Pssst, SenorBeef, he’s been told told and told and told that Florida voters have chosen not to have a revote, regardless of any actions either taken or not taken or yet to be taken by Barack Obama.
He doesn’t care.
If you keep going back and forth with him, you’ll just wear out your keyboard.
As a Florida resident, I can tell you right now that Florida shouldn’t be allowed to vote for pizza toppings, let alone in federal elections. Let’s be honest here, we’re really bad at it, every time we end up picking the wrong guy (or toppings, remember the anchovies - bananas - ground tires pizza?) . I know my fellow florideans will totally back me up on this.
I say let Puertorico vote instead, that way we can blame them.
Eight years ago, we let a special nine-member panel vote on Florida’s behalf and the result of that hasn’t worked out so well.
Pfft. Go tell that to the grateful free people of Iraq.
But will the DNC and Obama accept a re-vote?
And why should the voters have to go vote again?
Well, he’s stopping the voters from having their voices heard. Isn’t that at least a little “anti-democracy”?
Why was the election so unfair? Both Cand names were on, neither did any significant campaigning (Obama’s camp did a bit, but hardly significant) so why was it “unfair”?
You are almost right. The GOP conned the Fla legislature into thinking the DNC would back down (the GOp has a majority anyway, but many Dems went along with it). It was a great idea of the GOP as now the Fla Dem voters are pissed. But I don’t get how the cunning of the GoP and the stupidity of the Fla Dem legislature should mean that the *Voters *are disenfranchised. It’s not like the voters got a choice. So- the Fla and Mi Legislatures "knowingly violated the rules ". But the States did not.
We have a representative government. The legislature IS the state.
To answer the OP, I do believe Hillary prefers a McCain presidency, for the very reasons indicated upthread. I also believe and fully expect Clinton to ramp up the duplicity while ostensibly campaigning “for” Obama if he does become the nominee, just so she can give the country a big fat, cackling “toldja!” if he loses to McCain.
Ok, let’s assume the FLA elections were fair.
As an ideologist, yes, it makes sense to let the votes count. As a politician, it’s a lot to ask for. The pragmatic strategy is to delay and only take florida votes when he can still be ahead in delegates after doing so. If he does this right now, he would lose the math argument that swayed and will sway many voters and superdelegates.
Second, By doing nothing, Clinton must waste time trying to seat the delegates, which is to his advantage.
My question is: Considering the fact that Obama was not responsible for their votes being thrown out, Is it ethical for him to delay the seating of Florida delegates if it ends up being done?
If not, should he have done so months ago? is it still ok if he does it now? What if he seats them tomorrow and still wins? Will Hillary’s supporters cry foul anyways because, had he done this much earlier, she might be in a better position now? If not, how about tomorrow or next week? When is his deadline due?
There were simply not enough babies and old butts kissed in Florida. How is Obama supposed to get the woman vote without pictures of him kissing babies? How is he supposed to get the senior vote if he doesn’t shave them?
How would the GOP have known how this would affect the primaries in general? Nobody knew how things were going to turn out. Plus, there are still presidential elections with a democratic candidate anyways so I just don’t think the GOP benefits from this. If it was indeed their plan, well, it was a crappy one, don’t you think?
Looking for the cite … hmmm, still none there. As expected.
I’ve made those arguments, true - and never got a reasoned rebuttal. You’d be the first.
The money can be found. The willingness on Obama’s part to do it is the problem. But you’ve been told that before too.
The very process of establishing that representation (at the Presidential level) is what is at issue here. Haven’t we seen enough of what can happen if that process is subverted or suppressed?
When you can’t address the argument itself … :rolleyes:
You’re still unclear, or perhaps just ignoring, what “Florida” and “Michigan” mean to you. I’ve asked before, but you’ve blown it off.
No, not at all. Do try reading before you respond, will you?
You didn’t read the part about demonstrating leadership either, then.
