Official DNC RBC Committee Discussion over MI and FL (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 10:32:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Official DNC RBC Committee Discussion over MI and FL (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Official DNC RBC Committee Discussion over MI and FL  (Read 11533 times)
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« on: May 31, 2008, 01:11:54 PM »

Ugghhh I don't want to listen to Blanchard.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2008, 01:14:05 PM »

What's with Mark Brewer's voice?


Smoker?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2008, 01:14:51 PM »

That lady is a fricken drama-queen.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2008, 01:26:03 PM »

Blanchard is incompetent. Only he would think he could alienate Detroit and win an election in Michigan as a democrat in 1990. 
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2008, 01:59:38 PM »

Donna Brazile is a massive freedom fighter as well.
If by freedom fighter you mean fighting against freedom then yes. She doesn't want Michigan's votes to count.

Don't talk, please.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2008, 02:02:28 PM »

These guys make me want to be sedated.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2008, 05:06:26 PM »


I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Umm....no.

Michigan Survey of 575 Likely Democratic Primary Voters
March 6, 2008

Clinton 41%
Obama 41%


There is no way Hillary would have gotton 55% in an election with Obama's name on the ballot. Some of that 55% were 2nd choice votes.  I would argue she would have likely lost it.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2008, 05:08:01 PM »

Did he just say the Clinton campaign accepts a 73-55 split? Isnt that acceptable for Obama?

Yes, he did.  Obama is blowing it badly.

If you want $50 bucks, you ask for $100.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2008, 05:14:46 PM »

These guys make me want to be sedated.
Donna Brazile is a massive freedom fighter as well.
If by freedom fighter you mean fighting against freedom then yes. She doesn't want Michigan's votes to count.

Don't talk, please.
Would you care to explain how I am wrong? It appears you would like to disenfranchise the 2.3 million people who voted in both swing states important to democrats winning the white house?

Also, there is nothing to suggest that somehow a disproportionate amount of Obama supporters stayed home than did Clinton supporters. That point is ridiculous.

I don't think they should count, either. Plain and simple. Mark Brewer, Jennifer Granholm and Carl Levin new well of the consequences of their actions when they moved up the "primary".
Once again, you are drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid. This debacle will have a incredibly small, if any, consequence on the general election. If Obama loses Michigan, it won't be because of this, rather it will be because there are more racists in Wayne and Macomb then I expected, or the Western Michigan Bible Belt really turned out for McCain, or Detroit blacks didn't turnout like they needed.

Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2008, 05:22:49 PM »


I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Yeah right.
Maybe you weren't listening, but it is widely known that he took his name off the ballot so that they would never be counted because he was going to lose.

Obama would have won Michigan if he had kept his name on the ballot.
He could have won it after february. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Umm....no.

Michigan Survey of 575 Likely Democratic Primary Voters
March 6, 2008

Clinton 41%
Obama 41%


There is no way Hillary would have gotton 55% in an election with Obama's name on the ballot. Some of that 55% were 2nd choice votes.  I would argue she would have likely lost it.
Hillary would have won it on that date, name on or off. Obama could have won it after his winning streak. All that's moot. Hillary Clinton got more votes than uncommitted and more than a majority. She won the Michigan primary.

Clinton's vote total of 55% IS somewhat inflated. Many voters picked her as a 2nd choice because their candidate wasn't on the ballot. She would have not gotten over 50% and she would have likely lost if they were able to campaign here.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2008, 05:23:28 PM »

So the current motion is to seat the Florida delegation in full. It will obviously be defeated. I suspect next a motion will be made to seat the delegates with a half vote, and it will then be passed.

Is only a simple majority needed?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2008, 05:29:16 PM »

So there are 13 Clinton people and 8 Obama people on the Committee.

How many undeclared Committeepeople are there?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2008, 05:40:06 PM »

Are they hissing?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2008, 05:50:59 PM »

The Clinton people need to shut the f**ck up. They are not coming off well
I suppose disenfranchisement of 850,000 people is coming off well?

You need to stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.
You're the one embarrassing yourself. You are officially joining a camp of not counting votes. You're unAmerican. We don't disenfranchise people in America. I will give leeway with Michigan, but absolutely not for Florida.

Democrats can no longer claim to have any moral authority over voting rights.

George Bush, is that you?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2008, 05:53:23 PM »

Shut-up Ickes. Who says huzzpah anymore?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2008, 05:56:41 PM »

The Clinton people need to shut the f**ck up. They are not coming off well
I suppose disenfranchisement of 850,000 people is coming off well?

You need to stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.
You're the one embarrassing yourself. You are officially joining a camp of not counting votes. You're unAmerican. We don't disenfranchise people in America. I will give leeway with Michigan, but absolutely not for Florida.

Democrats can no longer claim to have any moral authority over voting rights.

George Bush, is that you?
You're in the same camp that he was in in 2000. So I don't know why you're asking me.

apple's to oranges
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2008, 05:58:25 PM »

Ickes says that the Clinton campaign reserves the right to take the Michigan issue to the credentials committee.


I hate him
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2008, 06:03:05 PM »

Michigan proposal:  Clinton 69 (34.5 votes), Obama 59 (29.5 votes).  This is a vehement Clinton woman proposing this.  May not be as bloody as Sam expects.

Listen to Ickes if you want to understand what will be going on.

It's Ickes. What do you expect him to say?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2008, 06:06:03 PM »

Michigan proposal:  Clinton 69 (34.5 votes), Obama 59 (29.5 votes).  This is a vehement Clinton woman proposing this.  May not be as bloody as Sam expects.

Listen to Ickes if you want to understand what will be going on.

It's Ickes. What do you expect him to say?

He's the Clinton mouthpiece on the committee - therefore what he says is quite important.

Of course he reserves the right. I mean, Obama could get assasinated right?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2008, 06:26:44 PM »

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2008, 06:43:59 PM »

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.
There was a same rumor going on about Clinton having superdelegates stockpiled, too.  If Obama is savvy or capable enough, which he certainly is, then he probably does.

I actually haven't heard that rumor about Clinton.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2008, 06:51:53 PM »

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.
There was a same rumor going on about Clinton having superdelegates stockpiled, too.  If Obama is savvy or capable enough, which he certainly is, then he probably does.

I actually haven't heard that rumor about Clinton.
Again, see my comment about February. I'm not referring to now. I was referring to when she was on the losing streak.

Obama did have those 50 delegates. He just released them in a steady stream to keep up the perceived momentum he had. Releasing them all at once would have been stupid.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2008, 07:03:03 PM »

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.
There was a same rumor going on about Clinton having superdelegates stockpiled, too.  If Obama is savvy or capable enough, which he certainly is, then he probably does.

I actually haven't heard that rumor about Clinton.
Again, see my comment about February. I'm not referring to now. I was referring to when she was on the losing streak.

Obama did have those 50 delegates. He just released them in a steady stream to keep up the perceived momentum he had. Releasing them all at once would have been stupid.
I'm talking about the Hillary having them rumor. And I also think you're speculating with regards to Obama. Sure it's possible the supers decided, but I don't think he knew of most of them or had a plan.

OK, gotcha. Believe what your going to believe on Obama having those SuperDelegates stocked up. I just know that they came out with quite consistency in Febuary-March. I also don't think Tom Brokaw would have stuck his neck out like that if those rumors weren't substantial.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 13 queries.