Why does Hillary think she should win??

[Annie]

Well, isnt that what Hillary is doing now? She is claiming that she won the BIG STATES so she should be the nominee. Candidates campaign harder in states who have more delegates at stake anyhow..so I still say eliminate them and keep it strictly to votes.

Then Hillary would win. Barack is carrying the smaller states, especially those with a target population, (about 90% of black vote, higher in some states). Hillary is 'targeting' or appealing to 75% of the remaining population, less liberal, college graduates, (which seriously are a small number, as some college grads are Conservatives and Libertarians).

 

[MsWikia]

Then Hillary would win. Barack is carrying the smaller states, especially those with a target population, (about 90% of black vote, higher in some states). Hillary is 'targeting' or appealing to 75% of the remaining population, less liberal, college graduates, (which seriously are a small number, as some college grads are Conservatives and Libertarians).

Actually no she wouldnt. She has lost more states and is losing the popular vote, a few big states DOES NOT guarantee a win in the general election.

 

[Annie]

Actually no she wouldnt. She has lost more states and is losing the popular vote, a few big states DOES NOT guarantee a win in the general election.

Add in FL and MI and yes she can! Whoop dee doo! Blacks and college elites cannot win the presidency.

On the other hand, this election may well allow Obama to get in, via the anti-war sentiments. My guess if he wins, we'll find the broken party in 2011, not the Republican. If McCain wins, will be different story. Could lead to years of Democrat rule.

My money would be on Obama, if I were of the betting persuasion.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think I ever said Dems (noit dims, it's really vile, it implies ignorance, not imperfection and that isn't the way to discuss an issue... unless of course you think a political discussion board is for anything other than discussion, of course) won't vote for Obama. He'll get solid blue states. Now try getting the battleground states without the women, working class whites and crossover repubs/independents.

I'm thinking of the obnoxious terms you use to describe conservatives and Christians....I'll have to look through the hundreds of threads you've used demeaning terms off the bat to describe them and get back to you all..."Nutters" comes to mind immediately....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Regardless of who wins, imo, is a one termer.

 

[MsWikia]

Add in FL and MI and yes she can! Whoop dee doo! Blacks and college elites cannot win the presidency.

On the other hand, this election may well allow Obama to get in, via the anti-war sentiments. My guess if he wins, we'll find the broken party in 2011, not the Republican. If McCain wins, will be different story. Could lead to years of Democrat rule.

My money would be on Obama, if I were of the betting persuasion.

Actually the Democratic Party can not win without the support of the Black community. The Black community is the only consistent democratic voters. Last election the Republicans were excited to get just 7% (not sure the exact %) of the Black vote because it took away from the democrats. Furthermore, other groups are likely to go either way, republican or democrat depending on the candidate.

In addition, according to the media young voters between the ages of 18-45 are in favor of Obama AND educated voters, who hold a college degree or higher are also in favor of him. He has managed to attract some of the largest crowds a primary has ever seen, so trust young people can come out in numbers and actually have an impact.

However, I agree that obviously the White vote matters. But look at states like Iowa and WY, predominantly White populated states, Obama won them, which shows he attracts not only the educated or young or Black vote but a more diverse vote that truly shapes America.

 

[jillian]

I'm thinking of the obnoxious terms you use to describe conservatives and Christians....I'll have to look through the hundreds of threads you've used demeaning terms off the bat to describe them and get back to you all..."Nutters" comes to mind immediately....

That's only for the nutters, wingnuts, you know the type.... not normal conservatives or christians. you just can't discern the difference.

Again, don't project your nastiness onto me.

 

[Annie]

Actually the Democratic Party can not win without the support of the Black community. The Black community is the only consistent democratic voters. Last election the Republicans were excited to get just 7% (not sure the exact %) of the Black vote because it took away from the democrats. Furthermore, other groups are likely to go either way, republican or democrat depending on the candidate.

In addition, according to the media young voters between the ages of 18-45 are in favor of Obama AND educated voters, who hold a college degree or higher are also in favor of him. He has managed to attract some of the largest crowds a primary has ever seen, so trust young people can come out in numbers and actually have an impact.

However, I agree that obviously the White vote matters. But look at states like Iowa and WY, predominantly White populated states, Obama won them, which shows he attracts not only the educated or young or Black vote but a more diverse vote that truly shapes America.

Hey, I'm saying my money if I placed it would be on Obama. Really, all that matters is what follows.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Larkinn]

Winning the popular vote is supposed to guarantee a majority of the delegates. The rules are flawed when it comes to the Texas Two-Step.

No its not. Hence why there are 800 delegates who have no relation to the popular vote.

 

[MsWikia]

After the Kentucky primary Obama "has won majority of the pledged delegates", he is getting closer to sealing the nomination. Again, Hillary still can't win even after this landslide in Kentucky! However, Hillary still claims "We're winning the popular vote," despite figures from competitive contests that show otherwise smh.

Furthermore, Obama is trying to unite the party. His current speech is reaching out to Hillary and her supporters to end this mess and begin supporting each other and attacking McCain!


"United we stand, divided we fall"

Change we can believe in, Yes we can!

 

[Care4all]

After the Kentucky primary Obama "has won majority of the pledged delegates", he is getting closer to sealing the nomination. Again, Hillary still can't win even after this landslide in Kentucky! However, Hillary still claims "We're winning the popular vote," despite figures from competitive contests that show otherwise smh.

Furthermore, Obama is trying to unite the party. His current speech is reaching out to Hillary and her supporters to end this mess and begin supporting each other and attacking McCain!


"United we stand, divided we fall"

Change we can believe in, Yes we can!

childish imo! what's the CHANGE....?

when you can define this CHANGE, there might be somethibg for me to consider?

your side already divided us by calling us, fellow democrats that support hillary, racists....now it is the Obama's side's turn to unite us, make amends, if possible....not the hillary side with obama...

also, you guys are such hypocrites now claiming obama has the majority of pledged delegates from states, like that means he's a ''winner'' now, while you cry and moan and bitch about hillary talking about winning the popular vote, which SHE HAS WON THE POPULAR vote, they will seat michigan and florida on may 31st...guaranteed, so the candidate who wins will need more total delegates than now....

super delegates are in play, they can vote with who they please, as kerry and kennedy did, went against their state's vote, and super delegates can still change their vote....even at the convention.

but my whole point on hypocrisy is that obama's pledged delegate majority is no more making him a winner than hillary's primary popular vote majority ...it takes super delegates for either to have enough total delegates to win, that is what the Democratic Primary rules say....and sadly at that!

i'd rather see a popular vote primary for all states at once!

care

 

[Larkinn]

your side already divided us by calling us, fellow democrats that support hillary, racists....now it is the Obama's side's turn to unite us, make amends, if possible....not the hillary side with obama...

Hillary has made the job of calling her a racist way too easy. Blackening Obama in Ads? Really? Saying that he wouldn't be where he was if he wasn't black? Really? Saying that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too? Really?

also, you guys are such hypocrites now claiming obama has the majority of pledged delegates from states, like that means he's a ''winner'' now, while you cry and moan and bitch about hillary talking about winning the popular vote, which SHE HAS WON THE POPULAR vote, they will seat michigan and florida on may 31st...guaranteed, so the candidate who wins will need more total delegates than now....

Actually he won a long time ago. And no, she hasn't won the popular vote. Its not a real vote when only one candidate is on the ballot . You guarantee they will seat them? Really? And what is this based on? By the way, even assuming they seat them, tell me the scenario where Hillary suddenly pulls ahead.

super delegates are in play, they can vote with who they please, as kerry and kennedy did, went against their state's vote, and super delegates can still change their vote....even at the convention.

Yes, they can. But your a fool if you think they will.

but my whole point on hypocrisy is that obama's pledged delegate majority is no more making him a winner than hillary's primary popular vote majority ...it takes super delegates for either to have enough total delegates to win, that is what the Democratic Primary rules say....and sadly at that!

It doesn't make him a winner. He won a while back, you folks just can't admit it.

i'd rather see a popular vote primary for all states at once!

care

Yeah, so would I. But your destroying any hope of that every happening with your "lets count FL and MI" crap. Hillary thought so too...until those votes became essential for her candidacy.

 

[Care4all]

Hillary has made the job of calling her a racist way too easy. Blackening Obama in Ads? Really? Saying that he wouldn't be where he was if he wasn't black? Really? Saying that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too? Really?

Sheesh, link please on the darkening of ad and whatever on Jesse Jackson...??? I have no idea what you are talking about, and if whatever ad you are talking about was in the newspaper... that darkening assumption is AABSOLUTELY out of the control of the person purchasing the ad, but in the control of the newspaper or magazine, and how their printing comes out... yur listening to the Republican garbage again, trying to make you all think the Clinton's are racist and a little toooooooo sensitive on it ....like a bunch of children throwing tantrums....imo, and in to the Bushite garbage.



Actually he won a long time ago. And no, she hasn't won the popular vote. Its not a real vote when only one candidate is on the ballot . You guarantee they will seat them? Really? And what is this based on? By the way, even assuming they seat them, tell me the scenario where Hillary suddenly pulls ahead.

ACTUALLY, no one has WON....just a big ole bunch of hot air coming from your side of the fence, wanting to give your little "baby darling" an easy road and NOT ACTUALLY WIN this election against Hillary....through the votes of ALL THE PEOPLE.....you all keep crying and whining and even yelling for her to quit, and have been for months.

AND GUESS WHAT, your candidate STILL could NOT manage to WIN this nomination...with the press on his side, with the press against Hillary bigtime...for months, saying "shouldn't she quit?".... He is losing his momentum and he couldn't convince super delegates to go to his side, so he could have enough votes to win, and then this election been over.

BUT he doesn't have enough votes to win.

It wasn't over long ago Larkin, it still isn't over.

As far as taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, THAT is NOT hillary's fault? That was a stupid political decision of Obama's.

OBAMA DECIDED TO KEEP HIS NAME ON FLORIDA'S BALLOT, how come then take his name off of Michigans?

You can't penalize Hillary for what Obama chose to do.....?

soooo, why would obama choose to stay on florida's ballot and take his name off of Michigans....did he think he was going to GET A WHOOPING in Michigan? What was his political purpose?

They are going to seat Floridqa and Michigan, by probably half of their delegates on May 31st's meeting of the DNC....

When that happens ALOT MORE DELEGATES are in the total amount that is needed to win, so there still is not a winner yet Larkin, and the contest is still going on....

Yes, Obama will more than likely win it, but he has NOT WON IT YET....not by the Rules of the Contest and I'm calling bull crap on you and the others that have been claiming such for a month or two by now!


Yes, they can. But your a fool if you think they will.

why not? They pledged to hillary then changed that SUPPOSED pledge to Obama, it can happen again, especially with those superdelegates whose state voted with Hillary, they might actually follow what their citizens wanted and change their vote from Obama back to Hillary.....anything can happen in politics, I've come to believe....

Obama is not the strongest candidate to win this election for the President imo, he can't even win enough super delegates over that could have ended this race a month ago... when he was still on his upswing in the Primary and he can not win the vote of the working class without working with them more, he needs more time to show that he can win them over, but it doesn't look like he can...

And before you start spouting that it is for racial reasons, i saw statistics last night that showed what happened in 2000 and 2004 in one of these states overwhelmingly NOT supporting Obama and willing to cross over to mccain, and that percentage of 30% was actually less Democrats that crossed over and voted for Bush because of Kerry....so it is NOT Race, but they think he is an Elitist, like they though Kerry was and Gore was....when they crossed over to Bush.... so Race just ain't Obama's problem but appearing to be an elitist and not connecting with the non college grad is....and guess what? There are MORE non colledge grads working in the USA than the college grad.... he's got a problem and it is just beginning to show its face...which means the Democratic Party has a problem imo, i just hope they recognize such before this nomination is said and done....recognizing this is highly unlikely though...

I'm telling ya again....Obama ain't connecting with them and this is a HUGE PROBLEM for him IF he makes it to the General!



It doesn't make him a winner. He won a while back, you folks just can't admit it.

I'm uncertain how you were brought up, but I was taught that you have a winner, when the game is over and YOU have actually WON.....calling a winner before that, is simply cheating.


Yeah, so would I. But your destroying any hope of that every happening with your "lets count FL and MI" crap. Hillary thought so too...until those votes became essential for her candidacy.

You can't throw out the people's vote with the bath water....and michigan and florida WILL BE COUNTED in some manner because the DNC was WRONG in disenfranchising the voters of these States....it was UNDEMOCRATIC, period....you can mark my words on them being counted in some manner....and when that happens on May 31st it makes the delegate needed to win higher...

Obama was not the Media Sweetheart when Michigan and Florida had their election and Hillary won bigtime.... even if Obama did not foolishy remove himself from the Michigan ballot....for some sort of political game, while keeping it of Florida's....

He should have KNOWN that Florida and Michigan would have been eventually seated....in some manner...it's the citizen's vote for goodness sakes and the reason they have NOT counted before this is because Obama hasn't agreed to a compromise on how they are seated....and he has been purposely holding back so that those delegates don't show up in hillary's column until the ABSOLUTE last minute...yeah dirty POLITICS, on his end too...but you can't see it....blind, like bushites, and it is scarey as heck to me!

the ONLY PROMISE the candidates made to the 4 early states, was to not campaign there, that's it..... no promise to not let their names be on the ballot?



care

 

[Jeepers]

Care... you cant change the rules midstream... It just kinda makes you look foolish... If the people have issue with Fl and Mi then they should take it out on the idiots that changed the dates to begin with...

"He should have KNOWN that Florida and Michigan would have been eventually seated"

All knew that the delagates would be seated.. after a nominee was chosen..

"Obama was not the Media Sweetheart when Michigan and Florida had their election and Hillary won bigtime".... HUH.. Obama was never the media sweetheart... Hill got trounced early on... it was only the media that kept her alive...

"...it's the citizen's vote for goodness sakes" sure.. but it wasnt fair and it wasnt the DNC vote...and Hillary agreed that the votes wouldnt count... well that was when she thought she was going to be anugurated... Face it.. you cats are just pawns in Hillary's poorly run campaign....

 

[Care4all]

Care... you cant change the rules midstream... It just kinda makes you look foolish... If the people have issue with Fl and Mi then they should take it out on the idiots that changed the dates to begin with...

"He should have KNOWN that Florida and Michigan would have been eventually seated"

All knew that the delagates would be seated.. after a nominee was chosen..

"Obama was not the Media Sweetheart when Michigan and Florida had their election and Hillary won bigtime".... HUH.. Obama was never the media sweetheart... Hill got trounced early on... it was only the media that kept her alive...

"...it's the citizen's vote for goodness sakes" sure.. but it wasnt fair and it wasnt the DNC vote...and Hillary agreed that the votes wouldnt count... well that was when she thought she was going to be anugurated... Face it.. you cats are just pawns in Hillary's poorly run campaign....

Jeepers, in Florida, that was the republican majority who changed it.....? You are going to punish the citizens of Florida and disenfranchise them of their vote because of a handful of Republicans and Democrats in power?

That is soooooooooooooo, soooooooooooooo wrong and my mom and my dad's and my sister's and my nephew's and my sister in laws votes will not count because of SOME POLITICAL GAME of the DNC and the Early 4 states that wanted to stay the early 4 primary states.....????

That is just utter bulloney, Florida and Michigan came out in record numbers, to vote, to have their voices heard....to disenfranchise them of their opportunity to pick their nominee of their party for the presidency of THEIR OWN COUNTRY is simply WRONG jeeps and on May 31st ACCORDING TO THE RULES, not against the rules or changing the rules midstream, BUT IN THE RULES, the DNC is going to seat, at least SOME of the florida and michigan delegates....which they can do, at this time.Those ARE the rules....

and if Florida is disenfranchised of their vote and say in this, you can mark my words, Democrats will lose the election that was theirs to be had, no matter Hillary or Obama in the general imo....don't mess with the citizens of Florida for political reasons and prevent their votes from counting AGAIN, they have just about had enough of it....that would be political suicide, the DNC now knows this, their committee will seat these states.

And good morning Jeepers!

