Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Congratulations, new Michigan Obama voters!

Even though you didn't vote for him, the DNC decided to, er, award your votes to Obama anyhow!

Where's that Unity Pony? Still on back order for you?

0
No votes yet

Comments

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

closed by saying that would unify the party in Michigan.

Don't hold your breath Mark. Giving Obama what he did not earn and taking away from Hillary what she earned will frost some people.

beadfulheart's picture
Submitted by beadfulheart on

I had a hundred bucks for every time they said the word 'unity'. I could buy my own damn pony and name her Unity!!!

beadfulheart's picture
Submitted by beadfulheart on

but could someone explain the asterisk?

flotsam's picture
Submitted by flotsam on

I live in Michigan. I did not vote in the primary for two reasons. Reason one: I would have been required to register as a democrat to vote democrat in an open primary. That's unconstitutional, and I wanted no part of it. Reason two: I wanted to vote for John Edwards, and his name was not on the ballot. Sure, I could have voted "uncommitted", which was the strategy recommended by some. I was told that an uncommitted vote meant that it would register for either Edwards or Obama, both of which I preferred to Hilary (there, I've said it!), but it just seemed so untidy, plus reason one already meant that I wasn't voting anyway.

Because of the untidy nature of the "uncommitted" option, some of my fellow democrats, Obama or Edwards supporters, decided to vote for Romney, just to help prolong things for the Republicans. That was another popular strategic choice, and it is the main reason Romney won Michigan on the Republican side: crossover spoiler voters. Those were our choices. But let me make one thing clear: this solution is about as good, and about as fair as you are going to get. You've got to stop sniffing for conspiracies. How in god's name would you have solved this? I mean really - the whole Michigan primary was a fiasco, and if Obama and Edwards had been on the ballot, Hillary would not have garnered anything like the votes she ended up with.

She left her name on the ballot, she did not expect the votes to even count, and now you're bitching that she ended up with half of the votes? Jesus wept! Wouldja listen to yerselves, fer cryin' out loud!!

downstreamer

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

We should ignore all the people who did come out and vote, regardless of how unhappy they were about the process, because I didn't vote. For a reason that had nothing to do with this discussion in the first place.

I plan on doing that whole "vote on principle" thing this November, but at least I have the decency to understand that my voluntary exemption does not invalidate the whole process.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by lambert on

1. That's why Obama should have supported the revote. He's got more money than God, and if he'd given the nod, it would have happened.

2. The second-best solution IMNSO would have been to seat the delegates as they were voted for. A delegate can be "Undecided" -- it's an official category. Seat 'em that way, and then let them work it out, and give the delegates Hillary got to Hillary.

What the DNC should not be doing is taking votes from some voters and giving them to others. That's stealing.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

flotsam's picture
Submitted by flotsam on

... with your second best solution:

"2. The second-best solution IMNSO would have been to seat the delegates as they were voted for. A delegate can be “Undecided” — it’s an official category. Seat ’em that way, and then let them work it out, and give the delegates Hillary got to Hillary."

That would have been the proper thing to do. And you know what? Obama would still be winning handily, and nobody would have had any reason to gripe ... would they?

And if I had thought the Michigan primary votes would have counted, voting "undecided" would have been an option worth considering. But - and I say this at the risk of inviting further scorn and abuse - we were told unequivocally that our votes WOULD NOT COUNT. So I did not vote. I daresay you might have done likewise.

I'm happy with the 50/50 split, but would have been even happier to give Hillary the votes she earned.

downstreamer

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

They not only give him all the uncommitted but also give him four of her delegates! And they're breaking the rules to game the system against the first serious woman candidate. Corrupt and one for the history books. Best part yet: Obama can't win the GE! Hilarious! At least Republican vote theft results in actual wins.

Does anyone know about the ins and outs of a convention floor fight? I don't think she'll be allowed to win the nomination, but she has the right to fight for it.

joc's picture
Submitted by joc on

And we all know that men are supposed to earn more than women for equal work. Current numbers show that women earn about 80 cents on the dollar, compared to men.

Hillary earned 69 delegates for 73 delegates worth of votes, which make her earning level 94%. However, Obama got 59 delegates for 55 delegates worth of voters (107%). So in comparison, Hillary is earning 88 delegates per 100 earned** by Obama. That extra 8% is a real step forward for equal rights.

Yay for women!

**Please ignore that Obama did not actually earn all these votes, my calculator doesn't work when I ask it to divide by zero.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

Downstreamer, it doesn't matter if you live in Michigan. Others will assume the right to speak for you. Because what matters is not how YOU feel about your rights, but about whether A, B, or C can fit into the "Damn that Obama Man!" crusade! You have to slide things around that priority, and it will all makes sense, then.
___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

Submitted by lambert on

So, were you pushing the RFK smear? Just out of curiousity....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

But awarding first-round delegates to somebody who's name wasn't on the ballot? Wow, that's really unjust and worthy of a Soviet Bloc country.

Downstreamer, you did vote. For Romney. And it was counted. You shouldn't get a second vote for Obama now. You voted once already -- you think this is Chicago or something?

Sorry for pouring more gasoline on the fire and all, but awarding votes to people who weren't even on the ballot is just not right, and allowing some people to vote twice is also not right.

blogtopus's picture
Submitted by blogtopus on

Agreed. As the man said, The election was solid, Obama's campaign strategy wasn't.

Downstreamer, you had your vote. You chose to use it in a joke / cynical attempt to game the system. That was your right, and nobody's taking it away from you.

Obama made a calculated risk in removing his name from the ballot; he's a lawyer, surrounded by lawyers in his campaign: If he didn't know this was going to happen I'm even more frightened for our country. I think he DID know, and was hoping this would happen: A clusterf*ck that the DNC would bail him out for. Sounds like a similar spoiled brat used to getting bailed out for things he knew were wrong, doesn't it?

flotsam's picture
Submitted by flotsam on

Cenobite... If you had taken the time to read what I wrote you wouldn't have written this:

"Downstreamer, you had your vote. You chose to use it in a joke / cynical attempt to game the system."

Fact is, I did not vote. I made that pretty clear in my post. I explained it quite clearly. Read more slowly and more carefully. That usually works for me.

So... in addition to being bitter you are not a very careful reader. No matter. What really pisses me off is that there are so many of you who see conspiracies where there are none. So many of you who have time to whip up cute graphics with asterisks (ahead of time, 'cause you knew you were going to get shafted, and you wanted to be the first to put your brand on it.) So many of you so deeply mired in victimization mode that you can't even begin to get behind the one candidate who has a chance of beating McCain. OK. Go ahead. See what good it does.

Chicago Dyke tried to bring this discussion back to reality a few days ago, but that didn't work either. Unity? Seems like conspiracy theories are more fun.

downstreamer

flotsam's picture
Submitted by flotsam on

Shouldn't it be possible for me to use the word "unity" in my post without that bullshit little cute question mark appearing, co-opting my writing into the definition which appears, to wit:

Unity
A fake solution to the false problem of "excessive partisanship." Ponies for everybody!

I mean, bloody hell! What kind of verbal straightjackets do I need to escape from just to make a post around here?!

downstreamer

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I mean, bloody hell! What kind of verbal straightjackets do I need to escape from just to make a post around here?!

we're not the ones who put in a verbal straitjacket.

lots of people have sob story about why they would have voted if they knew their votes would have counted.

Now you have one too. Bravo.

But the is one person to blame for your choice not to vote -- if you aren't going to accept responsibility yourself. That's John Edwards.

And that's the irony here. This dickwad is now an Obama supporter -- but he would have voted for Edwards if he knew the vote would be important.

He doesn't even realize just how completely fucked HE was today, because HIS vote for "uncommitted" in support of Edwards would have been handed to someone else today.

NINETEEN PERCENT of voters in the michigan exit polls said that NEITHER Clinton nor Obama was their first choice. If you split that 19% betwen Clinton and Obama, it comes out to 55.5% to 44.5%. If you apportion it based on the exit polling proportions, its Clinton 56.8%, Obama 43.2%

Remember, these were exit polls ... so all the idiots who did write in votes are included.

Clinton come out BETTER than she did when you apportion the neither Clinton nor Obama vote in any rational manner.

And, btw, THERE IS NO FUCKING AUTHORITY FOR THAT COMMITTEE TO TAKE DELEGATES AWAY FROM ANY CANDIDATE, OR APPORTION DELEGATES IN ANY WAY BETWEEN ANY CANDIDATES.

The ONLY authority the committee has with regard to the number of delegates a candidate gets is to penalize a candidate if they violate a rule.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

"If you don't vote, you can't bitch."

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred,
principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

fixed doesn't even begin to describe this.

Submitted by lambert on

So, so tiresome. At least Nezua didn't play that card.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

blogtopus's picture
Submitted by blogtopus on

The (*) refers to the fact that his nomination (and admittedly Hillary's) is going to be weighed down with the history of how it came to be. This is a shameful episode for the Democratic Party [sic].

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

Assumptions:
1. Obama is the nominee.
2. Hillary is a hapless pest.
3. Democratic voter vote for the party nominee.

Therefore, we want to make Obama look as strong as we can. Let's cut Hillary's delegates in Florida in half.

In Michigan we are in stronger position, let's take away votes from Hillary and give it to Obama. This becomes stronger.

Hillary supporters
a. Will get over it
b. Cannot resist (they will not go to court to make Hillary the laughing stock of Kos & Josh and Company.)
c. Will understand in the end
d. Should know what's good for them

Obama has enough votes without blue collar voters and women. Healing smealing.

Pelosi will stop the stupidity of the Hillary campaign in no time. They will not go to the convention.

If Hillary takes her delegates to the convention we will find ways to muzzle them. (You better believe that they will try.)

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

Larry Johnson is going to blow Obama's shit out of the water at 9:00 AM Monday morning.
So go out and have a few beers in celebration.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

give us a preview -- and will it get picked up by the media?

Submitted by lambert on

She's right. The A list, wittingly or not, got pw0ned the doctored War Room video. I've been pw0ned by disinformation myself. Remember the Killian memo and serifs. Be prepared for this to blow up in our faces if we're not careful. So far as I can tell, the only difference between Axelrod and Rove is that Axelrod doesn't control the government yet.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

Since I did not write:

“Downstreamer, you had your vote. You chose to use it in a joke / cynical attempt to game the system.”

Extra credit for telling us who did.

flotsam's picture
Submitted by flotsam on

What was I thinking? You wrote this one:

"Downstreamer, you did vote. For Romney. And it was counted. You shouldn’t get a second vote for Obama now. You voted once already — you think this is Chicago or something?"

But I didn't vote, see.

downstreamer

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

You chose not to vote because you made a principled stand that non-Democrats should be counted in a Democratic primary election. My apologies.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

damn it!

i wanted to write that comment

(i just didn't know how to do it so well).

Assumptions:
1. Obama is the nominee.
2. Hillary is a hapless pest.
3. Democratic voter vote for the party nominee

.
.
.
.

Hillary supporters
a. Will get over it
b. Cannot resist (they will not go to court to make Hillary the laughing stock of Kos & Josh and Company.)
c. Will understand in the end
d. Should know what’s good for them

that's the dnc scenario alright.

thanks

p.s. the dnc can take a long walk on a short pier.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

On why the reallocation of Michigan, which isn't permitted by those sacred ROOLZ, could bite Obama and all of us in the ass in November and beyond:

Taking away delegates from Hillary and handing them to Obama, however, is not within their purview, and this will come back to bite them in the ass. First, as I said above, it indicates that the internal count of the Obama delegates is weaker than they claim. Four delegates should not make that big a difference, yet they obviously do even with the count reduced by the 50% rule. There is no other rational reason to force this misallocation for such a small number of delegates, given the blowback that will occur. Of course, given what we have seen of the Obama campaign, stupidity, arrogance and an inability to resist trying to humiliate an opponent are hallmarks of their operation. Whether or not Hillary can capitalize on this for the convention, rest assured that the Republicans will do so for the general election, even if Hillary is the nominee. The Party has deliberately reapportioned the outcome of an official and certified election. They may have had the power to deny seats to the resulting delegation at all, allow seats but no votes, allow votes but reduced by a percentage, or seat them with 100% voting privileges, but they do not have the power to modify the allocation of delegates within the delegation.

[Snip]

The reason I am concerned about the battle over the four Michigan delegate votes is because there is no valid procedure for that reallocation, and alleged Democrat "vote fixing" is one of the Republicans' standard arguments against the Democrats. It is used to push through restrictive voter ID and onerous voter registration rules, and it is used as an excuse to purge voter rolls and install thugs at voting palces to "discourage voter fraud". It is used deliberately to undermine minority voting in Democratic districts, and the Republicans will gleefully seize on this one very egregious act of disenfranchisement to serve up a toxic mix of racism - see what happens when "those people" (i.e., non-whites, in this case AAs, but also applied to Hispanics and Asians) start calling the voting shots? They just rearrange things to promote one of "their own kind."

Why is this a really bad thing in the current election cycle? Because the new issue on the Republicans' radar is Affirmative Action. (Gee, I wonder why they picked that theme?) There will be state measures on the ballot in Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, just to name a few states where Obama is allegedly competitive. Add this crude and blatent vote manipulation to the mix, and the Republicans now have a big campaign issue handed to them on a silver platter.

Remember this was done over FOUR delegates. The Democratic Party decided it could reallocate the vote of a certified election and Obama argued for them to do it - for four delegates.

Nicely done Democrats!

Does anyone know if other states besides the ones Anglachel mentioned will have affirmative action things on their ballots? I'll give the GOP this, they are evil bastards, but unlike Democrats they never take their eyes off the prize.

My favorite quote from a Clinton protester today went something like "those idiots in there have given me 2 winners in 40 years." After watching some of the hearing today, I'm surprised we managed 2.

Link - http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/d...

Violet Socks's picture
Submitted by Violet Socks on

Still busy spreading the lie that Hillary called for Obama's assassination? Still busy imagining you have any intellectual credibility left?

Submitted by lambert on

Just for the record....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Obama will not be a legitimate nominee. I cannot in good conscience vote for an illegitimate candidate.

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Submitted by lambert on

How's the veal, VL?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Violet Socks's picture
Submitted by Violet Socks on

The Murder Card

and subsequently flogged by Nezua himself here.

Sorry, but the assassination smear makes me crazy. It's a dealbreaker. And I don't mean in terms of voting for Obama himself, since I've already decided I won't be doing that. No, I mean that in my view, anyone who pushes that smear is beyond the pale.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

But - and I say this at the risk of inviting further scorn and abuse - we were told unequivocally that our votes WOULD NOT COUNT.

For future reference, assume anyone who tells you this is lying. Always vote, and insist that it be counted.

horseloverfat's picture
Submitted by horseloverfat on

Actually, the 4 delegates only vote at50%. So this perversion was done to game two(2) more delegate votes.

Horselover Fat