Florida and Michigan delegates - Page 4

Jaggy Bunnet · 11th March 2008, 01:46 PM

[quote=Bob Klase;3517249]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

That's exactly what I said.

No its not, you included the phrase "without regard to the will of the people" as part of the rule, it is not.

Quote:

I'm saying that obviously Obama's people would like the rule giving superdelegates the freedom to ignore the popular vote changed (which you equate to broken). But they're not dumb enough to say that.

You have evidence to support this, right?

Quote:

That's different than wanting the rule broken. Rules can be changed. If they're violated without being changed they're being broken. If they are changed they are not being broken. Whether or not they should be changed is irrelevant- if they're changed they're not broken.

Nice semantics. Wholly irrelevant, but nice.

Quote:

There's really no difference at all. One is campaigning to have delegates exercise their choice in a particular way, the other is campaigning to have the rule-makers exercise their choice (to change the rules) in a particular way.

Nonsense, the rule makers DO NOT have choice, the superdelegates DO have choice.

Quote:

Calling it a lie is naive and rude at best.

No, it is accurate.

What would be naive and rude would be a claim to be able to read the mind of the Obama campaign so that you can discern what they really want without actually producing any evidence of this to try and justify a claim that both sides want to change the rules, when the reality is that only one side wants the rules changed, Hillary's side.

dudalb · 11th March 2008, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

What if the candidates themselves split the costs for new MI/FL primaries? Maybe there's something illegal about doing that, but both campaigns could make up that kind of money in a week of fundraising, particularly after working together to "save the party."

There is nothing to keep the candidates from raising money specifically for the redo.
But don't count on it.
Since the election is at stake (if Florida is not seated,the Dems can kiss that state,and more then likely the election goodbye,and Michigan will become a pink state when it should be blue) the Dems are going to have no choice but to pay.

dudalb · 11th March 2008, 04:57 PM

Frankly,I think the sooner the Dems get rid of Howard Dean as DNC chairman,the better.
He should have seen this train wreck coming,and taken another apporach to punishing Florida and Michigan. And this is not the first example of his inneptness as Chairman.
The GOP option (the RNC was no happier with the decison to move the primaries up then the Democrats were) was better, allow the statest to have a primary,but halve the number of delegates they would seat.

Bob Klase · 11th March 2008, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

No its not, you included the phrase "without regard to the will of the people" as part of the rule, it is not.

No- the rule is they can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reasons they want. That means they can follow the will of the people or ignore it- whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Quote:

I'm saying that obviously Obama's people would like the rule giving superdelegates the freedom to ignore the popular vote changed (which you equate to broken). But they're not dumb enough to say that.

You have evidence to support this, right?

Sure. The evidence is that they are clear that they want the supers to vote for their guy. Common sense alone says that if they think that something should be done then they must be in favor of changing the rule so that it is done. Or do you think they really want the superdelegates to vote for anyone for any reason even though they should vote with the majority of voters?

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Quote:

That's different than wanting the rule broken. Rules can be changed. If they're violated without being changed they're being broken. If they are changed they are not being broken. Whether or not they should be changed is irrelevant- if they're changed they're not broken.

Nice semantics. Wholly irrelevant, but nice.

So you think the definitions of words you're using are irrelevant? Strangely that doesn't surprise me at all.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Nonsense, the rule makers DO NOT have choice, the superdelegates DO have choice.

The rule makers always have more choice than anyone else- they're the ones that make the rules and they're the ones that can change them.

No, it is accurate.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

What would be naive and rude would be a claim to be able to read the mind of the Obama campaign

We'll add that to the list of words you think are irrelevant. Need help finding a dictionary?

Kaylee · 11th March 2008, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The GOP option (the RNC was no happier with the decison to move the primaries up then the Democrats were) was better, allow the statest to have a primary,but halve the number of delegates they would seat.

If the Republican race had been tighter, I think FL and Michigan would have complained, and others also.

JEROME DA GNOME · 11th March 2008, 09:22 PM

Does not look like a new vote in Florida.

Re-vote picture clouds

Quote:

The Members of Florida’s Democratic Delegation:

“Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”

Jaggy Bunnet · 12th March 2008, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

No- the rule is they can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reasons they want. That means they can follow the will of the people or ignore it- whatever they want.

Good - so we agree that your original statement of the rule including the words "without regard to the will of the people" was wrong. That's a start.

Quote:

Sure. The evidence is that they are clear that they want the supers to vote for their guy. Common sense alone says that if they think that something should be done then they must be in favor of changing the rule so that it is done.

You have a very, very strange definition of common sense.

The Hillary campaign want the American people to vote for Hillary. Common sense alone says that if they think something should be done they must be in favour of changing the rules so that is is done." Therefore by your logic the Hillary campaign are in favour of abolishing all other political parties and candidates and changing the rules to only allow Hillary's name on the ballot.

It is blatantly obvious that this (il)logic is flawed. Is this really the best you can come up with?

I asked for evidence - maybe you should get your dictionary out (you seem very keen on it) and look up the definition of that word.

Quote:

Or do you think they really want the superdelegates to vote for anyone for any reason even though they should vote with the majority of voters?

They want the supers to vote for Obama. They have not stated that the rules should be changed to REQUIRE the supers to vote for Obama.

