Clinton to blame Obama for no Michigan revote

Katczinsky · 03-19-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

And we all know Iowa and New Hampshire are the two most important states. How dare any other states challenge their superiority!

Let's face it, the American system of choosing presidential candidates is arcane and unfair. Every state should hold its primary on the same date the way they do in every other republic including Russia.

No wonder Obama wants to try and prevent MI and FL from being counted - he lost both of them.

Which is why in your so democratic homeland of the UK, Prime Ministers are elected by the Party. Would you rather have Democratic Party officials and members of Congress completely decide who the nominee is, like in your country, gary?

We may have a federalist approach to our elections in the United States, but at least the people still have primary control over the nomination process.

Quote:

Are you trying to say that if they were polling in favor of Obama he'd not be wanting a revote in those states?? He'd still be against it and relying on 'rules' as he is now. I think not...please whatever you can say about Hilary on this matter you can say the same for Obama if the situation were reversed. He is against the repoll not becuase they broke the rules but because the States seem to be in favor of Hilary. Mr I want to bring a new deal to DC and out with the old rules likes the old rules when it suits him just like all politicians do. Its the nature of the beast and Hilary is acting like a politician just like Obama is.

Personally I think its anti democratic not to allow a revote. The American people deserve a clear indication as to whom they want to be the democratic candidate and if a redo in Michigan and Florida helps lets do that...

As long as we have the anti-democratic electoral college, the only anti-democratic thing is allowing big states that get all the attention in the general election such as Florida to be more relevant in the nomination process, especially if they break the rules. The point is to give a voice to the Democrats in traditionally conservative states because they're neglected under the electoral system.

garysher · 03-19-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Which is why in your so democratic homeland of the UK, Prime Ministers are elected by the Party. Would you rather have Democratic Party officials and members of Congress completely decide who the nominee is, like in your country, gary?

At least in the United States, the people have primary control over the nomination process.

But not if they live in Florida or Michigan and have the audacity to want to vote whilst all of the candidates are still in the race!

The comparison with a Parliamentary system doesn't really hold water. We don't elect our head of state, only our MP's.

And the advantage of having the party elect their leader is that he/she doesn't have to remain in office for a fixed term. If a Prime Minister has passed their "use by" date they can be removed, and that can help the party in the next election.

If you had a similar system in the US you could have got rid of Bush years ago instead of having to wait out his lame duck tenure.

Katczinsky · 03-19-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

But not if they live in Florida or Michigan and have the audacity to want to vote whilst all of the candidates are still in the race!

The point is that the people of Florida and Michigan at least get to vote and send delegates to the convention; that is, if they follow the rules.

Quote:

The comparison with a Parliamentary system doesn't really hold water. We don't elect our head of state, only our MP's.

The fact that you don't elect your head of state is exactly my point, Mr. "the entire western world is more democratic than the US Presidential election process."

Quote:

And the advantage of having the party elect their leader is that he/she doesn't have to remain in office for a fixed term. If a Prime Minister has passed their "use by" date they can be removed, and that can help the party in the next election.

If you had a similar system in the US you could have got rid of Bush years ago instead of having to wait out his lame duck tenure.

Which is why the unpopular Tony Blair served ten years as Prime Minister (longer than the possible eight in the US) only to have his 'selected' (not elected) clone of Gordon Brown to succeed him. Very democratic, Gary.

If we had a similar system in the US, Bush might not have been the Republican nominee in 2000 the first place. That is, if we had a similar system in the US, the nomination of the President wouldn't be democratic, but would be at the whim of the Party leaders (a process we deemed undemocratic and got rid of nearly two centuries ago).

I'm not necessarily saying that the British system is intrinsically bad or anything. I'm just tired of you continuously complaining about the 'anti-democratic' federalist American elections 'compared to the rest of the world' when the election process for the head of government is even more anti-democratic in your own backyard. Not to mention your official chief of state is a monarch and is succeeded by an heir.

nuttyjoe · 03-19-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

And we all know Iowa and New Hampshire are the two most important states. How dare any other states challenge their superiority!

Let's face it, the American system of choosing presidential candidates is arcane and unfair. Every state should hold its primary on the same date the way they do in every other republic including Russia.

No wonder Obama wants to try and prevent MI and FL from being counted - he lost both of them.

Actually, he never lost Michigan if his name wasn't on the ballot! I still believe that both states should be ordered to have another primary at the end. That way, it's fair to both candidates. Obama's name must be on the ballots; and if Hillary has the Florida vote she thinks she does, then it's not unreasonable to ask her supporters to make that vote for her one more time. And if she does get those votes, then no problem.
As far as Michigan goes; I think the ballot spoke for itself. We only can suppose that Obama lost. But there is no proof.
The truth is, Hillary wants those delegates seated as is. It is Obama who wants them redone. It is Hillary who stands to lose more, not Obama; by a concerted effort by Obama to campaign in these states. 55%-45% victories will do nothing to help her when Obama wins his states by much larger percentages. That's why his delegate lead is close to 200. And each day passing will see more and more undecided delegates commiting to Obama.

Katczinsky · 03-19-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

Actually, he never lost Michigan if his name wasn't on the ballot! I still believe that both states should be ordered to have another primary at the end. That way, it's fair to both candidates. Obama's name must be on the ballots; and if Hillary has the Florida vote she thinks she does, then it's not unreasonable to ask her supporters to make that vote for her one more time. And if she does get those votes, then no problem.
As far as Michigan goes; I think the ballot spoke for itself. We only can suppose that Obama lost. But there is no proof.
The truth is, Hillary wants those delegates seated as is. It is Obama who wants them redone. It is Hillary who stands to lose more, not Obama; by a concerted effort by Obama to campaign in these states. 55%-45% victories will do nothing to help her when Obama wins his states by much larger percentages. That's why his delegate lead is close to 200. And each day passing will see more and more undecided delegates commiting to Obama.

I think your right; Obama would probably take Michigan with a good majority, and would probably split it pretty even in Florida. In the end Obama might take more delegates like he did coming out of March 4th, even though the Clintonites and the media like to peddle it to seem as a big win for Hillary.

nuttyjoe · 03-19-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I think your right; Obama would probably take Michigan with a good majority, and would probably split it pretty even in Florida. In the end Obama might take more delegates like he did coming out of March 4th, even though the Clintonites and the media like to peddle it to seem as a big win for Hillary.

Even if Hillary does actually win those states if they redo their primaries; she must win by landslide margins to gain any ground on Obama.Clinton's victories in the so-called "swing" states and "large" states have totally been marginalized by Obama's huge victory margins in the so-called "unimportant" states. The sand is running out in the hourglass for Hillary!

garysher · 03-19-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

The point is that the people of Florida and Michigan at least get to vote and send delegates to the convention; that is, if they follow the rules.

You mean the rule that they are not as important as Iowa, NH and several other states?

The fact that you don't elect your head of state is exactly my point, Mr. "the entire western world is more democratic than the US Presidential election process."

The Queen is a symbolic Head of State and in effect has little or no Executive powers.

Which is why the unpopular Tony Blair served ten years as Prime Minister (longer than the possible eight in the US) only to have his 'selected' (not elected) clone of Gordon Brown to succeed him. Very democratic, Gary.

Gordon Brown was elected party leader in exactly the same way as Blair!

I'm not necessarily saying that the British system is intrinsically bad or anything. I'm just tired of you continuously complaining about the 'anti-democratic' federalist American elections 'compared to the rest of the world' when the election process for the head of government is even more anti-democratic in your own backyard. Not to mention your official chief of state is a monarch and is succeeded by an heir.

A system which has worked very well for us over the last 1,000 or so years and does nothing to excuse the arcane methods used in the United States of America.

Katczinsky · 03-19-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

You mean the rule that they are not as important as Iowa, NH and several other states?

What I mean is that the people of Michigan and Florida are more important than the party leaders. But if they try to trump other states then that right can be revoked.

In the drawn out nomination process, some states have to go first and some have to go last by a necessary order. Why not make the states that get all the attention in the general election go last so everyone gets their voice?

I can't say I agree with the system, but so long as we have the electoral college then a one-day national primary doesn't make much sense.

Quote:

The Queen is a symbolic Head of State and in effect has little or no Executive powers.

Actually I was referring to your Prime Minister.

Quote:

Gordon Brown was elected party leader in exactly the same way as Blair!

That's exactly my point, genius.

Quote:

A system which has worked very well for us over the last 1,000 or so years and does nothing to excuse the arcane methods used in the United States of America.

First they're arcane because they're anti-democratic and now they're arcane because they're democratic? Make up your mind, do you want the people to decide Party nominees or Party officials and members of Congress?

Whether or not it works is beside the point. Working under that context is arbitrary anyway. I'm sure North Korea's dictatorship works just fine, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it's not the best possible system, and it certainly doesn't mean it's democratic.

garysher · 03-19-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

First they're arcane because they're anti-democratic and now they're arcane because they're democratic? Make up your mind, do you want the people to decide Party nominees or Party officials and members of Congress?

Yes I want the people to decide.

And the only fair way is to have every state vote on the same day as in a general election, whilst all the candidates are still in the race.

Your comparison with the Prime Minister isn't really accurate. It would make more sense to comapre the PM to the Leaders of the House and Senate, and I don't believe those positions are decided by the general electorate but by the party?

Katczinsky · 03-19-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Yes I want the people to decide.

And the only fair way is to have every state vote on the same day as in a general election, whilst all the candidates are still in the race.

Your comparison with the Prime Minister isn't really accurate. It would make more sense to comapre the PM to the Leaders of the House and Senate, and I don't believe those positions are decided by the general electorate but by the party?

Sorry, but Nanci Pelosi isn't the Head of Government. The most powerful roles those positions contain are probably committee chairs and being influential in the determining of House/Senate floor schedules. No where near the responsibility of a top position in the executive branch. And they're elected by a majority of votes in the House or Senate, not by the Party.