Clinton Machine wants to steal the election

[tmb1]

Everything this exerpt states is precisely what I'm saying: allowing the elected officials to vote for who they deem best qualified and not the party extremists, who are primary voters.

The party extremists are the primary voters? WOW! Why even have a primary election then. Just have the superdelegates decide.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well this isn't the same as 2000 or 2004. It's perfectly within the rules for the superdelegates to vote differently from their constituencies. It's exactly the reason they were established.

Quite so: when these politically powerful people think "the people" in their party are wrong, they can throw their weight a different direction.
Of course we've confused things tremendously by having open primaries, which is a lot like letting in people from the local nudist club to vote in a Masonic Temple -- it renders the whole point of having a private organization, well, pointless.

Unless he closes the gap there and goes on to win North Carolina.

All this talk of "winning" states is a it ridiculous: a state could have a hundred and one delegates, a candidate gets fifty-one -- and this is called a "win". The designation is empty, because all that the candidate won was fifty-one delegates, not the state.

It's called Superdelegates. That is how Hillary will steal the election.

Let's see...
Really, it isn't even an "election" -- it's a selection. State parties aren't electing delegates, they're selecting them in whatever fashion they choose. We have voting, and we have caucuses, but we could just as well have a state party decide to send its top elected officials, or pick by lottery from college-educated party members, or even play poker or shoot craps for the slots. It's their party, they make the rules, and they can make them any way they darned well please.
So if Hillary gets picked, it won't be stealing, it will be operating within the rules (setting aside the issue of Florida and Michigan for the moment).

 

[Sammie13]

^^^ Breath-in, Breath-out, Breath-in, Breath-out.

LOL!!! Centexfarmer, uh....that's what we'll be doing in about 9 months...Nov 4th to be exact....as we await a likely nail-biter that night!

 

[chance1]

Uh oh, regurgitating Repugthink again chance? Doesn't it embarrass you as the fine upstanding Democrat you say you are? You only make more and more clear that in all of your posts, you are a fraud. Come out of your Repug closet Chance and let's discuss it like men. It doesn't matter if you're a Repug, but living in the closet is not healthy for your fragile ego. Besides, closets are dreary places to live.

haha

actually the "repugs" r loving this craziness

and the first time i heard about stealing the election was on air america on my xm satellite radio - they were making some sense so ............

and if listened to u rolleyes and came "out of the closet" and u wanted to discuss it "like men" we'd still be one short

not sure what ur problem is - i have never witnessed such an extreme case before - will leave it for the experts

 

[Kurn]

You know what Chance1, with all respect, that's NOT what the Clinton's want!

You see, if they can gain the Presidency and do it within the rules somehow, that's all positive.

But if the Presidency that they won were tainted...I'm sure they don't want that.

That's just way too many problems...

 

[chance1]

You know what Chance1, with all respect, that's NOT what the Clinton's want!

You see, if they can gain the Presidency and do it within the rules somehow, that's all positive.

But if the Presidency that they won were tainted...I'm sure they don't want that.

That's just way too many problems...

agreed - but

at this point, winning ugly is their only option

 

[lancelva]

at this point, winning ugly is their only option

How is abiding by the rules of the party "winning ugly"? How is it "ugly" to fight for voters in the two largest states in the union to participate in this process?

 

[tmb1]

agreed - but

at this point, winning ugly is their only option

Their shortsightedness will come back to haunt them. If they win ugly in the dem nom it means they would have had to have the superdelegates override the voters. Many Obama supporters(especially the black community) will go balistic. How do they think they can win in that kind of atmoshpere in november. Obvious, they didn't think and they can't win.

 

[lancelva]

Their shortsightedness will come back to haunt them. If they win ugly in the dem nom it means they would have had to have the superdelegates override the voters. Many Obama supporters(especially the black community) will go balistic. How do they think they can win in that kind of atmoshpere in november. Obvious, they didn't think and they can't win.

You keep talking about "the voters" as if the election is over. There are 11 states (if you include Florida and Michigan) which have yet to vote. Based on average turnout thus far, that means an estimated 8,036,362 voters have yet to make their voices heard in this process.

So I think it's a little premature to be making conclusions about the "will of the voters."

 

[snapcat]

I seem to recall Terry McAuliffe taking a very hard line with Michigan when it tried to move up their primary in 2004.

I guess he regrets that position and now has a new position.

 

[chance1]

How is abiding by the rules of the party "winning ugly"? How is it "ugly" to fight for voters in the two largest states in the union to participate in this process?

i think it is clear how people perceive the situation

right or wrong

clinton is trying to muscle obama out

looking for florida/mich - states agreed upon to have no basis - votes to count - as is (haha) or a revote

suggesting he would be a good # 2 - haha - he's ahead but he should be # 2 - fuzzy math

the superdelegate situation - where many feel have a disproportionate say in the outcome - SUPER people always come off as priveleged, etc. - these are professional/establishment dems - kinda hillary territory

and there's more

but that's enough

im not making this shit up

regular folks - are not happy with the process - or break down in process

and many believe that the clintons are "up to their old tricks" again

which supports part of the notion they want obama in the first place

u can run away from it all u want lance - but its here and it exists - and it's not going away anytime soon

 

[lancelva]

clinton is trying to muscle obama out

It's called campaigning for the Democratic nomination. I know that you Obama supporters think that your saint is entitled to it and want Senator Clinton to roll over and let him have it on a silver platter. But we have a nomination process in this country and there are still 10 states left who haven't had a chance to make their voices heard.

 

[snapcat]

I can see it right now ..... as soon as all the states have voted, and Hillary is still behind, we're going to hear something like this:

It's called campaigning for the Democratic nomination. I know that you Obama supporters think that your saint is entitled to it and want Senator Clinton to roll over and let him have it on a silver platter. But we have a nomination process in this country and there are still England, Wales, Scotland, and other English speaking countries left who haven't had a chance to make their voices heard.

LOL!

 

[chance1]

It's called campaigning for the Democratic nomination. I know that you Obama supporters think that your saint is entitled to it and want Senator Clinton to roll over and let him have it on a silver platter. But we have a nomination process in this country and there are still 10 states left who haven't had a chance to make their voices heard.

dude

it is not just obamamaniacs who think this

hillary/the clintons have a long history of being perceived as such

so this validates people's perceptions

u can take the holier than thou attitude

im not an obamamaniac

i like him

i like hillary

i think she has a huge perception problem

and for the reasons i described above ............ much of it is validated

 

[syntax]

It's called campaigning for the Democratic nomination. I know that you Obama supporters think that your saint is entitled to it and want Senator Clinton to roll over and let him have it on a silver platter. But we have a nomination process in this country and there are still 10 states left who haven't had a chance to make their voices heard.

Lancelva, you have always been so confident, informed and assured in your posts. This one reeks of desperation. There are many states left to vote; none will deliver the delegates necessary for Sen. Clinton to overcome Sen Obama's lead in the delegate count. I have not read a single post on these forums where Sen. Obama is referred to as "a saint."

Let's see what happens in PA.

 

[MystikWizard]

Lancelva, you have always been so confident, informed and assured in your posts. This one reeks of desperation. There are many states left to vote; none will deliver the delegates necessary for Sen. Clinton to overcome Sen Obama's lead in the delegate count. I have not read a single post on these forums where Sen. Obama is referred to as "a saint."

Let's see what happens in PA.

I would be shocked to see Obama win Pennsylvania. I used to live in Maryland, so I know Pennsylvania quite well. Older, traditional people.

Don't worry, Clinton Camp. Pennsylvania is all yours. Too bad it's not going to really count as much as you would like, though.

 

[snapcat]

Well don't forget, England, Scotland & Wales haven't voted yet ....

LOL!

 

[syntax]

Well don't forget, England, Scotland & Wales haven't voted yet ....

LOL!

snaps, they'll go for the Queen. Not the "saint."

 

[frankfrank]

Not that I'm agreeing with your assessment of the situation, but hey, it worked for Bush... twice.

Yeah it did, but he had to be on the ballot first (which this is all about

 

[frankfrank]

A question: Was the original logic for superdelegates PERHAPS the idea there could be more than one "officially" viable candidate when the convention comes, but in the meantime one of the two "officially viable" candidates has been on the receiving end of some more-than-nasty revelations? (Let's say that, in July, frontrunning Senator David Jasmine was found, too late to undo the voting, to have done something HIGHLY unethical - but NOT illegal - so he remains eligible to vie for the Presidential nomination for his Party.) He becomes absolutely unelectable, after his/her national preference rating falls from 57% to 7.4%, and yet the totally-distressed candidate is ahead by 103 pledged delegates. I think at a time like this, the superdelegates would mostly vote for the one who is behind in pledged delegates, because the distressed delegate is polling 34 points behind the other Party's nominee, while the scandal-free underdog is polling 11 points ahead of the opposite Party.

Without Superdelegates, wouldn't Senator Jasmine still likely end up with the nomination, despite the known fact he would be pwned in November? However, I understand that the pledged delegates aren't absolutely required to vote as suggested at the convention, either.

I ask this because the Democratic Convention is so VERY long from now, yet, that Clinton or Obama could very easily do something, or be "caught in something," that would make one of them absolutely unelectable by that time, even if it's the one who's ahead in delegates.