Obama camp wants to count every Hillary vote in MI and FL, Hillary declines

[ecdab]

Yep, the Obama camp has put the offer out there to count every vote that Hillary supporters made in MI and FL and it has been rejected by the Clinton campaign. Hillary voters constituted 50% of the vote in Fl and MI and that is what they are being offered - 50%.

But this isn't about making sure Hillary voters get to have their votes counted for the Hillary campaign at this point - no sir, it is not. It's about trying to gain an unfair advantage - it's about making sure Obama voters are not counted at this point. It's about trying to sling mud at Obama.

In Michigan, Obama wasn't on the ballot. Hillary wants to make sure that not a single Obama supporter in Michigan gets their vote counted at this point. Not even one. Obama is willing to count every single vote for Hillary in Michigan, and Hillary doesn't want a single Obama supporter counted; and Hillary is out there pitching a fit about how Obama is "disenfranchising" voters?

In Florida, neither candidate was allowed to campaign there. Obama entered the FL primary that was not going to count (according to the DNC rules and the Clinton campaign) with very low name recognition when compared to Clinton. Hillary not only wants to break the DNC rules, she wants to do so in order to take advantage of the incredible advantage she had, based on national name recognition, to gain an advantage she would not have had otherwise. Again, Obama is willing to see every vote that was cast for Hillary in the Florida primary, that violate the established rules for conducting a Democratic primary, counted. Again Hillary is unwilling to do so.

What if you were an Edwards voters in FL or MI? Well, given the nature of the violations MI and FL made somebody is going to get the shaft. Hillary wants it to be Obama. The Obama camp would prefer to see any imbalance not reflected upon candidates that are still in the race. It is unfortunate, but these states are going to be decided after Edwards dropped out of the race - so like every other state that was decided after Edwards dropped out of the race - he isn't going to be a factor in it. The only reason he was a factor in it to begin with was because FL and MI moved their primaries up against the established rules. To factor in the candidates that dropped out before super-super Tuesday (which was the earliest that Fl and MI could hold their primaries without violating the rules) would serve as a reward to those states for doing nothing other than violating the rules.

The Obama campaigns solution provides no reward for FL and MI violating the established rules while at the same time counting every single vote cast for his remaining opponent. Hillary Clinton’s solution elevates the importance of FL and MI simply because they violated the established rules while "disenfranchising" millions of Obama supporters, and her solution doesn't just "disenfranchise" Obama supporters in Fl and MI - it "disenfranchises" them in all 50 states.

So, considering that Hillary could have every vote cast for her in FL an MI counted without "disenfranchising" any of her opponents voters if she wanted to - and yet she will not accept the offer - that should tell us all which of the remaining candidates really wants to "disenfranchise" voters in Michigan and Florida, and it isn't Barack Obama.

A 50-50 split isn't perfect, but neither is a vote that is held on a rainy day. Florida and Michigan put themselves in a position that inherently makes the situation less than perfect. The only question left is “what is the best that can be done?”. Sure you can nit-pick at a 50-50 split, but it counts the votes cast for Hillary, it doesn't reward the states for violating the rules, and it doesn't "disenfranchise" any Obama supporters. Ask yourself if the solution you are pushing for does all those things. If it doesn't - now that a re-vote is off the table, then it isn't fair - and the odds are fairly good that you are pushing it because you see and advantage in it for your candidate of choice.

[polichick]

1. It's not "fair" unless it gives Hillary the nomination.

[Mezzo]

49. Link? nt

[polichick]

51. That would be a link to Clinton's massive ego.

[boston bean]

2. Obama the vote stealer! why not give Hillary what she earned and he take what he earned.

That's fair.

Barack the vote robber baron!

[ecdab]

6. So basically you are saying that every single Obama supporter

in Michigan should be "disenfranchised". Is that about right? I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything.

[boston bean]

14. uh no, someone gets the votes they received, not more, not less. to do otherwise is

disenfranchisement in the highest order.

[Mezzo]

50. are you saying you should disenfranchise the whole state b/c YOUR GUY took his name off the ballot?

Of COURSE you do. It's what Obama people do. triangulate.

[Obamanaut]

73. If it's true that 'franchise' or 'enfranchise' is the right to vote, then

that's exactly what I did here in Fla. I voted. But I voted because of the property tax amendment, knowing that a vote cast for my presidential candidate choice would not be counted in this primary because of the state legislature and it's attempt to gain 'relevance' in the process. I don't believe I've been 'disenfranchised' by anyone, because I can vote again in the general election.

And, I will vote for Obama.

edited to correct spelling

[ecdab]

74. No, I'm saying that a solution that allows Hillary voters to

be counted while not disenfranchising Obama supporters should be looked for that also doesn't reward MI and Fl for breaking the rules.

I don't claim a 50-50 split is perfect, but it does all of those things. If you have a different idea that does all those things I'm sure there are a bunch of folks over at the DNC that would love to hear from you - I know I'd love to hear it.

Hillary, on the other hand, is looking to disenfranchise as many Obama supporters as she can (an entire states worth if she were allowed to get her way) and reward MI and FL for breaking the primary rules that concerned parties had agreed to prior to the elections being held.

[stahbrett]

11. FL and MI are not going to be allowed to have a decisive effect on the nomination

That seems completely clear now after listening to Howard Dean and others involved in the situation.

