THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: AdmiralViscen on May 31, 2008, 06:32:16 PM
-
It's on TV now, they're about to vote.
The pre-talking shit is that FL ain't getting full seating.
-
I wonder how much the comeback-bat is going to gripe about this later on
-
Hillary still alive! :bow
-
Wow, no one in the audience wants any penalty :lol
I like how all these people 'defending the voters' are ignoring the fact that millions of voters DIDN'T SHOW UP because they thought the shit didn't matter.
-
Did anyone catch Hilary talking about slavery and civil rights in reference to the MI/FL elections? :-X
-
Yea :lol
And genocide in Africa iirc
-
Lawl at the democrat party butt raping their constituency no matter what the outcome is. It's a lose-lose situation.
-
I love how this same body was chill with 0% votes 6 months ago. Stupid fucks. Why did the Dems air this on TV and let everyone see the fight? Why allow an audience?
Did she just say 34.5 to 29.5 for MI? That wasn't even one of demconwatch's possibilities. edit: Oh wait, that's the same ol 69/59
-
Maybe there could be some fucking party unity if this guy would shut the fuck up instead of fanning the flames.
-
good christ just kick that old bitch out already
-
:piss Michigan and Florida :piss2
-
Buuutt I hadd my hand up tooooooo
-
Well that settles that.
They should have done it 73/55, Obama doesn't need the 4 delegates and what they did just isn't fair. Throwing Obama freebie delegates is just kissing his ass just like giving both states 100% is just catering to Clinton.
Yet it somehow passed by a wider margin than the more fair FL proposition :dizzy
-
Well that settles that.
They should have done it 73/55, Obama doesn't need the 4 delegates and what they did just isn't fair. Throwing Obama freebie delegates is just kissing his ass just like giving both states 100% is just catering to Clinton.
Yet it somehow passed by a wider margin than the more fair FL proposition :dizzy
I agree. Obama has nothing to lose, and it's more important to give a beyond generous offer to Hillary's folks. Although with the way her supporters were acting I doubt they would have been happy with anything but Hillary getting all the delegates.
Carl Levin should be fucking bitch slapped for this. He was told numerous times this would be a major headache
but yea, game over. Yesterday Hillary said she's accept the RBC ruling so lets see if she keeps her word
-
I can't wait to learn Hillary's justification for staying in the race after the primaries
-
You'd just be playing into John McCain's hands, Patel! (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20339/saturday-night-live-update-sen-mccain)
-
This is all just a waste of fucking time. Hillary needs to kill herself.
-
This is all just a waste of fucking time. Hillary needs to kill herself.
Hmm that is a bit harsh, but yeah. Sorest loser ever. ::)
-
Well that settles that.
They should have done it 73/55, Obama doesn't need the 4 delegates and what they did just isn't fair. Throwing Obama freebie delegates is just kissing his ass just like giving both states 100% is just catering to Clinton.
Yet it somehow passed by a wider margin than the more fair FL proposition :dizzy
I agree. Obama has nothing to lose, and it's more important to give a beyond generous offer to Hillary's folks. Although with the way her supporters were acting I doubt they would have been happy with anything but Hillary getting all the delegates.
Carl Levin should be fucking bitch slapped for this. He was told numerous times this would be a major headache
but yea, game over. Yesterday Hillary said she's accept the RBC ruling so lets see if she keeps her word
The scuttlebutt is that the Obama camp actually HAD THE VOTES LINED UP for their (imo) ludicrous 50/50 split for MI. It would have just barely passed by a vote or two, but in the interest of party unity they decided to adopt the MI party plan. Now, honestly I think they have a good point that they can just say that the wills of both state parties were carried out, but I personally agree that it should have been 73-55 to avoid the hissy fit we're seeing now from the crazy old cat ladies (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s) about "disenfranchising" 600k voters in MI. The 55 should have been pledged to Obama, that way the only things the Clinton camp would be able to bitch about were that somehow Obama shouldn't have gotten any delegates from MI (dumb) and that there should have been NO PENALTIES for MI & FL (dumber) after the committee almost unanimously (one Obama supporter the lone dissenter) decided to go down this road last August. Now the crazy cat ladies have a slightly legitimate beef in that the MI delegation is being seated not according to an actual vote by, you know, voters. And all of this over what amounts to a TWO DELEGATE SWING. smh.
If I were Obama I would offer Clinton those delegates back next week after he's got this wrapped up, just say that he supports seating the MI delegation according to a 73-55 split and put this shit behind us so that this will hopefully go away sooner.
-
Good idea. I can't wait to hear her response to today's rulings. Will she accept it and move on or pull the victim card once more.
This pisses me off because while I never liked Hillary, I respected her as a hardcore politician who'd knock the opposition out when needed - a democrat with balls. Yet she's using the same hardball tactics against a fellow democrat here, and not just any democrat: the fucking presumptive nominee. She's done nothing to silence this sexist bullshit that surrounds her campaign and instead is fanning the flames with subtle winks and nods
-
apparently there were some protesters carrying signs saying
"at least slaves got 3/5 of a vote"
:eyeroll
I understand it's a shitty situation and no compromise is going to make everyone happy. But they can't just seat both delegations at 100% strength like nothing happened - if there's no penalty, then next election's primaries would be a MADHOUSE. hell, I could just start claiming that I'm holding the 2012 CA primary in my living room in 15 minutes - ready GO!
and agreeing with what PD said ... the degree to which Hillary has allowed women to run away with her campaign - to the point where a lot are now saying they won't support Obama, if he's the nominee, because somehow following our agreed-upon process to nominate the person with the most votes and most delegates as the candidate is an affront to all women
she fought, it was close, but she LOST
-
I don't think an Obama victory is anywhere near a sure thing like even APF seems to - old people and women are the biggest voting blocks and he's not making headway for as long as Hillary is around, at least. Good luck wrestling them from McCain.
-
Obama offering Hillary the health secretary position in his cabinet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html
-
interesting if true
-
I wouldn't pay too much attention to a scoop about American politics in a British newspaper. If some other people with connections start talking about it, that'd be different.
You know, Hillary's comments comparing the MI/FL situation to Zimbabwe are a lot worse than her using the RFK assassination as a memory jogger. I do expect her to very publicly and very enthusiastically back Obama during the general.
-
yeah, she has a LOT of atonement to do - she can start by groveling at her supporters to support Obama, or fucking else
-
tl;dr for the politically distinguished mentally-challenged? can i have my communist health care yet?
-
Yes! Just go wait in a long line until you recover naturally or die. :P
-
I don't think an Obama victory is anywhere near a sure thing like even APF seems to - old people and women are the biggest voting blocks and he's not making headway for as long as Hillary is around, at least. Good luck wrestling them from McCain.
Eh, Hillary will eventually drop out and endorse Obama which will make all her supporters jump onto the Obama bandwagon too. Normally all this infighting would worry me but McCain is pretty much fucked in everyway possible so I doubt any of this will hurt Obama down the line.
-
Polls dont really indicate a McCain 'fucked' scenario yet.
-
Polls dont really indicate a McCain 'fucked' scenario yet.
Polls are insanely unreliable at this point. Hell, they showed Kerry dominating over Bush 4 years ago. The best way to judge an election this early is by the current president's approval rating, the economy and how many terms the current party has been in control. There was even a good article recently going as far as to even make an equation of it: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008052901
And that doesn't even include McCain's lack of organization or the Bush-factor.
-
The GOP is fucked. Proper fucked.
McCain might not be fucked thanks to his enduring branding as a maverick.
-
I think polls, like any other form of statistics, can be easily manipulated by controlling the group from which one samples. At this point, I attribute poll information to be in line with whatever the network's goals are, and who they want to push.
-
I think polls, like any other form of statistics, can be easily manipulated by controlling the group from which one samples. At this point, I attribute poll information to be in line with whatever the network's goals are, and who they want to push.
I saw a funny article about how the robopolls are far-and-away the most accurate, which is pissing off "traditional" pollsters to no end. But bias shows through, no matter how people try to fight it. Robotic polling is the answer!
-
I think polls, like any other form of statistics, can be easily manipulated by controlling the group from which one samples. At this point, I attribute poll information to be in line with whatever the network's goals are, and who they want to push.
Networks rarely do polls themselves though :-\
-
And that doesn't even include McCain's lack of organization or the Bush-factor.
This is really the biggest issue ... McCain has no message; hell, he doesn't even have an organization in some states, STILL. He's the Republican nominee and he can't get column inches or network minutes to save his life. He's just old and boring and smells like onions. Now that the Dem primary is over, the more time spent focusing on McCain, the more he will look like a goofy tool.
-
This is really the biggest issue ... McCain has no message; hell, he doesn't even have an organization in some states, STILL. He's the Republican nominee and he can't get column inches or network minutes to save his life. He's just old and boring and smells like onions. Now that the Dem primary is over, the more time spent focusing on McCain, the more he will look like a goofy tool.
Seriously, what was McCain doing? He should have spent all that extra time he had on organization, organization, fundraising and organization. Instead he spent it on barbeques, ineffective Bush events and... hell who knows. Meanwhile Obama, even while fighting Hillary, kept building up organizations and raising money. So now Obama has roots in every state and can raise a couple million just by winking at his adoring fanbase while McCain is right where he started -- poor, disorganized and old.
-
Im more baffled by the old ladies with bad teeth and vote hillary stickers on their foreheads
-
can't wait to learn Hillary's justification for staying in the race after the primaries
as a non-USían , i am excited at the prospect of Obama as president. I think it'll be at least a breath of fresh air. Though he does need a mexican VP ! ;)
[youtube=425,350]X0juSJ-y9xg[/youtube]
-
I think polls, like any other form of statistics, can be easily manipulated by controlling the group from which one samples. At this point, I attribute poll information to be in line with whatever the network's goals are, and who they want to push.
Networks rarely do polls themselves though :-\
True enough, but they can choose how frequently the news about the polls is presented, how frequently and in what context it is shown, or not shown...
Google Video has a documentary called "Orwell Rolls in His Grave (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1925114769515892401)." I'm not taking it as gospel, and I don't think it's unbiased, but it's still plenty thought provoking.
-
Eh, Hillary will eventually drop out and endorse Obama which will make all her supporters jump onto the Obama bandwagon too.
History suggests otherwise.
And, like usual, Mandark is correct.
-
Hillary is going to be Obama's loudest, most passionate surrogate this fall; people expecting her to concede then disappear, or pull a Reagan 76-esque wink wink nod nod are...bitter! If it's true that she wants Obama to lose so she can (once again) run as the party's savior in 2012 she's going to have to make sure very few people think she hijacked Obama's campaign. That's why she won't take this to Denver. After the primaries she'll go back to NY and say "hey, this was soooo close, btw I won the popular vote. Anyway I'm going to be campaigning with and for Obama, and you should too!"
And if Obama loses she'll be able to say I told ya so. But interestingly, this is similar to the plan she had for THIS election: swoop in as the superstar rockstar historic savior of the party, take the presidency handily, and secure a place in the history books. Of course Obama took all that away from her. Is there anyone who could do that to her in 2012...?
-
What I got from this thread is that the Democratic party is crazy cat ladies + starry-eyed hipster douchebags, and that Republicans are old and smell like onions.
Seems about right.
-
Eh, Hillary will eventually drop out and endorse Obama which will make all her supporters jump onto the Obama bandwagon too.
History suggests otherwise.
Err... actually no. History and logic suggest that Hillary will drop out and endorse Obama
And if Obama loses she'll be able to say I told ya so. But interestingly, this is similar to the plan she had for THIS election: swoop in as the superstar rockstar historic savior of the party, take the presidency handily, and secure a place in the history books. Of course Obama took all that away from her. Is there anyone who could do that to her in 2012...?
I think Obama has managed to crack her iron shell. So even if she does run in 2012 it won't be a done deal that she'll win
-
My God, is this ever going to end?
-
CNN insightfully says:
"Superdelegates could determine race between Clinton, Obama"
OMG, it's only something we've known since February!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/19/dem.delegates/index.html
-
lol
At a campaign stop in Mitchell, South Dakota, Obama congratulated Clinton for her win Sunday and praised her for being an "outstanding public servant."
"She is going to be a great asset when we go into November to make sure that we defeat the Republicans," he said.
Obama has given up pretending he's not the nominee
-
When he said it you could tell he misspoke. He didn't mean to do that, half a minute before that he said 'Obama supporters should support Hillary and Hillary supporters should support me."
Hillary's going on and on about the popular vote and claiming that Obama only won delegates by "a little bit." lol
If deleting a half dozen states to claim 'a little bit' of a victory of the popular vote is ok, then ok.
She's clueless, he has this in the bag by Tuesday and she's still actively trying to make his win look like highway robbery. It's ridiculous, she really doesn't care about November.
-
PR cant vote and no one in the US can actually relate to them but they matter omgggggf
-
why does PR have a say?
-
PR should either get no say or full say, honestly. Without a TRUE investment in the general its pointless to look at their votes.
-
yeah, I hate to sound like an Obama apologist, but counting them towards this mythical Clinton-math "popular vote" when they don't get to vote in the Fall is just like ... come on.
As kos points out in a post he just put up, there's like 9 different kinds of primaries used to select delegates, each of which allows a different subset of voters to participate, so any attempt to assign meaning to the "popular vote" is retarrrrded Clinton is retarrrrdeddddddd
-
why does PR have a say?
Because there is a ton of people living there and Republicans & Dems want to give them some way to participate so that if they ever do become a state they'll be friendly to said party. Since (usually) none of these territory primaries matter this late in the game, the parties don't really worry about letting them have a say.
-
This Ikes or Ides or whatever the fuck his name is is a real sniveling little shit
-
Give PR a full vote or dont at all, who cares who they vote for, but right now theyre just being manipulated.
If Clinton we're wining she would have never gone down, and Obama would quite possibly be down there using them just cause theyre there.
-
PR and DC will likely become states in the next 4-8 years, resulting in 4 more Dem senators and probably 7-8 more dem congressmen. SUPER MAJORITY HERE WE COME!
-
The representation movement in DC isn't focusing on statehood right now, actually. The plan they tried to get passed in Congress would give DC a seat in the House but nothing in the Senate, IIRC.
You know who was leading the legal team that was going to argue that this would be constitutional? Ken Starr. That's kinda awesome.
-
Well the fairest thing is to restructure the legislative body so there is no senate. Right now, about 5% of the national population controls 25% of the senate. I mean, a senator from california wins 5 million+ votes while a senator from Alaska gets like 300,000.
-
What?
-
nintenho's kinda right, actually.
The Senate does give a lot more weight to the votes of people in less populous states. You can argue that it's important to do this so the rural voters don't get overlooked, or that it really skews the representation and is undemocratic.
I lean a bit towards the second, but since we're not going to chuck Congress in the trash and form a parliament, it's all pretty moot.
-
I just explained why alaskans get bridges that go nowhere.
-
The Senate does give a lot more weight to the votes of people in less populous states. You can argue that it's important to do this so the rural voters don't get overlooked, or that it really skews the representation and is undemocratic.
This is the entire reason we have two houses instead of one.
-
I think the actual reason we have two houses has to do with the realpolitik of getting thirteen sovereign-ish states to agree on a federal constitution.
-
yeah, having a state equally represented in this day and age is bullshit.
-
why?
-
One of the leading ideas behind the formation of the constitution was to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. The senate is one such way the founders tried to accomplish this task. Plus if you got rid of senate or based all representatives on population then you would be eliminating the bicameral part of Congress, which in of itself would be disrupting the separation of powers.
Suggesting that we merely eliminate the senate seems to me as a extremely foolish endeavor. It exists for a good reason
-
When is the Democratic convention?
-
yeah, having a state equally represented in this day and age is bullshit.
:duh :duh :duh :duh :duh
-
When is the Democratic convention?
End of August.
-
trey: I'm out of my depth talking about the founders, but my instinct is that the way the government is structured has more to do with the interests of the people who created it than anything else.
Either way I don't think the Senate is a great way to protect minorities in the year 2008.
-
Either way I don't think the Senate is a great way to protect minorities in the year 2008.
The point of the senate (or the government) isnt to "protect minorities."
-
Either way I don't think the Senate is a great way to protect minorities in the year 2008.
The point of the senate (or the government) isnt to "protect minorities."
From a tyranny of the majority, duder. Which is a very common concern among libertarians. You know, "a republic not a democracy" etc.
-
why?
One of the leading ideas behind the formation of the constitution was to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. The senate is one such way the founders tried to accomplish this task. Plus if you got rid of senate or based all representatives on population then you would be eliminating the bicameral part of Congress, which in of itself would be disrupting the separation of powers.
Suggesting that we merely eliminate the senate seems to me as a extremely foolish endeavor. It exists for a good reason
The senate was more of a temporary system to make the colonists happy. It doesn't make the government fairer today.
-
From NBC's Caroline Gransee and Katie Mulhall
RNC chairman Mike Duncan and Minnesota GOP chair Ron Carey held a conference call with reporters this afternoon to discuss Obama's visit to the state tomorrow -- as well as to argue that McCain will be able to put the state in the GOP column for the first time since 1972.
On the call, the chairmen repeatedly sought to label Obama as too liberal and out of touch with the state, with Carey calling him “the most liberal candidate to run for president of the United States, certainly in my lifetime." They also argued that once Minnesotans see the “real Barack Obama ... not the PR machine Barack Obama” -- and contrast this with McCain -- the state will be winnable for them. They added that Obama lacks judgment, while McCain offers “solutions to the world."
Carey asserted that Minnesota is “certainly within our reach, despite what some polling might say right now," and that the state has been trending Republican in recent years (although Democrats trounced Republicans in the open Senate race in 2006). Carey also noted that Minnesota has gone from being the only state to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984 to coming within 90,000 votes of giving its electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000, and again in 2004.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/02/1098096.aspx
sigh
-
And that state brags about its Swedish heritage. Everything but the progressive part, eh?
-
yeah, I hate to sound like an Obama apologist, but counting them towards this mythical Clinton-math "popular vote"
to be fair, when have women EVER been good at math?
-
duckman: Minnesota actually has a really strong progressive tradition, but Carey's right that it's been trending to the right for a while now. Still they gave us Paul Wellstone and I think the Democratic candidates there are still technically members of the Democrat-Farmer-Laborer Party.
-
The senate was more of a temporary system to make the colonists happy. It doesn't make the government fairer today.
It was never meant to be temporary.
trey: I'm out of my depth talking about the founders, but my instinct is that the way the government is structured has more to do with the interests of the people who created it than anything else.
Either way I don't think the Senate is a great way to protect minorities in the year 2008.
I assume you are refering to the Connecticut Compromise. In which you are right, it was a compromise between the larger states only wanting popular represenation and the smaller states wanting to have a say. Another good point is that the founding founders likely did not imagine the large population difference between states that exists today.
However on the other hand, the Senate was never meant to be a democratic branch for the popular opinion. Most of the founding fathers invisioned it as a longer term group that would ignore public opinion and try to restrain the "fury of democracy". Hence the whole "not voted by the people" aspect the Senate originally had.
While you have a good point that the Senate gives too much power to smaller states, I would say it is unwise to overlook the Senate's purpose in protecting the minority opinion (or in this case, the small state's opinion).
-
From NBC's Caroline Gransee and Katie Mulhall
RNC chairman Mike Duncan and Minnesota GOP chair Ron Carey held a conference call with reporters this afternoon to discuss Obama's visit to the state tomorrow -- as well as to argue that McCain will be able to put the state in the GOP column for the first time since 1972.
On the call, the chairmen repeatedly sought to label Obama as too liberal and out of touch with the state, with Carey calling him “the most liberal candidate to run for president of the United States, certainly in my lifetime." They also argued that once Minnesotans see the “real Barack Obama ... not the PR machine Barack Obama” -- and contrast this with McCain -- the state will be winnable for them. They added that Obama lacks judgment, while McCain offers “solutions to the world."
Carey asserted that Minnesota is “certainly within our reach, despite what some polling might say right now," and that the state has been trending Republican in recent years (although Democrats trounced Republicans in the open Senate race in 2006). Carey also noted that Minnesota has gone from being the only state to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984 to coming within 90,000 votes of giving its electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000, and again in 2004.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/02/1098096.aspx
sigh
Someone should probably tell Carey that the election in Minnesota was actually much closer in '84 then it was in either 2000 or 2004.
-
trey: Yeah, I'm aware of the original setup of the Senate. Which is one reason I suspect it exists less for reasons of principle and more because a bunch of semi-aristocrats wanted to emulate the House of Lords.
I do think protecting minority rights against the majority is important, but using states as equally apportioned districts like the Senate does just seems like a bad way of going about it. Especially now when the people most at risk for being marginalized live in urban areas in the big states.
That might just be my biases talking, but there ya have it.
-
We're practically a country!
-
We're practically a country!
you are, but that country is mexico
-
'tis true. We are live in an Asian flea market.
-
can i send you guys some lists of bootleg dvds to snag for me?
-
The senate was more of a temporary system to make the colonists happy. It doesn't make the government fairer today.
It was never meant to be temporary.
I don't believe that the founding fathers ever thought that this country would become this big and ethnically diverse. I think that the House of Representatives should be the only part of the legislative branch. Filtering a bill through the Senate after it passes in the House isn't necessary. It's not like senators are any more qualified to vote on bills. The only benefit is to special interest groups who only have to pay attention to 100 politicians.
I think that having a senate is part of the reason why we have the two party shitheap today where candidates try to polarize themselves as much as possible ON EVERY ISSUE so that they can get a whole state to adopt a certain value system and other states to get opposite values. In reality, an area of land with millions of people in it is going to have a bunch of different communities with different values but that's thinking too far ahead for the founding fathers. I don't blame them, but the senate system is fucking worthless today.
-
Here's some post-partisanship from the post-partisan candidate:
Barack Obama has chosen the site of the GOP national convention in St. Paul to celebrate the likely end of the Democratic presidential primary contest on Tuesday night.
The Illinois senator is scheduled to address a huge rally at the Xcel Energy Center, his campaign announced Friday. "As Minnesotans, we're incredibly excited," said Tina Smith, senior adviser to the Obama campaign in Minnesota.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/19414809.html?location_refer=Homepage (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/19414809.html?location_refer=Homepage)