[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Well, looks like politico.com was right after all.
Link
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I don’t see that working. It can only come off as desperate and aren’t delegates chosen for their loyalty in the first place? Granted, out of 1,328+ delegates, there’s going to be a few weak links. But not that many. And if it came to it, I’m sure two could play at that game.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Her.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. My. Gawd. I take it back. She doesn’t need to be hung up by her thumbs, she’s already been hung up by her thumbs and beat about the head with the stupid stick! No wonder this process is such a freaking mess.
I love how she’s all too happy to make the most generous “assumption” about the motives of the superdelegates who came out for Hillary early. They could only have done so because they thought “she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country.” No other possible explanation is put forth. Why, it’s unthinkable that there could have been any favors called in, or that some people simply didn’t know Barack Obama well enough to endorse him at that point, or that they, like many others, just assumed Hillary would be the presumptive nominee. No, she could only have secured those endorsements because she was the best one for the job. Mmmhmmm.
But it is a “great disappointment” to her that some of her colleagues are switching their support to Barack Obama, having only done so because their constituents have spoken. No mention whatsoever of the hundreds who have come out in his support with eloquently written endorsements, believing firmly in their hearts and minds that Obama is the one they felt could best represent the party and lead the country. No, they’re not part of the equation at all. Just the 3 or 4 who’ve switched from Hillary to Barack. By focusing only on those, she gets to paint every single superdelegate who’s endorsed him with the same broad brush.
Of course she can only conclude that “if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process,” then by golly she “would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan.”
OF COURSE! The only way they can prove that they truly have any concern for their democratic constituents is if they force the party to go back on its ruling and seat delegates from states where hundreds of thousands of voters didn’t even bother to show up, having been told their votes wouldn’t count anyway, and where one state only had her candidate of choice on the ballot! “Standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers.” What a ridiculous and false argument!
And if we don’t stand up for the delegates that were obtained in unfair and undemocratic mock elections, we have no integrity? No integrity?? And we’re reduced to “superdelegate-bashers,” to boot! Not concerned citizens with legitimate concerns about a clearly undemocratic process. No, we’re “bashers.”
I could go on picking out the stupidity of that woman’s comments, but it’s just making my blood boil. I hate this twit even more now. I’d like to stick a fork in her, too.
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Yeah. I don’t see that working. It can only come off as desperate and aren’t delegates chosen for their loyalty in the first place? Granted, out of 1,328+ delegates, there’s going to be a few weak links. But not that many. And if it came to it, I’m sure two could play at that game.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I fully agree. But it will be interesting to see if the die-hard Clinton supporters now rationalize this as an acceptable strategy.
[QUOTE=Jophiel]
Erm, “pledged delegates” are the delegates decided by election.
If you can find where Shayna was complaining about pledged delegates, share away.
[/QUOTE]
Pledged delegates include those chosen by Caucus, which is not an “election” per se.
Where I have said Shayna’s name in specific? Too many Obama-ites here, I really can’t keep them straight.
[QUOTE=Spiny Norman]
Actually, without Michigan, she doesn’t. Do you really want to count a 30K “edge”, when 320K+ of her total was gained in an “election” where hers was the only name on the ballot?
]
[/QUOTE]
Sure, why not? Neither campaigned and both had the choice of taking their name off or leaving it on. The Dem party did not require taking the names off. And, a good number voted “other”. You may count those towards Obama if you like.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Pledged delegates include those chosen by Caucus, which is not an “election” per se.
[/QUOTE]
Please offer us a dictionary definition of election that does not describe a caucus.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Quite true about the lack of excuse for DrDeth disingenuously “calling me out” for something I’ve never said or implied. It was rude and it was wrong. Especially since I know he’s been paying attention to the fact that I’m the poster who always posts the announcement of every new superdelegate who comes out in support of Obama.
I have said, and I say again, if they were to do that, there would be a mass protest the likes of which have never been witnessed. The damage it would do to the Democratic party would be enormous, and I have no doubt that not a single elected Democrat, let alone Dr. Dean, will ever allow it to happen.
[/QUOTE]
Umm, I did not “call you out”. And, I am sorry to say I have not been paying the slightest attention to your announcements in specific. And, honestly, other than the fact you appear to be a Obama supporter I really don’t know anything about you at all. I replied to your post earlier here but not to *you *specifically. I hope you see the difference.
