"Florida and Michigan voters are considered by Senator Obama's people to have broken the rules..."
Let's see... that would mean that all the residents of FL and MI are Obama people... because, even though they knew they were breaking the rules, they encouraged their leadership to bully to the front of the line. And that would mean that Clinton herself is an Obama person, as after she willingly agreed to the rules, she also freely admitted that the two states broke the rules and the races were meaningless. And perhaps the spinning Clinton staffer Harry Ickes is also an Obama person, because he helped write the rules as well as a number of other Democratic Party leadership... all Obama people!!!
All states, all leadership, all candidates agreed to abide by what the DNC hammered out as equitable and fair. Have to give you a D-. I can hear the sound of your tears falling from here.
Hillary and Bill - putting the "nasty" in Dynasty since 1992
Electoral Votes Will Be The Only Ones That Count In The Fall
Rule Number One: The only vote that counts in determining who becomes President is the Electors tally in the Electoral College.
Rule Number Two: Do Not Forget Rule Number One.
Concerning Senator Obama: His supporters say he won more States -- True; he has more popular votes -- that might be a qualified True; Superdelegates should declare for him now since there is no way Senator Clinton can catch him -- TRUE, but irrelevant since he cannot gather enough votes for the nomination without Superdelegates. His supporters think it is also appropriate for Superdelegates in states that Senator Clinton won should not be forced to follow the will of the people of that state and vote for her--Massachusetts is the outstanding example. But, his supporters, sometimes have vehemently argued, past and present, that the will of the people should not be overturned by Superdelegates.
Florida and Michigan voters are considered by Senator Obama's people to have broken the rules and therefore their opinions are not to be reckoned with even though there will be Electors from those states voting in the Electoral College. All the candidates running at the time of the vote in Florida were on the ballot and the results were a TRUE reflection of the candidates appeal at that time. In Michigan, Senator Clinton's name was the only one on the ballot and she received about 55% of the vote. When Florida voters and Michigan voters for her are not tallied in the popular vote it makes Senator Obama's great lead claim in popular vote viewable with a wry smile. His count in Florida is known and give him the 45% in Michigan as a bonus -- that would reflect a closer to the truth tally as regards voter preference. Pointing out that much of Senator Obama's lead in the popular vote comes from states that neither he nor Senator Clinton would carry in the election is a subtle way of questioning what popular vote is important.
Lastly, Senator Obama is now exhorting Superdelegates to come out for him canceling his supporters past arguments that Superdelegates should not pick the nominee.
Concerning Senator Clinton: Besides making the stupidest comment of her public life, she is closer to those voters who are not young and idealistically in love with the worthy Senator Obama; she is closer to those voters who are having a hard time in our country and are more numerous than the upper middle class and rich folks also swayed by the brilliance of Senator Obama's oratory, and there should be no doubt that those voters will chose the next President of the United States.
I will gladly and happily vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. But my country cannot stand another four years of Republican non-leadership. Therefore I invite you all to visit the following website daily and REMEMBER RULE NUMBER ONE: www.electoral-vote.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama has been against a revote in Michigan and Florida and that may hurt him in the general election because their votes will be counted in the general election and Florida in particular is a very important state.
If the elected delegates in the primary don't matter, why do we even bother to select them?
Assuming you want to go to a popular vote system, are you not arguing for death match primaries in the Democratic party ever four years?
Rule number one: if you are losing you are really winning.
Rule number two: it all dependences on the meaning of "is"
Rule number three: use "if" and "but" as a bridge between reality and fantasy, like if the moon was made of jeez the rats would surely have wings.
Rule number four: people essentially are looking for a way to give Hillary the nomination so invent one every other day till the nomination.
Rule number five: be loyal in absurdum and sell your integrity, remember integrity is for stammering fools who when they are bullied complain about the immorality of the act rather then defending themselves.
When all else fail restate the rules.
And this November, when, should he become the nominee, Obama loses in Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Nebraska, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, the sacred caucus and open primary victories in these states will mean nothing good for democrats on election day. But make sure to overstress their meaning now, so that way the superdelegates feel obligated to pick him anyway.
Remember it was an unbalanced application of party primary rules that disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan, even though when New Hampshire broke the same damn rules and moved their primary up, the rules makers decided not to punish them, just irrelevent Michigan and incidental Florida, who may prove ungrateful in the Fall.
