The super tuesday fallicy
Page 1 of 1

Author:  DO.g's [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  The super tuesday fallicy

Like it makes any difference anyway.

1minute to change democracy into demockery. :roll:

In your face

It was reported on CNN.

It's been validated by Princeton University computer experts.

Everyone with an IQ over 70 knows...

US electronic voting machines can be hacked easily.

So what's been done about it as we head into the 2008 Presidential election?


Super Tuesday here we come.

Your vote counts...

but it may not be counted.

Besides, it can be redone by delegates at the convention if they so choose. That's the electoral principles that colleges America. When will the lessons become boring? When IQ's reach 71?

Again Democracy now has an article about caucuses, and this "stupor tuesday" thing. read it and it reviews the electing process- ... d_to_polls
Amy Goodman-Explain how these contests today, for the Democrats, in particular, could mean no person in a clear lead. What does it mean to split the delegates rather than winner- take-all?

STEPHEN WAYNE: Well, what it means is that the Democrats allocate delegates proportional to the vote that the candidates received, and 75 percent of the delegates in any particular state are allocated in districts no larger than a congressional district. So that means if you have a district, for example, that’s primarily African American, Obama will win that, and if you have another district which is a blue-collar district where Mrs. Clinton gets the greatest support, she would win that. And both of them would probably not win it overwhelmingly, so they would split the delegates. It’s going to be very, very close.

AMY GOODMAN: And how is it for the Republicans?

STEPHEN WAYNE: Well, the Republicans are different. A number of the large Republican states—New York, New Jersey, California, Missouri—have a winner-take-all vote. And that is, in New York and New Jersey, it’s whoever gets the most votes within the state gets all the delegates, while in California, it’s winner-take-all by congressional district, most of the delegates. So that gives McCain an advantage, since he has presumably the momentum going for him.

The other interesting thing about many of the contests today is that these are what we call closed primaries. Only registered members of the party can participate. And that hurts both McCain and Obama, who have gotten a substantial portion of their vote from independents.

AMY GOODMAN: What happens to Edwards’s delegates?

STEPHEN WAYNE: Well, that depends on what Edwards says. Edwards has dropped out. Now, Edwards could in the end endorse someone, and I think he’s probably waiting for someone to get into the lead and then endorse them and ask his delegates to vote for that person. If he says nothing, the delegates can come in and vote their own conscience. And even if Edwards says “I support Barack Obama” or “I support Hillary Clinton,” that doesn’t mean he can force his delegates to vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. These are people who he’s picked, so presumably they’re loyal to him and to his ideas, but he can’t command them to vote for any one person.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Wayne, what’s a superdelegate?

STEPHEN WAYNE: A superdelegate—only the Democrats have superdelegates. And superdelegates are people who are delegates by virtue of their position in elective or party office. There are three members of the National Committee in each state. They’re automatically delegates. All the members of Congress, the Democrats, are delegates. Ex-presidential candidates of the Democrats are delegates. Governors are delegates. Mayors of large cities can be delegates. And the thing about these delegates, they’re not elected. They’re simply appointed, and they’re unpledged. So, formally they can vote for whomever they want.

There has been a campaign, a subterranean campaign, between Obama and Mrs. Clinton to win the hearts and souls of these delegates. And in fact, that campaign began two years ago, when both candidates, Mrs. Clinton and Obama, set up what were called leadership political action committees, which raised money and then distributed a substantial portion of this money to Democrats who were running for office.

What a fucked up system! Designed to impoverish the poorer candidates and then guarantee the person pre-selected gets the brass ring.

How anyone can give legitimate credence to this system is beyond reason. I must say that the formula Ron Paul is using to stay relevant in this bullshit is really to be commended. He is using the grass roots method to get through to people and at least he has stuck to his positions and not faltered or wasted his money- unlike Edwards and Kucinich, who were forced out by money and so was their messages.

Whether you like him or not, you have to admit, he has succeeded at getting serious attention. If only money weren't the main factor, all candidates would start on an equal footing.

But like equality in America, it's just lip service to ideals that can never be attained. Actions speak louder than words and America is becoming a paraplegic.

Author:  Purple Tang [ Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:58 am ]
Post subject: 

fallacy 8)

Author:  DO.g's [ Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:51 pm ]
Post subject: 


Author:  A Proud Liberal [ Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Summary of Democratic Delegate Count

Candidate: . . . . . . Clinton----Obama
Total Delegates: . . . . 974 . . .906
Super Delegates: . . . .211 . . .128
Delegates by Vote: . . 763 . . .778

While neither candidate holds a commanding lead either way, Clinton's overall lead is dependent on the non-elected appointed Super Delegates. Obama holds a small but certain lead when one considers only those delegates by vote (election or caucus). The Democrats need to do some reconsideration of this Super Delegate concept if Obama continues with this lead. If this is allowed to stand even the name of Democrat is a sham.

Author:  shoeless [ Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Party politics. This is not a general election. You play within a party or opt out.

Today's primarys are, in fact, a result of people clamoring for much more say in their party's nominees.

In the old days, the nominees were picked in smoke filled back rooms, pretty much regardless of the vote tally.

Probably, the most egregious incident occurred during the 1912 Republican primary, when Teddy Roosevelt won nearly all of the delegates, but the Robber Baron wing of the party denied him the nomination.

Roosevelt was running against his hand picked successor, William Howard Taft, who betrayed Roosevelt by becoming a shameless corporatist, once he ascended to the Oval Office.

As a result, the progressive wing of the Republican party (it was sizable at the time) eventually migrated to the Democratic party.

Another result of the shameful action by the 1912 Republican National Committee was that voters in both partys began to demand more say in electing their candidates.

It is still far from perfect, but at least I finally got to cast a meaningful vote in a presidential primary yesterday.

BTW, Barack Obama won big in Illinois.

Author:  Catherine [ Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

[url=]How Is Obama the Underdog?

Somehow Barack Obama has managed a political hat trick. He appears to have won the most delegates on Super Tuesday, he certainly has the most money (Clinton loaned herself $5 million while Obama is on track to set more records), and yet somehow he’s also winning the expectations game.

When the race is this tight, it’s good to be the candidate who isn’t expected to win, especially if you’re flush with cash and momentum.

Part of Clinton’s fundraising problem is that half of her donors have already maxed out. Obama has raised massive amounts from very small donations. In fact, 10,000 of his donors gave between $5 and $10.


There's an interesting letter written to LISA at ALL HAT NO CATTLE, about LISA's support of Hillary Clinton. The author of the letter lists why he thinks Barack Obama is not electable.

Here's the letter:


It looks like you're catching a little hell on AHNC for supporting Hillary in 2008. I agree with you and sent my donation yesterday to back it up. My donation is twice as large as usual, to make up for the loss of "Matt" (in the weekend edition). J See ya, Matt.

I think Hillary has the best chance of winning the general election. That's one big reason why I support her. Sure, Obama is a gifted public speaker; he's got the "hat," for sure. But does he have the "cattle"? I doubt it. Here's why.

First, for all his "change" rhetoric, the change Obama seems to know the most about is changing jobs. Seriously, look at the guy's resume. In the last 25 years, Obama has had nearly a dozen different jobs, plus law school. The job he held longest was in the Illinois Senate and he tried to bail out of that after four years. He did bail out in his second term.

Second, I see in his work history a record of much activity but little lasting achievement. That's expected for someone who stays in one place for only a few years at a time. Such people tend to be "a mile wide and an inch deep."

Third, people with work histories like Obama's tend to favor style over substance. Obama's got style but, in the words of Clara Peller and Fritz Mondale, "Where's the beef?"

Fourth, I see no meaningful executive experience in his background. He's a great solo act, but does he know how to get things done through others? On the morning of January 21, 2009, he won't be able to hold a rally or give a speech, he with take command of the world's largest bureaucracy, with a $3 trillion budget. What will he do?

Fifth, comparisons to JFK are not especially reassuring. Kennedy too had great style and some great ideas – the Peace Corps and the space program among them. But his lack of experience brought us the Bay of Pigs, escalation in Vietnam, and foot-dragging on civil rights. That's a mixed record at best.

Sixth, Obama's Illinois senate voting record is nothing to write home about. Over 120 times during his tenure, he voted "present" instead of taking stands on some very controversial bills. That's says "weasel" to me; it reflects a guy who's trying to have it both ways.

Seventh, his liberal track record in the U.S. Senate may help him with his political base but he will get their help anyway. It doesn't help him much with the political center, where (I think) the competition for votes will be most fierce this fall. I think he would win a race against Romney but I wouldn't give him better than even money against McCain.

Eighth, the plain fact is the next president will have to play the hand he's dealt. His (or her) biggest job will be to clean up the mess left by the current president. The need for change is obvious but where do you start with a $400 billion deficit, a $6 trillion trade deficit, a $9 billion national debt, 50 million people without health insurance, 7 million without jobs, a flat economy, 120,000 troops at war with 4,000 dead and another 30,000 wounded, the Gulf Coast in a shambles, near-total dependence on fossil fuels from unstable sources, and a constant threat of terrorism? What will Obama do when talking about the issues and voting "present" are no longer enough?

Ninth, no offense to him, but Obama's main interest seems to be advancing the career of Barack Obama. People want to compare him with John Kennedy but I'm tempted to compare him with Joe Lieberman. Barack Obama is in this for himself.

Tenth, I don't think he can win the general election. Against a McCain, Hillary would be competitive in every state. But several states that might go for Hillary will probably not go for Obama, for various reasons. You can't win by ceding several dozen electoral votes to the other guy at the start.

There, 10 reasons why I think Obama is not ready to be president. Hillary is ready; she certainly knows what the presidency involves better than any other candidate. She may be a Washington insider but I think that's what we need now. She also knows how not to get things done in Washington. I'm voting for Hillary.


Agree or disagree?

Author:  shoeless [ Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:12 am ]
Post subject: 


Style over substance? Bull. There is very little difference in policy positions between Clinton and Obama. Notice the writer didn't point out any examples.

Style over substance? There was no substance to that post. His only real point was that Obama has moved up quickly through the ranks (he calls it "changing jobs"), hardly an indictment when a job change is a promotion.

Author:  dori [ Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:20 am ]
Post subject: 

I still feel I have no candidate this year. I agree with the letter above. Obama appears to me to be 'all hat and no cattle' himself.

It is just a gut feeling, but I am uncomfortable with both Dem candidates.

I think Hillary could easily step in and do the job--she is accomplished and determined. She has been attacked for years and has stood up to it all. She delegates but keeps her mind on what is happening around her and in the country. My fear is that her values are not my values.

Obama strikes me as someone preening rather than someone who wants to dive into the mess in Washington and do his best to straighten it out. At least Edwards sounded as though he cared.

Both candidates owe too much to special interests. Neither candidate appears to want what is right for people rather than for themselves.

There has never been an election in my adult life that I have not voted. But this year, I have no candidate.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group