• on a comment on Context over 6 years ago

    But what good does it do Obama to harp on these comments if they are as inconsequential?  Hillary's lost.  There's nothing to gain by attacking her for something like this.

    It seems petty.

  • Who may vote - some states allow anyone, some allow anyone who is not affiliated with another party, some allow only those affiliated with the Democratic party.

    Who can vote - the effort required to vote varies greatly, to the point where the effort is so great that it effectively disenfranchises some voters (namely, the time- and process- intensive caucuses).

    How power is distributed - depending on where you live, when your state votes, etc., your vote has greater or lesser influence on the process.  And I don't mean Iowa's first-mover advantage - although that is a problem - I mean the bonus delegates that certain states get to boost turnout, or discourage line-jumping, or whatever.  It's creative, but it's anti-democratic.

    I'm sure there are others.

    The election system patchwork is problematic for contests that occur wholly within the boundaries of a particular state, but it's simply unacceptable for those contests - like the presidential election, or the presidential primary - that occur nationwide.  IMO, one-person, one-vote requires a process that is uniform across the country, so that everyone has an equal chance to participate, and everyone has an equal say in the outcome.

    And FWIW, proportional allocation is fine, to the extent that it is better than winner-take-all.  But I'd prefer to simply add up the votes.

  • comment on a post The Politics Of Violence over 6 years ago

    When I read it on Salon.  And now I think it's even more ridiculous.  No one in their right mind could possibly believe that Hillary carelessly - let alone deliberately - invited harm to come to Barack.  

    I mean, if you want to talk about "The Politics of Violence" in the context of this campaign, Hillary's supporters can refer you to any number of comments by pundits where they use violent metaphors to describe how she should be made to leave the race - those are worthy of outrage.

    This?  Well, if this is worthy of it, then this concern for the candidate's well being is pretty damn selective.

  • comment on a post It's a democratic REPUBLIC, stupid! over 6 years ago

    The system is shit.  The closeness of this election has merely made that fact self-evident.

    The fact that Clinton's supporters have made note of this fact does not mean that Obama's supporters are obliged to disagree.  It's entirely acceptable to agree that the system is shit and nevertheless argue that Obama has prevailed.  He has.

    We shouldn't be defending this broken system.  We should be demanding that the Democratic Party fix it, if not for the sake of democracy, if not out of respect for us, then for the sake of the electing a Democratic president - having a nominee whose legitimacy is anything less than self-evident is terrible for the party.

    We deserve nothing less than a system where every Democrat has an equal voice in determining who the nominee is, and where the victor is the candidate with the most support - and that's not the system we have.

    We should count ourselves lucky that the candidate with the most support - Obama - nevertheless prevailed.  It could easily have been the reverse.

    In which case, I daresay that arguments would be reversed.

  • on a comment on Power to the People over 6 years ago

    An Obama supporter and a man, here.  It's sexist bullshit akin to waving an "Iron My Shirt" sign.

    Lord Hadrian, if you want to instruct women as to their proper place, I suggest you visit a website where that's welcomed.

    Otherwise, in the future, if you want to respond with a picture, I believe lolcats are the generally accepted subjects.

  • comment on a post Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton over 6 years ago

    Hillary's ahead, even if you count those states that she and her supporters believe shouldn't count - Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine.

    Of course, in two hours, things may change.

  • comment on a post Appalachia is Clinton Country over 6 years ago

    If you go south & east of Appalachia, you'll find the sea of Obama voters that brought him to victory in the "Appalachian" states of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

    But they're black, so they don't count - right TD?

  • comment on a post Hillary Clinton conference call over 6 years ago

    Everyone knows that when Clinton's supporters say

    She's leading in the popular vote. Period.

    That they're tacitly disenfranchising Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

    I don't understand how Clinton and her supporters can claim to care about the disenfranchisment of voters in Michigan and Florida when, every time they make a statement like Jerome's, they're advocating the disenfranchisement of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

  • on a comment on Tell NARAL They're Wrong over 6 years ago

    Where you read that Edwards endorsed Obama because he "has helped Edwards financially."

    Or is that as true as the claim that Obama is a Muslim, or that he's anti-choice?

  • Apparently would prefer that Obama not choose Hillary as his running mate - 48% say no, 44% say yes.

    Blacks, however, say yes - 62% to 35%.

    I anticipate exploding heads.

  • comment on a post WV over, next over 6 years ago

    Or is it Clintonball?

    I'd appreciate it if Clinton's supporters would do us all a favor and decide, once and for all, which contests and which rules "really" count for the purpose of deciding the nomination.  

    Granted, it would have been nice for them to have decided before almost every state had voted, so that the voters themselves could have some say.  But better late than never; maybe this way, voters in South Dakota will know that if they want their vote to count, they should vote in the primary or the straw poll at the next Sioux Falls Hillary 2008 mixer.

    Really, those who attended the Nebraska Caucuses clearly believed it was the caucuses that determined the nominee, yet here we see that the Nebraska Primary is the "real" contest.  Wouldn't it have been nice for all those voters who wasted their time at the Nebraska caucuses to know that their efforts were meaningless?

    I suggest a blog (hey, maybe it could be MyDD! maybe it already is!), so that the rules can be changed as needed to reflect the evolving definition of "real" contests.

  • And your estimate of zero is bullshit.

  • And as a reward, her supporters pretend it doesn't exist.  Nice of you, but given the Clintons' history of chucking supporters when they become inconvenient (witness NAFTA, welfare reform, and DOMA), not a surprise.

    Look, I'm not gonna pretend that the will of the people isn't a bit vague in this contest, but calling contests that do count - like the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses - "imaginary" is simply bullshit.

  • on a comment on WV Primary thread over 6 years ago

    Clinton has a problem with black America, with young America, with college-educated America, etc., and yet there are no demands that Clinton's supporters "deal with it," nor are there any demands that they "com[e] out and straightfowardly admit[ she] has work to do."  Instead, they merely trumpet support for her among the demographic who does support her, all but arguing that said support entitles her to the nomination and that Obama's support, even if it does constitute a plurality of the Democratic electorate, is unimportant.

    I'll take the concern seriously when Clinton's supporters show that they are serious in their concern.

  • on a comment on WV Primary thread over 6 years ago

    I find these apples-to-oranges comparisons problematic.  That goes for the comparison of pledged delegates to the popular vote and the comparison of caucuses to primaries.

    I hope the nominee will prevail by every possible metric, so as to avoid that mess.  If the nominee can't do that, then I hope the superdelegates vote with what they believe to be the majority of the Democratic electorate.

    And then I hope they go to Congress and reform this fucking mess of a primary.  And the elections process generally.


Advertise Blogads