There is no way that Hillary can cheat her way to the nomination

[cali]

Let's put that to rest. If the SDs go for Hillary when Obama has more pledged delegates and the popular vote, that's not cheating. You may deplore it and I may deplore it but the SDs are not bound by anything. They can vote how they see fit. If the delegates from Florida and Michigan get seated as is through a decision by the credential committee of the DNC, I'll think it monstrously unfair, but it's not cheating. When Hillary says that she and John McCain have the experience to be President but Obama doesn't, it's disgusting but it's not cheating.

Life isn't fucking fair. I can curse deaf heaven about that, but it won't change a damned thing. Obama needs to keep winning and amassing delegates and widening the gap between him and Clinton. In any case, the likelihood of the SDs handing the nomination to Clinton, short of a spectacular implosion on the part of Obama is slim to none.

[antigop]

1. Thank you-- you have just pointed out how ridiculous the nomination process really is

Democrats get to vote, but their vote doesn't necessarily count. The delegates can do whatever they want.

[cali]

2. Yes, it's a bad, bad system

but we're stuck with it this go around, and however they vote, it won't be cheating.

[antigop]

4. And I'm trying to draw attention to all of the flaws -- so people are aware

and the problems can be fixed.

First point of business-- get rid of the caucuses.

[Smelting Pot]

10. Why is this the year to suddenly "get rid of caucuses"?

There is no reason to completely throw out caucuses. Why not simply make sure there are provisions for absentee ballots? Wouldn't that be a much easier and less financially burdensome solution? Most of the caucus states are the smaller ones that may not have the budget for primaries. Why burden them with your seemingly arbitrary judgement that caucuses are so flawed they should throw them out?

Right now is a good time to work towards sensible, practical fixes for the "flaws" in the system. You will further divide our party if you keep denigrating a system that many voters have known their entire lives. Please think carefully before lobbying for such a "solution."

[skater314159]

38. Because Hilly loses in caucuses. Consistently. nt

[antigop]

40. Yes, caucuses should be thrown out. Absolutely -- they are NOT democratic and deeply flawed

Just because "this is the way it has been for some time" is absolutely no excuse.

"Many voters have known their entire lives" that lobbyists exist, too. At what time people knew their entire lives that women couldn't vote and slavery was legal. That doesn't make it right.

Now is the time to show exactly what a farce and the caucuses really are and how they benefit the party, not the people.

Why does the DEMOCRATIC PARTY not believe in a DEMOCRATIC process?

[cali]

43. I disagree. I think caucuses, like town meeting are a splendid

exercise in pure democracy. And as long as absentee ballots are factored in, I don't see why anyone should object.

[antigop]

45. because the delegates can vote for whomever they want. NOT DEMOCRATIC n/t

[Smelting Pot]

54. Technically, so can the delegates at the National Convention.

Look, I get it. You have a problem with caucuses. However, that does not mean the caucus form itself is "NOT DEMOCRATIC." If you are so concerned with democracy, get involved. Petition for changes. It might do you some good to see it from someone else's viewpoint, which is what is allowed and encouraged during an "undemocratic" caucus.

[antigop]

58. Yes, the caucus form itself is NOT DEMOCRATIC. It is not up to the voters. It is up to the

delegates. And how many people even are aware how to audit how those delegates vote?

The first step to fix any problem is awareness. And that is what I am spending my time doing -- making people AWARE.

Stick with a primary and the popular vote wins -- THAT'S DEMOCRATIC.

[antigop]

46. also, how many people actually know how to audit whether their delegates from their precinct

actually voted the way they were supposed to?

[antigop]

41. and for the record, I AM NOT a Hillary supporter. Never have been. Check my previous posts. n/t

[Smelting Pot]

49. I never accused you of being one. Read my post again. nt

[antigop]

53. I didn't accuse you. I was just stating something for the record. n/t

[Smelting Pot]

55. Good to know. nt

[joshcryer]

19. One thing that is important is that seating MI and FL will have little effect on the outcome.

The superdelegates are deciding, and the split is too close to allow MI and FL to actually change the overall outcome. If Obama doesn't allow them to be seated, it'll look very bad, so they will have to be seated one way or another. A million people can't just be thrown out, politically speaking. And Dean knows this.

Personally I think if Obama allows them to be seated and still has the PV and PD lead he will still win it.

[skater314159]

36. But hopefully this election cycle will be the impetus for changes!

It would be great if our party learns and grows from this whole experience!

I think all of this argument and tsurus can help us in the long run to make real changes and make a better future for the country and the Democratic party - if we let it and learn from it.

[antigop]

42. That's the problem, skater. The power brokers in the party DON'T WANT IT TO CHANGE.

The caucuses benefit the party and the power brokers in the party.

You think they want that to change? Nope.

[skater314159]

57. Time for a Revolution then.

We need change, and there are more of us than there are of them.

It's time for a Velvet Revolution in the DNC!!!

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!!

[monmouth]

3. If that should happen, I would hazard a guess that African-Americans

will leave the Democratic Party forever. If the people want Obama, they should have him as POTUS. Your outlook is sane and correct..

[cali]

5. I agree that it would almost certainly be political suicide if

the SDs chose Clinton over Obama under the circumstances I mentioned. I don't believe it will happen. I'm just sick of people saying that the SDs must do this or that, and I'm sick of the word cheating being erroneously applied.

[skater314159]

39. Yeah...

... because the Democratic Party already takes Blacks and Minorities for granted... it's a "where else you gonna go?!?!" attitude, and it sickens me.

It's time for Blacks and Minorities to have a real voice in this Party and this Country, instead of being the convinent Uncle Toms many leaders of the DNC see us as.

[bhikkhu]

52. Or, more accurate demographically, anyone under 40 could bail out

Which is the nightmare scenario having more to do with the "youth" vote, or the "new democrat" vote, than race.

[monmouth]

62. You're right on that also..n/t

[Uben]

6. How do you cheat?

[lapfog_1]

7. Will you think the same thing

when you find out that many SDs were blackmailed or bribed into voting for Hillary?

Of course, this will be after the fact and nobody will care... sort of like Florida in 2000.

No, it's not cheating for the SDs to do whatever they want. They can even nominate a non-Democrat.

And it won't be cheating when the Obama supporters sit on their hands this fall, should the SDs overturn the will of the people.

[Unsane]

13. *crickets

you bring up a good point

[cali]

29. Show me the evidence. Until then, it's just tinfoil foolery

In any case, I believe that Obama will be the nominee.

[lapfog_1]

50. I don't have the posts at hand, but there was a poster

here in GDP that said that a friend, a pledged delegate for Obama, had already been courted by the Hillary campaign and it was mentioned in passing that a job with the federal government was talked about.

All hearsay.

As a former contracting officer for the federal government, I informed the poster that any such conversation, even related to him second hand, needed to be reported to the FBI. It is a federal offense to offer contracts or federal employment in exchange for anything of value (such as a vote). They get real serious about this.

Now, again, that's all hearsay... and the poster never replied to me... he could have been making stuff up. OTOH, it probably should be investigated, no?

I've heard repeated rumors, from the Clinton campaign in the form of statements by campaign workers, that the pledged delegates are up for grabs as well.

And... more to the point, all I said was "Will it be cheating IF you find out that bribes were offered?" and "If it were to be proved after the convention, what could be done about it?"

[skater314159]

44. I'm sure as hell not gonna "sit on my hands"

I'm gonna be on both my feet, in the fucking streets, protesting.

If I have to drive to CO to do it, I will... and if that means I have to eat Ramen for two weeks just to afford the gas it takes to get there, I will... and I will fucking carpool too!

You are severly delusional if you think Obama supporters are as lacksadasical (sp?) and apathetic as the Clinton-supporters I have seen at caucuses...

We are young, we are vocal, and we are an active force for change. Get used to it!

[lapfog_1]

61. Ok... the sit on our hands remark

is euphemism for "not voting" in the GE. As in not voting for Hillary. I expect Obama supporters, along with all good democrats, to vote democratic for the other races. I will not vote for Mr. McCain.

As for protests and the like, sure... I'm not doing much. If anyone has a camper and wants to go to Denver to protest, I can come along and split the gas costs. I did my fair share of protesting in the sixties. And I've been to a number of protests on the Iraq war since 2002. I may be old, but I'm still young enough to march!

[skater314159]

64. OK, we're cool then!

:hippie:

Sorry I misunderstood ya!

[joshcryer]

8. Agreed, Dean wouldn't allow anything but a fair outcome.

He knows he needs the other half of the party.

[dansolo]

9. I agree with you, with one exception

The MI primary was completely screwed up. If they are seated without a revote, or by not giving Obama the current Uncommitted delegates as pledged delegates, I would consider it illegitimate. The FL primary was unfair, but I suspect that they will be seated in one way or the other, since all names were on the ballot. As is, Clinton nets around 40 delegates from FL. That gives Clinton a net gain of about 60 delegates between the two states (ignoring their superdelegates, who shouldn't be allowed to vote in any case). Even if they are seated, she still won't be able to catch up to him with pledged delegates, as I don't see her gaining any ground the rest of the way.

[Pirate Smile]

11. I'm ok with redoing MI but just letting the FL result get seated as is

although they probably need to have some penalty to try to keep dumb-ass states from doing this next time.

[DB1]

14. The penalty is no campaign money spent in Florida. But how

do you penalize MI if you allow a do over?

[Pirate Smile]

56. Good question. I'm sure they could do something - halve the delegates. How about they get 0

superdelegates? I think they should refuse to give both states any superdelegates since they were the ones who are really to blame for a lot of the mess.

Michigan can't be seated like FL unless you just give Obama all the uncommitted.

[dansolo]

18. I'd like to see their delegation halved, and the superdelegates not seated

The DNC rules and bylaws allow for this penalty.

[Pirate Smile]

60. Sounds good to me.

[UALRBSofL]

12. Who says he will win the popular vote??

Don't let your crystal ball confuse you with the real facts.

[dchill]

15. "If the SDs go for Hillary ...

when Obama has more pledged delegates..." - then the Democratic Convention may end badly. Again. Will superdelegates risk that? Probably not. I'm not disagreeing with your post, just betting against the supers going against the elected delegates.

[Joe the Revelator]

16. Cali wants just do darn badly to have someone from Hillary's side call her "The Voice of Reason".

[rodeodance]

20. YOur post is DIVISIVE---shame on you when a MATURE obamafan is the voice of reason!

[cali]

22. I could give a shit about that.

I respect individual posters, not generic supporters of either candidate. Another vapid and flawed comment from someone with a shitload of them. Oh, and I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

[City Lights]

17. It should be pointed out that your argument works both ways too.

I have seen HRC supporters claim that, despite Obama being ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, if he wins because the SDs move his way, he's stealing it. :hi:

[cali]

24. Absolutely. And to be clear, I think his lead in delegates and the

popular vote, should and will be the deciding factors. I don't think the SDs are politically suicidal.

[City Lights]

34. Agreed. eom

[mtnsnake]

21. Why on earth would she want to cheat? Did some mindless fool actually imply she would?

[AtomicKitten]

23. Sure she can, and is.

Limbaugh and Laura Ingram (sp?) announced their plan on Faux News to continue promoting Republicans voting for Hillary to keep the race going so she can keep bloodying up Barack for the GE. They want to run against her, but they are thrilled with the race/fear baiting she is doing, don't think McCain would let them get away with it, so they are more than happy to help Hillary continue to do their dirty work.

8-9% of Hillary's vote in Texas and Ohio were Limbaugh-drive voters. And they are saying out loud and with no shame that they can't wait to get their hands on Florida if there is a re-vote.

Plus the data on election fraud is starting to pile up, ALL not coincidentally in favor of Clinton and at Barack's expense. Reminiscent of 2000 when another election fell off the back of a truck.

So, would she cheat? She's already there, dude.

[cali]

26. Surelyl it should be obvious that it's not Clinton cheating when

assholes like Limbaugh and Coulter urge repukes to vote for her. There is no evidence that Clinton has actually cheated.

[AtomicKitten]

28. Riiiight!! And Bill Clinton appearing on Limbaugh's show the day before the election was what?

They are in cahoots in a really demented way.

And accepting cheating done on your behalf is still cheating.

[Cha]

27. Thanks, Atomic Kitten.

And saying mccain has the experience but not Obama may not be "cheating" but it's a betrayal to the Democratic Party which I know the dlc couldn't care less about.

[AtomicKitten]

31. The whole thing reeks and Dems better quit holding their noses and accepting this sh*t.

[Cha]

37. I hear you

Crystal Clear. :hi:

[eggman67]

63. Just so I understand

What rule is being broken here?

[TahitiNut]

25. Absent "Justice" no system of rules or governance is morally legitimate and should be overthrown.

Thus, I'm not willing to subordinate "fairness" to some irrelevancy. As an independent liberal and (small-d) democrat, I'm almost appalled at the authoritarian bias to the Democratic Party's primary process, from the establishment of super-delegates as an offset to the will of the popular vote to the biased allocation of delegates based on electoral strength within the state and region.

When a political organization emulates the "all the animals are equal but some are more equal than others" maxim of Animal Farm and then subjugates the moral sense of "fairness" and "justice" to the authoritarian bias o insider 'rules' then that political organization abdicates the ethical high ground and wallows in the sewage.

[cali]

32. It's a dreadful process and we're getting a full demonstration

of that, but there's nothing that can be done about it this year, short of hoping.

[TahitiNut]

48. Well, there *is* a process I could recommend in dealing with the FUBARs that are MI and FL.

As any even marginally-wise parent of two children knows, the best approach to splitting a candy bar or other treat between the two kids is to give one kid the knife and the other kid the choice. (Hopefully, the parent can intervene if the one with the knife chooses to stab their sibling instead of slice the treat.)

Thus, the DNC and Governor Dean could propose that the Clinton campaign design an alternative to the status quo (no delegates seated whatsoever) in Florida and that the Obama campaign design an alternative to the status quo in Michigan. Then the other campaign staff could choose between the alternative and the status quo. This, of course, presumes that the states and the state parties surrender to the outcome of such an approach.

I doubt very seriously that such an approach, or anything close, will be proposed.

As I've said before, Michigan and Florida are both FUBARs and, once committed, are almost impossible to make right. The Democratic Party, in effect, surrendered about 5% of the General Election vote in both states to the GOP by committing the abominations that are Florida and Michigan. The stage was set by the unjust and undemocratic PRIVILEGE given to Iowa and New Hampshire for decades. It was a train wreck waiting to happen.

[Emit]

30. Unless, of course, the voting machines are rigged

:hide:

[skater314159]

33. Praise the Gods for that!

Because I would hate to have the Nomination stolen... I have only gotten to participate in elections that got stolen by the Repukes, and I would be FUCKING LIVID if I have to witness a nomination being stolen by the same dynamic - from a DEMOCRAT!!!

Thanks for your enlightening post... it assuages feelings I have rising within me after reading other posts here.

:loveya:

[ruggerson]

35. Totally agreed. It's breathtaking the amount of people here who don't understand the system

or who do understand it but are being deliberately dishonest by throwing around phrases like "if the superdelegates REVERSE the will of the pledged delegates" or "if the superdelegates STEAL this from the voters."

Fact is, the superdelegates are just as much a part of the legitimate system as the voters and the pledged delegates are. Those are the rules we have.

I don't like the caucuses. That doesn't mean I think anyone's "stealing" the election through the caucus system.

It means I plan on working to change the rules for 2012.

Those that are unhappy with the superdelegate system should join me.

But if either Barack or Hillary wins this with superdelegates, when they didn't have the lead in pledged delegates, it will be a thoroughly fair and honest win. ANd anyone who complains about it doesn't have a legitimate leg to stand on.

[SwampG8r]

47. no way?

man oh man
dont you see who you are talking about?
think of all the times you were forced during the 90s to turn your head and not see? how many times we had to "move on". we allowed ourselves to be blinded to the clintons shenanigans by party loyalties they in turn did the undefendable and demanded defense.
but eventually you gotta wake up
when it happened to me it was like a blindfold had been removed.all the times right wingers faced off with me and now i have to wonder how many of those times THEY were right?
to say that the clintons arent devious criminal or corrupt enough to steal a nomination is naive.

[SwampG8r]

51. no way?

man oh man
dont you see who you are talking about?
think of all the times you were forced during the 90s to turn your head and not see? how many times we had to "move on". we allowed ourselves to be blinded to the clintons shenanigans by party loyalties they in turn did the undefendable and demanded defense.
but eventually you gotta wake up
when it happened to me it was like a blindfold had been removed.all the times right wingers faced off with me and now i have to wonder how many of those times THEY were right?
to say that the clintons arent devious criminal or corrupt enough to steal a nomination is naive.

[Life Long Dem]

59. I was just thinking about this

The only way for Clinton to come out with a win is through the superdelegates. And I don't see the SD's switching to Clinton at the convention. It would cause a civil war that would immediately have millions upon millions of Americans up in arms. No bull shitting.