|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: We Must Count Every Irrelevant Vote! |
 |
|
Clinton memo:
| Quote: |
| As of today, the citizens of 42 states, the District of Columbia, Democrats Abroad and 2 territories have had an opportunity to vote � and they have exercised that right in overwhelming numbers. But the citizens in Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota have not yet had the opportunity to exercise that fundamental right. Together, this adds up to nearly 43 million Americans. Are their voices any less important than those of the citizens who have already voted? |
Clinton spokesman:
| Quote: |
| When I asked Ickes if the Hillary campaign would still try to woo super-dels even if she was behind in the popular vote counting Florida and Michigan, he said: "I think being ahead in the popular vote is an important factor. I don't think it's dispositive...if at the end of the process she's running very slightly behind in the delegates overall, the popular vote vote will be important. I don't think it's absolutely critical." |
I was hoping that someone in the Clinton campaign would say "April Fool's!", but the window passed. This highlights the fundamental absurdity of Clinton's current argument: she accuses Obama of wanting to short-circuit an electoral process which she knows she cannot win and which she explicitly intends to disregard. Make no mistake, it's all about the super delegates at this point. Which is fine as far as it goes -- the rules do provide for the possibility of supers swinging the race against the party's electoral preference, and in fact the category was created with this possibility in mind -- but could we please not pretend that a super delegate coup would constitute a small-d democratic outcome?
Clinton also challenged Obama to a bowl-off for the nomination. I think that one actually was a joke, though obviously it's hard to tell these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If Clinton wins every vote, if Clinton wins even 75% of the following votes, doesn't she gain the lead in the primary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| If Clinton wins every vote, if Clinton wins even 75% of the following votes, doesn't she gain the lead in the primary? |
Of course. Clinton only intends to disregard the vote if she loses it. Far be it from me to accuse her of consistency.
I can't imagine that you missed the point here, Kuros. Clinton is talking out of both sides of her mouth. She wants to Count Every Vote!... but if she loses the vote, she wants to win anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| If Clinton wins every vote, if Clinton wins even 75% of the following votes, doesn't she gain the lead in the primary? |
Of course. Clinton only intends to disregard the vote if she loses it. Far be it from me to accuse her of consistency.
I can't imagine that you missed the point here, Kuros. Clinton is talking out of both sides of her mouth. She wants to Count Every Vote!... but if she loses the vote, she wants to win anyway. |
Yes, count every vote. And then the superdelegates' votes as well. Is this inconsistant? The superdelegates do not eliminate delegates' votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| If Clinton wins every vote, if Clinton wins even 75% of the following votes, doesn't she gain the lead in the primary? |
Of course. Clinton only intends to disregard the vote if she loses it. Far be it from me to accuse her of consistency.
I can't imagine that you missed the point here, Kuros. Clinton is talking out of both sides of her mouth. She wants to Count Every Vote!... but if she loses the vote, she wants to win anyway. |
Yes, count every vote. And then the superdelegates' votes as well. Is this inconsistant? The superdelegates do not eliminate delegates' votes. |
The super delegates were not elected to their position in this race, and the pledged delegates were. If you want to pretend that it's all the same, be my guest, but I'm not gonna pretend along with you.
The pledged delegates represent the preference of the party's rank and file. The super delegates represent the preference of the party's insiders. If the latter preference winds up overriding the former, that's not a democratic outcome. It may be preferable to you, it may be perfectly in accordance with the rules of the party, it may even be better in the long run, who knows? But it's not democratic. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
The pledged delegates represent the preference of the party's rank and file. The super delegates represent the preference of the party's insiders. If the latter preference winds up overriding the former, that's not a democratic outcome. It may be preferable to you, it may be perfectly in accordance with the rules of the party, it may even be better in the long run, who knows? But it's not democratic. Period. |
No, its not big "D" democratic, but neither is the Texas primary/caucus.
*shrugs*
What does M-Dave always say about Florida and Michigan? Clinton knew and accepted the rules going in . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
The pledged delegates represent the preference of the party's rank and file. The super delegates represent the preference of the party's insiders. If the latter preference winds up overriding the former, that's not a democratic outcome. It may be preferable to you, it may be perfectly in accordance with the rules of the party, it may even be better in the long run, who knows? But it's not democratic. Period. |
No, its not big "D" democratic, but neither is the Texas primary/caucus. |
Of course the Texas primary/caucus was democratic. No one was excluded from voting in the caucuses, they just chose not to. The Texas system is weird, but by no stretch of the imagination is it undemocratic -- it's not like the caucus delegates were appointed by a cabal of pro-Obama bigwigs.
| Quote: |
*shrugs*
What does M-Dave always say about Florida and Michigan? Clinton knew and accepted the rules going in . . . |
Sure, and if Obama winds up losing the nomination after winning the election, I'd expect him to take it like a man and not create some kind of stink. I'll take it like a man, too. But I'll sever my involvement with the Democratic (ha ha) Party for good -- not out of spite, but because, well, message received. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"dispositive"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| The pledged delegates represent the preference of the party's rank and file. The super delegates represent the preference of the party's insiders. If the latter preference winds up overriding the former, that's not a democratic outcome. It may be preferable to you, it may be perfectly in accordance with the rules of the party, it may even be better in the long run, who knows? But it's not democratic. Period. |
I can't imagine this happening at this point. If you look at the trend of superdelegates, it's going toward Obama. Clinton has managed one major endorsement in the last couple of months (Murtha) and pretty much trashed Richardson via her surrogates for supposedly being a traitor. It's bad campaign tactics all around that both her campaign and supporters don't fully acknowledge that is hurting her.
What will they come up with when Obama surpasses Clinton in superdelegates? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
