Just an FYI - I just got off the phone with the very nice people at the Quinnepiac Polling Center. I of course, took the roughly 5 minute survey. Some very interesting questions which I wrote down for accuracy. The interesting thing is not what the questions were…but more what they were not. I was asked about voting for Obama or Hillary in several different ways…these were issues based questions…however, I was only asked if Obama could beat McCain NOT if Clinton could Beat McCain. I found that very odd. Should I infer that Quinnepiac doesn’t think Clinton will get the nom? Why wasn’t I asked questions about whether or not Clinton could beat McCain? they covered nearly every other base, demographically, political persuasion opinions on candidates values etc…etc… But I was not asked if Clinton could beat McCain. Hmmmmm
What mildly annoys me about the matter is motive.
Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries so they could play a pivotal role in deciding the candidates.
So… to reward them for their bad behavior, we should let them revote now so they can play an even more pivotal role in deciding the candidates.
… Florida. The state with a Fark category all its own.
One of the 1,453 reasons they aren’t going to be sat.
Thank you, I just came in here to say this.
But this is the last gasp of a die-hard Clinton supporter, resorting to sniping the winning campaign from afar.
Elvis, why would you continue to spew these ridiculous talking points for her?
The Florida democrats were complicit in the idea to move up the dates of the primaries. I don’t know about you, but I believe in RULES. I don’ t think it’s okay to change them in the middle of the game. The rules were clearly stated “Go before Feb 5, and you won’t get your delegates seated.” I seriously don’t understand how hard that is to understand.
The voters of MI and FL disenfranchised themselves the way you can easily do so by overvoting, or going to the polling place a day late, or whatever. FL and MI voters should place their anger at their elected officials who decided to do this. And guess what? Next time people will take it seriously. We have to have rules for a reason.
Just in the same way I don’t believe in poaching pledged delegates as sHrillary planned on doing in Texas.
This is a little game that the DNC set up. Don’t want to play by their rules? Then don’t be a Democrat.
But yet again, I get the irony. Hillary wants the voices of Florida and Michigan to be heard, but what’s going to happen when the voices of all of the other states Obama has won cancel them out? You think Hillary is going to be satisfied? Of course not! At that point she won’t give a flying F about the voice and then go on to “electability” to get the superdelegates to give it to her.
As we saw with Richardson yesterday (who James Carville called Judas yesterday…classy) Hillary is having trouble getting even those who ought to be in her corner the most. Maybe because of they lying and bs she’s been involved in for the past year?
Being a fighter is one thing, but not knowing when to cut your losses is another. Hillary has blown any shot she had in an Obama administration. I wonder if she’ll even win re-election in New York next time?
Seems like a mean spirited interpretation of letting the voters have a say in the choice of candidate.
Huh, truly? That wasn’t how I read Roland Martin’s piece, but I’ll admit I could have got it wrong. I’ll go check. Thanks.
Well to be fair the main reason states want to play a pivotal role in deciding the candidates is so they have to campaign there and pay attention to their issues. This didn’t happen and will not happen regardless of what the outcome is.
Maybe your answer effect later questions.
Being familair with polling and research methodology I asked if certain questions prompted other questions, and she said, “no, all the same questions are asked of everyone…”
I mean if one answer moved you into a different category the results would be skewed and the deviation would be wrong…I can understand certain answers being categorized and placed into different results but a mid-survey changup in questions to a given sample would skew the results. I count Quinnipiac as one of the better polling agencies.
Even if I completely agree that the Democrats were outnumbered and outvoted by the Republican legislature in Florida, that doesn’t tell the complete story, which is why you’re so utterly wrong.
The Florida Democrats had an opportunity to present their case to the DNC, wherein they could try to prove that they’d taken “provable, positive steps” to block the legislation. They failed to prove that they had done so to the satisfaction of the DNC panel.
Additionally, the DNC told them they could make the earlier date a “beauty contest” and hold a caucus later and be counted. The Florida Democrats turned down this compromise option at a time when, had they agreed, both candidates would have had time to fairly campaign in that state.
But the Florida Democrats were afraid that people wouldn’t come out to vote twice – once for the early primary, where they’d have other issues to vote on, and another time for the Presidential race.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/25/politics/main3204004.shtml
Now, all of a sudden, when the DNC has enforced their rules, now it’s ok to make their citizens come out and vote a second time. But back when they had the chance to do it before this turned into a fucking mess, they refused. Were the voters consulted then? Did the Florida Legislature ask their constituents if they’d show up twice if it meant getting their voices heard in the Presidential race? NO!
