Down to the wire in Indiana: Next move for Clinton?

[Xavier]

Actually it is quite different. Membership to a exclusive group versus constitutionally guaranteed rights, etc.

I don't understand why everyone is so quick to crucify the States while minimalizing the role the DNC played in this debacle. I'm not just directing this at you but your quote addressed my issue well.

As far as I know, it is the state government, not the DNC, that pays for a primary. Which means, of course, tax payer money. An early primary generates increased revenue (through excitement, influx of press) to recuperate the cost of holding it, while later primaries are typically irrelevant. I don't understand this argument that Florida and Michigan were attention whores and deserved to be completely stripped of their delegates and ignored. Doesn't the state have a right to insure that they maximize their money, paid for by the citizens, even though its for an exclusive group?

The DNC could have considered alternative punishments, decreased delegates for instance, which would diminished the overall impact of the two states while not disenfranchising the most active participants of of the democratic party, primary voters. The people who vote in primaries are your base, your core voters. The general election opens the contest up to a lot less informed/less interested participants who are swayed by the flavor of the day.

I just don't understand why people feel so strongly that it was acceptable for an unaccountable body of people (DNC) to ignore the wishes of an accountable, elected body of people (state legislators), when it was the latter group responsible for the actual organization and financing of the primary. If my facts are wrong, then I'm wrong and ignore me, but if I'm on target, then I just don't get why there isn't just as much outrage at the DNC in this thread. I blame Howard Dean for this bullshit.

[Correction]

Timeline of Events:

August, 2006. DNC Forbids all but four states from having primaries before February 5, 2008.
May, 2007. Florida state assembly overwhelmingly passes bill moving its own primary to January.
August, 2007. DNC Strips Florida of its seated delegates
October, 2007. Florida legislature sues the DNC. Suit goes nowhere.

Januray, 2008. Hillary says 'count Florida' for the first time since she campaigned there.

Hate Howard Dean all you want, but nobody but Florida's democrats were complaining about it until almost 5 months had gone by. Until then every Democratic candidate including Obama and Hillary had been silently complicit with this exclusion from the primary process. There's plenty of blame to share between the Florida state assembly, the running candidates and the DNC chairman.

[Xavier]

I'm not vouching for, nor do I believe Clinton was genuinely concerned, but that wasn't the point of my post. That shes a politician and only got upset when it was a matter of self-interest is one thing, but I wasn't making a post justifying her anger, only that I don't understand why there isn't more anger from the general public at such horrible leadership all around, not just with the states.

This type of short-sightedness just opens the door to November attack adds with the punchline: "The Democratic Party can't even handle their nomination process, how do you expect them to handle the threats facing this country?"

[Correction]

I'm not vouching for, nor do I believe Clinton was genuinely concerned, but that wasn't the point of my post. That shes a politician and only got upset when it was a matter of self-interest is one thing, but I wasn't making a post justifying her anger, only that I don't understand why there isn't more anger from the general public at such horrible leadership all around, not just with the states.

The answer is pretty simple: Voters are generally sheep, and none of the democratic leaders from the DNC or any of the campaigns were telling them to be outraged. Except maybe in Florida. I don't really know about the Florida democrats since I don't live there but apart from the lawsuit I saw little coverage of 'democratic riots' over the stripping of seated delegates.

[aurik]

Actually it is quite different. Membership to a exclusive group versus constitutionally guaranteed rights, etc.

I don't understand why everyone is so quick to crucify the States while minimalizing the role the DNC played in this debacle. I'm not just directing this at you but your quote addressed my issue well.

As far as I know, it is the state government, not the DNC, that pays for a primary. Which means, of course, tax payer money. An early primary generates increased revenue (through excitement, influx of press) to recuperate the cost of holding it, while later primaries are typically irrelevant. I don't understand this argument that Florida and Michigan were attention whores and deserved to be completely stripped of their delegates and ignored. Doesn't the state have a right to insure that they maximize their money, paid for by the citizens, even though its for an exclusive group?

The DNC could have considered alternative punishments, decreased delegates for instance, which would diminished the overall impact of the two states while not disenfranchising the most active participants of of the democratic party, primary voters. The people who vote in primaries are your base, your core voters. The general election opens the contest up to a lot less informed/less interested participants who are swayed by the flavor of the day.

I just don't understand why people feel so strongly that it was acceptable for an unaccountable body of people (DNC) to ignore the wishes of an accountable, elected body of people (state legislators), when it was the latter group responsible for the actual organization and financing of the primary. If my facts are wrong, then I'm wrong and ignore me, but if I'm on target, then I just don't get why there isn't just as much outrage at the DNC in this thread. I blame Howard Dean for this bullshit.

Yes the state has a right (and responsibility) to maximize the return on their taxpayer's money, but wouldn't you say the state spectacularly failed that responsibility when they took actions that ultimately disenfranchised everyone? Perhaps they should have thought their clever plan through.

