This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

I don't find it hard to believe....if a political party disenfranchised me, I would not vote for their candidate in the election. There are a lot of signatures on petitions I have seen saying to count the delegates. It would be wise to count them so we still have a shot at both states, especially Florida. It has been red since 2000 and it could go blue this year. If their delegates are not part of the 50 states at the convention in Denver, kiss Florida Republican

Here's where you and I disagree and will continue to do so: I don't believe in rewarding violation of the rules period. The people in FL and MI have a legitimate gripe but that gripe is with their state party officials and not with the national party. I don't believe that they should get 100% of the delegates when they violated the rule. A compromise to me means a portion could be seated as a gesture but not all.

You and I are different in that I would not feel disenfranchised by the party since they're not preventing me from voting in the general election. I'm not buying that people in both those states will vote Republican because of this but they're grown ups and can do as they please. I don't believe in shake downs.

I meant disenfranchised in not counting their votes, not preventing them from doing it. They made their voices heard and deserve to be counted, despite if it is rewarding a broken rule. Some rules are meant to be broken, especially if it means to get two key states in an election. I can understand why MI and FL Democrats would be tempted to vote Republican and many are threatening to do it if their delegates and votes aren't counted. I understand their complaints.

How can they seat a portion? What about the rest? They would have an uproar since it would make it seem like the seated ones are more superior to them. I don't see that as wise and I am sure neither do Obama, Hillary, or the DNC. Distributing them equally is silly becuase then he would be ahead by the same amount...cutting them in half (she gets half, he gets half) is also silly for the same reasons as the portion argument. What other agreement is there besides seating them like they are now and also letting the ones in the "other" column go to her on virtue of the wins in both states?

Edited May 21, 200817 yr by DevotedToAMC

I meant disenfranchised in not counting their votes, not preventing them from doing it. They made their voices heard and deserve to be counted, despite if it is rewarding a broken rule. Some rules are meant to be broken, especially if it means to get two key states in an election. I can understand why MI and FL Democrats would be tempted to vote Republican and many are threatening to do it if their delegates and votes aren't counted. I understand their complaints.

How can they seat a portion? What about the rest? They would have an uproar since it would make it seem like the seated ones are more superior to them. I don't see that as wise and I am sure neither do Obama, Hillary, or the DNC. Distributing them equally is silly becuase then he would be ahead by the same amount...cutting them in half (she gets half, he gets half) is also silly for the same reasons as the portion argument. What other agreement is there besides seating them like they are now and also letting the ones in the "other" column go to her on virtue of the wins in both states?

This.

Her not getting squat, because she herself agreed to it.

Her not getting squat, because she herself agreed to it.

I am wondering if she agreed to it before or after it was revealed that someone on her campaign saw to it that MI and FL be stripped of delegates

Edited May 21, 200817 yr by DevotedToAMC

Did someone on her campiagn forge her signature as well?

No I am not saying that but someone connected to her campaign got them stripped of their delegates. If so, why strip two states that have always been in her favor? I don't get it

I meant disenfranchised in not counting their votes, not preventing them from doing it. They made their voices heard and deserve to be counted, despite if it is rewarding a broken rule. Some rules are meant to be broken, especially if it means to get two key states in an election. I can understand why MI and FL Democrats would be tempted to vote Republican and many are threatening to do it if their delegates and votes aren't counted. I understand their complaints.

In all honesty, our debate, if you want to call it that, is based on assumption/speculation. Mine is that three won't be this mass anger vote and yours that there will. I can repeat this over and over but their issue is with their state party officials.

You can understand why they'd be tempted to vote Republican and I can't for any other reason than that the Republican candidate best represents their views. If the sole reason is because they feel disenfranchised by the Democrats because their party officials chose to violate the rules, and the solution is to send the Democrats a message then abstention makes better sense. But I still don't believe in shakedowns nor violation of the rules. There are no mitigating circumstances that call for these rules to be ignored as far as I'm concerned.

How can they seat a portion? What about the rest? They would have an uproar since it would make it seem like the seated ones are more superior to them. I don't see that as wise and I am sure neither do Obama, Hillary, or the DNC.

I don't know the process so I'm just using my brand of logic here. It seems to me that each state is apportioned a certain number of delegates and in turn that state would have some sort of selection process for those delegates. I don't know that either state had already selected their delegates but if they have then they can come up with a resolution as to how to seat whatever number they are given from the compromise. And so what if there is an uproar? They should have been enraged when their state party decided to violate the rules.

Distributing them equally is silly becuase then he would be ahead by the same amount...cutting them in half (she gets half, he gets half) is also silly for the same reasons as the portion argument. What other agreement is there besides seating them like they are now and also letting the ones in the "other" column go to her on virtue of the wins in both states?

This is circuitous because you're saying over and over again to give HC what she wants because that's the only reasonable thing to do and nowhere in that scenario is there any room for compromise.

