Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Iowa: What a crappy way to pick a winner

Momentum against the Iowa first-in-the-nation caucus is sure to explode after Thursday, as many people get their first real close-up look at its undemocratic nature.

First, a look at how the caucuses work:

As in years past, voters must present themselves in person, at a specified hour, and stay for as long as two. And if these caucuses are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate. In 2000, the last year in which both parties held caucuses, 59,000 Democrats and 87,000 Republicans voted, in a state with 2.9 million people. In 2004, when the Republicans did not caucus, 124,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses [...]

While the Republican caucuses are fairly simple -- voters can leave shortly after they declare their preferences -- Democratic caucuses can require more time and multiple candidate preferences from participants. They do not conform to the one-person, one-vote rule, because votes are weighted according to a precinct's past level of participation. Ties can be settled by coin toss or picking names out of a hat.

So what does this mean, in practical terms?

Jason Huffman has lived in Iowa his whole life. Lately he has been watching presidential debates on the Internet, discussing what he sees with friends and relatives. But when fellow Iowans choose among presidential candidates on Thursday night, he will not be able to vote, because he is serving with the National Guard in western Afghanistan.

"Shouldn't we at least have as much influence in this as any other citizen?" Captain Huffman wrote in an e-mail interview.

Nope, Cpt. Huffman is out of luck. As are these folks:

"It disenfranchises certain voters or makes them make choices between putting food on the table and caucusing," said Tom Lindsey, a high school teacher in Iowa City. Mr. Lindsey plans to attend this year, but his neighbors include a cook who cannot slip away from his restaurant job on Thursday night and a mother who must care for her autistic child [...]

But many Iowans have been dutifully watching presidential candidates all summer and fall only to find themselves unable to participate on caucus night. Take Sally Kreamer, a single mother in Johnston, outside Des Moines, who says she cannot escape the pull of her children's dinner and homework. "I would love to participate," Ms. Kreamer said.

Or Carrie Tope, who works at a hospital emergency room in Ames and cannot find anyone to take her shift. She particularly wants to vote this year, she said, because things are so close.

Even some campaign volunteers "have bosses who say, `We really need you at work that night,'" said Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, state director for John Edwards. "Unfortunately, they just aren't going to be able to participate," she said.

And the Iowa Democratic Party response to what is a hideous way to conduct an election?

Scott Brennan, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the party had no responsibility to ensure that voters can caucus. "The campaigns are in charge of generating the turnout," Mr. Brennan said, and the voters who truly care will find their way to their local caucuses.

As for Ms. Tope, the emergency room worker, "there's always the next cycle," Mr. Brennan said.

What an elitist a[**]shole. Yet this ridiculous process he defends will disenfranchises thousands of Iowans as it disenfranchises millions of voters around the country who would like a chance to vote for their favorite primary candidate but will never get the chance.

There's an entire nation out there -- 48 states plus D.C. -- who have tired of this ridiculous calendar and undemocratic way of choosing our nominee. Iowa and New Hampshire will fight like hell to retain their lofty status -- it's worth prestige points and a crapload of money for those states. But no matter what those states may think, they don't have a god-given right to hold our nomination process hostage to their whims (and parochial concerns like ethanol). They should enjoy these next two weeks, because this is likely their swan song.

One thing you have to say about this important blogger, when he is good, he is very very good.

Insulting People's Intelligence

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty f*cking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. He is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified. Now I'm willing to consider that this is all a front, and that he'd govern as progressively as Bush governed conservatively after his 2000 bullsh*t about being a "uniter" and "compassionate".

Hillary beats McCain big time, Obama loses.

Check out Mich and Fla especially for the two Dem. candidates

I also explained that I vote in Michigan and Hillary, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich, as well as, Uncommitted and Other were on the ballot. Everyone here was told repeatedly about Obama, Biden, Richardson, and Edwards absence.

MI DNC URGED everyone to vote uncommitted for the missing candidates because write in's might not be counted because the missing candidates failed to meet the deadline to file papers stating they would be a write in.

I've been on a PAC in my district before. To be a write in is simply a matter of filing a paper up to I believe 10 days before the primary. I think these candidates would have had to do this with the MI Secy. of State. Obama missed a second chance just 10 days beforehand to get on MI's ballot.

It was like going to bed one night and thinking everything was fine, then waking up to find oneself on Bizarro World.

Something reeks in the DNC. Yes, the RBC ruled. Yes, the rules, the rules.

But look. Riddle me this: If "the rules, the rules," then WHY not "the rules, the rules" for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina?

Tell me, do tell, Donna Brazile. WHY NOT IA, NH, and SC? They CLEARLY violated rule 11A on dates.

Moreover, when a candidate voluntarily pulls his name off of a ballot, why does he get delegates? Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan; yet because the DNC knows that he ran a stealth campaign for "not committed" votes, he gets to COUNT them? Seems arbitrary and capricious to me.

Rule 13.A.:

"Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference."
Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters.

Barack Obama took his name off the ballot. And, he didn't think in February that the DNC should allocate delegates based on a "non-campaign."

I would argue would be that it certainly wouldn't be fair to allocate delegates based on a non-campaign. -- Barack Obama Feb 11, 2008

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8457.html

So, basically, Obama and Markos are two of the biggest hypocrites around, even though they are competing with champions of hypocrisy, by the name of Dean, Brazile and Pelosi.

David McDonald is in my estimation a genuine uncommitted. He's a principled, partisan Democrat and a fine attorney -- concerned for the Party, concerned for a 2008 victory, concerned for the integrity of the Rules going forward (all of which puts him in a tough spot).

Until the decision is made and analyzed and found fair, i.e.:
. Is the will of the voters respected?
. Are the SuperDs penalized in the same way/measure pledged delegates are penalized?
. Is Obama penalized severely enough for having campaigned (running ads) in Florida?
. Are the states that committed the same "Crime" (change primary election dates) also penalized in the same measure as Florida and Michigan?

There will not be any possibility for even talking about a Unity Ticket or coming together under a nominee.

Depending how the decision come down, a floor fight in Denver is inevitable. The fault for such an outcome is entirely on the DNC shoulders.

It is not the media fault, they do what they do.  The decision making power throughout the primary process was in the DNC hands.  They infected it with the most virulent of illegitimacy.