Dean pushing Florida!!!

[stevento]

Go Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
YES SHE WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/02/dems.campaign/index.html

[TimJim]

Cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Pwnzorz!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[Iscariot]

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060524/060524_ritalin_vmed_1p.widec.jpg

[mactastic]

Funny, the CNN story left out the part about how both campaigns have to agree to any solution.

I have a hard time believing Obama would agree to seating the delegation with the current delegate division based on the non-sanctioned vote. At best, Clinton will pick up a dozen delegates -- not enough to do her any real good.

I'm curious to see Clinton's fundraising numbers for March...

[dsnort]

"Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Florida, said it's up to Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to make a deal."

I don't see either one of these people making a deal that benefits the other.

EDIT: MACTASTIC beat me to it.

[Hawkeye411]

Hillary who??

[atszyman]

Did you miss this part?

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Florida, said it's up to Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to make a deal.

"The Democratic Party will probably confirm and ratify whatever the two candidates are comfortable with. It's up to the two candidates to be comfortable with a solution. It's not that difficult," he said.

I'd guess we'll end up seeing something like the solution MI has proposed where some delegates are based on the state results and the rest on the national popular vote. So instead of the 50 delegates that it would give Clinton now it would be more like 20 now, and she'd have to win the popular vote to gain more. She is currently trailing in the popular vote even if you count MI and don't give the uncommitted to Obama.

Edit: way way too slow....

[zioxide]

sorry to break it to you stevento, but it doesn't matter.

Obama will be the nominee. Hillary is finished.

[stevento]

remember when everyone was saying howard dean was the next president in 04?
comebacks do happen

[mrkramer]

remember when everyone was saying howard dean was the next president in 04?
comebacks do happen

And remember who ended up winning the presidency in that election? If Hillary somehow gets the nomination the same thing will happen this year.

[leekohler]

They shouldn't even be discussing this. Those states lose because they chose to break the rules. There is absolutely no reason to change that now just because Billary is crying foul.

Go Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
YES SHE WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/02/dems.campaign/index.html

Because she can only win by changing the rules? How admirable. :rolleyes:

[Gelfin]

remember when everyone was saying howard dean was the next president in 04?
comebacks do happen

Yeah, you never know when a candidate will do something bizarre and self-sabotaging that the media can latch onto and thus lose what had theretofore seemed like a commanding lead. Good thing that hasn't happened to anyone this time around.

[stevento]

the point i'm trying to make is that nobody knows for sure what's going to happen in the future

the reason they are changing the rules is because the rules are unjust

[MacNut]

The term "super delegates" should be matched up with "hanging chads". Both have screwed up the election.

[cheeseadiddle]

The term "super delegates" should be matched up with "hanging chads". Both have screwed up the election.

As far as I'm concerned, you could drop super delegates and the electoral college off the face of the map and I'd never miss them. Let the popular vote decide.

[zioxide]

the point i'm trying to make is that nobody knows for sure what's going to happen in the future

the reason they are changing the rules is because the rules are unjust

yeah, the rules are stupid. but you can't change them when you're in the 3rd quarter.

[ucfgrad93]

the reason they are changing the rules is because the rules are unjust

Apparently they weren't unjust before the primaries started. Both Hillary and Barak agreed to these sanctions.

[stevento]

well obviously the only reason hillary is pushing to get them seated is so that she can win
but that's not the point‚ the point is you have to hear every voice regardless of what the rules say
remember the rules from the 2000 election that gave it to bush even though gore won the damn election?

[solvs]

remember when everyone was saying howard dean was the next president in 04?
comebacks do happen
Remember when Hillary was the frontrunner and they were saying the same thing about her? He never came back. Kerry won the nom, then lost. Hopefully that doesn't happen again, but I think Obama is a better candidate this time around. Well, not as bad at least.

Even if they get seated as is, Hillary can only win if she sweeps the rest of elections and wins over a majority of the Supers, which will more than likely not happen.

[atszyman]

well obviously the only reason hillary is pushing to get them seated is so that she can win
but that's not the point‚ the point is you have to hear every voice regardless of what the rules say
remember the rules from the 2000 election that gave it to bush even though gore won the damn election?

Yes, we remember, but we played by the rules. We didn't change them mid stream and give the election to Gore even though he won the popular vote.

If the rules of the game are agreed upon before hand, anyone who works hard to change them 2/3s of the way through because they are losing is trying to cheat.

MI and FL voters knew the consequences before they voted in their primaries, so many opted not to vote or to vote in the republican primary, should their votes be ignored by seating the delegates even though those voters were assured they would not be counted?

If every voice should be heard, why is it that all of the states that Obama has won are "not important"?

And we've already discussed this in another thread. Even if FL and MI were counted as they stand (giving the uncommitted to Obama in MI) Clinton still needs to win at least 60% in every remaining state, if not more.

[dsnort]

Those states lose because they chose to break the rules.

Just my opinion, but the Democrats could have handled the Florida/Michigan situation in several different ways, including trying to address the concerns of people in those states regarding the primary process.

Instead, Dean chose the "Nuclear" option, telling two of the largest states in the union that they would have no say in who the Democratic nominee for President would be.

"You broke the ules! It's my way or the highway! No vote for you! No vote for you! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"

Deans a disaster.

[atszyman]

Just my opinion, but the Democrats could have handled the Florida/Michigan situation in several different ways, including trying to address the concerns of people in those states regarding the primary process.

Instead, Dean chose the "Nuclear" option, telling two of the largest states in the union that they would have no say in who the Democratic nominee for President would be.

"You broke the ules! It's my way or the highway! No vote for you!
[/I][/B][/I][/I]
Deans a disaster.

Yes they could have done it differently. But advisors (Ickes, McAuliffe) within the Clinton campaign supported the sanctions when they thought they were going to mosey into the nomination. That was the time to object and put forth other solutions rather than just eliminate the delegates, but they didn't decide that the sanctions were unfair until Hillary started losing.

link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/11/01442/4840/932/474009)

[ucfgrad93]

well obviously the only reason hillary is pushing to get them seated is so that she can win

Glad we agree with that.

but that's not the point‚ the point is you have to hear every voice regardless of what the rules say

If Hillary really wanted to hear every voice, she never would have agreed to these sanctions in the first place. But she thought she would win the nomination easily, and it didn't quite work out that way. See, this is why people don't trust her. This move reinforces the idea that she will do or say anything to become President.

remember the rules from the 2000 election that gave it to bush even though gore won the damn election?

