Obama and Michigan

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.

Her supporters VOTED to punish them by removing their delegates.
[/quote]

You still don’t get it do you? You are putting a few party elite over the will of the voters.

42

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

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.[/quote]

In 2000 we were dealing with fraud, this is just politicians and bureaucrats doing what they do best (or worst)…

To me, this is an issue of dealing with possibly outdated systems like the electoral college, which I still haven’t been completely convinced should be abolished. I kind of like the idea of the candidates being forced to sell themselves outside major metropolitan areas.

43

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

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.

In 2000 we were dealing with fraud, this is just politicians and bureaucrats doing what they do best (or worst)…

To me, this is an issue of dealing with possibly outdated systems like the electoral college, which I still haven’t been completely convinced should be abolished. I kind of like the idea of the candidates being forced to sell themselves outside major metropolitan areas.[/quote]

Fraud? They were dealing with a poorly designed paper ballot that the old people couldn’t handle. And it was the local Democrats that designed that ballot!

They then tried to get selective recounts in strong Democratic districts, disallowing military mail in ballots and other nonsense.

Then they griped about the Electoral College, which I think was a wise thing created by our founding fathers.

44

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

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.

In 2000 we were dealing with fraud, this is just politicians and bureaucrats doing what they do best (or worst)…

To me, this is an issue of dealing with possibly outdated systems like the electoral college, which I still haven’t been completely convinced should be abolished. I kind of like the idea of the candidates being forced to sell themselves outside major metropolitan areas.

Fraud? They were dealing with a poorly designed paper ballot that the old people couldn’t handle. And it was the local Democrats that designed that ballot!

They then tried to get selective recounts in strong Democratic districts, disallowing military mail in ballots and other nonsense.

Then they griped about the Electoral College, which I think was a wise thing created by our founding fathers.[/quote]

Fraud refers to the Diebold machines in FL.

The problem NOW is that votes aren’t being counted because Michigan and Florida broke the rules of a private club. The problems in 2000, 2004, and the problem of individual votes not being equal under the electoral college far eclipses this internal tiff within the DNC. This issue is relatively insignificant.

45

[quote]beebuddy wrote:

Fraud refers to the Diebold machines in FL.
[/quote]

Not this conspiracy nonsense.

[quote]

The problem NOW is that votes aren’t being counted because Michigan and Florida broke the rules of a private club. The problems in 2000, 2004, and the problem of individual votes not being equal under the electoral college far eclipses this internal tiff within the DNC. This issue is relatively insignificant. [/quote]

I am a member of this private club and the issue is not insignificant.

The Florida votes were counted but the Democrats wanted them to reassign the Pat Buchanan votes and damaged ballots to Al Gore.

46

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Not this conspiracy nonsense.

[/quote]

Something seems to have happened in FL. that wasn’t kosher. Either way it was more of a travesty than this, IMO.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I am a member of this private club and the issue is not insignificant.

[/quote]

Well I apologize if I came off as minimizing your concern, somehow I just can’t see the alternative to what happened. I agree with the DNC that Michigan and Florida shouldn’t be allowed to manipulate their way into power at the last minute. I think the slippery slope applies. What’s to stop the primary season from starting 2 or 3 or 4 years early if states are allowed to indiscriminately one-up each other?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

The Florida votes were counted but the Democrats wanted them to reassign the Pat Buchanan votes and damaged ballots to Al Gore.

[/quote]

If memory serves, that wasn’t the only issue.

47

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
…
Well I apologize if I came off as minimizing your concern, somehow I just can’t see the alternative to what happened. I agree with the DNC that Michigan and Florida shouldn’t be allowed to manipulate their way into power at the last minute. I think the slippery slope applies. What’s to stop the primary season from starting 2 or 3 or 4 years early if states are allowed to indiscriminately one-up each other?
…[/quote]

Why should Iowa or New Hampshire go first? And it is not like FL or MI wet before primary season started, they just moved up earlier.

The irony is that if they stayed in their usual spot there votes would have been relevant this year (unlike others) because it was a close race.

Also ironic is Obama’s decision to pull his name off the ballot. If he would have left it on Hillary wouldn’t have a leg to stand on regarding the popular vote. Instead Obama gave in to the party machine rather than supporting the will of the people and pulled his name off.

Prioritizing the party over the people is not a good thing.

48

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
…
Well I apologize if I came off as minimizing your concern, somehow I just can’t see the alternative to what happened. I agree with the DNC that Michigan and Florida shouldn’t be allowed to manipulate their way into power at the last minute. I think the slippery slope applies. What’s to stop the primary season from starting 2 or 3 or 4 years early if states are allowed to indiscriminately one-up each other?
…

Why should Iowa or New Hampshire go first? And it is not like FL or MI wet before primary season started, they just moved up earlier.

The irony is that if they stayed in their usual spot there votes would have been relevant this year (unlike others) because it was a close race.

Also ironic is Obama’s decision to pull his name off the ballot. If he would have left it on Hillary wouldn’t have a leg to stand on regarding the popular vote. Instead Obama gave in to the party machine rather than supporting the will of the people and pulled his name off.

Prioritizing the party over the people is not a good thing.[/quote]

As far as I can tell, Iowa and NH going first follows the logic of the electoral college. Depending on where you live, your vote might be worth more than mine. I guess the little podunk states are given preference in a different way. Whether or not this is ideal, I don’t know.

I agree with your original point though. The whole thing is ironic and does make Obama look bad.

49

I don’t want to fall into the trap of suggesting that the other party sets some lofty standard, but the republicans stripped half the delegates from Florida and Michigan as well. Of course neither party should have. They should all send the message that if rules laid out in advance are broken, they will not be enforced.

50

[quote]etaco wrote:
I don’t want to fall into the trap of suggesting that the other party sets some lofty standard, but the republicans stripped half the delegates from Florida and Michigan as well. Of course neither party should have. They should all send the message that if rules laid out in advance are broken, they will not be enforced. [/quote]

Or they should revise the rules to reflect the needs of the voters rather than of the party elite.

51

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Or they should revise the rules to reflect the needs of the voters rather than of the party elite.[/quote]

I could be being dense here, but what exactly is the problem and revision needed?

52

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Or they should revise the rules to reflect the needs of the voters rather than of the party elite.

I could be being dense here, but what exactly is the problem and revision needed?[/quote]

The problem is the party elite want the voting schedule one way and when the states said no they party stripped the voters of their vote.

Who the hell cares when they vote? Let everyone vote on the same day.

53

?Eh, but you said you liked the electoral college, what’s wrong with the party’s logic in this case? If we let NY, IL, CA, NJ vote first then how does the ‘little guy’ in Iowa get represented?

54

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
?Eh, but you said you liked the electoral college, what’s wrong with the party’s logic in this case? If we let NY, IL, CA, NJ vote first then how does the ‘little guy’ in Iowa get represented?

[/quote]

By having delegates assigned in a method similar to the EC. Currently Iowa has a big say but other lightly populated states such as Montana do not.

55

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Or they should revise the rules to reflect the needs of the voters rather than of the party elite.

I could be being dense here, but what exactly is the problem and revision needed?

The problem is the party elite want the voting schedule one way and when the states said no they party stripped the voters of their vote.

Who the hell cares when they vote? Let everyone vote on the same day.[/quote]

The states didn’t say no. Two states said no. They snubbed Iowa in the process. The campaigning had been concentrated in Iowa, and all the talk was on Iowa. Making Michigan or Florida come first could have potentially lost the party a lot of votes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

56

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Or they should revise the rules to reflect the needs of the voters rather than of the party elite.

I could be being dense here, but what exactly is the problem and revision needed?

The problem is the party elite want the voting schedule one way and when the states said no they party stripped the voters of their vote.

Who the hell cares when they vote? Let everyone vote on the same day.

The states didn’t say no. Two states said no. They snubbed Iowa in the process. The campaigning had been concentrated in Iowa, and all the talk was on Iowa. Making Michigan or Florida come first could have potentially lost the party a lot of votes in Iowa and New Hampshire.[/quote]

I think FL and MI voted after IA and NH. Does anyone have the dates?

57

Michigan went third, right after Iowa and NH, and Florida went sixth.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html

[photo]14101[/photo]