DNC Rules Committee Selects Obama as Nominee

Clinton won't be Obama's VP, so get over that. Obama is racist and his wife too, and as she put it, "We can't stand Hillary Clinton, she thinks she is better than us".

reply to post by jetxnet


never say never....

without her on his ticket....Obama will lose and they know it.

watch what happens

reply to post by jamie83


I believe her chances would be very, very poor in a three way race. In fact, I'd guess that McCain would have about a 95% chance of winning that race vs half that in a 2-way battle against either Hillary or Obama alone. The Hillary voters moving to McCain are something he'd need in a 2-way race, but are largely irrelevant in a 3 way competition.

The vote breakdown is usually about 40-40-20 between Dems, Reps and Independents. McCain is going to get his 40% from the Republican base regardless unless he does something really stupid. Hillary and Obama would be competing for their 40% among the Dems.

So before moderates are considered, McCain can reasonably be assumed to have something like a 40-25-15 advantage in that race. 40-30-10 in his worst case scenario. Either way, that means that the 2nd place Dem is REALLY going to have to knock it out of the park with independents in order to win. That'll be tough. It'll be even harder if the 3rd place candidate manages to snatch a few electoral votes along the way.

reply to post by vor78


I dont see how people can think McCain would win a three way race or even a two way race. He drew a much smaller number of voters in the Republican primaries than the number of voters in the Democratic primaries.

In addition to that he slapped the conservative base in the face by denouncing religious leaders and appearing on Ellen. Without the religious right, McCain has very little chance winning the electoral vote of many states, especially in the South. Many on the far right see Clinton as the most conservative out of McCain, her, and Obama.

On top of that he has alienated the Industrialists that support Bush and Cheney. In other words He Has Alienated most of the Republican Party.
They will not come out to help him.

It would be more of a battle between Clinton and Obama. McCain would be the one in Third Place.

Here's my analysis:

Just based on recent primaries she should easily pick up California, Texas, and New York in a national election. All she needs is a majority vote. Electoral votes are not divided like primary delegates.

Thats 120 Electoral Votes, she would need 270. So she would already be a third of the way there. You could say she would get Michigan, Arkansas, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri and Oklahoma based on numbers of registered voters who voted for her in various districts in those states. Thats another 72 electoral votes, bringing her 192, less than one hundred away from the winning number. If she can get Florida, Tennesee, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, which she appears to have a good chance of getting based on district wide voters: thats 85 more electoral votes. Which will win her the Presidency at 277 electoral votes total.

The south would be between Obama and McCain, with Obama definitely more likely to take it, giving him Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. Which should be 78 votes. He should easily pick up Illinois giving him another 21 votes and a total of 99. He and McCain should struggle for New England with 34 votes at stake. He and McCain would also struggle for everything between Kansas and Washington. Which is only 64 total electoral votes for 12 states. It would be a clear struggle for either of them to get just 200 electoral votes.

Regardless of who secures those votes if Clinton's supporters remain loyal she will easily get 192 votes and a good chance at 277, which again means she will become President.

I advise people to look at the numerous districts across the nation, look at registered voters of both parties in those districts, look at the primaries and make a good objective analysis.

Wow this thread is absolutely lacking in any understanding of what went on at the convention!

Unlike you, I watched about 5 hours of it today.
It was an amazing process, they did the best possible thing they could to unify the party, and the Clinton camp is throwing it in their faces.

If anyone is trying to make a mockery of the will of the voters, it is Hillary.

I won't bother to tell you about why they did what they did.

The DNC violated their own rules by giving a waver to New Hampshire but denying one to Michigan or Florida, and precipitated the entire disaster.
They were left with no choice but to tamper further to try and unify the party. Today they worked within the rules. What clinton wanted was the rules to be thrown out just for her. Which would set a wonderful precident.
It is bigger than Clinton or Obama.
If you really want to show an interest, you should really show more interest.

Originally posted by Cyberbian

If you really want to show an interest, you should really show more interest.

So tell me. What did the 600,000 people who voted in Michigan do wrong that resulted in their votes not counting? Start here before you lecture me on how much interest I'm showing. The election should be about the voters, not The Freakin' Party. The voters got screwed. Obama won. And the circus ended with the 29 clowns giving themselves a self-congratulatory round of applause. It's about the most twisted thing I ever saw.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I disagree Mike. McCain is consistently polling in the mid 40s nationally against either candidate in a 2-way race. This alone suggests that he has a base of support and would be very likely to win a 3-way race. He would be much more likely to lose a 2-way race than a 3-way contest, simply because the Democrats will split their liberal support base. There is nothing to split the conservatives.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Speaking of McCain's GOP approval ratings, they're hovering somewhere around 80%. The poll I've linked here have him at 76% approving and 13% disapproving. It is a month old, however. I've seen a more recent poll that has him at 83% within the party itself. He also has a higher approval rating within his own party than do either Hillary or Obama, for that matter.

www.foxnews.com...

