will try to make sure that if they do count, they do so only to an extent not to change the outcome of the nomination process.  Not only would any politician do the same, but many people who aren't politicians feel the same.


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute revisionist bullshit, that type ballot was used for YEARS and no cared one whit till Gore lost. I wonder why that is?
> 
> Ohh ya what happened to all those claims that in 2002 and 2004 electronic machines were being rigged by Republicans? Ohh wait I remember, they got dropped when in 2006 the dems won. After that, until this election they are fine, now if the dems lose again we will once again be reminded about those bad machines.



I don't think it was used for years, just that one time. Regardless, I agree, people in Palm Beach county are idiots.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 30, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> You don't think "smarmy bastard" is a bit much?  The DNC said these votes wouldn't count.  To count them now would be unfair and prejudicial to Obama's campaign.  Why should he be willing to let them count?  To the extent he has any say in the matter, he will try to make sure that if they do count, they do so only to an extent not to change the outcome of the nomination process.  Not only would any politician do the same, but many people who aren't politicians feel the same.



The DNC is ignoring their own rules. The rules STATE half should count anyway.


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2008)

I don't think smarmy bastard is a bit much. He's turning into the GWB of the left.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The DNC is ignoring their own rules. The rules STATE half should count anyway.



Well, perhaps you are right, although I have my doubts.  It probably isn't relevant because 50% will end up being counted.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I don't think smarmy bastard is a bit much. He's turning into the GWB of the left.



I don't see it.  What exactly is smarmy about not wanting to count votes in states where it was decided votes would not be count, where there wasn't campaigning, and where his name (in the case of Michigan) wasn't even on the ballot?  Feel free to disagree with it, but it seems reasonable to me.  However, you are free not to vote for him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 30, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Well, perhaps you are right, although I have my doubts.  It probably isn't relevant because 50% will end up being counted.



It is relevant because Obama is demanding he get half of the seated delegates. The rules are clear and are being ignored. 50 percent are to be seated, no requirement for agreement from Obama is needed. He is , with the help of the DNC, blackmailing Hillary and flaunting the rules.

Further the rules state that NONE of the Super Delegates from those two States can be counted. These rules are not new, they existed before this cycle ever began.

Obama is cheating with the help of the DNC.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is relevant because Obama is demanding he get half of the seated delegates. The rules are clear and are being ignored. 50 percent are to be seated, no requirement for agreement from Obama is needed. He is , with the help of the DNC, blackmailing Hillary and flaunting the rules.
> 
> Further the rules state that NONE of the Super Delegates from those two States can be counted. These rules are not new, they existed before this cycle ever began.
> 
> Obama is cheating with the help of the DNC.



The rules are clear, and they allow the DNC to strip the states of all of their delegates if they wish.  Specifically, rule 20(c)(5) provides that nothing in the automatic sanction provisions shall be construed to prevent the...

"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C.

20(c)(6) 
Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules, where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section C. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: reduction of the state&#8217;s delegation..."

Now, can we finally do away with this fiction that the DNC didn't have authority to strip all the delegates.  The rules allow it, as the legal opinion of the DNC makes perfectly clear.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/michigan-analysis/?resultpage=3&


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 30, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> The rules are clear, and they allow the DNC to strip the states of all of their delegates if they wish.  Specifically, rule 20(c)(5) provides that nothing in the automatic sanction provisions shall be construed to prevent the...
> 
> "DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C.
> 
> ...



They do NOT have the power or right to award delegates to Obama he did NOT win.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> They do NOT have the power or right to award delegates to Obama he did NOT win.



I don't know.  The DNC has broad authority over the manner of delegate selection.  With respect to Florida, the delegates could just be allocated according to the results of the primary.  With respect to Michigan, since Obama was just included among the "uncommitted" option, it seems to me that you would be right that it would be unfair to provide him the proportion of the uncommitted votes.  That is why I don't think Michigan can be counted at all.  However, I am sure that the DNC has some means at their disposal to seat 50% delegates without preference, and probably have them take part in all other parts of the conference, except for those portions dealing with the selection of the nominee.  So, they would get to go to the conference, wear the silly hats, vote on the platform, but not vote for either Clinton and Obama.


----------



## Care4all (May 30, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> I don't know.  The DNC has broad authority over the manner of delegate selection.  With respect to Florida, the delegates could just be allocated according to the results of the primary.  With respect to Michigan, since Obama was just included among the "uncommitted" option, it seems to me that you would be right that it would be unfair to provide him the proportion of the uncommitted votes.  That is why I don't think Michigan can be counted at all.  However, I am sure that the DNC has some means at their disposal to seat 50% delegates without preference, and probably have them take part in all other parts of the conference, except for those portions dealing with the selection of the nominee.  So, they would get to go to the conference, wear the silly hats, vote on the platform, but not vote for either Clinton and Obama.



Good Morning Again....(are we still arguing over technicalities?)  

I would bet that Michigan won't accept such a HALLOW solution...that would be like NOT seating the State AT ALL....the purpose of seating the state delegates IS TO HAVE YOUR CITIZEN'S VOTE counted and registered thru their delegates for who they chose to be the Presidential nominee.

Michigan, because Obama and edwards and Biden took their names off the ballot, which was not part of their pledge with the Early Primary States, and put Michigan in a hard spot.  Michigan sent out a guide to ALL of their democratic voters and told them HOW important it was for them to register their voices by voting.

THE MICHIGAN RULES for allocating their delegates, that were IN PLACE BEFORE the Primary, was that if you wanted Hillary, vote for her, but if you wanted Biden, or Edwards, or Obama, please check the uncommitted spot, and DO NOT WRITE IN the candidate's name because according to the rules, those write ins would not count and would not give them the proper delegate amounts to go to the Dem Convention....

A pre poll and exit poll was done and Obama recieved about 11% of the vote, according to the polling.

HOWEVER, according to the Michigan Rules, the uncommitted vote delegates allocated, would be sent to the convention and not commit to their candidate until THEN....

At most, Obama should receive 11% of those delegates now, and the rest should committ at the convention....imo

Care


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Good Morning Again....(are we still arguing over technicalities?)
> 
> I would bet that Michigan won't accept such a HALLOW solution...that would be like NOT seating the State AT ALL....the purpose of seating the state delegates IS TO HAVE YOUR CITIZEN'S VOTE counted and registered thru their delegates for who they chose to be the Presidential nominee.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately for the people of Michigan, their legislature fucked up.  Because it is impossible to say what percentage Obama would have received, and once again, acknowledging that a vote without campaigning isn't fair, I don't see any way to seat this delegation, except without a voice in the nomination process.  However, perhaps once Obama has enough superdelegates that it won't matter anyway, he will push that the delegates get seated whatever their vote preference.

THE DNC had the authority to strip Michigan of all of its votes.  The DNC did so.  Seems silly to pretend that they didn't do what they did, and accept the flawed election anyway.


----------



## Gunny (May 30, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> You don't think "smarmy bastard" is a bit much?  The DNC said these votes wouldn't count.  To count them now would be unfair and prejudicial to Obama's campaign.  Why should he be willing to let them count?  To the extent he has any say in the matter, he will try to make sure that if they do count, they do so only to an extent not to change the outcome of the nomination process.  Not only would any politician do the same, but many people who aren't politicians feel the same.



Not counting them would be unfair and prejudicial to Hillary's campaign.  The DNC has ALREADY changed the outcome of the nomination process.

What's your point?  

I thought smarmy bastard was rather conservative considering him and the frothing at the mouth leftist jackasses that are his supporters.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Not counting them would be unfair and prejudicial to Hillary's campaign.  The DNC has ALREADY changed the outcome of the nomination process.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> I thought smarmy bastard was rather conservative considering him and the frothing at the mouth leftist jackasses that are his supporters.



Well, as a frothing at the mouth leftist jackass, I don't think she is prejudiced at all (except perhaps in the narrowest definition).  She knew several months before the primary season started that these votes wouldn't count.  All the candidates knew this.  All the candidates campaigned and structured their campaigns on this basis.  I don't think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, are only required to abide by the same standards as all other candidates, and the situation set out in advance comes to pass.  

I would think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, rely upon that information, and are after the fact told that the basis upon which they relied is going to be reversed.


----------



## Gunny (May 30, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Well, as a frothing at the mouth leftist jackass, I don't think she is prejudiced at all (except perhaps in the narrowest definition).  She knew several months before the primary season started that these votes wouldn't count.  All the candidates knew this.  All the candidates campaigned and structured their campaigns on this basis.  I don't think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, are only required to abide by the same standards as all other candidates, and the situation set out in advance comes to pass.
> 
> I would think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, rely upon that information, and are after the fact told that the basis upon which they relied is going to be reversed.



