The names we wanted to vote for were not on the ballot, and the election was declared invalid by one of the two major organizing bodies.
That's like an election in Romania.
I'm sorry you lost billable time in order to vote, but don't lose your perspective.
Listen there is nothing fundementally unfair about a candidate taking their own name off a ballot
The candidate chose the action, the candidate understood the possible outcomes and was trying to game to an outcome that he liked.
Now that Michigan may be the deciding vote pulling his name and blocking revotes is starting to look like a major miscalculation...
You should have voted and written in your candidates name if need be.
Yes, Obama could have simply lied like Clinton instead and (just like she did) pledge not to participate and then go back on their pledge.
Are Clinton supporters so far removed from reality that they're simply denying Clinton ever made such a pledge?
What's the deal, Teresa?
time, but you were warned. Troll-rated for anti-Democratic nonsense. There was a campaign to vote uncommitted for Edwards of Obama. I knew about it, you knew about it, and everyone else knew about it. It worked, because 35% of Michigan voters took time out of their day like I did to vote uncommitted.
I availed myself of the right to vote. You did not. Now you're trying to throw my vote out to cover for your laziness and/or ineptitude? Fuck that. TR'd.
TRed for calling another person lazy and inept, merely because you disagree with him on what a proper democratic vote is supposed to look like.
Like little kids on the playground.
TR'd for TR'ing people because they disagree with you. Hit the showers--we all get pissed off at the other side. But TR'ing in this case is out of line.
they are certain their candidate will either win or lose without their vote anyway, based on polling? It is a documented fact that in every election in U.S. history, there are people who refrain from voting because they think they know how the result is going to unfold, and don't feel their vote is necessary. Should we invalidate any/all elections in U.S. history, because in each election, there have been voters who made the wrong decision by staying home?
What is your position on people who don't vote because because it is raining outside? Should we invalidate all elections in which it can be proven that someone stayed home because they didn't want to get wet?
What is your position on people who don't vote because Republicans send them mailers saying a Tuesday vote is actually ocurring on Wednesday? Should we invalidate the entire election if it can be proven that at least one voter did not vote based on bad advice?
In accordance with the foregoing, it is clear that we should not invalidate primaries in which millions of people voted for their candidate, because of the ones who voted for Mitt because Markos Moulitsas told them to, or who stayed home because they were told their votes would not count?
The fact that you people want to throw out two entire primaries based on the people who did not vote is comparable to all of the above. Yet, I don't hear you complain that all elections that have ever occurred in the United States of America should be set aside, because there is proof that someone did not vote, and now regrets THEIR MISTAKE.
Emphasis on fantastic.
Blurring the difference between the illegitimate election in Michigan and depressed voter turnout because of rain is a new level of fiction for you.
Seating Michigan as-is results in what--86 for Hillary and 1 for Barack, I think? If you think that's what we should do, you're a Republican.
