Let's talk numbers and facts...

[mac2]

Let's talk numbers and facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008#Exit_Poll_Information

Michigan exit poll. Hillary wins here too. Hillary beat Obama by 100,000 votes.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml

Hillary beat Obama by 300,000 votes in Florida why shouldn't they protest their vote being negated?

Why wouldn't Hillary and those voters be upset in FL and MI? Seems like a reason to steal the election for Obama in the end.

Here in Illinois they didn't campaign much either so I can't see that would have meant much in the end.

Obama won some Conservatives states where McCain will beat him in the GE. He has failed to win the large, liberal Democratic states.

A primary win for Obama may meant a defeat in November especially if Democrats feel their vote has been disenfranchised once again.

The democratic process of counting every vote is of concern to me. I'm not thrilled over either Democratic candidate right now.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. Can we count the caucus votes too? Or did you want to negate their voices?

[mac2]

4. They can have their voices but votes count in a primary

regardless of the source.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Oh, so that's why delegate count determines the winner and not popular vote.

that makes sense ;)

[Bensthename]

2. A title like that isnt going to attract any Hillary supporters..

......

[mac2]

5. I really don't care.

[FrenchieCat]

3. So I was looking this guy up.....

and I think that he is really, really sexy!

[mac2]

7. Don't see it.

[DevonRex]

8. Yes. I agree totally. And if you happen to have any more

where those came from, feel free to share. :)

[mac2]

9. Is this a beauty contest?

Is the other guy running for public office?

[rug]

12. It's just another lame tactic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6176317

[CreekDog]

29. it's a commentary

it's not as if any logical response will do any good.

[rug]

10. Won't change the OP's point.

Nice try, tho.

[texas_indy]

19. I really like the Lion tattoo! Good work................ nt

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. Oh, geeze -- now I'm going to have to hear how the Florida Dems cooperated with the GOP, again

According to the DNC, only they have the wisdom to decide when states vote. States apparently can't set their own election dates, even though they have to spend the money to count the votes and certify the elections (I guess NH and IA would get upset).

Bottom line: we've screwed Florida, and they will probably go into the McSame column as a result. The DNC should have just let them vote whenever the Hell they wanted and sent all of the candidates to campaign. They didn't. If we lose the GE, this will (rightly or wrongly) be cited as a key factor. If we win, it will become an historical curiosity.

[mac2]

11. States control elections and the primary date.

The legislative body which were controlled by Republicans set a date which even violated their primary date. Why was that except to interfer in our primary and outcome? DA!!!

[OmahaBlueDog]

15. You're preaching to the converted, Mac2

Unfortunately, some other posters (who regularly beat this topic to death) disagree.

[verges]

31. So why didn't

Sen Clinton complain BEFORE the primary? Wasn't it unfair then as well? If there were questions, why was the pledge signed? Seriously. I would really like to hear coherent answer to these questions.

Can you post a link to Sen Clinton expressing concern beforehand?

[OmahaBlueDog]

32. OK -- you and I are talking cross purposes

From my perspective, this isn't aboout Hillary v. Obama. I'm a former Floridian, and I am not a fan of the current system that allows New Hampshire and Iowa to perpetually set the tone for the election. I would feel the same way if Obama, Edwards, Biden, or Richardson had won.

1) A GOP controlled legislature made a decision to move an election date; to me, whether the state Dems went along is irrelevant -- the GOP was moving the date with or without us.

2) The DNC decided that states should not be allowed to move up -- except four states they approved. This, in my mind was way over the top for the DNC, the RNC, or anyone else. If the DNC wants to pay to hold the primaries (which means providing machines, renting space, and counting ballots) or pay for the cheaper option of holding caucuses, then they can decide when the election is held. If the state is paying, the date of the election is a matter of state law. Period. End of sentence.

[verges]

33. I agree. It's not about Clinton v. Obama.

It's about following agreed upon rules.

The representative legislature knew they were breaking the rules. If that's not the kind of leadership FL wants, vote the bums out. That's the way representative government is supposed to work.

Did you notice the mad grab to move the primaries forward this cycle? Because of it, this primary cycle has lasted waaay too long. The DNC was trying to curb this. A line was drawn. Without that line, primaries for 2012 could end up starting next June! And FL knowingly crossed that line.

So fix the problem so it won't happen again. The MI/FL elections as held weren't fair.

[OmahaBlueDog]

36. States don't agree to rules with parties

Why should they? The party officials aren't elected. The party officials don't pay for the voting process. And the GOP legislators sure as Hell doesn't care what DNC rules are.

I did notice the mad grab. States want to go earlier, go first, go ahead of NH and IA. I get that. I support that. Instead of embracing it, the DNC opted to stand in the way, and now they're shocked there's a mess. The Florida and Michigan elections would have been perfectly fair had the DNC done the smart thing and told all the candidates to go campaign.

We have a fair shot at keeping MI in the GE. I think you can pretty much kiss Florida good bye. I hope I'm wrong.

[Oregone]

13. A primary without campaigning is a referendum on name recognition.

Which Clinton always wins.

This gave her a huge advantage on super tuesday (which she didn't fully utilize). Once name recognition resides, such as in California (after the fact), the numbers change a bit.

So you want to count an invalid referendum on name recognition which violated party rules as a true measure of the will of the people?

[mac2]

22. Obama has not been in the closet so why blame the fact

that he is not known? He has been the darling of the media period. The Chicago Tribune has given more attention to him than any I can remember in the past. CT own the big TV and radio stations in town plus the LA news. He's known believe me.

[Oregone]

25. In that case, why have campaigning at all?

Lets just put everyone's names on a ballot immediately, send it to everyone in the country on the same day, and BAM!, its done, best candidate chosen each time.

Does that sound like a good plan for the Democratic Party?


Of course hes known...yeah, they all heard about a black man running for POTUS. But they probably never had a chance to hear from his own lips why, and what he believes in. Campaigning is an integral part of this democracy, and ANY democracy. Otherwise, it is a referendum on name recognition (which can lead to extremely scary scenarios, such as state/corporate sponsored candidates that are virtual incumbants).

[Oregone]

27. More thoughts on not campaigning: I could have changed my name to Al Gore and won the damn thing...

:)

Yes, I bet even little old me would of killed Hillary in that election if I thought of that. Being that its a pointless invalid primary, its not important anyway.

I'm not sure why you are thinking campaigning isn't necessary to a fair and valid primary. Without the ability to campaign, it is not particularly hard to manipulate an election for one's benefits (if some entity had the resources).

If you really look at this whole debacle, you have to understand its no more valid than an online poll, just more expensive. Maybe we should give AOL some delegates, because we surely do not want to invalidate their voters, who vote in their polls.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

35. Nobody knew him until 2004.

Everyone has known Hillary since 1992.

[grannylib]

14. I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight with you, or anyone else, but

I would like to respond to a couple of your questions or statements.
1) Senator Clinton was on the ballot in Michigan; Obama acceded to the Democratic Party's request and had his name removed from the ballot. Of course Senator Clinton "won" in Michigan; she did not remove her name from the ballot.
2) Senator Clinton publicly acknowledged, PRIOR to the votes in Florida and Michigan, that those contests would not count, since the states had knowingly violated party rules, and had known the consequences of those violations. It was not until after Senator Clinton fell behind in the race and needed those votes to attempt to regain lost ground that she became concerned about those votes being counted. Members of her campaign serve on the rules committee and agreed to those rules.
3) Obama may have failed to win the "big states" in the primaries; that is not the same as running against McSame Old, Same Older in the general election. Yes, he may lose some of those states if those who currently support Senator Clinton MAKE him "unelectable" by either staying home or voting for Granddad. But if those are considered "blue" states, why wouldn't they stay blue, unless people are refusing to vote for Senator Obama, whether it's because of race or childishness or whatever? And if it's the issues, I have a hard time believing that someone who supports Senator Clinton and her stance on the issues would have more in common with McSame than with Senator Obama, so the threatened "crossover" vote, to me, smacks of pure "I didn't get my way so I'm taking my toys to the other sandbox" mentality.
4) A primary win for Senator Clinton might also mean a defeat in November; don't you think there are Obama supporters who would feel disenfranchised if Senator Clinton manages to finagle this nomination?

[GoesTo11]

38. Damn you and your logic, Spock.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. okay.....

Based on the caucus results in the above states, Barack Obama gained 295 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 158, a net advantage of 137 pledged delegates. Reallocating delegates based on the primary results or an interpolation based on the WA-TX-NE-ID data, Barack Obama would have won 233 to Hillary Clinton's 219, a net advantage of 14.

The use of low-turnout caucuses rather than higher-participation primaries is directly responsible for a net margin of 123 pledged delegates in Barack Obama's favor.


Hello superdelegates! Any of you paying attention to all the evidence?

Bill Clinton also said winning the popular vote “will prove she’s the popular choice of the Democrats,” despite ending with less delegates than Obama, the former president said in an impromptu press conference on the streets of Old San Juan. “And the party will have to decide whether they believe the caucuses -- where you get about one delegate for 2000 votes -- are more important than the primaries where you get one for 12,000,” he said. “And that this really astonishing race, where both have run amazing campaigns, they’re gonna have to decide how to resolve this.

[newmajority]

18. Yeah, let's talk facts......

If you have no profile, agree 100% with the racist Lou Dobbs, and refer to the nominee of the Democratic party as a "globalist fascist brownshirt, what does that make you?


"Houston, this is RimJob 1, preparing for takeoff......"

[LiberalAndProud]

20. could it be

Rush?

[newmajority]

26. Well..... Rush IS one of Hillary's biggest fans these days

Must be a good batch of Oxycontin if he's actually posting at DU.

[Honeycombe8]

21. You don't know that Wikepedia isn't a valid news source? That READERS can edit it? Duh.....

Second...exit polls said that Kerry won in 2004. Exit polls can be useful for certain things. But they can't be relied upon to show who won.

Third....MI & FL were name recognition primaries. Clinton was the most famous person on the ballot (the most famous woman in the country, actually, if not the world). The unknown candidates MUST rely on campaigning to get votes.

This is why MI & FL cannot count as totally valid primaries. It's grossly unfair to the lesser known candidates, since they are at an extreme disadvantage in any such primary.

But you know that. And obviously don't care.

[Sparkly]

23. Just a few thoughts

First, democracy is messy. What happened with Florida and Michigan is unfortunate, but no one anticipated the race would be so close that they might change it. But it happened, and I don't think that bell can be unrung. What can be done, hopefully, is to enfranchise their delegates to the extent that most of Clinton's voters, and Democrats in those states as a whole, feel the process was fair and respectful. We need them in November.

The election results can't count as they were, though, nor can exit polls, nor can current polling. All that can count is a certified election and votes of the delegation -- and it's just too late for that. Without that, there's no certainty that a contested election -- timed to the DNC's schedule -- would have resulted in a win for Clinton.

Although Clinton's voters may see this as unfair, so too would Obama's voters see it as unfair if Florida and Michigan tipped the balance away from him. The only thing to stand on is the rules as they are.

Finally, primary results don't predict general election results. Winning in "red states" doesn't mean those states will go Democratic in November, and conversely, losing in "blue states" doesn't mean those states will go Republican in November. Hopefully, the party will get together and Clinton's voters will vote for Obama in all states. That's the key, and the challenge.

[Honeycombe8]

24. Is Greenpapers a regularly cited valid news source? I've never heard of it.

When you come to the "numbers and facts" table, it's usually best to have substantiated, valid numbers and facts.

Like...
Obama has won far more states than Clinton
Obama has won states in the west, northwest, mid-America, northeast, southeast, south, and split TX for the southwest.
Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton
Obama has more superdelegates than Clinton
Obama has more popular votes than Clinton (yes, this is true)

It would be great if your candidate had won. I know it's disappointing. I supported Wes Clark in 2004. But when it's over, it's over.

[OhioBlue]

28. nice try terry. n/t

[anonymous171]

30. Shouldn't you be railing against illegals right now? Or plotting against the globalist Obama?

[lojasmo]

34. How about this?

Obama has won more pledged delegates, and earned more unpledged delegates.

[Why Syzygy]

37. You're not thrilled over either Democratic candidate right now?

I've been reading a lot of your posts.

Today you seem to be pushing Clinton.
Or are you still just bad mouthing Obama ...

because you're "not thrilled over either Democratic candidate?"

If your divisive posts are not to help Clinton, then what are they meant to achieve?