Why did he pull his name off the ballot? Was he afraid he was going to lose?
Seems poorly thought out.
He did what the party wanted him to do. Michigan was supposed to be getting punished for moving their primary up to far, and the National Party recommended that everyone remove their names. Surprisingly, Hillary didn’t do that, and so now I guess she’s getting rewarded with some fraction of the supposedly unseated delegates. I guess if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying, right?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did he pull his name off the ballot? Was he afraid he was going to lose?
Seems poorly thought out.[/quote]
[photo]13915[/photo]
Yea, Michigan was supposed to be disqualified for holding their primary at an unauthorized time. They did it to themselves.
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.[/quote]
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.
[quote]etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.[/quote]
Why would he expect her to pull her name off the ballot? Don’t the people of Michigan have a right to vote?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.[/quote]
This author took it as a snub to the state of Michigan. There was actually a big hubub over them changing their primary date in order to make their state more important to the process. The DNC was very unhappy about it, I guess I can see how it is a slip to take sides with the DNC over the Michigan voters though.
Michigan is an almost guaranteed state for the democrats. It was a mistake to snub the voters. To the people who are old enough to remember former Detroit mayor Coleman Young Reverrand Wright is a bad flashback to two decades of race baiting between Detroit and it’s white suburbs.
There are six hundred thousand blacks in the city of Detroit, but there are four million in the Detroit metropolitan area and they are mostly white.
Because it is a solid democrat state with a population of ten million, it would be a huge blow to Obama to lose Michigan to McCain.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did he pull his name off the ballot? Was he afraid he was going to lose?
Seems poorly thought out.[/quote]
The tactic I presume was to remove his name from the ballot in respect to Iowa voters… In that regard, his strategy worked like gangbusters, eventually ensuring him the nomination to be president of the united states.
You do realize that a black man in the senate for 3 years is defeating the most powerful brand in the democratic party right?
Hard to say anything he’s done so far has been poorly thought out.
(campaign strategy speaking)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.
Why would he expect her to pull her name off the ballot? Don’t the people of Michigan have a right to vote?[/quote]
They have half a vote. Kind of like when blacks used to be counted as 3/5 a person. Democrats progressing 200 years in reverse.
Actually not even half a vote as Obama was given a bunch of delegates that he didn’t earn through the voting process.
[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.
Why would he expect her to pull her name off the ballot? Don’t the people of Michigan have a right to vote?
They have half a vote. Kind of like when blacks used to be counted as 3/5 a person. Democrats progressing 200 years in reverse.
[/quote]
Really should be a critique of the stupidity of Michigan’s state legislature, but oddly you criticized “Democrats” when the DNC simply enforced well known rules after countless warnings.
Obviously you don’t follow this non-logic (person deliberately breaking rules is the victim) in your life outside this forum, but for laughs you tried it here. Strange.
[quote]100meters wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.
Why would he expect her to pull her name off the ballot? Don’t the people of Michigan have a right to vote?
They have half a vote. Kind of like when blacks used to be counted as 3/5 a person. Democrats progressing 200 years in reverse.
Really should be a critique of the stupidity of Michigan’s state legislature, but oddly you criticized “Democrats” when the DNC simply enforced well known rules after countless warnings.
Obviously you don’t follow this non-logic (person deliberately breaking rules is the victim) in your life outside this forum, but for laughs you tried it here. Strange.
[/quote]
For the party that has been screaming about voter fraud and people being disenfranchised since 2000 to pull this just looks bad. Shows them as hypocrites. Millions of people are disenfranchised through no fault of their own. Good call Democrats.
They should have just had a re-vote. With the proportional way Democrats allocate delegates it would be unlikely to change anything anyway. When the silly rules were made nobody thought it would be a close race at this point. To say they can�??t have a re-vote is just a cop out.
I don�??t hear Obama supporters screaming about how unfair it is he used his fanatical followers to game the caucus system.
[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
100meters wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.
Why would he expect her to pull her name off the ballot? Don’t the people of Michigan have a right to vote?
They have half a vote. Kind of like when blacks used to be counted as 3/5 a person. Democrats progressing 200 years in reverse.
Really should be a critique of the stupidity of Michigan’s state legislature, but oddly you criticized “Democrats” when the DNC simply enforced well known rules after countless warnings.
Obviously you don’t follow this non-logic (person deliberately breaking rules is the victim) in your life outside this forum, but for laughs you tried it here. Strange.
For the party that has been screaming about voter fraud and people being disenfranchised since 2000 to pull this just looks bad. Shows them as hypocrites. Millions of people are disenfranchised through no fault of their own. Good call Democrats.
