Hillary Flashback: Michigan election not going to count

LoyaltyisaCurse · May 30th, 2008, 09:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxB...count-for.html

lvgentleman · May 31st, 2008, 01:33 PM

FL will count now. MI - depends. Probably, with the 69-59 split proposed as a compromise.

LacardJoe67 · May 31st, 2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxB...count-for.html

you forget the most important fact...this was said after the Michigan primary, not before. This was disclosed today during the DNC delegate debate.

LoyaltyisaCurse · May 31st, 2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LacardJoe67

you forget the most important fact...this was said after the Michigan primary, not before. This was disclosed today during the DNC delegate debate.

Actually the fact has no bering on her words... The question she answered in that audio clip was, "Why did you not take your name off the ballot as the other candidates did?"

LacardJoe67 · May 31st, 2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse

Actually the fact has no bering on her words... The question she answered in that audio clip was, "Why did you not take your name off the ballot as the other candidates did?"

The only candidates that took their name off VOLUNTARILY were:

Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden...I think.

Not all the candidates volunteered . In fact, Kucinich campaigned in Michigan.

By the way, rumor had it that the ones that took their names off were just pandering to Iowa & New Hampshire.

Can I ask you a question?

If you posted a thread about Hillary leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan, why are you not mad that Obama left his in Florida?

What is the difference?

Wanna know? Ask Carl Levin who is an Obama supporter. He explained it in detail. I am sure you watched it and didn't it get you mad at the DNC? They created this mess in the first place. They F'ed up and penalized the people. The irony in all this is that now the Pledged delegates get a 1/2 vote and the SD"s who created this mess have the full vote...that is despicable.

LoyaltyisaCurse · May 31st, 2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LacardJoe67

The only candidates that took their name off VOLUNTARILY were:

Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden...I think.

Not all the candidates volunteered . In fact, Kucinich campaigned in Michigan.

By the way, rumor had it that the ones that took their names off were just pandering to Iowa & New Hampshire.

Can I ask you a question?

If you posted a thread about Hillary leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan, why are you not mad that Obama left his in Florida?

What is the difference?

Wanna know? Ask Carl Levin who is an Obama supporter. He explained it in detail. I am sure you watched it and didn't it get you mad at the DNC? They created this mess in the first place. They F'ed up and penalized the people. The irony in all this is that now the Pledged delegates get a 1/2 vote and the SD"s who created this mess have the full vote...that is despicable.

Nice talking points LannyJoe...Lets not let Hillary's own words get in the way here...

I never said all the candidates took their names off, I said she was responding to a question about "the other" candidates that took their names off.

So now you base your answers on rumors? That is funny...

Since when is Levin an Obama supporter? Last I heard he was uncommitted.

I think leaving or removing the names meant nothing more than a symbolic gesture by either camp. Everyone knew that election was not going to count and your candidate said so herself. They only "respect" the voters because she needs them now.

GO ahead and keep ignoring that fact and the fact that Mr. Ickes felt it was absolutely important to impose the 100% penalty in 2007, but now feigns his moral outrage in order to give his candidate a better shot.

I agree with you on the SD's, the should receive a 1/2 vote.

LacardJoe67 · May 31st, 2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse

Nice talking points LannyJoe...Lets not let Hillary's own words get in the way here...

I never said all the candidates took their names off, I said she was responding to a question about "the other" candidates that took their names off.

So now you base your answers on rumors? That is funny...

Since when is Levin an Obama supporter? Last I heard he was uncommitted.

I think leaving or removing the names meant nothing more than a symbolic gesture by either camp. Everyone knew that election was not going to count and your candidate said so herself. They only "respect" the voters because she needs them now.

GO ahead and keep ignoring that fact and the fact that Mr. Ickes felt it was absolutely important to impose the 100% penalty in 2007, but now feigns his moral outrage in order to give his candidate a better shot.

I agree with you on the SD's, the should receive a 1/2 vote.

can you answer the question? Why did Obama take his name off of Michigan and not Florida? There has to be a reason...can you tell me? No talking points...just a question.

UncleChris · May 31st, 2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LacardJoe67

can you answer the question? Why did Obama take his name off of Michigan and not Florida? There has to be a reason...can you tell me? No talking points...just a question.

I believe that under Florida law, candidates are not able to withdraw their names (at least by the time he wanted to).

LacardJoe67 · May 31st, 2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

I believe that under Florida law, candidates are not able to withdraw their names (at least by the time he wanted to).

I am looking for a concrete answer...not a "I believe" one.

Florida primary: 1/29
Michigan primary: 1/15

When was the decision made?

Anyway, I want Diac Morris to answer this one.

UncleChris · May 31st, 2008, 11:18 PM

So sorry....

I'm sure LIAC can Google as well or better than I.

LoyaltyisaCurse · June 1st, 2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LacardJoe67

can you answer the question? Why did Obama take his name off of Michigan and not Florida? There has to be a reason...can you tell me? No talking points...just a question.

Do you even read my posts?

Quote:

I think leaving or removing the names meant nothing more than a symbolic gesture by either camp. Everyone knew that election was not going to count and your candidate said so herself.

LacardJoe67 · June 1st, 2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse

Do you even read my posts?

Quote:

I think leaving or removing the names meant nothing more than a symbolic gesture by either camp. Everyone knew that election was not going to count and your candidate said so herself.

Then why the thread? If everyone knew, why bring it up?

The reason was because Obama wanted to please Iowa & New Hampshire. I guess he only wanted to show a symbolic gesture towards Michigan...right? Either that or maybe Obama didn't understand what he was signing. Why do one without the other? Doesn't make sense. Hillary was the only consistent one and in retrospect, the one with better judgment.

UncleChris · June 1st, 2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LacardJoe67

Then why the thread? If everyone knew, why bring it up?

The reason was because Obama wanted to please Iowa & New Hampshire. I guess he only wanted to show a symbolic gesture towards Michigan...right? Either that or maybe Obama didn't understand what he was signing. Why do one without the other? Doesn't make sense. Hillary was the only consistent one and in retrospect, the one with better judgment.

Still trying to spin things, eh? Have at it.

From Wikipedia:

In August of 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee that only four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008.[1]. In the spring of 2007, the Florida legislature passed by overwhelming majorities House Bill 537[2] which moved the date of the state's Republican and Democratic primaries to January 29th, a week before the earliest permitted date[3] of both parties.

In response, the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted on August 25, 2007 that Florida was in violation of its rules, and gave the state 30 days' notice to change the date of its primary.[1] As Florida did not respond, the Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.[4] On August 31, officials from the four approved early-voting states asked all the candidates to pledge not to campaign or participate in Florida, and all the major candidates signed the pledge.[1]Despite the pledge, the major candidates remained on the ballot, as Florida rules do not allow candidates to remove their names without withdrawing completely from the general election.[5]

###################################
Howz THAT for and "I believe"?

LoyaltyisaCurse · June 1st, 2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

.[1]Despite the pledge, the major candidates remained on the ballot, as Florida rules do not allow candidates to remove their names without withdrawing completely from the general election.[5]

###################################
Howz THAT for and "I believe"?

LannyJoe gets served... I bring thread up for obvious reasons: Hillary's desperate Hypocrisy...

I say it was symbolic for those who removed their names showed solidarity for the Rules of the DNC, while Hillary left her name on the ballot to have claim that she was the only one who "cares" about Michigan.

Also and possibly even more likely, someone like Ickes probably advised Hillary to leave her name on the ballot to scew the numbers and have an ace in the hole should they need to create a controversy and need to lay claim to the "legitimate" primary votes.

She left herself wiggle room to use to her manipulative advantage should she need to reverse course and make this an issue, when at the time, she did not care about these people because she thought she would cruise to the nomination.

Ickes even said on Russert today, that "things changed" and that is why they pushed for this.

Again, this is not about Hillary standing up for the people, its about her trying to swing the election in her favor by any means nessecary. Its too bad so many choose not to see it for what it clearly is.

Better judgement? More like calculating alterior motives...

LacardJoe67 · June 1st, 2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

Still trying to spin things, eh? Have at it.

From Wikipedia:

In August of 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee that only four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008.[1]. In the spring of 2007, the Florida legislature passed by overwhelming majorities House Bill 537[2] which moved the date of the state's Republican and Democratic primaries to January 29th, a week before the earliest permitted date[3] of both parties.

In response, the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted on August 25, 2007 that Florida was in violation of its rules, and gave the state 30 days' notice to change the date of its primary.[1] As Florida did not respond, the Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.[4] On August 31, officials from the four approved early-voting states asked all the candidates to pledge not to campaign or participate in Florida, and all the major candidates signed the pledge.[1]Despite the pledge, the major candidates remained on the ballot, as Florida rules do not allow candidates to remove their names without withdrawing completely from the general election.[5]

###################################
Howz THAT for and "I believe"?

I concede.

It's not that I didn't want to believe you but "I believe" didn't sound like you were sure. Plus you did say :

Quote:

I believe that under Florida law, candidates are not able to withdraw their names (at least by the time he wanted to).

Anyway, good research.

Here is the actual site with the rules:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...ESection%20101

Quote:

(3) A candidate's name shall be printed on the presidential preference primary ballot unless the candidate submits to the Department of State, prior to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, an affidavit stating that he or she is not now, and does not presently intend to become, a candidate for President at the upcoming nominating convention. If a candidate withdraws pursuant to this subsection, the Department of State shall notify the state executive committee that the candidate's name will not be placed on the ballot. The Department of State shall, no later than the third Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, certify to each supervisor of elections the name of each candidate for political party nomination to be printed on the ballot.