Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread here
New Open Thread here

4317 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 4001 – 4200 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

rich said...: So people who post on this blog seem to have a limited vocabulary and seem to type in caps.; June 01, 2008 5:58 PM
Meg said...: Saw your post Leah. Good idea.; June 01, 2008 5:59 PM
Independent Voter said...: hmmmmmmm, she's still talking about "universal health care" to the Puerto Rican's that voted for her.

Does she not realize they have universal health care in PR?; June 01, 2008 5:59 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Emma-

She always uses her 'wins' to rake in some more money to pay off her debt.

I think she should have said something to the crowd when they started boo'ing Obama. She needs to start getting her supporters to stop the hate. Her lack of words are not doing anything to unite the party.

.; June 01, 2008 5:59 PM
RobH said...: greywolf,

GP has HRC ahead? On what basis?
Counting MI, right? With zero votes for Obama, right?

Let's get real.; June 01, 2008 6:00 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
What about New Hampshire?

What about New Hampshire?

New Hampshire did not break the rules.

New Hampshire has a state law that says they will hold the first primary in the nation. The Secretary of State will determine what date the state will hold it's primary.

The DNC rules state that Democratic party officials will take every available effort to obey the rules of the primary schedule, but if they can't obey the timing rules, they are to apply to the DNC for an exemption, explaining what steps they took, and/or why they can't obey the rules. If the DNC considers the relevant facts, it can grant a waiver.

In New Hampshire, the legislature was not scheduled to go into session in adequate time to change the primary date, so the Secretary of State had a choice:
1. Break state law, with legal punishment; or
2. Ask the DNC for an exemption.

The Secretary of State chose the latter, explained what he could or could not do, and got an exemption.

Therefore, New Hampshire did not break the rules, since they had received an exemption.

Mike; June 01, 2008 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: JayW said...
Jim,

Although some of her supporters are... HRC is not stupid enough to think that it is worthwhile to take anything to the Credentials Committee. She knows that if she does she will NEVER be elected to public office again.
jayw,
Somebody should have told Ted Kennedy that,HUH?; June 01, 2008 6:04 PM
tmess2 said...: Based on current returns from Puerto Rico, it looks like Obama needs about 30-32 more unpledged delegates to assure himself of wrapping things up on Tuesday night.; June 01, 2008 6:05 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 01, 2008 6:05 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: greywolf -

If you were listening to MSNBC on TV today then you would have heard the talking heads discount Hillary's claim of pop.vote.

On MSNBC they normally will state that Hillary is NOT counting the caucus state pop. votes and that she includes ZERO votes for Obama in Michigan.

Hillary does not have the pop. vote lead. That is just the Clinton SPIN!

AND Popular Vote does not win the nomination. The delegate count is the only thing that counts.

This will all be over in a little more than 48 hours - then the battle against McCain will begin in full force :); June 01, 2008 6:07 PM
greywolf said...: Okay I gather that MI numbers do not count because the RBC determined the vote to be flawed and illegal, thus assigning delegate percentages based upon the request made by the state party? Is that correct?

IF so that means hillary is counting the votes that the RBC declared to be illegal and very flawed thus giving her a popular vote lead?; June 01, 2008 6:09 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Emma no it shouldn't be but you do have people like that on this site that deserves NO RESPECT and JAYW is one of them. Jean; June 01, 2008 6:09 PM
RobH said...: Did she just sat "join me for this final stretch"?; June 01, 2008 6:09 PM
greywolf said...: Oh yeah.. per hillary.. obama has a SLIGHT lead in delegate votes; June 01, 2008 6:10 PM
rich said...: Oreo or Matt -

We ned a cleanup in Aisle 13. Some customer (err blogger) is swearing out of control in that aisle.; June 01, 2008 6:10 PM
greywolf said...: I do not get msnbc here... for some reason.; June 01, 2008 6:11 PM
RobH said...: Fight with me, fight with them, fight for this, fight for that,
fight with us, fight fight fight...

Yuck!; June 01, 2008 6:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: greywolf-

The popular vote on

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

in the YELLOW sections are the numbers to believe NOT the ones with Michigan.

Michigan pop vote doesn't count because it has Obama ZERO also all the 30,000 write in ballots were not counted in Michigan.; June 01, 2008 6:15 PM
rkw said...: I'm not here to bash Hill & Co. Maybe they will fight on. Maybe they will bow out. Hard to say.

And that is what I wanted to comment on.

It seems strange to me that I keep hearing reporters and pundits say something to the effect that Hillary will be the realist or pragmatist. I read stories about Bill being a key part of the strategy to bring the party together. And then I hear Ickes and McAuliffe making statements that sound very angry and divisive.

And my comment is that there does not seem to be a great deal of message discipline right now. Maybe I'm not seeing it right, but it almost looks like we are seeing signs of multiple factions within the Clinton camp: one that is angry, combative and ready to go to the mattresses and a second one that is acting lke political pros ready start bringing the party together.

I wonder if anyone else has the same impression.; June 01, 2008 6:16 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: oh my word. I'm glad that got cleaned up, it was ugly!; June 01, 2008 6:16 PM
Robert in MN said...: Aunt Jean,
This 49 year old white male is voting for Barack Obama precisely because of the fearful thinking like yours that has infected this country. The grip of fear has its tentacles deep and it is divisive and hateful. Obama gets that and offers a way out. I hope you can take a deep breath, relax and have a little chat with your loving self. I think you will come to the realization that the Republicans can only win by appealing to the fear you have bought into.
Peace and goodwill.; June 01, 2008 6:17 PM
Independent Voter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 01, 2008 6:17 PM
JayW said...: Aunt Jean...

Your post made me smile!

I know the truth hurts and that is why you lash out.

It’s OK... I understand that you, like many of the diehard HRC supporters, are hurting since you put so much of your faith and time into a lying, manipulating, self-serving candidate. It is natural to feel the way you do after the truth has been revealed.

If you ever come to your senses... and that is a big IF... you are more than welcome to support the winning candidate. The guy that won the nomination with CLASS... Obama.; June 01, 2008 6:21 PM
greywolf said...: okay its getting silly in here.. time to go and find something else to do. you all take care and see ya later..; June 01, 2008 6:23 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
borrowing money from the fund is not a big deal to me. All governments borrow money, and all have debt. The problem in this country is the size of the debt we have racked up, and that has nothing to do with social security. That has to do with simply spending more than they receive. That has to do with expanding government and blowing the military budget out of control, while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy.
I honestly think some version of a trust fund where the money sits untouched is stupid. As was mentioned by someone else, where does the money you put in the bank go? They don't just sit your deposit in the drawer until you want it again. They loan it out to others and make money on it. They then give you a portion of their profits for loaning the bank the money in the first place.

NH has a state law that says they have to have the first primary. I don't care. State law does not usurp federal law. If Michigan created a state law that they got to vote before any other state, would you agree with upholding that law? What if all 50 states created laws that said they had to be first? This is not a ride to the movie theater, you don't get to call shotgun.; June 01, 2008 6:27 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Side bar box UPDATED!

Needed to win:

OBAMA 48
Clinton 204.5

.; June 01, 2008 6:27 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Congrats to Clinton and her supports for her PR victory today.

Watched her victory speech. That was the most rested I have seen her in awhile. Nothing like a short PR vacation to re-energize the cells.; June 01, 2008 6:33 PM
countjellybean said...: I, for one, appreciate JayW. On this blog he is the Obama camp's version of Yam and Jim.

.....

It was said about Lincoln that as a lawyer he would concede small points in order to win the big point.

By accepting the result of Florida, Hillary conceded the big point, which was the 50% penalty. Complaining about the Michigan delegation is a small point in comparison. It allows her to give the appearance of keeping up the fight.

.....

Obama was smart not to campaign in Puerto Rico, since there it has no electoral votes and he cannot be in two places at the same time.; June 01, 2008 6:42 PM
Independent Voter said...: pissed ant,

I think the person mis-spoke. The DNC rules state that NH will hold the first primary, just as Iowa will hold the first caucus. This is mainly due to tradition.; June 01, 2008 6:47 PM
magia said...: RobH said... Hey Magia, When all else fails, let's go back to pastor-gate.

Hey, Rob, I was commenting on ed’s post at 11:59AM. Too bad you’re so sensitive. FYI: I still have all my chips, and my marbles, too. Maybe you need a little rest.; June 01, 2008 6:49 PM
Unknown said...: I think the popular vote is a bunch of non-sense- but Obama still looks like he will win the popular vote...if you add in the Caucus states, Florida, and give Obama the uncommitted in Michigan...but barely...but the bottom line is delegates nominate...it is like gaining more yardage in football and losing on the scoreboard..; June 01, 2008 6:49 PM
magia said...: tmess2 said... “The party is free to (and by a vote of 19-8 did) find that the Michigan Primary as certified by the Michigan Election Authority was invalid under party rules.”

I’m OK with that they can certify non-compliance, and therefore I do agree with jpsedona that they should have made – and carried - that motion.

But then . . .

“In the absence of an election which fully complied with party rules, the issue then becomes how do you allocate delegates to reflect the preferences of Michigan voters.”
and . . .
“No rules were violated by the RBC decision.”

I have to assume you haven’t actually read the Rules.
Rule number 13 states clearly how to allocate, starting with A.: “Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.”

Fairly reflecting the voter’s preference is cited throughout EVERY option. More importantly, Rule 20, re challenges, lays out the remedies, with this instruction,

“ . . . which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.”

The Rules state that uncommitted are uncommitted, and the Rules Committee broke their rules.; June 01, 2008 6:50 PM
Meg said...: I heard somewhere in the last few days that at some point during the convention (when he has enough votes), Barack can call for all the delegates of MI and FL to have a whole vote. Is that true?; June 01, 2008 6:50 PM
magia said...: Mike in Maryland said... a lot, most of which was totally out of sync with my post. I’ll ignore the bulk of that, but to this question:

“If you have a child, and they defy you on a curfew, will you tell them that they can defy you with no consequences? I bet you won't.”

Mike, I have children, and damn straight they cannot defy me without consequences. And although sometimes I will be lenient, mostly I’m pretty tough. That said, this is NEVER the scenario:

I say, “If you aren’t home by midnight you are both grounded for one week.” They are late, so I ground them -- for one month.

Or a better scenario would be:
Their brother is late, so I ground all of them for one month. The girls protest, so I say, “Your brother broke the rules.” The girls continue to protest, so then I say, “You are still grounded, just for one week, and one of you gets $100.”

You call this logic?; June 01, 2008 6:51 PM
JayW said...: Countjellybean...

Thank you for your support, much appreciated.

I do take minor offense to the comparison to Yam though... only on the account that Yam is truly delusional. I do not believe that I have posted anything that could be considered delusional... possibly (actually probably) inflammatory, but not delusional.

In any event, thank you for your support.

Obama 08; June 01, 2008 6:52 PM
Independent Voter said...: emma - yes it is true.; June 01, 2008 6:55 PM
apissedant said...: On January 22nd they would have had the first in the nation primary, because the Michigan primary was not an official primary at all. There was no need to alter the date from the calendar date set by the DNC.
Even still... why should they have this right? What makes them more important than the other 48 states? Due to Michigan's serious economic crisis, and the federal government's continued stance of ignoring them and their plight, what should Michigan have done?ky; June 01, 2008 6:55 PM
JayW said...: We should really begin discussing who we think Obama will have as his VP.

We all know it wont be HRC... so dont even go there. That would make no sense and would actually cause the democratic party to implode... not unite.

My money is on Joe Biden... just a hunch.; June 01, 2008 6:55 PM
magia said...: Leah wrote . . . “For those that are looking at pop. vote you have to look at the totals WITH caucuses and WITHOUT Michigan.”

Maybe in your world, Leah. Actually, the MI vote comes in, now that the delegates come in (another oops, eh?)

And Realclear is skewed, because they use some made-up number for WA, when there is a primary vote that is actually counted. And including caucus “votes” when we have no reporting of those votes, is the worst that could be asked of any of us. Come on! Make those states report – it’s the right thing to do.

greywolf said . . . "IF so that means hillary is counting the votes that the RBC declared to be illegal and very flawed thus giving her a popular vote lead?"

RBC did not declare the MI votes as illegal, you must have read something wrong.; June 01, 2008 6:57 PM
apissedant said...: Here is a link to an article talking about New Hampshire breaking the rules. The rules were decided that Nevada would vote before New Hampshire, and New Hampshire would not have it. We all saw Carl Levin speak of this yesterday, and all this article is doing is quoting Senator Levin.; June 01, 2008 6:58 PM
magia said...: Emma said... "I heard somewhere in the last few days that at some point during the convention (when he has enough votes), Barack can call for all the delegates of MI and FL to have a whole vote. Is that true?"

Hey, he's Barack, he can do anything (and save the world, right Amot? :-); June 01, 2008 6:59 PM
Independent Voter said...: magia - Or a better scenario would be: Their brother is late, so I ground all of them for one month. The girls protest, so I say, “Your brother broke the rules.” The girls continue to protest, so then I say, “You are still grounded, just for one week, and one of you gets $100.”

You call this logic?

Yes it is logical. If they all knew the consequences prior, absolutely. If they all knew that if one of their siblings broke the rules then they would all be punished, absolutely. It would mean that they all keep an eye on each other and make sure they ALL followed the rules.

Now I'm not quite sure where the $100 comes in, but hey whatever floats your boat.; June 01, 2008 6:59 PM
Oregon Dem said...: I miss Yamaka SO much that I have to pretend I am him and write a post for him. Too bad this Houston millionaire does not have enough money to buy and take a laptop with him on his travels.

Anyway with our further ado:

= = = = = = = =

Yamaka says:

Hey all you Obamamaniacs out there did you see how well our million dollar gal did today in PR?

She got the momentum just in time to wrap this up!

Look for two more wins by the MAJORITY candidate!!! She will get 20 delegates in Montana and South Dakota!

1913.5 + 20 = 1933.5

The supers will flood to her real soon now after this win and the stealing of the MI election by the RBC.

The SDs will right the wrongs perpetrated on her!!!!

Just you wait and see.

It starts NOW!!!!!

They will flock to her with the passion of her supporters in Washington yesterday!!!!

New math for those of you who do not believe that my pantsuit gal can do this:

1933.5 + 185.5 = 2119

A couple more than needed to win the nomination.

You may think 185.5 of the supers is too hard for her to get. I know that it is not.

The Edwards delegates that were for Obama have already pledged for him.

that is 13.5 for the MAJORITY candidate right there.

Obama is tapped out of SDs as well and with this win 172 is a piece of cake for my gal. All she needs is 172 SDs.

There are still 203 left!!!!!

You Obamamaniacs are living in a dream world.

Break the glass ceiling and join with me in supporting the MAJORITY candidate.; June 01, 2008 6:59 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: magia-

Regarding Michigan pop. vote.

Hillary is counting her own votes and giving Obama ZERO for Michigan.

You can't have it both ways.

Also there cannot be a true popular vote total without the correct number of votes from ALL the caucuses, the Dems Aboard, etc.

Anyway you add it up - Hillary is NOT ahead in popular vote - unless you play her game and leave out certain contests.

.; June 01, 2008 7:02 PM
Independent Voter said...: magia - you are taking into account the votes cast in Puerto Rico.

There is another flaw in the popular vote argument. NONE of the numbers - from what I've seen - include the votes from Democrats Abroad, NOR do they include the votes from the US Virgin Islands.; June 01, 2008 7:03 PM
Independent Voter said...: LMAO Oregon Dem - GREAT impersonation.; June 01, 2008 7:06 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: JayW -

There is an VP OPEN THREAD on the front page of DCW. It might be down further on the page now or further back. Last time I was there there were 200+ posts discussing VPs.

I think Joe Biden needs to stay in the Senate.

Two Senators on the ticket would not be as good as Obama plus a Governor.

OBAMA/Kathleen Sebelius '08

.; June 01, 2008 7:07 PM
Oregon Dem said...: magia:

Not that it matters what the popular vote is, but....

One cannot read the minds of what the RBC was thinking about the vote in MI.

Here is my take.

Senator Clinton cannot presume that BHO got "0" votes in her claim that she is ahead in the popular vote.

So if she wants to count the MI popular vote then she has to give some number of votes to BHO in MI.

Now the question is how many.

One way to look at the RBC decision is that to the best of their ability they determined the split was 59 - 69. Put that another way BHO got 85.5% of the number of votes that HRC got.

So - if she wants to count her MI vote then one should add 280,728 votes to the totals for BHO.; June 01, 2008 7:11 PM
JayW said...: Having Puerto Rico be involved in this process is just plain hilarious.

As a famous athlete once said, "For who, for what?"

I guess it does boost the Puerto Rican economy a bit... so it isn’t terrible. But in the grand scheme of things, their opinion doesn’t matter one bit.

Maybe if democrats show their registration cards down there in the future we can get 10% off hotel accommodations. Who knows.

What is important is the fact that Obama is the democratic nominee and the next President of the United States.

Obama/Biden 08; June 01, 2008 7:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oregon Dem-

Yakama has gotten into your head!

You need to make yourself a stiff drink and relax!

Btw- Yam didn't go anywhere he is now posting here under the name stoPobAmanOW.

OBAMA/Kathleen Sebelius '08; June 01, 2008 7:13 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Independent voter:

I tried impersonating Yamaka but you know I have trouble making the outrageous claims in just the right tone that he does.

Maybe Sto Poba Man Ow will show up and help me out a bit....

;-); June 01, 2008 7:15 PM
JayW said...: Leah,

I disagree with you on the assumption that a govenor would suit Obama better than some senators.

We all know that McCains big thing that he will hit Obama with during the general election is national security and experience. Who better to combat that than Biden?

Please dont take this the wrong way. I have NOTHING against Sebelius. I just think that Biden would help Obama more.

Also, please remember that the democratic party will already be conceding votes to the racists that wont vote for Obama. I think it would be a mistake to put a woman on the ticket with him and then lose the sexist voters too.

(I for one am not a sexist... but there are quite a few in middle america that wouldnt vote for a person based on gender. Just like we all know that there are quite a few that wont vote for Obama based on race.); June 01, 2008 7:17 PM
RobH said...: I just watched Harold Ickes on Meet The Press.

I predict he will go down in Democratic folklore with huge negative associations.
He is so disingenuous as to be laughable. His approach:

to the math,
to reality, and
to unity

...is absolutely juvenile.

And I'll bet you Mark Penn is a) happy to be out of there, and b)laughing all the way to the bank.

When Russert asked him if, should Obama not succeed in the autumn, would Ickes be back with Hillary in 2012, I almost spewed my drink out my nose.

Ickes, Wolfson, Penn...WOW.; June 01, 2008 7:17 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hmmm...

Florida and Michigan WILL BE voting at the convention with only 1/2 vote because if they have a full vote then Obama would have to have more delegates to win.

I don't see the number being moved from the current 2118.
And the 1/2 votes won't be changing. IMO.

OBAMA/Sebelius '08; June 01, 2008 7:19 PM
apissedant said...: According to Senator Levin, Nevada was slated to have their caucus by RBC rules. This still allowed NH first in the nation primary. NH then moved their primary ahead of Nevada without permission. This is when Michigan chose to move it's primary. He stated this in front of the RBC, and not one member of the committee disagreed or argued against his time line. Therefore, again, NH broke the rules, and was not punished.

Despite this, the idea of Iowa and NH supremacy is still disturbing, especially with states like Michigan clearly needing some serious representation at the federal level. As I have mentioned before, they get much less than a dollar back for every dollar they put in the federal system. At the same time, they have the worst performing economy in the country. If any state needs their money back, it is Michigan. Yet they continue to be ignored at a federal level. I understand and sympathize with their frustration, and something needs to be done.; June 01, 2008 7:21 PM
apissedant said...: I didn't post the link because my computer crashed. It is irrelevant anyways. All of us pretty much saw the RBC meeting, so we all saw Carl Levin say it, and we all so no one stand up and dispute it. It can also easily be googled or youtubed. In the absence of evidence to the contrary....; June 01, 2008 7:26 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here is a link to the Open Thread - VP Edition :

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/open-thread-vp-edition.html

.; June 01, 2008 7:27 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Leah:

Want to make a bet on what Obama does at the convention?

I bet he will come to the convention with enough votes that nothing matters anymore and say that:

(1) He wants to allow MI and FL delegates to have a full vote; and

(2) He will instruct 4 of his delegates to vote for HRC...

I will not bet my house on that, but I can see it happening...; June 01, 2008 7:27 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oregon Dem -

I don't see that at all.

Senator Obama is a stickler for the RULES.

The Rules state that Florida and Michigan cannot have a full vote. And he is not going to risk Clinton getting too many delegate votes. He will want a good showing of delegates that vote for him in order to say that he won by a big margin.

You don't give anything that you don't have to to the other opponent when you don't have to. IMO.

Obama/Sebelius '08; June 01, 2008 7:31 PM
RobH said...: Hey Magia,

I just went back and read your post admonishing me to relax, then went on to read you getting schooled by the balance of my pals here regarding MI.

Thanks for inviting me to relax, in fact I'm completely mellow now, and have been since Indiana/NC.

But your insistence on counting MI as a legitimate contest, where Sen. Obama apparently recieved zero votes in Detroit or anywhere else in the state is as pathetic and hopelessly immature as Mr. Ickes, and Sen. Clinton. They, and you, convince nobody, here or anywhere with your stance, as it is simply indefensible. Like Danna Brazile said "That's cheatin'." I suspect you actually drive away potential supporters with your inabilaty to "get real."

IMO.; June 01, 2008 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama completed another step in his preperation for losing yhe GE.
If he gets the nomination, his preparation and training as whipping boy will help ease the pain.
The final results in PR will likely be close to a 40% thumping.
He could lead all his blind lemmings over the cliff and I will visit the cliff Nov. 5 and toss
a funeral arrangement down on all your pathetic little political bodies.
May God give the SD"s the wisdom to prevent this tragedy.; June 01, 2008 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Uh Jim, remind me again what Puerto Rico has to do with the general election since they don't vote.; June 01, 2008 7:39 PM
JayW said...: Jim,

Did you ride the short bus to school?

Explain to me what part Puerto Rico plays in the general election.

Your stance is like saying that HRC has more support in Canada.

Seriously dude... you may be as delusional as Yam at this point.

Your classless woman lost, plain and simple. Maybe someday she can move to PR and run for office there. Her time here is OVER!!!!

Obama/Biden 08; June 01, 2008 7:41 PM
JayW said...: Just saw Hillary wearing a wife-beater riding up the street in a lowrider with spinners....

Go Puerto Rico!!!!!!!!!!!; June 01, 2008 7:43 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Leah:

Wjat I am saying is that just before he goes into the convention that in a "magnamious jesture" he will ask MI to vote 73-55 and ask for full votes for FL and MI.

To further unite the party and deflate the rabid HRC followers arguments.

At the time he will have a 150+ lead in delegates (IMO) so would have nothing to lose by doing it.

Again - just my opinion - want to bet?

Now I am off to mow the lawn before it starts raining. Be back in an hour or so.; June 01, 2008 7:45 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant:

Quit being a piss ant with your arguments.

Michigan and Florida did NOT get DNC approval to move their primary dates.

New Hampshire DID get DNC approval to move it's primary date.

And didn't you forget to mention South Carolina? It voted 3 days before the originally scheduled date.

But it got DNC approval to go ahead of the original schedule for TWO reasons:

1. The original schedule was for the primary to be held on a Tuesday, but South Carolina law scheduled it for a Saturday; and

2. The rescheduled South Carolina primary didn't bump any other state out of the order as written in the rules.

I remember one of your first posts, where you mentioned that you like to argue for argument's sake.

Maybe you should consider this - sometimes an argument for argument's sake is OK and can be fun for the participants. Other times an argument for argument's sake can be destructive. You are approaching that point, IMO. There are other ways to bring up your points in a non-argumentative manner. Explore them, and you might find that people receive your opinion in a better manner; you don't get people angry with you; or people won't just dismiss you as having a juvenile mentality, not even considering you as participating in the conversation (and with an argument for argument's sake 'participation', you are NOT participating in the conversation).

Now stop the piss ant arguments so we can unite the party to defeat John McSame.

Mike; June 01, 2008 7:47 PM
JayW said...: Oregon Dem,

I understand your thought process, thinking Obama will want to unit the party and doing that would be a great gesture...
but he wont.

There has to be a standard set for states that violate the rules, plain and simple.

If there is no actual penalty, what will prevent this from happening again in the future?; June 01, 2008 7:48 PM
rkw said...: So, if Obama picks HRC as the VP, will everyone on this blog go insane?

Personally, I don't think you can bring the party together any other way.; June 01, 2008 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: von,
It has nothing to do with the GE,
just training for BO on how to take a whipping, which prepares him for what he will get in Nov.
jayw,
"Explain to me what part Puerto Rico plays in the general election."
You need mental ability which exceeds that of a moron in order for me to explain anything to you, and that you do not have.; June 01, 2008 7:53 PM
JayW said...: rkw....

If HRC runs as the VP, I will vote for Nader.

HRC does not belong in public office.; June 01, 2008 7:54 PM
ed iglehart said...: Oregon Dem,

You do Yam better than he does. I actually bothered to read yours!

Looks like I lost the $300 play money I bet on Obama winning PR. Where's that PRdude? I want a word with him.

xx
ed; June 01, 2008 7:56 PM
Anonymous said...: You mean like Obama trained Hillary to take a whippin in so very many states?; June 01, 2008 7:56 PM
billyjay66 said...: Did you hear today on the morning shows that Gov Granholm pressed forward to split the delegates fairly and get a settlement thru the committee. Don't you think she would be a good compromise choice for VP?; June 01, 2008 7:59 PM
Robert in MN said...: Here is why the popular vote argument is disenfranchisement math.

Besides the unfairness of Hillary Clinton counting her Michigan vote and giving Obama none, there is an even greater problem with this dishonest math: Caucus states count delegates not popular vote totals. It is mixing apples and oranges. For example, Wisconsin is the 20th most populous state and Minnesota is 21st. However, Wisconsin’s primary had over 5 times the “votes” (1,100,805) as Minnesota’s caucus (211,103). Minnesota historically has the top voter turnout in the nation. If Minnesota had a primary, the popular vote would have been substantially higher. In fact the net margin of popular vote to Obama in Minnesota alone would have been over 350,000 votes instead of 73,115. Obama won all the caucus states except Nevada. Clinton’s math from Mars is a fabrication to try and steal an election by disenfranchising caucus state voters by cutting their vote to about one-fifth!

The Democratic Primary system uses proportional allocation of delegates to avoid a Bush v. Gore problem of popular vote losing to delegates. The only way to compare caucus and primary states is by counting only delegates through the very carefully considered system everyone agreed to before the nominating process began. Nevertheless, Hillary argues just ignore the rules and dramatically undercount 13 caucus states by focusing on popular vote instead of delegates. Don’t we want a president with the character to play by the rules this time?; June 01, 2008 8:01 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: rkw -

Obama will NOT pick HRC as VP.

She has too much baggage.
She is too divisive.
She would bring out the republicans out in droves to defeat her.

By November HRC will not even be talked about.

Obama will use his good judgment to choose his VP - someone that can work well with him when he is in the Oval Office. Someone that has integrity. Someone that does not lie. Someone that does not have husband/wife that can cause conflict.

Obama/Sebelius '08
Obama/Lincoln; June 01, 2008 8:02 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jim said...
You need mental ability which exceeds that of a moron

Talking to yourself in the mirror, Jim? Because I think a large number of people on this site realize that Puerto Rico does not vote for President in the General Election.

The question asked of you was how today's vote in Puerto Rico matters. Instead of responding to the inquiry, you just threw an insult back that had nothing to do with the inquiry.

Mike; June 01, 2008 8:02 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
A) I am not arguing for argument sake. Senator Carl Levin presented his case to the RBC, and not a single member of the RBC nor a single speaker after him disagreed with his statement. His statement was simple: NH was slated 3rd to vote and they bumped it up without permission to jump ahead of Nevada. THEN Michigan changed their primary date after the RBC did not punish NH, and THEN NH got permission to change their date in order to be ahead of Michigan. The first move was without permission and against the rules. This is the move that, again, according to Carl Levin, caused the moving of the Michigan primary.

B) I am in no way being rude or refusing to come together. I am not insulting anyone or trying to tear the party apart. I am talking about equality and fairness, a major staple of the democratic party. Making two states more important and influential than the other 48 states is in no way fair nor equal.

C) I would find it difficult to call my words or actions juvenile. I am using actual facts to support my belief and opinions. You on the other hand are using slander to argue against my opinions and beliefs. You aren't actually arguing against my opinions at all, you're using a basic form of illogical argument. It is called an argument by irrelevant ad hominem.

So, I invite you to actually give a single piece of evidence to argue with Carl Levin's time line. Those of us that watched Carl Levin's speech saw that he was obviously trying to bring the party together and beat John McCain. He did feel the need to explain what went wrong, and how Michigan arrived in their situation. I feel the need to make sure that that argument is not ignored. That those that choose to blame Carl Levin instead of confronting the serious issue he has brought up be forced to defend their actions.

I am overall on your side, so why you choose to personally insult me is beyond my comprehension. I am in no way arguing to change anything with the current election, just to find a more honest and fair way to conduct future elections. I support Barack Obama and about 90% of the Democratic ideals. There is no need for division or insults. An honest, open, intelligent discussion on these issues can do nothing but benefit all of us. It can expand your knowledge and understanding, as well as my own. I don't see why you would possibly get angry with that.; June 01, 2008 8:07 PM
suzihussein22 said...: OR Dem-I've got a link to rebut your fuzzy satire later. I'm on the laptop right now. Guess what? I'm prepping sweet potatoes for supper tomorrow! na na na na; June 01, 2008 8:08 PM
Hippolytus said...: Leah Texas4Obama said...
"Hillary has three options, she can retire in West Virginia, Kentucky, or Puerto Rico where the people adore her."
_______
Depends on whether she prefers moonshine or rum. My bet is PR -- waiving from the back of a pickup makes her feel like Rose Bowl Queen waiving from a float.; June 01, 2008 8:09 PM
apissedant said...: Granholm cannot be VP. She was born a Canadian, and the VP must fulfill all the requirements of the President. Also, she has a 70% disapproval rating in the state of Michigan.; June 01, 2008 8:10 PM
apissedant said...: rk,
If you go to the VP thread, you'll see 216 posts from various people about how to bring the party together. Leah, myself, and many others thought Sebelius would be a great choice. The main line Hillary supporters have been touting is sexism. Sebelius is obviously a woman, and she also seems more than qualified for the job. No one posted a negative thing about her. I personally don't know too much about her, but from what I have read, and from what I have heard, she seemed good.; June 01, 2008 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...: von said...
You mean like Obama trained Hillary to take a whippin in so very many states?

von,
Yea, for a while he did, since Feb 19, she has won more delegates,primaries and popular votes, It is kinda like being able to place a bet on a horse at the one mile mark of a mile and a half race and betting on the one that is fading fast.; June 01, 2008 8:13 PM
Kujo said...: Numbers:

As predicted, HRC would win 38 and Obama 17. On Tuesday I see a 19-12 Obama win. Also in Maine the Unassigned SD became assigned and went to Obama. I see 18 more unassigned Delegates + 19 more pledged delegates:

Obama 1731.5 + 330.5 + 37 = 2109
(short 8); June 01, 2008 8:14 PM
Anonymous said...: LOL. For awhile? Look at the numbers sparky. Tell me how many times Obama won versus Hillary. Oh that's right you support "our lady of the moving goalpost" so it doesn't matter.; June 01, 2008 8:15 PM
apissedant said...: jim,
Apparently you don't understand how competitions work. It doesn't matter if she scored 300 points in the 4th quarter, she still lost on the scoreboard. She lost number of states, number of PDs, number of SDs, and the popular vote.
A comeback that brings you CLOSE to the score of the other team is not a comeback at all, just a good finish.; June 01, 2008 8:24 PM
Yousri said...: FYI:

The Sidebar table has been updated with the final PR allocation according to Green Papers.; June 01, 2008 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Mike,
Are you Jayw's keeper?, If not but out.
I was just trying to run him off.
I have to go for now. I will come back tomorrow to insult you with truth and logic.

Until then; June 01, 2008 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Translation: "I've been schooled by several people now so its time to runaway"; June 01, 2008 8:26 PM
Hippolytus said...: Jim said:
"It is kinda like being able to place a bet on a horse at the one mile mark of a mile and a half race and betting on the one that is fading fast."
________
Whose getting to the finish line first, pal?; June 01, 2008 8:27 PM
ed iglehart said...: Mike,

I have to admit I was a bit surprised at your tirade against our pissed ant. Did your dinner disagree with you?

;-)
ed; June 01, 2008 8:36 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
What happened to the happy, positive, and agreeable tone of this forum? I decided to blame you. You're supposed to act as mom and keep us all in line. Monica Billuci could have done it just fine.; June 01, 2008 8:37 PM
rkw said...: Until the last few days I was convinced that the dream team would never make. However, I'm starting to rethink.

And to clarify a few things. I am an Obama supporter. In my opinion, he is the best national candidate we have fielded in over 40 years.

That said, we have an incredibly close nominating battle. No matter how you slice it: votes, delegates, opinion polls, etc. this is the closest nominating race in modern party history.

Here are the issues, pro and con, as I see them to creating the dream team ticket.

Reasons not to run the Dream Team
1) BO ran as the anti-Washington, change candidate. HRC is the ultimate Washington insider now.
2) Animosity has built up through the race and getting these folks and their teams together might be like oil and water.
3) Having a very strong personality as your VP can be a problem. They might undermine you or might overshadow you.
4) Having the former president hanging out with the current VP is just a strange and unpredictable situation. And we know that Bill has trouble keeping his pants zipped and his mouth shut.
5) HRC has very high national negatives. The Republicans are probably loaded for bear as far as a negative campaign against HRC.
6) HRC may not want to be VP.

Reasons in favor of the Dream Team Ticket
1) BO's team figured out a winning strategy, but it is also fair to say that it took major blunders on the part of the Clinton team. However, once she ran off Penn and reframed herself as the champion of the working man and every woman, she did a great job. Her style and her message do not resonate with me, but they clearly resonate with much of the Democratic party.
2) The Clinton name is very strong with hispanics. Could HRC on the ballot put Texas in play? She is very strong in the valley and all across the border. The key to Democrats retaking Texas is the hispanic vote. If Texas returns to the Democratic fold, a long term Democratic majority can be forged all across the nation.
3) HRC and BO together have a chance to win the traditional Democratic states (North East, North West), plus the rust belt, plus the emerging latino dominated states (Texas, New Mexico, Florida). Rather than a western strategy or a rust belt strategy, you do both.
4) HRC could bring insider knowledge. I love the rhetoric about a new approach, but I am also a realist. Jimmy Carter came to Washington as an outsider and managed to piss off everyone including his own party in Congress. We need to change the system, but we'll also have to work within it to some extent.
5) We need a landslide in the electoral college and we need long coat tails if we want to make big changes. That means that we need every vote we can get. If disaffected HRC supporters (especially Reagan Democrats) don't support the ticket, then we will be stuck with the 50 +1 problem (at best).
6) We break through two huge barriers at one time. A person of color and a woman both break through the glass ceiling together. There is a message and theme that will sell. And it is a quintessential Democratic Party message. In my opinion, we have two break-through candidates. Let's find a way to combine their strengths.
7) If we do this, then there will be a big party in Denver and frankly we need to have a big party at this point.; June 01, 2008 8:39 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant,

Do you know if Levin was entirely correct?

