Well, LiG, then Clinton's campaign should plaster this everywhere.
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The politics of destruction can be played by both sides and Obama's not a saint: he's a human being like all of us.
Emilio, if there was any certainty about this "questionable" land deal, it would only reflect the type of deals that were raised before Bill Clinton was elected. It would only blow up in her face. But, all of the above assumes the guilt of Obama. The potential of a questionable deal is searching far and long for something bad on Obama.
SDR, agreed but the goal is not to disenfranchise voters. The fact is that the states decision to hold their primaries at rejected times is what disenfranchised the voters in FLA and MI. FLA and MI made a decision that every candidate agreed to. Upholding the DNC's regulations is the only thing that would make any sort of "fair" Democratic nominee. If they decide to hold some sort of primary in FLA and MI, does that mean that the other candidates are allowed to join the race again? The process was established and it should be followed.
And Emilio, Obama is no saint. I am grateful for that because then we would live in a theocracy. But, the one thing that Obama has not done (to this point) is play the dirty political game using the media as a tool as Clinton has. It shows the lack of integrity in the Clinton campaign.
The thing about the Rezko deal is that nothing was illeagel. Its just hang out with shit, smell like shit effect.
The problem with letting Fla. and Mich. votes stand is that many suspect the DNC powerstructure inclusing the Clintons evisioned a "Super Tues" so no one could challenge them and they could make a great run for the white house bashing the republicans who would predictibly be facing a fork in the road for their base. However, in true comedic Democratic fashion its completely blowing up in their face. I love it.
The worse thing about all this is that the next great democratic leader who actualy is drawing in conservatives and independants like never before may be so beaten up and run through the gutter, then made to look inexperianced and a dumb rookie, that the long term future for the party is internal generational termoil.
The old hippy democrats who couldnt trust anyone over 30 now dont trust anyone under 50.
The whole Rezko thing is small potatoes, and none of it reflects directly on Obama. Obama was once friends with an unsavory character, the unsavory character got caught, Obama denounced him and returned his campaign contributions, end of story.
The Clintons, by comparison, have been nothing but one scandal after another throughout their entire careers. Let's see, there's Whitewater, the cattle futures, Travelgate, Monika, presidential pardons to donors, selling out the Lincoln Bedroom, secret donors to the Clinton Library, Bill's Kazakhstan money, Hillary's mystery $5M fortune, Monsanto... So far. And those are just the ones that come to mind offhand.
The Clintons and the Bushes are no more than dueling marionettes with the same people pulling all the strings above them. Both are spoiled-rotten political families who are firmly in the pocket of the world's most greedy and corrupt elements, and who act like political leadership is theirs by divine manifestation. The Bushes pander to the conservatives without actually doing anything conservative, and the Clintons pander to the progressive without actually doing anything progressive. The only thing they actually do is play voters like chess pieces in order to further enrich their own corporate puppet masters.
Yea, evilp, you're right about a potentially great leader being beaten up, but what I'm worried about is not Clinton's rather lame attacks. The real attacks will come when he wins the primary. The race card? Man, he's going against the party that thought up the Willie Horton ad, the Swift Boat campaign (and don't tell me the top of the party wasn't supporting that), and the almost bringing down of a President by looking into his sex life. They're not just going to play the race card, they're going to play the Muslim card, the developer card, and any other card they can dig up. Hell, they're going to play the whole friggin' deck. Now, there's people that say that Obama, by running a clean race, will get the mood of the country on his side, because people are sick of this politics of destruction...I sincerely hope they are right.
Yea, LiG, that's a nice fable about the Bushes and the Clintons..."play voters like chess pieces in order to further enrich their own corporate puppet masters.": man, how did you come up with that one, it's so original. And yea, the Bushes are not really "conservative" (rolls eyes).
True. Media stunts are the perfect example of this in Clinton's campaign. Images of Obama in a turbin (could have been the Clinton's or the Republicans) and staged speeches where she acts outraged about statements made directly to her face about flyers that Obama produced, are both exaples of her media stunts. Oh and who can forget the ridiculous "conversation" that Obama's cabinet had with the Canadian government? The Canadian gubment clarified these allegations and displayed how they were completely false.
In my opinion, the Clinton's stole Texas and Ohio because these dirty tactics were deployed the night before the primary votes were cast. Look at the result?
Clinton's win doesn't have to be the result only of dirty tricks. That's too easy, isn't it ? A lot op people just want her, for some reason. The pundits keep referring to the history of a 'relationship' between Dems and the Clintons. . .
Of course, to take up the previous point, even a cliche -- or, especially a cliche -- is based on some aspect of the truth. And that goes for both Gin's point and yours, I guess.
Media stunts are not just defined by dirty tricks or negativity. Positive messages can be media stunts, or propaganda, if they are used just to gather the masses and get votes. Obama's campaign message of change is not a media stunt if he's not cynical and fooling people, but really believes what he says, and backs it up with action when he's elected. But if I was cynical, I could say that he's running this message to get young people and those disgusted with the state of politics to give him his vote, and once he gets into office he will just do what is politically expedient, or worse, be ineffective (and many people in fact do believe this, which I think is why they are not voting for him).
But what no one can do is look into someone's heart and mind to see if he means what he says (and I'm always amazed at people here who are able to know that EVERYTHING that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a lie, and she's never honest, even when she laughs at something - man, that's a pretty unique ability.)
Im not an expert on the whole history of primary election rules and scheduling, but just in an objective sense of fairness I think they could be seated but only if they hold a new election.
The situation with Florida and Michigan is still unresolved, but it seems to be headed in the direction of a re-vote. My personal preference would be #3 above (split the baby 50/50), which would seat the delegates while still punishing the states for breaking the rules, spare the huge expense of a re-vote, and would not give an advantage to either campaign. But then, nobody at the DNC has been asking for my advice.
In other news, I just got an email from Barack:
I want to add some more news to David's note about the state of the race.
As you know, we've won 27 of 41 contests and have maintained our commanding lead among pledged delegates.
But today I want to share another staggering number: supporters like you donated more than $55 million to this campaign in the month of February.
That's a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support.
No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it -- more than 90% of donations were $100 or less, and more than 385,000 new donors in February pushed us past our goal of more than 1,000,000 people owning a piece of this campaign.
From the beginning, this campaign has always been funded by a movement of grassroots supporters giving whatever they can afford. And unlike Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, we have never taken money from lobbyists or PACs.
Senator Clinton has decided to use her resources to wage a negative, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink campaign. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination and is attacking us daily. But I will continue to vigorously defend my record and make the case for change that will improve the lives of all Americans.
Despite your generosity in February, I need your help to continue this battle on two separate fronts.
LIG, I got the same one. The request for a donation must be hooked up to a database. Mine asked for a donation of $100 which is what I have given twice now. Clever to do this. They are asking for what they know you can afford to give.
Heh... I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out... Very clever. Now I feel like a cheapskate for my measly $25! (In my defense, I'm stuck paying off a mountain of debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck.) I'll donate more in a couple weeks when I get my next paycheck.
Same here... This is the first campaign I've ever donated to (although I gave a few bucks to MoveOn.org during the 2004 elections), and this is the first campaign I've felt compelled to volunteer my time to. I'm about as cynical as they come when it comes to politics, so I think that says something about Obama's potential.
Like you guys, this is the first campaign (I'm in my mid 30s) that I've felt compelled to donate money (bought two Obama shirts for Christmas gifts) and attended a gathering on Tuesday to watch the returns with about 150 other Obama supporters. It's a good feeling - lots of positive energy in the room and a very diverse crowd (just like America)... :)
More likely, she's knows that she can't win the nomination, and trying to poison the well so that she can make another run in 2012. The woman has absolutely no shame.
GO WYOMING COWBOYS AND COWGIRLS! YA HOO! Oh by the way
Wyoming is the home of Dick Cheney...So maybe Hillary should have
ask him if he wanted to be her Vice President. Wyoming might have swung in the other direction.
Obama's coattails helped the Dems win a special election in one of the reddest congressional districts in the Midwest.
"Barack Obama also deserves a shout out, not just for cutting an ad for Foster and helping with the GOTV effort, but also for proving that his coattails can help even a political newcomer win in a red district. If Obama is the nominee in November, this will be a key element of building on a Democratic majority throughout the nation."
Somehow I doubt Foster would have won this race if Hillary had made a commercial for him.
is an article that makes the argument that Clinton will win and why.
A caveat: the writer is a "conservative" that was added to the paper's editorial pages to "give balance", and I think he's a McCain supporter. He might just want her to win because he thinks she will be as easier opponent for McCain.
He does make a good point here:
"The Obama camp insists that rules are rules and Florida and Michigan shouldn't count. But is that really a winning argument within the Democratic Party? About 2.3 million Democrats voted in those primaries. Remember that in 2000, Democrats fervently argued that Florida election law was less important than making sure "every vote counted." The party then claimed that holding to the strict letter of the law was tantamount to disenfranchisement.
If "voter intent" was more important than the law in 2000, shouldn't it also trump mere party rules in 2008? Obama's argument about the paramount importance of rules might work with a Republican audience, but it runs counter to the ideological framework of the Democratic Party.
The Obama camp complains that its candidate wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Fair enough. But Obama was on the ballot in Florida, and he even ran TV ads there, in violation of his pledge not to campaign in the Sunshine State. Clinton won Florida going away, 50 percent to 33 percent.
Come the convention, the inclusion of Florida alone will likely give Clinton the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. The inclusion of Michigan and Florida would almost certainly give her the lead in both."
"Come the convention, the inclusion of Florida alone will likely give Clinton the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. The inclusion of Michigan and Florida would almost certainly give her the lead in both."
Well this is just blatantly untrue.
I think having florida and michigan hold their contests again is a fair compromise, but to seat delegates as they were allotted in January seems really absurd. I know several people from Michigan who decided not to participate specifically because Obama was not on the ballot, and many were dissuaded from participating in Florida for similar reasons. If they want a fair contest, then fine, but considering the direction this thing is headed they may find it hurts them more than it helps.
The line that Obama "aired TV ads in Florida" is a crock of shit. He aired TV ads in the bordering states of Georgia and Alabama, and some people in northern Florida happened to see those ads when they tuned their TVs to stations broadcasting from across the border.
Also, the only reason most people bothered to vote in the Florida election was because of a property tax initiative aimed at elderly working-class homeowners -- Clinton's core demographic. Most other people stayed home because they knew their votes were meaningless.
In Michigan, Clinton was the only name on the ballot and yet she still barely won against "Uncommitted". Hardly a legitimate victory, IMO.
Either MI and FL get to re-vote, they split the delegates 50/50, or the MI/FL delegates are barred from the convention. Accepting the "election" results as-is would be a sham.
I think Jeb Bush might defect with his Brother George and his Father George....and Declare Florida a Nation....Therefore who cares what
happens in Florida! Cause there will not be a Democrat or Republican
Party....it will be the Bush Party!.....
well, if i were obama i wouldn't want michigan and florida to hold their primaries again as both states are clinton leans. look at ohio, clinton won quite easily. the demographics of ohio are similar to michigan. and lig, clinton "barely won" against uncommitted in michigan is incorrect. i believe the numbers were 55% clinton, 40% uncommitted and that 40% includes people who would have voted for edwards or were simply frustrated that not all the candidates were on the ballot (not necessarily obama supporters). florida has a large latino popultion that has been a strong clinton base. i believe the only way clinton could win the nomination is if florida and michigan do conduct their primaries again. in fact, i think it's likely clinton wins the nomination if that happens.
ja, most latinos in FL are actually Republicans and the rest (that can vote) are younger and of more mixed-race background (Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, etc...) than the Mexicans in CA and TX. I think Obama should do well there.
eli, hmmm...maybe not too sure about that...this is a fairly interesting look at the voting breakdown in the florida primary (albeit the election was held before obama gained momentum post-super tuesday).
Come on ja, lets be real. I dont care how well she does shes not gonna net 150 delagates out of it. Even her own people admit without superdelagates shes toast. You really wanna go into november on a candidate who won by overriding the actual elected vote in schemey backroom deals? Dont you have any idea what that will do to voter morale in this country? I mean tell me you recognize thats party suicide.
all i'm saying is that if clinton gets 5-10% victories in michigan, florida, and pennsylvania (not too far-fetched), she's going to pick up some delegates, and with the majority of superdelegates still a clinton lean, it's going to be very close. whether it's bad for the party or not, who knows? i'm sure someone will feel slighted.
personally i think it's idiotic for michigan and florida to get a do-over. both states were trying to protest the primary process by moving up their primary dates. i respect that; to do the primary over takes away from the act of disobedience. in any case, i'll cast my clinton vote in the michigan do-over and look on at the results with interest. i love this stuff. it's great fun.
Ya but come on man you didnt fail math. Whats she gonna get? 20 delagates? 30 maybe? How can you not care that a convention override is a democratic death-blow for a generation??
there are almost 500 delegates between michigan, pennsylvania, and florida; that's enough to turn things quickly. i don't know what percentage hillary would need to make-up the ground. the breakdown of delegates doesn't fall out strictly by popular vote (see hillary winning the popular vote in texas, but losing in delegates - where's the outrage?). convention override? hmmm...already looking for a conspiracy, oe?
cubans are not latinos. if you take the number edwards got in fla and give that obama, hillary barely wins. she can't win the nomination the number of states left - very few - and the percentages she needs to win by - quite large - spell her defeat. the longer she stays the harder it is for obama to beat mccain.
Its 370. Which means to overcome his delegate lead shed need to average like 70% wins in each. Not to mention hes going to win half a dozen other states amounting to 400 delegates between now and then, and his total popular vote is still gonna be close to a million up on her, so the point is pretty moot. Her only prayer is that even having lost the popular and delegate vote like 65% of the superdelegates decide to commit party suicide by nominating her anyway.
oe, you're absolutely right, and this big OH win, what did it translate into? what did she get? a few delegates closer? so her margin of loosing is less now - before saturday - than it was??
How about VP ? I've heard that Obama would be reluctant to accept, but she'd need him badly to keep his very large constituency in the election. What would happen if he declined ? Would he ?
VOTE OBAMA
Anything that disenfranchises voters (that's us) isn't a good thing, is it ? Are we playing football or tennis finals, here, or is this serious ?
Well, LiG, then Clinton's campaign should plaster this everywhere.
I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The politics of destruction can be played by both sides and Obama's not a saint: he's a human being like all of us.
Emilio, if there was any certainty about this "questionable" land deal, it would only reflect the type of deals that were raised before Bill Clinton was elected. It would only blow up in her face. But, all of the above assumes the guilt of Obama. The potential of a questionable deal is searching far and long for something bad on Obama.
SDR, agreed but the goal is not to disenfranchise voters. The fact is that the states decision to hold their primaries at rejected times is what disenfranchised the voters in FLA and MI. FLA and MI made a decision that every candidate agreed to. Upholding the DNC's regulations is the only thing that would make any sort of "fair" Democratic nominee. If they decide to hold some sort of primary in FLA and MI, does that mean that the other candidates are allowed to join the race again? The process was established and it should be followed.
And Emilio, Obama is no saint. I am grateful for that because then we would live in a theocracy. But, the one thing that Obama has not done (to this point) is play the dirty political game using the media as a tool as Clinton has. It shows the lack of integrity in the Clinton campaign.
The thing about the Rezko deal is that nothing was illeagel. Its just hang out with shit, smell like shit effect.
The problem with letting Fla. and Mich. votes stand is that many suspect the DNC powerstructure inclusing the Clintons evisioned a "Super Tues" so no one could challenge them and they could make a great run for the white house bashing the republicans who would predictibly be facing a fork in the road for their base. However, in true comedic Democratic fashion its completely blowing up in their face. I love it.
The worse thing about all this is that the next great democratic leader who actualy is drawing in conservatives and independants like never before may be so beaten up and run through the gutter, then made to look inexperianced and a dumb rookie, that the long term future for the party is internal generational termoil.
The old hippy democrats who couldnt trust anyone over 30 now dont trust anyone under 50.
Its time to put these cows out to pasture.
The whole Rezko thing is small potatoes, and none of it reflects directly on Obama. Obama was once friends with an unsavory character, the unsavory character got caught, Obama denounced him and returned his campaign contributions, end of story.
The Clintons, by comparison, have been nothing but one scandal after another throughout their entire careers. Let's see, there's Whitewater, the cattle futures, Travelgate, Monika, presidential pardons to donors, selling out the Lincoln Bedroom, secret donors to the Clinton Library, Bill's Kazakhstan money, Hillary's mystery $5M fortune, Monsanto... So far. And those are just the ones that come to mind offhand.
The Clintons and the Bushes are no more than dueling marionettes with the same people pulling all the strings above them. Both are spoiled-rotten political families who are firmly in the pocket of the world's most greedy and corrupt elements, and who act like political leadership is theirs by divine manifestation. The Bushes pander to the conservatives without actually doing anything conservative, and the Clintons pander to the progressive without actually doing anything progressive. The only thing they actually do is play voters like chess pieces in order to further enrich their own corporate puppet masters.
Yea, evilp, you're right about a potentially great leader being beaten up, but what I'm worried about is not Clinton's rather lame attacks. The real attacks will come when he wins the primary. The race card? Man, he's going against the party that thought up the Willie Horton ad, the Swift Boat campaign (and don't tell me the top of the party wasn't supporting that), and the almost bringing down of a President by looking into his sex life. They're not just going to play the race card, they're going to play the Muslim card, the developer card, and any other card they can dig up. Hell, they're going to play the whole friggin' deck. Now, there's people that say that Obama, by running a clean race, will get the mood of the country on his side, because people are sick of this politics of destruction...I sincerely hope they are right.
You know. . .you could be on to something there. . .
So help an old guy out, here -- at present no MI or FL delegates will be seated at the convention ?
Yea, LiG, that's a nice fable about the Bushes and the Clintons..."play voters like chess pieces in order to further enrich their own corporate puppet masters.": man, how did you come up with that one, it's so original. And yea, the Bushes are not really "conservative" (rolls eyes).
True. Media stunts are the perfect example of this in Clinton's campaign. Images of Obama in a turbin (could have been the Clinton's or the Republicans) and staged speeches where she acts outraged about statements made directly to her face about flyers that Obama produced, are both exaples of her media stunts. Oh and who can forget the ridiculous "conversation" that Obama's cabinet had with the Canadian government? The Canadian gubment clarified these allegations and displayed how they were completely false.
In my opinion, the Clinton's stole Texas and Ohio because these dirty tactics were deployed the night before the primary votes were cast. Look at the result?
Clinton's win doesn't have to be the result only of dirty tricks. That's too easy, isn't it ? A lot op people just want her, for some reason. The pundits keep referring to the history of a 'relationship' between Dems and the Clintons. . .
Of course, to take up the previous point, even a cliche -- or, especially a cliche -- is based on some aspect of the truth. And that goes for both Gin's point and yours, I guess.
So, MI and FL ? Seated ? Not seated ?
Media stunts are not just defined by dirty tricks or negativity. Positive messages can be media stunts, or propaganda, if they are used just to gather the masses and get votes. Obama's campaign message of change is not a media stunt if he's not cynical and fooling people, but really believes what he says, and backs it up with action when he's elected. But if I was cynical, I could say that he's running this message to get young people and those disgusted with the state of politics to give him his vote, and once he gets into office he will just do what is politically expedient, or worse, be ineffective (and many people in fact do believe this, which I think is why they are not voting for him).
But what no one can do is look into someone's heart and mind to see if he means what he says (and I'm always amazed at people here who are able to know that EVERYTHING that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a lie, and she's never honest, even when she laughs at something - man, that's a pretty unique ability.)
Im not an expert on the whole history of primary election rules and scheduling, but just in an objective sense of fairness I think they could be seated but only if they hold a new election.
The situation with Florida and Michigan is still unresolved, but it seems to be headed in the direction of a re-vote. My personal preference would be #3 above (split the baby 50/50), which would seat the delegates while still punishing the states for breaking the rules, spare the huge expense of a re-vote, and would not give an advantage to either campaign. But then, nobody at the DNC has been asking for my advice.
In other news, I just got an email from Barack:
I want to add some more news to David's note about the state of the race.
As you know, we've won 27 of 41 contests and have maintained our commanding lead among pledged delegates.
But today I want to share another staggering number: supporters like you donated more than $55 million to this campaign in the month of February.
That's a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support.
No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it -- more than 90% of donations were $100 or less, and more than 385,000 new donors in February pushed us past our goal of more than 1,000,000 people owning a piece of this campaign.
From the beginning, this campaign has always been funded by a movement of grassroots supporters giving whatever they can afford. And unlike Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, we have never taken money from lobbyists or PACs.
Senator Clinton has decided to use her resources to wage a negative, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink campaign. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination and is attacking us daily. But I will continue to vigorously defend my record and make the case for change that will improve the lives of all Americans.
Despite your generosity in February, I need your help to continue this battle on two separate fronts.
Please make a donation of $25 today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/math
Thank you for your support,
Barack
(emphasis added)
LIG, I got the same one. The request for a donation must be hooked up to a database. Mine asked for a donation of $100 which is what I have given twice now. Clever to do this. They are asking for what they know you can afford to give.
Heh... I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out... Very clever. Now I feel like a cheapskate for my measly $25! (In my defense, I'm stuck paying off a mountain of debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck.) I'll donate more in a couple weeks when I get my next paycheck.
Yeah, I didn't notice until I saw your post. Don't feel cheap. Like I said, they now what you can afford. Nothing wrong with giving what you can.
This is actually the first campaign that I have donated money to.
Same here... This is the first campaign I've ever donated to (although I gave a few bucks to MoveOn.org during the 2004 elections), and this is the first campaign I've felt compelled to volunteer my time to. I'm about as cynical as they come when it comes to politics, so I think that says something about Obama's potential.
same here gin. same here.
Like you guys, this is the first campaign (I'm in my mid 30s) that I've felt compelled to donate money (bought two Obama shirts for Christmas gifts) and attended a gathering on Tuesday to watch the returns with about 150 other Obama supporters. It's a good feeling - lots of positive energy in the room and a very diverse crowd (just like America)... :)
so if HillBillary gets the nomination does the DNC combine all the money? If they drag this out till Aug do they make $500,000,000?
Just gave $25 -- retired and on Social Security. I gave $800 in 2000 -- blew that away, but I don't regret trying. Thanks for the link !
Once again Hillary is comparing McCain favorably to Obama. Maybe she's trying to become McCain's VP pick?
More likely, she's knows that she can't win the nomination, and trying to poison the well so that she can make another run in 2012. The woman has absolutely no shame.
And that IS a shame. . .
Who would you rather see doing this during the next state visit to Africa: Hillary, McCain, or Obama?
Looks like Obama already won WY, this actually may erase any delegates Hillary might have gotten in Super Duper Tuesday 2: the Ohio and Texas edition.
However, Hillary already sent the memo: WY does not matter and she will still the election. Hillary/Limbaugh 08
Oh, evidence:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/8/61411/81462/867/472032
GO WYOMING COWBOYS AND COWGIRLS! YA HOO! Oh by the way
Wyoming is the home of Dick Cheney...So maybe Hillary should have
ask him if he wanted to be her Vice President. Wyoming might have swung in the other direction.
More good news for Team Obama: Democrats Win Back Hastert's Seat
Obama's coattails helped the Dems win a special election in one of the reddest congressional districts in the Midwest.
"Barack Obama also deserves a shout out, not just for cutting an ad for Foster and helping with the GOTV effort, but also for proving that his coattails can help even a political newcomer win in a red district. If Obama is the nominee in November, this will be a key element of building on a Democratic majority throughout the nation."
Somehow I doubt Foster would have won this race if Hillary had made a commercial for him.
I'd like to see the "why WY doesn't matter memo" if you have it.
I really am waiting for the "fly-over" states to start making some noise about this.
is an article that makes the argument that Clinton will win and why.
A caveat: the writer is a "conservative" that was added to the paper's editorial pages to "give balance", and I think he's a McCain supporter. He might just want her to win because he thinks she will be as easier opponent for McCain.
He does make a good point here:
"The Obama camp insists that rules are rules and Florida and Michigan shouldn't count. But is that really a winning argument within the Democratic Party? About 2.3 million Democrats voted in those primaries. Remember that in 2000, Democrats fervently argued that Florida election law was less important than making sure "every vote counted." The party then claimed that holding to the strict letter of the law was tantamount to disenfranchisement.
If "voter intent" was more important than the law in 2000, shouldn't it also trump mere party rules in 2008? Obama's argument about the paramount importance of rules might work with a Republican audience, but it runs counter to the ideological framework of the Democratic Party.
The Obama camp complains that its candidate wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Fair enough. But Obama was on the ballot in Florida, and he even ran TV ads there, in violation of his pledge not to campaign in the Sunshine State. Clinton won Florida going away, 50 percent to 33 percent.
Come the convention, the inclusion of Florida alone will likely give Clinton the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. The inclusion of Michigan and Florida would almost certainly give her the lead in both."
"Come the convention, the inclusion of Florida alone will likely give Clinton the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. The inclusion of Michigan and Florida would almost certainly give her the lead in both."
Well this is just blatantly untrue.
I think having florida and michigan hold their contests again is a fair compromise, but to seat delegates as they were allotted in January seems really absurd. I know several people from Michigan who decided not to participate specifically because Obama was not on the ballot, and many were dissuaded from participating in Florida for similar reasons. If they want a fair contest, then fine, but considering the direction this thing is headed they may find it hurts them more than it helps.
The line that Obama "aired TV ads in Florida" is a crock of shit. He aired TV ads in the bordering states of Georgia and Alabama, and some people in northern Florida happened to see those ads when they tuned their TVs to stations broadcasting from across the border.
Also, the only reason most people bothered to vote in the Florida election was because of a property tax initiative aimed at elderly working-class homeowners -- Clinton's core demographic. Most other people stayed home because they knew their votes were meaningless.
In Michigan, Clinton was the only name on the ballot and yet she still barely won against "Uncommitted". Hardly a legitimate victory, IMO.
Either MI and FL get to re-vote, they split the delegates 50/50, or the MI/FL delegates are barred from the convention. Accepting the "election" results as-is would be a sham.
I think Jeb Bush might defect with his Brother George and his Father George....and Declare Florida a Nation....Therefore who cares what
happens in Florida! Cause there will not be a Democrat or Republican
Party....it will be the Bush Party!.....
well, if i were obama i wouldn't want michigan and florida to hold their primaries again as both states are clinton leans. look at ohio, clinton won quite easily. the demographics of ohio are similar to michigan. and lig, clinton "barely won" against uncommitted in michigan is incorrect. i believe the numbers were 55% clinton, 40% uncommitted and that 40% includes people who would have voted for edwards or were simply frustrated that not all the candidates were on the ballot (not necessarily obama supporters). florida has a large latino popultion that has been a strong clinton base. i believe the only way clinton could win the nomination is if florida and michigan do conduct their primaries again. in fact, i think it's likely clinton wins the nomination if that happens.
ja, most latinos in FL are actually Republicans and the rest (that can vote) are younger and of more mixed-race background (Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, etc...) than the Mexicans in CA and TX. I think Obama should do well there.
eli, hmmm...maybe not too sure about that...this is a fairly interesting look at the voting breakdown in the florida primary (albeit the election was held before obama gained momentum post-super tuesday).
i think the retiree factor may also be of concern for obama. the older the voter the more likely to fall in line behind clinton.
Come on ja, lets be real. I dont care how well she does shes not gonna net 150 delagates out of it. Even her own people admit without superdelagates shes toast. You really wanna go into november on a candidate who won by overriding the actual elected vote in schemey backroom deals? Dont you have any idea what that will do to voter morale in this country? I mean tell me you recognize thats party suicide.
And if you dont believe me, maybe dick morris can make it more clear.
all i'm saying is that if clinton gets 5-10% victories in michigan, florida, and pennsylvania (not too far-fetched), she's going to pick up some delegates, and with the majority of superdelegates still a clinton lean, it's going to be very close. whether it's bad for the party or not, who knows? i'm sure someone will feel slighted.
personally i think it's idiotic for michigan and florida to get a do-over. both states were trying to protest the primary process by moving up their primary dates. i respect that; to do the primary over takes away from the act of disobedience. in any case, i'll cast my clinton vote in the michigan do-over and look on at the results with interest. i love this stuff. it's great fun.
morris says nothing about the possibility of michigan and florida do-over primaries.
Ya but come on man you didnt fail math. Whats she gonna get? 20 delagates? 30 maybe? How can you not care that a convention override is a democratic death-blow for a generation??
there are almost 500 delegates between michigan, pennsylvania, and florida; that's enough to turn things quickly. i don't know what percentage hillary would need to make-up the ground. the breakdown of delegates doesn't fall out strictly by popular vote (see hillary winning the popular vote in texas, but losing in delegates - where's the outrage?). convention override? hmmm...already looking for a conspiracy, oe?
cubans are not latinos. if you take the number edwards got in fla and give that obama, hillary barely wins. she can't win the nomination the number of states left - very few - and the percentages she needs to win by - quite large - spell her defeat. the longer she stays the harder it is for obama to beat mccain.
Its 370. Which means to overcome his delegate lead shed need to average like 70% wins in each. Not to mention hes going to win half a dozen other states amounting to 400 delegates between now and then, and his total popular vote is still gonna be close to a million up on her, so the point is pretty moot. Her only prayer is that even having lost the popular and delegate vote like 65% of the superdelegates decide to commit party suicide by nominating her anyway.
oe, you're absolutely right, and this big OH win, what did it translate into? what did she get? a few delegates closer? so her margin of loosing is less now - before saturday - than it was??
lame...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/thats-politics.html
Yeah, that's good. Save it for when we need it.
How about VP ? I've heard that Obama would be reluctant to accept, but she'd need him badly to keep his very large constituency in the election. What would happen if he declined ? Would he ?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.