Clinton Now Battling The DNC To Seat Michigan And Florida Delegates

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign team is desperately trying to get the delegates from Florida and Michigan added to Clinton's delegate tally right now but the Democratic National Committee isn't budging.

--
The DNC is standing by its sanctions imposed of not counting those Michigan and Florida delegates because the two states moved their primaries up, cutting in line ahead of other states, defying a DNC edict.

If the DNC were to award Clinton the winner's share of the 313 Florida and Michigan
delegates, she'd again be ahead in the delegate count.

The Obama camp says it wants no part of that.

It could come down to a ruling by the DNC's credentials committee just before next summer's Democratic convention Aug. 25-28

---EOE---

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=83390

[bunnies]

1. Trying to change the rules to suit her.

An example of why I dont trust her.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hieronymus]

176. Dirty pool .. it's why I don't trust her either.

[sandyj999]

2. It isn't right. Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot.

I know for a fact because I voted even knowing it wouldn't be counted. In fact I voted twice the first time by writing in John Edwards and getting a do-over. I think the rules may need to be worked on but not now.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. They were in Florida

[Iceburg]

18. And Obama was the ONLY one to campaign if FL !!!!/nt

[backscatter712]

27. Oh, bullshit.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Why is it bullshit?

What other candidate campaigned there?

[backscatter712]

36. Obama did not campaign in Florida.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. He had ads running there

and no other candidate did.

[themaguffin]

42. No he did not.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. You're simply mistaken

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8019.html

[themaguffin]

57. No I am NOT. He purchased NO spot in FL. Period.

[MonkeyFunk]

70. I didn't say that, did I?

I said he had ads run in Florida. That is true.

Every other candidate managed to keep to the pledge.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

62. Well...

As the article says near the end, how does one buy an ad on cable TV and exclude it from one state? I mean, if he had purchase on stations just across the border and they were being broadcast into the state, that would be one thing. But an ad on TBS that goes nationwide? I don't think that violated the agreement.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. The same way all the other candidates did.

Why was he the only one to have ads run in Florida?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

95. It's not clear (at least from that article)

That any of the other candidates did that. I don't know the whole story, mind you, but I'm just saying that if he purchased time with a multi-state cable operator, then there wouldn't be any way to stop those ads at the state line.

[Skip Intro]

80. Obama ads ran in FL.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

84. they ran in North Carolina - funny how TV does that n/t

[Skip Intro]

106. The other candidates managed to keep ads off the air in FL.

must have been magic

[WolverineDG]

54. running an ad on a nationwide cable network

is not campaigning in florida.

:eyes:

dg

[MonkeyFunk]

72. Yet all the other candidates managed to avoid that situation.

[Johnny__Motown]

75. Hillary's surrogates campaigned for her in Florida

Calling her a "quick pick" and handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for her.


Obama's regional adds were cleared before they ran.

[MonkeyFunk]

104. Cleared by someone

who had no authority to grant permission to do so. The S.C. DNC chair didn't have the authority to do that.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-wrong-abo.html

And still, all the other candidates manged to avoid this.

[GoldieAZ49]

136. Howard Dean, DNC chair condemned the Obama National Florida Ad...oh, no he didn't

none of the other candidates could afford to buy national ads, due to their poor campaign financial capabilities.

[MonkeyFunk]

139. non sequitor

The SC dem chair didn't have the authority to permit it.

And Clinton surely could afford national ad buys back in January. She ran plenty of regional ads. In fact, Obama's defense was that it was CHEAPER to buy a national ad. So who didn't have the money?

[GoldieAZ49]

153. buying smart does not indicate a lack of funds

something Camp Clinton should have learned DECADES ago.

Obama January contributions $32 million

Clinton January contributions $13 million, oh and her own $5 million LOAN

You can do the math and see who didn't have the money.

Need a calculator?

[MonkeyFunk]

155. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments.

When he ran those ads, it was argued that he bought national ads because it was cheaper than multiple regional ads.

Now the argument is that he had MORE money to spend, and thus bought national ads that the others couldn't afford.

It can't be both.

The fact remains - Obama was the only candidate to run ads in Florida.

[GoldieAZ49]

164. You think like the Clinton Campaign Financial Managers

Yes it is BOTH

He had plenty of money in the month of January, but he didn't plan on the campaign being over on Super Tuesday like Hillary did.

Just because Hillary's campaign doesn't know how to raise money and spend it effectively doesn't mean Obama's campaign has to be run as poorly.

Obama had ads on the air after SC. No big deal. He did not campaign there and did not violate the agreement. If he had Howard Dean and the DNC would have said so. They did not.

Your argument is false, your candidate desperate and the DNC is not going to give her delegates she did not earn nor deserve. She can cry about it if she wants, I don't think Howard Dean or the DNC are going to be swayed by it...nor the super delegates for the matter.

:nopity:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

165. Spurious.

But then you know that.

[MonkeyFunk]

166. What's spurious?

Either he bought national ads to save money, or he had so much money he could afford national ads that the others couldn't.

Other candidates managed to by multiple regional ads and not advertise in Florida. Obama did not. That's a fact.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

168. The ever-changing tenor of your argument.

[MonkeyFunk]

171. That's not an answer

Either it's cheaper to buy a national ad vs. multiple regional ads, or it's more expensive. Which is it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

174. Explanation:

Post

#004 Ads ran in Florida
#029 Obama campaigned in Florida
#037 Obama had ads running in FL
#047 He bought a national ad
#070 Ads ran
#071 Ads ran
#072 No one else ran ads
#104 No authority from DNC, yet no position taken by DNC(per your link)
#139 Affordability enters
#155 When he ran those ads, it was argued that he bought national ads because it was cheaper than multiple regional ads. Now the argument is that he had MORE money to spend, and thus bought national ads that the others couldn't afford. It can't be both. It can be both.

Now there's plenty missing here. Are ads running and "campaigning" the same thing? Did other candidates buy media in border states that leaked into Florida? No evidence in this thread, either way. Was media purchased in Florida? Are the candidates "campaigning" on Mars because the television signals have reached there? Et cetera...

Are the candidates "campaigning" on Mars because the television signals have reached there? :freak:

[SKKY]

117. Running one national add, that just happened to air in Florida...

...one time, is not campaigning.

[JackORoses]

41. are you still defending this blatant attempt at stealing the nomination?

the Elections held in MI and FL were utterly flawed.

Turnout and thus the final results were greatly affected by the fact that everybody knew the contests didn't count.
Many still turned out because there were other propositions on the ballot, but we cannot know how many stayed home because of what they had been told.

The only way for either FL or MI to be counted is to have them revote.
Anything else is unacceptable.

Sorry, Hillary, you don't get to use damaged delegations to shoehorn yourself into the White House.
No matter how much you want it.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. 1.7 million florida democrats

voted. No candidate had an advantage. Clinton won. Get over it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. And how many didn't vote who might have had they thought

their votes would be counted?

You'll never know, without a do-over.

[MonkeyFunk]

73. No, we won't know

How many didn't vote in Maryland due to bad weather?

How many didn't vote in CA because they had the flu, or threw their back out, or got a flat tire? No way to know.

But we do know that Florida had record turnout, and we have no reason to believe that the percentages would've been any different had more people voted. 1.7 million is a pretty respectable statistical sample.

[elixir]

63. Alright. The monkeys back.

[JackORoses]

96. I see you never mention MI, even though Hillary does

What say you about a contest where Obama wasn't even on the ballot?
Is that fair game?

and you're wrong about noone having an advantage in FL
with noone campaigning, the edge clearly goes to whoever has the most name recognition.

In every contest which Obama has campaigned in, he has been able to make it close or gain victory by campaigning.
You know this, but you conveniently ignore it.

[MonkeyFunk]

105. I think MI should count, too.

Some of the other candidates CHOSE to remove their names. There was no requirement to do so.

[JeanGrey]

109. You'd better hope they don't count. If Hillary forces them to

count, she is going to go down in flames you'll never put out, there will be so many angry people.
Then we'll have President McCain, thank you very much.

[MonkeyFunk]

110. And if both states

are disenfranchised, we'll have a President McCain, too.

[JeanGrey]

Bullshit and you know it! Ohio and Florida aren't enough

to put McCain over the top, but you just go right ahead and piss off the millions upon millions of Obama supporters. Go right ahead.

[MonkeyFunk]

129. LOL

I think it's stupid to write off both states before the election. And the majority of democrats will vote for the democratic nominee. If Clinton gets the nomination because the voters wanted her, it won't be a problem. A few irrational people won't vote, but I doubt the number's any higher than if Obama gets the nomination by disenfranchising millions of voters.

[JeanGrey]

180. No, they won't. Obama has too many supporters and

Hillary has enough of a negative image. As I said, go right ahead and see what happens.

[DemVet]

146. Uh....I think you're forgetting the Ohio alone was enough last time.

[JeanGrey]

181. This is totally different than "last time".

[JackORoses]

126. they removed their names because of a Contract they made with the Early States

Hillary already knew she was going to push for those states to count, so she left her name on the ballot.

It really says something about Hillarites, that they are so invested in their candidate that they will toss out all notions of fairness, the unity of the Democratic Party, and a chance to gain a working Majority all for Hillary.

You should really think about what the repercussions will be of forcing her onto the rest of us through underhanded dealings.

Will you get what you want?

[MonkeyFunk]

130. Where is this contract?

do you have the text of it? Or are you just making it up?

And Clinton was one of four democrats on the MI ballot.

[Yossariant]

131. The pandering contract.

[catgirl]

116. And many voters stayed home too

I'm all for a re-vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

121. The turnout was more than double 2004

1.7 million voted. Why do you think the results would be different, percentage-wise, if more had voted?

[Bread and Circus]

10. I'm with you, I voted in the primary for "uncommitted" I had ZERO opportunity to vote for

Obama.

If the delegates are seated as is, my right to vote and Obama's free speech are abridged.

[Yossariant]

40. Nope. Obama made a mistake by taking his name off the ballot.

Hillary made a mistake by not devoting enough resources to the red state caucuses.

Ooops.

[Bread and Circus]

43. Keep kidding yourself.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. You're saying that Obama following the rules is equivalent to

Hillary following a bad campaign strategy.

Whatever.

[MonkeyFunk]

74. No rule required candidates

to remove their names.

[totodeinhere]

98. All of the other Dem candidates took their names off the ballot.

Edwards and Kucinich did the right thing as Obama did in taking their names off the ballot. They were following a ruling by the DNC. Clinton should not be rewarded for doing the wrong thing and defying the DNC.

[MonkeyFunk]

108. Wrong

Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel and Clinton were on the ballot.

There was no ruling that their names had to be removed. None whatsoever.

[totodeinhere]

120. Edwards and Richardson

You're right. I should have said Edwards and Richardson.

[Yossariant]

134. Obama was pandering to the eraly states. He left his name on in Florida

because Florida went after the early states.

"Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151

[Sulawesi]

3. This alone, with all the things she said before she needed the delegates, is reason enough to vote

against her.