Remember, there was a lot of discussion before the RBC meeting, and there was a lot of discussion not shown to the public during the 'lunch break' yesterday. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that during the 'lunch break' several people spoke to several of the 'presenters' to correct points, or to let others know that they had different perceptions of situations than were presented?

Maybe some or everyone knew Levin was using some hyperbole in his argument. Maybe some or everyone knew that the change in date was being discussed at the DNC at the time Michigan was moving the legislation through the legislature. Maybe some or everyone knew that they had a time allotment, and didn't want to argue an already argued point.

In any event, the DNC handed down it's final decision on Michigan and Florida. At that time, they could have included New Hampshire in that decision if they decided that New Hampshire was violating the rules without permission. Since the DNC did NOT punish New Hampshire at that time, they apparently had information that Levin didn't present, and thus the issue was moot to argue at yesterday's meeting.

If you feel New Hampshire's 'first primary in the nation' needs to be changed, then you need to make your feelings known to the DNC before they write the rules for the 2012 primary. You'll have plenty of company in that feeling. In fact, I used to think that it was unfair for Iowa and New Hampshire to be first every time.

However, consider this:

The good points of small states (like Iowa and New Hampshire) having early caucuses/primaries is that the costs of campaigning in those states are much lower than in a larger state (such as Michigan, Florida, New York or even Indiana). This gives candidates without much current name recognition an opportunity to establish themselves and their campaign, gain support which then gains them money, and be able to compete in later, larger, contests which cost more money. If the primaries/caucuses begin with a large state, with consequent large costs to campaign in that state, the lesser known candidates have almost no opportunity to establish themselves, and thus the only candidates are those who have lots of campaign cash. The reason they have the cash is because they have the name recognition, which raises the cash, which increases the name recognition, etc., etc.

The DNC recognized that Iowa and New Hampshire were not a cross section of America, and that other sections of the country, and segments of the population, were being left out. That is why Nevada, being a western state with a large Hispanic population, and South Carolina, southern state with a large AA population, were included in the states permitted to go early. They also are rather small, and thus the costs of campaigning would be lower, than in other states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, or (yes again) Indiana.

Do you really want to see a system develop where only the well-funded, already known, candidate is the ONLY candidate that can win the nomination, and cut out the deserving, but not well-known, candidates? Starting the primary/caucus process in large states will do exactly that.

Mike; June 01, 2008 8:43 PM
Unknown said...: Jim,

" Although some of her supporters are... HRC is not stupid enough to think that it is worthwhile to take anything to the Credentials Committee. She knows that if she does she will NEVER be elected to public office again.
jayw,
Somebody should have told Ted Kennedy that,HUH?"

First, some respect for someone who's done so much for his country and was just diagnosed with brain cancer!

Second, Ted Kennedy had redeemed himself through his 20+ year achievements in the senate. We will have to see what the future holds for Clinton.

Third and most importantly, the difference between the two, and mainly the reason why people despise Clinton so much, is that Ted Kennedy was not spreading Lies and deceitful attacks to undermine Carter's credibility. He did not make up new rules to advance his cause... and the list goes on.

Please don't compare the uncomparable!; June 01, 2008 8:43 PM
Oregon Dem said...: ed iglehart said...

Oregon Dem,

You do Yam better than he does. I actually bothered to read yours!

= = = = =

Ed:

Wait till you see me do Yamaka AFTER Obama has clinched it!

;-)

I am thinking something along the lines of Yamaka having a math formula like:

"1940.5 - 2117 = -176.5

All my Million Dollar Gal needs is her two MI delegates back and 174.5 of the SDs to see the light and go for the MAJORITY candidate!!!!

She will win!!!!!

On to Denver!!!!!!!; June 01, 2008 8:43 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Oppps I meant "Switch" not "go for"; June 01, 2008 8:45 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant -

I am sorry that I have not kept the folks here in step to your high standards ;)

Sometimes a 'mom' must let the kids fight it out in the mud until they are worn out and then make them all go in for a bath and go to bed ;)

Besides I have been away from the thread for bit while I was eating my grilled steak and downing a couple of fresh strawberry daiquiris.

OBAMA '08

p.s. Everyone BE positive and play nice - otherwise you will be sent to bed early ;); June 01, 2008 8:55 PM
Unknown said...: Independent voter:

"aunt jean - look at the welfare system AA's verses whites is probable 20 to 1.

That is a pure and simple FALSE statement. Facts are a hard thing to swallow when the truth is that WHITES make up the majority of those on welfare!"

You're totally right!
Actually, the majority by far is White Single Mothers. So, if aunt Jean knew about that, I don't think she would've mentioned it.

Although I have my doubts.
I seriously see a trend here w/ Hill, Bill, and their supporters who claim so many lies and they do it so often that some people start believing in them.

There is also the fact that the Clinton campaign attracts the "uneducated" (Hill said it herself), maybe also the illiterates. So they expect them not to be able to verify if the statements they make are true or not.; June 01, 2008 8:59 PM
magia said...: Leah said . . “Hillary is counting her own votes and giving Obama ZERO for Michigan.”

I will not attempt to know what Hillary is counting. However, if you want a fair count (which unfairly does not count 3 caucus states, but that is their problem as far as I am concerned), the numbers are:

per RCP: POPULAR VOTE to 5/20 for BO:
w/o WA,IA, NV, ME: 16,690,219
Washington primary vote: 315,744
Florida Primary vote: 576,214
Michigan primary vote**: 160,305
17,742,482

per RCP: POPULAR VOTE to 5/20 for HRC:
w/o WA,IA, NV, ME: 16,229,691
Washington primary vote: 354,112
Florida Primary vote: 870,986
Michigan primary vote: 328,309
17,783,098

** Some might say that someone not on the ballot gets no votes. (I believe it’s the law, actually.) But I have generously used the exit polls as to what the vote would have been if all the candidates were on the ballot; the numbers for BO would be as follows:
Estimated votes = 160,120; estimated delegates = 37

You might argue that Obama gets all of the uncommitted, or even some of HRC’s vote (as argued by Oregon Dem and the RBC) but in my opinion the argument would be specious.

Independent voter said... “magia - you are taking into account the votes cast in Puerto Rico.”

Not me. That will be tomorrow, because I believe the DNC counts PR, although you may disdain to.

Oregon Dem said... “So - if she wants to count her MI vote then one should add 280,728 votes to the totals for BHO.”

I’m sure you will, although uncommitted actually received 238,168 (or 237,762, depending on the site.) But why would that stop you? After all, you are using RBC math for the delegates, and in their determinations (thus far) the actual vote doesn’t matter.

PS: Robh wrote . . . “went on to read you getting schooled by the balance of my pals here regarding MI.”
In fact, if the above is indicative of your friends “schoolin’” I think I can take it with a big ol’ grin <>

I can’t help but think that if I was in this race, and the RBC made what I determined was an unfair assessment, I would want to make any valid objection that was available to me. And so would Obama!

Listen, I just wish you could all agree that this is basically a 50/50 race and neither of these candidates deserves disdain or worse, and neither do the half of the voters that voted for either one. But too many have closed minds, are hyper-sensitive, and basically don’t want any dialogue (that would mean having two sides to any discussion.); June 01, 2008 9:03 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: ed iglehart said...
Mike,

I have to admit I was a bit surprised at your tirade against our pissed ant. Did your dinner disagree with you?

Ed,

No, it didn't.

I'm just getting tired of the argument for argument's sake attitude that seems to be in his current postings. No logical argument, no presentation of facts, just argument for argument's sake. And that gets very tiring to me after a while.

Mike; June 01, 2008 9:07 PM
ed iglehart said...: Here's Donna with more news

There's a video too.

;-)
ed; June 01, 2008 9:10 PM
tmess2 said...: Magia, it was not the RBC that broke the rules about uncommitted being a valid preference, it was the Michigan Democratic Party.

In their guide to voters (which was repeated yesterday in the presentations of both Senator Levin and Mark Brewer), they told the voters of Michigan that they could express their preference for Obama and Edwards (and Biden and Richardson) by voting for uncommitted.

In so doing, they changed uncommitted from being the preference permitted in the Delegate Selection Plan to a composite of preferences.

That is one of the reasons why the RBC through out the primary.

Since there was no accepted primary and no caucus to use for the rule on fair reflection of preference, the RBC had to come up with a different measure of fair preference and they accepted the calculations of the Michigan Democratic Party -- not my preferred solution but given the multiple violations of the rules by the Michigan Democratic Party, they had to do something.; June 01, 2008 9:12 PM
Yamaka said...: Dear Democrats:

Greetings from NY City.

My daughter got the Summer job at Goldman Sachs, and found a place to live for 2 months - the primary reason I came to the East Coast!

________________________________

As I predicted, my Million Dollar Girl is leading in Popular Votes by 142 K as per line 4 of realclearpolitics.com.

I strongly believe after Tues 3, she will be the Most Popular Candidate in this Primary.

Of course, Sen BHO is leading in TD. Congrats for him and his ardent supporters. Money really speaks! His message is weaker than Hillary's.

She has won big in OH PA KY WV and PR.

I am hoping the remaining SDs will break out in her favor because

1. She is the Majority Vote Getter
2. She is experienced & very tough
3. She can do the Job from Day One
4. She has broad coalition of Constituency:
Most women, working and older Whites and Latino Americans all of whom make a 55% of total voters.

This does not show up in PD because of structural impediments for her Constituency, namely the Caucuses, where Sen BHO is stronger than her.
E.g In TX Primary she won and in Caucus he won.

5. Against McCain she is the strongest candidate to win the Presidency.

I hope about 200 of the remaining SDs favor her for the Nomination.

Otherwise, she can lie low and prepare for the 2012.

Let Sen BHO go alone and take on McCAin.

_______________________________

I am mighty angry at the RBC of DNC.

They violate their own Rules and create chaos in this Primary process.

Most of them are anti-Hillary, Anti-Women Crowd.

They had the guts and audacity to steal TDs from Hillary and give it to BHO! Atrocious. Arrogance.
Outrageous.

What happens to the Fairness Doctrine, Fair Reflection/Representation Principle of Magna Carta?

Shame on you RBC. The most unprofessional bunch of thugs!!

Stay tuned.

Don't beat up Hillary supporters very much. They are the Centrists, the moderates, the most of all the Electorates in America!

The Silent Majority!

Cheer, Smile and Support Hillary.; June 01, 2008 9:13 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Now that HRC will not be the nominee - do ya'll think that John McCain will have Harriet Christian as a supporter in his ads? ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

I still can't get over that video!!!; June 01, 2008 9:14 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Magia:

You misinterpreted my comment.

I was replying to a poster who asked what the RBC decision said with respect to the popular vote question.

Personally - the popular vote means nothing to me. I could care less what the poipular vote is either in the primary or in the GE.

My point was just an amusing bit of math for statisticians trying to figure out what to do with MI and the popular vote.

You know what they say: Numbers do not lie - staticians do.

and the numbers are

BHO: 2071 / 46 needed to win
HRC: 1914.5 / 202.5 needed to win

With 234.0 left to be decided.

Those numbers are the only ones that count.; June 01, 2008 9:16 PM
Unknown said...: Magia,

"The rules are the rules!"
Well, why don't you please play by ALL the rules then...

The DNC/RBC... established, with the help of 30 lawyers or so, that the primary carried out in Michigan did not reflect in ANYWAY (and I hope you'll understand that!) the will of the people, and thereby could not be counted as it: Which means IT IS CANCELED OUT!

