Michigan Democratic Primary Rules-Certified Vote Changed

[blackascoal]

Right... and I am 100% convinced that the kool aid induced worship of Obama blinds you to this.

Had they given ALL the uncommitted delegates to Obama, that would be an arbitrary decision, which in this case if they wish to seat the delegates now, then no matter what they do with the uncommitted delegates it would be done arbitrarily. Fine.

But explain to us all.... why is it that they used the exit poll rather than the actual vote with regards to the COMMITTED delegates?

It's real simple brother ..

1) It was a flawed election and everybody agrees with that including elected Michigan Hillary supporters.

2) They didn't have the time or money to run another election .. but if they had, there is no doubt whatsoever that Obama would have won at least 40% of the vote and quite possibly much more.

Not rocket science .

 

[Damocles]

"I personally believe we should have ONE PRIMARY, where all states can vote on the same day, for both Parties...."

I actually think that's less democratic. It favors the big money, name recognition candidates, and would narrow the field considerably for any given primary.

I almost 100% disagree. Bush would not have been the nominee if it were held this way, it wouldn't have mattered about his money, etc. By being able to attack in one place at a time some candidates are able to make it appear as if they are inevitable and a candidate that otherwise would be nearly moneyless suddenly gains donations because of that "inevitability".

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's real simple brother ..

1) It was a flawed election and everybody agrees with that including elected Michigan Hillary supporters.

2) They didn't have the time or money to run another election .. but if they had, there is no doubt whatsoever that Obama would have won at least 40% of the vote and quite possibly much more.

Not rocket science .

I agree that it was flawed. I also agree they had to come up with some arbitrary way of seating the delegates. But again, they gave ALL the uncommitted delegates to Obama. This seems to be a stretch. Possible? yes. But it seems unlikely given that Edwards was still in the race at the time and Obama tends to have a problem with those voters. Again, this is not nearly as big of a deal as the second.

Then you have the fact that rather than going with the ACTUAL vote they decide to use an exit poll? Have you ever heard of anything like that before? What possible justification could they have for using an exit poll over actual votes?

That is the part I really do not understand.

 

[Care4all]

It's real simple brother ..

1) It was a flawed election and everybody agrees with that including elected Michigan Hillary supporters.

2) They didn't have the time or money to run another election .. but if they had, there is no doubt whatsoever that Obama would have won at least 40% of the vote and quite possibly much more.

Not rocket science .

I thought very early on, when Michigan requested to do the election over, Obama refused to pay for his share of it? Is this not true?

Care

 

[blackascoal]

I agree that it was flawed. I also agree they had to come up with some arbitrary way of seating the delegates. But again, they gave ALL the uncommitted delegates to Obama. This seems to be a stretch. Possible? yes. But it seems unlikely given that Edwards was still in the race at the time and Obama tends to have a problem with those voters. Again, this is not nearly as big of a deal as the second.

Then you have the fact that rather than going with the ACTUAL vote they decide to use an exit poll? Have you ever heard of anything like that before? What possible justification could they have for using an exit poll over actual votes?

That is the part I really do not understand.

My brother .. there was no real "actual" vote. Michigan voters were told the election wouldn't count .., so how was there any real "actual" vote?

Giving Obama all the uncommitted, including Edwards' is not a real argument, given that Edwrads endorses Obama and, like he already has, would transfer his delegates to Obama .. and NOTE that ALL of Edwards delegates have moved to Obama, not a single one of them moved to Clinton and they could have.

I'm from Michigan and I know the anger a great many felt about the state wasting millions of dollars on an election that would not count .. AND, as previously posted, there was a huge effort to get Obama supporters who did go to the polls to vote uncommitted and they did .. AND, many also wrote in Obama's name knowing it wouldn't be counted, but then again, neither would any other vote.

Also, lets you and I cut through the bullshit clown show. Superdelegates have been moving to Obama in droves since supertuesday. Clinto didn't lose this race because of 4 deegates .. she's almost 200 delegates behind. She didn't lose this race because of Michigan and Florida and she didn't lose this race because she's a woman. She's loss because she ran an arrogant, then vicious campaign. She lost because she isn't trustworthy. Obama did not tell her to claim she was under fire and risked danger when cameras were rolling and little children were on the tarmac and Sinbad was looking for a burger.

She lost because she supported the war and didn't feel, in her arrogance, any need to apologize. She lost because Obama ran a better campaign, recognized the importance of small states and caucuses and did not surround himself in lobbyists.

The rest is all bullshit and Clinton mindfuck.

Surely you're not susceptible to the Clinton mindfuck.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My brother .. there was no real "actual" vote. Michigan voters were told the election wouldn't count .., so how was there any real "actual" vote?

Giving Obama all the uncommitted, including Edwards' is not a real argument, given that Edwrads endorses Obama and, like he already has, would transfer his delegates to Obama .. and NOTE that ALL of Edwards delegates have moved to Obama, not a single one of them moved to Clinton and they could have.

I'm from Michigan and I know the anger a great many felt about the state wasting millions of dollars on an election that would not count .. AND, as previously posted, there was a huge effort to get Obama supporters who did go to the polls to vote uncommitted and they did .. AND, many also wrote in Obama's name knowing it wouldn't be counted, but then again, neither would any other vote.

Also, lets you and I cut through the bullshit clown show. Superdelegates have been moving to Obama in droves since supertuesday. Clinto didn't lose this race because of 4 deegates .. she's almost 200 delegates behind. She didn't lose this race because of Michigan and Florida and she didn't lose this race because she's a woman. She's loss because she ran an arrogant, then vicious campaign. She lost because she isn't trustworthy. Obama did not tell her to claim she was under fire and risked danger when cameras were rolling and little children were on the tarmac and Sinbad was looking for a burger.

She lost because she supported the war and didn't feel, in her arrogance, any need to apologize. She lost because Obama ran a better campaign, recognized the importance of small states and caucuses and did not surround himself in lobbyists.

The rest is all bullshit and Clinton mindfuck.

Surely you're not susceptible to the Clinton mindfuck.

1) As I stated quite clearly in a response to Darla, this nomination was over long ago. Which makes the move this weekend by the DNC all the more odd.

2) There was indeed an ACTUAL vote. Yes, there was a chance the delegates would not be seated (either partially or in total). But that did not stop the DNC from telling people to get out and vote to let their voices be heard. Which the people in Michigan did. To act like it wasn't a real vote simply because Obama and others chose to take their names off the ballot is simply ridiculous.

3) No, the supers didn't move "in droves" after supertuesday. They have been largely hanging on the fence until they could see how this was going to play out. They did not start moving in large numbers until recently.

4) I agree completely with your assessment of why she lost.

5) I would venture to guess that out of everyone on this board, yourself included, no one dislikes or distrusts the Clintons more than I do. So no, I am not "falling for a Clinton mindfuck"... I am asking why the DNC is so bent on creating yet another reason for Hillary to stay in this race by so clearly favoring Obama with their MI decision. (which even someone like myself, who cannot stand the Clintons, can see)

 

[Care4all]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/michigan_firehouse_primary_nix.html

As Michigan searches for a way to validate its delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the state party reports that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has nixed the idea of a new "firehouse primary.''

The Detroit Free Press reports today that Obama's campaign told the state's top party official that they wouldn't accept Gov. Jennifer Granholm's (pictured at right) idea of a party-sponsored primary.

The Obama campaign maintains that it "played by the rules'' in not campaigning in Michigan and Florida when the Democratic National Committee decided that the two states' delegates to the summer nominating convention would not count because the states held January primary elections in violation of party rules. (A complete lie because he ran his National Ad campaign in those states, in the Sanctioned Time period on Msnbc and on Cnn, which the DNC RULES require him to forfeit any delegates he may get from these elections in the sanctioned states....HE broke his pledge and the DNC rules, NO OTHER CANDIDATE broke the rules or changed things midstream or any of the other LIES he promotes)

"Our campaign will support whatever the DNC rules are, including a fair remedy to this problem,'' Bill Burton, Obama campaign spokesman, told the Tribune this morning. "However, allowing Sen. Clinton to change the rules and award her the non-existent delegates when there was no campaign in the state and Obama’s name was not on the ballot is not the answer.

