Reply #10: There is no logic in including Michigan and Florida [View All]

[Yotun]

The facts are simple. Delegates and the popular vote are metrics for the election of the democratic nominee for the presidential race. Michigan and Florida voters KNEW that their votes would not count towards that election- therefore those elections were NOT for the election of the democratic nominee for the presidential race. You cannot say that the result of an election for A, would be the same as the result of an election for B. Michigan and Florida were primaries under very specific preperceptions and conditions- the people in those states were aware of them, and the results reflect the will of the people in an election following those conditions. Now Hillary wants to say that those elections are representative of the result that would have arisen in a completely different election under completely different conditions. It is obious that had the election been one in which the voters were aware that their votes would count fot the actual nomination, there would have been a greater turnout for Obama.

Hillary included her name in Michigan for a very simple reason. She believed at that point that she would win, because the polls showed her with a huge advantage everywhere, and she was at the time running with the inevitability strategy. If she won, she knew the election would mean nothing, but she could include the states in the list of 'states I won', making that list longer, and suppoting the inevitability view. If she lost, well they meant nothing, so she's just ignore them. THAT'S the only reason she included her name, and the fact that she is doing just that, including the states in the 'states I won' list, proves it. It is all about low-class political strategy of impressions, rather than anything to do with enfranchisment of voters. If Hillary truly cared about enfranchisement, she would not be mentioning that the race would be over in her favor in February, before million of voters had their say. You cannot logically say that she included her name because she cares about enfranchisment, without running into a logical contradiction- that is simply not a viable position or a fair minded person.

All the other candidates removed their names because of honoring their pledges and the rules, and placing principle above political gains. What would Obama have to lose? IF he lost, well the state doesn't matter- if for some reason he happened to win, all the better for him, for he could also spun it and include it in a 'states I won' list. But he is above that.