Pasta Joe in Drag

[Chilly]

The committee didn't in any way count the votes. They are not official. In fact, part of the ruling staurday was that the votes do not count. The primary still does not count according to the people that do the counting, the Democratic party and ruling committee. Hillary does not get the 700,000 votes because the primary even after the ruling was not made official in any way. They only used the votes as a guideline to make an arbitrary decision on how the delegates would be seated. That's it. They did not make the primary votes suddenly valid. They established the fact that the primary was invalid and no votes were counted.

 

So you're buying the double-talk of using it as a basis of how the delegates would be seated, but then calling it invalid?

 

I think its pretty clear that they ruled that way, to make sure that Clinton couldn't "officially" claim the primary count.

[OCinBuffalo]

On Saturday, they officially ruled the votes in Michigan DID NOT count.

Is anybody else appreciating the wicked irony here in relation to the 2000 election?

 

I watched Recount(HBO) the other day and I am having a hard time processing how in the hell the party that made such a big deal about disenfranchising voters and counting every vote, and said the phase "every vote should be counted" about a million times in the press, is now blatantly not counting votes.

 

Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? How the hell did we get here? If you had told me a year ago that Democrats would be gleefully talking about votes not counting, under any circumstance, I would say no way. I would say that because I would have thought that they would never take such a huge risk on looking like total flip-floppers(again), especially considering their legal and public arguments from 2000, and Kerry's changing his position on a monthly basis.

 

The worst is that their main argument was "intent". As in, "all the dimpled chad votes should count because there was clear intent to vote for Gore". Based on that argument so vehemently insisted upon, how can they now reject the intent of the Michigan voters? of any voters? All those people went down the polls for a reason, and their intentions were clear. How can anyone deny that?

 

This is the biggest flip flop I have ever seen, and is only beaten by few from history(Hitler attacking Stalin comes to mind).

 

I dunno, but I think there are going to be severe consequences for the Democrats because of this. Apparently they think we all have the memory of a fruit fly. Harriet Badass is not alone in her feelings, and while I don't necessarily think that = votes for McCain, I do think that it = stay home.

[blzrul]

I can't vote for McCain because I disagree with his proposed policies. The question is whether I will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Sometimes I think I'd vote for him, but then I get turned off due to his obnoxious supporters. Maybe it's time to look at a 3rd party candidate, or a write-in vote for Clinton.

I staffed the WA caucuses..the Hillary people systematically went around BEFORE the caucus started and tore down all the Obama signs. Then, when Obama delegates showed up the Hillary supporters told them they were too late and couldn't be seated.

 

In fact, they made the STUPID mistake of assuming any black person was an Obama person and automatically tried to turn them away. Which did backfire.

 

So it cuts both ways...there are plenty of jerks to go around (although most of them seem to be Republicans).

[pBills]

Same was done when I was in Stockton, CA, Oakland and San Francisco.

[Wacka]

Who wants some popcorn?!!!

[DC Tom]

Is anybody else appreciating the wicked irony here in relation to the 2000 election?

 

I watched Recount(HBO) the other day and I am having a hard time processing how in the hell the party that made such a big deal about disenfranchising voters and counting every vote, and said the phase "every vote should be counted" about a million times in the press, is now blatantly not counting votes.

 

Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? How the hell did we get here? If you had told me a year ago that Democrats would be gleefully talking about votes not counting, under any circumstance, I would say no way. I would say that because I would have thought that they would never take such a huge risk on looking like total flip-floppers(again), especially considering their legal and public arguments from 2000, and Kerry's changing his position on a monthly basis.

 

The worst is that their main argument was "intent". As in, "all the dimpled chad votes should count because there was clear intent to vote for Gore". Based on that argument so vehemently insisted upon, how can they now reject the intent of the Michigan voters? of any voters? All those people went down the polls for a reason, and their intentions were clear. How can anyone deny that?

 

This is the biggest flip flop I have ever seen, and is only beaten by few from history(Hitler attacking Stalin comes to mind).

 

I dunno, but I think there are going to be severe consequences for the Democrats because of this. Apparently they think we all have the memory of a fruit fly. Harriet Badass is not alone in her feelings, and while I don't necessarily think that = votes for McCain, I do think that it = stay home.

 

 

Hitler reference. Thread's over.

 

 

And a stupid Hitler reference, at that.

[Kelly the Dog]

So you're buying the double-talk of using it as a basis of how the delegates would be seated, but then calling it invalid?

 

I think its pretty clear that they ruled that way, to make sure that Clinton couldn't "officially" claim the primary count.

I really don't know what you're asking. The Michigan primary never counted, by anyone, except Hillary. It was never official and never assumed it would count by the people that matter, the DNC. It was never going to count going into the Saturday meeting. The only reason for the meeting was to figure out how to seat and award the delegates so the entire state wouldn't be pissed off and not work for the general election. One of the major reasons the committee met was to officially make the primary not count, which they did. There was never a time it was going to count.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Pasta Josephine?

[OCinBuffalo]

Hitler reference. Thread's over.

 

 

And a stupid Hitler reference, at that.

I knew somebody would come out with that. It's like the sun coming up. How is it stupid? No, wait, I don't care really. Suffice it to say that I should've used Rome accepting Christianity instead.

[Keukasmallie]

Fuzzy math, super delegates, primary vs caucus...whatever; just please, I'm beggin' here, make the Clintons go away for good!

 

Billy-guy can get down to some serious Cougar doodlin' and MILF munchin' and Hill'ry can finally find time to bake those cookies and scheme a way to do Billy in for sinking her ambitions.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Do you quit in the 4th Qrt with 2 minutes left and no time outs down by 2? I'm glad she stayed in.

 

Did we quit when the Germans bombed Peral Harbor?

[pBills]

I really don't know what you're asking. The Michigan primary never counted, by anyone, except Hillary. It was never official and never assumed it would count by the people that matter, the DNC. It was never going to count going into the Saturday meeting. The only reason for the meeting was to figure out how to seat and award the delegates so the entire state wouldn't be pissed off and not work for the general election. One of the major reasons the committee met was to officially make the primary not count, which they did. There was never a time it was going to count.

 

 

 

May I add to that? According to Hillary on a radio show... the voters meant something to her. The results, well she knew that they wouldn't count and made sure the people listening knew that they wouldn't count. Of course that was before she behind.

 

I'm not worried about workers from Ohio or Michigan getting behind Obama. Labor will definitely be there.

[Chilly]

I really don't know what you're asking. The Michigan primary never counted, by anyone, except Hillary. It was never official and never assumed it would count by the people that matter, the DNC. It was never going to count going into the Saturday meeting. The only reason for the meeting was to figure out how to seat and award the delegates so the entire state wouldn't be pissed off and not work for the general election. One of the major reasons the committee met was to officially make the primary not count, which they did. There was never a time it was going to count.

 

What I'm saying is: If the results were not valid, then they should not have counted as a basis of anything. If they were valid, then they should have counted. Instead, the DRC decided to make them "valid enough" to use as a basis of estimating delegates (the much more important count), but not as a basis of estimating the popular vote (the much less important count). Its doublespeak to say its good enough to count to use for determining delegates, but not good enough to use for the popular vote (the way that they determine those delegates).

 

It was, of course, a political play designed to not upset or overturn anything, but one that doesn't have a whole lot of continuity or make a whole lot of sense.

[erynthered]

What I'm saying is: If the results were not valid, then they should not have counted as a basis of anything. If they were valid, then they should have counted. Instead, the DRC decided to make them "valid enough" to use as a basis of estimating delegates (the much more important count), but not as a basis of estimating the popular vote (the much less important count). Its doublespeak to say its good enough to count to use for determining delegates, but not good enough to use for the popular vote (the way that they determine those delegates).

 

It was, of course, a political play designed to not upset or overturn anything, but one that doesn't have a whole lot of continuity or make a whole lot of sense.

 

lol

[Wacka]

It needs more salt!

[Chilly]

lol

 

Democratic Rules Committee

[Kelly the Dog]

What I'm saying is: If the results were not valid, then they should not have counted as a basis of anything. If they were valid, then they should have counted. Instead, the DRC decided to make them "valid enough" to use as a basis of estimating delegates (the much more important count), but not as a basis of estimating the popular vote (the much less important count). Its doublespeak to say its good enough to count to use for determining delegates, but not good enough to use for the popular vote (the way that they determine those delegates).

 

It was, of course, a political play designed to not upset or overturn anything, but one that doesn't have a whole lot of continuity or make a whole lot of sense.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see it that way whatsoever, and don't think the rules committee did either. I see it as:

 

1. There was no question that the primary was against the rules before it started, everyone knew the rules, and therefore isn't valid.

2. There was no question that the primary wasn't fair, and that one candidate's name was on the ballot and the other wasn't, and therefore the count wasn't valid and could never be.

 

But then they had to come together in the real world, not a perfect world, and compromise, so:

 

3. We have to all get together and work this out in a way that nobody is going to be fully happy but most people can live with.

4. Foremost, we have to make the people of Michigan happy, so they will vote in the general election. So we'll sit them, and give them a half a vote now, so they will be punished a little for what their state did, not put them in a place to change the primary results we know are coming, and then whomever is the candidate can reinstate them by the convention because by then everything will be in place. Therefore the state will have been penalized for the primary, which they broke the rules, but not forgotten in the general election which they didn't.

5. Lets decide on a compromise number we can give to the two candidates that is as fair as we can get in an impossible situation, and that's going to make both sides the most happy overall. We have polls that show Hillary probably would have won, we have invalid numbers where Hillary was there but Barack wasn't, we have exit polls that showed most of the "uncommitteds" were for Barack, and we have write-ins we know weren't for Hillary but the vast majority were for Barack. How about if we take some from this pile, some from that pile and some from the other pile. It will somewhat match what Hillary wants and still won't piss off the Obama people because she doesn't get everything and it won't change the election.

 

I don't think that "validates" the numbers one bit. It doesn't "validate" exit polls or pre-election polls either. It's just a realistic solution to a real world problem.