NationStates Jolt Archive

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

When did the popular vote cease to matter? 1789.

The obvious solution is to vote for McCain.

Snip.

You want to discount caucus states, count an election in which people COULD NOT vote for your opponent, and try to set yourself up as defending democracy. Hillary only got most votes if you apply the most lopsided, IDIOTIC interpretation.

I spy with my little eye a contradiction.

Never really did count. The establishment of the electoral college was a way of keeping the powerful in power because they thought farmers couldn't make the right decision.

For fuck's sake. They didn't campaign in Florida, if they did it would have been closer. She was the only one on the ballot in Michigan. Counting that would be like saying Saddam Hussein was popularly elected because he was on the ballot and people voted for him. Also you can't just throw out caucus results as if people didn't vote them. That's insane. If you count where people voted(caucus+primaries) and count the places where the elections didn't violate the rules, Obama wins. He won more states, delegates and votes. He deserves the nomination and Clinton supporters should STFU about it.

He deserves the nomination and Clinton supporters should STFU about it.

To be fair, not all Clinton supporters, maybe not even most, are doing what Shal is doing. Most of her supporters admit that she lost fair and square, no matter her narrative.

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

1) We never were a true democracy ... the public's love for misusing the word appears to be greater then our "love for democracy"

2) While I have strong feelings for the actual election possibly should be direct representation even though the primaries are given by the government it is done for the parties. As such really it is a Democratic party issue not a strait governmental one ... they are not nessisarily bound by the need to be democratic even if the government as a whole was (which it is not)

To be fair, not all Clinton supporters, maybe not even most, are doing what Shal is doing. Most of her supporters admit that she lost fair and square, no matter her narrative.

The Obama people want to include their own vote totals from the caucus states, but they squeal when Florida and Michigan are entered into the column. They also object particularly when Michigan's votes go to Clinton, but they don't have a problem with assigning ALL of the uncommitted delegates (and some of Clinton's) to Obama. That's wrong.

I think you're wrong if you think Florida and Michigan would have come up with different results than they did. Clinton's margin of victory in Michigan was similar to her margin of victory in neighboring Ohio and Pennsylvania, and shares local culture with those states. Furthermore, Florida has a population demographic EXTREMELY favorable to her.

Furthermore, I also reject your prior argument that the vote totals shouldn't be included because "she knew the rules going in and voted to uphold them". By your own rationale, Barack Obama "knew the rules" when he pulled his name off of the Michigan ballot. By your own rules, he shouldn't receive a single vote from Michigan, making Clinton's lead even stronger.

According to the Washington Post, Clinton only won the popular vote if you count Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot. Otherwise, he won.

Besides that, it's not really in the interest of the Democrats to choose the candidate who necessarily wins the popular vote but the one who wins the Electoral College.

Finally, although primaries give the general public a much greater say in who the party nominee is, the Democratic Party is under no obligation to do so. For much of its history, party insiders chose the candidate, and they still technically haven't chosen Obama. (I imagine that's why the newspapers keep calling McCain the "prospective" Republican candidate, because they haven't officially recognized him at their convention. Either that or because the newspapers are guessing he'll die soon.) They still have delegates, and that's why the results are skewed slightly.

In other words, there is really no reason at all Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic candidate for president, based on the primaries and caucuses.

Clinton supporters should just vote for McCain, so that Hillary can run again in 2012... ;)

I think you're wrong if you think Florida and Michigan would have come up with different results than they did. Clinton's margin of victory in Michigan was similar to her margin of victory in neighboring Ohio and Pennsylvania, and shares local culture with those states. Furthermore, Florida has a population demographic EXTREMELY favorable to her.

That would make things a lot simpler, if we just had a few states hold primaries and then use demographic studies to find what the results of the rest would have been. Doesn't sound exactly democratic, though.

Clinton supporters should just vote for McCain, so that Hillary can run again in 2012... ;)


The world ends in 2012. This is the last Presidential election. Why else would she be holding on so long? :D

Eh, you know, Clinton would be a better President of the US, I think. Not that I would vote for her; (If I could vote; 14 years of age here. Damned prejudice against children... :() Hilary would be a good US President, not necessarily someone I'd want in office. Yes, there's a difference, yes, it's very confusing, no, I'm not a terrorist. Anyways, Obama will probably win, the rising tide of "Liberalism", and "Change" is quite unshakable. I don't have a problem with him winning, or Clinton for the matter (McCain...no. I would definitely have a rather large problem with that. Pro-Life for newborns, Pro-Death [penalty] for teenagers...O_o). Probably the best options I'm aware of...but still not great...

Gore I would like to see, but it ain't happening. Everyone's aware of his (clean, not dirty) little secret: ENVIROMENTALIST HIPPY ALERT!!1!!!1one

The Obama people want to include their own vote totals from the caucus states, but they squeal when Florida and Michigan are entered into the column. They also object particularly when Michigan's votes go to Clinton, but they don't have a problem with assigning ALL of the uncommitted delegates (and some of Clinton's) to Obama. That's wrong.

I think you're wrong if you think Florida and Michigan would have come up with different results than they did. Clinton's margin of victory in Michigan was similar to her margin of victory in neighboring Ohio and Pennsylvania, and shares local culture with those states. Furthermore, Florida has a population demographic EXTREMELY favorable to her.

Furthermore, I also reject your prior argument that the vote totals shouldn't be included because "she knew the rules going in and voted to uphold them". By your own rationale, Barack Obama "knew the rules" when he pulled his name off of the Michigan ballot. By your own rules, he shouldn't receive a single vote from Michigan, making Clinton's lead even stronger.
So are you whining about your favorite canidate losing or about your concept of an election system that we never had in this country to begin with?

Snip.

Florida and Michigan weren't elections. The caucuses were. Also, claiming "what if" about Florida and Michigan is plain speculation. Your candidate lost fair and square. And you don't care about the truth. But the fact is she lost. She lost, she lost, she lost, she lost, she lost and no amount of your complaints will alter the reality that she lost in conditions that were fair, even favorable to her.

She lost. Deal.

Popular Vote? If something like that mattered, then Al Gore would've won in 2000.

Really? This again?

What is your rationale for not including the caucus states? How does that fit in with your crowing about the will of the people? Why does the population of four states that held legitimate contests get no say?

Clinton supporters should just vote for McCain, so that Hillary can run again in 2012... ;)

The hag runs no more!

snip

Flordia is full of old New Yorkers. Its little New York, like Little Havana, but Snottier and with more voting citizens that have no sense of community.

Popular Vote?

Hillary did not win the popular vote.

The Obama people want to include their own vote totals from the caucus states, but they squeal when Florida and Michigan are entered into the column. They also object particularly when Michigan's votes go to Clinton, but they don't have a problem with assigning ALL of the uncommitted delegates (and some of Clinton's) to Obama. That's wrong.
4 delegates don't mean shit when you're down 200....



Furthermore, I also reject your prior argument that the vote totals shouldn't be included because "she knew the rules going in and voted to uphold them". By your own rationale, Barack Obama "knew the rules" when he pulled his name off of the Michigan ballot. By your own rules, he shouldn't receive a single vote from Michigan, making Clinton's lead even stronger.
You're right he shouldn't. Neither should Hillary. They both understood all delegates would be removed for violating the rules. Hillary even said before the vote "it's clear their votes aren't going to count" Everyone knew what the rules were, and the Clinton's have tried to move the goal posts more times than I can count. America did not want that annoying bitch to be President, deal with it.

I am protesting both.

Hillary lost fair and square, did not win the popular vote, and the only problem here is your unwillingness to deal with it.

So are you whining about your favorite canidate losing or about your concept of an election system that we never had in this country to begin with?

I am protesting both.

So are you whining about your favorite canidate losing or about your concept of an election system that we never had in this country to begin with?
Both, methinks. We "Amerikans" have an overblown tendency, stemming from human nature, to group together all things tied to an emotion (in this case, injustice) together, then talk about it as if they were actually the same exact thing. It makes us sound stupid. :(

NINJA EDIT: Lol. I called it!

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

This wasn't an election, silly goose. :p

When did the popular vote cease to matter? 1789.

QFT, yeah, the popular vote never mattered in this country. The founding fathers never trusted the average citizen.

The hag runs no more!

Heikoku, I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to provoke me into a fit of rage.

Furthermore, you have not answered my prior comment about the votes.

The popular vote has never mattered. Haven't you read the Constitution?

Heikoku, I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to provoke me into a fit of rage.

Furthermore, you have not answered my prior comment about the votes.

You haven't answered the prior comment about why the caucus votes shouldn't count.

Florida and Michigan weren't elections. The caucuses were. Also, claiming "what if" about Florida and Michigan is plain speculation. Your candidate lost fair and square. And you don't care about the truth. But the fact is she lost. She lost, she lost, she lost, she lost, she lost and no amount of your complaints will alter the reality that she lost in conditions that were fair, even favorable to her.

She lost. Deal.

Just like it is "speculation" to tally the caucus results? Furthermore, the DNC voted to admit those results, legitimizing them but depriving them of half their delegate voting power. Do you care to explain that one?

Really? This again?

What is your rationale for not including the caucus states? How does that fit in with your crowing about the will of the people? Why does the population of four states that held legitimate contests get no say?

I don't think that it's the fact that they were caucus states, but the fact that those states willfully broke the rules. The Democratic Pary said there would be no primaries before a specified date with the exception of New Hampshire. The states were aware of this, they chose to hold their primary early anyway.

Heikoku, I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to provoke me into a fit of rage.

Furthermore, you have not answered my prior comment about the votes.

I have. You have no point. The hag wanted caucus states not to be counted, the hag wanted to pretend the results in Florida and Michigan would be the same were they actual elections, the hag moved goalposts, whined and played the victim ALL THE TIME, and the hag finally accepted her slow political demise, not to run again due to being too old by the time Obama leaves office.

As for your rage, it's your problem, not mine, if you get angry over me calling the hag "the hag".

Just like it is "speculation" to tally the caucus results? Furthermore, the DNC voted to admit those results, legitimizing them but depriving them of half their delegate voting power. Do you care to explain that one?

Yes: Your definition of legitimization is skewered.

Heikoku, I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to provoke me into a fit of rage.

I'll be honest, he's provoking you way too often. It's uncalled for, really. If there was a shot that you'd vote Obama (which obviously doesn't exist), that would be exceedingly detrimental.

You haven't answered the prior comment about why the caucus votes shouldn't count.

If the caucus votes were to be counted, it would require a rather extreme amount of estimation, as totals were not released. Furthermore, if the Obama people want the caucus results tallied, they can't exactly complain about the results in Michigan because of how votes should have been apportioned there.

Furthermore, you have not answered my prior comment about the votes.

Wow, balls. I don't think you've ever answered one of my questions during the entire campaign. I asked you a direct question in this one.

You know what? I'll pull the trigger. Your ducking of legitimate questions and discussion is so thorough and dependable that I've joked about this before, but I'll seriously do it. I will pay you $5 American over PayPal if you'll just answer my question. I am that desperate that you actually join the fucking conversation instead of throw your toys around the room and pretend everyone is picking on you.

I am protesting both.

So you want an election system that isn't provided under the United States Constitution? I think you're living in the wrong country my friend.

