So, Hillary wants a do-over in Florida and Michigan – both broke the rules, as you all well know. That made me think of some do-overs I would like:
- When I bought my 2003 Saab, my dad told me I should never buy the first production year of a new model. “Wait for the bugs to be worked out,” he said. I bought it anyway. Right now, my car is in the garage awaiting a new engine. $3800. Sure, I should have listened. But can I get a do-over?
- I went on a cruise in 1997. I played Blackjack for two hours and was up by about $400. I decided to start betting $50 a hand. My friend, Kevin, told me how stupid I was. I lost it all. I wish I had a do-over.
- That credit card I ran up during my undergrad years – the one my mom always hounded me about that took me 4 years to pay off? Visa? Can I have a do-over?
- January 14th, 2007. I definitely would like a do-over for that!
- November, 2000 and November, 2004. Can the whole nation get a do-over please?
- Pretty much everything I wrote on my own blog prior to 2004 – I’d really like a do-over on that!
- Oh, and that time back when I was a zygote and made the conscious decision that I wanted to be gay. What a nightmare that turned out to be in high school. Can I take it back please?
If wishes were horses…
libarbarian
They’d be Magical Unity Ponies.
SpotWeld
Bush would be a cowboy?
Jen
I heard Howard Dean yesterday afternoon on NPR, and basically, it sounded like coming up with a plan for a “do-over” is the accepted, rule-allowed way to un-disenfranchise yourself for your stupidity. I don’t really have a problem with it, like if your Saab was a total lemon from the beginning you might’ve been able to get a do-over from a lemon law. What Hillary was trying to do was make us all buy 2003 Saabs, even those of us smart enough to get a Civic.
4tehlulz
We’d all be in deep shit.
Velvet Elvis
That’s what I call a Saab story.
Dennis - SGMM
Some of our august lawmakers want a do-over on Free Trade:
Lawmakers Threaten to Kill Tanker Deal
But, but, but, I thought that Free Trade and The Global Economy were good for us.
James
All fallacious analogies. The decisions of the party bureaucracy in Michigan, and it seems the state legislature in Florida caused the primaries to run early. It is not the voters fault, they played no role in the decision making process, so holding them punitively accountable for those decisions is not just.
The DNC has stated they will listen to proposals, and both candidates are amenable to the states rerunning their primaries, so there are no impediments to running them.
Concerning the merits of the proposal we have to consider that alienating democratic voters in two purple states heading into the election would be a foolish thing to do. I doubt its going to make a difference in the delegate situation: both candidates will be short of pledged delegates necessary to push them over the top, and its going to require the super delegates to decide the nominee. They will likely choose Obama because he is too far ahead in pledged delegates to be caught.
Jen
Y’all can try to come up with a stupider analogy than mine, but I probably wouldn’t. I’m pretty gifted at those.
demimondian
What kind of BS is this?
Oh, Michael D. wrote it. Of course.
Are you saying that Florida and Michigan shouldn’t count? That’s kind of undemocratic, you know. Are you saying that those two states aren’t important? They’re huge swing states, with significant populations.
Oh. Right. Obama realizes that they’re likely to vote for Clinton again, and to undermine his MUPpets claim for his string of victories. So of course that’s Clinton’s fault.
demimondian
By the way, about that outcome of the calls for the votes to count?
I think you owe me an apology.
demimondian
Sorry. This comment should have been addressed to Jen
Jen
Did Obama object to a do-over and I missed it?
Davebo
No apparantly the Michigan Democratic Party and the Florida legislature AND voters have already said that.
Well in the case of Michigan who knows?
Actually I’d say in a June primary Obama would carry at a minimum one of the two states.
Pretty weak gruel to use in an effort to call BS if you ask me.
Jen
Oh, good grief, Demi, I’m not going to apologize to you. You find me where Hillary said that the delegations from Fla. that resulted from the primary shouldn’t count and the state should formulate a “do-over” plan instead.
Davebo
No Jen, he has said he’d support a do over.
Apparantly he’s opposed to seating the delegates as currently pledged. Given that he wasn’t even on the ballot in MI I can see why.
PeterJ
Isn’t it somewhat established that Bush has a fear of horses?
Sasha
Because of the prohibitive cost of doing statewide primary elections again, one interesting suggestion I’ve heard is to hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan instead. Any thoughts?
Tom Brady
Super Bowl XLII definitely needs a do-over.
Dennis - SGMM
Seems to me that breaking the rules without consequences has been going on for several years now and that it isn’t working out so well. If the governors of Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about enfranchising their voters then they should fund new primaries.
James
Caucuses have tended to favour Obama (I don’t know why), so the Clinton camp could cry foul. I think that it would be int the interests of the candidates to use some of their primary money to help start new primaries, though I confess to total ingnorance on the feasability of this under US election laws.
SpotWeld
I fail to see how Bush would consider a fear of horses to be a impediment to his vision of righteously settled cowboy actualization. It’ll just take another 6 months for that to become apparent.
Jen
My thought is that the Clinton camp would very quickly move FLA and MI into the “states that don’t count” column. They’d have a conniption fit. I think it’s in everyone’s best interest to hold something as close as possible to their original plan. If it’s important to them to get their delegates seated, they’ll just have to find the money.
James
The florida governor is a republican who seems to be uninclined to helping the Democrats sort out their primaries. I think it’s a side show, since Obama is going to have more pledged delegates heading into the convention, barring a catastrophic collapse in every remaining state. His tendancy has been to close gaps in the races, so the actual outcome of rerun elections would be moot in terms of the race. The important thing for the party is to keep voters nation wide engaged in the presidential race.
Ninerdave
So let me get this right Demi. Two states broke the rules, the were told repeatedly that if they moved their primaries, their delegates would not be seated. They moved their primaries. They broke the rules. They lost their delegates.
Now comes the Clinton campaign, who’s behind in every category and their only chance of winning is either by superdelegates (which is looking less likely) and by getting FL and MI seated.
Pretty thin gruel indeed.
As an aside I personally think these two states were thinking they could score some points by looking like they were, standing up against the Democratic establishment, never thinking the race would be this close. Whoops. Idiots.
rob!
i’ve asked this question on a lot of blogs to people who want the FL and MI delegates seated as is, and no one ever seems to have an answer–HOW IS THIS NOT CHEATING?
don’t give me bullshit about Clinton not wanting to disenfranchise voters, she didn’t give a damn about that when she agreed not to campaign there and that the delegates wouldn’t count. she only cares NOW.
she didn’t care too much about attempted disenfranchisement (whew! big word!) of the Nevada casino workers when she tried to get those caucauses pulled.
if they want to do a do-over, then do it. i’d say Obama benefits, at least in some small amount, over trying to seat them now.
Zifnab25
Oh, my bad. I thought we lived in a Democracy. Turns out if a party decides to run like lemmings off the “I wanna be the first primary in the nation!” cliff, the general public has no way of getting them to stop.
All hail the mighty and indominatible party bureaucracy and state legislature. *cough* bullshit *cough*
Yes, the Florida legislature is majority Republican, but Democrats could have obstructed the push to run Florida ahead of the pack, or they could have demanded their own primary on a seperate day – like Wyoming or West Virginia. Instead, they gleefully went along with the crowd.
Yes, the average Michigan voter doesn’t have a big voice in the Democratic Party of Michigan, but they can if they voice their complaints loudly and collectively enough. They didn’t do that.
If people should be pissed, they should be pissed at the state legislature and party appartichiks who thought the rules weren’t really in effect. Howard Dean is enforcing the rules. I know we’ve lived under the Bush Admin so long that “following the rules” seems like a foreign concept, but I’m betting voters in Michigan and Florida will be more impressed with a party that remains true to its own internal doctrines than one that collapses at the first sign of opposition (*cough*HarryReidNancyPelosi*cough*) or gives out pardons and clemency out of political expediency (*cough*ScooterLibby*cough*).
John Cole
I find it mind-boggling that this is remotely controversial, even to the brain-dead Hillbots that have been spamming the comments sections here with inanities.
Of course he wouldn’t want people seated form a state where he and other candidates removed themselves from the ballot. I mean, if we are going to play this game, how about we remove Hillary from the PA ballot and then see what the Clinton campaign says about seating the PA delegates.
There needs to be a website where the red state folks and the Hillary diehards can get together and share notes on how to attain a complete lack of scruples.
Jen
Of course it’s cheating, and I was reassured by Dean saying that it’s off the table. Demi seems to want me to believe that even Clinton didn’t want them to count — which, if that were true, would make the fact that Dean had to go to the media to clarify that, no, they’re not going to count, kind of stupid.
HyperIon
i don’t like caucuses. IMO they draw folks who are not representative of the local electorate. the IOWA caucuses suck big-time. they have way too much influence on the election process. some people cannot attend a caucus because of when/where they are scheduled. if i cannot show up to vote in an election, i can file an absentee ballot. what relief do i have for this scenario wrt caucuses?
Zifnab25
Lulz. Poster oTD
Davebo
There already is
Martin
Yeah! What those guys need down there is some kind of representative democracy where the bastards that make all those rules are accountable to masses! Those voters are being repressed. I think we should invade, and overthrow their government. We’ll be greeted as liberators and showered with sweets and flowers!
Punchy
And after lawmakers end up indian-giving this contract from EADS to Boeing, anyone wanna wager the cost will suddenly balloon from 60 billion to 235 billion, then get delayed 3 years, requiring another 49 billion to complete?
THIS is why the Penty went with the frogs instead of Boeing. And all the missed kickbacks and bribes has the KS Congressman seething…
Billy K
I nominate Balloon Juice. I mean, we’re halfway there. We’re just lacking a few unhinged RedStaters.
rob!
Jen-
you betcha, its cheating, but i found it instructive that no Hillary supporter could ever give an answer that wasn’t complete B.S. about Hillary caring about disenfranchisement, etc.
deep down, they tell themselves “rules are for other people, not the Clintons” and then they have to retrofit an excuse to match what they really believe. sound familiar?
The Grand Panjandrum
Cap’n Ed is over at Hot Air. I believe we could put that in the category: A Good Start>
dickweathers
Sweet. Now I’ll get to vote in both the Republican and Democratic primaries!
zzyzx
I explained it yesterday. It’s not. Also the Mariners actually won the AL West once I grabbed a few games from the Cactus League schedule. Sure they said the games didn’t count and the managers made decisions based on that, but why are we disenfranchising Arizona baseball fans?
Also the Seahawks actually won Super Bowl XL because even numbered quarters aren’t important. The Seahawks won the quarters that count 10-7.
John Cole
The other thing that drives me insane about this push to seat the MI delegates is that the Hillary folks pushing it sound exactly the same, in tone and timbre, as John Yoo does when he defends his torture memos.
It makes me sick. “We aren’t really cheating, we are just bending the rules the way we like them.”
They can all fuck off and die. I have had enough of the bullshit for one lifetime.
myiq2xu
From your thread last night:
Hillary says okay and you accuse us of a lack of scruples?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
The FL/MI debacle is all figured out. They took a back seat for this election so they can have earlier primaries next election. FL/MI both knew they’d have to pay, the Dem Party collected on the penalty, and the Dem Candidates understood the transaction.
The only oddity here is Hillary, who’s trying to reverse the decision for her benefit, after her campaign acknowledged the penalty.
If you want them to count, that’s quite honorable of you, considering you’re an Obama guy now and this would hurt him. But lets not act like anything untoward has happened; all of this was a simple transaction.
Billy K
myiq, you’re not this stupid. Just STFU.
Martin
In this interview she acknowledged that Michigan wouldn’t count. But I think it was after Super Tuesday that she started pressing for MI to have their delegates seated. That’s when Dean stepped up to clarify things.
myiq2xu
How did this thread start?:
Other than die a slow lingering death, what does she have to do to satisfy you?
zzyzx
I really do love Clinton as a candidate most of the time. If she would just stop the nonsense about unimportant states (and man do I wish the MUP would have a riff in his speech about how no states are unimportant) and wackiness about FL and MI, she might actually have not dug this hole for herself.
demimondian
Of course it would be cheating to seat the delegates as is. Equally, of course, the MUPpets don’t want to admit that nobody with the Clinton campaign has ever actually suggested that they should be. (Oops. Problem that, Jen.)
Kind of like the “damn Clinton for being the innocent beneficiary of the Canadian government’s dirty trick on behalf of McCain” response we so much of yesterday, the MUPpets around here are so busy sniffing the pony dust that they’ve lost track of this funny thing called “reality”.
Sometimes, I feel kind of lonely out here.
Ninerdave
Bingo!
Ninerdave
No, Clinton is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
zzyzx
Except for this of course:
Source
Hit “learn more” under “Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy.” The bottom of the page says, “Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President”
So, yes, her campaign did (and still does) say that.
Martin
And it’s worth noting that Clinton has consistently opposed a revote:
“Our position is that the voters of Michigan and Florida have spoken.”
So, she seems to be in favor of having the voters speak so long as they say the right thing.
Xenos
Clinton is the one demanding a slow, lingering death here. I am all in favor of her fighting until the last dog dies, but honorably, and with the interests of the party and country in mind, please.
If she can’t die a good slow lingering death, then hurry up already!
John S.
So I guess when it comes to authoritarian figures, you’d just rather have a mommy in charge instead of a daddy.
myiq2xu
So your position is that the voters in Michigan and Florida are fucked and there is no fixing it?
demimondian
No, ninerdave. You guys are making a bunch of claims with no basis in reality. Worse, you are going all moral about your own lies! Do you think that the party should sit here like a bunch of Republican enablers while you do that?
ntr Fausto Carmona
Um…
Er…
Would you like to try that again, Hillbot?
demimondian
Not very good reading comprehension there.
Notice what’s omitted? Yeah — an actual call to have the votes as held count.
MUPpet whiff
marjowil
Speaking from Michigan, I voted “uncommitted” in our gelded primary to avoid Clinton claiming “victory” here — but she does anyway.
The whole dumb scheme for the early primary was drummed up by pro-Clinton establishment dems, including the Gov., and the predominately Repub Legislature. The idea was to gain more attention to our woeful economic situation, but all we got is a day or two of Mittens Romney pandering — whoopee.
Our gov. now says she is okay with a do-over, because she thinks it will benefit Hil, but actually I think we would go Obama — at least Detroit will. The state is too poor to redo a primary; they may try a caucus of some kind, paid for from the party. In the past Michigan has held a “caucus” that was more like a primary; I don’t know exactly what they’ll come up with. I’m in favor of a do-over more so than I am with Hillary trying to use our existing neutered delegates. But the one advantage to a do-over is that it would help build party infra-structure and GOTV for the general. We need that. Our state party is a mess even by Democratic standards.
myiq2xu
Hillary has agreed – what’s the problem?
demimondian
Nope. You need to go back and read your own primary sources. You’ll find that they don’t say what you claim they say.
MUPpet whiff.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
The position is the voters are fucked and they have their own state party members to thank for it.
Why the hell should we give a shit, except for the HRC supporters who are eager to tap them as a resource?
If FL and MI want a redo, they can go hat-in-hand to HRC and Obama and try to work it out. Otherwise, they got punished for doing something they knew they would be punished for.
Pretty elementary stuff here.
jcricket
Yeah, Michael’s “anti-do-over” screed doesn’t really win me over. If Dean’s out there supporting a possible do-over (with some conditions), then I can’t see why I wouldn’t be on board with it. And if there’s no DNC-acceptable do-over proposed, that’s the end of it.
I’m not on-board with counting/seating the delegates based on the results of the flawed contests that were already held. That’s just a no-brainer.
I think having MI and FL re-vote (esp soon-ish) would increase voter interest and eventual general-election turnout. I also think it would invigorate the Democratic party in both of those states, especially for fundraising. And if Clinton or Obama’s are so “great” (in their own minds), it would offer them one more opportunity to get voters in these states to propel them to the nomination (or not).
I’m basically not of the mind right now that a continued campaign is harmful to anything except the Obama supporters. And I’m ok with that. I honestly don’t believe it will hurt Clinton or Obama or the Democratic party in the general. I know lots of you vehemently disagree. I simply think that depending on how we treat the extended campaign, there is a strong argument that it’s about a totally enthusiastic and mobilized Democratic party, with two awesome Democratic candidates, raising more funds than ever and turning out in numbers that blow every Republican away. Spin that to our advantage rather than focusing on the attacks that nibble around each candidates edges .
zzyzx
That entire section is just that. The phrase, “the delegates from Florida and Michigan should count,” is in the context of the “elections” that happened.
When you say, “Hillary won those two states and she did it with all candidates on an equal footing,” under the heading, “Florida and Michigan should count,” you’re not calling for new elections, you’re saying that the shams that happen should be decisive.
fester bestertester
i read this post all the way to the end. can i have my minute and a half back, please?
The Grand Panjandrum
You had to go there. Well here is a fact:
It is a FACT that the Obama campaign DID NOT contact the Canadian government. It is also a FACT that the Canadian government admits that they misquoted Goolsbee with regard to his NAFTA remarks. It is a FACT that the HRC campaign repeated this lie when they knew they had themselves contacted the Canadian government with regard to NAFTA, then ran this ad:
Had enough? I have. I spent eight years apologizing for the Clintons. No fucking mas.
ntr Fausto Carmona
Let me translate that: “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU MUPPET MUPPET MUPPET LA LA LA”
Y’know, if you’re going to throw ‘Muppet’ around and play parsing games, Red State is over thataway.
John S.
That’s patently silly.
More like damn Clinton for pushing what is turning out to be a false story, when apparently she herself did the same fucking thing she was chastising Obama for allegedly doing.
And damn Clinton for trying to push the Rezko case in the same way people were pushing Whitewater. And then pulling the double reverse victim card by sending her top surrogate out to accuse Obama of being Ken Starr.
Hillary has enough legitimate dirt on her hands that we don’t need to distort or manufacture more.
Dennis - SGMM
The supreme irony is all of the harrumphing about “American jobs.” When all of those other American jobs went overseas the harrumphing was all about “competitiveness” and “global economy” and “cost control.” These are also some of the same lawmakers who passed the 1979 GATT Government Procurement Code, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and the WTO 1996 Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) which exempted certain foreign countries from the 1933 Buy American Act which mandated that US companies get preference in government procurement.
myiq2xu
The MUPpets are just afraid that a re-vote will get the same result.
Martin
Actually, Clinton and Obama and the DNC said that they were fucked. Then (after the vote, by sheer coincidence) Clinton said that the solution was to seat the delegates and that a revote was unfair. Then, after a month of getting nowhere on that tack, we get this statement:
“Given how well we did in those states, were there to be a primary, we would have a good opportunity to do well again,” he said, before returning to the campaign’s official stance: “Our position is that the voters of Michigan and Florida have spoken.”
So far Clinton’s solution was to not seat the delegates before the election, to then seat the delegates once the outcome was known and then to let everybody know that if they do have to revote that they would do well, but that they don’t think there should be a revote.
Obama’s campaign has been consistent along these lines:
ntr Fausto Carmona
This ‘MUPpet’ has been for a re-vote all along, but thanks for playing.
chopper
that’s pretty clear. i mean, unless you think that saying “FLs delegates should be seated” 4 days before the FL primary is in fact a call for an eventual revote.
Xenos
Hillary has agreed to new elections (setting aside all the technical issues that would have to be worked out)? When has she done that? All I have seen is arguments in favor of seating the slates of delegates already decided.
Are you talking about Wolfson’s statement this morning?
chopper
this ‘MUPpet’ doesn’t care what the result is, he just wants primaries where 1) the people running are actually on the ballot and 2) the people running are actually allowed to campaign.
i’ve never, ever had a problem with re-votes in either state.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
We’d be worried, true. And any agreement to re-vote would entail a change in the campaign timeline. And Obama would close the gap in FL and Hillary would in MI probably.
But it doesn’t matter. Our preferred candidate followed the rules, and yours didn’t. We come away looking good no matter what, and you have to do damage control no matter what.
Get used to it. Hillary isn’t going to clean up her act (as much as I’d kill for her to).
Martin
Correction, I see now that as of yesterday at least, they are indicating they are open to a revote:
“Let’s let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it,” said Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe Tuesday night on MSNBC. “Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let’s do it.”
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
damn.
zzyzx
Yeah, a revote with Obama on the ballot is going to get him 0 votes again. That’s likely.
I’m on the record as being in favor of a revote from before the time of the wastes of time. If they can set one up, it would be a great idea, despite the fact that I think Clinton wins FL easily. Obama would do reasonably well in MI; he might even win it.
I’m fine with all 50 states voting; I just want it to happen in a situation where the candidates know that it will count ahead of time.
demimondian
There turns out to be no evidence of the latter half of that claim, however. So there’s no reason for her to have disbelieved the Canadian claims, since they made an unsolicited call to her office.
MUPpet whiff
Sasha
Considering Obama wasn’t even on the Michagan ballot, I’d say that’s damn unlikely.
myiq2xu
IOW – We prefer that none of the delegates from those states count and we intend to be as uncooperative as possible without looking uncooperative.
ntr Fausto Carmona
Anyone have a link to cleek’s Greasemonkey script? I think it would make my comment reading easier to just replace demi’s comments with ‘MUPPET IOKIYAC MUPPET’ since that’s all he’s saying these days anyways.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
No no no, you’re not getting it!
Hillary gets advanced notice of the re-vote by 2 months, and Obama has to be blindfolded as a handicap.
After all, Hillary’s a girl and it’s not fair to have the girl play the full game that the guys play! If she had to, she’d lose! That’s not fair!
zzyzx
Let me try this again. Do you think that saying things like, “MUPpet whiff,” and dismissing arguments rather than engaging them is going to convince people that you’re right?
I’m an Obama supporter, but I do think that Clinton has good points and I was undecided pretty close to my vote. I could be won back, but you guys seem insistent in driving me away. How do you get anything done in politics if you just piss off your opponents instead of trying to convert them?
myiq2xu
What rule did she break?
chopper
did you get your glasses free in a box of “Clinton Crunch”?
