Clinton Machine wants to steal the election

[chance1]

seems pretty obvious to me

down 100+ delegates

trying to get the superdelegates (worst thing ever) to vote for her - why? cuz the public wants obama?

wants to change the rules in florida and michigan - rules she agreed to

talking about obama as her running mate? even after saying he is unqualified for office? what the fuck

never mind that he's ahead by a significant margin, won like 11 states in a row, has more delegates and popular votes (does anything else matter?)

so they'll steal it then placate black people by putting obama as the #2

oh yeah - that's great

put obama in his rightful place

# 2

when he's beating her

this is total nonsense

and all u JUBBERs who screamed to high heavens about 2000 and 2004 elections where u say GWB shafted the dems - or the courts did - or bad voting machines - or hanging chads, etc

that has never been proven - al gore backed off - john kerry did not make any claims

THIS IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF UR FACE

THIS IS BREAKING INTO THE BANK IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

GIVE US THE MONEY

heard a guy on air america in the car the other day saying what a steal this is - he's right

and the hypocrisy of clinton dems is appalling - but typical

she/they r trying to steal this primary selection

it's that simple

 

[springboksfan]

This is an awfully decisive thread for you, Chance. Are you sure you don't want to think about it some more?

 

[lancelva]

seems pretty obvious to me

down 100+ delegates

Actually, it's 99 delegates with 600 left to be awarded.

trying to get the superdelegates (worst thing ever) to vote for her - why? cuz the public wants obama?

The DNC rules that you keep talking about actually allow automatic delegates to make their own decision. Those are the party rules. And if you want to talk about the will of the public--what about the fact that Senator Clinton won over 100,000 more votes than Obama in Texas but he may actually receive more delegates? That blows the entire notion that pledged delegates represent the will of the people out of the water, doesn't it?

wants to change the rules in florida and michigan - rules she agreed to

No, the rules allow for another vote and her supporters have agreed to pay for the vote. If you are so concerned about what the public wants, why don't you want them to vote?

never mind that he's ahead by a significant margin, won like 11 states in a row, has more delegates and popular votes (does anything else matter?)

A significant margin? He's only ahead by 99 out of nearly 3,000 delegates awarded thus far. And she just achieved wins in significant states like Texas and Ohio.

And she's ahead in the popular vote.

and all u JUBBERs who screamed to high heavens about 2000 and 2004 elections where u say GWB shafted the dems - or the courts did - or bad voting machines - or hanging chads, etc

What about what happened in Texas? When the people voted one way but the delegates are given another way? And it's interesting that you bring up 2000--when the people of Florida were significantly disenfranchised. Obama wants to again deny them (and Michigan) a voice in this process by not agreeing to seat their delegates then refusing to pay half the costs of holding another primary.

and the hypocrisy of clinton dems is appalling - but typical
she/they r trying to steal this primary selection

How the hell is it trying to steal an election when we try to work out a compromise to ensure that two of the largest most important states in the union are not denied a voice in this election? God forbid that we want people to actually particapte in the oldest democracy in the world. It's hypocrisy to talk about "hope" and a "new kind of politics" when you want to silence the will of over 3 million voters in these states. And it's hypocrisy to talk about rules but deny that the rules actually allow the superdelegates to excercise their own judgement. Sure the Obama campaign is for rules--but only the rules that actually give them a chance to win.

So enough of this bullshit. You guys have been bamboozled into believing this drivel. I suggest you actually look at the facts.

One campaign has offered a compromise to allow the voice of the people to be heard. One campaign is trying to prevent that from happening. It's that simple. So tell me, who's trying to steal what?

 

[MidnightPrism]

She was supposed to win this nomination easily. It hasn't happened and Camp Clinton is getting desperate thinking they might actually lose.

Michigan and Florida have had their say. The state party is the one who moved the date too early and had the delegates stripped. It's not as if their was some evil force that denied the people their voice... it was their own party. Re-voting is just stupid.

 

[lancelva]

^Why is it stupid. If, as you claim, they violated the rules with their initial elections, why not just throw out the results and hold new elections that are fully in accordance with the rules? I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Sammie13]

So apparently if you're in a really hard, close race and your slightly behind, you're supposed to NOT try to win.

