Comments on The Case for the Big States

A shame that Colbert's writers (and almost all MSM) continue to claim that Hillary "won" Texas. In fact, Obama won more of the Texas delegates than did Hillary.

I love Colbert

This video is the culmination of every post about the primary i have written related to the big states argument

when i saw this last night, i really liked the final jab to "fat head" russert.

"it's a sound argument."

ORLY!?

Brilliant!

Why the fuck is that colossal douchebag Terry McAuliffe rattling off Florida and Michigan in the list of states she won? Considering Obama didn't campaign in Florida, and wasn't even on the fucking ballot in Michigan, how the hell is that relevant?

AMB-

Obama campaigned in Florida. He even ran commercials, in defiance of his agreement with the other candidates. Get off your high horse.

Now now Big Sven, get your facts straight:
Obama did a national ad-buy on major networks. It just happened to be that they ran in Florida because those major networks operate there. Clinton actually toured Florida running fund-raisers which she then claimed were different than campaigning to skirt the rules. Bullshit I say! Clinton is a duplicitous piece of shit. Get out of the race.

He also checked Pennsylvania, which hasn't happened yet.

Ultimately, though, what I'm seeing is a big fat donkey dick of a state (Florida) that needs to be expelled from the Union. They cannot do ANYTHING right. Now we have the news that if they had left their primary where it was, in May or June, they might have actually mattered, and they might have gotten a bonus of 30% more add-on delegates.

Bomb Florida.

Canada's NOT a state? go figure.

The Republicans changed the date in FL. The Dems argued against it but after it was done encouraged people to vote. Obama was the only candidate, Edwards was still sort of in it, to violate the no advertising rule. National ads were not excluded from the agreement. Hillary broke neither the spirit nor the letter of the agreement by having fundraisers in FL.

In Idaho Barrack's total vote of about 17,000, one arena full, and won 12 delegate whereas in Ohio Hillary won by 230,000 vote and gained 9 delegates.
Not withstanding a comedy show's analysis, Barrack has not done well in states where can't get a significant part of the voters into one arena (that's a little hyperbole, don't get too exercised).

If Barrack were winning the big non caucus blue states the Obama argument would be that party insiders control caucuses and only voted states should count. The super delegates should decide at the convention which of the two candidates is the most viable.

Will there be more Spitzers between now and then? Auchi?

@1 and @6 are right, even if all the hot girls on SLOG are for Clinton ... darn.

Because there's just NO POSSIBLE WAY Florida could have held their Dem primary on a different day than the Republicans, is there? Wyoming, South Carolina, Maine, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Hawaii -- they're different, right?

I'm sick of Florida's bullshit. Fuck you, Sunshine State.

Yes the Dems could have spent $20 million or so and not stood up to the national party. The Republicans did a great job of setting up the Dems and the DNC fell in the trap. Had the DNC given them half their delegates on the first ballot and allowed campaigning the situation would have be much different.

Fonky@8: So Obama made a clerical error, but Clinton is a duplicitous piece of shit. Got it.

Fnarf@13: no. The law passed by the FL lege mandated both parties hold their primaries on Jan 29. That's why the FL Party Chair opposed the law. Which the Rs enacted anyhow.

Nice vitriol, everybody, towards a large state with many electoral votes that is well within our grasp (unlike, say, Texas.) Excellent teamwork.

I never saw an Obama ad on television in Florida, and I watch a more substantial amount of TV than I care to admit.

The fact that he broke the rules in such a way could be held against him I guess, but could we please stop with all of this "Hillary won Florida even though Barack Obama personally went to every house in Florida and demanded the occupants vote for him" bullshit? The commercials probably aired a few hundred times at the most and they had a negligible effect on the primary.

Chris in Tampa @ 16:

OK. Setting aside the "he said / she said" stuff, how should FL be addressed? I thought a do-over was a great idea, but Obama came out against it today. As a Floridian, what's your take?

I don't see a huge problem with the mail in primary. It has it's flaws, but so do all elections. It will at least give most people the chance to vote with the knowledge that it will actually count for something.

I don't see where Obama actually came out against it, although I've read where a few of his staffers are not happy about it. I think they would naturally support a caucus, at least partially because of the relative ease and diminished cost of setting one up as opposed to any primary. Not to disregard the common knowledge that it would favor their camp, though.

In any case, the 10 million estimated for Florida should be footed half by the state party, and half by the national party, since both are technically at fault for this ridiculous behavior, and both have all of a sudden decided to change their minds now that it's suddenly relevant.
Also, both Clinton and Obama should probably foot the majority of the National Party's half. Starting with Clinton, to overcome the backlash stemming from her suddenly having an interest in our delegates. Obama should then follow suit, as is politically prudent.