So, the rules are respected when the guidelines are followed.

Otherwise, I can go to some Downtown Detroit neighborhood and hold a private caucus and claim that Obama won the whole district 100% to Clinton 0%; and then go ranting that "the rules are the rules."

You either follow ALL the rules, or you don't. I'm sorry, you don't just mention the ones you like!; June 01, 2008 9:17 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Bottom line...

This is a DELEGATE race.

Nothing counts in the end except the number of DELEGATES each candidate has.

Needed to win:

OBAMA 46
Clinton 202.5

There is NO way that Clinton can win. Obama WINS - end of story.; June 01, 2008 9:20 PM
Unknown said...: Jayw,
"I do not believe that I have posted anything that could be considered delusional... possibly (actually probably) inflammatory, but not delusional."

All true!
I guess it was an exageration; June 01, 2008 9:21 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Thank you for being much more hospitable in this response than in the prior response.

First, many items were discussed to death during the RBC meeting. Wexler was asked the same question that he had already answered about five times. Not a single speaker or lawyer or RBC member spoke out against what Carl Levin said. They had every opportunity to do so. They could have easily just asked Wexler that same question only four times. In the lack of evidence to the contrary, I must side with Senator Levin. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to hear it.

Second, the well funded candidates are still typically the winners. In this case, all three major candidates had more than enough funding to battle in a large state instead of a small state.

Third, another point Carl Levin brought up was the complete lack of an industrial manufacturing state being given an early slate. Yes, South Carolina is a southern state, and also has black people. Yes, Nevada is a western state, and also has hispanic people. There is no manufacturing state and no state with major urban populations given an early slot.

Fourth, the financial consequence to states that do not get an early vote is quite large. NH and Iowa are both major farming states. We have significant subsidies for farmers, and our import policies greatly favor them. For Iowa, all candidates talked about expanding ethanol by giving extra subsidies, and continuing to charge imported ethanol a 54 cent tax.
Those states in the rust belt have seen no such economic help. Michigan for instance, used to be known for manufacturing cars. Clinton and Congress passed NAFTA, and now more "American" cars are manufactured in Canada than in Michigan. This seems like a legitimate complaint by the representatives and people of Michigan.

Sixth, I just found evidence where the state of NH said they were going to move their primary ahead of Nevada, without consulting anyone. Here is the link.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Nevada+GOP+moves+caucus+date+ahead+of+NH+primary&articleId=912d0b15-3262-44ba-9ca8-8163800293b8

Again, I am for Barack Obama, but I am also for what is best for this country. Allowing these rust belt states to continually decline into oblivion is not best for my country, and they attempted to make their voice heard. I was actually ok with the sanctions. I agree with them. I just hoped the move would lead to more talking and hopefully invalidating the NH and Iowa laws prior to 2012. Small states already have a disproportionately large voice due to equal seating in the Senate, they do not need more by having all of the early contests.; June 01, 2008 9:25 PM
Hippolytus said...: Yam,
Even your crazy "math" can't save your gal now. I can't wait to see her reel in 203 delegates. The Hindenclinton is losing air and altitude, and will crash in flames by Wednesday. The Credential Committee will bounce her appeal quicker than you can say Barack Obama, POTUS.
________
magia said:
"Listen, I just wish you could all agree that this is basically a 50/50 race."

It's the number of delegates that counts. It's the only metric that really matters, and that's not a 50/50 proposition.

"Feel the force!"
Obama Won Kenobi; June 01, 2008 9:26 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yakama said: "I am mighty angry at the RBC of DNC.
They violate their own Rules and create chaos in this Primary process.
Most of them are anti-Hillary, Anti-Women Crowd."
_______

Yakama-

Your 'anti-Women' BS is not going to work. If you had watched the RBC meeting you would have seen that most of the people on the committee were WOMEN!

You can stop with your propaganda now.

Senator Obama will be our nominee - and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it except start shivering in their boots OR come on and board the Obama train on its way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 9:27 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: magia said...
Listen, I just wish you could all agree that this is basically a 50/50 race and neither of these candidates deserves disdain or worse, and neither do the half of the voters that voted for either one. But too many have closed minds, are hyper-sensitive, and basically don’t want any dialogue (that would mean having two sides to any discussion.)

Magia,

Using a fallacious argument, accrediting the source, but without considering the other, more logical, options given at that source, is one reason for you to perceive that disrespect is being shown to you. Maybe your pushing a fallacious argument causes people to actually have a reason to show disrespect for you.

As to the RealClearPolitics vote totals, there are six popular vote estimates shown, and in four of them Senator Obama is in the lead.

Of the two showing Clinton in the lead, zero votes are given to Senator Obama in Michigan. Only a delusional person would say that Senator Obama had zero support in Michigan. Therefore the 'vote' from Michigan is flawed, any analysis using a flawed data set is inaccurate, and no conclusion can be made.

Besides, where in the DNC Primary Rules does it say that the nominee will be determined by popular vote? Isn't it whoever receives the support of the majority of delegates at the convention is declared the nominee?

Please stop the 'popular vote' argument, as the nomination is NOT determined by popular vote. To continue the 'popular vote' argument at DemConWatch indicates that you think the people here are stupid enough to fall for that fallacious argument. Thinking the people here are that stupid is showing YOUR disrespect of the others here.

Mike; June 01, 2008 9:30 PM
Kujo said...: Obama Campain Recap:

I think it is good idea to look at the Obama campain in review in order to understand what will happen with his camp going forward.

Going into January, not many people gave him much of a chance of winning this thing. (Yes in december, the momemtum started, but was still a good thought at that point).

He quickly found the achilles heel in the Clinton camp by pulling off upsets, but more importantly just hanging in there.

Super tuesday came and it was a suprise, at least to me, to hear that Obama was the one with the Money to campain in all 22 (24?) contest, not Clinton. He now showed everyone he was a contender.

Within days the Clinton camp realized they were in trouble. With in Days the Obama camp realized they the Clinton camp was in trouble. With in days the media realized the Clinton camp was in trouble. Obama sweeps a bunch of contests and puts him in an insurmountable lead.

From this point all indications were that the only thing he had to worry about was his own blunders. Don't go out too strong with campaining because with this lead it could only hurt you. If you look at the demagraphics of the remaining races, while he might lose some delegates, not enough for Clinton to surpass him. He realized that losing 55-45 in a state would only loose a few delegates.

Also at this time he was riding high on the Obama wave. People were going gogo gaga over him. How long would this last, not until November. Time to slow things down.

The timing of his slowdown was met with the Preacher and the "cling" problem. Because he was trying to stay out of the news, he did not attack these problems as strongly as he could of. If you remember the debate in Phil, the first hour was an attack on him. He could of controled this but he was trying not to get into the negative game.

While these problems were painful, they did not change the math problems dogged by Clinton.

As for Fl and MI, the problem there was more what to do with the 55 uncommited vote then anything. If he would lose all the these this would be a problem. He really knew he did not have to worry too much. I think the general mood out there was only Count MI and FL if they do not affect the outcome. Thats what happened on Saturday. IF the race was closer, there would be a different vote.

Now for the general election. He needs to start reving up the engines again soon (end July). He needs to get the Obama wave back in motion.

One problem that was not predicted was the slide he took in April and May. It cost him potential followers that have become so entranced with the "winning and losing" that they will actually "Lose the GE" in order to show they were not wrong in the Primary.

How to regain these people.

The race again McCaine will be much different then the one again Clinton. The two candidates actually differ on many issues. These need to be driven in everyones head over the remaining months.

McCaine has too much history (history = 1/experience) . When he attacks Obama he has a past that will come back to haunt him. This just happened when he tried to attack Obama on speaking with enemy leaders.

I can not see McCaine out lasting Obama. The biggest obsticle will be getting enough people in the right locations. I think the best way to do this is go after his strong hold, the south. Grab a VP who will make you compete in states like MS, AL, GA. I do not know who this is. I like Sam Nun. I think he is solid, but can he get votes. He is also very strong on Defense and can ease any worries in this department. If he can make these states in play, this could open up OH, IN and MI as McCaine will be needing to defend more territories. If we don't Repubs will concentrate on IN, MI, OH and FL.; June 01, 2008 9:31 PM
Unknown said...: Magia,

"Maybe in your world, Leah. Actually, the MI vote comes in, now that the delegates come in (another oops, eh?)"

Another misstatement. Actually, it's because it didn't count that they decided to go with the "69-59" split, which for some is an arbitrary number, but for the RBC was what they thought a real primary would've resulted in (counting the uncommitted and the 30,000 Obama write-ins that weren't counted,... or I guess those people's votes shouldn't count, because they didn't support Hillary, right!?); June 01, 2008 9:31 PM
Unknown said...: Magia,

"And including caucus “votes” when we have no reporting of those votes, is the worst that could be asked of any of us. Come on! Make those states report – it’s the right thing to do."

If that were true, and Hillary thought so, why didn't she reject/ fight those practices before she started running for President? Why wasn't that ever an option in the Clinton campaign, until ... well, until she saw herself losing?
Why wasn't it a problem when her husband was running?

... Why don't you ask yourself those questions?; June 01, 2008 9:37 PM
rkw said...: I'm all for Obama, but I don't buy the run out the clock theory. I do agree that they got a little conservative in their tactics, but in a race like this you go all out all the way.

The simpler explanation is that BHO ran a great campaign by being prepared for post-Feb 5. He ran up a big lead while Clinton futzed around. By the time team Clinton got themselves turned around there was too much ground to make up.; June 01, 2008 9:38 PM
Keryl said...: So what I find most interesting about the Clinton position isn't that you have to do some mental gymnastics to think she's a winner...

It's how baldly Clinton's own team has been willing to complete contradict their own positions.

I vividly recall Clinton saying how the crucial the SD role was, and that's how it should be because they know the candidates, they're supposed to use their judgement blah, blah, blah. That was when she had the SD lead. Ickes made time Russert "repeat after me" that delegates were the only total that mattered in this race", back when they thought superdelegates were going to go their way. Now it's just embarassing to see them have to answer to that.

BTW, Obama may not be completely innocent of this, but he never said SDs shouldn't have a voice, but he thought they should take the vote in their districts into account in their decision process. An often misquoted position.

Clinton scares me because her approach reminds of me of Bush. It was all WMDs, no it was because Al Queda was in Iraq, no it's because Saddam was a bad man. Whatever position works best on that day, without ever acknowledging that you didn't say that yesterday.

That's why the promise of CHANGE works for me. I'm just so tired of the unrelenting self-serving nature of this stuff.; June 01, 2008 9:42 PM
JayW said...: Yam is back!!!!

That is great!!!!

I was worried that your kids wouldnt be talking to you since we all know that all of the young, educated, college age kids are supporting Obama.

I guess your kids are in the "special" program and dont understand that you are a HRC supporter.

Good for you.

Did you bring them a new helmet to wear?

Actually, I lost a bet if you are really visiting your daughters.

I actually thought you were bumping uglies with Aunt Jean to conceive the ultimate devil spawn against Obama.

Thank God I was wrong!!; June 01, 2008 9:49 PM
Kujo said...: RKW:

I don't disagree with what you say in that HRC recovered, but too late. I did not match that in the time lines.

But I do think the Obama camp was doing the calculations. I think his camp would of been much more negative in Pen. You would of heard more about Clinton in Bosnia. If he came out strong it had increased the percentages of giving them more to use against him.; June 01, 2008 9:50 PM
Unknown said...: Oregon Dem

Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder???

What was that? I would've sworn it was indeed Yakaka!

Well, that was funny; June 01, 2008 9:53 PM
tmess2 said...: Read a nice article in Time this week about the McCain Campaign. Seems like a lot of Republicans in light of last year's meltdown and the waste of the last three months are coming to the conclusion that McCain's staff are not quite ready for prime time.; June 01, 2008 10:03 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Yamaka:

Good to Hear from you again. When you left this guy named "stopobamanow" showed up and tried to take up your cause but I think he was a pretty sad excuse for a thinker.

In fact I was s disappointed in him that I tried to pick up your cause. The math is still there for Senator Clinton. If I have it right she needs 202.5 of the remaining delegates and there are 13.5 Edwards out there 31 PDs 203 SDs for a total of 247.5.

One SD broke for Senator Clinto yesterday. So according to your count of them from a couple of weeks back she has at least 199 of the 203. Your count was Edward's delegates would split evenly so most of those 13.5 of Edwards should go to her. Sorry I forgot your predictions on the number of delegates that Senator Clinton would get in Montana and South Dakota, but the 199 plus most of the remaining Edwards delegates should do it - right?

That is great news about your daughter getting that job.

When do you leave for California?; June 01, 2008 10:05 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Leah:

Sweet Potatos - yummers - I like them some much better than yams.

;-); June 01, 2008 10:06 PM
vwis said...: Yam,

Glad you're back. Keep up the good fight.

Never stop believing.; June 01, 2008 10:15 PM
Robert in MN said...: Can a popular vote supporter explain how it does not disinfranchise the caucus states, 4 of which did not report and 9 of which vote at a rate of about 1/5 of what it would be if it were a primary? The only way to compare apples to apples is to count delegates! It it was popular vote, all the states would switch to primaries to be represented. Count all 50 states not 37!; June 01, 2008 10:17 PM
Oregon Dem said...: jason:

Not sure how long you have been following this thread - for me it has been since shortly after 2/5. At first I read all of the posts but never commented.

When it was getting closer to Oregon's turn to vote I saw some inaccuracies in what some of the folks I respected for their opinions on what was going to happen in Oregon. So I joined the discussion on May 1st or 2nd and have been "addicted" ever since.

Yamaka says he is a mental health practicioner (sorry cannot remember at the moment whether he said a real doctor or exactly what) and he tried to be funny with some pretty silly attempts at humor between himself and Senator Obama.

So....

When Yamaka "left" I wanted to see if I (a J.D.) could pick up and be better at humor than Yamaka, and when that humor brought Yamaka back into the fold instead of pretending he was not the same as "stopobamanow"

Most likely I would have to say that neither an MD or a JD (me) is really all that funny.

The last Yamaka post was really Yams though cause I cannot log in as him.; June 01, 2008 10:18 PM
Yamaka said...: Fellow BHO Supporters:

Ya, you have been throwing mud at me for a long time.

You said I am jj/subodh/now "stopObamaNow"; called me all the ugly names. Because I don't belong to your Choir or the Echo Chamber.

Listen, we have serious ideological difference.

I call you all as FAR LEFT Liberal Ideologues of the type of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Kennedy and now BHO.

I am a proud Friend of Bill and Hillary the moderate centrists.

Hillary is the Most Popular Of ALL Primary Candidates in our History, by getting the Most of ALL votes cast and certified!

She has the Message.

BHO is the Most Big Money Maker of ALL Primary Candidates in History.

He is the BigMoneyBag.

If SDs like him, let them Nominate the Minority Candidate (yes pun intended!) and face the dire consequence in the Fall.

I want Hillary to go in style as the proudest Candidate, as she is the Most Popular Candidate - not chosen by the SDs for the insane reason of BigMoney!

Let the Democratic Party nominate another McGovern, Kerry, Mondale and Dukakis, and face the music in the GE.

I assure you one thing about BHO - he is an astute ruthless politician in recent History. See what he has done to the TUCC at Chicago!

All the 8000 members of TUCC are thrown under the bus!

He should have done this long long time ago, when Oprah left it.

Still, the Clintons are the winners!

:-); June 01, 2008 10:18 PM
vwis said...: Yam,

How do you like the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton?; June 01, 2008 10:22 PM
Unknown said...: Jim,

"von,
It has nothing to do with the GE,
just training for BO on how to take a whipping, which prepares him for what he will get in Nov.
jayw,
"Explain to me what part Puerto Rico plays in the general election."
You need mental ability which exceeds that of a moron in order for me to explain anything to you, and that you do not have."

Hey there Jimmy boy, are you trying to de-throne Yakaka with your statements.
Actually, if you don't know how to refute an argument, an insult is really not what's gonna help you make one.

So, I feel I'm gonna get some "insults" coming my way just for showing you some of your shortcomings... That's ok, I really want to see another ridiculous but entertaining "Ickes'like" episode.; June 01, 2008 10:23 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Robert Frost-

Two roads diverged in a wood,
and I-I took the one less travelled
By,
And that has made all the
Difference.; June 01, 2008 10:24 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Hippolytus-9:26p.m.-They've gone plaid...Captain Lonestar; June 01, 2008 10:32 PM
Robert in MN said...: All Hillary supporters should read the new book "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet that studies the group of powers players behind the fundamentalist Christian Right. Their beliefs should shock any Democrat.

Hillary is a "friend" of this group, "less elect than a member, but more chosen than the rest of us." If MSM was awake, this is a bigger faith issue that Reverand Wright. It also explains what we have witnessed for the last 2 months. It is about the belief in power.; June 01, 2008 10:36 PM
Oregon Dem said...: OMG!

Yamaka said...
Fellow BHO Supporters:

= = = = = =

Yam - you are now supporting Senator Obama?????

If so welcome to the club!; June 01, 2008 10:36 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Robert in MN -

I don't understand why the MSM has not delved into Hillary's religion. They had a link to an article on HuffPost a month or so ago regarding 'The Family' and Hillary's involvement in the church/cult.

I think that IF she had been the nominee (which she will not be) then that would have been one of the issues that the Republicans and the media would have focused on.

But WHY haven't they focused NOW on her religion?; June 01, 2008 10:40 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
I believe I presented several facts as well as logic. You on the other hand presented a personal attack without supporting evidence.
I must admit, I cannot recall ever being accused of not using logic. Normally I am accused of using logic too often. I have been accused of having flawed logic, or having some facts incorrect, but never the complete absence of logic or facts.
1)I stated how NH broke the rules, with evidence.
2)I stated why Michigan should be so interested in federal policy.
3)I stated how the current system has led to inequity between the states.
4)I explained why this is a subject worth discussing.
5)I explained that I fully accept and am behind the current RBC ruling, and that my intention was to call into question how acceptable the current policy is for future elections. On this same point, I explained I was defending Senator Carl Levin, who had received many negative comments in this thread. I respect the man, and he represented myself, my friends, and my family very well while I was one of his constituents. I do not take lightly attacks on people I respect, just as you do not take lightly attacks on Barack Obama.
6)I was cordial and respectful in my postings.
6)If I do choose to argue for the sake of argument, I will not do it for hours on end, and I will not type anywhere near as much as I have on this particular subject.
7)Even argument for the sake of argument is not always bad. I learn a lot from arguments. I get to hear others point of views, observe their facts, and become more educated on the issue. I view this as a net positive.; June 01, 2008 10:43 PM
Robert in MN said...: leah, I wouldn't be supprised if members of "The Family" reigned in CNN and much of the other network coverage. A lot of big names belong to The Family and they are powerful. Republican/Democrat is not as much of an issue as access to power and the methodical Christianization of America; June 01, 2008 10:44 PM
magia said...: Once again, you either do not read, or . . I just do not know. But for the record:

I have made no popular vote argument. I only answered Leah's posit about it, which was a reply to someone's query, and then ensuing ones which I believe were erroneous. No argument from me, except to do the math correctly. (Although HRC is making the argument to SD's - in order to get delegates, get it?)

I've made no argument (or insistence, robh) on counting MI as a legitimate contest. I have pointed out the problems inherent in the RBC decision regarding MI, and I do not believe that tmess2 has made a case for it.

tmess: In one sentence you say they threw out the primary, but then state that they had to do something. So they had to do something contrary to their own rules?

For some of the others here, sorry, but I have not picked and chosen rules (as accused). Jason, I don’t even follow you, sorry. Quite frankly, I can’t keep up with the lack of logic or perspicacity evident on this blog. I wonder how many of you would pass a simple high school reading comprehension exam.

Mike in Maryland, funny, as I hadn’t felt particularly disrespected, I was opining about treatment of others. For the record, I have no worry about being respected by you, or your ilk. You have an anile, waspish side to your personality that surfaces whenever you disagree with someone (even if only in your own mind.) Try to make it up to apissedant, if you’d like, since he’s on your team, but I basically ignore your outbursts.

Jason again, I don't get either of your points. Are you saying that the RBC ruling allots delegates but somehow erases the votes? I think that, logically, allotting delegates has now legitimized using the vote count in any tally. ANNOUNCEMENT: I AM NOT MAKING A POPULAR VOTE ARGUMENT. I AM ONLY TRYING TO ADD UP THE NUMBERS. And are you saying it is HRC that controls the reporting of caucus vote records? Of course you aren't, but what is your argument?

robert in mn: caucuses are inherently undemocratic, and the final insult is that you cannot even know how the votes tallied. The only way to compare apples to apples is to allow all voters the ability to vote, meaning to have a full day to vote and a voting place in every precinct, and then to publish the recorded votes.; June 01, 2008 10:45 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: BILL CLINTON

BILL CLINTON

BILL CLINTON

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

We must keep this man OUT of the White House FOREVER ;); June 01, 2008 10:45 PM
suzihussein22 said...: OR Dem-Now that I've got my sweet potatoes ready and let the kids have time on the computer-

Empty suit or this-

http://tinyurl.com/3zlt5c

Feel free to select Option #2 and maybe fill out the address for Fuzzy Satire Land.; June 01, 2008 10:51 PM
Robert in MN said...: magia, What would be the most undemocratic is to dismiss caucuses because some think they are undemocratic. That is what has been arrived at through the democratic process of 13 states. If you don't like that fight to change it but don't dismiss it because it did not benefit your candidate. That is undemocratic.

Caucus are the height of democracy. Have you ever been to one? Those that care show up at caucuses. Generally they are more informed. Caucus goers discuss the issues and, yes, vote on delegates. Getting involved is what democracy should be about, it should not be just voting every couple of years.; June 01, 2008 10:53 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Soft:

How old are your kids (and do they prefer Sweet Potatos over Yams)?

My three daughters are 28, 22 and 20 (and all voted for Seanator Obama.; June 01, 2008 10:58 PM
vwis said...: All,

Did any of you hear Geraldo interviewing in PR. One of his guests made and unsubstantiated claim about the June bomb. He claims the GOP has given a news channel a video of Michelle Obama saying whities. I find it hard to believe or they would have played it. Geraldo said you cannot say that without producing it. How should Obama handle this if is does exist. I personally believe that the Clinton supports will do anything. Give it up! You bunch of sore losers!; June 01, 2008 11:05 PM
suzihussein22 said...: OR Dem-My son is 11 and my daughter is 10. They LOVE sweet potatoes. You can mix them in olive oil and herbs to bake or mash them with regular potatoes or cook them with a roast...; June 01, 2008 11:08 PM
apissedant said...: rob,
They don't care. The same people that loved, supported, and attended caucuses are now claiming they are undemocratic and horrible. I have a friend who is an HRC PD. I have attended two caucuses with me, and several that I was not at. He gave the nomination speech for one of the candidates at one, and was fully entrenched in the process. He never once complained about it, until HRC complained about it. Now he says they are undemocratic and should not be counted.

Oh, and from the two I attended, I must say I had a great time. Everyone was informed, and there was intelligent debate over which of the two candidates to choose. The second one got dirty, because I'm in a terribly gerrymandered district. The first CD of Virginia extends nearly the entire length of the state. It ended up being a northern Virginia vs southern Virginia fight. It was not pretty, and we ended up getting killed in the main election.
Overall, I have never seen more cordial and informed voters than I did at the caucuses. As far as I understand, a caucus was pretty much the very first type of a republic that ever was. I don't know what turnout was like in ancient Athens though.; June 01, 2008 11:09 PM
Unknown said...: Mike in MD,
That was totally uncalled for?
No claim was made, just questions, and I agree with thepissedant, as "liberals" we need to be able to question our leaders, as well as ourselves in the decisions we make!

