I was a Hillary supporter early on but as the race unfolded I began to question that choice. There was one point where I realized I could no longer support her candidacy. When it appeared to me she had adopted too much of the national republican style of campaigning I took notice. When Florida and Michigan decided they would ignore the agreed upon party rules and jump in front of other primaries, I took notice. I didn't fault her for campaigning in those states as it would lay the foundation for the general election. No, it was the spin which continues today, that Michigan and Florida should have their delegates count and the bald faced lie that she "won" an election where others didn't campaign and weren't even on the ballot that changed my mind! Suddenly every spin, every half truth, every effort to win at all costs even if it meant alluding to race, co-opting republican views and using religion came into sharp focus. Having seen the results of that stuff for the last decade or more I am not interested in supporting it within my own party.
That is why the concept of change resonates with many of us. Not the details demanded by the opposition for a myriad of programs so that they may then tear the candidate apart. Details that will likely be forged in the legislative arena anyway. What appeals is the idea that the whole process of decisionmaking will be approached differently. Not from some idealogical extremists from either end that control a puppet leader but from an analysis of the facts and reasoned debate. Yeah, naive sounding I know, but I prefer that to the cynicism and manipulation that McCain/Clinton rely on. It seems both McCain and Clinton have lost themselves. Both had impressed me in the past but I don't recognize them anymore.
From my perspective, this election is about returning to some sort of integrity, vision and truth. A return to the concept of the president as an insightful, well educated, trustworthy leader of a team, not a slow witted, irrefutable, tyrant leader of a corrupt political machine. A leader who listens to his constituents, even if by their proxies, rather than punishing those who disagree. In short, someone unlike McCain/Clinton.
I completely agree with you, WB. I am so sick of politicians speaking to us as though we are four year olds who cannot see through the stupidity of their arguments. One thing that gives me hope is that I believe Hillary's losses on Tuesday had a great deal to do with her "gas tax holiday" scheme. People are not stupid. They realize that these "quick fixes" are nothing more than attempts to placate the masses and ignore the huge problems that face our country. The economy is in shambles, houses are being foreclosed, we're spending billions on a war that seems to have no end. So what does our Government do? Buy us off with a $600 check.
Obama isn't perfect. I am sure deep down he is a politician at heart, and sometimes he will do the same things as Hillary, Bush & McCain. But I hope by voting for him, we are sending a message to the politicians that this is how we want you to behave. Talk to us as adults, give us honest answers, and stop the spin. We know better.
Well said.
I too have gotten the sense that Obama doesnt want to get too far into details because he, or anyone else, cant see how things will actually unfold, what the facts will be economically and politically when each objective is tackled. A bunch of "read my lips no new taxes" type promises in order to get elected but that have a good chance of not being able to get met in reality... doesnt do anyone any good.
People seem to want the quick, easy sounding "solution" to high gas prices (same for the war, the economy, or anything for that matter). Cut taxes, charge the oil companies.... we know, or we should know, that its more about alternative energies, fuel economy, indeed... possibly opening up oil reserves in a responsible way in the gulf or Alaska.... but to say those things would be political suicide in this culture of quick easy, borrow now, pay later.
I would rather a candidate state their principals, see how they think, how they act, see how they go about things, how they find solutions, work with others, the directions those solutions would be in,,,, Not make narrow promises to get elected, but state ones core beliefs and be able to trust that whatever situation arose or existed, the person would make descisions based on their philosophies, their beliefs, towards the over arching goals and objectives they laid out.
Specifics get hammered out at the table with people of opposing views. Plus, as the world and the economy changes, who knows what the specific situation "on the ground" will be when each matter is addressed.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I didn't fault her for campaigning in those states as it would lay the foundation for the general election.
That is just untrue.
Obama had appearances in Florida and ran ads in markets that border Florida the week before the primary.
Hillary did neither.
Hillary followed the rules. Yes, she wants those votes to count. 600,000 more people voted for her in Michigan and Florida than Obama.
No matter what Obama says, you guys act like it is truth. No matter what Hillary says, you guys act like it is a lie.
Guess what. They are both politicians. Their campaign staffs have played nasty, dirty politics. One doesn't talk to us like we are "adults" and the other one like we are children. It is just the way you want to hear it.
She's not done yet RM & Waterboy!
She may challenge the constitutionality of the whole Democrat primary process in court before the convention.
You may get to vote for her yet!
[}:)]
Waterboy, I have never like Hillary. I don't hide that. But I accept her as a strong candidate and a fighter. Nonetheless, I agree with your assessment on the spin - it is beyond responsible spin. "The tie was broken!" indicates either a wiliness to say whatever is in her interest or pure dillusion.
RM, I think most people look at it as a lie - because it is. A sizable deficit is a tie and losing a large amount of ground breaks that tie in her favor. And she was more than happy to write off Florida and Michigan until it became apperent that she needed them. The notion that she didn't show any interest in Florida while Obama was flirting with the issue is another Hillary spin:
quote:
(AP) Stung by her lopsided loss to Barack Obama in South Carolina, Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to shift her momentum in Florida - even though its Democratic primary won't count for much.
Like her rivals, Clinton has agreed to a pledge imposed by national party leaders not to publicly campaign in the state. But after South Carolina, Clinton was skating up against the edge of that agreement and trying to lend some credibility to the outcome Tuesday.
She arrived in Florida on Sunday for two events - both closed fundraisers, in keeping with the pledge not to campaign. She clearly winked at that pledge with her arrival, joking about the warm weather and positioning herself so photographers had a palm tree for a backdrop.
Here's Hillary in Florida in Janurary.
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/01/28/image3760072g.jpg)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/28/politics/main3760117.shtml
If he was in the same position perhaps Obama would be as desperate to grab power, but he isn't. Hillary's demands on Florida and Michigan (which wouldn't even be outcome determinative) verify my initial feeling that she will do and say anything for power. Which is the image that too many had of her going in to the race.
