http://gamingtrend.com
October 21, 2014, 10:40:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Report from the Texas Caucuses, Phase II  (Read 2647 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


View Profile WWW
« on: March 30, 2008, 09:13:38 PM »

Yesterday I was a delegate for Senator Obama from Precinct 1210 to the 16th Senatorial District Convention in Dallas. At this convention, delegates from precincts and the Nominations Committee selected 255 delegates and alternate to the Texas Democratic Convention in June -- roughly 3.5% of the 7,315 non-Super delegates to our state convention (Yes, we have State-level Super Delegates, too -- 351 of them).

As I can't think of a better way to describe the process, here's a brief rundown of the schedule of my day (as it turned out to unfold):

6:00 AM -- After working until about 10:00 the previous night to help set up the convention, my alarm goes off. I get up, look at it and think 'I don't get up at 6:00.' I turn off my alarm, and go back to bed.

7:00 AM -- I wake up in a panic... "What the fuck did I just do!?"

8:15 AM -- I reach the campus of Southern Methodist University, where the convention is being held. We'd had to move it from our earlier location because Thomas Jefferson High School couldn't accommodate 5,600 delegates and alternates.

9:00 AM -- I finally reach the front of Moody Coliseum, where thousands stand in line by precinct to sign in to the convention and receive our credentials (I spent four hours on Friday helping to put those credentials together). I get in my line, and later meet up with the Obama folks from my precinct. Clinton folks stand with us, too... grrr. Actually, we all get along just fine. But the line's not moving. I go inside, without credentials, to try to find a way to expedite the process, then rejoin my group.

10:20 AM -- Still in line. The start time for the convention is officially pushed back from 11:00 AM to Noon.

10:40 AM -- I'm in, and credentialed. We got good seats (heh, I made sure of that the night before). Our precinct Obama delegation is at full strength, though we'll have to elevate two alternates. Luckily, exactly two of our five alternates are there. The Clinton folks will likewise have to elevate alternates. We'll get 15 votes, they'll get 8.

11:30 AM -- People are still flowing in. Some speeches have begun. Credentials continues to work -- a lot of data from precinct conventions was incomplete or confusing, requiring folks to go to credentials to have their status sorted out before we can have a temporary roll of delegates.

12:45 PM -- Credentials announces its work is complete. The Convention Chair reminds us that we're not officially delegates yet, so we can't be holding votes in our precincts for state delegates yet. I've had lunch. Hot dog. Yum.

1:30 PM -- Credentials report begins. The Credentials committee was 50/50 Obama and Clinton folks. They were a fair group, and seemed to have ruled within the rules on all challenges and credentials problems. Unfortunately, the losing sides in 17 challenges are going to bring floor fights and minority reports. The first fight takes 15 minutes. The second one is dragging on. My friend Steven, a Clinton delegate from another precinct, and I decide to stop this nonsense.

We go down to the floor, muscle our way to the front microphone, and make a motion to accept the entire credentials committee report as issued by the committee, without alteration. I speak up for this as an Obama supporter. Steven speaks up as a Clinton supporter. People scream at us that we're trying to cut off debate (duh) and disenfranchise people (no). Much sturm und drang. The motion passes.

This is a very important moment for me and Steven, as will be seen later.

2:15 PM -- With credentials completed, the Temporary Chair of the Convention is elected Permanent Chair. We are gaveled into session. Only 3 hours late! Everyone cheers. All in all, this is a very positive and enthusiastic crowd. The Chair tells precincts to produce official rosters of delegates.

We fill out the forms, elevating needed alternates. We lost an Obama delegate who got fed up during the credentials fighting, so we're down to 14-8 margin over Clinton in our precinct. This is why I stopped the fighting.

The forms include spaces for demographic information -- Under/Over 35, Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender -- and Presidential Preference.

2:30 PM -- More waiting as the forms are turned in. More speakers, including the awesome, incredible, primary-challenger-crushing Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez! I go down to the floor to talk to Lupe after her speech, and get stopped for the first of many times that day by people thanking me for ending the credentials fight. The same thing is happening to Steven.

3:00 PM -- Precinct delegations forms are sent off to the Tabulations Committee. Precincts are ask to hold elections for State Delegates. In my precinct, I'd already held an organizing meeting for the Obama Delegates, so we'd selected our candidate. Of the 255 delegates SD 16 will send on, 194 will be determined by precinct votes, and 61 will be allocated At Large by Nominations. I could have been elected out of my precinct, but I let a new kid who was really enthusiastic take that spot. Our precinct votes 14 to 8, sends an Obama delegate and Clinton alternate on to State.

3:30 PM -- While our delegation chair delivers our election results to the Convention Chair, I take At Large Nomination forms from our precinct to the Nominations Committee (including one for me). But they're not meeting yet. While I'm waiting, an Obama operative from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association comes over to talk to me about the Credentials Stuff. The challenges/minority reports had been their idea, but they were panicking because it was backfiring, and more Obama delegates were walking out during the fighting than they were going to get back through the Report Challenges.

Nominations opens up, and I delivery my forms. They can't start their work because tabulations is not complete.

Brief Aside: The At Large Nominations Process. The 255 delegates SD 16 sends to Austin must match, as closely as possible, the composition and demographics of the 2,700 or so delegates who signed in at our District Convention. That means that Nominations, after tallying the 194 precinct-elected delegates, they need to use their 61 at large nominations to try to balance the presidential preference, gender, age (above/below 35), sexual orientation and race composition of the delegation. It's not possible to do so perfectly, particularly since many delegates don't fill out those boxes on the sign in form, but they have to try. It takes hours, so tabulations being complete is very important.

5:00 PM -- More speeches. Resolutions are passed. Platform planks. Why the fuck isn't tabulations done?

6:30 PM -- WHERE ARE THE TABULATIONS? Apparently, something went very wrong in tabulations. 16 of the Clinton and Obama delegates who remain (most left after the elections in their precincts) are grabbed to be the new tabulations committee. Steven and I pair up. We count Clinton, Obama and Uncommitted delegates from the sign in forms. It's amazing how badly some of the forms are messed up... how hard is it to sign your names, circle your presidential candidate and check a couple of boxes???

Since we know each other (and inherently trust each other), Steven and I count faster than the other teams, and we're finished with our portion fairly quickly.

7:30 PM -- My dad and brother call and they're in town and want to have dinner. I ask someone to call me when tabulations is done, and to let me know if I make it out as an At Large Delegate. On my way out, I get stuck spending 15 minutes describing the Nominations process (see above) to some new delegates.

8:30 PM -- A text message comes in: "16th tabulations Clinton 1110 Obama 1606"

10:00 PM -- Done with dinner, I go back to SMU. The Convention hall is empty, but there's noise coming... oh no... from the Nominations Committee Room. The entire convention -- about 100 delegates left -- has reconvened in the Nominations Room. The Committee is nearing the completion of its work, but it's hard, particularly with 100 folks watching. I've been on Nominations before. It's a bitch of a committee to be on, and that was without spectators.

I find out that the precinct-elected state delegates were overwhelmingly Obama, which means at large will favor Clinton. Also, the Obama precinct-elected state delegates were overwhelmingly male and white, which all pinches down my chances of being chosen at large. I hear two estimated numbers for how many "the committee just gets to choose" spots (my best chance) there are: 8 or 14. I'm hoping very, very hard that I'm one of the 8 best known and respected Democratic activists in my district.

10:30 PM -- The Committee is finished. The names of all nominated and elected delegates are read, in alphabetical order. I made it. So did Steven, on the Clinton side. Glad we made our motion. I later found out that the committee had decided early on to find spots for both of us.

10:45 PM -- The nominations reading is completed, and a motion is made to accept the final slate of delegates. A delegate from the floor stands up yelling "point of order," and then asks a question about nominations from the floor. This is very precarious -- if anything derails the nominations report, then SD16 would send NO delegates to the state convention... but the delegation is also full, and a nomination from the floor would require taking someone off the nominations list and substituting their name, which could also screw up the demographic profile of the delegation. A lot of arguing back and forth until a handful of us convince the chair that the question is not germane to the motion at hand, and the parliamentary inquiry (which is what it was, not a point of order) should be ignored. She follows our advice, and the Nominations Report is officially adopted.

10:50 PM -- An African American man who was elected Obama delegate but whose wife didn't get an At Large spot starts to cause a ruckus, claiming that the At Large process was "unfair" and that they just "packed the delegation with their friends" (looking around at the multi-year, hardcore activists who normally always go to State but who didn't make it this year, I get pissed off about that argument). He doesn't seem to understand that we just adopted the report and the matter is settled, and he also can't seem to figure out how to turn his angst into a motion. So a motion is made to adjourn the convention sine die, and it passes over his hollering.

11:00 PM -- Everyone goes home, having earned the slogan on the back of our SD 16 shirts: "I survived the 2008 Democratic Primary!"


Sorry for the long, boring post. Pictures forthcoming!
Logged

th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2008, 09:20:01 PM »

I understood half of that, but the rest was in some kind of crazy moon language  icon_wink. Can you sum it up? 
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2008, 11:57:40 PM »

Quote from: th'FOOL on March 30, 2008, 09:20:01 PM

Can you sum it up? 

stuff happened.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15962


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2008, 12:07:35 AM »

Quote from: th'FOOL on March 30, 2008, 09:20:01 PM

I understood half of that, but the rest was in some kind of crazy moon language  icon_wink. Can you sum it up? 

Same here. However, it was still a very interesting read. Congrats!
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2008, 12:43:35 PM »

Why does Texas have a primary and a caucus?

The Democrats are somehow finding a way to mess up a sure thing because the party cannot even run a Presidential Primary.  This whole mess is going to drag out into July because Howard Dean and the party have completely mismanaged the whole process and are not strong enough to get the Clintons to drop out. 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 12:46:43 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7848


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2008, 02:07:18 PM »

Congrats on getting the appointment, Kirk. Major kudos on that. Cracks me up that you and Steven said "Screw this" and tossed off the Texas Trial Lawyers. It sounds like what they were doing (and this may be boiling it waaaaaaaaaaay down) was essentially nickel & diming people to try and squeeze a little bit more Obama fervor out of the crowd. Of course that was going to backfire! Party affiliations aside, stuff like this in the political process makes me crazy. Doesn't matter which side does it, it remains a stupid thing to do. Kudos to both of you for stopping it before it rolled further.

Also, I look at this entire post as yet another reason to adopt a Thunderdome model for choosing candidates. Two enter, one leaves then leads the party at the convention. ninja
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2008, 04:06:51 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 12:43:35 PM

Why does Texas have a primary and a caucus?

We've always had a caucus. The primary came along later, when the Texas Democratic Party's local primary was fused with a Presidential primary and moved from August to March -- way back when "Super Tuesday" was created in, I believe, 1984.

The purpose of retaining the caucus is to bring new people into the party organization. Folks who vote in the primary often immediately disappear right back into the woodwork. The caucus portion was allowed to retain a small number of our delegates as a means of encouraging people to come back, get involved with the convention system and become active members of the party itself, not just voters.

I became active in the party after being recruited at a precinct caucus after a primary. I met one of my best friends, David (whose partner is the Steven I mentioned in my original post) at the 2004 Democratic State Convention, which I attended because I was a delegate out of my precinct caucus. David got me into the Young Democrats after that. He's now a Super Delegate from Texas.

Now, its hard to keep things orderly when this many new people are poured into the system all at once, but I think that, for a volunteer organized, donation-driven enterprise, the Texas Democratic Caucus system is working just fine.

Quote
The Democrats are somehow finding a way to mess up a sure thing because the party cannot even run a Presidential Primary.

What, precisely, has been done wrong with the primary?

Quote
This whole mess is going to drag out into July because Howard Dean and the party have completely mismanaged the whole process and are not strong enough to get the Clintons to drop out. 

It won't go to July. It might not even go to June. Regardless, how has the process been "mismanaged"? I want specifics, not bullshit generalities like "there should be a nominee already." Specifics. Please.
Logged

denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2008, 04:38:14 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 04:06:51 PM

It won't go to July. It might not even go to June. Regardless, how has the process been "mismanaged"? I want specifics, not bullshit generalities like "there should be a nominee already." Specifics. Please.

1.  A proportional system which allows Hillary Clinton to win Ohio, Texas, and Mass and gain less than 50 total delegates.

2.  The disqualifing of 2 large states, which combined with the proportional system, makes it almost impossible for one of the two candidates to achieve 2025 delegates.  Especially without Super Delegates.

3.  Allowing Hillary Clinton to be the only canadidate on the ballot in Michigan.

4.  Superdelegates have way too much autonomy and potential power.  Hillary won Mass.  Yet Ted Kennedy has already said he is going to vote for Obama.

Think about this.  Obama is probably going to be the nominee and he will not have won in Ohio, CA, NY, Texas, PA, Fla, or Michigan.  All states that the Democrats will need in November. 

Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2008, 04:38:52 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 12:43:35 PM

Why does Texas have a primary and a caucus?

The Democrats are somehow finding a way to mess up a sure thing because the party cannot even run a Presidential Primary.  This whole mess is going to drag out into July because Howard Dean and the party have completely mismanaged the whole process and are not strong enough to get the Clintons to drop out. 

How are they messing up the primary?  It seems like it's working to me.  Also, I think it's good that the process is going long, it makes all the late states feel like they are actually involved, rather than being a formality.

But the only reason I think Hillary should have drop out is because she seemed to be too willing to try ruining the election for the person who's obviously going to win.  But, she seems to have eased up on the attack rhetoric recently, which is good: hopefully she stops it altogether.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2008, 04:50:24 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 04:38:14 PM

2.  The disqualifing of 2 large states

They disqualified themselves.  They knew what the penalty would be when they moved up their primaries.

Quote
3.  Allowing Hillary Clinton to be the only canadidate on the ballot in Michigan.

I think it was stupid of the other candidates not to put their names on the ballot, regardless of whether the election would "count" or not.  It was also stupid to not campaign there.  But even so, their state parties knew the delegates wouldn't be seated, so they shouldn't be.

Quote
4.  Superdelegates have way too much autonomy and potential power.  Hillary won Mass.  Yet Ted Kennedy has already said he is going to vote for Obama.

That's the way the system works.  If people don't like the system, that's a separate issue.

Not too many people complain that the electoral college system in the general election works the exact same way: the electoral college is under zero obligation to abide by the popular vote.  So how is this somehow a problem of the Democratic party?  In fact, the Democratic Party's system is superior to the electoral college, since the popular vote count plays a direct role in the election process.

Contrast this with the Republican primary process.  McCain pretty much won by default, and there is zero excitement for the guy.  In fact, listen to his speeches: McCain sounds like the person least excited about McCain for president.

Quote
Think about this.  Obama is probably going to be the nominee and he will not have won in Ohio, CA, NY, Texas, PA, Fla, or Michigan.  All states that the Democrats will need in November.

In a proportionate system, "winning" a specific state isn't all that important.

BTW... didn't Obama technically "win" Texas?

Anyway, look at the primary voter totals.  Take the total votes for Democrats, and the total votes for Republicans.  It makes an... interesting picture.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 05:00:31 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2008, 05:12:28 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 31, 2008, 04:50:24 PM

BTW... didn't ABM technically "win" Texas?

Not according to the Clinton campaign.  In her Ohio victory speech she said she "won" Fla and Mich too.  Allowing the situation to arise illustrates the problems with the system. 

Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2008, 05:24:35 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 04:38:14 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 04:06:51 PM

It won't go to July. It might not even go to June. Regardless, how has the process been "mismanaged"? I want specifics, not bullshit generalities like "there should be a nominee already." Specifics. Please.

1.  A proportional system which allows Hillary Clinton to win Ohio, Texas, and Mass and gain less than 50 total delegates.

What's bad about a proportional system? Voting is proportional. It's certainly preferable to the GOP's 1-vote-margin-gets-you-every-delegate system in many states. Now, I'd prefer a mixture, where 1/3 of delegates from a state are at large winner-take-all, with 2/3 being proportional, but that's really neither here nor there. Clinton BARELY won Texas (and will actually lose the final delegate count from Texas), and her delegate wins in Ohio and Massachusetts were comparable to her leads there. What would be more fair than that?

Quote
2.  The disqualifing of 2 large states, which combined with the proportional system, makes it almost impossible for one of the two candidates to achieve 2025 delegates.  Especially without Super Delegates.

The disqualifying of 2 large states was done by those states, and has nothing to do with reaching 2025 delegates. If FL and Michigan were seated, you would need 2209 delegates to win the nomination, not 2025.

Quote
3.  Allowing Hillary Clinton to be the only canadidate on the ballot in Michigan.

How is the Democratic party to blame for this? All candidates decided to remove their names from the ballot, aside from Kucinich, since the vote was not legitimate. Clinton "forgot" to do so, and still barely got 55% of the vote.

Quote
4.  Superdelegates have way too much autonomy and potential power.  Hillary won Mass.  Yet Ted Kennedy has already said he is going to vote for Obama.

Are you in the tank for Hillary Clinton? You're just regurgitating her talking points.

Super Delegates exist for a variety of reasons. I think you'll see their status change before the 2012 convention. They are no more autonomous than any other delegate, really -- though we talk about "pledged" delegates, any delegate can sign in for anyone they want at the convention. I'm a "pledged" delegate to the Texas State Convention for Obama, but I could get there and vote for Hillary delegates to the national convention if I wanted. Super delegates are perceived to be more autonomous simply because they aren't moved up to national delegate status through a system that requires them to repeatedly and publicly declare their preference. Other than that, they're just like all other delegates.

Quote
Think about this.  Obama is probably going to be the nominee and he will not have won in Ohio, CA, NY, Texas, PA, Fla, or Michigan.  All states that the Democrats will need in November. 

First, Democrats won't lose California, New York, Pennsylvania or Michigan in the November. And they won't win Texas. The only 'swing' states on your list that have a real chance of moving from one side to the other are Ohio and Florida.

Second, victory or defeat in a primary is not in any way an indication of general election strength. Look back through the history of presidential contest, and you won't find any correlation.
Logged

denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2008, 05:32:40 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 05:24:35 PM

Are you in the tank for Hillary Clinton? You're just regurgitating her talking points.

LOL. 

You think I am in the tank for Hillary and Unbreakable always thinks I am in the tank for McCain.

When in truth I am an Obama supporter.

Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2008, 05:36:24 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 05:32:40 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 05:24:35 PM

Are you in the tank for Hillary Clinton? You're just regurgitating her talking points.

LOL. 

You think I am in the tank for Hillary and Unbreakable always thinks I am in the tank for McCain.

When in truth I am an Obama supporter.

Then why are you repeating Clinton's bullshit "The DNC is disenfranchising Michigan and Florida" line?
Logged

denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2008, 06:00:12 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 05:36:24 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 05:32:40 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 05:24:35 PM

Are you in the tank for Hillary Clinton? You're just regurgitating her talking points.

LOL. 

You think I am in the tank for Hillary and Unbreakable always thinks I am in the tank for McCain.

When in truth I am an Obama supporter.

Then why are you repeating Clinton's bullshit "The DNC is disenfranchising Michigan and Florida" line?

Because I believe they are.  Whether I am an Obama supporter or not Michigan and Fla have to be counted.  The DNC should have found a better way to punish the states' leadership than punishing the voters in those states.

I'm guessing that after the PA primary Hillary would be ahead in the popular vote had Fla and Mich been counted and held normal primaries.  But we'll never know.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 06:08:37 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2008, 06:09:46 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 06:00:12 PM

Because I believe they are.  Whether I am an Obama supporter or not Michigan and Fla have to be counted.  The DNC should have found a better way to punish the states' leadership than punishing the voters in those states.

I agree that it wasn't the voter's fault, and that the voters shouldn't be punished... but the election, as it was held, is tainted, and is thus not legitimate.

I'll agree it was silly for the candidates to have taken their names off the ballot or not campaign there, but that's neither here nor there.  The voters of those states did not have a fair chance to vote for all the available candidates.  And, also, the penalty for moving up the primary had already been laid out: the rule wasn't a moving target, they knew what the result would be beforehand.  And yet, they did it anyway.

The blame lies with the state officials who moved the election date- this has zero to do with the DNC.
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2008, 06:20:08 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 06:00:12 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 05:36:24 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 05:32:40 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 05:24:35 PM

Are you in the tank for Hillary Clinton? You're just regurgitating her talking points.

LOL. 

You think I am in the tank for Hillary and Unbreakable always thinks I am in the tank for McCain.

When in truth I am an Obama supporter.

Then why are you repeating Clinton's bullshit "The DNC is disenfranchising Michigan and Florida" line?

Because I believe they are.

So the DNC is wrong for enforcing the rules? The very rules the DNC reps from MI and FL voted FOR before moving their primaries? That's nonsense. The rules are paramount. The rules MUST be enforced. Without rules, the system falls apart.

Quote
The DNC should have found a better way to punish the states' leadership than punishing the voters in those states.

Please specify precisely what this alternative should have been.

Quote
I'm guessing that after the PA primary Hillary would be ahead in the popular vote had Fla and Mich been counted and held normal primaries.  But we'll never know.

States that break the rules to try to get special advantages get punished. This is a good thing. It's sad that there's no other reasonable way to punish the states then by not recognizing the results of the invalid elections, but some sort of order has to be maintained. We need to be DISCOURAGING states from moving their primaries up, not allowing wonton breaking of the rules.

You're being completely contradictory. You're complaining that Dean wasn't able to control the primary, and then fault them for actually enforcing the rules covering the only thing the DNC can control regarding the primary -- the seating of delegations.

This will all work out. Delegates from FL and MI will be seated, but because those states -- and the voters of those states, by electing the leaders who made these decisions -- broke the rules, they will be seated in a manner that does not influence or change the final result. My guess would be that, once it's clear that Obama's margin will survive the additions, Florida will be seated with half voting strength, and Michigan will be seated with half voting strength with the 55 "unallocated" delegates being given to Obama.
Logged

Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2008, 07:58:55 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 05:12:28 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 31, 2008, 04:50:24 PM

BTW... didn't ABM technically "win" Texas?

Not according to the Clinton campaign.  In her Ohio victory speech she said she "won" Fla and Mich too.  Allowing the situation to arise illustrates the problems with the system. 



That speech was the final straw in my switch to Obama.  I just couldn't see how she could hold a straight face when claiming she won Fla and Mich in a fair election (which she said on NPR).  I've had enough of that kind of doubletalk from the current Satan in the White House.

However, I too think the Dems screwed up by not counting those states.  The Republicans 1/2 solution was a better idea.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2008, 09:03:47 PM »

By way of making things clearer, a bit of explanation about what the process in Texas is...

On March 4, after the primary, Texas Democrats held a series of caucuses, one in all 8,008 or so precincts in the state of Texas. Each precinct was allocated a certain number of delegates (and matching alternates) that they could elect to Senate District Conventions, which were held March 29.

At the Senate District Conventions (which are broken down by county, so districts covering more than one county had multiple conventions), delegates are elected to the State Convention. The Conventions this past Saturday elected 7,315 of the 7,666 delegates to the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention. The rest are automatic State Super Delegates.

At the State Convention, 67 of our 180-or-so National Convention Delegates will be elected by the delegates, the rest will be apportioned based on the primary vote (and then a few more Super Delegates will go along for the ride).

So the Senate Conventions on Saturday were very important, because if one side or the other had failed to get their people to come out, or had been able to work the process, it could have measurably impacted the results at State.

So, in any case, it's a big deal.

With 91% of convention delegates to state reported, Obama has 3,883 (including 29 Super Delegates) or 50.7%, Clinton has 3,076 (with 46 Super Delegates) or 40.1% and 704 (including 276 Super Delegates) are not yet reported. Obama is presently winning the returns from 20 of the 31 state senate districts.

If the numbers come in as expected in the last 10% of results, Obama should net enough delegates to the DNC from the caucuses to offset Clinton's win in the primary and take a four or five vote margin, to boot.
Logged

denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2008, 11:52:46 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 09:03:47 PM

By way of making things clearer, a bit of explanation about what the process in Texas is...

On March 4, after the primary, Texas Democrats held a series of caucuses, one in all 8,008 or so precincts in the state of Texas. Each precinct was allocated a certain number of delegates (and matching alternates) that they could elect to Senate District Conventions, which were held March 29.

At the Senate District Conventions (which are broken down by county, so districts covering more than one county had multiple conventions), delegates are elected to the State Convention. The Conventions this past Saturday elected 7,315 of the 7,666 delegates to the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention. The rest are automatic State Super Delegates.

At the State Convention, 67 of our 180-or-so National Convention Delegates will be elected by the delegates, the rest will be apportioned based on the primary vote (and then a few more Super Delegates will go along for the ride).

So the Senate Conventions on Saturday were very important, because if one side or the other had failed to get their people to come out, or had been able to work the process, it could have measurably impacted the results at State.

So, in any case, it's a big deal.

With 91% of convention delegates to state reported, Obama has 3,883 (including 29 Super Delegates) or 50.7%, Clinton has 3,076 (with 46 Super Delegates) or 40.1% and 704 (including 276 Super Delegates) are not yet reported. Obama is presently winning the returns from 20 of the 31 state senate districts.

If the numbers come in as expected in the last 10% of results, Obama should net enough delegates to the DNC from the caucuses to offset Clinton's win in the primary and take a four or five vote margin, to boot.

So all that plus a primary for a net of 4 delegates?

You really don't see a problem with that process?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2008, 12:04:12 AM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2008, 12:57:03 AM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 11:52:46 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 09:03:47 PM

By way of making things clearer, a bit of explanation about what the process in Texas is...

On March 4, after the primary, Texas Democrats held a series of caucuses, one in all 8,008 or so precincts in the state of Texas. Each precinct was allocated a certain number of delegates (and matching alternates) that they could elect to Senate District Conventions, which were held March 29.

At the Senate District Conventions (which are broken down by county, so districts covering more than one county had multiple conventions), delegates are elected to the State Convention. The Conventions this past Saturday elected 7,315 of the 7,666 delegates to the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention. The rest are automatic State Super Delegates.

At the State Convention, 67 of our 180-or-so National Convention Delegates will be elected by the delegates, the rest will be apportioned based on the primary vote (and then a few more Super Delegates will go along for the ride).

So the Senate Conventions on Saturday were very important, because if one side or the other had failed to get their people to come out, or had been able to work the process, it could have measurably impacted the results at State.

So, in any case, it's a big deal.

With 91% of convention delegates to state reported, Obama has 3,883 (including 29 Super Delegates) or 50.7%, Clinton has 3,076 (with 46 Super Delegates) or 40.1% and 704 (including 276 Super Delegates) are not yet reported. Obama is presently winning the returns from 20 of the 31 state senate districts.

If the numbers come in as expected in the last 10% of results, Obama should net enough delegates to the DNC from the caucuses to offset Clinton's win in the primary and take a four or five vote margin, to boot.

So all that plus a primary for a net of 4 delegates?

You really don't see a problem with that process?


What's the problem? Clinton and Obama get delegates in proportion with their support. Thats as fair and honest a process as you can have.
Logged

denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2008, 02:36:01 AM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on April 01, 2008, 12:57:03 AM

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 11:52:46 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 09:03:47 PM

By way of making things clearer, a bit of explanation about what the process in Texas is...

On March 4, after the primary, Texas Democrats held a series of caucuses, one in all 8,008 or so precincts in the state of Texas. Each precinct was allocated a certain number of delegates (and matching alternates) that they could elect to Senate District Conventions, which were held March 29.

At the Senate District Conventions (which are broken down by county, so districts covering more than one county had multiple conventions), delegates are elected to the State Convention. The Conventions this past Saturday elected 7,315 of the 7,666 delegates to the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention. The rest are automatic State Super Delegates.

At the State Convention, 67 of our 180-or-so National Convention Delegates will be elected by the delegates, the rest will be apportioned based on the primary vote (and then a few more Super Delegates will go along for the ride).

So the Senate Conventions on Saturday were very important, because if one side or the other had failed to get their people to come out, or had been able to work the process, it could have measurably impacted the results at State.

So, in any case, it's a big deal.

With 91% of convention delegates to state reported, Obama has 3,883 (including 29 Super Delegates) or 50.7%, Clinton has 3,076 (with 46 Super Delegates) or 40.1% and 704 (including 276 Super Delegates) are not yet reported. Obama is presently winning the returns from 20 of the 31 state senate districts.

If the numbers come in as expected in the last 10% of results, Obama should net enough delegates to the DNC from the caucuses to offset Clinton's win in the primary and take a four or five vote margin, to boot.

So all that plus a primary for a net of 4 delegates?

You really don't see a problem with that process?


What's the problem? Clinton and Obama get delegates in proportion with their support. Thats as fair and honest a process as you can have.

I just prefer the winner of the state to get a decisive amount of delegates.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2008, 06:16:35 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on April 01, 2008, 02:36:01 AM

I just prefer the winner of the state to get a decisive amount of delegates.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But how is that fair to the voters, considering they didn't have a choice of voting for all the candidates?
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5359


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2008, 07:20:53 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on April 01, 2008, 02:36:01 AM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on April 01, 2008, 12:57:03 AM

Quote from: denoginizer on March 31, 2008, 11:52:46 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 31, 2008, 09:03:47 PM

By way of making things clearer, a bit of explanation about what the process in Texas is...

On March 4, after the primary, Texas Democrats held a series of caucuses, one in all 8,008 or so precincts in the state of Texas. Each precinct was allocated a certain number of delegates (and matching alternates) that they could elect to Senate District Conventions, which were held March 29.

At the Senate District Conventions (which are broken down by county, so districts covering more than one county had multiple conventions), delegates are elected to the State Convention. The Conventions this past Saturday elected 7,315 of the 7,666 delegates to the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention. The rest are automatic State Super Delegates.

At the State Convention, 67 of our 180-or-so National Convention Delegates will be elected by the delegates, the rest will be apportioned based on the primary vote (and then a few more Super Delegates will go along for the ride).

So the Senate Conventions on Saturday were very important, because if one side or the other had failed to get their people to come out, or had been able to work the process, it could have measurably impacted the results at State.

So, in any case, it's a big deal.

With 91% of convention delegates to state reported, Obama has 3,883 (including 29 Super Delegates) or 50.7%, Clinton has 3,076 (with 46 Super Delegates) or 40.1% and 704 (including 276 Super Delegates) are not yet reported. Obama is presently winning the returns from 20 of the 31 state senate districts.

If the numbers come in as expected in the last 10% of results, Obama should net enough delegates to the DNC from the caucuses to offset Clinton's win in the primary and take a four or five vote margin, to boot.

So all that plus a primary for a net of 4 delegates?

You really don't see a problem with that process?


What's the problem? Clinton and Obama get delegates in proportion with their support. Thats as fair and honest a process as you can have.

I just prefer the winner of the state to get a decisive amount of delegates.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

+1.

Look at the electoral college...it's not proportional, it's winner take all.

No reason why the primaries can't be the same way.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2008, 07:53:07 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on April 01, 2008, 07:20:53 PM

+1.

Look at the electoral college...it's not proportional, it's winner take all.

No reason why the primaries can't be the same way.

Personally, I'd rather see the electoral college done proportionally as well... but obviously letting Republicans pick and choose which states that happens in (like they just tried to do in California) is not the way to start.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.142 seconds with 73 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.026s, 2q)