Don't you think that maybe registration is up because Pennsylvania is finally in the spotlight? Also, I fear that a number of the party-switch registration is made up of mischief-making footsoldiers in Operation Chaos, given that most are in central PA (this election, we are all Michael Barone).

I wouldn't count Obama out in PA. This seven-week hiatus in primaries has not been kind to her, and it's just half over. He's campaigning hard, and he's good at it.

Then again, Hillary is well positioned in Kentucky and Indiana the week after (I think), so she may charge ahead and hope for another disaster like the Rev Wright and the Altoona Massacre.

Donna Brazile as "consultant" and Howard Dean as Head of the DNC as Laurie has now posted several times, most of her info.from a recent C-Span report. And much of it just NOW starting to get out. OBAMA KNEW that FL & MI were not going to be a threat to him because the party honchos apparently all got together & said NO revotes or recounts in FL & MI. (*) It will be interesting to see how the honchos who decided this (behind closed doors, of course) who are also Congressional Reps in FL & MI -- fare next November. There is a lot of anger among Floridians & Michiganders over this issue. (**) When the people starting speaking up & asking for revotes in these states, especially MICHIGAN, Obama's lawyers were out there SO FAST fighting it, your head would spin.

To my mind, Obama is NOW the Anti-Democracy Candidate. He only wants those votes to count which favor him. Truly, a stance which some people (especially on here & in the MassBiasedMainBiasedStreamMedi­a) actually have the nerve to ascribe to the (dark, nefarious, oh so powerful) Clintons.

Irony abounds. "L."

(*) Of course, the full & conclusive proof of this will all come out AFTER the election, as if so often does.

(**) there is a fine poster from FLA. whom I've exchanged posts with on this issue. He is an Independent voter there & he is as furious as the disenfranchised DEM. primary voters there are. Can't think of his name right now, darn it.

Obama has got some dirty hands in this whole thing, some very VERY serious dirt on his hands.

I have told these Obama-maniac thugs time and again that they do NOT have the right to dictate to us, or anyone else, how to vote. And I will NOT be called a disloyal Democrat, either, not by any one of them, after my lifelong loyalty to and work on behalf of, MY party by a bunch of 30-something Johnny Come Latelies who are so excited by their first or second vote -- EVER. (Should I decide to write in Hillary's name)

Eff that. They need to tone it down & to frankly, SHUT the F UP. Lono in particular but Schmutzie too.

Isn't it supposedly (acc'g. to the BOTF Obama-maniac thugs and Julie K. Boomer) the Hillary supporters who are supposed to be 'shrill?" You might want to re-read your posts sometime, dude. I can hear you up here, all 1,000 miles of it. :-)

no candidate has a majority of delegates yet. let the process complete itself.

obama could screw up in a major way, and hillary end up looking like the savior (there IS a lot we don't know about obama, to be sure)

i'm kind of betting there's no skeleton in obama's closet, and he will win the nomination.

but we should let the process complete. will the superdelegates show their contempt for the voters, and install hillary as the nominee?

the american people need to see how the democratic party functions in its hour of darkness.

if they can't run their own internal processes rationally and fairly, should we trust them with the nation?

let the process work . ..

You're telling me to shut the eff up at the same time you accuse me of bullying.

You're unintentional comedy gold, do you know that?

There are very good reasons that Florida and Michigan were not allowed to move their primaries up so soon. Mainly because having two large states that far forward would have created an almost insurmountable lead for whomever had the lead going into the primaries. That would be Hillary.

The very reason we let smaller states go first is to let candidates get close to the people. It's hard to do that in a large state and therefore it is somewhat unfair to do that in a large state. It is unfair to do that to lesser known and poorly funded candidates. If you give the front-runners a huge number of delegates that early in the primary, the race is almost over before it has begun.

It wasn't just Obama who objected. It was all of the candidates except the front-runner going in which was Hillary. It was the Clinton machine that promoted the advancement of those dates on the Democratic side. Of course, there were Republicans who promoted it, too. Rudy wanted Florida moved up and Romney needed Michigan.

I give both parties credit for sticking to the formulae.

Obama objected to a Florida mail-in revote, but not to a regular revote. The Florida Democratic party decided not to hold another election. Pretty much the same in Michigan, although there was some complaining by Clinton supporters that Obama was obstructing the effort, I am aware of no evidence to support that claim. Perhaps you do.

As this process is mostly managed by the Democratic Party, no lawyers were necessary. I have a hard time imagining why the Obama camp would not want a revote. He would do better now than then.

To the bottom line - it will not matter. These states will be represented formally and in a reasonable and just manner.

that's the point. One way or another, this primary is getting more people involved simply because it is a heated contest.

I'm not so sure about Operation Chaos. Refresh my memory, which candidate are you guys surreptitiously supporting?

