They broke the law down in TX.
please stop posting it. of course now that I asked I'm sure you will again.
Gosh, Alegre, what's wrong with Carrie Underwood? Or just not an Eagles fan?
stop.
This is just spamming and hijacking.
Progressive Blue
Exactly!!! It's just a coincidence that "all this crap" was so widespread, and similar in nature.
There should be an investigation - "rules are rules".
Wow, remind me what happened in the 90s and apply your own logic to that situation.
Hurts doesn't it?
Ok you need it explained to you.
Clinton's Campaign was incompetent and outclassed at every level. They admitted they did not even know the rules to the Texas Primary. Since they were so clueless and incompetent, they were incapable of training supporters in the Caucus process. The Obama camp was holding classes on how to conduct themselves and how the process worked. These things were both reported on prior to the Texas Primary.
On the Primary day, the news organizations had a number of people, that supported both Obama and Clinton on TV complaining about the Caucuses. The thing was all these people complaining admitted they had never been to a caucus before. They did not understand the process. And felt intimidated, and excluded. This is fairly typical of all the caucuses, even more so this year when we had record turnout, and record first time turnout of people that did not understand the process. It was more pronounced on the Clinton side because her base of support, has been less educated, and less informed, compounded by the disorganization and incompetence of the national campaign.
I know people want to blame the other side. But this notion of an organized criminal attack is absurd. People had problems with the process because they did not understand it, and because of their lack of understanding they felt intimidated and that the process was being taken advantage of by those who did understand it. Some people really like to be the victim, and this idea that the whole world is against them must be comforting for them. I do not think the Texas law enforcement, or related agencies as well as all the media outlets have an Obama bias. When a Clinton supporter contradicts you they are a Judas, when a right wing person does it they are trying to steal the election for the weaker candidate, when an Obama supporter does it they are a cultists. I am going to be really amused with the logic you are going to come up with how Hillary Clinton is betraying Hillary Clinton when she supports the Democratic Nominee. Or are you holding out hope that she splits the party like the Taft/Teddy Roosevelt split did to the Republicans, resulting in the election of Wilson.
question about whether or not he was being snarky. Then alegre wouldn't have trollrated me.
I think you've just birthed a new message board meme.
They broke the rules when they erased your bad troll ratings.
Your turn.
are they flying you to NYC for Hill's concession?
The deal the Clinton campaign is giving staff is either a ticket to NY or a ticket home. So if they go to NY, they have to pay for their return ticket.
Source: Andrea Mitchell, tonight.
They couldn't even get her into the RBC meeting, I doubt they will be hit up for airfare. Methinks Sen. Clinton doesn't need to be embarassed. I am hoping her concession involves grace and dignity, which I am assuming it will.
Where's the donation link you put on diary?
Is this a sign of the end?
and the caucus v primary results, which show that Clinton & Obama are very close in primaries, only reinforce the role of the obama supporters tactics in caucuses.
SD and MT primaries should confirm the difficulty with teh caucus system where these abuses can occur, as the margin being close.
Absolutely. I noticed that all traces of the "40 buses w. 20 people each" story seem to have vanished from popular consciousness. In early March, there was a lot more buzz about how Obama was sending volunteers from Illinois not only to help GoTV in caucus states, but to actually participate in the caucuses.
It seems several of these incidents are now hardcoded as documented by the Texas affidavits. It's not like we even need direct evidence at this point because we have so much circumstantial (which just as easily provides the basis of murder convictions).
When you have 30+% swings in primaries versus caucuses in the same state (Nebraska, Idaho, Washington, and the 18% swing in Texas), you know something is fundamentally wrong. 0-4% would be reasonable. 5% or over raises eyebrows. 10% is on its face, bizarre. 20% is presumptive wrongdoing. 30% is unambiguous fraud.
The beauty of this is the documenting of how the presence of safeguards and Hillary's legal team in the caucuses maintained results in near perfect alignment with the popular vote. Where there was no oversight, we had Chicagoans pretending to be Texans and writing "Obama" in blank spaces.
Without a doubt, this phenomenon isn't limited to Texas. This is every caucus having bizarre margins, which means every caucus aside from Nevada.
You don't even live here. No, I'm sorry, let me say that in a different way.
YOU DON'T EVEN LIVE HERE!
I'm so tired of your diaries trashing Texas based on hearsay. No, a blogger's reputation is not deemed as evidence. We have a process to address alleged abuse. Someone in the precinct or the SD files a challenge and it is heard by the state credentials committee, which is completely balanced in terms of partiality towards Obama and Clinton. There is a deadline to file a challenge. If they didn't file the challenge by the deadline, then it's not admissible. Period. And even if they alleged abuse happened, no laws were broken. Court precedence clearly indicates that political parties settle their own disputes within their own rules of governance.
Don't go confusing alegre with facts.
No alegre you are wrong again.
They are alleged to have broken the law in Texas.
And you and the Clinton Campaign have no credibility when talking about Michigan and Florida and disenfranchisement.
Your doing a worse job of copy/pasting McCain emails than you used to do with Clinton emails. Is he not paying you enough?
The Democratically elected candidate will not happen until Colorado - in August. That is when the Super Delegates actually get to vote on their preferences. Until then, their endorsements continue to be preferences, but not actual votes. Those actual votes happen in Colorado in August.
Between now and then, all of the super delegates can change their minds.
If you are truly a Democrat, you would be wise to let this process run it's course.
To declare a winner before the convention, shoving it down our throats, before all the votes have been counted, is highly un-Democratic.
Can you enlighten us to the last time this scenario played out, and the outcome for the GE?
