DC Area Voters

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by callat703:
No, it means she didn't play by the rules as the DNC requested. In fact, 40% of voters turned out and voted "Undeclared" or some variation of that in protest.

Try not to confuse Mankie with the facts. It's not nice to pick on old people that way.

I think that should be 'try not to confuse politics with the facts'

…as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
…as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?

I doubt that every member of the Florida legislature is Republican. The vote on the bill that changed the primary date was 118-0.

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
for what its worth, id be less against redoing those primaries than simply counting the votes. ironically, those primaries could have meant more in the traditional cycle than they would have early on

The votes already cast CANNOT be counted. There should be a re-do, paid for BY THE STATE. (Although I agree even that is a bitter pill to swallow because, in the end, these late elections will end being incredibly important – due to their own flauting of the rules and the process.)

The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.

Candidates did not campaign there, many folks may have not voted based on the lack of standing. You simply cannot rely on the 'unsanctioned primary' results.

As for the overall rules changing, you know it was after 1968 that the use of primaries became common. Until 1968 there were only 13 - 20 primaries per election (it varied).

And this whole Super Delegate thing – just created in 1982.

Originally posted by Bags:

The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.

yeah, damn the florida legislature and governor for moving michigan's primary…

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Bags:

The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.

yeah, damn the florida legislature and governor for moving michigan's primary…

That would be the REPUBLICAN Governor…and who gives a toss about Michigan, it's FL the republicans look to for dodgy vote counting, as history has taught us.

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Bags:

The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.

yeah, damn the florida legislature and governor for moving michigan's primary…

That would be the REPUBLICAN Governor…and who gives a toss about Michigan, it's FL the republicans look to for dodgy vote counting, as history has taught us.

as GGW pointed out, it was a real partisan split of 118-0 to move the primary. at least in florida everyone was on the ballot. . michigan democrats only had hillary, kucinich and none of the above.

btw, i might add that the RNC took away half of florida and michigan's delegates for this egregious attack on tradition.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, i might add that the RNC took away half of florida and michigan's delegates for this egregious attack on tradition.

In a winner take all format, a possible solution. In a split delegate format based on precinct by precinct voting, that was never a possible solution for the Dems.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, i might add that the RNC took away half of florida and michigan's delegates for this egregious attack on tradition.

In a winner take all format, a possible solution. In a split delegate format based on precinct by precinct voting, that was never a possible solution for the Dems.

Oh my god, imagine the wrangling over wich precincts get to be part of the 'half.'

I was focusing on FL – that's were my dad lives so we've been talking about it a lot. Isn't Michigan one of the states that connects the East coast to California??

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
…as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?

I doubt that every member of the Florida legislature is Republican. The vote on the bill that changed the primary date was 118-0.

You got me, I wasn't aware of that. I should have known that everyone in FL is screwy (and I can say that because I grew up there…). :cool:

Originally posted by Bags:

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
…as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?

I doubt that every member of the Florida legislature is Republican. The vote on the bill that changed the primary date was 118-0.

You got me, I wasn't aware of that. I should have known that everyone in FL is screwy (and I can say that because I grew up there…). :cool:

..and they're only screwy because they're all transplanted northerners.

A few months ago, it would've been hard to imagine any possible way the Democrats could screw up enough to let the Republicans take the White House again – after this Tuesday, it's no longer difficult to imagine at all.

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
A few months ago, it would've been hard to imagine any possible way the Democrats could screw up enough to let the Republicans take the White House again – after this Tuesday, it's no longer difficult to imagine at all.

You have a much better outlook than I do. I've been convinced since day one that the Democrats will find a way to screw this up. Despite my begging and pleading to the contrary, they are well on their way.

Well, it also took the Republicans to not screw themselves up… completely in spite of thesmelves, they picked their only electable nominee, even though that looked impossible a few months ago.

http://www.surveyusa.com/

Very interesting survey looking at potential electoral votes in the general election.

Hillary demands Samantha Power be fired and she resigns? When is Wolfson going to resign for the Ken Starr comment.

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Hillary demands Samantha Power be fired and she resigns?

It was the right call. Samantha is a brilliant woman, as I learned first hand while working with her in the late 90's in Eastern Europe. She "corrected me" on more than one occasion as a young lawyer. I can see how her passion could lead to a mistake like this (then again, I think my passion was to blame for me name calling this week as well), but she's in the public eye. She can't do that. And an Irish girl should know better how to deal with Scottish tabloid journalism.

Originally posted by vansmack:
It was the right call. Samantha is a brilliant woman, as I learned first hand while working with her in the late 90's in Eastern Europe. She "corrected me" on more than one occasion as a young lawyer. I can see how her passion could lead to a mistake like this (then again, I think my passion was to blame for me name calling this week as well), but she's in the public eye. She can't do that. And an Irish girl should know better how to deal with Scottish tabloid journalism.

I more have a problem with Obama allowing there to be a perception that Hillary had a hand in the resignation. Yet there is little response from Obama on the daily crap coming out of these morning Clinton conference calls. I realize Obama's campaign is trying to give the impression of taking the high road, but it would make me feel better if they hit back once in a while. And thats whats important, keeping me happy.

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
When is Wolfson going to resign for the Ken Starr comment.

That would require Hillary to run her campaign with the same dignity as Obama. I don't expect Wolfson to be fired until people start pointing out the differences in how one person runs their campaign agaisnt the other.

Let's not forget, though, she has fired staffers in the past who have made disparaging remarks publicly about Obama's drug use and those that forwarded the now famous Obama "Muslim" email.

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I realize Obama's campaign is trying to give the impression of taking the high road, but it would make me feel better if they hit back once in a while. And thats whats important, keeping me happy.

This is the campaigns conumndrum right now - and I don't think there's an easy answer.

When I read yesterday that Obama was going to sharpen his criticism, I was disappointed. But I bet many like you were elated to hear that he's going to fight back. I don't think the campaign fully knows what to do. You can't preach to try to break the Washington Establishment and then get sucked right into it after a weekend that absolutely epitomized the Washington Establishment. Worse yet, the Hill and Bill show was terribly effective in their use Establishment Politics (which to me, tells a lot more about the voters than it does about the Clintons). I don't know if anybody saw the 60 Minutes piece on Ohio voters, but I realized that Obama was in trouble after watching the one guy who was undecided, but was leaning towards Obama after he cleared up the national anthem, muslim and getting sworn in on the Koran questions...

I hope he avoids it, but it is looking less and less likely that he can.

EDIT: I didn't actually watch the rest of that video. I have no idea who the Young Turks are and could care less - I only wanted to point out the first minute or so.

Originally posted by vansmack:
This is the campaigns conumndrum right now - and I don't think there's an easy answer.

When I read yesterday that Obama was going to sharpen his criticism, I was disappointed. But I bet many like you were elated to hear that he's going to fight back. I don't think the campaign fully knows what to do. You can't preach to try to break the Washington Establishment and then get sucked right into it after a weekend that absolutely epitomized the Washington Establishment. Worse yet, the Hill and Bill show was terribly effective in their use Establishment Politics (which to me, tells a lot more about the voters than it does about the Clintons). I don't know if anybody saw the 60 Minutes piece on Ohio voters, but I realized that Obama was in trouble after watching the one guy who was undecided, but was leaning towards Obama after he cleared up the national anthem, muslim and getting sworn in on the Koran questions...

I hope he avoids it, but it is looking less and less likely that he can.

I don't need the kitchen sink thrown at Hillary as she is doing to Obama (although I am sure some part of me would get some satisfaction at this point). But Obama has generally been pretty good at responses that demonstrate cool under pressure and I fear now that the Clinton campaign is relentlessly bringing out new crap to throw every day there is no time to respond to one thing before the next shit is hurled. The shit is starting to pile up.

I just find it so disgusting that Hillary supporters like her for this very reason. That she can pile shit just as fast as the Republicans. They are resigned to the idea that there is no other way to campaign. I can't get behind that.