"Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:49:03 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote: >"Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any >weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike >Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate >vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he >actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to >vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in >Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
>>"Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any >>weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike >>Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate >>vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he >>actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to >>vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in >>Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
In article <6968uiF2vff3...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> As an Obama, I may not like it, but it's logical and honourable.
By birth or marriage?
-- D.F. Manno | dfma...@mail.com "As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)
> "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to > vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless? If that's the case, why bother having them?
-- "Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
> > "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any > > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike > > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate > > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he > > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to > > vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in > > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
> If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?
No, it would add at least a tiny aspect of winner take all. Well, adding a tiny aspect of winner take all might itself be meaningless in some grand philosophical sense, but mathematically it would mean *something*.
> If that's the case, why bother having them?
So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
Xho
-- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
> "Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')" > <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Greg Goss wrote:
> > > "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any > > > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike > > > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate > > > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he > > > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to > > > vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in > > > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
> > If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?
> No, it would add at least a tiny aspect of winner take all. Well, > adding a tiny aspect of winner take all might itself be meaningless in some > grand philosophical sense, but mathematically it would mean *something*.
But the delegates are already being divided up based on who won certain districts.
> > If that's the case, why bother having them?
> So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come > out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally > pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies > in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do > you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
They have created a system that is likely to let Hillary take this to the convention, if she wants to. and what happens with the delegates in Fl and Mich?
-- "Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
> > "Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')" > > <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Greg Goss wrote:
> > > > "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any > > > > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike > > > > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate > > > > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he > > > > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going > > > > to vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in > > > > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
> > > If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?
> > No, it would add at least a tiny aspect of winner take all. Well, > > adding a tiny aspect of winner take all might itself be meaningless in > > some grand philosophical sense, but mathematically it would mean > > *something*.
> But the delegates are already being divided up based on who won > certain districts.
But there are multiple delegates per district, and they are generally divided up proportionally, not winner take all. So this adds winner takes all on top of it.
> > > If that's the case, why bother having them?
> > So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't > > come out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else > > equally pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on > > butterflies in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, > > but hey, What do you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
> They have created a system that is likely to let Hillary take this > to the convention, if she wants to. and what happens with the > delegates in Fl and Mich?
What part of "They are Democrats, it's what they do" did you not understand? :)
Xho
-- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
>> So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come >> out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally >> pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies >> in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do >> you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
> They have created a system that is likely to let Hillary take this > to the convention, if she wants to. and what happens with the > delegates in Fl and Mich?
The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two candidates that had strengths in the different states. Used to be that conventions were always for nominating the candidate, and not that long ago either - look at some of Nixon's machinations.
As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, I believe they should be put in bunny outfits and made to serve drinks at the convention, for belonging to bonehead state organizations. -- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. -- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
S. Checker <spam...@gmail.com> wrote: > As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, I believe they should be > put in bunny outfits and made to serve drinks at the convention, for > belonging to bonehead state organizations.
I'd like to urge the AFCA readership to write their democratic party leadership and urge them to adopt this idea.
