jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 18
- 81
What do floridians think?
http://www.miamiherald.com/top...ries/story/438271.html
But the survey of 400 Democrats by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research found that the biggest chunk of voters -- 28 percent -- said Florida should hold another vote so the candidates could campaign in the state and earn delegates.
That would potentially end the stalemate over the nomination, as neither candidate is currently within reach of the 2,025 delegates needed to close the deal.
Twenty-four percent said the national party should allow Clinton's Florida win to count toward delegates. And 15 percent said Florida Democrats knowingly broke the rules and should accept the penalty, while 13 percent said the state should send an equal number of Clinton and Obama delegates to the convention -- so they can participate but not influence the outcome.
***********
The poll also showed that independent voters in Florida would help Republican John McCain trump either of the Democratic contenders, according to a Mason-Dixon sampling of 625 registered voters that included a proportional cross-section of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters.
In a potential general election matchup, McCain wins by 47 to 37 percentage points over Obama, and 49 to 40 over Clinton, according to poll results. McCain got at least half of the independent vote in both contests.
http://www.miamiherald.com/top...ries/story/438271.html
But the survey of 400 Democrats by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research found that the biggest chunk of voters -- 28 percent -- said Florida should hold another vote so the candidates could campaign in the state and earn delegates.
That would potentially end the stalemate over the nomination, as neither candidate is currently within reach of the 2,025 delegates needed to close the deal.
Twenty-four percent said the national party should allow Clinton's Florida win to count toward delegates. And 15 percent said Florida Democrats knowingly broke the rules and should accept the penalty, while 13 percent said the state should send an equal number of Clinton and Obama delegates to the convention -- so they can participate but not influence the outcome.
***********
The poll also showed that independent voters in Florida would help Republican John McCain trump either of the Democratic contenders, according to a Mason-Dixon sampling of 625 registered voters that included a proportional cross-section of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters.
In a potential general election matchup, McCain wins by 47 to 37 percentage points over Obama, and 49 to 40 over Clinton, according to poll results. McCain got at least half of the independent vote in both contests.
Caucuses are far cheaper than primaries. If Hillary doesn't want that, then she and the state parties should pay for the primaries.
Who's going to pay for it then? IMHO, the people that broke the rules should pay for it, not the tax payers or the national parties. If it's the latter, then I'm willing to bet they'll go the cheaper route.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 18
- 81
Careful, comments like that get you kicked off Obama's bus.
http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0733267220080307
I know. He had it with her dress.Originally posted by: sirjonk
Your faith was justified, he didn't have sex with her.
Caucases do NOT accurately represent the 'will of the people' and this has been show clearly in Texas, where when people are given a chance to vote normally in a primary, Clinton wins, but when the same group of people vote in a caucus, the results are 15 points different.
This election is F*D up enough already due to skewed caucus results. Don't try to drag Michigan into that sewage.
Damned if Obama played by the nomination rules and won. It violates the will of the people who also happened, via the activism or lack thereof, to make those very rules.
Have you no shame, MORPH?
Have you no shame, MORPH?
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
Man, I love reading the comments from the Hillary supporters.
They make it sound like caucuses were invented by Satan soley to fvck with her and her supporters.
I can't help but LOL reading these threads.
Of course caucuses reflect the peoples choice. That, and because they're cheaper, is why states use them.
Fern
They make it sound like caucuses were invented by Satan soley to fvck with her and her supporters.
I can't help but LOL reading these threads.
Of course caucuses reflect the peoples choice. That, and because they're cheaper, is why states use them.
Fern
I, for one, still blame the caucus system for the '04 election
it just seems mind boggling that we'd pick party nominees in such a different fashion than the general election is conducted in; caucuses seem like a poor way to judge mass appeal (ie: Kerry winning... anything.)
Seeing that you're an admitted political junkie, you should've voiced your opinion before the voting began. It's too late to start crying about the process now. Fern is right, only the Hillary supporters are crying like girls over this whole thing. Obama accepted things as they were and so did Hillary, but only one of them is flip-flopping on their previous agreement.Originally posted by: loki8481
I, for one, still blame the caucus system for the '04 election
it just seems mind boggling that we'd pick party nominees in such a different fashion than the general election is conducted in; caucuses seem like a poor way to judge mass appeal (ie: Kerry winning... anything.)
you're welcome to crawl through old posts dating back to 2004 about me bitching about caucusesOriginally posted by: Dari
Seeing that you're an admitted political junkie, you should've voiced your opinion before the voting began. It's too late to start crying about the process now. Fern is right, only the Hillary supporters are crying like girls over this whole thing. Obama accepted things as they were and so did Hillary, but only one of them is flip-flopping on their previous agreement.Originally posted by: loki8481
I, for one, still blame the caucus system for the '04 election
it just seems mind boggling that we'd pick party nominees in such a different fashion than the general election is conducted in; caucuses seem like a poor way to judge mass appeal (ie: Kerry winning... anything.)
No. How about you provide a link before this election cycle. I want to see how you complained about it before Hillary and Barack went at it. If anything, I bet you thought this was going to be a cakewalk for Clinton and that's why you had no complaints this time, rightOriginally posted by: loki8481
you're welcome to crawl through old posts dating back to 2004 about me bitching about caucusesOriginally posted by: Dari
Seeing that you're an admitted political junkie, you should've voiced your opinion before the voting began. It's too late to start crying about the process now. Fern is right, only the Hillary supporters are crying like girls over this whole thing. Obama accepted things as they were and so did Hillary, but only one of them is flip-flopping on their previous agreement.Originally posted by: loki8481
I, for one, still blame the caucus system for the '04 election
it just seems mind boggling that we'd pick party nominees in such a different fashion than the general election is conducted in; caucuses seem like a poor way to judge mass appeal (ie: Kerry winning... anything.)
?Ultimately, of course, it's up to the Democrats in Florida and Michigan to decide if they want their delegates to count at the convention. Currently, they won't, and that was known prior to the votes being taken in violation of DNC rules. Following DNC rules is the price paid to have full participation in party affairs. Very straightforward.
And it's up to the state democratic parties involved to choose which method, if any, they'll use to achieve that end. I disagree with either candidate trying to interfere in that process, and also with the pre-emptive sour grapes ravings about one method being essentially fairer than the other, which is malarkey, and just more attempted meddling in the affairs of the state parties... No matter if it's a primary election or a caucus, everybody who's eligible has the right to participate. The idea that the two methods may yield different results is immaterial, given that they're both eminently fair...
And it's up to the state democratic parties involved to choose which method, if any, they'll use to achieve that end. I disagree with either candidate trying to interfere in that process, and also with the pre-emptive sour grapes ravings about one method being essentially fairer than the other, which is malarkey, and just more attempted meddling in the affairs of the state parties... No matter if it's a primary election or a caucus, everybody who's eligible has the right to participate. The idea that the two methods may yield different results is immaterial, given that they're both eminently fair...
you're the one trying to call me out, you deal with AT's crappy search functionOriginally posted by: Dari
No. How about you provide a link before this election cycle. I want to see how you complained about it before Hillary and Barack went at it. If anything, I bet you thought this was going to be a cakewalk for Clinton and that's why you had no complaints this time, rightOriginally posted by: loki8481
you're welcome to crawl through old posts dating back to 2004 about me bitching about caucusesOriginally posted by: Dari
Seeing that you're an admitted political junkie, you should've voiced your opinion before the voting began. It's too late to start crying about the process now. Fern is right, only the Hillary supporters are crying like girls over this whole thing. Obama accepted things as they were and so did Hillary, but only one of them is flip-flopping on their previous agreement.Originally posted by: loki8481
I, for one, still blame the caucus system for the '04 election
it just seems mind boggling that we'd pick party nominees in such a different fashion than the general election is conducted in; caucuses seem like a poor way to judge mass appeal (ie: Kerry winning... anything.)
I heard today that they're talking about mail-in ballots now... less costly than a primary, more democratic than a caucus. I liked the idea.
lopri
Elite Member
- Jul 27, 2002
- 12,851
- 327
- 126
There are many evidences that caucus rules were broken in Texas. And you didn't answer his question regarding the legitimacy of Texas caucus, which took place on the same day of the primary yet yielded different result. And if you were to support 'rules' so enthusiastically, I'd expect you to support the rules regarding super delegates? Last time I've heard that they're supposed to vote using their best judgment. But that is not something you like, I suppose.