Xenos
IOW- Here is the rulebook. Read it, decide what you want to do, and get back to me.
Clinton is likely to win both states if there is a revote. But still, there will not be enough of a margin to keep her from losing. Which is why the whole issue is bullshite.
ntr Fausto Carmona
‘Hey, it worked for Bush these last eight years. Why not us?’
p.lukasiak
Via talkleft, here are the statements from the Clinton and Obama campaigns…
Clinton Camp:
Obama Camp
I think the difference is pretty clear here…Mr Magical Unity Pony could care less about the voters of FL and MI. The Clinton camp wants to make sure that FL and MI voters are represented.
Now, its perfectly understandable that the MUP would not want new elections — after all, the odds of his actually winning in these crucial states weren’t very good to begin with, and since he’s been fighting tooth and nail to keep these people out of the convention, those odds aren’t getting any better.
But what is most disturbing to me is the contrast between the MUP’s rhetoric about bringing people together and creating broad coalitions, and its “hands off” attitude toward reaching a compromise that will best serve the interests of the party, rather than just his own personal interests.
Maybe we should rename the steed the Cynical Self-Interest Pony?
chopper
now, with triangle-shaped pieces!
Evinfuilt
Most people who took a civics class knows that we are in fact NOT a democracy. We’re a republic, and as such we let people make the end decisions. So yes, those in charge of setting up the primaries were put in charge by the people, but after that, they can say FU.
A redo, would be ethically and morally the correct thing to do. I’m sure Clinton/Obama/DNC and each state can split the cost, 4-way and make it happen.
myiq2xu
Didja even look at the beginning of this thread?
Jeebus!
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Found it
Martin
Are you on fucking crack?
It says exactly what is says. The DNC sets the rules and they’ll follow the rules. It’s not a question of what people prefer but what they will do. Clinton might prefer to not have an election in Mississippi, but nobody is accusing her of trying to get the election there cancelled.
Good lord you people have basic reasoning problems.
demimondian
No.
I think you’re lying (to yourself, not particularly to me) about being willing to change your mind, and I don’t think you’re worth debating. I think you’re worth making fun of, but, in my opinion, you’ve descended to the same kind of personality cultist that we’ve seen on right wing blogs in regard to George Bush.
If I should mock them, and I believe I should, then I should mock you, too.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That there was to be *NO* campaigning done in MI and FL. They were to be shunned this election. But of course Hillary went down there and got her feet wet, and now she wants to dive in.
Sometimes you cut off access to locations because you want to protect against the _side-effects_ of entry.
If Hillary hadn’t gone down there and fucked around, this wouldn’t be discussion. Hillary wouldn’t risk looking like an ass, and Obama wouldn’t have to look like an ass trying to defend somewhat harsh rules.
Xenos
Michael D. did not give a cite, and I have not found a statement anywhere else.
From what I can see, Wolfson saw that Crist was going to block a new primary election, so Wolfson got cute, and shifted to the position that ‘an election might be OK… but darn, those mean republicans won’t let us have one, so let’s seat the delegates already chosen.’
Maybe I am wrong about it. Since you care so much Miq, why don’t you win this argument by linking to a source or something? I am asking you to inform me. Maybe you would prefer to tell me to piss off.
zzyzx
And what exactly is your evidence for that? Proof by assertion? Other than preferring a different candidate than you, what exactly have I done to be mocked?
Sasha
QFT. Unless the redone primaries are held early enough that Hillary wins in FL/MI create enough momentum to lead to wins in virtually every other remaining primary, and unless those wins are at least by 10% or more, there is still almost no viable way Hillary can beat Obama in pledged candidates. She could attempt the superdelegate strategy, but she’d be playing with nitroglycerin there.
chopper
looks like mr magical unity pony believes in abiding by the rules he and clinton and the rest agreed to abide by. just like why edwards took his name off the ballot in MI as well.
he’s saying hammering out a revote or whatever is between the people who broke the rules and the people who wrote and enforce the rules. i mean, this is a democratic primary FFS. the candidates follow the rules, the states follow the rules. you don’t just get to make it up as you go along, you can’t pick and choose which ones get to be followed and which ones don’t.
i mean, i understand that the last 7+ years has left us all a bit confused when an executive or wanna-be executive states that they actually intend to follow the rules and all, but come on, people. it’s not that difficult.
marjowil
Why are most here so certain that Clinton would win Michigan? In our primary that “didn’t count,” Clinton won 55.3%. Uncommitted (mostly Obama + Edwards protest vote) was 40 percent. Then add in Kucinich (3.7), Dodd and Gravel (1.0 together), and you have 44.7 voting AGAINST Clinton… and this was for a primary that we were told would not count! You can bet that Obama would easily net 45% without even trying; he could certainly move up another 10-20% once allowed to campaign here.
There is a large Obama movement here in Detroit and that where most of the delegates are.
just sayin’
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
No he’s on Hillary.
Like a pot smoker that lost his pot dealer, he has the option of taking crack, or he can take mescaline.
But because the latter is a “hippy drug”, and the former is a “cool drug”, and he’s just _gotta_ take one, he lights up the pipe.
Jen
So, cleek, if I were to install whatever the heck a Greasemonkey script is, on my work computer, how bad would that be? Would it make everything crash and I’d have to explain what it was and get fired and everything? ‘Cause it still might be worth it not to have to read P-luk’s spin on how Obama’s camp saying they’re going to follow rules is somehow bad. Give me a pie script anyday.
Napoleon
A couple of days ago in another thread I made a point that if HRC is not careful she could screw up the youth vote with her shanagans.
More on the youth vote today from TPM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/06/the_first_of_many_thirds_youth/
demimondian
That’s actually not true, Caidence. There *was* no campaigning by Clinton there. The campaign who sent out mailers was, um…Obama’s.
p.lukasiak
Considering Obama wasn’t even on the Michagan ballot, I’d say that’s damn unlikely.
Two words. Ohio results.
In Ohio, Clinton got 54% of the vote.
In Michigan, Clinton got 55% of the vote.
demimondian
Jen — unless you have an unlock machine, or unless your office uses Firefox by default, the Greasemonkey script won’t help you.
myiq2xu
This is ridiculous. The MUPpets can’t even stay consistent. The thread starts with them bashing Hillary for wanting a do-over, then suddenly they’re bashing her for wanting the original vote to count.
Then Caidence starts making up lies.
I’m outta here.
John S.
Are you fucking kidding, demi? From the linked story:
That doesn’t support my assertion that:
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. Nice swing, but a total miss.
Susan
myiq2xu Says:
It was an agreement, I believe, not a rule.
All the candidates agreed to not campaign in Michigan and Florida and to withdraw their names from the ballots if possible. The Florida rules did not permit them to withdraw but the Michigan rules did. All the Democratic candidates said they were going to withdraw from the Michigan ballot and all did except Clinton (and Dennis K. and Mike Gravel, I believe). Clinton said that she was planning to withdraw but didn’t file the right paper in time.
Xenos
tapping fingers on tabletop, twiddling thumbs, looks out window, whistles tunelessly…
Hello, Miq?
chopper
you don’t get it. myiq said that ‘MUPpets’ are afraid of a revote because obama will do worse.
people immediately pointed out that obama wasn’t even on the ballot in MI. zero votes for obama. zero delegates.
how exactly would he do worse in MI than zero? are there negative votes now?
marjowil
The only candidates to come to Michigan were Repubs. No Democrats were allowed. But most voters didn’t bother to come out because it didn’t count. There were no ads. No factory visits, no media coverage, except for Mitt.
Michigan is chomping on the MUP bit.
PeterJ
p.lukasiak
are you saying that if Obama had the nomination locked up, that he’d still be insisting that FL and MI not be seated?
chopper
well, it sure is hard filing a paper, especially when you have an entire campaign full of people to do it for you.
John S.
Now who’s full of shit?
The Obama campaign didn’t send shit – a group called UNITE did.
HillBot whiff.
Xenos
p.luk-
If Obama had the nomination locked up, he would not care whether FL and MI are seated as is or after a new process. My understanding was that he was in favor of letting them get seated in spite of it being in violation of the rules as a way of softening hurt feelings. That is in no way a waiver of enforcing rules when they can decide a race.
chopper
if he had the nomination already locked up, the DNC would probably be looking to seat the delegates (but maybe not count them) just to end this mess.
either way, it’s between the DNC and the states.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Demi,
I’m pretty sure Clinton was down there; I’m going to look for a link to what made me think that.
Could you link me for the Obama mailers? I was under the impression he left FL and MI as goners.
Sasha
And Obama got 0% of the vote in Michigan. If his name (and Edwards) were on the ballot, do you honestly think she would have gotten that large a percentage? I imagine a lot of registered pro-Obama and pro-Edwards Dems stayed home rather than vote for “Uncommitted”.
Rick Taylor
Disenfranchising two states before a crucial national election is just dumb. We’re going to need their votes come November; it’s not a good idea to tell them they have no voice in who the Democratic candidate will be. There’s no good solution by now, but some sort of do-over seems the lesser of many evils, if the money could be scraped together. Then the primary process for the Democratic party needs to be reorganized from top to bottom. This is just embarrassing; we’re supposedly one of the world’s foremost democracies, we need to be able to come up with a sane primary system for our party.
Z
p.luk,
Mr. MUP wants to make sure the rules are followed. It is between the states and the DNC. An argument between the DNC and the states are what caused this mess in the first place, and only those entities can sort this out.
I, personally, think a re-vote is a great idea! Because neither really campaigned, Clinton benefited from name recognition, almost as though she were an incumbent. Clinton would lose a lot of those votes if she actually had to compete for them.
p.lukasiak
The Obama campaign didn’t send shit – a group called UNITE did.
True enough.
But Obama bought advertizing in Florida under the guise of a national ad, then falsely claimed that he could not exclude florida stations from the ads distribution. And while both candidates appeared at previously scheduled fundraisers (something which the candidates agreed to when they agreed not to campaign in Florida), Clinton attended hers and left — Obama held a big press conference after his.
but IOKIURAMUP
The Grand Panjandrum
Wrong. Read my comment and the links. Then tell me who fucking whiffed.
Jen
Other than whatever the hell Michael D.’s point was with the original post, who did this? I started right off saying I think a do-over was provided for in the rules, and I didn’t have a problem with it. Obama doesn’t have a problem with it, and Hillary doesn’t have a problem with it, and MI and FL can stop whining about the cost and find the money if they want their votes to count. Other than the fact that I, and pretty much everyone else, find no support whatsoever for Demi’s view that this was Hillary’s clever plan all along and she was actually calling for a re-vote four days before the Fla. primary, I don’t actually find a whole lot of divergence from this view of things on this entire thread.
Pb
Wow. The Obama campaign is suggesting that a dispute between the state parties of MI and FL and the DNC should be resolved by the two participants invovled. That bastard. Why can’t he just behave like a rational self-interested actor and instead jump up and down and loudly insist on new caucuses?
P.S. p.luk is back, demi, you can stop now.
zzyzx
“are you saying that if Obama had the nomination locked up, that he’d still be insisting that FL and MI not be seated?”
Of course they’d be seated. No one worried about the House of Representatives being a tiebreaker in 1980 and no one cared that much about delegate counts when there’s an obvious front runner. It’s just that this year we have two good candidates who appeal to different groups. We’re going to have to actually look at the rules and go by them, not because they’re perfect, but just because that’s what we agreed to ahead of time.
If everyone agrees for a change (e.g. a revote in MI/FL which I suspect will happen), that’s one thing, but unilaterally changing the rules isn’t going to happen.
And yes, the SDs are part of the rules and they can vote however they want. It doesn’t mean that people can’t try to pressure them either by pointing to pledged delegates or by coming up with metrics that show that Clinton is ahead once you remove the Republican vote.
p.lukasiak
If Obama had the nomination locked up, he would not care whether FL and MI are seated as is or after a new process. My understanding was that he was in favor of letting them get seated in spite of it being in violation of the rules as a way of softening hurt feelings.
I’d like to thank this person for acknowledging that the MUPpets claim that Obama wants to make sure the rules are enforced is just so much BS… and that he only wants the rules enforced when its in his interest to do so.
demimondian
Ah, thanks, Pb. I didn’t notice that.
B-b-but…I was having FUN! Do I hafta go?
John S.
I forgot – demi gets his rocks off trolling as a Hillbot.
Nothing to see here folks…move along.
demimondian
And the rest of you…
I’m a GODDAMN TROLL, remember? I’m a SPOOF. If a spoof — and, by the way, not a very good one — can make you jump through hoops like this, you really need to stop and ask hom much of your outrage is defensive.
Obama really is in a bad place here. He really does not want a revote; he wants to force the credentials committee to seat the delegates after they commit to him. Due to the bad smell his actions have left in MI and FL, he is going to do badly there in a revote…and he KNOWS it. And so do you.
So get off your fucking high horses. Obama got played here, and he got played by a pro. Admit it, admire it, and move on.
Susan
This probably sounds impossibly naive, but isn’t it just possible that Obama might have stuck to his word because …it was the right thing to do….?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Link? Proof? Cite?
oh, wait, no, it’s p.luk. He doesn’t need links. He has a shift key and a percent-character on his keyboard.
He will soon dizzy me with fake numbers the likes of which my psyche cannot recover from.
Xenos
P/luck- forgive me for using technical language like ‘waiver’, which you apparantly do not understand.
If you think you are scoring points with this crap, I feel sorry for you.
John S.
I did above, CFC.
They didn’t come from Obama’s campaign – they came from a friendly group.
demimondian
And I read your fucking comment, TGP. I refuted all of those claims weeks ago, dude. The primary sources do not support the analysis in both those articles.
PeterJ
Quoting error…
Anyway.
Clinton is probably going for a total popular vote win, and then use that to get the superdelegates to vote for her.
That’s all she has left.
chopper
uh, obama conferred with the DNC, and the eventual ruling was that since he was unable to peel FL out of the regional ad buy he wasn’t violating the rules.
clinton then immediately bought ads in the same region, including FL.
ntr Fausto Carmona
We have Hillary spoofs now? Good grief, if we’ve sunk to this level…
The Grand Panjandrum
Jesus Babbling Christ! I have to go take a spin in the Prius and get a latte. My fucking CDS is kicking in. Goddammit! Where are my Birkenstocks?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I’m almost through the admission phase. I’m trying to cheer myself up by hoping that Obama can get some good press.
Admire, though? Fuck that. I don’t admire it when someone does well. There’s always a #1 somewhere.
But when the #1 does it with _class_? THEN I start admiring.
myiq2xu
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
zzyzx
It’s analogy time. I’m playing golf with you for $10,000. I have a 10 stroke lead on the last hole, my ball’s 2 inches away from the hole, and you slice your shot into the water. You ask me to just let you place the ball next to the lake because you want your stats to look better. I say “Sure, why not?”
Does that mean that I am then obligated to do that if I have a one stroke lead and I’m in the rough?
Just because someone would be willing to do a favor for you once doesn’t mean he has to do so always.
Susan
I don’t get this one – what actions? what smell?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Thank you, John. But that doesn’t rule out that Obama didn’t send anything.
Either Demi has a link, and I’m wrong; or Demi doesn’t have a link, and his statement is assumed baseless. That’s how that goes.
Sasha
Um , when did Obama suggest this course of action, or is it just a lot of hot air venting?
John S.
Bologna.
Obama will do just fine in a revote, both here in Florida and up in Michigan. That ‘bad smell’ is just a little pony gas, on account of being fed some rancid carrots by Hillary. It will dissipate soon enough.
I like your pipeline into everyone’s thinking, though. Can you look into our eyes and also tell us if we’re good people?
zzyzx
With p.lukasiak here it can be hard to tell the difference…
I have to admit that I don’t really like the spoof game here because I really am trying to give Clinton a fair shot and listen to her arguments. They’re not as all stupid as the ones to reseat MI after all…
John S.
It essentially does, because if he coordinated with that group it’s illegal. And while I’m not so naive as to think politicians don’t break the law, I suspect in this instance Obama would have no real motive to do so.
Don’t hold your breath for a link showing otherwise.
demimondian
Susan…if I were a Clinton adviser (God save my soul), I’d put ads on the air every fucking day in the week leading up to the election reminding people who fought to get their votes counted at the convention, and asking them to support her.
With a message like that, Obama will lose in a lnadslide in both states.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Oh, and Demi?
There’s a difference.
A Troll is someone who picks fights on the internet because he obtains joy from negative reaction. Like an attention-starved 8-year old that tortures the cat to get mom to yell at him.
A Spoof is someone who picks fights with particularly unhinged people and embarrasses them into exposing their stupidity by spoofing an equally unhinged and sympathetic character. Spoofs also let the forum frequenters in on the joke so they don’t upset anything.
You were spoofing. Not trolling. Dug Jay’s a troll. You’re a valued member.
p.lukasiak
Chopper says…
well, right now, the main impediment to seating MI and FL are Obama and his supporters — because (according to you) they think the rules should be followed.
Now here you are suggesting that Obama would not be an impediment once he had the nomination locked up — that he’s suddenly become “Mr. Oh-The-Rules-Don’t-Matter-All-That-Much”.
Is this what you are saying?
BTW, if the current situation were reversed, I’d be expecting Clinton to be doing exactly what Obama is doing, and vice versa. The problem I have is that Obama is supposed to be so “different” from Clinton — the kind of guy who wants to work with everyone on tough problems. But here’s a chance for him to do that, and he’s saying “hey, I don’t want to be involved in a solution.”
demimondian
UNITE is “closely allied” to Obama, just like Hillary’s 527 is “closely allied” to her. You (correctly) blame her when her 527 shits out something; he’s got to take the blame when UNITE sends out a flyer “about him”.
Jen
Not one word of this makes any sense to me, and I can’t figure out at what point the trolling stopped and started, and unless people are doing obvious snark, I really, really, wish they would stop doing that. It makes me cra-hazy and hate you. Thank you.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
It still doesn’t mean that Obama can’t put a mailer in the mail of his own volition. It’s not like the friendly group has exclusive rights to the mailboxes.
But I’m not holding my breath. Demi’s done bludgeoning the status quo. :)
p.lukasiak
Sasha, I didn’t say that the Obama campaign said it. I was referring to what the MUPpets here are saying about Obama’s firm commitment to the rules.
Xenos
This is a full blown fantasy world, akin to Tlon, Uqbar, Orbus Tertius. You will get no further with these Hilbots – it is like going on the set of Darkon and saying “yo – people – what is with all this anachronistic crap?!” They will just ignore you.
chopper
no, right now the impediment to seating MI and FL is the fucking DNC.
last i checked, howard dean didn’t say “FL and MI can have a revote or they can appeal to the credentials committee, or alternately sen. obama can wave his hand and we’ll totally seat them. it’s really up to him, to be honest.”
The Other Steve
I think Demi is filling in for myiq.
Sasha
I believe he’s down with a redo. The problem will be for Obama’s and Hillary’s campaigns to come up with something that he, she, and the DNC will be equally unhappy with. :)
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Soorrrrt of. It has to do with whether the candidate’s actions has an effect on the 527, noting that they’re not allowed to coordinate.
Does Obama agreeing to not campaign bind the 527 to the same fate? No. The 527 is tacky for doing it, but Obama’s not allowed to go to the 527 and “DEAR GOD DON’T DO IT!”. That would be illegal.
But if Obama takes a position that spanking kids is wholly wrong, and a 527 does something PETA-like and citizen’s-arrests some mother, than that could be held against Obama to a degree.
Napoleon
It’s likely sitting right next to those tax returns she hasn’t had the time to get around to releasing yet.
AkaDad
I agree. Hillary would be playing with fire if she tries to activate her Super-delegate sleeper cells and wage a jihad against innocent voters.
myiq2xu
Nope, I’m on my own. Who are you filling in for?
Jen
At one point, weeks ago, he appeared to genuinely believe Hillary was not calling for the primary delegates to be seated, so I’m not sure when the spoof/trolling started.
Myiq is really phoning it in these days.
John S.
You almost have a point, and I would agree if you were comparing apples to apples. But you aren’t. UNITE isn’t a 527 group created by the Obama campaign for the explicit purpose of providing cover for negative attacks.
UNITE is a union. Big difference, amigo.
PeterJ
Obama raised $55 million in February.
chopper
damn, i was just about to post that. 55 million, shit.
Sasha
Well, if the DNC decides the waive the rules in such an event (a theoretical Obama nomination cinch), what would Obama do? Demand that the delegates not be seated?
In the event that the race has been run and won by one side or the other before the convention, I cannot see where the harm would be in seating the FL/MI delegates as a symbol of party unity. However, seating them as-is if the nomination were still in play would be unconscionable.
myiq2xu
If Hillary manages to take the lead in pledged delegates you will suddenly remember that super delegates should be free to vote their consciences, right?
If SD’s have no discretion, what’s the point?
Hillary has won the big states, the battleground states for November, and the most votes from Democrats. She’s also got the most votes of the so-called “Reagan Democrats,” the blue-collar workers.
p.lukasiak
Z, i get this. My problem is that the Obama supporters are acting as if “playing by the rules” is some invioloate moral principle — and its obviously not. Obama doesn’t want them seated because its to his slight advantage that they not be seated. Clinton wants them seated because its to her slight advantage to have them seated.
My view is that, self-interest aside, Clinton has the better argument. The reason why these states moved up their primaries was so that they could have a greater influence in the nomination process because of all the attention that gets paid to the “early” states. That purpose has been served — nobody campaigned in the states, and the media barely covered the results.
Once the purpose of a punishment is accomplished, there is no reason to continuing punishing someone.
myiq2xu
I never did, when did you?
demimondian
Feel free to hate me (and the rest of us, although I’m one of the few who admits it under his main handle). It won’t go away.