Additionally, the Florida Democratic Party just now had the opportunity, again to establish a new primary or caucus that the DNC and both candidates could agree on. but voters overwhelmingly wrote in to say NO NEW PRIMARIES.
The Florida voters have now been heard, and it was their legislators who denied them that opportunity in the first place.
I didn’t say that was the only perspective I have on the matter, I’ve got a few. It’s just the one perspective that annoys me. Chutzpah, you know?
The rest of the reasons are entirely valid on pretty much both sides. It’s just that one that bugs me. Or amuses me. I’m not sure.
So “following the will of the people” etc., something the Obama faction never tires of putting forth as the ultimate principle when it comes to discussing the way the superdelegates should vote, is just a “Clinton talking point” if there’s a chance he’d lose because of it? Just listen to yourselves for just a minute, will you?
As I already said, this is a great opportunity to see some of that uniting force, that spirit, that transcendence of traditional politics we keep hearing so much about. When do we get to actually see some of that uniting leadership?
If your view of the right thing to do is defined by your preferred candidate’s relative position, you are on shaky ground claiming to support any higher principle.
You claim to believe in RULES, do you? Well, them’s the rules. And your fantasizing hatred of Clinton does not change that.
Holy shit, that’s hilarious! Kudos to Casey!
Hillary on the other hand is wretched. Gawd, I can’t wait until this mess is over so that we can dance in the street, crack open some cold ones, and loudly sing, “Ding dong the witch is dead!”
As I pointed out to DrDeth in the previous ‘fork’ thread, Obama supporters aren’t a hive mind. We hold distinct positions on a number of things. Pointing out that one poster’s position differs IYHO from that of “the Obama faction” doesn’t indicate an inconsistency in that poster’s position, just that you’ve confused us with the Borg.
But there are reasons for having rules for determining how the will of the people will be expressed, as I pointed out earlier in this thread:
To the extent that you’re incorporating FL and MI into your assessment of the “will of the people,” there’s your answer. If that extent is zero, then carry on as before.
You can’t unite with someone who’s unwilling to unite with you. Maybe Obama’s realizing what Edwards already knew: some people are going to be stubborn and ruthless enough in their opposition that they won’t compromise until your knee is on their throat.
Who said you didn’t? That said, there does seem to be a strong predilection on the part of many of you to imagine what is being said to you.
If that poster has taken that view, then yes it does.
I do have better things to do with my time than read every thread and memorize everyone’s positions. I hope you do too. But anyway, this argument you made earlier that because there “was no campaign” in Michigan and Florida, as if there was no political coverage there at all, no way for the people there to get to know and understand the candidates, as if there were no national media of any sort there, not even the Internets, and maybe they’re just too dumb or ignorant to have their views count anyway … well, there’s not a real need to go on from there, is there? If that isn’t your POV, you haven’t explained it all that well, ya know, certainly not well enough to proudly quote your own self saying it.
For pity’s sake, there’s that imagination in the form of demonization again. Clinton has already offered to be on the same ticket. Obama has laughed down that notion. Now try again.
There are enough *real * things available to criticize Clinton, and those who think she’d be a better President, for. You don’t have to imagine them - or, if you do, it may well be time for a reassessment, ya know?
I just wanted to highlight this part of the response…
with this part. Anybody else see it?
Right. With second place Hillary as president and Obama as vice president if I remember correctly. Of course, a staffer on her side said that it wouldn’t happen because Obama hadn’t passed the commander in chief test (D+ though. He almost passed it) which again iirc involves going into a relatively safe zone with Cheryl Crow and Sinbad. Plus there was the little matter of dispariging Barack Obama’s experience by comparing it to her own and to those of McCain’s.
Now that that’s settled, let’s have no more talk of how “unwilling” Hillary is to unite. I think she’s been plenty kind enough, unlike that ungrateful Obama fellow.
You’re being far too reasonable. There really are no reasons to criticize Hillary that don’t involve being a brainwashed Obama-ite or a tighty righty.
Just thought I’d drop in to say Obama is back in the lead 
Just say’in. 
Most of us knew this would happen. It actually sooner than I had anticipated. Really telling IMHO.
Buyer’s remorse? Hell, we were just letting the engine idle for a bit before taking the sucker out on the freeway to see what it can really do! 
Oh Yeah!