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.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I will only add this: while I suspect it this statement may well be true (that they got a large number of email messages saying: No second vote), I notice that there is no accounting given (that I’ve seen) of the number of responses in total and the number that said “no second vote.” Further, under the circumstances, we would expect the people who don’t want there to be a second vote to be the ones who would email in, thus potentially biasing the appearance of the will of Floridians.
[/quote]
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?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
They voted, we shoudl count their votes. It is the will of the people, right? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
@331:
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Post #361:
I didn’t name you by name, no. But you did at least provide some logical arguments against the commentary, so yes, I do acknowledge it.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
Post #361:I didn’t name you by name, no. But you did at least provide some logical arguments against the commentary, so yes, I do acknowledge it.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=DigitalC]
I’m fully expecting a “Fork Hillary 4: electric forkalu” and “Fork Hillary 5: fork harder” before this is over.
[/QUOTE]
I was hoping the Hil backers would make a show of it with “Fork Hillary 4: Hillary Forks Back”.
This is Illinois, if you can’t manage half a dozen votes, you’re not trying.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Crocodiles And Boulevards]
The rabid Obama supporters are the ones being divisive in the party. For the most part, in every debate I’ve read or seen between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters it’s been Clinton’s who’ve been – at the least – tactful. Why can’t the aggressive Obama supporters realize that by gnashing their teeth in apoplectic rage they are distancing themselves from the Dems who are on the fence between Obama and Clinton?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Pashnish Ewing]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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. 
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
That’s your cite? :dubious: Is the FL Democratic Party like the Mormon priesthood, where every voter is also a party leader? Or maybe that’s a whoosh.
Do you have anything *substantive * that would suggest the voters of MI and FL *want * to be disenfranchised? One might think that, in FL anyway, they’d have had enough of that already, without getting it from the other party too.
To those of you who have said it, Obama’s “I’ll abide by the DNC ruling” is precisely the pseudo-helpless handwringing I mentioned earlier. The Clinton campaign was in there discussing alternatives, trying to find ways to make a do-over work, but of course it wasn’t going to without the concurrence of the Obama campaign either, now was it? No, our “non-traditional politician”, being “above that kind of thing”, while demonstrating “uniting leadership”, was in fact supporting the disenfranchisement of people he thought might vote for his opponent, wasn’t he?
That antidemocracy shit was bad enough from Rove’s gang. It isn’t any better from Saint Barack, either. At least we expected no better from them.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
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’
[/QUOTE]
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!
Apparently Hillary’s “I’m the better candidate to win the Big States” argument is starting to go down the tubes.
They’re also having a tough time selling tickets for their “one night only” Elton John concert.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Well, but that’s not an option regardless of whether a new vote is held or not, right?
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
[Indiana] State lawmakers endorse Obama for president
[/QUOTE]
Done! Plain and simple. About frick’in time! I hope PA residents look at this endorsement with clear eyes.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
[Indiana] State lawmakers endorse Obama for president
[/QUOTE]
Does that mean Obama’s superdelegate count just jumped by 11?
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Does that mean Obama’s superdelegate count just jumped by 11?
[/QUOTE]
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.
With the selection of Don Williams as State Senate President Pro Tem, Barack Obama picks up another superdelegate.