Look, people. If you're not a democrat, your grumbling about either Hillary or Obama is at your leisure, I guess. But if you're a democrat - the biggest interest by far should be the win in general election, no? "I'd rather vote McCain if Hillary/Obama is not nominated" is really a pathetic line. We have two great candidates who are not only more qualified than the republican candidate, but also happen to represent two of the most oppressed groups of people in this country. (Heck, when do you guys think something like this would happen in republican party?) We should take pride in this and stop hating each other. It's getting ridiculous.
As much as some of you may recoil in horror at stuff like Daily KOS diaries, realize that many folks there are authorities when it comes to Dem party mechanics.
It would seem that a MI Caucus would be a CINO (Caucus In Name Only).
It's anonymous.
It's not held at 7 in the evening.
Mail-in votes are a distinct possibility, as are online votes.
At least that's what I can gather, after sorting through the partisan chaff.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...181841/8676/104/470777
Personally I wouldn't object to something like that.
Florida also needs a do-over IMO.
Rationale - Candidates didn't campaign there, and FL should be allowed to hear each side's sales pitch. Clinton has brand recognition, but Obama should be allowed the opportunity to tell FL voters why he thinks he's better. Clinton should be allowed the opportunity to tell FL voters why the established brand of Donkey is the one to stick with. They can then make their decision based upon whatever merits they do or do not see.
Dems *did* turn out in record droves for that potemkin primary (note that there was also a property tax proposal on the ballot that evening), but I'll maintain the assertion that "underdog" candidates didn't get the opportunity to make their case to FL voters beforehand.
I'm an Obama guy, but you can hardly dispute that HRC came into FL as a known quantity, while the other candidates did not, and should have been afforded the opportunity to make their sales pitch to the voters.
I think the best candidate (in the eyes of FL voters) should win - FWIW, I think Obama would still lose FL in the popular vote.
But I think MI might be another story.
It would seem that a MI Caucus would be a CINO (Caucus In Name Only).
It's anonymous.
It's not held at 7 in the evening.
Mail-in votes are a distinct possibility, as are online votes.
At least that's what I can gather, after sorting through the partisan chaff.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...181841/8676/104/470777
Personally I wouldn't object to something like that.
Florida also needs a do-over IMO.
Rationale - Candidates didn't campaign there, and FL should be allowed to hear each side's sales pitch. Clinton has brand recognition, but Obama should be allowed the opportunity to tell FL voters why he thinks he's better. Clinton should be allowed the opportunity to tell FL voters why the established brand of Donkey is the one to stick with. They can then make their decision based upon whatever merits they do or do not see.
Dems *did* turn out in record droves for that potemkin primary (note that there was also a property tax proposal on the ballot that evening), but I'll maintain the assertion that "underdog" candidates didn't get the opportunity to make their case to FL voters beforehand.
I'm an Obama guy, but you can hardly dispute that HRC came into FL as a known quantity, while the other candidates did not, and should have been afforded the opportunity to make their sales pitch to the voters.
I think the best candidate (in the eyes of FL voters) should win - FWIW, I think Obama would still lose FL in the popular vote.
But I think MI might be another story.
It would still be limited in hours and locations. In the link you give someone says 10am-6pm. Great, what about the people who actually have jobs. The more limitations like this, the more like a caucus it is and the more it will be skewed towards Obama. Clinton will not accept this and she shouldn't.
Florida does not need a revote. The disadvantage to Obama in FL because of his lack of campaigning and name recognition is nothing compared to the heavy advantages he has had due to the caucus voting in numerous states.
Not every caucus is like Iowa's. Most are just like primary's with the only real difference being who runs them. You show up, you vote, you leave. Hell some even have absentee voting.
Don't just buy the b.s. spin from the Clinton camp.
i'm not sure if it was cnn or fox where i heard this, but so far michigan and florida are the only states where more republicans voted in their primaries than democrats.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 16K
-
-
Info 64MB V-Cache on 5XXX Zen3 Average +15% in Games
- Started by Kedas
- Replies: 3K
-
Question AMD Phoenix/Zen 4 APU Speculation and Discussion- Started by uzzi38
- Replies: 206
Facebook
Twitter