I have. You have no point. The hag wanted caucus states not to be counted, the hag wanted to pretend the results in Florida and Michigan would be the same were they actual elections, the hag moved goalposts, whined and played the victim ALL THE TIME, and the hag finally accepted her slow political demise, not to run again due to being too old by the time Obama leaves office.

As for your rage, it's your problem, not mine, if you get angry over me calling the hag "the hag".
Heikoku, if you keep imitating Rei imitating Gendou you're either going to get strangled and tossed off the Magi or have your head bitten off by an EVA.

So you want an election system that isn't provided under the United States Constitution? I think you're living in the wrong country my friend.
There are soooooo many reasons to loathe this place we call the best on this earth...

I'll be honest, he's provoking you way too often. It's uncalled for, really. If there was a shot that you'd vote Obama (which obviously doesn't exist), that would be exceedingly detrimental.

How am I provoking him? By insulting his candidate? The guy's called me sexist, elitist, and everything under the sun and I've yet to go into a "fit of rage". I'm not provoking him by insulting his candidate, I'm insulting his candidate by insulting his candidate.

So you want an election system that isn't provided under the United States Constitution? I think you're living in the wrong country my friend.

He also wants an election that DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Just like it is "speculation" to tally the caucus results? Furthermore, the DNC voted to admit those results, legitimizing them but depriving them of half their delegate voting power. Do you care to explain that one?

Seeing as how only one of the four leading canidates put their name on the balllots in those states it's not fair that she even got those votes.

So you want an election system that isn't provided under the United States Constitution? I think you're living in the wrong country my friend.
Er, technically speaking, the primary elections are not conducted under the rules of the Constitution.

How am I provoking him? By insulting his candidate? The guy's called me sexist, elitist, and everything under the sun and I've yet to go into a "fit of rage".

You're intentionally pushing his buttons for some sort of hilarity. It's been obvious for weeks now that he's impervious to any questioning or logic, I don't see why you continue to poke your fingers in the cage. The bitching from the both of you ceased being funny.

Heikoku, if you keep imitating Rei imitating Gendou you're either going to get strangled and tossed off the Magi or have your head bitten off by an EVA.

Please tell me you're not comparing Hillary to Ritsuko. I mean, I find Misato more attractive, but I don't find Ritsuko THAT repulsive. :p

Superior
...elitist, check.
Gamer
...sexist, check.

...Everything under the sun...hm...
Well, seeing as we're living in a 3-D universe, not much is below the Sun in this solar system. :-/

J/K. I know I insulted a lot of people with that joke tho! :P

Yeah, I know, and I've gotten a little tired of being ripped by him constantly. He's done it to others, so I just filed a request with the Moderators to serve him with a warning.

Bad move.

Bad move.

Considering I'm within the rules, pretty bad.

Please tell me you're not comparing Hillary to Ritsuko. I mean, I find Misato more attractive, but I don't find Ritsuko THAT repulsive. :p
Wrong Akagi, it was Naoko Akagi who got lovingly called Old Hag by Gendou and Rei.

Now. As I was saying, the whole crux of my argument is that you can't very well have the caucus vote estimates count unless you're willing to accept the Michigan and Florida estimates as well. To do so is to apply an electoral double standard.

Hillary did not win the popular vote.

I wasn't trying to argue that...

Considering I'm within the rules, pretty bad.

No, bad move because I know you're going to be an ass about it and continue to rip into him about whining. It wasn't hard to predict.

Er, technically speaking, the primary elections are not conducted under the rules of the Constitution.

I'm talking about his misinformed idea that the majority rules in the US. It's not the case for presidential elections, and for much of US history there were no primary systems.

I don't think that it's the fact that they were caucus states, but the fact that those states willfully broke the rules. The Democratic Pary said there would be no primaries before a specified date with the exception of New Hampshire. The states were aware of this, they chose to hold their primary early anyway.

That's Michigan and Florida. I'm talking about the caucus states that Sal throws out so that the illusionary popular vote lead exists. This also doesn't take into account the 'sanctioned' state of the votes in Florida and Michigan. It's a way to bypass the punishment that the RBC levied, and lessened, on Florida and Michigan. It's a flawed metric on so many levels. And yet even when using that flawed metric, if you include the caucus states that illusionary lead goes away.

The primary race was predicated on delegates. When it was clear that Clinton wasn't going to win on pledged delegates all sorts of metrics were created to over come that, from electoral votes, swing states, fuzzy math popular votes, even the way Republicans do their primary.

None of these metrics worked because they all had a counter argument. Obama won swing states, too. Primary wins don't mean general election wins. Looked at as a whole, she did not win the popular vote nor is the system set up to measure the popular vote accurately. The Republican's system is actually less representative.

They were unconvinced. The party decided. It's over.

I for one am glad Obama won the nomination. Otherwise the 2008 Election would basically boil down to "Do you want your Third Bush Term with a wrinkled penis, or a wrinkled vagina?"

Wrong Akagi, it was Naoko Akagi who got lovingly called Old Hag by Gendou and Rei.

True, my anime skill got dampened by my annoyance. However, I still find Naoko remotely attractive. I'd kiss Keel before touching Hillary.

Now. As I was saying, the whole crux of my argument is that you can't very well have the caucus vote estimates count unless you're willing to accept the Michigan and Florida estimates as well. To do so is to apply an electoral double standard.

Huge double standard, caucuses within the rules and elections that didn't respect them!

He also wants an election that DIDN'T HAPPEN.

The US would be in such a radically different place right now if popular vote counted for anything that his whole point is entirely moot.

There are soooooo many reasons to loathe this place we call the best on this earth...

try having an original thought, they're much more fun.

Now. As I was saying, the whole crux of my argument is that you can't very well have the caucus vote estimates count unless you're willing to accept the Michigan and Florida estimates as well. To do so is to apply an electoral double standard.
The problem being though that the primary is a. Not uniform in terms of how things are conducted and .b. Run state to state without any weight given to any total votes. Thus rendering your argument pointless.

That's Michigan and Florida. I'm talking about the caucus states that Sal throws out so that the illusionary popular vote lead exists. This also doesn't take into account the 'sanctioned' state of the votes in Florida and Michigan. It's a way to bypass the punishment that the RBC levied, and lessened, on Florida and Michigan. It's a flawed metric on so many levels. And yet even when using that flawed metric, if you include the caucus states that illusionary lead goes away.

The primary race was predicated on delegates. When it was clear that Clinton wasn't going to win on pledged delegates all sorts of metrics were created to over come that, from electoral votes, swing states, fuzzy math popular votes, even the way Republicans do their primary.

None of these metrics worked because they all had a counter argument. Obama won swing states, too. Primary wins don't mean general election wins. Looked at as a whole, she did not win the popular vote nor is the system set up to measure the popular vote accurately. The Republican's system is actually less representative.

They were unconvinced. The party decided. It's over.

By that argument, the delegate system is also inaccurate. Indeed, when Clinton won the Nevada caucus, Obama actually ended up with more delegates. This also occurred in Texas. If we cannot trust the delegate system's accuracy vis'a'vis the the popular vote system, then who is deciding who becomes the nominee and how?

That's Michigan and Florida. I'm talking about the caucus states that Sal throws out so that the illusionary popular vote lead exists. This also doesn't take into account the 'sanctioned' state of the votes in Florida and Michigan. It's a way to bypass the punishment that the RBC levied, and lessened, on Florida and Michigan. It's a flawed metric on so many levels. And yet even when using that flawed metric, if you include the caucus states that illusionary lead goes away.

The primary race was predicated on delegates. When it was clear that Clinton wasn't going to win on pledged delegates all sorts of metrics were created to over come that, from electoral votes, swing states, fuzzy math popular votes, even the way Republicans do their primary.

None of these metrics worked because they all had a counter argument. Obama won swing states, too. Primary wins don't mean general election wins. Looked at as a whole, she did not win the popular vote nor is the system set up to measure the popular vote accurately. The Republican's system is actually less representative.

They were unconvinced. The party decided. It's over.

Oh, my mistake.:)

Oh, and the popular vote does matter in most of the (more important) elections, such as local, state, and federal government (excluding president). So I really don't know what the OP is talking about.

I for one am glad Obama won the nomination. Otherwise the 2008 Election would basically boil down to "Do you want your Third Bush Term with a wrinkled penis, or a wrinkled vagina?"

You seem to assume she has a vagina.

If the caucus votes were to be counted, it would require a rather extreme amount of estimation, as totals were not released. Furthermore, if the Obama people want the caucus results tallied, they can't exactly complain about the results in Michigan because of how votes should have been apportioned there.

I can understand the argument for not counting caucus vote totals. However, you can't deny the fact that not counting the caucuses in SOME way disenfranchises tens or hundreds of thousands of voters exactly the same way that not counting the Michigan or Florida results does.

Speaking of Michigan and Florida...Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the form of Terry McAuliffe and others on the DNC were instrumental in stripping Michigan and Florida of their votes. Frankly, I think that trying to get their votes reinstated was and is a rather bald-faced political move. Either Michigan and Florida broke the rules or they didn't. Either HRC and her allies support the DNC's efforts to prevent frontloading or they don't -- you can't switch back and forth whenever you want to unless you have a reason better than "because the other position is better for my chances of winning an election."

Hillary's run a marginal campaign and she got beat, fair and square. I can't say that I like her much as a candidate, and I can't say that I'm not relieved to see the backs of the Clintons. But I still have to admire the political skill she's displayed in running. Now, however, is the time to turn that skill against the Republicans.

You seem to assume she has a vagina.

ooh, good point.

True, my anime skill got dampened by my annoyance. However, I still find Naoko remotely attractive. I'd kiss Keel before touching Hillary.
Bad, BAD mental IMAGE!!!!

You seem to assume she has a vagina.

It's not like Mann Coulter is running for President.

Bad, BAD mental IMAGE!!!!

Gomen.

I can understand the argument for not counting caucus vote totals. However, you can't deny the fact that not counting the caucuses in SOME way disenfranchises tens or hundreds of thousands of voters exactly the same way that not counting the Michigan or Florida results does.

Speaking of Michigan and Florida...Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the form of Terry McAuliffe and others on the DNC were instrumental in stripping Michigan and Florida of their votes. Frankly, I think that trying to get their votes reinstated was and is a rather bald-faced political move. Either Michigan and Florida broke the rules or they didn't. Either HRC and her allies support the DNC's efforts to prevent frontloading or they don't -- you can't switch back and forth whenever you want to unless you have a reason better than "because the other position is better for my chances of winning an election."

Hillary's run a marginal campaign and she got beat, fair and square. I can't say that I like her much as a candidate, and I can't say that I'm not relieved to see the backs of the Clintons. But I still have to admire the political skill she's displayed in running. Now, however, is the time to turn that skill against the Republicans.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, the whole thrust of this thread is to hash out the methodology behind the primary system that delivered Obama the nomination when Clinton (according to CNN) had more votes.

It's not like Mann Coulter is running for President.

Hillary = Ann Coulter coming back from the future, a la Terminator.

Hillary = Ann Coulter coming back from the future, a la Terminator.

I have no trouble seeing ann coulter as a machine sent back to destroy us.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, the whole thrust of this thread is to hash out the methodology behind the primary system that delivered Obama the nomination when Clinton (according to CNN) had more votes.

She didn't have more votes "according to CNN", she had more votes according to one very skewered interpretation CNN mentioned the existence of, an interpretation you chose to believe.

By that argument, the delegate system is also inaccurate. Indeed, when Clinton won the Nevada caucus, Obama actually ended up with more delegates. This also occurred in Texas. If we cannot trust the delegate system's accuracy vis'a'vis the the popular vote system, then who is deciding who becomes the nominee and how?

Different paries have done it different ways throughout US history.

Different paries have done it different ways throughout US history.

Just because it has happened in the past justifies it happening again?

The popular vote has not mattered since 1789 when the Constitution set forth the rules by which we elect our representatives in the government... people have tried and failed int he past to get this idiotic way of doing things abolished.

By that argument, the delegate system is also inaccurate. Indeed, when Clinton won the Nevada caucus, Obama actually ended up with more delegates. This also occurred in Texas. If we cannot trust the delegate system's accuracy vis'a'vis the the popular vote system, then who is deciding who becomes the nominee and how?
The rules of the DNC, which have been out for public view for years and explains how in each state, those delegates are counted up.

Hillary = Ann Coulter coming back from the future, a la Terminator.

Hillary has reproduced. Mann Coulter has not. I think it's safe to say she has a wrinkled vagina unless cloning technology is a lot more advanced than we're lead to believe.

Hillary = Ann Coulter coming back from the future, a la Terminator.

That's why Mann Coulter is a Hilary supporter! She's trying to get herself in office!:eek:

Just because it has happened in the past justifies it happening again?

Maybe not, but it's a moot point, because she lost the popular vote.

Hillary has reproduced. Mann Coulter has not. I think it's safe to say she has a wrinkled vagina unless cloning technology is a lot more advanced than we're lead to believe.

You also seem to assume BILL Clinton has a penis.

Or that Chelsea isn't just a product of a mitosis.

You also seem to assume BILL Clinton has a penis.

If Bill didn't have a penis, we wouldn't have heard about Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones or Monica Lewinski at all. Unless it was part of some twisted plot we have yet to figure out.

:D

Just because it has happened in the past justifies it happening again?

What on earth does that question have to do with what I said? Allow me to rephrase; there have been many, many different ways the political parties have chosen their presidential canidate throughout history. This process has been revised many, many, many times. The two current political parties do it differently as a matter of fact.

You seem to assume she has a vagina.
you seem to assume he was referring to Hilary as the one with the vagina.

That is wrong. CNN is reporting that she is in the lead. The vote totals do not lie.

No, CNN is reporting that she is in the lead UNDER A VERY SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION OF THE POPULAR VOTE, one you embrace out of wishful thinking.

Maybe not, but it's a moot point, because she lost the popular vote.

That is wrong. CNN is reporting that she is in the lead. The vote totals do not lie.

you seem to assume he was referring to Hilary as the one with the vagina.

You seem to assume you're pretty funny.

You're correct. :D

Maybe not, but it's a moot point, because she lost the popular vote.

No, she won. You just have to run the raw numbers through some algorithms and then hold the report sideways and squint a bit.

Okay. My argument remains, however, that regardless of the process that the process should ultimately reflect the desire of the majority. In this particular case, the system has thwarted the will of the majority, thereby undercutting the legitimacy of the system. :)

No, it hasn't and no, it didn't.

That is wrong. CNN is reporting that she is in the lead. The vote totals do not lie.

umm, yeah they do. maybe not as much as they did in the past, but I assure you they do.

What on earth does that question have to do with what I said? Allow me to rephrase; there have been many, many different ways the political parties have chosen their presidential canidate throughout history. This process has been revised many, many, many times. The two current political parties do it differently as a matter of fact.

Okay. My argument remains, however, that regardless of the process that the process should ultimately reflect the desire of the majority. In this particular case, the system has thwarted the will of the majority, thereby undercutting the legitimacy of the system. :)

That is wrong. CNN is reporting that she is in the lead. The vote totals do not lie.

Since when does CNN precede the Party?

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, the whole thrust of this thread is to hash out the methodology behind the primary system that delivered Obama the nomination when Clinton (according to CNN) had more votes.

Well, good luck on that one. The rules of the Democratic party are arcane and sedimentary, with "New Left" proportional representation layered upon Jacksonian majoritarianism layered on top of old school platonic "philosopher kings." As far as I can tell there's no one standard anyone's going to get held to, because different segments of the rules deal with and define "the popular vote" differently. Caucuses measure the passion of a candidate's supporters and the general trend. Majoritarian systems place great emphasis on scientific counting of votes. Elitism (a hold over from the good ol' days of Tammany Hall) doesn't give a flying frack about "the people" except when November rolls around. You have three VERY different agendas within ONE voting system. Again, good luck trying to reconcile them all. Even if you come up with some magical metric that hashes out all the numbers, I doubt you'll be able to harmonise all their intentions.

By that argument, the delegate system is also inaccurate. Indeed, when Clinton won the Nevada caucus, Obama actually ended up with more delegates. This also occurred in Texas. If we cannot trust the delegate system's accuracy vis'a'vis the the popular vote system, then who is deciding who becomes the nominee and how?
What do you mean 'the delegate system is also inaccurate.' Inaccurate to what?

If it was a simple matter of direct voter representation they wouldn't exist. But they aren't. They are alloted on Democratic voter turn out and representation. This, actually, is a system that favors establishment candidates like, say, a Clinton. It's why the fractional lead that Clinton had in Nevada resulted in a net 1 delegate gain in Nevada. Texas did what it did for Texas' reasons. I found it hard to understand but there it is.

If the delegate difference between the two candidates in pledged delegates was <10, it would be an argument to have. But it wasn't, it was over 100. Even if you included Florida and Michigan full stop with noting going to Obama those two states, Nevada and Texas, wouldn't have made the difference.

What is at issue, and which you again dodge (and no $5 until you get to it) is why the caucus states don't get a say in your metric and how does that gel with your 'count every vote' mantra.

I wasn't arguing that the delegate system was a reliable measure of the popular vote. I was arguing that your methodology of garnering a popular vote majority was innacurrate. Indeed, if popular vote was a metric there wouldn't be caucus states, or at the very least they'd keep vote totals. Don't conflate your arguments for mine.

As for who is deciding, the Democratic party is deciding with a set of rules largely designed by members of the Clinton campaign. There were 13 Clinton supporters on the RBC, only 8 Obama supporters.

No, it hasn't and no, it didn't.

Forgive me, but I question your impartiality. You have made in abundantly clear that Obama is your man, and that no matter what transpires, he should get the nod.

The fact is that a reputable agency is reporting that Clinton is in the lead, but she will not get the nomination. Ergo, the process misfired at some point. If Barack Obama had gotten more votes but lost in the delegate system, I would make the same argument for him.

Forgive me, but I question your impartiality. You have made in abundantly clear that Obama is your man, and that no matter what transpires, he should get the nod.

The fact is that a reputable agency is reporting that Clinton is in the lead, but she will not get the nomination. Ergo, the process misfired at some point. If Barack Obama had gotten more votes but lost in the delegate system, I would make the same argument for him.

You're using an interpretation that serves only YOUR candidate, at the expense of four states, all the while reciting "count every vote"... and YOU question MY impartiality?

I'll forgive you, but only on account of it being so fucking hilarious!

And no, you WOULD NOT make the same argument for him. Because you wanted Hillary in, no matter what.

Forgive me, but I question your impartiality. You have made in abundantly clear that Obama is your man, and that no matter what transpires, he should get the nod.

The fact is that a reputable agency is reporting that Clinton is in the lead, but she will not get the nomination. Ergo, the process misfired at some point. If Barack Obama had gotten more votes but lost in the delegate system, I would make the same argument for him.

Delegates are what matter. The popular vote isn't what matters. And no you wouldn't make the arguement for him. Why? Becuase you support Hillary. You only say that because you thought it would make you look better.

Okay. My argument remains, however, that regardless of the process that the process should ultimately reflect the desire of the majority. In this particular case, the system has thwarted the will of the majority, thereby undercutting the legitimacy of the system. :)

And it doesn't change the fact that she still lost the popular vote:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-no-cigar.aspx
That's simply not enough to overcome Obama in any fair national vote tabulation--and by fair, we mean "any tabulation that awards Obama more than zero votes in Michigan," where his name wasn't on the ballot. If we include Florida (where Clinton won by 294,772 after neither she nor Obama campaigned) and the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (where votes weren't counted and must, therefore, be estimated), Obama leads by 134,746; if we disenfranchise those caucus states--which represent a net Obama gain of about 110,000 votes--he's still ahead by 24,524. What's more, if we give Clinton her 330,000 Michigan votes and award Obama all 237,000 of the uncommitteds--a flawed but roughly equitable proposal, seeing as experts project that the Illinois senator would've won a standard Great Lakes State primary by 80,000--he emerges with a lead of 44,605. Even with only 82 percent of these uncommitteds in his column, Obama wins the overall popular vote. And he's expected to expand that edge by tens of thousands of votes on Tuesday with projected victories in South Dakota and Montana.

Raw numbers that you can add yourself:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/04/1107917.aspx
The only measure in which Clinton leads in the popular vote is if you include Michigan.

REally, you are going to include numbers from a state where only one canidate was on the ballot? Really? How fair is that for the Michigan folks who would have voted for Obama or Edwards?

Forgive me, but I question your impartiality. You have made in abundantly clear that Obama is your man, and that no matter what transpires, he should get the nod.

In other news, Genghis Khan questions Henry VIII's table manners. :p

And it doesn't change the fact that she still lost the popular vote:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-no-cigar.aspx


Raw numbers that you can add yourself:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/04/1107917.aspx


REally, you are going to include numbers from a state where only one canidate was on the ballot? Really? How fair is that for the Michigan folks who would have voted for Obama or Edwards?

The problem is he didn't likely win 80% in the Michigan primary. Furthermore, his "expected wins" in Montana and South Dakota didn't go as planned, as Clinton upset him in South Dakota.

Forgive me, but I question your impartiality. You have made in abundantly clear that Obama is your man, and that no matter what transpires, he should get the nod.

The fact is that a reputable agency is reporting that Clinton is in the lead, but she will not get the nomination. Ergo, the process misfired at some point. If Barack Obama had gotten more votes but lost in the delegate system, I would make the same argument for him.
For the record, in my perfect world the ticket would have been Gore/Edwards- or Edwards/someone if I must pick someone who actually put their name on the ballot.

In other news, Genghis Khan questions Henry VIII's table manners. :p

"I'm Henery the Eighth, I am!
Henery the Eighth I am! I am!" :p

No, she won. You just have to run the raw numbers through some algorithms and then hold the report sideways and squint a bit.

It's not even that hard. You just have to cross out "Obama" and write "Clinton".

It's not even that hard. You just have to cross out "Obama" and write "Clinton".

Puh-lease. This is not Florida in the year 2000, and we are speaking about Hillary Clinton, not the Antichr...I mean George Bush.

The problem is he didn't likely win 80% in the Michigan primary. Furthermore, his "expected wins" in Montana and South Dakota didn't go as planned, as Clinton upset him in South Dakota.

He didn't have to win 80% in Michigan, there were more viable canidates at that time. His expected wins are irrelevant. What is very relevant is every single tally of raw numbers without Michigan makes him the winner. Speculating on what could have happened in Michigan is absurd.

He didn't have to win 80% in Michigan, there were more viable canidates at that time. His expected wins are irrelevant. What is very relevant is every single tally of raw numbers without Michigan makes him the winner. Speculating on what could have happened in Michigan is absurd.

