Hillary and Michigan....

[RightIsWrong]

Hillary is so concerned about the representation of the voters in MI and is going out on a limb and stating the she thinks that the initial vote should stand and the delegates be seated at the convention.

That got me wondering why?

The obvious reason....

She was the clear frontrunner at the time and with her biggest competitors out of the primary due to the dispute, she would very easily clean house.

The problem with that?

Reality! Even with Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson pulling their names off of the ballot she barely got a majority with an extraordinarily low voter turnout.

The results:

Hillary Clinton 328,151 55.3%
Uncommitted 237,762 40.0
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,708 3.7
Christopher J. Dodd 3,853 0.6
Mike Gravel 2,363 0.4

 

[nageov3t]

by your logic, Obama's a weak candidate because he's barely got the majority of votes at present despite his momentum and widespread media support.

 

[Fern]

^ That's kind of silly.

Hillary was basically running unopposed and barely got the majority.

Obama has been running opposed, and wading through false allegation and smears like the NAFTA thing.

BTW: In all of Obama's 11 straight victories it was a blow out. Not close.

I think it was Wisc where he got his smallest margin of victory over Hillary, and that was 17% IIRC.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: loki8481
by your logic, Obama's a weak candidate because he's barely got the majority of votes at present despite his momentum and widespread media support.

Ohhh....he shoots and misses.

My logic isn't that a front runner should handily win. My logic is that a front runner that is facing NO COMPETITION should handily win.

In a competition between Hillary, Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd.....Uncommitted got 40% of the vote!

That should tell you that the voters in MI truly aren't happy about Hillary as a candidate and she should not be trying to pretend like they are and claim she has a right to all of the delegates.

 

[RY62]

At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

 

[dphantom]

There was a strong push here in Michigan for dems to vote uncommitted if they wanted Obama. The results appear to prove that is correct. Clinton was completely unopposed, the only major candidate on teh ballot yet received barely more than half the votes.

A redo would move the majority of delgates to Obama's camp IMO. That is why Clinton wants to maintain the status quo ante. She has everything to lose if there is a redo both in MI and FL.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: dphantom
There was a strong push here in Michigan for dems to vote uncommitted if they wanted Obama. The results appear to prove that is correct. Clinton was completely unopposed, the only major candidate on teh ballot yet received barely more than half the votes.

A redo would move the majority of delgates to Obama's camp IMO. That is why Clinton wants to maintain the status quo ante. She has everything to lose if there is a redo both in MI and FL.

Very true.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

Obama would beat Hillary in a revote, primary or caucus. Current polls have Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain beats Clinton in the general.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

Obama would beat Hillary in a revote, primary or caucus. Current polls have Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain beats Clinton in the general.

I'm not sure which polls you're looking at but the latest polls here Latest Polls show otherwise.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

more like 40% of the population saying None of the Above, all these turds stink.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

Obama would beat Hillary in a revote, primary or caucus. Current polls have Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain beats Clinton in the general.

I'm not sure which polls you're looking at but the latest polls here Latest Polls show otherwise.

The head to head here:http://www.realclearpolitics.c...resident/national.html

Shows that on average Obama beating McCain by 5%, Hillary beating McCain by 0.5%. Regardless, this is not the stuff to base your vote on.

Why not point out Hillary has led Obama nationally since Tuesday for that matter? http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...ing-Election-2008.aspx

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

Obama would beat Hillary in a revote, primary or caucus. Current polls have Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain beats Clinton in the general.

I'm not sure which polls you're looking at but the latest polls here Latest Polls show otherwise.

The head to head here:http://www.realclearpolitics.c...resident/national.html

Shows that on average Obama beating McCain by 5%, Hillary beating McCain by 0.5%. Regardless, this is not the stuff to base your vote on.

Why not point out Hillary has led Obama nationally since Tuesday for that matter? http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...ing-Election-2008.aspx

Your own link tells you why. With the winner, so goes the polls.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

Obama would beat Hillary in a revote, primary or caucus. Current polls have Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain beats Clinton in the general.

I'm not sure which polls you're looking at but the latest polls here Latest Polls show otherwise.

The head to head here:http://www.realclearpolitics.c...resident/national.html

Shows that on average Obama beating McCain by 5%, Hillary beating McCain by 0.5%. Regardless, this is not the stuff to base your vote on.

Why not point out Hillary has led Obama nationally since Tuesday for that matter? http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...ing-Election-2008.aspx

Your own link tells you why. With the winner, so goes the polls.

Ding. Ding.

 

[M0RPH]

Ok let's be generous and give all of the 40% uncommitted votes to Obama. So Hillary wins 55-40. Obama should be happy with that because it would have been more lopsided had his name actually been on the ballot. If you think all of those 40% were actually meaning to vote for Obama, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, that's probably about what the results would be if the primary was reheld today, so I'm fine with putting the 55-40 Clinton victory in the books.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Ok let's be generous and give all of the 40% uncommitted votes to Obama. So Hillary wins 55-40. Obama should be happy with that because it would have been more lopsided had his name actually been on the ballot. If you think all of those 40% were actually meaning to vote for Obama, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, that's probably about what the results would be if the primary was reheld today, so I'm fine with putting the 55-40 Clinton victory in the books.

I didn't even bother to vote because I knew the delegates wouldn't be counted. There are thousands of people just like me in Michigan who didn't bother to vote either. You're obviously smoking something if you think Hillary would still win Michigan 55-40.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Ok let's be generous and give all of the 40% uncommitted votes to Obama. So Hillary wins 55-40. Obama should be happy with that because it would have been more lopsided had his name actually been on the ballot. If you think all of those 40% were actually meaning to vote for Obama, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, that's probably about what the results would be if the primary was reheld today, so I'm fine with putting the 55-40 Clinton victory in the books.

If you actually believe that Hillary Clinton would beat Obama 55-40 in Michigan, then there is something very wrong with your grasp on reality.

There is spin, and then there is downright lunacy. That comment leans more toward the latter.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Ok let's be generous and give all of the 40% uncommitted votes to Obama. So Hillary wins 55-40. Obama should be happy with that because it would have been more lopsided had his name actually been on the ballot. If you think all of those 40% were actually meaning to vote for Obama, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, that's probably about what the results would be if the primary was reheld today, so I'm fine with putting the 55-40 Clinton victory in the books.

If you actually believe that Hillary Clinton would beat Obama 55-40 in Michigan, then there is something very wrong with your grasp on reality.

There is spin, and then there is downright lunacy. That comment leans more toward the latter.

It seems to me that the people who didn't vote were just as likely to vote for any of the canidates so the percentages of those who did vote should be fairly accurate.

In any case you can only blame the people who asked to have their names to be taken off the ballot for this mess of "uncommitted" votes.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Ok let's be generous and give all of the 40% uncommitted votes to Obama. So Hillary wins 55-40. Obama should be happy with that because it would have been more lopsided had his name actually been on the ballot. If you think all of those 40% were actually meaning to vote for Obama, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, that's probably about what the results would be if the primary was reheld today, so I'm fine with putting the 55-40 Clinton victory in the books.

If you actually believe that Hillary Clinton would beat Obama 55-40 in Michigan, then there is something very wrong with your grasp on reality.

There is spin, and then there is downright lunacy. That comment leans more toward the latter.

It seems to me that the people who didn't vote were just as likely to vote for any of the canidates so the percentages of those who did vote should be fairly accurate.

In any case you can only blame the people who asked to have their names to be taken off the ballot for this mess of "uncommitted" votes.

I would argue just the opposite. If my candidate was not on the ballot, I would be less likely to go to a polling place to to vote uncommitted. And as far as the candidates names not being on the ballot, they were following DNC rules. Clinton and some minor candidates chose not to follow party rules.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dphantom
And as far as the candidates names not being on the ballot, they were following DNC rules. Clinton and some minor candidates chose not to follow party rules.

Show me where it said they had to withdraw from the ballot. Why if this was a DNC rule no one pulled off the FL ballot?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: dphantom
And as far as the candidates names not being on the ballot, they were following DNC rules. Clinton and some minor candidates chose not to follow party rules.

Show me where it said they had to withdraw from the ballot. Why if this was a DNC rule no one pulled off the FL ballot?

Yup, why have any principle when it's not required by the rules.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: dphantom
And as far as the candidates names not being on the ballot, they were following DNC rules. Clinton and some minor candidates chose not to follow party rules.

Show me where it said they had to withdraw from the ballot. Why if this was a DNC rule no one pulled off the FL ballot?

Yup, why have any principle when it's not required by the rules.

why have truth when you can camp out on your high horse?

and don't be revisionist by saying Obama and Edwards pulled their names off the ballot to uphold their principles... it was pure and simple pandering to the Iowa caucus; Hillary kept her name on the ballot because she figured she was going to lose Iowa anyways.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

Obama would beat Hillary in a revote, primary or caucus. Current polls have Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain beats Clinton in the general.

I'm not sure which polls you're looking at but the latest polls here Latest Polls show otherwise.

Obama is +11
Clinton is +3

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: dphantom
And as far as the candidates names not being on the ballot, they were following DNC rules. Clinton and some minor candidates chose not to follow party rules.

Show me where it said they had to withdraw from the ballot. Why if this was a DNC rule no one pulled off the FL ballot?

Yup, why have any principle when it's not required by the rules.

Loki handled this one above, but I think it's worth another mention. A guy makes a blatantly and verifiably false claim, I call him on it and that's a problem? Even Oprah apologized after defending Frey.

Don't go throwing truth and facts in a dumpster.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Ok let's be generous and give all of the 40% uncommitted votes to Obama. So Hillary wins 55-40. Obama should be happy with that because it would have been more lopsided had his name actually been on the ballot. If you think all of those 40% were actually meaning to vote for Obama, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, that's probably about what the results would be if the primary was reheld today, so I'm fine with putting the 55-40 Clinton victory in the books.

I'm sure you would be fine but here's reality: THE. VOTES. DON'T. COUNT.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: RY62
At the time, Obama folowers were told to go out and vote "uncommitted" and they did. So. looking at the numbers, you could just call Obama uncommitted.

Obama would beat Hillary in a revote, primary or caucus. Current polls have Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain beats Clinton in the general.

I'm not sure which polls you're looking at but the latest polls here Latest Polls show otherwise.

Obama is +11
Clinton is +3

Linky?