What is Digg?163 Comments
- tcbishop12, on 05/22/2008, -13/+76All the more reason for the supers to pull the plug on Hillary's life support and push her out of the race now.
- huntress58, on 05/22/2008, -9/+54She has totally lost it. I just read that she is comparing Fl and MI to the civil righs movements. Can we please get on with the GE?
- bluevillage, on 05/22/2008, -9/+54Her campaign realized too late that it had done a lousy job of winning according to the rules, by ignoring caucus states and those that gave Obama his 11 straight wins in February. So now she's trying to win by changing the rules and in the process casting doubt on his legitimacy as a candidate. The superdelegates won't buy it, but the electorate might, if they're not set straight. I would hope that party leaders come out and show up this logic.
- elf202, on 05/22/2008, -6/+40This Clinton woman does not have the promise of increasing/regaining the US's prestige and moral standing around the world. Nor will she bring back the affection of people around the world who are cheering on the American progressives and hungering at the prospect of getting back the America we knew before Bush. Look at her, she's destroying the party that is the vehicle to remove Bush. Will the super delegates please boot her out already.
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -8/+40Hillary Clinton cares about nothing but grabbing power for her self and she will do or say anything to get power even if it means destroying the Democratic party in the process. She has lost the nomination and can not win without over ruling the will of the voters.
She is desperately trying to fabricate a myth that she has won the national popular vote by ignoring the votes of caucus states like IA, NV, ME and WA while pretending to be protecting democracy by making sure that MI and FL votes are counted. Never mind that:
1) MI and FL knowingly violated party rules and that Clinton stated prior to the IA and NH that MI and FL should not count because they were violating the rules;
2) in keeping with his pledge to support party rules Obama had removed his name from the MI ballet;
3) Clinton failed to remove her name from the MI ballet as she had pledged to do saying it didn't really matter since MI wasn't going to count anyways;
4) over 40% of MI voters voted against her by voting uncommitted since they couldn't vote for Obama; and
5) that the nomination was always about who won the most delegates, not who won the popular vote.
Certainly Clinton did not care about the will of the people via the popular vote when she made sure to have collected a couple hundred super delegate endorsements before a single vote had been cast. No one in MI or FL should be so naive as to think Clinton would care one bit about their votes counting if the shoe was on the other foot and she were winning and not Obama. Hillary Clinton does not care about you or anyone else unless it suits her own self interest to win at any cost. - johnhummel, on 05/22/2008, -2/+18What's even worse is how inaccurate it is. I did some math this morning.
I crunched my own numbers.
If you only count primary states - including Florida and Michican *as
they are now* (aka - give Obama 0 for Michican), you get this:
Clinton: 16,752,577
Obama: 16,311,622
Caucus Votes:
Clinton: 188,065
Obama: 390,245
Oh, noes - he's losing in the primary vote! Somebody, fetch me a
white hanky and my smelling salts!
Except - this excludes the caucus states - you have to disenfranchise
13 states and 3 terrotories (Texas doesn't count). Now, I know that
Senator Clinton is very much against disenfranchisement - she tells us
this all the time.
So, if you add in the "raw" caucus votes - in other words, one caucus
state delegate equals one person voting, then you get this:
Primary Votes:
Clinton: 16,940,642
Obama: 16,701,867
Now, by this, he's still "losing the popular vote" at a much smaller
margin - but this raises an interesting issue. Does one state
delegate equal one person? We have no way of knowing, so we might as
well go home and -
Wait - we *do* know a way? Oh, wait - Texas!
Texas primary results went like this:
Clinton: 1,459,814
Obama: 1,358,785
Texas caucus results:
Clinton: 18620
Obama: 23918
Now we can do some math. If you add up the totals from the primaries,
and divide it by the totals from the caucus, you would get the average
ratio of a how many votes a state delegate represents.
Total Texas Primary Votes: 2,818,599
Total Texas Primary Votes: 42,538
State delegate to popular vote ratio: 66 (really, 66.26, but let's not quibble)
This means that for every *caucus* delegate, that equals 66 people.
