How to lose an election

Nominate far left democrat running on change and hope with no record of working across the aisle whose closet is filled with the skeletons bygone politics that don't play well on a national level.

I guess you mean Obama. At least in this instance he played by the rules in Florida.

Billary made a point to claim that she was not "campaigning", she was just "fund raising". But she came down there and was all over the TV and newspapers the weekend before the primary. It looked like campaigning to me. Obama played by the rules and did not even come to the state.

I just heard that she will appeal now. This bitch never dies...and her supporters? At this point, after all that has gone on, I can no longer make excuses or give anyone the benefit of any doubt, so let's just call it like it is...her supporters are assholes. All of them. Every last one. No exceptions. None.

Hillary can't create so she'll just destroy. They real test for her will come when the nomination is done and she needs to stand up at the convention and get her people behind Obama and then step aside.

Here are some other ways to lose.

You have your nominee sign a pledge to take public financing of his campaign in the fall to avoid the corrupting influence of money in politics, then have him ignore the pledge because he has raised more money than everyone else.

You argue that every vote has to count... and you must even be willing to devine the intent of the voters by looking at dimpled chads, but then toss out half their voters/representation due to not voting on a certain date.

You spend several months arguing that the winner take all approach, which would have likely nominated Clinton is wrong and instead, that the proportional delegate allocation process is the best represenation of voter will. Then when California has an inititive on their ballot to change their electoral college delegates to proportional representation, you argue it is a way to cheat the system.

How is that for a start?

The Democrats are doing all they can to lose what should have been a sure victory. The Michigan /Florida mess, and the inability to unite is showing the party to be one with no leadership. The party is is a bad spot. Obama will eventually have to be the candidate or there will be a revolt within the party. I think Obama is going to be a hard sell in the general election, however. He is too far to the left for much of America. The Republicans smartly selected a candidate with a moderate appeal who will be a great option for blue collar and white skin middle America. McCain's war stand will help, not hurt him because Iraq success is in sight in the superficial eyes of the masses.

Yeah, now we're using the GOP playbook, bend, break, or do whatever it takes to win in the general election.

Well, I don't agree with the "doom and gloom" going around here at all, but one thing's for sure:

Hillary supporters are freaking annoying.


That only pertains to California, not other states. No one is arguing a mixed proportional/winner take all approach "best represents voter will." In fact it's the least fair approach. What if we made every single red state proportional and kept every blue state winner-take-all? The Democrats would never lose an election! Sorry, but voting methods must be uniform to ensure fairness.

Be the country's strongest supporter of the war in Iraq.
Be a Republican in the late Bush era.
Be 2008's Bob Dole.

I completely agree. BTW, this is why Obama cannot win the general. Make sure you watch the end.

Did you just cite Bush v. Gore to me?

Make sure you watch the end. That lady is a nut case. Even one of the film crew was laughing at the end!

And no I really don't think this is going to come down to black vs. white.

Only with nut cases.

That just shows that it's only about winning and not what you stand for. That lady is probably only supporting Hillary because she's a woman. If she votes for McCain then she doesn't care about any issues or what's best for the country... she's just old and bitter.

Hillary is just that. Annoying!

She's being just as bad as dubbya is with his party. Only cares for herself. Well much to SDW and other's here surprise this won't make any difference in the end. They think that Hillary's supporters will not vote or worse vote for McCain. Which is just horse shit! Good luck with that one.

In view of what's happening elsewhere ( McClellan etc. ) I'm sure they would love anything like this to be true.

I actually feel better about it after watching the RBC committee. There was no big demonstration (thousands of people were promised/threatened) and it ended up only being a couple hundred. Not only that, but they revealed themselves to be irrational and embarrassing.

By the end of the meeting, all members of the committee (both Clinton and Obama supporters) except Ickes were visibly pissed at the Hillary contingent.

I am sure that Hillary will drag this out to try and bring Obama down, but she is more and more becoming a paper tiger. She might fight hard, but her punches are losing their effectiveness.

Gonna be one heck of a general election, I'll tellin' ya... It'll be the fight for a president no one will be happy with.

Most Democrats are plenty excited about Obama.

BTW, remember when trumptman posts something feminists disagree with and does so without name calling, without profanity and simply because has a different view, it is misogyny.

All this stuff you see quoted above... well that is just......discussion.


Now to honestly address this...

What is the Democratic party nominating process if not a mixed approach? It has superdelegates, and delegates allocated by primaries, by caucuses and by states that have both primaries and caucuses. The delegates in some states are allocated based off the percentages statewide. In other states they are allocated by county/district and specifically reward districts that voted more strongly Democratic in prior elections.

Where do you get off pushing this false "insanely retarded meme" that the there is anything resembling a uniform method of selecting Democratic delegates? Every state already does as it wants and if California decides to do that for the electoral college then somehow it is wrong? By what standard is it wrong? I suppose by the standard of "insanely retarded" reasoning it might be wrong.

Also if the states decided to go exactly how you described above then that would still be the choice of each state. It isn't as if states are currently uniform in how they allocate their electors. The real problem is that California is large and blue. If it weren't or were Texas, then you wouldn't care.

Yup! They are.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...s-gop-anxiety/


Obama campaign e-mail cites GOP anxiety


" In an e-mail titled "Democrats Win Landslide Victory," Republican former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wrote "I have a real fear of waking up to this headline after the elections this fall," describing concerns among GOP officials over Obama's campaign infrastructure.

"In key states, news accounts indicate Democrats are outpacing Republicans registering voters. We also know Barack Obama's campaign is utilizing the Internet to raise record amounts of money to support his campaign and Democrats nationally," Frist wrote. " all in the hope that new voters and record resources will produce a Democrat landslide victory this fall."

Who cares?

That's a club contest. Democrats can do whatever they want to select who they want to lead their club.


I definitely wouldn't mind if Texas were proportional.

In that instance I wouldn't argue that that kind of anomaly "best represents the will of the voters;" I'd argue that that would help get Democrats elected plain and simple. It doesn't change how inherently unequal it is in having a winner take all system for some states and proportional system for others.

Possibly "unfair"...but the constitution allows it. It allows it because the states were not intended to be mere "geographical divisions" of a larger national entity but rather legal entities in their own right. Furthermore, it appears that the founders set it up this way to avoid a direct popular election of the President which you get closer and closer to with things like proportional allocation and such.

By not wanting to inherit the aftermath of the last 7.5 years of wanton destruction, in every area of politics. Who, in their right mind would want the job, knowing that fixing the mess will take decades, and the inevitable impossibility of making real amends after 4 short years will ensure defeat in 2012, and the legacy of a failed (democratic) presidency?

I still feel the US remains too sexist/traditionalist to elect a woman (of any color), and too racist to elect a black/mulatto/brown) person of either gender. Why the Democrats went with two "unelectable" candidates? .. who knows.. but the "liberal media" were only too keen to promote Clinton and Obama as the only two real contenders.

Sen. John Kerry in 2004 didn't appear that keen to take on the task either. Before that electoral fiasco, he pledged that "we have 1000s of lawyers and electoral experts on hand to make sure that the debacle of Florida in 2000 never happens again". The day after the polls, Kerry rolled over despite the overwhelming evidence of electoral fraud in Ohio and elsewhere.

McCain and Obama are currently in a dead heat, if a general election were held today. If that remained the case this November, expect another rigged election.. such can only be pulled off in a close fight. Interestingly, Rupert Murdoch recently predicted an Obama landslide. Murdoch? What does he know that nobody else seems to, and what is his motive here, especially considering that McCain is "a friend"?

\

I'd say proportional allocation is arguably truer to the intent of the founders, because there was certainly never any intent for all of the delegates from a given state to be required to vote for a single candidate.

