I'm pretty sure that Clinton won MI, too. Misogynist.
And no one's going to focus on the Republican race until they believe a Republican can win the general election. (It would be interesting to see if Fox had better coverage of that set of primaries.)
I'm pleased that McCain is trailing. I fear he is the most electable candidate the Republicans have. More importantly, if he is in a race against Hilary, the debate over the war will become "Kill 'em all" vs. "lets be reasonable and sort out who needs to be killed and who doesn't as a part of our long term military presence."
Michigan loves scary plastic hair. I don't see that anything else is especially revealed by Mitt's win.
I kind of hope Rudy wins Florida so they can all stay in it and tear each other apart.
How many pairs of underwear did Guiliani go through today?
Thesis: That the Republican primaries have a higher percentage of winner-take-all states translates into them deciding earlier on a candidate and then concentrating on attacking the Democrats.
On 9/11, Michigan didn't vote for Rudy either.
No, the black man and the white lady are more interesting.
Twenty minutes into the debate, and they have not yet asked a single question about policy. It has all been "that candidate said nasty things about you, are you just gonna stand there and take it?"
Edwards is valiantly trying to change the topic.
Someone in the audience is yelling something.
Russert's such a douche. This is like a damn high school debate. No, it's more like middle school student council.
come on, Apo, keep liveblogging the debate.
Giuliani 3%. Uncommitted 2%.
It was 1,812 to 1,812 about an hour ago.
Anyway, I think moMittum could sweep through the nation's newsrooms soon. They don't really care that he's a phony. Come on, NYT, make him the candidate!
Mr. Obama, are you now or have you ever been a Muslim?
For fucks sake.
So is it really the case that Michigan's primary has no direct influence on who the Democratic presidential nominee will be due to their scheduling?
Yep. The DNC is stripping them of their delegates, and both Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot. The RNC took away half of the delegates as a penalty.
Two two brokered conventions!! After 367 ballots, Dems choose Al Gore & Repubs choose zombie Reagan.
The Republicans would never submit the Great Leader to the indignity of an election in his current condition. He will remain the leader forever, but a new Beloved Leader must be found.
18:No. The Michigan delegates will get seated at the convention. Or those delegates + Fla could decide the nomination, in which case the Dems compromise on zombie Reagan.
Really, most analysis I have read says Dems will not in the end turn MI & Fla away from the floor.
Repeat 14 = Perfect Liveblog.
Honestly, it's hard to watch Russert. What a fatuous bag of wind. What a self-serving monument to the mean.
Guiliani is losing 2-to-1 to Ron Paul and The Straight Talk Express has lost to the Stepford Candidate. *takes a slow, happy sip of schadenfreude*
17- He really asked that? I stopped watching at the "What are your best and worxt traits" question. Russert isn't qualified to interview someone for white house janitor.
18,19:Think of it this way:The Democratic voters in MI get no say in the nomination because the MI party leadership were assholes?
Dems do not disenfranchise voters.
22: Really? Seems that withdrawing names from the ballot is a poor choice, then.
Russert reminds me of that guy who shows up on NPR's "Marketplace" every Friday have a hilarious gigglefest with Kaiy Rysxhdhael about the wacky world of the markets. "Wokka wokka! Things go up, things go down, who knows why? It's all a big merry-go-round of whimsy! Some people win, nobody loses, we're all rich! I can't tell ya why it happened, but I can tell ya it was a roller coaster ride and those brokers don't know what hit 'em! So maybe there'll be one less zero on that bonus check. It's all a big game!"
25: This one was actually Brian Williams. The actual question was about how he fights these kinds of charges, but it was prefaced with a list of them all: "you are a muslim, you refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag, you were sworn in on a Koran", etc.
Bob, have you been paying no attention to the fight in Nevada over caucus sites? Or: to Gore's demands for partial recounts in 2000? Dems do disfranchise voters. But only when it serves their purposes.
25: In all fairness, we usually don't expect journalists to be experts in janitorial service, especially for as big an operation as the White House.
To continue, because this is fun:Since Obama & Edwards didn't campaign in Michigan, there may be two slates of delegates, and a deal struck between the three candidates camps to seat an uncommitted balanced Michigan delegation. Then Michigan starts the candidates a-bidding if their votes are critical.
Of course, if the MI votes don't matter, nobody will care who gets seated. Bur a MI delegation will get seated.
30: Gore's partial recount bullshit is the reason why he will burn in hell.
28: But with more self-righteous faux gravitas.
Russert reminds me of that guy who shows up on NPR's "Marketplace"
Man, have I come to hate that show. "Yay capitalism! Now, for commentary, let's turn to David Frum."
33: No, it's why he'll burn on an superheated planet Earth. Hell comes later.
31:Umm, Ari, I am not going to discuss who is getting disenfranchised in Nevada, casino workers or the schoolteachers, because Becks wants us to play nice til fomentin' ogged gets back.
Huckabee was wrong -- Republican primary voters do want a President who is like the guy who laid them off, instead of like the guy they work with.
Kaiy Rysxhdhael
really? with the spelling?
38: Fair enough. But really, the schoolteachers, whose workday ends before the caucus begins... Okay, taking a deep breath now. Must. Play. Nice.
really? with the spelling?
Hyperbole. His name is famously impossible to spell.
40: Oh, I don't know what the spelling is. I looked it up once and my mental spelling had gotten at least five of the letters wrong, so I prefer to think of it as undetermined.
38- Becks wants us to play nice- To hell with that. To argue that the teachers are disenfranchised because the casino workers (or anyone) have more places they can vote sounds a lot like the reasoning in Bush v. Gore- "I'm being disenfranchised because we're counting more people's votes therefore my vote has less power." Yes, it sucks that they aren't making accomodations for all types of people, but because it's harder for your group to vote doesn't mean you make things equal by making it hard for other groups to vote.
Can't stick around to argue, though, time for bed.
The last name is not how I would have guessed it, but the first name is pretty common.
it's my favorite faux spelling i've ever seen
absolutely egregious double s in that name. and he looks like Romney.
Ironically, he does look exactly how I imagined him looking, to an almost eerie degree.
"Ky Rissdahl"
I got each syllable wrong.
And I presumed that the unknown name "Ky" was short for "Kyle".
OK, back to discussing the real Romney.
Ironically, he does look exactly how I imagined him looking, to an almost eerie degree.
Weird; he's actually less douche-y than I'd pictured.
Hey, is there audio of the Democratic debate anywhere online?
I'm proud to report that in my county, "Uncomitted" is winning both races.
Ogged is not coming back, get used to it! He iz not yer daddy!
Now, Ky Rissdahl, what's wrong with that spelling? I knew exactly who you meant, no matter how nonsensical a rendering. Kai Ryssdal, sure. Looks like a douche, and I never thought I'd use that term, but headshots always look pretty bad.
From Josh Marshall: "I guess the key with Russert is that moment where he comes in to interject, often with the significantly raised pencil, with this look on his face of deep insider knowledge that he's divined the key point of contradiction that will pry the candidate open like a soft peanut. Only in this case, there are more of them up there than him and he's not in charge of the camera so they smack him around for a few minutes."
Wait, he's white? Damn. I always thought he was black.
Fuck, the recent David Frum opinion piece on Marketplace got me steamed. "Those Europeans should be grateful for the military might we show around the word!!"
I never had a deep negative reaction to the whole show, though. Sometimes they seem about as progressive as you can get if you are a financial show that reads stock market numbers every day. They've had Tom Frank on, and such.
It would be so awesome if Giuiliani won in Florida and then all the Republican candidates tore each other apart like slavering canniballistic wolves.
"Uncommitted" is gaining slightly on Giuliani.
Preface:It's the real me.
So then - uhm, see I know how to use caps.
Nevada will amount to nothing.
My mom wouldn't have voted for Obama.
What if you had nerves inside your blood vessels. Would you fell wet inside?
Yes - I'm Becks style.
I get it now!
I can say stuff and publish it on this medium traffic web site (with a really hott demographic) and no one will stop me?
Wow - that ain't right.
I never had a deep negative reaction to the whole show, though.
I didn't for a long time; I think the series about the possible economic benefits of global warming put me over the edge.
Someone stop me before I post again.
Is anyone watching the debate? Chris Matthews is trying to save his career my lavishing praise on Hillary.
Is anyone watching the debate? Chris Matthews is trying to save his career my lavishing praise on Hillary.
I'm not Ogged - really.
John Bolten is on the Daily Show. He looks like my boss.
with a really hott demographic
You're not a member of the private flickr group, are you?
Destroyer;
I can't believe that C.M. could lavish anything. His shriveled soul has no such delequescent qualities.
"You're not a member of the private flickr group, are you?"
I have aspirations.
I have aspirations.
They've got pills for that now.
But the phlegm can be overwhelming
I suppose I could use buckets...
65: Really, that's a pretty strong word to throw around. Especially if we're going to play nice.
So - I was driving the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh towards Breezewood and a semi passed me. The sineage on the back said "Clark Grave Vault - Drive Carefully - we can wait."
as Jack Aubry would say - oh ha ha.
Clever fresh young flower that I am, I am to bed. Sweets y'all.
77: Fine, stand by it. Just explain what you mean. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I honor Becks with my restraint. But I'm having a hard time figuring out how my comment was controversial, much less calumny.
77: I thought I'd check in one more time before going to bed. Getting called a liar still doesn't sit well with me, I'm afraid, so I had hoped for some explanation rather than just a reiteration of the charge. Perhaps you'll check back in tomorrow. If not, I'm afraid that I'll have no choice but to demand a duel. I tap Ogged as my second. Oh, Ogged...
Christ I really don't want yet another re hash of 2000, but IIRC, Gore's recount by county was done in accordance with FL state law, and the FL Supreme Court agreed.
Fair enough. Really, I'm not trying to pick the scab that covers memories of the 2000 election. That wasn't even what I was trying to do in the original comment.
But are you saying that Gore made his decision based on his rigid adherence to and understanding of Florida law? Or will you acknowledge that he cherrypicked counties where he believed that it was likely that he would find more votes? I'm not saying the latter is a bad thing, by the way (at least not for the purposes of this discussion). I'm simply saying, again, that Democrats do sometimes disfranchise voters.
Who gets disfranchised by the recount? And are you really pointing to Florida 2000 as an example of Democrats disfranchising voters? Ye gods.
The county-by-county recount strategy disfranchised some voters in counties not included in the recount call. Surely you know that, as it's hardly a novel point. This is not to say that it was anywhere near as bad as what the Republicans were up to. But it was a case in which some Democrats chose to try to have some votes counted -- but not all of them.
And until either your or someone else actually tells me how I'm wrong, rather than just asserting that I'm lying or a fool, how about dialing back the drama?
I think it's a stretch to call what Gore did disfranchisment. Going for recounts in the counties where you think you'll get the best results is not the same as getting votes thrown out, denying people access to the ballot box, etc.
Republicans actively try to deny people the chance to vote with getting names removed from the roles with out of state felon lists, id laws that target voting blocs that skew Democrat, etc.
Where can we see Democrats trying to prevent people from voting? "Gore asked for recounts in only four counties" is some pretty weak brew.
Please cite the Florida statute that allowed in 2000 for the request of statewide recount. It wouldn't be 'disenfranchisement' anyway, for exactly the reasons gswift indicates. You might also want to offer the basis Gore might have had to request a recount in a county where (a) there was not a large bloc of voters who believed themselves to (and reported numbers that led campaign officials to believe they) have had their votes either not counted or improperly counted nor (b) some other reason to believe that the count was significantly off. Yes, the law in its majesty forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges: guess what, systematic errors in vote counting cluster in particular communities.
Of course, in the face of everything that went on from the other side -- from overzealous striking of felons, to caging, to fomenting a riot to shut down a proper recount being conducted under authority of the law, to suing (all the way to the Supreme Court) to stop the counting of votes -- using the word 'disenfranchisement' to describe the perfectly proper and judicious use of the election protest process is just bleating dishonest Republican talking points.
Nor is the Nevada litigation about disenfranchisement: the caucus system as currently in place allows some voters to have more delegates per caucus participant that other caucus participants (because the formula for at-large caucus delegates is different than the formula for regular caucus participants: depending on how the numbers fall out, by as much as a factor of 10). A group of party officials (and others) have filed suit, claiming (a) that this system wasn't properly adopted by the party central committee and (b) that it violates state law and the constitution. I don't know anything about (a), but note that some pretty highly placed party officials have submitted sworn statements to that effect. I'm also not sure about (b), although a ten-fold difference in delegates per caucus-goer strikes me as sufficient to be within the range of an acceptable challenge. In any event, I don't think 'disenfranchisement' is remotely accurate as a description of this suit. I suppose you might have meant the original adoption of the delegate selection plan: flawed, yes, but I'm not sure it was a deliberate attempt at diluting votes, as much as a poorly thought out attempt to match a square peg with a round hole.
Some supporters of the candidate I favor have been bleating. That I support the same guy doesn't make them correct.
I'm going to be out of town the next couple of days, and so will not be continuing this conversation.
85, 88: My understanding is with Napi -- that a reasonable understanding of Florida election law on Election Day 2000 was that a campaign was only entitled to ask for recounts (1) on a county by county basis, and (2) in counties where they had a specific argument that a recount would reveal significiant errors (don't remember the standard precisely, but you needed something particular to that county -- "The whole state is within a couple dozen votes" wasn't a sufficient argument.) The county-by-county, only where there was knowledge of problems, recount, rather than being intentional cherry-picking by the Gore campaign, was as far as I know required by Florida law.
The fact that at a later stage of the process, after certification, a court ordered a statewide recount, doesn't mean that there was a provision of law under which the Gore campaign could have requested such a recount on the day after the election.
This is also from memory, but I recall public statements from the Gore campaign pretty early on that they'd be very happy with a statewide recount if everyone would agree to it -- it wasn't ever anything they were resisting.
Now, I'm not an election law expert. This is from my recollection of following the news as a lawyer back in 2000, and it's possible I'm wrong. But blaming Gore for the county-by-county recount as a dishonest strategic decision seems offbase. "Calumny" attributes motives to you which I'm sure are incorrect, but if I'm right about the fact you sound as if you've mistakenly picked up some facts from Republican calumnies.
Yeah. I meant to answer Ari's 85, while agreeing with and expanding on Napi's 88. I should remember to use more proper names when I'm doing that kind of thing.
Thanks, gentlemen, for that rather more gentle history lesson than I was receiving last night. Becks, apparently, will be pleased (though I don't know what Bob meant about her asking for good behavior).
Not that you asked, but here's a quick reply. First, I'm not parroting Republican talking points. At the time of the recount, I had a close friend who knew quite a lot about the niceties of Florida election law (she did some work for the Dems). As the horror was playing out in real time, she insisted that Gore was making a tactical, if not necessarily a legal, error by asking for recounts on a county-by-county basis. She believed then, and I still believe, that his decision cost him in the court of public opinion.
Could he have done otherwise, could he have asked for a state-wide recount, and had the request upheld by the Florida Supreme Court? I have no idea. And anyone who claims that they *know* for certain can't be telling the truth. Simply pointing to Florida law, in other words, doesn't cut it. As Florida election law was, and, I'm told, still is, rather muddy. And also because there were political and ethical considerations in play.
Which brings me to point the second: yes, it's too strong to say that the Democrats actively disfranchised voters in Florida in 2000. But they allowed disfranchisement to happen. I can't see it any other way, I'm afraid, as the Gore camp didn't demand that all of the votes statewide be counted, preferring, instead, to seek recounts only in those counties they believed (wrongly) that their man would gain the most votes. Again, would a demand for a state-wide recount have been slapped down by the courts? Or would it have provided more talking points for the Republican noise machine, that likely would have accused Gore of ignoring the rule of law. I don't know about the first. I'm willing to go so far as to say probably. As for the second, sure, the Republicans would have screamed bloody murder. But they already were. And Gore then would have been on the side of the angels. In other words, such a demand would, perhaps, have been politcally, and certainly would have been ethically, superior to asking only for targeted recounts in cherrypicked counties.
Again, thanks for being civil. I do understand your points. And I don't think I disagree -- at least in some important ways -- with what you're saying.
Okay, but saying Gore made a bad tactical decision (one that it's hard to tell whether or not he was legally compelled to make, but that he might actually have been legally compelled to make, and certainly had a reasonable argument for thinking he was legally compelled to make) on the fly is really far from saying that he intentionally sought to disenfranchise voters, isn't it? That seems like an unjustifiable conflation.
Again, I recall Gore seeking the Bush campaign's agreement to a statewide recount within a few days after the election, and I don't recall any representative of the Gore campaign ever arguing against a statewide recount in a context where it was an explicit option. Once they were before a court were it was on offer, they were all over that.
The use of the word 'disenfranchisement' as applied to the Gore campaign's behavior in this context, appears terribly mistaken to me.
Yes, LB, I remember that the Gore camp initially floated the idea of a statewide recount. But then candidate Gore dropped it, no?. As for "terribly mistaken," I'm not sure. Maybe "overblown" would be more apt. Still, I think that Gore didn't fight for the basic principle in 2000: that every vote must be counted. To have demanded anything less, I still maintain, tacitly accepted disfranchisement. Is it the same thing as what the Republicans routinely do? No, of course not. Regardless, I deserve my comeuppance.