There is a difference between the two, no matter how you try and obfuscate that fact.

This is in contrast to the Hillary campaign. They want the rules changed to require Florida/Michigan delegates to be seated even though the rules say they will not be.

Quote:

So you think the definitions of words you're using are irrelevant? Strangely that doesn't surprise me at all.

No, I think that when the argument is that one candidate wants to change the rules to suit themselves and the other does not, it is simply diversionary tactics to start semantic arguments about whether the candidate wants to change or break the rules. It does not change the FACT (try looking that one up to) that only one candidate wants to change/break the rules.

Quote:

The rule makers always have more choice than anyone else- they're the ones that make the rules and they're the ones that can change them.

Really? You think they could turn round, cancel the remaining primaries & the convention and announce John Edwards as the candidate and that there is no route for either of the existing campaigns to challenge that? After all, the rule makers have the choice to change the rules at any time according to you.

Quote:

Need help finding a dictionary?

No, clearly your need is far greater so you keep it.

Bob Klase · 12th March 2008, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Quote:

The rule makers always have more choice than anyone else- they're the ones that make the rules and they're the ones that can change them.

Really? You think they could turn round, cancel the remaining primaries & the convention and announce John Edwards as the candidate and that there is no route for either of the existing campaigns to challenge that?

No, that's not even close to what I said (but you knew that). I said that have more choice, not unlimited choice. Nice strawman.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

After all, the rule makers have the choice to change the rules at any time according to you.

I said they can change the rules. I didn't say they could change them any way they want at any time. But that can keep your other strawmen company.

I won't ask if that's the best you can come up with. Obviously it is. Enjoy your straw party.

Jaggy Bunnet · 12th March 2008, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

No, that's not even close to what I said (but you knew that). I said that have more choice, not unlimited choice. Nice strawman.

I said they can change the rules. I didn't say they could change them any way they want at any time. But that can keep your other strawmen company.

I won't ask if that's the best you can come up with. Obviously it is. Enjoy your straw party.

Evasion noted.

Frankly, I'm not surprised you are choosing to run away from your arguments - if mine were half as bad I'd do the same. This may be the weakest argument I have ever seen put forward in this forum.

Quote:

Sure. The evidence is that they are clear that they want the supers to vote for their guy. Common sense alone says that if they think that something should be done then they must be in favor of changing the rule so that it is done.

JEROME DA GNOME · 13th March 2008, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Evasion noted.

Frankly, I'm not surprised you are choosing to run away from your arguments - if mine were half as bad I'd do the same. This may be the weakest argument I have ever seen put forward in this forum.

I have not read the conversation, but this was the most simpleminded retort I have ever read on this forum.

Jaggy Bunnet · 14th March 2008, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

I have not read the conversation, but this was the most simpleminded retort I have ever read on this forum.

How upset am I that such a towering genius as yourself makes such a cutting comment?

Take a guess.

T.A.M. · 14th March 2008, 04:17 AM

I suspect the FL and MI Delegate issue will not be solved until the convention, if at all.

TAM

Spindrift · 14th March 2008, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Frankly,I think the sooner the Dems get rid of Howard Dean as DNC chairman,the better.
He should have seen this train wreck coming,and taken another apporach to punishing Florida and Michigan. And this is not the first example of his inneptness as Chairman.
The GOP option (the RNC was no happier with the decison to move the primaries up then the Democrats were) was better, allow the statest to have a primary,but halve the number of delegates they would seat.

I'm not a big Howard Dean fan, but I don't think you can blame this all on him. He's not the one who moved the MI and FL primaries and he's does not have the power to seat the delegates. I'll bet Dean, like most others. figured someone would have the nomination sewn up by now and that FL & MI would be moot. Oops.

Rob Lister · 16th March 2008, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

I have not read the conversation, but this was the most simpleminded retort I have ever read on this forum.

not simpleminded, just weak and silly. Clearly she was losing the debate on all points. Pride goeth...yada.

Jaggy Bunnet · 17th March 2008, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

not simpleminded, just weak and silly. Clearly she was losing the debate on all points. Pride goeth...yada.

Try and remember that YOU were the one who made the claim and you were the one who ran away from providing evidence to support it.

However, seeing as you are back:

What EVIDENCE do you have that Obama's campaign want to CHANGE THE RULES (and please specify which rule they have asked to be changed, specifically)?

To make it wasy for you, here is a format you could use:

Clinton's campaign want to change the rules that says that no delegates will be seated for either Michigan or Florida because they held their primaries before the earliest date on which they were permitted to do so. The rules say that in such circumstances, no delegates will be seated, therefore the Clinton campaign asking for those delegates to be seated involves, of necessity, changing that rule.

Over to you, or are you going to run away again?

Rob Lister · 17th March 2008, 06:16 AM

dup post

Rob Lister · 17th March 2008, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Try and remember that YOU were the one who made the claim and you were the one who ran away from providing evidence to support it.

However, seeing as you are back:

What EVIDENCE do you have that Obama's campaign want to CHANGE THE RULES (and please specify which rule they have asked to be changed, specifically)?

To make it wasy for you, here is a format you could use:

Clinton's campaign want to change the rules that says that no delegates will be seated for either Michigan or Florida because they held their primaries before the earliest date on which they were permitted to do so. The rules say that in such circumstances, no delegates will be seated, therefore the Clinton campaign asking for those delegates to be seated involves, of necessity, changing that rule.

Over to you, or are you going to run away again?

Okay, I guess Jerome might have been right: you really are simpleminded. Perhaps you should review this thread (and others if you like) to better establish who made what claims. If necessary (and for you I think it might be), please take advantage of the resources available in This Link.

Jaggy Bunnet · 17th March 2008, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Okay, I guess Jerome might have been right: you really are simpleminded. Perhaps you should review this tread (and others if you like) to better establish who made what claims. If necessary (and for you I think it might be), please take advantage of the resources available in This Link.

I do apologise. You did not make the claim. However in your opinion I was "losing the debate on all points" so I must assume that you consider the claim to have been supported.

Like to expand on why?

This link might help you with your next post:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Basic-Spelli.../dp/0719570263

Rob Lister · 17th March 2008, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

I do apologise. You did not make the claim. However in your opinion I was "losing the debate on all points" so I must assume that you consider the claim to have been supported.

Like to expand on why?

Simpleminded seems to be your forte! Perhaps if you stop reading into what I and others write, you'll not assume so many facts not in evidence.

Jaggy Bunnet · 18th March 2008, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Simpleminded seems to be your forte! Perhaps if you stop reading into what I and others write, you'll not assume so many facts not in evidence.

You said I was losing the debate on all points.

It is not "reading into" what you say to assume that you meant what you posted.

The key point of the debate was whether the Obama campaign wanted a rule change. If I am losing on all points, then it would be necessary to be losing on that point. All I have asked you to do is provide any support for what you posted.

Namecalling seems to be your forte, how about some actual arguments instead?

Bob Klase · 18th March 2008, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

You said I was losing the debate on all points.

It is not "reading into" what you say to assume that you meant what you posted.

The key point of the debate was whether the Obama campaign wanted a rule change.

Is you deciding what the key points are the only way you can win a debates? The key points were actually whether there's a difference between changing rules and breaking them, and whether the Clinton campaign wants to change the rules or break the rules.

Jaggy Bunnet · 18th March 2008, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I notice the Obama folks insist the rules are followed until it comes to the super-delegates. Then Obama supporters want to change the rules in how those delegates should vote.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

What rule do they want to change, specifically?

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

I have not heard anyone say they MUST (i.e. that the rules will be changed to force them to) only that they believe they SHOULD (i.e. no change to the rules but that, in their opinion, that would be the right thing to do).

But only one campaign wants to change the rules. And that is the one that wants to seat the delegates when the rules explicitly say they MUST NOT be seated.

So again, what RULE have the OBAMA campaign said should be changed? So far you have not given any evidence for your claim.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Unless you can support your claim that the Obama campaign wants to change the rules about super delegates.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

All very valid points.

However the question asked was what RULE the Obama campaign wanted to change. So far there has been no answer to that question, possibly because the claim that they want to change the rules is a lie, meant to balance out the fact that the Clinton campaign DO want to change the rules and seat the delegates from Florida & Michigan.

Seems pretty clear to me that the discussion is about whether or not the Obama campaign wants a rule changed.

Jaggy Bunnet · 18th March 2008, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Is you deciding what the key points are the only way you can win a debates?

No, but it does appear to be for you.

Quote:

The key points were actually whether there's a difference between changing rules and breaking them, and whether the Clinton campaign wants to change the rules or break the rules.

Posts found in this thread on a search using "chang*" as the search criteria: 41

Posts found in this thread on a search using "break*" as the search criteria: 9 (including 3 that only refer to the states breaking the rule all of which were long before the discussion about the behaviour of the campaign teams)

Posts found in this thread on a search using "brok*" as the search criteria: 6 (including one result included in the nine above).

Bob Klase · 18th March 2008, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Posts found in this thread on a search using "chang*" as the search criteria: 41

Posts found in this thread on a search using "break*" as the search criteria: 9 (including 3 that only refer to the states breaking the rule all of which were long before the discussion about the behaviour of the campaign teams)

So you think context and usage mean nothing and only count the number of times a word is used to establish what's relevant? For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

Jaggy Bunnet · 18th March 2008, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

No, I think that when the argument is that one candidate wants to change the rules to suit themselves and the other does not, it is simply diversionary tactics to start semantic arguments about whether the candidate wants to change or break the rules. It does not change the FACT (try looking that one up to) that only one candidate wants to change/break the rules.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

No rule will be broken if the superdelegates decide to vote solely in line with pledged delegates, nor if they choose to ignore pledged delegates entirely.

Obama's people are trying to convince them that the will of the people is a significant factor that they should take into consideration. Doing so does not break any rules.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying a rule is being broken or not?

This is getting tiresome. The above are (I believe from a quick search of the thread) the ONLY times I have used the words "broken" or "breaking" in this thread.

Can you explain how you get from there to this being the "key point" of the debate?

Jaggy Bunnet · 18th March 2008, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

So you think context and usage mean nothing and only count the number of times a word is used to establish what's relevant? For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

Nice strawman.

You will also notice that I gave you both context and usage for why I believe that the claim that Obama's campaign wanted change was the key point of the debate. I notice that you have not done so to support your claim - I wonder why?

JEROME DA GNOME · 21st March 2008, 05:53 PM

All of the delegates may vote for whomever they choose at the convention.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Brainster · 27th March 2008, 09:06 AM

This article seems to propose a sensible solution to the crisis. Of course, that means it's terribly unlikely that the Democrats will adopt it.

Quote:

The third option would be to let the early primary votes stand, and select delegates according to the outcome. On a statistical basis, this is clearly the right result for Florida. The easiest solution for Michigan is to simply award the 45% of the vote uncommitted or for another candidate to Mr. Obama. This appears to be the intent of those voters, as well as the likely result of a rematch. It would reduce Mr. Obama's current edge in pledged delegates to 115 from 167. It would also reduce the adjusted popular-vote margin, that converts caucus votes to primary votes, to an edge for Mr. Obama of 466,000. If Mrs. Clinton wins Pennsylvania by the margin polls now suggest, the two candidates would be essentially tied in popular votes, with an Obama edge in delegates of about 80. That would leave the remaining primaries and the superdelegates to decide the outcome of an essentially tied race.

That last bit shows why Barack Obama would be foolish to agree to this compromise; it puts Hillary in a much stronger position than she is now. But I find the analysis that leads the writer to that conclusion pretty compelling.

T.A.M. · 27th March 2008, 11:59 AM

In what way is it sensible?

Are we to assume that the new standard should be this...

1. If you don't like where your primary day is, then just move it. There will be a fuss, but in the end it will count.
2. Do not allow anyone to campaign in the area in question, allowing the person with the most NAME RECOGNITION to have a decisive edge, then count the votes of said primary.
3. Only put one name on the ballot, and then have the election, and recognizing the outcome as legitimate.

Yes I am an Obama supporter, but for the love of god, the above solution looks like it came from Clinton's campaign headquarters.

TAM

Kaylee · 27th March 2008, 02:53 PM

I agree it's not sensible and would set a bad precedent.

I think the real problem is that many voters lack political will. The MI and FL voters should have protested vigorously when their legislators decided to schedule their primaries at a time when their votes wouldn't count -- and there was still time to reschedule.

T.A.M. · 27th March 2008, 03:45 PM

To be honest with you, it is just a very bad and unexpected situation. No Democrat could have foreseen the predicament they are in.

I think the Delegates should be seated, the trouble is how. A 50-50 split gives Obama an edge, as he gets closer to 2024. The method above, and variations of it give Hillary a clear and large edge.

I hate to say it, but the best choice would have been a two step primary caucus, but the cost and logistics were prohibitive.

TAM

Brainster · 27th March 2008, 06:07 PM

The problem with the 50-50 split is that it completely ignores the voters. Maybe the best solution is the one the Republicans went with; count the vote but cut the delegates in half. Of course, it's too late now.

The argument Obama is making is something of a conservative one. Republicans like to say the rules are the rules, while the Democrats are more likely to say, the rules are the rules unless they result in an unfair outcome. Think about Affirmative Action, for example. Republicans say if a school wants to establish a standard that requires (say) a 3.5 GPA and 650 SATs, that's fine. Democrats would say, okay, but if you end up with a student body that's not 13% black, then you need to change things.

T.A.M. · 27th March 2008, 06:27 PM

or we could say that Hillary's view is one of a loser. Now that she has no legitimate way to win BY THE RULES, she wants to ignore them, change them, or make new ones.

TAM

TheJim · 27th March 2008, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

The problem with the 50-50 split is that it completely ignores the voters. Maybe the best solution is the one the Republicans went with; count the vote but cut the delegates in half. Of course, it's too late now.

The republicans actually where very weak here in their punishment. The penalty of cutting the delegates in half is meaningless because the two states still got what they wanted which was an campiagn money in the state and to have early influence. Florida for example this year is what won McCain the nomination.

Quote:

The argument Obama is making is something of a conservative one. Republicans like to say the rules are the rules, while the Democrats are more likely to say, the rules are the rules unless they result in an unfair outcome. Think about Affirmative Action, for example. Republicans say if a school wants to establish a standard that requires (say) a 3.5 GPA and 650 SATs, that's fine. Democrats would say, okay, but if you end up with a student body that's not 13% black, then you need to change things.

Except of course when it comes to election law and the S.C.

Jaggy Bunnet · 28th March 2008, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

ToA 50-50 split gives Obama an edge, as he gets closer to 2024.

50-50 split changes nothing. While Obama has more delegates, the total number of delegates need increases by exactly the same number.

The only reason 2024 is the important number is because there are currently 4048 total delegates (pledged + super). If you increase the number of pledged (lets say by 200 to keep the sums easy), then the number need to win goes up by half of that amount (i.e. 100) so instead of needing 2024, you need 2124.

11th March 2008, 08:06 PM	#125
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,838	Originally Posted by dudalb The GOP option (the RNC was no happier with the decison to move the primaries up then the Democrats were) was better, allow the statest to have a primary,but halve the number of delegates they would seat. If the Republican race had been tighter, I think FL and Michigan would have complained, and others also.
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,838	__________________ When everyone think alike, no one thinks very much. -- Walter Lippman''

14th March 2008, 05:35 AM	#133
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,445	Originally Posted by dudalb Frankly,I think the sooner the Dems get rid of Howard Dean as DNC chairman,the better. He should have seen this train wreck coming,and taken another apporach to punishing Florida and Michigan. And this is not the first example of his inneptness as Chairman. The GOP option (the RNC was no happier with the decison to move the primaries up then the Democrats were) was better, allow the statest to have a primary,but halve the number of delegates they would seat. I'm not a big Howard Dean fan, but I don't think you can blame this all on him. He's not the one who moved the MI and FL primaries and he's does not have the power to seat the delegates. I'll bet Dean, like most others. figured someone would have the nomination sewn up by now and that FL & MI would be moot. Oops.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

17th March 2008, 06:16 AM	#136
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	dup post
	Last edited by Rob Lister; 17th March 2008 at 06:26 AM.

17th March 2008, 06:23 AM	#137
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Try and remember that YOU were the one who made the claim and you were the one who ran away from providing evidence to support it. However, seeing as you are back: What EVIDENCE do you have that Obama's campaign want to CHANGE THE RULES (and please specify which rule they have asked to be changed, specifically)? To make it wasy for you, here is a format you could use: Clinton's campaign want to change the rules that says that no delegates will be seated for either Michigan or Florida because they held their primaries before the earliest date on which they were permitted to do so. The rules say that in such circumstances, no delegates will be seated, therefore the Clinton campaign asking for those delegates to be seated involves, of necessity, changing that rule. Over to you, or are you going to run away again? Okay, I guess Jerome might have been right: you really are simpleminded. Perhaps you should review this thread (and others if you like) to better establish who made what claims. If necessary (and for you I think it might be), please take advantage of the resources available in This Link.
	Last edited by Rob Lister; 17th March 2008 at 06:43 AM.

18th March 2008, 09:02 AM	#142
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by skeptigirl I notice the Obama folks insist the rules are followed until it comes to the super-delegates. Then Obama supporters want to change the rules in how those delegates should vote. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet What rule do they want to change, specifically? Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet I have not heard anyone say they MUST (i.e. that the rules will be changed to force them to) only that they believe they SHOULD (i.e. no change to the rules but that, in their opinion, that would be the right thing to do). But only one campaign wants to change the rules. And that is the one that wants to seat the delegates when the rules explicitly say they MUST NOT be seated. So again, what RULE have the OBAMA campaign said should be changed? So far you have not given any evidence for your claim. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Unless you can support your claim that the Obama campaign wants to change the rules about super delegates. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet All very valid points. However the question asked was what RULE the Obama campaign wanted to change. So far there has been no answer to that question, possibly because the claim that they want to change the rules is a lie, meant to balance out the fact that the Clinton campaign DO want to change the rules and seat the delegates from Florida & Michigan. Seems pretty clear to me that the discussion is about whether or not the Obama campaign wants a rule changed.
	Last edited by Jaggy Bunnet; 18th March 2008 at 09:06 AM.

11th March 2008, 01:46 PM	#121
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	[quote=Bob Klase;3517249] Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet That's exactly what I said. No its not, you included the phrase "without regard to the will of the people" as part of the rule, it is not. Quote: I'm saying that obviously Obama's people would like the rule giving superdelegates the freedom to ignore the popular vote changed (which you equate to broken). But they're not dumb enough to say that. You have evidence to support this, right? Quote: That's different than wanting the rule broken. Rules can be changed. If they're violated without being changed they're being broken. If they are changed they are not being broken. Whether or not they should be changed is irrelevant- if they're changed they're not broken. Nice semantics. Wholly irrelevant, but nice. Quote: There's really no difference at all. One is campaigning to have delegates exercise their choice in a particular way, the other is campaigning to have the rule-makers exercise their choice (to change the rules) in a particular way. Nonsense, the rule makers DO NOT have choice, the superdelegates DO have choice. Quote: Calling it a lie is naive and rude at best. No, it is accurate. What would be naive and rude would be a claim to be able to read the mind of the Obama campaign so that you can discern what they really want without actually producing any evidence of this to try and justify a claim that both sides want to change the rules, when the reality is that only one side wants the rules changed, Hillary's side.

11th March 2008, 04:54 PM	#122
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	Originally Posted by boloboffin What if the candidates themselves split the costs for new MI/FL primaries? Maybe there's something illegal about doing that, but both campaigns could make up that kind of money in a week of fundraising, particularly after working together to "save the party." There is nothing to keep the candidates from raising money specifically for the redo. But don't count on it. Since the election is at stake (if Florida is not seated,the Dems can kiss that state,and more then likely the election goodbye,and Michigan will become a pink state when it should be blue) the Dems are going to have no choice but to pay.

11th March 2008, 04:57 PM	#123
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	Frankly,I think the sooner the Dems get rid of Howard Dean as DNC chairman,the better. He should have seen this train wreck coming,and taken another apporach to punishing Florida and Michigan. And this is not the first example of his inneptness as Chairman. The GOP option (the RNC was no happier with the decison to move the primaries up then the Democrats were) was better, allow the statest to have a primary,but halve the number of delegates they would seat.

11th March 2008, 05:26 PM	#124
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet No its not, you included the phrase "without regard to the will of the people" as part of the rule, it is not. No- the rule is they can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reasons they want. That means they can follow the will of the people or ignore it- whatever they want. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Quote: I'm saying that obviously Obama's people would like the rule giving superdelegates the freedom to ignore the popular vote changed (which you equate to broken). But they're not dumb enough to say that. You have evidence to support this, right? Sure. The evidence is that they are clear that they want the supers to vote for their guy. Common sense alone says that if they think that something should be done then they must be in favor of changing the rule so that it is done. Or do you think they really want the superdelegates to vote for anyone for any reason even though they should vote with the majority of voters? Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Quote: That's different than wanting the rule broken. Rules can be changed. If they're violated without being changed they're being broken. If they are changed they are not being broken. Whether or not they should be changed is irrelevant- if they're changed they're not broken. Nice semantics. Wholly irrelevant, but nice. So you think the definitions of words you're using are irrelevant? Strangely that doesn't surprise me at all. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Nonsense, the rule makers DO NOT have choice, the superdelegates DO have choice. The rule makers always have more choice than anyone else- they're the ones that make the rules and they're the ones that can change them. No, it is accurate. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet What would be naive and rude would be a claim to be able to read the mind of the Obama campaign We'll add that to the list of words you think are irrelevant. Need help finding a dictionary?

11th March 2008, 09:22 PM	#126
JEROME DA GNOME Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: The Land of Pleasant Living Posts: 8,932	Does not look like a new vote in Florida. Re-vote picture clouds Quote: The Members of Florida’s Democratic Delegation: “Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”

12th March 2008, 02:40 AM	#127
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Bob Klase No- the rule is they can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reasons they want. That means they can follow the will of the people or ignore it- whatever they want. Good - so we agree that your original statement of the rule including the words "without regard to the will of the people" was wrong. That's a start. Quote: Sure. The evidence is that they are clear that they want the supers to vote for their guy. Common sense alone says that if they think that something should be done then they must be in favor of changing the rule so that it is done. You have a very, very strange definition of common sense. The Hillary campaign want the American people to vote for Hillary. Common sense alone says that if they think something should be done they must be in favour of changing the rules so that is is done." Therefore by your logic the Hillary campaign are in favour of abolishing all other political parties and candidates and changing the rules to only allow Hillary's name on the ballot. It is blatantly obvious that this (il)logic is flawed. Is this really the best you can come up with? I asked for evidence - maybe you should get your dictionary out (you seem very keen on it) and look up the definition of that word. Quote: Or do you think they really want the superdelegates to vote for anyone for any reason even though they should vote with the majority of voters? They want the supers to vote for Obama. They have not stated that the rules should be changed to REQUIRE the supers to vote for Obama. There is a difference between the two, no matter how you try and obfuscate that fact. This is in contrast to the Hillary campaign. They want the rules changed to require Florida/Michigan delegates to be seated even though the rules say they will not be. Quote: So you think the definitions of words you're using are irrelevant? Strangely that doesn't surprise me at all. No, I think that when the argument is that one candidate wants to change the rules to suit themselves and the other does not, it is simply diversionary tactics to start semantic arguments about whether the candidate wants to change or break the rules. It does not change the FACT (try looking that one up to) that only one candidate wants to change/break the rules. Quote: The rule makers always have more choice than anyone else- they're the ones that make the rules and they're the ones that can change them. Really? You think they could turn round, cancel the remaining primaries & the convention and announce John Edwards as the candidate and that there is no route for either of the existing campaigns to challenge that? After all, the rule makers have the choice to change the rules at any time according to you. Quote: Need help finding a dictionary? No, clearly your need is far greater so you keep it.

12th March 2008, 06:31 AM	#128
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Quote: The rule makers always have more choice than anyone else- they're the ones that make the rules and they're the ones that can change them. Really? You think they could turn round, cancel the remaining primaries & the convention and announce John Edwards as the candidate and that there is no route for either of the existing campaigns to challenge that? No, that's not even close to what I said (but you knew that). I said that have more choice, not unlimited choice. Nice strawman. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet After all, the rule makers have the choice to change the rules at any time according to you. I said they can change the rules. I didn't say they could change them any way they want at any time. But that can keep your other strawmen company. I won't ask if that's the best you can come up with. Obviously it is. Enjoy your straw party.

12th March 2008, 06:59 AM	#129
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Bob Klase No, that's not even close to what I said (but you knew that). I said that have more choice, not unlimited choice. Nice strawman. I said they can change the rules. I didn't say they could change them any way they want at any time. But that can keep your other strawmen company. I won't ask if that's the best you can come up with. Obviously it is. Enjoy your straw party. Evasion noted. Frankly, I'm not surprised you are choosing to run away from your arguments - if mine were half as bad I'd do the same. This may be the weakest argument I have ever seen put forward in this forum. Quote: Sure. The evidence is that they are clear that they want the supers to vote for their guy. Common sense alone says that if they think that something should be done then they must be in favor of changing the rule so that it is done.

13th March 2008, 09:30 PM	#130
JEROME DA GNOME Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: The Land of Pleasant Living Posts: 8,932	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Evasion noted. Frankly, I'm not surprised you are choosing to run away from your arguments - if mine were half as bad I'd do the same. This may be the weakest argument I have ever seen put forward in this forum. I have not read the conversation, but this was the most simpleminded retort I have ever read on this forum.

14th March 2008, 02:25 AM	#131
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME I have not read the conversation, but this was the most simpleminded retort I have ever read on this forum. How upset am I that such a towering genius as yourself makes such a cutting comment? Take a guess.

14th March 2008, 04:17 AM	#132
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	I suspect the FL and MI Delegate issue will not be solved until the convention, if at all. TAM

16th March 2008, 02:25 PM	#134
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME I have not read the conversation, but this was the most simpleminded retort I have ever read on this forum. not simpleminded, just weak and silly. Clearly she was losing the debate on all points. Pride goeth...yada.

17th March 2008, 02:00 AM	#135
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Rob Lister not simpleminded, just weak and silly. Clearly she was losing the debate on all points. Pride goeth...yada. Try and remember that YOU were the one who made the claim and you were the one who ran away from providing evidence to support it. However, seeing as you are back: What EVIDENCE do you have that Obama's campaign want to CHANGE THE RULES (and please specify which rule they have asked to be changed, specifically)? To make it wasy for you, here is a format you could use: Clinton's campaign want to change the rules that says that no delegates will be seated for either Michigan or Florida because they held their primaries before the earliest date on which they were permitted to do so. The rules say that in such circumstances, no delegates will be seated, therefore the Clinton campaign asking for those delegates to be seated involves, of necessity, changing that rule. Over to you, or are you going to run away again?

17th March 2008, 06:43 AM	#138
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Rob Lister Okay, I guess Jerome might have been right: you really are simpleminded. Perhaps you should review this tread (and others if you like) to better establish who made what claims. If necessary (and for you I think it might be), please take advantage of the resources available in This Link. I do apologise. You did not make the claim. However in your opinion I was "losing the debate on all points" so I must assume that you consider the claim to have been supported. Like to expand on why? This link might help you with your next post: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Basic-Spelli.../dp/0719570263

17th March 2008, 07:01 AM	#139
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet I do apologise. You did not make the claim. However in your opinion I was "losing the debate on all points" so I must assume that you consider the claim to have been supported. Like to expand on why? Simpleminded seems to be your forte! Perhaps if you stop reading into what I and others write, you'll not assume so many facts not in evidence.

18th March 2008, 05:47 AM	#140
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Rob Lister Simpleminded seems to be your forte! Perhaps if you stop reading into what I and others write, you'll not assume so many facts not in evidence. You said I was losing the debate on all points. It is not "reading into" what you say to assume that you meant what you posted. The key point of the debate was whether the Obama campaign wanted a rule change. If I am losing on all points, then it would be necessary to be losing on that point. All I have asked you to do is provide any support for what you posted. Namecalling seems to be your forte, how about some actual arguments instead?

18th March 2008, 07:20 AM	#141
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet You said I was losing the debate on all points. It is not "reading into" what you say to assume that you meant what you posted. The key point of the debate was whether the Obama campaign wanted a rule change. Is you deciding what the key points are the only way you can win a debates? The key points were actually whether there's a difference between changing rules and breaking them, and whether the Clinton campaign wants to change the rules or break the rules.

18th March 2008, 09:30 AM	#143
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Bob Klase Is you deciding what the key points are the only way you can win a debates? No, but it does appear to be for you. Quote: The key points were actually whether there's a difference between changing rules and breaking them, and whether the Clinton campaign wants to change the rules or break the rules. Posts found in this thread on a search using "chang" as the search criteria: 41 Posts found in this thread on a search using "break" as the search criteria: 9 (including 3 that only refer to the states breaking the rule all of which were long before the discussion about the behaviour of the campaign teams) Posts found in this thread on a search using "brok*" as the search criteria: 6 (including one result included in the nine above).

18th March 2008, 09:40 AM	#144
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Posts found in this thread on a search using "chang" as the search criteria: 41 Posts found in this thread on a search using "break" as the search criteria: 9 (including 3 that only refer to the states breaking the rule all of which were long before the discussion about the behaviour of the campaign teams) So you think context and usage mean nothing and only count the number of times a word is used to establish what's relevant? For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

18th March 2008, 09:48 AM	#145
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet No, I think that when the argument is that one candidate wants to change the rules to suit themselves and the other does not, it is simply diversionary tactics to start semantic arguments about whether the candidate wants to change or break the rules. It does not change the FACT (try looking that one up to) that only one candidate wants to change/break the rules. Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet No rule will be broken if the superdelegates decide to vote solely in line with pledged delegates, nor if they choose to ignore pledged delegates entirely. Obama's people are trying to convince them that the will of the people is a significant factor that they should take into consideration. Doing so does not break any rules. I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying a rule is being broken or not? This is getting tiresome. The above are (I believe from a quick search of the thread) the ONLY times I have used the words "broken" or "breaking" in this thread. Can you explain how you get from there to this being the "key point" of the debate?

18th March 2008, 09:50 AM	#146
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by Bob Klase So you think context and usage mean nothing and only count the number of times a word is used to establish what's relevant? For some reason that doesn't surprise me. Nice strawman. You will also notice that I gave you both context and usage for why I believe that the claim that Obama's campaign wanted change was the key point of the debate. I notice that you have not done so to support your claim - I wonder why?

21st March 2008, 05:53 PM	#147
JEROME DA GNOME Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: The Land of Pleasant Living Posts: 8,932	All of the delegates may vote for whomever they choose at the convention. Why is this so hard to understand?

27th March 2008, 09:06 AM	#148
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,409	This article seems to propose a sensible solution to the crisis. Of course, that means it's terribly unlikely that the Democrats will adopt it. Quote: The third option would be to let the early primary votes stand, and select delegates according to the outcome. On a statistical basis, this is clearly the right result for Florida. The easiest solution for Michigan is to simply award the 45% of the vote uncommitted or for another candidate to Mr. Obama. This appears to be the intent of those voters, as well as the likely result of a rematch. It would reduce Mr. Obama's current edge in pledged delegates to 115 from 167. It would also reduce the adjusted popular-vote margin, that converts caucus votes to primary votes, to an edge for Mr. Obama of 466,000. If Mrs. Clinton wins Pennsylvania by the margin polls now suggest, the two candidates would be essentially tied in popular votes, with an Obama edge in delegates of about 80. That would leave the remaining primaries and the superdelegates to decide the outcome of an essentially tied race. That last bit shows why Barack Obama would be foolish to agree to this compromise; it puts Hillary in a much stronger position than she is now. But I find the analysis that leads the writer to that conclusion pretty compelling.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

27th March 2008, 11:59 AM	#149
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	In what way is it sensible? Are we to assume that the new standard should be this... 1. If you don't like where your primary day is, then just move it. There will be a fuss, but in the end it will count. 2. Do not allow anyone to campaign in the area in question, allowing the person with the most NAME RECOGNITION to have a decisive edge, then count the votes of said primary. 3. Only put one name on the ballot, and then have the election, and recognizing the outcome as legitimate. Yes I am an Obama supporter, but for the love of god, the above solution looks like it came from Clinton's campaign headquarters. TAM

27th March 2008, 02:53 PM	#150
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,838	I agree it's not sensible and would set a bad precedent. I think the real problem is that many voters lack political will. The MI and FL voters should have protested vigorously when their legislators decided to schedule their primaries at a time when their votes wouldn't count -- and there was still time to reschedule.
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,838	__________________ When everyone think alike, no one thinks very much. -- Walter Lippman''

27th March 2008, 03:45 PM	#151
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	To be honest with you, it is just a very bad and unexpected situation. No Democrat could have foreseen the predicament they are in. I think the Delegates should be seated, the trouble is how. A 50-50 split gives Obama an edge, as he gets closer to 2024. The method above, and variations of it give Hillary a clear and large edge. I hate to say it, but the best choice would have been a two step primary caucus, but the cost and logistics were prohibitive. TAM

27th March 2008, 06:07 PM	#152
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,409	The problem with the 50-50 split is that it completely ignores the voters. Maybe the best solution is the one the Republicans went with; count the vote but cut the delegates in half. Of course, it's too late now. The argument Obama is making is something of a conservative one. Republicans like to say the rules are the rules, while the Democrats are more likely to say, the rules are the rules unless they result in an unfair outcome. Think about Affirmative Action, for example. Republicans say if a school wants to establish a standard that requires (say) a 3.5 GPA and 650 SATs, that's fine. Democrats would say, okay, but if you end up with a student body that's not 13% black, then you need to change things.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

27th March 2008, 06:27 PM	#153
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	or we could say that Hillary's view is one of a loser. Now that she has no legitimate way to win BY THE RULES, she wants to ignore them, change them, or make new ones. TAM

27th March 2008, 06:49 PM	#154
TheJim Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 419	Originally Posted by Brainster The problem with the 50-50 split is that it completely ignores the voters. Maybe the best solution is the one the Republicans went with; count the vote but cut the delegates in half. Of course, it's too late now. The republicans actually where very weak here in their punishment. The penalty of cutting the delegates in half is meaningless because the two states still got what they wanted which was an campiagn money in the state and to have early influence. Florida for example this year is what won McCain the nomination. Quote: The argument Obama is making is something of a conservative one. Republicans like to say the rules are the rules, while the Democrats are more likely to say, the rules are the rules unless they result in an unfair outcome. Think about Affirmative Action, for example. Republicans say if a school wants to establish a standard that requires (say) a 3.5 GPA and 650 SATs, that's fine. Democrats would say, okay, but if you end up with a student body that's not 13% black, then you need to change things. Except of course when it comes to election law and the S.C.
TheJim Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 419

28th March 2008, 03:29 AM	#155
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,146	Originally Posted by T.A.M. ToA 50-50 split gives Obama an edge, as he gets closer to 2024. 50-50 split changes nothing. While Obama has more delegates, the total number of delegates need increases by exactly the same number. The only reason 2024 is the important number is because there are currently 4048 total delegates (pledged + super). If you increase the number of pledged (lets say by 200 to keep the sums easy), then the number need to win goes up by half of that amount (i.e. 100) so instead of needing 2024, you need 2124.