Funny, I injected a mild questioning commentary about the comments of the Florida Democratic Party Chairperson, and it was ignored. Totally. Guess offering some substance to back up the rhetoric isn’t as fun as chomping up postings from the enemy. Or maybe what I posted was simply missed.
boldingmine - kd99
I’m confused (it’s been a long thread, or three). Why would we expect that?
I’m afraid you’ve lost me. the way I read this, it looks like the legal obstacles (to a state-run primary) are in addition to the voters’ disinclination to participate in a do-over (of any stripe), not a separate or inconsistent issue.
Good question, and the answer might be instructive. Perhaps someone with resources to do so might ask Ms Thurman directly.
ETA: is Ms Thurman (being a party official) a superdelegate herself, by the way? And if so, is her status as such jeopardized if her state’s delegation is not seated? Also, has she come out in favor of either candidate?
Ah, sorry, didn’t know that was my post you were referring to. :o
kaylasdad99, in general, the people who take the time to complain by mail, etc. are people who are upset about something. So, if the Democratic Party in Florida says to Democrats in general, “Hey, what do y’all think about having a second vote, run and paid for by us?” we’d expect that those who are happy with the idea will nod their heads and say, “sounds good,” but those who are opposed will be the ones who will write in with their opposition. Now, obviously, if you get a stream of angry “NO!” letters and almost no “Yeah, sounds good!” letters, you might be safe to assume that the negative sentiment outweighs the positive thoughts among the people as a whole. But if it’s just something like 2:1 or 3:1 against, I’d be more likely to want a polling that is more scientific before I reached that conclusion.
I think you’ve got the ‘upset factor’ backwards. ISTM that the people who would be most upset are those who think their January votes should count, and are pissed that that’s not so.
Well, but that’s not an option regardless of whether a new vote is held or not, right?
So it’s all about the wording of what gets asked. If the Florida Democratic Party puts out a letter saying, “We don’t think we’ll bother with a second vote, what do you think?” the expected response will be from those who are insistent that a second vote take place. But if the idea floated is, “we’re thinking of running a second vote, what do you think?” then the idea goes quite the other way.
This reminds me of the hundreds of Bush threads over the past 8 or so years. You could say the same thing about how the Bush supporters always remained much calmer than the detractors. When one side calmly continues to repeat the same debunked distortions, half-truths, and illogical opinions as common facts, the other side is eventually going to become frustrated. The Bush supporters used the same “apoplectic rage” excuse to dismiss valid arguments, but only after they continued to ignore the same valid arguments until the breaking point was reached.
Well, as I tried to point out earlier in this and other threads, it doesn’t really matter why you feel frustrated. When your “argument” is reduced to looking foolish or silly, it detracts from your message. The better road is to realize that the person you are trying to convince isn’t the person making the opposing “argument,” but, rather those who are reading your words and are undecided. These people will understand your calm, rational responses, and will also understand when you choose to stop repeating yourself *ad nauseum * because the opposition is playing the role of Brick Wall.
Seriously, I don’t see how anyone who’s not somehow delusional comes to this conclusion. The state primaries are the business of the state parties and the DNC. They’re not the business of the campaigns. The PROPER way to deal with this is to negotiate through the DNC, not throw every half-baked idea of how to resolve it out into the public airwaves in an attempt to grab those votes no matter what. The issue of the MI/FL primaries was decided LAST FREAKIN’ YEAR, and none of the campaigns had the slightest problem with the DNC’s decision to strip the delegates. Only after Clinton’s inevitability began to tarnish and she got the majority in those pseudo-primaries (even though neither state’s voters thought their votes would count, and the fact that the only people on one state’s ballot were Clinton, Kucinich, Gravel and Bullwinkle) did she start to get vote-fever and become the “poor, disenfranchised” Florida and Michigan voters’ BFF.
I’m trying to restain myself from more comments regarding FL and Mi as it is beating a dead horse. There will be no real votes there and the delegates selected outside of an acceptable method will only be seated after the nomination is already determined. Time to move on. But the above comment deserves to be highlighted as it is part of Hillary’s ongoing pattern of dishonesty. It is more than a little disingenuous to agree with the DNC’s response early on, when it was being decided, and then to call it “disenfranchisement” only after you know that getting them counted helps you or that even the outside chance of doing well there in a real election is better than the no chance you have without them. I understand that bringing transparency to government is laudable but I didn’t think it merely meant that everyone can see right through you!
Yeah, and if someone loses a leg in a car crash and sues over it, they can’t get their leg back either.
It’s pretty clear that getting another opportunity to vote that would count is closer to being made whole than getting nothing at all.
You’re putting a lot more emphasis on the wording of a letter than on the situation. That seems totally unrealistic to me.
There are Floridians who are mad that their votes in January didn’t count, and there are those who don’t really care that much. The latter group won’t write in.
The former group can also be divided in two - those that want their initial votes to count, period, and those who would be happy with a revote.
But both groups are presumably pissed that the original vote didn’t count.
No, they’re state lawmakers, not federal, so not superdelegates. But there were 25 of them who endorsed him today (though only 13 of them made the public appearance to announce it), which is still excellent news and very helpful to him in his efforts to win that state’s upcoming primary.
