The dumbest threat/argument ever.

[Prism]

Imagine it's 2010. McCain is in the White House after ekeing out a narrow victory over Obama or Clinton. The vote had been close - a few thousand in a handful of states would have swayed the election. Suddenly, Iran and the McCain administration are feeling froggy. Threats escalate, troops are moved, nations armed, and another, wider regional war breaks out. Could nuclear weapons be involved? The next thing everyone knows, oil is at $300 a barrel, millions are dead, the American military is broken, the economy tanks under the crushing debt, and America's standing and well-being is in tatters. The Bush administration feels almost nostalgic in the face of the disaster.

How could this come to pass? What allowed this to happen? How did we let America reach this point?

And then a petulant, non-voting Obama or Clinton supporter chimes in.

"Because some people on the internet were mean to me!"

History has certainly turned on dumber things, but the idea of anyone anywhere deciding the course of a nation and presidency that will affect millions - no, billions - of people all over the world because they don't like a few things that were said to them on an internet message board . . .

What kind of narcissistic stupidity is this? "Be nice to me online, or I'll help deliver America into potential hell!"

How petty, egotistical, and just plain damn irresponsible.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Or maybe he loses Michigan by a few hundred votes

because Obama supporters insisted that Michigan delegates not be seated. Bad scenarios cut both ways.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. "Obama supporters insisted"? Are you kidding me? You need to get away from your computer.

It is rotting your brain.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Why not address the issue?

What if Obama loses because he loses Michigan by a few hundred votes. Wouldn't it be fair to blame the fact that Michigan didn't count at the convention?

Or change it to Florida - who cares? The point is, the OP wants to blame Clinton supporters for a slight loss by Obama. I think it's just as reasonable to blame the disenfranchisement of two states, as long as we're concocting scenarios.

And what's so offensive about my premise? I don't see many obama supporters here arguing to seat MI and FL.

[bluetrain]

14. He'd never win FL, but he'll lose MI because of his refusal for a revote. He'll lose the GE because

the core Dem base doesn't fall for used car salemen.

[purji]

21. BS!

michigan is not going mcCain.

[Prism]

4. I imagine Michigan and Florida will be seated . . .

. . . now that it seems they will be immaterial to the final outcome.

I'm not going to hash out the delegate mess that was created by the state legislatures and the DNC.

I'm specifically focused on a ton of posts I've been reading lately stating that people will base their votes on the tussles they get into on an internet message board.

Seriously, the fate of America being decided by . . . flame wars. Not issues, not candidates, not our shared future. No, the really really important thing to some people is whether or not someone's nice to them online.

I can't begin to fathom the thinking behind it.

[SoCalDem]

6. well..they were being punished..

It sounds fair to me.. They get to GO to the convention with a delegation..and like McAuliffe said in "03. (I think it was 03).. If they jumped ahead he would STRIP them of ALL delegates...maybe he "forgot"..

[lligrd]

5. Nobody Said They Shouldn't Be Seated

Just that they shouldn't all be seated for Hillary lie you want them to be. Breaking News: Even if you got your 'foget the rules, Hillary gets all' wish, she would still lose!

[hokies4ever]

8. Latest MI proposal: Hillary +10

Won't make a difference. But I say Obama shouldn't agree yet just to keep Hillary's campaign occupied with the FL and MI vote. They look pathetic stumping in WV talking about seating MI and FL. Those voters want to know about the economy, war, etc. and will be turned off by her selfish pandering.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. I'm not making that argument in this thread

I'm simply saying if you want to concoct scenarios where Obama loses, it's just as reasonable to blame the disenfranchisement of two states as it is to blame Clinton supporters. That's all.

[KSinTX]

13. You keep saying 'Obama' - THAT would be Dean. nt

[dansolo]

16. NOT Dean

Dean has no control over the seating of the delegation. That is handled by the Rules and Bylaws committee. Don't blame Dean for following the rules.

[KSinTX]

17. Dean sanctioned the state parties

Not the states. Not the candidates. MonkeyFunk says 'Blame the candidate.' I say blame the states and if anyone 'took' anything, it was Dean. I didn't say he was wrong for doing it. But he, in his leadership role, was responsible. Florida was sanctioned for entirely different reasons than Michigan. Florida attacked him and was arrogant and self-serving. Michigan wanted to see a greater diversity among the states that led the primary season. Much more an act of civil disobedience (curious since So. Carolina was on tap to go and Levin had a report on state rotation due for this year's convention) but not as vitriolic as the Florida idiots who did it for attention and baited Dean continuously.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I said "where Obama loses"

Dean isn't running.

[KSinTX]

24. just as reasonable to blame the disenfranchisement of two states as it is to blame Clinton supporter

THAT part was Dean, neither Obama, Edwards or Clinton. "Where Obama loses" has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement" because the phrase doesn't apply to private political parties, as the Supreme Court has reminded us.

[hokies4ever]

7. EVERYBODY knows that MI and FL will be seated

MI and FL are just bones for Hillary's rabid campaign to chew on to keep them busy. The DNC already scheduled a date (5/31) to seat the delegates.

[izzie]

9. Why not just wait until the end and give them each a % of that?

I see no harm and then they will be seated.

[KSinTX]

10. The STATES made a bad decision. THE GREAT STATES OF MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA

Obama supporters on this, or any board, have no gravitas to sway that decision either way. Democratic voters in both MI and FL need to work very hard to impeach the legislators that made this stupidly foolhardy debacle come to fruition. Oh, and do not under any circumstances blame Republicans for this mess - this was a Democratic self-inflicted mortal wound.

For proof, follow the links in madfloridian's comment

P.S. MonkeyFunk, aren't you supposed to be at work in your long pants? :)

[cliffordu]

20. You understand you're ignoring the truth, right?

The truth on THIS matter is located on this board in dozens of threads. You were told the truth last night on this very subject. People took valuable time out of their lives to explain all this to you. Explanations that would satisfy middle school students.

Apparently you need to concentrate on just this one issue. Is this because you can't learn anything new or are you one of those internet stalkers, or are you a paid flamebaiter??

I'd really like to know.

[MessiahRp]

23. He never insisted they not be seated, he insisted they be seated fairly

Your candidate signed a pledge not to compete in that race and when she was certain to lose the primary mathmatically, only then did she whine about Florida and Michigan. She was the only major candidate on the ballot in MI and is completely disingenuous when she claims to want these delegates "fairly seated" because she knows damn well that Obama wasn't on the ballot.

Not to mention there are two other major factors she and her supporters ignorantly try to avoid in this argument.

1. He didn't spend any time campaigning in Florida and Michigan. In most every state she has had a huge lead going in based on name recognition. Then when they both spend time campaigning in an area every single time her lead evaporates and he either makes the race much closer or wins the state. This would have happened in both of those states and it is no guarantee that she would win MI at all (not to mention the margins in Florida would tighten).

2. Voters in those states knew their votes basically did not count so many did not go out and vote. Without full voter turnout you are still, as Hillary's argument for seating says, "disenfranchising" voters. Not every FL or MI voter got their say in this race because they were told beforehand that it would not count.

Hillary supporters are so willing to cheat their way to a victory they ignore all of the facts involved. She does not want a full re-vote because she would not even get close to the delegate or popular vote gains her campaign is falsely claiming she would get from those states now.

Obama is rightly against seating delegates based on how the circumstances of those primaries skewed the numbers. If Hillary or her supporters were in anyway honest they would be against it as well.

The fact is MI and FL's Democratic Parties broke the rules and were punished. That was neither the doing of Obama or Clinton's camps. But both candidates signed a pledge to follow the DNC's punishment and not campaign there, so for Hillary to come back later and try to steal delegates from primaries that lacked full voter participation and full candidate participation is slimey thievery at best.

Besides at this point even if we seat the delegates in the skewed false way she wants them seated, SHE STILL LOSES.

Rp

[melody]

3. Amen n/t

[rug]

15. As voted, the allocation is 73 Clinton, 55 Obama. 18 delegates.

How petty and specious not to seat them.

Especially with all the blather here about the Math.

[purji]

22. Ah, but hillary doesn't want obama to get 55

she wants him to get ZERO because his name wasn't on the ballot.

I love how she doesn't mind disenfranchising me.

[Ian David]

18. BEWARE THE WRATH OF KYLE! N/T