finknottle Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 To say that she got more votes than him is a misrepresentation of the events that happened. After all, his name was not on the Michigan or Florida ballots, not to mention Iowa, Texas and a few other caucus states did not release their vote totals. So, it can still be disputed that Obama still received more popular votes than Clinton Huh??? You either were voted for or you were not. How are the numbers a misrepresentation? He took himself off of the Michigan ballot - nobody asked him to, he made a political decision not to be seen as losing to Clinton in an important state for the national election but which was uncontested and would not count towards the nomination. Four candidates requested that their names be withdrawn, four candidates did not. And he was on the Florida ballot - he got 32.9% of the vote to Clintons 49.8%. Texas has released its vote totals - he received 1,362,476 votes (47.4%) to Clinton's 1,462,734 (50.9%). The only states which have not released totals are Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Without those states Clinton's margin is 286,687. Reputable stimates for those states are available and reduce her lead to either 175,000 or 225,000 (depending on which caucus for Washington you use - they had two for some bizarre reason, with different margins. Only one of them elected delegates, the one which reduces her margin to 175,000.)
TheMadCap Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 They both look pretty friggin gay to me. That first one looks like Obama's add for what our collective !@#$s will look like by 2010...
justnzane Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 Huh??? You either were voted for or you were not. How are the numbers a misrepresentation? He took himself off of the Michigan ballot - nobody asked him to, he made a political decision not to be seen as losing to Clinton in an important state for the national election but which was uncontested and would not count towards the nomination. Four candidates requested that their names be withdrawn, four candidates did not. And he was on the Florida ballot - he got 32.9% of the vote to Clintons 49.8%. Texas has released its vote totals - he received 1,362,476 votes (47.4%) to Clinton's 1,462,734 (50.9%). The only states which have not released totals are Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Without those states Clinton's margin is 286,687. Reputable stimates for those states are available and reduce her lead to either 175,000 or 225,000 (depending on which caucus for Washington you use - they had two for some bizarre reason, with different margins. Only one of them elected delegates, the one which reduces her margin to 175,000.) It was expected of all candidates to not be on the ballot for both of those states, and more importantly not to campaign there. Howard Dean and the DNC made such requests to punish both states for breaking party rules. Those two states clearly had unfair situations that favored Clinton. If there were fair elections in both states, I would have counted on Obama being the one who would have won the popular vote. EDIT: those Texas results are the primary... not including the caucus
Taro T Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 It was expected of all candidates to not be on the ballot for both of those states, and more importantly not to campaign there. Howard Dean and the DNC made such requests to punish both states for breaking party rules. Those two states clearly had unfair situations that favored Clinton. If there were fair elections in both states, I would have counted on Obama being the one who would have won the popular vote. How was it expected of all candidates to be off the ballot in those states? Did Obama have an agreement (verbal or written) from Hillary and the others that stayed on the ballot to leave and they reneged on the agreement? If he didn't, how was there an "unfair situation that favored Clinton"? It was pretty clear at the time, that Obama expected to lose both states and asked people that favored him to vote undecided.
justnzane Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 How was it expected of all candidates to be off the ballot in those states? Did Obama have an agreement (verbal or written) from Hillary and the others that stayed on the ballot to leave and they reneged on the agreement? If he didn't, how was there an "unfair situation that favored Clinton"? It was pretty clear at the time, that Obama expected to lose both states and asked people that favored him to vote undecided. the candidates couldn't campaign there, and even with Obama saying to voted uncommitted in michigan, many voters didn't know of such an option. To me, the inability to campaign in those states hurt Obama, as he could not get his message to the local voters, where Hillary was and is a known commodity. Thus, Hillary held a huge advantage in both states.
Chilly Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 the candidates couldn't campaign there, and even with Obama saying to voted uncommitted in michigan, many voters didn't know of such an option. To me, the inability to campaign in those states hurt Obama, as he could not get his message to the local voters, where Hillary was and is a known commodity. Thus, Hillary held a huge advantage in both states. Boohoo. It was a political decision for Hillary to be on the ballot, just as it was a political decision by Obama to not be on it.
Taro T Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 the candidates couldn't campaign there, and even with Obama saying to voted uncommitted in michigan, many voters didn't know of such an option. To me, the inability to campaign in those states hurt Obama, as he could not get his message to the local voters, where Hillary was and is a known commodity. Thus, Hillary held a huge advantage in both states. The candidates couldn't campaign there, but yet Hillary was on the ballot. Why didn't Obama stay on the ballot if he knew his closest competitor was on the ballot unless he either knew he'd get his butt kicked or she had agreed to get off the ballot? Either way, it's a pretty weak argument on your part (which is not terribly surprising).
justnzane Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 The candidates couldn't campaign there, but yet Hillary was on the ballot. Why didn't Obama stay on the ballot if he knew his closest competitor was on the ballot unless he either knew he'd get his butt kicked or she had agreed to get off the ballot? Either way, it's a pretty weak argument on your part (which is not terribly surprising). Because he respected the party guidelines. Ya know, that thing kinda matters to some people, like the party they were running for
Fastback Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 Because he respected the party guidelines. Ya know, that thing kinda matters to some people, like the party they were running for Keep drinking the Kool-Aide buddy. Actually, maybe I shouldn't write that because you're probably clueless as to what that even means...
justnzane Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 Keep drinking the Kool-Aide buddy. Actually, maybe I shouldn't write that because you're probably clueless as to what that even means...
swede316 Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 He represents ChangeTM "Change isn't good Leon"
finknottle Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 It was expected of all candidates to not be on the ballot for both of those states, and more importantly not to campaign there. Howard Dean and the DNC made such requests to punish both states for breaking party rules. Those two states clearly had unfair situations that favored Clinton. If there were fair elections in both states, I would have counted on Obama being the one who would have won the popular vote. EDIT: those Texas results are the primary... not including the caucus I am unaware of any requests by the DNC to have the candidates remove themselves from the ballot, only that they not campaign there and that the delegates not be seated. In fact, I'm confident that no such request was made. Only half the candidates did so in Michigan. None did so in Florida. As for it being unfair to Obama, boo hoo! Was Obama's media advantage in Illinois, Missouri, and Indiana unfair? Is the advantage that both Obama and Clinton share unfair to Gravel? What about the 12 other democratic candidates that were never even invited to a debate? Was that unfair? Your claims about Obama winning in Fla and Michigan don't hold water. How was Florida unfair, coming immediately after the nation (including Florida) was blanketed with glowing news accounts of his Super Tuesday victories, and nothing but gloom-and-doom about Clinton? He had the media advantage, and he still lost at the ballot box. Even in Michigan, pre-election polling gave Clinton a 46% to 23% lead. Exit polling put her lead at 46% to 35%. The bottom line is simple: fewer people voted for Obama than the candidate he beat for the nomination. You can talk if's and but's and argue circumstances, but it doesn't change the results. EDIT: The participants in the Texas caucus were a subset of the voters in the primary - that is, they had already voted. It's pretty obvious that the primary total is the one to use in counting the popular vote, unless you believe that caucus participants should have their votes count for twice as much.
justnzane Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I didn't say that Obama won michigan or florida. I just said that had he been allowed to campaign/ visit those areas, his vote numbers would have carried him over in the popular vote IMO. Also, the Texas caucus voters probably were voters in the primary as well. However, the way the Texas system is set up, their votes can count twice, and since Obama destroyed Hillary in the caucus, I'd be banking the the number Obama voters there was significant enough to make an argument for coming close to or surpassing Clinton's vote total. As we have learned 8 years ago, you do not even need to win the popular vote to become pres. Also, yes the DNC encouraged candidates to pull themselves off the Michigan ballot, with the Keebler elf aka Kucinich unsuccessfully attempting to do so. However, I do agree that Gravel and others should have been invited to more debates. Though Obama got a lot of attention, I think he deserved a lot of it as he won 12 straight primaries and won some early crucial states.
pBills Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 How many has he inspired on the other side, exactly? Yes, I would like to see a link, maybe some stats, how about a count of hands?
/dev/null Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Though Obama got a lot of attention, I think he deserved a lot of it as he won 12 straight primaries and won some early crucial states. I'm afraid what this might do to justn, his head may explode trying to contemplate this. But.... Did Obama get a lot of attention because he won 12 straight primaries. Or did Obama win 12 straight primaries because he got lots of attention?
justnzane Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I'm afraid what this might do to justn, his head may explode trying to contemplate this. But.... Did Obama get a lot of attention because he won 12 straight primaries. Or did Obama win 12 straight primaries because he got lots of attention? I know exactly where you are going with this. The real reason Obama caught a lot of the pre Super Tuesday attention was his relatively strong performances in the early primaries. He held himself up well against two known quantities in Clitton and Edwards. Since he is/was relatively new to the national scene, it was only natural to give more attention to the guy to find out more about him, like his crazy pastor.
/dev/null Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I know exactly where you are going with this. The real reason Obama caught a lot of the pre Super Tuesday attention was his relatively strong performances in the early primaries. He held himself up well against two known quantities in Clitton and Edwards. Since he is/was relatively new to the national scene, it was only natural to give more attention to the guy to find out more about him, like his crazy pastor. Freudian slip?
justnzane Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Freudian slip? no that was intentional... I was listenin to some Carlin on the way home, and he referred to slick Willy as "Clit'n"
OCinBuffalo Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 They both look pretty friggin gay to me. That first one looks like Obama's add for what our collective !@#$s will look like by 2010... Or what we will all have in our bank accounts if he raises taxes in an economic slowdown. Or what % change he actually represents. Or people that support him love "zero (insert something good here)". Btw, the first thing I thought of was "0"....why was the first thing you thought of.....that? I think they might want to re-think that first one. "O" can be mistaken for 0 real easy. Talk about playing into your opponents hands....if they all start doing that at his rallies, the jokes will never end. Every comedian in the world will start in on him. Hell even Limbaugh might be able to come up with something original if you gave him something that easy. Oh and the second one: Jesus H Christ they're not even trying to hide anymore = Obey: Engineered Propaganda? RUFKME? Obey? Nah, these people aren't fascists, really they're not. I love how they call what they do "dissent". Hysterical. Try "coercion" fellas, it fits better.
pBills Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Keep drinking the Kool-Aide buddy. Actually, maybe I shouldn't write that because you're probably clueless as to what that even means... You realize that he's right don't you? Or do you like to bash anything Obama because it's second nature now? Edwards and other candidates pulled their names from that ballot as well, following party rules. Granted not everyone did it - Hillary, Kucinich and I believe Dodd stayed on.
Recommended Posts