if hilary won the popular vote, then how come she lost?

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: sportage
Like Hillary said many times, if it were winner take all, she would have won long ago.
Like the republicans, thats why Mccain won so fast over the others.
As a democrat, I have to add only the democrats could screw up an election process so badly. I still think Howard Dean is a jerk and a moron.
Why they meet and make these retarded rules is beyond logic.
Maybe thats one reason the republicans keep winning where it counts.

And no doubt the democrats will put on another one of their namby pamby love fest conventions, while the republicans go right for the throat.
Remember Zell Miller?

You apparently don't understand something: Rules. Hilary and Obama knew the rules and how the game was scored. They were each supposed to play that game to win. Looking back on it and making such claims is like looking back on a game of scrabble and proclaiming that "well, the loser would have won if the biggest words counted more. The other guy only won because he kept getting the triple letter scores." Seriously, do you think that if the rules were changed that their campaign strategies wouldn't have?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: lupi
RIP 2000 Stolen Presidential election claims; at least now we no longer have to listen to those.

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true that it was the popular vote that Dems were primarily yelling about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...2C_2000#Irregularities

 

[Carmen813]

The DNC system is set much more along the lines that the founders intended. The electoral college was created so that the politically informed would have more power than those who don't care to educated themselves on politics, but to not completely silence the vast majority of people who wouldn't give a damn in order to avoid creating a heridtary political aristocracy. In the republican voting system a person with little to no name recognition, like Obama, would never have gotten very far. People have a tendency to vote for names they have heard before, which I think is plainly evident by the fact that we have had a Bush or Clinton president for the past 20 years.

This election was Clinton's to lose. To often we ignore personal responsibility, she had the money, organization, and name recognition but failed to seal the deal. The DNCs system, while it took longer, is a triump of how elections are supposed to happen in this country. Even if she had won Clinton was required to confront Obama on multiple issues that never would have come up if she sealed it up in February, just as Obama has had to do. What we get is a stronger, better vetted candidate.

 

[Carmen813]

IMO the 2000 election wasn't a failure of the electoral college, it was a failure of the Supreme Court. The election should have been decided by the House, like the damn Constitution calls for.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: lupi
RIP 2000 Stolen Presidential election claims; at least now we no longer have to listen to those.

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true that it was the popular vote that Dems were primarily yelling about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...2C_2000#Irregularities

Except that is how it is almost universally brought up, particularly when someone is talking about Gore or complaining about the Bush era. Just ask JP or Harvey, I'm sure they give the proof.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What are you talking about? The DNC has to set rules for when primaries happen. Considering states always want their primaries to be first, if the DNC didn't put any controls on the process you would end up having primaries in 2009 for the 2012 presidential election. The DNC has pretty much no power to sanction these states in any way other then by limiting the usefulness of their primaries. What else do you suggest they do? (note: the end result of the DNC's decision pretty much just halved each state's say. this is the same thing that the RNC did.)

I understand that the DNC and RNC both have to do something and everyone wants to go first.

However, you have to admit that given the circumstances it is very ironic and way, way, way too similar to what happened in 2000 only completely contained within the DNC.

You also have to admit that not counting votes or giving people half of a vote is not an option.

The Florida legislature was at fault for what happened, not the Floridian people and you can't punish them for what their elected leaders did.

I have to say I'm not really buying your 'i'm an independent' shtick. I can't imagine someone who was soberly looking at the issues you've brought up lately from an objective point of view would be saying these sorts of things. If you are a Republican or trend conservative that's totally fine, but you can just come out and say it.

Also I guess you can't point out obvious facts like this and be independent.

If you point out slip ups, short comings, and other mishaps by the DNC then obviously you are a Republican.

Once again that 100% with us or 100% against us line that gets towed oh so well rears its ugly head.

Perhaps instead of trying to label me by my thoughts you should consider my thoughts without first considering your label.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

However, you have to admit that given the circumstances it is very ironic and way, way, way too similar to what happened in 2000 only completely contained within the DNC.

You also have to admit that not counting votes or giving people half of a vote is not an option.

