Obama and Michigan

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.

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]

The fact is, had Obama’s name been on that ballot, Clinton would not be leading the popular vote.

Michigan and Florida fucked there voters. They snubbed the DNC and Iowa. Clinton was WRONG to put her name on the ballot in the first place.

Look, I don’t like either of them, but calling Obama undemocratic for living up to a contracted agreement he signed is ridiculous.

22

Come on, how partisan do you have to be to pretend you believe this nonsense about disenfranchisement and so forth with respect to Michigan and Florida?

Credibility? Zero.

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.

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]

For all the complaining from the Obama camp in the last few months about how Hillary was trying to game the system and steal the nomination using powerful party insiders, it is Obama who really did just that. And he spun it so his worshippers think Hillary is the bad guy. Very astute politician indeed.

Anyone who thinks he is going to bring about positive change and be a uniter is a tool. So far to me, he comes across as an empty vessel. His true skill is the ability to reflect back people�??s hopes and aspirations and pretend to be what they want him to be.

24

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.

Yeah, again, it has nothing to do with the party.
[/quote]

Please expound. How do you conclude the Democratic primary has nothing to do with the Democrats?

25

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Bullshit. Clinton wants all the votes and she has been very clear about this.

This has everything to do with the Democratic Party. They are the ones discounting the votes, not the state legislatures.

26

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.

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?

The fact is, had Obama’s name been on that ballot, Clinton would not be leading the popular vote.

Michigan and Florida fucked there voters. They snubbed the DNC and Iowa. Clinton was WRONG to put her name on the ballot in the first place.

Look, I don’t like either of them, but calling Obama undemocratic for living up to a contracted agreement he signed is ridiculous. [/quote]

Clinton was wrong to put her name on the ballot? Clinton was wrong to actually care about the will of the voters instead of the Democratic Party? What the hell is wrong with you people?

You are happy to disenfranchise entire states because they do not want to follow the whims of the Democratic Party!

27

[quote]vroom wrote:
Come on, how partisan do you have to be to pretend you believe this nonsense about disenfranchisement and so forth with respect to Michigan and Florida?

Credibility? Zero.[/quote]

Their votes are not being counted! This is a fucking travesty.

30

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Come on, how partisan do you have to be to pretend you believe this nonsense about disenfranchisement and so forth with respect to Michigan and Florida?

Credibility? Zero.

Their votes are not being counted! This is a fucking travesty.

No…it’s only a travesty when retards in Florida cannot understand a simple ballot thus making their votes not count.[/quote]

gotcha.

31

[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.

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?

For all the complaining from the Obama camp in the last few months about how Hillary was trying to game the system and steal the nomination using powerful party insiders, it is Obama who really did just that. And he spun it so his worshippers think Hillary is the bad guy. Very astute politician indeed.

Anyone who thinks he is going to bring about positive change and be a uniter is a tool. So far to me, he comes across as an empty vessel. His true skill is the ability to reflect back people�??s hopes and aspirations and pretend to be what they want him to be.

[/quote]

Again, state legislators voted for by the citizens of the respective states, made those decisions. Obama followed the rules as spelled out by the party (Which are also “voted” for).

Clinton supporters voted for punishing the states by removing their delegates. Clinton said “those states don’t matter”. Then Clinton said it will be over in Feb. That didn’t happen. So what Clinton then was counting on is making those states matter (will of the people!), in addition to getting superdelegates and pledged to override the will of the people (Screw the will of the people!)

So I’m not sure if you’re post is an exercise in ironic writing, but if not, you don’t seem to know what the hell you’re talking about.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.

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?

The fact is, had Obama’s name been on that ballot, Clinton would not be leading the popular vote.

Michigan and Florida fucked there voters. They snubbed the DNC and Iowa. Clinton was WRONG to put her name on the ballot in the first place.

Look, I don’t like either of them, but calling Obama undemocratic for living up to a contracted agreement he signed is ridiculous.

Clinton was wrong to put her name on the ballot? Clinton was wrong to actually care about the will of the voters instead of the Democratic Party? What the hell is wrong with you people?

You are happy to disenfranchise entire states because they do not want to follow the whims of the Democratic Party!

[/quote]

Probably wrong to say “Those votes don’t matter” after her surrogates (even Ickes!) agreed that Michigan’s delegates wouldn’t count.

She agreed to “disenfranchise” those voter.

You can now stop pretending to care.

33

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.

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?

The fact is, had Obama’s name been on that ballot, Clinton would not be leading the popular vote.

Michigan and Florida fucked there voters. They snubbed the DNC and Iowa. Clinton was WRONG to put her name on the ballot in the first place.

Look, I don’t like either of them, but calling Obama undemocratic for living up to a contracted agreement he signed is ridiculous.

Clinton was wrong to put her name on the ballot? Clinton was wrong to actually care about the will of the voters instead of the Democratic Party? What the hell is wrong with you people?

You are happy to disenfranchise entire states because they do not want to follow the whims of the Democratic Party!

Probably wrong to say “Those votes don’t matter” after her surrogates (even Ickes!) agreed that Michigan’s delegates wouldn’t count.

She agreed to “disenfranchise” those voter.

You can now stop pretending to care.[/quote]

Saying “those votes don’t matter” is not disenfranchising. It was her belief that the race wouldn’t be close.

My vote doesn’t matter unless it is the deciding vote but it should be counted anyway.

34

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Clinton was wrong to put her name on the ballot? Clinton was wrong to actually care about the will of the voters instead of the Democratic Party? What the hell is wrong with you people?

You are happy to disenfranchise entire states because they do not want to follow the whims of the Democratic Party!

[/quote]

Then why’d she sign the agreement banning them out? Why didn’t she campaign for them then? Why is it now, when she’s desperate for votes, that she goes against her previous signed agreement to not count them?

I’m for a revote, personally. But Clinton is not in the right here.

35

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Bullshit. Clinton wants all the votes and she has been very clear about this.

This has everything to do with the Democratic Party. They are the ones discounting the votes, not the state legislatures.
[/quote]

Zap,

You realize that the DNC is a private organization, right? They can do whatever the hell they want. Don’t get me wrong, the irony of the Democratic Party not counting votes does not escape me, but then I am biased against Clinton so I can overlook that. I guess one absorbs political expediency by osmosis when living in DC.

I almost feel guilty admitting that I would have joined in protest with the rest of the country if Obama had the popular vote yet was denied the nomination. Then again, nobody will protest for Clinton, so who gives shit?

Edit: By nobody I mean we won’t see anything big happening in the street with Clinton.

36

Scratch that. I do feel slightly bad for posting that, but it’s the truth.

37

I still don’t get why Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up, despite being told not to… makes little sense to me.

38

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wow Zap. This is low for you. The spin and bias here is actually laughable.

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?

The fact is, had Obama’s name been on that ballot, Clinton would not be leading the popular vote.

Michigan and Florida fucked there voters. They snubbed the DNC and Iowa. Clinton was WRONG to put her name on the ballot in the first place.

Look, I don’t like either of them, but calling Obama undemocratic for living up to a contracted agreement he signed is ridiculous.

Clinton was wrong to put her name on the ballot? Clinton was wrong to actually care about the will of the voters instead of the Democratic Party? What the hell is wrong with you people?

You are happy to disenfranchise entire states because they do not want to follow the whims of the Democratic Party!

Probably wrong to say “Those votes don’t matter” after her surrogates (even Ickes!) agreed that Michigan’s delegates wouldn’t count.

She agreed to “disenfranchise” those voter.

You can now stop pretending to care.

Saying “those votes don’t matter” is not disenfranchising. It was her belief that the race wouldn’t be close.

My vote doesn’t matter unless it is the deciding vote but it should be counted anyway.[/quote]

Her supporters VOTED to punish them by removing their delegates.

39

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I still don’t get why Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up, despite being told not to… makes little sense to me.[/quote]

To steal Iowa’s wind, of course.

40

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Bullshit. Clinton wants all the votes and she has been very clear about this.

This has everything to do with the Democratic Party. They are the ones discounting the votes, not the state legislatures.

Zap,

You realize that the DNC is a private organization, right? They can do whatever the hell they want. Don’t get me wrong, the irony of the Democratic Party not counting votes does not escape me, but then I am biased against Clinton so I can overlook that. I guess one absorbs political expediency by osmosis when living in DC.

I almost feel guilty admitting that I would have joined in protest with the rest of the country if Obama had the popular vote yet was denied the nomination. Then again, nobody will protest for Clinton, so who gives shit?

Edit: By nobody I mean we won’t see anything big happening in the street with Clinton. [/quote]

I realize this but it makes them very hypocritical considering the 2000 election. You would think the would go out of their way to make sure every vote is counted.