• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Michigan to hold caucasus, Hillary objects... also objects to Florida "do-over"... heads explode

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

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/hillary_no_doover_in_florida.html

Hillary won't accept Florida or Michigan caucuses

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_pol...in_florida.html

quote:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.
Wait wait wait, she's 'concerned' about disenfranchised voters, but won't accept a do-over in Florida even though many people stayed home and did not vote because they thought their votes won't get counted??? HAHAHAHAHAA OK whatever :roll:

How can ANY Hildabeast voter justify this? That's absolutely ridiculous. Basically Hillary wants to have it her way and she could give a rat's ass about the 'will of the people'.

Why does this surprise you? This is their motto. Al Gore used it in 2000 when he only wanted democrat heavy districts recounted in the name of democracy.
So in the name of Democracy the Supreme Coup votes for the actual loser 5 to 4.
7-2
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's getting really lame. Let the Democrats nominate who they want, then I'll vote.
For me
Hillary >> McCain > Obama = 0
According to Hillary, yes, but she's not in control of my mind, sorry.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
How's DNC's earlier ruling to disenfranchise FL and MI in keeping with the democratic process?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/hillary_no_doover_in_florida.html

Hillary won't accept Florida or Michigan caucuses

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_pol...in_florida.html

quote:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.
Wait wait wait, she's 'concerned' about disenfranchised voters, but won't accept a do-over in Florida even though many people stayed home and did not vote because they thought their votes won't get counted??? HAHAHAHAHAA OK whatever :roll:

How can ANY Hildabeast voter justify this? That's absolutely ridiculous. Basically Hillary wants to have it her way and she could give a rat's ass about the 'will of the people'.

Why does this surprise you? This is their motto. Al Gore used it in 2000 when he only wanted democrat heavy districts recounted in the name of democracy.
So in the name of Democracy the Supreme Coup votes for the actual loser 5 to 4.
7-2
The vote for the loser was 5 to 4. The 5 to 4 majority for states rights over federal interference voted 7 to 2 to interfere anyway.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Rules should favor only my candidate and that's the way they should stay. Just sorry you picked the person running for herself rather than the one running for change. You have passion, if misplaced.

Moonie, you haven't read any of my posts in this thread very critically have you.

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Florida should not be seated as is. This is pretty clear I think...FL broke the rules, so if any future rules want to have any meaning, the DNC can't take the results as is and seat at the convention.

MI caucuses disadvantage her b/c she tends to win primaries and lose caucuses. Did you think she'd be happy about it? That said, what's she gonna do? So what if she doesn't accept it, I don't see how it's her call. The party will decide and she'll just have to deal.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
I'm sure some people didn't vote, but you have no evidence Obama supporters stayed home in larger numbers than Clinton voters. All evidence is this was a full and fair primary. It still shouldn't count, but your arguments are weak.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Phokus
won't accept a do-over in Florida even though many people stayed home and did not vote because they thought their votes won't get counted???
Originally posted by: Phokus
No, she's saying take the early results and have NO DO-OVER, even though most people stayed home and didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count. And she has the nerve to say she cares about voters being disenfranchised :roll: :roll:

So first it's "many people", then it's "most people"...next will it be "almost everyone"? Voter turnout was pretty high in florida actually:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=18514724
Record Voter Turnout in Florida
Voting was brisk throughout the day. Even before primary day, more than 1 million Florida residents, or about 10 percent of all those eligible, participated through absentee ballots or early voting. (Florida is one of several states to allow early voting at select polling stations.)

In the last Florida GOP contest in 2000, 700,000 Republicans voted. This year, about 1.9 million did. Democratic turnout was also up dramatically from 2000 and 2004, with at least 1.7 million voting on that side.
*****************************

I'm sure some people didn't vote, but you have no evidence Obama supporters stayed home in larger numbers than Clinton voters. All evidence is this was a full and fair primary. It still shouldn't count, but your arguments are weak.
The numbers, ratios, and guesstimates shouldn't really matter, should they?

If one single person stayed home because of the Party's announced decision to punish Florida, then the entire vote should be considered obsolete.

Or, does the injustice of the situation only matter once you cross some imagined or arbitrarily surmised numeric threshold?! :confused:
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Phokus
won't accept a do-over in Florida even though many people stayed home and did not vote because they thought their votes won't get counted???
Originally posted by: Phokus
No, she's saying take the early results and have NO DO-OVER, even though most people stayed home and didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count. And she has the nerve to say she cares about voters being disenfranchised :roll: :roll:

So first it's "many people", then it's "most people"...next will it be "almost everyone"? Voter turnout was pretty high in florida actually:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=18514724
Record Voter Turnout in Florida
Voting was brisk throughout the day. Even before primary day, more than 1 million Florida residents, or about 10 percent of all those eligible, participated through absentee ballots or early voting. (Florida is one of several states to allow early voting at select polling stations.)

In the last Florida GOP contest in 2000, 700,000 Republicans voted. This year, about 1.9 million did. Democratic turnout was also up dramatically from 2000 and 2004, with at least 1.7 million voting on that side.
*****************************

I'm sure some people didn't vote, but you have no evidence Obama supporters stayed home in larger numbers than Clinton voters. All evidence is this was a full and fair primary. It still shouldn't count, but your arguments are weak.
The numbers, ratios, and guesstimates shouldn't really matter, should they? If one single person stayed home because of the decision to not seat florida, the entire vote should be considered obsolete.

Or, does the injustice of the situation only matter once you cross some imagined or arbitrarily surmised numeric threshold?! :confused:
And if one single person couldn't wait on line to vote because they had kids? And if one single person couldn't get to a caucus because it was held at a time they couldn't attend the whole vote should be considered obsolete? People don't vote for a lot of reasons, and the main one is that they don't think their vote will matter. There was record turnout, and if a poll of 500 people is sufficient to get with a +/- 5% accuracy rate the choice of the people, then you have a really weak argument claiming that when millions voted in record numbers that the result is skewed.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
How's DNC's earlier ruling to disenfranchise FL and MI in keeping with the democratic process?
Why do Clinton supporters think they do not have to follow the rules? Isn't that one of the things you attack Bush for? Aren't you being hypocritical?

They broke the rules. They should accept the consequences. If they want their votes to count they can follow the rules by having new elections.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
When the rules disenfranchise millions of voters, hell yeah they shouldn't be followed. FL and MI has same right to vote early as NH and IA.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Phokus
won't accept a do-over in Florida even though many people stayed home and did not vote because they thought their votes won't get counted???
Originally posted by: Phokus
No, she's saying take the early results and have NO DO-OVER, even though most people stayed home and didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count. And she has the nerve to say she cares about voters being disenfranchised :roll: :roll:

So first it's "many people", then it's "most people"...next will it be "almost everyone"? Voter turnout was pretty high in florida actually:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=18514724
Record Voter Turnout in Florida
Voting was brisk throughout the day. Even before primary day, more than 1 million Florida residents, or about 10 percent of all those eligible, participated through absentee ballots or early voting. (Florida is one of several states to allow early voting at select polling stations.)

In the last Florida GOP contest in 2000, 700,000 Republicans voted. This year, about 1.9 million did. Democratic turnout was also up dramatically from 2000 and 2004, with at least 1.7 million voting on that side.
*****************************

I'm sure some people didn't vote, but you have no evidence Obama supporters stayed home in larger numbers than Clinton voters. All evidence is this was a full and fair primary. It still shouldn't count, but your arguments are weak.
The numbers, ratios, and guesstimates shouldn't really matter, should they? If one single person stayed home because of the decision to not seat florida, the entire vote should be considered obsolete.

Or, does the injustice of the situation only matter once you cross some imagined or arbitrarily surmised numeric threshold?! :confused:
And if one single person couldn't wait on line to vote because they had kids? And if one single person couldn't get to a caucus because it was held at a time they couldn't attend the whole vote should be considered obsolete? People don't vote for a lot of reasons, and the main one is that they don't think their vote will matter. There was record turnout, and if a poll of 500 people is sufficient to get with a +/- 5% accuracy rate the choice of the people, then you have a really weak argument claiming that when millions voted in record numbers that the result is skewed.
404 Error -- Logic Not Found

kids? waiting in line?! caucus times?! WTF do any of those have to do with changing the OFFICIAL RULES AFTER the g'damn vote?

Edit: I want to know who decided to leave the polls open after it was known that the delegates would not count. Even at the time, the decision to go forward with the irrelevant Democrat primary seemed awfully peculiar to me... Whose idea was that!?
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,736
2,134
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
When the rules disenfranchise millions of voters, hell yeah they shouldn't be followed. FL and MI has same right to vote early as NH and IA.
Not according to the rules set by the DNC. It's a private entity, they can set any restrictions in state voting order that they want. If they didn't set rules, we'd be having primaries for the next presidential election the day after the actual election for the current presidential cycle because everyone wants to be first.

If anything, this primary cycle shows some benefit in being one of the later states.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Phokus
won't accept a do-over in Florida even though many people stayed home and did not vote because they thought their votes won't get counted???
Originally posted by: Phokus
No, she's saying take the early results and have NO DO-OVER, even though most people stayed home and didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count. And she has the nerve to say she cares about voters being disenfranchised :roll: :roll:

So first it's "many people", then it's "most people"...next will it be "almost everyone"? Voter turnout was pretty high in florida actually:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=18514724
Record Voter Turnout in Florida
Voting was brisk throughout the day. Even before primary day, more than 1 million Florida residents, or about 10 percent of all those eligible, participated through absentee ballots or early voting. (Florida is one of several states to allow early voting at select polling stations.)

In the last Florida GOP contest in 2000, 700,000 Republicans voted. This year, about 1.9 million did. Democratic turnout was also up dramatically from 2000 and 2004, with at least 1.7 million voting on that side.
*****************************

I'm sure some people didn't vote, but you have no evidence Obama supporters stayed home in larger numbers than Clinton voters. All evidence is this was a full and fair primary. It still shouldn't count, but your arguments are weak.
The numbers, ratios, and guesstimates shouldn't really matter, should they? If one single person stayed home because of the decision to not seat florida, the entire vote should be considered obsolete.

Or, does the injustice of the situation only matter once you cross some imagined or arbitrarily surmised numeric threshold?! :confused:
And if one single person couldn't wait on line to vote because they had kids? And if one single person couldn't get to a caucus because it was held at a time they couldn't attend the whole vote should be considered obsolete? People don't vote for a lot of reasons, and the main one is that they don't think their vote will matter. There was record turnout, and if a poll of 500 people is sufficient to get with a +/- 5% accuracy rate the choice of the people, then you have a really weak argument claiming that when millions voted in record numbers that the result is skewed.
404 Error -- Logic Not Found

kids? waiting in line?! caucus times?! WTF do any of those have to do with changing the OFFICIAL RULES AFTER the g'damn vote?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've said 3 times in this thread so far the FL vote SHOULD NOT COUNT. I merely dispute the claim that some unknown quantity of people sat home, when voter turnout broke records, as the reason the vote shouldn't count. It shouldn't count because they broke the rules, and that's it. Piling together bad arguments on top of this doesn't strengthen the position.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's getting really lame. Let the Democrats nominate who they want, then I'll vote.
For me
Hillary >> McCain > Obama = 0
You're funny. Obama's views are much closer to Hillary's than McCain will ever be. Spiteful politics has a way of making people do/say things that don't line up with their espoused viewpoints.

For me, a paleoconservative, I'm in a lose/lose/lose situation. John McCain is a big-government puppet, just like GWB and the rest. Only when you vote for McCain, you're voting for '100 years' of Iraq, and foreign policy driven by corporate interest. That kind of spending gets us absolutely nowhere. When you vote for an Obama or Clinton, you get increased social spending. Of course, the benefits of such actions are questionable at best, at least the money is being spent here at home, and has a greater chance of lubricating our economic gears.

Let's look at near history and see ..

B. Clinton : Mid/High Taxes, Moderate Spending (arguably accomplished by the [R] Congress)
GWB : Mid Taxes/Lower for Rich, High Spending (disaster inarguably accomplished with the [R] supremacy in place)

Do you think McCain is more likely to be like Clinton, or like GWB?

Anyone who thinks that we need more of the GWB mold after these dismal years, really needs to step back and try to remove ego/party/candidate loyalties from affecting their judgment.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
When the rules disenfranchise millions of voters, hell yeah they shouldn't be followed. FL and MI has same right to vote early as NH and IA.
So you believe the end justifies the means? That is the same self-serving excuse Dub used. Welcome to his club.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: senseamp
Caucuses are not real elections, they are a joke.
All Hillary is saying is let's have a real vote, not people standing around in rooms.
No, she's saying take the early results and have NO DO-OVER, even though most people stayed home and didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count. And she has the nerve to say she cares about voters being disenfranchised :roll: :roll:
Well, she certainly should not accept a caucus.
Anonymous ballot is essential to democracy.
Also, there is no reason to revote in Florida, since everyone was on the ballot there.
Wrong. I'm a registered (R) and in FL we can't vote for a (D) in the primary. I don't like any of the (R) candidates and haven't for a while but I haven't made an effort to change parties because I don't normally vote in the primary. Well, this one has my interest but given that FL screwed the pooch and defied the DNC why should I bother to make an effort to change my party so I could place a meaningless vote for Obama?

In short, neither FL or MI should count because those were the rules agreed to. If they are going to include FL and MI both should be completely revoted.

Edit: FWIW, I have changed my party to (D) just in case FL has a revote. :)
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,185
2
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
<<< Clinton supporter, duh.

Florida should not be seated as is. This is pretty clear I think. I don't think the "people stayed home" argument has much merit though. Unless you can demonstrate that Obama supporters stayed home in larger numbers than Hillary voters, I think that's a non-issue. It was fair as far as it goes. No one campaigned, Obama had just won nearby SC overwhelmingly, everyone was on the ballot. But FL broke the rules, so if any future rules want to have any meaning, the DNC can't take the results as is and seat at the convention.

MI caucuses disadvantage her b/c she tends to win primaries and lose caucuses. Did you think she'd be happy about it? That said, what's she gonna do? So what if she doesn't accept it, I don't see how it's her call. The party will decide and she'll just have to deal.
It really doesn't matter who's voters stayed home in larger numbers. The point is that her argument can't be about disenfranchisement, when she's against Florida having a re-do. The fact is that Florida democrats were told that their votes wouldn't count at all, and this caused a large amount to not participate. If she really cared about disenfranchisement, and not simply grabbing as many votes as possible, her position wouldn't make any sense.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Hilary objects, introduces an alternate plan "Give Hilary free votes until she wins". She would also be willing to agree to changing the rules in the middle of the game so that any candidate with the last name Clinton automatically wins all remaining primaries with 100% of the vote.

I heard she would also agree to the creation of a new "Ultra delegate" if that delegate was Bill Clinton. The Ultra delegate's single vote would be equal to all other super delegates and traditional delegate votes, times 2.
LOL :thumbsup:

When I heard this on the news last night, I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

Then it occured to me, what with all the dishonesty, political tricks and spins from her campaign I had forgotten about what used to bother me the most about the Clintons - a complete lack of any sense of shame.

I cannot believe the chutzpah, or idiocy, it took to publicly make this argument. [shakes head]

Dear Lord, can't we please have a President with some integrity, humility and intelligence for a change? [/prayer]

Fern
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Fern
Dear Lord, can't we please have a President with some integrity, humility and intelligence for a change? [/prayer]
Well, the good news is that two of the three remaining candidates do, in fact, have all of the above.

IMO.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Rules should favor only my candidate and that's the way they should stay. Just sorry you picked the person running for herself rather than the one running for change. You have passion, if misplaced.

Moonie, you haven't read any of my posts in this thread very critically have you.

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Florida should not be seated as is. This is pretty clear I think...FL broke the rules, so if any future rules want to have any meaning, the DNC can't take the results as is and seat at the convention.

MI caucuses disadvantage her b/c she tends to win primaries and lose caucuses. Did you think she'd be happy about it? That said, what's she gonna do? So what if she doesn't accept it, I don't see how it's her call. The party will decide and she'll just have to deal.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
I'm sure some people didn't vote, but you have no evidence Obama supporters stayed home in larger numbers than Clinton voters. All evidence is this was a full and fair primary. It still shouldn't count, but your arguments are weak.
Sorry, I was speaking with a Hillary mindset in the first part of my post and lamenting your support for her in general in the last. I unintentionally looks like I was critical of you I guess. She is the one who wants to change the rules to her advantage and you spoke against it. I am saddened to see a person with integrity have to admit the person they have hope for isn't up to those standards. I remember how I felt believing her husband didn't have sex with THAT WOMAN.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
When the rules disenfranchise millions of voters, hell yeah they shouldn't be followed. FL and MI has same right to vote early as NH and IA.
Hahahaha. You make a perfect Clinton supporter, a complete and total unprincipled worm. You fit your candidate.

I am still pissed that Obama didn't attribute his Words Matter speech when he gave it. It was really bad form.

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,392
3,035
126
Where is Morph when you need him???

NOWAY--look--up in the Sky---it`s a bird---it`s a plane---It`s Super Morph!!!
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Where is Morph when you need him???

NOWAY--look--up in the Sky---it`s a bird---it`s a plane---It`s Super Morph!!!
hah. I really just look forward to this being over so I can go back to being a moderate republican and comfortably shill for McCain instead of having to defend Hillary :p
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: yowolabi
The fact is that Florida democrats were told that their votes wouldn't count at all, and this caused a large amount to not participate.
One more time with feeling. Do you have any evidence at all cited anywhere by anyone that "a large amount" of people stayed home? Did you perhaps miss that several important voter initiatives were on the ballot that would count regardless of the primary vote? Do you dispute that a record amount of people turned out to vote, and that dem voter turnout was higher than in 2000 and 2004? Please be careful calling your assertions facts.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY