Remove all Republicans: I mean, Bill Clinton was an attack dog and he won.

Whatever, dude. Clinton won because people believed in him. I myself made that mistake.

And don't forget 2004 was damn close, and Kerry didn't even do that good of a job.

Conviction is what we need, man. Not cowardice and reservation to some self-fulfilling inevitable.

Neeek:

Really?

Rovian: You are blaming the victims, and thats just tasteless. You sound like the Florida republicans of 2000. You are also not acknowledging the voter trail bill that was wrapped up into the primary vote, and ushered along by republicans.
1) They didn't HAVE to vote for it. Yes, they were definitely put in a tough spot, but they didn't have to go for it. I'm assuming that if the Republicans had enough votes on their own to push forward the primary, they wouldn't have tacked on an incentive for the Democrats.

2) If they hadn't CHOSEN not to hold the second primary, with funding help from the DNC, then you'd have a point.

But they did, and they did, so you don't.

What to do is a good question. But stripping the vote isn't the answer. I would say with-holding funds, but that could also hinder winning.
Have you read the rules? The rules are their for a reason. The point of a rule is to have consequences that will strongly encourage a person or persons to not break said rule. When you have a rule such as "You can't move your primary before this date without our permission.", what better punishment to encourage states to follow the rule than "If you break it, you'll be stripped of your delegates and at best they'll only be restored at 50%."

Speed limit: 55.
Drinking age: 21.
If you have more than 4 unexcused absences, you'll receive an F for the course.

The more important the cause, the more strict the punishment.

I will not support a party that doesn't value the vote from every state equally, and I'm expecting the voters from those states are largely going to feel the same way.
What about candidates?

Rovian: Cameron


No it doesn't. Because they broke the rules

Theres still some of us out there that believe 2 million voters come before a committee. Disenfranchisement is a nuclear option that should never be on the table. The decision from the smoke filled room just makes it worse, but came 2nd.



So how about states start holding their primaries for the 2012 presidential election next week? After all, if you had your way, they would know that the party wouldn't do anything about it.

Maybe we can have the primary for the 2032 presidential election at the same time!

Rovian: johne


Perhaps you can convinnce those that are petitioning for 'Vote for McCain' to petition for what you want?

Hillary had the most support from the large 40+ and woman demographics. The baby boomers are going to carry this election through sheer numbers. I can't convince my parents to vote for Obama.

Sometimes, your one vote counts.

Camer

They stripped 50% of the delegates from FL and MI too. So who will you be supporting this November? The party that "didn't value each vote equally"? or The party that "didn't value each vote equally."

Republicans had their nominee decided months ago. They didn't alter the outcome of the race.

Because it matters more, the rules apply more?

McCainDemocrat: The ability to get things done and know how to do the job is very important. Obama is not qualified. But McCain and Clinton are.

The only thing McCain and Hillary have experience in is murdering our troops and telling lies. It's time to get things done like ending the illegal occupation of Iraq, getting health care for Americans and ending corporate welfare and tax cuts for rich Americans so we can pay the record deficit that Republicans created.

I'm not sure Obama will do that but I am sure the McCain and Clinton won't.

Goodfella


So how about states start holding their primaries for the 2012 presidential election next week?

I thought Levin gave a very good speech about how the primary process was broken, and that no state Iowa, NH, should have this kind of privilege. The order should probably be decided as a lottery, but the pig headed DNC is too busy stripping votes to implement any real solution to the problem that precipitated the mess.

Rovian: Republicans had their nominee decided months ago. They didn't alter the outcome of the race.

So? Same infraction. By your logic, we should convict a person of rape because it was premeditated, but not if a person commits rape unpremeditated. After all, the former was decided months ago!

johne3819: Neeek:

Really?

Be more specific. Do you mean "Are the delegates really distributed by giving later contests more delegates as a reward for being later?" If so, the answer is yes.

If you mean "Would you really toss out anyone who left their name on the ballot from receiving Michigan delegates?" Then the answer is also yes.

Rovian: Goodfella


So how about states start holding their primaries for the 2012 presidential election next week?

I thought Levin gave a very good speech about how the primary process was broken, and that no state Iowa, NH, should have this kind of privilege. The order should probably be decided as a lottery, but the pig headed DNC is too busy stripping votes to implement any real solution to the problem that precipitated the mess.

Maybe a weighted lottery? It doesn't make a lot of sense for Cali or NY to go first.

cameroncrazy1984



So? Same infraction.

If the race were going on still, they would also be having this argument.

Neeek: johne3819: Neeek:

Really?

Be more specific. Do you mean "Are the delegates really distributed by giving later contests more delegates as a reward for being later?" If so, the answer is yes.

If you mean "Would you really toss out anyone who left their name on the ballot from receiving Michigan delegates?" Then the answer is also yes.

Sorry, I didn't preview before posting. Shame on me. But the former is what I referred to, thanks!

Rovian: cameroncrazy1984



So? Same infraction.

If the race were going on still, they would also be having this argument.

Sorry, straw man.

Rovian: If the race were going on still, they would also be having this argument.

So your argument, seriously, is let them count, unless the other states already decided the nomination, in which case don't.

It's stunning.

Rovian: I thought Levin gave a very good speech about how the primary process was broken, and that no state Iowa, NH, should have this kind of privilege. The order should probably be decided as a lottery, but the pig headed DNC is too busy stripping votes to implement any real solution to the problem that precipitated the mess.

Actually, stripping votes from states which broke the rules is the first step towards stopping the ridiculous Iowa/NH monopoly on earlier primaries.

If you want that to stop, you've got to have a credible threat against them. If not, Iowa and NH will just run their contests as they do now after being ordered to be later in the calendar and expect to be seated as they voted.

Step One in breaking the early states is having the backbone to show you'll screw them if they don't accept your schedule. Step Two is to actually change the schedule, but that's not done until the convention at the earliest.

I see it is Rovian's shift at the Center for Internet Trolling by Paid Operatives and Campaign Volunteers to Spread Dissent (CITPOCVSD).

Camcameroncrazy1984

So your argument...stunning

My argument is that the voters in the democratic party deserve to be heard, and that stripping those votes isn't a viable alternative, because those votes will go elsewhere when the situation is hotly contested.

Rovian: cameroncrazy1984



So? Same infraction.

If the race were going on still, they would also be having this argument.

So, if what you propose were the case, how does it change what's going on with the dems? If Romney or Huckabee had gotten more votes. It would be the same. We'd still be fighting. We'd still be pulling each other down. We'd still be very divided.

We need to rally together. The policies of Clinton and Obama are not that far off. Much closer than McCain's certainly.

I thought he worked for KAOS...

Goodfella: So how about states start holding their primaries for the 2012 presidential election next week? After all, if you had your way, they would know that the party wouldn't do anything about it.

Maybe we can have the primary for the 2032 presidential election at the same time!

Dude! I know an eight year old who would be a great president! By current standards, anyway.

Rovian: Goodfella


So how about states start holding their primaries for the 2012 presidential election next week?

I thought Levin gave a very good speech about how the primary process was broken, and that no state Iowa, NH, should have this kind of privilege. The order should probably be decided as a lottery, but the pig headed DNC is too busy stripping votes to implement any real solution to the problem that precipitated the mess.

Actually, this time around they did move two states up ahead of IA and NH, exactly because they want to break up the power those two have.

In fact, MI was one of the states requesting to be moved up, but was denied. That's when they said they'd move ahead anyway, then they were made clear of the consequences, and that didn't stop them.

Honestly, they knew they'd be stripped of delegates, this wasn't like breaking a Good Samaritan Law where they didn't know they broke a rule until they got punished... so what's the defense? The DNC shouldn't have the authority to impose such a punishment? Even if there are options in place to provide for possible extenuating circumstances such as Florida, where it was moved up mostly against the wishes of the Democrats? Then why has nobody ever complained about it, as it's been in the rules since long before this primary season.

Again, what is the point of yammering on about "counting every vote" when you cannot manage to hold a fair election in the first place? Florida and Michigan voters were already screwed out of having their voices accurately and fairly heard when their state legislatures botched their own primaries. If you want to rail about disenfranchisement, you can start there.

Dan the Schman: Rovian: Goodfella


So how about states start holding their primaries for the 2012 presidential election next week?

I thought Levin gave a very good speech about how the primary process was broken, and that no state Iowa, NH, should have this kind of privilege. The order should probably be decided as a lottery, but the pig headed DNC is too busy stripping votes to implement any real solution to the problem that precipitated the mess.

Actually, this time around they did move two states up ahead of IA and NH, exactly because they want to break up the power those two have.

In fact, MI was one of the states requesting to be moved up, but was denied. That's when they said they'd move ahead anyway, then they were made clear of the consequences, and that didn't stop them.

Honestly, they knew they'd be stripped of delegates, this wasn't like breaking a Good Samaritan Law where they didn't know they broke a rule until they got punished... so what's the defense? The DNC shouldn't have the authority to impose such a punishment? Even if there are options in place to provide for possible extenuating circumstances such as Florida, where it was moved up mostly against the wishes of the Democrats? Then why has nobody ever complained about it, as it's been in the rules since long before this primary season.

I think it was a caucus after IA and a primary after NH.

Goodfella

broke a rule until they got punished... so what's the defense? The DNC shouldn't have the authority to impose such a punishment?

Pretty much. What has been done doesn't punish those responsible at all.

To put a concrete example on it, if Maryland had done the same thing, I would be pissed at Maryland. I don't know about others, but I was undecided about the primary at the beginning, and for a good amount of time in. If my state had prematurely had its primary, against the rules and schedule that the candidates had agreed to follow, and before I had really gotten the chance to consider my choice, I would feel disenfranchised by my state, not the DNC.

Rovian: Camcameroncrazy1984

So your argument...stunning

My argument is that the voters in the democratic party deserve to be heard, and that stripping those votes isn't a viable alternative, because those votes will go elsewhere when the situation is hotly contested.

Ah, forget it. These people don't care. They think everyone is as smart as they are and will just love Obama once they hear him. None of the Republican dirty tricks, none of the publicity from Michigan and Florida voters, nothing will stop the Democrats and Obama from winning.

This will be like 2004 all over again. We'll all sit around and say "how could everyone be so stupid! OMG, all these Republican voters! How did they fall for all that nonsense?" and then McCain will start WWIII and we'll wonder why the Democrats can't do anything.

Thray: If my state had prematurely had its primary, against the rules and schedule that the candidates had agreed to follow, and before I had really gotten the chance to consider my choice, I would feel disenfranchised by my state, not the DNC.

Yeah, well, that's you. The typical voter has an average IQ of 100 and will probably fall for all the "the national Democratic party didn't care about your votes, the state Democratic party didn't either, so why vote for those guys?" crap spewing out come October.

So, Clinton wants to disenfranchise ME because I live in Ks. Lovely.

Remove all Republicans: Yeah, well, that's you. The typical voter has an average IQ of 100 and will probably fall for all the "the national Democratic party didn't care about your votes, the state Democratic party didn't either, so why vote for those guys?" crap spewing out come October.

Maybe, maybe not, but I fail to see how acquiescing and setting yourself up for the same thing ad infinitum will improve the situation, in the end.

Remove all Republicans: Rovian: Camcameroncrazy1984

So your argument...stunning

My argument is that the voters in the democratic party deserve to be heard, and that stripping those votes isn't a viable alternative, because those votes will go elsewhere when the situation is hotly contested.

Ah, forget it. These people don't care. They think everyone is as smart as they are and will just love Obama once they hear him. None of the Republican dirty tricks, none of the publicity from Michigan and Florida voters, nothing will stop the Democrats and Obama from winning.

This will be like 2004 all over again. We'll all sit around and say "how could everyone be so stupid! OMG, all these Republican voters! How did they fall for all that nonsense?" and then McCain will start WWIII and we'll wonder why the Democrats can't do anything.

You have a very depressing outlook on life. You must be a very unhappy man.

whidbey: Gore actually won that election, but don't let that little tidbit spoil your quest for trifecta.

That was my point. Nader took about 90k votes from Gore.

Learn about spoilers.

wildcardjack: That was my point. Nader took about 90k votes from Gore.

Learn about spoilers.

A busted point, maybe. That I'm sick of hearing so I honed right in to give you grief about it.

Learn about sh*tty Supreme Court decisions. Gore won that puppy. Blaming Nader is retarded.

wildcardjack: whidbey: Gore actually won that election, but don't let that little tidbit spoil your quest for trifecta.

That was my point. Nader took about 90k votes from Gore.

Learn about spoilers.

Nader siphoned off enough votes in New Hamshire and Florida to cost Gore the election. Those are the only two states where Nader's votes were enough to matter.

McCainDemocrat,

In another thread, last night, I pointed out that while you claim to be a McCain supporter, very little of the total content you post has anything to do with Senator McCain.

In fact, you seem preoccupied with Senators Obama and Clinton, even though you are a staunch support of Senator McCain, or so you claim.

What is readily apparent, based on your prolific posts over the last several week, is that you do not support anyone but rather are here only to try and siphon off support from other candidates from potential voters who have yet to fully commit.

This comes across as nothing short of desperation.

What it also does is show the rest of the people here that you are intellectually dishonest, that this type of "politics as usual" is being played, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American people are sick of it, and most importantly, if you were a shill for Barrack Obama you couldn't possibly have a more galvanizing effect on his group of supporters.

Talk about unintended consequences.

If you are a paid shill, you should be fired for your gross incompetence.

Count me as another Republican that will vote for Obama... I wonder how many of us there are?

Keep counting my vote, McCain... Not only am I not going to vote for you, my vote will be going to the other side. Ha!

Rovian: Goodfella

broke a rule until they got punished... so what's the defense? The DNC shouldn't have the authority to impose such a punishment?

Pretty much. What has been done doesn't punish those responsible at all.

You're right. The decision on Saturday to count Michigan's utterly flawed primary does nothing to punish those responsible, or to discourage them from doing this again in the future.

They've moved ahead twice without permission. The first time they had to organize a whole new event in order to avoid punishment... now they know they just need to stomp their feet and cry about "disenfranchisement" and the DNC will say uncle.

The fact is, if Clinton hadn't been disingenuously whining on their behalf, the voters would have learned that it was the fault of their legislators, rather than being fed her propaganda and thinking it was Obama's fault or the DNC's fault, and when the time came for a new election, rather than take it out on the Democratic Presidential candidate who had nothing to do with their predicament, they could take it out on their elected officials and kick their asses out.

I am sorry, Hillary, but when you have, potentially, hundreds of thousands of Republicans crossing to vote for you because you are the weaker candidate you cannot possibly tout being in the lead in the popular vote.

NYZooMan: Well, that was his choice.
He should've know what game he was in.

Will he also remove all America's nukes and then complain when everyone else doesn't do the same?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on Fark. And I've been here a while.

don't forget collin county in texas doesn't count either because they voted a day late. Michigan and Florida voted early so I guess thats ok.

Now I know why there are more space alien sightings during election years...they're here for the comedy show.

Democrats in 2000: "Count every vote! Count every vote!"

Democrats in 2008: "Don't count those, and those, and only give those half, and these shouldn't count and..."

Virulency: did that also include caucus votes? did it include the caucus's that counted where the primary didn't like washington? is she only counting primaries?

NO. Not one single caucus vote is counted here. Neither is Washington's primary. Even though people voted in that primary it doesn't count since no delegate were awarded. ps: Clinton lost that primary, too. shhh.

randomjsa: Democrats in 2000: "Count every vote! Count every vote!"

Democrats in 2008: "Don't count those, and those, and only give those half, and these shouldn't count and..."

Yeah, because the primary is exactly the same as the general election. They don't have different rules or anything. By the way, voting in a primary is a priveledge, not a right. Oh, and another by the way. The Republicans are only counting half of Florida, as well.

Newbaca: The article only mentions Nebraska and Idaho, none of the other states. Did subby bother reading the article?

Here you go, Einstein. Do something for yourself for once.

source ^

These numbers include Idaho and Nebraska, unlike the numbers in the article. The article's numbers also discount the caucus votes. So yes, Clinton's claims to the popular vote rely on not counting anywhere from 4 to 6 states, and insisting that Michigan was fair and that Obama gets zero to her 328,000.

McCainDemocrat: Why shouldn't we count all the votes from Florida and Michigan? These people cast full votes. Not half-votes.

The Democrat elites changed Michigan in a ridiculous way.

They changed it from 73/0 to 34.5/29.5. Clinton loses 38.5 delegates, Obama gains 29.5 delegates.

Ridiculous.

God, you are f*cking stupid.

Hillary's just trying to cement her legacy as "the woman who won the popular vote" even though her campaign is over.

Everyone get your asterisks ready:

Hillary won the popular vote in 2008.*

* Does not include caucuses or states with informal tallies.

I live in Michigan and have given money to Obama. In the primary I voted for Ron Paul.
My wife has a Obama t-shirt. She voted for Dennis Kucinich.
My father-in-law, die hard Democrat, voted for Fred Thompson.
My mom picked up a ballot and realized Obama wasn't on it, then threw it away.
My father voted for Romney, but now supports Obama.
My brother was on a temporary assignment in Washington and didn't bother to get an absentee.

A lot of Clinton supporter talk about voting Republican if HRC is not the nominee. I have.

Rovian: Fl and MI, states that 1/2 matter. Why not 3/5?

Wow, really?

You're really going to compare a ruling to compromise for two states that BROKE THE FARKING GARSH DARN FARKING RULES with counting slaves as 3/5 a person for deciding seating in the House of Representatives?

Are you really that much of a moron or do you just epically fail at satire?

I mean, if the DNC were doing this because MI has a failing economy and is a drain on the rest of the nation in that its failing economy is causing an influx of people to move from MI to other states, thus taking jobs in other states from the people who live their and giving them to MI transplants and FL is full of morons who are waiting in line for their Darwin awards, then yes, I could see the justification in your comparison.

/knows lots of MI transplants
//hasn't lost a job to them and they're actually good customers/co-workers
///just couldn't come up with another reason for MI that would be total BS
//// :)

cameroncrazy1984: Well, you know, caucuses are unfair because it favors people who actually show up.

/this is ridiculous.

Not that ridiculous. States that hold caucuses, don't count the people who come and caucus. There is no way of knowing how many people showed up.

/Facts.
//Get them.

So I'm listening to Ickes on XM POTUS 08 say that the RNB committee did not uphold the rules as Obama took 4 delegates from Clinton in Michigan.

/I really wish someone would call him on the fact that he voted to take away all of the FL/MI delegates in the first place!