Their delegates should have been stripped entirely, as was originally warned by the DNC when the two states were considering holding early primaries. It's the state D-party's fault for breaking the rules.
Then the democrats have lost the general election, end of story. The votes are not flexible, even if we give Clinton and Obama the exact share they they won in Florida and Michigan (ignoring that obama was not even on the ballet in one of those states), obama still wins the candidacy, so really its a moot point for changing the election, rather dividing up Florida and Michigan will insure obama victory is a clean one by over a hundred rather then by a few dozen delegates, and a well defined victory is needed for the democrats to move on to the general election, in short the democrats will lose what little chance they have in the general election if Obama is not the candidate before the nation conventions ins July. Personally I think a voltron ticket is the best chance the democrats have at this point, but many will be lost by Clinton being on the ticket (because many hate her) and by a "nigger" being the candidate (because polling has proven that America is still strongly racists), but at least the party will be unified.
There was no Democratic primary or caucus held in either one of those states. You're dealing with an imaginary situation in which legit primaries were held, as if it had a reality. There were no Democratic Party primary voters in those states. Nobody has a Democratic Party franchise to dis, from those states. Fair has nothing to do with it. If the Democratic Party wants to, it can choose a representative state from each of the five major regions of the US and run just five primaries as a guide for the smoke-filled room boys in their decisions. Or roll dice.
Who gives a sh!t whether it's dull or not. Do you view this a purely entertainment? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! For the record, I've fully supported do-overs of both state primaries, assuming they could do it accurately. It was the states themselves that decided they couldn't. Not really. The Dem primary has been OVER since Obama won Texas. He's up by almost 200 delegates now....... It's OVER!!!!!
Geoff, my dear lad, your words suggest you have some serious pyschological issues that need to be addressed. You appear to be living in an imaginary world of your own making, and your responses were very juvenile...suggesting perhaps some self estem issues. I would expect more maturity from a 30 year old. So for you, you have my pity. I hope you will get the help you need.
?? The Democrats have? Actually I heard on NPR this morning that neither candidate has clinched the number of delegates needed to assure victory. Why is a well defined victory needed, and why must it be Obama? How about the candidate that wins fairly wins? That seems better to me. As for voting by race, it's not only the Clinton camp that engages in it. In fact, most of the support for Obama comes from those "typical white people" Obama mentions. Geoff
This is ridiculous: the issue isn't precisely whether a primary was run, but rather that it should have been run. Must be run. You all seem to think that I want to conjure up imaginary votes here. I don't. I want a proper primary run, and a proper candidate voted in. If it's Obama, then fine. If it's Clinton, then fine. But for crying out loud, do it properly. Don't just write those states off and then claim it would be a toss-up. I'm sorry: by dull I meant stupid. Sorry. My bad. So then do them over and stop with the "it's over" crap. This from the fellow that thinks that if I don't support Obama, I must be a Republican. Right. But, I give you the acknowledgement that at least you didn't call my failure to support Obama racist, as VRob did. Small praise; but there it is. Geoff
He really is. I've told him over a half dozen times that both Michigan AND Florida tried to run new primaries. But both states concluded they couldn't do it. Financial reasons, along with time constraints and problems with Michigans closed Dem primary. It's almost as if he conveniently filters out information he doesn't want to hear. :shrug:
No, it's nothing of the kind. You two stagger me with your incomprehension. The United States, as a body, inarguably the greatest power in the world is unable to have a decent primary in two states of their Union. Why not? Oh, well it's the money, you see. Or the time. We can't move schedules, so you lot are just out of luck, never mind the reason. They "tried" to run primaries, but it was just too hard. The snow, you see. The Republicans tricked us. The rules won't let us. Godzilla attacked us. Astounding. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In the meantime, you blather about me being a) a Republican or b) a racist because - well, why? Well, he demands actual democracy, the cretin. It's obvious! He's filtering! Filtering absurd excuses not to have a proper election for the first time in some time, apparently. Is this how the whole Obamania thing works then? I can see the tinglings of the "mania", anyway. It's very simple: Be a representative democracy for the people and of them, or just bloody don't and stop the pretense to your supposed ideas as a nation. Attach your support or denial to arbitrary rules and issues of budget and wave off on your perception of doability. Here's a term you might or - given your positions - might not be familiar with: Taxation without representation. I think you fought a war over it a while back. Strange how the Brit has to educate you on your own national values of democracy. The two of you are "hanging chads" in actual purported human form, walking around among us and making strange noises about the inability of a few dozen soccer moms to sit at flimsy tables and cross off names with a red pen. My word, how Adams and Washington and Jefferson would weep. Best regards, and DONE, Geoff
Geoff our country was constructed to have states determine their rules for conducting elections. The election process is not a federal issue...it is a state issue. If Florida and Michigan have problems with conducting elections it is up to the citizens of that state to correct the politicians that elect them. If you want to move to a system of federal elections, that will take a lot of time and their may be some merrit to it. However, under the current rules, each state is responsible for conducting their own elections. If state government screws up, it is the responsiblity of the citizens to fix it...not expect the rest of the country to accomodate them because they cannot conduct an election. Remember this 48 other states and two territories were able to follow the rules and have succesful elections. So why can Florida and Michigan not conduct good elections? Further hillary signed on the the rules that stripped Florida and Michigan of their votes when she signed up for this race. It did not bother her then, a few months ago, when Michigan and Florida were going to be excluded. It is only now that she wants to count those votes. And she does not want to count all of those votes, just the votes for her in Michigan and not the votes against her in Michigan.
Now it seems that McCain has his own Christian support problems. John Hagee, Texas Televangelist. This was the situation in February. Mr. McCain, who has been on a steady search for support among conservative and evangelical leaders who have long distrusted him, said he was “very honored'’ by Mr. Hagee’s endorsement. Asked about Mr. Hagee’s extensive writings on Armageddon and about what one questioner said was Mr. Hagee’s belief that the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union, Mr. McCain responded that “all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.'’ And Now, But at the start of his Northern California fundraising and campaign trip, the dominant news of the day was not on McCain's official agenda: The controversial Hagee had, in the 1990s, said Adolf Hitler had acted as an agent of God to cause the Holocaust to send more Jews to the Holy Land. apropos the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union Tony Blair could be a candidate for the job.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Obama has announced Victory. Surely Hilary will give up soon. Could she accept the position of Vice President? Can Obama win without her help. I just heard this morning that 50% of Americans think Obama is a muslim. Will this be a factor?
As I said in this thread: I honestly don't think that race is as big of an issue in this as some people seem to think. Of course there are people that won't vote for a black man, but not enough to be concerned about. I personally am a big Obama supporter. I am just as strongly opposed to Hillry being president. She has no chance in hell of getting my vote, even if she had Obama as a VP. Her being his VP, on the other hand, would not sway my vote away from him. I think one of the big reasons people can't stand her is that her ambition overshadows her judgement and she is only out for Hillary. Accepting the VP slot could only help that image. Besides, all the people who would vote for her just because she is a woman will vote for him just because she is a woman. So many people have stated that if she wins the nomination, they would vote for McCain. The party is split between the two of them, but him having the top spot and her as #2 wouldn't make enough of them leave the party to have any appreciable impact. If he picks her as a running mate, and they get enough people energized to vote (which I think they will) they are all but guaranteed the win. If he doesn't, some Hillary supporters will cross party lines, and McCain stands a good chance. 50%? With as much press that his pastor got? I don't buy it. Where did you hear that? If it is true, his team will make swift work of setting it straight.
Not a chance. Especially after her speech last night. The arrogance is difficult to fathom. She's actually trying to strong-arm Obama into putting her on the ticket. Obama doesn't need her, and enough of her supporters will come to Obama's side in the end.
