Super Tuesday looms: Who is really going to win the Presidency? (Part 5) | 75 comments (75 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: now with Linkage (none / 1)

I thought he wouldn't leave before Super Tuesday.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:38:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: now with Linkage (none / 1)

I'm very surprised, too. He was in the middle of a pretty successful fundraiser, as I understand it. I'm hoping this doesn't mean his wife has taken a turn for the worse.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 1)

... news cycle on bogus primary win ... payback, perhaps, for her robocalling against him on the last day, and for the "branch stacking" and other breaches that robbed him of delegates in Nevada.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 1)

Crushing the bogus FL win might've had something to do with it, but I'm not sure.

Any idea what the robocalls actually said?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 1)

Blaming Clinton for a bogus win seems a bit harsh. It was the DNC who disenfranchised all Florida/Michigan Dem voters for the heinous crime their State party leaders committed when they wanted to share some of the early limelight Iowa and Newhampster traditionally get - for no good reason other than tradition. (If anything dates should be randomly assigned, or in rotation, or the colder Northerly states should be later in spring).

The Republican approach of reducing the state delegate count seems a bit more proportionate. In any case the DNC action cost Clinton the huge momentum (and delegate counts) she would otherwise have gotten from those wins - always assuming her large margin of victory would have survived an active campaign in those states. You really can't blame Clinton for trying to make something of it - she got more votes in Florida for hew "bogus" victory than McCain did for his real victory, and aren't Florida Dem voters entitled to some recognition for their votes?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 1)

Not the point.

It was understood by all of the candidates that Florida would not count. All of the candidates pledged to not campaign in the state. Clinton, after losing badly in South Carolina and getting hit for her husband's idiocy, then decided that Florida should count only a couple days before the primary, thereby ensuring that Obama and Edwards could not campaign there.

Further, she was supposed to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, as Edwards and Obama did. She waited for them to do so, and then promptly...didn't.

It's more than a bit sad, really. And, frankly, as someone who is from Palm Beach County and has witnessed true disenfranchisement in my hometown, I find it insulting to hear this nonsense about "disenfranchisement" from people.

It's not an attempt to stand against disenfranchised voters. It's an attempt to change the rules when your opponents cannot properly counter it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 0)

If Florida doesn't count, why hold a primary at all and waste people's time voting? It's hard enough to improve voter turnout levels without telling them they're wasting their time. Clinton is entitled to feel aggrieved at losing a lot of delegates and a lot of momentum because of an internal party spat that as far as I know, she had no part in. Also, its not an attempt to change the rules, as I see it, simply an attempt to rescue some momentum from an otherwise entirely ruined opportunity to gain the upper hand.

If the DNC move had been seen to disadvantage a progressive anti-establishment candidate, all the "progressives" would have been shouting conspiracy and bloody murder at the scandalous gerrymandering and hijacking of the nomination process by the DNC. But because its works out against Clinton, that's ok then?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 0)

Clinton has every right to feel however she wants to feel, but she knew the facts of this, and she agreed to them. Don't tell me you're aggrieved when you signed the pledge agreeing that Florida and Michigan would not count. If she believed it was wrong, she should've protested back when those states were stripped of their delegates. She did not. She signed the pledge.

It's an attempt to gain momentum and delegates. Of course it is. And a shameless one. But there's no dispute here: It is a fact that it is an attempt to change the rules she agreed to.

It would be wrong, regardless of the winner. If Obama or Edwards had won and tried to pull this stunt, it'd be equally shameless and ridiculous. But how is it fair to Obama and Edwards to change the rules after the fact? They had no chance to sell their campaigns to the people of Florida. If they'd had a chance to do so, would the results have been the same? We don't know. That's the point.

This isn't disenfranchisement. This is Hillary Clinton changing her position on the rules she agreed to in an effort to stop what she clearly thinks is momentum for Obama.

If you're arguing that Florida should be allowed to have another shot later, allowing the candidates to campaign there, it'd be fine. Except that Edwards is then screwed in a state he looks quite strong in, at least on paper.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 1)

Lets not over egg this pudding. She called a "victory" rally after it was clear she was going to win - one media event amongst thousands in this campaign - and yes - to try to get back some positive publicity and momentum after a bad week. If there is an attempt to make the Florida vote count for delegates retrospectively, then of course I agree with you because that would be an attempt to change the rules after the event - and would be absolutely unfair and wrong. But is there actually a serious attempt to do this - its news to me if there is. Perhaps some commiseration with the Floridians over their misfortune, perhaps some assurances that their views will be taken into account at convention time, perhaps some playing to the gallery. But a capital political offence? We're getting very po faced about politics if this is the height of her crime. It simply isn't in the same league as preventing real votes being counted in a real election. She spun it for what it was worth at a media event. Thats all there is to it.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 0)

And she's perfectly welcome to have a silly rally over nothing in an effort to gain some momentum. I don't know how far she's going to take this, but either way I find it shameless. And you can rest assured that if FL and Michigan can flip the nomination, she'll howl like nothing you've ever heard.

A capital political offense? Hardly. (Voting for war with Iraq and Iran? Yes, but that's another comment.) I'm simply stating that serious arguments -- and by "serious," I simply mean that they believe what they say -- by Clinton supporters in favor of counting those delegates are based on shameless opportunism, obvious dishonesty and general silliness.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did spoil Senator Clinton's ... (none / 1)

on that we can agree

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, Florida and Michigan state parties ... (none / 0)

... decided to break the calendar and destroy any chance of coming up with a reformed system, because they wanted the states with unfair influence to be THEM, Senator Clinton panders to it because she expects that she won, and ...

... now I got lost. Somehow in this process the culprits are the aggrieved party?

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, Florida and Michigan state parties ... (none / 1)

Yes.

Just found the text of the robocalls. Pretty tame, all things considered, but still pretty funny, given the whole pot/kettle element.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, Florida and Michigan state parties ... (none / 1)

The main point of the Robocalls was to take advantage of the lazy reporting of US media, who confuse the so-called "trade deals" that are swapping trade preferences if lower income nations surrender the right to restrict corporate wealth flows into and out of their countries, and entry of China into normal trade relations ...

... but the absurd thing is a Clinton attacking a candidate for supporting a pro-corporate trade decision. Its like Bush attacking someone for being a warmonger.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 10:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, Florida and Michigan state parties ... (none / 0)

Bruce, you're smart enough to realize that consistency has no place among Clintonistas. But she had to do something, because Edwards was stripping her older white vote away.

I wanted Edwards, but with his exit this race, to me, has essentially become Ned Lamont vs Joe Lieberman.

I'm just hoping we don't wind up with the same result, even though I'd bet we will.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 12:24:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, Florida and Michigan state parties ... (none / 0)

Anyone got a take on how the Edwards' vote will break between Clinton, Obama, and "a plague on both your houses?"

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:11:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

too complicated to say (4.00 / 2)

i suspect it breaks differently in different states, since edwards' support came from a pretty wide range of voters.

by wu ming on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too complicated to say (none / 0)

Most will go to Clinton I guess.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 06:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But its possible that most in CA will ... (none / 1)

... go to Obama ... how his support breaks down varies from state to state, and I have no hard info, just a gut feeling that it breaks more progressive than conservative in CA, which will favor Obama.

Obviously, a large number of those who found Obama to be a perfectly acceptable alternative change candidate had already moved over to Obama, so its not surprise if the AP says that its 40 Clinton, 25 Obama, 35 undecided. I'm just saying I would not be at all surprised if its 25 Clinton, 40 Obama, 35 undecided in CA.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Super Tuesday looms: Who is really going to win the Presidency? (Part 5) | 75 comments (75 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Easter Grift

China Plans: Energy in the 15th Five Year Plan

A Deadline is a Deadline

But First . . .

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - April 2026

City Agriculture - March 22, 2026

Recent Diaries

Iran Ceasefire at Death's Door

A Murderer At Large, the World Sits Back and Watches

Easter Grift

Insanity

China Plans: Energy in the 15th Five Year Plan

A Deadline is a Deadline

Trump: AMALEK, Total Annihilation of Persia

A Revolt: With Francis a New Beginning?

But First . . .

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - April 2026

City Agriculture - March 22, 2026

Cowardice and Treachery Combined: Spells TERROR

Occasional Series