Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 09:47 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I haven't taken the trouble to look at the complete schedule of state primaries or to note when, based on it, the first realistic opportunity will occur for either candidate to lock in a working majority of committed delegates (possibly hard to do with the proportional rule). However it is likely to be long before the Democrat primary in late August.

That leaves a lot of time for mischief and politicing before the issue is finally settled. Moreover, it leaves very little time to either settle any disputes that might get into the courts (not likely, but possible), or to clean up the debris if there is a hard fought dispute at the convention.

Interesting.


That's probably the reason Huckabee is determined to stick it out until the end too. There is a lot of time left for anything to happen.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 09:51 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Hillary must be embarrassed by that result.

I'm sure she is.

Lola wrote:
The Clinton people knew they would be losing these primaries.

Of course they did. But not by anything like the margins they did. Not when they were making a hard campaign push to the very end as well.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 09:57 pm
I hear people say 'oh, well, Obama does better in Caucuses.

As if that's some sort of explanation or excuse for losing, heavily.

And, as for the 'can Obama beat John McCain?

States which John McCain LOST in the primary but Obama won in his:

Kansas
Alabama
Georgia
North Dakota
Louisiana
Minnesota
Iowa
Utah
Colorado
Alaska
Maine

And depending on how well Huck's lawyers do, Washington.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 09:58 pm
Lola wrote:
The Clinton people knew they would be losing these primaries. They're still hopeful about Texas and Ohio. Hillary is winning the cash war, not that that's a very reliable predictor. Obama has raised roughly 2,744,177.00 and Hillary $4,611,326.00 That will be changing before the primary there. But I think the polls are still indicating a lead for Hillary in Texas. Obama is ahead in Ohio.

Presently, according to CNN, as of this minute, Hillary has 1,148 and Obama 1,121. I'm not sure about the Florida or Michigan count.


FL and MI have about 374 delegates combined.

It's hard to imagine the Party is going to suffer the ignimony of allowing FL and MI Democrats to be disenfranchised Mad

If seating them results in a Clinton victory I think we might see Obama lawyers rushing to a federal courthouse in Denver. If FL and MI are refused seating, I think we might see Clinton lawyers running to that same court. If litigation ensues just as the Democrats are supposed to be getting launched into the general election, it will be a disaster.

Unless Obama goes on a tear and wins Texas and Ohio, some kind of dramatic convention scene is promised.

The Party leaders stepping in and annointing Gore over either of them would be a big mistake if the goal is to avoid litigation. Instead I can see them stepping in and brokering a Clinton/Obama ticket. Near disaster for the Democrats, but curtains for the Republicans.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:03 pm
I should have known that us democrats would have found a way to lose in November.

There has never in my lifetime been a more ripe opportunity for a democratic president then in 2008, and look at what we all managed to let happen.

Not blaming Clinton or Obama, they have to do what they have to do. But of course; a big ole democratic mess that will likely cost us the election in 2008.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:04 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Lola wrote:
The Clinton people knew they would be losing these primaries. They're still hopeful about Texas and Ohio. Hillary is winning the cash war, not that that's a very reliable predictor. Obama has raised roughly 2,744,177.00 and Hillary $4,611,326.00 That will be changing before the primary there. But I think the polls are still indicating a lead for Hillary in Texas. Obama is ahead in Ohio.

Presently, according to CNN, as of this minute, Hillary has 1,148 and Obama 1,121. I'm not sure about the Florida or Michigan count.


FL and MI have about 374 delegates combined.

It's hard to imagine the Party is going to suffer the ignimony of allowing FL and MI Democrats to be disenfranchised Mad

If seating them results in a Clinton victory I think we might see Obama lawyers rushing to a federal courthouse in Denver. If FL and MI are refused seating, I think we might see Clinton lawyers running to that same court. If litigation ensues just as the Democrats are supposed to be getting launched into the general election, it will be a disaster.

Unless Obama goes on a tear and wins Texas and Ohio, some kind of dramatic convention scene is promised.

The Party leaders stepping in and annointing Gore over either of them would be a big mistake if the goal is to avoid litigation. Instead I can see them stepping in and brokering a Clinton/Obama ticket. Near disaster for the Democrats, but curtains for the Republicans.


Sorry but this is simply untrue.

If Obama goes up by more then the amount that FL and MI would provide Clinton, including super-delegates, then it's over and done for no matter what. The DNC doesn't want to make a decision on this; they will stall as long as possible, so that they can re-instate these states after it doesn't matter any more.

After Obama wins big on Tues., and if he can win later in the month, he will go into Texas and Ohio with a significant lead in delegates - and a significant amount of momentum. It is entirely possible that he will end that day with more delegates then Clinton will even if she wins one of the two big states. If that happens, she isn't likely to continue her campaign, as the chances of her coming back would be slim.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:08 pm
Hey Cyclo - here's a fresh editorial from that pro-war, -wiretapping and -torture DLC website The New Republic : :wink:

Quote:
Stop Thief!

by The Editors
Friday, February 08, 2008

What is Clinton's ploy for Michigan and Florida's delegates?

It is increasingly looking like end times in American politics. Ann Coulter--Ann Coulter!--has vowed to vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain. And now many yellow-dog Democrats, who once worshiped at the Clinton temple, sound as if they have just consumed the complete collection of Wall Street Journal editorial page writings on Billary.

These days, you will commonly hear Obama supporters, and even many undecided Democrats, describe the Clintons as mendacious, brutal, willing to bend (or break) any rule in pursuit of power. Not all of these criticisms are fair. A decade's worth of resentment has come rushing out, as Democrats have suddenly felt free to despise the Clintons without worrying that their venting might aid Republicans. In certain quarters, it's an old-fashioned pile-on. Looking at their plight with any detachment, it is even possible to develop a measure of sympathy for the Clintons. Or it was, anyway, right up until the point at which Hillary threatened to steal the nomination. And theft is the only way to describe the plan she has floated for certifying the Florida and Michigan delegations.

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton has said.

There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. [..] The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately.

The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Lola wrote:
The Clinton people knew they would be losing these primaries. They're still hopeful about Texas and Ohio. Hillary is winning the cash war, not that that's a very reliable predictor. Obama has raised roughly 2,744,177.00 and Hillary $4,611,326.00 That will be changing before the primary there. But I think the polls are still indicating a lead for Hillary in Texas. Obama is ahead in Ohio.

Presently, according to CNN, as of this minute, Hillary has 1,148 and Obama 1,121. I'm not sure about the Florida or Michigan count.


FL and MI have about 374 delegates combined.

It's hard to imagine the Party is going to suffer the ignimony of allowing FL and MI Democrats to be disenfranchised Mad

If seating them results in a Clinton victory I think we might see Obama lawyers rushing to a federal courthouse in Denver. If FL and MI are refused seating, I think we might see Clinton lawyers running to that same court. If litigation ensues just as the Democrats are supposed to be getting launched into the general election, it will be a disaster.

Unless Obama goes on a tear and wins Texas and Ohio, some kind of dramatic convention scene is promised.

The Party leaders stepping in and annointing Gore over either of them would be a big mistake if the goal is to avoid litigation. Instead I can see them stepping in and brokering a Clinton/Obama ticket. Near disaster for the Democrats, but curtains for the Republicans.


Sorry but this is simply untrue.

If Obama goes up by more then the amount that FL and MI would provide Clinton, including super-delegates, then it's over and done for no matter what. The DNC doesn't want to make a decision on this; they will stall as long as possible, so that they can re-instate these states after it doesn't matter any more.

After Obama wins big on Tues., and if he can win later in the month, he will go into Texas and Ohio with a significant lead in delegates - and a significant amount of momentum. It is entirely possible that he will end that day with more delegates then Clinton will even if she wins one of the two big states. If that happens, she isn't likely to continue her campaign, as the chances of her coming back would be slim.

Cycloptichorn


Sorry but you simply did not bother to read my post before you fired off your retort

finn wrote:
Unless Obama goes on a tear and wins Texas and Ohio, some kind of dramatic convention scene is promised.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:13 pm
Uh oh Clintonistas -- Obama won the grammy!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:14 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Lola wrote:
The Clinton people knew they would be losing these primaries. They're still hopeful about Texas and Ohio. Hillary is winning the cash war, not that that's a very reliable predictor. Obama has raised roughly 2,744,177.00 and Hillary $4,611,326.00 That will be changing before the primary there. But I think the polls are still indicating a lead for Hillary in Texas. Obama is ahead in Ohio.

Presently, according to CNN, as of this minute, Hillary has 1,148 and Obama 1,121. I'm not sure about the Florida or Michigan count.


FL and MI have about 374 delegates combined.

It's hard to imagine the Party is going to suffer the ignimony of allowing FL and MI Democrats to be disenfranchised Mad

If seating them results in a Clinton victory I think we might see Obama lawyers rushing to a federal courthouse in Denver. If FL and MI are refused seating, I think we might see Clinton lawyers running to that same court. If litigation ensues just as the Democrats are supposed to be getting launched into the general election, it will be a disaster.

Unless Obama goes on a tear and wins Texas and Ohio, some kind of dramatic convention scene is promised.

The Party leaders stepping in and annointing Gore over either of them would be a big mistake if the goal is to avoid litigation. Instead I can see them stepping in and brokering a Clinton/Obama ticket. Near disaster for the Democrats, but curtains for the Republicans.


Sorry but this is simply untrue.

If Obama goes up by more then the amount that FL and MI would provide Clinton, including super-delegates, then it's over and done for no matter what. The DNC doesn't want to make a decision on this; they will stall as long as possible, so that they can re-instate these states after it doesn't matter any more.

After Obama wins big on Tues., and if he can win later in the month, he will go into Texas and Ohio with a significant lead in delegates - and a significant amount of momentum. It is entirely possible that he will end that day with more delegates then Clinton will even if she wins one of the two big states. If that happens, she isn't likely to continue her campaign, as the chances of her coming back would be slim.

Cycloptichorn


Sorry but you simply did not bother to read my post before you fired off your retort

finn wrote:
Unless Obama goes on a tear and wins Texas and Ohio, some kind of dramatic convention scene is promised.


Point is that Obama will likely be up by enough in pledged delegates - and maybe even super-delegates - that it is Clinton who must win both of those states. Obama could probably lose one of them and still have more delegates then she does at the end of the day, which would be a strong signal of the end for her.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:17 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Point is that Obama will likely be up by enough in pledged delegates - and maybe even super-delegates - that it is Clinton who must win both of those states. Obama could probably lose one of them and still have more delegates then she does at the end of the day, which would be a strong signal of the end for her.

Cycloptichorn


No, the point is that you are so desperate to counter anything written in this thread that might even be construed as unfavorable to your man that you are not even reading the posts as written.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:21 pm
I still think the best solution for everyone all around is to have Florida and Michigan have caucuses for a vote redo after both candidates have had a specified time to campaign in both states and have those results go as official results to the convention.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:23 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Point is that Obama will likely be up by enough in pledged delegates - and maybe even super-delegates - that it is Clinton who must win both of those states. Obama could probably lose one of them and still have more delegates then she does at the end of the day, which would be a strong signal of the end for her.

Cycloptichorn


No, the point is that you are so desperate to counter anything written in this thread that might even be construed as unfavorable to your man that you are not even reading the posts as written.


Sorry, but that wasn't my point at all.

I think that you are merely clinging to the hope that the Dems will weaken themselves enough that the weak Republican will be able to win. Chances are that it isn't going to turn out that way, though.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:53 pm
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Hillary must be embarrassed by that result.

I'm sure she is.

Lola wrote:
The Clinton people knew they would be losing these primaries.

Of course they did. But not by anything like the margins they did. Not when they were making a hard campaign push to the very end as well.


Yes they did. They've been talking about it ever since Tuesday. They had a small hope that the differential in Maine would be smaller. But I don't think she's embarrassed. Why should she be? It's about delegates, not number of states won. We all know that. He got 15 today from Maine, she got 9. Anything can happen and we don't know how it will go. There are too many variables. The next three are going to Obama too. But it's still about delegates.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:55 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
I still think the best solution for everyone all around is to have Florida and Michigan have caucuses for a vote redo after both candidates have had a specified time to campaign in both states and have those results go as official results to the convention.


me too. It's the only plan I've heard that comes the least bit close to fair.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:56 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
I still think the best solution for everyone all around is to have Florida and Michigan have caucuses for a vote redo after both candidates have had a specified time to campaign in both states and have those results go as official results to the convention.


This would be a good solution for Obama because he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. His campaign has strengthened since the FL and MI primaries were held and if a do-over took place in the context of a convention stalemate, the voters in these two states would be unduly influenced to cast their votes in a way that would get the mess out of the way.

I don't see Hillary ever agreeing to this and I wouldn't blame her. She had the foresight to get her name on the MI ballot, I presume Obama could have as well. She has everything to lose and nothing to gain.

It's the same thinking behind Obama not wanting to engage in any more debates with Clinton.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:56 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
I still think the best solution for everyone all around is to have Florida and Michigan have caucuses for a vote redo after both candidates have had a specified time to campaign in both states and have those results go as official results to the convention.


Or maybe another primary. I could see why you'd want caucuses though.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:57 pm
Lola wrote:
The next three are going to Obama too. But it's still about delegates.

What do you think the proportions will be like, in Virginia, Maryland?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 11:24 pm
nimh wrote:
Lola wrote:
The next three are going to Obama too. But it's still about delegates.

What do you think the proportions will be like, in Virginia, Maryland?


I can't find the article I was reading and I don't remember the poll numbers. I know they expect to lose. But the way the delegates are divided up, it's hard for either candidate to get a decisive lead. And that's unfortunate.

Here are the delegate counts, which you probably already have. High stakes coming up.


District of Columbia Primary 37 delegates
Maryland Primary 99 delegates
Virginia Primary 101 delegate

Hawaii Caucus 29 delegates
Wisconsin Primary 92 delegates

Ohio Primary 161 delegates
Rhode Island Primary 32 delegates
Texas Primary 228 delegates
Vermont Primary 23 delegates
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 10 Feb, 2008 11:25 pm
What would it look like if the democratic primary were like the republican primary meaning that 100% of the delegates went to the winner of the state.

I don't know who would come out on top. Maybe someone with more time no their hands than I have could figure it out.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 477
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 09:20:13