Those rules, electoral college not the popular vote, determining the winner of the Presidency have been around for over 200 years. If you want them changed thats fine, but you can't do it during the middle of the election.

[stevento]

See, this is why people don't trust her. This move reinforces the idea that she will do or say anything to become President.

this reinforces the idea that she is a politician.
i have argue this with my brother as well
everyone says "oh hillary she did this and that just like a typical power hungry politician" but we need to stop putting barack on a pedastal like he wouldn't he wouldn't be doing the same thing
the only reason we haven't seen him to be doing this kind of stuff is because he's only been in politics for about 2 weeks it seems like


Those rules, electoral college not the popular vote, determining the winner of the Presidency have been around for over 200 years. If you want them changed thats fine, but you can't do it during the middle of the election.

what if we did change the rules in the bottom of the 9th in that election? there'd be no war in iraq and think of the economy etc
bush can go to hell‚ i'm not interested in being fair to bush

[atszyman]

this reinforces the idea that she is a politician.
i have argue this with my brother as well
everyone says "oh hillary she did this and that just like a typical power hungry politician" but we need to stop putting barack on a pedastal like he wouldn't he wouldn't be doing the same thing

Obama removed his name from the ballot in MI as they all agreed to. He didn't campaign there as they all agreed to. I don't recall him ever referring to the states he didn't win as "non-important." Sure he might be arguing for FL and MI had he won them and if he were behind in the counts. But he has already abided by the rules that were agreed to before the contest began where Clinton has not, which would indicate that he might play by the rules even if he were behind and had won FL and MI.

the only reason we haven't seen him to be doing this kind of stuff is because he's only been in politics for about 2 weeks it seems like

Obama has been serving in elected office since 1996. When did Clinton get elected again?


what if we did change the rules in the bottom of the 9th in that election? there'd be no war in iraq and think of the economy etc
bush can go to hell‚ i'm not interested in being fair to bush

But that would require either going back in time or knowing the future. At the time no one knew how much Bush would be able to screw up so there was not a compelling reason to change the rules, just as there is not a compelling reason to change them now. Voter's only have themselves to blame for 2004 when we knew what a screw up Bush was and put him back in.

[ucfgrad93]

what if we did change the rules in the bottom of the 9th in that election? there'd be no war in iraq and think of the economy etc
bush can go to hell‚ i'm not interested in being fair to bush

Now I see why you are such a strong supporter of Hillary. Rules only matter when they favor you or your candidate of choice. To you and Hillary, when the rules work against you, you seek to change them in the MIDDLE of the election even though you agreed to them before the election started.

Again, this is one of the biggest reasons there is so much animosity towards Hillary.

[stevento]

i ALWAYS took the position that it was not ok to disqualify my vote because of that rule because i am from detroit michigan

[mactastic]

Just my opinion, but the Democrats could have handled the Florida/Michigan situation in several different ways, including trying to address the concerns of people in those states regarding the primary process.
I agree, this could be handled in several different ways.

Instead, Dean chose the "Nuclear" option, telling two of the largest states in the union that they would have no say in who the Democratic nominee for President would be.

"You broke the ules! It's my way or the highway! No vote for you! No vote for you! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"
You've got it backwards. Dean did not choose to move those primaries. The legislators of the states in question chose what you call the "Nuclear" option themselves. Dean did not choose it for them. He is merely enforcing the rules. If you don't agree with the rules, you have an obligation to make your objections known prior to the start of the race. Entering the race without voicing your objections is a de-facto acceptance of those rules.

Deans a disaster.Oh yeah. His Democratic party is in shambles right now. Why they'll probably only gain 4-5 seats in the Senate and 10-20 in the House, plus take the White House back.

Yeah, I'll take that kind of disaster any day.

[ucfgrad93]

Interesting comic I came across yesterday. The guy who draws them is Canadian.

[ucfgrad93]

Oh yeah. His Democratic party is in shambles right now. Why they'll probably only gain 4-5 seats in the Senate and 10-20 in the House, plus take the White House back.

I would say that is a result of massive screw-ups by the Republicans more than anything Howard Dean has done.

[mactastic]

I would say that is a result of massive screw-ups by the Republicans more than anything Howard Dean has done.
Well, at least you have the courage to admit this Republic administration and Congress has been a massive screw-up. Many here will never say so, even if they think it privately.

But Republic screw-ups didn't create Deans 50-state strategy. They didn't force Dean to seek to marginalize the DLC -- a group that has lost almost every contest they've been involved with.

[atszyman]

Just my opinion, but the Democrats could have handled the Florida/Michigan situation in several different ways, including trying to address the concerns of people in those states regarding the primary process.

Instead, Dean chose the "Nuclear" option, telling two of the largest states in the union that they would have no say in who the Democratic nominee for President would be.

"You broke the ules! It's my way or the highway! No vote for you! No vote for you! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"

Deans a disaster.

It was the entire DNC that voted on the punishment for FL and MI, it was not solely Dean who did this. Interestingly Harold Ickes (http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2008/2/25/Hillary-adviser-talks-around-own-flipflop-on-delegates) voted to punish them and is now pushing to count them as an advisor to Hillary.

Terry McAuliffe (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/07/State/Florida_faces_a_prima.shtml) threatened to pull half of MI's delegates in 2004 if they moved their primary too early. MI backed down then, but now he's arguing for them to count this year because he's one of Clinton's advisor.

If it was so important that their votes be counted then they should have spoken up when the punishment was decided or not voted for the punishment.

The rules were fine when she was supposed to win, but now she's trying to get the rules changed because it's "not fair!" What? Are we 8 years old?

I just hope that the voters of those states realize that the true fault lies with their state legislature (who were told the penalties and moved the primaries anyway) and does not hold it against the party when November comes around.

[ucfgrad93]

Well, at least you have the courage to admit this Republic administration and Congress has been a massive screw-up. Many here will never say so, even if they think it privately.

Of course I admit that somethings over the Bush presidency have been disasters. But not all of them. Just like I didn't think that everything Clinton did was horrible either. Some people get so wrapped up in their hatred of the opposing party President, that if their dog craps in the living room, it is somehow the President's fault.

I don't think that the current Democratic led Congress is doing a good job either.

[Rodimus Prime]

I look at it this way. They have to choices. Ether count Florida and Michigan or kiss those states good bye because they will vote republican.

The republican did punish those states but by cutting there delegates in 1/2. They still let the people have their say.

As for bashing hilary for doing this. it is politics. You know if the tables where turn Obama would be doing the exact same thing.

But hey if the Dems want to go a head and hand the presidency over to the Republican they can just not count Florida and Michigan votes.

[Thomas Veil]

Instead, Dean chose the "Nuclear" option, telling two of the largest states in the union that they would have no say in who the Democratic nominee for President would be.

"You broke the ules! It's my way or the highway! No vote for you! No vote for you! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"

Deans a disaster.Well, Bush ignores the rules (i.e., the Constitution) all the time. And he's a disaster.

And Dean obeys the party's rules. And he's a "disaster."

Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:

[yg17]

stevento, quick question for you. If (*cough*when*cough*) Obama wins the nomination, are you going to vote for him

[stevento]

^^^ yes, but until hillary says "i quit" - which is never - i wont give up either.

[mactastic]

I don't think that the current Democratic led Congress is doing a good job either.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think the Democratic-led Congress is doing a very good job either -- but probably for different reasons than you.

[yg17]

i ALWAYS took the position that it was not ok to disqualify my vote because of that rule because i am from detroit michigan


I have a feeling your position would be extremely different if Obama won Michigan.

[dsnort]

You've got it backwards. Dean did not choose to move those primaries. The legislators of the states in question chose what you call the "Nuclear" option themselves. Dean did not choose it for them. He is merely enforcing the rules.
I just hope that the voters of those states realize that the true fault lies with their state legislature (who were told the penalties and moved the primaries anyway) and does not hold it against the party when November comes around.

Unless I missed something in Jr High Civics class, the legislatures of Michigan and Florida, consisting of the duly elected representatives of the people of Michigan and Florida, do not owe obedience to the DNC or the RNC. The tail don't wag the dog!

Oh yeah. His Democratic party is in shambles right now. Why they'll probably only gain 4-5 seats in the Senate and 10-20 in the House, plus take the White House back.

Yeah, I'll take that kind of disaster any day.

I agree with UCFGrad, the Democrats are gaining power on the Republicans 8 year long fiasco rather than any demonstrable strengths of their own.


Well, Bush ignores the rules (i.e., the Constitution) all the time. And he's a disaster.

And Dean obeys the party's rules. And he's a "disaster."

Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:

Propositional Fallacy. Bush's weaknesses do not prove Deans fitness, nor is strict adherence to "rules" a sign of good leadership.

[atszyman]

Unless I missed something in Jr High Civics class, the legislatures of Michigan and Florida, consisting of the duly elected representatives of the people of Michigan and Florida, do not owe obedience to the DNC or the RNC. The tail don't wag the dog!

The legislatures moved the primaries. They were informed of the penalty for doing so, yet did it anyway. Is it somehow the fault of the DNC that this happened? If I tell my 3 year old that she'll get a timeout if she throws a toy at her sister and she does it anyway, is it my fault that she's in timeout? The legislature knew the penalty and did it anyway, if a voter feels disenfranchised, vote for new legislators.

I'd really like to see any polls that indicated support amongst the voters for moving the primaries prior to January.



I agree with UCFGrad, the Democrats are gaining power on the Republicans 8 year long fiasco rather than any demonstrable strengths of their own.

There is a bit of both. In the 2006 election the Democrats won seats in states they probably would never have bothered to try to win and managed to take control of Congress (by slim margins). Sure Congress has been ineffectual, but when only 2 defectors can completely kill legislation, they don't have enough control to really do much if the other side really wants to stop them.


Propositional Fallacy. Bush's weaknesses do not prove Deans fitness, nor is strict adherence to "rules" a sign of good leadership.

So when I'm losing at chess, I can jump the opponents pieces and take them off the board because I'd have a better move if we were playing checkers? If the DNC ignores the penalty and lets the delegates come in with no penalty, we might as well prepare for 2012 primaries starting next year as more states try to move up their primaries to have "influence."


I don't doubt that the delegates will be seated and have a vote at the convention, however they will not be using the results from the states' primaries as their only input for determining allocation. The current MI plan to do half by primary and half by national popular vote seems like a step in the right direction, although it may take a little tweaking of the setup to get both campaigns to sign off on it.

[stevento]

I have a feeling your position would be extremely different if Obama won Michigan.

i took that position as soon as i heard my vote didn't count. if obama had won then you're right i wouldn't be so zealous about this but still the point remains

[Thomas Veil]

Propositional Fallacy. Bush's weaknesses do not prove Deans fitness, nor is strict adherence to "rules" a sign of good leadership.Well going around the rules sure isn't.

Come on, this is ridiculous. It's not the people's fault their votes might not be counted, it's the legislatures'. You wanna be pissed, be pissed at them. But you can't take it out on Dean for doing his job.

[MacNut]

Dean is the one making the stupid rules to begin with.

[mactastic]

Dean is the one making the stupid rules to begin with.Harold Ickes helped vote those rules into place. It is far from a unilateral Dean decision.

Unless I missed something in Jr High Civics class, the legislatures of Michigan and Florida, consisting of the duly elected representatives of the people of Michigan and Florida, do not owe obedience to the DNC or the RNC. The tail don't wag the dog!
Huh? No one is claiming the people of MI and FL "owe allegiance" to the DNC or RNC. Or the NRSC, DCCC, DLC for that matter. But the national parties set the rules for the state parties. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

I agree with UCFGrad, the Democrats are gaining power on the Republicans 8 year long fiasco rather than any demonstrable strengths of their own.
It's both. I don't deny that the GOP implosion and subsequent destruction of the GOP brand is putting the wind at the Democrat's backs this year just as it did in '06. But the Democrats would not have taken the House and Senate back if it was just a GOP implosion. Deny Dean's 50-state strategy all you want, it's real and it is paying dividends.

[MacNut]

Harold Ickes helped vote those rules into place. It is far from a unilateral Dean decision.
But Dean is the leader of the party and has the right to say if a rule is stupid and going to hurt the party.

[PlaceofDis]

But Dean is the leader of the party and has the right to say if a rule is stupid and going to hurt the party.

dean isn't king of the party. he is the leader. he doesn't set rules. he just helps make sure that they're being followed

[mactastic]

But Dean is the leader of the party and has the right to say if a rule is stupid and going to hurt the party.
Even as leader, he can't just wave his hand and make rules voted on by the members disappear.

Can George Bush just ignore laws passed by Congress because he feels the law is stupid and hurts the country? Ok, bad example. But the point is, even as the head of an organization you are bound by the rules, and the rules say the chairman can't just make rules he doesn't like disappear.

Not to mention, as I have numerous times, this is about enforcing the calendar. What would keep Iowa or New Hampshire from moving their primaries for the 2012 election cycle to January of 2009, if not the threat of their votes not counting if they do so?

[stevento]

but what he can do is try his best to make sure the democratic party is in fact democratic by counting all the votes cast

[zioxide]

but what he can do is try his best to make sure the democratic party is in fact democratic by counting all the votes cast

which would require a revote because there were plenty of people who stayed home because they knew that their votes wouldn't be counted.

[PlaceofDis]

which would require a revote because there were plenty of people who stayed home because they knew that their votes wouldn't be counted.

which requires money, that no one wants to pay
which also shows that disobeying the rules has no consequences.

[Marble]

the democratic party is in fact democratic

ARGGGH! :p

[Gelfin]

but what he can do is try his best to make sure the democratic party is in fact democratic by counting all the votes cast

The problem is, the time to make that choice was before it became obvious that doing so works in favor of one candidate and against another. If you were so concerned about the principle of democracy, you should have spent less time foaming at the mouth over Clinton and more time fighting the good fight on behalf of those states. You didn't really care until it became your candidate's only hope.

You can't call the toss after it's landed. You can't change your lottery picks after the balls have dropped. You can't keep a couple of states in your back pocket and decide whether or not to fight for them after you know whether it helps or hurts your candidate. If you want to argue the right thing for its own sake, decide to do so before it profits you personally.

And though I know you believe everyone is as cynical and opportunistic as you are, I would be saying the same thing no matter whose aspirations were at stake.

[dsnort]

Huh? No one is claiming the people of MI and FL "owe allegiance" to the DNC or RNC. Or the NRSC, DCCC, DLC for that matter. But the national parties set the rules for the state parties. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

Well, here's the part I don't understand. And I'm not being facetious, I really don't know, maybe you can enlighten me. I Googled it, but all I got was a bunch of BS about PACA's and matching funds.

Who pays for the primary elections?

I don't mean who pays for the candidates ads,and debates and other campaign related crap. Who pays for the polling places? Poll workers? Ballots, and so forth?

If the DNC and RNC carry 100% of these costs, then fine, it's their election and their rules rule.

But if any part of the primaries expense are at the states expense, then screw the national committees, and their rules. It is the responsibility and right of the legislatures to set the rules, and dates, of the contest.

[stevento]

which requires money, that no one wants to pay
which also shows that disobeying the rules has no consequences.

that's not true
michigan said "let's revote"
dean said "i'll foot the bill"
hiilary said "ok!"
obama said "no go"
and it didn't happen because they couldn't agree
that's why i'm not certain i'll support him in the fall because he very intentionally tried to disenfranchise me kinda bush-esquely

[yg17]

that's not true
michigan said "let's revote"
dean said "i'll foot the bill"
hiilary said "ok!"
obama said "no go"
and it didn't happen because they couldn't agree
that's why i'm not certain i'll support him in the fall because he very intentionally tried to disenfranchise me kinda bush-esquely

Couldn't be further from the truth. Let's try the corrected version:

Michigan said "Let's revote"
Dean said "Hell no, the Democratic Party isn't paying for it. We already paid for one"
The Michigan Democratic Party said "It is not practical to conduct a primary or caucus (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/new-michigan-primary-its-really-most-sincerely-dead/)"
Hillary said "Screw the rules. I want the votes to count because I won that state fair and square even though my opponent wasn't on the ballot and because Clinton is my last name, I deserve to be supreme ruler of the land"
Obama hasn't really said anything, even though he'd likely win a fair revote in Michigan.
And it didn't happen because they couldn't agree
And Obama hasn't tried to intentionally disenfranchise anyone

[zioxide]

stevento: instead of bitching after the fact that you were "disenfranchised", you should have complained to your state legislators when they decided to have the primary early against DNC rules. if enough people complained, they would have changed them back.

[solvs]

Dean chose the "Nuclear" option
No he didn't, he and others were enforcing the rules, and the state legislatures chose to ignore them.

telling two of the largest states in the union that they would have no say in who the Democratic nominee for President would be.
Ironically, had they waited, they might have.

Deans a disaster.
Still wondering how this is all his fault.

but we need to stop putting barack on a pedastal like he wouldn't he wouldn't be doing the same thing
We aren't, but he isn't, even though as said he could actually win on a revote in MI.

the only reason we haven't seen him to be doing this kind of stuff is because he's only been in politics for about 2 weeks it seems like
And yet he's still beating her. Hm. Technically he's been a politician longer than she has though.

what if we did change the rules in the bottom of the 9th in that election?
Then we'd be no better than Bush.

Of course I admit that somethings over the Bush presidency have been disasters. But not all of them.
Tell me something, what do you think he's done right? I'm honestly asking. I have in the past, get some vague generalities and a few "at least he didn't try to stop ____". So what's been good?

Some people get so wrapped up in their hatred of the opposing party President, that if their dog craps in the living room, it is somehow the President's fault.
The administration has done enough that we don't need to do that to be angry, but nice strawman to paint us as being partisan in our dislike of him.

I don't think that the current Democratic led Congress is doing a good job either.
Most of us don't.

I look at it this way. They have to choices. Ether count Florida and Michigan or kiss those states good bye because they will vote republican.
Probably, which is why this is a clusterfashizzle.

The republican did punish those states but by cutting there delegates in 1/2. They still let the people have their say.
I actually think that would be pretty fair, especially considering the actual votes which weren't that far off. It's not great, but it's probably the best option. Which is why they probably won't do it. I don't think any of us ever said we actually like the DNC.

As for bashing hilary for doing this. it is politics. You know if the tables where turn Obama would be doing the exact same thing.
It would be just as wrong if he did, but he isn't.

But hey if the Dems want to go a head and hand the presidency over to the Republican they can just not count Florida and Michigan votes.
Snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory is what they're best at.

Unless I missed something in Jr High Civics class, the legislatures of Michigan and Florida, consisting of the duly elected representatives of the people of Michigan and Florida, do not owe obedience to the DNC or the RNC. The tail don't wag the dog!
As far as elections are concerned, the parties make the rules and the states have to abide by them.

I agree with UCFGrad, the Democrats are gaining power on the Republicans 8 year long fiasco rather than any demonstrable strengths of their own.
Mostly, but Dean's strategy did work in places the other Dems had long since given up on.

nor is strict adherence to "rules" a sign of good leadership.
No, but ignoring the rules is a sign of bad leadership.

Dean is the one making the stupid rules to begin with.
No he isn't, he isn't even the only one enforcing them.

But Dean is the leader of the party and has the right to say if a rule is stupid and going to hurt the party.
No he doesn't, he has to follow the rules like everyone else.

but what he can do is try his best to make sure the democratic party is in fact democratic by counting all the votes cast
How?

dean said "i'll foot the bill"
He never said that.

hiilary said "ok!"
Of course she did, that part you got correct.

obama said "no go"
No he didn't.

that's why i'm not certain i'll support him in the fall because he very intentionally tried to disenfranchise me kinda bush-esquely
You're actually blaming Obama for this? :rolleyes:

[solvs]

obama said "no go"

Hm...

Obama Campaign Calls For 50-50 Split Of Michigan Delegates (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_campaign_calls_for_5050.php)

[stevento]

a 50 50 split of michigan delegates is just like not seating them at all!!!!! its still disenfranchised which is what obama wants
it would mean ABSOLUTELY nothing
I was watching cnn and i saw anderson cooper say it so i dont have a link but dean did say he'd drop the cash

[solvs]

a 50 50 split of michigan delegates is just like not seating them at all!!!!!
Well then go get pissed at you local legislature. They're the ones who screwed this up. They don't want to pay for a reelection, the DNC shouldn't have to pay for it (even if Dean did say they would, which I still doubt because why would he?) because they aren't the ones who broke the rules, so who should pay for it? Someone has to. It's something at least (and the opposite of what you said earlier BTW) and better than not seating them at all. Considering it was that close, and he wasn't even on the ballot, how much closer do you think it would be anyway if they did do a revote? Do you think she'd still be winning by the same margin? You can't honestly want to keep the vote as is. Some people didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count, the candidates weren't supposed to campaign, Obama wasn't even on the ballot even if they wanted to vote for him, and the big reason, it would be basically throwing all of the rules out of the window.

You know, there are a lot of real issues out there, terrible things going on, why don't you comment on some of that more?

[J@ffa]

This is ridiculous. If what stevento poses actually happens, Florida and Michigan's influence on the primaries is going to be a hundred times what it would have been had they either held them on the right day, or even if Dean hadn't sanctioned them for moving up the primary dates. Coming at this from a Clintonesque angle, Florida in the general election? Clinton isn't going to get it, and if Obama's coattails are long enough to even have a chance of capturing victory there then frankly he'll be able to make do without it.

[Thomas Veil]

a 50 50 split of michigan delegates is just like not seating them at all!!!!! its still disenfranchised which is what obama wants
it would mean ABSOLUTELY nothingWhat exactly did you expect Obama to say?

Frankly, I don't have any expectation the delegates should be seated at all. Seating them as voted would essentially be not punishing them at all for violating the rules. And there's no way in hell the Democratic party should send a message to states that says, "Go ahead, walk all over us, the rules don't matter, do whatever the hell you want."

Seating the delegates 50-50 is still a wimpy sop to those who broke the rules, but at least it's some punishment.

As far as kissing off Florida and Michigan, I think that's the only reason Dean is even considering this idea of a compromise -- to avoid that situation.

[ucfgrad93]

Tell me something, what do you think he's done right? I'm honestly asking. I have in the past, get some vague generalities and a few "at least he didn't try to stop ____". So what's been good?

Alright, since you asked I'll answer.

I like that he has taken an aggressive stance against terrorists. Instead of just sitting back and waiting to go after them after they have committed their heinous acts. We haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11 which I believe is a great accomplishment.

What I don't like is that President Bush and Congress have been spending like drunken sailors for the last 7 years. They haven't done much of anything to control our borders and stop illegal immigration.

[ucfgrad93]

a 50 50 split of michigan delegates is just like not seating them at all!!!!! its still disenfranchised which is what obama wants
it would mean ABSOLUTELY nothing
I was watching cnn and i saw anderson cooper say it so i dont have a link but dean did say he'd drop the cash

Seating them as they voted would also disenfranchise many voters. As stated earlier, many people probably didn't vote because they knew that the delegates would be seated. Not to mention there was only one name on the ballot, which disenfranchised all the supporters of Obama, Edwards and other candidates.

[MacHipster]

Another thing stevento fails to realize is that many people can't revote anyways, because they voted in the Republican primary as a result of being told their votes in the Democratic primary wouldn't count.

[it5five]

that's not true
michigan said "let's revote"
dean said "i'll foot the bill"
hiilary said "ok!"
obama said "no go"
and it didn't happen because they couldn't agree
that's why i'm not certain i'll support him in the fall because he very intentionally tried to disenfranchise me kinda bush-esquely

Do you make things up as you go along? Now I know why you're such a big fan of Hillary.

You know what's actually bush-esque? Changing the rules halfway through the game to benefit yourself. Oh, who does that sound like again? Could it be Clinton? Yep.

[Rodimus Prime]

I think it is to late for the 1/2 del count.

The 50-50 spilt is a slap in the face and the same as no seating them.

Really I think the DNC should fork out the cash for a revote unless they want to kiss to fairly large states good bye and have them vote red.

[stevento]

You know what's actually bush-esque? Changing the rules halfway through the game to benefit yourself. Oh, who does that sound like again? Could it be Clinton? Yep.


what's bush-esque is not counting every vote ie Florida in 2000 and whaddya know? florida in 2008 as well!!!!!!
in 2000 if we had changed the rules in the end to count every vote then gore would've been our president at least until 2004

[ucfgrad93]

A little history for you stevento

Gore asked for hand recounts in four counties (Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia), as provided under Florida state law.

Gore asked for a selected recount, not a recount of the entire state.

In the aftermath of the election, independent recounts were conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today, concluding that Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios, but that a statewide recount under the most generous standards would have given Gore a narrow victory. This count considered only "undervotes" where no vote is detected by machine, and did not consider "overvotes", such as when a voter marks a ballot for the same candidate using both the labeled space or punch-out and via the write-in space. [35]
Additionally, The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. [5] The investigation took 8 months and cost $900,000.[citation needed] Their results showed that the winning candidate varied based on the method used to include or interpret ballots.[36] For cases where all of their examiners agreed, the nine different recount scenarios resulted in Bush prevailing four times, and Gore prevailing in the other five. Ironically enough, under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.

Ironic, no?

[mgguy]

Stevento, didn't Hillary recently say she felt that the regular (not super) delegates should be free to vote however they want at the convention regardless of the outcome of the primary elections in their state? How is it making every vote count to allow delegates to obstruct the will of those who voted? Here again, Hillary will do anything to get elected, including accepting the votes of designated delegates who decide to not to follow the will of their parties electorate in their state. The funny thing is, nearly half of the "democratic" party supports her. What hypocrisy.

[yg17]

Stevento, didn't Hillary recently say she felt that the regular (not super) delegates should be free to vote however they want at the convention regardless of the outcome of the primary elections in their state? How is it making every vote count to allow delegates to obstruct the will of those who voted? Here again, Hillary will do anything to get elected, including accepting the votes of designated delegates who decide to not to follow the will of their parties electorate in their state. The funny thing is, nearly half of the "democratic" party supports her. What hypocrisy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/5/175511/7797

I'm just going to copy and paste my comment from DKos, because it still applies here:

So she cries "disenfranchisement" when FL and MI lose their delegates after breaking the rules but it's OK for delegates, who were chosen by the people in an election that was rule abiding and 100% fair and square, to go against the wishes of the people they represent and vote for her. She's either desperate or senile. Or perhaps a little bit of both.


She's a hypocrite. Spin it all you want stevento, but she's still a hypocrite, and you and I both know damn well that if Obama was trying to overturn a fair election by the people by encouraging pledged delegates for Clinton to vote for him, you would be throwing a fit.

[stevento]

ufc grad what im saying is if we had changed the rules so that the popular vote wins then we wouldn't have george bush
i think the rules should be changed such that they adhere to democracy which means every vote counts and if that means changing the game at the bottom of the 9th i dont see a problem with that
gore did win the popular vote

another thing that has to be taken into consideration is that two other states broke the rules
you probably dont even know what states i'm talking about because its not in the media because nothing happened to them


She's a typical politician . Spin it all you want stevento, but she's still a typical politician,

i fixed it for you

what you're saying is that is NOT OK for a pleged delegate to vote against the populus even though the rules of the party say its ok for them to do that?
because since you think the rules should be followed to a T then i guess it is ok for them to vote their conscience huh?
that's called politics

edit
i dont think its ok for the pledged delegates to vote that way
i also dont think its ok for two states to get kicked out of democracy because of a rule that shouldn't exist
the rules are WRONG and should be changed immediately

[ucfgrad93]

ufc grad what im saying is if we had changed the rules so that the popular vote wins then we wouldn't have george bush
i think the rules should be changed such that they adhere to democracy which means every vote counts and if that means changing the game at the bottom of the 9th i dont see a problem with that


Wow, you must be fun to play games with. If you start losing do you make up new rules like my daughter did when she was 5?

If you want to change the rules, you need to do it before the contest starts, not in the middle of it. Why is it so difficult for you and Hillary to understand that?

[stevento]

Wow, you must be fun to play games with. If you start losing do you make up new rules like my daughter did when she was 5?


obviously the politicians are being very childish when they agree to the rules, start talking about breaking the rules, are well informed of the consequences and break them anyway and then think they can get away with it afterwards
but elections are about people and we need to do what represents the people best, dealing with politics should come second to counting every vote

[atszyman]

obviously the politicians are being very childish when they agree to the rules, start talking about breaking the rules, are well informed of the consequences and break them anyway and then think they can get away with it afterwards
but elections are about people and we need to do what represents the people best, dealing with politics should come second to counting every vote

But this is not an election, this is how the party chose to pick it's candidate. If they decided they just wanted people named Phillip people with red hair to pick their nominee they are free to do that. If you don't like the rules that were put in place to select the nominee, form another party.

A lot of us are urging the superdelegates to go with the winner of the pledged delegates, but we are not asking the DNC to make it a rule (in this primary season) since the rules set forth at the beginning allowed them to be free agents.

How do you reconcile the idea of trying to use the superdelegates to win the nomination in spite of the unlikelihood of Clinton winning the pledged delegates while trying to count FL and MI saying it's the will of the people that matters?

[stevento]

i think the will of ALL the people should matter, including MI and FL (regardless of what their politicians did) and including all these state like montana and indiana that haven't mattered before. that's why we shouldn't shut down the race.

But this is not an election, this is how the party chose to pick it's candidate.
...
If you don't like the rules that were put in place to select the nominee, form another party.


if that's the case then why not let the super delegates overrule the people, after all this isn't an election this is just how the party chooses
if you dont like the fact that supers can come pull hillary out of the hole, then go form/join another party

[atszyman]

if that's the case then why not let the super delegates overrule the people, after all this isn't an election this is just how the party chooses
if you dont like the fact that supers can come pull hillary out of the hole, then go form/join another party

We are allowed to encourage, write, call, and try to influence the supers in any way we seem fit. If we were trying to have the DNC enact a new rule to force them to go with the pledged winner, we would be wrong. I don't have to like how they do it, but to argue that their method for picking a candidate has to count all of the votes to be democratic even when the rules agreed to by all of the candidates at the beginning of the contest did not count all of the votes, would be like the DNC enacting a rule that the supers had to side with the winner of the pledged delegate count. Would you like them to issue a rule like that at this point? Wouldn't it be more democratic if they did?

[MacNut]

How is having a bunch of super delegates deciding the primary democratic? I have said it over and over the whole system is screwed up. Just start from scratch and make the rules permanent, only votes from the people will decide, no delegates. Have the parties set the dates the states will vote, don't give the states that choice. That way there are no rules to be broken if the rules are set in stone by the party.

How hard is that, if the party wants to make the rules. Either enforce them and the states agree with it or they don't vote. It seems that they want to make voting as hard as possible for the people, then they say well your vote doesn't count because we have super delegates that are smarter and know what they are doing. Way to be democratic.

[solvs]

I like that he has taken an aggressive stance against terrorists. Instead of just sitting back and waiting to go after them after they have committed their heinous acts. We haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11 which I believe is a great accomplishment.
Ok, well, that was actually kind of a vague generality and I was looking for specifics, but I'll still argue it. The terrorists responsible for the actual attacks are still out there, in the 'stans. We pulled resources there to start another war in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11 and were no threat to us, who's only ties to terrorism were tenuous at best, while there are other countries (some our allies) with far more against them as far as supporting terrorists that we've done nothing about. And we're not even doing so well there. If we were doing a better job of it, we would have left already, and not be creating more people who hate us while pissing off most of our allies. Not to mention the fact that while the US hasn't been attacked recently, there have been attacks since 9/11, and Iraq and the 'stans are still warzones, worse than before. And the obvious that after the '93 bombings, we weren't attacked again until '01, so I guess you'd have to say Clinton did a good job against terrorism too. If you want to pull out the old "Clinton didn't get Bin Laden" thing too, I'd like to point out that Bush hasn't either several years after 9/11, and after ignoring a report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US", which he should have listened to because if Clinton should have gotten him before 9/11, so should have Bush.

If terrorism and the war are top issues for you, as well they should be, with all we know, that should be a knock against Bush. Not for him. Got anything else? Preferably more specific?

Really I think the DNC should fork out the cash for a revote unless they want to kiss to fairly large states good bye and have them vote red.
Again, why should they pay for the mistakes of the local gov? Sure, it sucks for the people who voted or wanted to vote, but how is it fair to the DNC for them to have to pay? They didn't break the rules, they're just enforcing them. The local gov should have to pay, and they don't want to. Blame them.

in 2000 if we had changed the rules in the end to count every vote then gore would've been our president at least until 2004
Ok, first of all, we did count every vote. As far as we know. That is the rule. But if we did have to change the rules half way through to not let Bush win, how would that make us any better?

ufc grad what im saying is if we had changed the rules so that the popular vote wins then we wouldn't have george bush
So? I hate Bush as much as anyone, but that doesn't make it right. You can't change the rules at the end. FL could have used more oversight in their elections, and there are legitimate questions about what happened, but if all of their votes did get counted, unfortunately, Bush would have won fair and square. Sucks, but it is what it is. Maybe Gore should have had a better campaign.

i think the rules should be changed such that they adhere to democracy which means every vote counts and if that means changing the game at the bottom of the 9th i dont see a problem with that
gore did win the popular vote
Then lobby to change the electoral college, but it is what it is.

another thing that has to be taken into consideration is that two other states broke the rules
you probably dont even know what states i'm talking about because its not in the media because nothing happened to them
Name them, and tell us what they did, and maybe you'll have a point.

i fixed it for you
And yet Obama isn't. Fancy that. Wonder what you'd be saying if they did do a recount and Obama actually won. Despite polls that indicate he actually could win in MI and not do that bad in FL. Clinton would have to win by a lot, and she wouldn't. She barely won those 2 as is, and that was back then.

what you're saying is that is NOT OK for a pleged delegate to vote against the populus even though the rules of the party say its ok for them to do that?
because since you think the rules should be followed to a T then i guess it is ok for them to vote their conscience huh?
that's called politics
You just said it. It is ok under party guidelines. What's the problem? They can if they want to. We may be pissed if they do, but again, it is what it is. It's not breaking any rules. Weren't you the one though who got all mad because Richardson, a Superdelegate, was going to vote against his state?

i dont think its ok for the pledged delegates to vote that way
i also dont think its ok for two states to get kicked out of democracy because of a rule that shouldn't exist
the rules are WRONG and should be changed immediately
Then become a leading member of the DNC and seek a vote to change them. The rules were set for a reason. You may not like them all, neither do some of us, but they are the way they are. Complaining about it now does no one any good. And again, you're actually mad at the wrong people. The rules were set up, the local gov knew them, whether they agreed or not, and they disobeyed them. Now because your candidate is losing, you want to blame those enforcing the rules. Pardon us for thinking that's doesn't make sense.

i think the will of ALL the people should matter, including MI and FL (regardless of what their politicians did) and including all these state like montana and indiana that haven't mattered before. that's why we shouldn't shut down the race.
Do you see anyone shutting down the race? Their votes should be counted fairly. But the local gov screwed it up, ironically screwing up their chances to make the election. The only fair thing would be a complete revote so everyone is counted. But again, they don't want to pay for it and neither does the DNC, who again are not the ones who screwed up. They could have worked with the DNC instead of just defying the rules, but they didn't.

if that's the case then why not let the super delegates overrule the people, after all this isn't an election this is just how the party chooses
if you dont like the fact that supers can come pull hillary out of the hole, then go form/join another party
They very well could. It's not against the rules for them to do so. We wouldn't be happy, and I doubt they would, but they could if they wanted. A lot of people wouldn't be happy, and would either not vote or vote for the other party, as you could. I don't see how this attitude of yours is at all helpful though.

How is having a bunch of super delegates deciding the primary democratic?
It isn't, but they are free to vote as they want. It's up to the party to decide the rules and the way they calculate things. We don't have to like it, but as I said, it is what it is. I doubt they will though. Some may go against what their states decide, but it's very unlikely they'll overturn the election against the popular vote. That's just the last ditch effort to say they should by those who know Hillary is screwed unless they do.

I have said it over and over the whole system is screwed up.
No one is arguing that.

Either enforce them and the states agree with it or they don't vote.
That's pretty much what's happening.

then they say well your vote doesn't count because we have super delegates that are smarter and know what they are doing.
That isn't exactly how it works, and I doubt they will overturn the popular vote because if they do, a lot of people won't be voting for a Dem come Nov.

[stevento]

Maybe Gore should have had a better campaign.

ok given gore did lose 3 debates to a guy who cant finish a sentence but remember HE DID WIN the election
dont get mad at gore for not winning hard enough



But if we did have to change the rules half way through to not let Bush win, how would that make us any better?

the PEOPLE would've been better off if we had changed the rules at the end of the 2000 election so who cares about who's doing what unfairly/wrongly ?
elections are about PEOPLE and i try to ignore all this other stuff that asserts itself into our politics

i just have this old faishioned idea that people are more important that rules

[solvs]

ok given gore did lose 3 debates to a guy who cant finish a sentence but remember HE DID WIN the election
No he didn't. He didn't win the electoral college. That's how you win the election. They went over all of this in High School.

dont get mad at gore for not winning hard enough
I am, because he ran a lousy campaign, and lost to this guy.

the PEOPLE would've been better off if we had changed the rules at the end of the 2000 election so who cares about who's doing what unfairly/wrongly ?
You sound like Bush and his cronies. The rules are important. We should care. Even if you don't like the outcome. If you have a problem with the rules, last minute/afterwards is not the time to change them.

elections are about PEOPLE and i try to ignore all this other stuff that asserts itself into our politics
That much is clear. You seem to think what you want is fair. Well it isn't to everyone, just to you. We've already pointed out why what you want to do isn't fair for everyone. Again, if you have a problem, take it up with you local gov who didn't follow the rules set out before them. They, and you, can't be mad at those enforcing those same rules afterwards. Especially since we all know you wouldn't have a problem with it were it the other way around and Obama would have won. Which, again, according to recent polls, he would do better in FL even if Hillary would win, it wouldn't have been by as much. And he very well could win in MI. But who's going to pay for it? Who should? Not the DNC, they didn't do anything but enforce their own rules, which we should be pissed if they didn't.

i just have this old faishioned idea that people are more important that rules
Only because it's your candidate, and she's losing otherwise. What about those who didn't vote? Or those who voted for a Republican who might have voted for another Dem? Aren't they important? Aren't they people? The people are voting, and they're voting for someone else. If that all changes, so be it. If it doesn't, accept it. It's not that you don't like the rules, you just don't like that they're hurting you and your candidate. Maybe your local gov shouldn't have bucked them. The DNC ignores their own rules, and you really think that's going to be fair to everyone? It isn't. Your local gov could have lobbied for different rules, or simply followed them as is. They didn't. Now they don't want to do a revote, and they don't want to accept a 50/50, and can't accept as is. So what's left to do? Nothing.

They screwed you. It sucks. Doubt it'll make a difference though if Obama wins by more than the difference anyway, which it looks like he will, complete with a majority or even half of the supers. If you want to vote for McCain, or stay home, no one will blame you. But this constant calling for ignoring the rules. That's just not what we're supposed to do. No matter what. You can change the rules if they're unfair, but not afterwards because you don't like the outcome. That's just dishonest. They all agreed to these rules before hand, now we all have to live with the consequences. I don't know what to tell you. I just have this old fashioned ideal that rules are there for everyone. :rolleyes:

[stevento]

He didn't win the electoral college.
yes he did but the republican supreme court decided bush won the electoral vote


You sound like Bush and his cronies. The rules are important. We should care. Even if you don't like the outcome. If you have a problem with the rules, last minute/afterwards is not the time to change them.

i am talking about legally changing the rules, which can be done at any stage of the game. bush just ignores them


Or those who voted for a Republican who might have voted for another Dem? Aren't they important? Aren't they people? The people are voting, and they're voting for someone else.
you're right they got disenfranchised and that's unfair so the best thing to do is hold new elections or hold mail in elections for those who didn't vote before
but if we leave out those two states then ALL those state's voters are disenfranchised which is also unfair

But this constant calling for ignoring the rules. That's just not what we're supposed to do.

well hold on now, the rules say that the rules can be changed in the middle of the elections if the DNC wants to change them

[PlaceofDis]

i am talking about legally changing the rules, which can be done at any stage of the game. bush just ignores them

well hold on now, the rules say that the rules can be changed in the middle of the elections if the DNC wants to change them

link to these rules, please? i'm curious to see them.

considering you're talking about disenfranchising voters, this would disenfranchise a great deal of people if the 'rules' could be changed at any point in the nomination process.

[leekohler]

yes he did but the republican supreme court decided bush won the electoral vote




i am talking about legally changing the rules, which can be done at any stage of the game. bush just ignores them



you're right they got disenfranchised and that's unfair so the best thing to do is hold new elections or hold mail in elections for those who didn't vote before
but if we leave out those two states then ALL those state's voters are disenfranchised which is also unfair


well hold on now, the rules say that the rules can be changed in the middle of the elections if the DNC wants to change them

Are you sure you don't work for the Clinton campaign? Talk about some seriously twisted spin tactics. You sound as desperate as she does.

[atszyman]

but if we leave out those two states then ALL those state's voters are disenfranchised which is also unfair


OK, here's a straight forward question. Washington, which did caucuses to assign delegates and has a non-binding primary that is essentially useless for any practical purpose. Obama won the caucus by less than 12,000 votes, but the primary by a little less than 33,000 votes.

Which voter tally do you use in the calculation of the popular vote? and why?


As follow ups:

If you use MI and FL as is, do you give the 40% uncommitted in MI to Obama (for delegates and the popular vote)? if not, why not?

As it currently stands, Obama wins the popular vote and delegates with all of this working against him, count WA's caucus (narrower win), give Clinton 328,000+ unopposed votes in MI, and give FL out as is. This still has her 50,000 votes behind. Any changes to that setup help Obama an increase his popular vote lead.

If you give him the 40% and count WA's primary he's up by about 250,000 more votes.

Do you really think Clinton can make up those votes with her lead slowly dwindling in PA (down to less than 8% according to pollster.com today) and probably only the narrowest victories following that in smaller states.

[leekohler]

OK, here's a straight forward question. Washington, which did caucuses to assign delegates and has a non-binding primary that is essentially useless for any practical purpose. Obama won the caucus by less than 12,000 votes, but the primary by a little less than 33,000 votes.

Which voter tally do you use in the calculation of the popular vote? and why?


As follow ups:

If you use MI and FL as is, do you give the 40% uncommitted in MI to Obama (for delegates and the popular vote)? if not, why not?

As it currently stands, Obama wins the popular vote and delegates with all of this working against him, count WA's caucus (narrower win), give Clinton 328,000+ unopposed votes in MI, and give FL out as is. This still has her 50,000 votes behind. Any changes to that setup help Obama an increase his popular vote lead.

If you give him the 40% and count WA's primary he's up by about 250,000 more votes.

Do you really think Clinton can make up those votes with her lead slowly dwindling in PA (down to less than 8% according to pollster.com today) and probably only the narrowest victories following that in smaller states.

I think one thing that cannot be overstated is that no matter what happens, there will be neither a Clinton nor a Bush in the White House after 2008. I strongly believe that.