But this last is part of what I have been talking about. I can’t see how you can say that “Frankly, I’m not the least bit concerned about the superdelegates in this process.” and "also I have said, and I say again, if they were to do that, there would be a mass protest the likes of which have never been witnessed. The damage it would do to the Democratic party would be enormous, and I have no doubt that not a single elected Democrat, let alone Dr. Dean, will ever allow it to happen"
Becuase as I have said, the Superdelagates are part of the system. The same system that Obama has taken of advantage of to cull more votes in the Caucuses (not “the will of the people” and also get more delegates due to winning more small states (again, not “the will of the people”.). I can’t see why Obama gets to use the system here for his advantage and that’s perfectly OK, while if Clinton uses the system and wins by SuperDelegates that will “a mass protest the likes of which have never been witnessed.”
Either we skip the entire delegate system, and just count snouts; or we use the system, warts and all. Warts include Caucuses, small states geting a few extra votes, the DNC voting to admit Fla ect, and SuperDelegates. See, the first two benefit Obama, the last benefits Clinton and we don’t know about Fla yet. It’s manifestly hypocritical to accept the part of the system which helps *your *candidate, then complain the rest is unfair and threaten a walk-out.
So, warts or snouts? System or popular vote?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Pledged delegates include those chosen by Caucus, which is not an “election” per se.
Where I have said Shayna’s name in specific? Too many Obama-ites here, I really can’t keep them straight.
[/QUOTE]
For og’s sake, you were replying to my post and quoted me, which is what started this whole tangent in the first place! Do try to keep up, mkay?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Umm, I did not “call you out”. And, I am sorry to say I have not been paying the slightest attention to your announcements in specific. And, honestly, other than the fact you appear to be a Obama supporter I really don’t know anything about you at all. I replied to your post earlier here but not to *you *specifically. I hope you see the difference.
[/quote]
Please explain to me how on earth anyone’s supposed to tell the difference! You replied to ME. You rolled multiple rolleyes at ME and MY post. But you weren’t replying specifically to ME now? Good GRIEF!
Here, I’ll highlight the important word for you.
“Frankly, I’m not the least bit concerned about the superdelegates in this process.”
And I’m not. Because I have faith that they are not going to be willing to see their party destroyed by subverting the will of the people. That’s how I can say both of those things. One does not contradict the other.
Cull more votes? What is this supposed to mean? He campaigned, set up offices, advertised and asked people to come out and support him. They did. In greater numbers than they did so for Hillary Clinton in all but 3 of the states that held caucuses. But that’s somehow not representative of the people’s will in those states? How does that work, exactly? And are you going to discount the 3 states where Hillary won the caucuses, as well, or were those the only ones who represented the will of the people?
WHAT??? Small states don’t have people with wills? WHAT???
Hillary can use whatever systems she wants. That’s what the system is there for. Have at it! But that doesn’t mean she gets to do so without any consequences. I’m simply predicting the consequences of party insiders overturning the desire of the millions of people who have spent the past year working, campaigning, raising money, canvassing, phonebanking and showing up to vote. If the party wants to go that route, they do so at their peril.
Wrong. If we use the system “warts and all,” then there is absolutely, positively no question whatsoever that Florida and Michigan are OUT. Rules are rules and they understood them clearly when they decided to defy the DNC. Period.
The problem with Clinton as far as I can tell, is that she is cynical about the political process and has a far narrower sense of what is possible in the US than Obama.
The problem with her critics is that there is a good chance she’s right.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Sure, why not?
[/QUOTE]
Because having one name on a ballot is a travesty of democracy. And telling people ahead of time that the vote isn’t counting completely skews the results. Christ, even freakin’ East Germany went to the trouble of putting a patsy opponent on the ballots. Neglecting to do so is simply Bad Form.
The Democratic party declared the entire vote invalid before it even got to the polls, so discussing the intricacies of the rules as regards withdrawing names on the ballots smacks a bit of selective rules enforcement, doesn’t it? Arguing that the Democratic party’s decision regarding the primary should be rejected, but that its rules regarding withdrawing names from the ballots are enforceable isn’t exactly a consistent stance.
Either the party has authority over the primary or it hasn’t. As someone posted in this thread, one is bound use the system in its entirety, "warts and all. " Fair enough. Michigan is out. Call it a wart.
If you’re ok with counting “undecided” for Obama, I take it this is where you concede that Hillary doesn’t actually have the edge in overall popular vote. I, however, wouldn’t like that at all. “Other” could cover any number of things. It’d be unethical, to say the least.
Anyway, as spoke- points out, with Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine included, she’s highly unlikely to have the edge, even if one were to count her 320K Michigan votes. Without them, she’s not even close.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Either we skip the entire delegate system, and just count snouts; or we use the system, warts and all. Warts include Caucuses, small states geting a few extra votes, the DNC voting to admit Fla ect, and SuperDelegates.
[/QUOTE]
One of these things is not like the other…
Caucuses may not be ideal for some reason (I don’t know, no one’s made the case) but they’re standard procedure and within the system and rules. Small states getting more votes are arguably a flaw, but that’s how the actual election system works too. Either way, it’s still standard procedure and within the rules. Super delegates strike me as a crappy idea, but standard procedure and within the rules.
The primary held in Florida was NOT standard procedure and NOT held within the rules. And because of this, the primary occured differently than it would’ve occured had it done properly - different in a way that may severely bias their results.
You need to stop equating potential flaws in the rules with the blatant breaking of the rules.
Clinton’s followers on here generally strike me as dishonest, attempting to manipulate by semantics and word play, and willing to do anything to win - which seems to be an accurate reflection of her campaign. This whole line of reasoning that MI/FL should count because there are other potential flaws in the election system too isn’t helping your cause and just makes you seem… slimey.
A little too broad a brush. I’m a Clinton supporter and I’ve openly said here that I don’t think the Florida or Michigan delegates should be counted. The policy was explained to the states and the candidates and everyone should abide by the consequences they were warned of. Thats said, I’d be willing to accept the results of a second primary in these states if both candidates agreed to a “do-over” and had an equal opportunity to participate.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And, a good number voted “other”. You may count those towards Obama if you like.
[/QUOTE]
It should be pointed out that if you do that, assuming the numbers in the referenced links are correct, Obama is ahead in the popular vote. From The Green Papers (just googled it, no idea of its leanings, if any): 236,955 Uncommitted votes in MI.
From the realclearpolitics link (given above):
Obama Clinton
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* 13,601,217 13,620,611
That puts Obama up by 217,561 votes (while not including voting from the caucus states).
Well, just to lighten the mood, this kind of made me chuckle a little.
deleted
Hi. Sorry to be asking so late, but why is there a rule that Michigan and Florida can’t decide when to hold their primaries? Is it only to preserve the “tradition” of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary being the kickoff, or is there some other (rational) reason?
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Hi. Sorry to be asking so late, but why is there a rule that Michigan and Florida can’t decide when to hold their primaries? Is it only to preserve the “tradition” of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary being the kickoff, or is there some other (rational) reason?
[/QUOTE]
The rational reason is that we want the primaries to both be representative of the party as a whole and not be unfairly biased toward candidate with money and name recognition. In theory, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina represent the four corners of the part, and are all relatively accessible states (and media markets.)
“Four corners of the part”? Is that supposed to be “party?” If so, isn’t it a really astounding coincidence that they also represent the four corners of the Republican Party (in theory)?
Something tells me I need to start learning about this “theory”.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Hi. Sorry to be asking so late, but why is there a rule that Michigan and Florida can’t decide when to hold their primaries? Is it only to preserve the “tradition” of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary being the kickoff, or is there some other (rational) reason?
[/QUOTE]
The Democratic Party has an interest in having a level playing field.
If the big states go first, only the well-funded candidates will be able to compete.
This year, that was Hillary. Having Florida and Michigan go early would have been an unfair advantage to her, since she had a huge warchest before the primaries ever began. (In fact, I imagine part of the point of moving up these primaries was to give Hillary an advantage. Both the machine Democrats and the Republicans wanted to see Hillary as the nominee.)
To avoid giving well-heeled candidates an unfair advantage, the party wants to preserve a system where small states go first. That way, a talented but underfunded candidate can compete. (Say, a Bill Clinton in '92.) Even an underfunded candidate can afford to make the rounds in Iowa and New Hampshire. (And now also Nevada and South Carolina.) And if they are talented and meet with success in the small states, they build momentum, donations flow in, and their coffers tend to fill in time to fund their campaigns in the larger states.
Having big states go first would mean we would have a party insider nominated every time.