I admit to neither. I don't find it similar to what happened in 2000. And I have no problem not counting meaningless votes.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Deudalus

However, you have to admit that given the circumstances it is very ironic and way, way, way too similar to what happened in 2000 only completely contained within the DNC.

You also have to admit that not counting votes or giving people half of a vote is not an option.

I admit to neither. I don't find it similar to what happened in 2000. And I have no problem not counting meaningless votes.

I guess we'll see how meaningless their votes are when the general election takes place.

Florida, Ohio, and other key battleground states decide every election. You would think the DNC would be smart enough not to write those people off and then 4 months later expect them to carry them to victory.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I understand that the DNC and RNC both have to do something and everyone wants to go first.

However, you have to admit that given the circumstances it is very ironic and way, way, way too similar to what happened in 2000 only completely contained within the DNC.

You also have to admit that not counting votes or giving people half of a vote is not an option.

The Florida legislature was at fault for what happened, not the Floridian people and you can't punish them for what their elected leaders did.

I have to say I'm not really buying your 'i'm an independent' shtick. I can't imagine someone who was soberly looking at the issues you've brought up lately from an objective point of view would be saying these sorts of things. If you are a Republican or trend conservative that's totally fine, but you can just come out and say it.

Also I guess you can't point out obvious facts like this and be independent.

If you point out slip ups, short comings, and other mishaps by the DNC then obviously you are a Republican.

Once again that 100% with us or 100% against us line that gets towed oh so well rears its ugly head.

Perhaps instead of trying to label me by my thoughts you should consider my thoughts without first considering your label.

Again with the projection and caricatures. I'm not saying you are conservative leaning based upon this particular instance, I'm saying it based upon pretty much every post I've ever seen you make. It's not a 'with us or against us' thing, it just appears to be an accurate description to me. I guess if I point out obvious facts like this I must be toeing that line.

And no, I don't view it as ironic or in any way similar to 2000. To try to equate party sanctions with a willful effort to stop an accurate vote count would be exceedingly dishonest on your part.

You admitted that the DNC and RNC have to have a way to control their primaries. Limiting the impact of primaries that are too early is literally the only way they can do that. Please explain how you're going to punish the Florida legislature but not the people of Florida. Take away their superdelegate votes? Whooaaaaahhhh I'm sure THAT will really stop them.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: lupi
RIP 2000 Stolen Presidential election claims; at least now we no longer have to listen to those.

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true that it was the popular vote that Dems were primarily yelling about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...2C_2000#Irregularities

Except that is how it is almost universally brought up, particularly when someone is talking about Gore or complaining about the Bush era. Just ask JP or Harvey, I'm sure they give the proof.

For every one of those, there are ten of these:

Originally posted by: Carmen813
IMO the 2000 election wasn't a failure of the electoral college, it was a failure of the Supreme Court. The election should have been decided by the House, like the damn Constitution calls for.

Note that I did not have to dig very hard to find that

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Take away their superdelegate votes? Whooaaaaahhhh I'm sure THAT will really stop them.

Umm, yes actually.

I'm sure with minor creativity they could come up with plenty of ways to keep people in line.

As important as the super delegate votes were this election and as many threads as people made effectively saying "OMG 3 super delegates went this way rather than that way" then I would say that would have been punishment enough.

Not to mention the fact that you would actually be punishing the guilty, rather than the people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Again with the projection and caricatures. I'm not saying you are conservative leaning based upon this particular instance, I'm saying it based upon pretty much every post I've ever seen you make. It's not a 'with us or against us' thing, it just appears to be an accurate description to me. I guess if I point out obvious facts like this I must be toeing that line.

Pointing out the irony of the Florida situation is pointing out facts. Some might not see the irony, some might, some might pretend to be selectively stupid in this regard. So seeing the irony is I suppose subjective, but the realization of what happened is fact.

Pointing out that YOU find my posts to not be in lock step enough and that makes YOU think that I'm a conservative is in fact very subjective and is not fact at all actually.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


I'll give you a hint: if low tolerance of nonconformity is your issue then you should dislike the Republicans a lot more. There's a reason why party discipline is so strong in the Republicans and so weak in the Democrats, it's because the Democrats have a lot more people in the party with a much wider range of beliefs.

Does this look familiar to you? Its what you posted to me in another thread.

You cannot claim to be the party of free thinking and tolerance and at the same time tell me I'm obviously a conservative because I don't see things your way on a particular issue.

You have to practice what you preach.


The simple fact is both parties are fear mongers and fascists you are just fear mongers and fascists on different subjects.

Republicans write songs, ring bells, and chant freedom freedom freedom until they are blue in the face. But if you are gay, well then you don't really get the same freedoms.

Democrats preach tolerance, peace, love, and understanding until you drive an SUV, or want to own a gun, or some other random cause.

I think Mr. Miyagi said it best: "different but the same."

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Deudalus

However, you have to admit that given the circumstances it is very ironic and way, way, way too similar to what happened in 2000 only completely contained within the DNC.

You also have to admit that not counting votes or giving people half of a vote is not an option.

I admit to neither. I don't find it similar to what happened in 2000. And I have no problem not counting meaningless votes.

I guess we'll see how meaningless their votes are when the general election takes place.

Florida, Ohio, and other key battleground states decide every election. You would think the DNC would be smart enough not to write those people off and then 4 months later expect them to carry them to victory.

Speaking of "smart enough," you certainly don't seem to give the people of Michigan and Florida much credit.

I would think that they'd understand that stripping their state delegation of some seats was an action against their state party and an action that was precipitated by their state party.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Take away their superdelegate votes? Whooaaaaahhhh I'm sure THAT will really stop them.

Umm, yes actually.

I'm sure with minor creativity they could come up with plenty of ways to keep people in line.

As important as the super delegate votes were this election and as many threads as people made effectively saying "OMG 3 super delegates went this way rather than that way" then I would say that would have been punishment enough.

Not to mention the fact that you would actually be punishing the guilty, rather than the people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Again with the projection and caricatures. I'm not saying you are conservative leaning based upon this particular instance, I'm saying it based upon pretty much every post I've ever seen you make. It's not a 'with us or against us' thing, it just appears to be an accurate description to me. I guess if I point out obvious facts like this I must be toeing that line.

Pointing out the irony of the Florida situation is pointing out facts. Some might not see the irony, some might, some might pretend to be selectively stupid in this regard. So seeing the irony is I suppose subjective, but the realization of what happened is fact.

Pointing out that YOU find my posts to not be in lock step enough and that makes YOU think that I'm a conservative is in fact very subjective and is not fact at all actually.

The decision was made (by necessity of course) before the primary season ever played out. So, to fault them for not making a decision based on how a primary season turned out months after they had to make that decision is a little bit strange don't you think? Since the creativity required is so minor, surely you can give me some ideas of what they could have done before the primary season started to make the sanction both meaningful and respectful of the state's citizens.

You may think there is irony (actually it would be more hypocrisy than irony) that a party could demand that all legally cast votes count in 2000 but would change its rules to make those votes count less in 2004, but you could only do that if you remained willfully ignorant of the reasons those both happened and the arguments actually made. So yes, if you blind yourself to all knowledge outside of those two singular events, irony city!

I see you've desperately latched onto this idea of 'lock step' as if you think the most ideologically diverse party in American history (with the possible exception of Jacksonian Democrats) is somehow demanding of ideological purity. This is laughably false. Of course you know this already.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Speaking of "smart enough," you certainly don't seem to give the people of Michigan and Florida much credit.

I would think that they'd understand that stripping their state delegation of some seats was an action against their state party and an action that was precipitated by their state party.

Actually you might look at it another way entirely.

Florida is old people heaven. Old people voted for Hillary at a much higher rate than Obama. Obama does very well with black people, but struggles with Jews or Hispanics which is another huge section of Florida.

Yet these same Jews, Hispanics, and especially the elderly are going to be expected to carry the day for Democrats come the fall.

