Comments on: The Battle Over MI and FL http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/ west coast cap peelers Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:48:15 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: william t street http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75491 william t street Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:38:30 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75491 As a Michigan Democrat and an Obama supporter, I think Barack should welcome a re-do primary, or caucus, or mail-in, since I think he would win in Michigan. Remember, with the names of John Edwards and Barack nowhere on the ballot, but with the listed choices limited to Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kuchinich, Christopher Dodd, or Uncommitted (a write in spoiled your ballot), the relatively few Michigan Democrats who turned out to vote here in January favored Hillary by a mere 55%, with slightly over 40% voting for uncommitted. Demographically, Michigan is more like Wisconsin (where Obama won) than Ohio. While it is true that Governor Jennifer Granholm was an early public endorser of Hillary's candidacy, I don't see Granholm or the other state party heirarchy favoring Clinton being able to deliver votes the way that the Rendel machine in Pennsylvania apparently can. Nor will the state party or voters look favorably upon a negative, anti-Obama attack strategy. Remember too, Jessie Jackson once carried Michigan in a contested statewide primary. In short, Obama's campaign has a good shot at helping itself with a June do-over in Michigan, so long as it's fairly run. Bill from Saginaw As a Michigan Democrat and an Obama supporter, I think Barack should welcome a re-do primary, or caucus, or mail-in, since I think he would win in Michigan.

Remember, with the names of John Edwards and Barack nowhere on the ballot, but with the listed choices limited to Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kuchinich, Christopher Dodd, or Uncommitted (a write in spoiled your ballot), the relatively few Michigan Democrats who turned out to vote here in January favored Hillary by a mere 55%, with slightly over 40% voting for uncommitted.

Demographically, Michigan is more like Wisconsin (where Obama won) than Ohio. While it is true that Governor Jennifer Granholm was an early public endorser of Hillary’s candidacy, I don’t see Granholm or the other state party heirarchy favoring Clinton being able to deliver votes the way that the Rendel machine in Pennsylvania apparently can. Nor will the state party or voters look favorably upon a negative, anti-Obama attack strategy. Remember too, Jessie Jackson once carried Michigan in a contested statewide primary.

In short, Obama’s campaign has a good shot at helping itself with a June do-over in Michigan, so long as it’s fairly run.

Bill from Saginaw

]]> By: matt t http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75447 matt t Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:35:12 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75447 <blockquote>Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee?</blockquote> This has already been done. 2025 is an adjusted goal. Before the MI and FL state parties broke the rules and forfeited their delegates, the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination was 2208. When their delegates were revoked, the number was lowered to 2025. Why don't more people know that?

Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee?

This has already been done. 2025 is an adjusted goal. Before the MI and FL state parties broke the rules and forfeited their delegates, the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination was 2208. When their delegates were revoked, the number was lowered to 2025.

Why don’t more people know that?

]]> By: Banking on Clinton http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75446 Banking on Clinton Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:19:10 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75446 My money is on Sen. Hillary Clinton and no you cannot cut out the voters of two states(Fla. @ Michigan)would you give up your vote or state at the Convention due to state legislatures allowing early voting or are there no states rights in this Media ran presidential primary. Call Howard Dean the DNC chair because we want every vote and every state in it to win it and no arrogant VP possibilities please. I thought we are all on the same page with the Democrats and some of you think two states don't count Geesh what about McCain doesn't he deserve to chaallange all the states and the conventions nominee for the Dems. Think people ....HillaryClinton.com Join in,contribute, volunteer on phoones, or travel these states and see for yourself what is going on and where. My money is on Sen. Hillary Clinton and no you cannot cut out the voters of two states(Fla. @ Michigan)would you give up your vote or state at the Convention due to state legislatures allowing early voting or are there no states rights in this Media ran presidential primary. Call Howard Dean the DNC chair because we want every vote and every state in it to win it and no arrogant VP possibilities please. I thought we are all on the same page with the Democrats and some of you think two states don’t count Geesh what about McCain doesn’t he deserve to chaallange all the states and the conventions nominee for the Dems. Think people ….HillaryClinton.com Join in,contribute, volunteer on phoones, or travel these states and see for yourself what is going on and where.

]]> By: Independant/from IA http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75445 Independant/from IA Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:07:22 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75445 Elect new party leaders for future wisdom and for now go with #10 Just get rid of Florida's and Michigan delages. Play by the rules this game and change the game when you start a new game. To change on what was agreed on after the fact just is not morally right. Look''s like a billaary plan tho!!!!!!!!!!!! Time to cut the Crap and hold up your end of the agreement I say Elect new party leaders for future wisdom and for now go with #10 Just get rid of Florida’s and Michigan delages. Play by the rules this game and change the game when you start a new game. To
change on what was agreed on after the fact just is
not morally right. Look’’s like a billaary plan tho!!!!!!!!!!!! Time to cut the Crap and hold up your end of the agreement I say

]]> By: Dave K http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75444 Dave K Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:06:11 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75444 You don't disenfranchise voters based on something they had no control over. They deserve to have their votes counted. Like I said before, I believe FL could be seated as is because all the names were on the ballot and campaigning did occur (just not appearances). MI should be redone to be counted. You don’t disenfranchise voters based on something they had no control over. They deserve to have their votes counted. Like I said before, I believe FL could be seated as is because all the names were on the ballot and campaigning did occur (just not appearances). MI should be redone to be counted.

]]> By: matt http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75443 matt Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:11:38 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75443 >Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee? why should the voters of MI and FL not have their voices heard? 'because their state party leaders are morons' doesn't seem like a great reason. >Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee?

why should the voters of MI and FL not have their voices heard? ‘because their state party leaders are morons’ doesn’t seem like a great reason.

]]> By: babs http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75442 babs Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:54:29 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75442 Ive said it before because someone brought it to my attention and I am in total agreement. Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee? Saves time and money. Ive said it before because someone brought it to my attention and I am in total agreement. Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee? Saves time and money.

]]> By: A Running Commentary http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75441 A Running Commentary Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:33:08 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75441 Obama or Clinton, I think either one stands a chance of jsut repeating McGovern in '72. The war is not and will not be the issue the Dems need it to be and the continued primary battle is going to establish them as way too liberal. Obama or Clinton, I think either one stands a chance of jsut repeating McGovern in ‘72. The war is not and will not be the issue the Dems need it to be and the continued primary battle is going to establish them as way too liberal.

]]> By: matt http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75440 matt Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:54 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75440 not that i want obama anywhere near the ticket, but i hope and pray that we can bet a large sum of money on your electoral college projections. not that i want obama anywhere near the ticket, but i hope and pray that we can bet a large sum of money on your electoral college projections.

]]> By: Dave K http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/comment-page-1/#comment-75439 Dave K Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:17:00 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2008/03/10/the-battle-over-mi-and-fl/#comment-75439 An-Ban- I started out doing the comparison of your predictions to the poll referenced but the problem is I really don't believe in polls. They're similar to statistics in that they can be "very misleading" unless you know every detail irt how they were conducted. The referenced poll even acknowledges its own limited utility with this quote: "let me acknowledge that there is limited utility in this sort of exercise. Some state polls, for example, are within the margin of error, etc. But this is catnip for junkies." Similarly, imo, the polls stating how many of Clinton's supporters would vote for an Obama candidate VS. how many of Obama's supporters would vote for a Clinton ticket are equally useless. I've seen polls that said more Obama supporters would go ahead and vote for a Clinton ticket and polls that said the exact opposite. In fact, many of people polled “would say" they wouldn't vote for the other Dem candidate just because they know it would make the results look better for “their” candidate to be the nominee. I'll say it again: IMO, polls are useless and those who use them are simply playing into conjecture... I agree with you that Clinton has the best "chance" to win. IMO, a Clinton/Obama ticket is a "guaranteed" win as I believe they would pick up 80-90% of the following states: WA, OR, NV, NM, CO, NE, IA, MI, AR, FL, OH, PA, WV, & NC. As well as a chance to win other states such as OK, KY, TN, TX, LA & MS. Basically, it would be a slaughter "imo". An-Ban- I started out doing the comparison of your predictions to the poll referenced but the problem is I really don’t believe in polls. They’re similar to statistics in that they can be “very misleading” unless you know every detail irt how they were conducted. The referenced poll even acknowledges its own limited utility with this quote: “let me acknowledge that there is limited utility in this sort of exercise. Some state polls, for example, are within the margin of error, etc. But this is catnip for junkies.”

Similarly, imo, the polls stating how many of Clinton’s supporters would vote for an Obama candidate VS. how many of Obama’s supporters would vote for a Clinton ticket are equally useless. I’ve seen polls that said more Obama supporters would go ahead and vote for a Clinton ticket and polls that said the exact opposite. In fact, many of people polled “would say” they wouldn’t vote for the other Dem candidate just because they know it would make the results look better for “their” candidate to be the nominee. I’ll say it again: IMO, polls are useless and those who use them are simply playing into conjecture…

I agree with you that Clinton has the best “chance” to win. IMO, a Clinton/Obama ticket is a “guaranteed” win as I believe they would pick up 80-90% of the following states: WA, OR, NV, NM, CO, NE, IA, MI, AR, FL, OH, PA, WV, & NC. As well as a chance to win other states such as OK, KY, TN, TX, LA & MS. Basically, it would be a slaughter “imo”.

]]>