Clinton 41, Obama 41
I think this poll is about right.
Does anybody have a good reason why Obama did not put his name on the ballot before ? I know everybody was told it wouldn't count BUT.. Hillary, Kucinich & Gavel all did and he had the same info as they did, Looks like a HUGE mistake on his part - Gives the appearane that he could care less about people in Michigan.
Posted on March 7, 2008 1:26 PM
Shocking in the least.
Funny though that there is a large number of undecideds considering that they already voted lol.
He took his name off of Michigan with John Edwards because it wasn't too late. He and Edwards tried to take his name off of Florida as well but it was too late at that point.
Posted on March 7, 2008 1:29 PM
John, Obama and Edwards took their names off of the ballot because they followed the "rules", for lack of a better term.
Posted on March 7, 2008 1:34 PM
Wrong answer "K"
There was and IS no rule on names being on the ballot - only rule was no campaigning. Still waiting for a good answer.
Posted on March 7, 2008 1:36 PM
John.....put your helmet on kid! You are going to be late.....the short bus is outside waiting to take you to school!
Posted on March 7, 2008 1:45 PM
The good answer was it was a political move to make the situation like we have now more complicated than "just counting" the delegates. Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Obama were protecting themselves from an incident like this and it will probably work in their favor, this being my opinion. Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Obama were putting their money where their mouth was when pledging not to participate in these primaries.
Posted on March 7, 2008 1:59 PM
Obama can easily close this gap in the remaining time, he started worse in PA and TX and only lost them by a little.
There are large AA populations in FL and MI. I don't think they voted en masse last time. Obama may actually benefit from a revote because it would push him past the magic number before the convention.
Posted on March 7, 2008 2:11 PM
I dont think there is a good answer from the Obama camp on this one - Basic Military strategy, Cover your flanks - he didn't.
Posted on March 7, 2008 2:24 PM
Posted on March 7, 2008 2:26 PM
What does Alcoholic Annynomous have to do with it ! Are they big Obama supporters ?
Posted on March 7, 2008 2:27 PM
John, Obama's name was on the ballot. However, he took his name off to pander to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, who are very jealous of their first to vote status. Of course, Obama was not alone--I know Edwards also took his name off the ballot and believe Richardson, Dodd, and Biden did as well. Kucinich tried to take his name off, but was too late (not much worse than incompetent pandering!). Clinton pandered as well by tell Iowa and New Hampshire voters that Michigan and Florida didn't matter and not campaigning and agreeing that these delegates would not count. However, she didn't take her name off. Was she already plotting how to steal an election she couldn't win?
Posted on March 7, 2008 2:48 PM
Thats a pretty deep (although it be an extreme stretch) post. I guess we wont have to worry about it because the RE-VOTE is coming. You can put your horse back in the gate for ANOTHER beating.
Posted on March 7, 2008 3:00 PM
Its become almost impossible to get a post through here in the last week or so, and I suspect its been difficult for others given the number of repeat posts I'm seeing, but neverthless someone from that "special" subset of Obama supporters manages to land an inappropriate comment, this time a(nother) crack about kids with disabilities.
What is it with you guys? I know that your demographic is steeped in this kind of "humor" - Larry the Cable Guy, Stern, the Man Show et al - but don't you get that you're just self-identifying as someone who doesn't have anything smart to say?
I mean, if you are writing something substantive and a wisecrack or two fits in, whatever, but simply posting an insult for the sake of insulting someone who has asked a reasonable question, just because you disagree with their candidate preference? Come on. You might as well just write "I have no manners, and a problem controlling my inappropriate impulses around other people."
I don't believe it reflects poorly on your candidate, because Obama isn't the one making you act this way. But you sure aren't doing him any favors, either.
Posted on March 7, 2008 3:09 PM
And, yet another Mike...
Everybody deserves to have their vote counted and to have their vote mean something. The votes need to be counted in these two states.
If there is a do-over...everybody should get a do-over. The nomination would be solved...buyer's remorse would solve it.
Posted on March 7, 2008 3:11 PM
John: Michigan was not supposed to count. If it had any chance of counting, Obama would have kept his name on the ballot. Michigan is a state that he can win for sure. It was just an issue of cracking down on states that were trying to disrupt the early state process. I am from Michigan and a re-vote sounds great. As long as there is a fair process where the rules will stay the same for everyone.
Posted on March 7, 2008 5:44 PM
Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and Biden all removed their names at the behest of the DNC. Clinton said she agreed with the DNC decision, but kept her name on the ballot.
She didn't think of Michigan at all until she realized that her February 5th blowout win was really a stalemate where she ended up with fewer delegates. Suddenly, when her coronation was jeopardized, she decided that Michigan and Florida really should count.
Posted on March 8, 2008 12:10 PM
Another thing: Will they get their FULL delegate number back, or just half of it, like Iowa, NH, SC etc.pp.
When they get all delegates back, we�ll have to revote in SC, IA, NH, NV etc.pp- and I am sure that CLinton would not like to do that (the AA voters were much more split in SC, and Edwards took away some white upscale voters from Obama- I think Iowa would favor him about 60-40, too, NV also. I don�t think there changed something in NH...)
Posted on March 9, 2008 6:52 AM
Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot as a political strategy. They wanted to embarass Clinton by encouraging their supporters to vote uncommitted in the hopes that the uncommitted votes would be greater than Clinton's. Clearly it failed. This has already be reported in the mainstream media for those of you that think this is a partisan view point.
Posted on March 9, 2008 2:12 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR