• comment on a post 50 means 50, and far from over over 6 years ago

    One assumption that I have trouble going along with is the notion that an election can't count if no one campaigned there. Putting aside for a minute that fact that there were local campaign efforts for both candidates, just not coordinated with the national campaign (at least in theory) why is my vote not legitimate unless the candidates campaign? I don't think there was any lack of coverage on the news, and there were 15 or so debates broadcast nationally. I did an admittedly quick Google search, and I can't find any mention of Obama campaigning in Alaska. Should that vote not count, since the Alaska voters were clearly uninformed?

  • on a comment on 50 means 50, and far from over over 6 years ago

    As has been stated many times, the argument that no one else was on the ballot is a non-starter. Obama willingly took his name off the ballot. It was his decision, it wasn't required by the pledge, and he has to live with it.

    And saying no one other than Hillary made an appearance in Florida is an outright falsehood. Although I don't think it's significant enough to raise a stink about, the fact is that Obama went much further than Clinton in violating the pledge, and the evidence points to the fact that he knew exactly what he was doing.

    And as I've stated elsewhere, I think people are making a lot of assumptions about the pledge that are unsupported by any facts. Where does it say the candidates pledged to abide by any decision the DNC made about seating delegates? My understanding is that the pledge was strictly that the candidates wouldn't campaign in the two states, and Obama vilolated that pledge more than Hillary.

    And by the way, it's also my understanding that the pledge was made not to the DNC, but to the four early primary states. Which is how Obama can make his laughable assertion that the South Carolina Dems gave him their permission to run ads in Florida.

  • on a comment on 50 means 50, and far from over over 6 years ago

    Well, now that Glen Smith has called the contest, I guess there's no reason to even campaign there. Why is it people continue to think the fact that they live in a state gives them some special wisdom to say what the outcome of the vote will be? I recall a lot of Californians posting all over the web,"I don't know anyone who's voting for Hillary," as if that's somehow definitive.

    This isn't to say that someone can't provide insight into the workings of their particular state, but calling the outcome is a bit much.

  • on a comment on 50 means 50, and far from over over 6 years ago

    My understanding is that the candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. No more, no less. People keep referring to this mysterious "pledge," and claiming that it included all sorts of promises by the candidates. I'd be interested to see if anyone can come up with an actual text that says the candidates pledged not to support the seating of the delegations.


Advertise Blogads