IMO, MI should definitely be split, whether all their delegates are seated or not, because his name wasn't on the ballot and that's the most fair thing to do for that state. The majority of whatever number of delegates they decide to seat in FL should go to her since she won and that should be done based on whatever method they use for apportioning delegates.

The crucial delegates in both states would be the SDs who are free to vote for whoever they want.

In all honesty, our debate, if you want to call it that, is based on assumption/speculation. Mine is that three won't be this mass anger vote and yours that there will. I can repeat this over and over but their issue is with their state party officials.

You can understand why they'd be tempted to vote Republican and I can't for any other reason than that the Republican candidate best represents their views. If the sole reason is because they feel disenfranchised by the Democrats because their party officials chose to violate the rules, and the solution is to send the Democrats a message then abstention makes better sense. But I still don't believe in shakedowns nor violation of the rules. There are no mitigating circumstances that call for these rules to be ignored as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know the process so I'm just using my brand of logic here. It seems to me that each state is apportioned a certain number of delegates and in turn that state would have some sort of selection process for those delegates. I don't know that either state had already selected their delegates but if they have then they can come up with a resolution as to how to seat whatever number they are given from the compromise. And so what if there is an uproar? They should have been enraged when their state party decided to violate the rules.

This is circuitous because you're saying over and over again to give HC what she wants because that's the only reasonable thing to do and nowhere in that scenario is there any room for compromise.

IMO, MI should definitely be split, whether all their delegates are seated or not, because his name wasn't on the ballot and that's the most fair thing to do for that state. The majority of whatever number of delegates they decide to seat in FL should go to her since she won and that should be done based on whatever method they use for apportioning delegates.

The crucial delegates in both states would be the SDs who are free to vote for whoever they want.

That is the argument. She should receive every single PD and SD, even though his name was not on the ballot, and then he should accept this mess and move on to be her VP.

I heard a lady on After Hours on MSNBC last night actually call this "Silly." I more than agree with her, but you can't say that to some people.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama edged closer to clinching the Democratic presidential nomination on Wednesday, but rival Hillary Clinton pushed on despite owing nearly $30 million in campaign debt.

A Reuters/Zogby poll showed Obama opening an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the two looked ahead to a likely general election battle for the White House in November.

Obama handily won Oregon and Clinton easily won Kentucky on Tuesday in a split decision that gave Obama a majority of pledged delegates elected during their lengthy state-by-state nominating fight -- a milestone he hoped marked a turning point in their grueling battle.

"We have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people, and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States," Obama told a rally in Iowa, site of his breakthrough victory in the first Democratic contest on Jan. 3.

The new Reuters/Zogby poll showed Americans growing more anxious about their economic prospects and the country's direction. The number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track fell from 23 percent to an abysmal 16 percent.

Obama, 46, sounded the theme of change that initially propelled him to the front of the Democratic race. He described the battle with McCain, 71, as "more of the same versus change. It is the past versus the future."

But Clinton gave no sign she was ready to step aside and clear the way for Obama to focus on McCain.

"I'm going to keep making our case until we have a nominee -- whoever she may be," Clinton said, promising supporters in Kentucky that she would keep fighting until the Democratic voting ends on June 3.

Clinton still must grapple with a growing campaign debt of $29.5 million, including $10 million she put into the campaign from her own pocket, according to her Federal Election Commission report. She raised raised $21 million in April.

Obama raised $30.7 million during the month, his FEC report showed, with $46.6 million in the bank and debts of $2 million.

OBAMA MOVES CLOSER

After Tuesday's votes, Obama is about 65 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to win the nomination at the Democratic convention in August. A delegate count by MSNBC gives him 1,960 delegates to Clinton's 1,783. He had 1,655 pledged delegates, with 1,627 representing a majority.

Obama hopes the pledged-delegate milestone pushes more undecided superdelegates -- party officials who can back any candidate -- his way. Obama contends those superdelegates, who have been breaking his way heavily in recent weeks, should support him because he won the most delegates in state voting.

Clinton says they should reconsider because she would be a stronger opponent for McCain, an Arizona senator. Her victories in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio gave her a broader base of support than Obama, she said.

She hopes her drubbings of Obama in states like Kentucky, where she won by 35 points, will give superdelegates pause.

The new Reuters/Zogby poll showed Clinton running even with McCain nationally at 43 percent each.

"Neither Senator Obama or I will have reached that magic number when the voting ends June 3," Clinton said of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. "So our party will have a tough choice to make."

Obama aides said he could reach the magic number with a wave of superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks. Three more contests remain -- Puerto Rico on June 1 and Montana and South Dakota on June 3 -- with a combined 86 delegates at stake.

Each candidate picked up one superdelegate endorsement early on Wednesday.

Both candidates head on Wednesday to Florida, a major battleground in November. Clinton is still fighting for the seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida, where she won contests that were not recognized by the national party. Their seating would narrow Obama's lead in the race.

Exit polls on Tuesday showed Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, had problems with white working-class voters in Kentucky as he has in some other states. Clinton won more than 70 percent of white voters, and three-quarters of those who did not finish college.

About 20 percent said race played a factor in their vote -- similar to the percentage last week in West Virginia, where Clinton trounced Obama.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Andy Sullivan and Ellen Wulfhorst)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters

What are the Super D's waiting for?

There being WAY to nice to Hillary if you ask me?

If Obama was in Hillary's place they would have shoved him out the door a LONGTIME ago and Hillary and company would not be talking about all votes must be counted!

That is the argument. She should receive every single PD and SD, even though his name was not on the ballot, and then he should accept this mess and move on to be her VP.

She can't receive all of the delegates in MI because a portion are not pledged. With or without FL and MI it still comes down to the SDs. He needs about 70 delegates to reach the 2026.

The GOP penalized MI and FL for the same reasons by stripping them of half their delegates. Besides the other things mentioned, there are people that did not vote because they were told that their vote would not count so this whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

But, unfortunately, some feel she should benifit from the same voters she herself helped "surpress".

I think the Obama camp has a game plan in mind.

Isn't it also funny how the only "fair" solution benifits her completely, and screws him?

The DNC is in a really bad position on this because on the one hand they do need to offer a solution but on the other hand they cannot overlook it and proceed as if nothing happened because there were very legitimate reasons to keep more than the four designated states from early primaries. Rewarding FL and MI will make it okay for other states to do the same thing down the road.

I don't even see it as a clear issue of disenfranchising the voters because they knew upfront that their votes would not count and some chose not to vote for this reason. The best solution would have been a re-vote at the states' expense since their officials including the governors, created this problem. There is no way a re-vote should be held in any election using private funding so the fact that HC had supporters willing to pay for it is a non-issue.

As to the question of why Obama removed his name from the MI ballot and not the FL one, there is apparently a statute in FL that states that a candidate's name must be on the primary ballot in order to appear on the general election ballot. That, of course, does not negate the fact that people voted for him but it explains why he and other candidates who might have, did not remove their names.

Another thing about the FL primary is that the driving force for the high voter turnout appears to be a property tax amendment and not glee over the primaries.

I believe their total number of delegates should be cut in half as a penalty which should dissuade other states from violating the rules and also is fair to the states that abide by the rules. The gesture should be to those voters who did not vote because they knew their votes would not count as opposed to the ones who knew and voted anyway since to me they went along with the stupidity of their state when they had the option not to.

That's some of the ways I see it. Obama should come out of both states with a proportion of the delegates. For him to come out with absolutely nothing smacks of BS and anyone who says that doesn't know the meaning of the word fair....

IMO.

Check This Out.

We now know EXACTLY where she stands on this.

From CNN:

Clinton recalls 2000 Florida recount in push to count votes

Posted: 04:16 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

Clinton is making three campaign stops in Florida Wednesday.

BOCA RATON, Florida (CNN) – Making a last-gasp campaign swing through Florida on Wednesday — just ten days before the Democratic National Committee will decide the fates of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations — Hillary Clinton forcefully pressed for the primary votes in Michigan and Florida to be counted "exactly as they were cast."

"It is well within the Democratic party rules to take this stand," she said, defending her position in front of a sizeable audience at a Boca Raton retirement community. "The rules clearly state that we can count all of these votes and seat all of delegates, pledged and unpledged if we so choose, and the rules laid out make clear the process for doing so."

It was Clinton’s first campaign stop in Florida since the night of the state’s primary on Jan. 29, and Clinton picked a suitable venue to make her case for counting every vote: Palm Beach County, ground zero of the politically-charged 2000 Florida recount.

"We believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will," she said. "We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000, when right here in Florida, you learned the hard way what happened when the votes aren’t counted and a candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner."

The New York senator made repeated allusions to the 2000 recount and proclaimed that the Democratic party, the party of civil rights, has a duty to county every vote to determine the true intent of the electorate. Moreover, she argued, counting the votes is a simple matter of American democracy.

“I have heard some say counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules,” she said. “I say not that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country, that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted.”

She avoided criticizing Barack Obama directly, but Clinton tied Obama’s decision to remove his name from the Michigan primary ballot to the current predicament facing Democrats in Michigan and Florida.

“I know that Sen. Obama chose to remove his name from ballot in Michigan and that was his right,” Clinton said, “but his choice does not negate the votes of all those who turned out to cast their ballots, and we should not let that process rob all of you from your voices.”

“You didn’t break a single rule and you should not be punished for what happened beyond your control,” she added.

Earlier in the day, on a flight from Washington, D.C. to Florida, Clinton aides spoke to reporters and emphasized Florida’s general election importance, stressing their belief that Clinton, not Obama, would fare better in the state this fall against John McCain.

The campaign also revealed a new metric by which to gauge their late-blooming momentum this primary season: Since the end of February and excluding previous contests, said spokesman Mo Elleithee, Clinton has won more contests, more delegates and the overall popular vote.