Your number are not correct, and it was MI and FL decision to not follow the rules that caused them to not vote. If we count the all the votes in MI and FL including the ones who didn't vote for Hillary but probably would have gone to Obama, then he's still ahead. However Obama played by the rules, unlike Hillary. Your analysis is omitting key facts and factors, or is just plain wrong.
It's reverse physiology. Obama campaign is more of a movement then just another politician running for office. There are a lot of people that feel like this guy will change the world some kind of way. That thought along is scary to the Republican Party.
Who was the one that penalized MI and FL to begin with? It was Howard Dean and the Democratic party. Had those votes counted when those elections took place, this whole game would've been different. Clinton would've had 2 KEY states in the bag before the Iowa caucus. That would've changed the total dynamics of how the rest of the states voted. Again, it's the DEMs fault for the mess they are in. Obama mathematically won't have enough votes to win the nomination outright either. So now it's up to the superdelegates. By the way, will John Kerry and Ted Kennedy vote for Hillary since she won the Popular vote in that state going against the will of their own constituents? NO. Now you have a superdelegate in California that basically said he will give his vote to whoever pays $20 mil. Steven Ybarra from Sacramento wants every cent of the $20 million to go towards registering and educating eligible Mexican-American voters, who he calls the key to the White House. CHAOS! My point is that the Dems are the ones that brought this onto themselves. This is Chaos THEY created and not Rush, Republicans, or anyone else.
Wow. You will fall for anything. States can't just decide to leapfrog IA and NH. That sort of thing needs to be carefully negotiated. SC went through the right steps to get moved up and so did NV. FL and MI just decided they were going to do it no matter what the consequences. And they knew what the consequences would be before they made their decision. While all of that was happening, every single Dem candidate including Hillary Clinton agreed that FL and MI wouldn't count and shouldn't count if they moved their primaries up against the will of the national party. In fact they all, including Hillary, signed pledges to that effect wrt Michigan. Further, if Hillary hadn't taken that position -- that FL and MI would under no circumstances count -- she would have been slaughtered in IA and NH. Any candidate who had taken then the position that Hillary takes now would have been slaughtered in those two states and their campaigns would have been effectively over. So Hillary panders to IA and NH (like everyone did) to get votes there and then changes the rules when she's losing. Further, as already stated, your numbers are wrong. Obama can give Hillary FL and MI, as is, now and will still be ahead. And the uncommitted supers are all with him now and just waiting for a graceful time to say so. This race is over.
You don't know this to be fact. If those states would have been in play, both campaigns would have campaigned there. No telling what the outcome would have been.
But I can't make the point about how utterly stupid this whole MI/FL thing is better than chief Clinton backer Terry McAuliffe. Check it: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/clintonbacker_mcauliffe_threat_1.php Clinton-Backer McAuliffe Threatened To Strip Rogue Delegates In 2004 Cycle By Eric Kleefeld - April 26, 2008, 3:05PM In an interesting example of how the views of many high-profile Clinton supporters have changed regarding the status of rogue primaries, blogger Mark Nickolas has spotted a key passage from Terry McAuliffe's 2007 book. McAuliffe recounted how he stared down Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) attempt to move up the Michigan primary during the 2004 cycle, and held firm on his threat to strip the state of delegates: "You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said. "Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it." McAuliffe is currently a vocal advocate for seating Michigan's claimed delegates, and for counting the popular votes for Hillary Clinton in that state's primary, in which Barack Obama had taken his name off the ballot.
If they chose to go early they wouldn't have been in play. Period. Hillary didn't want FL and MI to count; she just wanted to score points with IA and NH. When that didn't work, she tried to change the rules. To try to portray any of this otherwise is nonsense.
Anyone who participated in this thing should feel incredibly foolish. It's MORANS like these who make the Republican party look so bad. I feel for those Repubs who get embarrassed by being associated with this crap.
What mess are you talking about? Obama's the nominee based on the rules set forth by the parties. The superdelegates will all jump on board in the next month. FL/MI will get seated in some form or another. People will be happy and move on. Where is the problem? If Michigan decides to hold its 2012 primary next month, do you think that should count too?
Bullschitt. The game has changed since that decision was made, and you know it. No one knew that the election would hinge on these states. If they did, the decision making process would have been much different. Don't even come in here with that type of disingenuous argument.
I honestly didn't think you could get any funnier. Yeah, the game "changed." But the only thing that changed about it was that Clinton went from inevitable to losing. Parties don't typically change the rules to accommodate a change in who's winning.
No sir, the game has changed, making these states, like all other states, critical to the election. You can't deny that. Don't try to hide behind the fake argument of this decision already being made. In a fluid race, you need to have the flexibility to adapt to the voters desires and what is best for the party. Not hide behind technicalities in a disingenuous argument to advantage your candidate.
No one knew the 2000 election would hinge on hanging chads in Florida. Were you in favor of changing the rules after the election to find a better way to count those votes? Or perhaps having a re-do election without butterfly ballots? Since your new crusade is about avoiding disenfranchisement and all that. Why were you all for short-circuiting the process and suggesting Al Gore needed to get out ASAP, even though the results weren't finalized?
I did already. These states are not throw-away states in the primary like they normally are. The race is close and these states matter. That thought was not present when the decision was made to disenfranchise these voters. Quit hiding behind your fake argument. Man up and admit that these states matter.
I kind of agree with this. But I do think that there should be a re-vote, you know, so everyone's name can be on the ballot.
Hillary Clinton on the MI primary: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_pf.html
