 |
|
|
|
|
|
Politics
> 2008 Presidential Race
|
|
New Topic |
Post Reply
|
| 376. Tuesday, April 1, 2008 6:23 PM |
| Booth |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 8/20/2006 Posts:4388
View Profile Send PM
|
Is she channeling OSF?
|
| 377. Tuesday, April 1, 2008 8:16 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
how is this for an april fools joke? http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/01/gore_prez/index.html LMAO
|
| 378. Saturday, April 5, 2008 10:33 AM |
| nuart |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:7632
View Profile Send PM
|
So much for the proposed "Calvinball"* game of changing the rules midstream proposed by Hillary's supporters. Not gonna happen. Nor should it. From the New York Times:
April 4, 2008, 3:08 pm New Michigan Primary: It’s Really Most Sincerely Dead By Ariel Alexovich Updated | 4:25 p.m. There’ll be no primary re-vote in Michigan, the state’s Democratic party announced today. In a phone meeting, Michigan party executives unanimously decided that such a move “is not practical.” “Basically, we didn’t have enough time,” said Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, at a news conference in Lansing, Mich. He thinks the money to stage a do-over could be raised, but since primaries usually take eight to nine months to plan, “it simply can’t be done.” The decision isn’t much of a surprise, since a measure to hold a state-run June 3 re-vote already died in the state legislature. Mr. Brewer, however, left the door open for a compromise like the one recently put forth by Rep. Bart Stupak, who suggested awarding delegates partly on Michigan’s primary results and partly on the popular vote nationwide. Mr. Brewer said he’s committed to ensuring that the results of the earlier primary count in some way “to protect those voters” who participated. He acknowledged that the candidates have their short-term interests to consider but was confident that they wouldn’t risk alienating Michigan voters from the Democratic party in the long run. In a statement, the party said: The Michigan Democratic Party has carefully reviewed several proposals for a party-run primary or caucus as a means of resolving the dispute over the seating of the Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus. We will continue to work with the Working Group, the D.N.C. and the candidates to resolve this matter in a manner which is respectful of the views of Democrats in Michigan, and which is fair to those who voted in the January 15th Democratic primary. The working group mentioned in the statement includes Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Debbie Dingell, D.N.C. member; Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick; Senator Carl Levin; and Ron Gettelfinger, president of the powerful United Auto Workers union. In a statement released this afternoon, members of that group said they “are united in our commitment to doing everything we can to ensure that a Michigan delegation is seated in Denver this summer.” This comment goes along with what Mr. Dean said about Florida earlier this week. “We also know that any solution needs to be acceptable to both Democratic presidential campaigns,” the group added. “While there may be differences of opinion in how we get there, we will continue to work together to ensure that a Michigan delegation is seated and that the logistics are in place for a Michigan delegation in Denver. We have every expectation that we will succeed in that endeavor, and then go on to win in November.” Mrs. Clinton won [is that what you call it???] the Michigan Democratic primary on Jan. 15, and stands to gain the most if the state’s delegates are seated at the national convention. At various points, her team had pushed for in-person and mail-in do-overs, using state and private funds. The Obama campaign has been more hesitant about either counting the old results or holding a new primary since Mr. Obama’s name didn’t appear on the Jan. 15 ballot — a move made in support of the D.N.C.’s decision not to count the results of that contest since Michigan violated the rule that it couldn’t hold a primary earlier than Feb. 5. [That is really the gist of it all.]
Mrs. Clinton wants to seat Michigan’s 128 pledged delegates according to the Jan. 15 results, which would put her ahead, 73 to 55. Mr. Obama wants to split the delegates equally. Phil Singer, deputy communications director of the Clinton campaign, sent out these remarks this afternoon after the Michigan Democratic Party’s decision: The issues and voters of Michigan are too important to be dismissed. Close to 600,000 Michiganians cast ballots in January and these votes cannot be ignored. [Why not? Those voters, unless woefully uninformed, knew when they cast their votes they would not be counted.]We urge the D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee to take all necessary steps to ensure the voices of the people of Michigan are heard, and its delegates are seated at the Democratic convention this summer. Already, over 100,000 people have signed our petition calling on the D.N.C. to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. We urge Senator Obama to join our efforts to ensure that the votes of the people of Michigan and Florida are counted. * The Unofficial Official Rules of Calvinball
Permanent Rule: You may not play the Calvinball the same way twice.
Primary Rule: The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or deleted by any player(s) involved. These rules are not required, nor necessary to play Calvinball.
“Half a truth is often a great lie.” Ben Franklin
|
| 379. Saturday, April 5, 2008 7:07 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
oh please, she won according to the RULES. obama's name wasn't on the ballot. who's fault is that NOT hillary's... lmao no where in that post of yours does it say hillary is changing the rules... WTF?!?! i mean that IS why there SHOULD be a re-vote. hillary IS for that . so how is that changing the rules when it's in BOTH candidates advantage to have the re-vote happen??! i say take the friggin time and DO a re-vote. i mean it's our country that suffers if the wrong candidate wins..... so go hillary and good luck obama!! haha or the two of them should just shut up and team up then and be done with it.
|
| 380. Saturday, April 5, 2008 11:51 PM |
| nuart |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:7632
View Profile Send PM
|
| QUOTE: oh please, she won according to the RULES. obama's name wasn't on the ballot. who's fault is that NOT hillary's... lmao no where in that post of yours does it say hillary is changing the rules... WTF?!?! i mean that IS why there SHOULD be a re-vote. hillary IS for that . so how is that changing the rules when it's in BOTH candidates advantage to have the re-vote happen??! i say take the friggin time and DO a re-vote. i mean it's our country that suffers if the wrong candidate wins..... so go hillary and good luck obama!! haha or the two of them should just shut up and team up then and be done with it. |
Sigh. I'll try to go to the substance of what you say. Fine. If you want to characterize the MI primary as a Hillary "win" so be it. It's just that it's sort of meaningless when a large number of Democrats in Michigan didn't even bother to go out that icy January day to cast a vote when they knew their party had disenfranchised them. Or when they expected a Hillary win anyway. When considering the massive front-runner status she held back then, it's easy to see why the state and their Dem voters didn't find it all that compelling to have their vote for Hillary counted.
You ask "how is it changing the rules when it's in both candidates advantage to have the re-vote happen?" There isn't a corollary between those two actions -- It's rule changing regardless of your perceived belief of an advantage to both remaining Dem. candidates. Your question ignores the larger issue as well -- the democratic process. And the Democratic process.
Lest we forget: THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE set the rules for the US presidential primaries. They decided the sequence of the primaries. The NATIONAL committee. But then... the MICHIGAN Democrats decided to defy the NATIONAL rules and hold their primary early. HILLARY allowed her name to be left on the ballot. At the time that decision was made, it had been considered a fait accompli that she would be the Democratic nominee. So holding an early primary did not seem like a risky RULE BREAKING -- aka Calvinball -- that it would turn out to be come the spring of 2008.
But... surprise, surprise. There was a contest and I don't mean Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson and Edwards either.
Holding a do-over primary vote four months (or more...) later would discredit the whole process. Anyway, it doesn't matter what Hillary the candidate would like. Or the other remaining candidate, Obama. They didn't set the date of the Michigan primary but they each, in their own way, made a calculated decision about how they should play it.
The Democratic National Committee made the rules. Michigan went against the rules. Over and out. They can try again in 2012. Maybe by then the Democrats of each state can agree on the dates. Geez. There is always someone who gets the raw end of the deal but blame the party officials in Michigan. And appeal to them not to do it again. Think about the greater implications of one state ignoring the admonitions that the votes would NOT be counted should they vote ahead of the schedule. As for the "wrong candidate winning" -- once again, that's the way the Calvinball bounces. You play with the hand you're dealt after the willing registered voters in a nation of 300 million people cast their individual votes. Sometimes an individual voter is pleased with that result. Other times less so. Check out the Wikipedia entry on the subject which explains the Michigan Primary concisely. Any other solution than to adhering to the original decision and the subsequent results would render the process meaningless. Here's the essence:
The 2008 Michigan Democratic primary took place on January 15, 2008 to determine the number of delegates in favor of a candidate at the National Convention. However, because the state of Michigan scheduled its primary before February 5, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped the Michigan Democratic Party of all of its 156 delegates, and as such they may not be seated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
So upward and onward to April 22 and Pennsylvania! May the best man win.
