 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24???
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:37 AM Well, well, well... The Dems got themselves a slobber-knocker going on and if things continue along these lines the upcoming convention could resemble the 1924 Convention which featured over a 100 rounds of balloting, countless fist-fights and one heck of a lot of noise... If that happens, look to a Gore/Edwards or Gore/Richardson ticket... No matter, it's gonna be entertaining... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: pdq Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:01 AM "The best one can hope for is to live in interesting times" ~ Duncan H. Munro (1950)(probably) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:09 AM " "May You Live in Interesting Times" In a speech in Cape Town, South Africa, on June 7, 1966, Robert F. Kennedy said, "There is a Chinese curse which says, "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times..." Journalists picked up the phrase and it has become a commonplace. However, the popularity of this "Chinese curse" puzzles Chinese scholars, who have only heard it from Americans. If it is of Chinese origin, it has somehow escaped the literature, although it may be a paraphrase of a liberal translation from a Chinese source, and therefore unrecognizable when translated back to Chinese. It might be related to the Chinese proverb, "It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period." Stephen DeLong, who has been researching this quotation for several years and details his quest on his own website, has traced the quotation back to a 1950 science fiction story: "U-Turn" by Duncan H. Munro, a pseudonym for Eric Frank Russell." from the www |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:09 AM Won't happen. Look for a Clinton/Obama ticket to be brokered before anyone sets foot in Denver. This would set the Democrats up for a potential 16 year run in the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,PMB Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:21 AM Looking from across the water, I can't understand why they didn't come to an agreement at the start of the whole thing- that whoever got the delegates would be president, and the other VP. It would look difficult to make up now, after all that's been said. And the only beneficiary from a face-off is McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:27 AM The sticking point, of course, is who gets to head up the ticket. That's a really big deal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: wysiwyg Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:31 AM Clinton/Edwards. Obabma high cabinet position. Not saying it SHOULD happen, just that IMO it will happen. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:32 AM I have one question: Regardless of which of the three becomes president (McCain, Obama or Hillary), what's gonna change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: pdq Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:40 AM Any Jew who votes for Obama should have his foreskin surgically restored, without anesthesia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:42 AM Well, Brucie... Regardless of what folks promise now, some things are gonna have to change 'cause the US can't afford ($$$) stay the course on any level... Personally, I wouldn't mind this thing going to the convention... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:42 AM PDQ: That's rampantly ridiculous on the face of it. If you need someone to give you a tip, there are better ways to go about it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Big Mick Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:45 AM When discussing Presidential politics, it is always good policy to stay away from the absolute statements. There is way too much flux in the situation for anyone to predict anything. There is certainly a list in each camp at this point, but it is not a short list. The decision will be narrowed as the issues in the campaign, as well as the nomination, becomes clearer. It will NOTbe based on what has been said, or who gets along with, the candidate. It will be based on what is needed to enhance the nominee's ability to win. Kennedy didn't even like Johnson, but he chose him to draw the southern dem's who otherwise wouldn't vote for a northern, liberal, Roman Catholic. Eishenhower was no fan of Nixon, but he brought California. Vice Presidents are always chosen for what they bring. I believe that Susan's prediction, IMO, is backwards, if anything. But, if Clinton wins the nomination, she will consider Obama heavily, but there is also a strong possibility she moves away from him. I won't make a prediction, but I will say this. McCain represents the potential for a much stronger challenge than folks are giving him credit for. He can draw the moderate Republican looking for a change, but not too much of a change. One of the important trends that we noticed in the 2000 campaign was the trend of the moderate Republican women to crossover to the right moderate democrat. If Clinton gets the nod, she will choose a candidate that appeals to that demographic. The battle in the fall will be for the swing voters. As long as the Repub's were looking at a Romney or Huckabee, the Dems were in the catbird seat. McCain hurts that. Look for a VP that can take that segment away from him. We are in for a lot of swings back and forth yet on this one. Way too early for hardcore pronouncements. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Wesley S Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:59 AM As a friend of mine recently said: The Democrats are well known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:25 AM Good point, Mick... VP's are chosen for what they can bring... If Edwards had brought his home state and maybe Virginia in '04 then Kerry would have won... This is why I like both Bill Richardson and Mark Warner... Richardson brings solid foriegn policy experience, New Mexico and yes, maybe even Texas... Warner brings solid executive experience, Virginia and maybe West Virginia... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: PoppaGator Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:26 AM I think all the hoo-hah about which states each Democratic contender has "won" has been overemphasized all along. Few if any of these contests have been winner-take-all ~ in every state that Obama "won" during his "winning streak," he got 51-60% of the available delegrates while Clinton gained the other 40-49%. Now that Hillary has had a couple of "big wins," the converse applies: Obama still gained a large minority of the available delegates in Texas, Ohion, and Rhode Island yesterday, along with his majority in Vermont. And with the "superdelegate" factor, it's just about certain that neither of the frontrunners will have the race locked up before the convention. For the first time in many years, one of the major party conventions will not be rubber-stamping its candidate as a foregone conclusion already decided in the primaries. The convention will actually be making a decision, and the superdelegates ~ that is, professional politicians and lifetime party members ~ will be the ones making the call. Whether or not things will be as drastically unsettled as in 1924, Bobert is esentially correct: this will be a "brokered" convention. Once they determine who'll be the Presidential candidate, that person (theoretically) will decide who'll be his or her running mate. Don't think for one moment, however, that the party pros won't have a lot to say about the second spot on the ticket, just as they will for the top spot. And no, the runner-up is not an automatic choice for the VP spot. Almost all vice-presidential candidiates have been relatively obscure personalities who were NOT serious candidates for the presidential nomination. Kennedy's choice of runner-up and bitter rival LBJ was a glaring exceptyion to the general rule. If Clinton prevails, one reason for considering Obama as her running mate is his relative youth, which could be seen as setting the stage for a 16-year-long Democratic administration. However, trying to predict, let alone control, the future that far in advance is not a good bet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:43 AM In 1960 the Republicans were well set for a 16 year run until Kennedy took Johnson, rare as that was. Kennedy without Johnson loses to Nixon. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: freightdawg Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:42 PM For those Democrats salivating over a Clinton/Obama ticket (or any ticket with Clinton at the top), what exactly is your rationalization? Every guestimate and prognostication I have seen says the same thing: without the so-called "super-delegates" Clinton cannot claim the nomination. Right now neither can Obama, but he has one thing she does not: the delegate lead. She has virtually (and some would even say mathmatical) zero chance of overtaking Obama. So, for her to be the nominee it is going to take the power bosses of the party to put her there. And where exactly does the leave the legions of Obama supporters who will view that move as just yet another demonstration of white arrogance over black (un)opportunity? Even if Obama is given the VP slot, he will only be viewed by many as being her "boy." Do you really think the Obama supporters will follow Clinton to the polls based on her racist campaign? For the life of me I cannot, especially if he heads to the convention with the delegate and popular vote lead and she is placed in the top spot by the DNC super delegates. Bottom line: she desperately needs him as VP to secure the black and youth vote, but his very presence as VP destroys that chance. She is absolutely toxic to his campaign. If he were to select her as VP, or have her placed as VP by the bigwigs, he would be renouncing his entire campaign logic: I am the man for change. If the VP has greater name recognition and power within the party because of her connections and party obligations, would it not be accurate to say that the VP is the de-facto lead candidate? Whoever his choice would be, Obama has to choose someone who will look to him for leadership, not look down on him as an inexperienced hack. As has been mentioned, Kennedy chose Johnson, and even Reagan chose Bush (who had the famous "voodoo economics" line about Reagan) but the dynamics of this race are completely different, IMO. Obama cannot associate himself with Clinton and hope to win the moderate/independent vote in this country. Clinton cannot carry Obama's supporters if she is placed in the top spot by a coup in Denver. And the biggest fight - the fight over the delegates in Florida and Michigan - has yet to be fully waged. This could get REALLY interesting! Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Charley Noble Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:27 PM There's always a coin toss! But I'm with Big Mick. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:06 PM It'll all look completely different by November. Hostility between rivals will have been forgotten. Truest thing said in this campaign is when Obama said that about having been friends with Clinton before the campaign, and going to be friends after it. Meaning political friends, I take it, which is the relevant meaning. I took that as an indication that if Obama comes in as winner he's quite likely to ask Clinton to be his VP. In which case I suspect she'll turn it down, because being a New York senator is probably more powerful than being VP, and she'd be a bit long in the tooth to be a plausible successor in eight years. Whereas if she comes in first and offers it to him I suspect he'd take it, because he'll only be 55 in eight years. And the answer for people who'd see it as cynical would be "This is a dangerous job in a dangerous world - if I die or get killed you want to have someone take over who'll be ready for the job". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:09 PM Politicians do not have friends; politicians have interests. (I wonder who's Kissinger now.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Wesley S Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM I can't imagine either one of them being willing to be VP for the other. But stranger things have happened. Never say never. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:18 PM I don't find it in the least bit hard to imagine. Political colleagues often detest each other, and have good reason to do so, but it doesn't seem to stop them working together closely. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are a classic example. If the winning contender thinks that the defeated one will help him or her get elected, and if the defeated one thinks that taking that job will be in his or her best interests, that is what will happen. The crucial thing isn't whether they like or dislike each other, or whether they have said harsh thing about each other, it is those two "ifs". ................. When the USA was set up the initial idea was that the Vice President would be the runner up in the General Election. Perhaps they should have stuck to that system... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Big Mick Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:15 PM All the ruminating on whether or not they would be a super ticket is more for the faithful than it is for the selection process. That will be determined based on what makes sense when the water clears. The pundits will read the political tea leaves that constitute their vision of what will best suit the target voters. That will be based on the inherent, or evident, political weakness of the eventual nominee. It will also be based on what is perceived to be going on in the voters minds with regard to the events current during the race. All that goes into the decision, and a very short list will come out the other side. Obama would suit Hillary, under those types of scenarios, much better than Hillary would suit Obama. He has something she needs. At that juncture, I would think Obama would not only announce his VP, but who he has in mind for most major cabinet positions. He could use that to engender confidence from the older Dem voters that he is really about change and recruiting the best available talent. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:20 PM Tell his headquarters that, Mick. Damned good idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:18 PM I'm not convinced either Clinton or Obama will push this to the point of a brokered convention, actually. Neither of them would gain from that scenario, so I think you will see a deal struck coming out of PA. Superdelegates can switch their endorsements at any time, and we've already seen that happen, mostly w/previously pledged Clinton delegates. But if Clinton surges between now and April 22nd, and cleans up in PA, you will see the superdelegates swinging back her way. The superdelegates nearly always follow the voters. Which is why I can't see Obama pulling it off anymore, unless he can win PA. He has a lot of time, but man what a mountain he has to climb to beat Clinton decisively in PA. I think the Dems see too much riding on this election to let this go to the convention. Whomever seems to have the best chance of winning around May, is likely who the nominee will be. Once the primary season wraps, there will be tremendous pressure on the perceived loser to bow out. Also, if Clinton is the nom, I just don't see what she would gain by putting him on as a VP. Sure, he is carrying the southern states with the black vote, but Clinton needs a whole lot more than the black vote in South to win. Edwards makes a lot more sense to me than Richardson, because he has already withstood the rigors and vetting of one campaign, and can *probably* put Florida in play. Clinton doesn't need someone from any of the big states she is winning, because she will definitely carry Illinois, almost certainly Michigan, California, etc. Since she is carrying the Latino vote, she doesn't seem to need Richardson that much. She really needs someone to help her carry the deep south, I think. If Edwards isn't willing, start looking to possibly an African American male from the House, a mayor or a governor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:27 PM Ah pdq, still your delightful self :"Any Jew who votes for Obama should have his foreskin surgically restored, without anesthesia." Would you mind explaining why you advocate torture for any Jewish citizen who votes for Obama? Since that's what you're doing. Can you spell C-R- A- S- S B- I-G-O -T? I knew you could. You bid fair to get the Martin Gibson treatment--you are doing a sterling job of earning that status. But don't worry, I'm not about to contact Joe about it--just as I did not with "Martin". I figure we can just talk it out. And we'll just let you speak for yourself. You are so good at it. And please, feel free to tell me to "Go To Hell" in a PM again. Though I have to admit I didn't read the PM. I felt your viewpoint was aptly conveyed by the title. It did seem a bit of an overreaction to my pointing out that nobody was accusing your hero Mr. Bush of being responsible for lax security at an Obama rally. Nor did I open the second one. So I'm afraid we'll never know what you wanted a second opinion on. Too bad. I'm sorry to say that reading PM's from you is just not a high priority. I slightly suspect it's not worth my time. Do you think I have a basis for feeling that way? Actually even better than a PM would be to say what you want to here in the open, instead of in a craven weasely way--now there's a formulation---behind the scenes. You know, Ron Thomasson of Dry Branch Fire Squad, in addition to playing and singing good solid traditional bluegrass, has a wicked sense of humor. He used to say: "We believe in aggressive ignorance in bluegrass music." Now I really like traditional bluegrass a lot. And I play and sing it. But sometimes I think that, referring to some bluegrass fans at least, he had a point. Now to the topic. I'd say that rather than 1924, the Democrats have a choice: either 1932 or 1968. With Obama there is a very good chance for a major re-alignment--to the benefit of the Democrats. Lots of new blood, and a "big tent" approach which could mean long-term Democratic success. However Hillary is steering the party straight towards 1968. Recall how many of the insurgents that year wound up backing the standard-bearer. The loyalty of the Obama new voters is to him and what he stands for--not to any generic Democrat. Whereas the strongest Hillary supporters have other considerations--especially the need to avoid a Republican president--with the resulting chance to pick Supreme Court justices. So her supporters will definitely support Obama. But she cannot count on his supporters to support her--especially after the despicable campaign she is now running. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Big Mick Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:35 PM Yep, Gigi, it is going to be damned interesting to watch PA. Rendell is an old Clinton friend, and I gotta believe he will pull out the stops for Hillary. On the other hand, despite the fact that Rendell is the former Mayor of Phila, I believe the leadership in that town, and probably Pittsburgh will go with Obama. Should make for some damned interesting maneuvering in the next few weeks. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:43 PM But the electorate has been so unpredictable throughout the primaries, voters have been bucking the city and state leaders, too. Rendell was on MSNBC last night, and he didn't sound the least bit like someone who was thinking of swinging to Obama anytime soon. I think Philly will go to Obama, but I don't know that the rust belt areas will, including Pittsburgh. That one could easily be a toss-up. But Clinton definitely has the edge in the more rural parts of the state, hands down, and probably most college towns and 'burbs. The other thing is, the two are separated in the delegate count by about what the number of delegates is for North Carolina. NC is a late in the game primary, and the biggest 'at the end' state. So, could John Edwards be the broker come May? Hmmmmm.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:03 PM Antonio Villaraigosa is more likely for Clinton VEEP than Richardson, IMO. And Bill White, mayor of Houston, wouldn't be bad either. He pulled in a lot of Republicans to vote for him, and he has a great bio story that would play brilliantly against the Repubs: he 'saved' New Orleans Katrina refugees, by opening the doors in Houston to them. And he won re-election in Houston with over 90% of the vote. He would put Texas into play! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 06 Mar 08 - 12:03 AM Edwards had little political capital in North Carolina before he withdrew. He has even less now. I doubt you will see him brokering anything here. North Carolina is still a crapshoot with respect to the primary. If I had to predict right now, I would guess Obama will win the primary, but I wouldn't lay down any money to back up that guess. Regardless of the ultimate Democratic nominee, I wouldn't begin to predict whether North Carolina will go for McCain or the Democrat in the general election. Ditto for the rest of the States in the southeast. However much it may disturbing to others for me to say so, race will be an issue, but how that plays out is very unclear at this moment in time. Obama would garner African-American votes in the south, but will also lose swing votes and the votes of the many racist and conservative Democrats to McCain. Clinton would win more independent votes than Obama, and would split the conservative and the racist Democratic votes with McCain. Clinton may not be able to garner the heavy African-American Democratic turn-out necessary for a Democrat to carry the southeast States in the general election. An Obama candidacy will result in a larger African-American turnout at the general election, but will also lead to a larger reactionary vote for McCain among White neo-concervative Democrats, and swing voters. Like I said, the southeast is a crapshoot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 06 Mar 08 - 08:28 AM Well, I think Edwards has some brokering power between the two candidates, not to hand them the delegates though. His endorsement, as you point out Janie, is worth more outside NC than it is inside. But that doesn't mean that a well timed endorsement, or one or the other candidate making a deal to put him on as VP, isn't in the cards. One of the unknowns is how many African Americans will swing back to Clinton if Obama doesn't get the nomination, and how many will be sore losers and stay home. That is the race aspect that makes the primaries and the general election more volatile this year, as we saw in the turnout in South Carolina. We do know one thing, Obama can turn out the SE & some southern states' African American voters in record numbers. However, in other areas, like in Texas, the African American vote stayed about what it did in past primaries. The African American voting bloc has long been a given for the Dems. If Obama doesn't take all, will this be the beginning of a fracturing of the Dems hold on that community? Will we start to see lots of mini-Alan Keyes & Obamas (ie, a right wing Republican & a right wing Democrat) phenomenon begin to emerge? And if that is the case, will this election be the nascent rise of the Latino voting bloc? One of Clinton's national co-chairs is the young, charismatic Latino mayor of LA, Antonio Villaraigosa. He is most definitely an up and comer in the national party. If Clinton wins the nod, what if she more or less writes off the African American vote, in favor of the Latino vote, and hopes enough African Americans still turn out on election day to hand her a landslide win? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:11 AM What will be interesting after the election will be a breakdown of 'ethnicity' as it pertains to voting patterns. I Think we may find two things: 1) It is more common than we thought 2) It doesn't mean as much as we think |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM Or of course the third alternative would be that it more or less matched what we thought. It all depends on what "we think" is likely. Which I imagine varies greatly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 06 Mar 08 - 01:34 PM Probably does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM I think Clinton carries Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh is much like Cleveland and she'll win there by a small margin as she did in Cleveland/Akron/Youngstown. She'll lose by some small margin in Philly but will overwhelmingly take rural PA just as she did with rural Ohio......lots of similarities here. Solid campaigning on her part will put PA on her list. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:56 PM For electoral numerology wonks, here is an interesting piece from Newsweek - Hillary's Math Problem The writer has done his sums on the remaining primaries, and concludes that even if Clinton does extremely well in all of them, Obama will still have more delegates. But not enough without the super delegates, who are going to be the decisive factor. He concludes: "So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted super delegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any super delegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal." The counter argument would of course be that victories in caucuses shouldn't count against victories in primaries, and that this would justify super delegates in adjusting things so that Clinton won. But that wouldn't stop it being suicidal for the Democrats if they were to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: M.Ted Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:30 PM No one predicted what has happened so far, and I predict that that will continue. One of the reasons that both Hilary and Barak are close to tied at this point is simply that most Democrats believe that both of them are good candidates, and they are simply trying to decide which is more electable. Last month, they were leaning to Obama--now, they are starting to lean toward Hilary. If the voters continue to lean toward Hilary, the party bosses will give her the nomination--if they roll back to Obama-it will be him-and, no matter what anyone here thinks, when the balloons fall on the nominee, all of the Democrats will be on board--if they learned nothing else from the Republicans, it's that they have to stick together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:39 PM Well said, Ted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:10 AM The delegate system thwarts 'the will of the people'. Here are the popular vote totals: Not counting FLA & MI (which is, of course, thwarting the will of THOSE people): Obama 12,999,088 Clinton 12,410,650 Vote totals including FLA & MI: Obama 13,575,302 Clinton 13,609,94 It is a squeaker, but Clinton caught up & surpassed Obama this week in the popular vote. Now, the Obamamaniacs say you can't count FLA & MI. I say, if people go to all the work to get off the couch, go out the door, get to their polling station and cast a vote, you should count their god damn vote, regardless of the party shenanigans. The most undemocratic thing thwarting the will of the people is the corporate duopoly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: PoppaGator Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:07 AM The way Michigan and Florida were handled is reprehensible, of course, but the results of those primaries that were held in defiance of party rules can't be taken at face value. Obama didn't campaign at all in Michigan; if he had, the results would have undoubtedly be at least a little different. I have no solution to suggest. I agree that most Democrats and other left-leaning voters will be glad to vote for either contender and against the GOP come November, but I think that Obama would have a slight edge over Clinton in electability. He's more likely to pull in folks who might otherwise not vote at all (among African-Americans and the young). Hillary, on the other hand, might very well bring a out a number of right wing nuts to vote against her who might otherwise not be bothered to vote for "not-conservative-enough" McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:19 AM A good explanation about the slow reportage of the Texas Caucuses can be found here in AP's article. Obama appears to be winning the caucuses by four points. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Big Mick Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:42 AM Let me tell you what a Michigan voter thinks. I have been extensively involved in the political scene of this State for the best part of 35 years. When Gore needed a State Director of his campaign, it was said no one knew the politics of this State "as well as Mick Lane". PLEASE understand that I am not saying that as a boast, in fact it embarasses me to say it. But I say it in order to establish that I am qualified to speak on the matter. Onward. I don't think there is any way short of running another event, a caucus, to establish how the votes should be apportioned. The moving of the date, in defiance of party rules, was a mistake. That fight should have been taken up on the floor of the convention. A large number of Democrats stayed home. The numbers I saw showed that Democratic turnout was only about 570,000 while Republicans had over 862,000. This in a State that has gone for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last four elections. And this during a time when Democrats nationallly are turning out in much greater numbers than Republicans. The point is that there is no way the results of that primary are in no way a legitimate reflection of what the will is of the Democrats in this State. The polling shows that many of the Dems stayed home because their candidate wasn't on the ballot and they weren't willing to vote "uncommitted" and trust that the uncommitted delegates would reflect their desires. When you also toss in that the other candidates did what the Party rules told them they had to do, you are penalizing them for following the rules. Hillary's position of wanting to accept the results as legitimate is self serving and shows a side of her that I do not admire. Overall she is an excellent candidate, but her self interest in this one is overriding her sense of what is right. A do over caucus is the only legitimate answer. Anything else is going to make a bigger mess than is already out there. The party needs to step up and help get this process started. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM It appears that a re-run of Florida and Michigan is quite on the card, Florida, Michigan re-run only fair option: US Democrats It has seemed a pretty obvious, if inconvenient, thing to do all along. I think there is a good case for arguing that a caucus system, where the expectation is that people actually have to think and argue, is as democratic as a ballot system, or even more so. Both ways of doing it have drawbacks as well as merits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:11 PM Caucuses exclude introverts, so the smartest people don't get a voice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM If true that would be one of the drawbacks I mentioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM I'm all for that Mick...but can the state Party pay for it? Can the State itself, as part of its basic commitment to participation? That would raise a ruckus, since it is the Party's action that caused the schism. If it is going to cost $25M to administer a caucus, where's da dfought coming from? I would like to see it happen but the suppression of the economy does not bode well for it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: PoppaGator Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:12 PM If a caucus will cost $25M, how much for an election? Much much more: my understanding is that the caucus approach is by far the less expensive alterntive, and the only practical solution for both Florida and Michigan. Fewer people will caucus than would have cast a ballot ~ takes longer, and has to be organized for people to actually gather together rather than simply to drop by the polling place at any time during a 12-14 hour period. I'm not sure if introverted and presumably smarter folks would be the only ones excluded by the caucus procedure, i.e., would be among the many who would have voted but who would not attend caucus events. People with less time on their hands would be available for caucuses, while busier and/or less stridently interested citizens would be absent. Retirees, students, the comfortably self-employed, and deeply committed activists would be overrepresented to the exclusion of working adults who have no power to take time off at will, of busy parents of young children, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:13 PM The caucus vote is not secret; many people including myself would not attend. Votes in some states were limited to a few hours, inconvenient for many people. It some of the Texas caucus sites, voters were lined up, one line Obama, the other Clinton. The boss could be in one line, the employee in the other- the objection to this is obvious! The same is true of the so-called 'town meeting' caucuses in a state like Maine; the blue collar worker or farmer will not attend. ___________________________________________ Many millions were spent to hold the primaries by the states of Michigan and Florida. They are not going to duplicate that expenditure to hold repeats. In some cases, the voting machines were on rental and may not be available at a convenient time. If the primary voters are short-changed by Dean and the Democrat wiseguys, many angry voters will not vote in the election or will shift their vote to the other party. In a close election, this could be disastrous for the Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM If the primary voters are short-changed by Dean and the Democrat wiseguys Q--perhaps you didn't get the original deal. The national Democratic Party, as I understand it, laid down guidelines with stipulations and consequences. The States (FL and MI) weighed the risk benefit ratio according to their lights and decided it was more important to them to jump the calendar, and not have their delegates recognized in the party's convention. And so it was. So...where and by whom is the short-changing being effected? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM The states set primaries to best suit their people and their objectives. "The original deal" was bound to raise problems and it did. It will only hurt the Democratic Party for wiseguy Dean to persist. Candidates should have understood this; those that withdrew only hurt themselves permanently with many of the voters of the states involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:09 PM Q - I don't see Howard Dean as the bad guy here. He's trying to find a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. What would you have him do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:13 PM http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/florida.michigan/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:20 PM Hmm. So if the party bosses want Obama, as a sign of the defeat of racism, to get the black vote in the election, they tip him the wink to take Billary as VP. Now who gets the presidency if the Pres dies? What happened to Jack Kennedy? If I were Obama I'd be very, very careful. THe Diana inquest is still running. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:21 PM Maybe the candidates could pay for having those re-runs instead of spending the money on advertisements. Why does it have to cost all that much anyway? All that's really involved for a caucus is a large bunch of rooms for the evening. Surely nobody needs to be paid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:41 PM It's hard to imagine why it takes that much money. On the other hand, with both candidates raising 35 to 50 million a month, they could certainly support the re-vote. The problems with caucuses remain, though, and I think they should opt for primaries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:45 PM General election. Eligible voters get to vote. The winner (plurality) takes it. That's it. Period. Stop the screwing around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM Peace, the powers in charge let themselves be convinced that primaries were needed- delegates selected by the peepul, etc. Be glad that Canada hasn't followed the U. S. lead into chaos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:18 PM We have found our own brand of chaos. But, Q, I agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:26 PM The winner (plurality) takes it. Which generally means the one that most voters didn't want... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:29 PM Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean we should just count the votes that have already been cast? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:34 PM Kevin, I don't know much about how caucuses are run, other than the State party sets the rules and runs them, and the rules vary by State. A caucus might be less expensive than another primary, but still requires a lot labor, paper, and supplies. In most States, some one is going to have check caucus voters against lists of those eligible and/or registered to vote. Florida has 4.7 million registered Democrats. Although most of them would not be able to turn out for a caucus, you are still talking about needing space, organizers, watchdogs for a very large number of people scattered at numerous sites throughout the state. Just publicizing the dates and locations for caucusing, finding and reserving space for them, announcing the rules, etc., is going to cost money. Then there has to be a count. It takes paid staff to do that much work. There has to be some sort of authentication process regarding eligibility to participate. That would probably mean employees of local government election boards have to be involved and paid. One idea Florida is batting around is a mail-in election. The cost estimate for mailing paper ballets to those 4.7 million registered Democrats and then counting runs somewhere between 4 and 6 million dollars, according to the LA Times. I can think of no good reason why either taxpayers or the national Democratic party should pay those costs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:38 PM It means you have ONE election, not lots. If the various parties in the US want to hold elections to determine who will be their leaders then let them. That has got zip to do with a general election. As it is, with only two main parties in the US, you already have elections in which the person who becomes president is often the person MOST people didn't want. That can be said of GW Bush for example. He got 51% of the vote, yes. BUT, because it seems to people that they have to choose between Reps or Dems (and not WASTE their votes on better candidates who belong to parties that 'will not win so why waste the vote), the you already have a situation in which more people vote for someone who does NOT get elected. If you have 100 voters, three main people running, you could have someone elected with only 34% of the popular vote. True. So what? That's a plurality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM From Wikipedia, a history lesson on the continuing evolution of the nomination process and the primaries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:04 PM I'd have thought most of the stuff Janie mentioned could be got for free, given the will, and most of the rest needn't cost too much. Political parties are voluntary organisations, and volunteers don't need paying; that takes care of a lot of the potential costs. Not by any means all, but a lot. One slightly bizarre alternative I have read is being promulgated is that instead of the delegates appointed by the barred elections being excluded they should be included - but they should be allocated in equal number to each candidate. The idea being that the states involved would be "represented". But the votes would make absolutely no difference either way, since they would cancel each other out exactly. I think they need to bite the bullet and find the cash for re-runs. And use a little native intelligence to keep the cost moderate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:16 PM The Florida Dept. of State estimates a new primary would cost $20 million, and would require 90 days to set up after a decision is made. Time is getting short. In Michigan, the Democratic party seems to have agreed that taxpayers should not pay for any revote. No estimate on the time factor there. "All that is needed is a large bunch of rooms." Nonsense. The facilities to handle over one million voters in each state must be paid for, staffed, heated and/or air conditioned for comfort, sanitation and safety, and prior committments deep-sixed (and compensated for!). In Michigan, some 600,000 Democrats and some 850,000 Republicans voted in the primary. In Florida, about 1.7 million Democrats and over 1.8 million Republicans voted. Quick solution- since the Republicans beat the Democrats in sheer numbers in the primaries in both states, why not just withdraw and concede to MCain? He, he, he, haw! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:26 PM You are an EVIL man, Q. LOL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:31 PM That is a good one, Q! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:46 PM Mail-in is a good idea. That's the way all elections are run in Oregon. But even the cost of postage alone would run into millions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:47 PM I think Diebold could find a way to make it cheaper . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:47 PM Just kidding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:56 PM Just heard on CNN that the new law in Florida calls for a particular type of voting machine and specifies a paper trail handled in a specific way. This means that the State legislature would have to deal immediately to re-do or rescind the law- and they won't; moreover, the voting machines could not be made available before July. Don't ask me to explain, a brief report on their TV channel; I am boggled. Try CNN online tomorrow; they might give some details. It was also noted that the early primary was authorized by the legislature; it is possible that any attempt by the Democratic Party to hold a new vote could be in violation of state law. Wiseguy Dean has really created a mess- I am using 'wiseguy' with the police slang definition (=mobster). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:31 AM Q, I think you are off-base with respect to this primary business with Florida and Michigan. They knew the consequences of their choices before they made them. Not saying our 'system' is not without significant flaws - but the party rules were clear and the consequences known by the Democratic party in both of those states. I still don't know if I am going to vote for Obama or Hilary in the Democratic primary in NC, and so don't have a stake in the choices from that respect. While I see know logical or just reason for the taxpayers of Michigan or Florida to foot the bill for 2nd primaries or caucuses, not being a resident or tax payor in either of those states, that is none of my business. I have, however, made contributions (paltry for sure, but what I could afford) to the national party, and I strongly object to the expenditure of funds from the National party for a re-run of primaries in these two states. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:25 AM Q, Your characterization of Howard Dean is slanderous, and as far as I know, without any grounds. Try being civil. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Big Mick Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:35 AM Dean is not the bad guy here. The rules were broken and his only option is to enforce the rules. Under no circumstances are the folks in Michigan going to pay for a second run. The money to do this will have to come from the coffers of the State party and the National party. This is just a helluva mess, but it must be resolved. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Mar 08 - 05:47 AM "The facilities to handle over one million voters in each state must be paid for, staffed, heated and/or air conditioned for comfort, sanitation and safety," As I said, a large bunch of rooms. When you hire a hall that includes use of the loos and the lights and so forth. I'm sure it's very easy to pile on the extra costs, but... The cost of running elections in the USA does seem remarkably high. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:22 PM OK, I'll change the wiseguy monicker to idiotic screamer (remember when his skull blew open?). The Boston Herald says it succinctly "Boston Herald Editorial Staff- "The cockamamie rules adopted by the Democratic National Committee are now at the heart of the increasingly problematic delegate hunt by Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In Florida neither candidate campaigned but Clinton won. In Michigan Clinton won but Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot. And because both states voted earlier than DNC rules permit, their delegates won't be seated. "Now Chairman Howard Dean, who supported the idiotic plan, is OK with a do-over in both states, but not on the party's dime. "We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our mobney to win the presidential race," He said yesterday. "So how did the DNC's rules get to be the taxpayers' problem?" Friday, March 7, 2008; Boston Herald http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1078425&srvc=home&position=rated Is Dean a mole for the Republicans? He seems well on the way to handing both states to McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:31 PM Q - If you back up to when Michigan and Florida first announced their intentions of moving up their primaries, what options did Howard Dean have? What could he have done that would have worked out better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:16 PM Remarkably high compared to Britain? Well, duh. As to the whole mess, all I can say is leave it to the Democratic party to screw up a landslide opportunity, as usual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:24 PM Q: If you investigate the "screamer " incident with any care, you will discover it wads a media-created event. I leave it to you to do the homework properly. It was a scam, sir, the kind of thing some people are so good at running in order to combat intelligence and decency, in the interests of pure-dee dumbassed powermongering and dough. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM The states should have the decision as to when to hold their primaries. Florida had one or more referenda that had to be voted; to save taxpayers money the motion(s) were combined with the primary vote. No matter how you slice it, Dean is either non compos mentis, a mole working for the Republicans, or, as I have heard it said, 'too big for his britches.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 08 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM Don't be ridiculous, Q. He was put in the job to sideline him, and keep him from running again. He is just tremendously ineffective in the job, is all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:44 PM Remarkably high compared to Britain? Cost of UK elections to the taxpayer works out as about $2.30 a head of population. That's not including the cost to the parties of the campaigning, which runs at about $1.30 per head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Mar 08 - 09:13 PM McGrath, could you tell us something about UK elections? Mechanical, electronic or paper ballot? If one of the former, is there a method of checking the ballots? Are systems uniform throughout the UK? (They vary from state to state here). I know election costs in the U. S. are high. Probably close to $6.00 a voter for primaries but higher in general elections but this is just a guess. The Florida Attorney General estimates some 20 million to hold a Primary re-vote. About 3.4 million voted in both primaries there. If the $20 million cost is correct, that comes out at about $6.00 per voter. In general elections, all sorts of things to vote on are added at the local and state level, from bond authorizations to changing rules to authorizing a bounty on stray pussycats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Mar 08 - 07:29 PM Paper ballots in schools and so forth (day off for the kids) - take your ballot paper from the people at the desk, go in the booth and put a cross in the appropriate place with a pencil (or several ticks in several boxes in local elections), and then stick it in the box. It's a bit more complicated where there are some form of proportional representation or alternative voting (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London Mayoral), but still a paper ballot. The count gets done manually, of course. Useful overtime for council clerks and so forth. The government is flirting with the idea of introducing some online or electronic system, because they fancy being modern I suppose, but they'll have a job getting that through, especially with examples from America of how that kind of thing can go wrong. Here's a government report about all this stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:29 PM MGrath, old-fashioned but reliable. We had a provincial vote here in Alberta last week. Paper ballots and pencil. Over 2.5 million eligible voters in the province. The results were in before midnight on election night. Interest was a record low, only 41% of eligibles voted. A landslide for the Conservative Party. Voting takes place in community centers or schools. A large gymnasium at nearly all schools, so the kids didn't get a holiday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Mar 08 - 10:38 PM The people that handle the vote in Alberta get paid. Supervisors- $300/day Ballot Checkers and Counters- $170/day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 09 Mar 08 - 11:17 PM Paper ballots are still quite common in the USA. It is the only way I have ever voted. In Canada and in the UK, how does each party determine who their candidates for Parliament will be from each district? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: PoppaGator Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:51 PM If both Michigan and Florida saw higher turnouts for their Republican than Democratic primaries, that fact in itself only underlines that large numbers of potential voters in the Dem primaries knew up front that their party's vote in their state was unikely to count for anything. Nationwide, there has been much higher turnout for Democratic primaries and caususes than for the corresponding Republican events. Michigan and Florida are both large states with plenty of adherents of both parties; if voters in those states had a normal level of confidence that their Democratic primaries were going to count for something, turnout would have been drastically higher ~ at least equal to the GOP turnout if not significantly higher (as it has been in virtyually every other state). I'm not sure how the problem developed in Michigan, but learned over the weekend that in Florida, where the Republicans control the governorship and the legislature, the National Democratic Party had already stipulated their "no-earlier-than" date when the legislature scheduled the state's primaries for both parties at an early date, in defiance of one party's rules. Florida Democrats tried to prevent this impasse, but didn't have the votes. The primary date issue was only part of a widely supported election-reform bill addressing voting machines vs paper ballots and other such concerns. Republican lawmakers in Florida are undoubtedly still having a good laugh at how drastically they managed to mess up their rivals' nominating process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: DougR Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:59 PM As to the Florida and Michigan messes (the fault for which, in my opinion rests with the Democratic Party in those states for not complying with DNC rules), I think the only fair way of resolving this issue is mailed ballots. Each registered Democrat should be sent a mail-in ballot by the state party and be encouraged to vote by mail. The DNC may have to share the cost of the effort with the states though. I truly am enjoying the mess they made for themselves of course. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 10 Mar 08 - 06:10 PM in Florida, where the Republicans control the governorship and the legislature, the National Democratic Party had already stipulated their "no-earlier-than" date when the legislature scheduled the state's primaries for both parties at an early date, in defiance of one party's rules. What, DougR, you don't read well? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Mar 08 - 06:18 PM Mail ballots? How does one keep that honest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: PoppaGator Date: 10 Mar 08 - 06:23 PM "The people that handle the vote in Alberta get paid. Supervisors- $300/day Ballot Checkers and Counters- $170/day." For what it's worth, the current pay scale for poll commissioners in Louisiana, USA: $300/day for Commission-in-charge (one per precinct) $200/day for Commissioner (two or three per precince, in addition to the one CIC) That's double the rate paid until about two years ago. They raised the pay in an effort (only partially successful) to replace the many commissioners lost to relocation after Katrina. The "day" in question is appx 15 hours long: polls are open 6am to 8 pm, commissioners need to be on duty 20-30 minutes before opening, and need to stay after closing to (1) serve any voters already in the building when the doors close and (2) complete various closeout procedures. Each commissioner-in-charge is then also responsible for delivering the results to a central location. The payments rates mentioned above are in force ONLY for commissioners who show up for a instructional session prior to each round of elections. I missed class before the last election and therefore the paycheck I am still awaiting after 4-6 weeks will be for $100, not $200. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Mar 08 - 07:28 PM How does a legislature have the power to tell a political party when it should do its stuff as regards deciding what candidate to support, whether it wants to or not? That doesn't really sound consistent with basic democratic principles, one of which has to be that parties are not under the command of the state. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Mar 08 - 10:38 PM I keep hearing that neither Obama nor Clinton can possibly get enough votes to attain "the minimum number necessary to win". Huh????????? How can that be? Doesn't the one who simply gets the most delegates at the leadership convention win it automatically when there are only two official candidates left? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Mar 08 - 10:57 PM No! There's minimum threshold. I think that's to ensure that if it's close the super-delegates get to make the call. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:13 PM I would guess, though I'm not sure, that the State role has something to do with the necessity of using State funds in an election. For instance (WSJ 10 Mar 2008), even if the Florida Democratic party raises the estimated $6 million a mail-in vote would cost, "Florida's process would still require the Republican-controlled Legislature to commit state resources to counting votes and confirming signatures." An earlier topic: "Clinton would win more independent votes than Obama". I don't believe so. A bit of logic to back up that statement about the independents would be necessary. Right now it is a bald and unconvincing assertion. McCain will get all the independents for whom national security is the #1 issue--do you really think Hillary has any credibility whatsoever over McCain? And Obama has a far better chance than Hillary in getting independents who either want an end to vicious partisanship or just want "change" She has no credibility here either. If race is an issue, Hillary is a certified white. Big deal. Racists are likely also sexists--so she loses here also. For what it's worth--probably not much--a recent CNN poll indicated that 34% of adults thought the US was not ready for a woman president--26% thought the US not ready for a black president). And as I said earlier, many of Obama's supporters--I'm not talking about Mudcatters, by and large---will not vote for her, since the loathsome campaign she has run has thoroughly polluted the river she intended to drink from in the fall. Whereas her supporters would support him, for reasons I cited earlier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:22 PM "Minimum threshold?" Good God. Sounds like they've tried to set it up so that nothing untoward should happen....like the voice of the people actually interfering with what the Democratic Party insiders want to happen! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:30 PM I've heard the "superdelegates" described as "adult supervision". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:42 PM Poppagater, I went tooling around the web after seeing your post about Florida. That is not quite an accurate representation. According to several news articles I read (and I didn't keep track of them, but they were all reputable. It appears the legislature in Florida - both Democracts and Republicans, ignored their parties admonishments about moving the primary ahead of Feb. 5. The Florida House passed the measure unanimously. I couldn't find the vote count in the Florida Senate (and don't pretend that I looked very hard,) , but apparently it passed by a wide margin there also, supported strongly by legislators from both parties, but not supported by the parties themselves. One article, I think the NYT, but am not sure, indicated the national Republican party also sanctioned Florida, but did not specify what the sanctions were. It did indicate the Deomcratic party sanctions were more stringent. Although my reading was pretty quick, it was a good quick education on the rationale behind trying to keep most primaries from happening earlier and earlier. There are some good reasons for it, including that extending the primary season even beyond it's too long length now absolutely erases the slightest chance that anyone but the absolute biggest money candidates have a snowball's chance in hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Janie Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:52 PM OH...lest we forget what really matters in life....100. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:28 AM 'I've heard the "superdelegates" described as "adult supervision".' When you see and hear Obama supporters, it all makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:09 AM "adult supervision" Maybe that's what that uperdelegate Spitzer was actually involved in... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:14 AM That's probably going to be his defense. He's taken it upon himself to go undercover and investigate a filthy prostitution ring, and his political enemies are trying to make something else out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:41 AM I really fail to see why you act so snide because Obama's supporters act enthusiastic, Rig. Are you jaded and cynical from overly-hard experience, or is it natural to you? Hillary's supporters also scream and chant and holler at her rallies. In my opinion, for them, it is more about her as a woman than the notion that positive new conditions might arise therefrom, but maybe I am biased. The expertise at rhetoric -- an honorable art that used to be part of every young adult's education -- which Obama demonstrates is not to be dismissed as shallow word-play. It is not. It is a demonstration of the ability to direct people's attention to exciting and optimistic plans. A leader who can do that, who also has an inbred sense of ethics and honesty, is a package that should not be walked away from. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:50 PM Yes, well I'll admit that Hillary's supporter don't make a lot more sense than Obama's, but at least they appear to be older. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:48 PM Is that such a good thing? I'd imagine there are probably just as many older people at Obama's rallies as at Clinton's, it's just that there are more young people there as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Peace Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM "Yes, well I'll admit that Hillary's supporter don't make a lot more sense than Obama's, but at least they appear to be older." Look at the age demographics for the election of GW Bush. Age don't mean a damned thing, imo. It does not equate to brains, good decision-making or anything else. It is possible to be young and stupid. It's also possible to be old and stupid. We prove that time and time again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:09 PM While it's possible to be old and stupid--Ronald Reagan comes to mind--it seems to me that it's more probable to be young and stupid. At least, looking backwards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:53 PM Remember the last young guy? Charisma but no brains? His term was cut short before he did real damage. The Bay of Pigs was a belly laugh around the world. (His assasination was deplorable and tragic- I am referring only to his abilities) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM Wasn't Clinton younger than Kennedy? (They were both a good bit older than Teddy Roosevelt, mind you.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM Yeah, I was commenting on the ages of the supporters, actually. A major part of Obama's support originates on college campuses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM While age brings a certain wiliness, it sometimes comes at the cost of losing one's hope, energy for new ideas, and ability to change. We're due for some renewal. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM Electoral numerology thoughts: People keep saying that it'll be down to the undecided super delegates to decide - but in fact, with the delegates he's got now, plus the super delegates who have indicated they will back him, if Obama gets just 50% of the delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses, he will be over the winning line, without needing any of the undecided super delegates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:41 PM I guess it all depends on Pennsylvania. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:51 PM Even if Clinton does remarkably well in Pennsylvania, she's pretty unlikely to stop Obama getting that 50% of the delegates in the primaries that are still to come. In which case, even if they could swing it to pull in the Michigan and Florida primaries, it wouldn't make any difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:56 PM That Wyoming caucus with all of 8700 Democratic voters was a real joke. The Republican caucus was closed, probably just a few big shots and a big poker game. A state small in population, but 500,000 citizens nonetheless. Yes, Pennsylvania will be very important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:16 PM Why do you say it was a joke, Q? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:26 PM So it was 8,700 this year. A bit up on 2004 when the total number in the Wyoming caucus was 675. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:45 PM But still ridiculous. In no way representative of the population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:39 PM Frankly, I'm a little dissapointed. Wasn't Wyoming the first state in the union to allow women to vote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: DougR Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:16 PM Q:Mail ballots have been used for several years in Arizona and, to my knowledge, no complaints have been made. (I should add, however, that Arizonans are extremely honest folks). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:38 PM Oregon does all of its elections by mail. I haven't heard of many complaints, and there have been a number of scoundrels here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:00 PM Just read about the Oregon system- thanks for the note. It may be the way to go in the future. It does require optical scanning, a good records system, plus public education, and could not be put in place in a short time period, so could not be used in Fl-MI before the Convention date. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 08:29 AM I'd have thought that setting up polling stations for a few hours would be less of a hassle than a massive mailshot. After all, it's not a very complicated kind of election, only two candidates and pick which one you want. Pencil and paper does it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:38 AM Ummmmmm, what is to prevent the Repubs from votin' in a mail in Dem primary??? I mean, the Repubs in Florida, and probably in Michigan, would rather have Clinton as the nominee than Obama so is that all that democratic either??? Doesn't this give the Repubs a license to meddle??? Just asking... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:46 AM Ballots get mailed OUT from the registration rolls. Only registered Dems get Dem primary ballots, and likewise for Repubs. To cross-corrupt as you describe wouold require forging the ballots forms. At least that is how I have seen it work in the past. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:15 PM Information on the Oregon system here from the Oregon Blue Book. Voting MacGrath, note that Oregon citizens voted for the method, which was then approved by the state Legislature. I am sure that it took several months at least to codify the regulations so that they would be essentially fail-safe. Whatever system is used is subject to State laws and control, and cannot be instituted overnight. I agree with Amos (I think) that mail voting may be practical and efficient. It will take time to get agreement on any change, so I do not look for any real improvement on the current chaos for some years. Macgrath, any vote, primary or general election, would be subject to rules set up by the State for voting. If a state has instituted machine voting, it probably would require a vote by the assembled Legislature to change the method. (most legislatures have a summer recess, there are rules for calling them together, etc.). Every state (50 of them) has its own rules, methods of registration, etc., and sets dates for the primaries or elections. This is what set up the problem with Michigan and Florida. The political parties set rules on timing which the states (always jealous of their prerogatives) ignored and set their own dates. Which should rule? The States are legal entities that enact laws under the Constitution. The political parties do not have any authority to make laws. Can the Democratic National Committee overrule state law? I think that this will be a subject for the courts and the U. S. Congress in the next few years. It needs settling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM What right has a legislature got to messing about with the arrangements for an internal party election? That's the kind of thing that happens in dictatorships and suchlike. One of the basic criteria for a democracy is that parties are not at the beck and call of the government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:11 PM The Legislature and the State also decide who will be on the ballots and whether write-in is valid. Yes, it is complicated. The UK and Canadian systems are so much simpler. In Canada, parties select a leader. He is their spokesman, leads their party in the Legislature. He, like the other legislative members, has been elected by the electorate of his province. In an election, if his party wins, he becomes prime minister; if not, he remains in the Legislature as a leader of 'the loyal opposition. If he is voted out in his province, he may quit, or elect to run in a secure riding from which that member withdraws. This is oversimplified, but may help Americans understand the more straight-forward system in Canada. The states that came together to form the United States reserved many facets of governance- forming the Union involved compromises. Systems thus are not uniform. Dictatorships are in NO way similar; they would tell the states to conform or else! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM The issue here isn't the complication. Nothing wrong with a bit of complication. But once again, by what right does a legislature tell an ostensibly independent political party how it should run its internal elections? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: PoppaGator Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM The states finance the primary elections, that's why... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Mar 08 - 04:26 PM In Florida, the governor is Republican. He and the party are laughing themselves silly over the actions of Screamer Dean and the convolutions of the Democrats. Without the jaybird's OK, no revote can be held. I just caught the tail end in a news broadcast, but after indicating it would cost millions, the speaker (Atty. Gen.?) didn't seem to offer anything of substance. Florida is secure for McCain because of this. Dunno what MI Dems will do. Probably wait and fight it out at the Convention. If they don't get a satisfactory settlement, McCain may carry MI on the backs of the disgruntled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:12 PM The states finance the primary elections, that's why.. And that's quite an expensive bargain for political parties to have accepted, if it means stuff like "Legislature and the State also decide who will be on the ballots and whether write-in is valid." And this whole nonsense about the way the legislatures gratuitously and irresponsibly imposed an invalid primary on the Democratic party, and on the voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:38 PM Eventually Federal courts will decide whether the state has the right- and responsibility- to set rules for the primary, including a date. It seems to me that the Democratic National Committee is the one that is acting invalidly. I have been secretary-tresurer or on the governing body of several societies, both in the United States and Canada. I don't know the rules for private societies in the UK, but the societies act set up by the state or provincial government imposes very strict rules on how a society is governed, including provision for election of officers at set times, rules on membership and set procedures for their implementation, annual audit by a certified accountant, etc., etc. Changes in procedures must be advertised in advance, and approved by majority vote. Expenditures must be approved by at least two signing officers. All of the requirements are in the Societies Acts, and thus are imposed on the 'private' societies by an arm of the government. A lawyer who is a member usually acts without charge to interpret the rules if the officers are unsure of some legal point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:07 PM Q-- You are an excellent researcher of folk music. But as seems often the case when you hold forth on US politics , your schadenfreude seems to have gotten in the way of your thought processes. It is quite likely, I'd guess, that neither the MI nor the FL delegates, chosen in unsanctioned votes, against the express wishes of the DNC, will be seated. And there will be no revote--at least in FL, where the Democratic members of the state House of Representatives released a statement Tuesday which said: "Our House delegation in opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any sort". Unless they back off bigtime, those sound like final chords. But MI is a state in economic distress. It's unlikely that McCain's prescription--some job training and lower taxes--will be enough to offset the real pain Michigan voters are feeling--especially since health care costs are an issue. So the Democrat--Hillary or Obama--is likely to take Michigan in the fall. Your schadenfreude, sorry to say, can't substitute for your missing logic. FL--who knows? I would bet Obama has a good chance--again, if his economic proposals, especially towards universal health care---but without Hillary's "mandate"--appeal. Again, the contrast will be with what McCain offers--and his conservative base will make sure any proposed government program is modest. And there will be a desire for more--which he won't offer. Also, as I've pointed out before, Hillary's strongest supporters want above all else to prevent a Republican from naming any more Supreme Court justices. So they will back Obama if he is the nominee. Your rapture over US election-year chaos and your rather blatant, inexplicable--(baffling since you're not even a US voter)---and unjustified-- dislike of Obama may have to be modified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:08 PM "...delegation is opposed..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:44 PM Of course they are opposed- there is no way that the Legislature and governor in Florida will permit another vote. Not even if they said pretty please. I don't 'dislike' Obama, I don't believe that he can defeat McCain. As I said in a post somewhere, he is running eigh years too soon. I believe Clinton has a better chance of defeating McCain, but it will be close either way. And your qualifications are? I will admit that I don't know much, but my family was into the fray as delegates and campaigners in years past, so I have some basic understanding of the process. I now live in Canada, but I still have my Texas poll tax receipt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:11 PM I thought I'd check how the delegate count would be if the Democrats had a winner-takes-all rule in this. Surprisingly little difference, but it would give Obama a bigger lead. The current count for elected delegates (BBC site) is 1596 for Obama and 1484 for Clinton - Obama leading by 112 delegates. With winner-takes-all it'd be Obama with 1564 and Clinton with 1360 - Obama leading by 204. And if the superdelegates all went with their states, from the ones which have so far voted, Obama would have 306, and Clinton would have 287. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:15 PM Correction - the figures I gave for elected delegate was that for all delegates pledged so far, including superdelegates. For elected delegates only it should have been Obama with 1368 and Clinton with 1226, Obama leading by 142. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:55 PM Q-- You don't dislike Obama. Interesting, then, that I've never seen any positive reference to him by you--perhaps I've missed them and you can refer me to your positive comments. And I've seen a boatload of negative remarks by you about him and his chances. Sometimes you seem to be one of the Gloom and Doom Trio---Rig, Janet, and you. I don't claim to be the ultimate authority--on anything. But some of your pronouncements on US politics seem to have both an air of undeserved authority and a sizable dose of schadenfreude, as I noted. As I noted, it is not at all clear that McCain would take either Michigan or Florida, against Obama, at any rate--for the reasons I cited. Against Hillary, who knows?--she would be a much weaker opponent-- she'd get very few independents and basically zero Republicans. And if you think the black community would support her after the vile campaign she is now running, I have several bridges to sell you. But if you have a logical argument why McCain would take either Florida or Michigan against Obama, I'd be curious to hear it. And if you really think Hillary would be a stronger opponent for McCain nationally, especially after alienating a good chunk of the Democratic coalition, I'd like to hear your theory. My main source of information is the Wall St Journal--and so far I've never heard of a better source---(reporting, not editorials, of course). And I'll be watching for positive comments about Obama by you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:58 PM Interestingly, it now looks like there may in fact be some sort of a revote in Michigan--but not in Florida. But there's many a slip.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Mar 08 - 10:01 PM "But if you have a logical argument why McCain would take either Florida or Michigan against Obama, I'd be curious to hear it." This Hispanic vote! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Mar 08 - 10:03 PM "And I'll be watching for positive comments about Obama by you." He makes a great first impression! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 14 Mar 08 - 10:53 PM Rig-- You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Republican party is not in good repute with Hispanics at this point. There is not even a united front in the Cuban-Americans--some--especially of the young-- feel relations with Cuba should be improved--and that we have a chance with the new regime there. And the FL snowbirds and retirees etc. who are far more concerned about health care costs than you seem to realize, are not likely to be impressed by McCain's "market-based solutions". You're good at simplistic answers. But someday you should look below the surface. Politics is fascinating--but not easily understood with bumper-sticker slogans, which seems to be your strong suit (along with Smears R Us, of course). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Mar 08 - 12:02 AM Detroit Free Press today said any revote plan would have to be approved by the Legislature by the end of next week. Clinton says she is not opposed to a do-over election. Obama said he would accept any "fair" resolution to the issue. Vote by end of next week? Lots of unhappy campers in the Legislature. Nice if it happens but I doubt it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Mar 08 - 12:24 AM In an earlier editorial, the Detroit Free Press condemmed the Dem honchos who caused the mess. "In the end, Michigan made the point it was trying to make with the Jan. 15 primary: that the nominating process' absurd fealty to Iowa and New Hampshire is wrong and needs addressing. If making the point costs one of the Democratic contenders the nomination, so be it. [My italics]. And if the party leadership can't work something out to recognize Michigan, well Republican nominee John McCain will have a great opening line for every speech he makes in Michigan: "It's great to be here in a state the Democrats say doesn't count."" ".....Democrats would do well to focus less on party rules and more on winning elections." (Recognize Michigan's primary," editorial, March 7, 2008, Detroit Free Press). The newspaper also deplored the fact that neither Obama nor Clinton choose to visit and speak during the primary. Can the damage be repaired? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Mar 08 - 03:43 PM Can the damage be repaired? Of course. It's March. And Michigan voters, being sensible humans, not fools who hold a senseless grudge-- (about a primary that yielded no delegates for them) --forever, will listen to what the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee say--and vote for the one they think will help their own economic situation. Regardless of whether a primary "that counts" is ever actually held. And, as I said, McCain is hemmed in by his own base from offering much in the way of help for Michigan people in economic distress--or people outside Michigan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dem Convention Repeat of '24??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Mar 08 - 04:47 PM Holding those primaries early was a gamble that the rules would be changed to reverse the known policy - when you gamble sometimes you lose. And you don't gripe about it. |
