Primaries

Remove all ads!

O.K., I'm just going to back away quietly as I'm totally confused now....

 

The real point is that it is about representation. Does anyone know why Obama was not on the ballot but Hillary was? I'm just curious. I know that there was not supposed to be a "real" primary because of the Democratic party rules, but I'm just wondering how Hill got on a ballot that Obama could not. Or did he choose not to?

 

And that's where any voters who feel disenfranchised should direct their ire -- to their state party officials who screwed things up so royally by not following the rules. In a democracy, and especially in an election, the rules must be followed by everyone. Those who violate the agreed upon rules and then cry foul have no leg to stand on.

If necessary, I advocate the firing of the idiots who decided to have their states violate the rules. Then have a re-vote in the contested states. One where both candidates are on the ballot. But that's not fair either because the other candidates who dropped out already wouldn't be on the ballot now. Tough decision, but IMHO the Hill is going to have to suck it up. I would lose what little respect I have for her if she tried to end run the vote by getting votes counted that didn't have Obama's name on the ballot as an option.

 

MI and FL have already looked into the possibility of holding re-elections, and it's not going to happen in either state. While I'm disgusted by the attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game, I'm no longer surprised by any sleazy trick a politician pulls.

 

Did you just not follow the primaries at all until they got to Texas, Chandos? Every democrat but Kucinich (who attempted to have his name removed, but was unsuccessful), Dodd, Clinton, and Gravel pulled their names off the ballot in Michigan. Clinton initially agreed to remove her name as well, but later changed her mind about it (but not until after Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden had already had their names successfully removed). She initially argued that it was no big deal since the votes wouldn't actually count, anyway. Now, ironically, she's lobbying to get their votes counted and the delegates seated whether we do a re-vote or not. Hmm...

 

\

Not really.

And I should care about...this...why?

She changed her mind? Oh, no. Can't have any of that....

And...so why do you think she changed her mind again?

 

Are you being intentionally dense, Chandos? Clinton agreed to remove her name from the Michigan ballot. After Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Obama complied with the agreement, she decided not to (and even made a campaign stop in Michigan [she again argued that, since the votes wouldn't count, keeping the commitment wouldn't be a breach of the DNC ruling against campaigning in the state], which she also agreed not to do). She defended the campaign stop and subsequent decision not to remove her name from the ballot by arguing that the votes weren't going to count anyway. After she started losing, she changed her tune. You're a smart guy and I shouldn't have to fill in the blanks for you.

 

I am being as intentionally condescending and patronizing as you are, Drew. It's odd that you should talk about being "dense."

BTA, already answered my question, only in a much less partisan fashion than you did. So I think we can leave it at that.

 

I think Rally did a good job answering most questions.

Drew and Chandos -- not even arguing with a conservative. The Obama/Clinton mudslinging fest has even infiltrated us here on SP....

Drew, I am surprised you did not pick up on Chandos sarcasm.

 

If I misinterpreted what Chandos was saying, I'm sorry. I just found it particularly galling that someone who defended Clinton's campaign as rabidly as Chandos has in this thread wasn't even aware of why the other candidates weren't on the Michigan ballot or that Clinton had agreed initially to take her name off as well. I'm not saying that Clinton is a terrible human being for the Florida/Michigan fracas, but was simply pointing out that she made a campaign stop in Michigan when all candidates (except Gravel, but who really cares about him?) had agreed - in keeping with the DNC ruling - not to campaign there, that she decided not to remove her name from the Michigan ballot after agreeing to do so, and that after winning by virtue of being the only mainstream candidate on the ballot, she is now arguing that we should seat the delegates as they are already apportioned. I don't need to be partisan to make this look bad. It already does.

 

I'm telling you, T2, this is going to be bad for the Dems. I would have never dreamed that this fighting between Hill and Obama supporters would get so far out of hand. Here I am, now an Obama supporter, and because I defended Hillary in the past, I am among the "Unforgiven" with his hardcore supporters. I will admit that my support for Obama is still pretty soft at this point, but it's clear to me that he wants to move past the discussion about "party politics" and start to focus on the real issues. I was counting Hillary out just a few weeks ago, yet, after PA, she seems to working a strategy, mostly to do with party politics, that appears to be working - to an extent. But just for that comment I'll probably need my flamesuit.

Drew - Peace, brother.

 

Defeat, jaws, victory.

Just you wait. We'll find a way to lose.

 

To be honest, I didn't really understand Chandos' sarcasm either. Maybe one has to be an American to get it or he was referencing something with which I am not familiar.

Polls or no polls, I am putting my money on Mccain. Not because I am a right winger, but because I don't think a lot of Americans will vote for either HIllary or Barack. To be honest, some days I'm rooting for Barack but I don't see it happening.

 

Something Awful had an interesting take on Barack Obama's chances with a perspective we D&D geeks can relate to:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/president-maverick-racist.php?page=1

 

Who won the elections? You mean they still have to start? Now I get why nations accros the world are pissed when the North Americans export democratie. Good luck.

 

I'm a bit surprised how traditionalist the American system is, myself. I mean, 200 years ago sure, primaries state by state with a week or two in between might have been a good idea. Now the only ones who are benefiting from over a year of pre-election campaigning and primaries are the media, and I'm not sure it is so good even for them.

Imagine how it would be if there was a all-around primary for each party, and a general election 1 month afterwards. I mean sure, the election cycle might lack the certain charms, but at least it wouldn't devolve to a "gotcha" hunt for inopportune remarks.

 

As I have said before, I think in years where there are presidential elections, it would make sense to have a national primary day. I do not have a problem with the primary being a good deal before the election, as the party conventions at the end of the summer are a tradition that many like. However, I wouldn't have a problem with a national primary in the spring, the convention in the summer and the election in the fall.

A few other points concerning the primary system: It is a necessary evil for the American system of government, and for all other elected positions except president it doesn't matter when the primary election is relative to the general election.

The purpose of a primary is for each party to select its champion for the general election in the fall. The American system of government is set up in such a way that they don't want the winner of an election to receive a small plurality of the vote. That is almost inevitible if you had each party put up multiple candidates in the fall. The primary process winnows the field down to one candidate per party and those are the ones that square off in the general election.

Secondly, there are elections in the US every single fall. National election day is the first Tuesday in November. President is the only elected position (albeit a very important position) that is a national position that would benefit from having a national primary. On the years where there is no presidential election you vote for Congressmen, Senators, Governors, Mayors, City Council Members, Local Judges, State Congressional Bodies, etc. For all of those positions, since they serve a state or local area, it doesn't matter if the primaries fall on different days. For state and local offices there is little to no benefit of coordinating a national primary day.

Finally, remember that the US is not a parliamentary system. We vote for people, not parties. While I do not wish to this thread to devolve into an argument over which is better between a parliamentary system and the direct republic employed by the US, I feel the need to point out that the US system does benefit from the primaries.

Back on topic, while I've already mentioned the problems of whether or not to count Florida, Michigan, and states that employ caucuses instead of primaries, what about Puerto Rico? They vote last. It is possible that if Clinton closes the lead in the popular vote on Barack (or if Michigan and Florida count, but the caucuses don't) then the popular vote could be decided by Puerto Rico, which isn't even a state. Which brings up the question: Does Puerto Rico count as much as a state?

 

The biggest fool of the month has to be "Rev" Wright. This guy is sinking Obama's chances, and fast. The problem is not with the Democrats but with swing voters and Independents, who will decide the general election. This guy is a shamless self-promoter, who given his 15 seconds of national fame, is making race THE issue of this election. Obama was on FOX this weekend, and he did quite well, talking up the issues and talking down the media's love affair with "gotcha" politics. The first thing Monday morning, the media hounds put the microphone in front of Mr. Wright, in hopes of hearing what obnoxious and incendiary comments the fool could come up with. And he did not disappoint in the least, claiming that "attacks on him, were really attacks on the Black Church." Yes, Mr Wright has elevated himself to the level of, and now speaks, for the entire "Black Church."

Just a month ago, it seemed that Obama's message was one of unifying a divided country -- A monumental task, given what this country has been through the last 8 years. Yet, he appeared that he was up to the task, and for a brief moment, it seemed as if he could accomplish just that. All this of course, has accomplished for Hillary what seemed impossible just a short while ago. The latest poll numbers show her in top place, beating both Obama and Mac in a national election, and after running one of the most confused campaigns since, well...John Kerry. Of course, it's way too early for any national numbers to mean very much. There's a long, long, way to go until November.

If Obama does not win the nomination, a lot of Dems will be pissed off, especially at the Clintons. They will get the ire of all those Obama supporters who will talk about how "under-handed" and how "unfair" the Clintons are. But the real culprit, Mr. Wright will go back to his church, smugly proclaiming that it will prove just how "racist" America still is. Mr. Wright knows a "racist" when he sees one, it seems.

 

I'm still a bit nonplussed at how much the entire matter was overblown. Damn it thrice already, Obama said he does not accept or excuse what Wright is saying, and basically doesn't want to comment anything more from the guy. Yet the media seem bent on getting the latest bit of incendiary gossip from Wright every time Obama opens his mouth, probably since Obama has not, I dunno, pelted the church with rotten eggs?

In the meantime, there doesn't seem to be any chance of us getting back to what we should know, like exactly how their proposals on health care, foreign policy (not just Iraq, there is a "rest of the world" out there too), education or, heck, gun control. You know, the part that people were supposed to get from the serious media, and not the tabloids? Oh dear, me and my conservative views on what media is supposed to be doing.

BTW, speaking on a strictly objective matter, has this happened to McCain? I remember a bit about a pastor (Hagee?) who had supposedly called the Catholic Church the "Great W...e" , but it seemed to blow over fairly quickly.