Dems seat all FL and MI delegates, with 1/2 vote each

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, May 31, 2008.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    Breaking now. Michigan vote just concluded. More to follow.

    Anybody watch on TV? Came just in time to see the Michigan vote live, and the behavior of the Clintonistas was absolutely disgraceful.

    EDIT: Story:

    What I saw on TV -- and what the article doesn't say here -- is that under this agreement the Clinton camp reserves the right to challenge this decision at the credentials committee meeting.

    Frankly, even though this meeting came out with what I view as a decent conclusion, I'm still pissed. One, because Clinton can (and will) appeal; two, because the Clinton supporters in the gallery were shameless, spoiled, unruly children; and three, because (in my view) this still violates party rules. The rules say you may seat no more than 50% of delegates, not 100% with 1/2 voting rights.
     
  2. ezzie macrumors 68020

    ezzie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    #2
    watched live on CNN pretty much all day, off and on. it was a long day. ;)

    i was very dismayed at the behavior of the crowd....i couldn't believe just how rude they were at times.

    so the new "magic number" is 2,118...and Harold Ickes says that Hillary will take this to the credentials committee. :rolleyes:
     
  3. cycocelica macrumors 68000

    cycocelica

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    #3
    It is good to know that Hilary can't take a lost like a real person. She has to complain because she knows she is screwed and has no where else to turn. She sign the damn agreement at the beginning. It's not the countries fault that more people like Obama. Get over it you whiny bitch.
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    [​IMG] < John McCain.

    Who would ever vote for Lucrezia Borgia??

    Hillary: "Waiter, an order of hemlock for the Obama table."

    "Taking one for the team" is obviously not in her lexicon.
     
  5. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    You know, during the Clinton administration, all those years people were calling her a bitch (and worse), I defended her, because I thought they were just scared of a successful, intelligent woman.

    Well, I take every bit of that back, and I'm sorry I ever said anything positive about her at all. She is self-centered and dishonest. Electing her would be like electing a Democratic version of Bush.

    I hope she's proud of the way her loony fans acted today. They are truly a reflection of her.
     
  6. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #6
    Clinton threatening to take it further is just sad....I highly hope that was a empty threat.


    As for the people in the crowd, they're unbelievable. Anyone who thinks MI should have gone all Clinton, with "unpledged" up for graps, is wrong.

    But hopefully we can move on, and get ready to take it home in Nov.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    The dem part screwed up be time in the beginning. They should of followed the rep lead in dealing with those states in the beginning. Cut everything in half. The people still get the vote and things are not screwed up in a close race.


    Personally I hope the final out come of the mess with FL and MI is we get a primary reform so instead of the same few states getting more say than any other in the primaries it changes from year to year.

    Like it been point out before this is really the first time in a long time anything even really matter by super tuesday. Hell it was nice to see Texas for once play a real part in the nomination. I mean the candidates came to Texas for once.

    Why cant they just make the order the states run for the primaries random.
     
  8. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #8
    Random??? [​IMG]

    That is fraught with misuse.

    Make it alphabetical, and be done with it.
     
  9. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #9
    Better yet, why not make them all do it on the same day?
     
  10. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #10
    Then the same states are heard each year. Being random would allow different states to be heard.

    I say make a rotation, and each primary year, move down the list who starts. 2012 is Iowa goes first, they go last in 2016. If Ohio goes 2nd in 2012, they go 1st in 2016. And so on, and so on. The starting list can be selected out of a hat.
     
  11. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #11
    Ok, that sounds good. I approve. Make it so, Number 1.

    But on the fun side, you could order them as they signed-up for the Union.

    Or even funnier, for the Yanks that love reality TV, start with the lowest delegate States, and work up.

    :p
     
  12. cycocelica macrumors 68000

    cycocelica

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    #12
    If Clinton is going back on something she agreed on, what would that mean if she is elected? What would she go back on then? Its her way, not the countries way.

    I honestly can't wait to see what stevento says.
     
  13. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #13
    Some further thoughts:

    • Chris Matthews opined that he believes we'll see superdelegates flocking to Obama now, just to finalize this thing. I really hope he's right. Under the new goalline (2118 delegates), Obama only needs 66 more delegates from a combination of the remaining three primaries and the superdelegates.
    • Even so, I see Hillary taking this to the credentials committee, which only hurts the party and Obama because it continues to give the Clintonistas the illusion that something can save their campaign, when nothing can. Therefore all it's doing is stirring up a lot of anger and creating the false impression in Hillary's fans that they were "robbed".
    • One of the Florida protesters mentioned that the state's Democratic delegates were being punished unfairly because the Republican legislature moved up the primary. Well, that's a really good point, and it's genuinely unfair that Democrats had nothing to say about it but have to take the punishment for it anyway. I don't, however, have a good solution to prevent that from ever happening again (getting screwed by the other party), and I'm not sure anyone else does.
     
  14. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    Now there is absolutely no reason to use popular vote math not counting them. Hillary has ~175,000 more votes.
     
  15. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #15
    cept that the nominee isn't determined by popular vote, but by delegates. or should we get rid of more rules?
     
  16. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #16
    so now you're supporting disenfranchising the poor voters in iowa, nevada, maine and washington just so you can rig the popular vote in favor of your candidate??? :eek: :p
     
  17. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #17
    Does that count caucuses? And Obama's gains in MI and FL?


    And if its does, then great. She has that going for her. That may be to little to late, but if it indeed true, let her make that case to super delegates in the next week, and we can have someone to beat McCain, Obama or Clinton, by this time next week.

    Any person voting for Clinton or Obama in the primaries has much great reason to vote for which ever dems is the nominee over McCain.

    100 year in Iraq?
    Voted against the federal minimum wage?
    Continue the failed policies of Bush?
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    Yes, you should.

    Do you mean releasing them from their "burden" of counting more per-capita then other states???

    Then yes, I do.

    What the hell is wrong with one man/woman, one vote???
     
  19. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #19
    Welcome to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Your ID card is in the mail. ;)
     
  20. chuckles:) macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    CANADA
    #20
    Here in Ontario we just had a referendum to switch to a popular vote system. It failed miserably. The problem was that people though that smaller parties would get more power in parliament, making the government less effective. i have to say that i find it weird that anyone could say that. more parties means more checks and balances, which is defiantly worth a little more bureaucracy, especially if it means that every vote counts equally.
     
  21. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #21
    Well, we could wind-up like Italy.

    In Oshawa, they just passed the popular vote method of electing councillors.

    So much for accountability.

    All I am saying is that in the States, there should be a better way of electing the House of Representatives, so that each sitting member more or less represents the same number of constituents.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    The Michigan decision boggles my mind. How can Obama get delegates from having no votes? By what mechanism does the RBC have the power to make that happen? Do they have a magic fairy wand? If you're going to seat delegates, you have to seat them by the votes cast. Mr. (or Ms.) Undeclared just picked up a bunch of delegates. Obama did not.

    I mean, I understand why the decision was made to do that, but still -- it makes absolutely NO sense. If that's the case, then apparently the RBC could, assuming they have the votes, alter the results of any of the primary or caucus results. And that's just not right.

    And I guess the rumor is that Obama actually had the votes to get an even split of the delegates in Michigan, but by a very narrow margin. So to help encourage party unity, he decided to go with a net loss of delegates and help Clinton save face somewhat. Smart politics.

    The Democrats had something to say about it. Yeah, the GOP was egging them on, but they could have stopped it if they wanted to. At least that's my understanding.

    Two things: The metric of victory is delegates, not the popular vote; and by using the popular vote as a metric you are disenfranchising all the caucus voters. Which I realize you don't care about, but there it is. Your metric is an invalid attempt to unseat the winner by the proper metric. Don't you think Obama would have altered his campaign strategy if the metric of victory was the popular vote?

    Yeah, I've explained this to him numerous times. He simply doesn't care, and is willing to insult the intelligence of the forum by continuing to claim that he wants to enfranchise certain voters when it helps Hillary Clinton, and disenfranchise certain voters when it helps Hillary Clinton.
     
  23. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #23
    once again, you're cherry picking popular vote totals that are in no way indicative of the will of the people.

    without a universal primary process, popular vote totals are distorted and misrepresent the contest. that is why they use a proportional delegate system. if you proportion out the caucus votes and give obama his likely due of the "uncommitted" votes from michigan, clinton's "popular vote" lead vanishes. in short, your argument does not hold water, nor has it ever.

    hillary clinton should finish these three primaries, make her last pitch to the remaining superdelegates, then concede the nomination to obama- a conclusion most of us in this forum have seen as forgone since february.

    triangulation is over. the wedge issue fad has seen it's last days. the rovian voting bloc logjam is starting to break. it's taken a few years, but the internet has allowed the grassroots/50-state plan to flourish, and it's found the perfect frontman in barack obama. i'm afriad that hillary and her campaign have ruined any chance they had of playing a meaningful role in the new democratic party. fitting that they should go out trying to game the system from within.
     
  24. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #24
    He is clearly an automoton.

    Possibly shark-based.

    I have not ruled out the possibility of laser involvment.

    Nuclear energy has been brought in for questioning.
     
  25. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25
    that doesn't count texas caucuses because all those people already voted in the primary on that same day
    but yes that counts all the votes from Florida and Michigan
    - because you have to vote in the primary to be able to caucus in TX -
     

Share This Page