Guide to Arcane Democratic Party Caucus Rules

After the number of eligible caucus attendees has been determined, the viabilitythreshold is calculated based on the number of delegates the caucus is to elect.

Note: When calculating viability, always round UP to the next whole number.a. In caucuses that elect two

(2) delegates, preference groups must contain atleast 25% of the caucus attendees in order to be viable. This can becalculated by using the following formula:Number of Eligible Caucus Attendees x 0.25 = Viability Thresholdb. In caucuses that elect three

(3) delegates, the total caucus attendees shouldbe divided by six (6) to determine the viability threshold. This can becalculated by using the following formula:Number of Eligible Caucus Attendees ÷ 6 = Viability Thresholdc. In caucuses that elect four

(4) or more delegates, preference groups mustcontain at least 15% of the caucus attendees in order to be viable. This canbe calculated by using the following formula:Number of Eligible Caucus Attendees x 0.15 = Viability Threshold15)Once the viability threshold has been determined, the Chair will announce thatnumber to the caucus.Note: The viability threshold remains unchanged throughout the course of thecaucus, even if attendees leave before delegates are awarded.

As you say, Lindsay Graham has been a very avid Bush soldier on every vote.

To date, she and her staff have been so far removed from the “savvy” that her supporters keep touting, that it’s frightening to think about her as the nominee, to me. John Edward is so much more aware of political realities that it’s laughable to compare them.

Back in 2006, when she lent herself and the dignity of her office as one of NY’s Senators, to FoxNews’ 10th anniversary birthday bash, she knew exactly what she was doing.

When she supported Joe Lieberman against a good antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont, in the Connecticut primary, she knew exactly what she was doing.

When she voted to support the republican bill to make flagburning a federal crime, she knew who she was getting into bed with.

As she supported bush’s “surge” to send more of our troops into what amounts to the world’s largest-ever hostage situation, she and her people HAD to have discussed what that meant.

When she voted for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, there was no ambiguity about that; she was voting to give bush ANOTHER blank check for another war, in which to enfold the first fuck-up.

Unlike Edwards, she has never apologized for her authorizing vote in 2002. That means one of two things:

She is so stupid that she believes that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will turn out to be “good” for us and for the Iraqis and the region, and so stupid that she doesn’t understand the realities of what bush (with her help) has created in Iraq.

Or, she’s so afraid of admitting just HOW wrong she was, now that a million people have died, and with the meter running at that $3 billion a week, AND COUNTING, that she thinks it will ruin her if she cops to the reality of what she helped gin up.

In that last one, she’s right: It’s now too late for a real mea-culpa. If she does it under the pressure of a loss in Iowa, and then starts to try to correct the huge mistake of selling out the progressive wing of the democratic party, by moving back to the left, the same progressives who have been hammering her in the straw votes on progressive blogs, will surely scorn her for the political chameleon which she is.

Three groups of voters are going to decide this election:

moderate republicans.

Independents.

and conservative democrats.

There are enough people in all three categories who are honest enough to admit what a disaster bush’s presidency has been, and who are angry enough about it, to vote for a democrat in huge numbers.

But not if her name is Hillary Clinton. If we nominate her, the built-in advantage that we have in this election will evaporate, as the MSM helps the GOP make Hillary the issue, instead of Iraq, or the economy, or immigration, or whatever. It will be all Hillary; all the time, and the center of the country will largely join the right, to vote against her; and the possibility of a democratic win of historic proportions will gang a’gleying.

If she had stuck with the people who are her natural constituents, and if she had had the courage to name bush’s miserable war for what it is, then I would have supported her with the same joy and enthusiasm which I felt when she was elected to the senate.

I, personally, have never felt more betrayed by a politician in all the years I’ve been a liberal democrat. If we don’t vote to send her back to the Senate where she belongs, she will be a disaster for us. I think the republicans will keep the white house, retake the Senate, and probably, retake the house.

If that happens, it will be the 8 ball in the side pocket, and this corporate 4th Reich that we progressives have been fighting against will be permenantly enshrined as “the amurkan dream”. They will use their media, their lobbyists, and their money, to win elections, to pass legislation, and to select judges who will sustain and codify their agenda.

It’s simple: one of the political parties is going to come out of this election mortally wounded. If we nominate Hillary Clinton, it will very likely be ours.

I sense MSM has been looking for more to augment the $400 haircut meme.

Isn’t it great we’ve got a candidate they can’t hardly lay a glove on!

Boumediene/Al-Odah v. Bush

very happy.

What Graham is really thinking, is that Romney or horrors Rudy 912 would much much rather take on HRC in the general because she is the poster child boggey girl of all time for Rethugs.

Just heard Vilsack on a radio interview. When asked why he’s supporting Clinton, the first thing he says is (paraphrase) “I was just talking to Lindsay Graham, and he talked about how nice it was working with Hillary on a bill they worked on together, so she can reach across the aisle….blah blah blah.”

really says a lot