MyDD :: At least we know it was never about "Disenfranchisement"

At least we know it was never about "Disenfranchisement"

by bigdaddy, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM EST

Whew! I feel a little better. The world seems to make a little more sense today and things a bit more focused. HRC and some of her supporters actually had me thinking--for a fleeting moment--that counting the votes in Michigan was actually about being "Democratic" and avoiding voter "Disenfranchisement."

But of course, as has become crystal clear--and my instinctual cynicism confirmed--that it was never about disenfranchisement or the will of the people or your democratic catchphrase de jour. Its about winning. All is right with the political world as I know it...

Just so I have it right I'm going to repeat what I've been hearing (from camp HRC) and here on MyDD: Clinton is leading on the popular vote because we are counting the 300,000+ votes for her and counting exactly "0" (zero) for Barack Obama.

The people have spoken loud and clear in Michigan! Zero, None, Zilch...not even a single solitary sole voted or wanted to vote for the Junior Senator from Illinois. Does anyone know how many voters are in MI that were eligible to vote? You know what percent of those voters wanted to or actually voted for Obama? Zero.

But, Bigdaddy, what about the 238,168 people that voted for "uncommitted?" Surely, at least one of them must have wanted to vote for Obama?

Nope.

Not a single one of them wanted to vote for Barack. Why? Because if they wanted to vote for Barack, but couldn't, so instead voted for uncommitted that would mean by counting "ZERO" for Obama, they would be....[drum roll]...disenfranchised. Their voice would NOT be heard.

But, Bigdaddy, what about all the HRC and BO supporters that stayed home because they were told that their vote didn't count. Don't they deserve to have a voice? Aren't they--in effect--being disenfranchised?

Nope.

Everyone that wanted to vote, voted. If they stayed home because they were told by the DNC and Obama, Hillary, and Edwards that their votes wouldn't count and they were STUPID enough to actually believe that the rules wouldn't be changed at the end, then that's their own fault! The savvy voters knew Dean was just kidding around about the punishment...and the candidates themselves? Of course they were lying--that's what politicians do.

Enough sarcasm...so the bottom line is this. If you're truly concerned about the democratic process and disenfranchisement then:

1. You (HRC, supporters, etc) should have protested the punishment from the start. Did she/you?

2. You should be EQUALLY concerned that those who wanted to vote for Obama but couldn't are being disenfranchised. Are you?

3. You should be EQUALLY concerned about those who actually believed that their vote wouldn't count and decided it wasn't worth taking time off from work, finding a babysitter, etc, and stayed home. Are you?

It seems to me what this is about is "HRC supporter disenfranchisement," which has nothing to do with disenfranchisement, the will of the people, or the democratic process. Its about one thing and one thing only: winning.

Tags: disenfranchisement, hillary, clinton, honesty, politics, obama, michigan (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

but . . (2.00 / 1)

but . . but . . but . . Obama took his name off the ballot, so its ok to disenfranchise those voters. Because it's his fault. Oh yeah, and its not Hillary's fault when she stated that the Michigan election doesn't count. She only said those things when she thought she was gonna win. She forgot mention back then that Michigan doesn't count . . . .unless she needs their votes to make a ridiculous argument that she's ahead in the popular vote .

by reggie23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:52:48 PM EST

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

If you take your team off the field, you don't get to score points. If you take your name off the ballot, you don't get votes. If this Primary was concluded, as many thought it would be by Super Tuesday, the issue of FL and MI would be moot. However, that's not the case. So, to determine the Dem nominee, all votes must be counted in the close selection process.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:56:44 PM EST

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

Both teams were taken off the field by the DNC and the candidates last year. Its just that Hillary is trying to sneak hers back on the field in the middle of the night to score a couple of touchdowns with no opposition....

At least you (sort of) admit its not about the will of ALL the people...just some of them. I thought we didn't want to punish the voters who did nothing wrong. If that's the argument, then it doesn't matter why BO's name was off the ballot.

by bigdaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

You mischaracterize my comments and the realities of the MI vote. Obama REMOVED his name from the ballot. Political reasons to curry favor with IA and NH voters? Hillary, along with other Dem candidates, were on the ballot. MI voted. Done.
Revote or count them. Well, Obama has obstructed the revote, so count them. Or should MI voters be disenfranchised?

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

"Or should MI voters be disenfranchised?"

You realize the irony of decrying voter disenfranchisement while suggesting that the voters who favored Obama in MI should not be counted in popular vote totals?

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

If they voted, count 'em. If they didn't vote, just quote a number for Obama to claim?

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

You are point out the very reason that the election should not count. We count votes because they represent the will of the people, not just for the sake of couting them. If there is no way to measure what the people would have decided with Obama on the ballot than there is no way we can claim that this vote was legitimate.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

I think you meant to say Hillary thought the primary would be concluded on Super Tuesday, therefore FL would be moot. Oh and the 11 straight contests she lost after Super Tuesday would be moot. Don't feel too sorry if she didn't plan for this race to last after Super Tuesday. Besides, why would you want to disenfranchise all those states after the beginning of Feb. And the primary is only close if you count MI and FL. WIthout them, Hillary is dead in the water. I understand why Clinton is arguing for the states, however disingenuous it may be, but I guess all is fair in love and politics.

by reggie23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we know it was never about (none / 0)

If the refs and the other team tell you that the game is an unofficial exhibition match, you are justified in not participating.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we know it was never (2.00 / 1)

But, Bigdaddy, don't you want Hillary to win?

Does anyone really believe that the candidates care who was disenfranchised or not? If Hillary had locked this up as she was supposed to have done, does anyone think we would be hearing about disenfranchisement? Anyone? Of course not.

by MikeyB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:57:44 PM EST

Well I'm Convinced of one thing.... (none / 0)

Obama COULD HAVE agreed with HRC to a re-vote so that ALL of MICHIGAN COULD HAVE COUNTED.....but NOOOOOOOO - Mr. Unity decided not to have Michigan count at ALL. Why? He actually could have WON Michigan if a re-vote took place, so why opt out? What is he so afraid of?

If you believe Michigan doesn't matter.....well guess what?

When you look at the Electoral Votes and the up-to-date polls (per Jerome's diary) HRC WINS MICHIGAN OVER MCCAIN and OBAMA LOSES MICHIGAN TO MCCAIN.

So - what does that tell YOU?

That Michigan's 17 electoral votes don't matter? Is that kind of like the white working class votes not mattering either?

You actually believe Obama can win in November without Michigan? If so - show me the proof.

by nikkid on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:52 PM EST

Re: Well I'm Convinced of one thing.... (none / 0)

Doesn't matter if its REALLY about "disenfranchisement" because then it would be about not punishing voters for mistakes or rules breaking of Dean, the DNC, the MI legislature, Obama, Hilary, or God. But, again, its not about the voice of the people. It about winning. Its about getting as many "votes" as possible, fair or not, regardless of all else.

by bigdaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I'm Convinced of one thing.... (none / 0)

see thats where you are confused it was never about general disenfranchisement

its about Hillary voter disenfranchisement.

they are the only voters who count. and if their votes don't count THEN its disenfranchisement

but if their votes count and others don't well they don't matter.

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I'm Convinced of one thing.... (none / 0)

The rulz you refer to apply to delegates.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I'm Convinced of one thing.... (none / 0)

Your liberal use of capital letters has completely convinced me.

by username2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit (none / 0)

Actually, your assessment is rife with painful errors, wehich lead me to believe that you are intellectually dishonest.
Obama dn Edwards took their names off the ballot in Michigan in a attempt to make Hillary look bad about it.
That is a verified fact.

Since Edwards was not on the ballot, some of those "uncomitted " votes would have gone to him. Therefore, You cannot in good conscience ask that the "uncomitted " voted go to Obama.

If Obama would have cared about the Michigan voters, he would have agreed to a revote.
Everyone would have been happy then.

by soopermouse on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:59:15 PM EST

Re: Bullshit (none / 0)

1. If its a "verified fact" I'd urge you to proof your incontrovertible proof. I'm not saying its false, I'm just curious as to what passes for "fact" anymore around here.

2. I never said all the "uncommitted" should go to Obama. Please, highlight the part of my diary which says that. I think the whole vote was a sham, screwed up from the start by the powers-that-be and any solution besides a total re-vote or not counting anything as agreed upon by Clinton and Obama is a crock.

3. I wasn't aware that the Junior Senator from Illinois was in charge of the MI re-vote.

Did people even read my diary?

by bigdaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

democracy (none / 0)

"1. You (HRC, supporters, etc) should have protested the punishment from the start. Did she/you?

2. You should be EQUALLY concerned that those who wanted to vote for Obama but couldn't are being disenfranchised. Are you?

1) yes it was stupid all along but stupid in a manner not likely to decide the election until recently.

2) Yes I accept the california counting of illegal ballots for Obama because its clear thats what they wanted to vote. I respect the right to vote more than the rule of stupid election law.

3) I condemn Caucuses that penalize people who don't have as much wealth in the form of time to participate and not that Obama has almost all of his pledged delegate mandate from this form of contest. I understand that you meant I should feel sorry for Michigan Obama voters who voted GOP but I don't feel sorry for them.

by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:23:09 PM EST

Re: democracy (none / 0)

All your criticisms of the system are fine and perhaps valid. They should be considered for the next round of primaries in 4 or 8 years. You can't seriously consider changing the rules/system in the middle. Can you imagine if HRC was winning and Obama's people were suggesting this?

by bigdaddy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.