[billyoc]

5. This is a silly strategy, the DNC will never budge on this point. nt

[WilyWondr]

9. Correct

All it is doing is making the HRC campaign look worse in many respects.

Have at it :)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. Although...

Some people in the Hillary Camp are probably wishing that Jimmy Carville hadn't been so vocal in his criticism of Howard Dean. Not that making nice would do them any good, but you have to agree that Dean is pretty unmotivated to cut them any slack.

[MonkeyFunk]

76. ah

so this IS about hurting Clinton, not about trying to find a fair solution for the voters. Thanks for confirming.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

97. Settle down, you...

I think voters in Florida and Michigan should get an opportunity to vote in an unblemished election.

I was merely observing that if the Clinton's wanted to catch a break from Howard Dean, their rather vocal criticism of his leadership would not make him particularly likely to do so.

[XemaSab]

100. Clinton hurt herself in this situation

The DNC told all the candidates MONTHS ago that Michigan and Florida were being punished for changing their primary dates, and the DNC asked the candidates not to campaign in Florida and to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan.

I don't have strong feelings about Florida, but I do about Michigan.

Somehow everyone except Hillary managed to figure out how to get their names off the ballot in Michigan. You're arguing that she should get the delegates because she alone was too clueless to get her name off the ballot? Or are you arguing that she was crafty and thought there would be an opportunity to steal the Michigan delegates if she accidentally-on-purpose left her name on the ballot?

Stupid or crafty? Which is it?

[MonkeyFunk]

111. You're now the seventh person

in two days to claim that Clinton was the only one on the ballot in MI.

That's just blatantly untrue. There were four candidates on the ballot.

[XemaSab]

127. Clinton and who?

Please tell us.

[MonkeyFunk]

132. Is it hard to look it up?

Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel.

[XemaSab]

145. Winners all

n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

156. Normal people

would admit their mistakes. You made two.

You claimed there was an agreement to remove their names from the ballot. That's not true.

You claimed all the other candidates managed to remove their names from the ballot. Demonstrably false.

[Alhena]

6. The DNC will favor the most electable candidate- Obama. They want to win

[MonkeyFunk]

7. So people are OK

with the DNC overlooking the expressed will of the voters, but shit cows at any mention of the superdelegates doing the same thing.

[Franks Wild Years]

11. This is a truly deplorable strategy....

...but sadly, one that remains expected from the spiritual successor to President Bush Mk. II. I once thought that Clinton could one day make a fine President, but her underhand tactics and tooth gnashingly false, ridiculously manicured persona have turned me right off of her. If she wins fairly, she must be supported by Democrats whoever their primary allegiance was with....however, if she steals the nomination like this, anyone with a passing interest in democracy itself had better support McCain.

[JeanGrey]

112. They will. What do you think will happen if Hillary manages to

steal the Michigan and Florida Delegates? Imagine the millions of Obama supporters really, REALLY mad at her? We'll have President McCain god help us.

[MonkeyFunk]

122. I don't think counting votes and having votes count

is stealing. Neither do most Americans.

[JeanGrey]

182. It would be STEALING and you know it. You just don't want

to admit it. What has happened to us? Are we so eager to take everything that we've become republicans? No thanks.

[closeupready]

123. well, I don't know if I'll go that far, but I won't be able to support her campaign.

period.

[WilyWondr]

13. The expressed will of the voters was to move their primary.

What don't you understand about how that change was made in these states?

You think the DNC was pushing for these primaries to be moved earlier?

[MonkeyFunk]

17. I don't care anymore

how it happened or who's at fault. Seems to be there's plenty of blame to go around, but it's a pointless discussion at this point.

The important thing is that it get fixed soon. We need MI and FL in the general election, and it would be political suicide to shut them out of the process.

The pissing match is over - now fix it.

[WilyWondr]

23. Nothing needs fixing

It is over with. It was decided last year that the primaries would be held early regardless of the fact that the delegates would not be seated. And that is how it ended, that is how it stands. Nothing to fix.

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla., Sept. 23, 2007 — The Florida Democratic Party announced Sunday that it would move ahead with its plan to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 29 despite the national party’s decision to block the state delegation from the 2008 Democratic convention.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz and State Senator Steven A. Geller on Sunday in Pembroke Pines, Fla. The Florida Democratic Party decided to stick with plans for a Jan. 29 primary, even if it costs the state a place at next summer’s Democratic convention.

State party leaders said that even if none of the state’s delegates were seated at next summer’s Democratic presidential convention, the earlier primary would still help determine the nominee.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. It's not over with

The people of Florida and Michigan deserve to have their voices heard.

The DNC charter requires it, in fact.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. I agree. Demand a do-over, so ALL the FL and MI voters can have

their voices heard, voting on ALL the candidates.

[JeanGrey]

113. No you don't. HILLARY does. Obama will do just fine

[WolverineDG]

60. actually it wasn't the expressed will of the voters

did the voters in MI & FL vote to change their primary dates? um, no. their legislators did & in fact, in FL, the bill to move up the primary date was proposed by a Democrat. whoops.

dg

[MonkeyFunk]

78. 1.7 million Florida democrats

expressed their will regarding a presidential candidate.

[WolverineDG]

94. knowing full well

their votes might not count.

dg

[WilyWondr]

99. Um, yes actually it was the will of the voters to move the primary

Who do you think made that change?

Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are the only states that both national parties allow to hold presidential contests earlier than Feb. 5. Nonetheless, the Florida Legislature voted in May to schedule primaries for Jan. 29, saying the state deserved a more prominent role in choosing presidential nominees.

Now I have to ask if you understand what a Representative Democracy is?

[WolverineDG]

128. Then you admit that the FL Dems

are responsible for this mess, & not the DNC or the Obama campaign? Folks knew their votes might not count, they encouraged their lege to move up the primary date, & then showed up to vote, all despite warnings that their delegation would not be seated at the national convention. Now they're crying because the rules are :gasp: being enforced.

:nopity:

dg

[theboss]

20. What was the will of the voters in Michigan?

They had one choice.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. You're at least the fifth person to make that claim

recently. It's not true.

There were four Democrats on the ballot in MI. The candidates who removed their names chose to do so - nobody made them do it.

If you don't show up for the race, you're not likely to win it.

[theboss]

22. Okay....there was one actual real-life candidate on the ballot

And three weirdos from the comic book store.

[Major Hogwash]

32. And the reason more people voted for "Other" was because they didn't want Hillary.

Hillary lost in Michigan, she only got 44% of the vote.

That means that Obama gets the other 66% of the vote, by virtue of the other candidates dropping out of the race.

I'm willing to agree to that.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Why should Obama get the votes

of people who dropped out after the MI primary? That does't make sense.

[Major Hogwash]

175. Because he's the only other one left in the race.

Of course that wouldn't make sense to you.

[Henryman]

25. Seriously, how can you call it "the expressed will of the voters"...

....when the voters understood that their votes would not lead to any delegates?
There was no campaigning, there was no reason to vote, therefore there was no legitimate balloting.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. And Florida had record turnout

1.7 million Democrats voted - far more than double the number that voted in 2000 and 2004.

[themaguffin]

45. more wingnut "logic"

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Yeah

Wanting people's votes to count in Florida is a wingnut position. :eyes:

[themaguffin]

59. If you wanted votes to count, then you would want a valid election where people won't sit at home

[MonkeyFunk]

88. Florida was valid

record turnout, and the fourth highest turnout of all the contests so far. 1.7 million votes is valid.

[George_Bonanza]

90. Republicans had a higher turnout

Whereas in many other states, Obama himself got more votes than the entire Republican field combined.

Yeah, Florida was real legit.

[MonkeyFunk]

91. so what?

What evidence is there that the percentages would be different with higher dem turnout? There's absolutely no reason to believe that - 1.7 million is a pretty solid sample.

[PermanentRevolution]

50. Yeah... about that...

I've posted this before, and I'll post it in every thread about Florida, because I've yet to hear anyone mount an argument against it.

All figures are from the official totals on the Florida Dept. of Elections website: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=1/29/2008&DATAMODE=

There's little pull-down windows to see the official, certified breakdowns by party for each candidate. You'll need a calculator to get the totals from there.

In the Republican presidential primary (which DID count) there were 1,949,498 votes cast.

In the Democratic presidential primary (which DIDN'T) there were 1,749,920 votes cast.

Florida is a closed primary, so all those voting in each were registered for that party. Republican turnout surpassed Democratic turnout, the opposite of results across the nation to date.

Combined, that's a total of 3,699,438 votes in both presidential primaries.

The property tax amendment also on the ballot got a total of 2,667,543 votes in favor and 1,497,970 votes against, for a grand total of 4,165,513 votes.

4,165,513 - 3,699,438 = 466,075

466,075 people who voted on the property tax amendment but didn't vote in the presidential primary.

Granted, there's no way of knowing how many of those are Independents/Other parties BUT:

Florida has only 323,128 voters registered Independent or with other parties, out of a total registered population of 8,285,920. Approx. 1/25th of the voting population (a little less, actually.) Assuming that percentage holds true for the primary turnout, only 18,000 or so of the primary non-votes would be attributable to those.

SO:

466,075 - ~18,000 = ~448,000 voters registered either as Republicans or Democrats who voted on the amendment but didn't vote in the primary. Bear in mind, the Republican primary was very much up in the air and very much contested in Florida. The Democratic primary was not.

To clarify on Florida's voting machines: The FIRST screen that came up was the presidential primary choice. You'd have to consciously skip it to vote on the amendment and not in the primary.

Now, I'm not maintaining that all those votes were Obama votes. That would be a completely unsubstantiated supposition. What I AM saying is that Hillary's vote total was 870,986 and Obama's was 576,214.

448,000 votes is over 50% of Hillary's total votes in Florida and 80% of Obama's.

Nobody can say where those votes would have gone. Nobody can say what percentages they'd break at. It's pure speculation to think Obama would have closed the gap, but it's ALSO pure speculation to assume that the vote percentages would remain unchanged. What is NOT speculation is that over 450,000 unknown voters, of unknown party affiliation and unknown candidate preference, went to the polls and, for unknown reasons, failed to vote for any candidate.

At this point, there are TOO MANY unknowns for Florida's primary results to be used as a basis for assigning delegates.

I'd hope supporters of both candidates could see that.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. Yes, you've posted it.

I find it meaningless.

More than twice as many dems voted as did in 2004. That's a meaningful measurement. Yours is an extrapolation on an entirely different measurement.

Furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that having more voters would've impacted the percentages. 1.7 million is a pretty large statistical sample.

[themaguffin]

66. And many Democrats stayed home rather than vote in an election that does not count

So stop this nonsense

[MonkeyFunk]

81. So what?

The majority of democrats stayed home in ALL the contests, for various reasons. We still count the votes of those that came out.

Florida had the fourth highest turnout of all thirty-something contests we've had so far.

[PermanentRevolution]

87. Very telling of you

So you're absolutely, 100% certain that none of those voters would have chosen a candidate if Florida's primary hadn't been ruled invalid before its start. And you're absolutely, 100% certain that, had those votes been cast, the percentage totals for each candidate would remain the same. Because if you're not willing to state with 100% certainty that both those are true, then what you're ACTUALLY saying is that you don't give a damn about Florida's voters at all, you just want to pay lip service to voter's rights while using an inherently flawed primary as justification for helping out your candidate. Truth is, you really don't care about any of this. You see a vote count that favors your candidate so you're bending over backwards to try and justify those results, ignoring any and all evidence that challenges the flawed supposition that the primary results were an accurate sense of public opinion, and trying to use us poor Florida voters as an excuse to do so.

[MonkeyFunk]

93. I'm saying 1.7 million is a solid statistical sample

and nobody's given any reason why the numbers would change given a higher turnout.

No candidate had an advantage. Nobody's shown that one area of the state or one group was more affected than any other.

[foo_bar]

119. it's a "solid statistical sample" of folks expecting to vote in a non-binding straw poll

and nobody's given any reason why the numbers would change given a higher turnout

Just American and human history, I think; support for opposing campaigns or planks has never been normally distributed in a population, so the goal in fair elections is to bring as many people to the polls as possible, not to declare a "solid sample" prematurely as the Supreme Court did in 2000.

[MonkeyFunk]

124. And people here

want to do exactly what the Supreme Court did - disenfranchise people. Throw out valid votes. All in an attempt to hurt a Democrat who won the votes fairly.

[foo_bar]

133. I'm not sure how holding a primary in Florida would constitute disenfranchisement

Giving ex post facto significance to what the DNC considered a straw poll, on account of its "statistical" value, would seem to disenfranchise more voters than holding a binding primary in the first place.

Throw out valid votes.

Valid in what sense? People can "vote" for American Idol but how does that bind the Dem National Convention?

[PermanentRevolution]

149. Absence of proof...

is NOT proof of absence.

My point has absolutely nothing to do with voter turnout at all. It has to do with sociology and the workings of the human mind. We react completely differently in situations depending on our perception of the consequences of our actions. It is just plain fact that people react differently when faced with a real decision versus a hypothetical. It's why polls frequently bear no resemblance to actual outcomes. Knowing that the Florida primary was an invalid contest had a significant psychological impact on voters. Exactly how it affected each of us is impossible to determine, as it varies from individual to individual.

The numbers I've provided show that a large number went to the polls, but didn't vote in the primary. Some, I'm sure, didn't bother to show up. 1.7 million (myself included) went to the polls, knowing our vote had been marginalized by the DNC and the State Legislature, and voted anyway. NONE of us had any reasonable basis to assume that our vote might eventually decide the nomination, and we made our decisions based on that knowledge. We were voting (or not voting) in a meaningless contest, and we all knew it. You want to take MY vote - submitted in a contest that I was told repeatedly would not count for anything - and use it as the determining factor for a very crucial allotment of delegates, while simultaneously depriving those who chose NOT to vote in that same meaningless contest of the chance to voice their minds. I can't support that.

[MonkeyFunk]

157. Where are the numbers

showing that large numbers went to the polls but didn't vote in the primary?

And I'm not saying seating the delegates is the perfect solution. I'm saying it's the best option of a number of bad options.

Here are the choices:

Seat them.
Don't seat them.
Hold a caucus.

Seating them is the best choice of the three. Not seating them is entirely unacceptable, and holding a caucus would be far less likely to reflect the actual will of Florida voters than the primary that has already occurred.

No candidate had an advantage over the others. Using the primary results is the best of a few bad options.

[PermanentRevolution]

167. No...

Following through on what every single voter in Florida had been EXPLICITLY TOLD would happen BEFORE WE VOTED would be the best of the bad options, NOT pulling a bait-and-switch and using the results from a non-valid primary as a binding delegate vote to determine a crucial primary race.

In short, though you may disagree, not a SINGLE voter in Florida had ANY reason, going into the polls, to expect that our vote would be anything other than worthless. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US who voted did so in the FULL AND EXPLICIT knowledge that said vote was meaningless. As such, ALL of us, in voting, have consented to the stated DNC position that our delegates to the convention would not be seated. We were ALL disenfranchised way back in September, when the State Legislature moved the primary forward in the full knowledge of what the DNC reaction would be. What you're advocating now is SELECTIVE RE-ENFRANCHISEMENT based on the results of a non-binding primary, without any means to allow those who chose not to bother with a "beauty contest" vote to participate. It HAS to be all-or-nothing. Either everyone gets a 2nd chance to vote in a binding primary or no-one does, and since Florida law won't allow a 2nd primary, then it has to be no-one. I'm not happy about it, but I prefer it to the alternative.

And as far as the "large numbers" goes, I suppose that's open to interpretation. Personally, I think 450,000 is enough to qualify, given that it represents over 50% of the total # of votes received by any given candidate, and is well over the vote differential between the 4 front-runners at the time.

[MonkeyFunk]

169. But surely

all those undervotes weren't only on the Democratic side.

And sorry, I just adamantly disagree that throwing out the votes of over 2 million people in MI and FL is the right solution.

[PermanentRevolution]

172. No, surely not.

But it IS impossible to determine those percentages. I'd be willing to bet that more of them were Democrats than Republicans, since the Republican primary was actually going to matter, but that's just speculation on my part, based on general observations on human nature.

The point I'm making is that the votes had already been thrown out long before the actual voting took place. It's not like the decision to disallow our delegates was made AFTER the primary. I'd be pissed as hell had that been the case, and would be fighting like mad to get them seated, regardless of the vote total. But that's just not the case here. I vehemently disagreed with BOTH the Legislature's decision to move up the primary AND the DNC's decision to punish us voters for the actions of our legislature, but once those decisions were made, and the voters were told we were getting a worthless election, and our votes were cast with that knowledge, then those decisions have to be followed regardless of the circumstances. Otherwise, it's just gaming the system to benefit one or the other.

I'm really not an Obamaniac or Obamaton or Obamist or whatever the nom du jour is. I'm really not entirely thrilled with either candidate, truth be told. But my feelings on this really aren't governed by the vote totals or my personal feelings on Hillary or Barack. I didn't support disenfranchising my entire state, but I also strongly believe that either the whole state has to be re-enfranchised equally or we all have to suffer equally for the stupidity of our leadership.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one, as I doubt either of us is likely to budge.

[RamboLiberal]

52. And what f'in good will it do you Hillary supporters if this move

makes the rest of us who think this is totally unfair not vote for Hillary in the GE? If the DNC caves on this she'll go down in flames in the GE.

You are making the same kind of asinine arguments that the Repukes made in 2000 in Florida! You should contact Karl Rove for a job!

Real cute of Hillary not to pull her name from the Michagan ballot when the other Dems did including Obama and Edwards!

And don't f'in give me that crap about Florida and Obama advertising. You Hillary supporters who make this argument know it was an f'in national ad! Hell I'm in PA and saw Obama ads on the cable nets!

You also know that when Obama gets a chance to campaign in a state he does better against Hillary. He did not campaign in Florida!

Too f'in bad Michigan and Florida won't be counted but why didn't they protest when DNC warned them this would happen if they moved their primaries?

Sorry, but Hillary looks like a desperate cheating ass making this argument.

If seating Florida and Michigan as is gave Hillary the nomination let her try winning with voters like myself not voting for her in the GE and most African-American Dem voters feeling cheated and pissed on deciding not to vote, not to mention those new voters and independents Obama brought to the party just fading away.

Have fun watching McCain taking the oath of office.

If Hillary won the nomination fair and square I'll vote for her in the GE - but if it's done on a cheat - FUGGEDABOUTIT!

[MonkeyFunk]

82. I'm sure some of you won't vote

but you won't vote for Clinton even if she wins without FL and MI. Some people are just irrational.

[RamboLiberal]

138. Bullshit - how the hell do you know me

I said I would vote for Clinton if she won it fair and square - but if the crap you're advocating gives her the nomination then she doesn't deserve my vote!

You're the one with the irrational argument looking to cheat Obama!

[MonkeyFunk]

141. I'm saying whoever gets the most votes should win

I'm not trying to cheat anybody.

But we should count all the votes, and all the votes should count.

[LSK]

103. doesnt Obama lead in delegates and popular vote right now

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

115. So?

It's not over. I'm talking about the convention.

[LSK]

125. so isnt that "the expressed will of the voters"???

:shrug:

[Eurobabe]

8. This is bullshit. Don't do it Hillary.

[Avalux]

12. She would put her own interests above that of the Democratic Party.

Make no mistake about it, if she continues on this path, it will destroy the party. If she somehow manages the nomination based on those delegates, McCain will rip her to shreds for cheating and she will never get Obama supporters on her side. Ugly.

[suston96]

14. Just follow the Democratic Party Charter.......

...All elected delegates must be seated to avoid abridging the voting rights of members guaranteed by the Democratic Party Charter. There is nothing to change. The Charter already speaks to it:

"The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end, (ii) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the presidential nominating process, . . . (v) restrict participation to Democrats only . . . ." Democratic National Committee, Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, Art. Two, 4 (emphasis added). <450 U.S. 107, 118>

Something unclear about that?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. More BS...

"(ii) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the presidential nominating process

Since only two candidates were on the Michigan ballot and none of the candidates actively campaigned in Florida, thus depriving those voters of an opportunity to make an informed decision on all the candidates, seating the delegations from these two states would be a patent violation of the Charter.

A state caucus -- or a revote -- is the only fair and equitable remedy.

[TexasObserver]

15. Delegates from Mich and Fla will NEVER be seated on the basis of the beauty contest.

They will likely be seated after having a caucus in April or May which conforms to guidelines set down by the DNC for those two states' Democratic parties.

Hillary can hold her breath until those bass eyes bulge out, but there will never be delegates awarded on the basis of the beauty contest, and that's true even if Hillary hadn't cheated in both states to gain short term advantage.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. That would be awful

33.8% of voters in Florida voted. Why would a caucus with one tenth the number of participants be better?

Oh... cuz it might benefit your candidate. That's not good enough for me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. Let's see, who participates in caucusses?

Since it is a drawn out affair, with several votes divided between the many candidates it means that only the activists, and those who aren't working can participate.

Well. there are only 2 candidates, so that kind of changes the dynamic, doesn't it. And Hillary's greatest single demographic is with older, retired women - won't find any of THEM in Florida.

It is patent nonsense to think that she'd have an automatic disadvantage in a caucus between two candidates only. There's none of the vote trading, the power blocks. It's all just pick one, or the other.

But even grant you the point - why would it have to be a caucus? A full vote Democratic primary as a do-ever would be fine.

Want to risk it? Or to have HER be elected with an * by her name?

[HughMoran]

16. & MoveOn has an active campaign against Hillary WRT Superdelegates

These fights are built into the system this year - let's let Howard Dean work this out. Let's hope they do the right thing.

[Independent-Voter]

24. Behold! Deperation at work!

[Major Hogwash]

26. I'm willing to wait until the convention to have their seats filled.

Because by then Hillary will have either torn the Democratic party into 2 completely separate pieces or she will have dropped out of the race.

Stop Hillary now - vote for Obama, the real Democrat.

[David Zephyr]

28. There has to be a real primary or a real caucus first. It didn't happen. They don't count.

The state party leaders messed this up. They willfully disregarded the rules that 48 other states accepted and played by.

The rules were established and supported by Clinton and Obama when they were made.

Obama did not allow his name to even be on the Michigan ballots because he played by the rules.

The Clintons look sleazy trying to now manipulate the process behind the scenes.

Bottom line: there was no legal contests in Florida or Michigan and there are no delegates to be seated.

None.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. 1.7 million Florida democrats voted

in the primary. More than double the number that voted in 2000 or 2004.

Why would a caucus with one tenth the number of participants be more fair?

[themaguffin]

44. what wingnut "logic"

[MonkeyFunk]

53. Explain how

drive by insults aren't persuasive.

[KaryninMiami]

56. Because we would be voting in a primary which would count towards delegates, that's why and

Also because you can't change the rules after the game has been played. Period.

In Florida, we voted knowing our votes didn't count which is a very different mind-set then one has if they know their selection was directly connected to an actual delegate count. Some of us voted for candidates who were clearly never going to win the nomination, but because it wasn't going to count in the long run, we looked at this as an opportunity to vote from our hearts.

Who knows what the turnout could have been if everyone knew their vote would count- but that's a mute point now. The point is we were told our votes did not count. Period.

ALSO-- something you may not be aware of- - there was also a huge turnout because the primary vote was wrapped around an addendum related to a change in the real estate taxes which brought out a lot of voters who would not normally have voted in a primary.

Here in Miami Dade we had an additional amendment related to casino gambling which brought out additional voters.

We need another vote or a caucus or the delegates should be split using the national number totals which is based on the rest of the primaries if necessary. While not my first choice, since this disenfranchises the voters in FL and MI, at least they would be distributed in the same way the country has voted.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. What evidence is there

that the final percentages would have changed with a larger turnout? How did the situation benefit any particular candidate?

Your turnout was the fourth highest of all the contests so far - 33.8%. Many states had far lower turnout - we still count their votes, and their votes still count.

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. The evidence lies in the 40% who cast no vote at all for the presidential

primary.

My thinking is, they were voters who wanted their votes on the other ballot items to count, but who RESPECTED the DNC ruling on not seating the delegates. Since the DLC, Hillary's backers, originated the rule breaking, it is assumed that they would NOT leave those ballots blank. Therefore, I insist that ALL the non-votes must be counted for Obama and Edwards - even split.

Give me EVIDENCE why this is not the case.

[MonkeyFunk]

101. Where do you get that 40% didn't vote for President?

by my reckoning, 3.7 million people voted for President in either primary. 4.2 million voted on the constitutional referendum. I don't see any breakdown of the constitutional vote by party.

And not casting a vote for President is commonly done. It's stupid to presume that somebody not voting in a particular race actually meant to vote a certain way. Not voting in a race is valid.

But we do know that 1.7 million democrats voted for President, and there's no reason to believe any candidate had an advantage or a disadvantage. That's a big enough sample to satisfy any statistician.

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. There is no evidence there. My hypotheses are just as valid as

your. Because I say so.

Because that is all YOU have - your say so.

The ONLY way to get a legitimate result is to have a complete Democratic primary do-over, will every one voting who wishes to vote and all candidates campaigning their little hearts out.

Allowing anything less is fraud.

You KNOW you would not be so adamant about seating these non-allowed delegates if Obama had been the winner.

But if Obama, or Edwards, was insisting on counting them in violation of their own agreement otherwise, I'd demand a do-over from them as well.

Cheaters never prosper, and people who support cheaters suck.

[MonkeyFunk]

142. You're wrong about my position on this changing

based on the results. I thought it was a dumb idea to even start this pissing match. I like Obama just fine and will happily vote for him if he wins. But I think it's really dumb to piss off two important states.

And I bet if Obama stood to gain from this, a lot of people would change their position, too. But I've always felt that disenfranchising people is a bad thing.

[WilyWondr]

151. Florida Legislature = Will of the people

That is how a Representative Democracy works. The people of Florida, through their legislature, changed the date of their primary after being told that it would nullify their delegates.

Were they disenfranchised when their legislature changed the date or were they disenfranchised when they voted in a primary they knew would not count?

[MonkeyFunk]

158. If they're unable to vote for the candidate

and have those votes matter, they're disenfranchised.

I don't give a fuck whose fault it is. It needs to be fixed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

173. Then fix it. Don't validate the flawed results of a patently wrong

process. People KNEW their votes would not count. For a lot, that meant staying home. For a lot more, that meant not voting for the primary ticket, only for the down-ballot items.

If you, yourself, are saying it needs to be fixed, then you are admitting that it is broken.

But you argue to seat them because YOUR candidate will benefit - you don't want to see a do-over, just in case she doesn't do as well.

Now THAT'S not disingenuous by half.

[MonkeyFunk]

178. bullshit

I didn't say *I* didn't want a do-over. I said I don't want a caucus - that would be clearly less representative than the vote that's already occurred.

I've said there's no perfect solution - it's too late for that. But seating the delegates is the best solution of the possible solutions.

Do you really doubt that the majority of Florida voters wanted to vote for Clinton?

[Egnever]

30. Man I bet hillary wishes Carvile had kept his mouth shut about Dean

Kind of funny the guy who they want to remove is now in control of their destiny.

[formernaderite]

35. are the voters in these states threatening to stay home

in November if they aren't seated? I certainly haven't heard any veiled threats being made. They broke the rules...full stop.

[Thepricebreaker]

39. There are a ton of Democrat forces against this.. What a battle it will be.

[elixir]

55. "Obama donated the most to superdelegates campaigns.."

Thanks for the link to wkyc. Here's another gem re St. Obama:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=83368

WASHINGTON -- Campaign committees controlled by Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have donated at least $890,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks money in politics.
Obama donated the largest amount, about $694,000, to those campaigns in the past three years, according to the nonpartisan center.

Clinton donated $195,500.

As Friday morning dawned, both campaigns are now furiously lobbying for support among the Democratic Party's nearly 800 superdelegates, who will be free to support whomever they choose at the convention, regardless of the outcome of the primaries.

As it appears right now, neither Clinton nor Oabma will have enough regular delegates to win the nomination so control of the nomination appears likely to be in the hands of the superdelegates.

Superdelegates include all Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors and other party
officials.

[Inuca]

148. YOu realize that this means

helping democrats get elected, right? Obama donated a lot in the 06 cycle, while CLinton hoarded I do not remember how many millions that she needed for her so very "competitive" Senate campaign.

[Yossariant]

64. Count the damn votes! --- Or lose these states in the general.

[Thrill]

65. She's a Hyprocrite

When it was about the Super Delegates, she claimed "you can't change the rules in the middle of the game" But now she wants to change the rules on Michigan and Florida. UNREAL

[Name removed]

69. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. you can't change the rules because you need more delegates!

[Neecy]

79. If this happens...

And Hiillary wins the nomination through the seating of these two delegations, I'm done with the Democratic party. Period.

[Political Heretic]

85. Same here. I would be if either candidate won in this fashion.

[XemaSab]

107. Hear, hear.

:(

[RamboLiberal]

140. I may not be done with the party - but I'm sure going to teach them

a lesson by not voting for Hillary!

[npincus]

92. is she morphing into B*sh?

[Vinca]

114. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Rules don't count in Bushworld

or, apparently, Hillaryworld.

[WilyWondr]

102. Rule #11 of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules?

Which says:

11.A.
No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in
the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the
first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the
second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that
the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in
February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the
first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14
days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held
no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which
scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the
second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

Were all of you people that are now complaining about these delegates not being seated complaining last September when this decision was made by your representatives in the state legislature? I don't remember any stories about it back then. Why is that?

[closeupready]

118. If they concede so as to count them, and Hillary wins, I will stop posting here

because I will not be able to support the nominee. If she wins without MI and FL, then I will support her.

[noonwitch]

135. The GOP chose to move up the Michigan primary, Obama could have been on the ballot

I voted in the Michigan Primary for Hillary and I want my vote to count. the GOP moved up their primary, so the Dems had to follow suit. Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot, Hillary and Kucinich didn't.

[RamboLiberal]

147. I heard Dennis Kucinich say he wanted to remove his name

but there was some technical glitch.

Yeah, real cute of Hillary to leave her name on the ballot. She even said it would mean nothing.

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for nominating clout all but evaporated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

[MonkeyFunk]

159. Dodd and Gravel were also on the ballot

Yes, Kucinich wasn't competent enough to file the paperwork properly. But nonetheless, there was no agreement to remove their names. Those who did so were trying to pander to the earlier states.

[Moh96]

143. Hillary is working so hard to hand this election to McCain

stop all these dirty tactics B and play fair God dam it

[BringBigDogBack]

144. How shitty. Trying to claim a win when asked to remove your name from a non-competitive ballot.

But of course, she had to leave her name on the ballot.

This is all a load of bullshit. She wouldn't get all of the delegates from these contests anyway, so what does it matter? She'll still be getting her ass kicked in the big picture.

[MonkeyFunk]

161. They weren't asked to remove their names

[GoldieAZ49]

150. GOOD FOR THE DNC!!!

The only thing they can do is split the delegates evenly between both candidates AFTER the primaries are finished. That will seat the delegates for the convention and not incur any additional costs. It also would not affect the outcome of the race.

For all the Clinton supporters that have bought into the Clinton underhanded way of winning, you deserve a President McCain :nopity:

The DNC is going to protect the Democratic Party from the Clinton At Any Cost MINORITY. As well they should.

[powergirl]

154. Nothing good will come of this

We cannot elect our nominee by changing the rules. I am just sick about this. This will tear our party apart. We can't act like the Republicans. Please don't do this Sen. Clinton!!! The race is on, get your votes the right way.

[MonkeyFunk]

162. And we shouldn't elect our nominee

by disenfranchising millions of democratic voters. And we can't win the general election by pissing off dems in two big states.

[Lex Talionis]

160. The one thing I have always admired about the Clinton's

Is they have got the biggest brass balls in all the known political world, when it comes to getting it their way. Lie, pander,conjole, bribe, strongarm, what ever it takes. Man, I wish I could be like. Me and my stupid conscience. GO BO!

[Mme. Defarge]

163. The old bait and switch.

I've said it before on DU -- she's Bush with a brain. Incroiable!

[NMMatt]

170. This race will be settled long before August, so it really is a moot point. -nt

[Purveyor]

177. It damn well better be. With the convention being so late, the nominee is going to need more time

than 9 weeks to mobilize their 'on the ground' field efforts and campaign operations.

Waiting until the convention to select the nominee would be a diaster...

[RiverStone]

183. second, third, and fourth that!!!

[WHAT]

179. k

.