Ah-oh the Hillary.
It looks like there was some interesting results in New York. Apparently in many of the districts won by Hillary, Barrack Obama was recorded as receiving ZERO votes. 80 districts recorded no votes for Obama, including in many districts with a strong black minority.
In one instance, Hillary recorded a win by blanking Obama. Upon a hand recount the tally was 131 votes to her 261. In other precincts the recount might give Obama a win instead of just increasing his tally.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm
Do I think this is overt election fraud? Probably not. I don't have the facts to really call it that (fraud is someone ACTING to mess things up, not just SNAFU). But it seems people are fond of calling "FRAUD!" anytime there is a semblance of irregularities so I felt compelled to share.
Other facts:
Bill Clinton has an office just down the street from several of the precincts.
Bill and Hillary know many of the election officials.
Hillary is one of the most powerful people in the state.
Hillary finished ahead of where the polls indicated she would.
Gasp!
Give it up dude. Only Repugs steal elections and commit voter fraud.
[xx(]
Give me your address and I'll buy a pack of smokes to send you.....what brand?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Give me your address and I'll buy a pack of smokes to send you.....what brand?
I'm really frustrated with you today, Friend Of Lucifer. I'm having to post for you. Get on the ball, man!
Nope, no more nicotine in this body, not on purpose- seven weeks as of today.
Sorry, I'm in need of some restraint.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Sorry, I'm in need of some restraint.
Wooo wooo....woooo woooo...
Wow! this battle is slimy already!
Hillary, Obama Make Big Payoffs to Superdelegates
Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:37 PM
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are letting their wallets do the talking when it comes to wooing superdelegates, a new study reveals.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported, according to the Boston Globe.
There are about 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- who are expected to play a key role in determining which candidate wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Center for Responsive Politics says Obama's PAC has contributed more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005. Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Wow! this battle is slimy already!
Hillary, Obama Make Big Payoffs to Superdelegates
Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:37 PM
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are letting their wallets do the talking when it comes to wooing superdelegates, a new study reveals.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported, according to the Boston Globe.
There are about 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- who are expected to play a key role in determining which candidate wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Center for Responsive Politics says Obama's PAC has contributed more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005. Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
and how's this differ from the most recent rebate?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Wow! this battle is slimy already!
Hillary, Obama Make Big Payoffs to Superdelegates
Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:37 PM
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are letting their wallets do the talking when it comes to wooing superdelegates, a new study reveals.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported, according to the Boston Globe.
There are about 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- who are expected to play a key role in determining which candidate wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Center for Responsive Politics says Obama's PAC has contributed more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005. Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
and how's this differ from the most recent rebate?
Well, I can think of a couple ways. . .
1. The rebate is my tax money being returned to me.
2. I also don't believe that George Bush is running for president, but I'll have to check and make sure.
I know you are a staunch defender of Obama, and I admire your tenacity, but if you are going to attempt to make a point, please give us more to work with. You just come across as an angry person.
Congress gave the rebate. It's not your money, it's our money.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Congress gave the rebate. It's not your money, it's our money.
Ok, so how is giving us back "our" money an attempt to sway the election?
. . . after all, arn't you are the flag waving "we're in a recession" guy? What would your propose to fend off recession?
I'm curious?
To chime in where I haven't been asked:
quote:
These rebate checks are like pouring a drink for an alcoholic.
I for one, agree with Bloomberg on this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/nyregion/15bloomberg.html?_r=2&ex=1360818000&en=78c290468abf0d71&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=login&oref=slogin
Don't worry if you spend too much money, Uncle Sam will borrow more money and bail you out. Spend spend spend! Oh crap, we're in trouble because we spent to much. Here, spend some more - that'll fix it!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Congress gave the rebate. It's not your money, it's our money.
Ok, so how is giving us back "our" money an attempt to sway the election?
. . . after all, arn't you are the flag waving "we're in a recession" guy? What would your propose to fend off recession?
I'm curious?
Too little too late....
New taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Wow! this battle is slimy already!
Hillary, Obama Make Big Payoffs to Superdelegates
Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:37 PM
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are letting their wallets do the talking when it comes to wooing superdelegates, a new study reveals.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported, according to the Boston Globe.
There are about 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- who are expected to play a key role in determining which candidate wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Center for Responsive Politics says Obama's PAC has contributed more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005. Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The Clinton machine is one step ahead of Obama with buying superdelegates as insurance against losing the popular vote in the primaries or worse yet, the elected delegate count.
This is going to get nasty if Hillary's camp can swing the nomination her way by manipulating superdelegates or getting Florida and Michigan counted after all campaigns agreed to stay out.
Why is everything anti-Hillary?
Read this story. Obama has donated over three and a half times more money to these delegates.
What if Hillary is ahead after Ohio and Texas?
Are you guys then going to say that Obama is trying to manipulate the election? Of course not.
What a double standard.
RM, I wasn't commenting on the alleged 'buying' of delegates. I understand that to be perfectly within party rules. This post was about election irregularities in NY.
As I mentioned above, I did not post it to be "anti Hillary" I posed it because such oddities were evidence that bush "stole the election" but went under the radar when the same thing was found in favor of a Clinton. That's what I see as the double standard.
Though, I still stand by my statement that it was probably incompetence in both instances instead of fraud.
You know, I've never said this about a woman before, but Hillary is a tool.
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/untitled.jpg)
She thinks it is her right to be President. It's not that voters don't like her, it's that people like Obama have distracted those who otherwise would have supported her. Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and others are just meanies who are afraid of powerful women.
I'm still trying to figure out what is vastly better about the Democrat's delegate system vs. that for the GOP winner-take-all format. This whole super-delegate business does not well represent the will of the people.
The super delegate system is not suppose to represent the people - it is supposed to protect the party. It is in place so those with power who know better can help ensure that whoever they decide is most electable will win the nomination. The entire point is to protect the party FROM the people.
Yay for a 2 party system. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The super delegate system is not suppose to represent the people - it is supposed to protect the party. It is in place so those with power who know better can help ensure that whoever they decide is most electable will win the nomination. The entire point is to protect the party FROM the people.
Yay for a 2 party system. [B)]
Wow, sounds a little like Cuba.
I was more responding to HazMatCFO than you cannon fodder. He does have CF in his name...hmm...
I want to be a superdelegate. To leap over voting booths in single bound...faster than an internet rumor and able to spin the world in every conversation.
All you guys think there is going to be some terrible outcome if they have any power. Yet this is all about power. The super delegates thing will all work out and everybody will be happy. They will at the end, help nominate the person who will best carry the standard for the democrat party. They will be rewarded for their trust and the President will remember their support.
It is all very scary because of the potential for deals and rewards. But step back, that is what Washington DC is all about. Our only hope is that someone is watching and that the American people demand it be as clean as it can be for both parties.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I was more responding to HazMatCFO than you cannon fodder. He does have CF in his name...hmm...
I want to be a superdelegate. To leap over voting booths in single bound...faster than an internet rumor and able to spin the world in every conversation.
All you guys think there is going to be some terrible outcome if they have any power. Yet this is all about power. The super delegates thing will all work out and everybody will be happy. They will at the end, help nominate the person who will best carry the standard for the democrat party. They will be rewarded for their trust and the President will remember their support.
It is all very scary because of the potential for deals and rewards. But step back, that is what Washington DC is all about. Our only hope is that someone is watching and that the American people demand it be as clean as it can be for both parties.
I think we are far more vigilant this election than any time I can remember. I don't know how that will play out in the media. Remembering how badly they were burned last time has got to leave a mark on the talking heads.
RM- if there is one thing life has taught me, it is when money and power are involved, trust no one.
Saying "that's the way it is in Washington" is to approve of the skank pit that place has managed to become in the last 30 years. The way Washington works sucks. It's for sale to the highest bidder.
What's scary is thinking that one candidate could be the people's choice, then you get someone like Slick Willie greasing palms, asking for favors, or outright threatening people to back someone who is not the candidate of the people.
It sounds like the Clinton camp is now preparing to downplay the whole primary process as just a formality that has little bering on who the candidate should be.
I am seeing two distinct types of articles published, those brushing off the primary votes as simply a suggestion, and those reporting background strategies to sway delegates away from their pledges.
I predict that by convention time, the Clintons will have the media reporting that the primaries are nothing more than a minor barometer with little political weight.
Clinton targets pledged delegates
By: Roger Simon
February 19, 2008 12:16 PM EST
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.
This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.
What? Isn't that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?
Wrong.
Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.
But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.
"I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody's delegates," a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. "All the rules will be going out the window."
Rules of good behavior, maybe. But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a "myth."
"Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot," a recent DNC memo states. "A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required."
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.
But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: "If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can't get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates."
Winning with superdelegates is potentially party-splitting because it could mean throwing out the choice of the elected delegates and substituting the choice of 795 party big shots.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned against it. "I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that," she said. "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."
Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000 and is a member of the DNC, said recently: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit [the DNC]. I feel very strongly about this."
On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.
"There will be chaos at the convention," Wilder told Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation."
"If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse."
But would getting pledged delegates to switch sides be any less controversial? Perhaps not. They were chosen by voters, but they were chosen to back a particular candidate.
And it is unlikely that many people, including the pledged delegates themselves, know that pledged delegates actually can switch.
Nor would it be easy to get them to switch.
If, however, after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close, the Clinton official said, "[both] sides will start working all delegates."
In other words, Clinton and Obama will have to go after every delegate who is alive and breathing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Clinton targets pledged delegates
By: Roger Simon
February 19, 2008 12:16 PM EST
For what it's worth, Roger Simon's story is being roundly denied by the Clinton people. Some journos also seem to think it's been poorly reported. (//%22http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/02/politicos_roger.php%22)
Ova after Texas.....just watch.
Could be unofficially over tonight!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Ova after Texas.....just watch.
Could be unofficially over tonight!
You, sir or madam, are amazingly optimistic.
Here's to you, Mr. Amazingly Optimistic Internet Chat Room Political Prognosticator. You are a Bud Light Real Man of Genius!
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Ova after Texas.....just watch.
Could be unofficially over tonight!
You, sir or madam, are amazingly optimistic.
Here's to you, Mr. Amazingly Optimistic Internet Chat Room Political Prognosticator. You are a Bud Light Real Man of Genius!
coffee-spitting post of the week award!
[8D]
Chantix on the house!