Pangloss Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I wonder if she'll say that now, since she won 50% of Florida. She showed up in Florida yesterday to thank voters in person. And raise money, of course. <cof> This interesting opinion piece at US News suggests how the Clinton campaign will go about attempting to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated at the convention, and what the Dean-lead national party will do to stop it. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/1/30/a-redo-for-florida-democrats.html It also mentions something I hadn't heard before, which is that Florida and Michigan could still hold caucuses and use that process to legally award delegate to the convention that would be seated under the current agreement. This would, in effect, cause these two states to have a second go at a primary election, complete with campaigning and everything. Obviously this would happen after Feb 5th, but if the delegate difference between Clinton and Obama is less than 210 and/or 156 after next Tuesday, I wouldn't be surprised if Florida and Michigan tried to throw together something like that. I still think it's going to be a big fuster cluck if they try counting Florida for the Dems later after disallowing them from campaigning there. It won't be an accurate measure of the process. People said the same thing in 2000, btw. Recounts won't be as accurate (thanks to fallen chads, etc). Oddly enough, that didn't seem to resonate with Democrats at the time, when the beneficiary was a big corporate oil-man Republican. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 People said the same thing in 2000, btw. Recounts won't be as accurate (thanks to fallen chads, etc). Oddly enough, that didn't seem to resonate with Democrats at the time, when the beneficiary was a big corporate oil-man Republican. Go figure. Oh, come on. Do you really think that's an apt analogy? In 2000 people were trying to vote for president, and the results were well within the normal margin of error. In 2008, "votes" were a symbolic gesture, that some people want to count retroactively. It's like saying, "Hey, remember that opinion poll a few months ago? Well, we've decided to make your responses legally binding as votes for President." I really don't see the alleged hypocrisy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think I missed the analogy too. Either way... I suggest that Florida and Michigan have votes at a later date, and that they count. That is, after all, all the party wanted in the first place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It appears that people learned enough about Giuliani for him to finally drop-out. It's about time, if you ask me. And Edwards dropped out too, which is IMO different from the Rudinator's withdrawal... since at least John Edwards was running on a pretty clear vision. What's strange is that he left so early. However, it's certainly possible that he did it to help Barack on Super Tuesday. McCain versus Obama would be nice. Neither one of them seem like "machine shat" politicians like all of the others do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Oh, come on. Do you really think that's an apt analogy? In 2000 people were trying to vote for president, and the results were well within the normal margin of error. In 2008, "votes" were a symbolic gesture, that some people want to count retroactively. It's like saying, "Hey, remember that opinion poll a few months ago? Well, we've decided to make your responses legally binding as votes for President." I really don't see the alleged hypocrisy here. They're not "symbolic", they're real votes cast by real people who want to have a real influence -- the ONLY influence they will receive prior to the general election -- on the outcome. How is that ANY different from the vote I cast in November of 2000? Want proof? How about the fact that this was one of the largest primary turnouts on the Democratic side that we've ever had? Given the heavy Clinton weighting of that vote, that doesn't exactly jive with the Obama-uber-alles media frenzy, now does it? The hypocrisy stems from the specificality of who's performing the action. The Democrats *officially* -- as a party, represented before the Supreme Court itself -- said that the individual right to vote is paramount above all other concerns. Now they're the ones who have taken it away, solely because if they don't, they lose power. Why wouldn't that be hypocritical? What else could it possibly be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Is there a difference between a vote in the primary and a vote in the actual election perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I don't think so, I think a primary vote is just as important as a general election vote. Why wouldn't it be? And sure, you can make the argument that it's "their" primary, and we're just helping "them" decide which candidate to field, but frankly the national parties usurp at least some of their autonomy when they act in a collusive and exclusionary manner as they do towards independents and third parties. I'll happily support taking some of that independence away in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 They're not "symbolic", they're real votes cast by real people who want to have a real influence -- the ONLY influence they will receive prior to the general election -- on the outcome. How is that ANY different from the vote I cast in November of 2000? There is no dispute in the ballot count this time. The results appear to be correct, just the rules were changed and agreed to prior to the election. Want proof? How about the fact that this was one of the largest primary turnouts on the Democratic side that we've ever had? Given the heavy Clinton weighting of that vote, that doesn't exactly jive with the Obama-uber-alles media frenzy, now does it? But Hillary got the EARLY vote. Yeah, there must be some explanation why those idiots voted for her. Either that or they are just racist, like the latinos for example. The hypocrisy stems from the specificality of who's performing the action. The Democrats *officially* -- as a party, represented before the Supreme Court itself -- said that the individual right to vote is paramount above all other concerns. Now they're the ones who have taken it away, solely because if they don't, they lose power. Why wouldn't that be hypocritical? What else could it possibly be? I agree, they should have punished, but not broken the votes in those states. If we had a situation where Obama was on the ropes and won those two states, it would be a much bigger mess indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 There is no dispute in the ballot count this time. The results appear to be correct, just the rules were changed and agreed to prior to the election. No! They weren't agreed-to! Why do people see it that way? The people putting the election up imposed their will on the people of the states of Florida and Michigan. We had no say in the matter whatsoever. This isn't about what Hillary wants or what Obama wants. Their opinions are irrelevent. Any impact this situation might or might not have on the delegate count is irrelevent. The Democratic National Committee, acting in collusion with the Democratic Presidential candidates, deliberately and directly disenfranchised tens of millions of American voters for no other reason than the fact that it would have reduced their central authority. Not in 1967. In 2007. Not in 2000. In 2007. And yet people see this as a matter of Presidential race results! Incredible! Not saying you're wrong in observing this, by the way. You're absolutely right on point -- that's exactly what's happening, and exactly why nobody is doing anything about it. They simply don't see it for what it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Apparently liberals are not just humor-impaired (but then again, so are die-hard conservatives), but also irony-impaired. So be it. This situation is indeed deliciously ironic. Let me spell it out for you with an irony impairment. One of the claims made by the Democrats in both the 2000 and 2004 elections is that the Republicans intentionally disenfranchised some voters in Florida, thereby swinging the election to Bush. It was a small number of voters who were purportedly disenfranchised, but because the election was so close, that small number mattered. BTW, they never did make their case. Now the Democrats have blatantly disenfranchised not just a small number but millions of voters, and have done so in the very state over which they raised an incredible ruckus in 2000 and 2004. If you can't see the irony here, there is no helping you. I predict this act will come back to haunt the Democrats next fall, particularly so should McCain prevail and win the Republican nomination. Coupling the disenfranchisment with McCain's cross-party appeal and with the negatives associated with either Clinton or Obama opens the door for the Democrats losing the White House yet again. Like 2004, this election is the Democrats' to lose, and it appears the Democrats are bound and determined to do just that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 The Democratic National Committee, acting in collusion with the Democratic Presidential candidates, deliberately and directly disenfranchised tens of millions of American voters for no other reason than the fact that it would have reduced their central authority. But don't many more things about the primary system do that already? Take candidates dropping out for example. 99% of the Democrats in the United States never got to vote for Chris Dodd because he dropped out after Iowa. I never got to vote for Joe Biden. If you really want to hold the system up to the standards of fairness of the national election, then there are more endemic inequities than disqualified voters in two states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 But don't many more things about the primary system do that already? Take candidates dropping out for example. 99% of the Democrats in the United States never got to vote for Chris Dodd because he dropped out after Iowa. I never got to vote for Joe Biden. If you really want to hold the system up to the standards of fairness of the national election, then there are more endemic inequities than disqualified voters in two states. It's set up with the assumption that candidate that performs consistently poorly in early states are not going to perform consistently well in later states. It winds up saving the candidates without much support time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 No! They weren't agreed-to! Why do people see it that way? The people putting the election up imposed their will on the people of the states of Florida and Michigan. We had no say in the matter whatsoever. This isn't about what Hillary wants or what Obama wants. Their opinions are irrelevent. Any impact this situation might or might not have on the delegate count is irrelevent. Yes, I wasn't clear on that one, I meant the candidates agreed to it. I guess the idea is that the people would put pressure on their local parties or something. Obviously didn't work. I really don't like the Primary system, but I do think there should be a couple of small states that go first, so you eliminate Nationally known people dominating all the time. So if all the states try to do what your state did, how do you stop them? Reward ILLEGAL behaviour? Illegal by party rules, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Someone should start a thread on that. I was under the impression, mistaken apparently, that allowing certain states to go first actually aided nationally known candidates by edging them out early over the others. Not so much during this particular primary, since we've had mixed results - but I thought Iowa and New Hampshire were more responsible for that kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 Someone should start a thread on that. I was under the impression, mistaken apparently, that allowing certain states to go first actually aided nationally known candidates by edging them out early over the others. Not so much during this particular primary, since we've had mixed results - but I thought Iowa and New Hampshire were more responsible for that kind of thing. True, but I think the real problem is that giving Iowa and New Hampshire first dibs is just an appeal to tradition, and is not done for any particular reason. Other states are jealous of Iowa and NH. And moving up the primaries worked for Michigan... they got the republicans talking about the problems in Detroit and making campaign promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 http://www.aspiresite.com/americasline/newsite/PresidentialOdds2008.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 http://www.gamblerspalace.com/Lines.asp?IdLeague=315&IdSport=TNT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Well... after the extremely close race on the Democratic side, and the neck-and-neck status of the Obama/Clinton delegate counts, and interesting turn of events for the Republicans today. Mitt Romney has dropped out of the election. http://elections.kut.org/2008/02/07/mitt-calls-it-quits-and-leaves-mccain-poised-for-nomination/ Mitt Romney is suspending his presidential campaign — effectively allowing John McCain to seal the Republican nomination. The move comes two days after McCain prevailed in most of the Super Tuesday states, moving closer to the numbers he needs to win the nomination. In remarks prepared for the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Romney says that if he were to take his campaign all the way to the convention, it would delay the launch of a national campaign effort. And that, he says, would make it more likely for Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton to win in November. In a time of war, Romney says, he won’t let his campaign be part of what he calls “aiding a surrender to terror.” The former Massachusetts governor says it’s not an “easy decision,” and that he hates to lose. But he says, “I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.” Romney says he disagrees with McCain on “a number of issues,” but that he agrees with him on “doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror.” http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/news.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2008-02-07-0011.html Mitt Romney will suspend his presidential campaign for the Republican nomination, The Associated Press has learned, effectively ceding the nomination to John McCain. "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney planned to say in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference. "This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters ... many of you right here in this room ... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming president. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country." EDIT After pondering this a bit since this afternoon, I think there may be a backroom handshake at play here, where Romney just bumped himself to the top of a very short list to become McCain's VP. I know it would help McCain in an election where he still seems a bit unsavory to "conservatives." You know... all those people who started crying when Romney dropped out... Talk about spin... "He suspended his campaign." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 They say running for president is an e-ticket ride, but I wonder if it was really $37 million worth of entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 I don't think 'suspending' is the same thing as 'dropping out.' Romney still has his delegates, so he can still say whom they should go to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Here it is Friday evening, 3 whole days after super Tuesday and MSNBC has it... Obama 861 delegates Clinton 855 delegates While ABC has it.... Obama 994 delegates Clinton 1071 delegates If their professional political analysts can't figure it out by now, something is REALLY messed up. And then there are the "Super Delegates"...... Funny math and back room dealings ("Super Delegates" are just that) makes for not so funny outcomes in politics folks. No wonder so many people are starting to believe in conspiracies. No matter what the outcome, there are going to be big questions. I know that I'm going to have a hard time believing what happened when it is all said and done..... This is just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that much disparity. Thanks for passing it along. What I'd read was that it was going to take some time to count some of the election results. Is ABC just throwing in estimates the numbers that are still being counted or something? Shades of 2000, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that much disparity. Thanks for passing it along. What I'd read was that it was going to take some time to count some of the election results. Is ABC just throwing in estimates the numbers that are still being counted or something? Shades of 2000, I guess. I don't know.....that is another shroud of mystery..... Here's some more info so you don't drive yourself insane trying to find it....it can be done (driving yourself insane trying to find updates on the delegate counts I mean). MSNBC Obama 861 delegates Clinton 855 delegates no info given about when it was last updated.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475 ABC Obama 994 delegates Clinton 1071 delegates Real-time Race Results: Updated February 7, 2008 - 2:18 PM (all times Eastern Standard) Totals indicate the number of delegates accumulated to date. Needed to win: 2,025 http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/delegates?ref=ipb This report includes information from the Associated Press which may not be rewritten or retransmitted for commercial purposes without permission from the AP. I do know that the numbers have changed since Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 So... both of the links in DrDNA's post are news sites... Is there an official .gov site tracking this anywhere? http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/NEWS01/802070332 The race for Democratic delegates in New York is far from over, with results not slated to become official for about another week-and-a-half. Since each county has its own unique election process, delegate counts for individual congressional districts can often take some time, said Dan French, Democratic deputy commissioner for the Dutchess County Board of Elections. "Each county goes through their own process, so if they're close races, the state Democratic Party ultimately knows who are going to be the delegates," French said. According to the state Democratic Party, delegate votes may not become certified for more than a week. While Democratic delegates' names appear on the ballot during the presidential primaries, Republican delegates are not voted for. "Before elections, they (GOP candidates) have supplied a list of their delegates and their alternates," said Lee Daghlian of the state Board of Elections. "The delegates aren't on the ballot - you don't vote for them." Daghlian said the only delegate for Sen. John McCain in Dutchess County is Wayne Baden of Rhinebeck, who was unavailable for comment. McCain also has two alternates in Ulster County: Bob Brown and Bonnie Brown of Kingston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Drive yourself crazy trying to find one....I have.... Why should finding out an accurate accounting of delegate allocations be so difficult? It's not right is it? The man is messing with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 So... both of the links in DrDNA's post are news sites... Is there an official .gov site tracking [delegate counts] anywhere? Drive yourself crazy trying to find one....I have.... Why should finding out an accurate accounting of delegate allocations be so difficult? Yeah... I've looked for several minutes more than once before I chose to ask here. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now