Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates because they moved their primaries up against the wishes of the DNC. With a still hotly contested Democratic race for President between Obama and Clinton, what should be done as far as delegates in Michigan and Florida? Since Hillary won those popular votes, she would benefit from having those votes counted towards the total delegate count at the Democratic convention.

Should they be discounted? Counted? Revoted?

What say you, especially if you're a Democrat?

National party rules do not recognize those primaries. Since the event is a party affair, not a governmental affair, the parties have no obligation to change their rules to suit the fickle state governments.

They can do whatever they want, but the delicious thing to contemplate is the possibility that Hillary will succeed in getting them seated, and with their help and that of the super delegates, will wrest the nomination from the popular vote winner.

There are a number of factors the superdelegates need to consider. Their purpose isn't to ratify to popular vote.

Well ,we have a Obama partisan [whom I love as a person,but whose paranoia about the Clintons frankly confuses me]and a Republican Hillary hater speak,here comes the Democratic voice of reason:

Michigan and Florida are two of the top states of the union and I personally think these so-called "rules" violate the U.S. Constitution.


Both states should have a do over and I'll bet that Hillary will win both of them[again] as well as Pennsylvania and once again prove that Obama cannot win a big state and I would say exactly the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.

Sure hadit wants Obama to win,Obama will be easier for Mc Cain to beat.:rolleyes:

The fact is Hillary has won every big state that has had a primary [except Pannsylvania and she will win that state] and the Democrats need the big states to win.

By the way,according to NPR she now leads by ten delegates ,so she is now the front runner.

Michigan and Florida are two of the top states of the union and I personally think these so-called "rules" violate the U.S. Constitution.



How so?

How so?


The Constitution gives US citizens the right to vote and it allows states to set whatever rules they wish to as long as the states don't violate The Voting Rights Act of 1965.

To take away teh right of these two states to vote is unconstitutional as I see it.


I think Howard Dean has done a outstanding job as head of the DNC,but on this one[and only this one] issue he f#cked up real badly.

Yes,I'm a Hillary partisan,but I'd say this if the shoe was on the other foot.

In fact,I think Superdelgates should vote their personal choice ,nothing else.

I don't think John Lewis should be pressured into voting for Obama [which some black groups are trying to make him do] and I don't think John Kerry should be pressured into voting for Clinton [which some women's groups in Massachusettes are trying to do].

I can't be more fair than that.

I don't believe primary elections are mentioned, or under the purview, of the constitution. They're political party affairs and are subject only to party rules. No office of any kind is decided by them.

In any case, the governors of both states have asked the DNC to let their primaries stand, and the answer is that they are free to hold another one before June 10 and it will be recognized.

Let's see who holds up the ball game yet again.

Why did the Fl & Mi Democrats vote to move the primary forward when they knew the party was going to punish them for it?

I don't agree with the idea of continually shifting the goalposts in this nominating process, but it appears that the Clinton camp will keep loudly complaining until they're either seated, or there is some kind of re-vote. Of the two options, I find the do-over the most fair. I don't think that Michigan or Florida should have ever changed their voting dates at all, and should be penalized. However, who could have forseen that this kind of knock-down-drag-out would still be going on at this stage of the game?

Well ,we have a Obama partisan [whom I love as a person,but whose paranoia about the Clintons frankly confuses me]and a Republican Hillary hater speak,here comes the Democratic voice of reason:

Michigan and Florida are two of the top states of the union and I personally think these so-called "rules" violate the U.S. Constitution.


Both states should have a do over and I'll bet that Hillary will win both of them[again] as well as Pennsylvania and once again prove that Obama cannot win a big state and I would say exactly the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.

Sure hadit wants Obama to win,Obama will be easier for Mc Cain to beat.:rolleyes:

I don't know if that is true. I really don't know who McCain will have the easier time beating. I just want to see the reaction if Hillary wins despite losing the popular vote.

The fact is Hillary has won every big state that has had a primary [except Pannsylvania and she will win that state] and the Democrats need the big states to win.

By the way,according to NPR she now leads by ten delegates ,so she is now the front runner.

I'm really surprised that, after 2000, ANY democrat would even contemplate supporting a candidate that wins despite losing the popular vote. I personally think you play by the rules, and if Hillary can pull it off and still play fair, that's great.

I don't agree with the idea of continually shifting the goalposts in this nominating process, but it appears that the Clinton camp will keep loudly complaining until they're either seated, or there is some kind of re-vote. Of the two options, I find the do-over the most fair. I don't think that Michigan or Florida should have ever changed their voting dates at all, and should be penalized. However, who could have forseen that this kind of knock-down-drag-out would still be going on at this stage of the game?Why should political party members and voters participating in party affairs be penalized for an act of the legislature signed by the governor? That's government interfering in the party process, to me.

If a Republican controlled legislature and a Republican governor, for example, don't want Democrats in their state to participate in that party's primary process, all they have to do is change the date to violate party rules? No way. The government of these two states had no business redirecting these primaries because it was literally none of their business.

The party needs to take control of its own affairs back and hold primaries in line with party rules. That's acceptable to party leadership and to Hell with the heavy-handed state government's attempted interference. They should have ignored the change in primary dates from the git-go to conform with their party's primary election requirements.

