Adult tells child if they cut in line for dessert, they’re not going to get any ice cream.

Child cuts in line.

Child gets no ice cream.

Child throws tantrum.

Nowadays they may even post about it on their web site.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Sigh.

“But I want ice creeeeeam!”

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Child cuts in line

Parent shoots child dead

That will teach them!

How can you possibly compare a misbehaving child to the voters of two large, key states?

And since when is the right to vote for your choice of candidate for President of the United States a “treat” or privilege?

BTW - typically the penalty for line-cutting is getting sent to the back of the line, which would be accomplished by June revotes.

and then get them all.

Meanwhile, he should be proving he can win big states like PA— and Indiana, where we’re seeing the effect of Wright, etc. — http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2…

— Obama Speech Fails to Assuage White Indiana Voters

Voting in a political party’s nomination process is not a right. It is, in fact, a privilege that the party leadership can deny to states that break the party’s rules.

That’s why we have primaries. If the national party leadership wants to punish people, it should punish only those lawmakers who made it happen—not the voters.

to not support their decisions.

But keep making that argument. Keep telling Democrats that voting for their party’s nominee is a privilege.

John McCain will laugh all the way to the White House.

When dealing with the camp who gave us “It depends on what the meaning of the word ’is’ is”, it’s necessary to insist on simplicity.

If my metaphor offends your sense of dignity, so be it. It’s an exact description of what the MI and FL leadership did. And they should receive the full punishment they were promised (with - as people here seem to need constant reminding - Hillary’s heartfelt blessing) in the interest of keeping all the kids from rushing the ice cream table at once at the next birthday party.

The people they were supposed to get ice cream for certainly have a right to be pissed off. They should stop being friends with them and choose someone else to get the ice cream the next time.

And I’m sure that later in the afternoon when Obama is opening his presents, that old softie Dean will say to MI and FL “I hope you’ve learned a lesson” and give them a small cup of whatever flavor is left over.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

myiq2xu, you seem to be confused about rights and privileges. You have the right to not support the party’s decision. As I understand your latest comment, I am correct when I say that state delegations don’t have the right to vote in the Democratic nomination process. This is, however, an inconvenient truth, so we should instead pretend that they do. Also, as I remember it, the people of FL and MI voted and selected delegates.

amberglow, apparently, the DNC can take that “right” away from some states’s delegations, so it is much more like a privilege than a right.

What is Obama afraid of? He should be interested in what is the decision of the people, and that he is capable of gaining their support. Apparently Obama doesn’t believe enough in himself and his message to the extent that he will take away other’s votes.

But I don’t believe for a second what some commenters are saying. These are probably trolls, here to stir up devision and hatred to split the Democrats. Go away, trolls. Democrats believe everyone’s vote should be counted.

the point (or not allow primaries altogether)—the DNC and RNC cannot cancel a state’s primary, nor can they forbid a state or its residents who are party members from voting nor forbid a state from holding primaries—even if they say the votes won’t count, then or later. The right to actually vote in a party primary if you are a member of that party is not at all deniable by national parties—that’s why the DNC had to threaten punishment (only to these 2 states—when others jumped the line too, btw, which is an important point in all this) and couldn’t simply stop the primary entirely.

The primaries in MI and FL and individuals actually voting in them were never in any doubt at all no matter what—it’s only the national recognition and allocation that was, and is, being disputed.

States, voters in those states, and state govts have far faar more power than the national parties in terms of individuals voting. It’s why we have 50 diff State procedures, pretty much—the DNC actually doesn’t have the power to force any state to do something one way or another—they can only punish and threaten afterwards.

The decision of the people who have voted in Democratic primaries [which, thanks to Limbaugh, isn’t synonymous with “Democrats”] is that Obama should be the nominee.

It’s Hillary - who wants to win the nomination by having that mandate ignored by the superdelegates (which, I freely admit, they are procedurally entitled to do) - who doesn’t care what the people think.

But you like Hillary and hate Obama. So keep “don’t believing” in the facts when they’re inconvenient.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

So now we have our resident Obama trolls pushing the idea that Florida and Michigan voters who complain about their votes not counting are little kids. Why should votes count in a democracy?

I am beginning to believe you are a ratfucker, you can’t help, but throw out more Clinton bashing BS, and I though your team was the team that “didn’t want to refight the fights of the 90’s”.

as people here seem to need constant reminding - Hillary’s heartfelt blessing

No, you seem to keep forgetting that this is not true. Clinton spoke out against the harsh punishment(while Obama’s supporters kept trying to push through the advancement, until Obama supported the DNC decision, then they stopped), and that was why she kept her name on the ballot, she did not support stripping them of their delegates, though she agreed to abide by the DNC rules about not campaigning, something Obama didn’t do.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

actual FL Democrats coming out in large numbers even without campaigning?

Obama pushed the Dem for a Day idea first, so blame him.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

that the Obama supporters keep claiming that huge numbers of people (all Obama supporters) sat out both primaries, even though there were record turnouts.

“Yes the turnout was huge, but it would have been huger!”

The primaries were treated as official by the state governments and the state parties. The results are official as far as any other races or issues that were on the ballots.

Everything I’ve seen shows that turnout in MI was depressed. But once again, this solution was easily rectified, if only the Golden One had supported it.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Let’s cut the crap. That’s what this is. If people didn’t think the elections were valid, we could have had revotes. Obama chose not to do that.

“If people didn’t think the elections were valid, we could have had revotes.”

What would be the point?

“Senior Hillary adviser Harold Ickes… confirmed that the Hillary campaign could still try to woo super-dels even if she lost the popular vote, with Michigan and Florida counted.”

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm…

To borrow a phrase from Robert Christgau [I know what a sensitive issue plagiarism is to Hillary]: you people are so full of shit that Port-O-San ought to name a model after you.

You whine and bitch about Obama “disenfranchising” MI/FL. But the second it becomes necessary, you’ll flush the popular vote down the toilet so the superdelegates can install someone “electable”.

As if the radioactive waste dump that is the Clinton legacy wouldn’t inflame otherwise dispirited Republican voters to shower McCain with dollars and votes.

As if the black voters Hillary spat on when they didn’t properly appreciate all she was doing for them would just smile and shrug and vote for her anyway.

I’ll thank you all for this much. You’ve shown me that that the rancor and self-delusion of the Bush loyalists can be found on either side of the aisle.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Thank you for commenting, ribo. Your comment is important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

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

Lovely. So copying the GOP playbook is now how we embody “unity” (i.e. triangulation)? What next?

It’s ridiculous that Obama would be granted any MI delegates, let alone all the “uncommitted,” since he willingly took his name off the ballot. He should pay for it rather than being rewarded out of fear what the misinformed/delusional think.

What would be the point?

How about legitimacy for starters.

so the superdelegates can install someone “electable”.

How dare she follow the RULZ!!

As if the black voters Hillary spat on

Can you provide me with one example when Clinton treated Obama’s supporters with the blatant disregard that Obama has treated Clinton’s supporters?

*crickets*

And about your signature, there is only one candidate in this race that has encouraged me to hope and think, and it is the one candidate who is supported by the speaker of that quote.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

So copying the GOP playbook is now how we embody “unity”?

Yes.

Leveraging The Clenis and hatred of the Clintons for fun and profit has a whole chapter to itself.

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

Try to summarize the point of the comment in the headline. It’s a good exercise that promotes clear thinking and better rhetoric. Just sayin.

Agreed on the sig, by the way. What I hear in Hillary is a message of hope through hard work and never giving up. What I hear in Obama is a message of “hope” through one person’s charisma, and a message of “change” and “transformation” that’s totally belied by the campaign he’s actually running.

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

the GOP threw at Bill and Hillary, racism was never part of it.

“As if the black voters Hillary spat on”

Give me an example. One black voter.

The racism accusation is the dirtiest low-blow I’ve seen since the “Willie Horton” ad.

Obama should be ashamed of himself.

He’s not worthy.

The rumor about McCain fathering a child with a black prostitute was worse.

Lee Atwater - Willie Horton

Karl Rove - McCain’s illegimate child

Barack Obama - The Clintons are racists

Some company.

’….totally belied by the campaign he’s actually running.’

…..nice right hand to the jaw.

Now hit ’em with the left! Something like:

’Obama’s judgment, if not his character would seem to have some deep flaws. How else would you explain his lies about Wright and associations with Rezko and Auchi?

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Hillary fundraising chair Geraldine Ferraro : “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

Spits on all the black voters, I’d say. And judging from the results in Mississippi, they weren’t too happy about it.

Oh, but of course, Hillary didn’t say that. Just stood back and watched to see how it played.

What an inspiring figure she is to the young white women of America.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Aeryl, ya beat me to it. I had to go log in and then put in the wrong password, blah blah. Ratfucker trolls indeed.

On the ratfucker posting the other day, ribo and dmd sure were sensitive that they might perhaps be what the author (lambert? vastleft? sorry, I forgot) were alluding to. And boy were they up in arms about it.

Methinks they did protest too much.

I often attempt to give ribo some benefit of the doubt but with that ice cream post? Over. No more. He’s a ratfucker. And nobody should waste one byte arguing with him.

Although I’m sure the administrator thanks ratfucker ribo for his post. It means a lot to us here at Correntewire. Hope to see you again!

I will try harder, O High and Mighty Master of Corrente!!

:P

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Whatever keeps you from having to think about the speech Obama will give when accepting the nomination at the Convention. It’s all good.

Cheers.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Thanks for stopping by! Have a nice day!

’Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.’
————-FDR

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

has always been this—

If the DNC reverses itself and allows FL/MI back in, it looks like cheating to the Obama supporters. If they don’t let FL/MI back in, it looks like cheating to Hillary’s supporters, and it’s also undemocratic.

—this is a problem:

Why were Dean and other prominent (Obama-supporting) Democrats pushing so hard to make Hillary quit?

Half of this is correct. “Other prominent (Obama supporting) Democrats” like Leahy wondering out loud WWTSBQ for the sake of party unity.

However lumping Dean in there is a fallacy. It’s one of the many storylines people hate to let go. So Dean not jumping in immediately = Dean supports Obama.

Dean never pushed Hillary to quit because he was the candidate everyone loved to hate in 2004:

Party Chairman Howard Dean says he was “dumbfounded” at the suggestion by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy Friday that Sen. Clinton should pull out.

“Having run for president myself, nobody tells you when to get in, and nobody tells you when to get out,” Mr. Dean said. “That’s about the most personal decision you can make after all the time and effort you put into it.”

Now unless someone has video of Howard saying he hearts Obama, leave him out of that clique.

For some context, here is the quote.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept”

Are you saying that much of Obama’s support is not b/c he’s black(contradicting claims by his own supporters, John Kerry and Andrew Sullivan)? Part of the reason I initially supported him, outside of his massive inspirational skillz(when I gushed about him after his speech in 04, my black friends told me I thought it was so good, b/c I’ve never been to a black church, and they thought it was rather mediocre).

Much of Obama’s support comes from black people(which I have no problem with, unlike other people who think it makes me stupid that I am a woman who supports a woman, and I get accused of “Vagina Voting”), and whites, who are caught up in the concept of being “post-racial”. He also has many supporters who have analytically decided he was a better candidate. But if you took away his “post-racial” support, Obama would not be leading in this contest right now. So I don’t see how anyone can deny the actual truth of Ferraro’s words, despite her poor phrasing.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

It’s more like

Child cuts in line

Parent shoots child dead

All other parents proceed to shoot each other’s children, then each other.

The Fourth Branch of government gets the ice cream.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

I await the proof that I’m a ratfucker with bated breath, Imelda.

By the way, nice nick. That Marcos regime was fucking hilarious.

Ha ha ha!

That’s your big counterpunch?

Willie Horton/McCain’s illegitimate child = Geraldine Ferraro?

What are they feeding trolls these days?

BTW - Geraldine was not Hillary’s “fundraising chair.”

Massive lame!

Who needs to prove anything?

Can you prove you’re not a ratfucker?

I await that proof.

However, since he dropped the hostility to sign on to the Responsible Plan, I don’t think he’s a troll, imelda. Plus, he likes gardening.

Our herpetic friend, ribo, however…

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

Since you weren’t even named by anyone as a potential ratfucker, why are you so sensitive?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

and see above commment at “misguided.”

I had a hard time disentangling that comment, so I could see how others could.

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

And thanks Lambert for setting me straight.

Regarding the Marcos regime, say what you will, his wife did great things for shoe-loving peoples everywhere.

Reagan cozied up to Marcos, isn’t emulating Reagan part of the Unity Plan. You should be happy she’s jumped on board.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

not a dictator thing.

I don’t even own that many pairs. The nic is more ’aspirational’ than anything. Like aspirational voting - you know, I’m a working class stiff but I vote Republican because I want to be like all those country-club affluent types who vote Republican.

Sorry, very o/t. Please don’t yell at me like BTD does at TalkLeft.

That’s your coup de grâce, myiq2xu? Asking for a negative proof? I’m afraid I’m no match for your rapier wit.

Are you actually saying that some pro-Hillary comments here might not be 100% factually accurate and objective?

Get outta here.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

“Hillary is being “divisive” because she won’t step aside so that Obama can unify us.”

Nope. Hillary isn’t being divisive because she won’t step down, there’s nothing wrong with her continuing the race to the end. She’s being divisive, because she’s using the train-wreck of Michigan and Florida to further her candidacy, falsely blaming Obama for what happened, and rather cynically pushing to have the delegates seated from primaries she agreed in advance not to participate in, which she publicly stated wouldn’t mean anything, one of which she even ran unopposed in. I have no trouble with her pushing for revotes (which would be the best solution), but she’s gone beyond that.

“Dean and the DNC screwed up by trying to pull a power-play on Florida and Michigan.”

I partly agree with this one; a penalty of 50% of the delegates would have been better than the nuclear option. But they also gave the states every opportunity to implement a solution, caucuses or whatever they wished to plan. The Florida legislature pretty much decided it didn’t care if it’s delegates were seated; getting there way was all that mattered. Michigan, while not quite as bad, could have run caucuses or chosen some other solution. So bad decision on the committee’s part, but the major share of the responsibility is the states’.

And just to be clear, I will whole-heartedly support whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination, and I think they would both make great Presidents.

And I don’t think anyone is implying that the original issue with FL & MI is Obama’s fault. The blame for no resolution in MI though, can be squarely laid at Obama’s feet.

participate in, which she publicly stated wouldn’t mean anything, one of which she even ran unopposed in.

She did not participate in either primary, though Obama did, she stated that the DNC said it wouldn’t mean anything, but that she thought they would be seated, and she did NOT run unopposed in MI. There were other candidates, who did not consider pandering to IA the most important thing, who kept their names on the ballot. Just because Obama wasn’t on it the ballot, doesn’t mean she was unopposed. And remember, the reason Obama wasn’t on the ballot, was because he didn’t want to be, so HE has no one to blame for our current state of affairs but himself.

And I didn’t know that counting all the votes was “divisive”. Welcome to Unity America, I guess, good times.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

This whole issue has already been rather exhaustively discussed, so herewith a few of the relevant links that may help reader with Rick’s rather transparent attempt to absolve Mr. Hopey of any responsbility for disenfranchising the voters of MI and FL.

1. The priority should be making the votes of FL and MI count, and not to single them out for special treatment.

2. The best way to do that would have been a revote, since the DNC, the states, and the campaigns between them muddied the waters so irretrievably. (And the 50/50 solution is vote theft, pure and simple.

3. Obama systematically obstructed the revote proposal, and any other proposals. Best quote? “A redo vote would be very complicated” (see the link). Fortuantely, when President, Obama wouldn’t face complicated decisions…

4. The upshot of has the potential to damage Democratic chances in the general; that’s Lord Kos’s famous 48 state strategy.

New kind of politics my sweet Aunt Fanny. It’s exactly like the Alice Palmer episode. Classic Chicago-style ward heeler politics, practiced against fellow Democrats (instead of the Republicans Obama wants in his cabinet). Obama, it seems, is really good at beating up on progressives (and, I might add, women). Republicans? Not so much.

So, Rick, repeating Obama campaign talking points can make them truthy, but it cannot make them true.

And the central point is the first point. Our priority should be to make the voters whole. Obama doesn’t want to do that.

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

I was about to note, that as much as I enjoy the new blood, in the hopes we can change some minds, it does get tiring to have to repeat all the old news to the new faces.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

If the 50/50 split is “vote theft”, then counting the delegates as they are is voter suppression Study of MI/FL undervote (pdf). Afterall, it was conventional wisdom in FL and MI that the votes would not count.

Also, HRC, MI and FL weren’t exactly quick to call for revotes. The revote idea (the only fair solution) was only called for after reapeated calls to count the sham elections (i.e. embrace voter suppression).

HRC also rejected the idea of a firehouse caucus as late as mid-March. Can’t find link now, but have linked on this site before.

If the 50/50 split is “vote theft”, then counting the delegates as they are is voter suppression

Counting votes is voter suppression? 50/50 is vote theft because it gives Obama votes he did not earn (even granting him all the “uncommitted” goes too far since Edwards was still a contender) and neuters the voices of MI, FL. At the very least, counting MI, FL helps with legitimizing the nominee (e.g., popular vote count) and preventing the party from destroying its GE chances.

Afterall, it was conventional wisdom in FL and MI that the votes would not count.

Not true. As someone who has family in Florida, they were repeatedly assured that their vote would count (They assumed the delegates would be halved, at worst).

Better than a secret ballot in a real election?

Pas si bete. Caucuses discriminate against those who have to work, the sick, the handicapped, the elderly, those with child care issues, and those without cars. In addition, they’re clearly open to abuse [should have link to latest on TX caucuses here; I thought we front-paged it.] Caucues are not democratic. Hillary was right to reject that particular Obama poison pill, which I would read as part of Obama’s continuing obstructionism, rather than as a serious offer.

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

You don’t have to explain the “vote theft” logic to me. I get it. In fact, I gave no indication that I didn’t. Thanks, though.

Your family may have believed that the votes would be counted, but I have provided an independent study that demonstrates that nearly 2 million (1.15 in Florida) people did not vote in MI/FL because they were de-motivated by the thought that it wouldn’t count.

Link again, please? Thanks.

Glad to see that we all agree that 50/50 is voter theft. That’s progress.

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

Let’s pretend hardly anyone thought whatsoever that MI and FL would count.* Why shouldn’t we count these two states? Think of the GE. It’s better than nothing.

*Wasn’t the FL primary a record-breaker? I’m all but certain it was. Also: various FL media (the papers, radio, TV) relayed the message that their votes would count—somehow.

Lambert: the link is provided in my post. Its labeled: Study of MI/FL undervote (pdf) . If you don’t like pdfs, its summarized here, but this might require a wsj subscription. The author is Gregory P Rini and its titled “A Problem with Seating the Florida and Michigan Delegates Based on Existing Primary Results”.

Davidson: How is it OK to misrepresent the will of the people by counting MI/FL as is? Its no different than misrepresenting the will of the people by seating 50/50. You would be all over me if I said “Why shouldn’t we count these two states [50/50]? Think of the GE. It’s better than nothing.”

Who dunnit?

Not Hillary. Not the Michigan Democratic party

See MDP: http://www.michigandems.com/121007prs.ht…

In Florida it was the same thing, and there were other issues on the ballot.

Both primaries were considered official by the state Democratic parties and the state governments.

“I would have voted if I knew it was gonna matter” is not an argument.

“How is it OK to misrepresent the will of the people by counting MI/FL as is? Its no different than misrepresenting the will of the people by seating 50/50.”

We can only measure the will of the voters who SHOW UP AND VOTE!

“If you don’t vote, you got no right to bitch.” - Molly Ivins (RIP)

How is it OK to misrepresent the will of the people by counting MI/FL as is?

Revotes are the only solution to the legitimacy issue, but I don’t see how that’s a possibility right now (Hell, I’m doubting MI and FL will be counted—at all). Thus, counting MI and FL as is seems to be our best option. MI is the more troublesome of the two because Obama removed his name from the ballot (an action not required by the DNC), but he’s the one that decided to take the gamble; even then he ran a campaign to push his supporters to pick “uncommitted” to lower Clinton’s margin of “victory.” 50/50 is different because it effectively cancels those two states and grants Obama votes he did not get.

Conventional wisdom suggested the primaries were just “beauty contests” and would not count toward the nomination. As a result, 2 million people did not vote who otherwise would have.

Are you really suggesting that voters should have anticipated that these uncontested primaries would eventually count?

because they are caucuses, yet their results will still count, even when there was a primary in the same state, including one that had 20x more participants. None of these contests are perfect, but it’s all we have. We could, of course, have revotes in MI & FL, but that would require Obama to agree to it and so far he hasn’t. And I know there are other issues, but if both candidates supported revotes, there’d be revotes. Having failed to support revotes, Obama is in a much weaker position, IMO, to complain about counting the initial votes because of election flaws. He had an opportunity to help fix those flaws and passed. The rest is just rationalizing disenfranchising more than 2 million voters.

… to determine whether I was enfranchised or not!

When will I ever learn? Always check conventional wisdom first. And it’s easy to do, because there’s so much of it!

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

That .pdf is more preliminary position paper than anything else.

It is short on facts, does not quote any official - or even unofficial - sources for the numbers bandied about, drives long on assumptions of numerical increases, extrapolations of future numbers, and “estimations” not based on any actual numbers.

Also, it should be noted that the person who wrote the “study” is not versed in any field of political analysis - and attempts to apply an economic theory in coming up with these numbers.

Mr. Nini should stick with Contract Theory; publishing political position papers based on economic growth models is not his forte.

- - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

… on health care in Iowa. So, a college student throws together a purported study, which then mutates into an authoritative cite. Where, oh where, have I seen this before?

Quotes would be nice, though, lost in space. Then we could cite to your comment is a true takedown…

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

Its not a peer reviewed comprehensive study. Its an unbiased and statistically revelvent analysis. And it has more heft then family member anecdotes. Seriously, raise your hand if you really still think MI and FL turnout wouldn’t have differed significantly if there was no question as to the legitimacy of the ’contests’.

Sorry for not offering quotes, btw. The first time(s) I posted the link, I did offer quotes. After having this evidence ignored 3 or 4 times here, I got a bit lazy in my posting.

Yes, caucuses are a very imperfect form of democracy. But nobody suggested a caucus vote wouldn’t count and then pulled a 180.

A caucus is not a fair analogy to the depressed voter turnout of FL/MI. In caucuses, turnout is influenced by the inconveniences of participation; in MI/FL, turnout was influenced by the perception of the vote’s meaning - a perception that some have tried to change after the fact.

::

“Having failed to support revotes, Obama is in a much weaker position, IMO, to complain about counting the initial votes because of election flaws. He had an opportunity to help fix those flaws and passed.”

Having tried to portray sham primaries as legitimate, Clinton is in a much weaker position, IMO, to complain about not counting initial votes because of logistical and legal difficulties in having revotes. She had an opportunity to support revotes much earlier but chose instead to push for counting sham primaries.

::

Lambert, your mockery is mildly entertaining. Still, it doesn’t really challenge my assertion that primary participation was significantly depressed due to how the primaries were presented to the public.

party and state government say it’s official, that’s “conventional wisdom” enough for me.

What bloviating gasbags say on television doesn’t count.

BTW - Even if the huge numbers of people you refer to had actually voted, what evidence do you have that they would have changed the outcome, especially in Florida?

Were the pro-Obama voters the only ones who didn’t believe their state officials?

Because more people check the state party website than turn on a TV.