Florida and Michigan delegates?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:26 am

Here's where the nightmare is located folks. How does the DNC NOT seat delegates from the two states they are punishing for daring to hold primaries on their own terms..? Good luck getting MY vote in the fall if this is how they operate.

The one thing I will say for Hillary is that she was calling for them to be seated back when she still was ahead..

I think the 'do-over' is the only fair option since folks may not have voted in the earlier ones because they thought they wouldn't count anyways.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 009/NEWS07

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:19 pm

rjwould;793125 wrote: I agree, but both campaigns did agree to abide by the decision of the DNC. Clinton became concerned and voiced her objection only after Obama had become a legitimate threat.

The RNC did the same thing to a couple of states as well, although I can't remember which ones..

Actually she said something at the time of the michigan primary. But I don't actually care about her. I'm more concerned with the DNC having the arrogance to tell two states that they 'don't count'.... the potential for those voters to make the point rather forcefully come the fall, would be enormous, IMO. Way to much is being counted on the thought that folks have no where else to go with their vote. Well, they do and it's best that they not put the voters in a position of wanting to show the DNC where they can put their vote...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:39 pm

flopstock;793546 wrote: Actually she said something at the time of the michigan primary. But I don't actually care about her. I'm more concerned with the DNC having the arrogance to tell two states that they 'don't count'.... the potential for those voters to make the point rather forcefully come the fall, would be enormous, IMO. Way to much is being counted on the thought that folks have no where else to go with their vote. Well, they do and it's best that they not put the voters in a position of wanting to show the DNC where they can put their vote...

Surely it is the party apparatus within the state that is arranging the vote in defiance of the party's stated requirements. If the party wishes to declare such a vote invalid then it is perfectly within its remit.

If the voters have a problem with being disenfranchised then their beef should be with the party hierarchy within the state rather than the chosen candidate in the main election.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:46 pm

I read somewhere that the democratic party have introduced a form of proportional representation in their elections, which is on of the reasons the contest is actually a contest. Is that true?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:27 pm

gmc;793582 wrote: I read somewhere that the democratic party have introduced a form of proportional representation in their elections, which is on of the reasons the contest is actually a contest. Is that true?

Appears to be so - whereas almost all of the states have allocated all of their votes to one republican or another (North Dakota being a notable exception) the democrats appear to have split their allocation in every state.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:12 pm

Bryn Mawr;793574 wrote: Surely it is the party apparatus within the state that is arranging the vote in defiance of the party's stated requirements. If the party wishes to declare such a vote invalid then it is perfectly within its remit.

If the voters have a problem with being disenfranchised then their beef should be with the party hierarchy within the state rather than the chosen candidate in the main election.

That's not how it works. So far as I'm concerned the DNC needs to throw the Illinois primary when the members of my state say to run it, not when a bunch of hot shots from more 'powerful' place tell us to..

If they pulled something similar here, it would be ralph nadar or john mccain for this girl...

... yep, i'm vindictive...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:20 am

flopstock;793791 wrote: That's not how it works. So far as I'm concerned the DNC needs to throw the Illinois primary when the members of my state say to run it, not when a bunch of hot shots from more 'powerful' place tell us to..

If they pulled something similar here, it would be ralph nadar or john mccain for this girl...

... yep, i'm vindictive...

Given that the voting in each primary affects the voting in all subsequent primaries, where does national tactical planning come into all of this?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:09 am

Bryn Mawr;793943 wrote: Given that the voting in each primary affects the voting in all subsequent primaries, where does national tactical planning come into all of this?

So far as I am concerned, national tactical planning is great as a concept and 'general' game plan, but had no business being turned into the farce it has become.

NTP allows 4 states of 'someones' choosing to hold early primaries and get heaps of publicity and news coverage. I'm guessing that Michigan and Florida were NOT the 'someones' included in the choosing.

The national party schedules a convention. IMO it should be left to the state parties to determine the means of selecting delegates(primary/caucus) and when those events will be held.

Super-delegates and the electoral college are another major annoyance for me... but i'll save that bitching later...:p

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:16 am

Right now, it looks like the State of Michigan is going to have to foot the bill for another primary election because Obama pulled his name off of our ballot in January.

We have enough problems without having to cough up the kind of cash it will cost for this. IMHO - our delegates should vote as the public voted in the election we already had.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:32 am

Obama adviser quits after describing Clinton as a 'monster

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93161.html

Seems you can hint insinuate and otherwise imply but not say outright what you mean.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:52 pm

Why are tax dollars involved in any party primary or caucus AT ALL??

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:25 pm

Accountable;797338 wrote: Why are tax dollars involved in any party primary or caucus AT ALL??

That IS a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Better that then a study to examine the effects of cow farts on the ozone, don't you think?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:41 pm

LilacDragon;797373 wrote: That IS a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Better that then a study to examine the effects of cow farts on the ozone, don't you think?
Not rhetorical at all. Not in the least. GENERAL elections, fine, but to choose who the party will endorse?? I don't see how anybody but party members should be involved at all.

eta: cow farts smell better than politics anyway.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:29 pm

Accountable;797381 wrote: Not rhetorical at all. Not in the least. GENERAL elections, fine, but to choose who the party will endorse?? I don't see how anybody but party members should be involved at all.

eta: cow farts smell better than politics anyway.

A truer word never was said!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:21 am

What happens if the delegates give their votes to someone who doesn't have the popular support If for instance one of the super delegates (what is that by the way) supports clinton when their state voted for obama?

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:47 am

gmc;798281 wrote: What happens if the delegates give their votes to someone who doesn't have the popular support If for instance one of the super delegates (what is that by the way) supports clinton when their state voted for obama?

Great question, GMC

A superdelegate is someone who has been specially selected to cast a delegate vote; these could be governors, senators, former presidents -- any person whom the party perceives has a wealth of knowledge about the candidates and what is best for our country.

There is A LOT of pressure for the superdelegates to cast their votes in line with the popular vote -- a recent survey said that over 60% of individuals feel the superdelegate votes should follow the popular vote. If they don't, many citizens will feel even *more* disenfranchised with their political party.

But remember: there are a total of 800 superdelegate votes to be cast. Given the incredible closeness of the delegate totals for each candidate, these votes are heavily prized by Clinton and Obama. These are the votes that will most likely decide the presidential race.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:54 am

cherandbuster;798323 wrote: Great question, GMC

A superdelegate is someone who has been specially selected to cast a delegate vote; these could be governors, senators, former presidents -- any person whom the party perceives has a wealth of knowledge about the candidates and what is best for our country.

There is A LOT of pressure for the superdelegates to cast their votes in line with the popular vote -- a recent survey said that over 60% of individuals feel the superdelegate votes should follow the popular vote. If they don't, many citizens will feel even *more* disenfranchised with their political party.

But remember: there are a total of 800 superdelegate votes to be cast. Given the incredible closeness of the delegate totals for each candidate, these votes are heavily prized by Clinton and Obama. These are the votes that will most likely decide the presidential race.

Eight hundred out of how many total?

If the superdeligates are constrained to vote with public sentiment then why have them. If they're not then, damn right, the public is being disenfranchised and the "establishment" wins again.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:57 am

Bryn Mawr;798335 wrote: Eight hundred out of how many total?

If the superdeligates are constrained to vote with public sentiment then why have them. If they're not then, damn right, the public is being disenfranchised and the "establishment" wins again.

All good questions, Bryn. The presence of superdelegates in the first place implies that "we the people" can't make an informed, educated decision ourselves.

That's pretty sad.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:08 am

cherandbuster;798323 wrote: Great question, GMC

A superdelegate is someone who has been specially selected to cast a delegate vote; these could be governors, senators, former presidents -- any person whom the party perceives has a wealth of knowledge about the candidates and what is best for our country.

There is A LOT of pressure for the superdelegates to cast their votes in line with the popular vote -- a recent survey said that over 60% of individuals feel the superdelegate votes should follow the popular vote. If they don't, many citizens will feel even *more* disenfranchised with their political party.

But remember: there are a total of 800 superdelegate votes to be cast. Given the incredible closeness of the delegate totals for each candidate, these votes are heavily prized by Clinton and Obama. These are the votes that will most likely decide the presidential race.

What do you reckon will happen?

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:14 am

gmc;798446 wrote: What do you reckon will happen?

GMC, it is anybody's guess.

I think there is heavy public pressure to go with the candidate who has accumulated the most delegate votes by the time of the democratic convention, which is when the superdelegates vote.

After eight years of a Republican White House, the Democrats need to present themselves as unified. I say they go with the popular vote.

Anyone wanna place an innocent little wager with me on that one?

(I love politics and betting!!) :p

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:53 pm

cherandbuster;798323 wrote: Great question, GMC

A superdelegate is someone who has been specially selected to cast a delegate vote; these could be governors, senators, former presidents -- any person whom the party perceives has a wealth of knowledge about the candidates and what is best for our country.