The most troubling trait on view among some of the most vehemently active in the party is impatience. Impatience with the primary process-- let's just stop now and anoint the charismatic guy who's ahead before he looks bad losing somewhere... Impatience with the electoral college system-- let's just behave as if the national popular vote is the way we choose presidents because we'd prefer to choose a president by this method, even though it's not how it will happen... These ideas have their attractions, but the fruit they will bear if adhered to past all reason is bitter old McSame.
That's reality. Reality rules.
"Rule Number One: The only vote that counts in determining who becomes President is the Electors tally in the Electoral College."
Whatever comes later in this post is a strategy to get the Democratic Party voters to be sure to do something to ensure that theirs is the party with the most Electoral College votes.
You can read on for further advice.
To me. The problem with our democratic society is that we continue to be willing to live under Rule Number 1.
So, I will use my 250 here to ask each of you to study the evolution of the election campaign going forward, which stresses the winning of certain states in order to receive ALL of the electoral college votes in those states that are needed to win the Electoral College election. (With a few very minor exceptions)
A lot of learned folks have no problem with that scenario.
The Presidential election is a decision of the Electoral College electors.
That's a problem.
The people, acting as the voters, should decide by a general election WHO, not which party, will be the President and vice-president.
We should repeal the archaic Electoral College selection process, not because it is archaic, but because it is unnecessary and undemocratic.
In the meantime, the only truly DEMOCRATIC action that could be taken is for ALL states to adopt an equitable distribution of Electoral College ELECTORS, based on the percentage of the votes received.
Democracy.
Let's have some.
Yeah, but now in reality, we're still in the midst of a political contest which will be decided by the votes in the electoral college.
Your thoughts on the subject, like somebody else's regarding national health care, are interesting, but not to a patient that needs care NOW, and not in some rosy future we can all wait to arrive at.
The electoral college process is in place NOW, and will require a constitutional amendment to change, so howzabout we just deal with reality for the time being?
Ok Mr. Cressy ... I got as far as this in your post and figured I read enough ...
"Florida and Michigan voters are considered by Senator Obama's people to have broken the rules and therefore their opinions are not to be reckoned with even though there will be Electors from those states voting in the Electoral College."
As you well know, Hillary accepted the penalty against Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries as did the other Democratic Candidates. Hillary herself said that the outcomes from these two states wouldn't count ... I'm sure you can find the sound of her making that statement if you searched a bit on the net.
This frame of Obama being the big, bad guy who is disenfranchising the Democratic Voters of Michigan and Florida is a blatant deception ... I know the Clinton Campaign views the ignorance of the American Voter among their greatest asset, but, anyone who wants to look at the facts in this matter recognizes that personalizing a penalty the DNC applied against States that broke the rules as the fault of Obama is dishonest.
Much to the Clinton Campaign's chagrin, there are people keeping track of theses things, and this type of ploy doesn't paint Hillary in a good light.
A couple of things that don't get talked about regarding the FL primary -
Donna Brazile, said many Democrats likely turned out to vote on a state constitutional amendment that would limit property tax increases and expand homestead exemptions.
"People are very afraid this will cut public services, cut back education," said Brazile, a CNN analyst. "So the Florida Education Association and all of the unions are spending millions of dollars to get voters to turn out."
Voters under 30, made up less than 10 percent of Florida's total. Voters over 50 in retiree-heavy Florida made up nearly more than 60 percent of turnout,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.polls.dems/index.html
A constitutional amendment like that brings out older voters in droves.
1) Floridians were well aware that our primary election results would not be a factor in deciding the nominee because legislators in this state were arrogant enough to feel it appropriate for them to break the party rules. TRUE
2) Although all names were on the ballot during our unsanctioned primary, Senator Clinton enjoyed and benefited from a hefty "name recognition" advantage even without campaigning in our state. TRUE
3) Regardless of the large voter turnout (which may have been heavily influenced by a Homestead Tax initiative on the ballot), MANY voters who were unaffected by the initiative opted to stay home and not vote. Why? Because we were well aware that our delegates would not be seated at the convention. Therefore, the results were not necessarily a true reflection of the voters in Florida.
The situation that we Floridians are in is a direct result of the actions of the individuals in Tallahassee " NOT Howard Dean, NOT the DNC, and NOT the candidates!
At the time leading up to our primary, all of the democratic candidates were in agreement with the DNC and were willing to follow the rules regarding my state"s delegates. It was only after her loss in Iowa that Senator Clinton turned her sights to Florida and Michigan. If she been this vocal beforehand she might not come across as desperate and disingenuous as she now does.
Well, Norman, if the Democratic Primary was set up to be run on the basis of electoral votes, you'd have a valid point. It wasn't and you don't.