Again, I can't speak for Obama's character in a similar situation, but I have not been impressed by Hillary's retake on those states. At the time it was to enforce rules and maintain order and she agreed with it, now the Democratic party is violating their civil rights and it's horrible.
quote:
I completely agree with you, WB. I am so sick of politicians speaking to us as though we are four year olds who cannot see through the stupidity of their arguments. One thing that gives me hope is that I believe Hillary's losses on Tuesday had a great deal to do with her "gas tax holiday" scheme. People are not stupid. They realize that these "quick fixes" are nothing more than attempts to placate the masses and ignore the huge problems that face our country. The economy is in shambles, houses are being foreclosed, we're spending billions on a war that seems to have no end. So what does our Government do? Buy us off with a $600 check.
Isn't that what Obama is proposing, yet another worthless $250 stimulus check for "the middle class?"
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I completely agree with you, WB. I am so sick of politicians speaking to us as though we are four year olds who cannot see through the stupidity of their arguments. One thing that gives me hope is that I believe Hillary's losses on Tuesday had a great deal to do with her "gas tax holiday" scheme. People are not stupid. They realize that these "quick fixes" are nothing more than attempts to placate the masses and ignore the huge problems that face our country. The economy is in shambles, houses are being foreclosed, we're spending billions on a war that seems to have no end. So what does our Government do? Buy us off with a $600 check.
Isn't that what Obama is proposing, yet another worthless $250 stimulus check for "the middle class?"
NO
The stereotypes of the candidates that have evolved over the course of this campaign are divorced from reality. Most people are buying into an ideal when they support Obama. If you think Clinton's rather tame punches are Republican-like, you have forgotten Swift Boat and a 100 other Republican tactics.
I haven't seen one thing new and different about Obama. But I have seen my party crucify itself over and over with candidates that can't win a general election.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
She's not done yet RM & Waterboy!
She may challenge the constitutionality of the whole Democrat primary process in court before the convention.
You may get to vote for her yet!
[}:)]
Love it when my uninformed "crazy" predictions come true. Hillary just sent an open letter to the Obama campaign (12:00 today) urging them to agree to pursue seating Michigan and Florida.
Does anyone really think that Obama is going to say "Hmm, Ok Hillary. You're right. We should let their votes (for you ) count"?
Does anyone think that a simple letter like this increases her chances of influencing super-delegates (if anything it damages her chances)?
Why would she do such a thing, formally and publicly?
What possible purpose could it serve?
Answer:
She is laying groundwork. She is performing due diligence work necessary so that she can mount a legal case against the DNC.
Because the media is involved, Obama will have to respond. His answer will have to be NO. The moment that happens her legal case will begin. She IS going to challenge the constitutionality of not seating FL and MI in a presidential primary. She's going to fight the Whole Democrat Party!
You go girl!
Come on Lawyer types, am I wrong? [:P]
Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised at the bitterness HT and RM show over this likely outcome. I know you are both invested in this candidate but honestly, she made several key mistakes in assembling a team, misjudging the character of the electorate and running as an experienced (read "same ole bs") insider. She then reinforced the image of an ambitious she devil by using the very same tactics she accused the right of abusing her with for the last decade. Meanwhile Obama reacted with restraint and a calm demeanor, while strengthening his fundraising efforts. Whether it was deliberate or a Chauncey Gardener persona doesn't even matter. It showed he would not be the same 'ol bs.
And the assumptions you guys make that paint Obama supporters as naive children who swallow everything our candidate says and we're in for a big ***** slap in the fall is way too condescending. Dare I say...elitist? I make my judgements as to veracity of campaign blathering by running them through the framework of multiple sources of opinion. CNN, MSNBC, Fox (as long as Coulter isn't around), Huffpo, a smattering of the three other networks, magazines, blogs, forums, radio, and my mom's ability to find stuff on the internet that defies description. I wouldn't for a moment take any candidates remarks as gospel. I keep in mind their potential biases or conflicts and then....Presto! On opinion is formed!
I may not be as able to defend that opinion as well as folks who spend their lives looking for conspiracy, greed, corruption and fraud but it works for me. I'm guessing a lot of people do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I completely agree with you, WB. I am so sick of politicians speaking to us as though we are four year olds who cannot see through the stupidity of their arguments. One thing that gives me hope is that I believe Hillary's losses on Tuesday had a great deal to do with her "gas tax holiday" scheme. People are not stupid. They realize that these "quick fixes" are nothing more than attempts to placate the masses and ignore the huge problems that face our country. The economy is in shambles, houses are being foreclosed, we're spending billions on a war that seems to have no end. So what does our Government do? Buy us off with a $600 check.
Isn't that what Obama is proposing, yet another worthless $250 stimulus check for "the middle class?"
NO
Barack Obama has come up with a "stimulus package"....outright payments of $250 for lower and lower-middle class and retired people (with a possible extra $250 later).Maybe you should actually do some research into the candidate that you're voting for?
Waterboy is right to notice how bitter I am becoming on this race.
I am just amazed at how Hillary is treated. The news media just act like she is the devil and the Obama people cry whenever she does anything that she is not playing fair and "changing the rules."
I know that when you, pmcalk, gaspar and others have turned away from her, she probably can't win the election. But I also feel a need to defend her when other posters who I don't respect as much attack her unfairly.
She has been a great democrat. Her voting record reflects my views almost 95% of the time. She changed the way that first ladies will work in the future and fought for universal health care more than any other Senator. Her life has been scrutinized more than any other candidate we ever had running for President. Yet she gets no respect. People have called her a *****, yet can't name one thing to back up that perception.
