Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Axelrod Assigned me a Troll!! *All Choked Up*

FrenchDoc's picture

I'm feel so moved! Unfortunately, he's not very bright. This was his response to my WWTSBQ 2.0 - Neverending Story... hold on to your seats:

"I’d like to keep things as civil as possible, but I think these points deserve some discussion. I’d like to leave discussions of gender and race out if you please, and also issues of policy, because we would get off-topic. I want to talk about the delegate count and the nomination. Fact 1: there is no way for Hillary to win the majority of pledged delegates. I don’t think superdelegates should override the will of the voters, but they have been coming out more and more strongly for Obama as this campaign has gone on.
Hillary’s popular vote argument is pretty flimsy. Even counting Florida, Obama is ahead. It is trivial to count Michigan, because no one voted for Obama, because his name wasn’t on the ballot. However, if we were to assume that people who voted uncommitted were voting for Obama (why else would there have been such a high uncommitted vote percentage), then he is still ahead in the popular vote. However, Michigan and Florida were not done properly, and several members of HRC’s campaign were among those who voted to penalize those states.
From where I’m standing, many of HRC’s attacks on Obama have said implicitly that McCain would be better. I hope that we can all agree he would not.
I would like to take issue with one of the end things you said: “half of these great turnouts has voted for Hillary.”
The great turnouts are primarily from younger voters (that 17-29 demographic), so I think it’s difficult to make the case that half have voted for her (40% would be a more accurate figure).
I will be honest. I have character issues with Senator Clinton, but I would readily cast a vote for her over Senator McCain. These opinions are outside the scope of this discussion. One final thing: were I in her position, I would drop out and endorse, no question. I am not a paint by numbers liberal, but I would recognize that this contest is hurting our general election chances (look at Rasmussen’s Balance of Power calculator)."

My response:

"Well, apparently, Axelrod has assigned my blog to you, so here goes.
1. You cannot leave race/gender out of this. Sexism and race-baiting have both been an integral part of this primary. Nice try but this sleight of the hand does not work. I know why you’re trying to side-step this, nice try.

2. Your fact 1 applies to Obama as well. And at this point, these are only pledges. These delegates will actually vote at the Convention… this is why even McCain is still the “presumptive” nominee until the Republican convention.

3. The SDs can do whatever the hell they please. That’s the whole point of being a superdelegate.

4. On the popular vote: well I guess we won’t know how strong an argument is once the votes have been counted.

5. There is absolutely NO reason to assume that the MI uncommitted voters should be assigned to Obama. I guess he needs to get delegates he didn’t earn cuz he can’t win on his own. Speculation is not reality.

6. The penalty for Mi/Fl was 50% of the delegation. The rest was Donna Brazile maneuvering to tip the scales in favor of Obama.

7. I was discussing the Democratic candidates, don’t change the subject. This is not about McCain.

8. For the turnout numbers, go read the link to Paul Lukasiak in my post.

9. I don’t care what your issues and positions are with whomever. It’s not about you.

Repeating talking points that have been debunked repeatedly already does not help your case.

But feel free to try again."

0
No votes yet

Comments

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

whatever you think of those arguements, they do not strike me as trollish.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

They're talking points copied and pasted one after the other... and like many college kids, he has issues with paragraph breaks.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

I've seen these same talking points at several blogs.

However, Michigan and Florida were not done properly, and several members of HRC’s campaign were among those who voted to penalize those states.

This is a relatively new one that's all over the place. However, it doesn't matter whether Hillary's supporters voted for the penalty, or if she didn't start talking about seating them until after uber-tetchy Iowa and New Hampshire (and really, the fact that the party privileges these two states above all others is the source of all the gefuckedness this year) had had their damn primacy primaries.

And why doesn't it matter? Because Michigan and Florida have the right to appeal/challenge the rulings, and that right exists independently of any action or advocacy by the candidates.

Basically, the challenges were going to have to be heard anyway. Trying to make it look like Hillary filed them is just spin.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I don't understand how Obama & Co keep repeating James Baker talking points. MI and FL have the right to participate in the nominating process. It is wrong to disenfranchise two states. This doesn't have anything to do with what you think of Clinton.

It is also a boneheaded approach to the general election. What? Obama & Co don't think that this will come up on the general election?

And it strips us of all moral authority in a recount situation.

MI and FL more than any other thing have turned me against Obama. It really has nothing to do with the candidates.

Election are about voters, not candidates, why can't Obama, Dean, & Co understand that????

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

which I am beginning to see as the correct one, winning the election is not the main goal.

The main goal is to purge the Democratic party of all things Clinton. In that context, everything makes sense.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I can understand the reasons for not accepting the FL & MI results, but Obama had an opportunity to allow revotes. That he didn't, and many Democrats are OK with that, has turned me off from the Democratic Party. However, here is a logical argument I have put forward for some time now:

P1. If Obama & Co. did not accept the original votes (-P), then he would have allowed revotes (Q), or -P --> Q
P2. Obama did not allow revotes (-Q)
------------------------------------
C1. -(-P): Obama did accept the original votes

Since P2 is pretty much irrefutable, the only way to refute the logical argument is to to reject P1. In which case you have to argue why he did not want to allow revotes. To me, not allowing revotes is a 100% deal breaker as it goes against basic tenets of democracy. Even if the Super-Delegates were going to decide this (and we knew in plenty of time to plan for revotes), the concept of giving people a voice is still important. Either ignore both pledged delegates and popular vote altogether or count all votes/delegates in a just manner.

I see no justice in the way things turned out. I blame both Obama, the DNC, and all of Obama's supporters who cheered this on or remained silent (including my wonderful congresswoman, Anna Eshoo who I will be voting against in the Dem Primary on June 3). Justice as Fairness. (The Wiki article does not include info on his follow-up, "Political Liberalism", which backs away a tad on point 2b.)

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

they think that this is a winning strategy. mebbe they are wrong, but they think this wins

jackyt's picture
Submitted by jackyt on

When all was said and done, did not the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary precede the Michigan and Florida primaries? What were the respective dates of these events?

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

Pamela smacked it before I had time to respond.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

they would not bother if the Hillary blogs were not effective

RedQueen's picture
Submitted by RedQueen on

All I got was a koolaid drinking stalker.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Via Riverdaughter.

Here is an initiative to let the DNC know just how we fell.

There is a project Walk A Mile In Our Shoes. Well they want to get the DNC's attention, so they are asking people to send their shoes to the DNC, to show them we are ready to walk.

Let's propogate.

I don't know if it is related to the organization that does parades of men in heels to help raise rape awareness, it's also called A Mile in Our Shoes.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!