Originally posted by Strangelove
Just for fun I'm going to share an e-mail with you folks. As a member of the Executive Board of the Indiana University College Democrats, my job is to provide all electronic communication between the Exec. Board and the general membership. Well here's an e-mail I wrote after the Indiana primary.
And here's a response I got from a past IUCD President, whose name I have removed.
And here's my reply:
Enjoy 🙂
First, he accused you of endorsing, which I did not see you do.
Second, what's the major catastrophe of going all the way to the convention? Is that not what the conventions were for? I understand that it would be nice if the candidate could focus on the Republicans, rather than having to fight off another democrat. I also understand that it would provide more time to blacken the eye of the republicans.
And lastly, you do realize that counting the votes of those two states is a violation of the rules set forth by the DNC, right? This guy just accused you of breaking rules he'd added to your constitution, and you are calling the F/M thing a "debacle? It's a sad day when I am forced to agree with KidRock. They broke the rules and Mrs. Clinton is crying foul because she knows it's the only way she can win. It's fine to count the votes, in her opinion, since she's the only one that was voted for in those two states. It isn't a debacle, it's a matter of fact. The rules were broken and now she wants to change the rules, after the fact. Again, it is for this very reason that I do not support Clinton. She gets nasty and underhanded the moment she can. It isn't her choice to do it because her back is up against the wall (we could all understand that) it's that she does it right off the bat and as soon as she can and comes across as enjoying it. If she didn't think she had to smile all the time, she might come across as less of a ***** when she cuts someone down. But since she thinks she has to smile while she's doing it, people think of her as the mega-***** they're talking about.
There's no way in hell it will go to the convention. The super dels. will move to Obama in June to give him the 2025 delegates needed and Clinton will bow out or suspend her campaign.
I've no problem with Clinton staying in through the last primary, but there's no real reason to keep the in-battle going through the convention if it's clear that Obama will win and Clinton has no logical or real shot.
Originally posted by BackFire
There's no way in hell it will go to the convention. The super dels. will move to Obama in June to give him the 2025 delegates needed and Clinton will bow out or suspend her campaign.I've no problem with Clinton staying in through the last primary, but there's no real reason to keep the in-battle going through the convention if it's clear that Obama will win and Clinton has no logical or real shot.
I heard that she was staying in because if she bows out now she will be in doubt in the millions. However, if she stays in, she might be able to, somehow, get the money to pay off her bills.
Originally posted by Devil King
She gets nasty and underhanded the moment she can. It isn't her choice to do it because her back is up against the wall (we could all understand that) it's that she does it right off the bat and as soon as she can and comes across as enjoying it.
This is a reason to not support her? 😆
Originally posted by Devil KingThey broke the rules yes, but I'm simply averse to the thought of a nominee only picked by 48 states. I assure you I'd feel the same way if Obama ran away with the states.
And lastly, you do realize that counting the votes of those two states is a violation of the rules set forth by the DNC, right? This guy just accused you of breaking rules he'd added to your constitution, and you are calling the F/M thing a "debacle? It's a sad day when I am forced to agree with KidRock. They broke the rules and Mrs. Clinton is crying foul because she knows it's the only way she can win. It's fine to count the votes, in her opinion, since she's the only one that was voted for in those two states. It isn't a debacle, it's a matter of fact. The rules were broken and now she wants to change the rules, after the fact. Again, it is for this very reason that I do not support Clinton. She gets nasty and underhanded the moment she can. It isn't her choice to do it because her back is up against the wall (we could all understand that) it's that she does it right off the bat and as soon as she can and comes across as enjoying it. If she didn't think she had to smile all the time, she might come across as less of a ***** when she cuts someone down. But since she thinks she has to smile while she's doing it, people think of her as the mega-***** they're talking about.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE😆 she really does have that character down.
This is a reason to not support her? 😆
Originally posted by Strangelove
They broke the rules yes, but I'm simply averse to the thought of a nominee only picked by 48 states. I assure you I'd feel the same way if Obama ran away with the states.
The nominee woud still only be chosen by 48 states, as hers was the only democratic candidate's name on the ballot.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is a reason to not support her? 😆
I don't know if you're addressing the video or my quote. But if it's my comment, I can see it being a tactic in teh general election against the candidate of the party she has professed oppose the views of the party with which she affiliates herself. To do it to another democrat implies she's in it for herself and not her party or her people.
Originally posted by Devil KingIncorrect. Obama's name was on the ballot in Florida.
The nominee woud still only be chosen by 48 states, as hers was the only democratic candidate's name on the ballot.
Originally posted by Bardock42I absolutely agree.
Then the only fair way is to redo the election.
Originally posted by Devil KingAlso, there might be an unfair advantage for Clinton in those states, seeing as she didn't refuse to ignore them on grounds of the rules.
So, it's all over at 48 states, but 49 are qualifiable? I'm fine with redoing the vote for both states, as long as ample time is allowed for both candidates to lobby for votes in those states. Can that happen before June?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, there might be an unfair advantage for Clinton in those states, seeing as she didn't refuse to ignore them on grounds of the rules.
Exactly!
Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't campaign in Florida because he was told they had broken the rules and were a moot issue. All the while, he was competing against more than Mrs Clinton. It's hard to believe that wasting MONEY on a non-election would escape supporters of Mrs. Clinton, when their candidate is walking off stage after her victory speeches and making on-line pleas for money. She's already 12 million in debt to her own campaign, and she can't replace that money through conventional means, unless she wins the nomination.