I understand that, too. BUT, as long as I cast my vote, that's all I'm concerned with. What happens after that, is out of my hands. At least I've made an effort to go to the polls and take care of the business as expeditiously as possible.

Ohio has several issues:

- there is no consistent system statewide. Some counties use touch pad, others use paper ballots;

- Voting apparatus is not always sufficiently maintained, leading to machine breakdowns, misplaced or "lost" paper ballots....I can't say it's exclusive to urban areas, but I've never heard/read of voting machines in affluent communities having problems.

- Insufficient quantity of working machines (again, this appears more often in urban communities. I've seen simular reports from Columbus and Cincinnati). Given that counties know the number of registered voters in their counties, this one is really mystifying... or not.

- There is no legal requirement, so far as I can tell, for counties to maintain proper working order of whatever system they use. This results in election day machine breakdowns, longer lines and delays which disuade people from voting.

State election officials about 4 months ago ordered Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), which has had a lot of these issues in the last few elections to step its game up. What enforcement ability the state has to mandate changes isn't known. They toured the Cuy County Bd. of Elections last week and said everything was "all good," but, you can take that for whatever you feel it's worth. :rolleyes:

Yeah, this is what I was referring to earlier.

Uh yeah. We did it too big last night. The Texas Two-Step system sucks. lol. I wish the PJ had tried to shut down our location. There would have been a melee. i heard of two instances were the PJs left and didn't return to open up the caucus after the primary election had closed. :mad: A college friend who was in Dallas was stating that her location was packed too. As far as the caucus part, that was by paper ballot. For the all elections in Harris County (can't speak for the surrounding counties), it's electronic machines. It was interesting that Obama took the urban counties (with the exception of San Antonio). From what I saw on news reports, those were the most heavily caucus areas.

Now that is a crazy azz stipulation for Ohio. Wow. :rolleyes:

wow, that is crazy.

Why can't there be both? An electronic vote with electronic back up (onsite and offsite) AND paper documentation (for the voter and for the election board). I don't understand why that is so difficult? My pocket calculator is smarter than the average voting machine! Frankly, I think it is a ploy by the politicians and voting machine manufacturers to keep the public and local governments spending money that they should be spending elsewhere....

Farewell, Ron Paul

ABC News has learned that Ron Paul has, at last, decided to officially drop out of the race for the Republican nomination.
http://news.aol.com/political-machin...well-ron-paul/

RON PAUL HAS NOT DROPPED OUT!!!!
 

For the record, RON PAUL HAS NOT DROPPED OUT!!!!

The article in question has no real basis in fact for its story, and is interpreted by some as an attempt on ABC's part to discourage delegates to vote for him at Convention, as well as discourage voters in remaining primary states.

Actual news on his campaign status can ONLY be found at ronpaul2008.com (and after a brief review of the site, nowhere is there any mention of Ron Paul conceding the presidential race or dropping out).

Conclusion: ABC News' story is bogus--and could be grounds for a lawsuit for printing false/misleading information.

Despite your hysterics, yes, he is dropping out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_vVaZxTno, he's just using really irritating wording ("victory is not available to us...", "...campaign will soon wind down.", his "revolution" will move forward in a "new phase" and he talks about the "succeeding organization" to the campaign).

And did he say 'apatheting' at around 32 seconds???

Nice book plug (pre-orders at amazon.com!) and pushing of your new PAC and "freedom foundation". Gimme your money, gimme your money, gimme your money.

RIP RPcampaign.

The fact that I already saw this clip last night notwithstanding, you are reading WAY into his message. If Ron Paul was dropping out, he would just say so outright. Dr. Paul isn't one to beat around the bush. Ask Ben Bernanke. :p

Which was immediately followed by, "But we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primary and to continue the caucus process in all remaining states by loyal volunteers." That doesn't sound like someone who is dropping out.

Also, why is he promoting a rally in D.C. on June 21 if he is dropping out? :confused:
listen to what he is actually saying, not what you want to hear.

he specifically says the presidential campaign will NOT be planning the event in June in DC anymore, but he invites "others" to organize it (and he knows they're out there) and if his schedule allows, he'll try to attend. You must be listening selectively too.

And if you want to read his pandering for others to continue to drive money into his coffers for the continuation of his "revolution" as a serious bid for a presidential nomination, that's your delusion to grasp onto. He doesn't have to campaign for his congressional seat anymore, so why not keep his name out there through the efforts of others? Plus he's got that book coming out and he's starting up that PAC and Foundation. No such thing as bad publicity, right?

The man has only won 14 delegates. He may be turning down the lights on a dimmer, but the lights are going out.

If I am listening selectively, explain how does the political campaign not planning the DC rally equate to Ron Paul dropping out? :confused: For the record, the DC rally was initiated by the grassroots a while back; it was never initiated by the campaign to begin with.

Paul has won more delegates that that; and that does not include delegates from such caucus states as Nevada and Louisiana (which the final delegate numbers for the National Convention has not been determined as of yet). I was also told that Paul has potential for amassing a significant number of delegates in Alaska, Maine, and Washington (the state, not DC).

Sorry, 21. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...orecard/#val=R

And the 3 states you mentioned carry a total of about 80ish delegates altogether. Your hopes are pinned on amassing a "significant number" of those?


ETA: http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...&postcount=438

All I will say is this: After seeing how the MSM had marginalized Dr. Paul over the past 6 months, I take any story coming from them with a grain of salt. I have heard a plethora of conflicting interpretations on the CNN story from spokesman Jesse Benton.

That said: Until Paul's campaign (preferable Dr. Paul himself) says concisely and in no ambiguous terms that he is quitting the race, Dr. Paul is still campaigning for president, even if only on a smaller scale. Period, the end.

That said, Paul's campaign needs to put out a statement to this effect one way or the other on their site and/or a YouTube vid from Dr. Paul like right now.

Are you kiddding? Paper ballots can be shredded, burned, tossed into the trash, etc. With electronic ballots there IS an audit trail somewhere on the computer. And there is an audit trail if the data is manipulated.

take your head out of the sand.

See post #254 of this thread, and I'll (for now) leave it at that--after all, we don't want any circular arguments 'n whatnot.

When they were testing new ballots for our county my favorite of the machines was one that you entered electronically and then it printed your results twice. One receipt was for you, one was a backup copy sent to a locked box in case of recounts. It was perfect. They went with a touch screen that still has paper back up, but we don't get a copy, we drop the printout in the locked box ourselves.

Soror, you know and I know but we cannot assume that just because someone is on the Internet regularly that they have CLUE about technology...*sigh*

Good point.

Found the clip. Testimony that votes CAN be rigged through the use of software.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

ETA: This tactic was attempted to throw the Ohio gubernatorial election in 2006 in favor of Ken Blackwell. The only reason why it backfired was that the votes was rigged to throw the election favor of Blackwell by a certain percentage, but the percentage of voters voting for Strickland exceeded that, so the rigging effort was made worthless.

Blackwell gave Bush Ohio in 2004 so maybe they used the same tactics???


ANY software can be manipulated but there is ALWAYS an audit trail. But any PAPER can be manipulated dare we forget the 'hanging chads' in 2000 as well...

What does everyone think of the recent comments made by Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton supporter and former VP Candidate?

I am proud that our International President is on the case rebuking such divisive and silly comments (although we are not a partisan org and do not endorse any candidate).

I will be so glad when this campaign is over. Hillary and her cronies are getting so dirty that it's just becoming unbearable. Just stick to the issues and stop making stupid and offensive comments Hillary and Co.


Meanwhile, the middle income report? came out today and, for you John McCain fans, Barack and Hillary received As for their voting record helping the middle class but John - well he just received an INCOMPLETE b/c he did not even vote enough on these matters to be graded! Hmph, I guess he didn't think that the issues were important. That's telling.

The middle class MUST take a stand with this election or else, I fear that the unemployment rate will continue to go up and the crime along with it. It is getting really bad out here. In my community, which is upscale, we are having burglaries and auto thefts left and right - in the middle of the day. People are hungry and are NOT going to starve. And now I have to go down to the police station and get that background check for the firearm license - the license that I never wanted. But they are coming into people's houses - while they are there!

We have to make a change in November b/c it is getting bad out here you guys! Please vote for SOMEBODY that is really going to do something about unemployment, who is going to bring jobs back to the U.S., etc.

Take a stand in November!

ETA: To those voting Republican, why? Are you happy with the state of the country? Is this just a bad time and you believe that another Republican will do better than GW? Is trickle down theory going to finally work?

SC

^^^^As an Independent, I will not engage in a discussion of Dems v. Repubs and which is worse (notice I did not say better.)

*channeling DJ Khaled*

INDEPENDENTS!

WE THE BEST!

WHO?

WE!

WE THE BEST!

I think Ferraro's comments reflect the frustration of the Clinton campaign. They never planned to be in a primary fight this late in the season -- and their "strategy" of late seems to show this.

These kinds of remarks are typical of campaign minions and lower level functionaries, however, ...they do the "dirty work," of allegation and innuendo, hoping it will sway the simple-minded to their cause. I think in the longer term, HRC will be hurt (in the eyes of the superdelegates) by not making a more forceful denunciation of Ferraro's remarks than she's done to date.

I'm curious to see how the DNC will repair this delegate fight with Michigan/Florida. ...politically, it would seem they'd split the delegates down the middle and save the DNC or the states the $30 million it would cost for the do-over.