In any case, like it or not, we now do have popular election of the president, and the electoral college has become something today that it clearly was never intended to be by the founders. If we've gone this far in changing it, it makes absolutely no sense to keep the vestiges of it around like we're doing today.

Right, the same people who put the missiles under the aircraft that launched right before they hit the buildings on 9/11 are responsible for rigging all these elections.

It's not a federal, state, or local election, that's what it's not. The parties can have convoluted, fucked-up processes if they want. ShawnJ is clearly talking about an actual election, not a party election.

Do you realize that there is a huge difference between those things and that the goal of each is different?

Well they can but that doesn't guarantee that plenty of folks will still stay in the club.


The issue I'm having here Shawn is that you are arguing about things being "equal" when the electoral college, be it winner take all, proportional or some other system is not at all about equality. I don't see how you can make a sound argument employing equality when that isn't the goal of the system in place. In all the arguments in support of the electoral college have any of them ever employed the words equal for a take all system? It sounds like the biggest oxymoronic statement I can imagine conjuring. A winner take-all system is about equality?!?!

At best your argument could be called making something screwy and strange even more so but really what sort of ground is that?


Let me suggest you dig into a little history. If you think that selecting electors for the college is somehow divorced from party or currently elected officials, you are wrong. Also states have appointed electors via their legislature, they have divided the state into electoral districts which declare how each elector is to vote in the college, used congressional districts, etc. All those processes are means of determining how electors will vote for president. In fact the California initiative is nothing more than a more representative means of allocating the delegates and PARTY only has something to do with it IF you are a Democrat.

So in other words, the states themselves can have convoluted, fucked-up processes if they want in the determination of electors for votes in the electoral college. They have, they had and they will.

Take off the blinders. The California initiative might a disproportionate effect on one party, but party has nothing to do with the consideration of whether it is a better process or one that would better represent the will of the voters. For you to ignore this while claiming I don't realize the differences is just the most profoundly ignorant statement I can imagine from someone putting forward an argument. Your statement amounts to, "Dude ShawnJ is talking about how this would not be fair to the Democratic party and that means you can't see how federal elections and party elections are different."

The Democratic Party keeps arguing for ignoring the rules (when it benefits them) on the grounds of principles that are deeper than those rules. You know, principles like "Count Every Vote" (in select Democratic counties while petitioning to throw out absentee ballots from military personnel, ignoring Republican Districts, etc.) are very important... until they aren't. Now they even abandon the pretense of those principles and you call that "not understanding the differences."

We see. We understand. The party is full of crap when it comes to principles.

They certainly are, but they would have to be to keep up with the republicans...

Now wait Nick. I think most Democrats are in favor of some type of change to the electoral college, like proportional allocation or going with the national popular vote. That's why it's mostly Democrats who are behind plans like this, which has only passed in Democratic states. What they don't want is to get screwed by unilaterally giving up their delegates in places like California while Republicans refuse to do the same in places like Texas, which is exactly what the Republican-sponsored plan that you're talking about would do.

trumptman:


The states' decisions with regards to actual elections are subject to federal voting laws. Parties are under no such supervision. It is disingenuous to try and compare the two.


Impact on outcome has a lot to do with whether or not it is a better process and/or more representative of the will of the voters. It's no different than the gerrymandering that went on in Texas under DeLay. All the same people get to vote, but it's structured in a specific way to favor one party over another. A hybrid system is untenable in national elections because it creates an inequality of voting power. Either all states go winner-take-all or all states go statewide-proportion-via-popular-vote or something else entirely. But it has to be uniform to be copasetic with federal election laws.


Your trying to compare government elections to party elections shows that you fail to understand or acknowledge the major differences between them. It's apples and oranges.

I think you're mixing things up.

A winner take-all system has its advantages and disadvantages just like a proportional system. The inequality I'm talking about doesn't result from choosing one system or the other; it results when you mix both systems in an election.


While I obviously agree with everything else, this part actually isn't true.

And that's the problem with these Republican-backed initiatives to, as BRussell said, unilaterally change the voting system in a Democratic state without changing the system in a Republican state as well.

Right, and a couple of states currently have proportional allocation, I believe Maine and Nebraska.

So, let's see, the Dems will lose the general because:

The losing Democratic candidate's supporters are currently in a pissy mood,

The Democratic primary process is convoluted,

McCain will make much of the fact that the Democratic primary being convoluted is, in some obscure way, hypocritical when viewed against the conttext of Florida in 2000 and, uh, the transparent Republican ploy of fucking with the California process,

John "I hate lobbyists and am the king of campaign finance reform" is going to get some mileage out of talking about who has and who has not been consistent when it comes to those issues.

Huh. The only thing that's remotely in play is the first, Hillary's supporters getting tetchy, and that's just grandstanding for the cameras. I guess there might be a few people angry enough to stay home altogether, but the idea that there are legions of enraged Clintonistas that are going to throw the election strikes me as one of those fantasy scenarios people indulge in when they're in denial.

But, by all means, I urge all likely Republican voters to become fixated on the Democratic primary as a symbol for something and campaign finance reform as a benchmark for something else.

I think most of everybody are behind changes until we get down to the details and then that is when the crap hits the fan as it were. We don't have problems when we are all discussing platitudes. Rather the problems come down to are two corners versus three corners on a chad intent or not.

This is one of those types of scenarios and I'm sure you can continue to name others as you have.

However the reality is that Republicans in California don't get represented in the electoral college. Declaring that Democrats don't get properly represented in Texas doesn't make it right to screw over Republicans in California. Likewise if Republicans in California have gotten off their butts and done something about it, it doesn't mean we have to wait on someone else to take their own problems into their hands as well.

However I would say to you that if it is a Compact and it appears only one side will vote for it, how truly neutral can it be? This is no different that Obama the Uniter who cannot unite his own party. From your link it has been passed in four states total. That doesn't sound like a huge consensus being dragged down by some minority view.


I would really suggest you try again. There are dozens of lawsuits related to party elections this year and it isn't even related to just Florida and Michigan. Last I checked these elections were still run by the respective secretaries of state, etc. Are you going to seriously suggest for example that party primaries are not subject to the Civil Rights voting act?


As others have pointed out, all states are not winner-take all now. The fact that you think it untenable doesn't make it illegal, wrong, or unconstitutional. You keep implying this would be illegal in some fashion by declaring it has to be "copacetic" with federal election laws. Show me how it is illegal. There is nothing that declares all states have to have the same standard for selecting electors. You are making this up.


There are no differences. The distinctions you try to draw are false. Some states have open primaries while others have closed primaries. It isn't all one way or the other and that fact doesn't make one illegal and the other legal or "copacetic" as you prefer. All elections be it a primary or general election use the same machines and are certified by the same state officers. The states are free to select their electors for the college by whatever means they desire. You are falsely claiming that because you don't like the process one state may adopt, that the feds will step in and that isn't true.


Show me that the nonsense you are making up, the nonsense I "fail to understand" is true. You like the current system. You think it ought not change until everyone agrees to change, but the Constitution, history and anything else you care to look at notes you are wrong.

Look when I am wrong I will take my lumps. When for example I got the date of the first primary wrong (in part due to the state website) when talking with Frank, I noted it. Most states have only even had primaries since the early 70's. You are wrong here. There is nothing that can legally prevent California from changing their system. You claim that the feds will step in because it won't be a party matter. That is a lie.


I'm not mixing it up Shawn. I'm just not ceding to your strange and arbitrary definitions. It isn't all one system or the other now. It isn't equitable now. There isn't some magical scale of equality that will objectively move in one direction or another. It will create more arguments for and against, it will enfranchise and disenfranchise different sets of people than before and monies and efforts will probably flow differently than before. You like the current system, know and understand it and think changes to it will be "bad" unless everyone is all on the same page and switches at the same time. Given your authoritarian nature this is easy to understand and so I don't fault you to much.

However things do not have to happen all at once to be right or wrong. You should put party above principle. If representational delegates is a better system then it is better when and where applied, but just when it benefits who you want. You argument is like claiming we couldn't allow blacks or women to vote in one state until all states agreed, or we couldn't allow them to vote until we were sure who they would vote for and which parties would benefit. That just isn't true.


Thanks for noting the reality about what he is contending.

Also how can an initiative which requires the consent of the majority be unilateral? The Constitution leaves this issue to each state individually. Sure Republicans, Independents and principled Democrats may end up casting more votes than Democrats who think only of their parties prospects, but that doesn't mean it is a unilateral action. Are you honestly contending that states exercising their own rights and prerogatives is a unilateral action? You know... I kid about that authoritarian bit, but you don't have to work so hard to confirm the joke. Self-governing is unilateral... majority rules... unilateral... that is a pretty broad definition.


Exactly!


I don't think that anyone has suggested that McCain is in for a cakewalk. Hell he still doesn't even have MY vote yet.

In 2000, there were stories of how close the vote was in terms of "every vote counts." I believe the difference nationwide was something like 3 votes per district. Each district is roughly 600,000 or so people. People aren't just speculating that some voters might stay home. There are voters honestly stating that this is what they will do as a form or protest or are also saying they might cast a vote for a different candidate. Hillary's supports are a heck of a lot of people. Obama is "blowing out" Hillary by around .5% nationwide. Even if 90% of people who are claiming this are full of crap and fall in line it still comes up to be some significant numbers. I just don't think ANY candidate or party is at a point where they can afford to simply ignore or toss away large swathes of voters.

My 17 year old cousin has a used Honda Civic. He just got a fat tail-pipe for it, and it's now really noisy. He's quite proud of his new acquistion. I don't know why, because its loud enough to apparently irritate my aunt and uncle's neighbors. If you offered him enough money, he might just part with it.

What that group has proposed, and Democrats support, is electoral reform that doesn't screw over either party. What those CA Republicans have proposed is electoral reform that would screw over Democrats. Now you tell me who is serious.

I can't believe you suggest that getting a number of electors proportional to the number of people who voted for you is "screwing" someone over.

California Republicans CANNOT control what every other state does. Your reasoning is akin to saying that if black couldn't vote here and hispanics couldn't Texas, that we ought not grant them the vote here until someone grants them it in Texas.

You withhold votes until you are sure they will go the way you want. You withhold representation until you are sure it is what you desire. Where is the principle in that?

Wait, is Nick actually arguing that the Cal initiative is anything other than pure politics? That it has some kind of merit on the basis of "fairness"?

That can't be right, can it? I wouldn't think even Trumpy would go there.

You know very well that it's screwing over the dominant party in one state. It's not a civil rights issue, it's just simply not going to happen unless both parties, in different states, have an agreement that ensures neither side gets screwed. At the current time, the Democrats are supporting an approach that has just such an agreement, and Republicans are not, i.e., Republicans see it as a way to game the system and Democrats see it as a way to genuinely reform the system.

Murdoch knows that if a Democrat is elected president, he will have to reorganize his media outlets for it. Believe me, if a Democrat gets elected, Fox News will change overnight. They have contingency plans, believe me. Hannity and O'Reilly will be booted out and Rivera and Donahue will take there place (or talking heads of that liberal slant).

I had read of this months ago, I just can't find the link right now...\

Ah, Time magazine mused this subject in March 2008...

Fox on the Run


But I did read an article of an interview with the head of programing of Fox News and she said that they would shift goal posts in order to hold their ratings. If there is a huge Democratic turn-out in the general election, this will happen.

Oh sweet jebus, he wants to make it akin to a civil rights issue?

Although, I have to admit, I always enjoy the "now I imagine I'm hoisting you on your own petard" gambit pursued to the gates of madness hugely entertaining.