Come on now. :rolleyes: He’s not running for president of that association, is he?
I wish I could say it’s “odd” that you haven’t read what you think you’re replying to, but that’s to be expected by now.
It’s implicit in every other thing you’ve said since. And you *still * won’t do it. Or, rather, can’t. But you’ll neither put up nor shut up, will you?
By showing some evidence, any at all, that he’s trying to help fix this mess instead of washing his hands of it. Is there such a cite you can provide, or only more excuses?
You can be opposed to *either * Democrat and still not care about democracy.
Examples? To repeat, put up or shut up.
Also absolutely wrong. I’ve been clear about that too, but you apparently just can’t be bothered… My contention, repeated often enough for it to sink in even for you, is that there should be a new vote in both states. That is, in fact, what Clinton has been working toward, but Obama’s stalling and feighed-helpless handwringing have prevented it.
Now try again, with a little respect for the world of fact this time, m’kay?
Shayna, if you can provide anything as a cite for “the people” or “the voters” of MI and FL not wanting their votes to matter (!!!), other than your own simple denials, you go right ahead. But you too are expected neither to put up nor shut up, sadly.
That train of reasoning goes off the tracks right there.
onomatopoeia, is there anything factual you can point to that supports your claimi of what Clinton wants, or just your imaginings?
This reminds me of why I generally don’t like GD. If I had the chance to change someone’s mind for the better, I don’t mind putting in the work. But I have no chance of influencing your world view because you’re inflexible and set in your ways. No matter what I say, you’re just going to say “nyah nyah can’t hear you, gotcha!”.
A cursory google of “florida michigan revote polls” and things like that didn’t turn up any data, pro or con, on whether or not the voter base wants to have a revote. The data may be out there, but it’s beyond my interest to find.
Where does the burden of proof lie anyway? With the person who says there’s not enough interest to have a revote (and since it’s not actually happening, that seems to be the case) or the one claiming that there’s interest but it’s being suppressed?
Because you can declare any problem to be THE problem that Obama has to solve, and if he doesn’t solve it, he’s clearly not the leader he claims to be. It’s arbitrary.
Then why wasn’t the money found? What does Obama have to do with this? They don’t need his permission to hold a revote.
The process was “subverted” by following the rules that everyone agreed to beforehand, rules that the MI and FL legislature deliberately ignored knowing the consequences. No one has been subverted or suppressed - the people of Florida and Michigan elected stupid legislators.
I did, in the very next lines, address the argument. I was just pointing out that the statement really demonstrates how absurd your line of reasoning is.
The elected legislatures of Florida and Michigan made decisions that resulted in the current situation. They speak for the citizens of those states in terms of legal issues.
In response to me asking if including a state where there was only one candidate on the ballot was democratic, you said “those are the rules”.
No, they’re not. The rules are that neither FL/MI will have their delegates seated.
My point was that he’s no more responsible for that situation than the FL/MI one, so it’s not his burden to fix it.
Can you give one example of Obama proactively attempting to derail attempts at a revote? If not, then why is he being singled out as the key person responsible for them not happening? The blame is completely arbitrary.
Besides, you could argue that he is indeed showing leadership by ignoring the issue. Florida and Michigan violated the rules. They are not the victims here, they are the source of the problem. If a revote is held for them, their bad behavior is rewarded. Setting that precedent may cause more harm than getting the votes would do good. If Obama believes that, then the proper role for leadership would be to force MI/FL to suffer the agreed-upon punishment.
You’re trying to ascribe hypocritical positions to me when you don’t even know where I stand on those positions. How do you know how I feel about the 2000 election screw up? You’re also trying to equate things that aren’t similar.
What claim are you asking for a factual citation to support?
IT IS NOT HIS PROBLEM TO FIX. He did not create it, he did not perpetuate it, he is not whatsoever responsible for it. This is not an “excuse” - when someone has no obligation to do something at all, they shouldn’t be faulted for failing to do it.
You claimed my biases were such that I would distort the democratic process in order to secure a tactical win for “my guy”. I’m saying I don’t even have a guy here. The claim is especially absurd because it’s so obviously hypocritical - that’s exactly what you’ve done on every one of these threads - twist and parse and frame the debate in any way that supports Clinton regardless of the ethics or reflection on the democratic process.
You entirely ignore that “the rules” are that FL/MI don’t get their delegates seated. Those are the rules that everyone was aware of and agreed to prior to the primary season.
But then when I asked if it’s democratic to count a state with one candidate on the ballot, you said “Those are the rules. I keep hearing they’re important.”
Not only are you implying that A) those are indeed the rules, which they are not, and B) that you’ve supported the rules the entire time, which you have not, that C) you imply we’re hypocritical for ignoring the rules when it doesn’t suit us, which is triple super duper ironic since that’s exactly what you’re doing here.
I may be getting you mixed up with DrDeth who seems like he’d be happy to have a one-candidate election, but the way you responded “those are the rules” to me questioning whether counting the MI votes would be in the spirit of the democratic process implies that you’d accept that result. I may be misreading you, but then why would you say “those are the rules” in response to that?
Again, why does the DNC and the states involved need Obama’s permission? They don’t. They don’t need anything from him whatsoever. The reasons why a revote isn’t being held are independent of Obama.
Specifically, what claims of mine require factual substantiation?
For what it’s worth, you’re not helping your case or Clinton’s at all. I came into these threads because I’m interested in the story, but I had no horse in the race. I’ve never voted for a democrat for president. But I noticed that Obama supporters tended to be intellectually honest, whereas the Clinton supporters were often disingenuous, playing semantical games, looking for “gotcha” moments, etc.
It’s actually very reflective of the campaigns - the way Clinton runs her campaign is very similar to the way her followers on here defend it. The behavior of the Clinton advocates on this board have done nothing but turn me against her. The way that your support for her matches the sort of tactics she’s used in her campaign have convinced me that Clinton would make an absolutely horrible president. I’m probably not the only one.
Why do they need Obama’s permission?
Aha, so now Obama is guilty for not personally funding a revote, a revote that you apparently don’t even advocate. Nice.
So the only way, in your view, that Obama can do the right, and democratic thing, is to accept the results of an election that only had one candidate.
That makes sense.
We’re back to asking for a factual cite that Obama has taking steps to prevent a revote.
And even so - is it unambiguously clear that rewarding FL/MI for deliberate rule breaking is in the long term interest of the process?
In Michigan, Clinton was the only name on the ballot. It’s obvious why this is unfair to you, right?
The absense of campaigning heavily favors the person with name recognition, especially early in the season when Obama had very little recognition. And knowing in advance that the votes wouldn’t count obviously changed the voter pool.
Pretty much all of them went with it.
There was also a process available to show the DNC that they tried to stop it but couldn’t. They did not fulfill those requirements.
Do we need a civics 101 lesson on representative democracy?
And *still * no substantiation of any kind offered. Or even any recognition of what the points even *are * that you seem to think you’re responding to. Oh, well.
Waiter, check please?
See what I mean, SenorBeef? It matters not that you provide absolute evidence, even multiple times. The words, “Thousands of people responded. . .While your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again,” mean absolutely nothing to him. Or they’re invisible, one or the other. Our disingenuous friend will flat out ignore it and tell you you’re simply in denial and demand that you put up or shut up. If it weren’t so pathetically transparent, it’d be funny by now.
Don’t forget, not only wasn’t Obama responsible for their votes being thrown out, Clinton’s campaign was! Her Chief Strategist, Harold Ickes, sat on the DNC Rules Committee and voted to have both Florida and Michigan stripped of their delegates. And he’s not the only one!
But don’t tell ElvisL1ves or DrDeth this, they’ll just hand-wave it away and tell you, again, to put up or shut up. Nevermind that you have “put up”, numerous times, they’ll just keep saying it over and over and over like a broken record.
