Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Uncommited in Michigan went to Obama and Edwards. Edwards was still in the race.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
peoli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:46 PM
Original message
Uncommited in Michigan went to Obama and Edwards. Edwards was still in the race.
Mi. Primary was January 15th. Edwards drops out January 30th.

Why is the Clinton campaign saying the uncommited were 'Obama's votes'?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. is the Clinton campaign saying the uncommitted are Obama's votes?
Edited on Thu Apr-24-08 02:48 PM by jsamuel
they are probably 2/3 Obama 1/3 Edwards or so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. As I know the state it would be more likely 22 Edwards, 18 Obama, 5 other
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well, we've already established that you...
like to have "fun" with the numbers and make b.s. comments on Obama's non-existent muslim heritage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Well that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Then again, so was your Obama is a Muslim line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyingSquirrel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. ignored, don't know what they said
or who and I don't care either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. no, that's more than dumb
it's uglier than dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Team Obama reportedly encouraged people to vote "uncommitted," thus
stupid people think normal people are stupid enough to believe those are "Obama's votes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peoli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. It was actually supporters of Edwards and Obama, and the Michigan Democratic Party.
http://michiganforedwards.blogspot.com/2008/01/vote-uncommitted-letter-in-kalamazoo.html

They are tryin to make us somehow believe that it was the Obama team but it wasnt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. If it worked that way, I'd think they'd have no problem replacing the Nov. ballots with:
1. McCain.
2. (insert Green party candidate)
3. (insert Libertarian candidate)
4. (insert Constitution party candidate)
5. (insert nutjob)
6. (insert nutjob)
7. (insert nutjob)
8. (insert nutjob)
9. (insert nutjob)
10. (insert nutjob)
11. (insert nutjob)
12. (insert nutjob)
13. (insert nutjob)
14. (insert nutjob)
15. Uncommitted.



Actually, come to think of it, I'd think more than a few of them would indeed like to see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Because it is more generous to Obama today to allow him to claim
the votes that did not back Hillary as his. It makes their position seem more reasonable that way. They would happily accept that division.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalon6 Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. Easy solution: Get Edwards to say that all of the uncommited voters belong to Obama
Edited on Thu Apr-24-08 02:53 PM by Avalon6
I think he would actually go along because it would solve the Michigan problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyingSquirrel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. It wouldn't solve it at all.
People are stupid. When there's no other name on the ballot that they recognize, many of them will just choose the big name. Furthermore, many people stayed home in disgust -- knowing that their candidate would not be on the ballot.

The Michigan election was a sham, and giving Obama all the Uncommitted votes does not resolve the issue. However, it is the closest thing to a fair solution that exists at this point - short of a 50/50 split.

Since there was a 5% "other" vote, in reality Obama should probably get 45% of the delegates from Michigan since the others would not have gained 15% (assuming Edwards did make some kind of statement like that).

That would split the delegates 70-58 or 71-57 - a difference of 12 to 14. I'm sure Obama could weather that easily, but he wouldn't want to agree to it till he saw for sure that it wouldn't make a difference with Hillary planning on staying in till the bitter end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I believe the others have instructed their delegates to vote for Obama.

So he'd get that 45%. Obama should take this deal if Hillary agrees.

But I doubt Hillary will agree. She wants her 55% with a chance to convince the uncommitted to swing over to her. And she knows Obama is being blamed every time a deal falls through, even when she has been the one to nix the deal.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olkaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. Because it fits their magical route to the Hillary coronation.
I'm expecting leap years and leprechauns to be involved in the new way we pick a nominee soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. Many Dems voted for Romney or stayed at home, too.
We have no idea who would have voted for whom if it had been legit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. Why should we assume that ALL of the Clinton voters
would have voted for her if Obama or Edwards had been on the ballot? Surely there were some voters that liked Hillary just enough to vote for her over "non-committed" and DK but not enough to vote for her over Obama or Edwards. It is hard to say what the thought process of the voters would have been when they showed up to vote for down ticket races and thought the vote for president wasn't going to count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. Uncommitted in Michigan didn't go to anyone. Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyingSquirrel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. When people know their favored candidate won't be on the ballot
many will stay home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC