An interesting Gallup poll

[Care4all]

The DNC voted in August that Florida would be stripped of all of its delegates. The rules only indicate that it must be stripped of at least 50% of the delegates, but the DNC went further. Of course, the DNC could reverse its earlier decision and still be within its own rules by stripping 50%, which is probably what it will do.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/politics/26calendar.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin

You did not answer my question....IF THE DNC was to stick to their position of not letting the Delegates count at all from those states, then how would their rule C 1.b. come in to play?

THEY ALWAYS KNEW that HALF of the votes would count....always, or there would be no rule C.1.b.....

it is as simple as that.....there is no provision writen in to the rules that allows for sanctions on the candidates for breaking the rules that would cover a situation where all of the delegates were stripped.... what would stop the Candidates from campaigning there if there was no meat(sanctions) behind the rule....

as said, they always knew they would count them, everyone knew they would count at least half at the DNC...they just wanted to make it hard on Florida and Michigan and were trying to force them in to changing their primaries back in August when they said this to them and out of arrogance, i might ad....imo.



DNC RULES:

C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

 

[ReillyT]

Clinton won states that mattered. California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Arkansas...and she's ahead of John McCain in all of these states. Obama won states that the Democrats have no chance of carrying in the fall. Why pay attention to the red states more than states that are going to matter in the general election? But let's be honest, by red states you mean southern states. And we know why Obama won the southern states, it had nothing to do with Clinton not paying them enough attention.

Apparently, all the states matter in the primaries. The reason you pay attention to the red states during the primaries is because they get delegates too. Those delegates are pretty handy, it turns out, when attempting to get the nomination. I don't mean just southern states. I mean Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Kansas, Colorado, etc. These are states that Clinton largely neglected, which turned out to be a huge mistake. Obama outperformed Clinton by 12 delegates in Idaho, which is the same as her margin of victory in Pennsylvania. Not getting her act together in Idaho was a mistake.

Clinton never would have won a caucus state. Obama carried the youth vote all along, and when you have a bunch of braindead hippy kids that don't have jobs and can stay up into all hours of the night, you're going to win caucuses.

I don't buy that shit. There is an element of truth to it, but the bigger factor is that Obama had a well-organized ground operation in these states that got his people to the caucus sites. Perhaps if Clinton had paid more attention to caucuses, she would have only lost by a 5 delegate margin instead of a 12 delegate margin in Idaho.

He hasn't built great momentum? Do you not see the 80,000 people gathering at his rallies? How is that not great momentum? Clinton can't even get half that number at a rally, yet she's still getting enough votes to keep him from clinching this nomination. Obviously, there's some unseen force keeping her in the race. They don't seem to be Clinton supporters, but they definitely aren't Obama supporters.

I don't think rallies suggest momentum. If he had gather momentum, I think he could have carried (or done much better in) Ohio. The fact is he has shown little momentum, just a well-organized campaign team.

I don't think her campaign misfired. I think her campaign underestimated Obama's campaign.

Underestimating Obama was a mistake. Failing to recognize that this is a change election was a mistake. Unfortunately for her, these are mistakes that she didn't have time to correct.

 

[manifold]

That doesn't even make sense. A bad analogy on your part.

It's not that bad when you think about it.

If I boil your argument down to it's fundamental concept, it goes like this: If one exploits the beliefs of others, that means they share the belief.

That's pretty much what you are saying when you say she is racist for exploiting the beliefs of racists, is it not?

 

[Ravi]

It's not that bad when you think about it.

If I boil your argument down to it's fundamental concept, it goes like this: If one exploits the beliefs of others, that means they share the belief.

That's pretty much what you are saying when you say she is racist for exploiting the beliefs of racists, is it not?

No, for exploiting race period, not racists.

 

[manifold]

No, for exploiting race period, not racists.

Now you're not making sense. If it weren't for racists, what's to exploit?

 

[ReillyT]

You did not answer my question....IF THE DNC was to stick to their position of not letting the Delegates count at all from those states, then how would their rule C 1.b. come in to play?

THEY ALWAYS KNEW that HALF of the votes would count....always, or there would be no rule C.1.b.....

it is as simple as that.....there is no provision writen in to the rules that allows for sanctions on the candidates for breaking the rules that would voer a situation where all of the delegates were stripped.... what would stop the Candidates from campaigning there if there was no meat(sanctions) behind the rule....

as said, they always knew they would count them, everyone knew they would count at least half at the DNC...they just wanted to make it hard on Florida and Michigan and were trying to force them in to changing their primaries back in August when they said this to them and out of arrogance, i might ad....imo.



DNC RULES:

The rules state that at least 50% of the delagates must be stripped, but (notice the section about rounding down) provide for the possibility that a higher percentage may be stripped. The DNC stripped a higher percentage. However, it can re-instate some of those delegates up to a proportion of 50% without violating its own rules.

I agree that they always intended to reinstate the delegates, because they didn't envision it would matter. They are kind of stuck now because it obviously does matter.

As for whether Obama violated the rules on campaigning, that is debatable. However, even if he did violate it, it would be up to the DNC to sanction him if they wish. They will not do so, at least partially because any violation on his part (if such a violation even exists) would be de minimus, have little or no effect on the vote that took place.

 

[manifold]

It's disingenuous to claim that the votes should count when the candidates were not allowed to campaign.

 

[Ravi]

Now you're not making sense. If it weren't for racists, what's to exploit?

You're saying if there's no target audience there is no exploitation? It would also hold that if there were no races there could be no exploitation. YOU aren't making sense.

btw, don't Christians share the beliefs of other Christians?

 

[Ravi]

It's disingenuous to claim that the votes should count when the candidates were not allowed to campaign.

None of them campaigned (except Obama's press conference) so their lack of not campaigning makes that argument silly as none had the advantage.

 

[manifold]

You're saying if there's no target audience there is no exploitation? It would also hold that if there were no races there could be no exploitation. YOU aren't making sense.

I really think you're suffering from mental fatigue on account of Hillary's demise.

It's pretty simple. If her intent was to make the superdelegates fearful that RACISTs were plentiful enough to make Obama unelectable, she is exploiting the RACISM that exists. It is not possible to exploit RACE, as you suggest, unless you subscribe to the racist belief that certain races are inferior and are therefore exploitable. Is that really what you're saying?

 

[Care4all]

None of them campaigned (except Obama's press conference) so their lack of not campaigning makes that argument silly as none had the advantage.

you forgot Obama's national ad campaign that ran repeatedly on cnn and msnbc right before their primary....

 

[manifold]

None of them campaigned (except Obama's press conference) so their lack of not campaigning makes that argument silly as none had the advantage.

As I just stated, Hillary had the advantage of 16 years worth of branding and name recognition. How is that fair exactly?

 

[Ravi]

I really think you're suffering from mental fatigue on account of Hillary's demise.

It's pretty simple. If her intent was to make the superdelegates fearful that RACISTs were plentiful enough to make Obama unelectable, she is exploiting the RACISM that exists. It is not possible to exploit RACE, as you suggest, unless you subscribe to the racist belief that certain races are inferior and are therefore exploitable. Is that really what you're saying?

Are you joking? Of course exploiting race is racist. There are no races that are inferior, therefore pretending there are is racist.

 

[Ravi]

As I just stated, Hillary had the advantage of 16 years worth of branding and name recognition. How is that fair exactly?

Wow, that's nonsense. It is no candidate's fault that the other candidates don't have name recognition. But even if it were, Obama was well known at that point.

 

[ReillyT]

None of them campaigned (except Obama's press conference) so their lack of not campaigning makes that argument silly as none had the advantage.

That isn't true. At the beginning of a primary cycle, the candidates with the highest name recognition hold an advantage. The lack of an opportunity to campaign solidifies this advantage. Otherwise, why allow campaigning at all. It seems an awful hassle.

 

[manifold]

Are you joking? Of course exploiting race is racist. There are no races that are inferior, therefore pretending there are is racist.

Yup, you are suffering from mental fatigue. I'm going to have to give you a pass on this one. I'd hate to drag it out like that whole golden rule nonsense you insisted upon. I really am starting to worry about you.

If it makes you feel better, fine, playing the race card is racist. But of course that means everyone that has ever sued for racial discrimination is a racist, since that's the ultimate example of playing the race card. That's an interesting take, I'll have to give it some thought.

 

[ReillyT]

Wow, that's nonsense. It is no candidate's fault that the other candidates don't have name recognition. But even if it were, Obama was well known at that point.

No one is saying it is her fault, but that doesn't mean that a primary without campaigning is fair. I strongly dispute that Obama and his positions were well known to the voters at that point. Maybe those voters who are particularly tuned into politics knew him well, but many voters don't start paying attention until just prior to their state's election. That is why Obama has consistently improved on his early polling numbers throughout the primary campaign.

 

[Ravi]

Yup, you are suffering from mental fatigue. I'm going to have to give you a pass on this one. I'd hate to drag it out like that whole golden rule nonsense you insisted upon. I really am starting to worry about you.

If it makes you feel better, fine, playing the race card is racist. But of course that means everyone that has ever sued for racial discrimination is a racist, since that's the ultimate example of playing the race card. That's an interesting take, I'll have to give it some thought.

Now you're just being silly. There are different ways to play the race card. What you just described is basically whining. What you accuse Hillary of doing is totally different.

 

[manifold]

Now you're just being silly. There are different ways to play the race card. What you just described is basically whining. What you accuse Hillary of doing is totally different.

Uncle! Uncle! You win. Just don't start crying on me please.

 

[Ravi]

No one is saying it is her fault, but that doesn't mean that a primary without campaigning is fair. I strongly dispute that Obama and his positions were well known to the voters at that point. Maybe those voters who are particularly tuned into politics knew him well, but many voters don't start paying attention until just prior to their state's election. That is why Obama has consistently improved on his early polling numbers throughout the primary campaign.

Disagree. Obama was quite well known by then in Florida. Your crew's Clinton hatred made it a priority for all the Dem candidates to be scrutinized for an alternative. My own mother voted for him and she's about as politically aware as my dog.