Prev: Convolution
Next: points of inflexion
From: robert bristow-johnson on 7 May 2008 01:11
On May 6, 11:41 pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...(a)audioimagination.com>
wrote:
>
> she had the opportunity to be gracious and historical tonight. she
> could have chided Obama about "Indiana [as] the tie-breaker". and
> then she could have conceded the inevitiable. and tonight she could
> have made a historical note by recognizing this inevitability and then
> doing the selfless thing for the benefit of all of the party, nation,
> and the planet. look at the cred she would get! but did you hear her
> s'piel tonight?
>
> "full steam ahead to the white house."
>

the precise quote is

"it's full speed on to the white house."

> "we're outspent 4 to 1 by my opponent, so go to hillaryclinton.com to
> contribute..."

this quote might likewise be approximated. my confidence for having
remembered the exact words is a bit reduced. but she said something
very close to that within a few minutes.

that Hillary. such a tenacious little woman. you gotta admire that
spunk! you go, girl!

r b-j
From: clay on 7 May 2008 10:13

> P.S.  I used the word "bribes", above, because
> that's what "contributions" are.- Hide quoted text -
>

I prefer the word "graft." So now it is time for backroom negotiations
and arranging to purchase super delgates. By the way doesn't the idea
of "super delagate" contradict the whole notion of democratic voting?

Clay



From: Richard Dobson on 7 May 2008 11:07
clay(a)claysturner.com wrote:
>> P.S. I used the word "bribes", above, because
>> that's what "contributions" are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> I prefer the word "graft." So now it is time for backroom negotiations
> and arranging to purchase super delgates. By the way doesn't the idea
> of "super delagate" contradict the whole notion of democratic voting?
>
> Clay
>
>
>
Perhaps balanced by the strange phenomenon (which I saw here on UK TV
yesterday, not sure whether it was BBC or CNN) of an avowed Republican
voting in a Democrat primary with an expressly mischievous intent. I
wonder how many Republicans have done that. Don't suppose they get that
info from exit polls. I find the whole catalogue of these demonstrations
of quasi-democracy (not least the idea of spreading the voting for a
party rep over so many months! - why not do it all on one day like is
done for the Presidential election?) totally bizarre. Its like starting
with a neat circular wagon wheel, and saying "well, that's a bit boring,
lets put a flat bit there, and another one there, make sure it's loose
on its axle...different sizes would be very interesting...is there even
one thing that is actually sane in the whole process?


Richard Dobson

From: clay on 7 May 2008 12:30
On May 7, 11:07 am, Richard Dobson <richarddob...(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> c...(a)claysturner.com wrote:
> >> P.S.  I used the word "bribes", above, because
> >> that's what "contributions" are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I prefer the word "graft." So now it is time for backroom negotiations
> > and arranging to purchase super delgates. By the way doesn't the idea
> > of "super delagate" contradict the whole notion of democratic voting?
>
> > Clay
>
> Perhaps balanced by the strange phenomenon (which I saw here on UK TV
> yesterday, not sure whether it was BBC or CNN) of an avowed Republican
> voting in a Democrat primary with an expressly mischievous intent. I
> wonder how many Republicans have done that. Don't suppose they get that
> info from exit polls. I find the whole catalogue of these demonstrations
> of quasi-democracy (not least the idea of spreading the voting for a
> party rep over so many months! - why not do it all on one day like is
> done for the Presidential election?)  totally bizarre. Its like starting
> with a neat circular wagon wheel, and saying "well, that's a bit boring,
> lets put a flat bit there, and another one there, make sure it's loose
> on its axle...different sizes would be very interesting...is there even
> one thing that is actually sane in the whole process?
>
> Richard Dobson

Hello Richard,

The primary process has some interesting quirks. This time around
(2008) both Michigan and Florida wanted to vote early in the process,
so they feel like they will be more important and instead they moved
their primaries up so soon that their democratic party votes won't
count. The Democratic National party told them this would happen and
yet the states moved up their primaries anyway. I suppose that at the
convention (democratic) that these states won't be represented. And if
they are there how will the delegates be apportioned? Obama didn't
even have his name on the Michigan ballet.


Whether or not cross party voting during primarys is possible is up to
the state. Some states require you be registered with a given party
before you vote in the primary. The ballet you are handed is
determined by which party affiliation card you can show. I guess some
can get both party's cards, but I think most will not.

I think the spreading out of the primary over months is to allow
candidates to campaign in just the states who will soon be voting.
This has the advantage of not having every candidate spending all of
their campaign money in every state at once. Many candiadtes has litte
money early in the process and would just simply wane away. So the
sequential approach is supposed to filter out all but the strongest
candiates aided by the fact that candiates should recognize when they
can't win and drop out.

Of course this time Hillary won't stop and the fight will go all of
the way to the convention. If it weren't for the concepts of super
delegates and apportionment of a state's delagates, the dems would
already have a for sure nominee. The democratic party is once again
wrapped around its own fairness axle.

The republican party doesn't use apportionment and has way fewer super
delegates, so this scenario is very unlikely to happen to them.

So we have another very intersting election coming up.

Clay

From: Jerry Avins on 7 May 2008 13:30
robert bristow-johnson wrote:

...

> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Under "Source of Funds", PAC contributions is listed as $250.
Under "PAC Contribution Breakdown", the total is $13,137.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Convolution
Next: points of inflexion