I think the race to the White House is between 2 people - Senators Obama and Clinton and the Republicans just do not have a dog in the hunt. Let them run. This is the election folks. Stop telling her to quit - she won't. Sexism and racism in our politics is over the top - let these two Senators run. This is democracy - this is what we fight for. This is our way of life so chill out and let them speak, let all the primary states have a say this time. I have seen a hijacked election and this is not going to be one. Let the people in Oregon and West Virginia and Kentucky all the people in America that want to vote have a say.
It is really shameful all of this BS about pressuring Clinton to quit. The Clintons are not quitters and that is something that has and is benefiting everyone.
With the full number of delegates from Florida and Michigan, Hillary would have already won the primary. Our screwed up electoral process is the problem. This issue is systemic and not the 'fault' of either candidate. Hillary is doing the right thing by asserting herself and taking this fight to the end.
Edward
Braggi
05-29-2008, 07:04 AM
...
With the full number of delegates from Florida and Michigan, Hillary would have already won the primary. Our screwed up electoral process is the problem. ...
I recently heard the Florida primary was moved up by a vote pushed by Republicans and the Democrats could not have stopped it. Therefore the Democratic party is punishing Florida for something Florida Democrats could not have stopped. Therefore Florida should count.
Michigan should not count because Obama was not on the ballot. This isn't the Soviet Union or Saddam's Iraq. Just because someone gets 100% of the vote doesn't mean they deserved to win. It means they were the only choice.
All that aside, Obama will win because the media in this country has given up on Clinton. Ask Howard Dean how that works.
-Jeff
Tars
05-29-2008, 08:20 AM
Michigan should not count because Obama was not on the ballot.
To be accurate, Obama's campaign chose not to be on the ballot in Michigan, unlike other candidates, like local favorite Dennis Kucinich. Michigan voters should not be penalized for a decision that the Obama campaign probably made as much for economic reasons as anything else. At the time, his campaign war chest was miniscule.
Other candidates chose not to campaign there.
Braggi
05-29-2008, 08:23 AM
To be accurate, Obama's campaign chose not to be on the ballot in Michigan, unlike other candidates, ...
As I understand it, Obama was asked by the Democratic party to not be on the ballot. No?
-Jeff
Neshamah
05-29-2008, 10:49 AM
Obama chose to put the DNC ahead of the voters of Michigan when he took his name off the ballot. Clinton deserved to win those states, and she deserves to have all of their delegates counted.
Florida and Michigan should be commended for taking a stand against a corrupt primary process. I hope this is the last year that anyone tolerates the exalted holier-than-everyone-else status of Iowa and New Hampshire.
~ Neshamah
Braggi
05-29-2008, 11:20 AM
Obama chose to put the DNC ahead of the voters of Michigan when he took his name off the ballot. ...
I wasn't in Obama's brain at the time the decision was made so I don't know about this. Perhaps he just did what he thought was right.
...
Florida and Michigan should be commended for taking a stand against a corrupt primary process. I hope this is the last year that anyone tolerates the exalted holier-than-everyone-else status of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Well, that's not what happened in Florida. The Republicans purposefully sabotaged the primary intending to negate the votes of the Democrats there and cause chaos in places like ... this.
Doesn't matter anyway since the state will go to McCain in the general election and Obama will have enough delegates to win before the Democratic convention in any case.
-Jeff
Valley Oak
05-29-2008, 12:50 PM
This is actually an interesting point of debate. First off, what should be the reality for a truly democratic process? What would this process look like and how would it play out? Would this require internal party reform or new federal statutes to reform the way it is now? Is there an effective way of completely isolating a political party from having any influence on the primaries? Should there even be primaries? What do political parties really mean, anyway? Etc.
The Progressive Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States%2C_1912%29,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States) successfully carried many, great reforms, among which were the direct election of U.S. Senators, direct primaries, and women's suffrage. But they couldn't do it all in one movement, unfortunately. And some of the Progressives' initiative actually hurt the ideal of a more participative democracy.
So what's the alternative?
Edward
Florida and Michigan should be commended for taking a stand against a corrupt primary process. I hope this is the last year that anyone tolerates the exalted holier-than-everyone-else status of Iowa and New Hampshire.
~ Neshamah
Ocean
05-30-2008, 09:28 AM
In my mind, a huge step forward in America's electoral process would be this: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). If IRV voting was instituted across the board for our elections, and everyone was properly educated in how it worked.... people would feel confident voting their conscience - not just the "lesser of two evils"... third parties would actually have a chance to gain a foothold in our political process, and our political landscape would actually start to reflect (in a large way) what people actually want and believe.
***
This is actually an interesting point of debate. First off, what should be the reality for a truly democratic process? What would this process look like and how would it play out? Would this require internal party reform or new federal statutes to reform the way it is now? Is there an effective way of completely isolating a political party from having any influence on the primaries? Should there even be primaries? What do political parties really mean, anyway? Etc.
The Progressive Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States%2C_1912%29,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States) successfully carried many, great reforms, among which were the direct election of U.S. Senators, direct primaries, and women's suffrage. But they couldn't do it all in one movement, unfortunately. And some of the Progressives' initiative actually hurt the ideal of a more participative democracy.
So what's the alternative?
Edward
Valley Oak
05-30-2008, 09:42 AM
Cool!
I am the Sonoma County coordinator for Californians for Electoral Reform (www.cfer.org) and we promote IRV and have helped it become law in S.F., Berkeley, Oakland, Davis, and other areas. Although we have been very successful in legislating IRV and implementing it in these locations, we desperately need volunteers here in Sonoma County. At present, there are only two CfER members here and it is very difficult to make any inroads because of it.
Please let me know if you are interested. You can contact me at: [email protected]
Edward
In my mind, a huge step forward in America's electoral process would be this: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). If IRV voting was instituted across the board for our elections, and everyone was properly educated in how it worked.... people would feel confident voting their conscience - not just the "lesser of two evils"... third parties would actually have a chance to gain a foothold in our political process, and our political landscape would actually start to reflect (in a large way) what people actually want and believe.
***
thewholetruth
05-30-2008, 04:42 PM
Coming from an ex-Democrat/ex-Republican POV, admittedly thoroughly disgusted by American politicians today, I don't believe that Unknown Inexperienced-I-hate-Whitey Obama is strong enough to win this, nor do I believe that Hillary I'm-a-criminal-but-vote-for-me-anyway-because-I'm-not-a-man can win this election nationally. I don't see McCain as a viable candidate either, except that he'll have more Democrats voting for him than Republicans. I think many people who think this is about Obama/Hillary will be surprised to find that McCain is more of a Democrat than either of these two, and that McCain hasn't spent the last 6 months gaffing his way through pre-election like both Hellary and Obama have. With so much egg on their faces, American voters aren't going to be able to vote for either with clear consciences when November rolls around. If something miraculous doesn't happen (like an amazing new POPULAR candidate throwing in their hat), I'm afraid that at this point McCain will be the only viable candidate left standing in November. Frankly, I'm not happy about any of these 3, and I'm not sure how I'll vote...but I AM sure I'll vote.