Michigan Democrats close to June 3 Primary agreement.

[senseamp]

We only support her campaign because she is the best out of the 3 left to run this country. It doesn't really matter to me how crushing the defeat would be if she loses. I'll just move on to supporting McCain if Obama is the nominee.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh typical democrat stuff right there. Break the rules and get a second chance. It really is a shining example of the mentality in that party.

Is English your native language? Clearly you can't understand what happened.
Michigan violated the parties rules. So their delegates didn't count. Now Michigan has agreed to abide by their rules, so their delegates will count.
Clearly you got it 100 percent wrong.

Fail.

Huh? Let me get this straight. I fail english and then you go on the restate exactly what I said?

Michigan broke the rules and didnt have their delegates count.
Michigan may now get a second chance on June 3rd.

Like I said, the party of second chances is displaying it for all to see. I await the 2012 elections when more states break the rules, cry, and get a second chance. It hits nearly all the branches on the ideology tree.

Ok. I will explain it like I would to a non English speaker.
Democratic party rules forbid a state from having a primary before a certain date. Since Michigan held their primary before that date it didn't count under Democratic party rules.
Now Michigan has agreed to abide by the rules and hold a primary after the date the party set as the earliest date. So now they will be in compliance.

They are getting a second chance. Dont argue they arent.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Don't forget the never ending second chances Bush is getting on Iraq.

Given by Democrats.

 

[Nitemare]

lol....Floriduh, part Deux

 

[techs]

I especially find hypocritical the Republicans who decided if you break the rules we will only count half your delegates!

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We only support her campaign because she is the best out of the 3 left to run this country. It doesn't really matter to me how crushing the defeat would be if she loses. I'll just move on to supporting McCain if Obama is the nominee.

This attitude makes no sense. You're willing to vote for Hillary but if she loses the nomination you're going to vote for McCain? So, instead of voting for someone with basically the same agenda, nearly the same policies, and someone who would most likely consult with your top choice for President, you're going to become emotional and vote the other direction. How silly.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: senseamp
We only support her campaign because she is the best out of the 3 left to run this country. It doesn't really matter to me how crushing the defeat would be if she loses. I'll just move on to supporting McCain if Obama is the nominee.

This attitude makes no sense. You're willing to vote for Hillary but if she loses the nomination you're going to vote for McCain? So, instead of voting for someone with basically the same agenda, nearly the same policies, and someone who would most likely consult with your top choice for President, you're going to become emotional and vote the other direction. How silly.

I trust Hillary to fight tooth and nail to represent my interests... I don't really trust Obama in any major shape or form. he just rubs me as way too smooth, kind of like Romney, and the rhetoric way too frequently doesn't match up with the record (hope only goes so far, for me, in the face of reality).

if my major interests are not going to be represented either way, in a McCain v Obama election, I may as well vote for the one that I trust more on national security and the only one with a solid record of working across the aisle to get shit done.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: GDaddy
I find it odd that really only hillary supporters are for this. Everyone else more or less wants to follow the rules. With her campain going down, hill and her supporters will try anything to turn it around. Too many have lost the sense of Honor and Responsibility.

Responsibility to who? State officials have responsibility to their constituents, not the Democratic party. Democratic party got caught with its pants down. Did it really think it could get away with not counting Florida's delegates with it being the key battleground state in the election? I think Florida should insist that original vote be counted. There should be no second chances for those who decided not to campaign or be on ballots because the Democratic party told them to.

Why would you waste precious resources campaigning in a place where the delegtes aren't going to be seated?

All of the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state (even Hill signed on to that one). Then (typical) Hill backed out of that arrangement and campaigned anyway probably in the hopes that those delegates would be seated per the results of those elections.

So she violated one promise and campaigned after promising not to... now she's fighting to hold the elections again in the hopes that she can repeat the numbers from her unopposed run earlier in the year...

Pardon me if it all just stinks to high heaven.

 

[Genx87]

I think this sums it up pretty good.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/...idamichigan/index.html

Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about "alienating" them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It's only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about "enfranchising" them.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: techs
I especially find hypocritical the Republicans who decided if you break the rules we will only count half your delegates!

What? Why is that hypocritical? Each party established the "rules" and the penalty for not obeying them. I see no hypocrisy.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

It will all result in the same Obama General election candidacy and helps him in the General by not having disenfranchised FL and MI voters so I'm all for it.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: senseamp
We only support her campaign because she is the best out of the 3 left to run this country. It doesn't really matter to me how crushing the defeat would be if she loses. I'll just move on to supporting McCain if Obama is the nominee.

This attitude makes no sense. You're willing to vote for Hillary but if she loses the nomination you're going to vote for McCain? So, instead of voting for someone with basically the same agenda, nearly the same policies, and someone who would most likely consult with your top choice for President, you're going to become emotional and vote the other direction. How silly.

I trust Hillary to fight tooth and nail to represent my interests... I don't really trust Obama in any major shape or form. he just rubs me as way too smooth, kind of like Romney, and the rhetoric way too frequently doesn't match up with the record (hope only goes so far, for me, in the face of reality).

if my major interests are not going to be represented either way, in a McCain v Obama election, I may as well vote for the one that I trust more on national security and the only one with a solid record of working across the aisle to get shit done.

I get these conflicting viewpoints on Obama. On the one hand, you have people who claim he's too smooth, implying that he's too good at politics. Then you have those who say he's so naive which implies he hasn't become political enough. Then we get the viewpoint that Hillary will fight tooth and nail for her interests (which hopefully translates to your interests) but I have yet to see any evidence that Obama wouldn't do the same outside of the argument that he's too soft. Whatever the case, I see alot of emotional valuation being put on what people interpret a candidate to be without much consideration into a logical display of what they really are. To each their own I suppose.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
I especially find hypocritical the Republicans who decided if you break the rules we will only count half your delegates!

Where is the hyprocrisy in that?

IMO, they look absolutely brilliant compared to the Dems.

BY merely reducing the amount of delegates, the RNC was able to have their vote actually count. No need for this hypocritical and expensive do-over crap.

You do know that the DNC gave NC extra delegates in return for agrement not to move up the primary date? If it is some way hypocritical to take away some delgates for disobeying, it is also hypocritical to add delegates for obeying.

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think Florida should insist that original vote be counted. There should be no second chances for those who decided not to campaign or be on ballots because the Democratic party told them to.

^ Now that's hypocritical, illogical and so unsupportably silly as to be a comical example of desperation

Fern

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: senseamp
We only support her campaign because she is the best out of the 3 left to run this country. It doesn't really matter to me how crushing the defeat would be if she loses. I'll just move on to supporting McCain if Obama is the nominee.

This attitude makes no sense. You're willing to vote for Hillary but if she loses the nomination you're going to vote for McCain? So, instead of voting for someone with basically the same agenda, nearly the same policies, and someone who would most likely consult with your top choice for President, you're going to become emotional and vote the other direction. How silly.

I trust Hillary to fight tooth and nail to represent my interests... I don't really trust Obama in any major shape or form. he just rubs me as way too smooth, kind of like Romney, and the rhetoric way too frequently doesn't match up with the record (hope only goes so far, for me, in the face of reality).

if my major interests are not going to be represented either way, in a McCain v Obama election, I may as well vote for the one that I trust more on national security and the only one with a solid record of working across the aisle to get shit done.

As another Clinton supporter that plans to vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination, I'll weigh in on this. I agree with loki8481 on all points. I'll also add that his position wavers with the wind as is outlined in this article. http://www.americanthinker.com...as_foreign_policy.html

I also believe that Obama would set us on a path to 4 years of extreme racial tension. As we've already seen, people will be constantly crying RACIST every time someone chooses to criticize him and there will be constant arguments of what is and is not racist.

Obama is obviously a racist. No one can deny that he has chosen to attend a church, for 20 years, that spews racism and hatred of America. He has chosen to have the minister of that racist church as a spritual advisor on his campaign team. He admits that he consults with this racist for moral guidance. If he opposed these views, as he has stated, surely he would not continue to attend for 20 years, expose his children to them, and financially support these views. Yeah, I know, now you're gonna call me a racist too. See what I mean?

I support and would prefere Clinton but McCain is not so far right that I wouldn't vote for him. He has a record of actually working with the left and of the three candidates is probably the least divisive.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Fern

IMO, they look absolutely brilliant compared to the Dems.

BY merely reducing the amount of delegates, the RNC was able to have their vote actually count. No need for this hypocritical and expensive do-over crap.

Of course it worked out fine on the Repub side, the election wasn't even close so nobody cares. If there had been a very close contest on that side, and those reductions in delegates would have been critical in deciding the election, you can bet there would have been controversy about it.

 

[Farang]

Don't know if you folks settled this yet (didn't bother reading) but this isn't a "second chance." The DNC said 'if you hold a primary before February 5th it will not count.' So Michigan ran a primary before February 5th and it didn't count. It doesn't ban them from holding a valid primary after that date, it just means the first one was a waste (which it would've been regardless).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Fern

IMO, they look absolutely brilliant compared to the Dems.

BY merely reducing the amount of delegates, the RNC was able to have their vote actually count. No need for this hypocritical and expensive do-over crap.

Of course it worked out fine on the Repub side, the election wasn't even close so nobody cares. If there had been a very close contest on that side, and those reductions in delegates would have been critical in deciding the election, you can bet there would have been controversy about it.

You often help me make my points so wonderfully.

And if, similarly to the Dems, the Repubs were in an extremely tight contest and FL became an issue, there never would have been a need for an expensive re-do. Nor any debate about "disenfranchising" voters etc.

They were smart enough to make their 1st vote count, yet still punish the state. No re-do needed, just argue about full or half delegates. At last one party has leaders that demonstrate forsight and wisdom.

Fern