I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

I have decided to run for President in 2012.  But, first, I must win the nomination of my party.  Based on Obama's brilliant argument, I have a foolproof plan.  I will decide which states I am likely to lose, and then, sytematically withdraw my name from the ballot in those states.  Thus, whoever wins in those states will have their delegate and popular vote totals disqualified.  Given the absolute agreement that this logic is universally approved, my success seems inevitable.

Tags: 2008, clinton, Election, fairness, logic, obama, Primary (all tags)



Heh, you tagged this with "Logic"


by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

You should run for the 2008 nomination.  You have as much chance as Hillary does of getting the Supers to make you the nominee.  Why wait?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-08 12:33PM | 0 recs
an apt username

It's exactly what I said to myself while wasting the few seconds it took to read this inane drivel.

by N in Seattle 2008-05-08 12:37PM | 0 recs
Run puhleeze Run

Can the grapes be more SOUR?

by venician 2008-05-08 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

Still waiting for a substantive rebuttal, so far just the usual poop on you.

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 12:39PM | 0 recs
Heh, "substantive rebuttal"

When you fling poop, do you think it's fair to expect to hear anything but the "usual poop" in return?

But here's substantive:  you completely misrepresent the primary season and Obama's actions in your inane hypothetical.  Your entire lame snark is based on falsehoods and untruths.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

I think you should include all the states...just don't count them until after you win.

by soyousay 2008-05-08 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

Excellent suggestion, thank you.

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:02PM | 0 recs
What a crap diary

    Hillary didn't compete in many of the states Obama did. You gonna criticize her?
by southernman 2008-05-08 12:44PM | 0 recs
Easy, Cheesy Zucchini Bake:

1 pound ground turkey
2 large zucchini, halved lengthwise
3 cups spaghetti sauce
1 (8.75 ounce) can whole kernel corn, drained
1 cup shredded Mexican cheese blend

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C).
Brown turkey in a large skillet over medium heat. Drain fat.
Place halved zucchini slices in a baking dish. Pour the ground turkey, spaghetti sauce, and corn on top. Cover with aluminum foil.
Bake in preheated oven until zucchini are tender, about 20 to 25 minutes. Uncover, and sprinkle with cheese. Bake, uncovered, about 5 minutes.

by sricki 2008-05-08 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy, Cheesy Zucchini Bake:

Et tu, brute?

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy, Cheesy Zucchini Bake:

What? Maybe I just like cheesy zucchini.

by sricki 2008-05-08 01:11PM | 0 recs
Cucumber Soup


   * 3 medium cucumbers
    * 3 cups chicken broth
    * 3 cups sour cream
    * 3 tablespoons cider vinegar
    * 2 teaspoons salt
    * 1 clove garlic, minced
    * 2 medium tomatoes, chopped
    * 3/4 cup sliced almonds, toasted
    * 1/2 cup chopped green onions
    * 1/2 cup minced fresh parsley


  1. Peel cucumbers; halve lengthwise and remove seeds. Cut into chunks. In a blender, cover and puree cucumbers and broth in small batches. Transfer to a large bowl; stir in the sour cream, vinegar, salt if desired and garlic until well blended. Cover and refrigerate for at least 4 hours. Stir before serving. Garnish with tomatoes, almonds, onions and parsley.

That's good stuff!

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-08 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Cucumber Soup

As long as you include 50 states, you will get my vote. Looks like you have the Betty Crocker crowd to.

by gunner 2008-05-08 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Cucumber Soup

Soup! The great unifier. Though I am a big fan of ground turkey, too - so don't discount the recipe above.

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-08 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

For those who are analogy-disadvantaged, here's the substantive question: How does removing your name voluntarily from a ballot disqualify the remaining candidate/s? And, part B, name one example, among the numerous ones where other candidates have removed their names from particular states for strategic reasons, where the remaining candidate/s votes have been disqualified?

Or, you can respond with -- lame, snark, falsehoods, untruths, recipes, sour grapes, inane, drivel, ironic.

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:06PM | 0 recs
not worthy of even a snark response

by citizendave 2008-05-08 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: not worthy of even a snark response

Considering how many hundreds of times I've heard this argument from Obama and his media mouthpieces, I'm disappointed no one seems to be able to support his argument rationally.

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:22PM | 0 recs
see above

by citizendave 2008-05-08 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

Ok - so Obama joined Edwards and others in removing his name from the ballot in a (misguided) attempt to punish Michigan for breaking the rules.

