|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 21, 2008 0:57:57 GMT -5
barak was a sure thing until recently. even though he will end up with plenty of delegates to secure the nomination hillary is killing him in states like kentucky, w. va., etc.
it appears that she is trying to amass the popular vote and use that as her argument in denver. does she have a case? i think so because in 2000 the dems just about had a cow trying to argue that gore should be prez despite the electoral college because he had a slight lead in the popular vote. if dems change course in light of her impending plea the party will have some 'splaining to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 21, 2008 7:41:35 GMT -5
I forget who won in MI and FL. What will happen when, against the rules as laid down and OKed by Hill, both of those states get their delegates to count for her at the convention?
And isn't it odd that the party that made so much about a few ballots that were not counted because no one could figure out the intent of the voter (not marked, partially marked, double marked, etc), now doesn't want to count two states worth of voters?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 21, 2008 22:05:50 GMT -5
it will be interesting to see how they talk their way out of this mess. there's an awful lot of "disenfranchised" voters in MI and FL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 22, 2008 0:00:37 GMT -5
When did you care about the disenfranchised voters in FL and OH in 2000 and 2004?
The Dems will work it out. It sure isn't boring and rather tame compared to what Bush did to McCain.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 22, 2008 0:57:55 GMT -5
the numbers of 'disenfranchised voters in FL and OH in 2000 and 2004' were minscule. And mostly the result of either incompetence or poor training of poll workers or people unable to figure out how to make a mark on paper, or punch a hole in it. Contrary to the DNC there was no evil plot.
The Dems this year decided to shut out two whole states from their convention. Heck of a difference. And now, the DNC is trying to figure out how to circumvent its own rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 23, 2008 19:52:48 GMT -5
There is a big difference. In 2000 and 2004 the disenfranchised were voting for a presidential candidate. Bush won by what, 500 approx. votes in 2000 and didn't want the votes re-counted.
We're still in the primaries now and both states knew the rules prior to their primaries....shame on them! Regardless, at the end of the "day", when it comes down to actually voting for a new president again, all DEMS know it's either more of the same or change.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 23, 2008 20:01:08 GMT -5
I found it hilarious in 2000 when Republicans were protesting yelling "stop the recount, stop the recount." Just like a Republican to not want an accurate count to find out who honestly won.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 23, 2008 21:07:18 GMT -5
I found it hilarious in 2000 when Republicans were protesting yelling "stop the recount, stop the recount." Just like a Republican to not want an accurate count to find out who honestly won. To this day, they insist he won fair and square too.....sssheesshh |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 23, 2008 21:35:47 GMT -5
that kool-aid must still taste good all these years later,huh?
"The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that, had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Bush and Gore teams been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. Neither candidate had formally requested a total statewide recount."
my suggestion: get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on May 24, 2008 11:20:10 GMT -5
barak was a sure thing until recently. even though he will end up with plenty of delegates to secure the nomination hillary is killing him in states like kentucky, w. va., etc. After Hillary's comment this week, about the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy in June of 68, could the very idea of using words like "hillary is killing him," be somewhat prophetic? Clinton's Body Count: www.etherzone.com/body.htmlAre we going to have to update the list and add Sen. Obama's name? |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 24, 2008 13:52:09 GMT -5
Not a single recount in Fla. 2000 had Algore ahead. Not. One. Ever.
Speaking of disenfranchised, how about the tens of thousands of absentee US military votes Algore's henchmen refused to be allowed to be counted?
Dem's support the troops, except when they vote, or fight, or obey orders, or enlist.
The delusion of Fla. 2000 will haunt the dreams of Dems. for 100 years. It is the root source of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
But it is still fun to watch how the only Fed. Govt. branch liberals have been able to use to get their way (SCOTUS) for the last 35 years actually ruled based on the law & hoist the Dems. on their own petard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 24, 2008 15:53:58 GMT -5
that kool-aid must still taste good all these years later,huh? "The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that, had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Bush and Gore teams been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. Neither candidate had formally requested a total statewide recount."my suggestion: get over it. No one is complaining about it-you brought up disenfranchised Dem voters in MI/FL. BTW, since when did you listen to the media? |
|
