Obama willing to go "more than half-way" on Florida and Michigan

[Ravi]

I don't think smarmy bastard is a bit much. He's turning into the GWB of the left.

 

[ReillyT]

The DNC is ignoring their own rules. The rules STATE half should count anyway.

Well, perhaps you are right, although I have my doubts. It probably isn't relevant because 50% will end up being counted.

 

[ReillyT]

I don't think smarmy bastard is a bit much. He's turning into the GWB of the left.

I don't see it. What exactly is smarmy about not wanting to count votes in states where it was decided votes would not be count, where there wasn't campaigning, and where his name (in the case of Michigan) wasn't even on the ballot? Feel free to disagree with it, but it seems reasonable to me. However, you are free not to vote for him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, perhaps you are right, although I have my doubts. It probably isn't relevant because 50% will end up being counted.

It is relevant because Obama is demanding he get half of the seated delegates. The rules are clear and are being ignored. 50 percent are to be seated, no requirement for agreement from Obama is needed. He is , with the help of the DNC, blackmailing Hillary and flaunting the rules.

Further the rules state that NONE of the Super Delegates from those two States can be counted. These rules are not new, they existed before this cycle ever began.

Obama is cheating with the help of the DNC.

 

[ReillyT]

It is relevant because Obama is demanding he get half of the seated delegates. The rules are clear and are being ignored. 50 percent are to be seated, no requirement for agreement from Obama is needed. He is , with the help of the DNC, blackmailing Hillary and flaunting the rules.

Further the rules state that NONE of the Super Delegates from those two States can be counted. These rules are not new, they existed before this cycle ever began.

Obama is cheating with the help of the DNC.

The rules are clear, and they allow the DNC to strip the states of all of their delegates if they wish. Specifically, rule 20(c)(5) provides that nothing in the automatic sanction provisions shall be construed to prevent the...

"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C.

20(c)(6)
Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules, where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section C. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: reduction of the state’s delegation..."

Now, can we finally do away with this fiction that the DNC didn't have authority to strip all the delegates. The rules allow it, as the legal opinion of the DNC makes perfectly clear.

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

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/michigan-analysis/?resultpage=3&

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The rules are clear, and they allow the DNC to strip the states of all of their delegates if they wish. Specifically, rule 20(c)(5) provides that nothing in the automatic sanction provisions shall be construed to prevent the...

"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C.

20(c)(6)
Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules, where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section C. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: reduction of the state’s delegation..."

Now, can we finally do away with this fiction that the DNC didn't have authority to strip all the delegates. The rules allow it, as the legal opinion of the DNC makes perfectly clear.

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

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/michigan-analysis/?resultpage=3&

They do NOT have the power or right to award delegates to Obama he did NOT win.

 

[ReillyT]

They do NOT have the power or right to award delegates to Obama he did NOT win.

I don't know. The DNC has broad authority over the manner of delegate selection. With respect to Florida, the delegates could just be allocated according to the results of the primary. With respect to Michigan, since Obama was just included among the "uncommitted" option, it seems to me that you would be right that it would be unfair to provide him the proportion of the uncommitted votes. That is why I don't think Michigan can be counted at all. However, I am sure that the DNC has some means at their disposal to seat 50% delegates without preference, and probably have them take part in all other parts of the conference, except for those portions dealing with the selection of the nominee. So, they would get to go to the conference, wear the silly hats, vote on the platform, but not vote for either Clinton and Obama.

 

[Care4all]

I don't know. The DNC has broad authority over the manner of delegate selection. With respect to Florida, the delegates could just be allocated according to the results of the primary. With respect to Michigan, since Obama was just included among the "uncommitted" option, it seems to me that you would be right that it would be unfair to provide him the proportion of the uncommitted votes. That is why I don't think Michigan can be counted at all. However, I am sure that the DNC has some means at their disposal to seat 50% delegates without preference, and probably have them take part in all other parts of the conference, except for those portions dealing with the selection of the nominee. So, they would get to go to the conference, wear the silly hats, vote on the platform, but not vote for either Clinton and Obama.

Good Morning Again....(are we still arguing over technicalities?)

I would bet that Michigan won't accept such a HALLOW solution...that would be like NOT seating the State AT ALL....the purpose of seating the state delegates IS TO HAVE YOUR CITIZEN'S VOTE counted and registered thru their delegates for who they chose to be the Presidential nominee.

