Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Machiavellian Thing For the Clinton Camp to do is Push For No New FL MI Primary/Caucus

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:20 PM
Original message
The Machiavellian Thing For the Clinton Camp to do is Push For No New FL MI Primary/Caucus
Obviously you don't want a caucus as those seem to favor Senator Obama.

A new primary could lead to diminished victories, or even a loss in MI. It also gives Obama hundreds of thousands more popular votes.

From a purely "realpolitik" standpoint, you want the status quo.

Push the overall popular vote angle going into the convention, including Florida, and leave Michigan out of it.

Not necessarily how I think it should be done, but definitely the most favorable scenario for Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. No way they can say that in public.
Forget it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Obviously not something you say in public.
But it has to be what they are thinking behind closed doors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. General Clark supporter here
I have no dog in the Clinton Obama race but I don't understand the value of a caucus compared to a popular vote. And I think all primary elections should be closed. Dems voting for Dems, republicans voting for republicans. I can't believe the situation in Texas with both Primary and caucus with possible different results. Thats lunacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. A new primary would cost over $10 million -- way too much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Had we done it your way, Hillary would be waaaay ahead now.
Obama's victories are tied to caucuses (where youth and organization dominate) and to crossover votes. Although many people are upset that Repugs crossed over for Hillary in TX and OH, that same thing has been happening all along, with Obama being the beneficiary.

If only registered Democrats could vote -- and only in secret-ballot primaries -- Hillary would have an insurmountable lead by now, because she consistently wins among registered (real) Democrats in primary (real) elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. On this issue
I'm not for or against either candidate (and I vote next week.) I just find a great deal of value in fairness and a level playing field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wileedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. If the goal
is to win over Independents and perhaps very moderate Republicans - and you need to for success in the GE - then it is much better to get them vested in your campaign early in the process - i.e. the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm Confused
The most equitable disposition of this matter is to recreate the conditions that previously occurred as much as humanly possible... That means primaries in both states...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Caucuses are cheaper
and they favor Obama.

Hence, if the Obama folks had their way, it would be redone with a caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I Know
When Floyd Mayweather and Oscar DeLahoya have their re-match which DeLahoya lost they won't be fighting bare fisted which would favor him...

I thought Democrats wanted to make it easier to vote...If it was up to the Democratic party you could show up at the polls, just prove you are of legal age and vote that day...

Caucuses create all kinds of hurdles... They are usually a couple of an hour event on a specified day...It militates against the elderly, the physically challenged, and the working class from voting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC