Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   The Comeback Clintons (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/130016-comeback-clintons.html)

MuadDib 01-08-2008 10:20 PM
The Comeback Clintons
 
I'm curious what the Obama supporters here make of the New Hampshire primary. I think it's very telling that a candidate who had a double-digit lead in the polls 24 hours before the vote would end losing by 2%-3%. All the more so because New Hampshire is a more typical blue state than Iowa. Honestly, I did not believe Hillary was going to come back and win New Hampshire like Bill did, but I believed she was going to turn it around on Super Tuesday and take it to the White House. Now it looks like she'll get a boost in South Carolina, even if she doesn't take it, and then go on to dominate Nevada and Florida. Granted the latter doesn't have delegates, but I think a big win by anyone in Florida will sway a lot of voters since even non-voters are fully cognizant of effect it has on the general election. Hell a Republican hasn't won the White House without Florida since 1924!

I'm also curious what my fellow politicos here at TFP think account for Hillary's victory. Personally, I think her 'episode' yesterday in which she teared up helped her. I also think that Bill's last minute speech taking Obama to task for, among other things, his free pass by the media. Both of these things were criticized heavily by the media and political insiders, but I suppose those were the same people who said Obama by around 10% in New Hampshire.

Finally, what do you all think this entails for future primaries? I certainly don't think this marks any sort of death knell for anyone (not even Edwards or Giuliani), but I do think that this is a much more reeling defeat for Obama than Iowa was for Clinton. I say this because after Iowa everyone got so caught up in the Obama victory that many media outlets, pundits, and supporters from all camps were declaring Obama victories at least all the way through Super Tuesday. Hillary, on the other hand, was expected to win for almost a year and the tides only recently had changed and now, not long after, she has seemingly stemmed them with a most unlikely of victories. Declarations of Barak's 'inevitable' were just as adamantly posited, but now seem ridiculously short lived. His 'we can' slogan almost seems to have been co-opted by the Clinton campaign as she has lost the front-runner sheen and now has the comeback kid aura on her side that her husband rode all the way to Pennsylvania Ave.

(PS: Let's not rehash old Clinton-Obama arguments here, there are plenty of threads to find those. Let's discuss the democratic primary in light of developments from Iowa onwards and only talk about character, electability, etc as they apply to the rest of the election season)

Ustwo 01-08-2008 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Personally, I think her 'episode' yesterday in which she teared up helped her.
I'm sort of surprised if this is true only because every FM radio station talk show seemed to be making fun of her this morning and even the women on my staff thought it was not what you want to see in a president.

Be sort of amusing if after all this it turns into Hilary McCain after all.

MuadDib 01-08-2008 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'm sort of surprised if this is true only because every FM radio station talk show seemed to be making fun of her this morning and even the women on my staff thought it was not what you want to see in a president.
The major media outlets were the same, but I would argue that while generally they would be right but in this instance Hillary's perceived coldness and inhumanity is among (if not the) greatest objection many voters have to her. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, I believe that her showing human weakness makes us snicker at her, but at the same time helps us relate to her on a human level. Hillary is in the extremely uncommon position of being perceived as so calculating and so much of an insider that its a bigger obstacle to her nomination that she is too strong and political than that she exhibited weakness and foolishness.

Elphaba 01-08-2008 10:54 PM
I think this says everything about how people are disgusted with what the media chooses to report as important. The attempted manipulation of public opinion was far too obvious this time.

Ustwo 01-08-2008 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I think this says everything about how people are disgusted with what the media chooses to report as important. The attempted manipulation of public opinion was far too obvious this time.
Well these were not 'media' people manipulating but D.J.'s who normally get no deeper then asking some 19 year old if she has sex with her boyfriend and if she cheats on him. I was desperate for a music station which is hard to find in the morning rush hour. Personally I found it annoying even if I'm not a fan of Clinton, but I rather doubt it was a premeditated smear campaign.

MuadDib 01-08-2008 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I think this says everything about how people are disgusted with what the media chooses to report as important. The attempted manipulation of public opinion was far too obvious this time.
Funny you should mention that. I just left the ticker section of CNN.com where I was commenting on a ticker 'news' piece about Hillary supporters 'booing' Obama's post-primary speech. I know it's a ticker item, but honestly this woman just overcame around a 10% (including margin of error) deficit (which itself probably swayed voters one way or another) to win the state by 2%. Instead of reporting on the Obama speech or how he lost New Hampshire after the entire race was declared 'his to lose', they decide to report on Hillary's supporters booing Obama. It truly is disgusting what the media chooses to report and how they slant it. Even for Obama supporters, I think that if this is a sign of voters not buying into spoon-fed media rhetoric then we can all take hope.

jorgelito 01-08-2008 11:08 PM
I think Hillary's decision to rub a dirty negative campaign unfortunately helped her.

At least Obama showed some class.

SecretMethod70 01-08-2008 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
The major media outlets were the same, but I would argue that while generally they would be right but in this instance Hillary's perceived coldness and inhumanity is among (if not the) greatest objection many voters have to her. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, I believe that her showing human weakness makes us snicker at her, but at the same time helps us relate to her on a human level. Hillary is in the extremely uncommon position of being perceived as so calculating and so much of an insider that its a bigger obstacle to her nomination that she is too strong and political than that she exhibited weakness and foolishness.
Precisely. There were at least some undecided female voters that I heard interviewed saying that Clinton's show of emotion contributed to their decision to vote for her.

As for Obama, I don't think this loss is that big of a deal. First off, New Hampshire is an unusual state. A great deal of people voting made their decision at the very last minute, which worked to Clinton's advantage between her show of emotion and Bill Clinton's (unfounded) criticisms against Obama. This is also a big reason the polls were so off. Secondly, Clinton technically got more votes, but the two of them are tied in terms of delegates won in NH, and that's all that really matters. When it comes down to it, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are each very much still in the game. We'll see some of the impact of New Hampshire in Michigan, but it doesn't really matter there since they've been stripped of delegates. So, the next vote that really matters is Nevada, where Obama will almost certainly get a boost from the caucus system. In fact, I'm quite positive he would have won New Hampshire, and by a decent margin, were it a caucus and not a primary. This plurality method of voting we have is just plain terrible, and people need to have the opportunity to express their second choice.

Elphaba 01-08-2008 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Well these were not 'media' people manipulating but D.J.'s who normally get no deeper then asking some 19 year old if she has sex with her boyfriend and if she cheats on him. I was desperate for a music station which is hard to find in the morning rush hour. Personally I found it annoying even if I'm not a fan of Clinton, but I rather doubt it was a premeditated smear campaign.
Ustwo, a simple google news search would show you that your radio station reflected most of the media reporting. Clinton got hammered by every major media source. Romney can tear up every other day, but not Clinton.

She is damned if she is too strong, and damned if she shows a moment of vulnerabiliity. She is not my first choice, but dayum...I suspect she got a bump in NH because *real* people are sick and tired of the media telling us what we should think and feel.

host 01-09-2008 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'm sort of surprised if this is true only because every FM radio station talk show seemed to be making fun of her this morning and even the women on my staff thought it was not what you want to see in a president.

Be sort of amusing if after all this it turns into Hilary McCain after all.
Nope....wouldn't want a president of the Untied States who isn't wooden:
<center><img src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/01/12/wiraq12.jpg"></center>
Quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ublview12a.xml
Friday, January 12, 2007

Do you think less of George W Bush for crying in public?
Lincoln's close friend, the namesake of his late son, Edward Baker Lincoln, was killed on October 21, 1861, at the battle of Ball's Bluff, and later at a service for Baker held at the home of col. J.W. Webb, according to a reporter, Lincoln "wept like a child."

Who does the hiring of your staff Ustwo, you, or someone you interviewed, hired, and designated to do it?

MuadDib 01-09-2008 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito
I think Hillary's decision to rub a dirty negative campaign unfortunately helped her.
If you want to take it that direction, I'm going to have to object. Clinton ran a very clean campaign in New Hampshire. Certainly she attacked Obama, but only in a permissible issue-related manner. But before you jump on me for my "issue-related" statement, let me clarify that Obama's personal experience and the manner in which he runs his campaign are issues because they are the chief things he campaigns on and why he claims he should be elected. Now, if you want to claim the choking up was some political strategy then I think you are making Hillary out to be a little more than she is. Granted the Clintons and their staff are superb campaigners, but they aren't prescient. Claims like this are the same made every time something happens to humanize Hillary. It's unrealistic and the simple truth is that (wait for it) Hillary actually is a human being! I think it's much more likely that a human being, even a superbly accomplished politician, might occasionally act humanly than that there exists any human so cunning and calculating that every human emotion they exhibit is just a means to ends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
As for Obama, I don't think this loss is that big of a deal. First off, New Hampshire is an unusual state. A great deal of people voting made their decision at the very last minute, which worked to Clinton's advantage between her show of emotion and Bill Clinton's (unfounded) criticisms against Obama. This is also a big reason the polls were so off.
As I said earlier, I don't think this is a make or break deal, but I do think this primary is a pretty big deal. New Hampshire isn't THAT unusual of a state. At least it is much more representative of the nation than Iowa, all the more so when we are talking about democratic politics specifically. I think Obama needs to learn a lesson from the state or it will become a big deal because he is relying so heavily on independent and young voters who did not come through for him in a heavily independent state.

Also, I do want to briefly address this notion that President Clinton's comments were "unfounded". The fact remains that Obama did say that he was the same as George Bush on the war, granted while in the context of the assumption that we were already in it. He also said he did not know how he would have voted on the war, granted in the light of the Democratic National Convention where he did not want to contradict party leaders on the issue. Further, I will contend that Obama is given a much easier ride by the media and he plays off of it, as well he should. He has a ludicrously short record which makes him difficult to report on and that is no fault of his own, but beyond that his newness is something the media can, and I contend does, get behind in order to increaser readership/viewership. It's the same thing they did with Dean. New players are better stories who will get protected for a time by the media until their newness wears off. It's a classic media sale tactic and the Clinton's are right to call attention to it. Overall, the reason none of this was unfounded was because these are the very issues on which Obama justifies his candidacy. He claims to be an agent of change but did not disagree with Bush as late as 2004 when talking about handling Iraq now that we were there. He claims to be someone who is not a business-as-usual kind of democrat, but he valued party unity over stating that he wouldn't have voted to go to war; that either makes him a business-as-usual party player or inconsistent on the issue in my book, I'll let him take his pick which.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Secondly, Clinton technically got more votes, but the two of them are tied in terms of delegates won in NH, and that's all that really matters. When it comes down to it, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are each very much still in the game. We'll see some of the impact of New Hampshire in Michigan, but it doesn't really matter there since they've been stripped of delegates. So, the next vote that really matters is Nevada, where Obama will almost certainly get a boost from the caucus system. In fact, I'm quite positive he would have won New Hampshire, and by a decent margin, were it a caucus and not a primary. This plurality method of voting we have is just plain terrible, and people need to have the opportunity to express their second choice.
You are right about the delegate count. What I want to know is where was this kind of analysis when Hillary got one less delegate in Iowa. This goes into the current media, and national, easy ride argument I already mentioned. When Hillary came in third in Iowa everyone was calling lights out for her and talking about the scathing defeat she suffered in a third place showing (though she picked up one more delegate than the second place candidate Edwards). Isn't it a little telling that this 'big picture' analysis only comes out now that Obama is on the receiving end? Also lets look at the superdelegates, if you want to measure the primary that way. All delegates currently accounted for gives Hillary 183 delegates to Obama's 78. Now I'm not saying that this is a huge difference, but the implication is that Obama needs to make up his deficit in superdelegates in pledged delegates. Simply tying Hillary or getting one more delegate is not going to cut it. The big picture at this stage in the race is NOT delegate count anyway, it's momentum. Hillary has effectively regained momentum, but not only that she can run with the image of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat which is a much bigger deal than a delegate count this early on.

I hate to say it but your analysis, which is the Obama camps analysis as well, is the same that lost Dean the nomination. You want to rely on the caucus system which is out of sync with what actually get candidates nominated. Focusing on delegates means ignoring states like Michigan and Florida, which lost their delegates, even though the results of these states (especially Florida) will be what make up voters minds coming into Super Tuesday, which almost always decides the nomination. Momentum, surprise victories and losses, and, unfortunately, media coverage is what wins elections. Hillary is primed to strike now with most recent polls showing her leading Obama by 12% in Nevada and 22% in Florida. That was before her upset victory this evening! She is in a great position because she has the momentum, the national lead, and, perhaps most importantly, she has the media in a position where they can't just turn around and declare the race 'her's to lose' again. They are going to have to either continue portraying the race as Obama's to lose (which will make New Hampshire appear like a biting loss to him) or portray it as clean and even between them (which gives her an edge in fact because she is leading in the major remaining states because she ran a national campaign early on). This race is NOT over, but I strongly disagree with your analysis and believe that if the Obama campaign chooses to approach New Hampshire and the future campaign the way you do then they will lose. Obama will be reeling from tonights primary and to brush that aside would be more than foolish, if he is to win he is going to need to dig deep and stem the momentum beyond just South Carolina, but in every race up until Super Tuesday. Moreover, if the Clinton campaign can portray New Hampshire correctly then they can make that task a monumental task for Obama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
She is damned if she is too strong, and damned if she shows a moment of vulnerabiliity. She is not my first choice, but dayum...I suspect she got a bump in NH because *real* people are sick and tired of the media telling us what we should think and feel.
Elphaba, I do have to say that Hillary is my first choice and I know she is not yours, but despite that I really like your attitude towards this election. I personally feel it's different for me to say that I would have to grit my teeth to vote for Obama than for all the Hillary haters out there to decry her from within her own party. I truly hope that these democrats are just getting caught up in the excitement of the primaries with a good field of democrats where there is a lot of hope for the future in a democratic win regardless of which one we choose. Your ability to look past your first choice and see that the real issue is getting neo-cons out and some democrat blood in brings me hope that regardless of who our nominee is (Clinton, Obama, or even Kucinich or Gravel) that at the end of the day the next four years will be so much brighter than the last eight we've had to endure.

SecretMethod70 01-09-2008 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
You are absolutely right about the delegates. What I want to know is where was this kind of analysis when Hillary got one less delegate in Iowa. This goes into the current media, and national, easy ride argument I already mentioned. When Hillary came in third in Iowa everyone was calling lights out for her and talking about the scathing defeat she suffered in a third place showing (though she picked up one more delegate than the second place candidate Edwards). Isn't it a little telling that this 'big picture' analysis only comes out now that Obama is on the receiving end?
Frankly, I have no idea how the Obama campaign is spinning it. I was looking at delegate counts after both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Also lets look at the superdelegates, if you want to measure the primary that way. All delegates currently accounted for gives Hillary 183 delegates to Obama's 78. Now I'm not saying that this is a huge difference, but the implication is that Obama needs to make up his deficit in superdelegates in pledged delegates. Simply tying Hillary or getting one more delegate is not going to cut it.
You're 100% correct. I think the superdelegates are immensely stupid and undemocratic, and they upset me, but the reality is still there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
The big picture at this stage in the race is NOT delegate count anyway, it's momentum. Hillary has effectively regained momentum, but not only that she can run with the image of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat which is a much bigger deal than a delegate count this early on.
Again, 100% correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
I hate to say it but your analysis, which is the Obama camps analysis as well, is the same that lost Dean the nomination. You want to rely on the caucus system which is out of sync with what actually get candidates nominated. Focusing on delegates means ignoring states like Michigan and Florida, which lost their delegates, even though the results of these states (especially Florida) will be what make up voters minds coming into Super Tuesday, which almost always decides the nomination. Momentum, surprise victories and losses, and, unfortunately, media coverage is what wins elections. Hillary is primed to strike now with most recent polls showing her leading Obama by 12% in Nevada and 22% in Florida. That was before her upset victory this evening! She is in a great position because she has the momentum, the national lead, and, perhaps most importantly, she has the media in a position where they can't just turn around and declare the race 'her's to lose' again. They are going to have to either continue portraying the race as Obama's to lose (which will make New Hampshire appear like a biting loss to him) or portray it as clean and even between them (which gives her an edge in fact because she is leading in the major remaining states because she ran a national campaign early on). This race is NOT over, but I strongly disagree with your analysis and believe that if the Obama campaign chooses to approach New Hampshire and the future campaign the way you do then they will lose. Obama will be reeling from tonights primary and to brush that aside would be more than foolish, if he is to win he is going to need to dig deep and stem the momentum beyond just South Carolina, but in every race up until Super Tuesday. Moreover, if the Clinton campaign can portray New Hampshire correctly then they can make that task a monumental task for Obama.
My "analysis" (and I don't really feel comfortable calling it that, because that implies that I was doing more than just typing some quick thoughts onto an internet forum ;)) was only in terms of how much of a direct impact the NH primary will have on the election. How Obama should move forward is a completely different story and you're right to factor in the challenge of Clinton's new-found and powerful momentum. As for the NV caucus, again I was strictly speaking in terms of direct impact. I'd hope that Obama's campaign wouldn't be stupid enough to count on the caucus system to save them. All I meant is simply that that's one state coming up where he has something to help him out. As for ignoring Michigan and Florida, he doesn't have a choice. The DNC has said that any candidate who campaigns there will not be allowed to receive delegates. All Obama can do is move on to Nevada and hope that the news coming out of there has an impact on Michigan.

Anyway, I feel like I'm coming off as an Obama supporter here when, in fact, I'm undecided among the main candidates, so I just wanted to throw that out there :p

Ustwo 01-09-2008 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Nope....wouldn't want a president of the Untied States who isn't wooden:
<center><img src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/01/12/wiraq12.jpg"></center>


Lincoln's close friend, the namesake of his late son, Edward Baker Lincoln, was killed on October 21, 1861, at the battle of Ball's Bluff, and later at a service for Baker held at the home of col. J.W. Webb, according to a reporter, Lincoln "wept like a child."
Ummmm yea, the context is just SO similar, and while you are trolling, you will note I didn't criticize Clinton for crying.

Quote:
Who does the hiring of your staff Ustwo, you, or someone you interviewed, hired, and designated to do it?
We just pick the pretty ones out of the line of homeless people dying from a lack of health care in the shanty town.

samcol 01-09-2008 07:33 AM
If you care here is a list showing the difference between machine voting precincts and hand count precints. The big winners were Romney getting a massive 7% higher on the machines and Hillary getting a 6% percent swing higher on machines than Obama. Interesting considering Obama had a 6% lead on Hillary going into the New hampshire primary.

Machine vs Hand voting

Ustwo 01-09-2008 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
If you care here is a list showing the difference between machine voting precincts and hand count precints. The big winners were Romney getting a massive 7% higher on the machines and Hillary getting a 6% percent swing higher on machines than Obama. Interesting considering Obama had a 6% lead on Hillary going into the New hampshire primary.

Machine vs Hand voting
There is no more fun a conspiracy than a implied conspiracy.

Hilarious web site though...

Quote:
THE RON PAUL GLOBAL BOOGIE
WHAT IS IT?
On January 12, 2008, you can help us make history by taking part in the largest dance event in history!

On this date, people around the world will be grabbing their camcorders and dancing wherever they are! This is how we hope to promote the message of peace, goodwill, freedom, and hope that Ron Paul brings.
You can dance if you want to....

Willravel 01-09-2008 08:30 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHA New Hampshire republicans are complete idiots. I'll bet they were the people who went out to see Good Luck Chuck twice because they liked the story.

The Dems are idiots, too, but I can understand that their love of Bill runs so deep that they got confused with nostalgia when they saw the name on the ballot.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
HAHAHAHAHAHA New Hampshire republicans are complete idiots. I'll bet they were the people who went out to see Good Luck Chuck twice because they liked the story.
McCain is the only republican with ANY potential to be elected that I can tell. I don't see how anything they did makes them an idiots.

Likewise Hilary is the only non-far left or disgusting slime ball who should be in prison if there was any justice (Edwards) on the democrat side.

I still wouldn't be surprised if neither get the nomination, but I don't see anything idiotic.

Willravel 01-09-2008 09:09 AM
He's got $2 in the bank, his staff has been quitting since the get go, and his "flip flops" make John McCain look solid as a rock. Not only that, but his "I'm a Washington outsider" rhetoric stand in stark opposition to his 25 years in Washington. Completely and totally idiotic. Just do a search of host's posts that include McCain.

BTW, is anyone else kinda chuckling at the fact that Ron Paul's incredible online presence is meaningless in the primaries? I know some may think it's because of cheating, but there's no precedence for such an eCampaign, so there's no way to be sure.

Hilary is a Republican who happened to have thought that people should get health care. She was a mad fence walker in NY and supported the war. Hmm... fence walker.... supported the war... sounds like a republican to me.

http://drunkardslamppost.wordpress.c...new-hampshire/

Interesting story. Can we please have paper ballots again?

Ustwo 01-09-2008 09:28 AM
I suppose then that Bill Clinton was a republican too.

You know will, when you look at the world from the extreme, you kinda forget that there is in fact a middle.

Rekna 01-09-2008 09:34 AM
I think the media had a large impact on this. They declared Obama the hands down winner a day ahead of time that the independents decided he didn't need their help and went and voted for Mc'Cain. That hurt him a bunch.

samcol 01-09-2008 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
BTW, is anyone else kinda chuckling at the fact that Ron Paul's incredible online presence is meaningless in the primaries? I know some may think it's because of cheating, but there's no precedence for such an eCampaign, so there's no way to be sure.
It never ceases to amaze me how much negativity there is toward's the Paul grassroots effort. His online presence is meaningless in the primaries? What do you think got his campaign off the ground to 10% or whatever in iowa and 7% in New hampshire instead of a 0-2% percent showing like a Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich or Gravel? They said he couldn't transform a huge online presence into real votes over and over again, but that's exactly what has happened.

Actually, there are some fishy things going on. In a county where hundreds of votes were cast Ron Paul got 0. Statistically that doesn't add up but Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org found out that indead 31 votes were cast for him.

dc_dux 01-09-2008 09:36 AM
I dont see anything idiotic in the NH vote.

Independents who voted Republican put McCain over the top.

Women, whose support Clinton did not have in Iowa, recognized that she has the most experience and best record on issues that generally are most important to them - children and family issues and pocketbook issues - and voted for her in NH in far larger numbers than Iowa.

And the vote for the bottom dwellers on both ends, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, reinforces general thinking that the overwhelming percentage of voters in neither party nor independents support the extremist candidates....nothing idiotic about that.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
It never ceases to amaze me how much negativity there is toward's the Paul grassroots effort. His online presence is meaningless in the primaries? What do you think got his campaign off the ground to 10% or whateer in iowa and 7% in New hampshire instead of a 0-2% percent showing like a Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich or Gravel? They said he couldn't transform a huge online presence into real votes over and over again, but that's exactly what has happened.
Sam has a point, if it weren't for the online stuff he wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.

What it does mean though is that online polls mean even less than the 'real' ones when it comes to predicting elections.

Willravel 01-09-2008 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Actually, there are some fishy things going on. In a county where hundreds of votes were cast Ron Paul got 0. Statistically that doesn't add up but Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org found out that indead 31 votes were cast for him.
Until we bomb Diebold, there will always be stolen votes. As I linked above, Hilary was essentially given the win in NH, stolen from Obama (who may end up being the Gore of this election). I'm sure votes were stolen from Paul. Not enough to win, though.

ShaniFaye 01-09-2008 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'm sort of surprised if this is true only because every FM radio station talk show seemed to be making fun of her this morning and even the women on my staff thought it was not what you want to see in a president.

Be sort of amusing if after all this it turns into Hilary McCain after all.
I have to agree with this, and every person that I've had a conversation with today IRL was disgusted about the "women that changed their minds because Hilary showed emotion"

dc_dux 01-09-2008 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
It never ceases to amaze me how much negativity there is toward's the Paul grassroots effort. His online presence is meaningless in the primaries? What do you think got his campaign off the ground to 10% or whatever in iowa and 7% in New hampshire instead of a 0-2% percent showing like a Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich or Gravel? They said he couldn't transform a huge online presence into real votes over and over again, but that's exactly what has happened.

Actually, there are some fishy things going on. In a county where hundreds of votes were cast Ron Paul got 0. Statistically that doesn't add up but Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org found out that indead 31 votes were cast for him.
sam...Much can be learned from Ron Paul's internet-based constituency, but two important lessons are still ignored by the Paul followers.

A successful campaign must have a strong central organization and manage the message of the campaign, not let it be controlled by a vocal group of outsiders. Paul just rode the wave created by his internet followers and never built proper and credible state-based organizations.

And, the candidate's message must resonate with the rest of the party voters and Paul's message never did, which is no surprise to most objective observers.

But if you're happy with two fifth place finishes, then I guess you can consider the Paul candidacy to be successful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Until we bomb Diebold, there will always be stolen votes. As I linked above, Hilary was essentially given the win in NH, stolen from Obama (who may end up being the Gore of this election). I'm sure votes were stolen from Paul. Not enough to win, though.
will....your "stolen vote" charge and dismissal of the NH voters as idiots, many of whom did not make up their mind until the last day, is beneath you.

samcol 01-09-2008 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Until we bomb Diebold, there will always be stolen votes. As I linked above, Hilary was essentially given the win in NH, stolen from Obama (who may end up being the Gore of this election). I'm sure votes were stolen from Paul. Not enough to win, though.
No, they won't steal enough to cheat him from first, but that wasn't realistic. I'm not implying that he was supposed to win. The optimistic goal was 3rd really, it's possible he got cheated out of enough to beat Giuliani which definetly would of helped his campaign.

Regardless its important to keep an eye on voting fraud.

Willravel 01-09-2008 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
will....your "stolen vote" charge and dismissal of the NH voters as idiots, many of whom did not make up their mind until the last day, is beneath you.
Hillary was only given 5%. That still means that over a third of people voted for her. As for making up their mind on the last day: that's proof that they're idiots. It suggest that they maybe, MAYBE did some research on one day on who they want to represent them for the next 4 years. It's a joke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
No, they won't steal enough to cheat him from first, but that wasn't realistic. I'm not implying that he was supposed to win. The optimistic goal was 3rd really, it's possible he got cheated out of enough to beat Giuliani which definetly would of helped his campaign.

Regardless its important to keep an eye on voting fraud.
I hope you know that of all the republicans, I'd absolutely love to see Paul get the nomination. And yes, it pisses me off that there are reports of votes being stolen from him. I just wanted to try and put it in perspective. We simply can't have president McCain a possibility.

dc_dux 01-09-2008 09:59 AM
will and sam...regarding voter fraud, I'll repeat what I said about Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

I think the country should be far more concerned about voter suppression than voter fraud.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
We simply can't have president McCain a possibility.
And now the truth comes out, you are afraid of McCain getting the nomination :thumbsup:

I don't blame you, hes the only republican with a prayer and moderate supporters.

The NH voters are not idiots, they scared you.

dc_dux 01-09-2008 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
... As for making up their mind on the last day: that's proof that they're idiots. It suggest that they maybe, MAYBE did some research on one day on who they want to represent them for the next 4 years. It's a joke.
What proof? Perhaps they were serious voters who did their research and homework and were torn between two candidates and made their final decision on the last day. Why not take all the time you have to make a decision if you are uncertain? That hardly makes them idiots.

Willravel 01-09-2008 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I think the country should be far more concerned about voter suppression than voter fraud.
My mistake. I was using voter fraud as a blanket term meaning all the garbage that's being done to votes. Is there a blanket term?

Ustwo: idiots that vote scare me.

dc_dux 01-09-2008 10:20 AM
FYI....there was a bill introduced earlier this year to require "an individual, durable, voter-verified paper record" for electronic voting.

"Ballot Integrity Act of 2007"

Its no surprise to me it only had Democratic sponsors and support (including Clinton and Obama). It got as far as a committee vote in the House, but has stalled in committee in the Senate.

This is a bill the American people should demand.

host 01-09-2008 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
McCain is the only republican with ANY potential to be elected that I can tell. I don't see how anything they did makes them an idiots.

Likewise Hilary is the only non-far left or disgusting slime ball who should be in prison if there was any justice (Edwards) on the democrat side.

I still wouldn't be surprised if neither get the nomination, but I don't see anything idiotic.
What would it take for you to see "anything idiotic"?
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-nation
With renewed energy, the Republican, who won the New Hampshire primary in 2000, stakes his presidential bid on the state.
By James Rainey and Maeve Reston, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
January 5, 2008

....Antiwar activist David Tiffany, 60, repeatedly challenged McCain about his "open-ended commitment" to Iraq. As the men engaged in a tit-for-tat that lasted several minutes, McCain said he would keep troops in the divided country for 100 years if needed to provide stability. Tiffany agreed they would not come to common ground but credited McCain with letting Tiffany have his say.

Looking on was Michel Biedermann, 47, a political independent who said he was impressed enough to consider voting for McCain, even though he leans Democratic. "It would have been very easy for him to give a pat answer about the war, turn around and take somebody else's questions," Biedermann said.....
McCain: Americans Fine With Troops In Iraq For 10,000 Years :

Quote:
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/zager-...25-lyrics.html
....Now it's been 10,000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through
But through the eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday....

Willravel 01-09-2008 10:25 AM
TY, host.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
What would it take for you to see "anything idiotic"?
host buddy, if you didn't absolutely hate, despise, and think the person I'd support was guilty of crimes against the people I'd know I made the wrong choice.

Some people in this country are not waiting for the next revolution, and are pretty happy over all with life even if not everything in the world at large is to their liking.

You radicals see the countries rejection of Bush to be your golden opportunity to get someone far more left into office than would normally be electable. Not on their policies but out of a dislike for republicans currently. You are right this is your best chance as on the issues you wouldn't have a prayer.

Moderates like Hilary must be trashed so that the path is clear for the more 'true' left wing.

McCain is your nightmare republican for this election. Hes open, hes viewed as moderate, he is a former POW and the public still knows its a dangerous situation in the mideast.

I'm not a McCain fan myself, I think hes a camera whore, but right now he is your worst nightmare as the republican nomination.

flstf 01-09-2008 10:45 AM
You have to admire the Clinton political machine, they are not stupid. Hillary showed just the right amount of "poor me I'm so distraught" emotion that NH voters gave her a group hug.

The Republicans have to be looking at this as positive for them. I don't think it is a secret that they want to run against Hillary in the general. An Obama "JFK like" steamroller would be very difficult for them stop. Their best chance is if Hillary does it for them.

MuadDib 01-09-2008 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
What proof? Perhaps they were serious voters who did their research and homework and were torn between two candidates and made their final decision on the last day. Why not take all the time you have to make a decision if you are uncertain? That hardly makes them idiots.
Gotta agree. A good number of Americans don't make up their minds until the last and this doesn't make them idiots. I might even argue that it's more idiotic to become so entrenched in a candidates camp that a voter won't consider changing their mind and thinks people who keep their minds open about multiple candidates are idiots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And now the truth comes out, you are afraid of McCain getting the nomination

I don't blame you, hes the only republican with a prayer and moderate supporters.

The NH voters are not idiots, they scared you.
This is really the basis of the intra-party Hillary hate as well. While the most vocal party members, in either party, detest moderate candidates they will win much more often because we live in a diverse enough country were no single extreme point of view is wide-spread enough to dominate.

host 01-09-2008 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
host buddy, if you didn't absolutely hate, despise, and think the person I'd support was guilty of crimes against the people I'd know I made the wrong choice.

Some people in this country are not waiting for the next revolution, and are pretty happy over all with life even if not everything in the world at large is to their liking.

You radicals see the countries rejection of Bush to be your golden opportunity to get someone far more left into office than would normally be electable. Not on their policies but out of a dislike for republicans currently. You are right this is your best chance as on the issues you wouldn't have a prayer.

Moderates like Hilary must be trashed so that the path is clear for the more 'true' left wing.

McCain is your nightmare republican for this election. Hes open, hes viewed as moderate, he is a former POW and the public still knows its a dangerous situation in the mideast.

I'm not a McCain fan myself, I think hes a camera whore, but right now he is your worst nightmare as the republican nomination.
I'm sleeping like a baby, Ustwo....
Quote:
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...580&isRss=true
January 6, 2008 Sunday
2806 words
CBS "FACE THE NATION" HOST: BOB SCHIEFFER;
GUEST: SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)

MR. SCHIEFFER: And good morning, again. Well, here we are back in New Hampshire. And with us is Senator John McCain who is hot, hot, hot according to these latest polls. He has now pulled into a lead, a small one but a lead, over Mitt Romney.

And I must say, Senator, six weeks ago I never would have thought that.

SEN. MCCAIN: (Laughs.) Bob, that just shows that you're not very bright or prescient....

...MR. SCHIEFFER: And I look back, you're the only candidate now with military experience. I think that Senator Dodd was in the military Reserves. I think Ron Paul served. But amongst the frontrunners here, you're the only one, and this is the first election in a long time that I can remember that, that served in the military. Should that count?

SEN. MCCAIN: Very interesting. By the way, you are the only leading political person in America that also has military experience, even if you were dishonorably discharged....
Quote:
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"


.
............Right Thing ......Stayed Out ....Unsure
....................% ................% .............%


12/5-9/07
.....................41........... 54............... 5...

"Thinking about Iraq: Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"


.10/17-23/07

.................... 39........... 54 ........... 7....
Quote:
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...42962&start=21
SHOW: Meet the Press 10:00 AM EST NBC
January 6, 2008 Sunday

....MR. RUSSERT: Looking back at the beginning of the war, back in March of 2003...

SEN. McCAIN: Yep.

MR. RUSSERT: ...if you had known then, if the intelligence came out and said, "We know that Saddam Hussein does not have biological..."

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ..."or, or chemical or a nuclear program..."

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...would you still have voted to authorize the war?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, obviously, given information that we have changes your decision-making process. But Saddam Hussein was still a threat. The sanctions were breaking down. There was a multibillion dollar Oil for Food scandal in the United Nations. The--every day American airplanes were being shot at. Saddam Hussein had used and acquired weapons of mass destruction in the past, and there was no doubt there was going to be in the future. The problem in Iraq, my friend, was not whether we went in or not, it's the way it was mishandled after the initial invasion.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, but, Senator, it's an important question because President Bush...

SEN. McCAIN: It's an important...

MR. RUSSERT: President Bush has said...

SEN. McCAIN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ..."Even if I knew he did not have biological, chemical or nuclear program..."

SEN. McCAIN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ..."I still would go into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein." Would you have?

SEN. McCAIN: I--yes, but the point is that if we had done it right, it's been well chronicled in many, in many books, you and I wouldn't be even discussing that now. The mishandling after the war. Look, I met with a high-ranking former al-Qaeda operative in Iraq recently. And I asked him, "How did you succeed?" He said, "The lawlessness after the initial invasion and Abu Ghraib." And so they were able to recruit people because of the disorder and the mishandling. So you would not be asking me if it hadn't been mishandled, you would've said because we succeeded in an established and stable Iraq, you would've said, "Aren't you glad we went in? Because Saddam Hussein, one of the most brutal, most terrible dictators in history, who fought in several wars, used weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbor, is now gone from the world scene." That's what you'd be saying.

MR. RUSSERT: But I think there'd be a real debate with the, with the--amongst the American people if we were told he did not have biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

SEN. McCAIN: If frogs had wings--look, Tim, we can talk about lots of hypotheticals. Would we have, would we have stopped Saddam Hussein from going into Kuwait back in '91 when, when he went in? Would we have, would we have said that the Chinese aren't going to cross--would we have known--if we had known that the Chinese were going to cross the Yalu in the Korean War, would we have done it differently? I'd love to get into thousands of historical hypotheticals with us, but what we knew at the time and the information we had at the time that every single intelligence agency in the world believed he had weapons of mass destruction. So...

MR. RUSSERT: So bottom line, the war was not a mistake?

SEN. McCAIN: The war, the invasion was not a mistake. The handling of the war was a terrible mistake....
Tick....tick....tick....tick.....tick:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: December 15, 2007

...........Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.........

Willravel 01-09-2008 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You radicals...
You're a radical too, just of a different flavor.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You're a radical too, just of a different flavor.
Yea thats why I want nothing to do with Huckabee, Romney, or Paul (though a Ron Paul presidency would be hysterical) and think of the current crop McCain is the best choice, (I didn't give Rudy a second look from the get go) and would also support someone like Liberman.

host 01-09-2008 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Yea thats why I want nothing to do with Huckabee, Romney, or Paul (though a Ron Paul presidency would be hysterical) and think of the current crop McCain is the best choice, (I didn't give Rudy a second look from the get go) and would also support someone like Liberman.
Yeah, a proposed $200 billion cut in annual military spending, from $630 billion, plus supplemental appropriations for Afghanistan and Iraq wars, would be a hoot, if Ron Paul got elected, wouldn't it?

.....and you would support Lieberman, why?:

You certainly can't be supportive of Lieberman's liberal voting record on social issues:
http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

So your support for him must be influenced by his unwavering support for "staying the course" in Iraq, right?

"I support Joe Lieberman, because he has consistantly been, "stay the course".:

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/ny.../25senate.html
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: October 25, 2006

HARTFORD, Oct 25 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has used the phrase “stay the course” several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/nyregion/25senate.html">article published Tuesday in The New York Times.</a>

The article used a database to analyze hundreds of Mr. Lieberman’s war-related comments since 2001. It pointed out that Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee for United States Senate, frequently criticized Mr. Lieberman for being a strong supporter of the Bush administration’s “stay the course” policy on Iraq, and said that in the statements reviewed, Mr. Lieberman had never actually uttered that phrase.

In fact, Mr. Lieberman has used the phrase more than a half-dozen times over the last two years, during a presidential debate and in television interviews — including several instances that were in the Times database. As recently as November 2005, upon returning from a trip to Iraq, for instance, he said on CNN’s “American Morning” that he agreed with the administration’s view that it was necessary to “stay the course.”

“I agree to the extent that we have to stay the course of the policy we chose in overthrowing Saddam and helping the Iraqi people become free, which will really make us a lot more secure and set the terrorists back,” Mr. Lieberman said, adding that some war tactics should change.

The original article noted that the database, which included more than 300 Iraq-related comments since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, could not be comprehensive. But five of Mr. Lieberman’s “stay the course” references were, in fact, included in the database, and should have been mentioned in the article.

It is unclear why, when the database was checked for the phrase before publication, three times, it did not come up. A similar search on Tuesday, after readers complained, yielded the correct results.

Mr. Lieberman used the phrase several times in January 2004 during a presidential primary debate in Iowa. “We have to stay the course in Iraq now,” he said, “and continue to build a stable, modernizing, democratizing country there.”

After losing his party’s primary, in April 2004, Mr. Lieberman said in a televised news conference that he blamed his support for the war in Iraq and his praise of the Bush administration’s policy for his loss.

“I thought the president gave the strongest case that I can remember him giving about why we went in and why we have to stay the course,” he said then. “We’ve got to adopt a strategy of success. A defeat will create chaos in Iraq, chaos in the Middle East, and will embolden the terrorists in a way that will endanger our future and our children’s future.”

Mr. Lieberman also made his support for the president clear in an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in May 2004, saying, “The president’s right.”

“It’s been a lot harder to achieve it than we hoped it would be,” he said of America’s mission in Iraq. “But we’ve got to stay the course and finish the job.”

In July 2004, Mr. Lieberman used the phrase again on Fox News’s “Hannity & Colmes,” saying of the president: “What I’m most happy about is that he said that he will stay the course in Iraq until we finish the job and the Iraqis are in control of their own destiny.”

In recent weeks, Mr. Lieberman has called for different tactics in Iraq.

The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the war.
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/24/...ay-the-course/
Snow Falsely Claims Bush Said ‘Stay The Course’ Only 8 Times (Actually, It’s At Least 30)
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/24/...d-stay-course/
But in a radio interview today with Sean Hannity, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirmed that the Bush administration isn’t planning to shift its strategy. Rumsfeld called media reports about Bush’s reversal “nonsense,” and said “of course” Bush is “not backing away from staying the course.”
What do you like best about Bush, McCain, and Lieberman, is it the "straight talk"?

loquitur 01-09-2008 03:06 PM
Actually, I kinda know where Ustwo is coming from on this. Part of it has to do with setting priorities: which aspects of the person who is running are most important? So I was running hypothetical matchups in my head: I'd vote for Hillary over Giuliani, Obama over Huckabee, McCain over Hillary, etc etc etc.....

I suspect from his post that Ustwo's priority is national security ahead of social issues, so he would vote for Lieberman despite disagreements on certain issues. So would I. See, Lieberman has no discernible authoritarian tendencies, so far as I can tell, whereas Hillary and Giuliani both do. So if you like national security and you want it without sacrificing your liberty, Lieberman is a good choice and so is McCain. If you want national security and dont' care about civil liberties so long as you're safe, choose Giuliani or Romney. If you don't think national security is all that big a deal, but you like redistribution, you have plenty of choices.

No candidate is perfect. We're stuck with what we have.

Lasereth 01-09-2008 03:40 PM
Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?

Willravel 01-09-2008 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Yea thats why I want nothing to do with Huckabee, Romney, or Paul (though a Ron Paul presidency would be hysterical) and think of the current crop McCain is the best choice, (I didn't give Rudy a second look from the get go) and would also support someone like Liberman.
I didn't say you were a religious radical. Neither of us would fit in that category.

dc_dux 01-09-2008 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
.... See, Lieberman has no discernible authoritarian tendencies, so far as I can tell, whereas Hillary and Giuliani both do.
Hillary supported Dodd's filibuster of the FISA bill because of the provision to provide immunity to tellcoms that assisted in illegally wiretapping citizens without a warrant....Lieberman did not

Hillary voted against provisions in the Patriot Act to extend the power of FBI to use "national security letters" to monitor citizens.....Lieberman supported the provision.

Hillary supported bills that require the US treatment of prisoners to abide by Geneva Conventions....Lieberman did not.

Who is more authoritarian?

samcol 01-09-2008 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasereth
Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?
Yes I posted it earlier in the thread. It doesn't prove anything but looks pretty weird. Clinton was down by like 7-10 points in polls against obama then wins by 3. The difference in machines between her and obama was +8% to Clinton.

Plus on the otherside Romney magically gets 7% better on machines.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

dc_dux 01-09-2008 04:26 PM
IMO, the most plausible reason for the disconnect with the polls is the fact that an extraordinary number of voters (15-20% according to exit polls - normally its more in the range of 5-10%) made up their mind within the last 24 hours before the election.

But its more fun to talk conspiracy theory. :)

Charlatan 01-09-2008 04:45 PM
I think too much weight was given to polls that had a smallish sample group and had, from one report I read, an 8 point margin of error.

Add to this, journalists smelling a big story in Obama's Iowa win combined with the poll results.


Besides, we all know that it's the republican machine that controls the Diebold machines... ;)

dc_dux 01-09-2008 04:55 PM
Republicans are still better at voter suppression in NH, like they did in the 2002 senate election.

How to rig an election
Quote:
What does it take to win the New Hampshire primary — dirty tricks or retail politics?

Stick to good old-fashioned politicking, says disgraced former GOP consultant Allen Raymond. "Retail politics and authenticity," he tells ABCNEWS.com. "Up in New Hampshire, they have great expectations of what you need to do as a candidate and you have to do it."

Raymond should know. After all, he's the one who ran an illegal scheme to make hundreds of calls to jam the phone lines of the state's Democrats on Election Day in 2002. The former consultant, who served three months in jail last year, tells his story and reveals secrets of the trade in his new book, "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative."

Raymond blames the Republican Party for making him the fall guy and claims that his scheme was approved by a top state GOP official and the Republican National Committee's northeast regional director.
And we still need Congress to enact the Ballot Integrity Act to require a verifiable paper trail for electronic voting.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasereth
Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?
I have to wonder why the diebold machines didn't 'work' right in 2006 :lol:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Republicans are still better at voter suppression in NH, like they did in the 2002 senate election.

How to rig an election


And we still need Congress to enact the Ballot Integrity Act to require a verifiable paper trail for electronic voting.
Those lousy Republicans!!!!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

Quote:
Part one of a two-part series.

All reasonable people know it -- it was well documented by various media sources throughout the 2004 election and now we have the concrete proof: Democrats and their operatives were far and away more involved in voter intimidation, fraud, suppression and, yes, disenfranchisement, than Republicans. It's not even close. But don't take our word for it liberals, read the 368-page report by the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights yourself.
Quote:

Remember the incident involving allegations of Democratic operatives slashing the tires of Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee? Here are the actual indictments in the case:

The following is a list of the individuals charged with slashing tires on the morning of November 2, 2004, and their connections to the Democrat campaign in 2004:

Michael J. Pratt

* Paid $7,965.53 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004
* Pratt’s father is former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, who chaired the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Milwaukee

Sowande Ajumoke Omodunde (a.k.a “Supreme Solar Allah”)

* Paid $6,059.83 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004
* Son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)

Lewis Gibson Caldwell, III

* Paid $4,639.09 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004

Lavelle Mohammad

* Paid $8,858.50 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and America Coming Together ($966 for canvassing work in June and July) in 2004

Justin J. Howell

* Paid $2,550.29 in 2004 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (62)
I'm not sure you want to go this route there dc, not sure at all.

SecretMethod70 01-09-2008 05:53 PM
Columbia Journalism Review had an interview today with the director of ABC's polling unit:

Quote:
The Polls: What the #$!% Happened?   click to show 

Willravel 01-09-2008 06:02 PM
So it's most likely late deciders despite exit polls? Even after what happened in 2004?

Sorry, but I'm still skeptical about this being legitimate.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
So it's most likely late deciders despite exit polls? Even after what happened in 2004?

Sorry, but I'm still skeptical about this being legitimate.
You mean the 2004 exit polls which were mostly in urban centers and surprisingly went to Kerry?

Willravel 01-09-2008 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You mean the 2004 exit polls which were mostly in urban centers and surprisingly went to Kerry?
No, I'm referring to a massive shift between exit polls and counted results being a starting point for investigations that led to discoveries like:
- 6,000,000 voters abroad didn't receive ballots or received them far too late to vote after the Pentagon inexplicably shut down their website meant to manage overseas ballots
- Sproul & Associates shredded Democratic registrations
- 'malfunctioning' voting machines in New Mexico failed to register votes on over 20,000 ballots
- as many as 1,000,000 ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment (that's about 1 out of ever 100 ballots)
In Ohio:
- Republican counties like Miami County recorded turnouts as high as 98% (literally impossible) and Democratic areas like inner city Cleveland had only 7% (despite people waiting in 2 hour lines all day in those locations)
- In Warren county, Republican election officials manufactured a terrorist threat to stop the media from monitoring the official vote count
- Over 357,00 voters, overwhelmingly Dems, were prevented from casting ballots and didn't have their vote counted. BTW, that shift was more than double the margin that Bush won by.
- 1/4 of all registered Ohio voters were not listed on the rolls
- upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush

All this required was you pay attention when there's an election. Each of these facts is verifiable.

SecretMethod70 01-09-2008 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
So it's most likely late deciders despite exit polls?
No, the interview said the exact opposite.

Quote:
GL: Another blog I saw today suggested it was the late deciders. That’s a common answer of faulty final pre-election polls, and it’s one I don’t buy, and it’s one I certainly don’t buy in this case. Because if we look at the exit poll results, indeed if we take out everyone who decided on Election Day, we get a result of Clinton plus four, which is of course, exactly what her margin was. If we look at who did decide on Election Day, it’s Clinton plus three, which is within polling tolerances.
The polling director is much more inclined to believe that the polls did not accurately predict who would be voting in the primary. As he said, Obama supporters may have been psyched up to vote for him, but perhaps that enthusiasm didn't translate into going out and actually voting. Not unreasonable when the weekend was spent talking about how badly Obama was inevitably going to beat Clinton. Likewise, independents who favored Obama on the Democratic side may have decided to vote for the candidate in the Republican primary they prefer instead, figuring Obama had it sealed.

loquitur 01-09-2008 06:59 PM
Willravel, did you research both sides? Because there are plenty of shenanigans everywhere, depending on which party happens to be in charge in a particular location. It's not like either party is a babe in the woods or any kind of innocent who doesn't know how to fight dirty when they think they can get away with it.

Willravel 01-09-2008 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
<center><img src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/01/12/wiraq12.jpg"></center>
They cancelled the O.C.? This is a quagmire...

dc_dux 01-09-2008 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I have to wonder why the diebold machines didn't 'work' right in 2006 :lol:

Those lousy Republicans!!!!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

I'm not sure you want to go this route there dc, not sure at all.
Ustwo.....do you really know the facts about the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.....the source of your examples of alleged voter suppression by the Democratic party.
Quote:
Chalk this one up as one for the good guys. The Internet real estate once owned by a group of deceptive White House-connected Republican operatives has now come under the control of one of the non-profit groups which had taken the brunt of the GOP outfits relentless anti-democratic political tactics.

The ironic turn of events comes on the heels of new revelations connecting the Republican operatives to high-level DoJ and White House officials, and underscores the need for an immediate Congressional investigation into the conspiracy behind the supposedly "non-partisan" GOP operation....

As we reported some weeks ago, revelations of the GOP's "voter fraud" scam at the heart of the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal, has sent the longtime "non-partisan" GOP front group calling themselves American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) scurrying for cover. The home base for the still-mysteriously-funded organization --- created and run by former Bush/Cheney '04 general counsel, and good friend of Karl Rove, Mark F. "Thor" Hearne --- was the alarmist propaganda filled website once featured at the domains AC4VR.com and AmericanCenterForVotingRights.com.

Filled with unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal reports of widespread Democratic "voter fraud", the GOP site for the tax-exempt Republican front served as a clearinghouse for their lengthy reports, slick spin and cherry-picked media headlines (often spurred by ACVR's own disinformation campaign) portending to support their charges.

But the ACVR failed to renew the domain names when they expired on March 17th, just as AttorneyGate stories on the Internet began to reveal the full breadth of the Republican scheme to forward the breathless claims of "voter fraud" and to file unprecedented, high profile criminal cases in order to advance their agenda. That agenda: to call for more restrictive Voter ID requirements at the polls in key swing states. Such requirements, found unconstitutional time and again, are known to disproportionately affect minority, low income, elderly and disabled (read: Democratic-leaning) voters.

When the ACVR's domains suddenly went down, a number of interested parties --- including The BRAD BLOG who has been exposing the ACVR scammers since just days after their appearance, and subsequent disingenuous testimony before Congress in March of 2005 --- placed bids for the Internet namespace.

source: American Center for Voting Rights domain (no longer owned by the Rove cronies :) )
I'm not sure you want to go this route there Ustwo, not sure at all.

Willravel 01-09-2008 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Willravel, did you research both sides?
I researched the information available. From what I found it seems that it's kinda one sided in most cases, at least for the 2000 and 2004 elections. I can't speak to this election yet as the facts aren't there, so all I have is recent precedence.

reconmike 01-09-2008 07:16 PM
The Greatest voter fraud in US history = JFK nuff said

Willravel 01-09-2008 08:27 PM
Recon, he was running against Nixon. You know, the guy who quit in disgrace because he was going to be impeached.

The greatest fraud was denying people the opportunity to vote for RFK. I suspect he would have been among our greatest presidents.

Ustwo 01-09-2008 08:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Ustwo.....do you really know the facts about the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.....the source of your examples of alleged voter suppression by the Democratic party.

I'm not sure you want to go this route there Ustwo, not sure at all.
Funny I was thinking just prior, how will my source be questioned instead of the incident.

So are you saying that tire slashing didn't happen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Recon, he was running against Nixon. You know, the guy who quit in disgrace because he was going to be impeached.

.
What does that have to do with old man Daley stealing the election for JFK again?

Willravel 01-09-2008 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
What does that have to do with old man Daley stealing the election for JFK again?
1960, right? My parents were 5 years old. To be honest, my familiarity with that election is somewhat lacking outside of history classes.

dc_dux 01-09-2008 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Funny I was thinking just prior, how will my source be questioned instead of the incident.

So are you saying that tire slashing didn't happen?
I am saying there was no evidence that it was a premeditated act with the knowledge of, or planning by, the Democratic party as alleged or implied by the "non-partisan" (give me a break!) ACVR and its director, Thor Hearne, a Republican party operative and former General Counsel for Bush/Cheney 04....rather than an independent and unsanctioned act of vandalism by Democratic campaign workers whose fathers were prominent Democrats. I cant say I am surprised by the way Hearne (and you) would like to portray it.

Quote:
According to the criminal complaint filed in the case, the five men conspired, without the knowledge of top Democratic Party officials, to plaster Republican Party headquarters on W. Capitol Drive with Democratic signs and stickers, something they dubbed Operation Elephant Takeover.

But they dropped that plan when they learned that the targeted GOP headquarters were patrolled by a security guard, according to the criminal complaint, which does not describe how the tire-slashing plot came up.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=295825
We obviously see the two cases differently.... the unsubstantiated ACVR allegation regarding the role of the Democratic Party in the tire slashing and the admission in court of NH phone jamming by a Republican party operative and his sworn testimony citing the involvement of the Republican Party of NH (and the advance knowledge and acquiescence of the national party)

Ustwo 01-09-2008 09:48 PM
So in your world if a bunch of republicans on the republican payroll planned attacks on democrat assets such as the tire slashing then it would just be some guys doing it?

Homey doesn't think you would present it that way......

dc_dux 01-09-2008 09:51 PM
Its not how I present it...it is the evidence and testimony presented in the two courts of law.

In the one case, there is testimony pointing to Republican party complicity (including plea bargains by high level Republican party officials) and in the other case, there is nothing to indicate the Democratic party's involvement.
Quote:
The fourth man indicted in a New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme -- in which Republican operatives jammed the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in a 2002 Senate race -- will argue at trial that the Bush Administration and the national Republican Party gave their approval to the plan, according to a motion filed by his attorney Thursday.
....

Phone records show hundreds of phone calls from the New Hampshire Republican Party and convicted phone jammer James Tobin to the White House Office of Political Affairs during the time the scheme was being planned and carried out.

The Republican National Committee, which shelled out millions to defend Tobin, has said it is "preposterous" to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.

According to AP, "The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ma...hone_0707.html
Chuck McGee, former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and Republican consultant Allen Raymond (GOP Marketplace's former president) both pled guilty to conspiracy and James Tobin, (regional director of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee at the time) was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his role in the NH phone jamming.

Dont you think that McGee, Raymond and Tobin, all with direct ties to the RNC, are a bit higher political operatives than the low level "bunch of guys" who slashed the tires?

loquitur 01-10-2008 03:05 PM
I'm just glad Ron Paul's past got exposed. He's a crank, and not even much of a libertarian.

samcol 01-10-2008 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
I'm just glad Ron Paul's past got exposed. He's a crank, and not even much of a libertarian.
umm ok?

MuadDib 01-19-2008 03:13 PM
Yet another state for Hillary. At this point does Obama need to win South Carolina to stay viable or can he hold out for Super Tuesday?

Rekna 01-19-2008 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Yet another state for Hillary. At this point does Obama need to win South Carolina to stay viable or can he hold out for Super Tuesday?
Hillary won the popular vote but Obama won the delegate count and will get 13 delegates to Hillary's 12. For committed delegates Obama leads by 2. I hardly think he is worryng about being knocked out. Also he is likely to win South Carolina.

pr0f3n 01-20-2008 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Yet another state for Hillary. At this point does Obama need to win South Carolina to stay viable or can he hold out for Super Tuesday?
He has to win SC to stay viable. The question is how effective will Bill Clinton and his smear machine be able to sling enough mud to hurt Obama's public image. They've been trying really hard the last 10 days to paint him into "the black candidate" corner, but Obama's been as resistant as his rhetoric implied he would be. The real surprise for me yesterday was Edward's evaporated support. He was gunning for to play kingmaker after 2/5 and now it's unlikely he'll have enough delegates to matter.

If Obama wins SC, the race tightens up so much that we probably won't have a nominee until late March. If he loses SC, it will take a epic event to derail Clinton and her marching band of DLC hacks.

MuadDib 01-20-2008 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Hillary won the popular vote but Obama won the delegate count and will get 13 delegates to Hillary's 12. For committed delegates Obama leads by 2. I hardly think he is worryng about being knocked out. Also he is likely to win South Carolina.
And Hillary is winning the total delegate count by 87. This was discussed earlier, but if you disagree I'd like to hear why. The number of super-delegates going to Hillary means that Obama picking up one or two more delegates every other primary is not going to cut it. Moreover, the 'surprising' wins and general momentum from primary and caucus victories will play a much larger roll in the eventual winner of the democratic primary than any one or two delegates.

On a general note, I have to say that caucuses are screwed up! This isn't just because I'm a Hillary supporter and don't think its right for someone who wins by 6% of the vote in a statewide primary to get less delegates. The same thing happened to Obama in Iowa where he beat Hillary by 9% and only got one more committed delegate than her. Caucuses just don't adequately represent the voters of their respective states nor do they serve as effective indicators for the national election. Probably worst of all is that they are rife with potential corruption and usually just gloss over the smoky back room politics going on that state to boot.

SecretMethod70 01-20-2008 02:26 PM
It's true, there are lots of issues with caucuses, but there are also benefits to them. The fact that voters have the opportunity to support a second choice is a huge deal, and something that is sorely missing in American elections. There are certainly better ways to accomplish it, but at this very moment I'm just thankful that sometimes, somewhere, voters have the opportunity.

It's true that SC is a must-win for Obama, but I don't think he needs to worry about that too much. What puts him in much greater jeopardy are the major Feb 5 states like California, where he trails by a sizable margin (the RealClearPolitics average puts Clinton ahead by 12 points).

At least one good thing came out of Nevada though: I wasn't sure who I was going to vote for on Feb 5, but now I know.

MuadDib 01-20-2008 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
It's true, there are lots of issues with caucuses, but there are also benefits to them. The fact that voters have the opportunity to support a second choice is a huge deal, and something that is sorely missing in American elections. There are certainly better ways to accomplish it, but at this very moment I'm just thankful that sometimes, somewhere, voters have the opportunity.
It can certainly be argued that the second choice option has democratic benefits. Whether or not someone feels that way is one thing, but since that isn't how elections are won in America at large, I think it is a poor way to run party elections even if they excepting all the problems in the actual use of them here. It's all good and well that people get a second choice candidate, but when the entire point of the process is to select a party candidate to run against another party candidate in a one on one election (effectively if not actually always one on one).

SecretMethod70 01-20-2008 09:21 PM
There's no reason the candidate needs to be selected in the same way as the president is. For one thing, allowing voters to express their second choices makes the outcome more likely to be one that more people are willing to accept. Regardless of whether or not the president is elected that way, if the nominee is selected that way (or, at least, partially that way), that makes it more likely that a larger portion of the base will be enthusiastic about supporting that nominee come the general election.

Of course, even that point is irrelevent since only a few states caucus. Really, IMO, there's not much reason to care one way or the other since the number of caucuses are so few.

Rekna 01-20-2008 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
And Hillary is winning the total delegate count by 87. This was discussed earlier, but if you disagree I'd like to hear why.
Hillary is only winning when you look at super delegates that have pledged to support her. However, they can change their pledge whenever they want and some of started to waiver in their support already.

MuadDib 01-20-2008 10:42 PM
Yeah it does include superdelegates, but they do make up a little more than 1/5 of the total delegates in this race. Moreover, Hillary's margin in superdelegates has increased as time has passed, not decreased. While I can't speak to individual delegates changing their position, the difference between Clinton and Obama has widened as more superdelegates have pledged to her. The point is that Hillary is a lock for the great majority of superdelegates and its just a political reality. For Obama to win he has to overcome that difference in the primaries which he is not doing as of yet. If the Obama camp can't admit that political truth and work to deal around it then they are in worse trouble than the recent state losses alone would indicate.

pr0f3n 01-21-2008 12:55 AM
There have been 3 contests in small states, absolutely nothing's a lock yet. Clinton's been basically static in her superdelegate count since November and Obama's made slight gains.
Here's the current count.

The political reality is a freshman Senator has closed enormous deficits nationally against the most powerful and ruthless faction in the DNC lead by the most popular and famous Democrat alive, Bill Clinton.

Poll numbers over time in Nevada:
http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image2mb0.png

He's done so without going negative, without responding in kind to distortions and smears, while inspiring a generation alienated by the partisan hackery the Clintons and the DLC employ and embody. This primary's got a long way to go, and Obama's got an uphill battle, but anyone who's thought differently was fooling themselves. It's far from done.

MuadDib 01-21-2008 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
There have been 3 contests in small states, absolutely nothing's a lock yet. Clinton's been basically static in her superdelegate count since November and Obama's made slight gains.
Here's the current count.

The political reality is a freshman Senator has closed enormous deficits nationally against the most powerful and ruthless faction in the DNC lead by the most popular and famous Democrat alive, Bill Clinton.

http://img.waffleimages.com/f05fdf2c...62d/Image2.png

He's done so without going negative, without responding in kind to distortions and smears, while inspiring a generation alienated by the partisan hackery the Clintons and the DLC employ and embody. This primary's got a long way to go, and Obama's got an uphill battle, but anyone who's thought differently was fooling themselves. It's far from done.
Now don't get me wrong. Obama is one hell of a democrat, a politician, and a seemingly decent human being. He's done a great deal in this race and has thus far ran a commendable campaign. But let's also not get too glossy eyed. He has had his fair share of digs and is just as guilty of the sniping that led democratic leaders to call for a truce as Hillary was. I'm very excited about Obama's ability to galvanize democratic youth and get them involved in the process, but it also worries me that he is creating one hell of a lot ideologues that aren't really politically informed beyond a blind call for change. They see Obama through rose colored glasses and, to them, he can essentially do no wrong. Now granted, I'll take a politically active student in my party over not any day of the week, but I'm not going to get excited until they are as savvy/objective as they are active.

Now, you are 100% right that there is a lot of primary to go, but keep in mind the crucial importance of momentum, perception, and wins (pyrrhic or otherwise). The build up to Super Tuesday is extremely important in the process; it always has been and that's not changing at this point. Certainly Obama is not out of this race, but you have to admit he hasn't been able to monopolize off of his early win in Iowa like he was expected to. Hillary has been winning in races that were supposed to be much tighter (if not losses). If this doesn't mean something and have implications for the future of Obama's campaign you're going to have to tell me why, more than there simply being a lot of race left. I would contend he's doing something wrong and needs to change it fast. I don't think anyone seriously believes things can keep going as they are and have an Obama victory. What do you think he is going to need to do to turn things around? If you do think nothing, then why should the trend of events since Iowa be discounted as meaningless?

pr0f3n 01-21-2008 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Now don't get me wrong. Obama is one hell of a democrat, a politician, and a seemingly decent human being. He's done a great deal in this race and has thus far ran a commendable campaign. But let's also not get too glossy eyed. He has had his fair share of digs and is just as guilty of the sniping that led democratic leaders to call for a truce as Hillary was. I'm very excited about Obama's ability to galvanize democratic youth and get them involved in the process, but it also worries me that he is creating one hell of a lot ideologues that aren't really politically informed beyond a blind call for change. They see Obama through rose colored glasses and, to them, he can essentially do no wrong. Now granted, I'll take a politically active student in my party over not any day of the week, but I'm not going to get excited until they are as savvy/objective as they are active.
I'm willing to acknowledge my own bias on an issue, but I'm not going to demure when there's no call for it. Clinton set out to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate" to great effect, and if you have any evidence that Obama participated in that kerfuffle beyond asking people to settle down, I'd be glad to see it.