Jen, spoofing is about what Caidence described: trying to get people who’ve become unhinged about something to come to grips with that fact. If you’ve become vulnerable to a spoof — and, particularly if you’ve become vulnerable to demi as a spoof — then you’ve become irrational.
If demi-as-hilbot gets you all upset, then as TGP says, go put your Birkenstocks on and take a walk. Demi’s really not very smart, mostly well-armed with fragments of facts. The character, when confronted with a solid argument, will retreat and change the subject, but, when confronted with bs and obfuscation, will attack them mercilessly. If you’re vulnerable, it’s because you’re trying to bluster.
Handling that kind of spoof is really easy — don’t bluster. Confront the weakness of your arguments and move back to terrain where you’re able to make a good case. Don’t argue against Obama being in the weaker position here — he is — but ask, say, why Clinton hasn’t started to organize a fundraising push to pay for the elections. Talk about what he should do to make up the difference; the MUP is REALLY good at that. Don’t fight on weak ground.
[and for those of you who remember the day, yes, demi’s style is, indeed, modeled after the style of argumentation made famous by our sometime member, the unlamented Senator.]
Jen
$55,000,025, that last bit was from me. March will also get $25, I’m gonna put him on autopay.
zzyzx
Here’s a question about a MI revote that I haven’t heard yet – who gets to vote? Michigan doesn’t seem to have party registration; in the primary anyone could request either ballot. That’s fine when there are two races being run, but if this is the only race and there’s no way of limiting it, there could be some problems.
p.lukasiak
and you think that, were Obama to say “seat the delegations”, that the DNC would not do so in a heartbeat?
Here’s a clue…the DNC is supposed to be impartial in these kinds of disputes. They aren’t supposed to take sides, but the minute Obama says “seat the delegates”, the DNC will seat the delegates.
demimondian
Yeah, zzy, I don’t know how MI would run a primary. I assume that it would have to be run by the party, not the state, and, in that case, should be closed to members only.
tBone
Pretty sure she was talking about demi. Everyone had you pegged as a troll a long time ago.
Don’t pussyfoot around; go for the p.luk-style fuck all those other states!
ntr Fausto Carmona
The DNC’s been taken over by the Vast Obama-Wing Conspiracy.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
/groan/
/sits up/
One: Following the rules _is_ an inviolate moral principal! Otherwise what’s the _fucking point_ of having rules?! Yes, the rules happen to be on our side. THAT’S THE AWESOME THING ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES! People who violate the rules pay-up to the people who don’t!
Two: There’s nothing cleansing about seeking greater influence that makes FL and MI look good. You’re supposed to make do with what you have, not consume more to others’ detriment.
Three: If MI and FL are counted at any point in this election, *then the punishment hasn’t been accomplished!*
Jesus christ, why don’t you go get a fight that Obama _doesn’t_ have the moral high-ground in.
Oh, what’s that, we have most of the high ground?
That’s because your candidate always sells the high-ground for $4 and 20 votes.
John S.
Hey Paul, wanna buy a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn while you’re at it?
zzyzx
Nope. If Clinton takes the lead in pledged delegates, I’ll be hoping for her to choose Obama as her VP.
And my view is that I don’t see it. If nobody campaigned, the media weren’t paying attention, voters were told their votes wouldn’t count, and some names weren’t even on the ballot, it’s hard to see the case for counting them.
If you stick just to Florida, you’d at least have a shot of converting people. It’s going to be a lot harder with Michigan.
John S.
Too bad UNITE is a union and not a 527.
myiq2xu
How do you know what “everyone” thought? You’re no one, meat.
p.lukasiak
so you are saying that if Obama if Clinton dropped out, and told all her delegates to vote for Obama, that Obama should still insist that the MI and FL delegations not be seated?
demimondian
Meh. Fair enough, John. UNITE is a union, and, as a former steward of one of those, yeah, I think I’ll grant you that.
Tentatively. And with reluctance. And still looking around for something to turn it back into an apple.
John S.
Unless you think Hillary will win either state by 20 points or more, this is all academic. Because anything less won’t make a dent in the lead Obama has in delegates. Even if Hillary has a SUPER HUGE COMEBACK like she did Tuesday where she gets a few more delegates than Obama, he still wins.
zzyzx
But I just saw the registration form for Michigan and you don’t register as a party member. How could Michigan know who the members are?
demimondian
He’s a fucking aged steak, myiq. What could be better than that?
John S.
It’s cool. You’re most likely still ahead of me in rhetorical points, although I will count this as a HUGE moral victory.
They don’t call me the ‘comeback kid’ for nothing!
zzyzx
This isn’t about a revote; it’s about counting the delegates as is. Obama doesn’t want a situation where Clinton gets 86 delegates and he gets 0. That would be a game changer.
p.lukasiak
obviously, some kind of agreement would have to be reached with regard to the Michigan delegates — either the ‘uncommitted’ delegates should be Obama supporters, or the delegates could be apportioned based on the Ohio results, or some other arrangement.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I caught that. Buuuuut that only increases that potential for Obama to look bad because of their efforts, and it still doesn’t tell me if the Obama campaign sent mailers. :)
Last post on the subject. I’m pretty sure I’m right and I’m getting tired.
myiq2xu
You’re all smarmy nice when you know I’m here but you talk smack when you think I’m not.
And you play little troll games like asking for cites and then disappearing when they are provided.
Your game is stale big boy.
demimondian
Yeah, but the point is that if it’s a party-run primary, the party can set up whatever rules it likes (within broad anti-discrimination guidelines, of course). So the party, in an election it funded itself, would be absolutely within it’s rights to demand evidence of membership or past voting.
jcricket
IIRC, demi is, in fact, a delegate for Obama. So if she (?) can argue that a do-over is potentially fair and that Obama is doing a poor job of handling this issue, I’d say she’s not a hillbot or MUPpet.
And frankly, it’s her argument that shows me Obama supporters are, in fact, pretty blind to their own candidates weaknesses. I’m fine with people thinking Obama is better and/or Hillary is worse, but to really think that there’s nothing he does that isn’t in some way a positive, and that any failures are someone elses fault, well gee – that sounds like the whole “conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed” argument.
myiq2xu
Does the “t” stand for “tube?”
ThymeZone
Okay, you know this because ….?
According to the campaign email I got this morning, that’s the most ever raised in one month by a presidential primary campaign, and the average donation was around $100.
Those are staggering figures, kids.
By the by, I have made another Obama donation today. If you are considering doing so, the sooner the better.
Jen
I was talking about demi.
Demi, nothing you’re saying makes any sense, and what is frustrating about your spoofing-under-your-own-name, whatever you justify it as being, is that no one can know what to argue with and what to ignore. I will argue with a lamppost, so the fact that a spoof can engage me means absolutely nothing.
But that’s just idiotic, frankly. You talk as if someone was trying to remove Florida’s votes from the electoral college or something, and only one brave woman, Hillary Clinton, was brave enough to stand up for the voters of Florida. Or something.
I would imagine that your average voter in MI and FL is really mad at the internal processes in their state that led them to getting smacked down by the DNC, just as the DNC said they would. I would imagine that they understand the concept of rules. I would imagine that the Obama supporters, undecided voters, really anyone with any logic at all (like Clinton supporter jcricket) understands these fairly basic concepts and would not want for a fundamentally unfair process to be accepted as if it were fair.
p.lukasiak
are you certain that the Clinton campaign is not ameanable to having the “uncommitted” delegates be Obama supporters?
(If she is insisting that ‘uncommitted’ delegates should be genuinely uncommitted, then I would agree that the delegation should not be seated. Lets face it, “uncommitted” meant “not Clinton”, and that’s should be reflected in the “uncommitted” delegation. But as far as I know, she is not insisting on truly ‘uncommitted’ delegates).
chopper
recent polls show a vast majority of dems want the supers to go with the leader. seeing the supers overturn the leader in pledged delegates will piss off a lot of dems (myself included) no matter who is in the pledged delegate lead.
virginia isn’t a battleground state? missouri isn’t a battleground state? wisconsin, iowa and minnesota aren’t battleground states? colorado?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I think you were asking “If Clinton and Obama were losing to a third candidate, and Clinton could offer FL and MI to Obama, would we insist?”
And the answer is “not as loudly” :)
It’s fine to seek a fair re-hash of the rules, I won’t dispute that. But going ahead and acting like there’s honor to be had in breaking the rules is crap, and acting like it’s ok to break the rules because the people following the rules are profiting from the rules is also crap.
Rules aren’t about profit, they’re about order. If Obama could profit from breaking the rules, then he’d also get swept up later into the following disorder.
“If FL and MI can break the rules, then can TX discount the caucuses and give Hillary more delegates??” and so on…
Jen
\
Right. I am afraid of your presence on the interwebz, because I am worried that you are going to come through the tubes, and out of my screen, and get me. I am very surprised to find out that you’re here! Myiq, on Balloon Juice? Who would’ve ever predicted that? What am I going to do?
p.lukasiak
Don’t ignore any of it. When demi sounds like a Hilbot, she’s responding to a really lame “Obot” argument.
Sasha
Superdelegates should have discretion, but they should also pay attention to the desires and preferences of those they represent, of which the pledged delegates is a good indicator. If a superdelegate goes against the popular will because he or she theoretically “knows better,” that person had better be able to explain why.
Hillary won big states like CA and TX, however, by a margin of only 5% or less (in the case of CA, I suspect that most of Edwards support would have gone Obama if he’d not been in the race — your opinion may vary). Besides, TX is historically unlikely to be a Dem victory in the general the same way CA is almost certainly going blue in November. She may have technically won a battleground state in Florida, but we’ve already heard the arguments. Although HRC may have won more Democratic voters including Reagan Democrats than BHO, in a general election, Obama can count on receiving those votes anyway; Hillary cannot count on bringing in independent and crossover votes the way that Barrack can.
It’s going to be a fun couple of months.
demimondian
Of course. That’s the point — if I only spoofed as a sock puppet, you’d learn to ignore the sock puppet — and what would be the point of that?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I’m defending Demi on this one.
It doesn’t matter who you argue with on the Internet, you can’t change any opposing minds. You can only steer the friendly conversation, and maybe change a few uncommitted minds.
If you’re trying to argue for Obama, then a Hillary spoof is like a guy from your team in a Hillary costume throwing lob-balls. Not only fun, but good practice.
The only reason we argue with real HillShills here is to test our own rowboat for leaks. If a Hillbot can get to us, then we might want to find better arguments for Obama. If they can’t, then it’s a sign we need to go mock HillaryIs44 some more.
p.lukasiak
no. its just Hillary and Obama left in, and Hillary drops out and tells her delegates to vote for Obama.
Does this:
mean that the delegations should still be excluded, or is “following the rules” no longer quite such an “inviolate moral principle?”
zzyzx
I have never heard an argument in favor of that from the Clinton camp. It just gets glossed over. Obviously, that would be a much stronger argument if the uncommitted delegates are all given to Obama. It still wouldn’t be fair – as people did stay home on election day because the vote didn’t count – but there actually would be a case.
