Clinton and Obama

[Draegan]

I think the major point to either candidate is who they surround themselves with. Today's president has to many things on his plate at one time and what really determines the direction of the country is those the president choses for his cabinet.

I'm also very curious to see who Clinton's and Obama's running mate would be.

Any opinions? I can't for the life of me think of who would fit. I don't think it would be Edwards on either account.

[Araxen]

Richardson is what I'm thinking for Obama.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Araxen

Richardson is what I'm thinking for Obama.

That would be really ballsy. Including a non-white running mate could subject Obama to even more of the racial crap than he would otherwise receive (though so far it seems like once the nomination is settled, the racial stuff will settle down - I don't see McCain tolerating his campaign pushing that line the way Hillary has). Richardson brings a lot of executive branch experience and could be seen as adding some foreign policy gravitas to the ticket, which would offset Obama's biggest weakness.

[MrGraham]

Like I said in another thread, I wish Biden wasn't prone to random angry outbursts so he would be a viable VP - he'd be my favorite for the job.

Obama/Bloomberg would be amusing.

[psu199]

I totally agree with Biden. He's got experience up the ass, would take his job seriously, and he could be the perfect attack dog for a general election.

[Etoille]

havelock, im waiting for a comment to my response to your accusation i sponsored disenfranchisement of voters man.

come on dude. at least acknowledge the fact that FL is a bunch of flaming retards. you dont have to say I was right. you just have to call them a bunch of hypocritical retards.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Etoille

I stated my position on either this or another thread.

I favor people following the rules and not crying foul when they CHOOSE to break them. I favor an outcome which will not cause party chaos and primaries starting in 2010.

The people very easily could have called their state party leaders and said "dont do this".

Instead they supported a position that caused their own disenfranchisement.

And CONTINUE to do so.

If you read anything about this in the last few days...you'd know that FL still has the power to have its voice heard. They made a choice to say fuck you to the rules everyone else has to follow, and when given a chance at reprieve they continue to say fuck you we're doing things our way we're special rules are for everyone but us.

But hey, theyre also the people that were too stupid to see thru what Hillary did. LOLZ

Lol, sorry, missed this when the new page started. I think the principle that everybody's vote should count (at least partially) to determine the party's nominee is more important than the arbitrary principle that some states are consistently privileged by voting sooner and states that step out of line to makes themselves relevant will be quashed. This is obviously a systemic problem that needs an intelligent response, not heavy-handed totalitarianism from Howard Dean. If Dean had just discounted their delegate count, it would be a non-issue. But instead he said "Screw you, your votes don't count because you're voting out of order." Since the primary order is entirely arbitrary and has, for quite some time, made a few smaller states vastly more important in the presidential selection process while relegating many other states to irrelevance, I have a hard time viewing it as some inviolate and sacred law, the least violation of which must be punished in the single most heavy-handed and antidemocratic way possible.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by psu199

I totally agree with Biden. He's got experience up the ass, would take his job seriously, and he could be the perfect attack dog for a general election.

Biden as VP would be a major win for either Obama or Clinton. Hillary does not need Richardson. She already has the Latino vote. Richardson would not be wise for Obama. Someone has to put a white man there somewhere. That is just a fact, otherwise all white men will vote for McCain because he is a white man.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Havelock

Lol, sorry, missed this when the new page started. I think the principle that everybody's vote should count (at least partially) to determine the party's nominee is more important than the arbitrary principle that some states are consistently privileged by voting sooner and states that step out of line to makes themselves relevant will be quashed. This is obviously a systemic problem that needs an intelligent response, not heavy-handed totalitarianism from Howard Dean. If Dean had just discounted their delegate count, it would be a non-issue. But instead he said "Screw you, your votes don't count because you're voting out of order." Since the primary order is entirely arbitrary and has, for quite some time, made a few smaller states vastly more important in the presidential selection process while relegating many other states to irrelevance, I have a hard time viewing it as some inviolate and sacred law, the least violation of which must be punished in the single most heavy-handed and antidemocratic way possible.

I said this again elsewhere. I'm not disputing that the primary order is fubared and unfairly skewed. But the time to take that on is not in 2007. Its before then. Play with the rules you have that everyone else has to for the sake of the party. If you want to change them, do so, but not at the last minute.

I think its complete bullshit that IA and NH have some sort of stupid "we've always" clause. I also think its complete bullshit that FL and MI waited until last year to try to get a rule change.

And that theyre painting this as WE LOST OUR DELEGATES.

No, you didnt. Youre completely ignoring what I said havelock. The party has gone back to them and said "hey you missed the 30 day period where you could agree to do a caucus after feb 5th, but we'll still honor that" and MI and FL are STILL choosing not to do it.

The intelligent response is to stand firm and say "no." Because if they dont we'll have primaries in 2010 because the party will have zero control over the situation based on the MI/FL decision.

What about states like IL, KS, CT who may have wanted to do the same but chose not to? Wouldnt seating the delegates now be a slap in the face to those states that chose to play by the rules and now are paying for it?

You cant create that kind of precedent, esp in light of the fact that the dems have given MI and FL a way out that theyre continuing to choose not to take dude.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Etoille

I said this again elsewhere. I'm not disputing that the primary order is fubared and unfairly skewed. But the time to take that on is not in 2007. Its before then. Play with the rules you have that everyone else has to for the sake of the party. If you want to change them, do so, but not at the last minute.

I think its complete bullshit that IA and NH have some sort of stupid "we've always" clause. I also think its complete bullshit that FL and MI waited until last year to try to get a rule change.

And that theyre painting this as WE LOST OUR DELEGATES.

No, you didnt. Youre completely ignoring what I said havelock. The party has gone back to them and said "hey you missed the 30 day period where you could agree to do a caucus after feb 5th, but we'll still honor that" and MI and FL are STILL choosing not to do it.

The intelligent response is to stand firm and say "no." Because if they dont we'll have primaries in 2010 because the party will have zero control over the situation based on the MI/FL decision.

What about states like IL, KS, CT who may have wanted to do the same but chose not to? Wouldnt seating the delegates now be a slap in the face to those states that chose to play by the rules and now are paying for it?

You cant create that kind of precedent, esp in light of the fact that the dems have given MI and FL a way out that theyre continuing to choose not to take dude.

The thing is that not every Florida Democratic voter was involved in the decision. What about people who did argue that the state party should follow the rules? They've been disenfranchised despite their best efforts at compliance. It's a wholly disproportionate and inappropriate punishment. The Republicans handled it much better, cutting the number of delegates while letting the voters have some impact on who gets the nomination. The whole point of having primaries is to let the party's members choose the nominee, and all other considerations with respect to how the primaries are run need to defer, at least in part, to that overriding purpose.

[Astrocreep]

im curious if snowbirds were allowed to vote in the florida primary?

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Havelock

The thing is that not every Florida Democratic voter was involved in the decision. What about people who did argue that the state party should follow the rules? They've been disenfranchised despite their best efforts at compliance.

The question is...disenfranchised by who?

The answer is Local not National.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

The question is...disenfranchised by who?

The answer is Local not National.

Bingo.

Have, why should I be subjected to a president that I didnt vote for? Its the same logic youre using.

The majority of FL voters gave the FL dem party carte blanche to do what it wanted.

If FL voters are pissed they need to look at state party leaders, and vote their asses out of office next time around to send a message if their voices weren't heard. (Trust me if they raised enough hell people in FL dem party want to get re-elected - they wouldn't have pulled this shit).

[Draegan]

Except they are not voting for the president, it's a party vote. Has nothing to do with the government.

[Araxen]

I found this today and it pretty much sums up this will be won on Super Delegates more than likely.

EVERYONE should keep this in mind before overly prognosticating future results five John Edwards withdrawal from the race,

The rules for apportionment of Delegates are based on percentage of vote at the Congressional District level


1. If you do not get 15% in CD you get nothing (both candidate will meet this threshold each and every time)
2. If you get more than 59% you get bonus Delegates. (my suspicion is that Obama has a leg up here in Urban areas and as evidenced by SC areas of the deep south)
3. If two candidates get over 40% they split the delegates evenly (This is going to happen nearly all the time)
4. If you get between 15% and 40% you get a pro-rata portion (see 2. above)

In a schema like this it seems inevitable that we are going to wind up nearly tied on voted Delegates and the real battle to decide the nomination is going to come down to Four things:

A. Super Delegates
B. The seating of the Michigan Delegation
C. The seating of the Florida Delegation
D. The Edwards and Richardson Delegates


Unless someone falters badly, or if Al Gore chimes in.....That is what it is going to come down to.

Here is a link to the best data I have found on delegates per state

Democratic Party (United - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

A "HOLY CRAP" reminder about how Delegate Distribution works - Democratic Underground