Quote:
Quote by: tivodan1116  Because the people have redress against those officials.
Changing the rules now is unfair to all of the candidates.
Did I mention Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan?
Wrong. Nice asinine assumption about my political views, though.
I see, so your hypocritical position is that on the one hand, when if benefits Clinton, we should go with The Will of The People, rules about elections be damned. On the other hand, when it benefits Clinton, we should go with what a bunch of lifetime career politicians and smoke-filled-room backscratchers say, to hell with The Will of The People...
Remind me who is letting their bias influence their thoughts?
You mean superdelegates? Oh, wait, they're in favor of Clinton. See, you like allowing people to fowl up the election procedures when it benefits your bias.
Laughable. |
Wrong, Clinton offered Obama the option in plenty of time to conduct another primary election in those states but he refused simply because he would loose if those new votes were counted.
I personally do not agree with this whole deligate situation and think elections should be determined by popular vote only.
However a poltical party is not a governmental insitution. Each poltical party has it's leaders already and those people are called super deligates. They are in charge of picking what canidate they want people to vote for and to run agenst canidates from other parties. A primary is held to measure the in-put from voters. Normally they go for the canidate that can stir up the most support form regestered democrats. However in a primary of some states, such as Indiana, an independant can vote ether party, which opens up votes for non-democrats to add to the popular count. None the less a political party is more or less a private insitution and must have enough regestered people to qualify for governmental grant money to run an election and get listed on ballets. The concept of democracy has nothing to do with who a party wants to use as their chief canidate in the final election, that choice is up to the party leaders. After the party leaders pick their canidate then the real elections are conducted and democracy comes into play via the will of the people (in theory).
We have lots of poltical parties in the USA, some of them you never hear about. If they can regester enough people they get on the ballets also even without a big primary aired on prime time TV.
The current race in the Democratic primary is very close relative to popular votes, Almost a 50-50 split. So now the party chiefs must determine which one is best for the long run good of the party. They know that the voters will unite behind the one selected if they want to defeat the Republicans, and they know they must have an experienced person who can network in Washington DC and get things done, as well as deal with the heads of other worldly governments. Now in some states Republcans voted for a democratic canidate and they know that independants also voted for people in their party. So that automatically messed up their placing a lot of weight on the primary outcomes, due to the near tie the canidates have. They know they must concider the people in the states not being represented due to party rules when it comes to the offical race for the White House, as those are very important states and especially in Fla where polls show that Hillary is favored. If a democratic canidate could snatch the state of Fla out of the hands of the Republicans that would a very important point to concider. ( you will recall what took place when Al Gore was cheated out of having votes counted in that state, even when scientific exit polls showed that he had won that state).
You will have a chance to use democarcy when we elect which political party will win the White House. No matter who is selected by the democratic party to represent that challenge is not dependant on democracy because they are both democrats and both have basically the same platform and agendas that are in conformity with their parties main objectives. Namely, solving domestic economical problems, exiting Iraq, health care reform, dealing with envirnomental problems, and so forth. But first of all, getting into the White House.
The party chiefs are holding back because national polls still show that Hilliary would have the best chance of defeating McCain. A very important point to be concidered, and the primary voters do not concider such things like that, but the more seasoned big wigs of the party do.
They know Hillary won most of the big states are the most important in a win over McCain. Another important point the chiefs will concider when this choice comes up on the convention floor.
Of course the super deligates will also concider the voices of the deligates that now support Obama. But those deligates must show that Obama can defeat McCain and that Obama can gain more support form the middle class workers in America who might otherwise shift back to Republican perspectives.
In the last interview on CNN Wolf asked Obama if he would raise taxes for the middle class to fund governental programs, Obama dodged that question and just said that the Republicans got us more in debt then did Democrats under Bill Clintons managment. Voters are not going to like hearing that kind of answer in the final showdown when McCain starts to say that Democrats will raise taxes for the working class. We need a canidate that will answer such questions directly by saying "no new taxes for the middle class" or say "yes, the programs will raise taxes for the middle class". Obama did not answer one way or the other, and pointed out that he is not sure where you draw the line between the middle class and the wealthy upper class.
Rodger dodger, over and out.
Now I love Obama's sermons about unity and equality and about working together with grass roots momentums, he sounded as good as Martin King Jr. But he must also answer the questions about the nitty gritty things also, and not dodge the detials about how to fund his programs, or about how he can unite people without selling out the parties main goals. In that recent cyclone that killed as many as 100.000 people that country refused aid from the USA but accepted help form many other countries. They do not even trust us to do charity work because of Republican domination.
As Johnny Cash sang in his song "Hurt" we are asking "look what I have become, I will only cause you pain". Americans want to change that kind of image. Perhaps Obama can do that, but perhaps not. Because it will take more then inspirational speeches when you acturally get into those closed rooms to talk one-one-one with those who hate us.
We know that it is no longer possible for Obama or Clinton to unite the Democratic party so that both the 49-51 voters are totally happy. It will be up to the Super Deligates to unite them by just picking which canidate is best qualified by actural facts to stand in the forefront.
Like it or not, that is reality, I personaly would hope they pick Hillary Clinton, my bias however is based on what I think are important facts conerning ther abilities, not because of race or gender, or because of fancy talk done in poltical speech making.
If Obama can still prove he is more qualified then Clinton and McCain then I will shift my support and bias.