A local t.v. reporter told me in person that this state (NM) has a long history of stuffing ballot boxes. In 2004, NM was last or next to last to certify it's election, and the lead of Bush 43 went from 40k to around 15k...the thinking was that there was too big of a lead to "stuff the ballot boxes" to overcome for Kerry.

I'm just saying..

Kerry's a big stuffed shirt.....he should have been able to take it.

"Kerry's a big stuffed shirt.....he should have been able to take it."

Yes, by all means, let's fight that battle again.

Now on topic. Anybody know how the NM delegate count would shake out either way? Does it really matter who ends up winning by a slim margin, other than for bragging rights?

You are right San-

It does not matter in a proportional primary.

Its all about the delegate count. Interestingly though the delegates themselves apparently can change who they vote for. So I am not even sure how much that comes into play in the end.

I don't think it matters other than bragging rights as the big lesson here is that it is an AMAZINGLY tight race and the Obama Surge is REAL (unlike that other Surge).

AlGore won New Mexico by 400 votes in 2000,. Did Bush demand a recount? No.
AlGore lost Florida by 65,000 votes in 2000. Did he demand a recount? No, he demanded 6 of them.

They are probably being watched to close by pole watchers to change the program key cards back to normal cards. And stash the Hillary and McCain key cards.
That's probably why it's taking so long.

"AlGore won New Mexico by 400 votes in 2000,. Did Bush demand a recount? No.
AlGore lost Florida by 65,000 votes in 2000. Did he demand a recount? No, he demanded 6 of them."

George Bush was declared the winner in 2000, why would he demand a recount???? What difference about NM.
Al Gore was not declared the winner in 2000, generally winners don't demand recounts.

But nice attempt at making a point though. It almost had some sort of relevance to something but I don't know what.

Did anyone happen to catch Tad Devine on "The Colbert Report" last night? He is a political consultant who worked on Gore's 2000 and Kerry's 2004 campaigns. He did a great job on the show of differentiating between how the Dem and GOP delegates get meted out to the candidates. If I were a Dem, regardless of who I supported in this tight race, I'd be concerned about the amount of filtering and backroom shenanigans involved in the Dem delegate process.

Porportional representation is certainly a defensible process (whereby delgates get assigned based on percentage of vote), and allows candidates to stay in the race, especially if it causes a close tie to develop as it has done in the recent primaries.

But then Devine goes on to talk about the 800 or so super delegates -- out of 2025 total required to get the nomination -- who are not bound by the local votes, and who can throw their votes to whomever they choose -- or to whomever they are told to. PLUS, he discussed how the local non-super delegates can be effectively "reassigned" as they are first elected in precinct caucuses, and then vote for county delegates, who then vote for congressional district delegates, who then are the ones who go to the convention and cast (some) vote based on (some) criteria which is by now likely disjoint from the original intent of the voters and more likely will align with the Dem machine that put that delegate there. And people have the gall to whine about the validity of the Consitutionally-defined Electoral College process?

If I am a Dem voter then my primary votes mean nothing. Is there any chance some of the free-radical outrage on the left will be applied to these shenanigans by their own Boss Tweed party leaders? Is Fat Ted's high-profile endorsement of Obama a hint that the fix is already in?

I'm curious to hear from Dems on here... does this process sound right to you? And please avoid a tirade about how the GOP Winner-Take-All process is typical Repug testosterone, etc.. I am honestly wondering what opinion you have.

"George Bush was declared the winner in 2000, why would he demand a recount???? What difference about NM.
Al Gore was not declared the winner in 2000, generally winners don't demand recounts."

My recollection is that the GOP had identified 3 or 4 states where they believed voter fraud had occurred in favor of Gore -- NM was one of them, I think Wisconsin was another -- and if Gore's recount efforts had succeeded in overturning FL, then Bush was ready to pull the trigger on a recount request in one or more of those states. Since Gore's requested recounts (not sure if it was 6) did not change the outcome, the GOP recount request did not get submitted. I may be wrong on this, but it is what I think happened.

"AlGore lost Florida by 65,000 votes in 2000. Did he demand a recount? No, he demanded 6."

By no stretch of the imagination did Gore lose Florida. It took Jeb and Ms. Harris mishandling the voting machinery, a badly skewed Republican court, Jews for Buchanan, hanging chads and disenfranchised blacks. Yes, LET'S play that again. And again and again. herm

"AlGore lost Florida by 65,000 votes in 2000. Did he demand a recount? No, he demanded 6."

By no stretch of the imagination did Gore lose Florida. It took Jeb and Ms. Harris mishandling the voting machinery, a badly skewed Republican court, Jews for Buchanan, hanging chads and disenfranchised blacks. Yes, LET'S play that again. And again and again. herm

I think we could program it so we don't double-post. herm

"But then Devine goes on to talk about the 800 or so super delegates -- out of 2025 total required to get the nomination -- who are not bound by the local votes, and who can throw their votes to whomever they choose"

I heard Randy Rhoads (not sure how to spell her name) talking about this last night. She said that Democrats do not trust their own voters to make the right decisions, so they hold Super Delagates to make it for them. I'm sitting there thinking "isn't that how the dems view America, not just their own voters? The belief behind socialism is that government can make better decisions for it's citizens live's than the individual can." AKA the nanny nation.

It isn't vote fraud if a Democrat does it.
Just look at the Washington state governorship.

Voter fraud for a Democrat is merely correcting the errors of the stupid poles.

See, Hillary and her "every illegal immigrant should have a driver's license" position.

AlGore lost Florida by 65,000 votes in 2000. Did he demand a recount? No, he demanded 6 of them.

POSTED BY SHIRTSBYERIC

Al Gore "lost" Florida by 500 votes. Original count was 1500 votes.
Rewriting history as usual.