• on a comment on Follies in the blogosphere over 6 years ago

    do you think the super delegates are gonna go against the person who actually won the election in a bid to disenfranchise more then half the popular vote, more then half the states, the burgeoning youth vote, independants and black people? and by doing so destroying the party? all so they can support a candidate with less funding who ran an inept campaign and ignored more then a third of the states in her campaign?

  • on a comment on Follies in the blogosphere over 6 years ago

    both those races were against laughingstocks, she has yet to face a real republican opponent.

  • on a comment on Follies in the blogosphere over 6 years ago

    the math is that she had to win 65% of the delegates left to beat barack in pledged delegates, and that's impossible

  • comment on a post Follies in the blogosphere over 6 years ago

    i don't understand jerome.... you malign obama for saying he won texas because he won the delegate lead, but you support hillary despite the fact that the only way she can win is if the superdelegates ignore the will of the people i.e. the popular vote, and the pledged delegate lead, to support her.

    he won the caucus, she won the primary, but when the results are combined, he wins texas.

    and i fail to see how his win in texas is undemocratic, he won the overall vote count, factoring in the caucus.
    it was split into two contest he came close in won, and handily won the other.
     you can bitch and moan all you want on how undemocratic his victory was, but everyone could participate, and in the overall participation he won.

    claiming it's an undemocratic win because of delegate allocation is a load of shit, because he won the overall vote.
     it isn't a technicality like in nevada, he straight out won.

    either way, jerome, you pathertic pro hillary line of shit that essentially says obama is undemocratic, while supporting hillary who's even more overtly undemocratic (since it's the only way she can actually win) is fucking stupid.
        this is a piece of shit troll you've posted on the front page.

    if this is the best youi can do then you should go to ebaumsworld where you belong.


  • what? what do you mean convoluted? you mean how obama wins them?
     explain yourself.
     and use logic.
    and claiming it's undemocratic because of time won't fly, i know that most caucuses allow sign ins and place holders
  • disagree you all are forgetting the place with the largest u.s. population of puerto ricans....new york.

    and if you think that won't give her sway...

  • how fair is it to count the two caucuses that weren't supposed to count?

    it's not like they were disenfranchised illegitmately, the rules were set, and michigan and florida openly and defiantly broke those rules.
     the votes they cast will outside the rules should not count.

  • i think a florida primary and a michigan caucus is a fair compromise, that way no one can say that if obama wins both it's because they were both formats that were convenient for him.

  • he won't get uncommitted votes, those go to nobody.

    no a new race is good for him, even if he loses both elections will likely be closer so he can avoid any controversy with the seating, while at the same time making his lead more solid, because as is, with michigan she gets a huge delegate jump and he gets none.

  • what? so if he wins the new races it's illegitimate, but if they don't count the old races with no campaigning, and him not even on one of the ballots, in races that weren't supposed to count it is still illegitimate?

    i don't follow....

    and clinton is quiet about it because she knows she can't catch up on pledged delegates, so she's hoping she can eck out a population vote victory with a landslide in florida.

  • i'm not sure hpw many oregonians surf here, but in my opinion a mail in vote could easily be favorable to obama.

    the importance of GOTV drives can be critical to success in a mail-in election.

    simple things like not having stamps, or not wanting to go the mail box because of shiftlessness can actually come into play.

    moreover, the nature of the system means that while some people might be to lazy to actually go to the polling stations, a well organized GOTV drive could go from house to house and effectively encourage a vote that might otherwise have been impossible to garner in a normal primary.
     this is something critical for obama.
    he has a superior ground game and as such could have massive waves of volunteers immediately begin canvasing neighborhoods encouraging a obama vote and offering to take it right then, slap a stamp on it, and take it to a polling center or mailing facility.

    the most important thing is that with his organizational strength, he can be doing this on day one of the vote in period. allowing him to start hitting up neighborhoods before hillary's campaign starts canvassing.

    this can be critical, because when a candidates supporter is at your door explaining the virtues of a person, it could otherwise sway a vote then if they were by themselves in a poll.

    and hey, if it's a pretty 23 year old college chick, with a nice smile, it's only more incentive.

  • yeah except it had almost unanimous support by the florida dems in the relevant votes.

    the party agreed to it, even if the republicans hadn't voted for it, the vast majority of dems in the house did anyways.

  • i'm not sure if i made this clear, but the support groups would be going door to door accepting ballots to turn them in.
    that's the mail-in equivalent of gotv, it's more like "Bring in the vote"
  • yeah, what will likely happen is various supporter groups will get the appropriate credentials to collect, and will go from door to door asking if they've filled out their ballots, and urging them to do so, as i recall here in oregon, if you offer to turn in a ballot you must accept it regardless of voter choice and destroying such ballots is very, very, very illegal.

    in the end it could favor obama because of the critical nature of gotv in mail in vote drives.

    i would be shocked if they didn't model their system similar to oregons, if only because our system is tried and tru.


Advertise Blogads