Hillary is good to go in Kentucky. I'm real curious about Indiana and would be surprised if she wins there, but it is still too soon to evaluate.

At some point we supported Obama. Currently, we're all behind Clinton. Mainly, we just want this thing to go all the way to San Juan, and bring out as much dirt on the winner, and as much resentment against the winner, as possible.

Not sure how effective we are, and how much is attributable to people just wanting to come out and participate in great political theater. The large number of GOP switchovers in Pennsylvania occurred very recently. When Operation Chaos was publicized. So, I'm thinking this is one of those rare exceptions when "tactical voting" really may have an effect.

I think most people (in Pennsylvania anyway), have switched their party affiliation strictly because they want to vote for Obama. They aren't going to switch back to McCain in the general, or they wouldn't have bothered switching in the first place.

Its been drilled into us for months now, how Hillary has a "double digit lead in Pa." and I think that was the big impetus and the only one for changing party affiliation. People don't go to that kind of trouble if their candidate of choice appears to be a lock, as Hillary supposedly was here.

I'm convinced of it. The reason registration increased: the Pennsylvania primary finally matters. The reason GOP voters have switched to Dem: the Pennsylvania primary finally matters, but only on the Dem side. If you want to participate, that's the only option. And it's been touted rather heavily, with a several week lead-up.

We shall see in the exit polls, if they break down switchovers.

What did you think of Obama's statement about a girl being "punished with a baby?" A great impromptu speaker, but he occasionally reveals his actual thoughts.

Laurie

Who made those ruled and when were they made?

I think I agree with you that the rule was unwise, and that the DNC was just trying to flex their muscled, but as near as I can tell, the Clintons were the most influential parties in the DNC at the time -- and so far as I have heard, voiced no objections to that rule.

If Hillary was so concerned about disenfranchising voters, why did she remain silent until after is was clear that she needed their delegates? If she was in a commanding lead now, do you think it would even be a question?

I hadn't heard about that, I just went and looked up the entire transcript (from Saturday, a town meeting speech when Obama was in Johnstown, Pa)

An unfortunate choice of words, obviously - because of the twisting potential (go for it, Laurieann). If you read the entire transcript, he was talking about teaching sexual abstinence and morals to children and teenagers, but he felt it was also important to teach them about contraception. He used his daughters as an example, that if at 16 one of them made a "mistake" he didn't want them "punished" for that "mistake" with a baby or with an std, because they weren't taught about contraception.

How he should've said it: sexual activity among teenagers can often lead to severe consequences (a baby, an std)

yes he should have said that, poor misunderstood wittle boy.

and starting contraception in kindergarten is a great age to start!

ok off the subject, this two faced baby is worshipped in indonesia film clip

Isn't that odd. I wonder how common that is. I wonder how long it will survive?

TheBell:

Hi, LaurieAnnM. You are quite right and the math does NOT show it is impossible for Clinton to win. However, it will require her to win a lot of the remaining primaries with much larger margins than she has done to date and/or to win a very substantial majority of the uncomitted superdelegates.

The problem with that is neither candidate has shown the ability to "blow away" the other so far in this campaign, whether they have momentum or otherwise. The most likely scenario is that they will more or less split the remaining pledged and superdelegates between them, which favors Obama.

"Most likely" is not the same thing as a certainty, however. This is just a very close race that is very evenly split. For Dems not to be hurt by the outcome in the fall, two things will have to happen. First, the losing candidate, whoever it is, must be allowed to bow out with as much dignity and grace as possible. Second, the Florida and Michigan delegations must be seated at the convention and if no way is found to assign delegates based on the results of their January primaries or re-votes, then every courtesy and effort must be made to make them feel part of the process.

The rest is just partisan posturing.

Thanks TheBell.a and precisely on target in how I think most of the head honchos inside the DNC who are currently involved in analyzing what the best possible outcome (not necessarily for the country) but for the DNC,itself.

Therein lies the current dilemna.

What may well be good for holding together the democratic party itself, may well be considered to be too much of a comprimise, if not an outright disenfranchisement, of the will of the people of particular states.

It is incumbant upon the party heads and the losing candidate to have a way to bow out gracefully...that much should be the easy part for the DNC to manage.

The more difficult one is; will Florida and Michigan accept a simple 50-50 split of their delegates between the two?, Or will they and many people in the rest of the country, still look at a 50-50 split as unfair, when people know the result was not 50-50, but in actuallity a win for Hillary Clinton?

That is the tricky one.

After what Florida went through in 2000 when the Federal USSC decided to accept Bush vs. Gore instead of leaving up to the Florida State courts to resolve I think that Florida, in particular, is going to have a difficult time accepting anything less than being fully enfranchised at the Convention.

They may well have no choice the way Dean is talking. Let's just hope this all does come out in the end with a good result.

Thanks very much for yourt input here and the uprate.

Appreciate it.