Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
1. Clinton won because she was more popular in Michigan with its higher unemployment rate and other problems. She was leading in Michigan for the entire time in the polls. In both the polls with Obama/Edwards and without, she was leading by 20 points.
2. Context of "uncomitted" is very important in this case. There was a loophole that allowed the delegates to be seated if over 30% of the people voted uncommitted despite the delegates being stripped. Both Obama and Edwards told people to vote for uncommitted since they had removed themselves from the ballot.
3. She won by 15 points which I don't know how you can call "almost beaten".
|
My apologies. My response may have been a bit emotional, due to my severe state of anger at Michigan for cheating the state out of a fair primary. Admittedly, I'm not a big Clinton supporter, but I should not have let that get in the way of stating the facts, and I apologize for that.
However, it cannot be denied that the Michigan legislature sincerely f***ed this up, by trying to increase the state's importance in the national election, rather than just letting their place be. I agree that state legislature should fight to win national attention, specifically when the state is in as poor a shape as Michigan. However, that fight should not result in a detriment to the people's cause. Because the state government tried so desperately to move the primary forward, candidates became unwilling to spend money in and on our state, effectively doing more damage than the good they were attempting to do.
Had Clinton won in a fair primary, I would have no qualms with that (insofar as her winning; I'd be upset that she won, but only because I wouldn't have voted for her). Instead, she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot with any serious support (Kucinich, as much as I like him, stands no chance
), while the other just said "vote uncommitted," a statement which inspires very little emotional response from the voting public.