ThymeZone
That’s … nonsense. It’s No Cussing Week (see earier post) so I can’t call it what it really is until next week, I suppose. I think most here can guess at a better word.
Obama supporters like their candidate, they don’t claim he’s perfect, any more than Clinton supporters do. They just like him better, and yes, I think that is a totally rational basis for making the choice. I don’t like Hillary Clinton, I don’t like anything about her, and as time goes on, I like her less and less. Ethically, intellectually, politically, any way you want to slice it and dice it, I don’t like her. When it comes to such things, I trust my instincts. (When it comes to policy, I give her an F — for Failure, abject miserable total failure to produce the results she shrieks about all the time).
I don’t believe she is better prepared, more experienced, better on any policy issue, more ethical. I think she is obsessed with wanting to be president and I think she might even be more obsessed than Jon McCain, which is hard to fathom, but there it is.
Barack Obama didn’t set a campaign record for fundraising and do with a $100 average in February by being perfect, he did it by being a guy people really like.
The problem with Clinton supporters is that they just can’t stand that fact, it eats at their livers. Their candidate can’t match our candidate in personal enthusiasm.
Neither Clinton nor her dishonest supporters are making any friends by treating the half of Dem voters that have voted for her opposition as if they are somehow inferior. We aren’t inferior, and we aren’t blind to any weaknesses. We aren’t looking for perfection, we are looking for good, and we are looking for an end to the Bush-Clinton era once and for all. It cannot possibly come soon enough.
John S.
Well how can I argue with that!
chopper
man, you bust out more crappy hypotheticals than tim russert.
you go on and on about how obama doesn’t really have the ‘preternatural magical pony dust power’ that he can wave around and accomplish anything, yet now you’re arguing that he could get the FL and MI delegates seated over the DNC rules with a single wave of his magic wand.
i’m sure that the DNC wants to see some punishment come out of this. i’m sure dean doesn’t want every state thinking it can move its primaries to the earliest date they want without any recourse. dean has been pretty consistent about what FL and MI can do to remedy the situation, and has said nothing at all about the decision resting in any way on obama or his supporters.
somehow i think you’ll continue to contort this (and every) situation to blame obama anyways, so i don’t know why i bother.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That’s freaking easy: of course they still don’t count.
You’re offering a situation where, if Obama starts rocking the boat he receives exactly zero profit (because he already won).
In that case, why do you fuck with general order. Answer: you don’t.
John S.
But it is about a revote.
The DNC is not going to just hand over the MI and FL delegates to Clinton.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
p.lukasiak
the DNC is chock full of politicians, not moral absolutists. What they want is party unity, and the best shot at winning the white house and as many other federal, state, and local offices as possible.
ThymeZone
Errata: According to the information I got today, I was wrong about the $100 average donation figure for Obama.
Instead, the stat was that 90% of the donations were $100 or less. The donation total was $55m for February, the most ever by a primary campaign in this country.
I have seen a $109 average figure on somebody’s tv screen but that was probably for January.
chopper
wait, did p.luk just suggest that the DNC seat michigan’s delegates according to ohio’s vote outcome?
Jen
Okay, I’m going to stop arguing soon, I promise, but I just have to understand this. Nothing on this thread, as I interpret it, is arguments for Obama or arguments for Hillary. I understand the concept of a practice debate, a sort of scrimmage. I’m a lawyer for pete’s sake, flip a coin for the position and I’ll argue it.
That isn’t really what’s happening here, where there is a discussion about a procedural matter, and once you get to the substance of what people are saying, there isn’t really a whole lot of disagreement. So there’s Demi, who was making an argument a couple of weeks ago about what Hillary really wanted, bringing up the issue again today, and that starts getting discussed, then he says he’s spoofing. So that is frustrating to me, because I don’t know what he meant and what he didn’t, and because it’s a totally pointless thing to try to shore up your argument about. If you want to play debate club/devil’s advocate so that we have good arguments for Obama, it is not exactly the topic that I would choose.
p.lukasiak
now that we’ve established that following the rules is not an inviolate moral priciple, we can continue this discussion on a rational basis. Thank you.
chopper
and they don’t want every other state thinking it can ignore the most basic rules of the democratic primary without so much as a slap on the wrist. suddenly before the next primaries every state will be jockeying to be the first one out of the gate.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That doesn’t invalidate the act of following the rules.
You wanna redo the rules? Sure: good argument to redo the rules. Get some ethicists and rewrite the rules.
But we’ve got these rules. We follow them.
Trust me: Hillary supporters DO NOT want to open this Pandora’s Box. It slimes _everyone_.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
What?
I’m saying you follow the rules regardless. It’s inviolate.
Where the fuck did you learn your logic? And, can you unlearn it?
Jen
W/r/t the Balloon Juice Debate Club (Sockpuppets Welcome!), this would be much more along the lines the fake debate should take.
demimondian
Great ad copy — that’s a really good script for the ad, and given that Florida has had some recent experience with being disenfranchised from the Electoral College, it’s actually got some real resonance, too.
Jeebus, Jen, you’re a freeking attorney (as it is no cursing day, per TZ’s decree)! If opposing counsel discloses something tangentially material but not covered by the discovery order, are you obligated to not use it? Obama has bumbled here — and Clinton (who is, by the way, no slouch as a lawyer herself) can, will, and should exploit that mistake.
MJ
I bet Susan Rice wants a do over.
p.lukasiak
I suggested it as one way of resolving the dispute. Clinton got 55% in Michigan, and 54% in Ohio. The states are very similar demographically and economically, and the results of a contested contest in Michigan would likely be within a few percentage points of the Ohio results. Getting the delegations seated is far more important than making sure that Clinton gets the advantage of 1% of the available delegates.
jcricket
See, the problem with you, as ably displayed here is your belief that you can “see into the soul” of everyone who disagrees with you.
I know you don’t care, but it’s a classic example of your “I’m so superior” attitude on display.
It doesn’t eat my liver at all that Obama has more enthusiasm from the people who support him. Hillary’s supporters have plenty of enthusiasm too. Or are we all just voting for her out of spite and hatred for you and Obama?
Wait, don’t answer, you’ve got it all figured out I’m sure and I’m just wrong about everything I believe and the reasons why I think I believe them.
Thanks Agent Smith.
ThymeZone
Please check the name of the blog, this is not a debate club. It’s more akin to a combination beer hall and high school cafeteria.
Balloon-Juice is Hot Air. Please don’t try to drag hot air down into the gutter of debate.
demimondian
I am *so* stealing that line.
Jen
Yep, I’d disagree with that, too. We are talking about previously-agreed upon procedural rules, which some people want to disregard when it becomes clear that the rules would disfavor them. This could hardly be more immoral. This is not exactly civil disobedience in the face of Jim Crow laws, but in many ways the inverse.
p.lukasiak
you’re quite right — I read it wrong because I was expecting a rational response. my apologies.
Jen
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
jcricket
Dude – that’s just ridiculous.
Re-vote or no seating, that’s my call. It’s not “fair”, but it’s the best of a bad situation, given the ridiculous nature of the whole primary rulebook to begin with.
Tom in Texas
New Republic sez its gonna be a caucus in Michigan.
Bad news for Hillary, IMO.
demimondian
here, fixed that. don’t ever say I never did anything for you.
demimondian
Bad news for the Democrats, I think.
chopper
she got 55% in michigan without obama or edwards on the ballot. you don’t think that number might be just a little unreliable? i mean, i understand that ohio was a win for your candidate, but come the hell on. this is silly.
ThymeZone
You either don’t read the nonsense you post, you are doing spoof, or you are a complete horse’s ass.
I have never claimed to see into the soul of anyone here, the idea is somewhere between delusional and preposterous.
You made a dismissive remark about Obama supporters, and I refuted it with a simple fact. Do you really think you are going to prevail by resorting to this kind of personal crapola? Because even if things were equal, you would not, and I assure you, I am much better at the personal flame war than you are, and I will turn you into garden mulch.
Cut the crap, man. You have no high ground for your argument whatever. Your assertion, which I mashed in my earlier post, was just complete bunk and you know it.
You want to turn this into a thing between you and me? Bring it, cricket. Bring it right now. If that isn’t what you want, then step back, because I absolutely am not going to take that from you. Not yesterday, not today, and not tomorrow. Do you understand?
ThymeZone
You either don’t read the nonsense you post, you are doing spoof, or you are a complete horse’s ass.
I have never claimed to see into the soul of anyone here, the idea is somewhere between delusional and preposterous.
You made a dismissive remark about Obama supporters, and I refuted it with a simple fact. Do you really think you are going to prevail by resorting to this kind of personal crapola? Because even if things were equal, you would not, and I assure you, I am much better at the personal flame war than you are, and I will turn you into garden mulch.
Cut the crap, man. You have no high ground for your argument whatever. Your assertion, which I mashed in my earlier post, was just complete bunk and you know it.
You want to turn this into a thing between you and me? Bring it, cricket. Bring it right now. If that isn’t what you want, then step back, because I absolutely am not going to take that from you. Not yesterday, not today, and not tomorrow. Do you understand?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
You ever look into the economical studies that prove immediate rational behavior to be faulty in some situations? There are games that prove this. Like a game where there’s $100, and two people get to take turns bidding for how much they receive. The lowest bidder gets that amount, and the other gets $0. The bidders cannot conspire. The end result? Always $1 for the winner.
That’s why rational behavior is only useful when planned against volatile outcomes
If you get a hot tip that MSFT is going to double it’s price in 3 months, why don’t you sell your house and all your goods to put stock in MSFT? It would be the rational thing to do.
demimondian
I’ve granted John’s point that UNITE is a union, and that, as a former steward, I would NEVER let a political campaign vet, suggest, or otherwise contribute to the content of an advertising mailer. I don’t think I’d go forward with one if the campaign made it clear that none should be released, but…I might even do that if I felt it advanced my union’s organizational drives.
However, for someone who hasn’t lived in that particular world, the difference between a 527 and a Union is a distinction without a difference. Hillary will exploit that fact, and she should.
Jen
Thanks for the link, Tom. I like this comment:
jcricket
Yes, you’re an unreasonable, petty, egomaniacal cranky old man. I believe you when you say you’re better at the personal flame war than I am, I just don’t understand why you’re so proud of your ability to shout others down.
Xenos
Now on Fox: When Magical Ponies attack!
Aren’t there some republicans around to beat up on?
p.lukasiak
disasterous news for the Democrats — but I have the feeling that this is just some Obama supporter on the DNC trying to stir up the pot — Clinton is clearly winning the “seat the delegates” argument, so Obama’s people are doing what they have to and throwing a monkey wrench into the process.
The Other Steve
this is fascinating
SurveyUSA did a 50 state poll… Matchups of Obama or Clinton against McCain.
It’s interesting which states the candidates do better in. Obama would win in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and two thirds of Nebraska. But Clinton would win Florida, Arkansas Pennsylvania and West Virginia but lose the west.
That might explain why I can’t stand Hillary. She does poorly in Iowa.
Jen
Mostly it consists of him bragging about how he’s been fighting flame wars online since 1952. It’s kind of like how Hillary will be a better president because of her 35 years of experience. Because a lot of the work you do at the Rose law firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, translates directly to the presidency. :)
I’m just teasing you, jcricket, you’re a friendly and reasonable soul and a pleasant addition.
ThymeZone
Gee, I don’t know the answer to that, cricket. Maybe if you stopped spraying spittle at me long enough to actually make a post with substantive information that speaks to that question, we’d all know more why you are voting for her? Do you think?
Can you do that? If you want examples of why people don’t vote for her — you know, counter arguments? — you can go back over my posts for the last month and find a lot of examples, grounded in policy, politics, strategies, campaign tactics, and her history in Washington DC.
Or you can sit here and rant that it’s about me. It’s your choice.
Xenos
Yeah, ’cause honesty is for LOSERS!
Sheesh. Three months ago I would have been happy to vote for Hillary. Ick.
Jen
The Chair of the DNC has officially taken that option off the table as the patently, obviously, ridiculously unfair and divisive thing that it is. In what manner, exactly, is she winning that argument?
Xenos
What ARE you smoking, and where the hell can I get some?
Spoofs within spoofs within spoofs within acid trips…
chopper
i can imagine a clinton ad in FL stating that she was the one who always wanted their delegates seated, but obama can put out an ad with quotes from her campaign stating ‘seat the delegates’ followed by ones saying ‘don’t seat the delegates’ etc, painting her has a flip-flopper who only cares about votes when its to her advantage.
not as powerful as the former, but it does play into people’s beliefs that the clintons’ stances change with the direction of the wind, and if properly done could take some wind out of her sails.
then again, that’s not the sort of negative ad that i expect obama’s crew has too much practice with. well, 55 million can buy some decent PR guys. i dunno.
ThymeZone
Actually, as has been pointed out quite comprehensively lately, almost nothing she has done translates into experience that is relevant to the presidency. Unless picking out the White House towels is considered relevant experience?
But I’m sure that any minute now, cricket is going to find his voice and produce some really fine debate-quality material that explains why Hillary is sure to be a better president than Obama.
Any minute now. Seriously, before we know it, boom, it will be here. He’s probably writing it, right now. As we speak. Don’t you agree, Jen?
chopper
i agree, it’s clearly an obama conspiracy.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
She’s winning it in that she and her supporters have surreptitiously changed the old meaning of “seat the delegates” from keeping the primary votes to redoing the primary votes.
That way, when the Obama camp says “fuck you” they can say “OMG they r hatin’ on FL an MI!!!”
It’s still bullshit. FL and MI are to be out of the loop on this election; they get to come back next election. That’s that.
demimondian
Suddenly, I’m feeling this terrible need to spoof COMING ON.
HULK RAGE!
Seriously, dude…go take a walk.
chopper
hey, i see the chocolate ration has gone up this week.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Are you going to pick on how she folds the towels? Are you going to get Krista to help you??
Sexist.
Jen
TZ, you don’t have to be an absolute ass, to everyone, indiscriminately, constantly, for us to still think you’re total crank, ok? I promise we’ll still think you’re a total crank even if you’re occasionally decent to people who haven’t done anything to you.
ThymeZone
About 4-5 months ago, I said the same thing right-cheer on these pages. I said, she appears to be unstoppable, she can do the job, she can win next November.
I wouldn’t have been happy to vote for her, I was more resigned to it. I really do not like her at all, but she can do the job, and she can win, and I thought that was the best we could do.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
According to the news it’s gone up every week since the war with Eastasia began.
chopper
heh. just don’t use it against me, sucker!
ThymeZone
I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think, I am not here to make friends, or enemies. And as for the ridiculous cricket, why don’t you ask him to explain the gratuitous and completely out-of-context shot he took at me yesterday? Hmm? Do that, will you dear?
You don’t mind if I call you dear, do you?
Original Lee
As far as I can tell, the DNC, the state parties, Clinton, and Obama are mainly pussyfooting around the fact that there isn’t any money for a re-vote. Neither candidate wants to give up the green for a re-vote, neither state can afford it, and the DNC doesn’t want to subsidize the non-punishment. The only way to have a re-vote and to make the punishment stick even a little bit is to schedule the re-vote in June, after Puerto Rico, and make the state parties foot the bill. And as pointed out above, Michigan is problematic because you don’t register for a party when you register to vote, so how can you keep the GOP from sending out thousands of people to vote in a Democratic primary?
One solution that recently occurred to me would be the following: the superdelegates that represent the different election districts would have to declare support for either Clinton or Obama. The pledged delegates from each district would then be proportionately assigned to each candidate based on that support. So in Congressional District X, which maybe has 2 cities and 3 counties in it, would have 2 mayors, 3 county supervisors, 1 or 2 state representatives, a state senator, a House Representative, 2 U.S. Senators, and a governor. (I think that’s all of them.) The governor and the 2 U.S. Senators would therefore have a lot of clout, because their decisions would impact the delegate assignment in every district, but so what. Let’s say 5 go for Obama and 7 go for Clinton, then 5/12 of the delegates are assigned to Obama and 7/12 are assigned to Clinton. It’s relatively easy, it’s relatively cheap, and it has the added bonus of messing with the superdelegates.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Stoppit both of you.
Jen, jcricket and TZ have some bad blood to fix.
TZ, Jen is a mother, doesn’t like to see fighting or curse words.
Now go play nice.
Jen
Yeah, I’m not gonna get into any of that.
Is Demi ever going to explain what the hell he’s talking about, or is obtuseness woven into the fabric of the sockpuppet?
demimondian
No.
Now go outside and play.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Anyone notice that p.luk doesn’t have a response to the argument that rationality isn’t a suitable reason to break the rules?
I did.
But did anyone here really think that p.luk would have a well thought out argument for breaking the rules? Probably not.
Jen
The pathetic thing is that my son is lots nicer than me. He’s actually something of a role model.
ThymeZone
Oh-ho, he’s a mother all right. No argument there.
But I have already notified the blog that this is no-curse week, no cursing … you might want to tell cricket, though, he didn’t seem to get the message.
Once cricket calms down and realizes that the reason Brunhildary gets her ample butt kicked in here is not because I am the world’s biggest meanie, he’ll be okay, if he can stay on topic and talk about why his hateable candidate is better than our lovable one. You know, facts, facts, facts, and less “stop being mean to me” stuff.
Oh, and would you mind answering the question I just posed at you know where? Thanks.
demimondian
Hmm. Let me think about that for a while. I’m sure I can find one.
tBone
Who cares? I see an awful lot of states that don’t count in that Obama list. And clearly he wouldn’t be able to win in the states that do count, as his primary losses prove.
No, it’s much better to just try to hang on to the Kerry states from 2004 + Ohio, and let newly energized Democratic movements in red states wither on the vine.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Obtuseness is the life blood of a spoof.
_You_ try making friends with jackasses while being smart and well-reasoned. You can’t do it.
Demi’s gotta be all
"Hey bra, nice shirt wit da stripes. Wanna go grind a random chick on the dancefla? The wimmens lov us becauz we got striped shirts! How about that Obama, wit that nice-guy shit and that dark skin, bra? Nah, man, I'm stickin' wit my girl from Chappaqua. U don't mess wit Westchester, yo!"
Jen
That’s pretty good.
John S.
And Obama will counter how utterly disingenuous Hillary is being and point out other ‘inconsistencies’ with her lines of attack, branding her as the consummate Washington insider on par McCain – and he should.
If he goes after Hillary on her ‘experience’ and ‘foreign policy’ chops, he can lump her in with McCain and kill two birds with one stone. That’s what he needs to do: Let people know that Hillary and McCain represent the same thing.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Who are you talking to, and what question did you want answered?
Ed Drone
Of course you can! The interest rate will be 32% / yr. (unless you miss a payment by a few hours, in which case it goes to 10% / month). But sure, you can get a do-over. The credit card companies love them some do-overs!
Ed
tBone
The credit should go to p.luk – it’s his argument.
chopper
and withered grapes make the sweetest wine!
Xenos
There is not much point to it with just Myiq & p.luk to play with. I miss the glory days of DougJ egging Darryl, Stormy77 and Talldave on to greater and greater insanity. In contrast, p.luck’s craziness is just so… sad.
ThymeZone
What’s really sad is that he’s not crazy.
I’m struck by the complete inability of the Brunhildabots to support their candidate on her merits.
About all I can find is that No Controlling Political Authority can dare take her nomination away from her, leave Hillary ALONE, leave her ALONE.
Can anyone tell me — just using her “experience” claim by itself — what qualifies her to be picked over … well, any of the other Dem candidates that had a chance?
Anyone? Anything at all? She’s older and so she praticed law longer? She killed Vince Foster and so she is mentall tougher? Give me something to go on, because in all these months of listening to her, all I have heard is proof by assertion: I’m ready on Day One!
Andrew
Who else controls an elite squad of lesbian assassins?
wobbly
Uh, it isn’t SHE who wants the do over, it’s the Democrats. Welcome to the Party…I guess. We try to be inclusive.
Huge numbers of people voted in these “illegitimate” primaries, and this phenomenon is worthy of respect.
I saw Jesse Jackson on PBS last night, firmly in the Obama camp..plumping for the importance of the popular vote!
Reminds me why I volunteered for him back in the ’80’s.
Reminds me why I DON’T LIKE my fellow Caucasians rushing to Obama’s side, confessing that they are SO GLAD they can vote for a BLACK…ok, beige… candidate who doesn’t annoy them as much as Jesse Jackson has over the years of their infatuation with Reagan, Bush, American Imperialism, life lived on televison, and in the blogosphere.
Do over sounds like fair and fine to me.
I love the smell of DEMOCRACY in the morning.
Tastes way better than “Balloon Juice”.
Scrutinizer
p.luk, I’m curious: just what are you drinking/snorting/smoking/shooting to alter reality so profoundly? I think I might want to try some.
ThymeZone
Hmm, well, I can’t say that I agree with that. That sounds a lot like Support the Troops, a phrase which means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
These people were duped into participating in a bogus process that meant nothing, and now we want to tell them that it means something? Color me not impressed.
4tehlulz
Why does HRC continue to vet McCain’s C-in-C credentials?
Xenos
To be fair, TZ, in FL. there were legally binding referenda and in-state primaries on the ballots, so it makes sense that people showed up and voted, and threw in a vote for the nomination while they were at it. So there is a bit of room to argue in good faith about it being fair to count the votes from Florida.
However, there is a rulebook at hand that gives the state a perfectly good remedy (new primary election) to this sort of problem. A court of law will not let you argue for fairness (equity) if there is a perfectly good legal remedy available to you, and that is a principle that ought to apply here.
Scrutinizer
Well, screw that. I’ve never thought that following the rules should be an inviolate moral anything—too many shades of gray in the real world.
But let me ask you this, p.luk: At the beginning of the primary season, Clinton agreed to abide by the DNC’s action stripping delegates from MI and FL. Clinton agreed not to campaign in those states. If Clinton is going to reverse her course now and insist on using any formula to seat delegates based on the preference polls in MI and FL, why should we believe Clinton about, well, anything she promises during this campaign?
