Is this as bad as it reads?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Just a quick question that came to mind.....

Was this suit filed AFTER the culinary union endorsed Obama or when Hillary was still leading in the state polls? After all, the same people that filed the suit were in the meeting to move the polls to the strip in the first place and it was a unanimous vote.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Just a quick question that came to mind.....

Was this suit filed AFTER the culinary union endorsed Obama or when Hillary was still leading in the state polls? After all, the same people that filed the suit were in the meeting to move the polls to the strip in the first place and it was a unanimous vote.

From what I've read...the suit was filed yesterday which is AFTER the Culinary Union endorsed Obama on January 9.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Pollster's getting cold feet after NH. Now they plant excuses beforehand:

http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/

Is Nevada Really a Three-Way Race?
Yes, according to one poll. But there aren't many other surveys to compare it with.
By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
Updated Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2008, at 12:45 PM ET
Despite second- and third-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, John Edwards might have a shot at winning the Nevada caucus. The first Nevada poll to come out in a month suggests Edwards is still a force in the Democratic race, pulling in 27 percent of the support, essentially in a statistical tie with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Usually we're able to gauge that number's legitimacy by comparing the returns to other polls' findings. But there hasn't been a poll since December to compare it with. Pollsters have largely shied away from Nevada, partly because it has long been an under-the-radar contest and partly because no one is sure how to poll there. Mark Blumenthal sums up the obstacles at Pollster:

The problem is the exceptionally low turnout in past Nevada caucuses, which leaves pollsters guessing about turnout this time. Even optimistic turnout projections leave pollsters attempting to select and model a very small "likely caucus goer" universe (raising all the challenges of polling Iowa, and then some).

So, for now, we'll have to wait for other polls to come out later this week. But even when they do, Nevada's caucus is such an unknown that we may still be in the dark.

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Just a quick question that came to mind.....

Was this suit filed AFTER the culinary union endorsed Obama or when Hillary was still leading in the state polls? After all, the same people that filed the suit were in the meeting to move the polls to the strip in the first place and it was a unanimous vote.

From what I've read...the suit was filed yesterday which is AFTER the Culinary Union endorsed Obama on January 9.

Well, if that is indeed the case....

There are some people acting like poopie-heads.

The state party approved the at-large precincts at its Nevada State Democratic Party's State Central Committee meeting on March 31, 2007.

So they have 9+ months where they are amenable to the relocation but once their candidate doesn't get the endorsement they file suit.

I'm sure that their motivations are truly out of concern of their members having to drive a couple miles. :roll:

Edit: Should have read my own link on the first page better....duh

Two days after a key Nevada union of casino employees endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, allies of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, filed a lawsuit to block the special "at-large" casino precincts set up months ago for those very casino employees.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I don't understand why so many people still can't see that the emperor wears no clothes.

People identify with particular folk to be on the side of good because they have no real sense of inner self worth. When you try to take away their erzots morality you leave them stripped to their core and potentially conscious of their own self hate. People are in the process of causing humanity to go extinct rather than face their own self hate, so don't hold your breath that people are going to see the Emperor for who he is any time soon. I mean look at yourself. How ready are you, looking at somebody else's Emperor?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
allies of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, filed a lawsuit to block the special "at-large" casino precincts set up months ago for those very casino employees.

Unbelievable, well almost; given it's the Clinton campaign machine anything goes.

You'd think they wouldv'e filed in an effort to get the teachers a chance to caucus, instead they file to stop others? Doesn't make sense to me, unless you recognize the hardballpolitics involved. Somehow they think they can get away disenfranchising a large block of voters who will presumably support another candidate.

BTW: The Dem caucus is 11am on Saturday. How many teachers will be at work then? Can't be many.

Why doesn't the teachers union just push to have the few classes scheduled for time to be cancelled? Scheduling classes is in the hands of school administrators, surley they have the authority to cancel or reschedule. My guess is getting the teachers to vote is not the objective, but preventing union members from voting for Obama IS the objective.

teachers aren't being treated unfairly, many others cannot caucus; active duty military, retail & restaurant workers outside of the casino area, doctors, nurses and other hospital staff etc. They are many excluded, it's the nature of the caucus system (unike casting a ballot).

