What should happen to Michigan and Florida's delagates? I think it is important for the Dems to work out some compromise to get them seated, but an illegitimate vote shouldn't have an effect on the election. My list of choices from most to least preferable is as follows:

1) Hold a real primary, with both candidates on the ballot and with the opportunity to campaign. This is obviously the most expensive and logistically challenging, and requires the State to step up (not likely in Florida).

2) Hold party caucuses/"firehouse" primary. Also challenging, but the party could hold them without much help from the State. It would give the voters an actual choice.

3) Split delegates by proportion of the national popular vote.

4) Split delegates by proportion of national elected delegate count.

5) Split delegates 50/50. NOTE: There won't be that big a difference in the proportional split between 3, 4, and 5. The voters won't have a say but at least they are seated at the convention.

6) Don't seat Florida and Michigan at all. They broke the rules, knowing the consequences. If they don't budge, this is the fallback (which is very undesirable).

7) Allocate the delegates by the unsanctioned primaries that already took place. This would be ridiculous in my opinion, as Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot and all candidates agreed that neither election counted and not to campaign (which HRC did anyway at the end in Florida). These elections had about the legitimacy of a Saddam election in Iraq, or a rigged Eastern Bloc election. It would be like 2 NFL teams playing a preseason game, having a regular season game called off for weather, and deciding to count the preseason game instead of playing the game.

Thoughts?

2/20/2008 9:26:09 AM

Don't give them seats. They were warned about what would happen and they ignored the rules that were set by the national party. They weren't take by surprise by any means.

2/20/2008 9:31:47 AM

i think i heard on the radio this morning (but i wasn't really listening) that if Clinton and Obama remain neck-and-neck, if they don't count Michigan and Florida, then neither of them might not get to the required 2025 to win, because the delegates from Michigan and Florida are still counted in the overall delegate count and therefor also in the "required to win" calculation.

Seems simple to me - just remove the michigan and florida delegates from the overall count, then recalculate the number of delegates required to win. simple as that

2/20/2008 9:52:06 AM

They shouldnt seat them. Changing the rules after the fact shouldnt be allowed. They tried it once already.

2/20/2008 10:19:20 AM

Quote :

"Don't give them seats. They were warned about what would happen and they ignored the rules that were set by the national party. They weren't take by surprise by any means."

agreed.

but....

Edwards and Obama agreed to remove their names from Michigan's ballot. Clinton kept her name on, and got 50% of the vote... by Michigan's reckoning, she is awarded half of their delegates.

i think a similar thing happened in florida.

I really expect Hillary to bring a lawsuit against the DNC to get those delegates.

2/20/2008 1:26:43 PM

1) Clinton's name was the only one on the Michigan ballot.
2) Every candidate other than Clinton kept their promise to not campaign in Florida.

It's pretty easy to see why she wants to count those states... seeing how the contests there were completely fair to all candidates.

Wow. As bad is the Republican party is the Democratic party always finds a way to look worse in comparison.

Tell you what. She can have those states counted if they remove her name from the Ohio ballot and someone locks her behind bars (cause she wouldn't just keep her word) to prevent her from campaigning in Texas.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM. Reason : -]

2/20/2008 1:32:52 PM

Quote :

"Don't give them seats. They were warned about what would happen and they ignored the rules that were set by the national party. They weren't take by surprise by any means."

^^ And, yes, the Clintons will rip the party apart if that's what it takes to further their own ambitions. If anyone thinks the Clintons will put the party above their own political aspirations, they're seriously mistaken.

^ Indeed.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 1:33:48 PM

Quote :

"Wow. As bad evil is the Republican party is the Democratic party always finds a way to look worse like amateurish petty little turds in comparison."

2/20/2008 1:40:55 PM

^Yeah, that version is much better.

2/20/2008 1:47:26 PM

waiting for Socks to make an appearance. . .

2/20/2008 2:08:24 PM

Quote :

"just remove the michigan and florida delegates from the overall count, then recalculate the number of delegates required to win. simple as that"

thats actually not half bad of an idea...

after the math, that means that the winner would have to get approximately 1,712 delegates to be declared the winner. (2380 minus florida and michigan gives 2014, and you need approximately 85% of the delegates to be declared the winner)

If Obama wins Ohio and Texas, he'd only be 8 delegates short of the nomination if you went by that math.

(Texas has 289 and Ohio has 161, although Vermont and Rhode Island are the same day as those two, so then he'd probably have it)

2/20/2008 2:12:03 PM

holding another primary is way too expensive....and holding a caucuses would be an advantage to Obama since he has won all of them.

They just shouldnt count.

I also think they already took out the MI and FL ones from the total needed to win...heck, even the super delegates from this states will not be seated.

Obama is far behind in OH, and even further behind in PA. I think it will be 50/50 in Texas...there is no way Obama wins this thing unless Hillary gives up(she has already said she will go to Denver). Once Ohio and PA and even Rhode Island(most of the polls shows Hillary ahead by double digits) are counted, it will be closer, maybe 100 delegates seperating them when it goes to the convention.

I read that in order for the Super delegates not to mater, both would have to win 65% of the remaining delegates...and that will not happen. We are going to Denver for the decision, where, if history is any guide, the Dem will loose in the general.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : w]

2/20/2008 2:17:45 PM

I think they should just have another primary. The economic cost is minimal when compared to the political damage it would create.

2/20/2008 2:37:15 PM

damnit, my math is wrong. the dems actually 3253 delegates. i dont think that they've already taken out Florida and Michigan in their overall delegate count.

so the nominee needs 62% of the pledged delegates, which is 1790 delegates, instead of 2025, so not really that huge of a difference.

if they have taken out Florida and Michigan's delegates in the overall count, then I guess this thread is pointless

2/20/2008 3:01:39 PM

Quote :

"I think they should just have another primary. The economic cost is minimal when compared to the political damage it would create. "

Did you not learn anything from 2000? You cant change the rules after the fact bc you didnt like the results. THey all knew the rules before, dont count them.

2/20/2008 3:05:15 PM

and i agree with the good doctor.

2/22/2008 12:24:19 AM

What people other than hillary clinton and her army of water babies think this is a good or fair idea?

2/22/2008 12:39:16 AM

only Billary thinks this is a good idea

2/22/2008 1:44:00 AM

Quote :

"If Obama wins Ohio and Texas, he'd only be 8 delegates short of the nomination if you went by that math."

most of the Democratic primaries are not winner-take-all, like the Republican primaries are. So even as much attention and focus Obama is getting for "winning" all these states, it really doesn't mean much as far as distancing himself from Clinton, because if he splits the vote 60-40%, so will the delegates (roughly).

Texas is even weirder, where they have a primary during the day where something like 75% of the delegates are decided from the primary results, then they have a caucus that evening, only available for people who voted in the primary, to determine the remaining delegates. Also in Texas, the two biggest districts where Dallas and Austin are have 5 and 6 delegates each, but apparently basically all of the rest of the districts have 4 delegates. That means that in all likelihood, most of those districts will split their delegates evenly because either candidate would have to win a very large majority to make the delegate count 3-1

2/22/2008 7:58:26 AM

Doesn't it all come down to the super delegates? I haven't done the math or anything, but I thought what it boils down to is that since Obama has swept the vote lately the only way Clinton can still win is to strong-arm the super delegates into ignoring the will of the ignorant masses.

Of course I hope HRC wins because there is no way that that bumbling old fool can stand up to
Obama. You'd have someone who is drawing 10's of thousands of motivated political operatives/ followers to this old guy who stumbled into the nomination simply because the conservative vote was split.

Sure on paper when it comes to the issues McCain is refreshingly different than Obama, but McCain is going to need to step it up with countering media mischaracterizations. And even if he does that, its still a hard road against Obama because Obama is just so much better at communicating.

Where is Socks with the Clinton talking points?

2/22/2008 8:21:09 AM

Quote :

"Texas is even weirder"

i didnt realize that, about the 4 delegate per district thing... thats a pretty bizarre setup they have.

Quote :

"Doesn't it all come down to the super delegates?"

pretty much, unless either of them can completely sweep the remaining big states like TX, OH, PA... which is about impossible. best it's going to be is a 2:1 split of delegates.

if Obama goes into the DNC with the majority of pledged delegates, but then Clinton does the political strongarm tactics for super delegates and/or pulls legal shenanigans to get MI and FL ghost delegates, the Democratic party will be in a world of hurt.

I'm hopeful -- but not at all confident -- that if Obama goes in with majority of pledged delegates, the Superdelegates will as a group give their support to Obama.

2/22/2008 10:39:08 AM

How is it that the right can call people ignorant masses and no one claims they're being elitist, but if it goes the other way around, it's the elitist democrats in their ivory tower, out of touch with the people?

2/22/2008 11:49:00 AM

Quote :

"i didnt realize that, about the 4 delegate per district thing... thats a pretty bizarre setup they have."

i'm just saying what I heard on the radio. I don't think that it's necessarily "on purpose" that all the other districts have 4 delegates, it's just that they apparently tried to evenly split up the state into districts by population, and when they do that, most of the districts end up with 4 delegates. As such, though, it would require each district to swing strongly one way or the other to split the vote 3-1, and almost impossible of course for 4-0

2/22/2008 11:57:15 AM

^^ maybe because I was speaking on the part of the Clintonistas who would stoop to that level of strong-arm tactics, ignoring the popular vote... apparently the democrat masses are not smart enough to decide on Obama... it must be left up to the super delegates. This is implicit within her campaign if she does not succeed to Obama soon. She apparently believes that a few super delegates are more important than the will of the people generally.

I don't personally care. I just find it to be a rather hypocritical position for a party which has spent the last 8 years bellyaching about 2000 to be in.

2/22/2008 8:57:55 PM

As I said in another thread:

Quote :

"It's a good thing Gov. Crist is demanding the DNC fix the problem he created. "

3/7/2008 3:22:40 AM

I heard someone on the radio recast the question as:

"Should Michigan and Florida get Amnesty?"

Makes a lot of sense, I like the analogy. Why should we let the rules get in the way of political necessity?

3/7/2008 5:58:28 PM

if Hillary would just give up and be VP, we wouldn't have to deal with this problem.

3/7/2008 6:00:31 PM

they got to decide by monday....i'm guessing they are going to come to a comprimise...they know the voters in michigan and florida will be pissed if their votes are not counted

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ^yeah fucking really]

3/7/2008 6:01:19 PM

Quote :

"It's a good thing Gov. Crist is demanding the DNC fix the problem he created. "

LOL. Yeah, Crist created it. You kids believe anything.

"The Florida house voted 118-0 this afternoon on legislation that now only needs the signature of Governor Charlie Crist to become law. Crist said this afternoon he will sign it"

3/7/2008 6:34:34 PM

the democrats originally did not want to move the date...the republicans added that on

3/7/2008 6:41:02 PM

^no the DNC didnt want florida to move up the date. All democrates in the florida house of reps did want the date moved. You can try to soley place the blame on republicans all you want, but its really a stupid arguement.

3/7/2008 9:09:12 PM

from what i heard the dems wanted to make sure there was some kinda stipulation on the vote counting, and so the repubs made them put in the part on moving up the date.....something about the govenor vetoeing the part the dems wanted to take out or some shit and something about having a republican majority

3/7/2008 9:24:41 PM

^haha. Yeah, where do you kids hear this shit? Do you just make it up, or just pass it along?

"The Florida House of Representatives voted to move up the state's presidential primary date to Jan. 29 of next year, a move that might mean the New Hampshire Primary could occur earlier than ever.

The Florida house voted 118-0 this afternoon on legislation that now only needs the signature of Governor Charlie Crist to become law. Crist said this afternoon he will sign it."



http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/05/florida_moves_u.html

3/7/2008 9:28:50 PM

so why exactly did they do that again? and why would the dnc punish them? you just blew my mind

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2008 9:30:59 PM

Bush threatened to blow thier levees of course. Or use the hurricane machine again. LOL

They moved it up, like other states, so they became more "important" to the primary process. And like Michigan Gov. said

"In a statement, Granholm said the early primary will "lead to greater emphasis on issues that matter to all Americans." It will also no doubt bring a greater emphasis on Michigan, which is exactly what she wanted.

3/7/2008 9:35:57 PM

why didnt they just join in with all the super duper tuesday people?

3/7/2008 9:37:27 PM

Leaders of both major political parties have tried to enforce a calendar in which only a few states are allowed to hold their voting early. But several states, including Michigan and Florida, have bucked those rules, hoping to gain more influence over the nominating process by voting when the race is still wide open.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/01/AR2007120100722.html

That is a pretty good read for you dnl. Should answer some questions you might have. Hope that helps.

3/7/2008 9:37:35 PM

so if clinton paid the whole thing for a redo would you be opposed to that?

3/7/2008 9:40:14 PM

3/7/2008 9:44:43 PM

actually dnl, I dont really care. The more chaos the better for that party. But I do think its wrong to have any revote. Like ive said before, they knew the rules before now deal with the consequences. But that party sure hates that word.

