Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Really?! If you're not exaggerating then I've seriously underestimated your disdain for McCain (Hey, I should make t-shirts working that rhyme) or overestimated your disdain for Bush. I mean, I am far from excited about a McCain presidency, but out of all the Republican candidates he was the one that I recall thinking I would be most okay with. I'm with pan, at this point when I step back and objectively think about the presidency I am one of those 28% of Clinton supporters who will defect to McCain if Barak gets the nomination. Oddly, I have yet to actually meet one of the 19% of Barak supporters who would defect if Clinton got the nomination.
|
I don't harbor any disdain for Mr. McCain just not a fan of his political standings.
I felt the same way, just in the opposite direction until I read up on McCain's policy ideas. His thoughts on the war and the economy are down right scary.
If Hillary pulls it out I'll support her 110%. Might have to hold my nose while doing so, but at least I won't have to hold my nose while sticking my head in the sand.
It might go to courts, but I doubt it. If it does it will be the state Democratic parties that take it there, not Clinton. Let's not forget that Barak has also argued for seating the delegates from these states, he just doesn't want them to be sat 'as is'. Which is fair to say, at least in the Michigan case. I don't know what they'll do, but I'm fairly certain that they are going to end up seating in some manner to allow for a numbers bump to lock the nomination for either candidate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Don't you think it's odd to take this hard line 'knew the rules' stance for Michigan & Florida (or the candidates) and at the same time call for Clinton to hand the nomination to Barak when both candidates 'knew the rule' that they needed 2,024 delegates to win. Regardless of rather you see those things as the same, and granting that the states/candidates came into this assuming Florida & Michigan wouldn't count, this is the DNC's screw up. They took the initial hard line stance and stripped the states of their seats at the convention. Were they in their right to do so? Quite possibly, but maybe I'll wait for a court to rule on that one. However, it was nonetheless a bonehead move they made not anticipating this close of a race nor what would happen by ostracizing the voters affected in the long run. Ultimately, yeah, the DNC made a rule (and ruling) that is still on their books so valid, but at the point that the DNC were to change it then the old rule (and ruling) is moot and that would be equally valid. The only difference would be that doing the latter would go a long way to solving the nomination dilemma and mending some of the damage to the party that the initial decision has (and will continue) to cause.
|
Really? You think the path to the nomination for either candidate depends on getting the delegates out of the states in question? If you give 85% of each states delegates to Hillary it doesn't get her there. She'd still need to win a high % of the states left. Obama need less but same thing basically, just lower numbers needed by him.
IMO, the road to the nomination at this point goes through the SD's. that's all part of the Dems setting up a completely stupid system to pick a nominee, again IMHO.