Holy delegates, Batman!
So let's crunch those numbers again.
Primary Vote Total
Clinton: 16,752,577
Obama: 16,311,622
Caucus Votes plus delegate to popular vote multiplier:
Obama: 188,065 * 66 = 25,756,170
Clinton: 390,245 * 66 = 12,412,290
Primary Votes with multiplier added in:
Clinton: 29,164,867
Obama: 42,067,792
Woah - I know, that looks insane. But, that's the math. Let's try
something way more conservative (in the good sense of the word, mind
you).
Let's assume a delegate to popular vote ratio in caucus states of only
3 to 1. This is obviously waaaaay low - but let's face it, if you
have 100 people show up at an event, 1 or 2 delegates might be picked.
So a "3 popular votes to every 1 caucus votes" is still giving Clinton
the best benefit she can.
Clinton: 17,316,772
Obama: 17,482,357
Huh - and look at that. Even at the most *modest* caucus to popular
vote ratio possible, Obama - without a single vote in Michigan, a
state I actually believe he would have won had he not been honorable,
he still wins this asinine "popular vote" argument. By a slim margin
- but if you put that ratio up to the more realistic 10:1, then it's
not even a contest anymore.
Either way, my bet is that Michican will be split 60/40, Michigan and
Florida will be given half delegates (and no super delegates), and
this looooong race will truly begin against Senator McCain.
Sorry if this is too much math for the morning - pretend it's like
playing "Brain Age" on your DS, only with political leanings. - acroyear2, on 05/22/2008, -1/+13If you add all of Bill Clinton's votes from the 1990s, she's with out a doubt won the popular vote and the election. You also need to go back in time and dress her up as a dude and she would have been the president for 8 years as well.
/sniper fire - luke374, on 05/22/2008, -3/+15Obama needs to hold another "let me straighten some ***** out" press conference and just call her out on this.
- inactive, on 05/22/2008, -13/+22Dude. You're going bald. Give it up. Get a decent haircut.
- Diderotten, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9Even saying she won the popular vote is wrong.
- acroyear2, on 05/22/2008, -1/+10I look forward to his future "let me straighten some ***** out" conferences.
- dougmc, on 05/22/2008, -2/+11Because it supports her position. How much more logic do you need?
- rjpaulisick, on 05/22/2008, -1/+10If she wants Florida and Michigan to count, she better stop saying caucus state votes do not matter. Like she always says--let every vote count.
- mshtml, on 05/22/2008, -4/+11Thank you for the endless Obama/Hillary fantasy drama. My dollar doesn't buy ***** anymore and I lost 3 friends in Iraq. This stuff is what every American needs to avoid reality. Not to mention the door gets left open for McCain, creating even more drama. Its almost like these candidates are following a script and putting on a show, wink.
- zydeco, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8Why doesn't Obama come out and wave that agreement they both signed? I'd love to see him just stand up there and ask the voters if they want a President that plays by the rules and laws they agree to, or if they want one that (like the last 8 years), just ignores the ones that bother them.
- 4bit, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6There were rules about the states order of voting. Because the state did not follow these rules, even after hearing what the punishment would be, they're complaining that they're actually being punished.
Now we both agree that the people got caught in the cross fire. Unforunately, here is where we are:
For every few votes, someone stayed home. How do we handle those who actually thought the rules would stick?
Hillary has been on the national stage longer (though not necesairily governing longer). How do we handle that Obama had less of a chance to make his argument in such states than she did?
Many voters outside those two states feel like rules should mean something. How do we not have complete chaos if states can break rules at will?
When the Republicans went with a 1/2 vote system, we should have pulled back on the smack down and copied them. It didn't happen. Will it happen now? It could, and proably will.
Dean has already said he'll seat those delegations, he just wants to do so in a way that's as fair for those who voted in MI and FL as it is for those who didn't.
Personally, I think they should loose their votes on principle. They flaunted the system, and now are complaining. They won't loose them. There will be comprimise, but they dont' really deserve it. - blackinthmiddle, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6When KLBP said "they" violated the rules, he meant the states. So the states disregarded the votes of their own people. I have no idea who you're referring to when you say "you're".
Saying the rules are ***** is like saying marijuana being illegal is *****. Great, so if you don't like it, work on changing the rule. Until then, however, it's still a rule. A rule Clinton *was in favor of* until after super Tuesday, when she fell behind (of course). - egoherodotus, on 05/22/2008, -3/+9How can she logically argue that MI's popular vote should be counted, if her opponent wasn't on the ballot?
- inactive, on 05/22/2008, -1/+6Operation Chaos - Mission Accomplished!
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5There are many things in life that are gray area. This, THANKFULLY is not one of those areas! If you don't like the rules, that's another matter entirely. But to retroactively change them would be no different than saying, "Hey, that three point shot that you took to win the game? Yeah, we changed the rules because the other team are bitching and moaning. So now, the 3 point line is 5 feet further back. You'll have to get back on the court and play overtime! I know the contest was over two days ago, but rules are meant to be broken...especially when the "wrong" team wins."
- jjgasp, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5From the Hillary Clinton website:
9/1/2007
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge
The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar." - licoricewhip, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Hillary will not exit gracefully. That much is assured. It is Hillary or the Dem party will be destroyed. The Clintons will not let some upstart punk get the nom.
- TRScheel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5I hope he introduces it like that, would make my day.
"Ladies and gentlemen. let me straighten some ***** out..."
I can even hear his voice when I say that in my head - altgeeky1, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5I'm really disappointed with CNN. They all ooze this preference for Hillary that it's disgusting.
Of course, they know they can get away with it. It's not like their viewers will go running to Fox. - redcolumbine, on 05/22/2008, -5/+9MI and FL are just a smokescreen so that she can continue to fundraise against her gigantic campaign debt. Pure self-interest. Surprised?
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Get a clue. Two things. One, you left out the word "fairly". If they can "fairly" come up with a way to seat them, good (which they can't). Second, he only said he's in favor of this because you know if he said, "Hey man, is Hillary so stupid that she can't follow rules that a third grader could follow?", he'd be accused of wanting to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. So he played it the best he could. What he's really saying is, "Sure, seat them. Don't accuse me of disenfranchising them. Just do it fairly!"
- StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Every vote should count. Pity certain State leaders knowingly screwed up and got kicked out of the DNC's private party. Good thing they can't screw up so the same is true for the General (see: public) election.
Now stop being a parrot. - ZenMojo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4John King actually got in an argument with Wolf Blitzer after she won West Virginia. He outright said, "She can't win with the pledged delegates."
Wolf Blitzer tried to make it seem that there was an argument she could make with Florida and Michigan and King dissected her argument and threw it out. They went back and forth over this *****. - blackinthmiddle, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Yes, he said he had no problem with the delegates being seated, if it were done in a fair manner! Basically, he's saying, "Look, you and I both know there's no fair way to seat those delegates. But good luck in trying to come up with one that everyone's going to be happy with."
Think about it. Edwards was still campaigning at the time. You'd have to go back in your time machine to when the people who voted for him still thought he was a viable candidate. You'd have to also break all DNC rules, which defeats the whole purpose of punishing Florida and Michigan for going renegade.
Hillary wants the votes counted as is, which is foolish. At best, you'd have to have a recount. One where republicans aren't allowed to vote!!! Last I checked, Florida was in the middle of changing their voting machines, so they don't even *have* voting machines in all areas.
So...how do you propose the delegates get seated? - V0lk, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4yeah, those are the same "professionals" that keep saying Hillary won Texas whenever they mention the "big states" she's won.....even tho Obama got more delegates out of Texas because of the caucuses.
- StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Your "argument" has been refuted several times in several threads. How many more times does it need to be said? The leaders in those states knowingly and willfully broke the rules; they tried to ignore the DNC and subsequently they are no longer a part of the DNC's party. The nomination for a DNC candidate is wholly at the discretion of the DNC itself. If the DNC says "we're not seating your delegates because you broke the rules," then the State party has two options: 1. Break the rules and hope the DNC has no backbone to enforce the penalty, or 2. Don't break the rules. They chose the former.
It is a lesson that the DNC would like to remind State parties to heed in the future--they have a backbone and they're going to strip you of your role in the NOMINATION process.
For those suffering because of the State party leaders, people have often asked that you kick them to the curb as a show of your righteous indignation at how they screwed up. That is, however, a choice the constituents have. Do that, or be prepared to suffer the same thing in the near or far future. - Fozefy, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3It is only like this because people are still voting for Hillary. Obama has started to mostly ignore her and face these issues as well as starting to campaign against McCain. Obama is doing the best he can given the circumstances, it is up to the super delegates to shut Hilary down once and for all.
- nickert0n, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3dugg for sniper fire refrence
- suckanucka, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5Hillary has never heard of the intraweb and how it documents all her *****. She is like McCain, not realizing there is a great paper trail of idiocys allowing the public to draw their own rational conclusions, with mass media on the gradual decline.
- Snuffs, on 05/22/2008, -5/+8More Hillary *****? BORRRRIIINNGG!
- TRScheel, on 05/22/2008, -5/+8I hope to God the DNC doesn't include the MI and FL votes. Allowing for any sort of re-vote or just taking the votes done in the first place would set a HORRIBLE precedence. Imagine 4 years from now if they did... more states will change their voting day because they know in the end they will get counted.
Edit: If the voters have problems with it, they can take it up with their politicians who knowingly screwed them in the first place - exomni, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4I'm sick of the Democratic party for letting Clinton continue this self-interested farce. The people have already spoken: Obama has the majority of pledged delegates. The least these bastards could do is have 61 of the 451 superdelegates who haven't announced support for Obama hurry the ***** up and clinch the nomination for who the democratic voters have already selected.
- MWeather, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Uh, don't the supers have to actually vote in order to push her out?
- badqat, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3If it was about democracy, there wouldn't be a swath of 'super delegates' to check the popular vote. It is a built in elitist safety net.
- HellDonut, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3The game is OK and has worked in the past.
A player constantly complaining about the rules AFTER she has pledged to accept them is what people hate. - TRScheel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Oh yeah it does. The fact that Clinton is bringing up fixing this mid contest is just another notch on my 'why I wont vote for her' list.
You don't change the rules mid game... its bad practice. To suggest otherwise makes me question her character. - OMnicient, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4It's more than well known and understood that "uncommitted" was a blanket vote AGAINST Clinton.
- TRScheel, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4Sadly, no they cannot. This is not a matter of democracy it is a matter of making sure this kind of fiasco doesn't happen again. If they punish these two states like they threatened to do in the beginning, in the future you will not see other states making the same mistake. If you just let them count (and hence give them the position of power they wanted in the first place by changing the date) you subtly make the argument that this kind of behavior is okay.
It sucks a lot, I agree... but it has to be done. You risk encouraging date changing in the future and the possibility of worse screw ups. - acroyear2, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4So be it, but placing blame on Obama as the Clinton supporters do is bitter, idiocy. Also, we should fix this after the contest. It sets a bad precedence doing this in mid-contest.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4It unfortunately doesn't matter. I think she's already done major damage to the democratic party. The longer this goes on, the more older women are taking this whole thing as an attack against all women. Whoever beat our woman is an instant enemy.
Just on intelligence and ability, a door knob should be able to beat McCain. Unfortunately, this race has shown just how much people will stick to a candidate against all reason. - pyronik, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Yea thats why Obama isn't taking public financing right?
Oh wait.. don't bring that up - Chordonblue, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Some have spoken, many have not. It's the silent ones you should be worrying/wondering about.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is