Uncommitted in Michigan

[JaJae]

Michigan broke the rules and pushed up their primary. Obama, Edwards and Richardson are not going to be on the ballot. So thus Hillary will win. The joke of it though is that there is a huge "Uncommitted" movement going through Michigan right now. Essentially they can't vote for Obama or Edwards so supports are said to vote uncommitted leaving Hillary Clinton taking an embarrassing second place victory to a no named candidate.

Should be interesting.

The Associated Press: Details for the Michigan Primary
Details for the Michigan Primary

By The Associated Press – 5 hours ago

Next stop: Michigan primary on Tuesday, Jan. 15.

At stake: 30 GOP delegates; 0 Democratic delegates. Because Michigan broke party rules by moving up its primary, it has been stripped of half its GOP delegates and all its Democratic ones. Leaders of both state parties expect to regain the lost delegates at their respective conventions, but Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson pulled their names off the ballot.

Polls show: Hillary Rodham Clinton leading among Democrats still on the ballot, but voters also can choose "Uncommitted," which Obama and Edwards supporters may do; Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are in a close race among Republicans, but John McCain could be helped by crossover voters as he was in 2000.

2004: John Kerry won the state with 51 percent in the presidential election.

If even half the Obama/Edwards supports vote Uncommitted there's a decent chance they could embarrass Hillary on her first primary victory (assuming she's going to fail in New Hampshire).

[ballz2wallz]

Why would they do that?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why would they do that?

They can't vote for Obama, Edwards or Richardson and a write-in would be a spoiled vote and would not be counted. The only thing they can do to show support of their candidates is to embarrass Hillary's victory by showing the state doesn't support her.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They can't vote for Obama, Edwards or Richardson and a write-in would be a spoiled vote and would not be counted. The only thing they can do to show support of their candidates is to embarrass Hillary's victory by showing the state doesn't support her.

I guess my question is many-fold:

1) Why would Michigan want to move the primary up?

2) Why would Michigan want to break the rules to do so?'

3) Why would the candidates pull their names as a result?

4) Where are the people who were so adament about 'election fraud' when Kerry or Gore lost now that rules are so obviously broken this election cycle?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I guess my question is many-fold:

1) Why would Michigan want to move the primary up?

2) Why would Michigan want to break the rules to do so?'

3) Why would the candidates pull their names as a result?

4) Where are the people who were so adament about 'election fraud' when Kerry or Gore lost now that rules are so obviously broken this election cycle?

Many states are moving thier primaries up. They do it because they want to be more relevant in the process. The states that go last generally don't have any say in who gets chosen because the decision is already made.
I guess they are willing to play political Chicken inorder to gain relevancy, so they break the rules in the hopes that it works out for them in the end.
I believe that because the parties make the rules about when the primaries can be, the candidates are disallowed from campaigning in the states who have broken the rules.

4) This isn't election fraud. It's just the beurocratic process that is being violated. The outcome of the votes is not changed, they just change when the voting takes place.

[motivez]

1) Because the early states play a very important role in the selection process, as you can see from Obama's huge bump after winning Iowa.. so making their state more important in the selection process makes sense.. especially when you consider the fact that Iowa doesn't really represent the country very well in terms of diversity.

2) Same as above, makes their state more important, gets the campaigns to visit there, etc.

3) They removed their names to avoid a backlash in Iowa and NH from participating in a state that was trying to undermine Iowa's / NH's status and role

4) I don't know what you're talking about, these situations aren't the same

[Publius]

Those two covered it pretty well ... and yea, that election fraud comment came out of left field. wtf?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

and yea, that election fraud comment came out of left field. wtf?

They broke the rules.

So, of what relevance of benefit to they have to gain for being 'more important' in the election process? Do thet get more money?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

They broke the rules.

So, of what relevance of benefit to they have to gain for being 'more important' in the election process? Do thet get more money?

They were hoping to get more recognition from the candidates and more campaign promises I would assume. Michigan has Detriot, which has seen a huge hit to their economy recently.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

They broke the rules.

So, of what relevance of benefit to they have to gain for being 'more important' in the election process? Do thet get more money?

Fraud implies deception. No one is being decieved here. They aren't holding the elections in secret. It's all being done out in the open. And it's not partisan. Both republican and democratic primaries will be held on the same early day. Keep in mind that these are not laws being broken. They are rules that each political party creates on thier own. The parties can change these rules at any time. They don't have the same force as laws do.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Fraud implies deception. No one is being decieved here. They aren't holding the elections in secret. It's all being done out in the open. And it's not partisan. Both republican and democratic primaries will be held on the same early day. Keep in mind that these are not laws being broken. They are rules that each political party creates on thier own. The parties can change these rules at any time. They don't have the same force as laws do.

I never claimed this was fraud. I merely claimed that I would expect those that claimed fraud before would be upset over broken rules. Read what I wrote again:

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

4) Where are the people who were so adament about 'election fraud' when Kerry or Gore lost now that rules are so obviously broken this election cycle?

This seems to have worked against Michigan. I can't imagine why they would do this.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I never claimed this was fraud. I merely claimed that I would expect those that claimed fraud before would be upset over broken rules. Read what I wrote again:



This seems to have worked against Michigan. I can't imagine why they would do this.

I think the difference is that with what happened before, some people thought that they were being decieved. Even though they voted for one candidate, they felt that the votes were being rigged and the outcome of the election was being changed. That's in another world when compared to this stuff. The people claiming fraud before were not just mad because laws were broken, they were mad because of the effect that such actions had. The actual repercussions. In this case there really are no repercussions. No one is being "wronged".

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think the difference is that with what happened before, some people thought that they were being decieved. Even though they voted for one candidate, they felt that the votes were being rigged and the outcome of the election was being changed. That's in another world when compared to this stuff. The people claiming fraud before were not just mad because laws were broken, they were mad because of the effect that such actions had. The actual repercussions. In this case there really are no repercussions. No one is being "wronged".

Got it.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Michigan broke the rules and pushed up their primary. Obama, Edwards and Richardson are not going to be on the ballot. So thus Hillary will win. The joke of it though is that there is a huge "Uncommitted" movement going through Michigan right now. Essentially they can't vote for Obama or Edwards so supports are said to vote uncommitted leaving Hillary Clinton taking an embarrassing second place victory to a no named candidate.

Should be interesting.

But seriously, can't they do a write in campaign or is that even legal?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

But seriously, can't they do a write in campaign or is that even legal?

They can, but write-ins would be spoiled votes for those candidates and uncounted.