Fern
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: techs
Is this as bad as it reads?

No. Especially since your link does not mention this at all.
Anyways, even if true, which you have NO proof of, you CLAIM it was Clinton supporters, not Clinton.

If you really want to know what is fundamentally wrong, look at the Republican attempt to make it difficult for poor people to vote.
That my friend, is truly disgusting.

So you are saying if a surrogate of a campaign does something its okay?
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Candidate supporters != the candidate. Regardless of the candidate.
She responded to this Sunday on MTP

Is Huckabee responsible if his supporters bomb an abortion clinic?

thanks

/thread

There are differences between someone who supports a candidate, and someone who is a surrogate of the candidate. These people are surrogates of her campaign.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
the crux of the lawsuit seems to be that the teachers union thinks it's unfair that casino workers can vote at their work, while no one else can.

seems like a fair criticism... I'd probably be peeved if I were a teacher or anyone else who had to work long/odd hours.

The casino workers would have a better leg to stand on according to election law.

 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
the caucus system is inherently undemocratic. But that is another topic.
abcnews link
The plan was submitted to the Democratic National Committee for approval in August.
The lawsuit charges that changes were made to the agreement since then, however, and that the at-large precincts now unfairly give the casino precincts more weight -- "disingenuously" allocating delegates based on participation instead of based on registered voters, for example
creating a "grossly amplified number of delegates" thus "treating each precinct as if it were a separate county." (Italics theirs.)


Basically, the lawsuit argues that the way the delegates are distributed is not fair.

There are going to be 10,000 delegates for the 1700 or so normal precincts.
One delegate is given for 50 registered Democrat in a given normal district.

In the special "at large" precincts, one delegate is awarded for every 5 voters that shows up.

For example, if there are 400 Democrats in a precinct and all 400 Democrats show up and vote, the precinct would only award 8 delegates.
In the special "at large" precincts, if 400 people show up, they are awarded 80 delegates.

That is the extreme case and I am not sure how you can resolve this issue since the at large precincts were created from the pool of people that would typically vote in their regular precincts.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Candidate supporters != the candidate. Regardless of the candidate.
She responded to this Sunday on MTP

Is Huckabee responsible if his supporters bomb an abortion clinic?

thanks

/thread

There are differences between someone who supports a candidate, and someone who is a surrogate of the candidate. These people are surrogates of her campaign.

So then Huckabee would bear responsibility if one of his surrogates bombed an abortion clinic? We don't draw the line based on a semantic word the press has been shoving down our throats these past weeks, we draw the line between what a candidate does and policies they make versus acts they are not involved in.

Here's the test: does she have any power to stop this law suit? Not influence, but legal standing? No. She didn't file it, she didn't order her campaign to file it. Surrogate, supporter, whatever. Not her suit.

Now, if you want to ask her what she thinks of it, that's a valid question. Does she support it? Draw any response you have from what she says about the suit, not just the fact that it was filed by people associated with her.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: techs
Is this as bad as it reads?

No. Especially since your link does not mention this at all.
Anyways, even if true, which you have NO proof of, you CLAIM it was Clinton supporters, not Clinton.

If you really want to know what is fundamentally wrong, look at the Republican attempt to make it difficult for poor people to vote.
That my friend, is truly disgusting.


I won't be held guilty of Yahoo/AP changing the article. I took a direct quote from that link last night when I made the post. I edited the article.

I would like to know what she thinks. My opinion is she should condemn the act unless there is a legitmate problem with the causcus process, and if so it should have been done sooner then 10 days before the caucus. It reeks of gerrymandering.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Now, if you want to ask her what she thinks of it, that's a valid question. Does she support it? Draw any response you have from what she says about the suit, not just the fact that it was filed by people associated with her.

Russert asked her about it Sunday and she danced and weaved :laugh:

Basically said she knew nothing about it and then went off on some rant about people being disenfranchised.