NRO looks at voting trends and comes to the conclusion that makes them feel better about McCain's chances in November no matter how wrong it may be.

On Ferraro: Left-wing paternalists regard themselves as architects of racial progress, guarding and guiding blacks along the path of success -- a role in which they assume to stand forever at the head of the march. But what happens when blacks overtake their enlightened white helpers? All hell breaks loose and the mask of progress drops to reveal the stricken faces of the white avant-garde. ... Ferraro's condescension captures the tone of paternalistic liberalism perfectly. Its "victims" should know their place and plot their ascent according to the progressive charts set up by the white liberal establishment. Having read Malcolm X's Autobiography, I agree completely.

Florida still holds out the misbegotten expectation that the DNC will blink first.

Meh. I don't claim to understand how the politics of our state or our legislature works. As I understand it, the state democrats were opposed to the bill, and introduced amendments to bring it up to the February 5th date. The Republicans voted down these amendments, and made it clear that they were going to push the bill through whether the Dems wanted them to or not. Then the Dems, I believe, managed to make at least a little good of the situation and attached the Paper Trail amendment to the bill. At that point it became about voting for the bill in order to insitute the paper trail first, and move the primary date second; it looked to be an ideological win, and I suppose the dems hoped the DNC would react more like the RNC and less like, well, the DNC. Of course, I've been fed most of this information from Florida democrats, so I might be getting misled. Still, as I understand it, the reason the bill bassed unanimously was because of the paper trail amendment, not because of the date change - which most of the democrats actively opposed. edit: also, if the Dems opposed the bill in its current omnibus form, the pubs could paint them as "not supporting voter accountability and paper trails" in the coming election. Two-faced hypocritical bullshit, but that's politics.

Florida still holds out the misbegotten expectation that the DNC will blink first. Because they still think they are somehow relevent... apparently the 2000 election really went to their heads.

I don't really know what McLaughlin is basing his assertion that crossover independent and republican votes are necessarily anti-Clinton votes and not at all pro-Obama votes. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, at least, that there are a decent number of in-earnest Republican crossovers. Also, even assuming that he's correct, the final analysis would yield that Obama might fail to get these previous anti-Hillary votes in a general, but would also imply that Hillary, should she get the nomination, will find a sizable and energized opposition in these voters. Basically, though, I think that McLaughlin is somewhere between "wrong" and "overstating his case".

Meh. I don't claim to understand how the politics of our state or our legislature works. As I understand it, the state democrats were opposed to the bill, and introduced amendments to bring it up to the February 5th date. The Republicans voted down these amendments, and made it clear that they were going to push the bill through whether the Dems wanted them to or not. Then the Dems, I believe, managed to make at least a little good of the situation and attached the Paper Trail amendment to the bill. At that point it became about voting for the bill in order to insitute the paper trail first, and move the primary date second; it looked to be an ideological win, and I suppose the dems hoped the DNC would react more like the RNC and less like, well, the DNC. Of course, I've been fed most of this information from Florida democrats, so I might be getting misled. Still, as I understand it, the reason the bill bassed unanimously was because of the paper trail amendment, not because of the date change - which most of the democrats actively opposed. edit: also, if the Dems opposed the bill in its current omnibus form, the pubs could paint them as "not supporting voter accountability and paper trails" in the coming election. Two-faced hypocritical bullshit, but that's politics. 3 people voted against it. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...x?BillId=35049 I know Florida is a red state, but I have to think that there are more then three democrats in the state legislature.

On Ferraro: Left-wing paternalists regard themselves as architects of racial progress, guarding and guiding blacks along the path of success -- a role in which they assume to stand forever at the head of the march. But what happens when blacks overtake their enlightened white helpers? All hell breaks loose and the mask of progress drops to reveal the stricken faces of the white avant-garde. ... Ferraro's condescension captures the tone of paternalistic liberalism perfectly. Its "victims" should know their place and plot their ascent according to the progressive charts set up by the white liberal establishment. Having read Malcolm X's Autobiography, I agree completely. This is a central charge from conservatives when talking about Democrats' traditional championing of anti-poverty policy and racial issues. I've always disregarded the arguments as desperate and cynical justifications for regressive GOP social policies, but I suppose that there's some truth to them, at least among some people. Like Gerry Ferraro.

Basically, though, I think that McLaughlin is somewhere between "wrong" and "overstating his case". NRO interprets everything that happens in this election in whichever way makes Obama look the worst and the least likely to win in November. In aggregate, it's clear that they're terrified of the man. It's also clear that they really have no idea what actual Dems are like. They maintain this illusion of every Democrat as an effete latte-liberal, except when it's useful to view them as shiftless union members terrified of free trade. Of course, the latter classification applies well to the rust belt.

GOP gaming for Clinton. Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler Now that John McCain has won the GOP nomination, Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary in increasing numbers, hoping to pick their opponent for the November election, or at least cause more turmoil in our already divisive nomination battle. Their choice? Hillary Clinton. Yesterday, in the Mississippi primary, 24% of Hillary Clinton's support came from Republicans. Unlike the Republican support generated by Barack Obama, according to exit polling data, Clinton's Republican support appears to be part of the explicit plan promoted by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc upon the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary Clinton. Depression. Totally. This trend really needs to become part of the MSM narrative, as opposed to ZOMG CLINTON'S RESURGENCE! Obama can't really bring it up himself without being tarred as a whiner. I really wish there was a reasonable way to curb this phenomenon without resorting to closed primaries with absurdly early registration dates. The funny thing is how much she bitches and moans about crossover voters and how Obama really isn't THAT popular, he's just got republicans messing up her numbers.

Guys, how many times do I have to tell you: the primary/caucus dates in Florida are designated by the state legislature, not the Florida state party. The Florida state legislature is packed with a Republican majority. It was the pubs who pushed through the date change, and the Democrats fought it tooth and nail until the pubs attached the provision to an Omnibs Bill reinstating a voter paper trail. I don't know if you've paid attention to Florida voting in the last 8 years, but a paper trail is something we've desperately needed for better election accountability and which the pubs have been blocking for years, so the Dems couldn't possibl vote against this bill. What you say is incorrect. 1 nay in the Senate, 2 in the House. Unless those were the only three Democratic Floridian congressmen, it certainly got a lot of help from the FDP. edit: dammit beaten handily, even with the link oh well

Basically, though, I think that McLaughlin is somewhere between "wrong" and "overstating his case". NRO interprets everything that happens in this election in whichever way makes Obama look the worst and the least likely to win in November. In aggregate, it's clear that they're terrified of the man. It's also clear that they really have no idea what actual Dems are like. They maintain this illusion of every Democrat as an effete latte-liberal, except when it's useful to view them as shiftless union members terrified of free trade. Of course, the latter classification applies well to the rust belt. Jeffe says, girlishly sipping at his latté.

I don't really know what McLaughlin is basing his assertion that crossover independent and republican votes are necessarily anti-Clinton votes and not at all pro-Obama votes. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, at least, that there are a decent number of in-earnest Republican crossovers. Also, even assuming that he's correct, the final analysis would yield that Obama might fail to get these previous anti-Hillary votes in a general, but would also imply that Hillary, should she get the nomination, will find a sizable and energized opposition in these voters. Basically, though, I think that McLaughlin is somewhere between "wrong" and "overstating his case". McLaughlin is also not looking at the last 2 states where the crossover "strategic" republicans have gone much stronger for Clinton than they did in Texas, now that their own nominee is selected. He also carefully dodges the question of "will registered Democrats who chose Clinton still vote Obama in the general?" I think it would be easier for Obama to swing Democrats to vote for him, than it would be for Clinton to swing independants and Republicans to vote for her. Though I suppose that last paragraph is really the "overstating his case" that you already brought up Will.