And yet, that basis, being how we actually choose the president in the Fall, may just come back to bite us, which makes it relevent to folks in the party who want to win.
And it makes you wonder, don't it? I mean, why you'd have a primary that wasnt 'run on the basis of electoral votes', when, after all, in November, if you don't have the votes of the electors, YOU LOSE!
This getting more and more like Bush's big bungle in Iraq.
Don't believe what you see.
Just trust me and believe what I tell you.
Give it up already and stop harming the Democratic party.
America does not want another Clinton presidency.
If we did she would be the nominee now and Obama would be old news.
You don't speak for America, friend. The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll get over your disappointment.
Hillary's approval rating is at 37%.
Who doesn't speak for America?
Obviously I do speak for America.
Obama is way ahead and Hillary is way behind.
How spin you on that?
The site you reference has Obama one point behind McCain in Texas, and Hillary behind by 10.
It might be hard to keep TX in play for the general, but it lends some credence to a broader, 50-state approach.
The candidate with the most votes in each state will win, not the candidate who gets the most votes nationally. With the exception of a few states, all the near-wins translate into what amounts to a total loss per each state once the electors meet and decide the outcome.
Working for any other goal besides victory in the electoral college is whimsy at best and stupid at worst.
There are several states wherein Obama won caucuses and primaries-- South Carolina, Mississippi and Idaho come immediately to mind-- that are beyond unlikely to be his in the Fall. But time, money and organizing effort will have been squandered in those places nonetheless, thanks to the 50-state strategy. But hey, go ahead and hold out hope for Texas. Hope you're right.
I thought it was up to the five guys on the supreme court.
PLEASE STOP SPREADING THESE LIES!
"Florida and Michigan voters are considered by Senator Obama's people to have broken the rules and therefore their opinions are not to be reckoned with even though there will be Electors from those states voting in the Electoral College. All the candidates running at the time of the vote in Florida were on the ballot and the results were a TRUE reflection of the candidates appeal at that time. "
100 % Pure Bullshit!
It's not"Obama's people" who think FL & MI's votes do NOT count It's the DNC! FL & MI were warned that this would happen. Clinton herself said that "MI would NOT COUNT" She signed a God damned PLEDGE! FL is NOT a "TRUE reflection" Tens of thousands of FL(&MI) residents did not bother to vote because they were officially told that their votes would not count. But now that Hillary HAS LOST the only way she can even Hope to TIE Obama & steal the nomination is if she illegally counts these states.
Just like your candidate you're taking pages right form the KARL ROVE PLAYBOOK. As the Clinton's taught us, "if you tell the same lie often enough, it becomes truth"
Again, Please, I beg you, stop lying.
Please, I beg you, stop begging.
Your argument is fatally flawed. If party nominations were decided by different criteria than they currently are, then both Clinton and Obama would have campaigned differently.
Clinton is just being a sore loser and her behavior shouldn't be encouraged.
In Terry McAuliffe's 2007 book. McAuliffe recounted how he stared down Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) attempt to move up the Michigan primary during the 2004 cycle, and held firm on his threat to strip the state of delegates:
"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.
"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/clintonbacker_mcauliffe_threat_1.php
Just to correct two of this post's misstatements:
[1] "Florida and Michigan voters are considered by Senator Obama's people to have broken the rules..." Well, actually Florida and Michigan broke the Democratic Party's rules. That's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Because of Florida's and Michigan's breaking of the rules, the Obama campaign didn't get to be on the ballot in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida (because the Obama campaign was following the rules). Remember that the delegates had informally agreed with the Democratic Party's recommendation to avoid campaigning in those states -- but of course, whom did we see flouting that agreement? Clinton.
[2] "All the candidates running at the time of the vote in Florida were on the ballot and the results were a TRUE reflection of the candidates appeal at that time." This is sophistry. Obama -- again, unlike Clinton, following the rules -- didn't campaign in Florida. So there is no way to know what voters would have thought had he campaigned there. Moreover, it is likely that a number of Florida voters realized their own political elites had broken the rules by moving the Florida ballot up; given this fact, some just didn't come out to vote, because they knew -- rightly, if unfortunately for them -- that their votes would not count.
Please, if one feels the need, for whatever reason, to shill for Hillary Clinton, at least don't disrespect readers' intelligences by ignoring basic rules of reasoning.
But Clinton didn't campaign in Florida either, even though you like to say she did... Declarations are not reasoning, though they may appear reasonable to the declarer.
It's not only "Senator Obama's people" who "feel" that Florida and Michigan broke the rules. Howard Dean and the DNC think so too. Because they did. Those voters got hosed by their boneheaded state parties, and the Obama campaign had nothing to do with that. They simply weren't legitimate contests.
If the super delegates followed the popular vote there would be no use for having the super delegates. Popular votes do not win elections if they did Nixon would have defeated Kennedy.
And Al Gore won 2000 by half a million more votes than Bush, but lost 5-4 in overtime--the big exhibition game.!
Professor: I've closely followed that web site for the last five years; it is excellent. However, the picture it so well presents changes daily--and, for much of the 2004 election cycle, it failed to accurately predict the end result.
Your words are reasonable, but I question two points you make. The first is, ". . . those voters will chose the next President . . ." I think not. There are simply too few of "those voters" who are Democrats to decide the general election. To win will also take a fair number of new voters, independents and disaffected Republicans. That's the point of Sen. Obama's message and where he shows great strength. Sen. Clinton has won a disproportionate number of Democrats-only primaries. He has won a disproportionate number of open primaries (which attract cross-over voters) and caucuses (which have attracted many new, younger voters this year).
The other point is "I will gladly . . . vote for whomever the Democrats nominate." I, for one, don't see the point of replacing one divisive, self-important person with previous experience of dubious relevance who's a Republican with another who's a Democrat--and who apparently thinks it's clever, and appropriate, to lie. While many of "those voters" may, I think that most of the full electorate do not.
RIDICULOUS!
I'm tired of hearing this arguement about. the Dems not being able to win unless Hillary is the nominee. Here in Minnesota, he's leading McCain by 15 points; she is down 2 pts.
Let me ask Hillary supporters how many swing states will she win w/o the black vote? Because I'm telling you right now Obama finishes this process with the most delegates, and is denied the nomination, blacks will defect in groves. Throw in disaffected young people, and you will have a 40+ state landslide for McCain.
But don't worry Democrats, you will still have white working class voters in PA and OH to rely on....Oh wait, they tend to break 60-40 Republican anyway.
I heard a pundit make the following analogy: What if two teams are vying for the playoffs, and at the end of the season, one team is ahead. But the other team says no, actually we won because we won two exhibition games, and now we want to add those to our regular season tally.
Looks like her supporters are on their last legs now, grasping at air.
So now you're withholding straws?
You speak truth, Norman, but - sorry - no one is listening. The Democratic Party is so hellbent on annointing a symbol, making a statement, and embracing "change", that they've forgotten that the point is to win in November.
I suspect Cindy McCain is picking out her window drapes already.
This is a lame, tired argument that no one is buying. You're right about one thing. The electorial votes are the only onea that matters but those votes won't be cast until November. It is a stretch to say that what happened in April can predict what will happen in November. Clinton has already proved this false assumption when she let an unknown, inexperienced, not ready to lead on day one Obama whose only claim to fame is giving a speech in 2002 beat her to the nomination.
You're also right that Obama will not have the number of delegates by the end of the primaries. What you Clinton supporters always fail to say is Obama will need only 30% of those Superdelegates while your candidate will need 70%. If we look at the math, Obama has gotten 80% of the superdelegates to come to his side since Clinton's big lead early on and now you expect the American public to believe that Clinton can reverse this trend? Just because you live in a fantasy world where math is as fuzzy as Clinton's memory on what happened in Bosnia, does not mean that the rest of America is just as delusion.
Another thing. If this was a contest only about the big states, the democratic party could have saved millions of dollars and just had a contest with the top ten or fifteen states.
I do not predict future math. I also would doubt that future percentages of superdelgates will follow the early percentages. Could happen, but if the superdelegates get the idea that Barack will not win, look for a lemming run for Clinton. Could happen!
Why would you only give him 45% in Michigan when the man wasn't even on the ballot? How many voters didn't go out to vote for Obama because they were told the vote wouldn't count? There is no way of predicting what the actual delegate count would have been in MI when Obama wasn't even on the ticket.
But, you're right about the electoral vote count being the only one that counts, but don't necessarily count the states Hillary won in the primary to equal what she would win in the general. Hillary has alienated the African American vote and there's no Democrat in Ohio that can win a statewide election without that block. Hillary is not going to get independents or Republicans for her in November. If the African American vote doesn't come out in November, it's not only going to hurt the Dem's POTUS chances, it will hurt the down ticket candidates as well.
Posted April 26, 2008 | 03:33 PM (EST)