Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 128
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    FWIW, several wealthy liberal democrats -- George Soros amongst them -- offered to pay the cost of redoing Michigan's (and I think Florida's) primary.
    He was asked to help fund it and turned them down flat. At least as of mid-March. His spokesman is quoted as saying "George Soros does not support holding another primary in Michigan because he believes doing so will further delay the selection of a Democratic candidate in November," Vachon said.

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...y_supporte.php
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You don't say "no" that's against the rules and if you do so your delegates will not be seated then turn around and pay for a new election then seat their delegates after they ignore the party and do so anyway. That's a lack of Party structure and leadership that cannot be allowed.
    But delegates from Florida and Michigan (half or all) WILL be seated at the convention. That's always been a certainty, IMO. The question is what's the fairest way to allocate the delegates. Basing it on "backroom negotiations" as is being done now? On a flawed vote? Or on a clean revote by the people?

    The DNC should not pay for another election. As I said earlier, I think they would have been able to raise the money through private donations outside the campaign finance restrictions.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Problem, as already discussed, is that their will NOT be a second vote. No one wants to pay for it.

    It would cost from 10 to 25 million to redo the vote in Fl alone. Who pays? Plus, as already discussed, what about the other dems, now they are cheated.
    We all know that there won't be a second vote. But it hasn't been determined that "no one wants to pay for it."

    As for the other Dems, they dropped out. They're not part of the primaries in North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, or any other state that held their primaries later in the season.

    Dunno, but it sounds like you are asking the same question, but in different ways.
    I was responding to daT's post.

    Plus, if they are no penalties, then why would states even bother to listen to the dnc anyway. If there are no repercussions.... why don't 30% of the states hold their elections on 2 Jan CY? The rest can hold them on 20 Jan CY. Whatever....
    The "penalty" is that early primaries wouldn't count. In the future, states wouldn't waste money on a primary they know won't count.

    But with the current DNC negotiations, it looks like at least the Florida vote will contribute to the final delegate allocation - which eliminates the penalty you're looking for.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    But it hasn't been determined that "no one wants to pay for it."
    If no one has stepped up to pay then it is obvious that it was determined that "no one wants to pay for it."

    That is my observation... I could be wrong....

    As for the other Dems, they dropped out. They're not part of the primaries in North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, or any other state that held their primaries later in the season.
    But how do you know if they would not have stayed in if fl and mi were still in the playing?


    which eliminates the penalty you're looking for.
    I'm not looking for a penalty... I'm looking for an even playing field... play by the rules. If you agree with making up your own rules in the middle of a game, so be it....

    As I said before though, at this point, this is all political pandering....

    The dems will seat fl and mi in order to satisfy enough dems in those states. It won't matter for hillary. She is done.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    If no one has stepped up to pay then it is obvious that it was determined that "no one wants to pay for it."

    That is my observation... I could be wrong....
    They decided against a do-over before they really tried to raise money. They certainly never asked me for money.

    But how do you know if they would not have stayed in if fl and mi were still in the playing?
    I don't. That's too bad. If they want to re-enter, let them.


    I'm not looking for a penalty... I'm looking for an even playing field... play by the rules. If you agree with making up your own rules in the middle of a game, so be it....

    As I said before though, at this point, this is all political pandering....

    The dems will seat fl and mi in order to satisfy enough dems in those states. It won't matter for hillary. She is done.
    I don't think any rules should be changed, or need to be changed. But then, as I said before, I don't know the details of the rules.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't think any rules should be changed, or need to be changed. But then, as I said before, I don't know the details of the rules.
    The rules were simple.... fl and mi decided to break them... now they want to change the rules.

    Political pandering... dnc "need" for fl and mi voters to "feel" their vote counted for "something."

    Normally research on a topic is helpful... although, this topic does not matter much now, hillary is done... finished.... the end.... game over....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    The rules were simple.... fl and mi decided to break them... now they want to change the rules.

    Political pandering... dnc "need" for fl and mi voters to "feel" their vote counted for "something."

    Normally research on a topic is helpful... although, this topic does not matter much now, hillary is done... finished.... the end.... game over....
    And you've done the research? Quote the rule please. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that any rule has to be changed in order to redo elections. Thanks.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    And you've done the research? Quote the rule please. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that any rule has to be changed in order to redo elections. Thanks.
    Say what? No one ever said anything about a rule to change for a redo in MI and FL... we are talking about two different things...