Susan
“Half a truth is often a great lie.” Ben Franklin
|
| 381. Monday, April 7, 2008 3:32 AM |
| herofix |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:2500
View Profile Send PM
|
Here is something which is apparently too subtle for most of the press to understand: A ballot which has been widely reported and understood to not lead to any actual influence and count for nothing will have very different demographic turnout than one that is understood to be legitimate and meaningful. Please...this is an important point.
An Inverted Pyramid of Piffle
|
| 382. Friday, April 11, 2008 5:34 PM |
| Raymond |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:1664
View Profile Send PM
|
Wow. Susan started this thread 15 months ago. I don't think the Democrat Congress had yet to take their seats after the mid terms in 2006. Anyway. I have had the thought that Bill C. was actually out to torpedo Hill's campaign. Consciously, or unconsciously. I don't know if this could actually be true, but... On today's news Bill has ressurected the "sniper fire" fabrication from weeks ago. He said in her defense that she said it late in the evening after a tough day and immediately corrected herself. No. It occurred at 11 AM and she did not immediately correct her story. It was days later. sheesh.
|
| 383. Friday, April 11, 2008 7:14 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
| QUOTE: Here is something which is apparently too subtle for most of the press to understand: A ballot which has been widely reported and understood to not lead to any actual influence and count for nothing will have very different demographic turnout than one that is understood to be legitimate and meaningful. Please...this is an important point. |
yeah means a whole lotta N-O-T-H-I-N-G. lol thank you for the laugh though. QUOTE: | QUOTE: oh please, she won according to the RULES. obama's name wasn't on the ballot. who's fault is that NOT hillary's... lmao no where in that post of yours does it say hillary is changing the rules... WTF?!?! i mean that IS why there SHOULD be a re-vote. hillary IS for that . so how is that changing the rules when it's in BOTH candidates advantage to have the re-vote happen??! i say take the friggin time and DO a re-vote. i mean it's our country that suffers if the wrong candidate wins..... so go hillary and good luck obama!! haha or the two of them should just shut up and team up then and be done with it. |
Sigh. I'll try to go to the substance of what you say. Fine. If you want to characterize the MI primary as a Hillary "win" so be it. It's just that it's sort of meaningless when a large number of Democrats in Michigan didn't even bother to go out that icy January day to cast a vote when they knew their party had disenfranchised them. Or when they expected a Hillary win anyway. When considering the massive front-runner status she held back then, it's easy to see why the state and their Dem voters didn't find it all that compelling to have their vote for Hillary counted.
You ask "how is it changing the rules when it's in both candidates advantage to have the re-vote happen?" There isn't a corollary between those two actions -- It's rule changing regardless of your perceived belief of an advantage to both remaining Dem. candidates. Your question ignores the larger issue as well -- the democratic process. And the Democratic process.
Lest we forget: THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE set the rules for the US presidential primaries. They decided the sequence of the primaries. The NATIONAL committee. But then... the MICHIGAN Democrats decided to defy the NATIONAL rules and hold their primary early. HILLARY allowed her name to be left on the ballot. At the time that decision was made, it had been considered a fait accompli that she would be the Democratic nominee. So holding an early primary did not seem like a risky RULE BREAKING -- aka Calvinball -- that it would turn out to be come the spring of 2008.
But... surprise, surprise. There was a contest and I don't mean Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson and Edwards either.
Holding a do-over primary vote four months (or more...) later would discredit the whole process. Anyway, it doesn't matter what Hillary the candidate would like. Or the other remaining candidate, Obama. They didn't set the date of the Michigan primary but they each, in their own way, made a calculated decision about how they should play it.
The Democratic National Committee made the rules. Michigan went against the rules. Over and out. They can try again in 2012. Maybe by then the Democrats of each state can agree on the dates. Geez. There is always someone who gets the raw end of the deal but blame the party officials in Michigan. And appeal to them not to do it again. Think about the greater implications of one state ignoring the admonitions that the votes would NOT be counted should they vote ahead of the schedule. As for the "wrong candidate winning" -- once again, that's the way the Calvinball bounces. You play with the hand you're dealt after the willing registered voters in a nation of 300 million people cast their individual votes. Sometimes an individual voter is pleased with that result. Other times less so. Check out the Wikipedia entry on the subject which explains the Michigan Primary concisely. Any other solution than to adhering to the original decision and the subsequent results would render the process meaningless. Here's the essence:
The 2008 Michigan Democratic primary took place on January 15, 2008 to determine the number of delegates in favor of a candidate at the National Convention. However, because the state of Michigan scheduled its primary before February 5, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped the Michigan Democratic Party of all of its 156 delegates, and as such they may not be seated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
So upward and onward to April 22 and Pennsylvania! May the best man win.