Ummm ... no?  She did not know well in advance since they only didn't count when FL and MI didn't cowtow to DNC authority.  The same DNC that went apeshit over votes in FL in 2000 that didn't count because of admin incorrectness.  Then it was "the GOP's disenfranchising voters ... wah, wah, wah ...."  

But the DNC will disenfranchise 2 states for the same damned thing?  Then turn around and discount the primary that was held for some redo.

Bullshit.  That's all it is.

And if you're an Obama supporter you need to have your head checked.


----------



## Nate Peele (May 30, 2008)

The Dumocrats should get their heads out of their asses.  We solved this problem right away by awarding half delegates to Florida when they decided to have that early primary.  Dumocrats should have done the same.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Ummm ... no?  She did not know well in advance since they only didn't count when FL and MI didn't cowtow to DNC authority.  The same DNC that went apeshit over votes in FL in 2000 that didn't count because of admin incorrectness.  Then it was "the GOP's disenfranchising voters ... wah, wah, wah ...."
> 
> But the DNC will disenfranchise 2 states for the same damned thing?  Then turn around and discount the primary that was held for some redo.
> 
> ...



The decision to strip the delegates was made in August.  The Michigan primary was in January.  The Iowa caucus was also in January.  That seems like advanced notice to me.

The DNC is not counting the delegates from these states for jumping the primary calendar.  One can disagree whether the punishment fits the crime, or whether the DNC should care about the order of primaries, but they have reasons, and it is up to the DNC to attribute whatever significance they wish to the primary schedule.  If some feel this is inconsistent with the DNC position in 2000 (and I don't), that is fine, but it doesn't mean she was unfairly prejudiced.  I would think one is unfairly prejudiced when they are told A will happen and B occurs instead, not when they are told in advance that A will happen, and A happens.  That doesn't strike me as particularly unfair.


----------



## Care4all (May 30, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Not counting them would be unfair and prejudicial to Hillary's campaign.  The DNC has ALREADY changed the outcome of the nomination process.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> I thought smarmy bastard was rather conservative considering him and the frothing at the mouth leftist jackasses that are his supporters.



They ABSOLUTELY without a doubt in my mind, set it up so that Hillary would lose the Nomination....two of her strongest states, with the MOST delegates at state, were taken OUT COMPLETELY from the Primary Race....

INSTEAD OF JUST CUTTING THEIR VOTE IN HALF, as the rules stated, they WENT WAY OVERBOARD and showed their arrogance and power and control and said these states would NOT BE SEATED AT ALL.....

Without ONE consideration of these states and their voices being heard, without one consideration to how disenfranchisement of the member's votes would hurt them SOOOOOOOOOOOOO BADLY in the long run with ALL of the citizens of these states

AND on top of this the entire remaining Primary was skewed towards Obama because the AT LEAST HALF delegates of these states were not counting in Hillary's column...

THEY SCREWED HER BIGTIME....because of what they did, out of pure arrogance!

And Good Morning Gunny

Care


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

Care4all said:


> They ABSOLUTELY without a doubt in my mind, set it up so that Hillary would lose the Nomination....two of her strongest states, with the MOST delegates at state, were taken OUT COMPLETELY from the Primary Race....
> 
> INSTEAD OF JUST CUTTING THEIR VOTE IN HALF, as the rules stated, they WENT WAY OVERBOARD and showed their arrogance and power and control and said these states would NOT BE SEATED AT ALL.....
> 
> ...



Care, this was done in August, when Clinton was cleaning up in the polls.  Why do you think is all part of an anti-Clinton conspiracy?  At the time, it was envisioned that she would probably walk through the primary calendar.

I also question whether these are two of her biggest states.  In August, it wasn't clear where she would perform strongest, except that New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Arkansas would all be headed her way.  Why, for instance, would Michigan be counted as a Clinton stronghold, as opposed to say... Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, etc.?

Further, at the time, no candidate had stronger support within the DNC than Clinton.  If you look at the superdelegates that committed before the primaries started, nearly every DNC official backed Clinton.

I am sorry.  The idea that this action was taken to negatively affect Clinton, as opposed to just punishing states for jumping the calendar, is quite a stretch.

In August, Clinton was beating Obama by about an average of 20&#37; in polls that were taken.  In October, her lead had jumped to about 30%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2008)

Care4all said:


> They ABSOLUTELY without a doubt in my mind, set it up so that Hillary would lose the Nomination....two of her strongest states, with the MOST delegates at state, were taken OUT COMPLETELY from the Primary Race....



At the time the decision was made, the DNC didn't think it would prevent Hillary from getting the nomination. Quite the opposite - they thought at the time she was going to walk away with it.  So did Hillary, which led to poor campaigning and her eventual loss.


----------



## Care4all (May 30, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> At the time the decision was made, the DNC didn't think it would prevent Hillary from getting the nomination. Quite the opposite - they thought at the time she was going to walk away with it.  So did Hillary, which led to poor campaigning and her eventual loss.



But how could they possibly think that disenfranchising the citizens in two of the biggest states in Hillary's favor, and one of the most critical states in winning a general election, Florida, could POSSIBLY HELP HILLARY?

I don't see it, in the least...?

care


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

Care4all said:


> But how could they possibly think that disenfranchising the citizens two of the biggest states in Hillary's favor, and one of the most critical states in winning a general election, Florida, could POSSIBLY HELP HILLARY?
> 
> I don't see it, in the least...?
> 
> care



Perhaps it had nothing to do with helping or hurting Clinton. I am sure it had nothing to do with alienating the population of Florida for the general election.  Perhaps it occurred for exactly the reason they said:  it was meant to keep the primary calendar in order.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2008)

Care4all said:


> But how could they possibly think that disenfranchising the citizens in two of the biggest states in Hillary's favor, and one of the most critical states in winning a general election, Florida, could POSSIBLY HELP HILLARY?
> 
> I don't see it, in the least...?
> 
> care



Like Reilly says they did it to keep out the chaos of a bunch of states moving their primaries, and Hillary was so far ahead they figured it wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## Care4all (May 30, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Like Reilly says they did it to keep out the chaos of a bunch of states moving their primaries, and Hillary was so far ahead they figured it wouldn't make a difference.




And like I have said, HOW could they possibly think it wouldn't make a difference in the General elect for the presidency, or not make a difference in the democratic race...........even with Hillary the front leader?  These were two critical states to her being the front runner, TAKING THEM OUT took away that from her, immediately, off the bat....

The Dem rules always said the delegate punishment for these states was cutting them in half, WHY DID THE DNC CHANGE THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE, and make them ALL delegates only now to reverse that decision and give them half now?

If they had followed what we know now are in the rules and were the rules in the dnc handbook on the 2008 primary, cut them by 1/2, just like the rules say and the Republicans did and given those totals to hillary from the beginning, then hillary would not have been in such a horse race looking lke the trailer with Obama and would have been able to garner more campaign support...they DICKED her, BIGTIME....

They also screwed the florida and michigan citizen and they have been scorned by the DNC and their shenannigans with this mess...........
Florida WILL GO SINGLE HANDEDLY TO THE REPUBLICANS because of what these guys did....

Care


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2008)

Care, way back before the primary was held and the DNC made this decision people in Florida were pissed no matter who they supported. Because we all saw it as the DNC screwing over the voters. And in Florida, we've been screwed over enough...it was hard to see the Dems doing it.


----------



## ReillyT (May 30, 2008)

Care4all said:


> And like I have said, HOW could they possibly think it wouldn't make a difference in the General elect for the presidency, or not make a difference in the democratic race...........even with Hillary the front leader?  These were two critical states to her being the front runner, TAKING THEM OUT took away that from her, immediately, off the bat....
> 
> The Dem rules always said the delegate punishment for these states was cutting them in half, WHY DID THE DNC CHANGE THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE, and make them ALL delegates only now to reverse that decision and give them half now?
> 
> ...



She was the front runner because she was leading in practically every state.  By your argument, punishing any state but Illinois for anything hurt her. The intent of the DNC was not to write off Florida in the general election, whatever the effect of its actions may be.   Perhaps if Florida had not been stripped of its delegates and the candidates had campaigned, the race would be different right now, but we will never know.   

The DNC took a hard line to try to make sure that primary jumping would not occur in the future.  This was permissible within the rules of the DNC.  You may disagree with their actions, but their intent was not to damage their own party in the general or to negatively affect Clinton.  That it happens to do so may obvious from what we know now, but not what they knew then.


----------



## Care4all (May 30, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> She was the front runner because she was leading in practically every state.  By your argument, punishing any state but Illinois for anything hurt her. The intent of the DNC was not to write off Florida in the general election, whatever the effect of its actions may be.   Perhaps if Florida had not been stripped of its delegates and the candidates had campaigned, the race would be different right now, but we will never know.
> 
> The DNC took a hard line to try to make sure that primary jumping would not occur in the future.  This was permissible within the rules of the DNC.  You may disagree with their actions, but their intent was not to damage their own party in the general or to negatively affect Clinton.  That it happens to do so may obvious from what we know now, but not what they knew then.



I am saying that the DNC took what they thought was the easy way out...OVER punish the heck out of states breaking the rule.....instead of actually reviewing the way we have handled Primaries since McGovern instituted this early state thing in the 80's....

they failed in their responsibilities, they disenfranchised the voter, something they fought like hell to not do in the 2000 election, no matter what Rules deadline was passed.....

Care


----------



## doeton (May 30, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Care, way back before the primary was held and the DNC made this decision people in Florida were pissed no matter who they supported. Because we all saw it as the DNC screwing over the voters. And in Florida, we've been screwed over enough...it was hard to see the Dems doing it.



may be you think about not electing republicans next time...


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2008)

doeton said:


> may be you think about not electing republicans next time...



I've been trying to get a law passed outlawing Republicans with limited success. Damn critters multiply like rabbits around these parts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 30, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I've been trying to get a law passed outlawing Republicans with limited success. Damn critters multiply like rabbits around these parts.



If McCain wins in November it is going to be hilarious to watch the Dems claim they were cheated again.


----------



## manifold (May 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If McCain wins in November it is going to be hilarious to watch the Dems claim they were cheated again.



Especially since it'll be the republicans that got cheated...right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 30, 2008)

manifold said:


> Especially since it'll be the republicans that got cheated...right?



We already shot ourselves in the foot. If we win now it will be funny as hell.


----------



## Shogun (May 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If McCain wins in November it is going to be hilarious to watch the Dems claim they were cheated again.



there will be no room to make that charge given that we seem to be hoodwinked by california's replay of Mass '04.


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If McCain wins in November it is going to be hilarious to watch the Dems claim they were cheated again.


`

No one to blame but themselves this time.


----------



## Jon (May 30, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Like Reilly says they did it to keep out the chaos of a bunch of states moving their primaries, and Hillary was so far ahead they figured it wouldn't make a difference.



You're absolutely right. No one cared about taking away Florida and Michigan because they didn't think it would affect the outcome. Well, we're now at a point where it does affect the outcome. If Obama had a big enough lead that the delegates and popular votes in these states didn't make a difference, I would say, "Don't bother." But, it does make a difference, and in a race this close, every vote must count.


----------



## Steerpike (May 31, 2008)

jsanders said:


> You're absolutely right. No one cared about taking away Florida and Michigan because they didn't think it would affect the outcome. Well, we're now at a point where it does affect the outcome. If Obama had a big enough lead that the delegates and popular votes in these states didn't make a difference, I would say, "Don't bother." But, it does make a difference, and in a race this close, every vote must count.



The only problem with that is there's no way of knowing how the earlier decision, and subsequent acts by the campaigns, affected the votes in those two states, so you can hardly call it a fair vote.


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> The only problem with that is there's no way of knowing how the earlier decision, and subsequent acts by the campaigns, affected the votes in those two states, so you can hardly call it a fair vote.



I think you can in Florida for a couple of reasons. We were encouraged to vote regardless of the delegate fiasco. And it's extremely improbable that Obama supporters stayed home in greater percentages than Clinton supporters...if anyone stayed home at all.


----------



## Steerpike (May 31, 2008)

What do you base the probability on?  There's no basis other than just a gut or common sense assessment.  You may well be right, but there's no way to KNOW whether you are.


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> What do you base the probability on?  There's no basis other than just a gut or common sense assessment.  You may well be right, but there's no way to KNOW whether you are.



That's true, but sometimes common sense is all you can go on.


----------