    What you are talking about does not even matter.... I'm way past that at this point. You are talking about a hypothetical of "what could have happened."

    The hole in your argument is that no one came forward to pay for a redo in FL or MI. Obama said clearly that he would go along with a redo in MI and FL. Unfortunately, no one ever came up with the money. Now it is much too late... no one is suggesting a redo this late in the game.

    I'll let you argue a hypothetical redo with someone else.
    Last edited by theog; 05/31/2008 at 05:07 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Say what? No one ever said anything about a rule to change for a redo in MI and FL... we are talking about two different things...

    What you are talking about does not even matter.... I'm way past that at this point. You are talking about a hypothetical of "what could have happened."

    The hole in your argument is that no one came forward to pay for a redo in FL or MI. Obama said clearly that he would go along with a redo in MI and FL. Unfortunately, no one ever came up with the money. Now it is much too late... no one is suggesting a redo this late in the game.

    I'll let you argue a hypothetical redo with someone else.
    I was already talking about a hypothetical redo when you jumped in. Now you're surprised that we're talking about a hypothetical redo?

    And Obama actually didn't support a redo.

    And my argument was that redoing the primaries was the fairest solution. No hole in that argument. Several prominent Democrats came forward with a plan to raise money for the redo. But it was decided not to go ahead with it before they even began to raise money.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I was already talking about a hypothetical redo when you jumped in. Now you're surprised that we're talking about a hypothetical redo?
    We've been talking about two different things for a while then...

    And Obama actually didn't support a redo.
    That is not correct. Obama has steadily stated that he would support a redo if that is what the dnc came up with. Obama has said he wanted it to be fair and not some rushed mess... and not like some suggestions coming out of FL, mail in ballot, etc... He still had to setup shop in FL and MI... Fair and not supporting are two different things, IMO.


    And my argument was that redoing the primaries was the fairest solution. No hole in that argument.
    We don't agree. Not a problem...

    Well, I might have been for it earlier this year, but not now... much too late.


    Several prominent Democrats came forward with a plan to raise money for the redo. But it was decided not to go ahead with it before they even began to raise money.
    I've read several plans, but they all fell short.... at an estimated 25 million (for fl alone), that is a lot of money to raise for an election that ultimately would not have mattered. But I guess we don't agree with that either. No biggie.

    Bottom line, and I'll bail out of this since I'm repeating myself, is that MI and FL knew the penalties going into this. As I've clearly posted (with links), they told the dnc, "We don't care, we are going forward. Period."

    Now after they realized they messed up, they want to change the rules and allow for their delegates to count. Personally, I think they sound like a bunch of hypocrites who don't want to lose their job. The people of FL and MI need to have the heads (figuratively) of those responsible for this mess.

    And no, I'm not calling you a hypocrite... just in case you think that... I see we were talking about two different things, no biggie. Guess I was not paying attention or something....
    Last edited by theog; 05/31/2008 at 06:08 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    But delegates from Florida and Michigan (half or all) WILL be seated at the convention. That's always been a certainty, IMO. The question is what's the fairest way to allocate the delegates. Basing it on "backroom negotiations" as is being done now? On a flawed vote? Or on a clean revote by the people?

    The DNC should not pay for another election. As I said earlier, I think they would have been able to raise the money through private donations outside the campaign finance restrictions.
    No, the fair thing would be to NOT seat their delegates. They broke the party rules. This is a Party nomination NOT a general election therefore no one is being disenfranchised.


    This is a very good read from today:

    Todd: Nothing is fair about Florida and Michigan
    What the DNC rules committee should do, what they'll probably do
    By Chuck Todd
    Political Director
    NBC News
    updated 10:00 a.m. PT, Sat., May. 31, 2008

    WASHINGTON - There are two nagging questions in the delegate dispute between the Democratic National Committee and the so-called aggrieved parties in Florida and Michigan: 1) What should the DNC do? and 2) What will the DNC do?

    Let's start with the first question.

    The fact is, the DNC will not be doing what it should do — or at least what members of the Rules and Bylaws committee would like it to do — which is sympathize with Florida and drop the hammer on Michigan.

    Michigan would have little chance of seeing its delegation reinstated were the state not so important to the Democratic math and reaching 270 electoral votes in November.

    The blame game
    Many members of the DNC's Rules Committee are still livid. They blame Michigan for creating this mess.

    In 2005 and 2006, Michigan helped start the discussion to determine how the Democrats would organize their 2008 calendar. When it was determined the Democrats were going to allow four states to break the Feb. 5 primary window, a number of states applied to be one of those four, including Michigan. When their bid was turned down — and despite numerous warnings, as well as the unprecedented decision to strip Florida of its delegates — Michigan's Democratic leaders went ahead and scheduled an early primary anyway.

    No one on the Rules Committee, even the Clinton partisans, can stomach the idea of giving in to Michigan.

    The good news for Michigan, however, is the folks on the Rules committee do not live in a political vacuum. They know they can't have angry Democrats like Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Sen. Carl Levin stewing all summer while the Obama campaign attempts to organize the state.

    So from the start, a decision to seat some of Michigan's delegates means members of the Rules committee are already doing what they believe they shouldn't be doing.

    The Michigan folks lobbying the Rules Committee ought to keep this in mind, even though they believe they are in the right. The more humble pie Granholm and Levin agree to eat, the better their chances are at avoiding a messy confrontation in the future.

    Options for the committee
    There are other options the Rules Committee should be considering but won’t.

    Why not consider punishing the party leaders and not the voters? Couldn’t the committee take away the states' superdelegate votes? After all, it wasn't the voters who demanded the states break party rules, but rather the leaders of the respective state parties.

    Of course, this is too logical. The likely ruling on Saturday will probably highlight the party's inability or reluctance to punish the superdelegates. There is a challenge from a Florida superdelegate claiming the party violated its own charter by stripping the state of both pledged delegates and superdelegates. Most members of the Rules Committee I've talked to indicate that he may be right. Keep in mind members of the Rules committee are all superdelegates themselves.

    The Golden Rule could apply: Do unto other superdelegates as you would want done unto you.

    The second idea the committee should be considering but isn't reflects everything we've learned throughout this long primary season.

    As many have noted, census data for each state have been remarkably determinative of results since Super Tuesday. In fact, the support groups for the two candidates have been incredibly stable. Why not apply what we've learned about the support groups of both candidates and split the delegates accordingly?

    I guarantee you that the chief delegate counters of both campaigns as well as a few observers (like Democratic numbers guru Mark Gersh) could get together in a room and agree on which congressional district each candidate would carry and by what percentage within, say, 5 points.

    What could have happened
    A few weeks ago, I attempted to simulate what the results would be in Florida and Michigan had both primaries taken place after March 4 when both candidates were at their full strength with their respective demographic groups. After interviewing experts in both states, my simulation gave Florida to Clinton by a margin of about six points (53-47), netting her nine delegates (97-88).

    In Michigan, my experts believe timing would have been everything. Had the primary been in March, these folks gave it to Obama by 2 points. Had the primary been held post-Rev. Wright and the “bitter-cling” comments, our experts believe Clinton would have eked out a win. Nobody believed either was capable of anything more than an Indiana or Missouri margin for either candidate.

    My simulation gave Michigan to Clinton, 51-49, which would have netted her approximately 4 delegates (66-62).

    But what should be done is different from what will be done.

    Two nearly indisputable predictions about Saturday are: There is no chance nothing will be done, and the entire delegations from both states will not be seated.

    We do know the current magic number of 2,026 will not be in effect come Sunday and we know the magic number will not be 2,210, as hoped for by the Clinton campaign.

    It is likely to be either 2,118 or 2,131, depending on whether the Rules Committee decides superdelegates should be penalized (or can be) in the same vein as pledged delegates.

    Then the question becomes how will the Florida and Michigan delegates be allocated?

    Decisions, decisions
    First thing the Rules Committee must decide is whether or not the January votes in both states should be used to determine the delegate allocations. The tea leaves indicate Florida's results will get accepted. However Michigan is an open question.

    There are some DNC hardliners who will be adamant about not accepting the January results even as a guide because it will only open the door for other states (and future candidates) to violate the rules in the future.

