Will you be okay with another unelected winner?

[sgrizzle]

If Obama retains the lead in both vote count and elected delegates, but the superdelegates put Hillary in office, how would you feel about the election system?

[FOTD]

That would be catastrophic in light of this being a real HONEST youth movement......

[inteller]

no, it would be a good thing since it is obvious that the youth who are voting for this evil fruit are completely stupid.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

no, it would be a good thing since it is obvious that the youth who are voting for this evil fruit are completely stupid.

Evil Fruit?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

If Obama retains the lead in both vote count and elected delegates, but the superdelegates put Hillary in office, how would you feel about the election system?

It will destroy the Democratic party(especially if Florida and Michigan are counted) and lose the youth vote for a generation.

[tim huntzinger]

I have been educated in public schools, got a POS diploma that sez I have a BA, I have paid real close attention to politics for nigh on twenty years and this is the first time I have heard about 'superdelegates.'  Crock of poop.

Ditto AA.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

If Obama retains the lead in both vote count and elected delegates, but the superdelegates put Hillary in office, how would you feel about the election system?

It will destroy the Democratic party(especially if Florida and Michigan are counted) and lose the youth vote for a generation.

good, because the youth movement is proving that they are pretty stupid when it comes to politics.

the smart youth movement died back in 2000 when the election was stolen by the Supreme Court.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by inteller

no, it would be a good thing since it is obvious that the youth who are voting for this evil fruit are completely stupid.

Evil Fruit?

Gosh only knows, maybe this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0214081obama1.html

[cannon_fodder]

Yay inteller...

By "stollen" you mean the law was interpreted.  Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 this has been an established fact.  They did not decide who wins the election, they decided that under the Equal Protection clause the ever changing recruit procedures Florida was devising were unconstitutional.  Ballots can not be made irrelevant by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment" without amounting to disenfranchisement.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you are among the "stupid" when it comes to knowing anything about this case.  The dissents position was the game can change AFTER the election and not conflict with the equal protection clause.  Case law said otherwise.

Not to mention the vanity involved in your petty argument:  you don't agree with me = you're stupid.  I'm sure you sway tons of voters.  Surprised Hildog hasn't called and recruited you to her campaign.
- - -

What the Democratic party rules are is their own business.  My guess is the Super Delegates cave to the will of the people.  If not, they certainly lose any and all right to complain on several issues and I'm guessing cause a great rift in the party.  

If "stupid" people are pissed about a constitutional court making a decision, imagine how pissed others would be if their own party rules "steal" the election.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Yay inteller...

By "stollen" you mean the law was interpreted.  

actually I mean stolen. not sure what you are talking about. stollen is a fairly delicious German fruitcake.

I don't fully blame the current youth movement for their blatant desire for a hand out.  I mean they have been pandered to for the last 8 years.  The 2004 election was a complete joke with the whole moveon.org pandering along with idiots like P diddy and his Vote or Die bull****. The last 8 years or so have been the systematic stupification of america's youth throughh the use of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. So it doesn't surprise me that they now put their hopes in a slick talking ****er who admits to smoking pot and has trysts in the back of his limo. That's what they remember from their childhood with Clinton.  Only difference is Clinton had -experience- to back up his social shenanigans. Nor does it surprise me they back the same ****er who promises to put them all to work with government highway construction jobs.  Think of it as the New New Deal.  Only one problem, back then people wanted to work, and we didn't have this young uneducated entitlement generation that we have now.


America deserves more than just a slick talking ****er who uses his great orator voice (made possible by Phillip Morris) to tell people what they want to hear instead of what needs to actually happen.

[cannon_fodder]

Please give me your legal analysis of the case so I can better understand where you differ from the greatest legal minds our country has to offer.

Point out typos and swear about whatever you life, you lack substance for your argument.  

I assume you have no real argument, have never read the case, nor even have a basic understanding of what happened or on what basis.  AOX is a structural engineer when it comes to 911 and you're a constitutional scholar when Al Gore loses an election.  Try to stick to topics you have an understanding of, lately that appears to be "things I hate."

[MichaelBates]

Superdelegates have been around since the 1984 campaign cycle. They are Democratic elected officials -- congressmen, senators, and governors -- and party officials who have been elected by the Democratic activists in each state.

The idea is that these people have won elections and can bring that knowledge and experience to the process of choosing a nominee and drafting a platform. Without a doubt, they are there to temper or moderate the results of the primary process. Reform after 1968 had opened up the process, but the results were a disaster in 1972, when McGovern won the nomination, and in 1980, when Jimmy Carter won most of the primaries but his administration began to fall apart by the time the convention was held.

The superdelegates are going to be considering whether Hillary or Obama is best suited to be the top of the ticket in November. Who can win key swing states? Who will fire up the base and have cross-over appeal? Who can raise the kind of money that will be needed to win? Who will have coattails and help elect the party's candidates for Congress and state legislatures? I wouldn't assume that these people will tilt toward Hillary; how the primary voters respond to the candidates will have an influence on the superdelegates' judgment.

As for seating Michigan and Florida delegates, the Republican Party had a similar penalty for states that started electing delegates before Feb. 5th -- loss of half their delegates. Michigan, Florida, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Wyoming were all penalized. (Iowa doesn't really elect delegates until June.) As an Oklahoma Republican, I would feel cheated if these states were allowed their full delegations.

Oklahoma considered moving our primary a week earlier. It would have meant a lot more attention from the presidential candidates and more choices for our voters. But legislators and leaders from both parties weighed the consequences and decided it wasn't worth the penalty. It would be unfair to Oklahoma if the penalty were canceled.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by inteller

no, it would be a good thing since it is obvious that the youth who are voting for this evil fruit are completely stupid.

Evil Fruit?

Gosh only knows, maybe this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0214081obama1.html

Gosh knows, that's ridiculous and sleezy slander... congrats, Guido... typical of a "say anything" republican...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080216072032AACJPvF

Hmmm.... evil fruit?  Try this...

[Wingnut]

Milton Friedman was opposed to the 'get out and vote" campaings that were targeting the youth because they would go and vote for somebody, anybody, not necessarly the best choice. He believed it was better for them not to vote than to vote for the most popular (wrong) candidate on a whim.
I'm glad to see you guys are doing your homework on the candidates and basing your decision on that instead of who's signs or commercials  you see the most of.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

Milton Friedman was opposed to the 'get out and vote" campaings that were targeting the youth because they would go and vote for somebody, anybody, not necessarly the best choice. He believed it was better for them not to vote than to vote for the most popular (wrong) candidate on a whim.
I'm glad to see you guys are doing your homework on the candidates and basing your decision on that instead of who's signs or commercials  you see the most of.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  If they're old enough to vote, then they get to do with their franchise whatever they want. Welcome to America, my friend, where no citizen is more equal than another, and when you hit the age of majority, you're a citizen with full rights and responsibilities. The same rights and responsibilities that Milton Friedman has.  

Young voters are much more likely to be well versed and even-handed on the issues than old partisans, because it's their first vote, they're likely excited about it, want to do a good job with it and make it count. And hence take it very seriously.

[edited for civility]