Because she was married to Bill others have spread generalizations about her. They have attacked her every motive and continue to write such phrases as "she will say anything to get elected." She is treated with all the disdain that we have for politicians and even lumped in with President Bush for unfavorable ratings.
She is a classy woman who has spent a lifetime in public service. She deserves better. She picked a bad time to run for President because Obama has done a better job in getting the strategy it takes to win delegates. Now she is getting accused of killing Obama's chances because she thinks she can win in 2012.
Yes. I am getting bitter. I am tired of the constant attack on her from the republicans, the media, and the Obama people. It is the Obama people who hurt the most. They are mostly democrats who have decided that attacking her is the best thing that they can do to help him.
I figured it out...
On Tuesday Hillary saw the tide turn and won the day if you only count black voters as 3/5's of a vote.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. She said nor implied any such thing. Just thought I'd try to get someone to call me a Nazi so we could end this thread...
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised at the bitterness HT and RM show over this likely outcome. I know you are both invested in this candidate but honestly, she made several key mistakes in assembling a team, misjudging the character of the electorate and running as an experienced (read "same ole bs") insider. She then reinforced the image of an ambitious she devil by using the very same tactics she accused the right of abusing her with for the last decade. Meanwhile Obama reacted with restraint and a calm demeanor, while strengthening his fundraising efforts. Whether it was deliberate or a Chauncey Gardener persona doesn't even matter. It showed he would not be the same 'ol bs.
And the assumptions you guys make that paint Obama supporters as naive children who swallow everything our candidate says and we're in for a big ***** slap in the fall is way too condescending. Dare I say...elitist? I make my judgements as to veracity of campaign blathering by running them through the framework of multiple sources of opinion. CNN, MSNBC, Fox (as long as Coulter isn't around), Huffpo, a smattering of the three other networks, magazines, blogs, forums, radio, and my mom's ability to find stuff on the internet that defies description. I wouldn't for a moment take any candidates remarks as gospel. I keep in mind their potential biases or conflicts and then....Presto! On opinion is formed!
I may not be as able to defend that opinion as well as folks who spend their lives looking for conspiracy, greed, corruption and fraud but it works for me. I'm guessing a lot of people do the same.
Personally, I have never had a reaction like this to a probable nominee of ours. I am very unhappy and as I say, if there was anywhere else to go I would.
Don't think of me as an individual, think of me as a demographic or 50 percent of the party.
Obama has done no outreach to Clinton supporters and he best move very carefully on this issue.
quote:
Obama has done no outreach to Clinton supporters and he best move very carefully on this issue.
Oh quit blustering. You're going to vote for whoever your party nominates.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised at the bitterness HT and RM show over this likely outcome. I know you are both invested in this candidate but honestly, she made several key mistakes in assembling a team, misjudging the character of the electorate and running as an experienced (read "same ole bs") insider. She then reinforced the image of an ambitious she devil by using the very same tactics she accused the right of abusing her with for the last decade. Meanwhile Obama reacted with restraint and a calm demeanor, while strengthening his fundraising efforts. Whether it was deliberate or a Chauncey Gardener persona doesn't even matter. It showed he would not be the same 'ol bs.
And the assumptions you guys make that paint Obama supporters as naive children who swallow everything our candidate says and we're in for a big ***** slap in the fall is way too condescending. Dare I say...elitist? I make my judgements as to veracity of campaign blathering by running them through the framework of multiple sources of opinion. CNN, MSNBC, Fox (as long as Coulter isn't around), Huffpo, a smattering of the three other networks, magazines, blogs, forums, radio, and my mom's ability to find stuff on the internet that defies description. I wouldn't for a moment take any candidates remarks as gospel. I keep in mind their potential biases or conflicts and then....Presto! On opinion is formed!
I may not be as able to defend that opinion as well as folks who spend their lives looking for conspiracy, greed, corruption and fraud but it works for me. I'm guessing a lot of people do the same.
Personally, I have never had a reaction like this to a probable nominee of ours. I am very unhappy and as I say, if there was anywhere else to go I would.
Don't think of me as an individual, think of me as a demographic or 50 percent of the party.
Obama has done no outreach to Clinton supporters and he best move very carefully on this issue.
I respect both you and RM for being democrats who actually commit monetarily and functionally to the party. Much of the Obama excesses come from the exuberance of youth and should be forgiven. Its not their fault they are young. I look for Obama to reach out quickly to the Clintons and their supporters. I think he is showing her respect by not calling for her to give it up yet assuming a victory. He knows she is more than capable of turning the tables should he falter in the least. The Clintons will remain a powerful, positive element of history and the direction of the party. No doubt many of the super delegates are feeling the pain of this campaign.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Waterboy is right to notice how bitter I am becoming on this race.
I am just amazed at how Hillary is treated. The news media just act like she is the devil and the Obama people cry whenever she does anything that she is not playing fair and "changing the rules."
I know that when you, pmcalk, gaspar and others have turned away from her, she probably can't win the election. But I also feel a need to defend her when other posters who I don't respect as much attack her unfairly.
She has been a great democrat. Her voting record reflects my views almost 95% of the time. She changed the way that first ladies will work in the future and fought for universal health care more than any other Senator. Her life has been scrutinized more than any other candidate we ever had running for President. Yet she gets no respect. People have called her a *****, yet can't name one thing to back up that perception.
Because she was married to Bill others have spread generalizations about her. They have attacked her every motive and continue to write such phrases as "she will say anything to get elected." She is treated with all the disdain that we have for politicians and even lumped in with President Bush for unfavorable ratings.
She is a classy woman who has spent a lifetime in public service. She deserves better. She picked a bad time to run for President because Obama has done a better job in getting the strategy it takes to win delegates. Now she is getting accused of killing Obama's chances because she thinks she can win in 2012.
Yes. I am getting bitter. I am tired of the constant attack on her from the republicans, the media, and the Obama people. It is the Obama people who hurt the most. They are mostly democrats who have decided that attacking her is the best thing that they can do to help him.
I am sorry you are feeling bitter, RM. I know what it is like to love a candidate, and have others not see all of the good in her/him. It's like being rejected in a relationship. I am sorry if I have been too critical toward Hillary. I never turned away from Hillary--I supported Obama from the start. I supported him before he decided to run. While there are things that bother me about Clinton, my support was never anti-Hillary. It has always been pro-Obama.
Having said that, I do agree with you that the media has an anti-Hillary bias. The media is sexist. And if I haven't said it before, it is very disturbing to me to see the type of criticism of Hillary that is clearly based in sexism. It is very difficult for women in this country to be ambitious without being despised. Some of the traits that Hillary is criticized for would be praised in a man.
At the same time, there are reasons to dislike Hillary that have nothing to do with sexism, just as there are reasons to dislike Obama that have nothing to do with racism. It is ironic that you believe that Obama supporters are attacking Hillary simply to help him. I believe the same thing of her. Guess we all have our own perspective. You have refused to admit that a single complaint about Hillary is justified; instead, anytime someone criticizes her, you simply point the finger at Obama/the Media/the right wing as doing something similar or being hypocrites. I can admit that Obama isn't perfect. Can you admit that some of Hillary's problems are the result of her own actions? Do you really think the gas tax holiday was a good idea, and that Hillary should not know better? Ultimately, Hillary isn't losing because of media bias, unfair attacks, or sexism, even if that has contributed. Ultimately, she is losing simply because the majority of people believe that Obama is a better candidate.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised at the bitterness HT and RM show over this likely outcome. I know you are both invested in this candidate but honestly, she made several key mistakes in assembling a team, misjudging the character of the electorate and running as an experienced (read "same ole bs") insider. She then reinforced the image of an ambitious she devil by using the very same tactics she accused the right of abusing her with for the last decade. Meanwhile Obama reacted with restraint and a calm demeanor, while strengthening his fundraising efforts. Whether it was deliberate or a Chauncey Gardener persona doesn't even matter. It showed he would not be the same 'ol bs.
And the assumptions you guys make that paint Obama supporters as naive children who swallow everything our candidate says and we're in for a big ***** slap in the fall is way too condescending. Dare I say...elitist? I make my judgements as to veracity of campaign blathering by running them through the framework of multiple sources of opinion. CNN, MSNBC, Fox (as long as Coulter isn't around), Huffpo, a smattering of the three other networks, magazines, blogs, forums, radio, and my mom's ability to find stuff on the internet that defies description. I wouldn't for a moment take any candidates remarks as gospel. I keep in mind their potential biases or conflicts and then....Presto! On opinion is formed!
I may not be as able to defend that opinion as well as folks who spend their lives looking for conspiracy, greed, corruption and fraud but it works for me. I'm guessing a lot of people do the same.
Personally, I have never had a reaction like this to a probable nominee of ours. I am very unhappy and as I say, if there was anywhere else to go I would.
Don't think of me as an individual, think of me as a demographic or 50 percent of the party.
Obama has done no outreach to Clinton supporters and he best move very carefully on this issue.
Hometown, you once said that you would vote for Obama if he were the candidate, but that you thought Obama supporters wouldn't support Hillary. I told you I would, and I meant it. I hope you stick to your word as well.
Obviously, it is hard to admit defeat, and it is easy to blame the one who won. Obama is trying to reach out to the white working class, and in some states he has done quite well. I expect that he will work even harder as the general election approaches. It is always difficult for democrats to reach the white working class, not because party doesn't have their best interest at heart, but because I believe there is some truth to Thomas Frank's theory (What's the Matter with Kansas?). I don't think Hillary would have such an easy time in a general election winning those people over. After all, it wouldn't take much to paint her as elitist. You should remember that Bill Clinton did not win these people over in his first election ('92). He won because Ross Perot captured the white, working class away from Bush. And I wonder if he would have won them over in '96 if he had been running against anyone but Dole. Frankly, I think the democrats need a drastic change, because I don't think our past approach has been working.
Again, I don't like to continue painting our country in terms of demographics. I would probably be classified as a liberal elitist. You seem to be white working class. Is your vote any more important than mine? Don't we both have a say in who runs are country, and how? Can we even make generalizations like this--do all white, working class individuals think alike, vote alike? Instead of placating individual demographics, it is high time we start looking at our country as a whole, and deciding how we can improve the lives of everyone.
Those are fair criticisms. I do overplay my hand sometimes.
I will never forgive Hillary for voting to go to Iraq. I think she made a major campaign mistake by not trying harder in Iowa. I think she should have stressed her international contacts and her years in the Senate more than her years in the White House.
My problems with Obama are not with what he says or represents. His candidacy gives religious Americans a chance to feel good about voting for a Democrat. He has done a great job in bringing new people to the voting process and his name on the ticket may allow the democrats to win big in the south.
But I like him less than Hillary, mainly because of his friends. I think he showed very poor judgement in doing real estate deals with a Chicago mobster. I have real problems with his church. I wrote friends back in December talking about his pastor, way before the media picked up on the story. These are major judgement flaws and I could never embrace him continually saying he had better judgement than Hillary. I will support Obama if he is the candidate, but I will always be a little distru****l of him because of what I know. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton and his practice of dropping his pants.
I could never support McCain. I completely disagree with his views on promoting nuclear energy, building a wall between us and Mexico, staying in Iraq, and his proposal to lower corporate taxes 30%.
McCain's policies are a disaster. I would rather vote for a yellow dog than to vote for him.