    Still, the Obama campaign seems open to accepting Florida as is (as long as the 50 percent cut is enforced) which means Florida is likely to "count." Of course, there is a significant difference between delegations being cut in half and cutting every delegate's vote in half. It's odd math, but it's a difference of as many as 13 delegates for Clinton.

    Meanwhile, the latest rumor about Michigan indicates their vote won't count, but instead a compromise of a 50-50 even split of delegates will be agreed on.

    Whatever happens, it is not going to seem fair to someone. But it may not even matter. It is likely Obama will ask for the delegations to be seated in full once he's secured the nomination.

    The sad irony for both states is clear: If they hadn't been so obsessed with an early primary, they both would have been a heck of a lot more consequential than they've turned out to be.
  12. #72  
    Well that's done.

    And no, the Credentials Committee will not help. Please leave the stage Mrs. Clinton.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Well that's done.
    You, Sir, are incorrect.

    For Clinton supporters, this is only the beginning.

    Brah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.....



    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  14. #74  
    Well the DNC has ruled that the rules don't matter. Half votes and splitting delegates... what a joke. This is what is wrong with the Democrat party - the rules don't apply, and there is no personal responsibility when bad decisions are made.

    MaCain is the weakest Republican candidate since Dole, yet he will win because the Democrats are such a mess. Clinton is going to play the spoiler and demand the VP slot, effectively killing the ticket.

    But it is entertaining...
  15. #75  
    I have a feeling that this whole thing is going to just give Obama more superdelegates anyway, since he's being more willing to compromise about it anyway, and hopefully Clinton's being entirely hypocritical won't matter anyway.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Well that's done.
    You've been saying that for a while now.

    I have a feeling it'll be entirely up to Hillary to decide when it's done.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You've been saying that for a while now.

    I have a feeling it'll be entirely up to Hillary to decide when it's done.
    Because it's been done for a while. Lovely thing about metrics, they're easy to calculate.
  18. #78  
    I think Hillary has done more to elect John McCain the past month, then John McCain has. There is more to party unity than merely stating you believe in it. Hillary is like a spoiled child and I don't think she'll give up until others step in and then, if she is anything like her frontman at the rules committee, she'll throw a temper tantrum. The chances of Hillary being the party nominee are so infantesimal that if she somehow manages to pull it off (by backroom political distribution of states' delegates that were't suppose to count and by coercing superdelegates), many democrats will be calling foul and this party will not be unified anytime soon. The only way it becomes unified is for her to gracefully throw in the towel and throw her support behind Obama and encourage her followers to do the same. Sorry, but in my view, that is the political reality.
  19. #79  
    Between Hillary holding out for VP and Obama (finally) leaving his racist church, the Democrats are going to have a tough time. The convention is in what, August? So if there is "unity", it doesn't take effect until September. Not enough time to convince the middle of the road folks.

    This year, it's the economy that will drive things, not Iraq, and Obama and the tax party is going to have a long road.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Between Hillary holding out for VP and Obama (finally) leaving his racist church, the Democrats are going to have a tough time. The convention is in what, August? So if there is "unity", it doesn't take effect until September. Not enough time to convince the middle of the road folks.
    For one his church was not "racist." That is an insane comment... even more so if you consider the last pastor to preach there was white. lol.... I could think of some names to call them, but racist would be far from it... even their last pastor, wright, was not a racist... don't repeat Republican talking points (or gossip).... lol

    This year, it's the economy that will drive things, not Iraq, and Obama and the tax party is going to have a long road.
    Mix of issues... obama is working on his tax plan... so far it is sinking in... He is only going to raise the taxes of those making over $250,000 (or right around there). No brainer. I've not heard were obama has said he will raise taxes on the middle class... although his entire plan is a bit sketchy.

    Mccain does seem to have a better plan for businesses (lowering taxes), but he has yet to get into specifics. In addition, mccain seems to be pulling a lot to and from taxes and that has some worried. Mccain seems to use the tax system as a personal bank.... Mccain seems to say, "Oh, we will take it from taxes."

    At some point you have nothing more to take and must start cutting domestic programs to fund your new plans. I fear that mccain will push bills and have to give many more concessions than obama....

    McCain's economy comment and greenspan comment will haunt him until Nov....
    Last edited by theog; 06/01/2008 at 02:24 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions