Dustin James ([info]dustinjames) wrote,
@ 2008-06-02 09:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:hillary clinton

Puerto Rico
Que Bueno Eres!

So yesterday, Clinton blew Obama out of the water in Puerto Rico, adding roughly 140,000 votes to her popular vote lead, and capturing all 8 senate districts. I've been giving Clinton $100 for each win she racks up in the primary, so I donated another $100 today, it isn't a ton of money, but it is what I can afford.

She needs 80% of the remaining Super delegates assuming that Montana and South Dakota go for Obama by a 60-40 split. A quitter would look at those odds and throw in the towel. It is why I support her so much, she just doesn't quit.

Over the weekend, when the Rules & Bylaws Committee unjustly awarded Obama not only more delegates than he was entitled too, but broke its own rules by awarding them away from Uncommitted (the legal entity they should have been awarded to)... just as food for thought: if the Clinton resolution had been adopted, this would stand at 1916.5 for Clinton, 2012 for Obama, 55 uncommitted, and 13.5 for Edwards. Obama would lack 105 delegates, or about 35 percent, and Clinton would lack 202.5 delegates, or about 65 percent, of the remaining delegates. That would have represented a wider open outcome, and not nearly the overwhelming odds that we are at today, at 80%.

I'm quickly becoming disillusioned with my party, and have registered a new website to talk about my feelings more as a centrist then a left leaning socialite and a right leaning fiscal. Understand that at the moment, McCain is speaking more to what I want to hear than Obama is, and while I will write-in Hillary for my vote in 2008 if she's not our nominee, I won't be lobbying any of my friends to vote Democrat this year if she isn't, and that includes the down ballot races, because I'm seriously pissed off at my (current) party.

This is HillaryOnDayOne.com - the new site will be announced soon.


(Post a new comment)


[info]khudirambose
2008-06-02 05:13 pm UTC (link)
The Michigan decision shocked me. They awarded Obama delegates that he didn't win. Since when did "Uncommitted" mean "Barack Obama"? Does the committee know something that we don't know? Can they read the minds of voters? I don't see why they couldn't just free up those delegates as new super-delegates. They'd probably go for Obama anyway, but at least it would be fair.

And I'm further amazed by how small the margin is between Hillary and Obama, and how the media reports this as a wide chasm. It's a little over 2,000 to a little over 1,900. It's basically a tie. This isn't McCain vs Huckabee by any stretch of the imagination.

(Reply to this)


[info]nexavier
2008-06-03 03:45 am UTC (link)
Hey, I saw your posts back in politicsforum (or whichever group you used to post kinda frequently in) and figured I'd check your journal out. After reading this post, I had a few questions for you:

1) What would the circumstances have to be in order for you to consider an Obama win fair?
2) Would you really be complaining about the problems of the process if Hillary was the [more] likely nominee?
3) Since I didn't really follow her resolution...what was Clinton proposing for Michigan? And how did her result "justly" account for her name being the only one the ballot? How do you feel about the way she's changed her position on this issue?
4) Do you really think you'd be more likely to have a positive impact from 'outside' the party than inside?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dustinjames
2008-06-03 07:53 pm UTC (link)
1) What would the circumstances have to be in order for you to consider an Obama win fair?

Seat Florida as voted and restore the Michigan delegates to the proper allocations, aka give Clinton back her 4 delegates and give the remaining 55 to Uncommitted. John Edwards was still in the race and likely would have won some of those delegates, much like he did in Florida. If the "Uncommitted" delegates after seated decided to break for Obama 100%, that's how the process works, but just don't game the process.

2) Would you really be complaining about the problems of the process if Hillary was the [more] likely nominee?

Yes I would. This is the first caucus I've ever been to, and the caucus has been the biggest clusterfuck I've ever seen. EVER. I wouldn't care if Hillary was winning the caucuses, its SO undemocratic. My poor infirmed father, he's of sound mind, but he can't get out of the house. He has to vote by absentee ballot. He was unable to vote absentee because the caucus does not allow absentee ballots. And my mom and sister? They had to work. So neither of them could vote because they couldn't get off from work to go and caucus. How completely unfair is that? I'm campaigning right now to go to Denver as a state delegate both in my support for Hillary and to abolish this f'ing caucus B.S.

3) Since I didn't really follow her resolution...what was Clinton proposing for Michigan? And how did her result "justly" account for her name being the only one the ballot? How do you feel about the way she's changed her position on this issue?

Clinton was proposing to seat the delegates as voted, including those 55 delegates to Uncommitted. Here's the problem with that 'justly' snark. Obama and Edwards, et al pulled their names from the ballot to try and curry favor with the party insiders in the Iowa caucus. It was a calculated move to try and gain more support, and it showed with their #1/#2 spots in the Iowa caucus. Kucinich nor Clinton removed their names, and if you look at the result, Kucinich did get approximately 2-4% of the vote county by county. And, she did not change her position on this issue, she simply signed a document agreeing not to campaign in either state. They were all forced to do this in order to get under the 'Democrat' banner.

4) Do you really think you'd be more likely to have a positive impact from 'outside' the party than inside?

Depends if the party wants to listen to me. At this point, they aren't, so why be the ignored minority in a party instead of being a vocal majority in a new one?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nexavier
2008-06-16 12:21 pm UTC (link)
Sorry for not responding earlier, I was just kind of lazy.

As far as #3 goes, that might be a fair point...I had been thinking of it in context of the decision to strip the states of delegates. You seem to want to blame Obama and Edwards for playing the game, but I don't recall anyone from Hillary's camp strongly denouncing the issue at the time. I know Harold Ickes completely flip-flopped on the issue. That said, it's not like the results of a vote without campaigning would be particularly fair anyway, that's like a high school election, all name-recognition and just a popularity contest. It would impede people from making a rational decision as to which candidate best supported their interests. So either way, the rules that were set up were not great for the people's interests...but they were fair to the candidates, because everyone knew the rules that they were playing by at the beginning. Trying that later is what is clearly unfair.

I see your points about the caucus stuff...I had just only seen you complain about it when Hillary started losing, so it seemed suspect.

I'm not really sure how I feel about the uncommitted thing...while I suppose it's possible those voters might have later have been convinced by Hillary, it seems rather unlikely...and given that Edwards backed Obama, the uncommitted issue just feels like something that might not technically be appropriate, but ultimately doesn't make a huge difference.

As for #4...it really depends on whether you think the new party will ever have a substantial following or actually be heard in any way that matters. With regard to being an ignored minority, I think the problem is when you made the arguments were made. With respect to the seating of the delegates, it really seemed to me that people only made a fuss when it was clear Hillary was losing...thus generating the image that people were complaining not because they felt the high ground (in which case they would have said something earlier) but because they were bitter about Hillary losing (no pun intended). As for the caucus stuff though, I think if you organized, that's something you could change within the party.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…