Still Counting, I Mean...
Posted 16 weeks 3 days ago byRemember when H. Clinton said that Michigan and Florida don't count? A remember when during the run of caucuses she never said anything about them counting less than primaries? (And when he ran for president, did Bill ever insinuate that caucuses were less valid than primaries?)
Now, according to her, Michigan and Florida do count, but thecaucuses don't.
It's math by Alice in Wonderland.
When either candidate talks about contests won, or popular vote won, it's meaningless gobbledygook.
What counts is delegates. That's the system, for better or worse, and those are the rules. There's no question that the Dems will have to seat delegations for Michigan and Florida and that there is no fair solution because the Dems blew it. All they would have had to do is at the outset make the same decision the Republicans did, and count half the delegates, and there would have been little to argue over. They may do that now, but acting in retrospect means that someone got screwed.
I wonder why Clinton hasn't caught the Hail Mary pass that H. Dean has thrown her: Stating that the Super Delegates are part of the electoral process because the great majority of them are elected officials. Thus, the mix of delegates includes those selected by caucus, those selected by primary, those that act as representatives of the electorate (by having been elected to office) and a relative few selected by the party.
Thoughts
Don't gesheftisize representation by davil's intrapmentation!
Submitted on May 24th, 2008 by KonstantinA month or two ago I was driving back,
From fitness club, where I used to go,
Over plagio-spies racking me to a bag.
Just few streets of the railroaded flow
Made me pass group of anti-war crags.
I don't know how many were protesters,
But it simce was used as tape of a glue
Gluing to it, simce, genuin freethinkers
And Patrio-Nazi's track was nearby too,
Followed by snich, a shturman-funkeler.
So are the managering, gaseling brains,
Forging victories for the hypno-craizies,
They would set-up opponent for a "say",
Later they beat her as some "renegger",
Dancing, gasig and making voters gayed.
Not withstanding the above abomination,
Vote on the issue and the representation.
Konstantin.
Actually, Obama did
Submitted on May 7th, 2008 by John 2000Actually, Obama did electronic campaigning in Florida via CNN, whereas Hillary did not.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/...
In Michigan, Obama chose to remove his name for the ballot.
Sure, the DNC Idiot-in-Chief should get some sort of 'deal' cobbled out by the end of the month, but it will be meaningless, since the real impact of the original screw-ups on the overall campaign cannot possibly be rectified. So, it is moot to discuss it further.
It will be interesting.
Founding fathers don't care; Founding mothers couldn't vote
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by mxyzptlkI think Anon needs to read my previous post. Both parties use delegates. And the founders didn't expect there to be political parties in any case.
In no event do we ever vote for president. We vote for people who say who they'll vote for.
Delagates
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by AnonymousThe Democratic Party has invented a inovative and perhaps the most corupt method to select their nominee-not necessarily the peoples chice.Their new idea is callled a delegate.Their delegate(s) as far as I can figure is someone who has the responsibility to interpret the votes cast by democrats and can be bought or persuaded to cast an official vote for one of the democratic nomineees.
I wonder how our foundind fathers and mothers would feel about this method to control presidential elections.
Ouch!
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by mxyzptlkHey, Darrell, let up on the "Shift" key. When you type in all caps in the internet it's like you're yelling at us.
Hillary did say Michigan wouldn't count: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PA....
But I agree with Anon, it's not Hillary's call. But she's using the argument for political gain and that's why what she says about it matters.
I'm not sure what the reference to China is about. You may be under the impression that we live in a democracy. We do not. We live in a constitutional republic that leans toward democracy: We do not directly elect the president (we vote for electors who can do what they wish) or even directly choose nominees (we vote for delegates who can do what they wish), and thus popular vote doesn't mean anything in national elections. When the constitution was written, the people didn't vote for senators either.
Now as to the peoples' right to vote being greater than party rules, I would point out that political parties do not exist in the constitution. They are a creation that happened despite the desires of the founders. The fact that some states choose to hold primaries and pay for them is their choice. The parties are independent of that and so they get to make their own rules and count what they want to count. That's why historically there have been primaries that were called "beauty contests" because it was understood they didn't count.
The process of the electorate having much of a say in selecting major party candidates is fairly recent.
Do I agree with the current system? Absolutely not. First of all, it's stacked to make it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win. I think the Democrats (of which I'm one) have a totally screwed up system of choosing a nominee. And I think we need to keep every state from trying to the the first to have a primary. Oh, and we need to change now the general election works as well. Not sure I have all the solutions.
Not Hilliary's Call
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by AnonymousWhether Hillary did or didn't say Florida and Michigan should'nt count, it's not her call.
Of course the votes should count. Counting and recording votes is a fundamental right in our democracy, and trumps DNC or state rules.
Prior to the start of the primaries candidates were all even and made their own decisions on how to approach Florida and Michigan. They all had the same chance to be on both ballots. All but Clinton opted out of Michigan, but that was their choice. You can't fault her for making, what ends up to be the right decision.
Although none of the candidates campaigned, Florida and Michigan voters had plenty of information to base their vote. It wasn't like the had to flip a coin. The national media, and the internet, was ablaze with info on all candidates.
Furthermore, had the Florida and Michigan primaries been held after the Wright, Bill Ayers and bittergate issues, Obama would have received even fewer votes. He should be happy with any solution, even letting the votes stand as is.
Heard it but didn't see it
Submitted on May 4th, 2008 by AnonymousI heard Hillary in an interview at the beginning of the campaign state that she realized and agreed with the votes of Michigan and Florida not counting as they full well knew that they were breaking party rules and besides how can either be fair without a complete redo as Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and because Obama was told Florida didn't count, he didn't even campaign there...think if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan...would you still think it should count?HELLO?!?!? I also went to my states caucus and there were NOT so called OBAMA BULLIES at the one I was at. The caucuses were always good enough before.....
STILL COUNTING
Submitted on May 4th, 2008 by DARRELL REEDYOU KNOW IT'S AMAZING I HAVE NEVER SEEN HILLARY CLINTON,OR ANYONE FROM HER CAMPAIGN SAY FLORIDA OR MICHIGAN'S VOTERS WOULD'NT COUNT.THIS IS AMERICA NOT COMMUNIST CHINA,THEIR VOTES MUST BE COUNTED.WHAT STATE WOULD BE NEXT TO OFFEND THE DNC?MAYBE YOURS OR EVEN MINE.AND YES I AGREE CAUCUS VOTEING SHOULD BE CHANGED TO PRIMARIES.I'M FROM A CAUCUS STATE.DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE THAT IS PUT ON PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTES .THIS WAS VERY EVIDENT FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN,AND SADLY IT HAS WORKED THRU OUT THE CAUCUS STATES,BULLY POLITICS.