Just please whoever you "heard" it from that the republicans pushed it up against the dems will, please set them straight. This is nothing more than bigger states getting jealous of other states getting so much attention in the early primaries.

Terp, you gonna post that everywhere until someone responds? Yes he looks great, but sounds like a socialist. Passes the eye test, fails the common sense one. LOL After you listen to him for a bit, the heading of that picture is pretty accurate. haha

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2008 9:46:42 PM

^^its arrogance like that that could very well undermine the democratic party in 2008

^personally i think the democrats actually planned for this...this election has been nuts and over the top to not be kinda planned out


[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2008 9:46:55 PM

I disagree. I think most experts and probably most at the DNC thought that Hildabeast would have it wrapped up by super tues. I think thats evident by the fact she signed the agreement to not have those states seated, but now wants them seated.

Sadly the guy running that actually has a good resume for prez, for dems, was richardson..but he didnt make much of a splash. It seemed to be more of a "forget qualifications, who is going to be the first ____ to be prez."

3/7/2008 9:53:07 PM

you dont think this is some scheme to keep it away from dems versus repubs and keep it strictly dem on dem for a while...and while they do, the iraqi violence will go back up, economy will keep doing shitty, and pretty much guarentee a democratic victory in november?

3/7/2008 9:58:48 PM

No, I dont think evidence supports it. In fact most are calling for a compromise or one to drop bc it hurts the party. They will be spending time/money attacking eachother and dividing the party vs attacking mccain.

Iraq is going much better, as evidence by lack of coverage. Dems pinned their future on Iraq failures, and there have been plenty. The truth is we will start to scale back our forces within a year due to success of teh surge. "how do I know that?" Well I listen to the man who SHOULD be making the decisions and that is Gen Petraeus. "General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is drawing up plans to pull more troops out of the country after July on the back of a sharp drop in attacks and long-awaited progress on the political front."

Good news in Iraq could torpedo BHO's run quickly. Thats probably why thats first time you've heard of that I imagine.

The economy is probably headed to a recession. Is bush to blame? Congress? I personally dont think so. You've got a credit crunch, housing crisis that was caused by americans living above thier means. I say, we NEED the market to adjust and we should allow it. Gas prices are hurting us alot too. ANWR 7 years ago would have been nice huh. Dont forget Hillary claiming cheaper gas in 2006 if democrats are elected. That will come up again in a general election if the economy flounders. I doubt we have much of one that carries until the end of this year. But the first quarter or two might be a little rough. Besides, what better way out of a recession than to raise taxes and capital gains taxes...hahah. I dont think that hurts republicans as much as you think.

3/7/2008 10:13:02 PM

Quote :

"General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is drawing up plans to pull more troops out of the country after July on the back of a sharp drop in attacks and long-awaited progress on the political front."

attacks are kinda on the rise and the more we draw out the more i see it going back to how it was...i have yet to really hear any political progress...if so, as you said, iraq would be in the news more

3/7/2008 10:15:56 PM

Here is another good read for you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3406008.ece

No, what I said was good news in iraq means bad news for democrats esp BHO.

Think of the last Iraq news story you heard. I imagine it was about a bombing right, and probably about a month ago. Shit even Angelia Jolie said things are improving, I can assure you she is no warmongerer republican.

Here is a great one to read on the decrease in coverage as things improve. Its well written and contains facts.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/02/01/u-s-troops-succeed-network-news-retreats-iraq-war-story

3/7/2008 10:24:55 PM

Florida...

Can we kick it out of the union yet?

3/8/2008 10:18:51 AM

them and texas

3/8/2008 2:36:36 PM

Quote :

"No, what I said was good news in iraq means bad news for democrats esp BHO. "

I don't really think that's the case.

It seems a lot of people for a pull out hold their opinion on the basis of being tired of american troops dying, not on the fact that Iraq was a failure. Most people I know, know of someone who was injured or died in Iraq. But these same people couldn't tell you what a sunni or shiite was.

3/8/2008 2:55:37 PM

Quote :

"I think they should just have another primary. The economic cost is minimal when compared to the political damage it would create."

Who pays? The DNC said they won't pay and that the states should pony up the money. Why should the Republicans be taxed to hold a democratic primary? It's a mess of the democrats making and they want to tax the citizens to hold a do over.

The DNC should pay if they hold another primary.

3/8/2008 4:57:18 PM