Why Does Obama Acknowledge Gore's Popular Vote?
In Michigan, but he won't acknowledge Clinton won the Popular Vote? Why is Gore's Popular Vote more Important than Clinton's? I'm sure a few Clinton supporters in Michigan were not impressed,are they?Since Michigan is where it all started.imo
Update:Clinton also had the win against Mccain in the Electroal College ,she had surpassed 300,and the Popular Vote. So this doesn't seem fair,and 18 million people seem to like Clinton over Obama.Unfair to Clinton imo
Comments
It gets the crowd all juiced up.
The Democrats have spent the past 7 1/2 years getting their partisans trained like Pavlov's dog to foam at the mouth every time they mention the 2000 election.
Gore lost. Period. But they preferred to keep the resentment alive to fuel anti-Bush sentiment for political gain.
After the 2004 election, they still couldn't let it go. Gore was a better "bloody shirt" than Kerry who isn't a very sympathetic figure.
No, the Clinton voters were not impressed and neither were independents, Republicans or moderates of either party.
LEAST impressed were the unemployed in Michigan whose jobs were destroyed by Democratic policies and labor union excesses that led to the virtual destruction of the auto industry and the decline of a once strong state economy.
Add to that the tax increases by a Democratic governor that caused revenues to decrease and you've got a state in crisis because of Democrats.
The Mayor of Detroit under indictment while crime soars.
Can't think of a better place for Obama and Gore to appear together.
The Gruesome Twosome.
Remind everybody in Michigan why they should vote McCain.
No wonder McCain is ahead in the polls in Michigan.
The popular vote is irrelevant. The United States is a Republic and our elections stand or fall based on the electoral college, not on the popular vote. Elections never were intended to be determined by the popular vote. The only people who are fascinated by the popular vote are either (1) the politician who won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, for example, Al Gore, or (2) someone who has no idea how our elections work. By the way; the odds of U.S. elections ever being determined by popular vote counts is next to zero. It would require an Amendment to the Constitution and that Amendment will never be ratified. So stop obsessing about the popular vote.
First of all Clinton did not win the popular vote. To come to that conclusion you have to adopt a very contived way of dividing votes from Michigan and Florida but ignoring the votes from Caucus states.
When reasonable assumptions are made with distributing all votes Obama comes out ahead.
Second - he was not making any argument regarding the outcome of the 2000 election - merely pointing out that he had the endorsement of the man most Americans supported in 2000.
Well considering Obama's name was not on the ballot that means ALL of Obama's supporters did not get to vote. So, Obama supporters in Michigan did not have their voice heard. Why is that fair? Obama removed his name from the ballot due to Michigan moving it's primary ahead, which was against party rules. Obama was only following the rules. Clinton should not receive the popular vote in Michigan due to Obama not having his name on the ballot. Florida is a different issue. She can have those votes. But not Michigan. It isn't fair for the Obama supporters there. Now is it? They didn't even get to vote!
Because Democrats switch gears at their leisure apparently, and I'm a Democrat who doesn't mind saying so. During the primary fight they only care about the delegate count - although Obama was including the popular vote in his "I've got more" arguments before Hillary surpassed him in that area. But during the general they seem to think the popular vote is the one that we should honor. Doesn't make a lick of sense does it?
EDIT:
tickled blue:
Obama chose to take his name off the Michigan ballot. That's his problem, not hers. Even if you give him all the popular votes from "uncommitted" in MI, it doesn't change the fact that more people literally voted for her in this country than they did Obama.
EDIT:
Sage:
How would they even begin to count caucus states into the popular vote? A few people end up choosing a candidate for the bulk of the population and it's not representative of a "one person, one vote" system at all, which is why so many feel caucuses should be done away with all together. And you don't need to remind me that she lost and he won. I'm well aware of it and will be voting for Obama in November. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop calling it as I see it, I always have and I always will. :-)
"Obama wasn't on the ballot....for the hundreth time, she cannot win a popular vote against someone who's name was not even on the ballot. Further, she barely won the popular vote with his and other candidates names off the ballot....would she have won if his name were on the ballot? Who knows, but it wasn't so your 'point' is moot."
Uncommitted was a vote for Obama and Edwards (also was not against ANY rules to be on the ballot if you watched the hearings you would know) ADD up uncommited and give that to Obama (would also get Edwards popular vote too and he loses...funny thing how they try to add cacus population for obama......they dont even track that LOL hence why its an estimate
First off if you count all the contest including the caucuses Clinton did not get the popular vote. MY VOTE COUNTS SO COUNT IT.
Second his mentions Al Gore's popular vote victory because it is a sore subject with the democratic party, and will hopefully drive more people to vote.
It was agreed that Florida and Michigan would not be on the ballot. But Clinton, sleazily, campaigned there anyway. Although she agreed not to originally. Obama kept his word and was not even on the ballots. So Clinton cheated and got votes that don't even count.
Your question is null and void.
I find it very interesting that Obama had the gall to have that endorsement in Michigan. Not an appropriate place. Especially with all those Auto Industry jobs being lost to overseas, plus Al Gore has made the combustible engine an enemy of environmentalists.
Because he is a freaking hypocrite! He also led the charge to get Don Imus fired for racist comments. Can you believe that?