Obama '08?

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Then you should stop making any comments about John McCain, shouldnt you.
After all, he isnt a dem, so you have no right to talk about him.

Apparently English is your second language. I said that you should stay the f*** out of out party business that doesn't apply to criticizing any possible nominee, it simply means you have no right to tell us how to run our party. And you don't.

Please show me where any national repub has tried to tell you how to run your party!!!

As far as I know, the repubs are enjoying watching the dems implode over the whole thing.
I know I am, and I'm not a repub.

And you sure ain't a Democrat.

Why don't you keep up on the news yourself. You are an embarassment.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

go to hell cyclo.

Reported.

You've devolved into some sort of parody of your former self.

Cycloptichorn

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

IMO, when it comes to persuading superdelegates, Clinton will be much better at it than Obama.

Well, I am sure glad we have nappy headed slut on record as assuring the board that Hillary is better at persuasion. Of course, it all depends on the results of the upcoming primaries and caucuses but don't confuse slut with facts.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

At this point it would be a re-vote or re-caucus [in FL and MI] to get seated.

I dont think that Hillary would really want that to happen.
Right now, she won in Michigan, so IF those delegates get seated she gets them.

If there was a re-vote or a re-caucus, she would be in danger of losing the delegates she has now, even if they arent being counted.
She doesnt want to lose them, so I think she would fight any type of re-vote, on the grounds that the voters have already chosen.

A Revote In Florida and Michigan?

Last night, as he was celebrating victory in his generally ebullient manner, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAullife cryptically referred to the possibility of a re-vote in Michigan and Florida as part of the Clinton plan for victory in the primaries... something that echoed a trial balloon floated by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell earlier in the day.

What's going on here? Is Hillary Clinton contemplating a call for a revote in Michigan and Florida?

Clinton sources last night were mum, and Clinton herself would not go out on a limb during her round robbin interviews on the morning shows this a.m.

But the idea makes a certain amount of sense.

The thinking, here, is that the ONLY way that Clinton makes up her delegate gap is to get Michigan and Florida's earned delegates to count. The ONLY way they count is to re-run the vote under the umbrella of the DNC's rules.

The chutzpah here is that she already won Florida -- and is challenging Obama, essentially, to a fair fight... daring him... saying, "I can win this fair and square... same with Michigan... let's give the voters in those states a real voice."

Obama's response would no doubt me: "Well, wait a minute. You and I agreed to the rules. And now you want to change them at the last minute?"

He may not have a choice: if Florida and Michigan resubmit delegate plans to the DNC, if the DNC approves the plans, and if the states can find a way to pay for primaries, the contests would be on.

Potential complications: who's paying? A Florida primary would cost $10M (though I'd bet HRC's supporters could raise $10M in a moment's notice to pay for it), and Michigan Dems -- some of them -- might want a primary.

The most likely dates: mid-April or mid-June.

Stay tuned...

Um, Roxxxanne, Obama is running on a platform of stopping the endless partisan bickering. A lot of his support has also been coming from moderate republicans and independents. Whether you like it or not, they have a vested interest in his election and what happens in relation to it inside the Democratic Party.

Republicans and Independents should stay the f*ck out of our party's business.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Republicans and Independents should stay the f*ck out of our party's business.

Bull. Any Democratic nominee is going to need the votes of Independents and some cross-over Republicans to win. Indies are an essential part of any winning Democratic coalition in the elections. They deserve to have a say in the selection of the Presidential nominees they will end up having to choose between.
[/quote

No they don't. If they want a voice they should join the party. I don't think yo guys understand what it means to be a member of a party.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Republicans and Independents should stay the f*ck out of our party's business.

Bull. Any Democratic nominee is going to need the votes of Independents and some cross-over Republicans to win. Indies are an essential part of any winning Democratic coalition in the elections. They deserve to have a say in the selection of the Presidential nominees they will end up having to choose between.

We talked about this before.

Yeah, I got the "more people with degrees (not a lot)" part from Matt's chart.

Pennsylvania definitely doesn't look that good, just a little bit more room for optimism than I'd previously thought.

Hey, who's the gov? I think there are a lot of differences between Wisconsin and Ohio but one thing that occurred to me is that the WI governor (Doyle) endorsed Obama while the OH governor endorsed Clinton. I think that isn't enough to push things one way or another but I can certainly see it being an element. (Resources, infrastructure, plus shorthand for some voters, especially if the gov in question is popular.)

why?

If they want a voice they should join the party. I don't think yo guys understand what it means to be a member of a party.

nimh wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Republicans and Independents should stay the f*ck out of our party's business.

Bull. Any Democratic nominee is going to need the votes of Independents and some cross-over Republicans to win. Indies are an essential part of any winning Democratic coalition in the elections. They deserve to have a say in the selection of the Presidential nominees they will end up having to choose between.

We talked about this before.

And of course, the irony is that if the Dems would follow your principle here - "Republicans and Independents should stay the f*ck out of our party's business" - then Hillary would be the nominee. The only reason Obama is in the lead in the first place is thanks to Independent and cross-over Republican participants in the primaries & caucuses. If only Democrats' votes would count, Hillary would now be in the lead.