You are correct, they could still caucus away from their employment, if they can get the time off (which most, apparently, cannot). Not a situation unique to them, of course, but the caucus being on a Saturday they represent a big percentage of those working.
And the 5 times as much thing is based on the formulas for Nevada’s delegates. The equations are pretty complicated, but from what I’ve read, that would be the result if the turnout were double that of the last general election. Simply not going to happen.
Yeah, I could see that being a problem since all the parties (employees and employers) have been counting on this for some time now. Making a change at the last minute could be a significant burden to quite a few people.
The timing of the lawsuit stinks of an attempt to make it more difficult for a significant group of Obama supporters to caucus. If the shoe had been on the other foot, the Clintons would no doubt take the opposite position. Politics sure brings out the worst in people.
It’s going to get much nastier than this as the race proceeds.
Here’s a cached article describing the Obama staff’s effort to bus in college students. The point I’m making is that it’s a shrewd political move on Obama’s campaign’s part. Is it completely ethical? I’m not sure. Transporting your supporters over 200 miles seems a little unfair, unless it’s being done for everyone.
The suit was presented in the courts, which is what one does when you have a complaint or objection to the procedure. I agree that the timing is suspect, and I don’t think that it would have happened if the culinary union had endorsed Clinton. But I wouldn’t liken it to disenfranchisement because the ability to caucus still remains; it’s just a little less convenient for those who work on the Strip.
Right, I don’t doubt he helped college students get to the polls. When you said he bused in people not from Iowa to vote there, it has a dirtier connotation than saying what happened: part of his core constituency, college students, routinely visit their families during the holidays, so he made an attempt to get them back to the state to vote. I guess we can disagree on whether that constitutes a dirty politics, but it seems like quite a stretch to me.
It’s not “a little less convenient.” It would prevent them from voting unless, with a few days notice, they can get the time off. It goes without saying that not all of them can get the time off, so it is definitely disenfranchising some percentage of them.
I have no horse in the Nevada race but Former President Clinton was not accurate in his description of his parties’ methods of caucusing. Casino votes were not assigned a higher value. Location will certainly enhance the flow of votes but that is something to be hashed out prior to the start of the process.
Whining about it after the fact is bad form.
Bill’s probably tired of running around stumping for his wife. Payback’s a bitch.
My respect for both Clintons is going down rapidly. This lawsuit over the casino employees was a pretty transparent effor to suppress the vote and I hope it backfires big time on them. Before that Bill wanted to rewrite history and say how he was against the Iraq war from the beginning. And Hillary want to keep race and gender out of the campaign, except she continually talks about her being a campaign about breaking the glass ceiling and how an old lady (whose age varies from telling to telling of the story) told her how she waited her entire life to vote for a woman for president. I just hope Barack can pull it off, else the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton soap opera is going to have a 28 year run.
It’s interesting that I’m finding a correlation between my reaction to “All-Star” reality show seasons, where they bring back fan favorites from previous editions, and my reaction to Bill Clinton in his supporting actor role for his wife’s campaign. I’ve found that All-Star seasons tend to tarnish my enjoyment of reality-show “stars” whom I’ve previously really liked on their original run. I’ve found that Hillary’s run has tended to tarnish my previous warm feelings for both Clintons, but especially Bill. It’s strange.
HH Yup the move to try to disallow the previously established plan to have caucuses in the casinos was a political move motivated by the fact that Obama got the Union’s nod. Obviously. Bill’s defensiveness about it was just a stupid way to play that move not working.
Funny you should mention that “fairy tale” comment. Now I don’t know who it was who promoted that interpretation, but it wasn’t Michelle Obama and Barak went on record quickly against it. What is more of note is what it really was: a Bill Clinton lie. Bill was out there saying telling lies about Obama, claiming that he wasn’t always against the war when he was. Of course that was politics too, but it is the politics of saying I am taking the high road and letting your opposition hurt themselves all by themselves.
This stuff hurts HRC quite a bit as some of her allure is nostalgia for Bill’s years, their apparrent professional partnership. Well it makes us less nostalgic when he acts more like a pathologically lieing bullying bufoon than the smooth charismatic leader we want to remeber him as.
The press just goes nuts whenever any Clinton shows any emotion, don’t they? When Bill lectured Chris Matthews or whoever it was a few years ago, you would have thought from the coverage that he’d wrapped his hands around the Matthews’ throat and beat his head against the desk until his brains dripped out his ears on live TV. Then last week, Hillary burst into tears and sobbed “WHY must they be so CRUEL?” and now this.
I haven’t seen the video, but in the text, he does come off as an asshole, which he has done repeatedly of late. He’s probably enjoying not having to restrain himself around the press, but to me, a lot of his recent statements have sounded entitled and resentful that somebody is actually challenging Hillary. And it’s hard not to wonder if those statements reflect her attitude as well.
He seems to be playing the part of a VP candidate in the general - playing the attack dog role while allowing the Presidential candidate to look above the ruckus. But he isn’t a VP candidate and he reflects on her candidacy differently.
In a strategic sense, I think Hillary should tell Bill to sit down somewhere a little more often. His participation only adds to the appearance that Hillary is riding on her husband’s coattails, and it also furthers the dynastic image that her potential presidency carries. A vote for Hillary is starting to look like a vote for Bill as well. Is that the look she’s trying to go for? Maybe. I think she’s taking a big gamble by doing that, though.
Even if Obama’s move to bus people to caucus was borderline sketchy (which it wasn’t if they eligible to vote), at least he hasn’t done anything (as of yet, at least) as extreme as manipulate caucus sites to improve his chances of winning. Increasing voter turnout bothers me a lot less than decreasing voter turnout. You may call this “politics as usual” and you wouldn’t be wrong. The problem is, that’s the problem!
To a pretty big degree, I’d say yes. She calls herself the experienced candidate, but her seven years in the Senate aren’t that much more experience that Edwards’ six or Obama’s three. Most of what she’s talking about, and the “35 years of fighting for change” or whatever that Bill talks about, are her years as First Lady of Arkansas and the USA.
Looks something like the Sore-Loserman thing in 2000.
Lost under the rules agreed to? Change the rules and count 'em again. Repeat as necessary, until [list=a][li]I win, or the judge rules against me[/list][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
That’s because you keep insisting on dragging dreary facts into the discussion. Bush won by a negative half-million votes, that was a creative, entreprneurial approach to politics. The voice of the people must be heard, but that doesn’t mean anybody has to listen.
On PBS’s New Hour yesterday, this came up in the Shields/Brooks segment. They both said pretty much the same thing-- that Bill is cheapening himself by acting like a petty campaign official. I guess we expect our ex-presidents to act with more dignity than getting into pissing contests with reporters. And when he starts fabricating stuff about Hillary’s opponent, you just have to think: WTF??? Doesn’t he know people are going to check the facts?
Marley23: You’re thinking of Chris Wallace on Fox (son of the other famous news guy with that last name).
I think the calculus here is that enough Democrats, who have warm, fuzzy memories of the 90s, won’t bother to check the facts (or read the fact-checking articles). Instead, they’ll see their political hero making a statement and take it on faith that he’s right.
I’m with the various posters who are saying that these antics have definitely lowered my opinion of Bill Clinton.
Sorry if that was confusing. I meant that reporters would check the facts. I think you’re right, though, in that he’s counting on voters to not notice.
Which part do you think is wrong - that the rules of the caucus were agreed to in advance, that the endorsement went against Hilary, that they now want to change the rules, or that they tried to file a lawsuit?
Or is that you deny that the ballot format used in the Florida elections was agreed to in advance, that the election results went against Gore-Lieberman, that they then wanted to change the rules for counting, or that they filed a lawsuit?
Or perhaps you meant “wrong-headed” in the sense of “in possession of facts I would prefer didn’t exist”. We get a lot of that on the SDMB.