Susan |
*sigh* if you even realised that i'm in agreement with you then you wouldn't be *sighing*
i'm all for the proposition of a re-vote or something to that effect. can i ask then was there a reason for the hurry from MI? and why was obama not on the ballot? anybody know? i hardly think hillary said "don't put his name on it and make me win"... so ergo lies the problem. how can you let the better person win if these two states don't get a "voice"? it's like gore/bush flashback. so sigh all you want at the absurdity of the obviousness stupidity of our government here but how does that make us as americans look if we don't try to at least have these peoples' voices count? i don't think these delegates should be divided evenly either. i think they should spend the $$$ and re-do it. then and only then will the better person win. i mean there is time. and by "wrong candidate winning" is obvious. where is the issue with that?! nothing. i think that to be fair to obama and let there be "we're even" type election here. then there will be no "oh obama only won because hillary didn't get the MI and FL votes counted" or obama lost big time cuz she kicked his butt in PA and had the votes he wasn't even on the ballot for." see where this is headed?!!?
|
| 384. Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:20 AM |
| jordan |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Admin
Member Since 12/17/2005 Posts:2274
View Profile Send PM
|
Personally, revoting in both of those states IS changing the rules midway through the game. Sure, it's the DNC's rules and they can change it anytime, but I have an issue with principle here - if FL and MI change their dates, knowing full well what will happen if they do, that's their fault, and everyone needs to accept those rules and not expect a "do-over" because things are so tight. That's wrong and that creates a very bad precendence. FL and MI (and the other states around the country) learned an important lesson this year and it'll be a long time before any of them do it again. Anyway it may not matter. Some of the recent polls show Obama closing the gap in PA, so Hillary's double-digit lead she was hoping for a few weeks ago has pretty much disappeared, as are all those delegates she was hoping to take. That's why we're now hearing that "pledge delegates" doesn't really mean "pledge." and with Obama having a double digit lead in NC in almost all polls, I think it's pretty much over, and will lead us to a bloody fight on the floor.
Jordan .
|
| 385. Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:38 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
haha not after what he said the other day. she's gonna win. also latest news for FL http://www.fldeservesrecognition.com/ 
|
| 386. Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:23 PM |
| herofix |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:2500
View Profile Send PM
|
How could my point above mean nothing? Even if it only means that Obama supporters are all elitists like their preferred candidate, and therefore won't vote in low-brow beauty contest elections? *cough*
An Inverted Pyramid of Piffle
|
| 387. Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:56 AM |
| nuart |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:7632
View Profile Send PM
|
Andrew, I think we have accidentally entered a Dead Horse Beating Zone. I surrender my baton and will carry on with other subjects within the 2008 presidential campaign. Listening to James Carville yapping right now on Meet The Press. His wife Mary Matalin and Bob Shrum are also on. The topic of conversation this morning: How could Hillary Clinton now have only a 10% shot at the Democratic nomination when it was a foregone conclusion in 2006? Somes see it that way. Other/s are more attuned to BellLOLadawna's POV. Oh well. The summer awaits us and the outcome will soon be known. Btw, have you all read the Time magazine article with li'l Obama and his mom on the cover? He must be 4 or 5 years old and looks exactly the same. Interesting story... Susan
“Half a truth is often a great lie.” Ben Franklin
|
| 388. Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:57 AM |
| nuart |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:7632
View Profile Send PM
|
[speaking of accidents... accidental double post]
“Half a truth is often a great lie.” Ben Franklin
|
| 389. Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:54 PM |
| herofix |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:2500
View Profile Send PM
|
It just seems odd to me that with such a low chance of securing the nomination, Clinton would be coordinating with the GOP in their attempts to frame Obama for the general. Why on earth would she want to do that? I wonder. This latest 'elitist' canard is bizarre in the extreme.
