So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.
Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent.
Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton.
Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process.
2 comments :
Ahh, still trying to count the illegitimate ballots. Even Hillary conceded before the primaries that they were illegitimate. Of course, that was before Barack Obama started taking her to the woodshed all across the country.
Consider this, a LOT of democratic primary voters in Michigan crossed over and voted for favorite son Mitt Romney in the republican primary on the same day. Same for the independents, new voters and republican crossover voters that have boosted Barack across the land.
Obama didn't campaign in Florida and the voters in Florida didn't get to know him, thus voting for the familiar name.
Republicans in Michigan and Florida outnumbered Democrats 2 to 1, whereas Democrats outnumbered Republicans 2 to 1 everywhere else, suggesting that the majority of Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida didn't vote.
The fair thing to do would have been to either have a caucus or another primary, but that was choked off by the Clinton Party who insisted on seating the illegitimate delegates or refusing to allow the democrats and independents who voted in the Republican primary to participate in any new primary. In other words, the same people who voted in the first primaries would be the only ones allowed to vote in a new one. How fair is that?
1) Florida held it's primary on January 29. Anyone who watched the news, signed into their email, or was even remotely aware of what was going on in the world knew who Barack Obama was. Obama had weeks and weeks of nonstop, positive press after his big wins in Iowa, and later, South Carolina. And, as you should know, primary voters are the ones who are most in tuned to the news. People knew who Barack Obama was.
2) Yes, the fair thing to do would be to hold another primary, but it is the Obama campaign and their lawyers who blocked it from happening.
3) Of course, if someone voted in the Republican primary, they shouldn't be able to vote again. You don't get 2 votes. The point of redoing the elections are to replace the results of the ones in January. If people voted in the Republican primary, since their votes are going to count, they shouldn't get to vote again. You only get to vote once in this country.
4) "In other words, the same people who voted in the first primaries would be the only ones allowed to vote in a new one."
Wrong, anonymous. No where did Clinton say that new people could participate. It's just that people who have already voted and had their vote count can't participate. If Democrats who didn't vote in January wanted to vote in a redo, they could absolutely do so.
5) so now what do you want? Your candidate has blocked a revote form taking place. So there are 3 options. Either (a) Obama can agree to revotes immedietly, (b) the delegates can be seated as elected by the PEOPLE, or (c) the Democratic Party can turn into a bunch of hypocrites (see Al Gore in 2000 for reference) and not count every vote.
Again, this is not about PROCESS, it's about PEOPLE. The Democratic Party is about to silence millions of voters. How can you justify that? How would you feel if your vote was ignored?
Post a Comment