Just wave the white flag, and not use any artillery that is at your disposal. To come from behind would somehow be stealing an election.

I wonder how that approach would have served the New York Giants during Super Bowl 42. Yep, just go up to the officials and the NFL commissioner and say 'since we're behind, we don't want to look like we're stealing the game from the Patriots. I mean, they won 18 in a row, so let's just end it now and to hell with time still being on the clock."

 

[MidnightPrism]

^Why is it stupid. If, as you claim, they violated the rules with their initial elections, why not just throw out the results and hold new elections that are fully in accordance with the rules? I don't see a problem with that.

because this wouldn't be an issue if she was ahead. She'd be fighting to keep a re-vote from happening.

 

[jackoroe]

Maybe if the dimwitted dims could properly conduct an election, we would have no need for "Do Overs." The party rules don't favor even trusting their own voters. The super delegates aren't bound to vote the will of the electorate in any event. In fact even the regular delegates don't have to vote for the person they were pledged to on the first ballot, or so I've been told.

Maybe the smoke filled back room wasn't such a bad idea, after all. At least it made no pretense of being honest, unlike this Rube Goldberg machine we've got now.

 

[kneelin]

She was supposed to win this nomination easily. It hasn't happened and Camp Clinton is getting desperate thinking they might actually lose.

Michigan and Florida have had their say. The state party is the one who moved the date too early and had the delegates stripped. It's not as if their was some evil force that denied the people their voice... it was their own party. Re-voting is just stupid.

Actually, it was the REPUBLICAN legislature/governor that moved the date up.

 

[kneelin]

Actually, it was the REPUBLICAN legislature/governor that moved the date up.

IN FLORIDA, sorry for the slip.

 

[Kurn]

Actually, I think we should loosen up and use the re-vote and run-off options more liberally in this country.
They sound expensive but when you cost them per-citizen it's not so bad.
The parties could subsidize if they want to.

When you have re-votes the citizen gets to re-consider with less hot-blooded fervor and often with a greater substance of information. Plus there would be less distraction from side-issues like congressional and local races or from referenda.

In fact, if they can't figure this out, why not get in the streets and demand it as if this really was YOUR Democracy?

 

[snapcat]

The Clinton Camp has been on the record as saying they would steal pledged delegates since South Carolina. Why she brought it up again is beyond me. How stealing pledged delegates is something good for the Clinton Camp to be talking about just baffles me, and I think the public at large.

 

[chance1]

This is an awfully decisive thread for you, Chance. Are you sure you don't want to think about it some more?

oops

sometimes i type before i think (too hard)

actually was thinking about this all week

it's like the delegate count and popular vote DON'T matter

and these "super" delegates - party hacks - 48 senators r super delegates - ridiculous

and she's offering the #2 gig? to the guy who's currently # 1?

and people went nuts about florida/chads, ohio plus - when in a genl election we all know that electoral college IS the deal - like it or not

the idea that democratic primary voters could be told "u don't know any better" and "u wanted/voted for obama but hillary is better"

just seems wrong

i was pretty wound up

how did i sound?

 

[frankfrank]

One thing that puzzles me about the 2,025 delegates needed to win, is this.

Of course the Democratic Party should STICK TO their ruling of disallowing the results, at least in Michigan. In Florida all of the names were on the ballot, and it was the Republicans who bolloxed-up the works there. The Michigan Democratic primary was totally a failed effort by any criteria.

Let's say that the delegates for both States continue to be disallowed, and that neither, or only one, of the States has a new primary.

Will the number of needed delegates still be 2,025? That number was set, assuming that delegates from every U.S. state and territory, as assigned (elected AND super-), are in the available pool. But with the pool reduced by the ones from MI and/or FL which would have been available, shouldn't the needed number also be less than 2,025?

I'm still wondering what happens to the Edwards delegates. Though there aren't very many (was it 26?), even that small number can be important.

Chance1, as you've noticed, we don't agree very often but I certainly do here. The whole thing is a slo-mo train wreck.

 

[Sammie13]

how did i sound?

Like the militant New Yorker that we've come to expect (and love).

 

[Centexfarmer]

She was supposed to win this nomination easily. It hasn't happened and Camp Clinton is getting desperate thinking they might actually lose.

Michigan and Florida have had their say. The state party is the one who moved the date too early and had the delegates stripped. It's not as if their was some evil force that denied the people their voice... it was their own party. Re-voting is just stupid.

Actually, in Florida, that's not true. This is dated August 25, 2007:

Florida state party chairwoman Karen Thurman has tried for months to get the DNC to make a special exemption for Florida after Gov. Charlie Crist R-Fla., signed into law legislation moving the state's primary in violation of DNC rules by seven days. Thurman's claim that Florida Democrats had done all they could to prevent the Republican-controlled state legislature from moving Florida's primary fell on mostly deaf ears. The committee chose to send a stern message to Florida and other states considering moving up their presidential nominating contests in '08.

Source:
DNC Finds Florida's Jan. 29 Primary In Violation of Party Rules

So by "evil force" we could actually blame the Republican Controlled Florida House of Representatives.

There's an entire timeline of events dating back to the Summer of 2007 which addresses this issue.

Senator Clinton's campaign hem-hawed around for months before signing a pledge, along with Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, and Senator John Edwards, to honor the DNC's decision.

In FACT the Democratic Party of Florida even filed a lawsuit to prevent the DNC from enforcing the rules:
Florida Democrats sue DNC over Sunshine primary


So it could easily be argued that the "Clinton Machine" has sided with the Florida Democrats all along.

But that's right the "Clinton Machine wants to steal the election."

I know what it looks like, but instead of revisionist history this early after the event, perhaps we need to take a look at what really happened, and how things need to be resolved.

Senator Clinton is making the argument that Florida should count as is.

I however disagree because, to be fair, none of the other candidates campaigned in Florida (with the questionable exception of Senator Clinton).

The only fair process would be a re-vote of both Michigan and Florida.

Now if Senator Obama would show some leadership on this issue, and take a stand in favor or against the idea (as issues stand today/as of this writing), then perhaps would could move along.

 

[lancelva]

I however disagree because, to be fair, none of the other candidates campaigned in Florida (with the questionable exception of Senator Clinton).

Actually, that's not true. First, the campaign pledge allowed candidates to hold fundraisers in Florida and Michigan. Second, Obama ran national television ads before the Florida primary that reached over 90% of Florida homes.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ Why are you placing the blame on Obama, as if he was holding this up. Your candidate's proposal just came out recently, and it is the fucking weekend. More parties have to weigh in than just the two candidates, so give it at least a few days before you start wagging your finger around.

Relax IC, I recognize that, I was only pointing out that Senator Clinton seems to have more interest in this, and Senator Obama's position (up to this point) has only been cursory.

Actually, that's not true. First, the campaign pledge allowed candidates to hold fundraisers in Florida and Michigan. Second, Obama ran national television ads before the Florida primary that reached over 90% of Florida homes.

And now lancelva has corrected me.

AND once again we find that the differences between the two are marginal at best!

 

[MystikWizard]

This question is for Lance. Since you pride yourself in telling it like it is, and being "upfront and honest" with everyone on here, what flaws and criticisms do YOU personally have of Senator Clinton? Just curious.

 

[seamusnewwest]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I think this is a funny thread. I don't know if anyone else sees the humour.

It doesn't really matter if the Clinton or Obama support having a revote or not. People treat this like its a game or sport between two people. It's not! It's a democracy that belongs to the people, and it's the people of Florida and Michigan who were punished by not having their votes counted.

Disenfranchisement was an excessive and unfair level of punishment, and in my opinion, there were and are other options available to punish the two states for violating those bloody unjust rules that give some small states the right to always lead the way in the vote for President. God Damn It, it doesn't matter if you are the one who is going to win or going to lose, those people have a God Damn Right to have their votes counted like any other American, regardless of the pissing contest between state and federal party officials.