You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. What's done is done. These states knew the consequences of their actions, now they must accept them.

at the root of this, is democrat party leadership that is trying to engineer the outcome of the primary. did the two states break DNC rules?...apparently. did that somehow affect the will of the people in those states and cause them to vote differently then they would have?...no. the people have voted in those states. to demand that they vote again is nothing less than total disregard for their will by DNC leadership because it desires a different outcome. howard dean even called it a "do-over". a do-over? isn't that like when children are playing a game and when one loses, he cries and wants a "do-over"?

at the root of this, is democrat party leadership that is trying to engineer the outcome of the primary. did the two states break DNC rules?...apparently. did that somehow affect the will of the people in those states and cause them to vote differently then they would have?...no. the people have voted in those states. to demand that they vote again is nothing less than total disregard for their will by DNC leadership because it desires a different outcome. howard dean even called it a "do-over". a do-over? isn't that like when children are playing a game and when one loses, he cries and wants a "do-over"?

I think a "do-over" is the only fair way to count votes from those states (if they must be counted), because MOST of the candidates played by the rules and didn't campaign there. To simply count the votes that are already cast isn't fair, because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one state, was he? Actually, the fairest thing to do is to continue with the rules as they are already set, because to re-vote now will produce a skewed result.

I think a "do-over" is the only fair way to count votes from those states (if they must be counted), because MOST of the candidates played by the rules and didn't campaign there. To simply count the votes that are already cast isn't fair, because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one state, was he? Actually, the fairest thing to do is to continue with the rules as they are already set, because to re-vote now will produce a skewed result.So either disenfranchise the voters in both states because of government interference or the party should thumb its nose at the government and hold another primary.

It's up the the party leaders in each state to decide, too late. They should have thought about this when the governor signed the bill.

I don't believe primary elections are mentioned, or under the purview, of the constitution. They're political party affairs and are subject only to party rules. No office of any kind is decided by them.

i believe a few years ago the supreme court upheld a party's rights to designate as many votes as they wish to a state and divide the votes out how they wish

i think the solution is to have another vote. (the first vote doesn't count. you can't vote 7nder such rules and then change the rules after the vote has happened. the situation at the time of voting was that people knew these states had no delegates so you can't go back and chang e this afterwards as this would have affected turnout as it didn't matter)

this second vote would be done by caucuses ideally

the democrats would be idiots if they decided that neithyer florida nor michigan didn't matter so this re-vote would be solution. both states are likely to be toss up's when it comes to the election and by not having any sort of delegates from the states, this means that they could lose a dew votes in each and a few votes are critical in both probably

I'd prefer a primary to a caucus. In the privacy of the booth voters seem a bit more reflective of their responsibilty than in a charged up crowd where they raise their hands for all their friends, family and TV reporters can see.

National party rules do not recognize those primaries. Since the event is a party affair, not a governmental affair, the parties have no obligation to change their rules to suit the fickle state governments.

The Democrat and Republican parties ARE the government. There are laws in place forcing this to be the case. It's extremely difficult for a third party to succeed, especially in the Presidential election. As such, the people have a right to take part in the two parties, and party leaders shouldn't be allowed to make up arbitrary rules and force everyone to follow them. That's not democracy.


Sure hadit wants Obama to win,Obama will be easier for Mc Cain to beat.:rolleyes:


Actually, the latest polls have shown that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary does, but that's beside the point.

at the root of this, is democrat party leadership that is trying to engineer the outcome of the primary. did the two states break DNC rules?...apparently. did that somehow affect the will of the people in those states and cause them to vote differently then they would have?...no. the people have voted in those states. to demand that they vote again is nothing less than total disregard for their will by DNC leadership because it desires a different outcome. howard dean even called it a "do-over". a do-over? isn't that like when children are playing a game and when one loses, he cries and wants a "do-over"?

The votes in those two states weren't fair. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Neither candidate campaigned in Florida. Everyone knew beforehand that the results wouldn't count, so a lot of people who would have voted didn't.


It's up the the party leaders in each state to decide, too late. They should have thought about this when the governor signed the bill.

The party leaders agreed to the rules, but the millions of voters in Florida and Michigan did not. It's not fair to those voters to let the party leaders make up the rules.

A re-vote is the only fair way to proceed. I don't care who wins the re-vote, as long as the voters are heard. I personally can't stand Hillary, and polls are showing that she would benefit from a re-vote more than Obama. But standing up for the rights of the voters is the only path I can take in good conscience.

if the DNC pays for it... but another primary in Fla. alone is estimated to cost about $25 mill. the question is, can they afford it with a presidential race to run..?

Not doing it right the first time can be expensive.

Well ,we have a Obama partisan [whom I love as a person,but whose paranoia about the Clintons frankly confuses me]and a Republican Hillary hater speak,here comes the Democratic voice of reason:

Michigan and Florida are two of the top states of the union and I personally think these so-called "rules" violate the U.S. Constitution.


Both states should have a do over and I'll bet that Hillary will win both of them[again] as well as Pennsylvania and once again prove that Obama cannot win a big state and I would say exactly the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.

Sure hadit wants Obama to win,Obama will be easier for Mc Cain to beat.:rolleyes:

The fact is Hillary has won every big state that has had a primary [except Pannsylvania and she will win that state] and the Democrats need the big states to win.

By the way,according to NPR she now leads by ten delegates ,so she is now the front runner.

Wow, this is the most intellectually dishonest post I've read in weeks!!

I don't believe primary elections are mentioned, or under the purview, of the constitution. They're political party affairs and are subject only to party rules. No office of any kind is decided by them.

The right to vote and be represented is covered by the Constitution,period.

Why did the Fl & Mi Democrats vote to move the primary forward when they knew the party was going to punish them for it?

!. I think the DNC ovestepped it's bounds.

