TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Michigan/Florida could be pivitol after all
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Michigan/Florida could be pivitol after all

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...ers/index.html

Only one problem - Obama wasn't even ON the Michigan ticket. Only Hillary even put her name on the ballot, but she still only got 55% of the vote.

Now the NAACP of all groups wants those delegates to count? Of course Hillary's camp wants it to count. Since she would be the only one to get any official delegates from Michigan that could be the deciding factor in the nomination. She also won Florida handily, even though that wasn't supposed to count either.

Look, I would actually be happier if Hillary won the nomination because I really think McCain could stomp her in a general election. But this whole situation just plain stinks to me. Have a do-over primary so they both have an equal shot or something. But just using those results, especially Michigan, to push the delegate count up is just plain un-democratic (process, not party).

Opinions on this turn of events?
post #2 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...ers/index.html

Only one problem - Obama wasn't even ON the Michigan ticket. Only Hillary even put her name on the ballot, but she still only got 55% of the vote.

Now the NAACP of all groups wants those delegates to count? Of course Hillary's camp wants it to count. Since she would be the only one to get any official delegates from Michigan that could be the deciding factor in the nomination. She also won Florida handily, even though that wasn't supposed to count either.

Look, I would actually be happier if Hillary won the nomination because I really think McCain could stomp her in a general election. But this whole situation just plain stinks to me. Have a do-over primary so they both have an equal shot or something. But just using those results, especially Michigan, to push the delegate count up is just plain un-democratic (process, not party).

Opinions on this turn of events?

I suppose a do-over may be in need here. That would be the best for all involved.
post #3 of 13
Do over for sure... I've already told my husband that if Hillary becomes president we are moving to England. I do hope you're right in saying McCain could stomp her...
post #4 of 13
This is going to get interesting. Goes to show you every state is important this time around.
post #5 of 13
Counting those delegates now will rip apart the Democratic Party and all these new people who came in because of Obama will leave the process and may not come back in their lifetime. The Clintons have always been all about the Clintons though rather than the party or the country. She is blinded by her own personal ambitions and so arrogant she doesn't see that this could very well sink any chance she has of winning in November. She was even the only name on the ballot for the Democrats in Michigan because the other candidates followed the rules and took their name off the ballot. Hillary has never thought the rules applied to her though.
post #6 of 13
anyone hear any more on this?

I find it disgusting. No do overs. If Hilary or anyone else contested this at the time it occurred that is one thing. However, for Hilary to start this non-sense now when she is all of a sudden behind is just plain wrong.

I have never be one of those who despise her, but I have to tell you, between Bill's behavior in NC and now this I am disgusted. What a spoiled poor sport.
post #7 of 13
I notice she didn't care until she realized she was losing, and I wouldn't be surprised if she was rather instrumental in letting them not count in the first place-- Obama could have pulled out the stops in Michigan and gotten a large percentage of the votes, esp with Detroit and the general more-liberalness of Democrats in that part of the country.

She doesn't want a do-over, because she'd lose solidly. She wants the votes to count the way they were, with no campaigning by either one. It isn't going to happen though.
post #8 of 13
There has been talk about a do over in a caucus format. A primary takes a long time to put together and is much more expensive. Of course Hillary wants no part of that because she has done so poorly in the caucus states. Hillary is making herself look so bad now with her naked ambition that she isn't going to gain anymore ground anywhere now. She was way ahead in the polls in Texas and Ohio. They are now even in Texas and her lead has been cut in half in Ohio.
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denice View Post
There has been talk about a do over in a caucus format. A primary takes a long time to put together and is much more expensive. Of course Hillary wants no part of that because she has done so poorly in the caucus states. Hillary is making herself look so bad now with her naked ambition that she isn't going to gain anymore ground anywhere now. She was way ahead in the polls in Texas and Ohio. They are now even in Texas and her lead has been cut in half in Ohio.
The polls in Ohio aren't 100% correct. Everyone I know is either voting for McCain or Obama, and none have been contacted by a pollster.

This also could be that I live near the area that elects Dennis Kucinich on a regular basis.
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
The polls in Ohio aren't 100% correct. Everyone I know is either voting for McCain or Obama, and none have been contacted by a pollster.

This also could be that I live near the area that elects Dennis Kucinich on a regular basis.
Probably. Random-sample polls that are fairly worded, etc, tend to be pretty accurate. Not fool-proof, but there's some solid math behind it.

Everyone I know is voting for Obama (except my dad), but we're all extremely liberal, young, etc-- his demographic. NE Ohio is by far the liberalist part of the state (lol, I voted for Kucinich too) so it's not surprising that you only know people voting for Obama too. But down Dayton/Cinci/Zanesville way, where people are less liberal, and people who are older, and some other certain groups, Clinton still has a healthy lead. She's winning the mainstream (read; not actually democrats anymore) Democratic vote, the older people, the racists-- which we all know Ohio has plenty of-- etc. Obama is doing really well but with a lot of people who don't necessarily vote often or ever in primaries.

For the most part, only people labeled as likely voters are being polled, which means Hilary's group is overrepresented and Obama's is underrepresented.

Which also means we-- the people labelled as unlikely voters-- really have to get out there on March 4th, like desperately. If Obama can pull a Jesse Ventura, he's gonna win. If he can't, Hillary will.
post #11 of 13
I would never in a million years vote for either one of them.
I heard on the news that Hilary admitted she was not prepared for the primaries in several states, and I find this extremely arrogant and disrespectful to the voting public. She thought she could just toss her name out there and people would be falling all over themselves to vote for her. I really hope this has ruined her chances of winning the nomination.
Though I have nothing against Obama, and think he is probably a good man, his big mouth wife makes me want to slap the taste out of her mouth. She is so annoying. She should just shut up and stand there. She is almost as annoying as Hilary was as first lady.
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
But down Dayton/Cinci/Zanesville way, where people are less liberal, and people who are older, and some other certain groups, Clinton still has a healthy lead. She's winning the mainstream (read; not actually democrats anymore) Democratic vote, the older people, the racists-- which we all know Ohio has plenty of-- etc.
This kind of thinking is what has kept the democrats largely out of power for most of the last 40 years. Many people believe that the party was effectively "hijacked" by groups with extremely liberal agendas starting in the 70's. The party hasn't been the same since. The leftists succeeded in causing disaffection among large numbers of once staunchly democrat Catholics and blue-collar workers, among others. Apparently they weren't "actually" democrats either.
post #13 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
This kind of thinking is what has kept the democrats largely out of power for most of the last 40 years. Many people believe that the party was effectively "hijacked" by groups with extremely liberal agendas starting in the 70's. The party hasn't been the same since. The leftists succeeded in causing disaffection among large numbers of once staunchly democrat Catholics and blue-collar workers, among others. Apparently they weren't "actually" democrats either.
What kind of thinking? That Hillary isn't actually politically a Democrat? My point was that she goes after swing voters like that's the only group she cares about.

It's strange how the right panders to the furthest right, and the left panders to the middle, especially when both parties are politically to the right of the global political scale.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Michigan/Florida could be pivitol after all