Obama has won the last 8 contests now

[Adam D]

BTW, congrats to Obama on his victories.

Originally Posted by Adam D

Is it right to disenfranchise the voters of those states because the politicians of the state (on both sides)?

Like I said, I don't think anyone was happy with the decision to strip those two states of their delegates but the damage has already been done. What about all the people who didn't vote because they were told it didn't matter? What about the people in MI who would have voted for Obama had he been on the ticket? How much of a difference would there have been had the candidates had a chance to campaign in those states? The fact those questions could not possibly be answered is exactly why those delegates cannot be reinstated. If the DNC wants to hold meetings and discuss revisions in the way they do things the next time around, so be it. This time, however, it's too late.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

actually, both states had record primary turn outs if I remember right?

Like I said, 40% of the voters in MI turned out just to vote AGAINST Clinton. I would wager a guess those votes were for Obama and, had he been on the ballot, more people would have shown up to vote for him. You can deny it all you want, but when you're the only major contender on the ballot and you still only garner 55% of the vote, I don't necessarily see that as a positive thing...

As far as record turnout, like I said, if 40% showed up just to make a statement about how much they don't want to vote for Clinton, I'm not so sure that works in her favor. Florida is a different matter. Maybe she still would have won, but who knows by how much of a margin had Obama campaigned there. Either way, to say it would be fair to reinstate those votes after the fact is just ridiculous given the circumstances and it's no big secret that it would cause a huge rift within the DNC to even argue it at this point.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

Is it right to disenfranchise the voters of those states because the politicians of the state (on both sides)?

If tomorrow the Democratic party decides to take the Dallas phone book... throw a dart at it and pick the name it hits as their candidate for President... no one has been disenfranchised. Neither is the stripping of delegates from MI or FL disenfranchising anyone. Franchise guarantess the right to vote for President it does not gaurantee a right to have one's vote counted in a party's process of selecting their candidate for that office.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by xian

If tomorrow the Democratic party decides to take the Dallas phone book... throw a dart at it and pick the name it hits as their candidate for President... no one has been disenfranchised. Neither is the stripping of delegates from MI or FL disenfranchising anyone. Franchise guarantess the right to vote for President it does not gaurantee a right to have one's vote counted in a party's process of selecting their candidate for that office.

If that was normal party procedure, I would agree. The party certainly CAN do that. However, the party allows a (semi-)democratic process to determine the candidate. As a result of their respective state governments, those voters will be excluded from the normal process.

The whole thing is really very silly--who cares who has a primary or caucus first--I'd rather have those voters be able to count in deciding the party's candidate.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

If that was normal party procedure, I would agree. The party certainly CAN do that. However, the party allows a (semi-)democratic process to determine the candidate. As a result of their respective state governments, those voters will be excluded from the normal process.

The whole thing is really very silly--who cares who has a primary or caucus first--I'd rather have those voters be able to count in deciding the party's candidate.

The states of MI anf FL didn't strip the delegates. The DNC did. No disenfranchisement involved... or at least no violation of any enfranchisement right (which may be a better way of saying it)

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

She'd have to win them by a very wide margin, like 60-something percent to 30-something percent according to what I've read. It's possible, but she hasn't really been pulling those kinds of margins so far. Given that he's steadily been increasing his numbers in every demographic, I'd be getting nervous right about now if I were Hillary.

I don't think either candidate is coming out of Texas with a significantly larger chunk of delegates than the other candidate because of the ridiculously weird delegate apportionment guidelines. It isn't done proportional to the percentage of popular vote at all, it's a formula based on the amount each district voted in the last couple elections(2004 & 2006). Hillary could sweep the whole Rio Grande Valley and the hispanic vote throughout the state and still not come out with a significantly larger Texas delegate count.

From another board I venture on:

Here is an example of the formula used in the Texas Election Code:

Let P equal a given district's percentage of the statewide Democratic vote in the last gubernatorial election, and let V equal that district's percentage of the total statewide vote for the Democratic nominee in the last presidential election (district vote/state vote). ( P + V) divided by 2 = that district's percentage of the total number of Delegates to be elected by the senatorial districts, as opposed to the number to be elected at-large.

I can't really say for certain if the post on a different board is correct. My understanding is that the delegates are determined by each precinct's vote, which is why there are sometimes discrepancies in the number of delegates awarded vs. who technically won the state.

[progress]

It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic primary as soon as McCain announces Romney as his VP candidate.

Originally Posted by progress

It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic primary as soon as McCain announces Romney as his VP candidate.

Why's that? It's not like Romney was all that popular either. He'd have a better chance with Huckabee, because at least that might give him a chance with the conservative voters.

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

Why's that? It's not like Romney was all that popular either. He'd have a better chance with Huckabee, because at least that might give him a chance with the conservative voters.

I agree. Huckabee gives McCain his best shot, but I don't think even a McCain/God ticket will beat Obama.

[PETA]

Huckabee is not the answer... Romney would bring $$ and could well bring Michigan as well

[umalak_]

doesn't matter who the GOP VP candidate is because the Dems are going to win the national election.

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by xian

Huckabee is not the answer... Romney would bring $$ and could well bring Michigan as well

Really? You like Romney over Huckabee?

Or do you just think that strategically he gives the Republicans a better shot?

I doubt a white republican would win Michigan when they have the choice of a woman or a black man instead....

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Damnsammit

Really? You like Romney over Huckabee?

Or do you just think that strategically he gives the Republicans a better shot?

I doubt a white republican would win Michigan when they have the choice of a woman or a black man instead....

I cannot stand Huckabee but I do think strategicly Romney is a better choice for the reasons given...

Mitt's daddy was governor of Michigan and extremely popular... some of that has spilled over onto Mitt. He stands a reasonable chance of delivering the state to the GOP. Huckabee brings no states w/him that wouldn't already go GOP.