BUSTED: USA Today Finds "Revote" Donors In Michigan All Linked To Hillary Rodham Clinton

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
I guess they'll just have to count these states as they voted.
Otherwise if they piss off Florida, they have no chance in November.

Uhh, but Michigan didn't even have a real vote. The ballot had Clinton, Kucinich, and Undecided. Obama wasn't even on it. So if they just count the votes that way, its REALLY piss people off.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Originally posted by: senseamp
I guess they'll just have to count these states as they voted.
Otherwise if they piss off Florida, they have no chance in November.

Uhh, but Michigan didn't even have a real vote. The ballot had Clinton, Kucinich, and Undecided. Obama wasn't even on it. So if they just count the votes that way, its REALLY piss people off.

It was a real vote, Obama just took his name off the ballot.
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Ldir
Didn't he also win in Texas? I thought Obama got more delegates than Hillary in Texas.

Yes, he did. And he also picked up 6 more from Iowa last week too. :laugh:

Don't count her out. Shes taking this thing all the way to the conference in the fall. If you think she can't steal it, you're underestimating her.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,395
126
<--Obama supporter.

I could care less whether the re-vote is paid for by Hillary supporters, the Mafia or Fidel Castro, so long as the rules are fair and it is honestly run.

As the article implied, the probable reason big Obama supporters haven't jumped in is because Obama hasn't signed off on the re-vote yet. In my view, Obama has to make it clear under exactly what rules he sees as necessary for a fair revote.

I don't see Hillary as blameless here, she has to stop manipulating for every possible advantage in the revote and agree to a fair one. She's playing with fire as far as the general election goes, a fire that will burn down the Dem party.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Carmen813
The fact that only her donors want to pay for it makes me kinda nervous.

The solution was to not break party rules in the first place, I think all the talk of a doover at this point is fundamentally wrong. She only started hammering for this once it was clear she was 'losing' the race.
exactly! well said.
 

LongTimePCUser

Senior member
Jul 1, 2000
472
0
76
The Obama supporters don't want a revote in Michigan because he has not been able to win any large state primary election. The only places he wins are in caucus states.

Surprise, surprise, people vote differently if their votes are secret the way they will be in November.

Take a look at Texas. Obama won the caucus. Clinton won the election.

The super delegates are supposed to choose the candidate with the best chance to win an election in November.

Originally posted by: Pabster
"It's clear the election isn't going to count for anything..."

'Revote' Donors All Linked To Clintons

What a big surprise! :roll:

The only question left is how long she can continue this charade...

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The large states that she has won in are all heavily Democratic anyhow

Any perception of fraud/theft/unfare will be based on which camp one follows.

Either way, the Dem party will have its internal issues that they need to kiss and make up between the DNC and Nov.

Otherwise, the party will be torn and make it easier for the Rep to keep the WH.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The Obama supporters don't want a revote in Michigan because he has not been able to win any large state primary election. The only places he wins are in caucus states.

Surprise, surprise, people vote differently if their votes are secret the way they will be in November.

Take a look at Texas. Obama won the caucus. Clinton won the election.

The super delegates are supposed to choose the candidate with the best chance to win an election in November.

What are you talking about? The Obama supporters don't want a Michigan revote because:

A. It completely circumcises the party and their ability to keep the primary process in any kind of order (remember, the actual party dictated that it would not count...not Obama)

B. He played by the rules and didn't campaign there and wasn't even on the ballot

C. She isn't calling for a full revote but some sham where she gets a bonus for leaving the party high and dry and they just count the votes where she was the only viable candidate and still barely got the majority.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The Obama supporters don't want a revote in Michigan because he has not been able to win any large state primary election. The only places he wins are in caucus states.

Surprise, surprise, people vote differently if their votes are secret the way they will be in November.

Take a look at Texas. Obama won the caucus. Clinton won the election.

The super delegates are supposed to choose the candidate with the best chance to win an election in November.

What are you talking about? The Obama supporters don't want a Michigan revote because:

A. It completely circumcises the party and their ability to keep the primary process in any kind of order (remember, the actual party dictated that it would not count...not Obama)

B. He played by the rules and didn't campaign there and wasn't even on the ballot

C. She isn't calling for a full revote but some sham where she gets a bonus for leaving the party high and dry and they just count the votes where she was the only viable candidate and still barely got the majority.

No, Obama doesn't want a re-vote because it will hurt his campaign. Lets be honest with ourselves here. I think that a re-vote is probably in the best interests of the party, and I think Obama would do much better there then people might think. Even if they did re-do it though, it wouldn't change the eventual outcome. There's really no way I can see Obama losing the nomination.

That all being said, who cares that the donors are Hillary supporters/Hillary based? Who did you think would be pushing for a re-vote? I don't see how that's being 'busted' in any way shape or form.
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Originally posted by: senseamp
I guess they'll just have to count these states as they voted.
Otherwise if they piss off Florida, they have no chance in November.

Uhh, but Michigan didn't even have a real vote. The ballot had Clinton, Kucinich, and Undecided. Obama wasn't even on it. So if they just count the votes that way, its REALLY piss people off.

It was a real vote, Obama just took his name off the ballot.

He followed the rules of the party, as did the other candidates. She announced at the last second she wasn't going to remove her name. Yeah.. That sounds like a fair process.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What are you talking about? The Obama supporters don't want a Michigan revote because:

A. It completely circumcises the party...........

I agree completely with your choice of wording above :thumbsup:

This whole debacle about MI & FL must be as painful and humilating for the DNC as a public circumcision.

;) (sorta)

Fern
 

imported_Baloo

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2006
1,782
0
0
That says something about how much support she has. Now if it were the other way around, it would be suspect. It is no secret that Hillary has a lot of support in Michigan, the OP's point is just plain silly since it ignores this truth.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
I don't fault them for trying for a revote.
Sure they have a vested interest. If the shoe were on the other foot, I believe the Obama supporters/backers would do the same. Frankly, I don't blame them, I think they'd be remiss in not doing so.

I think the Democratic party reps in both states flubbed on this from the beginning.