In any case, You would have hoped that the DNC could have come to a better resolution. Instead they decided to play chicken using the enfranchisement of the affected state's constituents as the ante. Sure, they won, but in reality they lost, because come August, claims that the Democrat nominee didn't win legitimately should be awesome ammunition in the typical anti-issues Republican media campaign. So really, the DNC may have won the battle at the cost of the war.

But now it's a sunk cost, and a resolution has been agreed upon, so one might as well move on and get past the bitter taste. Oops, did I say bitter?

[Xavier]

My elitist detector just went off.

[Nystul]

Timeline of Events:

August, 2006. DNC Forbids all but four states from having primaries before February 5, 2008.
May, 2007. Florida state assembly overwhelmingly passes bill moving its own primary to January.
August, 2007. DNC Strips Florida of its seated delegates
October, 2007. Florida legislature sues the DNC. Suit goes nowhere.

Januray, 2008. Hillary says 'count Florida' for the first time since she campaigned there.

Hate Howard Dean all you want, but nobody but Florida's democrats were complaining about it until almost 5 months had gone by. Until then every Democratic candidate including Obama and Hillary had been silently complicit with this exclusion from the primary process. There's plenty of blame to share between the Florida state assembly, the running candidates and the DNC chairman.

Please forgive my indulgence here, though it's not entirely off the mark...

The issue here is simply that liberals were shocked when the rules were...you know...actually enforced.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Timeline of Events:

August, 2006. DNC Forbids all but four states from having primaries before February 5, 2008.
May, 2007. Florida state assembly overwhelmingly passes bill moving its own primary to January.
August, 2007. DNC Strips Florida of its seated delegates
October, 2007. Florida legislature sues the DNC. Suit goes nowhere.

Januray, 2008. Hillary says 'count Florida' for the first time since she campaigned there.

Hate Howard Dean all you want, but nobody but Florida's democrats were complaining about it until almost 5 months had gone by. Until then every Democratic candidate including Obama and Hillary had been silently complicit with this exclusion from the primary process. There's plenty of blame to share between the Florida state assembly, the running candidates and the DNC chairman.

Please forgive my indulgence here, though it's not entirely off the mark...

The issue here is simply that liberals were shocked when the rules were...you know...actually enforced.

Yep lol

Also, the rules were kinda stupid from what I know.

[Nystul]

does anyone else see the delicious irony that is the DNC? It's possible - hell, even likely if they factor in florida/michigan - that Hilary could take the popular democratic vote and NOT win the nomination. Remember in 2000 when Bush didn't win the popular vote but did win the election, and democrats bitched and moaned that the system is broken etc (not that I disagree with that). Just o so delicious irony

There is a difference between the electoral college/disenfranchisement in the general election and breaking/attempting to circumvent rules set by your own party. You'd only ignore it if you looked for ever opportunity you could dig up to laugh at Democrats.

I'm reading this and seeing that you're saying the electoral college issue is worse than circumvention of the rules...and I don't understand why. Both parties agreed to the electoral college going into the election. I think had things been the opposite way- had the popular vote gone to Bush but Gore won the electoral college, all the liberals that rally around the injustice and disenfranchisement that the electoral college represents would be talking about how it better distributes the voice of the people or some bullshit. I don't believe for a second if things were the other way around that those unhappy now would still fight against the result. Those that have an issue with the electoral college, by in large, have no idea where it came from, what it does, and how it works...and are simply pissed because they heard it's why Gore lost, and therefore it must be bad. In the 2000 election, both parties went in knowing how the election worked. The winner was then decided on that basis.

Now in this situation, both parties go in knowing how it works- that florida and michigan have their votes revokes. But now that the outcome is unfavorable to one party, that party wishes to change the agreement retroactively. Thats BS. The precedent set here is "follow the rules until they don't work in your favor, then try to find a way around them."

[Correction]

Those that have an issue with the electoral college, by in large, have no idea where it came from, what it does, and how it works...and are simply pissed because they heard it's why Gore lost, and therefore it must be bad. In the 2000 election, both parties went in knowing how the election worked. The winner was then decided on that basis.

There was actually much more fishiness going on than the simple electoral/popular override, tantamount to widespread disenfranchisement on both sides, intentional and otherwise, of voters all over Florida. We'll never actually know who won since it was so goddamn close and in the end it was the Supreme Court that halted all recounts.

And yes, because of this detail the Florida election disaster in 2000 was much much worse than the one the Democratic leadership crafted for themselves in 2007.

