Members Adam Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 Why wasn't his name on the ballot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 Both states lost their delegates, and I guess since they would be counted, he didn't see the point of placing his name on the ballot. Which is why it wasn't a big deal when she won both states because he never really campaigned in either one. Now, she wants them to count. I hear now they may have a revote in both states just to see who would win, and then if they count, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 That is what I think should happen...even if it is expensive for a revote, do it for the sake of counting many people's votes. It is a very sacred right in this country to vote...to take it away from people due to stripped delegates is unfair and wrong. Now, of course, they could vote in the primaries but what use is the vote if the state does not count? I consider it disenfranchisement. Adam, good call on Clinton/Obama ticket...that is how it should be since the beginning of the race. They will attract the right voters (women, white men, black community, latinos, independents, some Republicans). They are unstoppable if yo ask me. About taking the name off the ballot...I put that fault on Obama for not realizing that there might be a way in which the votes might still count. There is a possibility that the votes can count (if the DNC allows it) in a last minute scenario...Hillary realized this and kept her name on the ballot. But they all, thankfully, kept their promise to not campaign in either Michigan or Florida. Putting your name on a ballot and campaigning are both separate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 You know, Devoted, for a person who talks about Obama the way you do.......why do you want him to be VP (And please do not include because it will Billary win)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 I think he would be a good VP because I find the guy has been a breath of fresh air for the Democrats in the past couple of years. Sure he is a lot of talk but his ideas are rather good, with a desire to put us on the right track. I am not just saying to have him be VP with Hillary as president...but I just feel that, because she is offering specifics along with some more experience (I do count her years as First Lady as experience. She transformed the role of First Lady and was heavily involved in world affairs) than he does, he should be the second in command. After eight years as her VP, he can be the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kwing42 Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 As a Michigan resident, if there is a revote, the DNC needs to pay for it. We spent $10 million on a worthless contest. Candidates turned their backs on the state that has the highest unemployment and biggest financial troubles.... I am not even sure why people in MI would wnat to vote for people who turned their backs on us, but if they do, the DNC needs to pay for it because they are the ones who caused the mess....and all the other messes with the elections this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 Yeah, that's why she set up delegatehub.com 2 weeks ago to push the propaganda. Now the DNC's original rules are a problem since she's entitled to the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 Given the way that this campaign has gone, I would have a hard time accepting a Clinton/Obama ticket. Why in the world would I vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket, especially with the way she has criticized him. Wouldn't that mean he isn't a good choice? And why "should" there have been a Clinton/Obama ticket in the first place? No one ever expected him to make it this far. Before he even won a contest, all you heard about was how it was going to be Clinton vs. Guiliani in November. Well they were wrong. Obama did FAR better than most in the media expected and wasn't until AFTER he won his contest in Iowa that they truly began to consider him a true opponent for her. I originally supported Hillary Clinton. I liked Barrack Obama, but wasn't sure whether or not he would be a good choice as president. However the more the man spoke, the more I liked about him. Elections are a popularity contest. Candidates make promises of what they'll do, their "four point plans" and all that other stuff....does it mean they'll follow through with it? No. Hillary is just more polished when it comes to making promises to the people. The fact that she can lie on the fly isn't necessarily a good thing. Because he says "um" apparently that shows he's not "prepared"? GMAFB. I'm venting a bit right now. This isn't directed at anyone in particular. The conservative talk show I listen to every morning (who considers himself independent yet talks republican) has been praising Hilary's wins as the wins that will change the election. Yet whenever Barrack won a contest, he downplayed it, saying it didn't really man anything. He wants Hilary to win the nomination because he feels she is VERY beatable by McCain. For the first time since I've been an adult, there was a candidate who made me feel like I was important. That my vote meant a lot. I am sick and tired of being last on the list of priorities when it comes to elections. Kerry didn't come after my vote until what...2 months before the election? After you've appealed to all the people who you feel to be "important," that's when you want to come to the youths? Whatever. IMO Obama did that. He appealed to young voters, he came after our vote. That's all I really wanted. It wasn't until Obama won Iowa did Hilary seem to begin appealing to the young vote. Maybe it's my agenda, I dunno. But that's the way I feel. If this contest goes down to the wire and Clinton has more delegates than Obama. Then I'm fine with her getting the nomination. However if Obama has more delegates....yet the Superdelegates vote for Clinton has the nom, I'll be highly pissed. It'll be like what happened to Al Gore in Florida...winning the popular vote, but the electoral college gives it to someone else. I don't feel Michigan or Florida should revote. They knew they would be stripped if they held their contests so early. Hilary won the contests that they KNEW would mean nothing. Now that she's behind she wants it to count? I'm sorry, you can't change the rules of the game just because you aren't happy with the way it's going right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 Ryan, I don't recall giving you permission to post my thoughts verbatim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kwing42 Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 On the flip side, if the DNC does not count the delegates or pay for a revote, what they are doing is not counting the votes of two very important states. it is not the voters fault that the DNC had to play GOD with the elections and not let the states become more vital in this. It was wrong for the DNC to even put those rules in place and it was even worse for the candidates to abide by them. Let the people vote and let their votes count regardless of who they are for. And we all know darn well that Obama wouold be requesting a revote if he were behind. It makes sense..this is a Presidential election and all votes should be counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Adam Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 That is a very spirited and well written post. When I see you people like myself that inspired and invigorated by politics, I can't disagree. I still would PREFER to see Hillary win the nomination, but I said it a few weeks ago and said it again, Obama is a movement. He is getting you voters INTERESTED in politics.... he is inspiring people. Something no politician has done in a long time. Its very refreshing and such an interesting race. Its went negative, like all political races do, but its been so fun to watch. It means people are passionate about this election and deem it as the most important election of their lives and their children's lives. And it is. This election means a great deal to the outside world as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 It's certainly negative when his supporters aren't given credit for knowing his policies. Inspiration is not the only thing he brings to the table. Talk of his influence on young voters is almost certainly meant to categorize them as too stupid to know any better, but his dominance with college educated voters gets fleeting media mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 Now, I have to say we see that differently. Talk of his grasp on young voters to me means that for the first time in 2 generations, a candidate has come along who has been courting the young vote ever since he decided to run for his first public office in Ill. I don't think that makes young voters stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 6, 2008 Members Share Posted March 6, 2008 I don't think they're stupid either, but the prevailing idea seems to be that Obama is getting their votes because he targeted them like a shrewd Madison Avenue agency would, as opposed to the demographic getting credit for liking the substance they saw in him once he got their attention. Clinton is always whining about his speeches, painting a picture of gullible sheep who follow baseless rhetoric. That doesn't take into account his wins in some of the country's whitest states. Who would think that he could prevail there? He didn't openly court the white vote, so these people can't all be crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 7, 2008 Members Share Posted March 7, 2008 Oh. You mean the press is making it seem this way. I can see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.