Dean pushing Florida!!!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Apr 2, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  2. TimJim macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    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...
     
  4. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #5
    "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.
     
  5. Hawkeye411 macrumors 68000

    Hawkeye411

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Canada EH!!!
  6. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #7
    Did you miss this part?

    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....
     
  7. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #8
    sorry to break it to you stevento, but it doesn't matter.

    Obama will be the nominee. Hillary is finished.
     
  8. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    remember when everyone was saying howard dean was the next president in 04?
    comebacks do happen
     
  9. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    And remember who ended up winning the presidency in that election? If Hillary somehow gets the nomination the same thing will happen this year.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    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.

    Because she can only win by changing the rules? How admirable. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #12
    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.
     
  12. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    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
     
  13. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    The term "super delegates" should be matched up with "hanging chads". Both have screwed up the election.
     
  14. cheeseadiddle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    #15
    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.
     
  15. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #16
    yeah, the rules are stupid. but you can't change them when you're in the 3rd quarter.
     
  16. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #17
    Apparently they weren't unjust before the primaries started. Both Hillary and Barak agreed to these sanctions.
     
  17. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    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?
     
  18. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #19
    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.
     
  19. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #20
    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.
     
  20. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #21
    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.
     
  21. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #22
    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
     
  22. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #23
    Glad we agree with that.

    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.

    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.
     
  23. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #24
    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


    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
     
  24. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #25
    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.

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


    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.
     

Share This Page