 

[Care4all]

Jeepers, sitting the delegates AFTER the election is WON, would NOT be counting the voices or votes of the Floridians? You are saying that seating them AFTER THE ELECTION is over and THAT is suppose to satistfy the Floridians as counting their vote in this nomination? NO WAY!

The rules have always said that on May 31 the DNC committee meets and makes decisions on things like this and the delegates that they are willing to seat will be seated then...THOSE ARE THE RULES?

but your side has been mislead, ONCE AGAIN, it seems....to believe something that is simply not true....there are no rule or game changes here, the date has always been, from the very beginning the meeting on May 31st as D day on the disenfranchise's date of decision, IF THE CANDIDATES could not come to a resolution before that time, which could have allowed the decision to seat them be even earlier.

This was not politically favorable by Obama so he stalled it to the final date...politics has been played on both sides NOT just one of them....that should be recognized imo.

Care

 

[Larkinn]

Sheesh, link please on the darkening of ad and whatever on Jesse Jackson...??? I have no idea what you are talking about, and if whatever ad you are talking about was in the newspaper... that darkening assumption is AABSOLUTELY out of the control of the person purchasing the ad, but in the control of the newspaper or magazine, and how their printing comes out... yur listening to the Republican garbage again, trying to make you all think the Clinton's are racist and a little toooooooo sensitive on it ....like a bunch of children throwing tantrums....imo, and in to the Bushite garbage.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/04/questions-raised-whether-hillary-ad-darkened-obama/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/bill-clinton-obama-is-ju_n_83406.html

It wasn't in the newspaper, it was on television. And they admitted doing it.

By the way, I've never called Hillary racist, and I don't think she is. I just think shes willing to use it to win, if necessary.

ACTUALLY, no one has WON....just a big ole bunch of hot air coming from your side of the fence, wanting to give your little "baby darling" an easy road and NOT ACTUALLY WIN this election against Hillary....through the votes of ALL THE PEOPLE.....you all keep crying and whining and even yelling for her to quit, and have been for months.

Ok, then care to make a bet? I'll give you 100 to 1 odds. Bet $1000.

Shes not going to win Care. There is no way she can. Give me a plausible scenario where she wins.

AND GUESS WHAT, your candidate STILL could NOT manage to WIN this nomination...with the press on his side, with the press against Hillary bigtime...for months, saying "shouldn't she quit?".... He is losing his momentum and he couldn't convince super delegates to go to his side, so he could have enough votes to win, and then this election been over.

Losing his momentum? Really? Obama needs 64 delegates to reach 2025, Hillary needs 246. Not quite losing his momentum.

And, as I said, Obama won this thing a while back, you just refuse to recognize that fact. And don't pull this "everyone is against us" crap. Obama has been slaughtered with stories about Wright, Ayers, and everything else in the media, he is hardly the media darling you portray him as.

BUT he doesn't have enough votes to win.

It wasn't over long ago Larkin, it still isn't over.

As far as taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, THAT is NOT hillary's fault? That was a stupid political decision of Obama's.

OBAMA DECIDED TO KEEP HIS NAME ON FLORIDA'S BALLOT, how come then take his name off of Michigans?

Stupid political decision? So hes stupid because he expects the DNC and Hillary to keep the rules and not lie to him in a MAJOR national campaign? It wasn't political, it was ethical. He did it as a sign of good faith. He didn't "decide" to keep his name on Florida's ballot. As has been explained to you in the past, it was against Florida electoral law for him to remove his name.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2008/01/clinton_wins_michigan.html

soooo, why would obama choose to stay on florida's ballot and take his name off of Michigans....did he think he was going to GET A WHOOPING in Michigan? What was his political purpose?

Maybe following the law and rules? Is that concept so foreign to you?

They are going to seat Floridqa and Michigan, by probably half of their delegates on May 31st's meeting of the DNC....

We'll see about that.

When that happens ALOT MORE DELEGATES are in the total amount that is needed to win, so there still is not a winner yet Larkin, and the contest is still going on....

Yes, Obama will more than likely win it, but he has NOT WON IT YET....not by the Rules of the Contest and I'm calling bull crap on you and the others that have been claiming such for a month or two by now!

