Why should Hillary get more than 50%?

[JayFredMuggs]

Of the delegates in Florida and in Michigan?

If any?

There was no one else on the ballot in Michigan, so the rest of the Mich delegates she certainly can't claim.

And in Florida, both Hillary and Barack and everyone else didn't even campaign, why would Hillary get all the delegates?

Doesn't proportional representation apply to all states?

Correct me if I am wrong, Hillary wants "all the votes to count" just to narrow her deficit from 700,000+ behind Barack, to about 130,000, including votes for Hillary in a state where Barack wasn't on the ballot. That's a symbolic change in the lead, nothing else.
What counts in the end is the delegate count.

Doesn't Hillary want more than her proportional delegate count in those two non-election election states?

VooDoo voting!

[MonkeyFunk]

1. First

she wasn't the only name on the ballot on the Michigan. I don't know why people pretend not to know that.

She should get more than 50% of the delegates because she got more than 50% of the vote. Obama didn't run in Michigan - why should he get ANY of the delegates?

[Sagand]

2. The Exit poll show she wouldn't have got 50%

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MIDEM

It would have been Clinton 46% Obama 35% Edwards 12%

[JayFredMuggs]

3. I didn't say he SHOULD get any!!!

I asked a question.

Oh, and by the way, who else was on the Michigan ballot?

I have heard that Obama was NOT, so why should this be considered an election?

[MonkeyFunk]

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

and Obama chose not to be on the ballot. It was his choice - why should somebody else be punished for his decision?

I could imagine the outrage here if Clinton tried to get 50% of the vote in a race she didn't run in.

[Levgreee]

25. VIDEO: Hillary didn't think it made any difference at all if she was on the ballot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI

Why should Obama be punished for a choice that had no significance?

[MonkeyFunk]

29. turns out they were both wrong

Michigan and Florida were far more significant than either campaign thought.

Clinton's statement on Michigan wasn't a binding promise. It was her evaluation at the time.

[Levgreee]

33. Clinton is the one who has made it significant, no one else

it was her evaluation then, and then she changed her evaluation, with no additional input, to serve her political purposes.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. The additional input

is that the race is now so close that MI and FL matter.

Obama's trying to serve his political purposes here, too, you know.

[Exilednight]

7. The only other name on the Michigan ballot was the candidates who already dropped out........

of the race. Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot in honor of the pledge. It seems that Hillary has a different understanding of the English language when compared to the rest of the world. She's still trying to figure out what the definition of 'is' is, we can't expect her to figure out what the meaning of the word 'participate' is.

I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

participate: verb
1. share in something
2. become a participant; be involved in; "enter a race"; "enter an agreement"; "enter a drug treatment program"; "enter negotiations"

She broke the pledge and now feels she should be rewarded for doing so.

[MonkeyFunk]

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

And Clinton broke no pledge.

Lies lies lies and more lies - and you wonder why some of us grow tired of Obama's supporters.

[Exilednight]

17. Dodd dropped out January 3rd, the Michigan primary was January 15th.......

Kucinich was still in the race until the 25th, and Gravel - well it's Gravel so take it for what it is worth.

She broke the pledge when she decided to ignore the part that said "I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)."

Spin it all you want, participate means having your name on the ballot.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Nope

the pledge didn't require anybody to remove their names. That's just a lie.

[Exilednight]

24. You don't understand the definition of the word 'participate' either? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Show me where the DNC

believed the pledge required them to remove their names. Show me where the candidates themselves believed the pledge required them to remove their names.

Don't you think it would've been fairly easy to say so in the pledge, if that's what was intended?

[Exilednight]

32. It stated that they would not participate.........

If you were involved a decathlon and all the participants signed a pledge, including you, that you would not participate in the 400m dash; would you go line up in the starting blocks, or withdraw your name from participating in the event?

I don't know about you, but the word 'participate' is fairly easy to understand. The only reason every candidate had their name on the ballot in Florida is because it was to late to take it off.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. That's your interpretation

it was not the interpretation of the signatories to the pledge.

[Exilednight]

37. It's not an interpretation, it's reading comprehension.

If someone can not comprehend the meaning of 'participate', then they shouldn't be running for President.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. No, it's an interpretation

Since it would've been very very simple for the pledge to say "remove your name from the ballot", but didn't, you're interpreting it.

How come no complaints about ALL of them violating the pledge, then, but not removing their names in Florida? Is it because you know full well the pledge didn't require them to do so?

[Exilednight]

40. I'm not interpreting anything, it's simple linguistics. Participate means..........

to take part in. If you participate in a race, that means you line up in the starting blocks and run. If you participate in an election, that means you put your name on the ballot and let people vote for you.

It's simple reading comprehension.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. No

They clearly didn't put a clear requirement to remove the names from the ballot in the pledge.

Nobody at the time thought the pledge required it. Howard Dean never said it did. It's just false to claim the pledge required it.

[Exilednight]

45. Edwards and Obama believed that it was requited, becaus e they.........

understood the basic comprehension of the word participate.

To participate means to take part in. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Do not participate in the election means do not take part in the election. If you leave your name on the ballot, then you are taking part in the election. Take your name off the ballot and you are not participating in the election.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. Nope

they removed their names to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire - not because they felt honor-bound to do so by the pledge.

[Exilednight]

47. You have proof of that statement, or is that your opinion? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

48. Repeating your same assertion again and again

doesn't make it true.

They removed their names to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire. Nobody at the time claimed the pledge required them to remove their names from the ballot. You're not doing anything but repeat yourself again and again, without responding to any of my points.

[Exilednight]

49. And I'm sure you have proof of this so called pandering, or is this your opinion?

[tyne]

27. She broke the pledge of

participating by leaving her name on the ballot. She pledged not to campaign and participate.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Nonsense

the pledge didn't require anybody to remove their names.

The pledge could easily have said so, but it didn't. The DNC never claimed the pledge required it. Even the candidates didn't claim the pledge required it.

You want to pretend Obama removed his name for high ethical purposes. The truth is, he did it to pander to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. It was a political calculation, but certainly not required by the pledge.

Even Michigan DNC member Debbie Dingell said: "There will be a primary election in Michigan on January 15th, there will not be a caucus. Those candidates who do not even want Michigan voters to consider them have sent their message to Michigan about how they feel about Michiganders."

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. Obama shouldn't get any delegates in Mi

Neither should Hilary.

That anybody can honestly assert that a contest between 2 people can be fairly judged by an election where 1 of them wasn't even a choice on the ballot is astounding.

[JayFredMuggs]

13. I agree as well

This is Alice through the looking glass type of thinking.

Ok, I'll give Hillary something in FL. But to call Michigan an "election" is tantamount to calling the old Soviet Union a democracy.

[flor de jasmim]

5. Kucinich was also on the ballot.

50-50 is the only fair way to go. Are the voters in those two states justified in getting angry? Yes. At the candidates, NO. If it is done in any way that alters the results of the election overall, that is unfair to the 48 states plus territories who did follow the rules. It is a slap in the face: well, you all have to follow the rules, but because FL and MI are big states, they are "worth" more in the equation.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. LOL

How on earth is it fair to give 50% to somebody who didn't get 50% in one state where he was on the ballot, and CHOSE not to run in the other state?

I didn't run in MI, either - should I demand 50% of the delegates?

[JayFredMuggs]

9. Please read the question, and answer it

Please don't READ INTO IT something that was not asked.

Answer why Hillary wants more than what she earned.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. I've already answered it.

She should get more than 50% of the delegates because she got more than 50% of the votes.

[JayFredMuggs]

14. But where was there an "election:"?

The voting that took place in Michigan was not authorized. Candidates, (including Hillary)agreed not to participate. So how is this an event from which Hillary alone should benefit?

How many delegates should she get for this non-event in Michigan, and why?

[MonkeyFunk]

15. There were elections in Michigan and Florida

Clinton got >50% of the vote in both.

[NashVegas]

11. If You Want Proportional Reprsentation, Obama Should Get 0% Michegan, 33% of Fla Delegates

Or accept a do-over of their primaries.

[MessiahRp]

31. Clintonites will be upset if they have a do over.

She can only win this big when she has his name off the ballot or he's not campaigning in person and winning people over to vote for him.

If they truly have a re-do he'll more than make up ground and make it close enough to make a win for her, should she even win the second time around, negligable at best.

People also forget that with Michigan and Florida a lot of voters who might have voted for Obama stayed home because they didn't think their vote would count due to the rules violations that their states had partaken in.

Besides the Clintonites want ALL the delegates for the state. If she even gets a proportional split she still won't have enough delegates to make a difference or grab the lead.

Their "We have no shot in hell" strategy is as follows

1. Win ALL of the remaining states convincingly (not going to happen)
2. Steal all of FL and MI's delegates... do not accept do overs or 50/50 splits because you need all of them. (not going to happen)
3. Declare Caucuses illegal and fight for those states to not count (not going to succeed)
4. Sway a ton of Superdelegates to vote for her (less likely to happen now that they are all going for Obama)
5. Steal Pledged Delegates and eliminate the will of the primary voters (unlikely to change much)

All in all she's not going to have a pledged delegate lead, a superdelegate lead, more states won nor the popular vote. There's no reason for her to continue.

Rp

[Life Long Dem]

16. She doesn't want the votes counted anyway. For the 3 months so she can say they were not counted.

So the people then will give her the nomination because of this.

[Mezzo]

19. Because YOU don't get to mitigate the will of the people with a compromise.

Obama turned his back on the people of Michigan when he removed his name from the ballot. That was the mistake he made. Now he has to live with the consequences.

Hillary, in turn, did not abandon the People. Your guy did.

And if polls are your thing, kindly remove all of the repig votes for Obama in the open red state caucuses so the Democratic nomination is decided by fucking democrats.

Thanks.

[JayFredMuggs]

21. You seem to misunderstand the question... and then

answer with swears. Have a nice day.

Obama turned his back? Do you have a link?

Obama "abandoned" the People? Do you have a link to that, too?

Since when do Democrats alone select a U S President?

[slinkerwink]

26. you are wrong. It was the state parties that broke the rules. Clinton broke the rules too.

[Zynx]

20. Even though I stopped supporting her, in the interest of fairness she won

Florida by 17% or so. A proportional system would give her a pretty solid majority of delegates in Florida.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

22. RE: Why should Hillary get more than 50%?

1) There were 4 names in addition to uncommitted on the Michigan ballot. The 4 candidates that used bad judgment when removing their names from the Michigan ballot have no one to blame but themselves.

2) All 8 candidates were on the ballot in Florida. All candidates that ignored Florida only have themselves to blame. To say Floridians were unaware of what was happing in the campaign is disingenuous at best. There were 17 televised debates before our primary. We have newspapers, magazines, and books to read on the candidates. We have the Internet to read over the candidates websites and to watch their speeches and campaign commercials on youtube and other video sites. We have radio and television. The MSM bombarded everyone with campaign coverage this year. There were campaign signs on peoples lawns and at intersections. People had bumper stickers on their cars and many people even plasters them to public street signs.

3) Delegates should be assigned how they were won in the two legal elections that occurred. Anything else would be fraudulent.

[JayFredMuggs]

23. I would agree with you, if the elections were "legal".

Delegates should be assigned how they were won in the two legal elections that occurred. Anything else would be fraudulent.

Obama would still be ahead by a wide margin of delegates.

So why is this such an issue for Hillary supporters?

[Florida22ndDistrict]

34. re: I would agree with you, if the elections were "legal".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, I am a Florida voter. The importance is to represent the people how they voted. In Florida Clinton had 50% so that is what she should get. Obama had 33% so that is what he should get. In Michigan Clinton had 55% so that is what she should get. Uncommitted got 40% so that is how many uncommitted delegates should go to the convention. In the Florida contest 17% are unaccounted for and in the Michigan contest 5% are unaccounted for. These remaining delegates should be split up based on the ratio of those that do receive delegates (e.g. Clinton, Obama, & Uncommitted). The reason Clinton deserves over 50% is because she earned it in one contest and she would get it in the other contest when the outstanding delegates are proportionally distributed. I didn't vote for Clinton on January 29, 2008 but many in my state did and they deserve to have their voice hear just as much as I do.

* By the way you can drop the quotes on legal, because by all definitions of election law they were legal as can be. The discrepancy lies in how a private organization (i.e. Political party) has interpreted the results of said elections based on organizational rules which violate their own charter.

[OzarkDem]

42. Agree, thanks n/t

[exsoccermom]

38. Look at the full general election ballots for FL and MI

(okay, they have not been printed yet) but for EVERY office except president, the candidates were selected by these same primaries. Those primaries were VERY legal. The DNC just threw a hissy fit over the date of the elections (because they didn't want to upset IA,NH and other states that traditionally had early votes). (And certain candidates, pandering to the IA, NH, etc. contests removed their names from the MI ballot.

[TexasObserver]

41. The party should punish Michigan and Florida by stripping their superdelegates.

THAT would send the message, by eliminating the party officials and elected officials who contrived to thwart the party rules.

Split the delegations 50-50 for Clinton and Obama, and then she could whine all she wants, but she'd have all the pledged delegates she would be entitled to, and those states would have delegations.

[Vinca]

43. If I was a wealthy person, I would put the tape of Hillary talking

about how the Michigan and Florida elections weren't going to count in a commercial and I'd run it nationwide around the clock. There has to be a meeting of the minds on this. Hillary is not entitled to more than 50% of the delegates. If normal elections had been held and had counted, Edwards would have done very well in Michigan. Obama would have done equally well. The other candidates - Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, Gravel - would have also gotten votes. Hillary probably would have gotten about a third of the vote. In Florida, Hillary most likely would have won, but Obama, coming out of a big South Carolina win, would have nearly tied her if he had run a Florida campaign. I've heard all kinds of people say they stayed home because the vote wasn't going to count - Obama voters and Hillary voters. This point was also the cusp when black voters realized Obama was a viable candidate and began to come out in huge numbers. Bottom line, if conditions were reversed, Hillary would be fighting just as hard to keep the votes from counting.