I find myself agreeing with Lou Dobbs again.

Boo hoo for Hillary. She gets no sympathy from me.

I also have no sympathy for Michigan and Florida. They knew exactly what they were doing when they broke party rules to try to make their primaries earlier and, presumably, more important.

So, you support the Democratic party position and not the Michigan and Florida voters. The voters didn't break any rules. The party held an election, and they voted. Now their vote doesn't count.

Hopefully, they will become independents because of this monumental f__k up and not Republicans. Either way I don't blame them.

I need to duct tape my head before it explodes. These primaries are too complicated. And getting no results.

Well, the Democratic party seems to hold the same position in the entire primary contest. No candidate is supposed to be declared a winner until she/he has 2024 delegates. (Used to be 2025?) But now the person in front is the presumed nominee?


That's discounting a lot of voters - past and future in the primary season.

They just are not getting the results that hillary wanted

One guy died and Eliot Spitzer was disqualified and not replaced.

I'll bet he would have been replaced had he endorsed Obama.

Dean and Pelosi are blatant in their support of Obama.

So is NBC and CNN. Except for Lou Dobbs.

The pro-Obama bias in the media is obvious to anyone who's paying attention. Still, there's something to be said for being behind in the popular vote, states won, and delegates won and still insisting that you deserve the nomination. It is mathematically impossible for Clinton to catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. She can't win, and she won't win. She doesn't have a prayer at this point, and all she's doing is damaging her party and its eventual nominee.

Re: Florida and Michigan. Even if you count Florida Obama would still be ahead in terms of popular vote, delegates won, and states won. Very little would change, and I think eventually he will allow their votes to be counted. In Michigan, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. You can't count their votes because it wasn't a real election: the choice was Clinton, Kucinich, or nobody. Both states knew what they were doing when they moved their primaries up in violation of party rules. It's their fault they're in this position; not Sen. Obama's.

Clinton's ego and sense of entitlement are the only things keeping her in this race. She needs to drop out for the sake of the party.

"I don't belong to an organized party; I belong to the Democratic party." - Will Rogers.

That's mighty white of him.



Of course it's only if they don't make a difference.

That's what they get for aligning themselves with the two major parties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the party warned them many months ahead of time that this would be the result? The states thought the party was bluffing, but crapped out. Again, boo hoo. If they want to be first to the polls, petition the party to rotate primary dates or something. Don't try to do an end around the rules and then cry about your vote not counting when you get smacked. The irony in this is how important these states really would have been if they just would have stuck to the program.

I agree. From what I've read in the "How does this make you feel?, Where do you stand..." thread - I say we ban together for a YOSS write in!

The DNC released the primary calendar last summer. It provided when each state could hold their primary or caucus. Those were the so-called rules. Five states violated those rules by moving their dates forward from what the DNC had dictated. Those states were Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida. Only Florida and Michigan were punished.

You have a theory as to why only those two states were punished?

Good old Dems... making it up as they go along. Rules? What rules?

I do find it odd that after the Florida voting troubles and subsequent outrage over counting votes in 2000, the Dems are now not counting Florida votes at all.

Wrong. It is NOT mathematically impossible. While it is improbable there is nothing in the DNC rules that says a candidate must be leading in pledged delegates in order to win the nomination.

As Lou correctly stated, NEITHER candidate can win according to the DNC's own rules without the super delegates and according to the rules both the pledged delegates and super delegates can vote for whichever candidate they choose at the convention.

Those are the rules. Clinton didn't make them, the DNC did. As far as I can tell she hasn't broken any of them.





His name was originally on the ballot. Literally hours befor the deadline he and Edwards took their names off the ballot. It was their own decision, no one else's. They did it because of a verbal commitment they chose to make to Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC did not ask them or anyone else to do so. The pledge that all the candidates signed simply stated that they would not campaign in Michigan or Florida (A pledge that Obama broke btw). Why should Clinton suffer because a of a stupid decision Obama made? And why didn't he also take his name off the ballot in Florida?


This is what this thread is about. These myths have been ingrained into public perception by the main stream media.

I'll default to Occam's razor... all things being equal, the simplest explanation... the DNC wants Obama to win the nomination.


Do you have a better theory?

Okay, it isn't mathematically impossible for her to catch up - you're right about that. However, practically speaking, it's impossible. She'd have to win every remaining state by gigantic margins, and that simply isn't going to happen.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

I never said Sen. Clinton broke any rules. I've only said that for the good of the party she should drop out. She could only win the nomination of the superdelegates overrule the people's choice. That isn't against the rules, but were it to happen it would cripple the party and disillusion thousands of new voters.

Moreover, I think it's important to clarify a few "facts" regarding the DNC's rules being tweaked months before these primaries to benefit Obama....

In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee stating that only the four states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008. I don't believe that Obama was even a candidate for president at this point.

In May 2007, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 537. During the legislative process, a number of amendments were added, one of which moved the date of the state's primary to January 29, 2008, setting up a confrontation with the DNC.

This caused a chain reaction that moved many other states' primaries and caucuses to earlier dates. In response, the DNC ruled that Florida's 185 pledged delegates and 26 superdelegates would not be seated at the Democratic National Convention, or, if seated, would not be able to vote. The DNC also declared that any candidate who campaigned in the Florida primary could not receive any delegates there. In August 2007, the DNC Rules Committee ordered Florida to move its primary date at least seven days later than the scheduled date of January 29 or lose all of its delegates at the convention. Florida officials said they would challenge the ruling on legal grounds and protest the 2008 convention.

Even after the DNC ruling, Michigan moved its primary to January 15, 2008, in violation of party rules. In October 2007 (MONTHS before the primary), Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards withdrew their names from the Michigan primary ballot, under pressure from the DNC and voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Kucinich unsuccessfully sought to remove his name from the ballot, whereas Clinton and Dodd opted to remain on the ballot. In December 2007, the DNC voted to deny Michigan’s request to hold an early primary and declared that Michigan’s 128 pledged delegates and 29 superdelegates would not count in the nominating contest unless it was held on a later date. The Michigan Democratic party responded with a press release noting that the primary would proceed with Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich on the ballot.

Much of the above is lifted from wikipedia, but the article is well-sourced. Facts are facts. Clinton is the one trying to re-write history; not Obama.

With that said, I think the rhetoric on this matter can get a little too heated. If for nothing else, Democrats should rally behind whomever is nominated because s/he will be the one nominating supreme court justices for at least the next 4 years. I suspect most Dems would rather live without another Scalia or Thomas.

Had an interesting conversation over dinner the other night with some friends.... there were 8 of us... 6 Democrats and 2 Republicans (I was one)...
Surprisingly it was a very congenial discussion of what is going on in this Democratic Primary....
I won't go into who was in favor of who, but it was split.
What was discussed was the Florida and Michigan problem... all the Democrats seemed to feel that those states caused their own problems and should not be counted...
When I asked why voters in those states should be ignored... I was told "The Party makes the rules, the people have to obey".... apparently the mind set of these people is "The Party Right or Wrong, the HELL with what the people want".... when I mentioned that, I was told "The good of the Party is what makes America great".....
I found this to be an extremely disturbing concept..... I have always believed the the good of the people is what makes our country great.
Just another reason for me to see this current Democrat Party as one that will grab defeat from the jaws of victory....

Now on another note.... again on the way the primaries are run...
I mentioned how I thought it would be better for all to have all the primaries on the same day... like the general election is done... do it close to the Party meeting so that the candidates have time to visit the states they want and spout off about how great they are...
You would have thought I had recommended repealing the Civil Rights Bills....
"How could you possibly know who was leading and who to vote for" was the most common answer....
HUH!!!!!!! You mean you only vote for the leader and not the candidate you think is best....??????
"Well, if the one you think is best has little chance because of their numbers, you should vote for the leader"
AGAIN, HUH!!!!!!! Would someone explain this logic to me.....
I mean after all I am just a poor conservative Republican who believes in voting for the person who I believe would do the best job....
BTW, my candidate did not get there...

I know what you mean Griz. One of the most discouraging things to me in all of politics is this "for the good of the party" attitude. The DNC is assuming their voters will just blindly go along with whomever the Democratic nominee is. If your friends are any indication they're probably right. For that reason alone I hope that both Michigan and Florida vote overwhelmingly Republican in November.

I wonder if your friends would have thought it good for the party to lose MI and FL to the Republicans.

The best argument I've heard for not holding a national primary is that underdog candidates like Mike Huckabee would never win. I think most people in a national primary would vote for the person with the most name recognition; not the person they think would be best for the nation. If we'd had a national primary a few months ago the two nominees would be Giuliani and Clinton. However, after months of endless campaigning in a small state like Iowa, a little-known candidate like Huckabee can suddenly become a national figure.

So Griz, I agree that the way things are currently done is ridiculous. Primaries are held waaay too early, but if your first primary is going to be in January, how can you have your last one in June??? Still, things need to be fair to the candidates as well as the voters. It's pretty enigmatic.

He could be his own secret service! A .357 Sig-packin' Prez. Hmmm......

If that's the case (and I don't necessarily disagree), would it be fair to assume that you think the electoral vote should not be counted and instead, only the popular vote counts?

Personally, I think they should do away with the party system all together. That way people would be forced to look at the issues instead of just voting by whatever their chosen party has picked for them.

I agree with you 110%! Although I am a registered (cough) Republican, I have found in the last several elections that I have voted Democrat. Although, IMO with this election - I don't like ANY of the runners... I feel having to choose soley from your registered party in the primaries actually skews the polls...

Only if the Republican gets more popular votes.

But isn't that what the primaries are for, to choose who you want to represent your party in the general election.

Except that by the time they get around to Maryland the whole thing is often pointless.