There is A LOT of pressure for the superdelegates to cast their votes in line with the popular vote -- a recent survey said that over 60% of individuals feel the superdelegate votes should follow the popular vote. If they don't, many citizens will feel even *more* disenfranchised with their political party.

But remember: there are a total of 800 superdelegate votes to be cast. Given the incredible closeness of the delegate totals for each candidate, these votes are heavily prized by Clinton and Obama. These are the votes that will most likely decide the presidential race.Gee. Seems like the Democratic Party isn't very ... well ... democratic, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:36 am

Accountable;799039 wrote: Gee. Seems like the Democratic Party isn't very ... well ... democratic, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Ours aren't either whicjh is why so few vote. We have PR in the scottish elections which have wakened things up a bit-hence my interest in your having PR. The party machine don't like it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:38 am

rjwould;799119 wrote: True..The question becomes; Would you rather be out in left field or right field...I'll take left field....Lefties may be a bit strange, but thats better than being like.......RUSH LIMPBAUGH or BRIT HUME:eek:.......
I prefer to stand on my own.

I'd love to get away from party politics altogether, but I don't see how it's possible.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:39 am

gmc;799238 wrote: Ours aren't either whicjh is why so few vote. We have PR in the scottish elections which have wakened things up a bit-hence my interest in your having PR. The party machine don't like it.
PR?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:14 pm

Accountable;799253 wrote: PR?

Proportional representation. My understanding is hat a form of PR is being used in the democratic primaries

posted by rjwould

RUSH LIMPBAUGH or BRIT HUME

I think you should vote for the one with the funniest name.

Lefties! lefties! you don't have any left wing politicians do you? they just seem to be right wing and more right wing.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:42 pm

rjwould;800088 wrote: It's all relative, we still have Ted Kennedy.

was he not the one that drove of the Tallahassee bridge or is that a country song. I was going to give you a link to one of our socialist rags but decided you might find this funnier

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/index.php?issue=1203

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:06 pm

rjwould;800177 wrote: Teddy takes a lot of grief for that incident, but there is really nothing to it.

:yh_ghost

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:32 pm

If Hillary keeps winning primaries, these two states are going to be the kiss of death for democrats come november. I can't see Obama wanting those delegates seated and you just CANNOT tell two states that they don't count in your bid to become president

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:23 am

What happen if Obama has the majority of the popular vote but the super delegates select Hilary? Effectively disenfranchising the ordinary voters. Could Obama still stand for president?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:06 am

gmc;844500 wrote: What happen if Obama has the majority of the popular vote but the super delegates select Hilary? Effectively disenfranchising the ordinary voters. Could Obama still stand for president?
As I understand it, Hilary could be selected as the nominee. That's what I'm hoping for. Obama supporters, and fair-minded Democrats, would push him to run anyway as an independent. If it goes right, the Democratic Party could split into two parties.

I only wish something similar would happen to the Republican Party as well. Destroying our one-party-with-two-names would rejuvenate our system and make the average voter matter again.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:17 am

Accountable;844539 wrote: As I understand it, Hilary could be selected as the nominee. That's what I'm hoping for. Obama supporters, and fair-minded Democrats, would push him to run anyway as an independent. If it goes right, the Democratic Party could split into two parties.

I only wish something similar would happen to the Republican Party as well. Destroying our one-party-with-two-names would rejuvenate our system and make the average voter matter again.

I read somewhere that proportional representation is being used in he democrat primaries and is one of the reasons this particular one is so lively. We introduced it for the Scottish parliament and it has had the effect of kicking the election wide open the way it should be. The party machines don't like it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:30 am

gmc;844546 wrote: I read somewhere that proportional representation is being used in he democrat primaries and is one of the reasons this particular one is so lively. We introduced it for the Scottish parliament and it has had the effect of kicking the election wide open the way it should be. The party machines don't like it.
Some states use it, some don't. The national party has the super delegates to think clearly when they think the voters don't, so that things don't get out of control. Let's see how "wide open" they let it get.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:36 am

Accountable;844555 wrote: Some states use it, some don't. The national party has the super delegates to think clearly when they think the voters don't, so that things don't get out of control. Let's see how "wide open" they let it get.

Surely if the national party ignore ordinary members you end up with no members and no party? Which is what happened to the tories and is now happening to Labour.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:45 am

So then there is hope.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:09 am

Accountable;845721 wrote: So then there is hope.

It's your country, supposedly the people rule. If you want change go for it.