Obama willing to go "more than half-way" on Florida and Michigan

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Jon, May 21, 2008.

  1. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    Well, as a frothing at the mouth leftist jackass, I don't think she is prejudiced at all (except perhaps in the narrowest definition). She knew several months before the primary season started that these votes wouldn't count. All the candidates knew this. All the candidates campaigned and structured their campaigns on this basis. I don't think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, are only required to abide by the same standards as all other candidates, and the situation set out in advance comes to pass.

    I would think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, rely upon that information, and are after the fact told that the basis upon which they relied is going to be reversed.
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,776
    Ummm ... no? She did not know well in advance since they only didn't count when FL and MI didn't cowtow to DNC authority. The same DNC that went apeshit over votes in FL in 2000 that didn't count because of admin incorrectness. Then it was "the GOP's disenfranchising voters ... wah, wah, wah ...."

    But the DNC will disenfranchise 2 states for the same damned thing? Then turn around and discount the primary that was held for some redo.

    Bullshit. That's all it is.

    And if you're an Obama supporter you need to have your head checked.
     
  3. Nate Peele
    Offline

    Nate Peele Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    101
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +12
    The Dumocrats should get their heads out of their asses. We solved this problem right away by awarding half delegates to Florida when they decided to have that early primary. Dumocrats should have done the same.
     
  4. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    The decision to strip the delegates was made in August. The Michigan primary was in January. The Iowa caucus was also in January. That seems like advanced notice to me.

    The DNC is not counting the delegates from these states for jumping the primary calendar. One can disagree whether the punishment fits the crime, or whether the DNC should care about the order of primaries, but they have reasons, and it is up to the DNC to attribute whatever significance they wish to the primary schedule. If some feel this is inconsistent with the DNC position in 2000 (and I don't), that is fine, but it doesn't mean she was unfairly prejudiced. I would think one is unfairly prejudiced when they are told A will happen and B occurs instead, not when they are told in advance that A will happen, and A happens. That doesn't strike me as particularly unfair.
     
  5. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    38,107
    Thanks Received:
    8,042
    Trophy Points:
    1,370
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +15,537
    They ABSOLUTELY without a doubt in my mind, set it up so that Hillary would lose the Nomination....two of her strongest states, with the MOST delegates at state, were taken OUT COMPLETELY from the Primary Race....

    INSTEAD OF JUST CUTTING THEIR VOTE IN HALF, as the rules stated, they WENT WAY OVERBOARD and showed their arrogance and power and control and said these states would NOT BE SEATED AT ALL.....

    Without ONE consideration of these states and their voices being heard, without one consideration to how disenfranchisement of the member's votes would hurt them SOOOOOOOOOOOOO BADLY in the long run with ALL of the citizens of these states

    AND on top of this the entire remaining Primary was skewed towards Obama because the AT LEAST HALF delegates of these states were not counting in Hillary's column...

    THEY SCREWED HER BIGTIME....because of what they did, out of pure arrogance!

    And Good Morning Gunny

    Care
     
  6. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    Care, this was done in August, when Clinton was cleaning up in the polls. Why do you think is all part of an anti-Clinton conspiracy? At the time, it was envisioned that she would probably walk through the primary calendar.

    I also question whether these are two of her biggest states. In August, it wasn't clear where she would perform strongest, except that New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Arkansas would all be headed her way. Why, for instance, would Michigan be counted as a Clinton stronghold, as opposed to say... Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, etc.?

    Further, at the time, no candidate had stronger support within the DNC than Clinton. If you look at the superdelegates that committed before the primaries started, nearly every DNC official backed Clinton.

    I am sorry. The idea that this action was taken to negatively affect Clinton, as opposed to just punishing states for jumping the calendar, is quite a stretch.

    In August, Clinton was beating Obama by about an average of 20% in polls that were taken. In October, her lead had jumped to about 30%.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls
     
  7. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    At the time the decision was made, the DNC didn't think it would prevent Hillary from getting the nomination. Quite the opposite - they thought at the time she was going to walk away with it. So did Hillary, which led to poor campaigning and her eventual loss.
     
  8. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    38,107
    Thanks Received:
    8,042
    Trophy Points:
    1,370
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +15,537
    But how could they possibly think that disenfranchising the citizens in two of the biggest states in Hillary's favor, and one of the most critical states in winning a general election, Florida, could POSSIBLY HELP HILLARY?

    I don't see it, in the least...?

    care
     
  9. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    Perhaps it had nothing to do with helping or hurting Clinton. I am sure it had nothing to do with alienating the population of Florida for the general election. Perhaps it occurred for exactly the reason they said: it was meant to keep the primary calendar in order.
     
  10. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Like Reilly says they did it to keep out the chaos of a bunch of states moving their primaries, and Hillary was so far ahead they figured it wouldn't make a difference.
     

Share This Page