Note also that McCain beats Hillary 88%-6% among GOP Voters, 81-13% against Barack Obama.

Clearly, the rumors of McCain's flogging in the GOP have been greatly overstated.




[edit on 1-6-2008 by vor78]

Wow this thread is absolutely lacking in any understanding of what went on at the convention! ...

Cyberian, just when I think there is hope for you, you come out with something like that post.

The DNC just gave Obama those delegates. He did not earn them. The DNC put Hillary away today and with much blatent hypocrisy to boot.

Imagine if it were the other way around, you'd be boasting how unfair it was to Obama, along with Obama's supports. It would really be a big deal if it were to have happened that way.

As the old saying goes, you can't polish a tird, but somehow people like you make that possible because you can apparently be sold on anything.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jetxnet]

reply to post by vor78


I dont doubt some polls are favoring McCain, but I dont have much faith in them after how some of the polls performed in the primaries.

I'm basing my numbers on how many registered voters in the numerous districts across the nation voted in democrat and republican primaries.

So I maintain the view if Clinton goes independent and keeps her support she will win.

Now if she fails to maintain that support. I think it will be a toss up between the three.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Clinton going independent would be like Perot running as a democrat.

Too many differences of opinion, and too many biases from the center that clinton is "too liberal"... She would lose Die Hard Dem votes running independent, and wouldn't gain many independent votes.

Her best bet is to grin and bear it. Even if she had gotten ALL of the delegates from Michigan and Florida Barack would still have a delegate lead, even if it was in the single digits.

I'm really starting to get a feeling that "White Pride" is a heavy player in the emotions of the democrats in Michigan.


Also... Why wasn't anybody on the ticket but Hillary? No Edwards, No Gravel, No Richardson, No Obama????
But this was supposedly Obama's decision... Seems like a democratic version of Catherine Harris is in charge of the Michigan Election Commission.

Coven

All of this has only reinforced my opinion that the American electoral process is the most overblown, convoluted, purposefully obfuscating, defunct system probably in existence. There is way too much going on, it is needlessly over-complex, and the only winners in all of it are the ones who bend, break, and ignore the rules for their own gain without a single thought for their country. I've been watching all of this like a hawk, and to be honest it's quite disgusting they way the candidates are clawing at each other, throwing mud, and playing "he-said-she-said" while completely ignoring any and all matters of substance. It makes me sick, it truly does.

What your country needs is a complete teardown and rebuild of the whole system. There is no way the current state of affairs can be fixed. None.

reply to post by jamie83


If we remember correctly, Fla. and Mich. had their preliminarys out of turn.
so, should they be counted at all,They knew the rules before it got started, yet somehow they thought it didnt matter. look at the way they treated Ron Paul, If anybody has a right to whine it should be Paul. yet he doesnt .
all these candidates have the same agenda, and the fact is 1 will win,but no matter who wins , we all lose

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


Thank you.

Both delegates agreed to negate both the Florida and Michigan primaries before they were even held because they went against party rules, and they were warned that they would be if they went forward anyway.

That is why Obama was not on the primary in Michigan. Clinton is pushing ahead only because she did so well in those states... if all things being equal, the situition was reversed, I have no doubt that she would be screaming bloody murder asserting that the rules are the rules.... of course thats not the case so she is trying to change things already agreed to and like the lady said... that is called cheating.

As it stands right now I wouldn't vote for Hillary period.

The rules committee should have stood its ground... it is the state leaders in Florida and Michigan that are to be blamed... not Obama.

Originally posted by grover

The rules committee should have stood its ground... it is the state leaders in Florida and Michigan that are to be blamed... not Obama.

And what about the 600,000 voters in Michigans? Why are they punished for what state leaders did?

And how can the DNC justify their totalitarian and arbitrary control over when states can hold elections? Specifically, why are the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina given preferential treatment?

This is the exact due process concept that the Supreme Court ruled on in Bush v. Gore in 2000. If this goes to the Supreme Court, it could never stand. Voters can't be given preferential treatment, i.e., different treatment than other voters.

What's being totally overlooked here is the concept of the punishment for breaking rules. The DNC simply cannot in good faith punish the voters because party official broke rules. An appropriate punishment would have been fines or penalties against the people who broke the rules, not the voters.

Who are the individuals who broke the rules, and how have they been punished? Worse yet, why did New Hampshire get rewarded for breaking the same rules?

And you think the DNC acted fairly? And just to remind you, the candidates shouldn't have ANY say in this. It doesn't matter what Hillary or Obama agreed to. Since when do candidates get to decide whose votes count?

reply to post by jamie83


Then why have any rules whatsoever? The whole point of them is to provide an orderly process and if that is violated then you have to pay the price.

No the voters did not do anything wrong and if they have a problem with this then they should make their complaint known to the ones who violated the rules in the first place... their state officials.

Personally I am in favor of having a national election holiday and have all the primaries on one day (or over one weekend) and have the convention as soon as possible afterwards... this whole 6 month process it has become is absurd.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I'd be very, very wary of basing it on primary turnout. The Dems have ALWAYS been better at turning out voters in the spring. Since 1972, the Democratic candidates have had MUCH better turnout than the Republicans in every election except in 1996 and in 2000. On average, they beat the Republicans 17 million votes to 11 million in the primaries. But the Reps are almost always very competitive in November.

www.centerforpolitics.org...

The Republicans got absolutely hammered in terms of primary turnout in 1972, 1984 and 2004, yet won the general election. The '72 and '84 wins were two of the biggest landslides in US presidential election history. In fact, the last time that the Dems had a 'record' primary turnout was 1988. Yet again, the Republican GHWB mopped the floor with Dukakis in the general election.

Again, the point is, the Dems simply do a much better job than the Reps at getting the vote out in the spring. However...and this is a big however...the Reps show up in the fall. There is no apparent correlation between primary turnout and the presidential election (It does, however, bode very well for the Dems in the Senate and House battles).

And let me get yet one more edit in here...

Note also that the Republican turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire were at all time highs this year according to that link, just like the Dems. Granted, they didn't blow it out of the water like the Dems did, but still, it should give one pause when thinking that the GOP is floating belly up. I have not seen the numbers for GOP turnout throughout the rest of the process, but these are very interesting, particularly in two rather moderate GOP states nonetheless.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by jamie83
Not only did the DNC give Obama 55 delegates from Michigan even though he got ZERO votes in Michigan because he wasn't on the ballot, they took 4 delegates AWAY from Clinton![...]

How can they rationalize just GIVING Obama delegates when he didn't get any votes???? How can they penalize Clinton and TAKE AWAY 4 delegates based on what????

Did you not watch it? The Michigan representative explained the reason for this. Also, the Michigan representative said that both Clinton and Obama camps agreed with the Michigan's Democratic Party resolution.

Originally posted by jetxnet

Wow this thread is absolutely lacking in any understanding of what went on at the convention! ...

Cyberian, just when I think there is hope for you, you come out with something like that post.

The DNC just gave Obama those delegates. He did not earn them. The DNC put Hillary away today and with much blatent hypocrisy to boot.

Thank you for proving Cyberian's point. I see you really have no idea what you're talking about.

I, like Cyberian, watched basically the whole thing on CSPAN, so I can say that I apparently know more about this than you have shown so far.

Anyway, there are rules and those states broke the rules. While there could be legitimate reasons for not liking particular rules, they still must be followed and Clinton and her advisers were certainly aware of them.

But, as DontTreadOnMe pointed out Hillary pledged not to campaign and those states and was in agreement with the punishment... before she won those states.

Originally posted by jetxnet
Funny too, if it were the other way around and Hillary got the 55 delegates and Obama had 4 taken away, there would be a huge uprising among Black people and their lame religious leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It would be a HUGE deal.

Originally the Committee punished Michigan and Florida in 100%, meaning they would have no voting power. The Michigan and Florida (in particular) representatives presenting their cases, effectively showed that the Committee had no right to punish them by 100% and that the maximum penalty could only be of 50%.

That's why their delegates get half a vote. That number isn't made it, it's in the rules.

Now, If you had actually seen the process you would have seen Obama's representatives supporting the appeals of Florida and Michigan, because not only they believed the original punishment had no basis, but also because the people shouldn't be punished for this mess.

Obama and his people could've simply said "rules are rules and they must be followed" and everything would stay the same, as I have no doubt Clinton would have done if she was in front.

The result, the delegates and votes allocated were fair and represent the percentage that each candidate earn, taking into consideration the 50% penalty.

If this effectively kills Hillary's hopes at being the nominee.. tough luck!
Now don't blame Obama and his people for this, as they simply followed the rules and even pressured the Committee to back up on their original punishment against their own (personal) interests.

Don't also forget that there were 48 other states who would have liked to have changed their primaries and caucuses to an earlier date but didn't, and followed the rules.

