calculating and illustrating how many comparative young voters Obama brings to the table - and then we can educate Howard Dean and others caught inside their bubble on this, cf Hillary’s many demographics.

He appeared to buying the ObamaBrandTM hype about massive youth voting on Saturday.

This won’t change the outcome at all. A lawsuit won’t get you anywhere because the courts have consistently found in favor of the DNC: political parties have a constitutional right to determine how delegates are selected in their nominating process. They are considered private organizations.

And what will demanding refunds get you? Do you really want to see McCain in the White House? Face it, the party needs money to work against McCain so demanding refunds is self-defeating.

Barring some extraordinary event, the super-d’s are going to line up obediently behind Obama and we’ll have another empty suit foisted on us as our party’s nominee. The time to force a change in the party’s bylaws is after the election not before.

I don’t know about the lawsuit, mainly because I’m not a lawyer and have no idea about feasibility of such actions, but demanding refunds — that’s certainly something I’d support, no question.

Private organization or not, it would still seem that they have to follow their own operating manual.

Think of this as a minority shareholder suit.

It gets in the papers, that’s good, right?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I posted a Pete Townshend lyric with an unpleasant word in it, which is, I assume, why it was wiped. So, to rephrase my faaaascinating story:

* I cut a $5 bill in half and sent it to the DNC Saturday. Nancy and Howard are covering the 42 cents.

* Couldn’t bring myself to burn a C-note ($100) on the stunt, even though that’s better use of it than feeding the GE/DISNEY/VIACOM/MURDOCH machine - where a heck of a lot of campaign cash goes, even when you like the candidate. It’s just literally asking for more abuse from these clowns.

Cleaned up PT, to the DNC:

We forsake you.
Let’s forget you, better still.

Iphie….

I think a lawsuit could work, because the Democratic Party solicits donations under a Charter that represents an implied contract — in other words, while you probably can’t sue the party for violation of your civil rights, you can sue for violation of the contract that the charter represents to Democratic donors.

And while I would hope that such a lawsuit would be successful, the simple fact that Donna Brazile, ALexis Herman, and Alice Goodwin (sp?), Howard Dean, Barack Obama, David Axelrod and the rest of the whole corrupt crew would be forced to give depositions under oath — and possibly testify in public — about what happened during the two hour period that WASN’T lunch that occurred between the morning and afternoon sessions should be enough.

We have a public statement from one RBC member and Obama supporter (Katz) that Barack Obama “had the votes” to get his 50-50 proposal passed. That statement in and of itself is damning, given the curcumstances — the change in the agenda demonstrates that the chairs KNEW the outcome of any an all votes in advance — that they operated will the knowledge that “a vote had been taken”.

***********
dotcommodity….
Do you have Howard Dean’s phone number. Because unless you can show me that you have direct access to Howard Dean, and can provide me with that access to make the case you suggest that I waste my time trying to make, there is no point in doing what you suggest.

What Dean and the rest of the corrupt DNC crew understand is power — the power that money gives them, and the power of courts to compel them to operate in a manner consistent with their own charter.

Howard Dean doesn’t give a flying fuck about the relative electability of Clinton and Obama. Howard Dean doesn’t give a flying fuck about whether

The yanking for obvious reasons…

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The DNC just went through an extremely low-profile lawsuit over affirmative glbt representation in the delegate selection. How much have you heard about that?

Waste of time, too late, and you’ll lose.

What Dean and the rest of the corrupt DNC crew understand is power — the power that money gives them, and the power of courts to compel them to operate in a manner consistent with their own charter.

And therein lies the rub. The Obandwagon just comes with sooooo much money. The DNC can’t leave that on the table, and signaled long ago that they wouldn’t, when they entered into that official funding deal with Obama’s campaign.

I think it was in February or March, when the combined amount collected between the 2 campaigns closed in on $80 or $90 million, that I decided that this was a big-time game certainly not within my reach to do anything about. It was up to me to keep my head down and not get hurt. The amount of money is/was obscene. But I had faith in my piddly little vote.

And we saw Saturday what that was worth.

So let the DNC hang themselves. His base is all about selfishness and political purity - they’ll contribute to his GE campaign, but not to any kind of general fund that helps potentially EEEEEVIL Democrats. But they will say “How High?” when Obama says “Jump!”, so the DNC will just spend the next four years massagin’ and massagin’… Hope they have plenty of kneepads for the short term, and a backup plan when his administration becomes a miserable failure.

[Summarized below instead. Thanks, mods…]

Who honestly thinks he’ll win in November? I don’t think it will be a blowout, but he’s really not polling well against McCain, and this is before the swiftboating has really started.

I think our problem after November will be president McCain, not feeding Sen Obama’s gigantic ego.

i like this way of thinking.

in my view,

the value of such an effort would be commensurate with its cost

only if the issue could be kept in the media for a couple or three months.

this would require that publicity be built into the plan, not just hoped for.

if the suit were hidden in the courts, which the dnc would try to do,

then it would be a very good reform issue, but not an issue to help clinton.

one legal issue, i assume, would be whether the dem party has to follow any of its rules.

another would be whether one could ask for and at least get rulings on injunctive relief.

do i sound like a lawyer?

i’m not.

At the RBC meeting Howard Dean claimed there were new young voters Obama was bringing in to the party.

He made no claim about Hillary bringing any new voters. I believe he is mistaken.

Factual and statistical analysis does have an impact on some Superdelegates. Look at hominidviews and electoral college.com.

It is possible he is so inside the bubble, he does genuinely not know the truth. Or that he wants the 50 state strategy to bear fruit. If he genuinely believes that, they all might. Facts matter anyway.

It helps our case if you can lay it out. Not by phone!

I think a fraud theory is a better one than a contract theory. I doubt the DNC’s rules create any rights in third parites (that’s probably buried in there somewhere). However, if you think of the DNC Charter and Rules as one would a company perspectus - soliciting “investments” - then false statements could, in theory, form the basis of some fraud theory. But you’d need a statute (investments have the securities laws) and its outside my realm of expertise. But if I were your lawyer, I might take a look at various state statutes and to find a jurisdiction with the best language and caselaw. You have 50 choices since the DNC operates in all 50 states.

This may an angle that holds standing.

They’re making things up as they go along. I voted in MI. My vote is not equal to others. I paid for it. Its fraud by other means.

ita a stupid argument to begin with.

every four years, an entirely new generation of voters become eligible to vote for President. And every four years, some candidate claims ’the youth vote’ and how successful they have been in “bringing young people into the party.”

If Howard Dean, of all people, doesn’t knowby now how meaningless ’the youth vote’ is — given that he was ’the youth vote’ candidate four years ago — a bunch of numbers isn’t going to convince him.

What wlll convince him is taking money out of his coffers — make it tough for him to keep the lights on in the backrooms, and force him to operate in the sunlight.

The DNC just went through an extremely low-profile lawsuit over affirmative glbt representation in the delegate selection. How much have you heard about that?

you obviously don’t understand how the media works.

Even a marginally successful effort, if properly publicized, will get coverage. There is a reason for this

Conflict Trumps Unity

“political teams” on television aren’t going to have a lot to talk about over the next three months — and will grab on to any sign of conflict or division in the Democratic Party.

sounds so much better than breach of contract.

Cal Civil Code 1709 (Deceit):

One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him
to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage
which he thereby suffers.

Cal Civil Code 1710:

A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one
who does not believe it to be true;
2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who
has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it,
or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead
for want of communication of that fact; or,
4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

Cal Civil Code 1711:

One who practices a deceit with intent to defraud the public,
or a particular class of persons, is deemed to have intended to
defraud every individual in that class, who is actually misled by the
deceit.

Those are all very broad statutes. Outside my government job, I don’t have access to Lexis/Westlaw so I’m not able to look up cases interpreting these statutes. I did, however, find a case in annotations under 1710 between two sides of a California proposition. The court found no deceit, but it appeared from the annotation that was because the plaintiffs couldn’t prove they had actually believed the misrepresentations of the folks on the other side of the proposition and so they could not have relied on them. So it doesn’t appear the political nature of the case kept it from being actionable. I’ll try to find a citation or better yet a publicly available copy of the case.

But I’ve buried the best part - Donna Brazile is a DNC official, an agent of the DNC, and so her statements, including her misstatements about the rules, could - in theory - be a basis for an action.

Of course, given my lack of access to case law, I’ve pulled most of this out of my ass. Still, here’s my working theory:

1) The DNC Charter and Convention Rules say that it will determine its nominee according to certain standards which the DNC knew it hadn’t in fact followed in stripping Florida and Michigan of 100% of their delegates instead of 50%, in refusing to grant Florida its safe haven, in stripping the Super Delegates in violation of the DNC charter, and in granting the waivers to the other early states;

2) Despite knowing it had not followed its rules, agents of the Democratic National Committee went on national television and told the public that the DNC would follow its rules in selecting its nominee even though said agents knew that the rules had already been violated and had no intention of following them in the future;

3) Moreover, Donna Brazile, agent of the Democratic National Committee, went on national television and misrepresented what the rules were.

4) The DNC solicited funds to support the presidential nominee and got Plaintiff X to donate based on a selection process for that nominee that led Plaintiff X to donate to the Democratic Party. Without the misstatements by the DNC officials regarding its selection process, Plaintiff would not have donated to the Democratic Party.

Or something like that.

I have no idea if this is a good idea or not, but I’m a giant litigation geek. In fact, I think if I get the time, I’ll draw up a sample complaint. Because to me that is fun. Yes, I need help.

Does anyone have a DNC solicitation for funds to put towards the general election?

Link to relevant Cal Code Sections here.

I remember reading-I think in the St. Pete paper-a couple of months ago that a major donor in Fl. spent hours on the phone to the DNC demanding his donation from last year be returned. Ultimately he got his money back and it was stated that donations from up to the previous year had to be returned if demanded.

I’m pretty sure about this, just can’t remember exactly where and when I read it—-although, it was because of Fl being punished.