TonyB,

I think that the solution is really very straightforward - don't change the rules of the game midstream. Also, I think that splitting the delegates may be giving one candidate more than the candidate deserves.

If Michigan and Florida agreed to operate in this manner, then I think that is that really. I think that the elected officials of Michigan and Florida should pay for their decision-making in November and that the rule that none of the delegates should count should stand. It is a shame to disenfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida in this way. This is a matter for their state legislatures to answer for, I think. I do not agree to change the rules midstream b/c the election turned out to be such an interesting and still unsettled matter. Now, they want a do-over?

The people of Michigan and Florida need to take it up with the people that made those decisions in their states. Those people postured and acted childish and now they are living to regret their decision. It is no different to me than a child that postures and throws a temper tantrum and then seeks to undo the act.

It would not set a good precedent for future elections. Why wouldn't any other state simply posture and then later decide that they want to do something else and all should be forgotten? What's going to happen with the next presidential election if we allow a do-over this time?

I think that they should just vote in November with everyone else at this point.

SC

IMO, there is very little that is "straightforward" about politics at this level. Perception always plays a role.

As I recall Obama, Clinton and Edwards all pledged to not campaign or appear on the ballots of Mich/Fla because they "jumped ahead." at the last minute HRC put her name on either the FLa or Mich ballot ....so you might wonder why this hasn't been hit on as a campaign issue by the Obama campaign.

Secondly, these were state party decisions, supported by the legislatures, I think, and HRC's albeit "self-serving" argument is that the people, separate from the party, are being disenfranchised. Of course, it's postering, but there is a deeper point in all of this. National CNN Columnist (and Bruh) Roland Martin suggests both states be set aside and voters of those states take it out on their elected officials who made this decision.

at the end of the day some political solution is going to be reached, becuase those are heavily populated states and the DNC doesn't want "dissafection" to carry over into the fall campaign.

I'd guess Obama would like the situation to remain static, but I don't think that'll be a viable posistion to hold once an idea emerges that gains momentum.

Re: the names

All candidates names were originally on the ballots. Due to Florida's rules no candidate could pull his or her name off of the ballot. All candidate's names were on Florida's ballot.

Obama and Edwards pulled their names off of the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not but it "didn't matter" at the time since the vote's "didn't count." That's her story and she's sticking ... well she's saying they SHOULD count now.

You would think Clinton would tell everyone in her camp to just shut up. Especially since she's floating the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Although we know that's not going to happen.

The DNC should not redo the Michigan and Florida votes. Those states knew the rules when they voted. Are the number of delegates from these states counted in the total needed to secure the nomination? If they are factored in the total, those states should be subtracted. Short of redoing the election, there's no way to know who really would've won since the candidates weren't allowed to campaign there.

Frankly, to agree to a do over in either state would set a dangerous precendent. I believe that the delegates should not be seated based on what ALL parties agreed to BEFORE the race got 'interesting'. Blaming the Republican legislature in FLA (what about Michigan? I guess noone is to blame for that one?!) is copping out; I am glad that the Congressional (as opposed to state legislature) FLA Dems are opposed to a revote because they can see the larger picture.

I also hate that voters in states like Florida, Michigan, California and Ohio are usually somewhere in the middle of a political controversy that affects the rest of the country (ie recent and current presidential elections, affirmative action propositions, voting machines).

...if you're the head of the DNC heading into a close fall election, do you want to risk Mich/Fla Democrats feeling (rightly or wrongly) like they've been cut out of the process, and considering the possibility of sitting home in November?

I see your point, but pragmatically don't you think it's in the Dem party's best interest to find some way out of this morass, so they can reasonably count on these voters turning out on Nov. 5?

TonyB,

I think that I would think about it like this:
I give the voters of Michigan and Florida much credit in terms of being intellectual saavy enough to know that their own state, and not the Democratic party, is the group that prevented their votes from being counted. Now, Florida could actually go Republican if people sat at home. However, Michigan, with the state that Detroit and some of the other areas are in economically - do you think that they would *really* sit at home in November and let Republicans go out and turn Michigan red. Come on now. Detroit is experiencing one of the worst fallouts of this economy and it is likely spreading over Michigan (although i'm not sure).

I doubt the people of Michigan will sit at home in November in large numbers.

And Florida, well, I also worry about a do-over in Florida b/c there is always so much shadiness with the voting down there. A paper vote? How untrackable is that? That might be worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle only for smaller potatoes.

SC

Well, super lawyer that you are, I know you hold it down intellecutally over most of us :p

Of course, your speculations are as valid as mine are on this, but I still think the safer political play is to take possible voter disaffection (among your base) out of play.

Besides Obama -- especially if dude is not going to more forcefully challenge HRC on her flip-flop on this -- cannot be seen as "not wanting" a solution to this, it'll look like he's afraid of the outcome.

Depending on how this plays out, it'll be interesting to see how voter motivation polls in Michigan/ Fla. i.e. how likely are you to vote --strongly, somewhat, likely, not likely, etc... Obama is bringing a lot of newer, first time voters to the process. are they are more easily soured on the process (likely to sit home) if they feel they've been played?

Of course, as a former Obama law student, I'm sure he could put you on payroll and have you canvas Michigan from Labor Day through Nov. 5 and just put it on lock for him. :)

Tony, you're so funny. :)
I actually think that it would be a bad idea to allow the do-over whether it would turn out to be in Obama's favor or not. I think that it hurts the notice function in theory. That being, how can anyone ever have notice of what is going to happen (w/ these presidential elections - or at least what to expect to happen) if we keep moving the target, changing our minds, etc. It is most unsettling to think that A was the case for months and then to think that B could be the case now that other factors that were not contingencies to A, have come from out of left field. The uncertainty in the last two presidential elections b/c of craziness like this and the Supreme Court jumping in last time arguably where they had no business and then writing an opinion that is regarded by many legal experts as not being incredibly sturdy - this is craziness. We need to bring back some stability to the process and I think that that starts with abiding by the rules that are outlined at the beginning...no matter who wins.

I don't want to take a chance with disaffection either so I hear you. It's just like - what next? What if there was a movement now to try to change so that superdelegates do not count? There would be the same failure of notice to those superdelegates albeit they are way fewer in number than the populations of Michigan and Florida - but hey, one could argue that they influence could be pivotal in this election so it would not be insignificant to change the rule midstream here.

This election is becoming a big mess. Why won't people just play by the rules and stick to the issues? And may the best man (or woman) win.

SC

Lets look at the math. :) In the original vote in MI, Hillary won 55% and in FL, she won 50%; in MI, Obama is assigned the 'uncommitted' vote of 40% and won only 33% in FL. IF both states conduct new primaries, Hillary will only win 60% of the vote (she has only carried one state with more than 60% of the vote - her 'home' state of Arkansas; she carried her new 'home' state of NY with 57.4%, her next highest percentage) so she will gain, at most 10% of the popular vote. Now, lets assume that neither is Texas or Nevada (strange delegate allocation rules) and award strictly proportional delegates. AT MOST, this will gain Hillary at total of 29 delegates (21 or 10% of Floridas 210 delegates, 8 or 5% of Michigan's 156 delegates) and 200,00 popular votes (170,000 of Florida's 1.7million votes cast, 30,000 of Michigan's 600,000 votes cast). I have rounded all numbers UP in her favor. Given the current pledged delegate gap of 150 delegates and the popular vote gap of about 700,000 votes (which includes the FL and MI votes already cast), she is still CLEARLY far behind. If we add her 'gains', she is still behind by over 100 pledged delegates and half a million votes!



Sources: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html ; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...te_count.html; http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...s/scorecard/#D


Also see http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008...y-numbers.html for yourself. Worst case scenario, Obama STILL leads in pledged delegates.

Going strictly by the numbers, Obama should win the nomination, regardless of what happens in Michigan and Florida.

Its been said before, but Clinton’s “kitchen sink” strategy was too little too late and now her only hope for victory rests with the "super" delegates. However, if the nomination is “stolen”, many of Obama's supporters will simply stay home. A few, such as myself, will switch parties altogether. Those shady Clintons need to recognize, they can’t win a general election on the votes of old people and women alone. Obama is the rightful nominee, she should humbly request a vice presidential spot and find somewhere to sit down.

REALLY?! So the issues don't matter? If Clinton ends up being the nominee (fair or unfair), since she and Obama's plans regarding the issues are close, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for her as opposed to McCain? There's too much at stake here to stay home or vote for one candidate to spite or prove something to the other.

Eh unless you don't think either McCain or Clinton will really destroy the country in the next four years and you can't stand Clinton. Crossing over or voting third party is good when it makes a point. If Clinton "steals" the nomination via superdelegates, people who choose not to vote for her will be sending the Democratic party a message. That message would be half - don't overrule the will of the people and half- we love Obama/hate Clinton.

I don't have the respect for McCain that I once did, but he's not Bush and his presidency wouldn't be as bad. I'm honestly not sure Hillary's would be better.

Funny thing is that even though Clinton is ahead in terms of committed Superdelegates, it is striking to note that Obama has the edge in those who have been elected by their constituencies (governors, congressman, representatives) and trails significantly by those whose loyalty is only to the party (DNC, distinguished party leaders). More than one third of total Superdelegates remain uncommitted. http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/


Of course, he has increased his lead by picking up more delegates in Iowa and California including some of Edwards' delegates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...e_n_91719.html