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.