Republican Candidates

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Yea you're right... he does have a lot of cash left though. Anybody been following Michigan? I think they will only have 50% of delegates on ballot.
All of the Republicans are on the ballot.
Only Hillary is on the Democratic ticket.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Yea you're right... he does have a lot of cash left though. Anybody been following Michigan? I think they will only have 50% of delegates on ballot.
yeah, the Republicans only have 50% of the delegates, the Dems removed all the delegates from the democratic primary from michigan.
It is ok to disenfranchise an entire state! But not ok to disenfranchise a small group of people who can't go down to the DMV with a birth cert and get a photo ID. Seriously your party just doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
If I hear another "expert" sit here and say oh mitt had better win in Michigan or he'll be out of the race, I'm going to puke. The guy has more delegates than anyone else thus is winning, but he still has to win or he is out?

Please people can't be this stupid can they?

That's the result of allowing the media to control who will ultimately be the Republican and Democratic candidate. In Jersey, they had Obama with a 10 point win over Hillary in the pre-vote polls. It was a lock until she did her 'crying game'. All of a sudden she wins. Next thing you know, the media is spouting out rumors that there must have been voter fraud for the polling prior to the vote being so off. Romney comes in third in the first two caucus votes, and the media blows their horn with this "If Mitt doesn't win in Michigan, he going to drop out". Who are the Romney backers supposed to believe?
They need to get rid of this state-by-state voting system. By the time the caucus voting gets to some of the states at the end of the campaign train, either half the candidates have dropped out, or the first ten states have determined who will run for the respective parties. They need to have a nationwide caucus vote for each party on one specific date. Pick a Monday in July or August, and have the entire nation vote who will run for each party. That gives the parties two to three months to campaign for the presidential vote in November. Also force the media to not allow them to 'predict' who the winner will be for each respective state until every single poll has closed nationwide.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
yeah, the Republicans only have 50% of the delegates, the Dems removed all the delegates from the democratic primary from michigan.
It is ok to disenfranchise an entire state! But not ok to disenfranchise a small group of people who can't go down to the DMV with a birth cert and get a photo ID. Seriously your party just doesn't make a lick of sense.
Michigan broke party rules. They moved their primaries up by a few weeks to basically gain more power. You can still vote... Dems like Obama and Edwards want voters to vote undecided instead of for Hilary. So this is not the same as disenfranchisment.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
That's the result of allowing the media to control who will ultimately be the Republican and Democratic candidate. In Jersey, they had Obama with a 10 point win over Hillary in the pre-vote polls. It was a lock until she did her 'crying game'. All of a sudden she wins. Next thing you know, the media is spouting out rumors that there must have been voter fraud for the polling prior to the vote being so off. Romney comes in third in the first two caucus votes, and the media blows their horn with this "If Mitt doesn't win in Michigan, he going to drop out". Who are the Romney backers supposed to believe?
They need to get rid of this state-by-state voting system. By the time the caucus voting gets to some of the states at the end of the campaign train, either half the candidates have dropped out, or the first ten states have determined who will run for the respective parties. They need to have a nationwide caucus vote for each party on one specific date. Pick a Monday in July or August, and have the entire nation vote who will run for each party. That gives the parties two to three months to campaign for the presidential vote in November. Also force the media to not allow them to 'predict' who the winner will be for each respective state until every single poll has closed nationwide.
I would think the same thing, a one day blam vote would make more sense. What would really really be cool is if their were no "polls" to make news and attempt to influence votes. That would make things very interesting.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
That's the result of allowing the media to control who will ultimately be the Republican and Democratic candidate. In Jersey, they had Obama with a 10 point win over Hillary in the pre-vote polls. It was a lock until she did her 'crying game'. All of a sudden she wins. Next thing you know, the media is spouting out rumors that there must have been voter fraud for the polling prior to the vote being so off. Romney comes in third in the first two caucus votes, and the media blows their horn with this "If Mitt doesn't win in Michigan, he going to drop out". Who are the Romney backers supposed to believe?
They need to get rid of this state-by-state voting system. By the time the caucus voting gets to some of the states at the end of the campaign train, either half the candidates have dropped out, or the first ten states have determined who will run for the respective parties. They need to have a nationwide caucus vote for each party on one specific date. Pick a Monday in July or August, and have the entire nation vote who will run for each party. That gives the parties two to three months to campaign for the presidential vote in November. Also force the media to not allow them to 'predict' who the winner will be for each respective state until every single poll has closed nationwide.
I understand your point... but the current system allows for more interaction for candidates and voters..because candidates are able to focus on particular issues in the given the state or community whereas, a National Causcus would essentially be just a national campaign with little focus

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I understand your point... but the current system allows for more interaction for candidates and voters..because candidates are able to focus on particular issues in the given the state or community whereas, a National Causcus would essentially be just a national campaign with little focus
yeah, but come on seriously, interaction? The whole thing is one giant production. From start to finish, the only real question is who is going to

[hr]
up the most.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Michigan broke party rules. They moved their primaries up by a few weeks to basically gain more power. You can still vote... Dems like Obama and Edwards want voters to vote undecided instead of for Hilary. So this is not the same as disenfranchisment.
They can write their names in, but it won't matter.
Obama and Edwards both withdrew from Michigan, therefore any write-ins for them will be thrown out.
So the "disinfranchisement" comment remains.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
That's the result of allowing the media to control who will ultimately be the Republican and Democratic candidate. In Jersey, they had Obama with a 10 point win over Hillary in the pre-vote polls. It was a lock until she did her 'crying game'. ...
New Jersey has not had their primary. They vote in 2-5-08.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
New Jersey has not had their primary. They vote in 2-5-08.

Oops. That wasn't New Jersey last week? It was ONE of those New England states right? It was NEW HAMPSHIRE (I think). I lose track of any state East of the Mississippi and South of the Mason-Dixon line...
Pretty sad since they're only on state three now.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Michigan broke party rules. They moved their primaries up by a few weeks to basically gain more power. You can still vote... Dems like Obama and Edwards want voters to vote undecided instead of for Hilary. So this is not the same as disenfranchisment.
Are you serious? Ok lets do a little backround information on the way a party select's its nominee. Based on the population each state has a certain amount of delegates. When each state holds a primary they, based on state party bylaws, choose which candidate the party for that state will vote for. The democrats divy up the state delegates based on the % of voters for each candidate. Where they go to convention. At convention these delegates vote for to select the nominee for their party. (now by convention time everyone usually knows who is going to win the nomination since we know how the delegates are going to vote, so the convention is more for show.) But if your state doesn't have any delegates vote is meaningless, because you don't have any say in the way a delegate at the convention votes. Tell me how that is not disenfranchisement?
to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote.
And don't split hairs and say they voted. Because a vote basically going into the Ballot trash can is depriving someone a right to vote.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Are you serious? Ok lets do a little backround information on the way a party select's its nominee. Based on the population each state has a certain amount of delegates. When each state holds a primary they, based on state party bylaws, choose which candidate the party for that state will vote for. The democrats divy up the state delegates based on the % of voters for each candidate. Where they go to convention. At convention these delegates vote for to select the nominee for their party. (now by convention time everyone usually knows who is going to win the nomination since we know how the delegates are going to vote, so the convention is more for show.) But if your state doesn't have any delegates vote is meaningless, because you don't have any say in the way a delegate at the convention votes. Tell me how that is not disenfranchisement?
to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote.
And don't split hairs and say they voted. Because a vote basically going into the Ballot trash can is depriving someone a right to vote.
If you vote undecided... then those votes go against Clinton. I know this isn't the perfect solution...but blame the state. They broke the rule about moving the primary date up too early. I don't think votes can be thrown out.
If you are going to do a background check... then check it all in regards to why this is happening. I wonder if this has happened before?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
If you vote undecided... then those votes go against Clinton. I know this isn't the perfect solution...but blame the state. They broke the rule about moving the primary date up too early. I don't think votes can be thrown out.
If you are going to do a background check... then check it all in regards to why this is happening. I wonder if this has happened before?
I understand why it happened, and I don't agree with the decision but they knew what would happen before they moved their primary. but to insinuate that their vote counts for anything is misleading. I find it horribly ironic, that the party who is challenging voter laws requiring voter to have a photo id under the name of disenfranchisement will willing to trash an entire states vote in their election. The next logical question would be to question the motives of why the democrats insist such loose voting laws in general elections. It clearly isn't because they care about disenfranchisement, as demonstrated in michigan. And why else would you not want to have voters provide photo Id's? Fraud

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I don't think votes can be thrown out.
Sure they are going to count them, but the outcome there will not directly influence the vote to select the candidates at their convention. So you might as well throw them in the trash.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
I understand why it happened, and I don't agree with the decision but they knew what would happen before they moved their primary.

This is why you should blame the state.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
This is why you should blame the state.
And every voter in the state is punished as a result of a few peoples' decision.

 

[kjr_trig]

Not to get back on topic here....but what the heck is going on with Rudy Giuliani??? He is getting destroyed again in Michigan, this guy was supposed to be the Republican for President!!! There is no way he can recover from this start can he? Fine by me, I prefer McCain or Romney, just strikes me as surprising that a month ago he was in great shape, now he is losing to Fred Thompson and Ron Paul....What gives?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
Not to get back on topic here....but what the heck is going on with Rudy Giuliani??? He is getting destroyed again in Michigan, this guy was supposed to be the Republican for President!!! There is no way he can recover from this start can he? Fine by me, I prefer McCain or Romney, just strikes me as surprising that a month ago he was in great shape, now he is losing to Fred Thompson and Ron Paul....What gives?

Guiliani, for whatever reason, chose to campaign in the first "big" state; Florida. He hasn't campaigned anywhere else and has said that.
No idea why; it will either be brilliant or fail miserably.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Afrikaans, member of the West Germanic group of the Germanic subfamily of the Indo-European family of languages (see Germanic languages). Although its classification is still disputed, it is generally considered an independent language rather than a dialect or variant of Dutch (see Dutch language). Afrikaans is spoken by close to 8 million people in the Republic of South Africa.
In regards to your comments... you can take whatever you want out of my comments... You can say I am wrong or take my words out of context or even make assumptions about what I wrote. I really don't care. In regards to reading comprehension..I probably have a lot more experience than you do in that subject

. But I am tired of going back and forth with you about things that have no place in this thread and IMO are fruitless. I have nothing to gain by proving you wrong and its simply a waste of my time to continue on this course...So I'll continue to talk about the candidates....
Maybe you could try proving me wrong like maybe once

Nobody took your words out of context and for the record, I haven't gone back and changed any posts like you did. You weren't talking about the language, you referred to him as a 'white Afrikan". One thing we can agree on is time for a change of subject.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
Not to get back on topic here....but what the heck is going on with Rudy Giuliani??? He is getting destroyed again in Michigan, this guy was supposed to be the Republican for President!!! There is no way he can recover from this start can he? Fine by me, I prefer McCain or Romney, just strikes me as surprising that a month ago he was in great shape, now he is losing to Fred Thompson and Ron Paul....What gives?

You see where the Daily Kos was telling thier readers to take Republican ballots and vote for Romney. They obviously fear McCain to the point I am actually thinking about sending him a check. Maybe my kids, the dog and fish well too