So FL and MI can have their delegates split 50/50 now, so as not to give advantage to one candidate or the other, or they can simply wait until Obama has the nomination without those states' delegates being counted, and then get delegates to the convention via some sort of split that will also not have any effect on the nomination.

[boston bean]

15. If this election is decided for one candidate over another by not counting FL and MI

there is going to be a huge problem in the party.

[ecdab]

20. FL and MI will be counted - just not in a manner that gives Hillary

an unfair advantage or "disenfranchises" millions of Obama supporters. So no worries about a "huge" problem - right?

[boston bean]

22. no, there will be a huge divide that will not be healed. If he gets the nomination

with two states, especially florida, not having a say.

[ecdab]

27. Every Hillary supporter will have their vote counted

How is that not them having their say?

There isn't going to be a re-vote at this point - so what are you suggesting should happen? Is "disenfranchising" millions of Obama voters what you want to see happen?

[boston bean]

28. No, he gets his votes and delegates and she gets hers. Isn't that the way it usually works. nt

[DerekJ]

31. Did you read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/05/hillary-clinton-asks-obam_n_95238.html

[boston bean]

36. so I am sure Obama is doing that as well. Candidates have been doing that for ages. what's the

big deal?

[DerekJ]

39. I am sure Hillary eats babies. All candidates do that .. Big deal.

:)

Common MassDemm, you need something little bit better than unfounded speculations. You know the minute he does that, those delegates will immediately contact Hillary’s campaign, and it will be reported within 5 minutes.

I have something even better for you, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI

[boston bean]

40. It's no my responsibility to inform you. Go read up on some history. nt

[DerekJ]

47. I will. Honest. As soon as you tell me which history book has Obama stealing pledged delegates,

, I will go buy that book.
That would be one fast historian though, kudos to him.

Meanwhile the burden of proof lies with you, you have the obligation to prove your allegations, I can’t prove a negative.

Btw, you didn’t tell what do you think about that video?

[Shae]

52. hmmm....

*crickets*

[ecdab]

35. That's the way it works when States follow the rules

and candidates are on the ballot and allowed to campaign in the state. Certainly it is. But that isn't what happened here, now was it?

I understand that you want Hillary to win - at any cost. Disenfranchising a few million Democrats - no big deal. Violating the party rules - no big deal. Anything for Hillary. But do seriously expect Obama to support disenfranchising millions of his supporters so that the parties can pissed on?

This is down to the candidates at this point. Hillary can except the votes that were cast for her and concede the rest or she can wait until the primaries are done and the votes that were cast for her will be counted for regardless of if she wants them or not or she can pretend to be outraged that Obama isn't supporting the idea of disenfranchising millions of his supporters - which seems to be the option many of Hillary's supporters at DU have picked.

[boston bean]

42. Obama took his name off the ballot and that makes it Hillary's fault, how? nt

[ecdab]

54. So you are saying Obama should be punished

for following the rules and Hillary should be rewarded for trying to over throw them? And why do you want to disenfranchise all the Obama supporters? Is this their fault in your mind?

The elections in Michigan was not supposed to count. Obama wisely took his name off the ballot because he knew that if he was not allowed to campaign there Hillary's superior name recognition would give her a comparative advantage which she would exploit. He took that disingenuous comparison away from her.

[cd3dem]

45. Bo spent 1.3 mil on ads in FL, BO took Edwards delegates in Iowa, BO makes the rules

it's an "Obmama"nation!

[LisaL]

3. He wants to count every Hillary vote?

And she got 50 % of the votes? And did he himself get 50 % of the votes? No.
Then why in the world should he get 50 % of the votes?
It makes absolutely no sense.

[JayFredMuggs]

5. Why should Hillary get more than 50%?

And leave the other 50% undecided?

[indimuse]

10. 56% obama 30 something...?

His name WAS on that ballot,I SAW IT...I VOTED FOR HILLARY! So did 56% of the voters!

[Florida22ndDistrict]

30. ...

In Florida Clinton got 50%, Edwards got 14%, and Obama got 33%. In Michigan Clinton got 55% and Uncommitted got 40%. With exit polls and all other math Edwards got around 15% and Obama got around 23% in Michigan. Nonetheless, that is not what counts.

Full delegations from both states should be sent as the vote was cast. Uncommitted will just have to be delegates that are uncommitted to Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, or Gravel. The uncommitted delegates sit out the first ballot, being they are uncommitted and then use their own free will as to where they will place their vote on all remaining ballots. I don't see what the problem with that is. The fact is 4 candidates made a horrible mistake in removing their names from the Michigan ballot. It is no ones fault but their own.

[indimuse]

66. wwoops...right.

50%...I had MI on the brain...:)

[gal]

77. Your right ..

it is no ones fault but thier own, but I am referring to the states of Michigan and Florida.
The REAL fact is Florida and Michigan made a horrible mistake in changing the date of thier primary. It is no ones fault but thier own.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

81. re: Your right ..

Well if you are ok with Republican controlled states determining which portion of the democratic party the DNC will disenfranchise each primary cycle, I'm sure they will be happy to turn the party against itself election after election after election. By the way, go read the charter of the democratic party of the united states. If you believe in those principles, then you should have a hard time believing in the rules that are being used.

[ecdab]

83. That all nice, but what would you have happen now.

If you want to argue the fairness of counting the votes in Primaries that were declared null and void prior to taking place in which the candidates were not allowed to introduce themselves to the voters, thus giving the candidate with the greatest name recognition a massive advantage, where the voters were told their votes wouldn't count toward the Presidential election (but would count toward all other issues on the ballot) and in one case most of the candidates were not even on the ballot - have at it. But if that is what you want, please get off off the fake high horse - because the people that want that care nothing about the democratic process.

If you have some other great idea - I'd love to hear it.

As for the Republicans influencing the Florida Democrats - The Florida Democrats were actually laughing at their own amendment to not move the primary forward when they brought it to the floor to vote down so they could "show it to Chairmen Dean as proof that they tried". Here's a link complete with video of them mocking their attempt to "try". http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x108575
If you want to buy into that sort of nonsense that is your choice. Chairman Dean was not so easily convinced that they had lived to the standard of actually trying to not move the vote - because it was obvious that they didn't try at all - they just tried to create a show of it.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

87. re: That all nice, but what would you have happen now.

The Florida democrats don't represent my district, so I could care less about your interpretation of how they handled the bill. They have nothing to do with me. Under the circumstances I do understand their position, even if I take issue with how it was handled. They introduced a version of the bill without the primary date move which received a veto threat by the governor. They had the responsibility to push for voter verified paper trials in their state (the DNC asked all Democrats to push for this type of action in their own states). The voters of our state wanted voter verified paper trails and a ban on electronic voting machines. They introduced an amendment to move back the primary date even though they knew it would fail due to 1) being severely outnumbered, and 2) knowing the bill would not be sign by the governor without the primary date move. Under the circumstances you might not take the amendment seriously either.

In Florida all 8 candidates were on the ballot. In Michigan 4 candidates in addition to an uncommitted position were on the ballot. There was no contest out of 2 that was missing the majority of candidates. These are easily check facts, you only hurt your own reputation by lying about it.

There were no state laws that prohibited the candidates from entering our states or campaigning here. They made the decision to tactically avoid our states. To insinuate that voters were not aware of the candidates is disingenuous at best. There were 17 televised debates prior to the vote. Floridians are perfectly capable of reading the many articles that have bombarded us in newspapers and magazines for the better part of the past year as well as pick up books by the candidates at our local bookstores. We have Internet access here in Florida and are able to read over the candidates websites, as well as watch their campaign speeches and commercials on youtube and other video sites. The MSM have bombarded us daily about what candidates were doing, who they were, and how they did in previous contests. There were campaign signs for the candidates all over. There were bumper stickers supporting the candidates plastered on the back of cars and on road signs.

Finally, being that I did not vote for Clinton on January 29, 2008, she was my last choice out of the field, I have no connection with her campaign, I have not donated money to her, and I don't even have an account at her website I can honestly say it has nothing to do with her. For me it is purely about getting my vote counted and having full representation at the convention with voting rights on choosing a candidate. I have no campaign bias, so I'm sure my high horse is above your mud puddle.

[ecdab]

88. What I said was

"and in one case most of the candidates were not even on the ballot "

Your response

"In Florida all 8 candidates were on the ballot. In Michigan 4 candidates in addition to an uncommitted position were on the ballot. There was no contest out of 2 that was missing the majority of candidates. These are easily check facts, you only hurt your own reputation by lying about it."

You want to be a jack ass - have fun. And do us all a favor and drop the whole "I'm not a rabid Hillary supporter" gig - nobody buys it.

Did you know that sock puppets smell like feet? They are easy to detect by their odor.

Oh yeah, you have your facts completely wrong on the Florida legislature as well, and if you think a few bumper stickers and yard signs is what makes for a competitive and fair election, you might be a Hillary supporter (spoken in my best John Foxworthy voice).

[Florida22ndDistrict]

89. re: What I said was

It doesn't matter if you believe me or not, the fact is I didn't vote for her and I don't support her. I have defended Obama on these forums as well as Clinton when partisan people such as yourself have made ridiculous charges against them, and I have criticized both of them when I felt it was right. I favored Obama in the beginning of the primary season, but have issues with him at the moment. If you want to keep your head up your ass fine with me. I'm sure everything smells like shit up there, so it may be hard to use intuition when judging others. Have a nice day.

[ecdab]

91. Ridiculous charges - like most candidates were not on the ballot

in Michigan. You may want to check your easily verifiable facts - Chris Dodd had dropped out of the race by the time of the Michigan primary - there were 7 candidates at the time, 4 were not on the ballot. I gave you an extra post to figure that one out, to verify the easily verifiable - after you called me a liar for speaking a simple truth, and you didn't.

You can also check if Hillary is trying to disenfranchise millions of Obama supporters in Michigan - that one is just as easy to verify (and quite a bit more important).

You can also easily verify if the candidates were allowed to introduce themselves to the voters in MI and FL. They were not.

You can also easily verify who had, by far, the largest name recognition in those states. That would be Hillary Clinton.

You can also easily verify how name recognition effects a contest in the void of other information.

You have done none of these things. And in fact you choose to call me a liar for speaking a simple truth about the candidates involvement in the Michigan primary.

You are showing the kind of willful ignorance of somebody with an agenda - and aggressively backing that ignorance up like a partisan.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

92. re: Ridiculous charges - like most candidates were not on the ballot

1) I was counting all the candidates from the start which made it 50/50 plus an undecided option to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you want to remove Dodd from the possible list, then you would also have to remove Biden and Richardson from the possible list as well being that they had dropped out. That leaves Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, and Obama. Out of the possible list, 3 out of 5 were on the ballot in addition to an uncommitted option. So now it becomes a 60/40 plus an uncommitted option. Care to take that further? You could have said you meant “many” rather then “most” but you've tangled yourself in your own web at this point.

2) The candidates who removed themselves from the Michigan ballot used bad judgment. They can't blame anyone for their actions. They should have never done that. If you are talking about Clinton not wanting a 50/50 split in Michigan or wanting uncommitted delegates from Michigan to go to the convention I don't see how that would disenfranchise Obama voters. Technically there were no Obama voters (Obama chose not to except votes in Michigan). However if the 40% of the Michigan delegation were to go to the convention uncommitted to Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, or Kucinich it is within reason that they would vote for Obama. Given all the math and exit polls has him around 23%, he would theoretically gain huge if he ended up with 40% in Michigan. This would most likely have Edwards voters and Draft Gore people from Michigan feeling more disenfranchised then Obama voters. Nonetheless the vote was recorded as is and that is how it should be represented.

3) Again, there were no state or local laws that prohibited the candidates from entering our states or campaigning here. We would have welcomed them with open arms. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States allows for all people who want to be part of the process to participate. Dean and the DNC enforced rules that violate the charter and the candidates did not stand up to the DNC's tyranny. I would have been proud to have the candidates stand up for our rights early on, but all candidates failed on this matter.

4) Your point on name recognition is irrelevant. No candidate has any right to be famous. I actually find it amusing considering Obama was touted on the MSM for his rock star appeal month after month. You act like we were able to escape media coverage of the circus that was the primary this year. I'm curious, do you think we live out in the everglades somewhere isolated from society?

When it comes down to it, I am just a Florida voter. I want my vote to count because I believe deeply in the principles of Democracy. My vote was stolen by the supreme court in 2000 and now it is happening again by the power of the DNC. I'm going to be loud as hell until my vote and that of the people of my state is recognized and given full representation. I have no campaign bias and am just after the fundamental right to vote. This may be hard for someone like yourself to understand being that you take your vote for granted.

In the future you may want to pause before using prejudice to label someone a Clinton supporter just because they want the right to vote. If you can't stomach a citizen speaking against the party, the chairman, or against a powerful figure within the party you might be happier in North Korea. This is America, my right to freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble are contained within the first amendment and I will use them when I feel it necessary.

[ecdab]

93. Good point

1- There really were just 5 candidates, only 3 of which were viable. The Michigan voters got to choose between 1 viable candidate, that's quite a choice they had. Democray at work! Oh yes.

2-The candidates that removed their names from the ballot did so quite wisely. Since it was just a beauty contest based on name recognition - it was obvious that Hillary would win. There was never a question in either the Obama or the Edwards camp that Hillary would try and use the Michigan contest as a fake measuring stick of her popularity to amp up her campaign - and look, she is! She simply would have had a much easier time of making her case if Obama and Edwards had put their names on the ballot.

3-There may not have been a state law - but the candidates pledged not to. Dishonesty is generally frowned upon. You're also missing the larger problems that the DNC was facing - if they didn't control the primary in some nature it would have moved into to 2007, which would have played havoc with the campaign finance laws (they are based on a calender year). Florida shafted themselves when they knowingly choose to violate rules that all parties involves had agreed to prior to the election. Odd how you shift the blame to sources that Hillary is bashing (that damn bias thing - it almost like you get your talking points from Hillary emails - yeah, I get them too).

4-Yeah right. Why do candidates campaign at all - it doesn't do anything - is that actually the point you are making? Have you watched the polls shift in every state once the candidates hit the ground and start campaigning? Florida was a meaningless beauty contest, a poll taken among voters that hadn't been introduced to the candidates. You may feel you personally were informed (and perhaps you were) - but if you are denying that there is a reason that candidates campaign you know not of what you speak. You ca compare how Hillary polled against Obama prior to the start of a campaign in just about every state and see a very measurable shift to Obama after the ground campaign started. It's happening right now in PA, just like it happened in just about every state.

Your vote will be apportioned in some manner. It isn't fair, but you can thank your state legislature for that. I assume you didn't watch them mocking and laughing at the process of trying to pretend to stand up to the vote being moved forward. But counting your vote in a meaningless beauty contest isn't going to give you any better form of representation, it only helps Hillary gain an advantage that she would not otherwise have - and thus your campaign bias.

I also find it interesting that you are calling for every single Obama supporter in Michigan to not have their vote counted at the same time you are pitching a fit about not having your voted counted. When it's your vote - it's all about democracy and justice, but when you are trying to roll over somebody else - it's all about technicalities and choices their candidate made (of course it's never about choices that Hillary made - back to that bias thing again, odd how that keeps happening). It impossible to take somebody seriously when they do that - because it's so obvious that they don't actually care about voters rights, much less believe deeply in it.

I certainly never made the case that you could spout what ever biased nonsense you want, please do. Just don't expect others not to speak against you when you do.

OzarkDem - right? Very similar syntax.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

95. re: Good point

1) All 5 of those candidates were initially on the ballot. They chose to remove themselves. They chose not to accept votes on their behalf. If Edwards and Obama didn't want to participate, we can not force them to do so. If we could Gore would been on the ballot.

2) Who's really using Michigan as a campaign tool. Who intentionally removed their name from the ballot to complicate the situation? Which candidate still refuses to accept the results of the election? Who gains advantage by disenfranchising the voters?

3) I'm not on the Clinton or Obama mailing list so I'm not complete sure who Clinton is shifting the blame to. I'm pretty sure their list on who's to blame is not as long as mine, due to the fact that Clinton is on my list as well. I know the DNC has the responsibility to moderate the primary/caucus process but the delegate selection rules that they are enforcing go against the principles set forth in the charter of the democratic party of the united states. They should have recognized this and amended the rules such that the voters would not be disenfranchised.

4) I didn't say that campaigning doesn't do anything. Why don't you go back and try to read what I wrote. I stated that “no candidate has any right to be famous”. If a candidate choses not to campaign in a state that does not invalidate an election. For example on the republican side Giuliani decided to skip many other states and focus on Florida to his own peril. No matter the candidate, if they choose to ignore the people they must accept the repercussions of their actions.

Regarding the rest of your rant, my state legislators (house and senate) and governor are all republicans. I didn't vote for them, and they don't listen to me on issues regarding the democratic party. I will vote against them again when their terms expire, though I doubt that it will effect their chances of reelection. As I have stated I want the election to count as is. I didn't vote for Clinton but she won the election in my state so as such she gains an advantage by having my vote count. If you are ignorant enough to think I want my vote to count to give Clinton an advantage, then I recommend you read over the founding documents of our nation as well as historical events throughout the American time line where our people have fought for our liberties. I know it may surprise you, but some of us actually believe in the principles of our nation.

If Obama's supporters went to the polls to fulfill their civic duty in Michigan then their votes will count. I believe in counting the votes of the people who take their vote seriously; those who get off their asses and participate in the system. If they do not go to the polls then I can't fight for them. If their candidate chooses not to run in their state, I can't fight for them. When a candidate or voter is disenfranchised by external forces I stand for their rights. When they willingly avoid their civic duty I feel no responsibility to fight for them. I am not the one trying to take away Michigan Obama supporters voices. Obama and the DNC are the ones fighting to take away Michigan Obama supporters voices. They do this because they gain an advantage by sacrificing some of their supporters to obliterate the voices of their opposition.

[cascadiance]

44. 50/50 split allows Florida and Michigan delegates to be represented in the convention...

And there IS other party business like the platform, etc. that is decided upon there than just the nomination vote. Perhaps they will be rendered non-effectual on the nomination vote by virtue of the split, but they can still have a big impact on many other votes there to help structure the party's platform, etc.

If Hillary is adamant about holding them out, she is in fact disenfranchising the whole states of Florida and Michigan from having representation of deciding the party's business just for the purpose of selfishly trying to use them to get an unfair advantage in her uphill battle to try and steal the nomination when she can't get the popular vote reflected in pledged delegates.

And you can claim that the voters voted for her in those states, but:

a) other candidates besides Clinton weren't campaigning there in interests of keeping fairness with the DNC and other parts of the party trying to keep control over the primary season scheduling, etc. Clinton campaign and Florida and Michigan was NOT following the party rules! There is a price to pay for that!

b) In Michigan, you can say she had a majority of supporters, but did she? First of all there was the 40-44% uncommitted that voted against her there. And there was ALSO a sizable chunk who were told that since their vote wasn't going to be counted in the Democratic side of the fence, they should go vote for Romney on the Republican side (which helped him win that state) to avoid McCain getting a huge lead too early. Now if that primary were run properly, don't you think a sizeable number of those voters would have voted for Obama (or Edwards)? And many other busy voters just stayed home too. The fact is, without a revote, we can't KNOW how many voters were dissaffected.

c) In both of these states, it can be argued that those in leadership positions there that helped try to move up those primaries were doing so as supporters of Clinton, and perhaps arguably trying to set up this very controversial situation we have now to help her get an unfair advantage.

[superkia]

53. I think option C is about giving the elite an unfair advantage, not..

so much about Clinton. I think Clinton is their first choice and they were setting it up so that either she could get an unfair advantage or at least divide and hurt the democrats enough so that the elites republican choice could get in. When I see people arguing on the side of Clinton and wanting to disenfranchise many people while at the same time pointing a finger and saying someone else is disenfranchising people, I just laugh! I understand the elite out their spreading this shit through the media but any normal average citizen is making themselves look like ignorant, uninformed sheep as they do the elites business...makes no sense!

Wake up and stop enabling these people to rape us and our country!

[cascadiance]

55. Yes. Earlier and earlier and EARLIER primaries help the elites...

It lets them get more and more campaign money into the race (which feeds the elites' media companies that much more), and lets them try to weed out the "chaf" with this added "marketing" by their "selected" candidates (aka Hillary) that happens earlier, so that they can have the race "decided" before they have to deal with too much "people" oriented issues screwing up their race that would come from candidates normally not able to go through such long and expensive campaigns.

Obama is the only "least desirable" outcome they have left, and now they are trying to angle that earlier strategy to push him out too.

[JayFredMuggs]

4. Why does Hillary want to reject fair offers?

Oh, I see the reason posted just above this. Never mind.

[mnotme]

7. The logic of Hillary

A parable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTY_bp1dTA4

[MichiganVote]

8. The uncommitted vote in Mi. stands at present at about 42%. HRC = about 55%.

[shaniqua6392]

9. Could you provide a link to this story?

Or is this an opinion piece? Thanks.

[ecdab]

12. It's an OP, there is no link to give n/t

[shaniqua6392]

13. So you have no proof that Obama wants to count the votes

and Clinton refuses? That sounds like more than opinion to me. I looked around and could not find any basis in fact for some of your statements. I guess that means in GD-P we can say anything we want, make it look like facts and then call it an opinion piece when people ask for a link to back it up. Now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[ecdab]

16. Ah, so you were looking for evidence that Obama's camp had offered

a 50-50 split.

Here you go.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Michigan_revote_even_deader.html

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/04/obamas-camp-50.html

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/04/861031.aspx

Since it has been all over the news for quite some time I assumed that anybody posting at DU would be aware of the 50-50 offer that Obama's camp made and that Clinton rejected it.

No need to get snippy either - I assumed you were looking for a link to the piece I wrote - not backup for what is common knowledge in most quarters.

[shaniqua6392]

19. The beginning of your op had a factual tone to it.

I was just looking for facts on the subject. You should never assume that everyone on DU would be aware of something. Not all of us are here for hours every day. Some of us just pop in to learn a thing or two about the candidates. I can not just post something myself and assume that the world knows what I am talking about. That would be a bold assumption.

[ecdab]

25. You kind of jumped down my shirt after making some of your own

"bold" assumptions.

It not really unfair to assume people know about something that has been covered by every major newspaper and TV network - is it?

The pieces has a factual tone because it is based on facts - by the ways.

[UALRBSofL]

17. I think in the end Howard Dean will make his decision which will

Concede Florida, and in Michigan I don't know. That said, the folks in florida are well aware of the situation and we can be sure the Florida Republican Party will remind the voters routinely how disenfranchised they were because of Dean and Obama. No worries Dean is conceding Florida. I'd like to know from someone that lives in Michigan how they see the voters there?

[ecdab]

18. If Hillary will accept getting the 50% that was cast for her in primaries

that violated party rules (which is 50% more than she would get if the party rules were followed) - not a single Hillary voter would be "disenfranchised", and thus the GOP would only be able to remind voters of how they cut the value of GOP voters in Florida and Michigan in half. But that just won't work for Hillary. The 50-50 split provides an advantage for the Democratic Party in November - but it doesn't provide an advantage for Hillary.

[Clovis Sangrail]

21. bzzzzt Wrong answer!

Sure you can nit-pick at a 50-50 split, but it counts the votes cast for Hillary,

A 50/50 split doesn't 'count the votes cast for Hillary or for anybody else.
It imposes an arbitrary decision on the electorate rather than actually counting the votes.

it doesn't reward the states for violating the rules,

The 'reward' (if it can be called that) states get from following the primary rules is to have their delegates seated.
Seating their delegates, even if you don't count their actual votes, does provide this 'reward'.
( Am I missing where you say they aren't seated? )

and it doesn't "disenfranchise" any Obama supporters.

You're completely wrong.
An arbitrary decision to split 50/50 disenfranchises ALL Fl and Mi voters.
If the actual votes aren't being counted how can it be said that any vote counts?

Ask yourself if the solution you are pushing for does all those things.

The FL and Mi party leaders seriously screwed the pooch on this, and short of a re vote, I don't see any valid way to count Fl and Mi votes.
The 'solution', as distasteful as it is, is to follow the rules.

• Seating the delegates from Fl and Mi isn't fair to voters in other states
  
• Using the results on an election where 1 candidate wasn't even on the ballot isn't fair to that candidate.
  
• Arbitrarily splitting the vote, in ANY way other than how it was cast, isn't fair to any of us who expect our votes to actually be counted.
  

[ecdab]

78. I don't disagree that following the rules to the T is a valid and fair

solution on a national level. It is.

However - there is a General Election to win and the voters in Michigan and Florida have been shafted, so looking for a solution that allows MI and FL to be a part of the other choices made at the convention has some level of importance. Extending an olive branch to them - while not in accordance with the rules - isn't such a bad idea either.

I get where you are coming from. However, it is my feeling that we would be cutting off our own nose to spit our own face if we don't take some steps -and given the percentages that Hillary pulled down in the primaries that were declared null and void prior to being held, a 50-50 splits seems like a fairly good olive branch that will not skew the election but will show a measure of good will toward the voters in MI and FL.

[Clovis Sangrail]

80. robbing peter to pay paul

How many GE votes will the party lose by caving and implementing an undemocratic 'solution' ?

I think something should be done, I just think that ignoring actual votes and 'applying' an arbitrary vote tally will do more harm than good.
I think a lot of people would, quite justifiably, begin to have a hard time taking the DNC's commitment to 'democracy' seriously.

It's one thing to disallow election results from states that purposely broke election rules.
It's something else entirely to just make up election results.

The DNC should have been engaged in a massive campaign, starting last September, to let the voters of Fl and Mi know that their state party leaders had sold them down the river....
that their votes should count and that they are important to the party, but that their local politicians were working to make sure that their votes wouldn't count.

[ecdab]

82. if only we could change the past, but that option isn't open to us.

We only get to operate in the present. Given that reality - all we can do is look for the least bad solution. An olive branch is better than another low blow and it's better than ignoring the voters in MI and FL completely, and it better than selectively ignoring some voters in MI and FL. A perfect solution isn't going to happen now - events have conspired to ensure that.

A 50-50 split isn't really robbing peter to pay paul, it just trying to find some means of smoothing things out as best as can be done - which simply isn't going to be as smooth as we would all like.

[Clovis Sangrail]

85. what I meant

by robbing peter to pay paul was applying a non democratic 'solution' to alleviate one problem while creating another one just as bad.
(in my opinion worse)

[ecdab]

86. Fair enough - but I don't agree. n/t

[Maribelle]

23. "Counting the votes" means just that,it does not mean Obama can steal some that did not vote for him

[ecdab]

59. There were exactly zero votes cast in a fair primary in either FL or MI

Hillary had a massive advantage in name recognition in both states, an no other candidate was allowed to introduce themselves to the voters in either state. On top of that the voters themselves were told that the vote wouldn't count.

In what world is that a representative vote?

There are no votes to steal - there is only some kind of compromise that works to the benefit of the Democratic Party. A 50-50 split does that without discounting the votes for Hillary and without disenfranchising the supporters of Obama, while at the same time not rewarding MI and FL for breaking rules that were agreed to by all interested parties prior to the election.

If you have a better idea - I'd love to hear it. So far all I'm hearing is how Hillary supporters want to disenfranchise all of Obama's supporters - while Obama is trying to find a way to make every vote for Hillary count - imperfect as his solution is.

[gal]

79. Your forgetting or not mentioning..

There was many many people that did not go out and vote that would have except they were told, and all the candidates agreed publically that the votes would not count. If you want to count votes you would have to find a way to count those as well.

[RBInMaine]

24. She wants to steal the nomination.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Obama did not get 50% of the vote

in either state. How silly.

[ecdab]

32. Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI.

Seriously - this outrage about "disenfranchising" voters is such BS coming from a group that wants to see every single Obama supporter in Michigan discounted in order to gain a political advantage.

That's the solution Hillary is pushing - right?

The Hillary solution at this point amount to counting the votes in a state that - by rules that she agreed with - were not going to count, that the voters in that state were told would not count, and that most of the candidates were not even on the ballot for the voters to choose from because they were told that the vote wouldn't count.

Hillary wants to gain an advantage by breaking the rules AND by disenfranchising millions of voters. Obama just wants as inclusive a resolution as is possible, that doesn't reward the states for violating the rules but doesn't disenfranchise the voters that cast ballots for his opponent.

Hillary argument is incredibly disingenuous. It rewards states for breaking the rules and disenfranchises the voters of her opponent. I get that many here want Hillary to win at any cost - including disenfranchising voters and breaking the primary rules, I just think it's a shame.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. He took his name off the ballot

by his own free choice. Why should he get ANY of the delegates? Ya can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.

And he was on the ballot in Florida, and didn't get 50% of the votes.

[boston bean]

37. They don't care monkey. They want to win by hook or by crook. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Could you imagine

the uproar if Clinton tried to get half the delegates in a contest she didn't run in? She'd be pilloried as the most evil, lying scumbag in America.

[ecdab]

57. Your argument is so disingenuous.

The Michigan and Florida primaries were not a lottery - it was publicly announced to the candidates and their supporters that they wouldn't count. If they were a lottery, the prize was a big zero. Obama took his name off the ballot so Hillary wouldn't be able to make the disingenuous argument that she had won a comparative victory in Michigan that would only have been based on her superior name recognition - since neither candidate was allowed to campaign there, the vote that did occur was based mainly on name recognition. The same goes for Florida, it wasn't a fair contest - it was about name recognition. The candidates were never allowed to introduce themselves to the voter.

The Clinton campaign is now shouting at the tops of their lungs about voters being disenfranchised - while at the same time they are going about trying to disenfranchise millions of voters - MILLIONS.

Obama on the other hand is trying to work out a solution that doesn't disenfranchise a single voter and doesn't reward Michigan and Florida for violating the rules at the same time.

You can shout along with Hillary about how it is outrageous that Obama will not disenfranchise millions of voters and violate party rules so that Hillary can be the soul benefactor - but you are being both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

I've certainly had it with people screaming about voters rights while they are actively trying to subvert the Democratic process fro their own ends - which is all Hillary is doing.

[dansolo]

29. Didn't Edwards miss the 15% threshold in FL?

I think that MI should be split 50/50, and FL awarded according to the primary, but I think both delegations should be reduced by 50%, and the superdelegates should be seated, but not allowed to vote in the first ballot. That would net about 40 delegates for Hillary. The MI vote was completely screwed up, and they can't even blame it on the GOP. If they want to have a delegation seated, 50/50 is the only fair option.

[Life Long Dem]

34. I agree that it is more about "trying to gain an unfair advantage"

She doesn't want MI and FL to be settled. She wants to say they had 3 months to settle this and since no settlement happened, she'll say she deserves to be nominated, or some bullshit line like this. And if that doesn't work (her chances are nil anyway) then she caused McSame to get a leg up in November while she held Obama hostage in the primary.

[Life Long Dem]

38. This needs to hit the news heavily!!

Because this is big and it will give the people an upper hand because she seems like she wants to use this toward "we the people".

[Mezzo]

41. Link? nt

[NJSecularist]

46. You are very right - this entire process by the Clintons has been disgustingly disingenuous

She was following the party line up until the primaries. She said that both of these primaries wouldn't count. When she got better than expected results in each of those states, she changed her mind. It is the height of disingenuity to state that Hillary is doing this for anything else but her own personal, selfish gain.

[slinkerwink]

48. the blame should be laid at the feet of the state parties. They are the ones denying a revote.

[cascadiance]

56. Minimally, if corrective actions are taken by national party entities to correct for their actions..

... then they should be forced to PAY for their actions too, in the shape of FIRING hired state officials that engaged in this poor and "lets break the rules" set of practices that lead to this mess. Elected officials that helped this mess happen should be made to pay for it in other ways.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[ecdab]

60. There are no votes to count that were cast in FL and MI in an election

that was sanctioned by the DNC, there are no votes that were cast there in a primary were all the candidates were allowed to introduce themselves to the voters (which massively favors the person with the highest name recognition - and that would be Hillary, surprise, surprise), There are no votes there that were cast in an election were the voters themselves were told that their votes would count. Not one vote. So what votes is it that you would have counted? The ones that disenfranchise millions of Obama supporters - are those the votes you want counted?

[OzarkDem]

62. Way to spin

:rofl:

[ecdab]

65. So you are saying Hillary isn't trying to disenfranchise

millions of Obama supporters? Yes or no?

Are you saying that Hillary didn't have a massive advantage in Michigan and Florida due to here name recognition combined with the candidates not being allowed to campaign in the those states? Yes or no?

Are you saying that the Obama camp hasn't put forth a compromise by which all Hillary supporters would get their votes counted while at the same time Hillary is trying to make so not a single Obama supporters gets their voice heard in Michigan? Yes or no?

It's great that you can throw out three word responses that completely lack substance - but can you answer for what is actually happening.

[OzarkDem]

68. Correct, that's what I'm saying

Your logic is flawed as is your argument.

You're going to need to provide some proof that Clinton did something to suppress the votes of Obama supporters in MI and FL.

[ecdab]

71. I never said Clinton suppressed them - now did I, I said there was never a

level playing field. Clinton was given a massive advantage by all the candidates not being allowed to campaign in those states due to her vastly superior name recognition. To deny that is intellectually dishonest.

To say that the voters were not told that the primaries being held in Florida and Michigan would be null and void is just a lie - they were told that, so were the candidates.

To say that Hillary isn't trying to disenfranchise all the Obama supporters in Michigan at this point is also disingenuous - she clearly is trying to do just that.

You are asking for proof of something I am not even trying to prove.

[cascadiance]

61. There was no REAL democratic election! There are only two options now...

1) Have a new Democratic primary/caucus that abide by the rules that should be followed to guarantee a democratic election.

or

2) Have a 50/50 delegate count go to the convention. Delegates from these states then might not get their votes counted in a way to help decide our candidate, but they can participate then in other parts of the party business.

Florida in effect held us hostage in 2000 while their insane system was trying to count their votes accurately, and we got screwed because they got it wrong (with the help of the Supreme Court of course).

Pardon us, while we don't want to repeat that mistake over again of being held hostage to their votes that weren't cast correctly again.

Either suck it up, pay for a new PROPERLY run election, which you've had the option of doing, or accept that you our state officials have screwed up, and vote them the hell out of office and get new ones in that will do the job properly and not play "games" with your votes.

[OzarkDem]

70. The Democrats who voted in those primaries disagree with you

and like it or not, they will not take kindly to the Obama campaign's efforts to negate their votes. And they will be voting in the GE.

[ecdab]

72. Obama has offered to count the 50% that voted for Clinton

which is 50% more than the rules allow for. The only candidate that is not allowing those 50% to be counted is Hillary.

[cascadiance]

75. And the Democrats who voted in the Republican primary in Michigan would disagree with YOU!

And would feel that you are trying to steal THEIR vote by coming back later and saying that their vote would count after being told earlier that it wouldn't.

The bottom line is that those elections were NOT run according to the rules, and not sanctioned by those they need to be and therefore not valid.

It's like saying that you expect to be treated the same by someone who sells you a ticket for a "numbers game" as you would if you bought a state lotto ticket. The latter you should feel guaranteed money if you get the winning numbers, whereas the former you are rolling the dice and trusting a non-sanctioned source to give you back something for what you put into it.

[cascadiance]

76. self delete

"error generated duplicate"

[OzarkDem]

63. I reject your "frame"

and so will the Dem voters of Florida and Michigan.

[ecdab]

67. yes, yes - you only want a frame that unfairly advantages Hillary

- we know, we know.

Thankfully you are not the voters in Michigan and Florida. And if you think that the Obama supporters in Michigan in Florida will be jumping for joy if Hillary gets her supporters votes counted that were cast in a primary that was declared null and void prior to it being held while disenfranchising millions of Obama supporters, your not half as clever as you think.

There is only one candidate that is trying to come up with a solution that doesn't reward MI and FL for breaking the rules while not disenfranchising any voters - that would be Barack Obama. Hillary on the other hand is doing her best to elevate the importance of MI and FL (for no other reason than they broke the rules and it benefits her to do so at this point) and disenfranchise all of her opponents supporters. Is that the kind of leadership you want?

[my3boyz]

64. I wish Hillary and her supporters would admit they don't

give a shit about the voters. They want them counted so she would have a better chance to win. Period. If she just wanted the delegates seated it would have been agreed to by now. No, she wants an unfair advantage in from invalid elections. Pathetic.

[ecdab]

69. Some are out there screaming for voters to be disenfranchised

as I type this - they have already admitted their desire to do so for everybody to see with their actions if not their words.

[Hieronymus]

84. No big surprise .. Hillary's not willing to play fairly.

[FlyingSquirrel]

90. .

[crankychatter]

94. Accept our Soviet-style Elections or WE WILL BURY YOU

Sorry, it's Departmental Policy

We don't negotiate with terrorists.