KD in CA Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 So count all the popular votes, and then the superdelegates can support whoever they think has the best chance of retaining and increasing those popular votes in order to win the electoral college, especially in swing states. Who they can get in Ohio or Florida is much more important than who they can get in Utah or South Carolina. But it's up to the superdelegates to use their own criteria. Oh. So if after millions of people vote a clear majority, it would be perfectly acceptable for a few hundred people to decide to reverse that decision? What happened to your 'disenfranchise' argument from a few days ago (you know, back when you presumed that Hillary wasn't going to get trounced by 210,000 votes last night)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Oh. So if after millions of people vote a clear majority, it would be perfectly acceptable for a few hundred people to decide to reverse that decision? Sure, they're private entities and set their own damned rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 If Russert say's she's toast, it must be true. The numbers just wont work, pasta joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The thing is, come November, it doesn't matter whose names are on the ballot. We're already screwed. You've got 3 people that are all the same running for the same position claiming that they are all different. Vote for Hillary, she's got experience, and isn't Bush Best quote that I've seen about Hillary's so-called experience from the "Zbig Guy": “[senator Clinton] says she’s been to 80 countries. My travel agent has been to 150 countries, that doesn’t make her qualified to be president. . Would someone say that Mamie Eisenhower is better prepared to be president than John Kennedy? Being the wife of a president doesn’t make you ready to be president.” -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, former adviser to JFK & Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Hey, I don't like the Democrat rules either, this whole process of having different rules to apportion delegates in different states is stupid, but the bottom line is that the party allows superdelegates to support whoever they want for whatever reason. So until someone has 2025 total delegates, nobody has won, and the campaign goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 There was a simple solution, a revote in both states, but Obama and his supporters blocked it. The states were ready to move, financing was available, and the DNC would have done it in June. But once again Obama rope-a-doped. Actually it was the parties themselves. THEY wanted the national party to pay for it. The national party said to take a hike. MI and FL knew WELL in advance that they were violating policy and were told that their primaries wouldn't count. They went ahead anyway. Howard Dean has tried to mediate a fair outcome, to no avail. Clinton's claiming "victory" in illegal elections sounds so very Bush-like. Of course a GREAT deal about her sounds like him. Every day something else stupid and stubborn comes out of her mouth. She got her ass kicked in NC, and barely squeaked by in IN, and she essentially says "Mission Accomplished". I used to think she was Lieberman in a dress, now I'm thinking more like W .... smarter in many ways but all about winning at any price, no matter the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Sure, they're private entities and set their own damned rules. Of course they are. I'm not debating the rules. I'm merely questioning PastaJoe's supposed commitment to the enfranchisement of the voters. It's hardly enfranchising to have the decision of millions overridden by the decision of a few hundred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 First, the phrase "steal his nomination" is thrown around by Obama supporters and is false. You can't steal what someone never had. Funny, but the left has done nothing but cry how Bush stole the 2000 election. Suddenly that doesn't apply to the left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Im loading up on popcorn at convention time. This is 68 all over again. Maybe Dan Rather will show up with a massive electronic backpack and get roughed up by dem goons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Still waiting for a link. If this is true it shouldn't be hard to find it anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 Still waiting for a link. If this is true it shouldn't be hard to find it anywhere. Did you even bother to follow the thread? I would suggest you go and read a few posts on page 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Actually it was the parties themselves. THEY wanted the national party to pay for it. The national party said to take a hike. MI and FL knew WELL in advance that they were violating policy and were told that their primaries wouldn't count. They went ahead anyway. Howard Dean has tried to mediate a fair outcome, to no avail. Clinton's claiming "victory" in illegal elections sounds so very Bush-like. Financing was available, private donations were lined up to pay for both revotes. The governors were willing to do it, but they wanted both candidates to agree to it. Clinton did, Obama wouldn't. Bottom line is Obama didn't want the votes to count, and didn't want a revote, because he knew he would lose in either situation. So much for listening to the will of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Financing was available, private donations were lined up to pay for both revotes. The governors were willing to do it, but they wanted both candidates to agree to it. Clinton did, Obama wouldn't. Bottom line is Obama didn't want the votes to count, and didn't want a revote, because he knew he would lose in either situation. So much for listening to the will of the people. Even if you give Hilliary the FL and MI delegates (even with the delegates awarded based upon Obama not even being on the ballot), she would still have to win 78% of the rest of the delegates left in order to get the required amount of delegates for the nomination. NEITHER OF THEM HAS EVER WON 78% OF THE DELEGATES IN ANY STATE SO FAR, much less several in a row. This is due to the proportional delegate awarding system, of course. Get the picture, my friend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Even if you give Hilliary the FL and MI delegates (even with the delegates awarded based upon Obama not even being on the ballot), she would still have to win 78% of the rest of the delegates left in order to get the required amount of delegates for the nomination. NEITHER OF THEM HAS EVER WON 78% OF THE DELEGATES IN ANY STATE SO FAR, much less several in a row. This is due to the proportional delegate awarding system, of course. Get the picture, my friend? Neither of them can get the required amount of pledged delegates, but that doesn't mean FL and MI should be dismissed. Whoever wins the nomination will only reach 2025 with the addition of superdelegates. Obama supporters have this false impression that the person with the most delegates wins, which isn't true. It's whoever gets to 2025, and if neither gets to that number after the first ballot at the convention, then they keep revoting until enough delegates get behind one candidate to get to 2025. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 And that is the point of Operation Chaos. Make it go to a knockdown drag-out cage deathmatch at the convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 And that is the point of Operation Chaos. Make it go to a knockdown drag-out cage deathmatch at the convention. The point of which, Mr. Limbaugh, has nothing to do with benefiting the country. It has to do with egos brandishing pitchforks and relishing in others' demise or disarray. Could there a more clear cut case of petty, egotistical bull sh--? Grow the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The point of which, Mr. Limbaugh, has nothing to do with benefiting the country. It has to do with egos brandishing pitchforks and relishing in others' demise or disarray. Could there a more clear cut case of petty, egotistical bull sh--? Grow the !@#$ up. Not to mention it isn't really having an effect on anything, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Not to mention it isn't really having an effect on anything, lol. It's !@#$ing hi-sterical, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts