1sokkermom

^ Maybe I was his crazy aunt for the past 19 years.....and I just don't know it.

(I think there may be some missing nieces / nephews somewhere in our family.)

...........Who knows, the poster could even be friends with my son. My son is not voting for Hillary or Obama either. He voted in the primary, and most certainly will be voting in the general election. He and I do have some very interesting political discussions.

1of42

1sokkermom: You haven't really impacted me, and I don't ignore the vitriol spewed towards Obama by others (having at least a couple of times defended him when some of the more Republican posters here made more or less vacuous attacks), it's just that the quantity and severity of the vitriol you spew towards Hillary beats out any that has been spewed at Obama. I mean, really - look at your post history: of your last 60 posts, exactly 3 involve something other than you supporting Obama or denigrating Hillary any way you can. When someone posts 95% of the time on the exact same issue in the exact same way, I call it like I see it.

As for my not being able to vote, my answer to people pointing that out is that their vote is inevitably going to be canceled out by some idiot voting for the person they oppose for basically stupid reasons. Oh well.

simba

"Maybe I was his crazy aunt for the past 19 years.....and I just don't know it."

So one thing we agree on: You are crazy.

(How do you make those symbols?)

1sokkermom

Quote: "As for my not being able to vote, my answer to people pointing that out is that their vote is inevitably going to be canceled out by some idiot voting for the person they oppose for basically stupid reasons."


Well, let's not forget, it takes a village to make an idiot!

Hindoo

Indeed. It took a village to elect and re-elect GWB.

dke

I just can't believe that Obama was naive enough to think this wouldn't end up biting him in the butt.

kluge

Back to the overwrought hand-wringing about voters in Florida and Michigan being "disenfranchised" and how it means that the Democrats will lose those states in November:

Please.

Nobody is being "disinfranchised." Everyone gets to vote in November. As to the nomination, as a Caifornian I never had an opportunity to cast a vote that mattered in determining the nominee before this year. It never kept me from voting Dem. in the general election in the past. Why should Floridians and Michiganders throw a hissy fit and refuse to vote this time because of this kerfluffel? There's no "way out" which doesn't screw some people in each state - whether it be the ones who voted for Clinton or the ones who didn't vote for Obama because they were told their votes wouldn't count. (By Clinton as well as Obama.) The place to lay the blame is also clear: on the self centered morons running the state parties who elected not to follow the party rules. What part of "break the rules, suffer consequences" did they not understand?

Anyone who moans about the horrible problem of "disenfranched" voters in Michigan and Florida can't see the reality for the spin, IMHO.

curiouser

kluge ^^^^ Well said.

interesteddad

The party rules called for a 50% reduction in delegates. The party rules were over-ridden by the DNC rules committee in an effort to steal the nomination.

mercymom

From the Huffington Post article cited above:


"As much as the DNC tries to pretend otherwise, it had choices. In fact, it later showed understandable leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates--New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina -- seating all their delegates. The tough love treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida.

The national party had tried -- before New Hampshire's case wound up on its docket -- to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee "has the power to waive the rules for any state," explaining that "these rules can be changed only by the full DNC." Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries."

Christcorp

You beat me to it interesteddad and mercymom;

My point exactly. I think it's great about follow the rules or suffer the consequences. But, when the consequences say you lose 50% of seated delegates; but Dean realizes Clinton will win those 2 states overwhelmingly and therefor punishes the 2 states by eliminating 100% of their delegates; Florida and Michigan have every right to complain,.

interesteddad

Forget the rules and the DNC shenanigans. There are certain key states that the Democratic Party must win to put together an Electoral College win of 270 or more votes.

You can't do it with South Carolina or Wyoming, because South Carolina and Wyoming vote overwhelmingly Republican in Presidential elections. A Democratic Party wiin can only be built by holding the large bedrock states (Mass, NY, NJ, CA) without having to defend turf and then sweeping the large rust belt states (PA, Michigan, etc.) and then flipping OH and/or FL to the Dems.

A winning strategy for the Dems (not that they historically pay any attention to that) must focus on nominating a candidate with proven appeal in THESE electoral college states.

To turn around and kick two of these states in the teeth (FL and MI) is literally insane for the DNC (not that sanity has ever been a DNC hallmark).

Addendum: there is one more emerging trend in electoral college math -- the growing role of Latino/a voters. If the Democratic Party were forward looking (not a trait often seen in Democratic strategists), a long-term plan to cultivate Latino/a voters by nominating candidates with strong ties to these communities would make sense. Not so much for this year's electoral map (NM, Ariz would be nice gets, but unlikely to determine the next President) but for down the road when the Latino/a population growth in states like Texas puts them into play. But, of course, the DNC is rigging the nomination to kick the Latino/a voters in teeth right alongside MI and FL voters.

cangel

IDad, re: Hispanic vote, don't you think there is a possiblity that need, to increase involvement of Hispanic voters, underlies the change of allegiance of Bill Richardson? Richardson brings a number of other things to the table for Obama as well, but I have just assumed he has been promised a very plum job in the Obama admin.

interesteddad

I'm sure Richardson has been bought and paid for. (Of course, he was appointed to the cabinet by Bill Clinton). But, he doesn't carry much weight with the Latino/a community. Obama lost New Mexico to Clinton. The heat on Richardson in NM is so strong after his endorsement that he has not made a single appearance at a Democratic Party function in his state since.

Clinton has very strong ties to the Latino/a political community as evidenced by her overwhelming win in Nevada, even beating Obama in the union-held casino caucus sites.

A lot of casual political observers don't know that Hillary's first campaign job was registering Latino voters in the Rio Grande valley of Texas for George McGovern. She has spent more than 30 years building those ties.

1sokkermom

...And she also claims to keep her health by eating chili peppers.