Will Obama Fight For MI Uncommitted Delegates?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

While Obama fans like John Cole of Balloon Juice (A little reminder for Cole, who seems to forget when he is outraged and "trolled" Talk Left (yes, irony IS dead)) are aghast that Hillary Clinton is fighting for revotes in Michigan and Florida, I wonder what they think of Obama fighting for uncommitted delegates in Michigan? Chris Bowers writes:

Given that Obama already leads by nine delegates even with Michigan and Florida included, the situation could be particularly grim for Clinton on April 19th, when most of the 55 uncommitteed [sic] Michigan delegates are selected. Assuming continued superdelegate gains and that Obama wins the clear majority of the uncommitted Michigan delegates, by May 7th Obama could be ahead by 60-70 delegates even with Michigan and Florida included.

(Emphasis supplied.) Obama win the majority of the uncommitted Michigan delegates? How exactly is he going to do that? Is Obama gonna act like the Michigan delegation will be seated? But but but, what will John Cole say?

More . . .

Here is an ironic post:

On January 15, 2008 Michigan residents sent a clear message in support of Barack Obama by voting "uncommitted". With a primary in violation of DNC rules and with our candidate unable to campaign or spend money, MICHIGANDERS FOR OBAMA stepped up to the challenge and turned out the vote. 40% of Michigan selected "uncommitted" over any other candidate. Now on April 19th the Michigan Democratic Party will elect delegates in each congressional district.

Although the situation regarding Michigan delegates being seated is fluid, Michiganders has continued to vet and approve real Obama supporters to be elected delegate. No matter how or when our delegates are seated we can be sure that those delegates are supporters of Barack Obama.

So I guess ALL of the uncommitted votes were for Barack Obama according to this. So he really WAS on the ballot? Oh by the way, did the 55% who voted for Clinton NOT send a message? This is a dangerous game for Obama supporters.

< New Polls Out Today | April Fools: Hillary Challenges Obama to Bowl-Off >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will Obama Fight For MI Uncommitted Delegates? | 91 comments (91 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST

This is a dangerous game for Obama supporters.

Because it legitimizes the 1/15 MI results (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:34:02 PM EST

Don't you assume Obama will (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST

lobby for all the "uncommitteds" and then go after the Clinton delegates also from that primary?


Who knows? (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST

My point is a different one. I assume, like Clinton, Obama will go for every delegate he can.

And good for him.


: This seems to be one of your posts (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST

where you held back some ammo to use in your replies. Kind of confusing. Got it now.

No doubt the Clinton campaign will argue that (none / 0) (#8)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST

but the man wasn't on the ballot. There's no reasonable argument to be made that the vote was a legitimate one. Nonetheless, Obama needs to be prepared for the possibility that the primary will be counted as is and therefore is taking the necessary precautions. Hardly seems like a big story.


IF he was not on the ballot (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:38:50 PM EST

Then he got no votes and is entitled to no delegates.

Can't have it both ways. Obama supporters in MI are arguing that a vote for uncommitted was a vote for Obama.

If you are comfortable with that argument, then go for it. But it DOES legitimize the 1/1q5 vote, whether you like it or not.

Myself, i want REVOTES in Florida and Michigan and have wanted them since February 6.


I'd like to see revotes. . . (none / 0) (#16)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:42:12 PM EST

unfortunately that ship has sailed. But so long as there remains no resolution of the issue and so long as the Clinton campaign expresses an intention to fight for the MI results to stand, it makes perfect sense to me to work on swaying uncommitted delegates as a contingency plan. It's not as if the Clinton campaign will refrain from pursuing those delegates merely because they did nto vote for her. I would imagine that in MI a rather large segment of those delegates were Edwards supporters.


That ship has NOT sailed (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM EST

A party run revote can occur at any time, as long as the candidates support it.

Clinton is dying for them. Obama has consistently opposed revotes.

How about a little candor on this RO.


Of course it CAN happen . . . (none / 0) (#44)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:59:32 PM EST

but it isn't going to.

As for candor, we will have to agree to disagree as to whether Obama's support for a revote would mean anything in the case of Florida.

I have said that I can't speak to the situation in Michigan. I have not followed it closely enough. I know that Obama opposed the firehouse primary idea. But was there not some problems with the MI legislature on that front as well?

I'm asking because I am admittedly under informed.


Well (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST

at least you candidly admit it was Obama who blocked a revote in Michigan.


Oops (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:03:28 PM EST

You did not admit it.

Read our archives on the subject. We provided by far the best coverage of the Mi revote issue on the blogs.

Bottom line - Obama blocked the revote.


: I'll check them out. (none / 0) (#54)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:06:21 PM EST

I don't get here as often as I should.

: Ok. (none / 0) (#76)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST

I've looked through your archives and the evidence presented. The conclusion I come away with is that you are correct. Obama blocked the Michigan revote. The justifications given by his campaign are unconvincing and I frankly don't understand what their thinking is. In my view, a Michigan primary only helps him.
With respect to Florida, you yourself posted on 3/17 a diary which places the blame for the lack of a revote on Florida democrats. i'm puzzled as to why that has morphed into a tactic by the Obama campaign. In fact, you further posited that the Clinton campaign is not serious about a revote. An inference that finds some support in the behavior of her Florida surrogates, but is otherwise an arguable proposition at best.

Yes. (none / 0) (#52)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:05:44 PM EST

Obama blocked a form of primary. And Clinton blocked caucuses.

What I don't know is what the barriers are to a repeat of the primary as it was designed to be run in the first instance.


Michigan approved a redo PRIMARY (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:09:28 PM EST

There was no caucus offered to be blocked.


: Not offered. (none / 0) (#77)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST

But the object of some discussion early on which was squelched by the Clinton campaign. And rightly so I might add.

Uncommitted was definitely anti-Clinton... (none / 0) (#82)
by dkmich on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:57:04 PM EST

Those of us who didn't like that as an option crossed over and voted in the Republican primary. If uncommitted and cross-over voters could be counted, Clinton would have lost MI in a landslide imo. MI is pretty pissed off over jobs lost and definitely sees NAFTA as the culprit.

I do not think MI can do a revote that will have any more validity than the first one. MI does not require voters to register their party, and all Republicans can cross over and vote anyway they please. Rush would love it.


This relates to (none / 0) (#30)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:34 PM EST

the political amnesia so many have suffered in terms of the reason why Obama took his name off the ballot.

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

People act as if his decision to remove his name was a good-faith outgrowth of the pledge not to campaign, and thus of course it would be unfair to pretend no one voted for him. But it was nothing more than a strategy decision in an attempt to delegitimize the primary. No different than the games played every four years when politicians decide not to compete in certain early states that they don't expect to do well in, so that they can pretend the results are of no moment.

I'm trying to imagine what it would be like for Hillary to have removed her name from the ballot in, say, Mississippi, and then gone around arguing that the delegates should be split 50/50 or somesuch because it was a "Soviet-style" election with only one candidate on the ballot. She'd be laughed off the stage within seconds, of course; but this is exactly the argument Obama supporters make about Michigan!

To be fair, I think Hillary has done a very, very poor job of communicating the salient point: that Obama chose to remove his name. Instead, she lets him get away with going around talking about how "his name was removed from the ballot" as though it was this act of God that just sort of happened to him.


Well (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM EST

KISS is the watchword. I think it is much easier to argue that he blocked the revotes - WHICH HE DID.


However (none / 0) (#42)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST

This goes way, way back before revotes even became an issue.

Every time I saw some interviewer ask Hillary "how can MI be considered fair, Obama wasn't even on the ballot" the first thing out of her mouth should have been the fact that he removed himself. It's a simple fact and 90% of people have no idea it's true (and 99% don't know the reason why).


I'd sure like to see some data (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:59:39 PM EST

supporting any bump for Obama in IA attrib. to his removing his name from the ballot in MI. Seems like a stretch to me.


Hmm? (none / 0) (#61)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST

You mean whether or not he ultimately got a bump from it serves to prove or disprove his motivation somehow? I'm not following.


No. I just don't see why he would (none / 0) (#62)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:26:01 PM EST

have removed his name from MI ballot thinking it would help him in IA. Maybe he removed his name because his polling showed he would lose to Clinton in MI. Do we have any insider info on his thinking for removing his name from MI ballot?


Yes (none / 0) (#65)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST

"Five sources from five different campaigns..."

I mean, the entire pledge was a pander to the early states in the first place. It's not like it was some high-minded tribute to the sanctity of DNC rulings. If the candidates didn't all believe that staying out of MI and FL would help them somehow in the early states, they wouldn't have signed the pledge. It's easy to see how Obama and the other candidates would have felt that removing their names gave them the same sort of edge.


If Obama is Dean's candidate, (none / 0) (#66)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:35:44 PM EST

seems to me Obama wouldn't want to piss off Dean early on.


: Well (none / 0) (#69)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST

how about all the other campaigns that went along?
As far as I know, the Iowa Independent's reporting on this has never been refuted, or even disputed.

Everyone in MI if fully aware that (none / 0) (#83)
by dkmich on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:59:37 PM EST

neither Obama or Edwards had to remove their names. There is sufficient resentment for what they did. Political ploys besting democracy is not a good campaign strategy. But hey, what did either of them have to lose - MI didn't count anyway.


does it really matter which way this goes. (none / 0) (#31)
by cy street on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:47 PM EST

if the process favors the clintons, the obama crowd will squawk and visa versa.

whatever the michigan delegation comes up with is going to be problematic, same in florida. it is unfortunate, but likely, neither will cast votes for the nomination.

in the absence of revotes, one or the other will balk at the fix. i respect your point of view on the michigan/florida scenario, but i believe you lay more at obama's feet than he deserves.

both campaigns took the pledge, openly and devoutly. obviously it was a mistake by the clinton campaign compounded by the narrow minded doctor dean. these are the "how" we got here. obama is reacting to the dynamics of the campaign smartly. if you believe you are going to be the nominee, why would add time to the clock?

the issue is a loser for both candidates, and more so for the party.


Not So Fast (none / 0) (#73)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:14:41 PM EST

I was an Edwards supporter. I voted Uncommitted in the primary. I don't want Obama to have my vote.

It is funny that they want to claim the whole 40% and by doing so signalling that the vote was legitimate.

I wonder if they know what Uncommitted means.


He wasn't on the ballot (none / 0) (#27)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:49:17 PM EST

because he deliberately took himself off the ballot. The DNC did not require him to, nor did they require it. LOL, why do you think he treated Michigan differently than Florida? Can you say..... IOWA?

As for him being entitled to all uncommitted.... that's pure fiction. Exit polling says otherwise. Edwards voters have split between Hillary and Obama, and it's hubris to assume we all (yes, I'm former Edwards) like Obama as the main choice.


Disagree (none / 0) (#41)
by magster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST

unless Obama campaigns for these uncommitteds (which he is forbidden to do anyway).

But if these uncommitteds pledge Obama on their own, all it does is dilute Hillary's best case scenario in arguments to superdelegates.


How can he NOt be credited with the (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST

campaigning going on? Indeed, what you describe is worse, OBAMA SUPPORTERS IN MICHIGAN are claiming their vote on 1/15 were REAL and SHOULD count!!

I know it is hard for you to accept, but this not helpful for Obama, imo of course.


: I see your point on the grander scheme of things (none / 0) (#59)
by magster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:14:29 PM EST

But, in terms of Obama arguing to superdelegates that MI and FL don't count -- flat out, and Clinton rebutting by pointing to the FL and MI scoreboard and asking the superdelegates to validate their delegate selection process, the scoreboard is changing in Obama's favor. Even on the popular vote count, if each delegate represents so many number of votes, every uncommitted delegate going to Obama makes Hillary's argument harder to make there too.
Now if Obama is actively campaigning for these delegates, then he in effect is endorsing the results. And for him to go this route when the most he can hope for is 40 delegates is beyond stupid compared to the option of a revote for all the reasons you've made clear over and over again.

No (none / 0) (#50)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:03:47 PM EST

the rules and the pledge were no campaigning during the early primary.

Nothing says he can't woo them after. Nothing says Hillary can't woo them after.

I doubt the delegates are going unwooed, even under their less than secure status.


: Um (none / 0) (#63)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST

You're right about the pledge. You are not right about the rules. There is no such rule.

Many of you had no idea (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:42:16 PM EST

but "Michiganders" is in fact a popular term among the locals.

I assumed so (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:46:48 PM EST

: Well (none / 0) (#38)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:55:16 PM EST

Since you are always educating us regarding Florida and PR, I feel a certain obligation to dish on my home state as well.
I have an awful lot of family back in Michigan and I really hope they get to have a revote that counts. For some reason it's important to me.

I like "Wolverines" better. (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST

Not this Michigander (none / 0) (#56)
by sister of ye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM EST

Wolverines is U-M's nickname, and despite their propaganda, not all state residents are U-M fans. (I'm not an MSU fan, either. I'm more a "pox on both your houses" person.)


Why do you think I prefer (none / 0) (#58)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:10:36 PM EST

Wolverine?


Heh (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM EST

Reminds me of a popular joke back home:

Q: How many University of Michigan fans does it take to change a light bulb?

A: One. He just holds it up and the world revolves around him.


: Can we substitute Obama fans ... (none / 0) (#87)
by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:34:45 PM EST

... in a version of that joke?

What's really interesting is the break down (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:01:20 PM EST

of the uncommitted voters in the Michigan primary.

According to CNN exit polls (click to page 2), Obama received only 79% of the 40% uncommitted (Hillary 3% and Edwards 57%). This is such a travesty.

As I've commented previously (none / 0) (#1)
by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST

It's quite clear that Obama intends to count MI and FL. Right after Clinton drops out.

He intends for them to count, but not to be relevant. So this business in MI would be groundwork for that if I understand it correctly.

Thanks for posting this. Pretty (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST

predictable, given the Obama campaign at county conventions in IA?

Not sure I understand your point. (none / 0) (#3)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:31:50 PM EST

Why wouldn't he lobby the uncommitted delegates? It would be foolish not to -- would it not? Particularly since Clinton is still able to attain a majority on the credentials committee.

Are you just pointing out the disparity between what some Obama supporters think Obama should do and what Obama himself intends to do?

It would be foolish to maintain (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:36:47 PM EST

outrage at Clinton for fighting for a MI revote while at the same time fighting for the delegates from that result.

It is a clear example of how the Obama blog are shameless hypocrites.

Obama is a pol so his actions are all seen from a political calculus. Is this a smart tradeoff for him? Legitimizing the 1/15 vote in exchange for gaining some delegates?

I would not do it if I were him. It legitimizes the popular vote count out of the 1/15 vote. I would not do it if I was running the Obama campaign.


I don't think (none / 0) (#13)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM EST

that preparing for the possibility of a losing battle in the credentials committee is enough to legitimize an election in which one of the candidates was not even on the ballot.

But I don't defend most Obama bloggers on the hypocrisy charge. There's plenty of that trait to go around these days.


Not from me (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:43:34 PM EST

I deny and challenge you to demonstrate my alleged hypocrisy even once.

I am called a racist and a liar by your home site. And it is recs all around. The company you keep these days is rather disgusting imo. The community I mean.

I challenge you again, demonstrate my hypocrisy. I do not like the insinuation you make in your comment. Unlike most every blogger now, Clinton or Hillary supporter, I have maintained my integrity about this contest.

I am proud of that and I defend against insinuations against it. I repeat. Show your evidence of my hypocrisy or retract the false charge.


My friend . . . (none / 0) (#33)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST

you misunderstand me. I meant to level no such charge at you. Looking at my post I can see why you might think so and I apologize that I was not clear. You should know that even when I disagree with you, I have the utmost respect for you.

I was speaking generally. As you note, many respected bloggers on both sides of the divide have lost their objectivity at one time or another.

And I agree that there is much to dislike about what has become of my "home site." Had I seen such charges made against you there I most surely would have spoken strongly on your behalf. But I still have affection for what that community once was and what I hope it will become again. I am a creature of habit and sometimes loyal to a fault. I don't apologize for that.


: I appreciate the clarification (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:53:31 PM EST

I have refused to be cowed. I may be wrong in EVERY THING I write, but what I write is consistent. I do not adapt my positions for the convenience of the moment.

Will you not respond to my challenge? (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM EST

I suggest in future you be more careful with your accusations then.


: I was writing. See above. nt (none / 0) (#34)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:51:29 PM EST

who will call them on it (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EST

besides you and maybe some other bloggers?
I think they gave up any attempt to keep the high road a while back.


meh (none / 0) (#4)
by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:32:04 PM EST

circumstances and rationales change, but conclusions don't. one should not assume that the latter is based on the former. when necessary, it's the other way around.

Makes no sense (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST

Your comment. Maybe that was deliberate.


Hmmm. (none / 0) (#11)
by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:36:49 PM EST

Well I don't understand it either.


i mean (none / 0) (#18)
by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:42:59 PM EST

the conclusion will always be that only obama can and must win, and that whatever he must do to win is therefore consistently just. so, if whatever he has to do changes- even if it means doing what clinton would be criticized for, even if it means doing what was previously considered inappropriate- that's okay.

you seem to expect consistency in arguments about tactics. the only thing that needs remain consistent is that the tactics help obama win.


I insist uipon consistency (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST

Whether I get it or not. I will not give anyone, not even my friends, a free pass.


but they are being consistent (none / 0) (#25)
by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:48:53 PM EST

the only thing that matters is that obama wins. how he does it, and what is or isn't an appropriate way for him to do it, is irrelevant. just so he wins. that's always the consistent theme.


Fine (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST

OF course you know I insist upon a different type of consistency.


you having a charming (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:55:23 PM EST

innocense...


A purist. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:36:46 PM EST

: i consider myself a purist (none / 0) (#75)
by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:37:18 PM EST

which is why i'm so cynical...

Michigan Delegates (none / 0) (#15)
by mouth of the south on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:42:06 PM EST

So let me get this straight. Obama is supposed to accede to Clinton's wish to have Michigan and Florida seated at the convention, but he is not to even try for the uncommitted delegates in Michigan? Is that what you think is fair? Come on now! How to you rationalize that Clinton should get ALL of Michigan's delegates? The uncommitted vote was a vote against her. Why do you rationalize your comment that Obama's trying to get delegates in Michigan is a dangerous game? I can tell you this, if Hillary supporters keep up this irrational insistentence that Obama has no rights to any delegates in Michigan, the American people will turn against your candidate big time. What Americans do not like are dirty and unfair political advantage and lying.

I don't recall reading anywhere that (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:49:05 PM EST

Clinton is claiming all the delegates in MI. Where did you get that idea?


It is called (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST

a straw man.


I don't recall (none / 0) (#70)
by mouth of the south on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM EST

I just assumed that the undecided voters should be counted. Does she mean to disinfranchise the undecided voters? Isn't that the message she is using to count all the Florida and Michigan votes? If you favor that, then SOMEONE must claim the undecided voters since they were definately NOT voting for Clinton.


: They could go to the convention (none / 0) (#74)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:24:39 PM EST

let's see, hmmm, how about UNCOMMITTED???
I am for a revote but I hate stupidity.

: Uncommitted (none / 0) (#78)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:56:52 PM EST

Uncommitted means uncommitted. The exit polls showed that 3% of Hillary's support voted Uncommitted. I was an Edwards supporter and I voted Uncommitted.
Uncommitted means that the delegates are not committed to any specific candidate.
My Uncommitted vote was not anti-Hillary it was pro Edwards. My second choice is Hillary Clinton who I support since Edwards dropped out.
Uncommitted delegates can vote for whichever candidate they want, either Clinton or Obama or maybe even Edwards (who still has, I believe, 26 delegates from other primaries).

No he is supposed to (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST

check that, his SUPPORTERS are supposed to not be shameless hypcrites. All pols are shameless hypocrites.

I expect better from the blogs. Check that, I USED to expect better from the blogs.

As for your questions, they mean nothing to me - I support REVOTES! I want NO delegates to be assigned from thew 1/15 contest.


That's not what he's saying (none / 0) (#40)
by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST

He's saying that by pursuing the delegates he (Obama) gives legitimacy to the existing vote count, especially it's impact on the popular vote total, and he thinks that's not a good strategy.

To rephrase: by Obama going after the delegates it suggests he feels that they are valid delegates that come from a valid process. If the process that produced them was valid then the votes should be included in the popular vote count.

Is that really what Obama wants?

That's my read on BTDs position.


Obama's strategy was clear (none / 0) (#51)
by sister of ye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST

from the outset. I live in SE Michigan. If he didn't want those delegates, he wouldn't have had his supporters run ads (hmm, wasn't that against the roolz?) pushing him as the "uncommitted" candidate.

He suckered John Edwards to do the same, so he can use the confusion over which votes would have gone to whom and try to claim everything not specifically committed to Clinton, Kucinich and Dodd.

Clever strategy if you don't mind cheesing off the voters of the 8th largest state in the country.

BTW, you Obama supporters can't have it both ways. You can't claim he was an ignorant, innocent bystander, yet still claim he's savvy enough to run the country.


Just to be clear (none / 0) (#53)
by magster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:05:45 PM EST

is there any proof that Obama himself campaigning for these uncommitteds?

Will he reject those who do? (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:08:02 PM EST

Yeah, he'd have to (none / 0) (#60)
by magster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM EST

(see comment # 59).

The question is whether Hillary could make any credible argument to have the supers reject these delegates in favor of a 55-0 shutout if these delegates are acting on their own.


: She doesn't have to. (none / 0) (#68)
by Radix on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST

It's the popular vote that matters right now. Also, she will get 55% of the delegates, so there is a small net gain. Obama only leads in the popular vote by about 3%, if we count MI and FL, that popular lead total drops to about .6%.

why not split the uncommitted by 6? (none / 0) (#71)
by goldberry on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST

Then nobody would be able to say it's not fair. Hillary and Mike Gravel get their delegates who are committed. Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson split the rest evenly. Then they can encourage their delegates to choose whomever they like. Most of the uncommitted would go to Obama but not necessarily Edwards' delegates.
On second thought, maybe the uncommitted should just be split between Hillary and Gravel.

: Kucinich was on the ballot (none / 0) (#72)
by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM EST

But according to those polls, she got 3% of the uncommitted. (I know - I don't understand it either)

: Waddaya Mean Split? (none / 0) (#79)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST

These are uncommitted delegates. Uncommitted means uncommitted, meaning that the delegate can vote for the candidate of his/her choice.
It doesn't make sense that Uncommitted would be arbitrarily divied up among the candidates.
Uncommitted is Uncommitted.

Um (none / 0) (#81)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:54:24 PM EST

Ok. You made a lot of sense there - at least about Obama going ahead and revoting FL and Mi. It is amazing that he has blocked the revotes.

The rest of your comment - ridiculous.

Why have you not rejoined Dkos?

Show you? (none / 0) (#85)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:11:02 PM EST

A suggestion - read this blog regularly.

As for what will happen, I fully expect Obama to win both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote.

But my thinking it don't make it so. Let Obama win. May 6 is not so long from now is it?

Does anyone care about November in the Obama camp?


Void of reality? (none / 0) (#88)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:35:44 PM EST

Then it must be all "team" for you. You won;t like this site at all then.


: No (none / 0) (#93)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:14:00 PM EST

I choose not to.
Read the archives.
I have to go now Nate.

BTD: Did you run over Tunch*? (none / 0) (#91)
by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:14:22 PM EST

Why does JC hate you so much? Does he think you are really Bill Clinton?

I used to agree with Ezra Klein about JC being a consistent a*-h*e. But he's back mainlining kool-aid again, just a different flavor.

*Tunch is JC's cat.

If each roll of the two-headed coin is Obama's ... (none / 0) (#92)
by Ellie on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST

... applying contradictory standards wherever to reflect that HRC is someone we can't stand who gets no delegates, then ....

This has been another demonstration of the math behind the Obama rules, and the rules behind the Obama math. Thank you for coming. Please leave quietly by the side exits to this blog, or the stairs to street level at the back.

Get your smear straight (none / 0) (#95)
by dmbeaster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:19:55 PM EST

While Obama fans ... are aghast that Hillary Clinton is fighting for revotes in Michigan and Florida...

No one is concerned about her fighting for re-votes. What is odious is claiming that the Michigan result was fair and the delegate should be seated as is.

"Uncommited" The Real Meaning (none / 0) (#96)
by megspaul on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:25:54 AM EST

I'm sorry for you Obama voters, but Uncommitted means just that. It does not mean they're voting for Obama. I hope the Clinton team actually pushes this. Uncommitted means the voters aren't committing to a person on the ballot, perhaps Obama should have had his name on it, because legally I would argue this case in court. Why would an uncommitted vote count as an Obama vote? Because of the discrepancy's I would mandate a re-vote for that reason. For all the issues with this primary I have switched my vote to McCain and am urging all my friends and peers to do the same. See how our votes really count.

Blocked re-votes? (none / 0) (#97)
by Breschau on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:01:02 AM EST

I really only have one question:

What exactly did Barrack Obama do to "block" any re-votes in either Michigan or Florida? Can any of you give an a source or URL that shows me what he did there?