I really don't know why so much anger in your comment, but I'd like to understand!; June 01, 2008 11:10 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant-

Bill Clinton NEVER complained about caucuses that he 'won' during his presidential races.

I think that Hillary just likes to complain and make up excuses about 'everything' that doesn't go her way.

Everyone knew the rules at the onset and agreed at that time to play by the rules. Now it is only Hillary that finds fault with the rules, caucuses, etc. That is called a 'sore loser' in my book.

.; June 01, 2008 11:18 PM
apissedant said...: jason and ed,
Thanks for your comments.; June 01, 2008 11:21 PM
Unknown said...: Mike in MD,

Your comment at 8:43 is exactly what Apissedant was looking for, well at least that's what I would be looking for.

Those are well explained and supported arguments you made there, and those are probably the arguments the DNC uses against states that want to move their primary/caucus dates.

Thank you; June 01, 2008 11:21 PM
Skip Dodson said...: I become more and more livid every time I hear Hillary and company claim she has won the popular vote. She pontificates about how ALL states should be included, and how ALL of the votes should be counted. Then she makes the statement she has received more votes than any other candidate.

The only way she can make this statement accurate is if she doesn't count all the votes, and/or doesn't include ALL of the states.

She has to include Michigan in the calculation, fail to give Obama credit for any of the 238,168 voters who voted uncommitted because Obama wasn't on the ballot and/or she has to eliminate votes from the caucus states.

Real Clear Politics tabulates the votes including today's Puerto Rico results as follows:

All primaries including Florida but excluding Michigan and the four caucus states: Obama +24,524
Add the four caucus states: Obama +134,746
Add Michigan and credit Obama with 238,168 uncommitted votes: Obama +44,605
Exclude the 238,168 uncommitted votes: Clinton +193,563
Exclude the four caucus states (110,222 votes): Clinton +303,785

Why do I become livid? She berates the current administration for not telling the truth and hiding the facts, yet turns around and uses those same tactics to try to convince superdelegates and the public she has a better chance of winning the election because she has won the popular vote. At the beginning of the primary season she agreed Michigan votes would not be counted. But now that counting Michigan is the only way she can claim the popular vote, she violates her agreement and counts it. And when she counts it she doesn't do it in a manner that accurately reflects the intention of the voters.

We want our President to tell us the truth. To give us a fair and objective picture of what is going on in their administration and follow through on the agreements he or she makes. She is doing none of these things. The bottom line is that when you count all the votes, from all the states and territories, she is not winning the popular vote now. Obama will probably pick up another 10,000 to 12,000 vote margin in the last two primaries so she still won't be ahead in the popular vote.; June 01, 2008 11:24 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
I completely agree and I think it is sad. I really did respect that family despite the issues with his zipper. I really thought they were above that and hoped for their success and continued work in the democratic party. She started giving me a bad taste in my mouth during her senate tenure, which is why I voted for Obama. The way she has reacted since then has been so bad, I don't think there is liquor strong enough to wash this taste out of my mouth. I'll try to invent something once I become a Chemist. I'll send you some if I'm able.

Jason,
Yes, his second comment was a good argument. Not correct, but a totally acceptable argument. Then he came out with another personal attack after that. I don't know, apparently I rubbed him the wrong way.; June 01, 2008 11:25 PM
apissedant said...: skip,
All true. Do you think Chelsea will be better? I want to know more about her, because she doesn't seem like she came from the same stock as her parents. I'm hoping in 20 years she'll show her parents how politics should work.; June 01, 2008 11:29 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hillary Hoping For Delegate Defections

Clinton hopes for switches

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_hopes_for_switches.html

I am sorry but I really think she is a witch!

OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 11:30 PM
Unknown said...: Mike and Apissedant,

You got a good debate going on here.
Please, keep at it. It is very informative.
Just keep being civil to one another and we'll all benefit from it.

Mike that's exactly what I was talking about. When you raise such questions, you end up learning something by having other people weighing in.
Thank you both; June 01, 2008 11:35 PM
Robert in MN said...: Skip,
I wouldn't even play that caucus votes game. It doesn't make sense. Caucus states collect "votes" at about 1/5th the rate as if were a primary. So to count the straw polls out of a caucus and equate those votes to primary votes is voter disenfranchisment. Delegates is the ONLY way to equate primaries and caucusus. The popular vote argument is a complete red herring.

Why? Because we democrats have proportional distribution of delegates! It is not like the general election. If each state allocated electorial college members proportionally no one could win where popular vote exceeded electorial college. Think about it.; June 01, 2008 11:37 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Fashion Icon Yves Saint Laurent Dies At 71

How strange is this.
The man that put women in pantsuits dies right before the woman that is famous for pantsuits goes home and ends her campaign!

The future is on its way - change is in the air ;)

The Past vs. the FUTURE

OBAMA '08
.; June 01, 2008 11:37 PM
magia said...: Leah,

I know you are perceived as the Mother Teresa of this blog, but . . .

first you use the tragic death of a horse as a "fun fact" to use belittling HRC, and now the death of a human being.

Don't you see the nastiness of it?; June 01, 2008 11:41 PM
apissedant said...: magia,
I volunteer phone banked for Tim Kaine. I got the same excuse on election night with a primary. I offered to personally pick them up and drive them to the poll, and all the sudden they changed their tune to not feeling like voting.

Also, this is the exact argument used in the Nevada caucus. To fix this problem, they created satellite caucus sites in Las Vegas, and gave workers time off during caucus hours. Hillary Clinton and the Teachers Union took them to court, claiming that they had, too much access to voting. Hillary Clinton lost the argument, and actually won the satellite caucuses in dispute. She was afraid she would lose them because the Culinary Union had backed Barack. Prior to the endorsement by the Culinary Union, she had raised no objection to the satellite caucuses, which had been proposed weeks beforehand. Her tune keeps changing.; June 01, 2008 11:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: magia-

I never said anything bad about the horse or the man.

My prior post was just an observation that an era has pasted and that the future is on its way.

I have no hangups about death. We all will die someday and I have had endured a few deaths of friends and family in the recent years. If I chose to relate events on the terms of life and death then that is my prerogative and I do not see that you have the right to judge me.

If you are offended by my posts then you have the right not to read them.; June 01, 2008 11:50 PM
Hippolytus said...: Leah Texas4Obama said:
"I am sorry but I really think she is a witch!"
___________
Good thing she can't twitch her nose!; June 01, 2008 11:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA '08; June 01, 2008 11:54 PM
Hippolytus said...: On Wednesday. the house will land on her, and we'll all be singing, "Din dong, the witch is dead!"; June 01, 2008 11:56 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: We have less than 48 hours to go!

I betcha in 2012 it won't take as nearly as long as this time has to wrap it up ;)

.; June 01, 2008 11:59 PM
Yamaka said...: "Bill Clinton NEVER complained about caucuses that he 'won' during his presidential races."

Hillary's supporters are little bit different from Bill's. She has more of women, working and older folks, who are NOT comfortable about caucuses, which take long long and long time; who has that kind of time, these days! Plus some folks need confidential voting booths. Not standing up and yapping about the Candidate!

"I think that Hillary just likes to complain and make up excuses about 'everything' that doesn't go her way."

Yes, she will complain about the RBC stealing her PDs and giving it to her Opponent!

She is the Most Electable Candidate because she has the Most of ALL votes cast and certified.
__________________________

vwis:

I didn't get a chance to read through the article you mention.

What say you?
_____________________________

Folks:

At home my wife and daughter are near neutral politically, although they will be excited about breaking the Glass Ceiling this year!

My son WAS an ardent admirer of BHO. Now he says BHO is just another politician very thirsty of Federal Power! He is a disillusioned young man (19 years)!

___________________________

stopObamaNow:

I like your perspectives. Too bad you left the Democratic Party because of the incompetence of Pelosi and Reed.

I agree these two came to power to change the course of things in Washington DC. But What did they do in the last 1.5 years? Nothing!

The RBC of DNC makes me so mad, that I may even quit the Party in protest!

They are a bunch of very arrogant rotten politicians, who don't follow their own Rules on the Books! Like policemen, district attorneys and judges not following the Law!! Horrendous!

They very eagerly punished the Victims of MI and FL. They listened to the same Villains (the MI Democratic Party) who created this mess in the first place! Unbelievable!! They rewarded the Villains: Gov of MI and other SDs!!
______________________________
But, next week end I will be in Austin to stand up for Hillary as a Delegate from our SD 13. I want to compete for a place in the Delegation to Denver.

If I win I will gladly go to Denver as a Hillary PD!
_________________________________

Folks,

I will be infrequently visiting this site, till I get back to Houston.

This weekend at Austin, then to Stanford U to prepare my son who is going on a South Asian Tour to understand foreign cultures and diversity (sponsored and paid by Stanford U!).

So, don't yell at Hillary supporters who are a few at this Site, infested with BHO people.

Will I support BHO as a Nominee?

Maybe after he is the Nominee!!

Then, back to Houston, and my pool!; June 02, 2008 12:02 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I hope Senator Obama remembers to play some basketball Tuesday - for good luck ;)

I wonder if he forgot to play today ;); June 02, 2008 12:03 AM
apissedant said...: Leah,
I agree, although I think everyone has the right to judge everyone. I don't really consider myself Christian, so that judge not be not judged thing has no authority over me. ;)
I also thought it was funny and I laughed. Dying is part of life, and you in no way insulted the dead man. The other one is a horse, and I don't belong to PETA.; June 02, 2008 12:03 AM
Hippolytus said...: The popular vote issue is a red herring, but for those that want to debate it -- pay attention to RCP line six (or any other source you want to use that takes into account the votes of everyone in all states that casted a ballot. That's not a metric you'll see HRC using, because she knows she would lose it.

Motto of the Clinton campaign: "The Audacity of Desperation".; June 02, 2008 12:04 AM
Oregon Dem said...: Nite all:

May you dream sweet dreams of Yamaka's last staement here"

"Fellow BHO supporters"

and hope for the day that all of those that are really democrats coming together and not debating such silliness as who amongst our candidates has the most populat votes but rather how we can makew certain our party's candidate can and more importantly WILL win in November.; June 02, 2008 12:05 AM
apissedant said...: Yam,
I have been to two caucuses, and I never had to vocally support a candidate. I did once, but I never had to, I chose to. At the end we filled out ballots that we did not show to anyone, we just turned them in to be counted. I do not know if this is how all caucuses go, so let's ask leah. She is from Texas, she should know.; June 02, 2008 12:05 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yakama-

I am in shock!

I cannot remember a time in recent history that you have ever quoted me before!

Times they are a changin'

OBAMA '08; June 02, 2008 12:07 AM
Hippolytus said...: Maxwell Smart to Hillary (with his arms outstretched):
"Missed it by that much!"; June 02, 2008 12:08 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oregon Dem-

Sweet dreams to you and sweet dreams to those that may be heading to bed soon and to those that have already left.

OBAMA '08; June 02, 2008 12:08 AM
Robert in MN said...: Magia,
I caucused this year for the second time and for the first time in 20 years. I waited in a long line, endured a stuffed room and spend over 3 hours there. I vote in every election of any consequence. I can honestly say that this year is the most connected I ever felt to democracy. I was a part of the action and not just some number in a voting booth.

In Minnesota, my elected and representative government passed laws to make Minnesota a caucus state. That is how we chose our delegates, the number of which is in proportion to our population and the number of democrats in our state. Are you saying that since some think caucuses are undemocratic, we should only consider popular vote, or that popular vote is more important? Is Minnesota the 21st largest state dramatically less important then Wisconsin the 20th largest because Wisconsin had 1,100,00 primary votes and Minnesota only 210,00 caucus votes?

I hope you and others of like mind will rethink the argument on “popular vote” and stop diminishing my Super Tuesday participation, my election as a delegate to the district convention, my wife’s election and our votes for Obama delegates. That is how we do things in Minnesota, it is not better or worse, just different than a primary state. And worthy of its equivalent weight in the only way to equalize the two systems—delegates.; June 02, 2008 12:09 AM
Hippolytus said...: Sounds like the Yammer is ready to come in from the Dark Side.
"May the force be with him!"
Obama Won Kenobi; June 02, 2008 12:13 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant said :" Yam,
I have been to two caucuses, and I never had to vocally support a candidate. I did once, but I never had to, I chose to. At the end we filled out ballots that we did not show to anyone, we just turned them in to be counted. I do not know if this is how all caucuses go, so let's ask leah. She is from Texas, she should know."
__________

Well here on the west side of Houston...

1) We put our names and info on a sign-in sheet and wrote down OBAMA or HILLARY

Then we had the option to leave or stay.

2) The folks running the caucus added up the Obama's and Hillary's

3) They told us how many people chose each candidate - then they figured out how many delegates per each delegate for our precinct.

4) Then we broke up into two groups - the Obama group and the Hillary group.

5) Then each group elected the correct number of delegates and alternates to represent our candidate.

6) Then we all went and sat down together again and voted to accept the results, a few local issues also were voted on, etc.

And that is about it in a nutshell.; June 02, 2008 12:16 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: I caucused this year. If somehow the "popular vote" idea reigns, it will personally diminish the effort I put into it on a Saturday. My husband came to the same caucus. We say friends and neighbors in an environment of friendly exchange. Yes, it ran from 10am to 1pm (or something like that, it might have been more like 2), but overall, it was a positive. If my elderly neighbor had wanted to come, we would have given her a lift, but she happens to be a Canadian citizen and doesn't vote in US elections.

and it was PACKED. our precinct went outside (it was pleasant enough out, not raining anyway). PACKED. the precinct chair was overwhelmed - I think she was used to a nomination caucus being small enough that you could seat everyone in a booth at Denny's. This year, it was 50+.

If Hil wants to discount caucuses, I would say, from my state? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. I won't let that happen.

but all that is immaterial, since it's about delegates, not about popular vote.; June 02, 2008 12:19 AM
Yamaka said...: apis:

I am in the SD13 of TX.

Our Caucus was a terrible mess. We were grouped FIRST, then openly fill out the Exhibit Sheets.

Nothing confidential there!

For me it was okay, as I am a political junkie! But there were many older folks who were very uncomfortable and many left w/o choosing their Candidate!

Our Caucus got over around 1 am!

How could we expect women, working and older Americans to go through it?

Our Senatorial District 13 Convention was another mess! No Rules were followed. The Convention Chair Mr. Net West did not know anything about the Procedures!

WE were there from 7:30 am till midnight!

Caucuses ARE very inconvenient form of voting.

Thank God, there is none in the GE!; June 02, 2008 12:21 AM
Kujo said...: I am not sure what is the big hangup on Caucus. I know in one state you walk in and go to the left if you want to debate, OR go to the right and place your vote. You don't have to sit and stay. People make a big deal about it, I don't have a problem with it.; June 02, 2008 12:23 AM
Kujo said...: Caucus is not a inconvient form of voting, the implementation might be. Same thing for those who stand in line for a few hours to place a vote at a regular primary because the staff was not prepared. Don't blame the process, blame the people administering it.; June 02, 2008 12:25 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka-

I think the point is though that it is inconvenient in some cases for BOTH supporters of Obama and Clinton.

There are old people, mother with children, and working people that also support Obama not only Clinton.

The rules are no different for one candidate over the other.

It is fine to say that caucuses are more inconvenient than voting in a voting booth - but it is wrong to cry 'foul' and say that it is disadvantaging one candidate over the other.

Just my opinion - and of course Mother Theresa must be correct!
(Just joking! Don't get ya'll's noses bent out of shape ;); June 02, 2008 12:27 AM
apissedant said...: yam,
First off.... I just found the sexist on the post. I am sorry to inform you, but you are him. How can we expect women to show up for a caucus? Are they handicapped by their sexual organs? Will this adversely effect Hillary's ability to answer the phone at 3 am? If this is the case, then it would be understandable why we would not a female president. You should try to rephrase that in a nonsexist manner. Again, as already stated, the problem was with those that ran your caucus, not the caucus itself. I remember watching people wait out in the rain for 8 hours during the 2004 election.; June 02, 2008 12:29 AM
vwis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 02, 2008 12:30 AM
Hippolytus said...: Kudos to Yamaka for being enough of a stand up guy to come on the blog and take the heat. I'm impressed, Yam. Have fun on the rest of your trip, and best wishes to your son on his travels!; June 02, 2008 12:33 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: vwis-

I think you might have meant the PETER PAUL lawsuit - not Ron Paul ;)

OBAMA '08; June 02, 2008 12:37 AM
Kujo said...: Did anyone see that lady crying on the news (I did not watch the rules committee, only a small snipit at the end of the day. If I was a true DCW blogger, I would of Tivo'd it.) saying it had nothing to do with the fact that she supported Clinton, just that she could not understand how we could not count people vote (cry cry cry).

If you say it did you think Aunt Jean? I can not get that ladies face out of my mind every time I read an Aunt Jean comment.; June 02, 2008 12:39 AM
Kujo said...: A side note for those who continuoulsy have to re-type the word verification. I swear half the time I got it right and they got it wrong.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.; June 02, 2008 12:40 AM
vwis said...: Leah,

Yes, I meant Peter Paul. I should of proofed my post.; June 02, 2008 12:41 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Kujo-

I didn't see the lady that cried but did you see this video of the lady that got tossed out of the RBC meeting?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

.; June 02, 2008 12:42 AM
vwis said...: Leah,

Let me try again.

Ant,

My understanding about ancient Athens (and I honestly wasn't there and don't know for sure) was that they caucused so turnout and PV don't count.

Also, I am thinking about donating a orange pantsuit to Hillary so that she can keep up her chameleon charade for her appearance at the Peter Paul lawsuit in August.

Sorry, although, I see this primary as over I still have much venting to do toward the Clinton type of thinking. I have to deal with that type all the time where I live. I laugh only because I'm sick of crying.; June 02, 2008 12:46 AM
Hippolytus said...: Leah Texas4Obama said...
"I didn't see the lady that cried but did you see this video of the lady that got tossed out of the RBC meeting?"
_______
I thought to the funniest part of that pathetic performance was when the woman said "I'm not going to keep my mouth shut anymore." I have a hard time believing she has been keeping her mouth shut.; June 02, 2008 12:50 AM
magia said...: apissedant, et al

I need you to look at this (caucus voting) not with regard to Obama/Clinton, but in the context of who gets to vote. We don't have much data, but this year was the biggest turnout in history, and we have two states that had both primaries and caucuses. The results:

TX:
attended caucus: 1,000,000
votes in primary: 2,874,986

WA:
attended caucus:244,458
votes in primary: 691,381

These numbers point to a virtual 3 to 1 ratio in turnout for primary versus caucus. You have to acknowledge that the primary process allows more voter involvement, which for me is just more democratic.; June 02, 2008 12:52 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: "My mama taught me to play by the rules"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Znob6zUnIM

Donna Brazile ROCKS ;)

.; June 02, 2008 12:52 AM
apissedant said...: I don't recall that much honestly. I remember that all Athenians met under a tree, or on a hill, and voiced what they believed. They voted and elected people to represent them in the government that they had established. That is what I recall of it. The point is that it was a meeting of those that felt like voting and discussing, and that people declared their support in one direction or the other.

Leah,
All of you Texans, including Yam, have not said anything about the massive Hillary lockout that the news kept saying was happening all over Texas. Are you saying that didn't really happen?; June 02, 2008 12:55 AM
Kujo said...: Leah,

I heard people talking about her, know I know.

Also so the video on Harold Ickes video. Have to agree with him. We should not give the vote 69 59. Should be 0-0.; June 02, 2008 12:55 AM
Hippolytus said...: magia, you don't think very much of the idea of federalism, do you? I prefer primaries, too, but say:
"Chacun chacun gout!" (each to one's own taste).; June 02, 2008 12:56 AM
Unknown said...: I am thinking that the Clintons felt they had a chance if they stole all the delegates in Michigan and got Florida at full strength...but absent that- they know it is over...it would seem that each side knows exactly how many of the undecided supers they have in their column...so at this point I think the Obama campaign can basically tell HRC- this ends on 6/4- or we start to embarrass you...and that means announcing defections from Clinton to Obama of Supers, Staff, and surrogates....It is likely that at least 100 of HRC's supers are extremely soft and can be pried away...

For HRC- I suspect the price she will extract from Obama is to get rid of proportionality and to ask him to resurrect her standing in the black community- because HRC cannot win even in 2012 (if Obama loses) or 2016- unless these two things are changed...; June 02, 2008 12:57 AM
apissedant said...: vwis,
To clarify, the first Republic worked successfully off of a caucus. People were not able to use secret ballots or anything like that. People still voiced their opposition and voted accordingly. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I have no problem saying what I believe regardless of what others may believe. My car is coated in political bumper stickers, and every election my lawn is filled with various yard signs. I am proud of my choices and I enjoy voicing them. There have been no negative repercussions. This, considering every organization I have worked for has been republican, and the school I attend is largely republican. Why would I ever want to hide my beliefs in a society so focused on free speech?
I don't recall the constitution saying anything about free anonymous speech.; June 02, 2008 12:58 AM
magia said...: robert in mn said . . "I hope you and others of like mind will rethink the argument on “popular vote”"

Ok, it's not only robert, so here's my challenge:

If I have made a popular vote argument (which I believe means that the popular vote should be the determining factor in this nomination process), please quote it for me.

If correcting what I perceive as math errors, or errors in logical thinking, constitutes making a popular vote argument, all I can say is:
"Yikes!"

and good night; June 02, 2008 1:01 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: It depends on how you define 'more democratic'

It is the people of the states that decide if they want a primary or a caucus.

As in the case of Texas they decided to have a two-step process. The people have a choice if they wish to participate in the caucus after they vote in the primary. It is the person's choice to do so or not to do so. That the part of democracy. To vote or not to vote. Just because some people decided not to participate in the caucus (for reasons unknown) does not mean that the caucus was undemocratic.

People in America caucused long before people went and voted via an electronic voting machine.

Also, let us not forget that America is NOT a democracy. America is a 'representative democracy'. So in my opinion the choosing of delegates to represent the voice of the people in each precinct is more in line with how our government is structured as opposed to 'looking at the total of the popular vote in all 50 states'.

THIS IS A DELEGATE RACE not a popular vote 'beauty contest'.

OBAMA '08; June 02, 2008 1:05 AM
apissedant said...: ok, goodnight all! If you happen to find out more about Athens voting, please let me know. I'm always interested in learning. Also, if you happen to find a way to defend the NH argument, or the Iowa NH first vote laws, please inform me of those too. Enjoy your night, and I'm sure I'll talk to all of you again soon.

Yam,
I am still waiting for a response on the sexist remark that women cannot be expected to caucus.; June 02, 2008 1:07 AM
Hippolytus said...: jcaesar91,
I suspect that you are right in the first paragraph of your post.
As to the second paragraph:
(1) I guess Obama and Hillary can campaign together before predominately black audiences and profess solidarity, but I have to believe that the AA community is going to be wary of her for a long time to come. It's going to be hard to get the poison out of that well.
(2) I'm not sure what you mean by getting rid of proportionality -- could you please elaborate?
Thanks.; June 02, 2008 1:08 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 4001 – 4200 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

4317 comments:

Tags