Quote:
Quote by: tivodan1116  Wrong. I'll lay this out as simply as I possibly can so that maybe you'll understand:
1) People in those two states elected representatives in their state government.
2) Their elected representatives in state government talked about moving the primaries despite warnings from both parties that their votes might not count as punishment for doing that.
3) Their elected representatives went ahead and did it anyway.
How is that being cheated? They shouldn't have elected those dopes, or they should have called and voiced their opinion when the issue was raised.
They broke the rules, they got punished.
Now, KNOWING they were going to be punished, Obama (and Edwards) didn't campaign in those two states. Clinton did. In effect, Obama wasn't even in the race in those two states. So, since you're the big purveyor of fairness, how is it fair to count the results of an election in which one of the candidates didn't run? We've seen (PA and IN) that Obama's campaigning sways massive amounts of votes. Who is to say that if he didn't campaign in FL for example, he wouldn't have won?
Do you have any proof of any of these voting trends you suggest?
I think to suggest that one of the most divisive political figures of our time - Clinton - could draw the moderate votes needed to win the Presidency is absurd.
Meanwhile, Obama is motivating new and previously uninterested voters and in almost every poll beats both Clinton AND McCain. Basically, if the Democrats pick Obama they win, if they pick Clinton they lose.
Many of the superdelegates are saying just that to Clinton... McGovern will endorse Obama - The Associated Press - Politico.com Obama picks up superdelegates; undecideds moving his way - Yahoo! News |
Because after getting elected their officals did something so their votes are not counted. Which was unfair to the people they were supposed to represent. Why punish voters if they got double-crossed by some officals who broke that trust?
Although Hillary said she would toally fund a new election so that he could give his speeches there, he refused to agree to allowing those states to hold a new election so that Hillary would loose. He want to maintain his phoney lead and to hell with the rights of voters to have votes counted.
Your opinon about Clinton is bais due to your belief in conservative Bushism and the lies they like to project.
So more black people will vote in order to take pride in his win. But that is not a good reason when the plantform ideas and experience is more important of a reason, and the super deligates know that, which is why most of the experienced party leaders favor her. She is still ahead if in the super deligates arena. And their numbers could determine the final nod for nominee.
McCovern lost because the super deligates thought he was a bad choice, he had lots of popular votes because he would legalize pot during the hippy era. And for his anti-war stand at the time. But they did not feel he was a strong canidate and Nixon was. McGovern is a no-body that did not have anything much to add to the Democratic party other then a lot of potheads who wanted radical change so they could get high and crazy like. His opinon about current events is not worth beans to anyone. The Clintons saved his eclection and brought him up from being the underdog in his time of need, and then he turns around and backstabs them just like he did the Nam Vets. He is a looser.
The Clintons know how to win and would win if all votes were counted. Bill won two major elections and she won twice in New York. Stop allowing people to fowl up the damn election procedures at voting booths. Do it right or don't do it at all. Save Democracy NOW during this election and don't put it off for another time.