Was it "generally unjust"? I guess that depends on what you think of as "unjust". I think "unjust" would have been us ignoring two important states during our convention. Yes, they broke the rules. Yes, they deserved to be punished. Today's vote is still punishment; they've been effectively demoted from states to provinces.
Nor do I think that this is all about Hillary, any more than this general election will be all about Obama. This is about healing wounds, and it's about trying to include everyone in the process.
You're not helping, any more than those Clinton "supporters".
No - he's got a point, though perhaps it wasn't best-used.
I don't know how old you are - don't know what events have touched your life. Where were you when you found out about the attacks on 9/11? The Challenger disaster? RFK's assassination? MLK? JFK? Perl Harbor?
Each generation has its indelible events - etched into memory with a stylus of grief and shock, or maybe wonder and awe. Part of the RFK Assassination is its context: it happened the night of the California Convention, and as pointed out, RFK's final words had to do with the election.
This doesn't make her statement good or even acceptable. The lack of tact displayed (repeatedly) by her use of this comment is obvious by the reaction it's getting. Just don't get so tied up in the reaction that you irrationally dismiss a poster's point.
I'd go so far as to say not only was she talking about a process and not a person, but that she wasn't necessarily implying anything by her comment beyond what she says she really meant - iffy apology statement notwithstanding.
But it's an insensitive comment to have made in the charged atmosphere that permeates our country right now. It's decidedly unproductive, and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of other examples she could have used that had none of the connotations and fears associated with that event.
I think one or more of those states will be either necessary or at least heart-attack-preventing for the General Election, but I think Obama will pull at least one of them once the GE starts - probably PA, judging by my family's reporting on how he was received in central PA.
All of the current poll numbers are speculative; until we unify behind a single candidate, those numbers will be off by a bit on the low side. And until we start hitting McCain hard on his supposed strengths, we won't see what his real level of support is.
Further, we cannot continue to look at the same Electoral strategy that has failed us in two elections; we must broaden the number of states we can win and reach into areas that have not voted for the Democratic candidate recently. To do otherwise is to give the Republicans a narrow target area to blanket with their attacks and propaganda. In a year when we have a fundraising advantage, we should be on the attack, not the defense.
Have to sign on to this view. FL and MI both know the primary calendar rules set by the DNC. FL at least has the excuse of not having had a say in the matter; MI should know better and is just engaging in ME FIRST-ism.
Does this whole situation need to be addressed? Yes, and by next Presidential election. But it's too late to start into it this time around; a lot of states require legislative approval to change their calendars, and some states won't have a legislative session in time to implement any fixes.
I favor a rotating primary system with regional breakdowns, and I'll work toward that goal - after the '08 election cycle is over. Right now, no-one will be concentrating on that.
The FL Legislature is driving FL; I wouldn't blame the Florida Dems for it.
As to everyone else moving to Feb. 5, it's legal by the rules of the DNC, so I don't see Dean "losing contrl" of anything by that motion.
Michigan is another matter entirely. They're the only ones right now who are considering stepping out of line who actually have a choice in the matter. If they want to, they can move to Feb. 5 with everyone else. Let Florida stand alone in their move to intrude on the agreed-upon calendar, and possibly give them dispensation this time around because it wasn't their fault.
With Dick Wadhams now in charge of the Colorado Republican Party, it seems Schaffer is repeating the disaster that was "macaca" by attempting to bury this story through non-response and occasional half-hearted denials and deflections.
He skipped the BOE meeting on Monday (his handlers say "out-of-state scheduling conflict"), he won't respond meaningfully to the papers, and Wadhams has already chimed in with his own brand of non-denial at least once.
Schaffer's was the deciding vote to send the charter back to Denver Public Schools for reconsideration, but the vote was bi-partisan.
Had Schaffer simply sent the money back as a case of bad timing, this would have blown over a week ago. Instead, he's got at least two of the Democratic BOE members signing the ethics pledge Schaffer proposed and promoted and which Schaffer hasn't yet signed, he's got the Associated Press and about a half-dozen local papers on the case, and he's got the local political blogs and organizations running roughshod over his campaign.
I think we're gonna need another GOP Senate candidate. Maybe it's time for Tancredo to step up to the plate...
Yes, the law can be applied to Bush and/or Cheney after they leave office...
... IF Bush doesn't pardon the both of them on the way out the door. If they aren't already under impeachment proceedings at that time, Bush can issue a pre-emptive pardon on anyone he wants, a la Ford's pardon of Nixon.
Range voting fails several very important criteria, most importantly the later-no-harm criterion; because Range Voting allows a numeric score to be given, it is possible for a party - say the GOP - to intentionally and in co-ordination vote 100 for their candidate and 0 for all others, throwing off other voters' intents who use the system as intended.
Both Range and Approval Voting fail to satisfy the majority criterion, which says that the candidate preferred by the most voters wins.
IRV fails more of these criteria, the which I'm not defending here.
Condorcet also fails several criteria, but assuming you're using one of the better Condorcet algorithms, they are theoretical issues, not practical ones. Schulze/Beatpath and Ranked Pair both meet local independence of irrelevant alternatives and reversal symmetry. The consistency criterion seems irrelevant with centralized tabulation. The only real-world issue is with the participation criterion, which in Condorcet is part of the mechanism of selecting the "most liked" candidate from a list.
The fact that Range and Approval fail the majority criterion is significant when selecting a voting system. Range Voting's additional failure of later-no-harm removes it from contention completely as a viable election system.
IRV's failure to meet monotonicity is also problematic, but limited in circumstance.
Condorcet's failings in conrast (especially if you're talking Schulze/Beatpath methodology) seem largely non-important outside of theory.