On Ferraro: Left-wing paternalists regard themselves as architects of racial progress, guarding and guiding blacks along the path of success -- a role in which they assume to stand forever at the head of the march. But what happens when blacks overtake their enlightened white helpers? All hell breaks loose and the mask of progress drops to reveal the stricken faces of the white avant-garde. ... Ferraro's condescension captures the tone of paternalistic liberalism perfectly. Its "victims" should know their place and plot their ascent according to the progressive charts set up by the white liberal establishment. Having read Malcolm X's Autobiography, I agree completely. This is a central charge from conservatives when talking about Democrats' traditional championing of anti-poverty policy and racial issues. I've always disregarded the arguments as desperate and cynical justifications for regressive GOP social policies, but I suppose that there's some truth to them, at least among some people. Like Gerry Ferraro. Yeah, I don't think the charges apply to as many folks as conservative pundits would suggest, but it definitely applies to a not-insignificant subset. You see it mostly in middle-upper-class white liberals who run into maybe one black person a month while shopping at that other grocery store across town because theirs is out of the good olive oil. Basically, you see it in the type of white liberal that many on the right mistakenly assume makes up the bulk of Democrats - it makes sense, then, that they'd paint with that brush a little more widely than they should.

Basically, though, I think that McLaughlin is somewhere between "wrong" and "overstating his case". NRO interprets everything that happens in this election in whichever way makes Obama look the worst and the least likely to win in November. In aggregate, it's clear that they're terrified of the man. It's also clear that they really have no idea what actual Dems are like. They maintain this illusion of every Democrat as an effete latte-liberal, except when it's useful to view them as shiftless union members terrified of free trade. Of course, the latter classification applies well to the rust belt. Jeffe says, girlishly sipping at his latté. Hey fuck you, I slurp at my latte and then belch in a manly fashion.

3 people voted against it. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...x?BillId=35049 I know Florida is a red state, but I have to think that there are more then three democrats in the state legislature. My point is that in its final form, they really couldn't vote against it. It would still have passed anyway, and they would have been fools to pass up the chance at insituting a paper trail and great accountability for electronic voting machines. In many senses, they were doing a greater good for the party with that amendment than they were in getting our delegates nixed, seeing as all the voting "discrepensies" in the last two elections seemed to favor the Republicans. In other words, there is more to this bill than the final vote, and it would be unfortunate not to recognize that. I mean, I'm just going off of what my representative has been saying and the party's FAQ on the issue. If you can somehow show that this is patently wrong and that the Dems shot themselves in the foot without any real reason, then I'll back off. IMO this situation coudln't really be helped, and continuing to punish and demean the FDP for the FRP's jackassery isn't productive.

If your belch tastes like a fancy $5 cup of coffee, it can't be considered "in a manly fashion".

So, do you want us to count those votes, or what?

So about that crossing over kos link, while I agree with many of the sentiments expressed (and note that in a proportional appointment of delegates, it has far more impact than it would otherwise), I would just like to point out that it would be awfully nice to have the high ground in this matter, but we don't because that same site was the place behind the "Democratic voters should vote in the Michigan Republican Primary to keep Romney in it." And yeah, we all had a good laugh at their expense for that. Sucks when it's the other way around, don't it.

So, do you want us to count those votes, or what? Personally, I wish the DNC had gone with the same half-delegate compromise that the RNC did. They didn't, and I can understand why and can't really blame the national praty for it. They had valid reasons. What I do think should happen is that the DNP should be actively working to help organize and fund a revote in the state, because in not showing any real sympathy for the complexity of the situation here they are pissing off a lot of the state's democrats. I know my family hasn't been contributing any money to the party for just that reason. I can't speak for what the FDP said today, but I imagine that they said it because they a) don't think they should be funding this reelection alone and b) know the pubs wouldn't agree to fund it anyway. Like I said earlier, what really needs to happen here is that the state party needs to disentagle itself from the legislature when it comes to scheduling and funding primary elections. But that can't really be helped this year.

The Republicans for Clinton thing kinda reminds me of a scandal in my hometown my Junior year. Every year we had to vote for Homecoming Queen, and, since a large section of our school were budding iconoclasts (hey, it was the early '90s, everyone was doing it), the most people voted for the 7 month pregnant punk proto-goth girl to actively sabotage the Homecoming dance, which most people weren't interested in, since it was generally only a small percentage of jocks that went to that sort of thing. The plan hit a snag when the cheerleading squad realized that their carefully-arranged dance was just going to be ruined, so they, with the help of my typing teacher, burned the ballots and said that the runner-up, who was a wholesome Daughters-of-the-American-Revolution-Scholarship-winning girls' swim team captain was the homecoming queen. Sadly, someone squealed, and thus Homecoming was subjected to a slightly wobbly mohawked queen, the typing teacher got a temporary written reprimand, and the principal lost his job (despite being only tangentially involved). In this case, the pregnant goth girl would be Clinton, the wholesome Daughter of the American Revolution is Obama, the Homecoming King (& captain of the football team) is McCain, the brave cheerleading squad is the DNC, I and my fellow spoiler voters would be the Republicans, and the Homecoming dance is the general election. Except, you know, how somebody has to cut off the others' head because there can be only one. I think I lost control of the metaphor at some point. Ah well... *SUBMIT REPLY*

I heard on NPR today that Hillary was looking for donors to pay for the Florida revote. Truth? If so can Obama do the same?

The Republicans for Clinton thing kinda reminds me of a scandal in my hometown my Junior year. Every year we had to vote for Homecoming Queen, and, since a large section of our school were budding iconoclasts (hey, it was the early '90s, everyone was doing it), the most people voted for the 7 month pregnant punk proto-goth girl to actively sabotage the Homecoming dance, which most people weren't interested in, since it was generally only a small percentage of jocks that went to that sort of thing. The plan hit a snag when the cheerleading squad realized that their carefully-arranged dance was just going to be ruined, so they, with the help of my typing teacher, burned the ballots and said that the runner-up, who was a wholesome Daughters-of-the-American-Revolution-Scholarship-winning girls' swim team captain. Sadly, someone squealed, and thus Homecoming was subjected to a slightly wobbly mohawked queen, the typing teacher got a temporary written reprimand, and the principal lost his job (despite being only tangentially involved). In this case, the pregnant goth girl would be Clinton, the wholesome Daughter of the American Revolution is Obama, the Homecoming King (& captain of the football team) is McCain, the cheerleading squad is the DNC, and the Homecoming dance is the general election. Except, you know, how somebody has to cut off the others' head because there can be only one. I think I lost control of the metaphor at some point. Ah well... *SUBMIT REPLY* This thread makes me wish I had a Death Note. There would be many strokes and blood clots. No heart attacks.

So, do you want us to count those votes, or what? Personally, I wish the DNC had gone with the same half-delegate compromise that the RNC did. They didn't, and I can understand why and can't really blame the national praty for it. They had valid reasons. What I do think should happen is that the DNP should be actively working to help organize and fund a revote in the state, because in not showing any real sympathy for the complexity of the situation here they are pissing off a lot of the state's democrats. I know my family hasn't been contributing any money to the party for just that reason. I can't speak for what the FDP said today, but I imagine that they said it because they a) don't think they should be funding this reelection alone and b) know the pubs wouldn't agree to fund it anyway. Like I said earlier, what really needs to happen here is that the state party needs to disentagle itself from the legislature when it comes to scheduling and funding primary elections. But that can't really be helped this year. Well, what I was talking about was what the dumbfucks were talking about today. There's their way (votes count), our way (they can eat dicks and die), and a middle ground (revote). Since the morons are rejecting the middle ground, I'm very comfortable in going back to the eat dicks and die position.

I mean, I'm just going off of what my representative has been saying and the party's FAQ on the issue. If you can somehow show that this is patently wrong and that the Dems shot themselves in the foot without any real reason, then I'll back off. The group that fucked up is asserting that they had no choice. I am reeling with shock.