And? I don't see what the big deal is. Did Michigan break the rules? Yes, with gusto. Did Obama adopt a silly strategy, along with other nominees, to punish Michigan? Yup. Is Obama the only candidate who made this move? Nope.

I also think you fail to forget two important facts...

  1. Obama would have performed far better in MI than he did in Florida. It would have been in his benefit to stay on the ballot in MI. He made a foolish choice - along with the other candidates. The point is Obama would be even farther ahead of Clinton right now if he had not taken his name off the Michigan ballot.
  2. Michigan broke the rules. You believe there should be no punishment for this? Do you want to see the 2012 nomination race start in 2010? Because that is what will happen if Iowa and NH don't take the DNC's threats seriously. That, or, Iowa and NH will ALWAYS start off the process. I don't like either of those options.

by LandStander 2008-05-08 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

Conflating two utterly separate issues -- Michigan broke the rules; Obama withdrew his name -- only serves to obfuscate.  

Set aside the rules argument just for a moment to address the issue of the effect one candidate's withdrawal on other candidates' delegate count and popular vote totals.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:27PM | 0 recs
They are not separate issues

Obama removed his name BECAUSE Michigan broke the rules.

Obama did not remove his name in a SINGLE CONTEST where the votes were to be counted.  He participated in every single democratic (purposefully small 'd') contest.

How can you set the rules argument aside and then talk about the effect on delegate counts?  The delegate counts were nullified by the rules issue!

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: They are not separate issues

Obama removed his name BECAUSE he saw a strategic advantage to doing so.  All I'm trying to do here is equate Michigan with Florida.  Everybody in the world thinks Michigan is some special case where it's absurd to count anything because "He wasn't even on the ballot!!!!"

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: They are not separate issues

He wasn't on the ballot BECAUSE the vote wasn't going to count!

Obviously, he would have kept his name on the ballot (as he did in every other state) if the vote had been counted.

Seriously, you divide these issues at the expense of logic.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Then

Why did he not remove his name from the Florida ballot?

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 02:17PM | 0 recs
As I already explained,

the only way to remove your name from the Florida ballot is to remove yourself entirely from that candidacy.  Since Obama was still running for president, he could not take his name off the ballot.

See?  I am teaching you important facts!  This discussion is useful for at least this.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, you did.

And I am open to being taught.  In fact, I went to the Florida State website, which confirmed your point.  I will in the future refrain from using his failure to withdraw from Florida as part of my argument.  Nonetheless, my basic argument stands -- that whatever else may also be true and pertinent, the voluntary withdrawal from the ballot of one candidate should not affect remaining candidates' positions.  Perhaps you could concede that simple point.

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, you did.

And again, you keep misrepresenting the situation.  In a democratic election where the votes will count, the voters are told the votes will count and the candidates are allowed to campaign and participate, voluntary withdrawal from the ballot of one candidate should not affect remaining candidates' positions.  THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN MICHIGAN.

In Michigan, the vote was EXPLICITLY designated as "not counting."  The candidates pledged not to participate or campaign.  Therefore, the entire exercise was a straw poll, NOT a democratic election, and name withdrawal was perfectly valid.

You simply cannot count the popular vote from Michigan and include it with other state totals in democratic elections.  It is completely undemocratic.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-09 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

Michigan broke the rules THEREFORE Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson all withdrew their names from the ballot.

It is an IF, THEN statement. IF Michigan breaks the rules THEN we take our names off the ballot. It is one of the most basic building blocks of a logical argument.

Had Michigan not broken the rules, why the hell would anyone remove their name? That just doesn't make sense.

So, no, puhleeze, I will not set aside the "rules argument" and neither will any other thinking person. All this is, is a rules argument. That is what this is. A rules argument. An argument regarding the rules. The rules, as it were, is the cornerstone of this entire situation. If the rules were not a factor, we would not be having this conversation.

How else can I restate this to make it clear? I've got all the time in the world, apparently.

by LandStander 2008-05-08 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President
I have no idea who's "if" and who's "then" you are talking about.  Candidates who withdrew did so for strategic reasons, just as candidates who did not.  Reasons to withdraw seem obvious: 1. if you're likely to lose, why look bad 2. saves money 3. sucks up to "legitimate" early oh-so-important IA and NH.  Reasons to stay like wise: For Clinton, it was an almost certain win.  For Dodd, he was the only other candidate and hoped to benefit from the anti-Hillary vote.
And, under your logic, why did Obama not withdraw from Florida??
by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-08 01:29PM | 0 recs
See, you keep whiffing

You keep missing the point.  Every time you frame the issue as "removing your name voluntarily from a ballot [to] disqualify the remaining candidate/s", you fail acknowledge that THE VOTERS WERE TOLD THIS VOTE WOULD NOT COUNT.

