A Delightful Democratic Dilemma

[Adam's Apple]

A Delightful Democratic Delegate Dilemma
By Arnold Ahlert, Political Mavens
February 11, 2008

I’m not big fan of schandenfruede, but the Democratic Party is about to offer the nation some genuine entertainment at their own expense–and they have no one but themselves to blame for it. The issue revolves around two components: super delegates and the states of Michigan and Florida.

for full article:
http://www.politicalmavens.com/inde...lightful-democratic-delegate-dilemma/?print=1

 

[jreeves]

A Delightful Democratic Delegate Dilemma
By Arnold Ahlert, Political Mavens
February 11, 2008

I’m not big fan of schandenfruede, but the Democratic Party is about to offer the nation some genuine entertainment at their own expense–and they have no one but themselves to blame for it. The issue revolves around two components: super delegates and the states of Michigan and Florida.

for full article:
http://www.politicalmavens.com/inde...lightful-democratic-delegate-dilemma/?print=1

I believe Hillary could definetly win the nomination, Bill and her have a lot of friends among the Superdelegates. They have been in Washington alot longer than Obama, but Obama definetly has the momentum. Either way it will be fun to watch the Democrats fight over Florida again, this time with no Republicans to blame for disinfranchising the voters only themselves to blame. Lmao

 

[Paulie]

I believe Hillary could definetly win the nomination, Bill and her have a lot of friends among the Superdelegates. They have been in Washington alot longer than Obama, but Obama definetly has the momentum. Either way it will be fun to watch the Democrats fight over Florida again, this time with no Republicans to blame for disinfranchising the voters only themselves to blame. Lmao

In one post, you talk about equal corruption in both parties, and then another post, you're taking partisan potshots.

Which is it? Are both parties equally corrupt, or are you really just a partisan Republican at the end of the day?

 

[jillian]

In one post, you talk about equal corruption in both parties, and then another post, you're taking partisan potshots.

Which is it? Are both parties equally corrupt, or are you really just a partisan Republican at the end of the day?

Do you really need to ask that question? He's a hack. And not a particularly well-informed one either.

If he were well-informed, he'd know that Hillary won Florida but there's a question as to whether those delegates will be allowed to vote. But they sure won't be fighting each other over Florida in November.

It's so not interesting when people come on here to troll and don't *get* the issues. I'd so much rather have smart people to disagree with.

Ah well...

 

[Gunny]

A Delightful Democratic Delegate Dilemma
By Arnold Ahlert, Political Mavens
February 11, 2008

I’m not big fan of schandenfruede, but the Democratic Party is about to offer the nation some genuine entertainment at their own expense–and they have no one but themselves to blame for it. The issue revolves around two components: super delegates and the states of Michigan and Florida.

for full article:
http://www.politicalmavens.com/inde...lightful-democratic-delegate-dilemma/?print=1

What I find interesting is that in 2000, it was the Democrats screaming at the tops of their lungs that voters were being disenfranchised by the nefarious GOP machine; when in fact, most votes that were tossed were due to procedural/administrative error.

Yet, the Dems have disenfranchised every voter in the state for the state determining its own schedule rather than being dictated to. But suddenly those votes are important so they're willing to revisit whether they count or not?

They better stick to their guns. Either way, somone's going to cry foul.

 

[jreeves]

What I find interesting is that in 2000, it was the Democrats screaming at the tops of their lungs that voters were being disenfranchised by the nefarious GOP machine; when in fact, most votes that were tossed were due to procedural/administrative error.

Yet, the Dems have disenfranchised every voter in the state for the state determining its own schedule rather than being dictated to. But suddenly those votes are important so they're willing to revisit whether they count or not?

They better stick to their guns. Either way, somone's going to cry foul.

Thanks Gunny.

 

[Paulie]

Yet, the Dems have disenfranchised every voter in the state for the state determining its own schedule rather than being dictated to. But suddenly those votes are important so they're willing to revisit whether they count or not?

They better stick to their guns. Either way, somone's going to cry foul.

I sort of agree with you, but party rules are party rules. Punishing the party for moving primaries up by negating delegates was a rule that the party established.

Now, why they actually moved them up REGARDLESS, is the question. I'm a bit baffled.

At least with the Republican Party, the arguement could be made that earlier primaries would stifle the addition of support for the rank and files' obvious nemesis, Ron Paul.

