Why shouldn't Obama get the *Uncommitted* votes in Michigan?

Popular vote is key in new plan

BY KATHLEEN GRAY • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • April 24, 2008
Would you want a friend like Hillary? I don't have cheaters as friends.

Fresh from victory in Pennsylvania, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is renewing talk of not only counting the results from the disallowed primaries in Michigan and Florida, but giving more weight to the popular vote than to the number of delegates pledged to each candidate in an attempt to court uncommitted superdelegates.
~~~
Q: But is she really winning the popular vote?

A: No. The Clinton campaign is using figures, which include the total number of votes she received in Michigan. She was on the state's ballot and Obama wasn't, but many of his supporters voted for him by selecting Uncommitted -- which drew 238,168 votes. If those votes are given to Obama, he still would hold a lead of 114,810 in the popular vote over Clinton. The numbers also include Florida, which -- like Michigan -- held a disputed early election.

Q: Why would Obama take his name off Michigan's ballot?

A: Michigan wanted to challenge the premier role of Iowa and New Hampshire in the presidential nominating process and moved its primary to Jan. 15 in violation of national party rules. The national party stripped Michigan and Florida of all their delegates. All the candidates, including Clinton, pledged not to campaign in Michigan. Obama and three other Democrats also took their names off the ballot.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/NEWS06/804240384/1008/NEWS
(Even though this site is *freep*, it looks okay. I followed a link from news.google. The front page looks normal.)
(You wouldn't know I've been burned by the link mob.)

and neither should be seated. They broke the rules and should sit in the corner because of it. I live in Michigan before you start.

But it keeps coming up. If something were done formally, MAYBE Hillary would quit counting them in her column. She may keep it up until August. Unless someone does .something.

Additionally, I've always gotten the impression that she wanted all the votes for herself.
You would agree that would be totally egregious?

And if she did, someone needs to just tell her to shut up.

to a way for the delegates will be seated. He said Michigan and Florida would be represented at the convention.

State leaders screwed up. Voters shouldn't get punished. You don't screw with democracy, no matter what happens.

There was another time in our history where state governments in the south screwed with democracy. Please calmly apply your "rules are rules, screw the voters" logic to that, and let me know what you find out.

And that problem was handled when it came up. Stop trying to shill to change the rules just because you are losing the game.

Hillary agreed with those rules at the beginning of the campaign. Too bad.

Period.

It's a primary - not the general election. The primaries belong to the political parties. People in Florida and Michigan had plenty of time to petition their state party and legislature to get the dates changed.

The democrats couldn't change the date even if they wanted to.

And regardless, I don't care. The voters didn't break the rules. The state government did.

And instead of bitching to the rest of the country, the voters should have gone after the GOP legislature.

if you want to change the current already established rules to not disenfranchise voters, let's dump the superdelegates this time, and just go with pledged delegates. Nothing disenfranchise voters more than some party insider getting 10,000 votes.

By your own logic

:eyes:

"popular vote" and run as an Independent. If she is so sure she is the best qualified to be President and doesn't like the damn rules she agreed to, she can get out and run on her own.

Then we'll see if the GOP pays for ads to help her out.

THOSE are the only votes HRC is really interested in.. Most of them were promised to her early on (probably for favors after the inauguration:rofl:..)

she didn't give a rat's ass about those precious voters until she had her ass handed to her after 11 losses in a row.. Right about then, she started to get really interested in getting some roooooolz changed..

Does anyone seriously think that she cared all that much about anything that was on the calendar AFTER Feb 5? THAT was her coronation day...when she would have "wrapped it all up"..

She would have put in an obligatory thank you as she toured the states after she won, but she would not have spent a DIME or much time in any of the states after Feb 5.. Now she's on the Joan d'Arc Martyr Tour, yelling her brains out, in ghastly pantsuits of every color of the rainbow, and some colors that haven't been invented until now...pretending to "care" so much..stiffing local small businesses in every town she favors with her royal appearances..

She's the antithesis of feminism.. she's little more than a hanger-on..a utensil of a craven man..a leech.

She cares alright.. she cares about destroying Obama because he DARED to challenge her..

You're right about her as the antithesis.

She's irrelevant to our future.

From OP link >

"There is no chance that she's going to be ahead in popular vote or pledged delegates unless you manipulate the vote," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

And that's exactly what she wants to do. Massage the vote.
What does it say about a candidate for any position when they want to break the rules of the competition?
One word. Cheater.

because only Soviet style elections are fair! :sarcasm:

so he cannot be given votes that may not have been cast for him.