They should have just had a re-vote. With the proportional way Democrats allocate delegates it would be unlikely to change anything anyway. When the silly rules were made nobody thought it would be a close race at this point. To say they canâ¿¿t have a re-vote is just a cop out.
I donâ¿¿t hear Obama supporters screaming about how unfair it is he used his fanatical followers to game the caucus system. [/quote]
Exactly my thoughts. They are putting the will of the party above th ewill of the voters. Not a smart move and it will be used against them for years to come.
[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
100meters wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.
Why would he expect her to pull her name off the ballot? Don’t the people of Michigan have a right to vote?
They have half a vote. Kind of like when blacks used to be counted as 3/5 a person. Democrats progressing 200 years in reverse.
Really should be a critique of the stupidity of Michigan’s state legislature, but oddly you criticized “Democrats” when the DNC simply enforced well known rules after countless warnings.
Obviously you don’t follow this non-logic (person deliberately breaking rules is the victim) in your life outside this forum, but for laughs you tried it here. Strange.
For the party that has been screaming about voter fraud and people being disenfranchised since 2000 to pull this just looks bad. Shows them as hypocrites. Millions of people are disenfranchised through no fault of their own. Good call Democrats.
They should have just had a re-vote. With the proportional way Democrats allocate delegates it would be unlikely to change anything anyway. When the silly rules were made nobody thought it would be a close race at this point. To say they can�??t have a re-vote is just a cop out.
I don�??t hear Obama supporters screaming about how unfair it is he used his fanatical followers to game the caucus system. [/quote]
Whoops, you keep making errors in your attempt to smear the democratic party. The State Legislatures voted against the revote. Not the DNC. So again the voters of those states know who to blame…their incredibly stupid state legislators. Oh well…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
100meters wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Seems like a tactical mistake, as if he did it to spite the people that were going to vote.
It wouldn’t have been an issue if Hillary had followed the rules rather than paying lipservice to them. I have no respect for the way she has handled this, no that most politicians wouldn’t do the same.
Why would he expect her to pull her name off the ballot? Don’t the people of Michigan have a right to vote?
They have half a vote. Kind of like when blacks used to be counted as 3/5 a person. Democrats progressing 200 years in reverse.
Really should be a critique of the stupidity of Michigan’s state legislature, but oddly you criticized “Democrats” when the DNC simply enforced well known rules after countless warnings.
Obviously you don’t follow this non-logic (person deliberately breaking rules is the victim) in your life outside this forum, but for laughs you tried it here. Strange.
For the party that has been screaming about voter fraud and people being disenfranchised since 2000 to pull this just looks bad. Shows them as hypocrites. Millions of people are disenfranchised through no fault of their own. Good call Democrats.
They should have just had a re-vote. With the proportional way Democrats allocate delegates it would be unlikely to change anything anyway. When the silly rules were made nobody thought it would be a close race at this point. To say they canâ¿¿t have a re-vote is just a cop out.
I donâ¿¿t hear Obama supporters screaming about how unfair it is he used his fanatical followers to game the caucus system.
Exactly my thoughts. They are putting the will of the party above th ewill of the voters. Not a smart move and it will be used against them for years to come.[/quote]
Yeah, again, it has nothing to do with the party.
Nice spin but total BS.
Here is a piece for you to read. It is off a Democrat leaning site so it must be true. I only skimmed it cause really I don�??t give a fuck. It was all political maneuvering from the beginning to the end.
This is one interesting quote.
“The national party had tried – before New Hampshire’s case wound up on its docket – to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee “has the power to waive the rules for any state,” explaining that “these rules can be changed only by the full DNC.” Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.”
Sorry but this mess makes the Democrats look like idiots.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
Exactly my thoughts. They are putting the will of the party above th ewill of the voters. Not a smart move and it will be used against them for years to come.
Yeah, again, it has nothing to do with the party.
[/quote]
How can you say such a thing? The party can easily count their votes. It is the party that wants to treat them as a fraction of a person, not the state legislature.
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.
[/quote]
Are you posting this in the wrong thread? As per the numbers just flashing on MSNBC Hillary leads Obama in the popular vote but Obama apparently will clinch the nomination based on super-delegates.
Don’t you see a massive problem with this?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
Exactly my thoughts. They are putting the will of the party above th ewill of the voters. Not a smart move and it will be used against them for years to come.
Yeah, again, it has nothing to do with the party.
How can you say such a thing? The party can easily count their votes. It is the party that wants to treat them as a fraction of a person, not the state legislature.[/quote]
It was Clinton and Obama surrogates that agreed on the half votes as a punishment for breaking the rules. State legislatures stupidly broke them. After being warned, over, and over, and over, and over again. Then state legislators voted against revotes. It has nothing to do with the Party for the love of God.