Ok - so Obama joined Edwards and others in removing his name from the ballot in a (misguided) attempt to punish Michigan for breaking the rules.
And? I don't see what the big deal is. Did Michigan break the rules? Yes, with gusto. Did Obama adopt a silly strategy, along with other nominees, to punish Michigan? Yup. Is Obama the only candidate who made this move? Nope.
I also think you fail to forget two important facts...
Conflating two utterly separate issues -- Michigan broke the rules; Obama withdrew his name -- only serves to obfuscate.
Set aside the rules argument just for a moment to address the issue of the effect one candidate's withdrawal on other candidates' delegate count and popular vote totals.
Obama removed his name BECAUSE Michigan broke the rules.
Obama did not remove his name in a SINGLE CONTEST where the votes were to be counted. He participated in every single democratic (purposefully small 'd') contest.
How can you set the rules argument aside and then talk about the effect on delegate counts? The delegate counts were nullified by the rules issue!
Obama removed his name BECAUSE he saw a strategic advantage to doing so. All I'm trying to do here is equate Michigan with Florida. Everybody in the world thinks Michigan is some special case where it's absurd to count anything because "He wasn't even on the ballot!!!!"
He wasn't on the ballot BECAUSE the vote wasn't going to count!
Obviously, he would have kept his name on the ballot (as he did in every other state) if the vote had been counted.
Seriously, you divide these issues at the expense of logic.
Why did he not remove his name from the Florida ballot?
the only way to remove your name from the Florida ballot is to remove yourself entirely from that candidacy. Since Obama was still running for president, he could not take his name off the ballot.
See? I am teaching you important facts! This discussion is useful for at least this.
And I am open to being taught. In fact, I went to the Florida State website, which confirmed your point. I will in the future refrain from using his failure to withdraw from Florida as part of my argument. Nonetheless, my basic argument stands -- that whatever else may also be true and pertinent, the voluntary withdrawal from the ballot of one candidate should not affect remaining candidates' positions. Perhaps you could concede that simple point.
And again, you keep misrepresenting the situation. In a democratic election where the votes will count, the voters are told the votes will count and the candidates are allowed to campaign and participate, voluntary withdrawal from the ballot of one candidate should not affect remaining candidates' positions. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN MICHIGAN.
In Michigan, the vote was EXPLICITLY designated as "not counting." The candidates pledged not to participate or campaign. Therefore, the entire exercise was a straw poll, NOT a democratic election, and name withdrawal was perfectly valid.
You simply cannot count the popular vote from Michigan and include it with other state totals in democratic elections. It is completely undemocratic.
Michigan broke the rules THEREFORE Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson all withdrew their names from the ballot.
It is an IF, THEN statement. IF Michigan breaks the rules THEN we take our names off the ballot. It is one of the most basic building blocks of a logical argument.
Had Michigan not broken the rules, why the hell would anyone remove their name? That just doesn't make sense.
So, no, puhleeze, I will not set aside the "rules argument" and neither will any other thinking person. All this is, is a rules argument. That is what this is. A rules argument. An argument regarding the rules. The rules, as it were, is the cornerstone of this entire situation. If the rules were not a factor, we would not be having this conversation.
How else can I restate this to make it clear? I've got all the time in the world, apparently.