As for starry-eyed, ill-informed ideologues, I think there's plenty to be found of any age and occupation in either party, but don't mistake me for one. The only things coming from a Clinton nomination are a Republican victory or 8 more years of partisan bickering while our infrastructure and civil liberties erode.

Quote:
I would contend he's doing something wrong and needs to change it fast. I don't think anyone seriously believes things can keep going as they are and have an Obama victory. What do you think he is going to need to do to turn things around? If you do think nothing, then why should the trend of events since Iowa be discounted as meaningless?
I'm not convinced momentum has anything to do with either primary this year. From a strictly academic perspective, this is all about delegates, and Obama's ahead on that front. Yes, Obama was assigned by the MSM a theoretical momentum after Iowa, one he didn't acknowledge. There was no event or set of events so great in the five days that followed that would have countered that momentum, yet he lost NH, so it's questionable if it existed at all. What was clear in NH was that 20% of voters were undecided, and 40% of voters said they made up their minds within the 24 hours prior to 1/8. Regardless, Obama went from polling in the mid-20's in late December to garnering 37% of the vote. If that link I fixed works, you can see he gained 22% over the course of 2 months in Nevada.

He's absolutely doing something wrong, but it's a tightrope walk that I think he's been shying from until now. He has to respond to the Clinton's negative campaigning without abandoning his principles. He's starting to do so, and Bill Clinton's making it easier as he's getting crazier and dirtier this last week or so, but in responding not only is Barack giving the lie more life, he's giving the Clinton campaign more mud to sling. This is the true test, surviving the DLC, and if he can't get through them then this country's in more trouble than I thought. He's got a solid game plan for South Carolina, his campaign's had presence there longer than the Clintons. Should he win that primary next week, I think we'll see extremely tight races in CA, NY and some fly over states, and 2/5 will be the best popcorn and soda day of this election.

Rekna 01-21-2008 09:01 AM
The super delegates are absolutely stupid in my opinion. What they say is 40% of the primary vote falls on a few select individuals. To top it off these delegates have 1 thing in common, they are part of the current establishment. So when an anti-establishment candidate like Obama comes in of course they are going to flock to the other side. I'm surprised it hasn't been more. They need to get rid of the super delegates just like the republicans did.

SecretMethod70 01-21-2008 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
The super delegates are absolutely stupid in my opinion. What they say is 40% of the primary vote falls on a few select individuals. To top it off these delegates have 1 thing in common, they are part of the current establishment. So when an anti-establishment candidate like Obama comes in of course they are going to flock to the other side. I'm surprised it hasn't been more. They need to get rid of the super delegates just like the republicans did.
Agreed, except the superdelegates are about 20%, not 40% of the total.

Rekna 01-21-2008 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Agreed, except the superdelegates are about 20%, not 40% of the total.

Thanks for the correction. I thought I read 40% but just checked it is just under 20%.

Tully Mars 01-22-2008 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Thanks for the correction. I thought I read 40% but just checked it is just under 20%.

Still seems odd to me that any party would openly give more power to certain individuals. To me that goes against exactly what the US is all about, or at least should be all about. One person, one vote. But the Electoral College, IMHO, gives people in some states more in power than those of other states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
He has to respond to the Clinton's negative campaigning without abandoning his principles. He's starting to do so, and Bill Clinton's making it easier as he's getting crazier and dirtier this last week or so, but in responding not only is Barack giving the lie more life, he's giving the Clinton campaign more mud to sling.
The more Bill lets loose with more bat shit crazy stuff the more he seems to suck Obama into to responding thus keeping him off his message. Really it's a brilliant, all be it slimly, move.

SecretMethod70 01-22-2008 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Still seems odd to me that any party would openly give more power to certain individuals. To me that goes against exactly what the US is all about, or at least should be all about. One person, one vote. But the Electoral College, IMHO, gives people in some states more in power than those of other states.
The electoral college is a different story, and actually increases the value of everyone's vote. Yes, there are negligible differences between states (differences which are rooted in our republican (not the party) system), but the most important aspect of the electoral college is that it increases the likelihood that any one person's vote can impact the outcome of an election. Your vote is much more likely to "count" when it's 1 of 30 million than it is when it's 1 of 300 million.

Quote:
The more Bill lets loose with more bat shit crazy stuff the more he seems to suck Obama into to responding thus keeping him off his message. Really it's a brilliant, all be it slimly, move.
This seems to be true.

pr0f3n 01-22-2008 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Still seems odd to me that any party would openly give more power to certain individuals. To me that goes against exactly what the US is all about, or at least should be all about. One person, one vote. But the Electoral College, IMHO, gives people in some states more in power than those of other states.
Representative Democracies have that buffer layer of the electoral college to slow down the populist whimsy, and although the original motivation wasn't so well thought out, I think the delegate/superdelegate system has the same effect. Giving the party members a greater voice than the popular vote makes a great deal of sense in that they're the people most involved and informed, and hopefully can buffer against demagoguery and fringe groups hijacking the party.

Quote:
The more Bill lets loose with more bat shit crazy stuff the more he seems to suck Obama into to responding thus keeping him off his message. Really it's a brilliant, all be it slimly, move.
I was think Obama did what he needed to do last night. He managed, imperfectly to be sure, to correct the distortions and still churn out a great deal of policy discussion. The Clintons aren't going to stop, but he's shown he's able to get aggressive and hold his own on multiple political fronts.

Tully Mars 01-22-2008 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
The electoral college is a different story, and actually increases the value of everyone's vote.
I'm no statistician but that doesn't even seem possible. If you increase the value of everyone's vote... wouldn't everyone's vote still have equal value?

Rekna 01-22-2008 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
I'm no statistician but that doesn't even seem possible. If you increase the value of everyone's vote... wouldn't everyone's vote still have equal value?
Yes, the electoral college attempts to increase the value of the vote of people who live in rural areas. This is to counteract the power of the vote in urban areas. Urban areas always get the attention during a presidential election. This is because that is where the most votes is. The electorals attempt to countact this slightly though I don't think they do a very good job of it. Let's face it when was the last time that South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, etc mattered in a presidential race?

The only problem I see with the electorals is the all or nothing assignment of them, I really think it should be proportional across the country. In order to do this effectively though the number of electorals for each state would have to be increased by something like a factor of 10.

SecretMethod70 01-22-2008 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
I'm no statistician but that doesn't even seem possible. If you increase the value of everyone's vote... wouldn't everyone's vote still have equal value?
Putting this very simply: In a fully democratic election your vote is one of ~300 million. That means you have a 1 in 300 million chance of your vote being the one that decides the election. Under the electoral college system, using my home state of Illinois as the example, my vote is actually only one of ~7 million (and that's being pessimistic, considering that the total population of Illinois, regardless of voting eligibility, is ~13 million). That means I have a 1 in 7 million chance of my vote deciding who Illinois' 21 electors go to. Then, using admittedly fuzzy math, there's about a 21 out of 538 (~1 in 25) chance that my determining who Illinois' electors go to will also determine who wins the presidency. That means that my vote has about a 1 in 175 million chance of determining the election, instead of a 1 in 300 million chance.

(Yes, this is fuzzy math, but it gets the point across. The Electoral College is not a new issue: MIT physicist Alan Natapoff spoke to Congress on this issue back in the 70's, and his testimony is one reason why we still have the Electoral College today. And here's a link to his 1996 article in Public Choice.)

Tully Mars 01-22-2008 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Putting this very simply: In a fully democratic election your vote is one of ~300 million. That means you have a 1 in 300 million chance of your vote being the one that decides the election. Under the electoral college system, using my home state of Illinois as the example, my vote is actually only one of ~7 million (and that's being pessimistic, considering that the total population of Illinois, regardless of voting eligibility, is ~13 million). That means I have a 1 in 7 million chance of my vote deciding who Illinois' 21 electors go to. Then, using admittedly fuzzy math, there's about a 21 out of 538 (~1 in 25) chance that my determining who Illinois' electors go to will also determine who wins the presidency. That means that my vote has about a 1 in 175 million chance of determining the election, instead of a 1 in 300 million chance.

(Yes, this is fuzzy math, but it gets the point across. The Electoral College is not a new issue: MIT physicist Alan Natapoff spoke to Congress on this issue back in the 70's, and his testimony is one reason why we still have the Electoral College today. And here's a link to his 1996 article in Public Choice.)
Fuzzy, yes I agree with that. And I agree there is a statistical chance your vote maybe have more weight or have more of a chance of being the vote that tips the scales. But a statistical chance does not, IMO, equate to "increases the value of everyone's vote." If you increase the value of everyone's vote, everyone's vote is still equal. Thus everyone's vote has the same value and no one's vote has increased in value.

But that's not really what the EC does. The EC gives more weight to some votes while decreasing the value of other votes. Basically under the EC a candidate could lose every single vote in 39 states while merely winning the majority of votes in the 11 most populated states and end up in the Oval Office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

And, as Rekna points out, you rarely see a candidate in states like South Dakota. And the reason for this is votes in those states don't have the same value as votes in other larger states.

SecretMethod70 01-22-2008 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
But that's not really what the EC does. The EC gives more weight to some votes while decreasing the value of other votes. Basically under the EC a candidate could lose every single vote in 39 states while merely winning the majority of votes in the 11 most populated states and end up in the Oval Office.
There's no such thing as a perfect system. The same criticisms can be given against direct democracy as well, and moreso. If the president were elected through a purely democratic vote (which isn't some new idea, it was thoroughly considered and rejected by the founders), that person could appeal strictly to, say, white voters, and completely ignore minorities and still win the election. Or, that person could campaign only in heavily populated regions (such as new england and the west coast) and ignore the needs of other regions.

Also, the idea that everyone's vote is 100% equal is not something the founder's sought: rather, they sought to prevent the tyrrany of majority, which the electoral college does rather effectively. It's impossible for a president to win an election without appealing to the area where the votes are "less important" such as California, but the electoral college makes it so that those candidates must also appeal to other, less populous states in order to win. It's the same reason Iowa and New Hampshire have their primaries before everyone else: on a national level, the interests of Iowans are generall ignored, but by giving them some weight in choosing the candidates it ensures that their opinions are heard as well.

No doubt, there are people whose views and needs are ignored right now. Like I said, no election system is perfect. But the number of people who are ignored - and the degree to which they are ignored - could be far greater were we to fall into the temptation of direct democracy. Our republic does a great deal to spread out influence and force compromise.

Tully Mars 01-22-2008 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
There's no such thing as a perfect system. The same criticisms can be given against direct democracy as well, and moreso. If the president were elected through a purely democratic vote (which isn't some new idea, it was thoroughly considered and rejected by the founders), that person could appeal strictly to, say, white voters, and completely ignore minorities and still win the election. Or, that person could campaign only in heavily populated regions (such as new england and the west coast) and ignore the needs of other regions.
I agree, perfection isn't attainable. An old friend of mine used to say "the last guy that was prefect they nailed to a cross, don't want any part of that job."

But the EC doesn't insulate against candidates ignoring this state, that demographic or even a particular region. Heck the GOP currently has one candidate who's ignored, basically, every state but Florida so far. I don't think his strategy is going to work. But it could be argued he'd be less likely to even attempt this political chess move if it weren't for the EC. Could also pull out a bunch of graphs and stats and argue that the EC is the only reason he would try such a move.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Also, the idea that everyone's vote is 100% equal is not something the founder's sought: rather, they sought to prevent the tyrrany of majority, which the electoral college does rather effectively. It's impossible for a president to win an election without appealing to the area where the votes are "less important" such as California, but the electoral college makes it so that those candidates must also appeal to other, less populous states in order to win. It's the same reason Iowa and New Hampshire have their primaries before everyone else: on a national level, the interests of Iowans are generall ignored, but by giving them some weight in choosing the candidates it ensures that their opinions are heard as well.
Not sure about the "tyrrany of majority" or the origins of the Iowa caucus or the NH primary. But I'm also not sure I disagree with what you're saying. I would add the founding fathers were also looking to find a way to deal with the logistical problems facing a national election in a country geographically spread out over so many miles with no modern means of communicating.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
No doubt, there are people whose views and needs are ignored right now. Like I said, no election system is perfect. But the number of people who are ignored - and the degree to which they are ignored - could be far greater were we to fall into the temptation of direct democracy. Our republic does a great deal to spread out influence and force compromise.
Some people are ignored and some are not. No doubt about it. Currently our system seems to spread the influence to those most able to spread wealth in the right direction. Would doing away with the EC solve this or create a larger deeper wound? I honestly don't know. I do find it odd that the one election we use this type of system is when we're electing the person those going to hold the highest attainable office. Every other time we use a one person, one vote system.

Bottom line is I read your statement:

"The electoral college is a different story, and actually increases the value of everyone's vote."


And thought it sounded impossible.

SecretMethod70 01-22-2008 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
But the EC doesn't insulate against candidates ignoring this state, that demographic or even a particular region. Heck the GOP currently has one candidate who's ignored, basically, every state but Florida so far. I don't think his strategy is going to work. But it could be argued he'd be less likely to even attempt this political chess move if it weren't for the EC. Could also pull out a bunch of graphs and stats and argue that the EC is the only reason he would try such a move.
Thing is, getting the nomination has nothing to do with the Electoral College, so that has no bearing on Giuliani's decision. The delegate system is similar, but not the same. Also, Giuliani is focusing on Florida as his starting point. He can't win the nomination with only Florida. What he can do, though, is not spend money in states he knows he'll lose and, instead, focus on the earliest state he can win in. After he probably wins in Florida, he'll have thrust himself even more onto the national stage than he already was, and his hope is that that win plus his already national recognition as "America's Mayor" will help him win big on Feb 5. He may be right, he may not be, but his strategy says nothing of the Electoral College or the delegate system for nominations. Once he theoretically wins the nomination, he'd end up campaigning nationally just like anyone else would.

Quote:
Not sure about the "tyrrany of majority" or the origins of the Iowa caucus or the NH primary. But I'm also not sure I disagree with what you're saying. I would add the founding fathers were also looking to find a way to deal with the logistical problems facing a national election in a country geographically spread out over so many miles with no modern means of communicating.
No doubt, the technology of their time was certainly different and added to the difficulties. Still, it is preventing factions and protecting individuals from the majority that Madison and others frequently referred to when debating what eventually became our consitution. Federalist #10 is particularly relevant.

Quote:
Some people are ignored and some are not. No doubt about it. Currently our system seems to spread the influence to those most able to spread wealth in the right direction. Would doing away with the EC solve this or create a larger deeper wound? I honestly don't know. I do find it odd that the one election we use this type of system is when we're electing the person those going to hold the highest attainable office. Every other time we use a one person, one vote system.
Well, first, it should be said that saying the Electoral College is not "one person, one vote" is misleading. Every one person gets one vote, it's just that what those votes do is determine who their state's electors go to. Also, there is no other national office that involves such a broad election as that of the president. Even senators, who have the next largest base of voters, are limited to campaigning in only one state.

The wealth issue is separate from the Electoral College issue and it is indeed a big problem. But changing or removing the Electoral College would, at best, do nothing to solve it. The reason money is important in elections isn't because of the Electoral College, it's because 1) there is a snowball effect: for every expensive campaign, all others need to become more expensive as well, and 2) campaigning must be done all over the US. There are lots of ideas to solve the money issue, such as 100% publicly financed campaigns, but those are a different subject (not to mention that the current opinion that money = speech prevents the government from limiting campaigns to a set public fund).

I've also been a bit negligent in this discussion, because I've failed to mention that while I don't see the Electoral College as a problem, I also don't think our voting system doesn't need changes. That's simply not the change I advocate. Rather than seeing the Electoral College as a problem in our voting, I believe it is the way we vote in and of itself that is the problem. Anyone who has heard the phrase "wasted vote" in regard to third party candidates, or anyone who is currently thinking about voting for Edwards in a primary election knows exactly what I mean. As voters in an American presidential election, we are given the option of voting for one person and one person only, but the fact is our views are typically far more complex than that. People are not single-minded: we don't advocate one candidate and dislike all the others equally. We have second choices, third choices, and so on. We need to be able to vote in a way which reflects those views. Conveniently enough, when the votes are tabulated properly, this method of voting also has the benefit of selecting the person who is preferred over all the other candidates in a head-to-head match. If we were to vote using a method that fulfilled the Condorcet Criterion, I think the electorate would generally be far more satisfied.

Sun Tzu 01-22-2008 10:37 PM
Ive asked this question before, but know one seemed to have an answer. I dont want to create an entire thread to ask it so this seemed the most optimal one. If Hillary is elected will she be known as Mrs. President, Ms. President, or Mr. President? Will Bill be the First man? If both are in the same room together will they be Mr. and Mrs. President?

SecretMethod70 01-22-2008 10:41 PM
Well, the most accurate answer is she'll be known as either the title she explicitly tells people to call her, or the one that sticks among the press. I think the most appropriate would probably be Ms. President. Bill would undoubtedly be called the First Man, though the idea of First Spouse seems the most appropriate, this way the title can be the same in the future regardless of sex. And, yes, I think the appropriate terminology to refer to both would be Mr. and Mrs. President.

pr0f3n 01-23-2008 02:29 AM
Obviously it is up to Clinton if she's elected, but wouldn't Mrs. President be more appropriate given her marital status, in terms of etiquette? And Bill the First Gentleman?

I've always been partial to First Laddy :D

Tully Mars 01-23-2008 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Thing is, getting the nomination has nothing to do with the Electoral College, so that has no bearing on Giuliani's decision. The delegate system is similar, but not the same. Also, Giuliani is focusing on Florida as his starting point. He can't win the nomination with only Florida. What he can do, though, is not spend money in states he knows he'll lose and, instead, focus on the earliest state he can win in. After he probably wins in Florida, he'll have thrust himself even more onto the national stage than he already was, and his hope is that that win plus his already national recognition as "America's Mayor" will help him win big on Feb 5. He may be right, he may not be, but his strategy says nothing of the Electoral College or the delegate system for nominations. Once he theoretically wins the nomination, he'd end up campaigning nationally just like anyone else would.

I don't believe any candidate or and campaign, what ever stage of the game their in, doesn't look at the big picture or the big prize. Individuals looking to become POTUS are faced with two major hurdles. One, get a major party nomination and second, win 270 EC votes. To think that Rudy's decision and strategy had nothing to do with the end game is highly unlikely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
No doubt, the technology of their time was certainly different and added to the difficulties. Still, it is preventing factions and protecting individuals from the majority that Madison and others frequently referred to when debating what eventually became our consitution. Federalist #10 is particularly relevant.
Agreed, I don't think the communications and logistical issues were the primary origins of the EC. Merely a small factor. I should have stated that more clearly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Well, first, it should be said that saying the Electoral College is not "one person, one vote" is misleading. Every one person gets one vote, it's just that what those votes do is determine who their state's electors go to. Also, there is no other national office that involves such a broad election as that of the president. Even senators, who have the next largest base of voters, are limited to campaigning in only one state.
I'd completely agree with you if the EC members were, by law, obliged to cast their vote according to the out come of their states. They're not and on occasion have changed their votes to become to what's known as faithless electors. I think the most notable occurrence of this happened in the 1830's when something like 20 EC members from Virginia changed their votes. As long as your vote goes to someone else who can vote anyway they wish I don't believe the system amounts to one person, one vote.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
The wealth issue is separate from the Electoral College issue and it is indeed a big problem. But changing or removing the Electoral College would, at best, do nothing to solve it. The reason money is important in elections isn't because of the Electoral College, it's because 1) there is a snowball effect: for every expensive campaign, all others need to become more expensive as well, and 2) campaigning must be done all over the US. There are lots of ideas to solve the money issue, such as 100% publicly financed campaigns, but those are a different subject (not to mention that the current opinion that money = speech prevents the government from limiting campaigns to a set public fund).
Personally I feel the more we mess with the current system the more likely we end up with something that looks like the tax code. I think there are significant problems with our current system. Any "fix" that could get through the "system" might well be completely insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
I've also been a bit negligent in this discussion, because I've failed to mention that while I don't see the Electoral College as a problem, I also don't think our voting system doesn't need changes. That's simply not the change I advocate. Rather than seeing the Electoral College as a problem in our voting, I believe it is the way we vote in and of itself that is the problem. Anyone who has heard the phrase "wasted vote" in regard to third party candidates, or anyone who is currently thinking about voting for Edwards in a primary election knows exactly what I mean. As voters in an American presidential election, we are given the option of voting for one person and one person only, but the fact is our views are typically far more complex than that. People are not single-minded: we don't advocate one candidate and dislike all the others equally. We have second choices, third choices, and so on. We need to be able to vote in a way which reflects those views. Conveniently enough, when the votes are tabulated properly, this method of voting also has the benefit of selecting the person who is preferred over all the other candidates in a head-to-head match. If we were to vote using a method that fulfilled the Condorcet Criterion, I think the electorate would generally be far more satisfied.

I agree with several of your points. Considering this thread started as a Clinton thread we're probably both a bit negligent in this discussion.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360