[Demosthenes11]

nobody brought that up. The argument was that Bush should not have won because he did not receive the popular vote, and therefore the system is broken. It's a perfect parallel really

[Xavier]

I think you can say that the DNC decision was stupid and damaging without supporting what Hillary wants, they aren't mutually exclusive. Her argument that she should get the votes is baseless, but at the same time, I don't see why that means you can't be upset at how the situation was handled overall too.

[Correction]

nobody brought that up. The argument was that Bush should not have won because he did not receive the popular vote, and therefore the system is broken. It's a perfect parallel really

I actually never heard that argument until after the Supreme Court stepped in. Prior to the actual finalization, the argument was that because many valid ballots were being invalidated for bullshit reasons and the margin in Florida was less than a thousand votes, an accurate tally didn't exist, and therefore it wasn't possible to declare Bush the winner of all of Florida's electoral votes.

Then of course I didn't hang in the circle of people who whined about 'popular vote! popular vote!' I saw it on the news later from the same kind of interviewer that yielded the West Virginia "Because he's a muslim" soundbite. Of course if you want to tar me with that brush feel free to slap a 'Sore/Loserman' and 'Cheaties' sticker on your forehead as long as we're lowering the discussion to that level.

[Demosthenes11]

(((( ))))) <-----my mouth
car truck airplane banana oranges orangatang POPCORN <----words you are putting into it

[Correction]

DNC vs Florida 2008 == 2000 general election controversy lol democrats <<< ---- where you are going with this conversation
DNC vs Florida 2008 =/= 2000 general election controversy lol bad analogies <<< ---- where I am going with this conversation

Then you seem to imply that the only challenge to the results in Florida in 2000 was that Bush shouldn't have been awarded the presidency based on his inability to gain a national popular vote. Something nobody said. I was trying to clarify what was being said by the people who actually paid attention to what was going on in Florida because Nystul was sure that the whole thing was a big misunderstanding of how the electoral college works.

The analogy sucks because the reasons the Florida Democratic primary results are being washed away stem from rules made 16 months before a single ballot was cast. Hardly comparable to the day-of mistakes made by the news, the voters and both sides of the red/blue divide that cost the election tens of thousands of votes in an election decided by 537 ballots.

[Enkidu]

DNC vs Florida 2008 == 2000 general election controversy lol democrats <<< ---- where you are going with this conversation
DNC vs Florida 2008 =/= 2000 general election controversy lol bad analogies <<< ---- where I am going with this conversation

Then you seem to imply that the only challenge to the results in Florida in 2000 was that Bush shouldn't have been awarded the presidency based on his inability to gain a national popular vote. Something nobody said. I was trying to clarify what was being said by the people who actually paid attention to what was going on in Florida because Nystul was sure that the whole thing was a big misunderstanding of how the electoral college works.

The analogy sucks because the reasons the Florida Democratic primary results are being washed away stem from rules made 16 months before a single ballot was cast. Hardly comparable to the day-of mistakes made by the news, the voters and both sides of the red/blue divide that cost the election tens of thousands of votes in an election decided by 537 ballots.

Did you even read what he originally wrote?

He wasn't calling out people in this thread, he was calling out the Democrats who whined because Bush lost the popular vote. Nobody cares if that included yourself. The point was that Clinton could win the popular vote yet not win enough delegates, much like Gore won the popular vote and did not win enough electoral votes.

What's sad is you probably realize all this, but you just can't accept being wrong.

[Nystul]

DNC vs Florida 2008 == 2000 general election controversy lol democrats <<< ---- where you are going with this conversation
DNC vs Florida 2008 =/= 2000 general election controversy lol bad analogies <<< ---- where I am going with this conversation

Then you seem to imply that the only challenge to the results in Florida in 2000 was that Bush shouldn't have been awarded the presidency based on his inability to gain a national popular vote. Something nobody said. I was trying to clarify what was being said by the people who actually paid attention to what was going on in Florida because Nystul was sure that the whole thing was a big misunderstanding of how the electoral college works.

The analogy sucks because the reasons the Florida Democratic primary results are being washed away stem from rules made 16 months before a single ballot was cast. Hardly comparable to the day-of mistakes made by the news, the voters and both sides of the red/blue divide that cost the election tens of thousands of votes in an election decided by 537 ballots.

What you're doing here... is taking a conversation that had to do with one thing, and since that thing reminded you of some other thing that bothers you, you're steering it into that other thing when it doesn't relate. Yes, no shit there were other issues. But people were just talking about the issue of the electoral college. While some people paid attention, a majority- a vast majority- did not. Many of those people simply look upon the election as an issue of the electoral college sucks and something about some guy named Chad.

The analogy deals with the argument regarding the popular vote vs electoral college. That argument *did* exist, and is separate and unrelated to issues regarding recounts etc. God forbid there could be multiple issues within a single incident.

[Selamis]

Edwards to endorse Obama!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628804

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Well, guess we know who the next attorney general is.

[Beckwin]

fk yeah edwards.