For everyone who watched the whole thing, I think it was pretty clear that this result was fair.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by danx

I, like Cyberian, watched basically the whole thing on CSPAN, so I can say that I apparently know more about this than you have shown so far.

I watched the whole thing too, so save your pompous condescension for another topic.

Anyway, there are rules and those states broke the rules. While there could be legitimate reasons for not liking particular rules, they still must be followed

Yes, this is the Obama spin on the situation. First, let's be clear on this. No STATE broke any rules. People broke rules. The people who broke the rules should be punished, not people who didn't break the rules. I'm not sure I've ever seen a precedent like this. Person A breaks a rule so 600,000 people have their votes disallowed. Great work, Dems.

The result, the delegates and votes allocated were fair and represent the percentage that each candidate earn, taking into consideration the 50% penalty.

Please explain how Obama earned any delegates from Michigan?

Don't also forget that there were 48 other states who would have liked to have changed their primaries and caucuses to an earlier date but didn't, and followed the rules.

No, there were 47 states that followed the rules. New Hampshire broke the rules and was given a waiver. I thought you said you watched the whole thing?

For everyone who watched the whole thing, I think it was pretty clear that this result was fair.

I did watch the whole thing and I thought it was one of the darkest, most embarrassing days in the history of the country. It started with this group of 30 Democratic insiders granting special privileges to most favored states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

Then when Michigan and Florida, in an effort to make the votes of their citizens mean something, dared challenge this elite crew of Washington insiders, the Washington insiders displayed incomprehensible arrogance by asserting that they would not consider the votes of the over 2,000,000 citizens in Florida and Michigan.

When the light of day was brought upon this abuse of power and authority, the DNC decided they needed to save their own ass and protect their own kingdom at the expense of the people who voted in Michigan and Florida.

So they decided among themselves which citizens votes counted, and which didn't, and for how much those votes were going to count. FIVE MONTHS after the votes were tallied. In other words, they waited until the race was over to allocate the votes in a way to make sure Obama was still the winner. If this was a fair process, they would have done this BEFORE the race was over. It's like the referees at at football game deciding a touchdown is going to be worth 4 points instead of 6 after the game is over. It was a total farce.

What would have been FAIR and JUST would have been to punish the INDIVIDUALS who violated the rules, not the voters in Michigan and Florida. And by awarded delegates to Obama in Michigan that he didn't earn is an affront to the principles of the Democratic party, who I will remind you, has complained for the last 8 years that every vote must count.

What you saw wasn't fair. It was a display of hypocrisy, corruption, and an abuse of power of the highest order. A total farce. A decision of HOW to count the vote after the race was over in order to come out ahead politically with ZERO regard for the concept of fairness.

Obama as weird as this may sound is our only hope out of the 3.(i would prefer Jesse Ventura)..

we need a new government..ran by GOOD humans.

but then again once he becomes pres he will probably get the shaft and become another puppet...we shall see.


i feel there is no point in talking about this though cause a lot of the peeps here are government....lol look at all the anti-obama threads.

oh well..the government peeps here are going to change for the better as well...i know they can feel it..they want to care about the people and our future.

to them i give a big giant cuddly bear hug and i hope you change your ways cause judgment(or something like it,hard to explain) will be soon(around 2012).

take care

Originally posted by jamie83
I watched the whole thing too, so save your pompous condescension for another topic.

You apparently didn't read that that part of my post was directed to another member..

Yes, this is the Obama spin on the situation. First, let's be clear on this. No STATE broke any rules. People broke rules. The people who broke the rules should be punished, not people who didn't break the rules.

I'm sorry, Obama spin? No, there's no spin there, just the facts. The rules were clear about what would happen if the states would move up their primaries or caucuses.

Like I said in my previous post, you might not like the rules and they might not make sense or be fair, but everyone was aware of them. Hillary certainly was, and was in favor of punishing those states.. before she found out that she won them and would need the votes in the future.

If there's any spin to this situation it's from the Clinton people.

Please explain how Obama earned any delegates from Michigan?

I'm confused.. I thought you said you watched the whole thing?

Anyway, Michigan's party chairman said they come up to the 69-59 number based upon the primary (Clinton 55%, Uncommitted 40%), exit polls (Clinton 46%, Obama 37%) and write-in ballots.

No, there were 47 states that followed the rules. New Hampshire broke the rules and was given a waiver. I thought you said you watched the whole thing?

Thank you for the correction.

What would have been FAIR and JUST would have been to punish the INDIVIDUALS who violated the rules, not the voters in Michigan and Florida.

Agreed.