Ignoring Michigan is also absurd, as it deprives Clinton of an argument, the electoral system of credibility, and Obama of a state in November.

It's not even that hard. You just have to cross out "Obama" and write "Clinton".

Yes, but algorithms are scientific, and if it's scientific then it must be true.

Puh-lease. This is not Florida in the year 2000, and we are speaking about Hillary Clinton, not the Antichr...I mean George Bush.

For someone that calls GWB the Antichrist, you seem awfully eager to support his third term.

Michigan had the option to do a re-run.

THE STATE refused.

Incorrect. They wanted to do a re-do, but the exact terms were not clear, and the Obama campaign ran out the clock on it.

Ignoring Michigan is also absurd, as it deprives Clinton of an argument, the electoral system of credibility, and Obama of a state in November.

Michigan had the option to do a re-run.

THE STATE refused.

So pulling random numbers out if the ether is more valid?

It's more valid than simply disqualifying them altogether.

Ignoring Michigan is also absurd, as it deprives Clinton of an argument, the electoral system of credibility, and Obama of a state in November.

So pulling random numbers out if the ether is more valid?

Michigan had the option to do a re-run.

THE STATE refused.

All the cool states ignore the rules. Rules are for losers.

Incorrect. They wanted to do a re-do, but the exact terms were not clear, and the Obama campaign ran out the clock on it.

Sure, sure, the vast left-wing conspiracy... :rolleyes:

When did the popular vote cease to matter? 1789.

QFT. Honestly, people...know a bit about government before you start whining.

All the cool states ignore the rules. Rules are for losers.

Well, actually, and QED Hillary, not following the rules is for losers...

It's more valid than simply disqualifying them altogether.

Okay, by that rationale I'm going to include Guam's primary and I'm going to estimate that Gore got 11,000,000,000,000 votes, Edwards 29,000,000,000 votes and my dog Dash got 10,000. So by this new estimation Gore is our man.

It's more valid than simply disqualifying them altogether.

Cool, in that case I'll claim the states voted both 97% for Obama and -569% Clinton. And we'll have to go with that, because pulling numbers out of the ether (or, out of... ah, never mind) is better than disqualifying them...

Okay, by that rationale I'm going to include Guam's primary and I'm going to estimate that Gore got 11,000,000,000,000 votes, Edwards 29,000,000,000 votes and my dog Dash got 10,000. So by this new estimation Gore is our man.

Jinx, I owe you a soda.

Well, actually, and QED Hillary, not following the rules is for losers...

She's a woman, what the hell does she know?

Jinx, I owe you a soda.

Tee hee!:D

Cool, in that case I'll claim the states voted both 97% for Obama and -569% Clinton. And we'll have to go with that, because pulling numbers out of the ether (or, out of... ah, never mind) is better than disqualifying them...

TRY RESULTS BASED ON EXIT POLLS!

She's a woman, what the hell does she know?

1- I'm not sure she's a woman.

2- Careful, you don't want people to think you weren't joking. :p

1- I'm not sure she's a woman.

2- Careful, you don't want people to think you weren't joking. :p

1. True, true.

2. I'm a woman. If they take my post seriously, then I don't know what I'm talking about.

TRY RESULTS BASED ON EXIT POLLS!

PIKACHU! I CHOOSE YOU!

This is just as meaningful as what you said.

Not wanting to read this entire sorry thread, did Shalrirorchia ever give a reason why the caucuses shouldn't count?

Heikoku, if you keep imitating Rei imitating Gendou you're either going to get strangled and tossed off the Magi or have your head bitten off by an EVA.

*channels McCain*

"The old hag is of no use anymore. We don't need the old hag anymore"

:p

TRY RESULTS BASED ON EXIT POLLS!

Caps lock and big text is cruise control for cool.

Oh, you mean the ones that indicated Obama would have won? Yes, lets look at those, shall we?

http://www.latimes.com/la-exitpoll-nh-graphic,0,7161708.htmlstory?coll=la-home-center

Not wanting to read this entire sorry thread, did Shalrirorchia ever give a reason why the caucuses shouldn't count?

Because that, and some other fuzzy math makes Clinton the winrar.

Michigan had the option to do a re-run.

THE STATE refused.

I'm going to add a bit to this. They estimated that another primary would have cost upwards of $10 Million. Considering the state had/has 1. a huge deficit, 2. some of the worst unemployment in the Union, and 3. a ubersucky economy for those who have jobs, the legislaters made the right call by not going for another primary. $10 million can pay for alot of teachers, and many road repairs.

Furthermore, you must remember that Michigan has the Open primary system. That means that anyone can vote in any primary. Many people voted in the Republican primary rather then not have their Obama votes count in the Democratic one. I personally know several people that voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary rather then Barack Obama in the Democratic one.

As others have pointed out, none of the Democratic candidates campaigned in Florida and Michigan and Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

Here is the election data from 1860 when Lincoln was elected:

Candidate Popular vote % Electoral votes
Abraham Lincoln 39.8 180
John Breckinridge 18.1 72
John Bell 12.6 39
Stephen Douglas 29.5 12

Note that despite the fact that Douglas got twice the popular vote that Bell did, he got a third the candidates. Even without scandals and vote-stealing like those of the 2000 election, the US election system is deeply flawed. I like the VoteFair (http://votefair.org) system, aka Kemeny-Young. See wikipedia for an in-depth explanation.

*channels McCain*

"The old hag is of no use anymore. We don't need the old hag anymore"

:p

Rei Ayanami, the ultimate jailbait of anime...

Anyways, Hillary may be an old hag, but she can still be of some use, just not as a VP.

Not wanting to read this entire sorry thread, did Shalrirorchia ever give a reason why the caucuses shouldn't count?

Guess.

*channels McCain*

"The old hag is of no use anymore. We don't need the old hag anymore"

:p
*Points over NAS's shoulder* Don't look now, but there's a rather large and angry purple and neon green thing behind you that wants a word.


:D

Because that, and some other fuzzy math makes Clinton the winrar.

Guess.
K.

*leaves*

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

So if you don't count all the votes, Clinton has more votes.

And your point is?

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count.

He did have more pledged delegates, however. So if that's all we were going by, he'd still win.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy?

...the writing of the Constitution?

More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close.

Sort of like the electoral college.

We live in a Republic, not a pure democracy. This has always meant that certain things are determined by state powers, rather than direct individual votes.

In truth, you have no right to vote for president at all and, for much of this nation's history, there was no such thing as a popular vote for president. The states can pick the electoral college members in any way they like.

Both major parties use systems somewhat similar to the electoral college.

How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

(a) How can a popular vote that discounts some contests be a good measure of anything?

(b) A candidate who wins the contest is legitimate. Period. If you don't like it, you have to change the process.

(c) The problem that many people have with Bush's election is not that he lost the popular vote. It is that recounts in Florida were halted before they had reached a clear conclusion. This resulted in Florida's electors being awarded to Bush without a clear win for him in that state. Problems that many have with the electoral college system as a whole is another subject

Rei Ayanami, the ultimate jailbait of anime...
She is not, if you count up everything, she's the oldest thing on the planet!















And my argument has nothing at all to do with my large collection of Rei stuff at all! ;)

Snip.

I have some pretty decent fanfiction. Want it? :p

Mind you, I didn't write it. I just have some URLs...

And no, it doesn't have any lewd content.

Sure, sure, the vast left-wing conspiracy... :rolleyes:


:p :D :p

Gotta say... I'm sitting here, munching on my popcorn, laughing my butt off at one set of Dems tossing this line at another set...

As I said earlier... Clinton supporters should vote McCain... That'll show Obama who's boss! ;)

The Obama people want to include their own vote totals from the caucus states, but they squeal when Florida and Michigan are entered into the column.

If you're going to try and use a metric like "popular vote", you can't just say that all the caucus states don't count. It's ridiculous.

In fact, the existence of caucus states is precisely the reason that "popular vote" is a poor metric to use. If the nominee was going to be determined on that metric, there probably would be no caucus states. Those states would realize that their influence would be diluted by such a process, and would use primaries instead.

I think you're wrong if you think Florida and Michigan would have come up with different results than they did.

I think it's silly to suggest that they wouldn't.

Furthermore, I also reject your prior argument that the vote totals shouldn't be included because "she knew the rules going in and voted to uphold them". By your own rationale, Barack Obama "knew the rules" when he pulled his name off of the Michigan ballot. By your own rules, he shouldn't receive a single vote from Michigan, making Clinton's lead even stronger.

You forget that the rules said Michigan's votes wouldn't count. The rules were changed in Clinton's favor as it was. Changing them even more so would have made any victory she claimed useless.

As I said earlier... Clinton supporters should vote McCain... That'll show Obama who's boss! ;)

So, you show people who's the boss by shooting yourself in the foot? Wow.

For fuck's sake. They didn't campaign in Florida, if they did it would have been closer. She was the only one on the ballot in Michigan.

And that's not counting the Michigan voters (such as myself an Kbrook) who DIDN'T VOTE in the Michigan primary because we were told the votes WOULD NOT BE COUNTED.

Incorrect. They wanted to do a re-do, but the exact terms were not clear, and the Obama campaign ran out the clock on it.

You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you?

The officials in Michigan voted against options for a re-do, as did officials in Florida.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


Direct, including the misspellings, from the US Constitution ratified in 1804.

What it means in layman's terms is that when you vote, you are actually voting for an elector; NOT for the candidate themselves. The elector is the one who actually gets the real vote and votes for the person who is popular... and this is very important... in their congressional districts some districts may or may not have more people than others. That's why the president does not always win by popular vote. In most if not all States the nomination process runs in a similar way to my understanding.

A source (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html) for those of you who are sticklers for that.

And Shal's point which is made even mooter due to the fact that the hag also lost the popular vote...

A source (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html) for those of you who are sticklers for that.

That'll teach 'em.

I hereby draw a parallel to emos that cut themselves to get parental attention...

So, you show people who's the boss by shooting yourself in the foot? Wow.

That'll teach 'em.

Because that, and some other fuzzy math makes Clinton the winrar.

Clinton is a totally kick-ass file compression and extraction program? Shit, had I known that I'd have voted for her.

I have. You have no point. The hag wanted caucus states not to be counted, the hag wanted to pretend the results in Florida and Michigan would be the same were they actual elections, the hag moved goalposts, whined and played the victim ALL THE TIME, and the hag finally accepted her slow political demise, not to run again due to being too old by the time Obama leaves office.

As for your rage, it's your problem, not mine, if you get angry over me calling the hag "the hag".

Just a tip from a fellow Obama supporter . . .

Calling Clinton a hag makes you look rather like an ass.

Just a tip from a fellow Obama supporter . . .

Calling Clinton a hag makes you look rather like an ass.

Meh.

Just a tip from a fellow Obama supporter . . .

Calling Clinton a hag makes you look rather like an ass.

:cool:

It's better than the Obama supporters telling the Clinton supporters, "Close, but no cigar..."


;)

:cool:

It's better than the Obama supporters telling the Clinton supporters, "Close, but no cigar..."


;)

:p

Just a tip from a fellow Obama supporter . . .

Calling Clinton a hag makes you look rather like an ass.

It does give Shal his easy excuse, "See? This is why I'm not voting for Obama, some guy from Brazil on the internet was mean to me and that reflects on the candidate, so I'm voting for McCain for some reason..."

I'll say it's a drag. Calling her names is a drag. Goading Sal is a drag because they're both suckers for it. Sal doesn't have to fall for it and H2 doesn't have to provoke him. It's lame. It pollutes the forum with this back and forth, pissing off the people who have to share this forum with us who don't give a crap about our elections. If we contained our debate and actually addressed each other instead of "Hag" "meanie" etc., it'd be a lot better. But then, this is the internet.

It does give Shal his easy excuse, "See? This is why I'm not voting for Obama, some guy from Brazil on the internet was mean to me and that reflects on the candidate, so I'm voting for McCain for some reason..."

I'll say it's a drag. Calling her names is a drag. Goading Sal is a drag because they're both suckers for it. Sal doesn't have to fall for it and H2 doesn't have to provoke him. It's lame. It pollutes the forum with this back and forth, pissing off the people who have to share this forum with us who don't give a crap about our elections. If we contained our debate and actually addressed each other instead of "Hag" "meanie" etc., it'd be a lot better. But then, this is the internet.

Just for the record, I called her a hag far, far before Shal went "don't make me get angry". Hillary's not a poster here, and I refrained from using the B-word. And Shal takes EVERY DISAGREEMENT as a provocation, so it's pretty hard to know what is what anymore.

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.
Hillary Clinton lost because she was not liberal enough. ZeroMemory(&Shalrirorchia, 9999);

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count.

Clinton was not going to win via pledged delegates either. She too would have required superdelegates to put her over the top.

So would you have been aghast if Clinton had won...or is your lack of a viable argument apparent yet?

Everyone ignores me :(

Everyone ignores me :(
There, there. I didn't read anybody's post before responding. :)

I just want to point out that when it looked like the superdelagates would "overturn" Obama's lead and choose leader all the pundits in the media were saying the were overturning the will of the people and now that the will of the people has spoken and they choose Hillary it is a different story.

The USA is not a true democracy but the popular vote for the most part goes with the winning. In the few times that did not occur look at what we got



When George McGovern was choosen as the 1972 Democratic nominee w/o the popular vote he won i think one state against the republican R.M Nixon and we all know Bush v. Gore.

As of now I will support against Obama unless he choses Hillary as his running mate.

Everyone ignores me :(

That's because...

Hey! Look! Cookie! *Goes*

When George McGovern was choosen as the 1972 Democratic nominee w/o the popular vote he won i think one state against the republican R.M Nixon and we all know Bush v. Gore.

As of Know I will support against Obama unless he choses Hillary as his running mate.
Why? Do you dislike Obama's policies? Or are you unhappy about how the primary turned out?

There, there. I didn't read anybody's post before responding. :)

*feels loved* :)

That's because...

Hey! Look! Cookie! *Goes*

*feels unloved* :(

*feels unloved* :(

Awwwww! *Hugs*

:fluffle:

Why? Do you dislike Obama's policies? Or are you unhappy about how the primary turned out?

No, just so we can get both a black man and a woman out of the way methinks...

I just want to point out that when it looked like the superdelagates would "overturn" Obama's lead and choose leader all the pundits in the media were saying the were overturning the will of the people and now that the will of the people has spoken and they choose Hillary it is a different story.

(a) That was in reference to pledged delegates, not some illusory measure of popular vote.

(b) Hillary wasn't chosen by the popular vote or the pledged delegates. If we count all states (and note that we have to fudge numbers for this, as there are no official numbers for caucus states), Obama wins by all measures

As of Know I will support against Obama unless he choses Hillary as his running mate.


Obama names her as running mate, he best hire a stable of food tasters...

;)

No, just so we can get both a black man and a woman out of the way methinks...
How about I just vote for Cynthia McKinney (G)? That would accomplish both at once. :D

That's what I was going to do if Obama lost anyway.

Why? Do you dislike Obama's policies? Or are you unhappy about how the primary turned out?
I do not feel he has enough experience. I do not like his health care plan and I do not like how he will meet with some of the world worst leaders in his first year w/o any pre-conditions for the USA. Also i think he is a celebrity superstar who is getting a huge wave from the media while Hillary CLinton is being treated like she is a monster. Also the obama supporters i've spoken to turn me off completely, they had so much hate for hillary since the begining it was disgusting. I belive that the Media created an image that is not completely true of Obama. After the speech what else is left of him. Our country is in too bad of a situation to take a gamble. His supporters are more focused on the idea having a black/multi racial president who is "change" and changes our image in thw world then worrying about what change do we need right now. I wanted Hillary to comes and clean everything up and when our country was in a better mode Obama would of been there long enough to know what needs to be change as far as how things is done and what not. He is not hillary who i belive is ready on day one.

The people who are really facing the heat of Bush's administration are not worried about a person's race but when they see this person getting all the celebs around them they feel left out. Hillary has connected with all voters wheter or not they choose to accept it. It is time we had someone who will fight for the American people in the white house and I think it is hillary CLinton. Now that she is being forced to concede I dont like obama at all, and i am a young black teen from NYC. I consider myself independent now but i will support Obama if he comes with Hillary

How about I just vote for Cynthia McKinney (G)? That would accomplish both at once. :D

That's what I was going to do if Obama lost anyway.


You'll also have a similar option once McCain announces his running mate is going to be Condi...

:D

Sidenote: This is a party nomination process, not a pure election. You understand that, right?

The world ends in 2012. This is the last Presidential election. Why else would she be holding on so long? :D
They say the world will end in December. So you can still hold your elections in November. ;)

How about I just vote for Cynthia McKinney (G)? That would accomplish both at once. :D
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1544/cmkle8.th.jpg
Cynthia McKinney in '08!

I do not feel he has enough experience.

Fair enough. I disagree.

I do not like his health care plan

Why not? It's very similar to Clinton's. ar

and I do not like how he will meet with some of the world worst leaders in his first year w/o any pre-conditions for the USA.

Fair enough. Personally, I think actual diplomacy requires such things. The "We're taking our ball and going home" version of diplomacy hasn't gotten us anywhere.

Also i think he is a celebrity superstar who is getting a huge wave from the media while Hillary CLinton is being treated like she is a monster.

Hardly. If anything, she's been handled with kid gloves. Any other candidate would have been pushed out long ago.

Also the obama supporters i've spoken to turn me off completely, they had so much hate for hillary since the begining it was disgusting.

Shal, is that you?

I belive that the Media created an image that is not completely true of Obama. After the speech what else is left of him.

If you'd look, you'd know.

His supporters are more focused on the idea having a black/multi racial president who is "change" and changes our image in thw world then worrying about what change do we need right now.

Is that a fact?

Hillary has connected with all voters wheter or not they choose to accept it.

If that were true, there wouldn't be so many people who don't like her.

It is time we had someone who will fight for the American people in the white house and I think it is hillary CLinton. Now that she is being forced to concede I dont like obama at all, and i am a young black teen from NYC. I consider myself independent now but i will support Obama if he comes with Hillary

You don't like Obama because he won? And that makes sense to you?

Seriously, I didn't see anything in there to warrant this type of invectiveness other than the fact that you're mad at him for running a campaign against Hillary.

I do not feel he has enough experience.

Odd factor to vote on.


I do not like his health care plan

First legitimate reason I've seen yet. I'm glad you care about policy.


and I do not like how he will meet with some of the world worst leaders in his first year w/o any pre-conditions for the USA.

If I said that you have to agree with me before I agree to talk to you, would you talk to me? If not, why do you think any other national leaders would?


Also i think he is a celebrity superstar who is getting a huge wave from the media while Hillary CLinton is being treated like she is a monster.

That doesn't seem like a legitimate reason to vote.


Also the obama supporters i've spoken to turn me off completely, they had so much hate for hillary since the begining it was disgusting.

I can't speak for others, but my opinion is that Clinton is not liberal enough.


The people who are really facing the heat of Bush's administration are not worried about a person's race but when they see this person getting all the celebs around them they feel left out. Hillary has connected with all voters wheter or not they choose to accept it.

I disagree. As a civil libertarian, I feel that Hillary Clinton is way out of touch.


It is time we had someone who will fight for the American people in the white house and I think it is hillary CLinton. Now that she is being forced to concede I dont like obama at all, and i am a young black teen from NYC. I consider myself independent now but i will support Obama if he comes with Hillary
Well, I don't blame you, because you found a policy reason for disliking Obama, which is something few people have been able to do.

And really, if Hillary Clinton had won, I would have bolted the Democratic Party.

You'll also have a similar option once McCain announces his running mate is going to be Condi...

:D
Condi is openly white. She just happens to be black.

They say the world will end in December. So you can still hold your elections in November. ;)


http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1544/cmkle8.th.jpg
Cynthia McKinney in '08!
Yeah, you're damn straight I'd vote for her. That's a fucking war face, motherfucker!

*Points over NAS's shoulder* Don't look now, but there's a rather large and angry purple and neon green thing behind you that wants a word.


:D

Hah! My consciousness is stored in somewhere else, safe from giant bio-mechanical creature snack attacks!

She is not, if you count up everything, she's the oldest thing on the planet!

And my argument has nothing at all to do with my large collection of Rei stuff at all! ;)

As long as you don't start cosplaying her. That would just be... well, there's no words that can describe how... odd, it would be.

And no, she's the second oldest, not the oldest.

Beside that fact I feel Hillary will make the best president, I've watch MSNBC and now CNN nealry non-stop since they started running and Hillary has little love. I also do think someone who voted present over 100 times in his state legis. shouldn't be in the white house at the top. He needs a chance to prove himself because he and that shouldn't be as president our of country.

The country needs Hillary and Obama aint helping and the party is divided. Hillary is not the nominee but she has a stronger and larger following so Obama knows what he needs to do to truely unite the party.

Beside that fact I feel Hillary will make the best president, I've watch MSNBC and now CNN nealry non-stop since they started running and Hillary has little love. I also do think someone who voted present over 100 times in his state legis. shouldn't be in the white house at the top. He needs a chance to prove himself because he and that shouldn't be as president our of country.

The country needs Hillary and Obama aint helping and the party is divided. Hillary is not the nominee but she has a stronger and larger following so Obama knows what he needs to do to truely unite the party.
I disagree. The liberal base of the Democratic Party will vote for Obama rather than cede the country to the machinations of Reichsmarschall John McCain.

Condi is openly white. She just happens to be black.


Wow... :eek:

So the fact she doesn't play on her melanin level and simply does her job well is a bad thing?

Wow... :eek:

So the fact she doesn't play on her melanin level and simply does her job well is a bad thing?
No. I just wanted an excuse, no matter how poor, to bust out some George Carlin.

Condi is openly white. She just happens to be black.

???

I hope that statement was meant as sarcasm. Obama is half black, but because he's a democrat he's automatically more black than anyone with african ancestry who is also a neocon? That's the most racist statement I've seen in a while. If ideology defines race, and vice versa, you must have some very strange ideas about culture and politics.

???

I hope that statement was meant as sarcasm. Obama is half black, but because he's a democrat he's automatically more black than anyone with african ancestry who is also a neocon? That's the most racist statement I've seen in a while. If ideology defines race, and vice versa, you must have some very strange ideas about culture and politics.
I point to the previous post.

