Florida delegates fully seated with one-half votes each

[Ravi]

IMO, he's too chicken to have her. There might be a public pretense of first refusal, but other than that,

 

[Steerpike]

Why would he want her unless he thinks he absolutely can't win without her?

 

[Jon]

Why would he want her unless he thinks he absolutely can't win without her?

He has to make good on his promise to "unite the party." His best chance is picking her.

I wouldn't vote if he picked her. I will never vote for Barack Obama, and I will never vote against Hillary.

 

[Steerpike]

he doesn't have to pick Hillary to say he's uniting the party.

 

[MsWikia]

Clinton 1 succeeded Clinton 2 defeated!

 

[Larkinn]

Right---it's the real thing, dumbass!

FindLaw's Writ - Amar: How To Achieve Direct National Election Of The President Without Amending The Constitution

Check that out and tell me how much constitutional power a political party has LEGALLY in a state. Florida's legislature can direct it's electors to vote for someome that isn't the nominee of ANY party.

Yeah, we are talking about the primaries. I'm not quite sure what track your off on.

 

[Larkinn]

He has to make good on his promise to "unite the party." His best chance is picking her.

I wouldn't vote if he picked her. I will never vote for Barack Obama, and I will never vote against Hillary.

Unite the party by picking someone on the ticket who half the party now despises because of her perceived actions during the primary?

Great...so we have a ticket where everyone hates half of it. Sounds like a real winner to me.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah, we are talking about the primaries. I'm not quite sure what track your off on.

MI and Fla voters have only been screwed out of selecting the democratic nominee. They can still petition their legislature to choose electors who will vote for Hillary. They can tell the Democratic Party to pound sand.

 

[Larkinn]

MI and Fla voters have only been screwed out of selecting the democratic nominee. They can still petition their legislature to choose electors who will vote for Hillary. They can tell the Democratic Party to pound sand.

Ah I see. Sure theoretically. No shot in hell it will happen tho.

 

[Jon]

Unite the party by picking someone on the ticket who half the party now despises because of her perceived actions during the primary?

Great...so we have a ticket where everyone hates half of it. Sounds like a real winner to me.

But hey, at least everyone likes half of it, too.

Without Clinton, everyone just hates half of it.

 

[dilloduck]

Ah I see. Sure theoretically. No shot in hell it will happen tho.

of course--and you know why? Because party loyalty is more important than loyalty to a candidate. We have been poisoned by party politics.

 

[Larkinn]

But hey, at least everyone likes half of it, too.

Without Clinton, everyone just hates half of it.

Except ,you know, the millions upon millions of people who voted for Obama.

 

[Jon]

Except ,you know, the millions upon millions of people who voted for Obama.

Remember, more voted for Clinton, so if she's on the ticket, there will be more people who hate Obama than Clinton.

 

[Larkinn]

Remember, more voted for Clinton, so if she's on the ticket, there will be more people who hate Obama than Clinton.

*sigh*

No, actually more voted for Obama. Much to Hillary supporters chagrin, caucus states are still actual states with voters in them.

 

[Larkinn]

of course--and you know why? Because party loyalty is more important than loyalty to a candidate. We have been poisoned by party politics.

No, because most people don't want to fuck the electoral system to "make a point".

Because Republicans and Obama Democrats would both be against it, and together they far outnumber Hillary Democrats.

Because it may well be found unconstitutional.

 

[Jon]

*sigh*

No, actually more voted for Obama. Much to Hillary supporters chagrin, caucus states are still actual states with voters in them.

Sigh, I just posted this in another thread where you made the same asinine statement.

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count

Second set of numbers are the actual number of votes a candidate received. That is it includes caucuses, includes Michigan without giving Obama votes he did not actually get. At the end of the day, these are the actual number of times these candidates' names were chosen off a ballot during the primaries. Clinton received more votes. Want to argue it? Argue with a calculator.

 

[dilloduck]

No, because most people don't want to fuck the electoral system to "make a point".

Because Republicans and Obama Democrats would both be against it, and together they far outnumber Hillary Democrats.

Because it may well be found unconstitutional.

State legislators are in debt to their party. If they screw it-the party screws them. Nazis demanded that all belong to one party. America demands that you belong to one of two parties. The illusion of choice.

 

[Larkinn]

Sigh, I just posted this in another thread where you made the same asinine statement.

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count

Second set of numbers are the actual number of votes a candidate received. That is it includes caucuses, includes Michigan without giving Obama votes he did not actually get. At the end of the day, these are the actual number of times these candidates' names were chosen off a ballot during the primaries. Clinton received more votes. Want to argue it? Argue with a calculator.

Wow, you are dishonest.

So you want to count Michigans Hillary ballots, but exclude those who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan?

Good job there.

 

[Jon]

Wow, you are dishonest.

So you want to count Michigans Hillary ballots, but exclude those who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan?

Good job there.

No, I'm not excluding Obama. He excluded himself. The truth is Edwards would have captured a portion of that 44%, but Obama is being given the entire chunk. If Edwards had gotten only 41,402 votes, that would have been enough for Clinton to still overshadow Obama. I think it's a VERY safe bet Edwards would have gotten 41,402 votes. He was polling on par with Obama in Michigan.

 

[ReillyT]

Sigh, I just posted this in another thread where you made the same asinine statement.

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count

Second set of numbers are the actual number of votes a candidate received. That is it includes caucuses, includes Michigan without giving Obama votes he did not actually get. At the end of the day, these are the actual number of times these candidates' names were chosen off a ballot during the primaries. Clinton received more votes. Want to argue it? Argue with a calculator.

It is silly to argue about who received the most popular votes. Do you count Florida? Michigan? Caucus estimates?

In truth, depending on how you feel like counting the votes, and there are arguments for counting them in any number of ways, you can say either candidate won the most votes. Basically, they just split the votes down the middle. I think we should all be able to agree with that.