I can appreciate your points, RM. I don't like that Obama was friendly with Rezko, but I have come to accept that all politicians (including Hillary) have a few unsavory friends (don't you think calling him a mobster is a bit much? He hasn't been accused of killing anyone). As for his church, that has never bothered me. Having been raised Catholic, I completely understand why one would attend a church even when they disagree with what the preacher says. The connection a church provides to one's identity, one's heritage, one's ancestors is very strong, and can mean more than any particular preacher's beliefs. It would have been safer to join another church. But I appreciate when politicians don't take the safe route.
There are many things I like about Hillary. I very much admire her work on behalf of children. My dream was to go work at the Children's Defense Fund after law school. I think her book "It takes a Village" was wonderful. And I don't fault her too much for her vote on Iraq. My friends in New York have been very pleased with her as a Senator (even the ones that refused to vote for her initially because she was a "carpet bagger"). When Hillary starts behaving politically, that's when I don't like her.
My concern with her continuing her campaign is what it will do to the Democratic party. I don't think she is purposely trying to destroy the party. But her only argument now is that the white, working class voter in certain states is the only one that matters. We cannot embrace that idea as democrats and have any hope of winning in the fall. It's offensive. At some point, we have to have unity, and the longer it drags out, the harder it will be. I understand that you think Hillary is a better candidate. But, given everything at stake in prolonging this fight, can you not say that Obama is a good candidate? A candidate that can defeat McCain? Isn't it better to start looking to the fall then to prolong the inevitable?
By the way, my second choice was always your first choice--Edwards. Does it make any difference to you that the majority of Edwards's supporter, including his campaign manager, have now endorsed Obama?
Interesting strategy was proposed this morning by the leader of some young Democrat party on MSNBC.
He was/is a Hillary supporter and would still like to see her become president in 2012.
He said that if Obama is elected he will either last for 4 years as the Republican party grooms a new young candidate to sweep 2012 or he will be a two termer, eliminating a Hillary candidacy thereafter. He also theorized that the recent failure of the Pelosi led house will ensure Republican shift under Obama.
So what he was proposing to his group was to support McCain on the belief that he will only last 4 years and that would give the democrats a chance to continue to demonize Republican policy and a 100% chance of taking the White House with Hillary and maintaining a majority in congress.
I wonder if she will latch on to that strategy, or if she already has?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
She's not done yet RM & Waterboy!
She may challenge the constitutionality of the whole Democrat primary process in court before the convention.
You may get to vote for her yet!
[}:)]
Love it when my uninformed "crazy" predictions come true. Hillary just sent an open letter to the Obama campaign (12:00 today) urging them to agree to pursue seating Michigan and Florida.
Does anyone really think that Obama is going to say "Hmm, Ok Hillary. You're right. We should let their votes (for you ) count"?
Does anyone think that a simple letter like this increases her chances of influencing super-delegates (if anything it damages her chances)?
Why would she do such a thing, formally and publicly?
What possible purpose could it serve?
Answer:
She is laying groundwork. She is performing due diligence work necessary so that she can mount a legal case against the DNC.
Because the media is involved, Obama will have to respond. His answer will have to be NO. The moment that happens her legal case will begin. She IS going to challenge the constitutionality of not seating FL and MI in a presidential primary. She's going to fight the Whole Democrat Party!
You go girl!
Come on Lawyer types, am I wrong? [:P]
And here's the letter, I give you Exhibit A:
Senator Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Dear Senator Obama,
This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.
One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.
I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.
Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.
I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I think you are getting ahead of yourself by saying this is all groundwork for a lawsuit by Hillary. Nowhere in that letter does she say anything like that.
I completely agree with her (surprise). The voters in those states voted and their votes should be counted somehow. The Obama camp has fought against counting them, having a recount, or any other effort to give those voters a chance to be part of this primary campaign.
He is standing in the way of allowing Michigan and Florida democrats from being counted.
They went to the polls on the day they were told to. They voted. Because they didn't vote for him, he wants to use bad rules devised by party insiders as a weapon to obstruct their votes from being counted.
Why were the national democrats telling the voters of those two states when to vote? It is because they were trying to manipulate the process so that other states would get the media attention and the campaign spending in other areas. They were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire and other smaller states.
The rules were wrong from the beginning. The national party screwed up the process, the two state parties didn't play along, so now those votes don't count. A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party. Hillary is trying to undo this problem, albeit because it helps her. Obama refuses to budge, albeit because it hurts him.
If Florida voters (who are always about 50/50 on party) vote for McCain and it costs Obama the election, he can only blame himself.
I would think that he is far enough ahead in popular vote and delegate count now that he should back off and allow those votes to count. They are not enough to put Hillary ahead. He would be seen as a diplomat and the gesture would help his image.
I doubt it will happen. Any compromise will be negotiated between the two states and the national party will be fought by his supporters with the same lame arguments they have used ever since he did so poorly in the votes.
Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Interesting strategy was proposed this morning by the leader of some young Democrat party on MSNBC.
He was/is a Hillary supporter and would still like to see her become president in 2012.
He said that if Obama is elected he will either last for 4 years as the Republican party grooms a new young candidate to sweep 2012 or he will be a two termer, eliminating a Hillary candidacy thereafter. He also theorized that the recent failure of the Pelosi led house will ensure Republican shift under Obama.
So what he was proposing to his group was to support McCain on the belief that he will only last 4 years and that would give the democrats a chance to continue to demonize Republican policy and a 100% chance of taking the White House with Hillary and maintaining a majority in congress.
I wonder if she will latch on to that strategy, or if she already has?
A lot of people say they are Democrats but aren't. A lot of people think they are Democrats but aren't. Some people will say outrageous things to get their moment on the tube. This sounds like one. No Democrat would refer to the Pelosi led house as a failure or contemplate voting for McCain just to get Hillary in by 2012. He is either a poser or totally unaware that the Congress is in serious jeopardy of losing even more Republican seats in this race. Congressional republicans are pretty much on their own as the national party concentrates on McCain. People haven't forgotten the disaster rubber stamp congress of the last 8 years that followed Bush directives like he was a dog in heat.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think you are getting ahead of yourself by saying this is all groundwork for a lawsuit by Hillary. Nowhere in that letter does she say anything like that.
I completely agree with her (surprise). The voters in those states voted and their votes should be counted somehow. The Obama camp has fought against counting them, having a recount, or any other effort to give those voters a chance to be part of this primary campaign.
He is standing in the way of allowing Michigan and Florida democrats from being counted.
They went to the polls on the day they were told to. They voted. Because they didn't vote for him, he wants to use bad rules devised by party insiders as a weapon to obstruct their votes from being counted.
Why were the national democrats telling the voters of those two states when to vote? It is because they were trying to manipulate the process so that other states would get the media attention and the campaign spending in other areas. They were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire and other smaller states.
The rules were wrong from the beginning. The national party screwed up the process, the two state parties didn't play along, so now those votes don't count. A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party. Hillary is trying to undo this problem, albeit because it helps her. Obama refuses to budge, albeit because it hurts him.
If Florida voters (who are always about 50/50 on party) vote for McCain and it costs Obama the election, he can only blame himself.
I would think that he is far enough ahead in popular vote and delegate count now that he should back off and allow those votes to count. They are not enough to put Hillary ahead. He would be seen as a diplomat and the gesture would help his image.
I doubt it will happen. Any compromise will be negotiated between the two states and the national party will be fought by his supporters with the same lame arguments they have used ever since he did so poorly in the votes.
Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.
Insiders? Wasn't one of them Ickes? Staffer for Hillary? (from Time this week, "Five Mistakes Hillary Made:
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee)
I don't think its fair that Tulsa suffers from OKC and the rest of the state sucking taxes from our area to improve theirs. But the rules were voted on in the legislature by the representatives of the whole state. We were fairly represented in making up those rules. Nonetheless it is unfair. Should I use your reasoning to refuse those rules and pay only the taxes I deem fair and just?
They were rules. Compromise is in order for sure but these candidates knew the rules before the race started and even participated in their developmment.
1. So now the DNC can't make rules for it's own primaries?
2. Why did Hillary agree to the rules if they are so horrible?
3. Even counting those states, she loses.
quote:
A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party.
She signed the thing! If she didn't agree with it, she should not have signed. Certainly she knew what it meant. Certainly she had the clout to remain in the race if she chose not to sign.
The fact is, she needed to sign it to pander to Iowa, New Hampshire, NV, and SC at the time. Now she needs to blow those states off to pander to Michigan and Florida and try to get the nomination. How very principled of her for standing up for them...
quote:
Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.
What was unclear about that which caused her to agree to "violate their civil rights?"
I like the part where they use the terms "racial and ethnic diversity" and then have Iowa and New Hampshire go first.
The DNC cannot get their act together and just make everything screwed up.
Look at how the election results are counted. The votes are porportioned crazily...and don't get me started as to why we have superdelegates counting for 25% of the vote.
Look how they break down...
The formal description (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates".[2]
19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22[3] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)
31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
223 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote each).
Did you realize that DC has two "shadow" senators? How about that 55 of the superdelgates are not "assigned" yet?
Why do democrats outnumber republicans yet continually lose the presidency? See above.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1. So now the DNC can't make rules for it's own primaries?
2. Why did Hillary agree to the rules if they are so horrible?
3. Even counting those states, she loses.
quote:
A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party.
She signed the thing! If she didn't agree with it, she should not have signed. Certainly she knew what it meant. Certainly she had the clout to remain in the race if she chose not to sign.
The fact is, she needed to sign it to pander to Iowa, New Hampshire, NV, and SC at the time. Now she needs to blow those states off to pander to Michigan and Florida and try to get the nomination. How very principled of her for standing up for them...
quote:
Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.
What was unclear about that which caused her to agree to "violate their civil rights?"
Doesn't matter CF. 99% of her constituents are more susceptible to her words than any facts or evidence. We already experienced this with Bill.
The Clintons have learned that if they say it, and it sounds good, their people will believe it, no matter what the truth is. She doesn't care, and neither do her supporters, so don't go waving around facts and evidence, they have no effect.
You are trying to battle emotional defenses with logical weapons. It doesn't work. Never has!
I'm not arguing that the rules make any sense. They seem to me (like many liberal ideas I'm in my eyes) well intentioned but the execution does more harm than good. I don't defend the execution of the system.
BUT, those are the rules. Hillary knew or should have known the rules going in (it was apperent her campaign did not - saying taking all of California and NY would nearly wrap things up in an interview early on). Obama knew the rules and played to them perfectly.
He played the game better under the existing set of rules and looks like he will win under them. So Hillary now argues that the rules suck and need to be changed. Perhaps that's a valid point, but you don't change rules in the middle of the game and the person calling for such a change from behind always looks pathetic.
The Clintons, if anyone, had the power to advocate for a rule change long before this race started. They have played under these rules for nearly 20 years. They weren't a problem until she found herself losing.
I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to explain why so many people have little sympathy for her position.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think you are getting ahead of yourself by saying this is all groundwork for a lawsuit by Hillary. Nowhere in that letter does she say anything like that.
I completely agree with her (surprise). The voters in those states voted and their votes should be counted somehow. The Obama camp has fought against counting them, having a recount, or any other effort to give those voters a chance to be part of this primary campaign.
He is standing in the way of allowing Michigan and Florida democrats from being counted.
They went to the polls on the day they were told to. They voted. Because they didn't vote for him, he wants to use bad rules devised by party insiders as a weapon to obstruct their votes from being counted.
Why were the national democrats telling the voters of those two states when to vote? It is because they were trying to manipulate the process so that other states would get the media attention and the campaign spending in other areas. They were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire and other smaller states.
The rules were wrong from the beginning. The national party screwed up the process, the two state parties didn't play along, so now those votes don't count. A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party. Hillary is trying to undo this problem, albeit because it helps her. Obama refuses to budge, albeit because it hurts him.
If Florida voters (who are always about 50/50 on party) vote for McCain and it costs Obama the election, he can only blame himself.
I would think that he is far enough ahead in popular vote and delegate count now that he should back off and allow those votes to count. They are not enough to put Hillary ahead. He would be seen as a diplomat and the gesture would help his image.
I doubt it will happen. Any compromise will be negotiated between the two states and the national party will be fought by his supporters with the same lame arguments they have used ever since he did so poorly in the votes.
Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.
Well there is no other reason for this letter. None! She is not stupid! She uses her words well and the language in this letter has absolutely no value except to serve as documentation of her effort to persuade the opposing candidate (due diligence necessary to mount a legal claim) .
She has already made all of these statements publicly. There is no news in this letter and it proposes no new strategy. Therefore; respecting her intelligence, I can come to no other conclusion but to assume that she is taking the steps necessary to build a case.
Her next step is to formulate a formal letter to Howard Dean and make it public, just like this one. When we see that, we will know for sure that she is preparing for battle.
Currently, Obama is delaying his public response to this letter. He will eventually have to respond to it, and she knows that.
There is already debate in the media this morning on the constitutionality of the Democrat primary process, so people are beginning to anticipate her strategy and fall in line for her.
She's going to make this a "Crusade for Democracy" or some such nonsense and position herself as the champion for the disenfranchised.
Just watch!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I like the part where they use the terms "racial and ethnic diversity" and then have Iowa and New Hampshire go first.
The DNC cannot get their act together and just make everything screwed up.
Look at how the election results are counted. The votes are porportioned crazily...and don't get me started as to why we have superdelegates counting for 25% of the vote.
Look how they break down...
The formal description (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates".[2]
19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22[3] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)
31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
223 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote each).
Did you realize that DC has two "shadow" senators? How about that 55 of the superdelgates are not "assigned" yet?
Why do democrats outnumber republicans yet continually lose the presidency? See above.
Recycle Michael, My respect for you grows daily. You are tireless.
Clinton can count some of the party's largest donors among her followers and I predict we will see Howard Dean's head roll. I wish he would take his hog yell and his pursed lips back to where he came from.
Other Democrats we could do without. Pelosi, Reid and Brad Henry (with his polling data).
Where is Ann Richards when we need her? She knew how to win. Where is Terry McAuliffe when our party needs him? Where are the statesmen like Jesse Jackson? Know one in our Leadership can hold a candle to Lyndon Johnson or Jim Wright. Our party has been taken over by pusses that can win in San Francisco and Massachusetts (where they have no opposition) but don't even know where Kansas, Tennessee and Alabama are.
Pmcalk, I will be watching Obama very closely to see if he offers the vice-presidency to Clinton and for other signs of outreach to Clinton supporters. This is a two-way street we are traveling and I want reciprocity. My partner has declared he will not vote for Obama. I would say my first concern is bringing home the service people in Iraq. You could also say I've weathered a lot of storms with the Democrats.
I have far more respect for Howard Dean than I will ever have for the Clintons. I went to one of his rallies in Chicago... too bad the country didn't get a better feel for the candidate back when he ran...
Do you know what Howard Dean stood for?
Did you understand his positions on the issues?
Or did you just fall for a buncha media gotcha games that doomed his campaign?
Once again, it doesn't matter who you or your boyfriend vote for, because we're in Oklahoma... your vote doesn't count and Hillary doesn't care about this state... maybe that's why both David Boren and Brad Henry have already endorsed Obama...
You sound like Obama should be kissing your ring or something... this ain't the Godfather, punkin'...
Hillary Clinton is POLARIZING her own supporters against Obama so she can run again in four years... truly disgusting.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I like the part where they use the terms "racial and ethnic diversity" and then have Iowa and New Hampshire go first.
Did Hillary Clinton speak up against this unfair practice that went on in 1992 and 1996 when her husband was president or did she say nothing?
How exactly did having Iowa and New Hampshire "go first" benefit the campaign of Barack Obama???
quote:
The DNC cannot get their act together and just make everything screwed up.
Look at how the election results are counted. The votes are porportioned crazily...and don't get me started as to why we have superdelegates counting for 25% of the vote.
Once again, Hillary's allies could have changed the rules BEFORE THE PRIMARIES BEGAN... they had far more pull than anyone else in the race...
quote:
Look how they break down...
The formal description (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates".[2]
19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22[3] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)
31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
223 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote each).
Did you realize that DC has two "shadow" senators? How about that 55 of the superdelgates are not "assigned" yet?
Why do democrats outnumber republicans yet continually lose the presidency? See above.
You would feel completely the opposite if Hillary Clinton were winning. Now that she's losing and has effectively lost, you do what the WORST dems do....... PLAY THE VICTIM.
Blame, blame, blame.... here's a thought... have your candidate try changing the rules BEFORE THE NEXT YEAR OF PRIMARIES... not after the race is already over.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
My concern with her continuing her campaign is what it will do to the Democratic party. I don't think she is purposely trying to destroy the party. But her only argument now is that the white, working class voter in certain states is the only one that matters. We cannot embrace that idea as democrats and have any hope of winning in the fall. It's offensive. At some point, we have to have unity, and the longer it drags out, the harder it will be. I understand that you think Hillary is a better candidate. But, given everything at stake in prolonging this fight, can you not say that Obama is a good candidate? A candidate that can defeat McCain? Isn't it better to start looking to the fall then to prolong the inevitable?
Another casualty of this campaign may well be Bill Clinton's legacy. Up until the last few months, Bill has been the closest thing to Ronald Reagan that the left has. A lot of Democrats and Democratic Party supporters now have a lowered opinion of Bill, both by proxy because of Hillary, and by his own bizarre behavior over the last few months. The actions of Hillary in 2007 may be the reason we never see a Bill Clinton $20 coin (20 dollars then will probably be worth what 50 cents is now.)
quote:
By the way, my second choice was always your first choice--Edwards. Does it make any difference to you that the majority of Edwards's supporter, including his campaign manager, have now endorsed Obama?
From the beginning of the campaign, I wanted to see a ticket with both Edwards and Obama on it. Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama, I didn't really care, although I slightly preferred Obama as president. I'd still like for Barack to offer the VP job to Edwards. He's highly intelligent, articulate, and he might help get the "white working class" vote with his Southern drawl and aw-shucks good old boy demeanor. And their politics aren't too far apart.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
She's not done yet RM & Waterboy!
She may challenge the constitutionality of the whole Democrat primary process in court before the convention.
You may get to vote for her yet!
[}:)]
Love it when my uninformed "crazy" predictions come true. Hillary just sent an open letter to the Obama campaign (12:00 today) urging them to agree to pursue seating Michigan and Florida.
Does anyone really think that Obama is going to say "Hmm, Ok Hillary. You're right. We should let their votes (for you ) count"?
Does anyone think that a simple letter like this increases her chances of influencing super-delegates (if anything it damages her chances)?
Why would she do such a thing, formally and publicly?
What possible purpose could it serve?
Answer:
She is laying groundwork. She is performing due diligence work necessary so that she can mount a legal case against the DNC.
Because the media is involved, Obama will have to respond. His answer will have to be NO. The moment that happens her legal case will begin. She IS going to challenge the constitutionality of not seating FL and MI in a presidential primary. She's going to fight the Whole Democrat Party!
You go girl!
Come on Lawyer types, am I wrong? [:P]
If she does go along with this, and I truly believe she would do absolutely anything to become President (watch out Bill, a widow running for President would get a lot of the sympathy vote) this would absolutely be the end of the Democratic Party. There's no way it could survive.
And if she does sue her own party, who on earth would nominate her anyway? I would imagine that all the supes would turn on her, and probably a large number of the pledged delegates. There would be a few holdouts who support her with zeal, but the Clintons would quickly become persona non grata within the party.
And, in this day and age, I'm not even sure something would come along to replace the Democratic Party. The trend today in almost anything is to have one main entrant, and a bunch of small ones. This could very well happen if the Democratic Party is destroyed, with the Republican Party becoming the majority party and eventually the only party. Hillary Clinton could go down in history as the person who brought down democracy!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.
First off, those states should not be counted, because the rules were in place before the campaign even started. If Hillary had a problem with those rules, she should have spoken up then.
Second, I agree these rules are unfair and should be changed. ALL primaries and caucuses should be held on the same day. Democratic and Republican. And get rid of delegates and superdelegates alltogether, as the winner of the popular vote would become the nominee. There would likely be a runoff in most cases. If we all vote on the same day, the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire won't have influence that voters in other states don't, and Montana and South Dakota have virtually no say in the matter unless the election is extremely close (this one isn't close enough for them to matter). And the practice of closed primaries should be eliminated. I wasn't allowed to vote in the primary because of the letters IND on my voter card.
Get rid of the electoral college, mandate paper trails for all voting machines, and make the changes to the nomination process and we might have a fairly decent electoral process in this country.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.
First off, those states should not be counted, because the rules were in place before the campaign even started. If Hillary had a problem with those rules, she should have spoken up then.
Second, I agree these rules are unfair and should be changed. ALL primaries and caucuses should be held on the same day. Democratic and Republican. And get rid of delegates and superdelegates alltogether, as the winner of the popular vote would become the nominee. There would likely be a runoff in most cases. If we all vote on the same day, the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire won't have influence that voters in other states don't, and Montana and South Dakota have virtually no say in the matter unless the election is extremely close (this one isn't close enough for them to matter). And the practice of closed primaries should be eliminated. I wasn't allowed to vote in the primary because of the letters IND on my voter card.
Get rid of the electoral college, mandate paper trails for all voting machines, and make the changes to the nomination process and we might have a fairly decent electoral process in this country.
Makes it sort of hard to campaign if its all on one day. Mistakes magnified and no real chance to see the competitive process unfurl the personalities. And different states use different methods of primaries, some caucuses, some not. The system needs tweeked, not junked. Just like your registration. Tweek it by making a committment and changing those letters to DEM.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Makes it sort of hard to campaign if its all on one day.
The general election is held on one day, and nobody seems to have any problems with campaigning. They could start campaigning a month earlier if need be.
quote:
Mistakes magnified and no real chance to see the competitive process unfurl the personalities. And different states use different methods of primaries, some caucuses, some not. The system needs tweeked, not junked. Just like your registration. Tweek it by making a committment and changing those letters to DEM.
I cannot become a member of the Democratic Party. They do not match my views on many issues. I do usually vote Dem (95%+ of the time) but I refuse to join a party that has several views (gun control, immigration) that are the near polar opposite from mine. And I don't like to join groups that try to tell you how to think. I'm more than capable of deciding on those issues myself. That's why I'm an independent.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
And, in this day and age, I'm not even sure something would come along to replace the Democratic Party. The trend today in almost anything is to have one main entrant, and a bunch of small ones. This could very well happen if the Democratic Party is destroyed, with the Republican Party becoming the majority party and eventually the only party. Hillary Clinton could go down in history as the person who brought down democracy!
With all due respect, get a grip. Both parties have endured far greater setbacks and have come back. This notion that one person, or anything else, can "destroy" a party is pure hyperbole.
Politics is a flexible thing, and candidates can and do change with the times and the voters.