Hillary was going to carry Florida by a large margin and every vote was cut in half. You can't expect them to be OK with that.


Now don't get me wrong I hate Hillary and I'm largely OK with Obama (I'm actually warming up to him quite a bit after his father's day speech actually) but I'm just pointing out the pink elephant.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: eskimospy


I'll give you a hint: if low tolerance of nonconformity is your issue then you should dislike the Republicans a lot more. There's a reason why party discipline is so strong in the Republicans and so weak in the Democrats, it's because the Democrats have a lot more people in the party with a much wider range of beliefs.

Does this look familiar to you? Its what you posted to me in another thread.

You cannot claim to be the party of free thinking and tolerance and at the same time tell me I'm obviously a conservative because I don't see things your way on a particular issue.

You have to practice what you preach.


The simple fact is both parties are fear mongers and fascists you are just fear mongers and fascists on different subjects.

Republicans write songs, ring bells, and chant freedom freedom freedom until they are blue in the face. But if you are gay, well then you don't really get the same freedoms.

Democrats preach tolerance, peace, love, and understanding until you drive an SUV, or want to own a gun, or some other random cause.

I think Mr. Miyagi said it best: "different but the same."

Except that I never said you were obviously a conservative because of the way you thought on a particular issue. I said you were likely a conservative because of the way I've seen you post over a range of issues over a significant period of time.

This explains why you're having so many problems with these things we're discussing. You seem to have problems with tunnel vision where you can't see outside of a single moment or post.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: lupi
RIP 2000 Stolen Presidential election claims; at least now we no longer have to listen to those.

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true that it was the popular vote that Dems were primarily yelling about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...2C_2000#Irregularities

Except that is how it is almost universally brought up, particularly when someone is talking about Gore or complaining about the Bush era. Just ask JP or Harvey, I'm sure they give the proof.

For every one of those, there are ten of these:

Originally posted by: Carmen813
IMO the 2000 election wasn't a failure of the electoral college, it was a failure of the Supreme Court. The election should have been decided by the House, like the damn Constitution calls for.

Note that I did not have to dig very hard to find that

I'm not sure your ratio is quite right though, afterall all those screaming that they were going to leave the country probably gave as much thought to the SC as they did actually packing their bags.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Speaking of "smart enough," you certainly don't seem to give the people of Michigan and Florida much credit.

I would think that they'd understand that stripping their state delegation of some seats was an action against their state party and an action that was precipitated by their state party.

Actually you might look at it another way entirely.

Florida is old people heaven. Old people voted for Hillary at a much higher rate than Obama. Obama does very well with black people, but struggles with Jews or Hispanics which is another huge section of Florida.

Yet these same Jews, Hispanics, and especially the elderly are going to be expected to carry the day for Democrats come the fall.

Well, it's important to differentiate between Hispanics at large and Cubans because the former seem to coming back to Obama and the latter were never going to give a (D) a real look anyway.

He will have to work with Jews and the elderly.

Hillary was going to carry Florida by a large margin and every vote was cut in half. You can't expect them to be OK with that.


Now don't get me wrong I hate Hillary and I'm largely OK with Obama (I'm actually warming up to him quite a bit after his father's day speech actually) but I'm just pointing out the pink elephant.

I think we're both working on assumptions that have never been empirically proven, so I'd wait until I saw a third-party poll where MI/FL voters are asked how high on their list of issues any perceived affront by the DNC falls.

...unless you (or anyone else reading) has such poll data.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Deudalus

However, you have to admit that given the circumstances it is very ironic and way, way, way too similar to what happened in 2000 only completely contained within the DNC.

You also have to admit that not counting votes or giving people half of a vote is not an option.

I admit to neither. I don't find it similar to what happened in 2000. And I have no problem not counting meaningless votes.

I guess we'll see how meaningless their votes are when the general election takes place.

Florida, Ohio, and other key battleground states decide every election. You would think the DNC would be smart enough not to write those people off and then 4 months later expect them to carry them to victory.

But, as one of the candidates didn't even campaign in one of those states, the voters at that time were deciding without having much information on which to base their decisions.