With the Dems, I'm not exactly sure what the real reasoning was, other than superficial competition for the opposing party. That seemed evidenced in the STILL higher turnout for Dems in Democratic delegate-penalized state primaries, as opposed to Republicans in those same states.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you really need to ask that question? He's a hack. And not a particularly well-informed one either.

If he were well-informed, he'd know that Hillary won Florida but there's a question as to whether those delegates will be allowed to vote. But they sure won't be fighting each other over Florida in November.

It's so not interesting when people come on here to troll and don't *get* the issues. I'd so much rather have smart people to disagree with.

Ah well...

And of course your not partisan at all and never make comments that are stark raving stupid? I have caught you in several in regards the Constitution. Remind us again how when a Republican wants a line item veto it is "unconstitutional" cause the Constitution has limits, but when a Democrat wants to control the Education system and welfare, both powers NOT delegated to the federal Government, you claim they are Constitutional. And remind us again how " general welfare" means what ever you want it to mean totally destroying the entire premise that ONLY specifically delegated powers are granted the federal Government.

 

[Adam's Apple]

But they sure won't be fighting each other over Florida in November.

If they don’t settle the super delegate, Michigan/Florida issues in a fair and equitable way, you can darn well bet they’ll be fighting each other over “Florida” in November.

Obama obeyed the party rules and did not campaign in either Michigan or Florida. If those states’ votes are allowed to be counted for Hillary, this will be grossly unfair to Obama; and the Obama supporters will not take this laying down. Would you actually support someone who didn’t play by the rules and was then rewarded for it?

The same goes for the super delegates. When the primary contests end in June, if Obama still has the most delegate votes and wins the popular vote and the super delegates choose to give their votes to Hillary, there is no way in hell the Obama people are going to vote for Hillary in November. This is dirty politics at its best.

Dream on, Jillian. You’d better hope the DNC makes the right choices on both these issues or McCain will become our 44th President in a landslide.

 

[jillian]

If they don’t settle the super delegate, Michigan/Florida issues in a fair and equitable way, you can darn well bet they’ll be fighting each other over “Florida” in November.

Obama obeyed the party rules and did not campaign in either Michigan or Florida. If those states’ votes are allowed to be counted for Hillary, this will be grossly unfair to Obama; and the Obama supporters will not take this laying down. Would you actually support someone who didn’t play by the rules and was then rewarded for it?

The same goes for the super delegates. When the primary contests end in June, if Obama still has the most delegate votes and wins the popular vote and the super delegates choose to give their votes to Hillary, there is no way in hell the Obama people are going to vote for Hillary in November. This is dirty politics at its best.

Dream on, Jillian. You’d better hope the DNC makes the right choices on both these issues or McCain will become our 44th President in a landslide.

In November??? On election Day? You think that Hillary and Obama will be running against each other until ELECTION DAY???? Er... maybe til August, at the convention, but not in NOVEMBER.

So you were saying?

And Hillary didn't campaign in Florida either. She obeyed the rules, too. But dems still came out and voted in greater numbers than the repubs. So what RULES are you talking about??

I think it's YOU who is dreaming if you think McCain is going to win in a landslide regardless of what happens. The right isn't coming out to vote in those kinds of numbers for a guy their pundits can't stand. They just aren't.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I was talking about how the Obama Democrats will react if these issues aren't settled to their satisfaction. The Democrats who've been voting have made it clear that they prefer Obama to Hillary, so if the DNC makes Hillary their candidate, it will not only be Republicans voting for McCain but all those unhappy Dems as well. We'll see how all this washes out. The "old guard" Dems who prefer Hillary have a real problem on their hands, one that could continue well after the November election if they're not smart in solving it.

 

[jillian]

I think everyone understands that the super delegates can't affect the RESULT of the primaries. The only difficulty arises IF Obama has more delegates but Hillary has a higher actual vote count. Then they'll have to make some decisions.

Other than that, they're not stupid. And no one has any intention of losing this election to McCain because of internal decision-making process. And unlike the right which is really dissatisfied with their candidate, the dems will support whomever carries their banner. No Hillary or Obama dem is going to cast a vote for McCain. The only danger is in someone who feels disenfranchised not showing up to vote at all.

But even there, I suspect that the distaste for what's gone on the past 7 years will make that a non-issue. So I think you're looking for problems that are going to be non-existent.