And don’t bother to point out the video evidence of the Florida Democratic Senate Minority Leader mocking the DNC’s threat to strip them of their delegates and pretending to take the “provable and positive steps” in a “good faith” effort to block the GOP majority’s legislation, that was all that was required of them not to lose their delegates. Even if you show them three different times, they’ll just ignore you and demand you provide a cite. It’s stunning, really.
They’ve literally stuck their fingers in their ears and are singing “La La La I can’t heeeeeeeaaaaaaaar you!”
Those are statements about the *political machinery * in FL, *not * about the will of the people, snookums.
As I’ve pointed out to you *enough * times by now.
DO NOT CONDESCEND TO ME IN THIS FORUM WITH YOUR “SNOOKUMS” CRAP.
Three things:
First, FWIW, I appreciate your responses here. And I’m neither denigrating nor dismissing ElvisL1ves – like DSeid, I appreciate his tenacity, even though I disagree with his position.
Second, a point about funding the MI (not FL) re-voting. IIRC, funding through private individuals was indeed available; even though I read it both on the NYTimes and ABC sites, I don’t seem to be able to find cites but only allusions to such. The problem concerning the funding (there were other issues as well; one can read the full memo sent by Obama’s general counsel and the Clinton campaign’s response here), was that the private individuals were Clinton backers, which might carry the appearance of impropriety. Whether or not that’s a valid objection, the fact is that funding was most likely available for MI. I don’t think it ever got that far in FL.
Finally, according to this MSNBC article:
So, I just wanted to point out that some attempt has been made to hear the “voice of the people” on this issue. Assuming, that is, that Ms. Thurmond is talking about some open, public forum – I seem to remember it being the Dem Party website, but may be wrong. I sincerely doubt that it’s enough to satisfy either ElvisL1ves or DrDeth, but I don’t see any better gauge coming available.
Here’s an idea: perhaps the states should organize an official vote to see if the voters want a re-vote? Or, in a perverse cosmic twist, there could be a pre-primary caucus! 
Becuase Obama has the most delegates, and to change things needs those votes, which he controls. Fla can do a re-vote all by itself, but what would be the point if the DNC doesn;t accept that vote either?
And, why does Obama get to ask the voters to keep voting over and over until he gets the results he wants?
It is in the best interest for winning the General Election this fall.
(chuckles) “Snookums”, that’s good. Heh. 
Thanks for your reasonability, DS. I don’t think even *you * take Thurmond’s quoted statement seriously, do you?
Now:
The Democratic Convention represents “the will of the people” of the national party at least as surely as the state party leaders do for the state party members, does it not? Yet, if the convention nominates Clinton, the very same individuals here who shrug off the disenfranchisement of Florida voters as being the result of following the rules within the agreed structure proclaim that there would be a “civil war” (!) within the party for its falure to obey “the will of the people”.
Unfortunately there are multiple layers of “the simple gainsaying of everything the other person has to say” still left to break through before the exposure of that particular hypocrisy can become apparent to those same individuals. One step at a time, though.
No. “Snookums” is NOT good. It looks a lot like name calling, to me.
Stop it, both of you.
[ /Moderating ]
OTOH, Shayna, if you insist on getting in months-long pissing contests in which your attititude is clearly personally hostile to everyone with whom you disagree, you would be much better developing a thicker skin that posting screaming demands for courtesy.
[ /Modding ]
First, thank you, tom. However, I hardly think I’m personally hostile to everyone who disagrees with me. More like these two, who flat out refuse to engage in honest debate, and particularly ElvisL1ves, who frequently resorts to personal insults similar to the above, which are entirely inappropriate in this forum. I don’t expect him to be “courteous”, but I expect him to abide by the forum rules, which he frequently does not when engaging with me. However, I will refrain in the future from using all caps to respond to him. Sorry for yelling.