Man, that joke never gets old.

/Well, maybe just a little
//+1 anyway

mail in ballot... not a bad idea.

burndtdan: mail in ballot... not a bad idea.

Seems a bit odd to me. And to be honest given how we do elections down here it will only be a matter of moments once a mail-in-ballot election is completed that you will hear whining and grumblings about disenfranchisement, etc..

I never got my ballot.
How do I know the mail man didn't burn it?
Someone stole my ballot and mailed it in.
It got wet and ruined in the rain.
I bubbled in the wrong circle.
You mean I was suppose to use something OTHER than invisible ink?

And if Obama closes the gap at all Clinton will complain to count the original vote, because this vote does not represent the will of the people.

If Clinton wins bigger the blacks in Florida will say they were some how disenfranchised.

Do snow birds get to vote? How will they get their ballots?

And when is this all going down? We have 3 months until the last primary. They need to get a move on.

You think with all the problems Florida has had in the past with voting - that the mail in ballot would only cause more problems.

I am so farking sick of Florida botching elections. Don't care how, don't care why, just farking sick of it.

We have vote by mail here in Oregon. Almost all voting is done by mail now. We've had it a few years. I get my ballot about 2 weeks early and I do it over coffee one morning. It's nice and easy.

We love vote by mail.

Kills me how these articles say that with enough of a victory Hillary could eclipse Obama. Here in Michigan she ran on a ticket against only Kucinich and pulled... 55%. Kucinich got 3.5% so he was basically a non-factor. Now how is Hillary gonna pull off some miracle number in a state where she couldnt even break the 60% barrier against Undecided?

brimstoner: Kills me how these articles say that with enough of a victory Hillary could eclipse Obama. Here in Michigan she ran on a ticket against only Kucinich and pulled... 55%. Kucinich got 3.5% so he was basically a non-factor. Now how is Hillary gonna pull off some miracle number in a state where she couldnt even break the 60% barrier against Undecided?

She basically ran against herself in that election and she nearly lost.

Something Team Hillary probably doesn't want people to ponder too closely...

Florida screwed up. They get no votes. They knew the rules. They agreed on them.

Weaver95: brimstoner: Kills me how these articles say that with enough of a victory Hillary could eclipse Obama. Here in Michigan she ran on a ticket against only Kucinich and pulled... 55%. Kucinich got 3.5% so he was basically a non-factor. Now how is Hillary gonna pull off some miracle number in a state where she couldnt even break the 60% barrier against Undecided?

She basically ran against herself in that election and she nearly lost.

Something Team Hillary probably doesn't want people to ponder too closely...

To be fair, she is a different candidate depending on who she talks to. People belonging to two key demographics probably couldn't decide which one to vote for:

"Crap, I'm a life-long democratic women. Do I go for the nurturing, soul-sister Clinton or the cold, hard as nails attack dog Clinton? I guess I'll have to put undecided"

Perfect. Because there's no way that could in any way be corrupted.

Weaver95: brimstoner: Kills me how these articles say that with enough of a victory Hillary could eclipse Obama. Here in Michigan she ran on a ticket against only Kucinich and pulled... 55%. Kucinich got 3.5% so he was basically a non-factor. Now how is Hillary gonna pull off some miracle number in a state where she couldnt even break the 60% barrier against Undecided?

She basically ran against herself in that election and she nearly lost.

Something Team Hillary probably doesn't want people to ponder too closely...

you should stop mentioning, she's chargin' her lazer.



/random hillary pic

Anyone who says they shouldn't be given a revote are being partisan asshats.

Shaggy_C: Anyone who says they shouldn't be given a revote are being partisan asshats.

...or not trying to move the goal posts and change the rules in the middle of the game.

Mugato: ...or not trying to move the goal posts and change the rules in the middle of the game.

Bull. It's not changing the rules. Essentially they haven't had a primary yet - since it didn't count, it was really no different than a straw poll. If they hadn't had the fake primary in January, would you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to have one today? No way.

GaryPDX: We have vote by mail here in Oregon. Almost all voting is done by mail now. We've had it a few years. I get my ballot about 2 weeks early and I do it over coffee one morning. It's nice and easy.

We love vote by mail.

Seconded.

And in typical Florida fashion, we have a law that says we can't have a 2nd election!

Shaggy_C: Essentially they haven't had a primary yet - since it didn't count, it was really no different than a straw poll.

Not quite.

As it is, I believe a redo should be done, but the only ways to fairly do them would be to allow caucuses or to have a complete re-vote (for both parties).

You know, I think a re-vote in Florida and Michigan would only help Obama. Hillary would have to spend more of her resources, which are already spread very thin. Obama, on the the other hand, has much more money than the Clinton campaign.

Even if Clinton won Florida and Michigan, it wouldn't by by a substantial margin. It could actually put Obama over the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination, even if he loses both states.

Allow me to help Chairman Dean in his choice for a format for the new voting. Mr Chairman, ask this question:

Does the formal not guarantee an overwhelming Clinton victory?

If it does not, then congratulations... it will never see the light of day and you will be called undemocratic for even suggesting it.

Hope that helps

puffy999: As it is, I believe a redo should be done, but the only ways to fairly do them would be to allow caucuses or to have a complete re-vote (for both parties).

Of course, that would be up to the individual parties to decide, but I do think a revote or caucus is entirely fair.

Shaggy_C: If they hadn't had the fake primary in January, would you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to have one today?

*facepalm*

Shaggy_C: Mugato: ...or not trying to move the goal posts and change the rules in the middle of the game.

Bull. It's not changing the rules. Essentially they haven't had a primary yet - since it didn't count, it was really no different than a straw poll. If they hadn't had the fake primary in January, would you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to have one today? No way.

i think right now the only REAL argument against holding a revote isn't a matter of principle, it's a matter of practicality. money and time. the timeframe to successfully pull it off is dwindling, and they haven't figured out how to pay for them yet.

i live in florida and you're damn right i would support a revote here, but i can understand if it just isn't possible. doesn't take the blame off of all parties involved in creating this situation and not rectifying it in a more timely manner, but i've come to terms with that.

er no, there would be very little accountability in some scheme like that

i say, no re-vote, just split the delegates 50/50 if not that then don't do it at all

Shaggy_C: puffy999: As it is, I believe a redo should be done, but the only ways to fairly do them would be to allow caucuses or to have a complete re-vote (for both parties).

Of course, that would be up to the individual parties to decide, but I do think a revote or caucus is entirely fair.

Why? It is their own fault.

err, that should have been "vote again", but yeah, Florida can't have a redo, not by law

I don't think submitting a fresh proposal is changing the rules. It's either that or going to the Credentials Committee at the Convention, right? Either way, these 2 states are asshats since now their "punishment" is getting to decide the whole she-bang. WTG, DNC!

AdamK: er no, there would be very little accountability in some scheme like that

i say, no re-vote, just split the delegates 50/50 if not that then don't do it at all

i think that's about the best way to handle it at this point, considering the time and money questions.

Maybe it would be easier to sell FL to Cuba and MI to Canada

/and TX to Mexico while we're at it

AdamK: i say, no re-vote, just split the delegates 50/50

Thus rendering them useless. There's no point in doing that.

burndtdan: AdamK: er no, there would be very little accountability in some scheme like that

i say, no re-vote, just split the delegates 50/50 if not that then don't do it at all

i think that's about the best way to handle it at this point, considering the time and money questions.

looking at some of the polling still coming out at this point, I think it would be hilarious if they reject this idea, go through some god-awful expensive primary and... have the votes split 50/50

err, that should have been "vote again", but yeah, Florida can't have a redo, not by law

Oh man, really? How are they going to get out of this pickle if it's illegal for Florida to vote again?

By the way, I heard one talking head say that Hill will take FLA by a few points, Obama will take MI by a few, resulting in a multi-million dollar wash at the end of the day. Money well spent, right?

Shaggy_C: If they hadn't had the fake primary in January, would you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to have one today? No way.

The party already declared that Florida isn't going to count because they once again farked up. No one had a problem with that until Hillary started losing and threw a hissy fit. How is that right?

Caucuses. Cheap, reliable, accountable.

Just let Florida and Michigan results stand, it still isn't going to give Hillary enough delegates to overcome Obama's lead.

Richard Pye

but they would be counted though right?

From TFA

Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Levin said doing the election again would be against state law. "That can't be changed, and that can't be paid for," he said. Levin also said caucuses would be difficult, with 500 potential sites.

reading comprehension folks, get some

Bored Horde: Caucuses. Cheap, reliable, accountable.

And Clinton will never, EVER, let them happen if they don't have too... even if they're scheduled on a weekend so her "well working class people can't attend' can't work. She does bad at them, therefor they are undemocratic...

... except for the Nevada one, which she won (even though she actually didn't)... that ones just fine

Mugato: Shaggy_C: If they hadn't had the fake primary in January, would you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to have one today? No way.

The party already declared that Florida isn't going to count because they once again farked up. No one had a problem with that until Hillary started losing and threw a hissy fit. How is that right?

There are millions of Voters (those are swing state voters, with a capital 'V') in Florida. Politics dictates that some sort of compromise must be reached.

The whole problem with 'momentum' and what not would be solved by simply banning the media from reporting election results from any individual state until all 48 states have voted. The current system encourages heavy campaigning in each state and forces the candidates to get a feel for each states political situation, which is good. This secret-result system would also stop stupid crap like Florida pulling ahead in a bout of self-important insolence.

PocketfullaSass: By the way, I heard one talking head say that Hill will take FLA by a few points, Obama will take MI by a few, resulting in a multi-million dollar wash at the end of the day. Money well spent, right?

Yeah, because it'll warm those voters up to pull a lever for the Dems in Nov. Which will be needful.

clgrin: Bored Horde: Caucuses. Cheap, reliable, accountable.

And Clinton will never, EVER, let them happen if they don't have too... even if they're scheduled on a weekend so her "well working class people can't attend' can't work. She does bad at them, therefor they are undemocratic...

... except for the Nevada one, which she won (even though she actually didn't)... that ones just fine

You know, I'm still laughing at that news article that leaked out after the Texas caucuses where a Hillary-loyal captain ran off with several sign-in sheets... leaving all the Obama results behind. A mini car-chase ensued, and all parties were taken to the local prison.

I wish there was more involvement like that. If nothing else, this protracted battle between the Democrats is engaging people in a regional level in politics again. That is very good. A strong electoral turnout means that the politicians cannot curry favour with the groups that traditionally vote while continuing to neglect the far more important young working class that shoulders the work of the nation.

Shaggy_C: Anyone who says they shouldn't be given a revote are being partisan asshats.

Which party doesn't like to play by the rules? I want to be on the other one. I'm an independent.

Mugato: The party already declared that Florida isn't going to count because they once again farked up. No one had a problem with that until Hillary started losing and threw a hissy fit. How is that right?

Oh, don't start with this.





Who cares 'why', the question here is 'what is right?' They've been allowed to move their official primary to another date from the very start. And I support them doing so, even if it is late in the game. I'd rather no one be disenfranchised.

After doing mail voting for a couple of years after moving to Portland, I can't imagine doing it any other way.

Link (pops)

^thats the youtube clip of the Dean Scream just for ghits and shiggles

/not a rickroll
// Maybe its because I am young, and not that I would have voted for his platform anyway... but I stilldont understand why this single clip could remove him from the race... I mean he was the number 1 campaign collector.

SharkUW: Which party doesn't like to play by the rules? I want to be on the other one. I'm an independent.

I'm pretty sure at a national level the Republicans are the ones you need to watch out for. Locally, it's a bit more convoluted. I don't trust Chicago democrats for shiat.

SharkUW: Which party doesn't like to play by the rules? I want to be on the other one

Well, you'd better stay independent. Neither major party likes to play by the rules.

TheQuest35: // Maybe its because I am young, and not that I would have voted for his platform anyway... but I stilldont understand why this single clip could remove him from the race... I mean he was the number 1 campaign collector.

Think of Giuliani and Florida this year; he easily could have continued, but the lost momentum was making it look like a losing proposition.

Bored Horde: clgrin: Bored Horde: Caucuses. Cheap, reliable, accountable.

And Clinton will never, EVER, let them happen if they don't have too... even if they're scheduled on a weekend so her "well working class people can't attend' can't work. She does bad at them, therefor they are undemocratic...

... except for the Nevada one, which she won (even though she actually didn't)... that ones just fine

You know, I'm still laughing at that news article that leaked out after the Texas caucuses where a Hillary-loyal captain ran off with several sign-in sheets... leaving all the Obama results behind. A mini car-chase ensued, and all parties were taken to the local prison.

I wish there was more involvement like that. If nothing else, this protracted battle between the Democrats is engaging people in a regional level in politics again. That is very good. A strong electoral turnout means that the politicians cannot curry favour with the groups that traditionally vote while continuing to neglect the far more important young working class that shoulders the work of the nation.

The fact that I haven't heard about these shenanigans till now makes me , if it's possible, even more pissed off at the MSM.