DC Area Voters

[BookerT]

good post by callat703, although there's a ton of wishful thinking in there, unfortunately. i did have the same sort of fantasy vision last night of them agreeing to share the ticket with each other no matter what the outcome, but this ain't disney.
 
 i'm still kind of alarmed by obama's lack of wins in states the dems traditionally carry in general elections. he sure has an easy time with caucuses in republican strongholds, but the blue states of the past few decades have largely been hillary victories.
 
 not that it necessarily had any impact, but hillary really should place a thank you call to tina fey, dontcha think?

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by callat703:
  At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting.  

Agreed. Barack Obama staying in this race is a farce. [/b]

A "farce?"  You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by callat703:
  A "farce?"  You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.

It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count.

They knew the rules.  Everybody knew and agreed to the rules, including the Clinton campaign (by now I'm sure you've seen the Sept 7 memo).  Why should we now consider a redo when they knowingly broke the rules?
 
 That being said, there's no doubt in my mind that the Clintons will file a law suit around the time of the PA primary.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

The whole primary/caucus season is a farce. Call the whole thing off and take a nationwide populat vote now. It looks pretty even.
 
 http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
  It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses

Caucauses are not a new conept for any poltical team.  The Clinton's have just shown how bad they are at grass roots organizing, that's all.  Her only gain from this weekend came from old school negative campainging.

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
  It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago.

oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by callat703:
  A "farce?"  You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.

It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago. [/b]

So this is the new Clinton supporter tack?  
 
 "The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
 
 Give me a break.
 
 How about the fact that if Obama had lost 12 straight contests, he'd be completely ruled out as a potential candidate, as the superdelegates would have broken for Clinton a long time ago?

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election,

Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate?  This is the way the Dems have done it for decades - it's not like the Clinton team didn't know this ahead of time.  They just can't admit that a knew guy on the block did it better.
 
 I don't mind Clintonians fighting on the merits, but this rule change argument wreaks of desperation.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  They knew the rules.  Everybody knew and agreed to the rules, including the Clinton campaign (by now I'm sure you've seen the Sept 7 memo).  Why should we now consider a redo when they knowingly broke the rules?

I'm not proposing a redo. I'm proposing the results count. There's nothing more un-democratic then telling the people in two key states that their votes don't count because idiotic local leaders held their election too early. It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
  I'm proposing the results count.

Despite there being only one candidate on one of the ballots?  Even Hillary isn't arguing for that!

[Sage 703]

Julien, do you actually believe what you're saying?  Or are you so wrapped up with your candidate winning that you're willing to compromise whatever integrity or honor there is in having rules in the first place?
 
 I'm not for leaving voters out either, but they knew LONG ago that this was the result of moving their primaries.  They had plenty of time to rectify that situation in advance of the vote.
 
 As for a redo...why not redo any other primary that doesn't suit us?  Hell, I bet Obama would love a revote in California.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha

Originally posted by callat703:
 
 "The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
 

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate?

Funny, I'd make the same argument about Team HopeChange's desire to keep the superdelegates out of it completely. If Obama goes into the convention with, let's say, a 75 pledged-delegate lead and the superdelegates break by 100 in favor of Clinton, all we'll hear from the HopeChange camp is how the system is unfair and the rules need changed to protect the will of the people. He's laying the seeds for that now.
 
 The entire democratic nominating system needs changed. Caucuses are ridiculous and out-dated and demand people stand around for 3 hours. That's not easy and open electioneering. The party nominating process should mirror the national election process, and I've maintained this since long before Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever ran for elected office.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Despite there being only one candidate on one of the ballots?  Even Hillary isn't arguing for that!

OK, good point, Michigan probably needs re-done out of fairness. But Florida's vote should still count.

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha

Originally posted by callat703:
 
 "The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
 

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate?

Funny, I'd make the same argument about Team HopeChange's desire to keep the superdelegates out of it completely. If Obama goes into the convention with, let's say, a 75 pledged-delegate lead and the superdelegates break by 100 in favor of Clinton, all we'll hear from the HopeChange camp is how the system is unfair and the rules need changed to protect the will of the people. He's laying the seeds for that now.
 
 The entire democratic nominating system needs changed. Caucuses are ridiculous and out-dated and demand people stand around for 3 hours. That's not easy and open electioneering. The party nominating process should mirror the national election process, and I've maintained this since long before Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever ran for elected office. [/b]

The Obama campaign has NOT ONCE argued that the superdelegates shouldn't be included.  They've argued that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count.  That is COMPLETELY different than what you are talking about.
 
 If they argued that the superdelegates shouldn't have a say at all, that would be a change of the rules.  You're grasping at straws.