Again --- the citizens of Michigan were told that there Democratic primary election would NOT count.  Even Clinton acknowledged this.  So it didn't matter at the time if some candidates removed their names in order to satisfy (fairly, in their estimation) the requirement that they not "campaign or participate" in the Michigan primary.

You talk just like there was a real election that Obama just walked away from.  WRONG.  That is COMPLETELY misleading.  This was not a real election to start with!

How about those Michigan Democrats that (1) stayed home since their vote wouldn't count or (2) voted in the Republican primary, which they were allowed to do, to at least participate in something that mattered?

Seriously, you COMPLETELY miss the point (I assume on purpose).

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: See, you keep whiffing

There is absolutely nothing in the DNC rules or rulings that has any bearing whatsoever on the popular vote.  Voters came out to  say, I'm one person and I vote as follows.  Not to mention that at the time, the media were discussing the problem of utterly disenfranchising these states, and how other compromises might be reached under the rules in the future.  Voters questioned in both states thought that their popular vote would "count", whatever count means in a delegate-based assessment.

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:32PM | 0 recs

Again, you are totally wrong.  You vote in a primary in order to show your preference for the nominee WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE RULES.  If voters are told that their vote won't count for delegates, and the system is a delegate-based system, then you have removed the MAJOR, SINGULARLY IMPORTANT reason for voting.

The Michigan primary was a straw poll; you showed up as a Clinton supporter to show your support, and you showed up as anyone else to lodge a protest vote.  You did NOT expect your vote to have meaning within the primary process.

Seriously, how can it be used as a metric when voters were discouraged to even show up?  That's not democratic in the least.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: No

No one "discouraged" voters, active verb.  If voters were "discouraged," that is, they were less motivated to vote because their vote might not affect the outcome, the voters who did show up should be commended. Voters are discouraged for many reasons.  They perceive their vote as having little bearing on the outcome for many reasons.  For instance, most often, primaries are decided before all states have voted.  No one has argued that, therefore, those voters voting after that point should not be counted in totals.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:44PM | 0 recs
Again, no

When the voters are told that their vote will be meaningless, then they have been discouraged.  This is not a question of having "little" bearing on a race, this is a question of having NO bearing on a race.

Look, don't fight this, you have no substantive argument.  When the DNC told Michigan that the Michigan primary was not going to count, the vote became a straw poll.  When candidates pledged to "not campaign or participate", the vote continued to be a straw poll.  When candidates, in response to those actions, removed their names from the ballot, the vote continued to be a straw poll.

You cannot argue that this was a democratic vote.  Divide up the pledged delegates in some equitable fashion, and discount entirely the popular vote (which makes sense regardless, since the popular vote is not the metric for determining the nominee).

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: whiff whiff

In addition, it is a long-disposed of canard that "campaign or participate" refers to the ballot listing.  Otherwise, what was his name doing still on the Florida ballot?  Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot, and entreatied others to join him, to suck up to Iowa.  His strategy, his choice.  And, in fact he did actively campaign -- to get his supporters to vote uncommitted.

by oh puhleeze 2008-05-08 01:38PM | 0 recs
Why Florida, you ask?

I'm glad you did!  Under Florida rules, the ONLY way to remove your name is to withdraw your entire candidacy.  Therefore, no one could remove their name without stepping out of the race entirely.

Thus, the difference.

Seriously, how can you argue these were democratic contests?  They were declared meaningless beforehand!

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-08 01:58PM | 0 recs
More silly stuff.

I've decided to run for president.  There is a state where the primary won't count because they broke the rules.  All the other candidates are removing their names from the ballot as a show of party loyalty.  I'll keep my name on the ballot so I will be the only choice.  Then later I will make a big fuss about how the votes should count.  And no giving the undecided votes to my opponent either.  All the votes should go to me, me, me, because I am the winner, winner, winner.

by GFORD 2008-05-08 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hereby Announce My Candidacy For President

This parallel reality requires the exclusion of MANY of the key facts, the most important of which being that the candidate who took himself off the ballot wasn't responsible for those delegates not being seated.  It happened well before the election.  The delegates weren't denied because of it.


by freedom78 2008-05-08 04:08PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads