One Million new democrats...The SD's know who's been bringing home the gravy...

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

Although hard to prove, I don't think it's a stretch to make the argument that Barack is repsonsible for most of this. My guess is if Barack doesn't get the nod, especially if he leads in delegates and popular vote, you can watch those new and future Dems vanish into the night.

[onehandle]

1. Not Gravel?

Are you sure?

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

2. Oh Boo Boo

[BlueIdaho]

3. Obama not only helps register new Democrats

They also contribute to his campaign - hows that part workin' out for old Hil?

[Bucky]

4. I know how to make gravy disappear...

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

5. A whole mess of mashed potatoes...

;)

[BlueIdaho]

8. Dan Quayle - is that you? nt.

[Bucky]

9. Pfff, the only thing Quayle made disappear was his own career prospects

[BenDavid]

6. that may be true, but if the rookie cannot close the deal then

what good is it doing him? also, ever notice how the media gets all excited in a state where there is an uptick in new registered dem voters? They all begin pulling for obama, and then bam, HRC wins...i e ohio, texas, calif. pa. mass. n.j. florida and others.....

[Hawkeye-X]

10. Uh-huh.. you got two wrong here, Ben...

Texas was captured by Obama - delegates count, and Obama got 99 of them - Clinton 96. Delegate math counts.

And Florida doesn't count - yet. Wait until May 31st when the rules committee meets.

Hawkeye-X

[WeDidIt]

12. Counting Florida is bogus n/t

[DrDan]

14. so you are willing to ignore several million D votes?

you sure you didn't make a wrong turn as you were headed over to freeperville?

[WeDidIt]

22. I willing to ignore what they held in Florida

BEauty contests are worthless and that's what was held in Florida.

The results have no basis in reality. It's as bad as a CNN online poll. Useless. Completely useless.

[DrDan]

24. as I said - you are apparently willing to ignore 2 million D voters

and the results certainly do have a basis in reality. Are you suggesting those 2 million voters did not take their vote seriously? Give me a greak. Your condescending attitude is indicative of the elitist attitude that exists in the party this year - and one that could cost the D's the GE.

[WeDidIt]

25. No, there is no basis in reality

It was announced and well known the primary would not count., so the results were skewed and are untrustworthy because of that fact.

The results of the Florida and Michigan primaries were worthless and seating delegates based upon the outcome is nothing short of cheating.

[DrDan]

26. wanna bet on whether or not they are seated?

Dean would be a fool to not seat the delegates.

[WeDidIt]

28. Dean has absolutely no say in this

It's up to first the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

It is then up to the Credentials Committee.

They will nto be seated so long as they can alter the outcome of the race. That is clear.

[DrDan]

30. I think there is no way they will not be seated

that would just piss-off the voters of MICH and FL even more. And hte D's cannot afford that.

[WeDidIt]

31. The outcome would be far worse

if they were seated and altered the outcome of the race.

There is no way that will happen because doing so would destroy the Democratic Party forever.

It is better to not seat them and piss off two states than seat them and destroy the party.

Not seating them is the lesser of the evils.

If Hillary Clinton dropped out, the point would eb moot and they would be seated.

[DrDan]

32. guess that would also be true if Barack dropped out . . .

I am not a Hillary supporter so care not either way.

And I think for you to cast aside 2 very large states is myoptic. Perhaps your need to "follow the rules" is strong - but I think the need to represent all 50 states is more important. The party now recognizes Guam, Puerto Rico, 800 Superdelegates but not the millions of regular voters from Fl and Mich who had nothing to do with this crazy rule - except to be disenfranchised. I doubt if more than a handful between both states could care less when the primary was held - only that their votes be counted. And for Dean and the DNC to ignore that is to speed up the destruction of the party.

[WeDidIt]

33. Yes, it would, technically

but Obama is winning and will mathematically have won it on May 20.

Altering the fact after he wins destroys the party.

[DrDan]

34. I am not against Obama winning

I think our candidate should reflect the will of our party members. I think superdelegates, PR and Guam take away from that. I realize they are a included in the charter, but I think these distract from what the party members want. It adds to an elist-view of our party.

Then to disenfranchise millions of voters simply because of a power-grab by both the DNC and the state leaders also adds to that view - imo. All of a sudden the SDs and the party leaders are deciding the candidate not by listening to the party members, but to support their own agendas.

[DrDan]

27. btw - there were nearly 2 1/2 times more D's voting in 2008 than 2004

don't you think that is a pretty good sample of the voting preferences?

Of course, I can understand an Obama-supporter wanting to neglect the results. Please note that I say this not being a Hillary-supporter.

[NJSecularist]

7. It is impossible to prove which candidate has been bringing more voters into the party.

It's most likely 50/50.

[BlueIdaho]

11. Wrong

Both candidates run voter registration drives. Should be easy enough to check.

[NJSecularist]

13. Well then check them out and then report back to us.

Until then, it's a baseless assumption to assume that Obama has brought more voters to the Democratic party this primary.

[onenote]

15. not baseless: 59/39 (20 point swing) in PA

http://kdka.com/politics/campaign08/pennsylvania.primary.results.2.706326.html?detectflash=false

New Voters

Part of Obama's ability to close the large lead Clinton initially had in Pennsylvania was a concerted voter registration effort - one which paid off for him. Among today's Pennsylvania Democratic voters 14 percent reported that they had newly registered as Democrats. Among these new Democratic voters Obama bested Clinton by 20 points - 59 percent to 39 percent.

[annie1]

20. doesn't mean that they switched just to vote for him. it means that's who they chose.

[BlueIdaho]

18. No

Its a baseless assumption to assume Hillary has brought in as many new Democrats as Obama.

Do your own homework sport.

[annie1]

19. i think it's generally 60/40 voting Bo vs. Hil but that doesn't mean that's who brought them....

so i agree. some people could just be over being pubs and then chose btwn the 2, or some people may have switched just so they could vote for 1 of those 2 specifically.

[mmonk]

23. Incorrect.

[BlooInBloo]

16. It's obviously Clinton.

:rofl:

[uponit7771]

17. AND THAT'S JUST IN THE LAST 7 PRIMARYS!!! ..................W00T!!

[Coexist]

21. ..

[graycem]

29. Lobby the Supers in your State

Remind them of the financial impact he's going to have on the DNC and the DCCC.

https://www.lobbydelegates.com/default.aspx