No, he hasn't won "by the rules of the contest". But he has effectively won. Call Bull Crap all you want, there is no path to the nomination for Hillary.

why not? They pledged to hillary then changed that SUPPOSED pledge to Obama, it can happen again, especially with those superdelegates whose state voted with Hillary, they might actually follow what their citizens wanted and change their vote from Obama back to Hillary.....anything can happen in politics, I've come to believe....

They changed their vote to Obama, because he is the presumptive nominee. There is no reason for them to change their vote back.

Obama is not the strongest candidate to win this election for the President imo, he can't even win enough super delegates over that could have ended this race a month ago... when he was still on his upswing in the Primary and he can not win the vote of the working class without working with them more, he needs more time to show that he can win them over, but it doesn't look like he can...

I love this argument, its utterly hilarious in its absurdity. So your saying that Obama is weak because he can't even win enough super delegates to win a month ago. But somehow, Clinton is stronger even though she can't win enough super delegates to actually win the nomination?

So winning superdelegates means your strong...but only if it was moinths ago. If it happens now, it doesn't matter. I see.

The working class, eh? Would that be the fine voters of Oregon you are perhaps thinking of? Who are working class, and overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly chose Obama?

And before you start spouting that it is for racial reasons, i saw statistics last night that showed what happened in 2000 and 2004 in one of these states overwhelmingly NOT supporting Obama and willing to cross over to mccain, and that percentage of 30% was actually less Democrats that crossed over and voted for Bush because of Kerry....so it is NOT Race, but they think he is an Elitist, like they though Kerry was and Gore was....when they crossed over to Bush.... so Race just ain't Obama's problem but appearing to be an elitist and not connecting with the non college grad is....and guess what? There are MORE non colledge grads working in the USA than the college grad.... he's got a problem and it is just beginning to show its face...which means the Democratic Party has a problem imo, i just hope they recognize such before this nomination is said and done....recognizing this is highly unlikely though...

He is running against McCain who is positively anemic. That and the Democrats have just won 3 districts in heavily Republican areas, despite them being tied to Obama. Barring unforseen developments, he is going to win the general.

You can't throw out the people's vote with the bath water....and michigan and florida WILL BE COUNTED in some manner because the DNC was WRONG in disenfranchising the voters of these States....it was UNDEMOCRATIC, period....you can mark my words on them being counted in some manner....and when that happens on May 31st it makes the delegate needed to win higher...

You can, and you should. If they want someone to blame, they should vote out their state reps.

He should have KNOWN that Florida and Michigan would have been eventually seated....in some manner...it's the citizen's vote for goodness sakes and the reason they have NOT counted before this is because Obama hasn't agreed to a compromise on how they are seated....and he has been purposely holding back so that those delegates don't show up in hillary's column until the ABSOLUTE last minute...yeah dirty POLITICS, on his end too...but you can't see it....blind, like bushites, and it is scarey as heck to me!

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/mich...3/1210278259196040.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

How exactly should he have known that? Hillary, apparently, should have known it as well in october when she fully supported not counting FL or MI? I notice you have never responded to that point Care. How do you excuse Hillary from wanting to not count their votes until it became politically expedient to do so?

As to how they are seated, Hillary won't compromise, so its no surprise that Obama won't agree to Hillary just wanting the delegates to count all for her.

the ONLY PROMISE the candidates made to the 4 early states, was to not campaign there, that's it..... no promise to not let their names be on the ballot?

Its called a good faith effort to make states play by the rules. Hillary exploited that effort. So much for ever having a decent primary system after this.

 

[Ravi]

And they admitted doing it.

Link?

 

[Jeepers]

Jeepers, in Florida, that was the republican majority who changed it.....? You are going to punish the citizens of Florida and disenfranchise them of their vote because of a handful of Republicans and Democrats in power?

It would be easy to blame the pubs on this if it werent for all of the strong arm talking from the dems prior to changing the date...

"Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.
The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.
But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”
Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
Florida’s decision throws the whole primary season into disarray. New Hampshire law requires the Granite State to conduct the first primary in the nation, and Florida’s move could have a domino effect pushing contests back into late this year.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said yesterday that if the party follows through on its threats, it would effectively throw Florida, which is crucial in electoral terms, to the Republicans."

