 Eaglewings says: It would appear to a casual observer that the Democrats had decided on a nominee long before the election process got started. Changing state primaries to an earlier date to get Obama off to a quick start and disallowing two major states like Florida and Michigan seems to me to be an attempt to rig an election. The whole democrat process of nominating a candidate seems to me to be a bit shady. Super delegates are there to do just that DECIDE on a candidate regardless of the voters wishes. Wasn't it the Democrats who in 2000 were crying about ALL VOTES counting in Florida? And now the same people are crying that Florida votes do not count? Does this mean Obama would be an illegitimate candidate? After all he does not have enough delegates to have actually won, therefore someone is going to MAKE him win. Me thinks Ms Pelosi wants to be the Big Mamma in charge. Perhaps there is not enough room in the democrat kitchen for 2 women. What say you? I'll take any Clinton in the White House over any republican. However, Hillary is not my first choice of Democrats. Michigan and Florida have never been disallowed. They were informed that if they did not change their dates then their delegates would not be seated. The two states were given the opportunity to come up with a plan to hold some other primary or caucus and they could not get their act together to do it. As it stands the Democratic rules committee meets on May 31st to determine what the final decision will be regarding delegates from Florida and Michigan. They were informed that if they did not change their dates then their delegates would not be seated.This is what I find so manipulative. Smaller insignificant states wanted to MOVE their election dates to an earlier schedule so that they would be more IMPORTANT in the election process. In other words certain states friendly to OBAMA wanted to be FIRST so that OBAMA could get an EARLY lead that the media could then parlay into an OBAMA win. So it would appear to someone who well just basically does not trust anything with a democrat name on it. I can see why the democrats would prefer Obama to Clinton because he is the poster child for the left wing Pelosi agenda in Washingto... I do not see anything that supports your theory about the states. 5 of the top 10 states in both population and electoral votes had primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb 5. As you recall, Super Tuesday was pretty much a wash. There were as many states friendly to Hillary as were friendly to Barack. Iowa and New Hampshire, are small, and have traditionally gone first since as far as I can remember. Hillary placed third in that state behind both Barack and John Edwards. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was a poor performance on her behalf. The Democratic party had decided to allow Nevada and South Carolina to have primaries after Iowa and New Hampshire, but before Super Tuesday, to allow for more regio... Changing state primaries to an earlier date to get Obama off to a quickI believe this same argument was used the anti-Clinton crowd to support their view that date changes helped Clinton by minimizing opportunity for anyone to mount a viable opposition in those states. What gives the right to the democrat party to determine when states hold their primaries? Who is footing the bill for these elections, the states or the parties? Who owns the equipment for these elections, the states or the parties? Face it, this whole democrat primary is illegitimate and there is no way they can fix it now. The greatest irony is the party of 'every vote must count' has just told millions of their own voters that their vote doesn't count at all. Well your getting a little ahead of yourself n2. There is a meeting May 31st. Why don't you wait till then and then you can spin all you want. The republicans national committee works with states also to determine when elections are held. Yes, and the republican party talked about taking away the votes from one of the states based on the date they chose and I said at the time that it would be a stupid thing to do. If the parties want to dictate when primary elections are held, then maybe they should start footing the bill. If the parties want to dictate when primary elections are held, then maybe they should start footing the bill.It makes no sense that they don't pay for these things anyway. This is a party election, why is it that states pay for them? Actually the republican party stripped Florida of half of it's delegates for moving up it's primary to January 29th ahead of the republican national committee stipulation that it hold it's primary no earlier than Feb 5th. So you might spare us all the drama of "Isn't this the party that blah blah blah". And the republicans were stupid and they are lucky it isn't biting them in the ass like it is the democrats. Still doesn't change the fact that the democrats are disenfranchising two entire states of democrat voters which makes their cries of 'every vote must be counted' ring hollow. They disenfranchised themselves. They were warned, and I for one appreciate the fact that the DNC has stood their ground, at least for the time being. Who knows what comes out of the May 31st meeting. Everybody recognizes your statement for what it is. A hollow attempt at gaining some self-righteous holier-than-thou position. By the same token, I could take the republican's actions and say "See I told you that they don't allow the votes to fully reflect the will of the people!!!!!!!!!" You are right, the republicans didn't allow the vote to fully reflect the will of the people, and they are just lucky things worked out. Unfortunately for the democrats it didn't work out so well for them and they come out looking like the hypocrites they are. Of course, I never expect you to agree being the democrat party apologist that you are. They look like hypocrites only to the people trying to make political hay. Of course I don't expect you to agree because you try to spin anything and everything in a positive light for the republican party. The republican party seems to be lucky that the sheep in Florida are too oblivious to realize what happened to them ----- according to your logic. I listened to a number of pundits the other night and most of them used the same pragmatic logic that said they were in control of their own destiny and chose to disenfranchise themselves. |
View the Top Clips from May 8, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||