An Inverted Pyramid of Piffle
|
| 390. Monday, April 14, 2008 4:27 PM |
| Raymond |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:1664
View Profile Send PM
|
Hillary is hoping that Obama trips up or things from his past surface in the next couple months. Clintonistas are telling Dem bigwigs that O will crash and burn-that he is unelectable. Then she gets superdelegates to get her over. Anyway, I think that is the plan. just saying.
|
| 391. Friday, April 18, 2008 6:04 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
| QUOTE: How could my point above mean nothing? Even if it only means that Obama supporters are all elitists like their preferred candidate, and therefore won't vote in low-brow beauty contest elections? *cough* |
er... i made a post saying your above quote meant nothing to me at that time. don't take offense though.
well, all beauty contests are iffy anyhow eh? LMAO
|
| 392. Friday, April 18, 2008 6:11 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
| QUOTE: Andrew, I think we have accidentally entered a Dead Horse Beating Zone. I surrender my baton and will carry on with other subjects within the 2008 presidential campaign. Listening to James Carville yapping right now on Meet The Press. His wife Mary Matalin and Bob Shrum are also on. The topic of conversation this morning: How could Hillary Clinton now have only a 10% shot at the Democratic nomination when it was a foregone conclusion in 2006? Somes see it that way. Other/s are more attuned to BellLOLadawna's POV. Oh well. The summer awaits us and the outcome will soon be known. Susan |
wtf is wrong with my BellLOLadawna's POV?!?! it's not "beating a dead horse" if you truly feel that way. your point of view(POV) is yours and that is great. that is the whole point of us all making posts. some light hearted with lol's and i'd not berate someone from their POV or LOL POV. susan, that seems very not nice and actually hurts my feelings(if i had any) kind of.
either way the out come will be fine. just the winner and how they won it is what matters to me. but whatever LOL point of view i may have good luck to all the runners...... 
|
| 393. Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:13 PM |
| Raymond |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:1664
View Profile Send PM
|
The latest Gallup National poll ( I know-polls can be wrong) shows : Hillary 46% Obama 45% among Dem voters. Interesting as a week ago O was ahead -like 10 points. Polling from April 16 to 18th (including post debate calls.) http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx
|
| 394. Sunday, April 20, 2008 7:11 AM |
| jordan |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Admin
Member Since 12/17/2005 Posts:2274
View Profile Send PM
|
that seems to be the odd one of the bunch. RearlClear Politics List of Polls The rest show Obama with the lead, and averages out to 7.7%
Jordan .
|
| 395. Sunday, April 20, 2008 3:53 PM |
| herofix |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:2500
View Profile Send PM
|
Predictions for Pennsylvania, anyone? Mine:
Clinton 56% Obama 44% Clinton nets 14 delegates. All I can say is thank God it's finally here. I think next cycle the parties should ensure that there are no six week gaps between primaries. Too long!
An Inverted Pyramid of Piffle
|
| 396. Sunday, April 20, 2008 7:54 PM |
| jordan |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Admin
Member Since 12/17/2005 Posts:2274
View Profile Send PM
|
Clinton: 54 Obama: 46 (8 pt diff) Clinton will net 9 delegates. The large African American vote in Pittsburg and Philly will keep it under 10.
Jordan .
|
| 397. Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:44 PM |
| jordan |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Admin
Member Since 12/17/2005 Posts:2274
View Profile Send PM
|
Drudge is reporting: EXIT POLL DRAMA 5 PM ET: CLINTON 52, OBAMA 48
Jordan .
|
| 398. Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:58 PM |
| nuart |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 12/18/2005 Posts:7632
View Profile Send PM
|
I think Drudge hates Hillary. Not that such animus is rare when it comes to the Mrs. I wonder if those stats will change drastically as the results come in. Pretty sure this is what happened the last time out too. John McCain is sitting pretty, imo. Susan
“Half a truth is often a great lie.” Ben Franklin
|
| 399. Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:44 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
hillary all the way last time i checked..... 25+ and counting delegates since then... haha
|
| 400. Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:05 PM |
| belladawna |
RE: 2008 Presidential Race |
Member Since 3/19/2008 Posts:39
View Profile Send PM
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202836.html
|
|
New Topic |
Post Reply
|
Page 16 of 31 ::
<< |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
>>
|
|
Politics
> 2008 Presidential Race
|
| Users viewing this Topic (1) |
| 1 Guest |
Powered by JorkelBB 2006 (Version 1.0b)
|
|
|