Why in October, 2007 Did Barack Obama & John Edwards Take Their Names off of "the Ballot" in MI?

[PBS Poll-435]

I can't think of any reason at all that isn't 100% honorable. They did it to respect the rules. They did it for "law & order." They did it to keep Iowa & New Hampshire out of December. They did it because it was the right thing to do...










For them.



And a bonus completely random Pollster.com image!








ETA: Thread needed more "Sunshine."

[GarbagemanLB]

1. They were adhering to the pledge that clearly stated they wouldn't PARTICIPATE in MI/FL.

He COULDN'T take his name off the Florida ballot.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. Sure they were!

;-)

[GarbagemanLB]

4. I know how the truth hurts, but some people, unlike Hillary, do adhere to pledges and rules.

[PBS Poll-435]

9. Ads in Florida, the Conyer's ads in Michigan.

He kinda adhered to it.

[hokies4ever]

18. Only about 1 week left until Obama is the presumptive nominee

So you've got about 20 threads left to create on GD:Pto tear down Obama. It's tough task, but you've been up to it in the past. Make sure each and every one of them counts. I'm personally disappointed that this one resembles an empty pantsuit and lacks true substance and bite to it. Please try harder next time. :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

19. How is this tearing down anyone.

It is a relevent topic too with tomorrow's RBC meeting.

[hokies4ever]

20. I'm still disappointed

You're normally a little bit harsher with your anti-Obama rhetoric. Please 'bring it' next time you actually try to bring it. :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

21. I think you have me confused.

I am a "unity" ticket supporter!

:-)

[hokies4ever]

23. My apologies then :-)

:patriot:

I don't completely trust you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I'm keeping my eye on your threads though! :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

37. It is always good to have "fans"

:rofl:

[Ravy]

10. Oh. So he signed a pledge to do something he couldn't?

No, they took their names off to curry additional favor with the Iowans and NH. There was nothing in the rules about removing their names, and it was not a violation to keep your name on the ballot.

The argument that they couldn't remove from the Florida ballot is extremely weak because it means your candidate intentionally signed a document pledging he would do something he couldn't.

[GarbagemanLB]

16. Do you understand what 'participate' means? Read the pledge.

[Ravy]

55. I understand fully. If participation means taking your name off the ballot,

as you seem to think, then your man Obama knowingly and willfully signed a document where he promised to do something that he would be unable to do.

If you can't understand that, I just don't know how to help you further. Your argument makes your guy into a willful liar, or at the minimum, someone who will promise anything and not worry about whether he will actually be able to do it or not.

[gateley]

3. They did as a stand of solidarity with our Party's ruling and with each other.

It was the admirable thing to do.

[PBS Poll-435]

8. Hmm....

Why wasn't Chairman Dodd (a Obama superdelegate) on the "Solidarity Wagon?"

[gateley]

12. I can't pretend to know Dodd's reasoning. You need to ask him. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

28. Do you have his number?

:rofl:

[gateley]

34. Well as a matter of fact --

[phone].

Let us know what he says, won't you?

[PBS Poll-435]

36. LOL....it was rhetorical! DUH

j/k

:D

[gateley]

39. LOL -- yeah, I got it. DUH

:)

[tritsofme]

29. If you really believe that, then you need to remember this is politics, not choir practice.

nt

[Selatius]

5. If Obama stayed, he likely would've closed the gap with Hillary.

Implying he pulled out because the gap is insurmountable is a bit of a stretch. Obama closed plenty of wide gaps in many primary states such that even if Hillary did win those states, the win was marginal at best. But that's largely irrelevant to the point that the DNC stripped Michigan of its delegates when they moved their primary.

[4_Legs_Good]

43. But he couldn't do it without campaigning there

He wins when he's on the ground, letting people get to know him. He doesn't win, and WOULDN'T have won on name recognition alone, which is exactly why he and Edwards pulled their names, and exactly why Clinton didn't. They all knew the rules, they all did what was most politically advantageous.

No shame in what any of them did.

That doesn't change the fact that those were the rules going in, and that they were, and are stripped of their delegates.

David

[billyoc]

6. They must be Democrats.

[Lucinda]

7. Yup. They did it to get traction in Iowa and NH.

IT WAS NOT REQUIRED.

[BeatleBoot]

11. Great post. Look at that trend.

As a leader, even if you're about to get pummeled, you at the very least, show up.

[SoCalDem]

13. For whatever reason, it's meaningless now..

ALL candidate names should have been summarily removed.. Shame on Granholm for not removing ALL names, and just having the primary for Michigan-y stuff..HRC knew exactly what she was doing..but even in "victory" it has to sting to know that FORTY FIVE percent of the people who slogged through wintry weather to vote in a NON-ELECTION...did so just to vote AGAINST her :rofl:

[ecstatic]

14. Why wasn't HRC concerned about the votes last year?

Oh...because she assumed she would wrap up the nom by Super Tuesday. She has no integrity or honor and I do not want that woman anywhere near the White House ever again.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. I don't know, you will have to ask her nt.

[CaptJasHook]

15. Again? Again the pledge drivel

[Shakespeare]

22. Here's why your premise is complete bullshit: proportionate distribution of delegates

I'll let you ponder that for a bit.

[PBS Poll-435]

24. So, like, you, like, totally, mean that, like, Clinton would have been awarded more delegates?

Proportionally?

And she would, like, hold the pledged delegate lead after IA, NH, NV, SC and before the "all-important" Super Tuesday?

Obama and Edwards decided to invalidate the election in MI because they weren't going to like the results, IMO.

[Shakespeare]

31. No. I mean that your pretzel logic that they'd take all their toys and go home is absurd...

...because it's NOT a winner-take-all primary. They'd have netted a respectable number of delegates, and Hillary's win would in no way have been insurmountable. None of the candidates (except, possibly, Hillary) viewed MI as an all-or-nothing state.

Obama and Edwards didn't invalidate the MI election--MI did that all on its own by defying party rules.

Try to wrap your tiny, narrow little mind around that.

[PBS Poll-435]

35. You really need to quit with the personal attacks.

Hillary would have netted around 30 or so delegates...

(.55*128) - Clinton

(.79*.4*128) - Obama

That would have been meaningless?

Not important?

It would changed the entire dynamic of the race.

[Shakespeare]

40. No personal attack there.

30 netted delegates would NOT change the dynamic of the race. Obama would still win.

[PBS Poll-435]

42. I think it would have mattered then.

Going into NV and SC with "the lead*"?

[Shakespeare]

45. No, not a very big lead. And way too early to have made a big difference.

Sorry, it just wouldn't.

[PBS Poll-435]

46. There is no way to know for sure.

Might have brought her more delegates in SC and more on 2/5 though...

Guess we will never know.

[Shakespeare]

49. Yeah, there is. By nobody's logic would 30 more delegates have given her an unbeatable edge then.

[PBS Poll-435]

50. It would, however, have given her a lead in pledged delegates.

Which she never held at any time during this race.

[Hola]

32. fail

but u are funny. The GOP is looking for a new Press Secretary, you should apply :)

[K Gardner]

25. Fucking GIVE IT UP.. you lost already. Is this worn out TPM all you got, really? You're

embarassing yourself, but why stop now.. been at it for months.

[PBS Poll-435]

27. What is worn-out?

I don't believe that anyone has ever used pictures!

;-)

[indimuse]

33. LQQK @ the FOUL LOUD MOUTH on YOU!

Talk about worn.... BO, could...will never.... win the GE!


The tides have turned~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The verdict is in....NOBAMA! oops

[TahitiNut]

53. "BRAV- F*CKING - O - BITCH!"

I suppose it's easier to throw shit when you're swimming in it. :eyes: Hypocrite.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Wasn't it BITCH BRAV-F*CKING-O?

I cannot keep all these fine new sayings straight.

[CaptJasHook]

64. Bwahaha, I've been waiting for someone to throw that back in her face.

:toast: TahitiNot, my hero tonight.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. NO BIG ASS COLORED FONTS?

What is up with that?

We have

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLZ!

We have

STARNDERD!S!

[Swamp Rat]

59. Red Crayons

:popcorn:

[Warren Stupidity]

61. TY

[Swamp Rat]

62. I have other colors if you need them.

:D

[Major Hogwash]

26. How many times has this question been answered here at DU?

I've seen it answered at least a dozen times, maybe 2 dozen times and yet, here it is 4 days away from Obama becoming the nominee and it is still asked.

[indimuse]

30. Kikity KIK! and REC!

the truth will be revealed @ the Convention..OR before.

thanks for the post.

[PBS Poll-435]

44. Thank YOU for reading it.

:D

[rug]

38. I cry at their sacrifice.

:cry:

[PBS Poll-435]

48. It is for the greater good.

Don't cha know.

[4_Legs_Good]

41. They did it for strategic reasons

just like Clinton stayed on for strategic reasons! I've explained this a bazillion times. None of them were wrong to do what they did, but they all did it because it was good strategy.

At the point they had to decide, Clinton was the top candidate, so having a MI primary that didn't mean anything, and where Edwards and Obama couldn't campaign, would give her a paper victory, which might look bad for them. If they weren't on the ballot she couldn't claim that she beat them.

OTOH, Clinton knew without being able to campaign, and WITH her out of the gate lead, and superior name recognition, she WOULD win a symbolic victory against anyone running, so she, intelligently left her name on the ballot.

They were all smart to do what they did. None of the three of them did anything wrong, but they ALL did what they did because of the political ramifications knowing what would happen going in.

David

[PBS Poll-435]

47. But I thought they did it to respect the rules? That has been the meme for 8 months now.

[4_Legs_Good]

54. Not from me.

They ALL used the rules to their advantage. I would have done the same, and anyone playing chess who didn't would have been foolish.

Probably why Kucinich isn't the nominee!

David

[SemiCharmedQuark]

51. Why did Hillary say it wasn't going to count for anything?

[PBS Poll-435]

52. She was drunk.

Remember?

[Auntie Bush]

56. They took their names off because they would have lost the primary.

Just like Obama didn't try to win WV and KY...He knew he'd lose!
I wonder where this election would be today if Obama hadn't been chicken and happily withdrew his name and Hillary had won?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

57. Well MI still would have had it's delegates stripped so we'd still be where we are now.

[PBS Poll-435]

67. Yep

It is much clearer now...

[quakerboy]

60. Probably just to infuriate you

Thats my guess, since this is apparently 20 irrelevant questions day.

[FlyingSquirrel]

65. DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6187489#6188241

-----

4_Legs_Good, reply #43

... he couldn't do it (win) without campaigning there

He wins when he's on the ground, letting people get to know him. He doesn't win, and WOULDN'T have won on name recognition alone, which is exactly why he and Edwards pulled their names, and exactly why Clinton didn't. They all knew the rules, they all did what was most politically advantageous.

No shame in what any of them did.

That doesn't change the fact that those were the rules going in, and that they were, and are stripped of their delegates.

David

------

So there ya go. Edwards and Obama knew that they were at a disadvantage since they would be unable to campaign in the state to overcome their lack of name-recognition; therefore they removed their names from the ballot since it wouldn't be a fair fight and they didn't want to take the chance that their poor showing in a state they couldn't campaign in would slow them down in the states that DID count, or otherwise be later used against them in the primary battle. Seems reasonable enough.

Your enlightened response to this very thoughtful, unbiased answer?

[PBS Poll-435]

66. I thought it was a fantastic response.

Now this whole time I was told that Obama and Edwards got out because of "the rules."

Guess not.

[FlyingSquirrel]

73. Yep I guess not. It's still a valid reason to get out if you can't campaign there

and you have lower name recognition but have a chance to win the nomination. That's obviously why the others stayed on the ballot - they knew they probably didn't have a chance to win the nomination but wanted to get their names out there.

So you've won the battle against the masses who don't want to actually think. So now what?

[Mezzo]

68. to suck up to Iowa.

and it worked.

[jbm]

69. Obama did it because he knew he would lose..

The demographics didn't support him winning, and were more reliable than polls. It was a strategic move. I'm not sure what motivated Edwards, but campaigns are about strategy and I would assume his motivations were also pragmatic.

[Yotun]

71. So because he was going to lose, he made SURE he'd lose, and not gain ANYTHING at all?

Please... remember, delegates are giving proportionally, so there is NOTHING for Obama to gain by removing his name, in the case the rules change later on. Doesn't it tell you something that it is Hillary who is the odd one out here? Are ALL Democratic candidates politically calculating, apart from Hillary? Or is it that Hillary, who said at the time the election would not count, who pledged to not 'participate' in the election, left her name there to win by default, and be able to procalim she 'won' those states, to support her inevitability argument. Remember she was bragging about winning Michigan and Florida immediately after those two primaries, even though she knew they counted for nothing!!! Her actions immediately after the primaries betray those were strategic political moves by her.

[PBS Poll-435]

72. Are you kidding? I hope so. He had everything to gain.

People want Obama to get all of the uncommitted vote, 40%, when he probably Only got about 30-31%.

Plus - by taking their names off of the ballot, they neutered the Michigan primary.

[Yotun]

70. Soooo, because they were down in polls, they made sure that they LOST the elections?

The pledge was clear. They pledged not to participate in the election. They honored their pledge. It is the Clinton supporters who are using technicalities, saying 'the pledge doesn't specify they must remove their names'. It says they must not participate, which is the same thing, and had Florida rules not been that you cannot be on the November ballot unless in the primary, they would have done so as well.

The question is, given that Hillary herself at the time said that the primaries there would not mean anything, why did SHE keep her name on? Because she knew she'd win by default, and be able to include the state in her 'states I won' list, to promote her inevitability argument.