We Are All Contradicting Ourselves

Let me preface this that I am an Obama supporter, and would work for him to win the General Election, which he will.

But, think about it. Us Obama supporters are pulling the exact same shit the Republicans pulled in Florida in the 2000 election. "It's all about the delegates" is what I've heard all throughout the night, here and on MSNBC, as well as from friends I've talked with. But remember back to 2000? "It's all about the electoral votes" was the rally call of the Republicans. We are doing nothing different. We are overturning the popular vote of the people, and ruling that delegates/electoral votes reign supreme. Now I have no doubt in my mind that Obama will win come November, but it just seems a little contradictory and hypocritical to say it's okay for Obama to overturn popular vote, but holler win Gore loses the electoral vote over the popular vote.


Note: I also realize that the conditions in Florida were a little different than as they are now regarding the elctoral vote, and that Gore won. However, just using it as an example.

Especially since you can't accurately count the popular vote without excluding the results from all the caucus states.

How the hell does Hillary count both MI and FL totally for herself giving Obama nothing in either of these two States? And to top that off, she doesn't want Caucasus to count for any in the popular vote... Sorry I don't get it.

all the candidates were on the ballot in Florida.

He got plenty of votes there - Clinton got more.

He chose not to run in Michigan. Why should he get votes there?

Everybody agreed Michigan was not going to count. Then, when she needed it, she changed her mind. That's not the way it works.

What part about this is unclear?

In a basketball game, the team that scores the most points wins the game. If somebody thinks that the fewest number of turnovers should be the measure instead, they have every right to petition the commission to change the rules...but not in the middle of a game.

Our "points" are delegates, not popular vote or "momentum" or "big states" or "swing states" or anything else. Personaly, I'd rather see it based on the popular vote, but those aren't the rules in this race.

That's a completely spurious comparison. There is virtually no way to accurately count the popular vote in a primary system with caucuses and where on large state voted with only one major candidate's name on the ballot.

The primary is quite different from the general. It's truly nothing like 2000.

Oh, and Hillary is using a completely ridiculous and patently false method to count the popular vote.

Here in 2008 it is all about the delegates selected by the voters using the rules established before the primaries started. In 2000 in Florida is was all about the electors selected by the voters using the rules established before the election began. In both cases it was about actually playing by the rules as they were written and agreed to. In Florida the USSC stepped in and rewrote the rules for Florida in a decision that was one of the most stunningly biased and unconstitutional decrees to ever come out of that court. A decision so stunningly bad that even the court set it aside as a basis for any future precendents.

Read Federalist #10, for starters.

Popular vote majority is not - and should not - determine everything.

Our system, while imperfect, is better than simple-majority rules.

Several caucus states don't even tally the popular vote.

Democrats didn't contest the election on the basis of popular vote versus electoral college vote. Constitutionally legally they had no leg to stand on there. They contested FLORIDA and its 25 electoral college votes that were fraudulently awarded to George W. Bush by his brother.

I wanted to respond with something like that, but figured someone would say it better than I could. You did.

:toast:

I understand the difference between a Primary and a General Election. I understand that there is no valid method for counting participants in caucuses. I understand that caucuses are far cheaper to run and that many states use them for purely financial reasons. I understand that Florida and Michigan cut in line and their delegates may be disenfranchised from their wine and cheese in Denver because of it.

Obama supporters aren't being hypocrites, they're being rational. And understanding. And more than patient.

so "obama supporter," what don't you understand about the primary system? all of it?

if anyone would steal this election it would be Hillary trying the CHANGE THE RULES after she agreed to them when she started losing. She was fine with them when she was winning. How's that for being political pond scum? And it's not just one rule she wants to change.. it's at least three... how desperate is that to win at any cost?

There is NO COMPARISON between OBAMA, WHO HAS WON and CLINTON WHO HAS LOST and is now trying to change the rules to suit her.

She's the one who is acting (and voting, for that matter) like a Republican.

There is a difference in the Primaries to the General that makes that count even less representative and that is there is no recording of all caucus votes only their outcome.

SO again there is no popular vote in the primaries, there is an opinion poll which has a much larger margin of error that the one taken in the General.

If we were a true democracy that would be a different story, we are not and as a result it is the delegates that are the measure period.

We have all seen how wrong polls can be. Thats why we have proportional delgate system to offset that margin of error.

The USSC stepped in and stopped the recount of the vote in Florida. That was the problem. That Al Gore also won the popular vote was just salt on the wound of the thugs in robes handing the election to boosh.

It was the intervention of the SCOTUS that lost it for Gore, the fact that people had a poll in teh form of the Popular vote just made it worse.

And again that was the general and once again people who don't understand civics 101 think the popular vote has any direct impact on the the outcome of the primaries.

the system.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd". Voltaire

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd". Voltaire

when 25% of Hillary's voters in a state are explicitly voting based on race. And who knows how many more voted based on that issue without admitting it.

about the electoral votes in November. That is simply fact and crying about it isn't going to change the rules.

And then the results would be different. No contradiction at all.

In Florida Gore got or lost their electoral votes based upon the popular vote. That's why the angst over the popular vote there, and the suggestions of criminality over the votes not being counted.