John S.
I am a Floridian and I can assure you that the huge property tax amendment on the ballot had everything to do with turnout. The primary was an afterthought.
ThymeZone
I realize that, but I can’t find that this gives legitimacy to the presidential primary votes.
I could be persuaded otherwise, but I haven’t seen the persuasive argument.
ThymeZone
On another subject, there may be nothing to the Obama dark-picture flap.
Does anyone else have anything on this?
PeterJ
4tehlulz Said:
Hillary 2012.
Xenos
I agree with you that it is not persuasive. If you consider a hypothetical where, say, the DNC rules had no provision allowing Florida at this point to choose a slate of delegates, so that there was no way for Florida votes to be considered, then I would listen to the fairness arguments, and if there really was no other way to do it, I would support seating the delegates, as the best solution to a completely unfair situation.
I don’t mean to be a legal snob here, just trying to put these arguments into some sort of coherent order.
Grumpy Code Monkey
The only thing I can think of is that she’s been on the receiving end of a non-stop stream of abuse and invective for a decade and a half; if nothing else, she should be in a position to neuter any swiftboating as it happens (he said with a naive optimism).
That’s it as far I can tell, though.
What should be glaringly obvious to everyone (including p.luk, for whom I have a question below) is that she and Obama are evenly matched in just about every category (which is why neither one has run away with the nomination); neither can claim that they’re significantly more X than the other.
To me, this is not at all a bad thing; grumble as we may about her campaign tactics, or his over-reliance on rhetoric, the fact is that for the first time in an age we Democrats have an embarrassment of riches in Presidential candidates. Instead of wringing our hands over it, we should be shouting for joy. The extended nomination fight is a net positive for the following reasons:
Suddenly, every state really does matter (hopefully including FL and MI, even if they screwed themselves by jumping the gun). Democrats like myself who for decades had no say in the nomination find themselves active participants in the process; this has done nothing but energize the base, especially in states like Texas that have long since been written off by the DNC. This will pay off in downticket races for the US House and Senate, as well as for state races. We may actually have a serious Democratic contender for the Senate this time around, and the massive turnout spurred by this race can only help him in the general.
The Democratic race is constantly front and center in the news; the Republicans are starved for cycles. This means the Democratic message is more likely to reach and stick with independents and disgruntled conservatives.
Now, serious question for p.luk: you claimed that you were originally an Edwards supporter before joining the Clinton bandwagon; what exactly was it about Edwards that made him preferable in your eyes? What did he offer that neither Clinton nor Obama had? I’m genuinely curious.
demimondian
I actually think that there’s a good deal of force for the claim that given the turnout, and given the amount of coverage the non-primary got down there (a lot), that one p.luk ought to find the spoiled ballot frequency for the presidential preference votes in Florida’s primary. If it’s statistically indistinguishable from the rate on a “normal” election, I think that the primary should probably count. If it’s radically different (30% or so), then it probably shouldn’t count. If it’s in between, we’ll need to look more deeply.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Okay Cole, it’s time to bitch-slap the people who set up your site; the ordered list tags worked just fine in the preview, but have disappeared from the actual post. It’s getting annoying.
Andrew
Well, it looks like Obama actually won Texas.
Xenos
Where?
zzyzx
The counter argument to that is that the sampling of the Florida race is liable to be skewed towards homeowners since the ballot measure was a property tax reduction. That makes it less likely that the youth vote would show and could easily have cost Obama a lot of votes, even in Florida.
chopper
somebody seriously needs to tap her on the shoulder and remind her what party she belongs to.
demimondian
zzy — that’s not what the exit poll results results showed, IIRC — but I haven’t looked at them in a while.
MikeL
Most of the arguments in this thread seem to be making the implicit assumption that the Democratic Party is a pubic institution. That’s not really the case – not just anyone can go vote for a democratic nominee. If you have a problem with how Democrats choose nominees, well, then don’t vote for them. And lets face it the biggest complaints are coming from Repubican supporters.
In fact, you could start a Combat Party if you wanted to, and select a Presidential nominee based on a mixed martial arts tournament.
And, sometimes, I kind of wish there was such a party. Imagine this:
Johnny “The Warrior” Mcain vs Barrack “The Insurgent” Obama:
HELL IN A CELL!
That’s one pay-per-view I’d buy!
sparky
as a lurker, may i just say that reading this thread after the fact generates a degree of wheels within wheels that is just outstanding. now i just have to untwist my neck….
demimondian
I’m assuming that you mean complaints about the Republican selection process, right? ‘Cuz, um, there ain’t a lotta Republicans here, dude.
sparky
and i don’t even see what most of this is about except sportin (where’s the spittoons?)
HRC plan a–bluff and demand seating as is didn’t work, so plan b–do-over–is now being floated. either way she has a shot at getting some delegates, so i assume the camp will push either or both ideas.
the problem with plan b here seems to be that as usual the florida dems (the party leadership that is, which is in the HRC camp) didn’t get the memo, so they are still pushing the seat ’em now line. oops.
ps: can someone explain to me exactly (preferably with a straight face) what the logic is with the HRC camp line that because she beat a D in a swing state that makes her more electable in the general election?
ThymeZone
Oh, my heavenly goodness.
This is new information.
jcricket
This is honestly the last I plan to say about this TZ, but you really are over the top, quite a bit. You certainly don’t have to calm down, or explain yourself to me, or think that I’m a reasonable person.
But all of your above responses to me contain significantly more vitriol (whether they have curse words or not), anger and pettiness than anything except the one “over the top” shot I took at you yesterday.
I’m not frustrated at you for hating Clinton, or being mean to anyone (myself included). I just think you make BJ a significantly less pleasant place with your incessant need to start flame wars or further inflame comment threads you come across. So, take it or leave it, you’re not as factual, logical or reasonable a debater as you seem to think.
Much like you see Hillary’s behavior as a huge/increasing turnoff, you might want to acknowledge you can have the same effect.
ThymeZone
I didnt start the damn flame war cricket, you did, when you decided to call me a “dick” and bithc about me being on a “high horse’ after you stuck your nose into a conversation you knew nothing about, and after I had never addressed you at all in a 400-post thread.
Dont FUCKING sit there and tell me I started a flame war.
I am telling you again, you attack me, I will attack you back, I am not taking that shit from you under any circumstances.
I totally reject your view of this exchange, and I totally blame you for it. And you owe me a fucking apology.
Anything else on your mind?
ThymeZone
You can kiss my ass. I don’t take any instructions from you. I don’t care what effect you think I have, any more than you seem to care what I think of you.
If you don’t like my posts, you have two options: Don’t read them, or make a case against their content. It looks to me like you aren’t up to the latter and don’t have the discipline to do the former, so you think you are going to flip me the bird when you feel like it.
I’ve been making substantive posts about your crummy candidate for a while now, including right here in this thread. If you have a counter argument, make it. I don’t think you do. If you do, it’s a well kept secret.
Tom in Texas
Has it been a week already?
Oh, well, you lasted for most of a pretty long thread anyway.
Susan
I was just thinking about how the site has changed. It began as a Republican blog with what seemed like half Democrat commenters, drawn to the only non-crazy Republican posting during the run-up to the war. Seems like yesterday.
chopper
fuckin’ fuck yeah, you asshole fuck fucker!
ThymeZone
Yeah, well tell it to cricket. I am just keeping America safe from BlogQaeda.
Besides, the No Cuss Week is really just in Pasadena, CA. If you have been there, you will understand why they need such a thing. They are very genteel there.
I’m in Arizona, where we spit tobacco juice on people who call us bad names for no reason.
jcricket
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this matter TZ. I think my posts, information I’ve presented and style speak pretty well for myself, and obviously you think yours do as well.
You’re free to call what I’ve done flipping the bird or congratulate yourself on yet another flamewar victory, if that makes you happy. Clearly we’re not on the same page about enough to make further debate with you worth having, and I’ll leave it at that.
ThymeZone
I wasn’t looking for a flame war or a victory, actually, but when you call me a dick out of the blue for no reason you are going to get flames every time from me.
Whether you think anyone won or lost, that’s up to you. I don’t care.
Meanwhile, why would anyone pick Hillary again? What are details behind all that “experience” advantage she has? Three more years in the Senate being a junior senator than he has? Riding in the car with a president?
ThymeZone
Good Christ, Hillary is still campaigning for John McCain.
I was already hating her, but this is too much.
and …. in answer to a question about how she is qualified to take the 3 am phone call …
“I was there for a lot of phone calls at different times of the day or night …..”
How any of you guys support this woman is beyond me at this point.
ThymeZone
As widely reported today, and appearing now on Countdown: the original NAFTA-gate story wasn’t true.
vwcat
But, the Clinton hubris makes them beleive they can have do overs and everything their own way.
And if they don’t they will just play the victim and whine about the press being mean to them again.
God, I wish I could take back my 1992 vote for Bill. Maybe if he never got the presidency we wouldn’t be plauged by them to this day and our party would be the better for it.
jcricket
Perhaps calling you a dick was out of line, but we’re again going to have to disagree if you think it was for no reason. I think you’ve been over-the-top and out of line in your criticism of quite a few people, myself included, for quite some time. You obviously disagree.
You have said you started from a position of “holding your nose” for her (back when you thought she would be the nominee), and everything she’s done since that has intensified your rage and hatred for her and everything she stands for. You, of course, believe your rage, hatred, conclusions and opinions about Hillary are justified – grounded in objective analysis of the facts. Were anyone to do the same, they’d come to exactly the same conclusions as you.
Others, including myself, disagree with that assertion, but given the way in which we perceive your participation in this forum, I doubt many of us think there’s a worthwhile debate to engage in with you anymore.
Asti
Baal dookie? Sorry, I just hadda!
Michael D.
Shorter demimondian: Michael D. wrote a post. Must criticize! :-)
Asti
Answer the fookin’ question, why don’t you? This is a non-answer. You STILL can’t argue for your own reasons. You don’t have any apparently, you just “like her a lot”.
This was truly a gem:
You have said you started from a position of “holding your nose” for her (back when you thought she would be the nominee), and everything she’s done since that has intensified your rage and hatred for her and everything she stands for. You, of course, believe your rage, hatred, conclusions and opinions about Hillary are justified – grounded in objective analysis of the facts. Were anyone to do the same, they’d come to exactly the same conclusions as you.
Apparently you meant that to be taken completely differently than I seem to see it written, or else you wouldn’t have written it.
Doug Wieboldt
Just to remind y’all, the important thang here is to beat the crap out of the rethuglicans in November. While we may all have a favorite in this race, please don’t forget to keep the eye on the prize…
Grumpy Code Monkey
How do you figure? Last I checked, caucus results are still being processed, with only 41% reporting so far.
Make no mistake, Clinton definitely won the primary vote, and got more of those delegates, although she didn’t run away with it. If the current caucus trend holds, Obama may come out with more total delegates, but it’s not certain yet.
Hell, we may not know anything definite before Monday.