Bill Nelson knew what would happen.. why would he not tell his state cohorts to settle down.. Instead he says defiantely... THis is gonna be your fault Mr Dean... http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

That is soooooooooooooo, soooooooooooooo wrong and my mom and my dad's and my sister's and my nephew's and my sister in laws votes will not count because of SOME POLITICAL GAME of the DNC and the Early 4 states that wanted to stay the early 4 primary states.....????

No no no.. its because the state dems defied an order from the DNC...I agree that the process is not fair to many states but... you change the rules from within and not by billigerantly challenging the DNC. Got a problem with that.. then your family can oust the idiots that created this debacle... Is it the sun down there or what, if Floridians cant figure out how to vote maybe we should give that penninsula to the Cubans...

That is just utter bulloney, Florida and Michigan came out in record numbers, to vote, to have their voices heard....

And they were heard.. they did this knowing before hand that their votes would not count toward the election...what about those that stayed home knowing full well that their votes wouldnt have counted.. what do you say to them... whoops.. sorry.. we're gonna change the rules now.. what about their votes...

...to disenfranchise them of their opportunity to pick their nominee of their party for the presidency of THEIR OWN COUNTRY is simply WRONG jeeps and on May 31st ACCORDING TO THE RULES, not against the rules or changing the rules midstream, BUT IN THE RULES, the DNC is going to seat, at least SOME of the florida and michigan delegates....which they can do, at this time.Those ARE the rules....

great.. seat em.. nobody said otherwise.. they just cant change the decision.. they can fall right in line behind the nominiee that the other states (who abided by the rules) picked.

and if Florida is disenfranchised of their vote and say in this, you can mark my words, Democrats will lose the election that was theirs to be had, no matter Hillary or Obama in the general imo....don't mess with the citizens of Florida for political reasons and prevent their votes from counting

Did ya see that quote above from Bill Nelson.. he predicted this prior to the date being changed... why did the fl dems think they pull this off and not get penalized.. the ramifications of this were known in advance...

AGAIN, they have just about had enough of it....that would be political suicide,

Great.. they can go vote for McCain for all I care.. florida dems can once again live with the ramifications of their poor decisions... problem with that move is that abortions will be illegal in 3-7 years... so.. tell your relatives to enjoy their maverick ways.. I will go ahead and start hording cloths hangers when they become short in supply...

the DNC now knows this, their committee will seat these states.

They will get sat... in some manner.. they wont be alowed to be a game changer however..

And good morning Jeepers!

ah.. morning back at ya... hows the new house working out...

 

[Jeepers]

Jeepers, sitting the delegates AFTER the election is WON, would NOT be counting the voices or votes of the Floridians? You are saying that seating them AFTER THE ELECTION is over and THAT is suppose to satistfy the Floridians as counting their vote in this nomination? NO WAY!

Yeah, but youre concerned about being sat.

The rules have always said that on May 31 the DNC committee meets and makes decisions on things like this and the delegates that they are willing to seat will be seated then...THOSE ARE THE RULES?

K

but your side has been mislead, ONCE AGAIN, it seems....to believe something that is simply not true....there are no rule or game changes here, the date has always been, from the very beginning the meeting on May 31st as D day on the disenfranchise's date of decision, IF THE CANDIDATES could not come to a resolution before that time, which could have allowed the decision to seat them be even earlier.

HUh..

This was not politically favorable by Obama so he stalled it to the final date...politics has been played on both sides NOT just one of them....that should be recognized imo.

Huh? What? Politics should play no role here.... You cats wanted an unsecure short notice mail in ballot system? Maybe you wanted the candidates to raise the funds for a reelection... why wouldnt hill sign on to the simplest way to decide with a caucus?
This was a fight between florida dems and the DNC.. .the candidates should have absolutely ZERO to do with the resolution of this.. Hill gave two shits about florida or Mich before she was losing.. she did the exact same thing in Nevada with the expanded caucuss sites..by trying to shut em down after one of the hotel casino unions rebuffed her by backing Obama..