I disagree. The liberal base of the Democratic Party will vote for Obama rather than cede the country to the machinations of Reichsmarschall John McCain.theres is no doubt that the liberal base will throw there support to Obama. it's about the BLue collar workers who elected Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. Obama needs someone to grab those voters plus the block of women voters who support Hillary

theres is no doubt that the liberal base will throw there support to Obama. it's about the BLue collar workers who elected Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. Obama needs someone to grab those voters plus the block of women voters who support Hillary
If blue collar workers and women vote against their economic interests and individual rights, good riddance.

If blue collar workers and women vote against their economic interests and individual rights, good riddance.

Would that be the desires for reduced taxes and free ownership of firearms? ;)

Goodness, just toss the non-white collar workers and ladies overboard eh? Any other groups that can be tossed aside?

What was that word being bandied about by Clinton supporters about Obama?

Elitist?

;)

Would that be the desires for reduced taxes and free ownership of firearms? ;)

I was assuming that blue collar workers might appreciate social democracy. I do appreciate that social democracy is not ideal, it's better than a society where taxpayers are forced to subsidize big business, but the poor can go hang.

And, alas, the Democrats in general have a bad stance on gun control. If the party were more consistent with its principles, I believe it would staunchly oppose gun control.

For my part, imagine the amount of gun control the NRA favors. Now imagine even less. That's how much gun control I advocate.


Goodness, just toss the non-white collar workers and ladies overboard eh? Any other groups that can be tossed aside?

I don't know. It seems obvious to me what kind of calculus people should use when they vote, and it seems like being a blue-collar worker or a woman voting for the Republican party is voting against that calculus. And the calculus is simple: don't vote for the party with the authoritarian attitude on civil liberties, and don't vote for the party which opposes social democracy.


What was that word being bandied about by Clinton supporters about Obama?

Elitist?

;)
On second thought, that does seem harsh and unnecessarily dismissive. I am still surprised that many blue-collar workers and women of all people would vote for a Republican, who would make them less free than a Democrat would.

And, alas, the Democrats in general have a bad stance on gun control. If the party were more consistent with its principles, I believe it would staunchly oppose gun control.


The party figured out that Gun Control is a good way to piss off the electorate after 1994.

I was assuming that blue collar workers might appreciate social democracy. I do appreciate that social democracy is not ideal, it's better than a society where taxpayers are forced to subsidize big business, but the poor can go hang..

Personally, I'd prefer to see the entire tax system scrapped and go to a simple flat tax... But no Rep or Dem will go for that...

And, alas, the Democrats in general have a bad stance on gun control. If the party were more consistent with its principles, I believe it would staunchly oppose gun control.

For my part, imagine the amount of gun control the NRA favors. Now imagine even less. That's how much gun control I advocate..

I prefer to see at least on scene criminal background checks; that way criminals have to buy from illegal sources...

I don't know. It seems obvious to me what kind of calculus people should use when they vote, and it seems like being a blue-collar worker or a woman voting for the Republican party is voting against that calculus. And the calculus is simple: don't vote for the party with the authoritarian attitude on civil liberties, and don't vote for the party which opposes social democracy.

On second thought, that does seem harsh and unnecessarily dismissive. I am still surprised that many blue-collar workers and women of all people would vote for a Republican, who would make them less free than a Democrat would.

Blue collars of America are not one solidly coherent group... Those of urban areas are oft of the dem leanings, supporting big gov and anti business actions through memberships in Unions... marxist socialism in action. Those of non-urban areas are more of the anti big gov Rep leanings... "leave me the heck alone and stay outta my business!" Those folks do not appreciate the dem view of "What can big gov do for you?"... or worse, "you don't really know what you need, but we do... give us more taxes and we'll fix it for you..."

As for social democracy, sadly, much of the "blue-collar" group is rather Xenophobic... (and no, for those of you in Wahoo, that doesn't mean they are scared of large muscular women with swords... well, maybe they would be at that ;) ) a large part of the Dem's social platform scares / angers them.

Someday in the future, a pairing of Crunchy-Conservatives and Bean counter-Liberals will end up sweeping our country...

Till then, we can just much our popcorn and watch the fireworks...

theres is no doubt that the liberal base will throw there support to Obama. it's about the Blue collar workers who elected Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. Obama needs someone to grab those voters plus the block of women voters who support Hillary
Irony is that Obama is more blue collar than Hilary ever was. He was raised by a solo mother on foodstamps, whereas she's spent most of her life in either governor mansions or above.
It's bizaare that the media portray him as elitist and struggling to connect with the blue collar worker. Out of everyone who has run thus far, on both sides, he's the one who one would expect to have the best understanding and empathy.

I prefer to see at least on scene criminal background checks; that way criminals have to buy from illegal sources...


Have you not heard of the NICS?

Irony is that Obama is more blue collar than Hilary ever was. He was raised by a solo mother on foodstamps, whereas she's spent most of her life in either governor mansions or above.
It's bizaare that the media portray him as elitist and struggling to connect with the blue collar worker. Out of everyone who has run thus far, on both sides, he's the one who one would expect to have the best understanding and empathy.


Did he develop this empathy for blue collar workers at Columbia or Harvard? ;)

Have you not heard of the NICS?

Considering that I use NCIC daily at work, yes I have South, and in fact that is what I was refering to... I'd rather it's use at point of sales not go away.

:D

Considering that I use NCIC daily at work, yes I have South, and in fact that is what I was refering to... I'd rather it's use at point of sales not go away.

:D

Ah, I think I understand.

Just out of curiosity, in what capacity do you use the check system?

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

I'm sorry, what country? This is an international forum, so you'll have to be more specific.

I'm sorry, what country? This is an international forum, so you'll have to be more specific.

Define 'country'.

Ah, I think I understand.

Just out of curiosity, in what capacity do you use the check system?

Military Law Enforcement. And to keep it on thread, I've had to thwap more than a couple of my minions for even considering checking the candidates records... entertaining as that might be, highly illegal it is... :D

Though considering their present political positions, I'm fairly sure both of their "errors of youth" records have been purged from the system. ;)

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

Fuck the popular vote. It's never mattered before, why should it now?

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

The US is not a Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy Wiki ~ Representative Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the process the Democrats use to select their nominee isn't regulated by said process... it's a made up system designed by the DNC. They could just as easily do zero voting, zero campaigning, and at the convention, have all the Candidates line up and give their best impersonation of the "Dean Scream" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE&feature=related), naming the best vocalizer as the nominee to compete in the real election.

Come to think of it, I'd watch that... ;)

The US is not a Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy Wiki ~ Representative Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
...which makes the US a democracy, just with a peculiar type of voting system.

...which makes the US a democracy, just with a peculiar type of voting system.

and if you wish to you can call a Battleship a boat,

http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/battleship-blast.jpg

and an Eagle a bird...

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/cat-eagle.jpg

But to refer to any of the three by the overarching general terms does none of them true justice...

:D

Okay. My argument remains, however, that regardless of the process that the process should ultimately reflect the desire of the majority. In this particular case, the system has thwarted the will of the majority, thereby undercutting the legitimacy of the system. :)

It did reflect the will of the majority. The only way your candidate wins is if you disenfranchise four states that voted legally while enfranchising two states that voted illegally.

When you look at the actual majority, Clinton lost.

Meanwhile, there is no popular vote metric in the election. Why shouldn't we use it? Because a lot of states use caucuses and none would do that if the election were decided by popular vote.

Your candidate lost more contests, more states, got less votes, got less pledged delegates, got less super delegates. It doesn't matter what metric you use, unless you intentionally try to discount legal contests, she lost.

You can't tout the popular vote and then bitch that it doesn't say what you want. You don't get to disenfranchise voters and then complain because we're not looking at the will of the people.

TRY RESULTS BASED ON EXIT POLLS!
IF YOU USE THE RESULTS BASED ON EXITS POLLS OBAMA GETS ENOUGH VOTES IN MICHIGAN TO HAVE A HIGHER POPULAR VOTE

See how that works. And my argument would be right even without the size 7 font.

See, in the exit polls from the same site you're using for your popular vote - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MIDEM

They have Hillary only getting 46% of the vote with everyone on the ballot. That's 271K.
They have Obama with 35% of the vote. That's 206K.

That's only a net gain of 65K. See, if you actually do what you just suggested, Obama wins. Unless of course, you think four states should not be counted at all so that you can make an argument to count all the votes. Does that seem rational?

One more commentary before I head off to sleep...

You know what is the saddest part of the primary?

Why some people vote for which candidate.

No I'm not talking about how some vote for Hillary just because she's a female, or how some vote for Obama because he's black.

I'm talking about a little chat I was having with a few of my troops about voting and how I encouraged them to vote, no matter which political side, so long as they participated in the process. That said, they all talked about who they supported, and why.

One of the troops, 19 year old male, stated he planned to vote for Obama. When asked why, he stated that he really liked how he talked. I asked, "You mean his very eloquent speeches and rousing calls for change, or his attempts at vocalizing his feelings for the common man?"

To which the troop replied... "no, no... I just really like how he sounds... He sounds like the pro wrestler, The Rock!"

Nuff said...

http://www.criticsrant.com/Images/criticsrant_com/News%20Rants/The_Rock.jpg

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/cat-eagle.jpg

*stolen and lolcatted*

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/cateagle.jpg

:D

The popular vote does matter. Please review the US voting system. We elect the electoral college, who makes the decision - the same as the Congress. When you check your favorite candidate (or the lesser of the evils :p) on the ballot, you are actually voting for the electoral delegates who have pledged to vote for that candidate. After the results for the electoral are in, the electoral delegates cast their votes for the presidency. While they can technically vote for someone other than who they pledged, a lot of states have laws about that.
Confusing? Yeah. But direct democracy can be messy - all those broken pottery shards....

Snip.

Your point being? Many people will vote for McCain due to his military service, which has no relevance whatsoever in leading a country.

However, to get the troops out of Iraq, finally, and to get the US to cut off the cowboy diplomacy, at last, Obama must be voted in.

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

So write a letter to Howard Dean if you actually want to do more than just whine about it.

So write a letter to Howard Dean if you actually want to do more than just whine about it.

And Myrmi has a point!

The popular vote ever mattering was smoke and mirrors. The electoral college was instituted by the Constitution itself at the very beginning.

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/sta...erto.rico.html)
Who doesn't love Hilary math? It is now going to be a factor of every presidential race to come. All the pundits will describe poor losers as using Hilary math to say how they have the higher vote tally because their opponent does better in caucuses and thus caucuses don't count.

Blue collars of America are not one solidly coherent group... Those of urban areas are oft of the dem leanings, supporting big gov and anti business actions through memberships in Unions... marxist socialism in action.

What does "marxist socialism" mean to you? Social democracy is not socialism. And how does support for unions equate to "marxist socialism?


As for social democracy, sadly, much of the "blue-collar" group is rather Xenophobic... (and no, for those of you in Wahoo, that doesn't mean they are scared of large muscular women with swords... well, maybe they would be at that ;) ) a large part of the Dem's social platform scares / angers them.

Unfortunately, xenophobia is everyone's loss, not just theirs.


Someday in the future, a pairing of Crunchy-Conservatives and Bean counter-Liberals will end up sweeping our country...

So LPUSA hopes, but they haven't gained much traction yet. I will only vote for the Libertarian Party if it promises to abolish all corporate welfare.

It ceased to matter when most of the electorate stopped voting. It will be apathy and nothing else that destroys our rights.

And Myrmi has a point!
Damn right I do. There are only a couple ways to change things in this country and letter writing is one of the best. Politicians respond to letters from their constituents better than you could ever imagine. Polls give them a good or bad feeling about what they're doing, but letters, with names and addresses from people that actually vote for them, work wonders.

Of course, Howard Dean is now a bureaucrat, but I'll bet he's still enough of a politician that a good letter writing campaign would have the desired affect.

It did reflect the will of the majority. The only way your candidate wins is if you disenfranchise four states that voted legally while enfranchising two states that voted illegally.

When you look at the actual majority, Clinton lost.

Meanwhile, there is no popular vote metric in the election. Why shouldn't we use it? Because a lot of states use caucuses and none would do that if the election were decided by popular vote.

Your candidate lost more contests, more states, got less votes, got less pledged delegates, got less super delegates. It doesn't matter what metric you use, unless you intentionally try to discount legal contests, she lost.

You can't tout the popular vote and then bitch that it doesn't say what you want. You don't get to disenfranchise voters and then complain because we're not looking at the will of the people.


The AMOUNT OF CONTEST YOU WIN DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE YOU CAN WIN THE PRESIDENCY WITH THE RIGHT 12 STATES which is only 24% of the number of states we have.

Damn right I do. There are only a couple ways to change things in this country and letter writing is one of the best. Politicians respond to letters from their constituents better than you could ever imagine. Polls give them a good or bad feeling about what they're doing, but letters, with names and addresses from people that actually vote for them, work wonders.

Of course, Howard Dean is now a bureaucrat, but I'll bet he's still enough of a politician that a good letter writing campaign would have the desired affect.

You do, of course, realize that, while YOU have a point, Clinton doesn't...

The AMOUNT OF CONTEST YOU WIN DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE YOU CAN WIN THE PRESIDENCY WITH THE RIGHT 12 STATES which is only 24% of the number of states we have.

Capslock is cruise control for cool. Don't let anyone tell you different.

You do, of course, realize that, while YOU have a point, Clinton doesn't...
The fact that more people voted for her, She washed Obama in big states that Democrats need to win. We dont need to win Colorado! Also the accurate amount of delagates were not seated with FLorida and Michigan having half a vote. Those are points

The fact that more people voted for her, She washed Obama in big states that Democrats need to win. We dont need to win Colorado! Also the accurate amount of delagates were not seated with FLorida and Michigan having half a vote. Those are points

1- Most people voted for Obama, not her. They only voted for her if you ignore caucus states and include illegal elections.

2- Fat lot of good the "let's just win certain states" strategy did the Democrats, and the world.

As soon as you guys took up electoral college, obviously.

Damn right I do. There are only a couple ways to change things in this country and letter writing is one of the best. Politicians respond to letters from their constituents better than you could ever imagine. Polls give them a good or bad feeling about what they're doing, but letters, with names and addresses from people that actually vote for them, work wonders.

Of course, Howard Dean is now a bureaucrat, but I'll bet he's still enough of a politician that a good letter writing campaign would have the desired affect.

You know, I've always wondered at the effectiveness of email as an alternative to letters. I can see it having less of an effect, but either way I've never been able to find a way to phrase things well enough to send it out.

The fact that more people voted for her

No, they didn't.

If you add up every single vote obama got, and every single vote clinton got, Obama got more votes.

If you add up all the votes from legitimate primaries, Obama got more votes.

The only method you can use is to count places Obama didn't even run, and to discount legitimate caucuses.

Which is to say, it's basically saying Clinton won the popular vote, as long as you don't count votes for Obama. Which is brilliant in strategy but flawed in execution.

You do, of course, realize that, while YOU have a point, Clinton doesn't...
Clinton is history. The Democratic Party can still be saved, although I'm not sure the new Messiah is going to be the one that does it. The people need to make their position clear.

Similarly, McCain is not going to save the Republican party. If conservative Republicans really want their party back, they are going to have to rescue it from those that have ruined it.

If there were ever a year that a third party could establish itself, this would be it. Too bad the leading third party has nominated Bob Barr. Newt Gingrich would have done better, though he doesn't claim to be a Libertarian.

Instead, we will get a weakly conservative Republican or a strongly liberal Democrat -- both of them disciples of BIG government.

Democracy ends when someone starts cherry picking their votes.

You know, I've always wondered at the effectiveness of email as an alternative to letters. I can see it having less of an effect, but either way I've never been able to find a way to phrase things well enough to send it out.

Identically-phrased emails (i.e. the pre-typed ones you send off a form from the ADF or the ACLU or whatever) tend to have less of an effect than individually composed emails, but both emails and letters get through. (I'm getting this from a friend of mine who spent a semester interning for the state government. The experience pretty much turned her off of politics forever, but both emails and letters did get read, and counted, and responded to if the recipient had sufficient staff to do the gruntwork, and occasionally passed on to the actual recipient if they were good enough to quote in a speech.)

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

You forget that parties are organizations that operate independently of the government and are not required to use democratic methods to choose their candidate. They use primaries to get a feel for what the public wants, but the ultimate decision happens behind closed doors.

Beside that fact I feel Hillary will make the best president, I've watch MSNBC and now CNN nealry non-stop since they started running and Hillary has little love.

Depends on when, what station, and who's talking. They all slam the candidates on some things, praise them on others, like the underdog now and not later, and so on.

I also do think someone who voted present over 100 times in his state legis. shouldn't be in the white house at the top.

(a) Out of how many votes?

(b) Are you familiar with Illinois state politics?

The country needs Hillary and Obama aint helping and the party is divided. Hillary is not the nominee but she has a stronger and larger following so Obama knows what he needs to do to truely unite the party.

If Hillary really had a stronger and larger following, she'd be the nominee.

theres is no doubt that the liberal base will throw there support to Obama. it's about the BLue collar workers who elected Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. Obama needs someone to grab those voters plus the block of women voters who support Hillary

In polls, Obama and Clinton fair pretty much the same against McCain with blue collar workers.

Clinton does only slightly better with white women and I don't think it's an obstacle that specifically requires her on the ballot to overcome.

The fact that more people voted for her,

...except they didn't.

She washed Obama in big states that Democrats need to win. We dont need to win Colorado!

Ah, the same "strategy" that lost the election for both Gore and Kerry. "We don't need these other states. We only care about a few."

Also the accurate amount of delagates were not seated with FLorida and Michigan having half a vote. Those are points

Of course they weren't. By the rules of the contest no delegates were supposed to be seated. The rules were changed in Clinton's favor and she still couldn't pull it out.

Face it, she lost by every metric. If you think things should have been differently, lobby the Democratic party to change things for the next primary season.

There's a shocking logical disconnect in saying Hillary won anything this primary season. In every metric she lost, but her supporters still bawl that she won.

It's perplexing. Hillary wins if you count all the votes, except these votes which don't count because we say so.

Counting results of all primaries, not caucuses, including disputed contests in Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates. That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/puerto.rico.html)

I am absolutely aghast at the fact that the Democratic Party is going to nominate the candidate who got fewer votes in the popular vote column. The superdelegates put Obama over the top, not anything in the pledged delegate count. I had always been under the impression that in our society, the man (or woman) who got the most votes is supposed to win. Yet now this is happening again, exactly as it happened in 2000 when George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in the popular vote tally but won in the electoral college.

At what point did our love of procedure (if indeed a procedure caused this to happen) become greater than our love of democracy? More to the point, are we even democratic any longer? It is clear that delegate systems like ours become wildly inaccurate when the race is close. How can a candidate who lost the popular vote but won the election be anything other than an illegitimate figure? I know people who STILL claim that Bush is illegitimate, and I have difficulty disagreeing with their assessment.

What this all comes down to is this:

1) Presidential elections were never elected by the popular vote. The Constitution gives the states the right to choose how their Electoral College votes are chosen. It is the state that decides how the Electoral College votes are dispensed.

2) Party politics were never about democracy. It is about getting your party into power.

3) These are Democrats we are talking about! The issue of popular vote, as in all other things, changes depending on whether or not you benefit from it.

4) Points 1, 2, and 3 above make the original post just a bunch of ignorant whining. But it is still nice to see Obama and Clinton supporters rip into each other.

3) These are Democrats we are talking about! The issue of popular vote, as in all other things, changes depending on whether or not you benefit from it.

4) Points 1, 2, and 3 above make the original post just a bunch of ignorant whining. But it is still nice to see Obama and Clinton supporters rip into each other.

The Republicans stole Florida, and the elections, through Jeb Bush. And proceeded to screw just about everything up afterwards.

Also, they are FAR more divided than the Democrats are...

I think you're wrong if you think Florida and Michigan would have come up with different results than they did.
You don't know a damned thing about Michigan if you think she could win that state with an opponent on the ballot.

I do not like how he will meet with some of the world worst leaders in his first year w/o any pre-conditions
He proved it, by meeting with Hillary w/o any pre-conditions just last night :D

If the caucus votes were to be counted, it would require a rather extreme amount of estimation, as totals were not released.
So, your preference is that the people in those states get shut out completely, and the nomination be awarded strictly based on the popular vote in the other states? That is not "democracy", to reduce part of the US back to colonial status, or whatever it is that you think you're doing.

Also, they are FAR more divided than the Democrats are...
They arn't more divided, they are just more diverse. There are the neocons and the moderate rightwingers. Neither group will vote Democrat but neither group likes anyone who panders to the other.

They arn't more divided, they are just more diverse. There are the neocons and the moderate rightwingers. Neither group will vote Democrat but neither group likes anyone who panders to the other.

They might, however, sit it out if McCain panders to three sides at the same time: Neocons, moderate right-wingers and independents.

The only method you can use is to count places Obama didn't even run, and to discount legitimate caucuses.

Which is to say, it's basically saying Clinton won the popular vote, as long as you don't count votes for Obama. Which is brilliant in strategy but flawed in execution.
That's a valid way to count votes. To run or not to run is part of the campaign strategy. Do I spend money where I don't have much of a chance? Or do I spend it where it will do the most good? There is nothing in the rules of "fairness" that says all candidates must present themselves for a vote to all voters.

But, and it's a big one, the DNC rules don't care about popular vote. Both candidates knew that going in and if we play by the rules, Clinton lost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7410751.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/wilson/index.html

Stories like that just boggle my mind. I guess the "feminists" were so focused on getting a woman on top at any cost they ignored all her flaws. Let's highlight the bullshit:


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Respect is a powerful word for women, probably because it's something most of us get far too little of. In a nutshell, that's why Sen. Clinton's fighting stance these past few months has touched a gender chord that has resonated with women everywhere.

Across demographics, women clearly want to see someone fight for their right to be respected. And you didn't have to listen hard to hear Clinton demanding just that for her supporters Tuesday night.

Respect: Forty years after Aretha Franklin scored a hit by demanding it, women are still searching for it, and the undermining role sexism played in this campaign has left many feeling its lack in Clinton's race to the top.

A just-released Pew Research Center poll found that nearly 40 percent of Clinton's female supporters believe that her gender hurt her candidacy. This being 2008, that sexism often took a more subtle path than in the past, taking bites out of Clinton's authority and "likeability" in ways that were arguably more insidious than the overt epithets.

Overt or understated, this primary season was undeniably disrespectful to a woman who instead deserved our utmost respect, just like any other candidate for our nation's highest office.

Of course, gender played against Clinton, as it inevitably will as long as we stay in the business of throwing one woman at a time up to the top. Doing so necessitates that a woman prove she's "man enough" for the job, it demands an impossible level of "perfection," and it requires a balancing act between the tough and the feminine that even the Cirque du Soleil couldn't manage.

A sole woman vying for the top position will always have to be twice as good to be just good enough. The truth is, women have been empowered in this country, but we are not in power.

The common feeling in America is that women have made it, but we rank a paltry 71st in the world when it comes to women's political representation. We have only nine female governors and have been stuck at an average of 22 percent of representation in state legislatures for more than a decade.

But the good news is that Clinton's candidacy marks the starting point of a new political movement, one that finally brings women of all backgrounds into the political spotlight.

Since Clinton launched her campaign, I have met thousands of these women across the country. They are eager to lead a political life and are stepping up to the plate to seek training and enter politics. And they won't be stepping into unkind waters once they do enter the field: Clinton's race showed that Americans are comfortable with the idea of a woman at the very top, and polls echo the trend.

The fact that a woman fell short of the presidency this time around may be a grievous event for many women in this country, but America's demonstrated comfort with a female president is something that all of us should be celebrating.

Building this kind of respect for the women who come after her is the great legacy that Clinton leaves. The women who have supported her owe her a similar version of that respect, by not sitting out an election that she has given her all to win, or by refusing to support another candidate who espouses values similar to their own.

This is the true test of loyalty to Clinton and to the democratic values that drew them to her in the first place.

If Sens. Obama and McCain want the backing of Sen. Clinton's supporters, as they have both made clear they do, then each of them will have to find a way to show women real respect: by advocating policies that benefit women and families and by advancing women's leadership in their own campaigns and potential administrations.

If Obama can continue to speak to Clinton supporters as he did Tuesday night, eventually, he will be heard. As for Sen. McCain, his support of tax cuts for the wealthy and his positions on reproductive choice and health care make him the less natural surrogate for Clinton.

Still, expect to see his campaign continue to vie for the constituency. Women may yet struggle to garner respect as we lead, but nobody questions our power as a voting bloc.


Now for the BBC version:


Hillary Clinton's dashed hopes for the presidency come hand in hand with a dashed piece of history - it is not yet time for a woman to be President of the United States.

Her dwindling effort marks not only the end of a ferocious fight for the party's nod, but also the end to a collective dream amongst many in a generation of women who have formed a large piece of Mrs Clinton's support.

Her candidacy is a reminder that the ultimate glass ceiling remains intact.

Disappointment among older women voters is palpable.

Yet women ought not to be disappointed with Clinton's legacy.

During the course of her candidacy she all but took gender off the table as an impediment to electability.

Just take a look at polls over the past year and a half. In December 2006, only a little more than half - 55% - of registered voters said that America was ready to elect a woman as president in a Newsweek poll.

In the wake of Mrs Clinton's candidacy, in another poll conducted by Newsweek in April, almost three-quarters of American voters - 70% - say the country is ready for a woman commander-in-chief.

"She cleared the way for other women," says Susan Brophy, a former Clinton administration official and partner at political strategy firm the Glover Park Group.

"She has made it easier for other women to run - she's been such a tough debater and such a great candidate. She will make it easier for women in the future."

Political cocktail

The legacy that Clinton leaves for women is strengthened by the fact that she did not just win with women.

Middle-class and blue-collar voters, white men and Hispanics aligned themselves with her as well, to produce primary wins in states like California, Arizona, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Indiana.

A carefully crafted political cocktail - made with an unyielding and more hawkish position on the war in Iraq than rival Barack Obama's, a trademark seriousness and lack of emotion, topped off with a fierceness and strength during what became a brutal, dogged fight for the nomination - helped her to convey an image that overcame concerns over her gender.

And yet, for many women, her gender remained an ultimate appeal.

"For older women voters, this is the first time that a woman had a real shot at the presidency - someone who had the same experiences as they did, someone who embodied their hopes and dreams and aspirations," says Anna Greenberg, pollster and Democratic political strategist.

Age often marked the dividing line between the women who supported Mrs Clinton and the women who did not.

'Cynical and divisive'

Her core supporters were mostly older than 50, those who fought for and cheered on the rise of feminism, women her own age.

Younger women, by contrast, were not as loyal to the potential first woman president.

Time and again, in places where Mrs Clinton needed their support - where each additional piece of support would have meant a few more delegates, like Iowa, Maryland, Missouri , and Wisconsin - young women under 50 voted for Barack Obama.

One thing is clear from their lack of support for the woman candidate: younger women do not feel the same urgency to elect women that their mothers and grandmothers do.

Take, for example, 38-year-old former producer and writer for Sex and the City Elisa Zuritsky.

A Clinton supporter at the beginning of the campaign, Zuritsky is now an Obama enthusiast - blaming what she calls Clinton's "cynical and divisive behaviour" during the course of the past several months.

"To think that we'd vote for someone because they are a woman is too simplistic," she says.

"Maybe women of our generation have been spoiled by all the hard work that all the feminists did before us. But they were successful, and whatever gripes we have are fairly muted.

"[Gender] has taken a back seat and I think it has been a show of progress that we can focus on other things."

New politics

Greenberg says that, as a group, the young women who have supported Mr Obama were not casting anti-Clinton votes, but rather embracing the vision he put forward.

"This is about being inspiring, forward-looking, talking about the future, and speaking in a language that appealed to them," she says.

"Clinton's deliberate attempt to talk about experience didn't appeal to them."

Mrs Clinton's legacy is hardly set in stone. Her seat in the US Senate is safe and she has years to continue her work, and to build her image as a senior legislator.

As for whether she will run for president again, those who have watched her career and worked for her over the years think it is unlikely. But speculation about a possible Vice-Presidential slot on the Obama ticket, or even a cabinet post, continues.

There are no women waiting in the wings who have the same aura of inevitability that Mrs Clinton had before her bid.

But perhaps, given what we have learned about young women voters' eagerness to embrace a new kind of politics in the course of this campaign, that bodes well for the next woman who wants to take a shot at the White House.

It may be decades from now or it could happen in just a matter of years, but whenever it does happen, she will be better off because of Hillary Clinton.

Molly Levinson is a political analyst and former CBS News Political Director

Now this isn't to dogpile on Clinton, but let's face it, she fucked up the campaign. Poor tactics mostly. She didn't take things seriously enough before Super Tuesday banking on name recognition. She got caught with her pants down and had to play hardball, and some rather questionable tactics to try and catch up.

I understand Clinton supporters being upset she lost. She really really shouldn't have. With her wealth, name recognition and support of so many party insiders it should of been a walk. She ran her campaign poorly and got bit by that fact. Playing the victim, claiming sexist won't work. It's not doing any service for women. Articles like this, particularly the CNN one, are so full of shit. She didn't lose because of sexism, she wasn't mistreated by Obama or the media. She was treated with kid gloves because she's a Clinton.

That's a valid way to count votes. To run or not to run is part of the campaign strategy. Do I spend money where I don't have much of a chance? Or do I spend it where it will do the most good? There is nothing in the rules of "fairness" that says all candidates must present themselves for a vote to all voters.

But, and it's a big one, the DNC rules don't care about popular vote. Both candidates knew that going in and if we play by the rules, Clinton lost.

That's not what happened here, the Obama campaign would certainly stay in Michigan if they knew the votes would be counted at all. The hag changed the rules in the middle of it all, so no, Michigan doesn't get to count for popular votes.

Snip.

I'm this close to making a copycat article, only pro-Obama. It'll have racially charged words, references to lynching and sitting in buses, and, in short, just about anything that appeals to the basest emotions. I'll then proceed to portray myself as a defender of the downtrodden.

Clintonistas are, by now, portraying it as an act of sexism not to vote for Clinton. It's shameful, really, that the same people that claim to have feminist values seem to want equality to disappear because Hillary happens to have a vagina. Obama didn't claim not voting for him was racism. Neither did I. Here am I, however, being called sexist, elitist, etc, etc, etc, by the supporters of a woman whose very gender I actually doubt (have you seen her face? She looks like a bulldog!).

The Republicans stole Florida, and the elections, through Jeb Bush. And proceeded to screw just about everything up afterwards.

Also, they are FAR more divided than the Democrats are...

Actually, the Democrats attempted to steal the election. The Courts cannot change the law to suit them and Florida law clearly states when the winner of an election has to be declared. Not to mention that no recount, using all the various Democrat standards, ever came out in favor of Gore.

But hey, hold on to that canard with all your liberal might!

Actually, the Democrats attempted to steal the election. The Courts cannot change the law to suit them and Florida law clearly states when the winner of an election has to be declared. Not to mention that no recount, using all the various Democrat standards, ever came out in favor of Gore.

But hey, hold on to that canard with all your liberal might!

You do realize that your claim not only is STILL disputable but would also result in the notion that America elected the worst President in its history out of its own free will? Electing that inhuman menace is not something to be proud of.

Stories like that just boggle my mind. I guess the "feminists" were so focused on getting a woman on top at any cost they ignored all her flaws.

Just like the Obama worshippers wished to have a black man, even one so inexperienced and flawed as Obama, as the Democrat nominee. It just turned out that skin color and oratory ability trumps gender amongst the enlightened liberal class.

Like all liberal causes, when a person is no longer useful to your agenda you throw them under the bus.

There's a shocking logical disconnect in saying Hillary won anything this primary season. In every metric she lost, but her supporters still bawl that she won.

It's perplexing. Hillary wins if you count all the votes, except these votes which don't count because we say so.

At least the Ron Paul supporters had the good sense to just slink away.

Just like the Obama worshippers wished to have a black man, even one so inexperienced and flawed as Obama, as the Democrat nominee. It just turned out that skin color and oratory ability trumps gender amongst the enlightened liberal class.

Like all liberal causes, when a person is no longer useful to your agenda you throw them under the bus.

I would support anyone I thought had a chance of keeping yet another Republican from further harming the world. Obama happened to be black. Were he yellow, blue, magenta or green I would also support him. Because the world cannot afford another administration of warmongering, religious pandering and destruction.

That's not what happened here, the Obama campaign would certainly stay in Michigan if they knew the votes would be counted at all. The hag changed the rules in the middle of it all, so no, Michigan doesn't get to count for popular votes.
No, but in a hypothetical case, counting votes in states where not everyone campaigned is not an awful thing.

Making outcomes dependent on popular votes would probably encourage candidates not to skip certain primaries, yes?

No, but in a hypothetical case, counting votes in states where not everyone campaigned is not an awful thing.

Making outcomes dependent on popular votes would probably encourage candidates not to skip certain primaries, yes?

I don't think we disagree...

At least the Ron Paul supporters had the good sense to just slink away.

If only they'd had the good sense not to show up in the first place.

You do realize that your claim not only is STILL disputable but would also result in the notion that America elected the worst President in its history out of its own free will? Electing that inhuman menace is not something to be proud of.

It is not disputable. Please source in the Constitution where the Courts are allowed to alter laws. The Courts are supposed to determine legal and illegal, constitutional and unconstitutional and nothing more. The alteration of a law to allow more time is clearly outside of their realm. That is the job for the legislators.

So you could dispute my claim but you would be wrong.

As for voting for Bush: did so twice and proud of it. Bush has been great for the world and America. I am sure you can provide tons of facts to support your "inhuman menace" moniker?