Like I said, it was Obama that did not follow the Rules, in many situations, not just breaking his National ad earlier than the other candidates and during the sanctioned period in the Sanctioned States, but he also is not following the Democratic Michigan rules to send unpledged delegates for uncommitted votes, he is not following the rules of the DNC on how to handle uncomitted votes.

Obama has been playing all his campaign moves to spin the situation in his favor....

and his moves have been to DISENFRANCHISE MICHIGAN of ALL OF THEIR VOTES.....ALL OF THEM, only after he held this back all season, by not coming to a compromise with the Hillary camp, so to keep those at least 1/2 delegates, from going in to Hillary's column... and only after he got to get the DNC to change the unpledged delegates of his and Bidens and Edwards in to pledged delegates ALL for himslef, did he decide to go along with a compromise...

SAD really.....

 

[blackascoal]

I thought very early on, when Michigan requested to do the election over, Obama refused to pay for his share of it? Is this not true?

Care

Yes ma'am, that is true .. but he refused to pay under the Clinton proposal and he questioned the legality of having private donors finance an election .. a question that even Michigan Clinton supporters questioned themselves.

Also, voters who participated in the Republican primary in January could not vote in the June election under the Clinton proposal, including Democrats and independents.

The new primary would be subject to pre-clearance under the federal Voting Rights Act, and the Justice Department would not have been able to conduct a timely review.

He also questioned whether military ballots could be distributed and collected in time.

Michigan has a large African-American population and a large university population and a large affluent white poipulation who were all anxious to cast their votes for Obama. There is no question that he would have gotten at least the delegates that he was given .. AND, he could have gotten more because he had the votes to split the delegates evenly .. but he didn't.

 

[Onceler]

"Obama has been playing all his campaign moves to spin the situation in his favor...."

That sounds so much like somebody; I just can't think of who it is. I think it's someone in one of the national races....it's right on the tip of my tongue....

 

[Cancel7]

"Obama has been playing all his campaign moves to spin the situation in his favor...."

That sounds so much like somebody; I just can't think of who it is. I think it's someone in one of the national races....it's right on the tip of my tongue....

But isn’t that what all the candidates have been doing? Jesus Christ almighty who became President by playing their campaign moves to spin in someone else’s favor? What the fuck is going on here? This is freaking insanity.

 

[blackascoal]

1) As I stated quite clearly in a response to Darla, this nomination was over long ago. Which makes the move this weekend by the DNC all the more odd.

2) There was indeed an ACTUAL vote. Yes, there was a chance the delegates would not be seated (either partially or in total). But that did not stop the DNC from telling people to get out and vote to let their voices be heard. Which the people in Michigan did. To act like it wasn't a real vote simply because Obama and others chose to take their names off the ballot is simply ridiculous.

3) No, the supers didn't move "in droves" after supertuesday. They have been largely hanging on the fence until they could see how this was going to play out. They did not start moving in large numbers until recently.

4) I agree completely with your assessment of why she lost.

5) I would venture to guess that out of everyone on this board, yourself included, no one dislikes or distrusts the Clintons more than I do. So no, I am not "falling for a Clinton mindfuck"... I am asking why the DNC is so bent on creating yet another reason for Hillary to stay in this race by so clearly favoring Obama with their MI decision. (which even someone like myself, who cannot stand the Clintons, can see)

Obama has picked up 144 superdelegates since supertuesday to Hillary's 26. Sounds like a drove to me.

The DNC is anxious to move on and prepare to defeat McCain in November, and like everyone else, they see the writing on the wall.

As for creating a situation the Clintons could exploit .. c'mon man, do you really believe the Clintons wouldn't exploit any and everything real or imagined they possibly could?

That's the Clinton mindfuck.

 

[Care4all]

"Obama has been playing all his campaign moves to spin the situation in his favor...."

That sounds so much like somebody; I just can't think of who it is. I think it's someone in one of the national races....it's right on the tip of my tongue....

Yeah, I know....thus the result of his spin!

The ONLY ONE, that broke the rules was obama himself and the ONLY ONE who broke his pledge to the early states, is obama himself.

THAT IS FACT.

Every move that Hillary made WAS WITHIN THE RULES....the Democratic Party allows for the right to object on the part of the states, and allows for the states to make their case in front of the rules committee, as in the May 31st meeting.

This was NOT a meeting and challenge of Hillary's alone and Hillary changing ANY rules midstream Onceler. This was a legal method allowed for WITHIN THE RULES, NOT OUTSIDE OF THEM, as the "obama side" proclaimed and the media portrayed...

I tell ya, the media really failed us and is not reporting any of this...just repeating the Obama jargon....

like i said, quite sad....

And, I know you don't believe me, but Hillary is not the be all and say all for me...NO CANDIDATE IS....

I am expressing and saying things as they were and there is no link that you or anyone on this board could produce that would refute what I have stated.

I really am sorry it is NOT what all of you WANT to hear, especially not from me....but I honestly can not help it...I am not going to just sit back and keep my mouth shut when something is very wrong, with the picture....

Care

 

[Onceler]

But isn’t that what all the candidates have been doing? Jesus Christ almighty who became President by playing their campaign moves to spin in someone else’s favor? What the fuck is going on here? This is freaking insanity.

Yup. If they want to, they can certainly make the argument that Obama has a little "politics as usual" in him, but it's hardly corrupt or sleazy, and it's nothing that Hillary isn't doing & hasn't done throughout.

This is the same candidate, after all, who tried arguing that pledged delegates aren't necessarily "pledged", and that it's a misnomer, and that they can change their minds like superdelegates can. And her suppporters are now the same people going to the mat over the "will of the voters" over 4 delegates...

 

[Cancel7]

Yup. If they want to, they can certainly make the argument that Obama has a little "politics as usual" in him, but it's hardly corrupt or sleazy, and it's nothing that Hillary isn't doing & hasn't done throughout.

This is the same candidate, after all, who tried arguing that pledged delegates aren't necessarily "pledged", and that it's a misnomer, and that they can change their minds like superdelegates can. And her suppporters are now the same people going to the mat over the "will of the voters" over 4 delegates...

That’s a really good point, I forgot that she was saying that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Obama has picked up 144 superdelegates since supertuesday to Hillary's 26. Sounds like a drove to me.

The DNC is anxious to move on and prepare to defeat McCain in November, and like everyone else, they see the writing on the wall.

As for creating a situation the Clintons could exploit .. c'mon man, do you really believe the Clintons wouldn't exploit any and everything real or imagined they possibly could?

That's the Clinton mindfuck.

yes, but as I clearly stated, the bulk of the pickup in supers for him came within the last few weeks. Acting like they were moving in droves that early is ridiculous.

No BAC, I don't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't exploit the situation. Which is why I find it so curious that the DNC would hand them one. Careful, your Obama worshipping glasses seem to be fogging up a bit.

Clinton will fight this to the convention now. Because of how biased the Michigan decision appears to be.

The DNC might have just pushed Michigan to McCain. Especially if McCain takes Romney as his VP. Dems lose Michigan and they will need to sweep Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico to win. Also, if Michigan falls, PA and WI could follow.

Once again the DNC appears to be trying their hardest to find a way to lose this election.

 

[blackascoal]

Yup. If they want to, they can certainly make the argument that Obama has a little "politics as usual" in him, but it's hardly corrupt or sleazy, and it's nothing that Hillary isn't doing & hasn't done throughout.

This is the same candidate, after all, who tried arguing that pledged delegates aren't necessarily "pledged", and that it's a misnomer, and that they can change their minds like superdelegates can. And her suppporters are now the same people going to the mat over the "will of the voters" over 4 delegates...

Most excellent point.

 

[Care4all]

Obama has picked up 144 superdelegates since supertuesday to Hillary's 26. Sounds like a drove to me.

The DNC is anxious to move on and prepare to defeat McCain in November, and like everyone else, they see the writing on the wall.

As for creating a situation the Clintons could exploit .. c'mon man, do you really believe the Clintons wouldn't exploit any and everything real or imagined they possibly could?

That's the Clinton mindfuck.

I thought it was you the Obamaites, that were saying that the superdelegates should not count and they should vote for who the citizens of their states voted for, when the superdelegates vote....?????


hmmmmm, me thinks you are singing a different song now, how come?

I mean, you got keNnedy and kerry as superdelegates giving their vote to obama.... and massachusetts voted nearly 70% towards Hillary? And then you got Rockafeller and byrd who are super delegates from West Virginia where Hillary won 2/3's of the citizen's vote there....so WHAT GIVES???


aHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, now the rules are to be followed and the super delegates can make their own choice, but the unpledged delegates in Michigan CAN NOT....

hypocrisy, at its best imo BAC....

Care

 

[Cancel7]

yes, but as I clearly stated, the bulk of the pickup in supers for him came within the last few weeks. Acting like they were moving in droves that early is ridiculous.

No BAC, I don't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't exploit the situation. Which is why I find it so curious that the DNC would hand them one. Careful, your Obama worshipping glasses seem to be fogging up a bit.

Clinton will fight this to the convention now. Because of how biased the Michigan decision appears to be.

The DNC might have just pushed Michigan to McCain. Especially if McCain takes Romney as his VP. Dems lose Michigan and they will need to sweep Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico to win. Also, if Michigan falls, PA and WI could follow.

Once again the DNC appears to be trying their hardest to find a way to lose this election.

Well, that part I agree with. There is no landslide coming. A lot of people are in a for a big surprise.

I feel as if, the Democrats heard that Vegas had odds of 2000 to 1 of a Republican taking the white house post-bushfuckupworstpresident ever, and took it as a freaking challenge. They are truly the stupidest mf’ers I have ever seen. And I post on message boards! They have completion like indisputable and bb!

Add to that these fucking Clinton partisans who are just going never shut the fuck up because they didn’t get what they want, and I just know I’m going to be listening to that squeaky mf Crazy Eyes McCain for the next four years, and worse, a lot of women and children will be dead because of it. I really wish I could kick somebody’s ass. Hard.

 

[Onceler]

Care - how is it that you are able to ignore the Clinton campaign's attempts to change every metric for victory possible since this campaign began, and go so far as to argue that even pledged delegates can switch, at the same time that they preach about "making every vote count?"

 

[blackascoal]

yes, but as I clearly stated, the bulk of the pickup in supers for him came within the last few weeks. Acting like they were moving in droves that early is ridiculous.

No BAC, I don't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't exploit the situation. Which is why I find it so curious that the DNC would hand them one. Careful, your Obama worshipping glasses seem to be fogging up a bit.

Clinton will fight this to the convention now. Because of how biased the Michigan decision appears to be.

The DNC might have just pushed Michigan to McCain. Especially if McCain takes Romney as his VP. Dems lose Michigan and they will need to sweep Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico to win. Also, if Michigan falls, PA and WI could follow.

Once again the DNC appears to be trying their hardest to find a way to lose this election.

Your comments are confusing and you are showing signs of falling to the mindfuck.

First you agree the Clintons would exploit anything they can, then you suggest the DNC handed tham an issue. Which one is it?

The DNC conducted its business as best they could and are doing what is necessary to move into the general. What they Clintons want or don't want is secondary to the needs of the party and the country. No amount of Clinton ass-kissing would have prevented them from doing exactly as they are short of handing them the nomination .. SURELY YOU KNOW THAT .. that is, unless you're under the spell .. or just happy about the rancor in the Democratic Party.

Additionally, the DNC hasn't pushed Michigan to McCain by any stretch and if you're paying close attention to the party, not the circus, you'd recognize it moving away from Clinton control .. which made the party its weakest .. and there are the losses to prove it.

get real