| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Clinton 'Confident' After Keystone Win | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 23 2008, 10:32 AM (250 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Apr 23 2008, 10:32 AM Post #1 |
|
Time to put something here
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 23 2008, 10:33 AM Post #2 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Obama gave a much better lossers speach then Clinton's victory speach. Now if only I could beleave what Obama says. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 23 2008, 11:49 AM Post #3 |
|
Admiral
|
Sounds fair to count votes in a state where you opponent wasnt even on the ballot paper. :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | Apr 23 2008, 12:15 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
I think I'm missing something from this Clinton quote? If they voted for her, why wouldn't she get them...?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 23 2008, 12:26 PM Post #5 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Maybe she it pointing out the fact that Obama has had a strong showing in Caucus States as compared to her. There for Obama has more delegates who represent people who did not actually vote for him and so the flip side, Clinton has more delegates then Obama that represent people who actually voted. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | Apr 23 2008, 12:30 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
I see. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 23 2008, 12:39 PM Post #7 |
|
Admiral
|
Maybe I'm wrong but this seems like Clinton trying to change the rules of the game during play. I doubt she would be complaining about these States where their contests wont count or trying to play down the importance of caucus based contests if she was benefiting from the way the rules stand. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM Post #8 |
|
Time to put something here
|
In Michigan Obama suporters where asked to "Vote Uncomited".
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 23 2008, 01:18 PM Post #9 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Of course that is true, she is fitting to get any thing she can and is even trying to change the rules after the fact. But on the other hand she has some good points; First Florida and Michigan would have helped her, they are states more closely aligned with her demographic voter base. She would have most likely picked up the majority of the delegates from both those states even if Obama was on the ballet in Michigan and they where allowed to campaign in both states. Not to mention (because it is not quantifiable) the unrealized effect of momentum Clinton would have had if she where given the proper delegates she would have won in Michigan and Florida. The Florida and Michigan issue is even more complicated, because can it really be said that she is trying to brake the rules or is she standing up for what's right (even though what's right helps her out). By all reasoning the people of Florida and Michigan should not be punished for what their dopy party leaders are doing and they have no say in. There voices should be heard and they should be counted. And if they are it and somehow they could go back and do it all right, Clinton would benefit hugely from it. She might even be in the top spot now not the losing spot. Caucuses are just another wrinkle with the same result. The will of the people in a state is not properly measured with a Caucus. What is measured is the ability of a candidate to energize their base. There is no doubt that Obama has the more energized base (which is why he did well in the Caucuses) but does that really mean he as a mandate from those states to be the parties nominee? It could actually mean that Clinton supports just did not have the time or energy to go and participate in a confusing Caucus; with Clinton supports being the elderly, woman (and so moms), and union lower class workers you can see why she would show poorly at a Caucus as these people are less likely to participate because they don’t have the time or energy. However with Obama locking up the college aged kids and upper income people, you can see that these people have the time and energy to spend at a Caucus and so why he did well. But it seems that the Caucus system has a certain way of disenfranchising a lot of voters (which by the way is the reason they where adopted) If the party is truly worried about the will of the people, Clinton should be in a much better position then she is now. So when she makes the claim that she is the more electable candidate she isn't coming completely out of left field, it may very well be true. That might mean the Party should follow the will of the people and give her the win as she wants them too. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 23 2008, 02:31 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Your making the assumption that she would have done well in those states or done better had the caucuses been regular votes. That may well be true but its a hypothetical that isnt provable one way or another. My opinion is that you set the rules before the contest begins and then once you start you stick to them. You don't change part way through, particularly when you can be accused of pushing for changes to your own advantage. To me the whole process of holding contests over such a long period and with different systems in place doesnt strike me as particularly democratic or efficient. Perhaps Clinton should have been making the case for reform a few years ago rather than right at the end of the nominations campaign? Perhaps she was I dont know. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 23 2008, 02:56 PM Post #11 |
|
Time to put something here
|
It is not necessarily true that its simply hypothesis that can't be proven; statistics are taken during these events a million different ways, and while of course you can never be 100% sure what the outcome would have been had a vote been taken correctly from the start in Florida or Michigan, you can make educated guesses and reasonable assumptions. And that leads to the next point bellow.
"If" (I have no idea my self) it is reasonable to assume that Clinton would be the front runner at this point in time if the peoples will was correctly measured during the process; then the Democratic party has a way to both stick to the rules and carry out the will of the party members at the same time. They can do this with the Supper Delegates; both Obama and Clinton will need the majority of the Supper Delegates where they to win the election, that means the Supper Delegates can sway the party vote. "If" it is reasonable to assume that Clinton has the majority support of the parties members (taking into account the electoral system that divides support power by state) then it is reasonable to expect that the Supper Delegates give her the nomination. In this way they need not change the rules about Florida, Michigan and Caucuses and still the parties majority support is exercised. Clinton is hoping to persuade the Supper Delegates that it is reasonable to assume she would other wise be the winning party if the collective will of the parties members where countered with out undo-hindrances where in the way; and that because of this that they should give her their support even if Obama has the most delegates going into the convention. What would happen then, where she to get her way, would be that they would count Florida and Michigan in a symbolic gesture. Followed by the party fracturing doe to people not agreeing with the sway imposed by the Supper Delegates. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



9:31 AM Jul 11