Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Count Every Vote

I've now watched the film "Recount" a couple of times, and the message so clearly sent is the importance of counting every vote. I get it, some reading this get it, and Marc Rubin, posting at, also gets it. It seems that everyone except Obama and his supporters get it.

Nothing is more detrimental to the country as a whole than political corruption in any guise. So the statement issued by Barack Obama the other day regarding Florida and Michigan should be seen for what it is: a politician willing to engage in whatever undermining of the democratic process it takes to achieve his political ambition.
I encourage you to read the rest of the post.


John J. said...

Reposted from Momocrats comment:

If Florida, in 2000, said "We are too important to be part of the general election with all the other states, we want to hold our general election on October 15th," and all the elected officials from Florida said "There is no way they would ignore our vote. The rules don't matter," there wouldn't have been much outcry when the votes weren't counted. This is what happened this year, but they should count on what grounds? Their self importance? Because they can cry out loud enough? The legislature voted unanimously to move the election up and the national senators from these states were quoted saying "They wouldn't dare take away our votes." Allowing these states to be counted would remove any control the DNC has over their primary system.

This also completely ignores the fact that these two events are nearly diametric opposites. In 2000 people were calling to properly count votes that were miscounted; 2008 there is no question about the vote count. The recount was prevented by a lawsuit filed to stop the counting in 2000; this year one person is filing a discrimination lawsuit. Florida's citizens were fighting for the rules to be followed, not breaking rules and asking to be allowed in anyway.

Then there is the fact that Clinton was against a re-vote in these two states until she lost 11 straight primaries. Obama had actually floated the idea of doing re-votes, back when it would have been feasible to set it up and with fair rules for both candidates.

As much as she wants to, Clinton can't put this exclusively at Obama's feet and trying to do so is a good way to campaign against the Democrats in November.

The primary system probably does need to be revisited, but there are ways to do that. Breaking the rules doesn't give you the right to change them. Losing a primary election doesn't let you arbitrarily change the rules either. There is a process to make changes, anarchy is not it.

BAC said...

John - I don't remember you ever using so many words before this, to be so wrong?

I would dispute your comment point-by-point ... but frankly, I've already done that so many times I'm tired of it.

That you cannot learn is no longer my problem. It is, however, A PROBLEM.


John J. said...

There is nothing false in my comment BAC. I can, and in many cases have previously, posted links to back up these statements.

It is past time to stop dividing the party by demonizing your opponent and start uniting against the person who will do his damnedest to roll back Roe v. Wade, who is against Lilly Ledbetter, who wants to roll back every social program he can get his hands on, and who wants to keep our soldiers under fire in Iraq for up to 100 years.

BAC said...

John - everything in your comment is wrong -- well, except maybe your name -- and if it is "past time to stop dividing the party by demonizing your opponent" then why don't YOU stop?

And as for your concerns, if the national election were held TODAY, Clinton would beat McCain. Obama would LOSE to McCain. So if you truly care about Roe v Wade, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and every other social program -- and the war -- you need to be supporting Sen. Clinton. The candidate who WILL win in November.


John J. said...

But Clinton can not, under any math, win the nomination. Trying to, as you did in a more recent post, claim that Obama is being like Stalin, or as Clinton has repeated tried to compare him to Mugabe, apartheid, anti-sufferagists, etc. is dividing the party and is the reason polling is showing those statistics. If Clinton, and you and her other supporters were interested in the good of the party and the country at large, you would stop these divisions. Or do you think that Jon Swift was being serious in his most recent post?

BAC said...

John, here are the "facts" ... NEITHER candidate will get enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. Therefore the nomination will likely be decided by superdelegates.

Superdelegates, and even pledged delegates, can change their minds at any time before the actual nominating process takes place at the convention.

Do you understand?

And as noted above, you are reading something into the "quote" post that wasn't intended.

I'm angry with Dean and the DNC for creating this mess. They couldn't see the impossible situation FL Democrats were in? The Dems in FL had no control over the situation. They were boxed into a corner, and the DNC kicked them while they were down.

Just how naive (or stupid) are you?


John J. said...

when 1/3 of the potential delegates are "super" delegates, it is nearly impossible to get 2026 delegates. It would require getting a super-majority in every state election. He has, though gotten >50% of the pledged delegates, which means he has won on that metric.

As far as pledged delegates changing their votes, it would require breaking a signed oath. I was a state level delegate for Obama here in Missouri. I had to sign an oath saying I will place my vote for Obama. I don't know about other states, but I expect it is the same in most of the primary states and in many of the caucus states.

Dean and the DNC didn't have anything to do with it. The Florida legislature voted 100% to move the primary up. I understand the Republicans were the majority in Florida, but the Democrats didn't oppose this at all, and many (including Carl Levin) were said that the DNC didn't have the balls to take away their delegates. If the Dems in the legislature had fought against the bill, if the state representatives hadn't acted like children playing chicken, I would find it easier to support the seating of the delegates. But that is not what happened.

Any way you look at it, Clinton needs about 240 of the remaining 280 unpledged delegates to go for her, 87%. Even if she gets 100% of the delegates from the remaining primaries, she will still need about 77% of the unpledged super delegates. That or you need, roughly, 475 of the 795 "super" delegates to vote for her and Obama not to get about 347 of them. In other words. 60% of the super delegates would need to vote to overturn the will of the people (not to mention have to visibly change their support) while only 45% of them will need to vote with the will of the people to select Obama.

BAC said...

John - "anyway you look at it" you are a complete idiot.