2.I don't think the DNC really made it clear.Howrd Dean has done a great job but on this one issue he f#cked up big time.


I don't agree with the idea of continually shifting the goalposts in this nominating process,


And I don't like political parties [even my own] interfering with the Constitutional rights to vote and to be represented,I think we should had enough of that by 1965.


but it appears that the Clinton camp will keep loudly complaining until they're either seated, or there is some kind of re-vote.


You're just whining because your your canidate can't win any big Electorial College state and you know it.


Of the two options, I find the do-over the most fair.



On this we will agree.


I don't think that Michigan or Florida should have ever changed their voting dates at all, and should be penalized.


I think you're wrong.


I don't blame a bigger state for wanting more influence than a smaller state and moving up the date is the only way to that.

And I would say that if the show was on the other foot,a person can't be more fair than that.


However, who could have forseen that this kind of knock-down-drag-out would still be going on at this stage of the game?


Howard Dean should have been prepared for this[and any other] possibillity.




I just want to see the reaction if Hillary wins despite losing the popular vote.


Hey it isn't over yet,no one knows who will get the most popular votes.


I'm really surprised that, after 2000, ANY democrat would even contemplate supporting a candidate that wins despite losing the popular vote.


Your support of the fool we currently have in the White House [who lied about WMDs to get us into a war]puts you in no postition to be judgemental about anyone's politics.



You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game.


The legality of the rules ,who put those rules into place and how they were put into place is open to very serious legal and moral questions.


at the root of this, is democrat party leadership that is trying to engineer the outcome of the primary.


If so,then they are clearly trying to help Obama.


did the two states break DNC rules?...apparently.


That's open to legal and moral debate and you're not certain yourself or you wouldn't have said "apparently".









the democrats would be idiots if they decided that neithyer florida nor michigan didn't matter so this re-vote would be solution. both states are likely to be toss up's when it comes to the election and by not having any sort of delegates from the states, this means that they could lose a dew votes in each and a few votes are critical in both probably


Damn right.:nice:

The only people who can't see that are either Obama partisans or Republican partisans,and it 's obvious to me why that is.








Actually, the latest polls have shown that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary does, but that's beside the point.

Zogby had Obama winning in Ohio by 2%,we saw how accurate that poll was.:rolleyes:







Wow, this is the most intellectually dishonest post I've read in weeks!!


That lame opinion and a quarter will buy me a cup of coffee.:rolleyes:

The right to vote and be represented is covered by the Constitution,period.


That's voting in elections. The methods by which citizens select their candidates to represent them in those elections is not the within the purview of the constitution.

Your support of the fool we currently have in the White House [who lied about WMDs to get us into a war]puts you in no postition to be judgemental about anyone's politics.

That's my point though. In 2000, democrats squealed like stuck pigs when Bush won the electoral college but not the popular vote. Now, suddenly winning the democrat nomination while LOSING the popular vote is acceptable to democrats? Amazing.

I, BTW, support a candidate winning while playing by the rules, and winning by the only criteria that count. The electoral college in the national election, and delegate count in the primary.

TT, you're probably the most biased, blinded, dishonest person I've ever seen on this site. It makes me cringe that the party that most closely matches my views has people like you as a card carrying member.

TT, you're probably the most biased, blinded, dishonest person I've ever seen on this site. It makes me cringe that the party that most closely matches my views has people like you as a card carrying member.

X!!!

There are a number of factors the superdelegates need to consider. Their purpose isn't to ratify to popular vote.

Nor is it to rip the party to shreds in favor of a hystrical harpy that can't deal with losing.

at the root of this, is democrat party leadership that is trying to engineer the outcome of the primary. did the two states break DNC rules?...apparently. did that somehow affect the will of the people in those states and cause them to vote differently then they would have?...no. the people have voted in those states. to demand that they vote again is nothing less than total disregard for their will by DNC leadership because it desires a different outcome. howard dean even called it a "do-over". a do-over? isn't that like when children are playing a game and when one loses, he cries and wants a "do-over"?

um....the only candidate on the Michigan ballot was Hillary Clinton. The other choice was "Uncommitted". How did that not affect Michigan voters? They couldn't vote for Barack Obama or anyone other than Hillary Clinton. You don't think that caused them to vote differently?

Also, what makes you think that you know how many Democrats were kept away from the polling places by the belief that the vote wouldn't be counted, since the official DNC stand at the time was that the vote wouldn't be counted?

Think before hitting "reply" next time.

By the way,according to NPR she now leads by ten delegates ,so she is now the front runner.

This is directly lifted from http://npr.com

Democratic
Needed to nominate: 2025
Total delegate votes: 4048

Candidate .....Plgd Supr Total*
Obama .........1361 210 1571
Clinton .........1221 242 1463
Edwards .........26 0 26
Uncommitt. ......0 60 60

so, where's this 10 delegate lead? Obama has a 108 delegate lead, from what I'm seeing here.

Truth Teller is so funnily named.

Sure hadit wants Obama to win,Obama will be easier for Mc Cain to beat.:rolleyes:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/164329/3393/165/470708

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI

Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT

Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI

Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA

Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

[...]

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI

Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR

Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA

Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT

Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY

Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election. Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3/thelategreat4/mccain_clinton_final.gif

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3/thelategreat4/mccain_obama_final.gif

Seat he delegates by allocateing 50% to each candidate. Screw the expense of a new vote and they have to have a voice or you get buggered in the general election. Given the situation it would be totally wrong to give the two states the critical spotlight they would get if a revote happened.

But it was the states own fault. In a perfect world I would say f&*^ em.

What was the point of changing the primary election dates to conflict with party rules? Being one of the first states out of the gate means nothing if the results of the primary aren't recognized.

I'm getting real tired of hearing about Florida and voting irregularities. Maybe their application for admission to the union should be revisited.

Nor is it to rip the party to shreds in favor of a hystrical harpy that can't deal with losing.It's going to boil down to how McCain looks when the time comes. If he hasn't a shot in hell of winning the presidency, the superdelegates can fold and follow the herd. It won't matter because even Obama will be able to keep the forces of evil out of the White House.

But if by some rent in the fabric of space and time it appears that McCain might have a chance at the brass ring, then the superdelegates are going to do the job they were given, use their judgment to secure the election for the Democrats.

It doesn't matter how many elected delegates Obama got from Wyoming or Utah or Nevada, etc. Those states and those electoral votes are going to McCain regardless. It does matter who delivered the big states - California, NJ, Texas, Ohio et al, the states with the electoral votes to take the White House when it counts in November.

And that's all that counts. Keeping the Republicans out of the White House is the purpose of the superdelegates if it comes to that. They were chosen because they understand that the the prize is winning the election and keeping our nation out of the clutches of the bad guys, not annoiting a particular candidate in their party.

It's a specious argument to say that Hillary beating Obama in a Democratic primary in California = ZOMG ONLY HILLARY CAN WIN CALIFORNIA IT WILL GO TO JOHN MCCAIN IF OBAMA IS THE NOMINEE Y'ALL!!!

PS Nevada is very much a swing state. Why you lumping us with Wyoming and Utah, WTF?

Hillary has shown she can deliver these big states. That's simply a matter of fact. Going with the preferred candidate in states like that is prudent when trying to win an election. Going with the also-ran is more risky. You should appreciate playing the odds.

Nevada is a red state. Clark County is blue. So far it hasn't been able to override the cow counties in most statewide elections. Ask Dina Titus about that.

Thanks, I know it pretty well having been born and raised here and living here all my life. Dina Titus lost because she's a stupid bitch and a horrible candidate. I cringed whilst voting for her.

I am not worried about New York, New Jersey, California, etc. falling to the Republicans because Barack only got 43, 44, 45% or whatever of the vote compared to Hillary's whopping 55ish. It's a specious argument. Barack is the better general election candidate. The polls bear that out, nationally and state-by-state. The constituencies bear that out. He's stronger against John McCain, period.

He's stronger against John McCain, period.He's stronger right now.

Hate her or merely tolerate her, Hillary Clinton is at least a known quantity. Barring scandal(s) or major faux-pas, you know it's going to be a close, hard-fought election between her and McCain... one that the Democrats have an advantage in due to momentum and public sentiment.

With Obama, there's more of a chance of a landslide... but it might actually be a McCain landslide when it's all said and done, due the unknowns, inexperience, and stronger emotional component to the Obama campaign (fatigue and backlash are real concerns here).

Not sayin' Obama would lose. It's way too early to make predictions (remember when Dukakis was a "sure thing" because the country was sick of Republican executive leadership and Bush was far too moderate to get the support of the base?), but I DO see far more variables with Obama -- both good and bad -- than I do with Hillary Clinton.

49.9% of the country will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. That's all I need to know.

Not only is she toxic in the general election, she'd be toxic in office. What's the point of winning if you can't get anything done because you're just _that_polarizing?

With the substantial gains by the Dems in both houses of congress that are expected, your suggestion that Hillary couldn't get anything done doesn't fly. It would seem that your hatred for the woman is interfering with your objectivity about the election.

She has shown that she has the best chance of delivering the number of electoral votes necessary to secure the presidency. Obama may well also be able to. It will be up to the superdelegates, it seems at this point, to decide which candidate is the better choice to accomplish that goal. That's the only reason this body was established.

Thanks, I know it pretty well having been born and raised here and living here all my life. Dina Titus lost because she's a stupid bitch and a horrible candidate. I cringed whilst voting for her.

I am not worried about New York, New Jersey, California, etc. falling to the Republicans because Barack only got 43, 44, 45% or whatever of the vote compared to Hillary's whopping 55ish. It's a specious argument. Barack is the better general election candidate. The polls bear that out, nationally and state-by-state. The constituencies bear that out. He's stronger against John McCain, period.Your whole life? At age 25, your whole life? How cute. :)

So Titus is a stupid bitch. And you don't have much good to say about Hillary. Do I detect a pattern here?

Oh, speaking of those polls,

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm.

Obama vs McCain - 46% to 45%.

Clinton vs McCain - 48% to 46%.

Better practice your "Madam President" so you won't choke on it when the time comes.

With the substantial gains by the Dems in both houses of congress that are expected, your suggestion that Hillary couldn't get anything done doesn't fly. It would seem that your hatred for the woman is interfering with your objectivity about the election.

It would seem your assumptions are retarded, and that you missed the Hillary banner I previously had in my signature. I don't hate the woman in any way, shape, or form, and I would happily vote for her in November were she the Democratic nominee. So please try again without the stupid assumptions.

She has shown that she has the best chance of delivering the number of electoral votes necessary to secure the presidency.

This statement is belied by virtually every poll conducted.

Your whole life? At age 25, your whole life? How cute. :)

How petty and little of you.

So Titus is a stupid bitch. And you don't have much good to say about Hillary. Do I detect a pattern here?

Only in your mind, freak.

Oh, speaking of those polls,

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm.

Obama vs McCain - 46% to 45%.

Clinton vs McCain - 48% to 46%.

All within the margin of error, and contrary to the vast majority of similar polls conducted.

By carrying the big states, Hillary has shown what your polls cannot. That's were the electoral votes are that will secure the presidency.

Sorry if I offended you. You make no effort to conceal your strong opinions about Titus and Clinton as persons, rather than candidates, so the assumption had grounds.

No, the assumption had no grounds. You come in here with your 116 posts and start accusing people of being misogynistic. How asinine. I'm not offended, because to be offended I would have to afford your baseless opinion some worth, which I do not.

Obama will have no problem winning California or New York. Neither candidate will win Texas. For either candidate, it would be a fight in Ohio and Florida. Fortunately for Obama, he has other options to get to 270: Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Missouri, etc. Hillary does not, really. Hillary besting Obama by a few points in a Democratic primary in a state does not a better general election candidate make.

Why did the Fl & Mi Democrats vote to move the primary forward when they knew the party was going to punish them for it?

I don't know about MI but the Republican Governor and legislature were the reason this has happend in Florida.

All the more reason for a re-vote in Florida.


I don't know if that is true. I really don't know who McCain will have the easier time beating. I just want to see the reaction if Hillary wins despite losing the popular vote.



I'm really surprised that, after 2000, ANY democrat would even contemplate supporting a candidate that wins despite losing the popular vote. I personally think you play by the rules, and if Hillary can pull it off and still play fair, that's great.


Well,Obama got the most delegates in Texas despite the fact he lost the state.

I don't see you or anyone else with the viewpoint you are espousing complaining about that.:scratch:





If a Republican controlled legislature and a Republican governor, for example, don't want Democrats in their state to participate in that party's primary process, all they have to do is change the date to violate party rules?


That is exactly what happend in Florida.

And it loks like the Republican responsible for that [Governor Crist] is now on Mc Cain's short list for Veep.


That's voting in elections. The methods by which citizens select their candidates to represent them in those elections is not the within the purview of the constitution.

Can you give me a court ruling that backs up this theory of yours?


That's my point though. In 2000, democrats squealed like stuck pigs when Bush won the electoral college but not the popular vote. Now, suddenly winning the democrat nomination while LOSING the popular vote is acceptable to democrats? Amazing.


Not to me.




TT, you're probably the most biased, blinded, dishonest person I've ever seen on this site.


I am biased [as in partisan] and I see nothing wrong in that as long as I'm not stealth about it.


As far as I'm concened ,anyone who is not "biased" is someone who does not know who [or what] they are.



But I don't know what I've said that is "blind" or "dishonest"?

It is a fact that outside of his home state Obama has yet to win one single state that has a lot of electorial votes and the Democrats are going to need those very states in order to win.

Anyone who can't see that [or can't see the fact that politics are a partisan,contact sport]is politically unsophisticated.

If you can bring up one thing I've said that you think is factually incorrect,I'll listen.

One can't be more fair than that.:shrug:


It makes me cringe that the party that most closely matches my views has people like you as a card carrying member.


Most political adults are like me,in fact I'm really tame compaired to some others.:D

I guess that's the way the adult world works.:shrug:

I don't know about MI but the Republican Governor and legislature were the reason this has happend in Florida.

All the more reason for a re-vote in Florida.

The Democrats in the legislature voted overwhelmingly to move it up as well.

It is a fact that outside of his home state Obama has yet to win one single state that has a lot of electorial votes and the Democrats are going to need those very states in order to win.

Anyone who can't see that [or can't see the fact that politics are a partisan,contact sport]is politically unsophisticated.

If you can bring up one thing I've said that you think is factually incorrect,I'll listen.

Just go here (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111241) for a rebuttal to that completely idiotic, oft-repeated Clinton line.

Most political adults are like me,in fact I'm really tame compaired to some others.:D

One thing crazy wingers of all stripes seem to have in common is the delusion that the mainstream is actually with them.

so, where's this 10 delegate lead? Obama has a 108 delegate lead, from what I'm seeing here.

Actually,he has slightly more.

That info I orignally posted came from the NPR program Talk Of The Nation,they were refering to the delegate count from the popular vote[Texas has a very complicated delgate system] and it was accurate as of that time,as it turned out Obama got more delegates in Texas even though he lost the primary.



Truth Teller is so funnily named.

25 cents and this opinion of yours is worth 25 cents.:shrug:




I'm getting real tired of hearing about Florida and voting irregularities. Maybe their application for admission to the union should be revisited.

To be fair,it's always been the fault of the Florida Republicans,not the Florida Democrats.


It's going to boil down to how McCain looks when the time comes. If he hasn't a shot in hell of winning the presidency, the superdelegates can fold and follow the herd. It won't matter because even Obama will be able to keep the forces of evil out of the White House.

But if by some rent in the fabric of space and time it appears that McCain might have a chance at the brass ring, then the superdelegates are going to do the job they were given, use their judgment to secure the election for the Democrats.

It doesn't matter how many elected delegates Obama got from Wyoming or Utah or Nevada, etc. Those states and those electoral votes are going to McCain regardless. It does matter who delivered the big states - California, NJ, Texas, Ohio et al, the states with the electoral votes to take the White House when it counts in November.

And that's all that counts. Keeping the Republicans out of the White House is the purpose of the superdelegates if it comes to that. They were chosen because they understand that the the prize is winning the election and keeping our nation out of the clutches of the bad guys, not annoiting a particular candidate in their party.

Hillary has shown she can deliver these big states. That's simply a matter of fact. Going with the preferred candidate in states like that is prudent when trying to win an election. Going with the also-ran is more risky. You should appreciate playing the odds.

Nevada is a red state. Clark County is blue. So far it hasn't been able to override the cow counties in most statewide elections. Ask Dina Titus about that.

He's stronger right now.

Hate her or merely tolerate her, Hillary Clinton is at least a known quantity. Barring scandal(s) or major faux-pas, you know it's going to be a close, hard-fought election between her and McCain... one that the Democrats have an advantage in due to momentum and public sentiment.

With Obama, there's more of a chance of a landslide... but it might actually be a McCain landslide when it's all said and done, due the unknowns, inexperience, and stronger emotional component to the Obama campaign (fatigue and backlash are real concerns here).

Not sayin' Obama would lose. It's way too early to make predictions (remember when Dukakis was a "sure thing" because the country was sick of Republican executive leadership and Bush was far too moderate to get the support of the base?), but I DO see far more variables with Obama -- both good and bad -- than I do with Hillary Clinton.

With the substantial gains by the Dems in both houses of congress that are expected, your suggestion that Hillary couldn't get anything done doesn't fly. It would seem that your hatred for the woman is interfering with your objectivity about the election.

She has shown that she has the best chance of delivering the number of electoral votes necessary to secure the presidency. Obama may well also be able to. It will be up to the superdelegates, it seems at this point, to decide which candidate is the better choice to accomplish that goal. That's the only reason this body was established.

Your whole life? At age 25, your whole life? How cute. :)

So Titus is a stupid bitch. And you don't have much good to say about Hillary. Do I detect a pattern here?

Oh, speaking of those polls,

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm.

Obama vs McCain - 46% to 45%.

Clinton vs McCain - 48% to 46%.

Better practice your "Madam President" so you won't choke on it when the time comes.

By carrying the big states, Hillary has shown what your polls cannot. That's were the electoral votes are that will secure the presidency.

Sorry if I offended you. You make no effort to conceal your strong opinions about Titus and Clinton as persons, rather than candidates, so the assumption had grounds.

100% agreement.:nice:
The Democrats in the legislature voted overwhelmingly to move it up as well.


It doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were running the show and I'm sure the Republicans were stealth in how they did it.

This is a typical statist debate... I love it. The basic tone of the discussion here has nothing at all to do with what people want. Never mind that more people have voted for Obama than Clinton. **** the people. They can take their decisions and shove 'em up their asses. We're gonna decide what's best for everyone. Let's not even think about what's gonna happen if they don't like it, because we don't care. We're gonna sit around and decide who has a better chance of beating McCain, and then we're gonna nominate that candidate. We're gonna decide what we think the best way to go is, and then we're gonna make everyone go that way.

This is perfectly in line with the Democratic way of thinking about the proper role of government, so it's no surprise at all that it's reflected in your party politics.

It doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were running the show and I'm sure the Republicans were stealth in how they did it.

Oh, come on. The Bad Republicans are running everything behind the scenes? They purposely made the move to damage Hillary? I don't think so.

Well,Obama got the most delegates in Texas despite the fact he lost the state.Nevada, too. Not very "democratic", is it?
Can you give me a court ruling that backs up this theory of yours?
Courts only rule on legal issues. The fact that there are no court challanges should suggest something to you.

Never mind that more people have voted for Obama than Clinton.


Hold it!

The process isn't over yet,we don't know who is going to win.

This is the upteenth time that Obama partisans have acted like the voting is all over now.


**** the people. They can take their decisions and shove 'em up their asses. We're gonna decide what's best for everyone.

Again,we don't know what is going to happen.

There has to be somehting in case of a tie [or a virtual tie,which this is].





We're gonna sit around and decide who has a better chance of beating McCain, and then we're gonna nominate that candidate.



That is called winning elections .



Oh, come on. The Bad Republicans are running everything behind the scenes? They purposely made the move to damage Hillary? I don't think so.

Nah,all Republicans are as pure as the driven snow.:rolleyes:


Nevada, too. Not very "democratic", is it?

No it isn't.:nonono:

I don't see Fennix or TLG whining about it either.


Courts only rule on legal issues. The fact that there are no court challanges should suggest something to you.


It tells me that it hasn't gone to court yet,but I think a non-politicized court would rule the way I said.

Nah,all Republicans are as pure as the driven snow.

It's a pretty long reach to believe that the Republicans deliberately moved the primary dates in those states to help or hurt anyone on the democrat side.

If it were a legal issue, which it is not. You don't think the Clinton campaign would be mentioning this if they saw this as a avenue to have her support in those two states count? After all, I've heard it said she'll do anything it takes. Challanging the dismissal of those two states' primaries would certainly be easy enough, it were a legal issue.

Suppose you were on your way to vote in a party caucus and a party worker stops you and collars you in a political discussion until, doggone it, the caucus closes and you don't get to vote. Do you seriously think the state Attorney General will file a criminal complaint against that person or the party? Of course not. No law has been broken, at any level. Selection of nominees is a private affair.

The caucus in my state was held on a Saturday, disenfranchising the Orthodox Jews who are otherwise active in Democratic politics. Was a crime committed here? Of course not. No law has been broken. It's a private affair within the party and they got screwed on the deal.

Just as in Michigan and Florida.

It tells me that it hasn't gone to court yet,but I think a non-politicized court would rule the way I said.

Is there such a thing as a non-politicized court? ;)

Hold it!

The process isn't over yet,we don't know who is going to win.

This is the upteenth time that Obama partisans have acted like the voting is all over now.


Again,we don't know what is going to happen.


If Obama gets more of the popular vote, will you change your tune and start supporting him for the nomination?


There has to be somehting in case of a tie [or a virtual tie,which this is].


Define virtual tie. If Obama's only ahead by 500 votes, is that a virtual tie? How about 100,000? How about 5,000,000? Where do you draw the line? I suspect you will declare it a virtual tie no matter what the margin is, because you're not interested in Democracy. You're only interested in getting the Democratic establishment candidate nominated.

I draw the line at zero. There is only a tie if both candidates get the same exact number of votes. Every vote counts. Bacially what you're saying when you declare it a "virtual tie" is that some votes don't count.

No, the assumption had no grounds. You come in here with your 116 posts and start accusing people of being misogynistic. How asinine. I'm not offended, because to be offended I would have to afford your baseless opinion some worth, which I do not.
You're right. Two examples don't constitute a pattern.

Just assure me that you're a big Nancy Pelosi fan and I'll reconsider my suspicion that you have a problem with middle-age women in positions of power. :)

I am biased [as in partisan] and I see nothing wrong in that as long as I'm not stealth about it.

As far as I'm concened ,anyone who is not "biased" is someone who does not know who [or what] they are.

Anyone who can't see that [or can't see the fact that politics are a partisan,contact sport]is politically unsophisticated.


This sounds like Tom DeLay's exit speech.

It's a pretty long reach to believe that the Republicans deliberately moved the primary dates in those states to help or hurt anyone on the democrat side.

Why? If they could have done that, they would have. The Democrats were on board, so it's not the Republican's fault, but even if the DNC people hadn't voted for it, I have no doubt the GOP would have done it if they thought it would have hurt the most electable Democrat.

Oh, come on. The Bad Republicans are running everything behind the scenes? They purposely made the move to damage Hillary? I don't think so.

The Democrats in the state all voted for it, so it's not the Republicans fault, (but it's certainly not outside of their normal methods of operation).

It's a pretty long reach to believe that the Republicans deliberately moved the primary dates in those states to help or hurt anyone on the democrat side.

More cynical things than that have happend by all sides.:shrug:


If it were a legal issue, which it is not. You don't think the Clinton campaign would be mentioning this if they saw this as a avenue to have her support in those two states count?


I thnk they will play that card if they have to,but I don't think they have to.




Suppose you were on your way to vote in a party caucus and a party worker stops you and collars you in a political discussion until, doggone it, the caucus closes and you don't get to vote.


Apples and oranges.:nonono:


The caucus in my state was held on a Saturday, disenfranchising the Orthodox Jews who are otherwise active in Democratic politics. Was a crime committed here? Of course not. No law has been broken. It's a private affair within the party and they got screwed on the deal.


I bet if the Orthodx Jews took it to court they would win.



Is there such a thing as a non-politicized court?

Courts have been politicized ever since Reagan became president.



If Obama gets more of the popular vote, will you change your tune and start supporting him for the nomination?


I will support whomever gets the nomination be it Hillary,Obama ,Al Gore or anybody else.




Define virtual tie.


Where both canidates have roughly the same amonunt of votes.


If Obama's only ahead by 500 votes, is that a virtual tie?


It sure ain't a landslide.:rolleyes:



How about 100,000? How about 5,000,000? Where do you draw the line? I suspect you will declare it a virtual tie no matter what the margin is, because you're not interested in Democracy.


If you really supported pure Democracy you'd complain about Obama getting most of the delegates in states he didn't win.

So don't piss in my ear and try to tell me it's rain.:rolleyes:

By the way,I haven't complained about Obama geting more delegates in those states because that is the way the game is played boyz and girlz,the same is true for putting in the canidate who can win the electorial vote.:p

Abolish the Electorial College and I'll go along with your purism,not until then.



You're only interested in getting the Democratic establishment candidate nominated.


In 1972 my dad supported the establishment canidate [Humphrey] while I supported the anti-establishment canidate [Mc Govern].

It dawned on me the other day that I'm my dad now.:eek3:

That is called growing up and I have no apologies to make for doing that.


Anyway,[back to topic]I've already said [more than once]the DNC f#cked this up and there should be a revote.

Anything else is speculative.

If Obama gets enough delegates to put him over the top before the convention [he won't] then I'll support him.

Otherwise,it's all within the rules.


You're right. Two examples don't constitute a pattern.

Just assure me that you're a big Nancy Pelosi fan and I'll reconsider my suspicion that you have a problem with middle-age women in positions of power. :)

TLG is anti-choice and he thinks property owners should have the right to discriminate for any reason they choose to.



This sounds like Tom DeLay's exit speech.


I'm not under indictment.:D

By the way,I haven't complained about Obama geting more delegates in those states because that is the way the game is played boyz and girlz,the same is true for putting in the canidate who can win the electorial vote.

Abolish the Electorial College and I'll go along with your purism,not until then.Well said.

No it isn't.:nonono:

I don't see Fennix or TLG whining about it either.

What the? Random attack much? 1) I leave most of the whining to you and 2) I am an advocate of following the rules, and/or changing them through the proper channels in advance. The delegate system may not be something I agree with, but I'm not going to whine about it for the same reasons I didn't whine about Al Gore not being named president after winning the popular vote.

You're right. Two examples don't constitute a pattern.

Just assure me that you're a big Nancy Pelosi fan and I'll reconsider my suspicion that you have a problem with middle-age women in positions of power. :)

As I said before, I couldn't give two shits about you're stupid fu(king "opinion," so I won't be assuring you of jack shit.

As I said before, I couldn't give two shits about you're stupid fu(king "opinion," so I won't be assuring you of jack shit.Wow, that's quite an exposed nerve. You'll be a real treat to be around after Hillary's win in November. :)

Hillary will not be our next president. One of her two opponents will beat her.

There is no reason to allow these delegates to be seated. The Democratic Party rules on primaries and caucuses have been in place since 1984, at least. If the big states are so impressed with their importance they've had over 20 frigging years to do something about it, rather than just unilaterally decide they're going to media whore their way onto the MSM to satisfy their egoes. These states' Party 'leadership' were just stupid hacks jerking off their rank and file for five minutes of fame on TV.

Anybody who doesn't know this is all a big circus act, and takes these 'elections' seriously is more than a little unhinged, I realize, but some of you are clearly losing your grip on what is essentially a popularity contest, not an important referendum on real change of any kind.

Remember now: "If voting ever actually changed anything, it would be illegal."- to quote an Diebold employee's internal email sig. These 'elections' are about as important as who won a prize at last week's bingo game in some rest home near you.

Courts only rule on legal issues. The fact that there are no court challanges should suggest something to you.

That's because the Party rules are extremely clear on when states can hold their various gabfests. I posted links to their PDF's somewhere, for anybody to read, and I think Platyguy posted the Republican rules.

Obviously, a lot of these posters couldn't be bothered to read them; which is more than just a little odd, given their touted interest in their Party and the elections ...:rolleyes:

Does anyone know how many pledge delegates Sen. Clinton would gain if she won both FL and MI?

They're proportional like every (?) other state in the Democratic contest, so it's unlikely she could net more than 35-40 at best, not enough to significantly impact Obama's 150+ pledged delegate lead.

gotcha.

I should add that I don't even really care if Obama would win one or both states,I do think the people of those two states should be represented,that to me is the issue.

I should add that I don't even really care if Obama would win one or both states,I do think the people of those two states should be represented,that to me is the issue.

But youd rather have superdelegates determine the democrat presidential candidate even though it would go against the popular vote?

But youd rather have superdelegates determine the democrat presidential candidate even though it would go against the popular vote?



I don't look at it that way.

When there's an impasse there has to be a court of final resort and the so-clled "superdelegates" are at least as quallified as anyone else to be that.:shrug:

Besides,I think in most cases professsionals make better choices than the general public does.

Remember,we do not live in a pure democracy,we live in a Democratic Republic.

Get rid of the Electorial College [which I advocate] and then I'll go along with that "popular vote","will of the people" stuff.

Until there's a pure democracy in how we elect a president then I don't see why there should be a pure democracy in how we nominate a president.

That's because the Party rules are extremely clear on when states can hold their various gabfests. I posted links to their PDF's somewhere, for anybody to read, and I think Platyguy posted the Republican rules.

Obviously, a lot of these posters couldn't be bothered to read them; which is more than just a little odd, given their touted interest in their Party and the elections ...:rolleyes:

The irony of this post is that you clearly haven't read the rules. While I'm not up on the rules in Michigan, the state of Florida does NOT have individual primaries for each party. The state has a single primary. The GOP run state house and governor moved the primary date prior to the DNC cut-off date specifically because they wanted to have disenfranchised voters when Florida ran into the general election in November. The Florida situation is nothing more than GOP electoral manipulation. As such, Florida should be allowed to have another primary.

They can. The DNC has said that so long as it's by early June, it will be accepted. The only question is who will pay for it.

The irony of this post is that you clearly haven't read the rules. While I'm not up on the rules in Michigan, the state of Florida does NOT have individual primaries for each party. The state has a single primary. The GOP run state house and governor moved the primary date prior to the DNC cut-off date specifically because they wanted to have disenfranchised voters when Florida ran into the general election in November. The Florida situation is nothing more than GOP electoral manipulation. As such, Florida should be allowed to have another primary.

Is there evidence of this? Wanting to cause disenfranchised voters before knowing if it would be advantageous doesn't make any sense.

They can. The DNC has said that so long as it's by early June, it will be accepted. The only question is who will pay for it.

It looks like there will be another primary in Michigan.

It will be in early June and the State Democratic Party will pay for it.

So the problem now is with Florida, again.

The official verdict is:
Officials say Fla., Mich. delegates will get half-votes (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112628) (see thread)

Looks like I didn't have that specific option in my poll (I should have reworded it at the time), but the "Penalize delegates but seat 50% of them at the convention" was the closest answer to the actual outcome, but nobody picked that option anyway.

gotta love Harold Ickes moaning in support of Clinton, and promising to fight this further, despite the fact the voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates in the first place.

gotta love Harold Ickes moaning in support of Clinton, and promising to fight this further, despite the fact the voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates in the first place.

Hey, you should talk, Kentucky!
For shame!

;)

Hey, you should talk, Kentucky!
For shame!

;)

hey Obama won my precinct and county!

hey Obama won my precinct and county!

Well, congrats! Now it's time for you to "edjumicate" the rest of your state. The Dems will need you guys in the presidential election.

Is there evidence of this? Wanting to cause disenfranchised voters before knowing if it would be advantageous doesn't make any sense.

Evidence that the GOP control the statehouse and moved the date? I'm sure you can find a voting record for Florida out there somewhere. And it would be advantageous no matter how the primaries ran. The DNC announced their rules before the Florida primary move was conceptualized. That made this a political no-brainer.