Michigan, because Obama and edwards and Biden took their names off the ballot, which was not part of their pledge with the Early Primary States, and put Michigan in a hard spot. Michigan sent out a guide to ALL of their democratic voters and told them HOW important it was for them to register their voices by voting.

THE MICHIGAN RULES for allocating their delegates, that were IN PLACE BEFORE the Primary, was that if you wanted Hillary, vote for her, but if you wanted Biden, or Edwards, or Obama, please check the uncommitted spot, and DO NOT WRITE IN the candidate's name because according to the rules, those write ins would not count and would not give them the proper delegate amounts to go to the Dem Convention....

A pre poll and exit poll was done and Obama recieved about 11% of the vote, according to the polling.

HOWEVER, according to the Michigan Rules, the uncommitted vote delegates allocated, would be sent to the convention and not commit to their candidate until THEN....

At most, Obama should receive 11% of those delegates now, and the rest should committ at the convention....imo

Care

 

[ReillyT]

Good Morning Again....(are we still arguing over technicalities?)

I would bet that Michigan won't accept such a HALLOW solution...that would be like NOT seating the State AT ALL....the purpose of seating the state delegates IS TO HAVE YOUR CITIZEN'S VOTE counted and registered thru their delegates for who they chose to be the Presidential nominee.

Michigan, because Obama and edwards and Biden took their names off the ballot, which was not part of their pledge with the Early Primary States, and put Michigan in a hard spot. Michigan sent out a guide to ALL of their democratic voters and told them HOW important it was for them to register their voices by voting.

THE MICHIGAN RULES for allocating their delegates, that were IN PLACE BEFORE the Primary, was that if you wanted Hillary, vote for her, but if you wanted Biden, or Edwards, or Obama, please check the uncommitted spot, and DO NOT WRITE IN the candidate's name because according to the rules, those write ins would not count and would not give them the proper delegate amounts to go to the Dem Convention....

A pre poll and exit poll was done and Obama recieved about 11% of the vote, according to the polling.

HOWEVER, according to the Michigan Rules, the uncommitted vote delegates allocated, would be sent to the convention and not commit to their candidate until THEN....

At most, Obama should receive 11% of those delegates now, and the rest should committ at the convention....imo

Care

Unfortunately for the people of Michigan, their legislature fucked up. Because it is impossible to say what percentage Obama would have received, and once again, acknowledging that a vote without campaigning isn't fair, I don't see any way to seat this delegation, except without a voice in the nomination process. However, perhaps once Obama has enough superdelegates that it won't matter anyway, he will push that the delegates get seated whatever their vote preference.

THE DNC had the authority to strip Michigan of all of its votes. The DNC did so. Seems silly to pretend that they didn't do what they did, and accept the flawed election anyway.

 

[Gunny]

You don't think "smarmy bastard" is a bit much? The DNC said these votes wouldn't count. To count them now would be unfair and prejudicial to Obama's campaign. Why should he be willing to let them count? To the extent he has any say in the matter, he will try to make sure that if they do count, they do so only to an extent not to change the outcome of the nomination process. Not only would any politician do the same, but many people who aren't politicians feel the same.

Not counting them would be unfair and prejudicial to Hillary's campaign. The DNC has ALREADY changed the outcome of the nomination process.

What's your point?

I thought smarmy bastard was rather conservative considering him and the frothing at the mouth leftist jackasses that are his supporters.

 

[ReillyT]

Not counting them would be unfair and prejudicial to Hillary's campaign. The DNC has ALREADY changed the outcome of the nomination process.

What's your point?

I thought smarmy bastard was rather conservative considering him and the frothing at the mouth leftist jackasses that are his supporters.

Well, as a frothing at the mouth leftist jackass, I don't think she is prejudiced at all (except perhaps in the narrowest definition). She knew several months before the primary season started that these votes wouldn't count. All the candidates knew this. All the candidates campaigned and structured their campaigns on this basis. I don't think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, are only required to abide by the same standards as all other candidates, and the situation set out in advance comes to pass.

I would think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, rely upon that information, and are after the fact told that the basis upon which they relied is going to be reversed.

 

[Gunny]

Well, as a frothing at the mouth leftist jackass, I don't think she is prejudiced at all (except perhaps in the narrowest definition). She knew several months before the primary season started that these votes wouldn't count. All the candidates knew this. All the candidates campaigned and structured their campaigns on this basis. I don't think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, are only required to abide by the same standards as all other candidates, and the situation set out in advance comes to pass.

I would think one is prejudiced when they are informed of a situation early, rely upon that information, and are after the fact told that the basis upon which they relied is going to be reversed.

Ummm ... no? She did not know well in advance since they only didn't count when FL and MI didn't cowtow to DNC authority. The same DNC that went apeshit over votes in FL in 2000 that didn't count because of admin incorrectness. Then it was "the GOP's disenfranchising voters ... wah, wah, wah ...."

But the DNC will disenfranchise 2 states for the same damned thing? Then turn around and discount the primary that was held for some redo.

Bullshit. That's all it is.

And if you're an Obama supporter you need to have your head checked.

 

[Nate Peele]

The Dumocrats should get their heads out of their asses. We solved this problem right away by awarding half delegates to Florida when they decided to have that early primary. Dumocrats should have done the same.

 

[ReillyT]

Ummm ... no? She did not know well in advance since they only didn't count when FL and MI didn't cowtow to DNC authority. The same DNC that went apeshit over votes in FL in 2000 that didn't count because of admin incorrectness. Then it was "the GOP's disenfranchising voters ... wah, wah, wah ...."

But the DNC will disenfranchise 2 states for the same damned thing? Then turn around and discount the primary that was held for some redo.

Bullshit. That's all it is.

And if you're an Obama supporter you need to have your head checked.

The decision to strip the delegates was made in August. The Michigan primary was in January. The Iowa caucus was also in January. That seems like advanced notice to me.

The DNC is not counting the delegates from these states for jumping the primary calendar. One can disagree whether the punishment fits the crime, or whether the DNC should care about the order of primaries, but they have reasons, and it is up to the DNC to attribute whatever significance they wish to the primary schedule. If some feel this is inconsistent with the DNC position in 2000 (and I don't), that is fine, but it doesn't mean she was unfairly prejudiced. I would think one is unfairly prejudiced when they are told A will happen and B occurs instead, not when they are told in advance that A will happen, and A happens. That doesn't strike me as particularly unfair.

 

[Care4all]

Not counting them would be unfair and prejudicial to Hillary's campaign. The DNC has ALREADY changed the outcome of the nomination process.

What's your point?

I thought smarmy bastard was rather conservative considering him and the frothing at the mouth leftist jackasses that are his supporters.

They ABSOLUTELY without a doubt in my mind, set it up so that Hillary would lose the Nomination....two of her strongest states, with the MOST delegates at state, were taken OUT COMPLETELY from the Primary Race....

INSTEAD OF JUST CUTTING THEIR VOTE IN HALF, as the rules stated, they WENT WAY OVERBOARD and showed their arrogance and power and control and said these states would NOT BE SEATED AT ALL.....

Without ONE consideration of these states and their voices being heard, without one consideration to how disenfranchisement of the member's votes would hurt them SOOOOOOOOOOOOO BADLY in the long run with ALL of the citizens of these states

AND on top of this the entire remaining Primary was skewed towards Obama because the AT LEAST HALF delegates of these states were not counting in Hillary's column...

THEY SCREWED HER BIGTIME....because of what they did, out of pure arrogance!

And Good Morning Gunny

Care

 

[ReillyT]

They ABSOLUTELY without a doubt in my mind, set it up so that Hillary would lose the Nomination....two of her strongest states, with the MOST delegates at state, were taken OUT COMPLETELY from the Primary Race....

INSTEAD OF JUST CUTTING THEIR VOTE IN HALF, as the rules stated, they WENT WAY OVERBOARD and showed their arrogance and power and control and said these states would NOT BE SEATED AT ALL.....

Without ONE consideration of these states and their voices being heard, without one consideration to how disenfranchisement of the member's votes would hurt them SOOOOOOOOOOOOO BADLY in the long run with ALL of the citizens of these states

AND on top of this the entire remaining Primary was skewed towards Obama because the AT LEAST HALF delegates of these states were not counting in Hillary's column...

THEY SCREWED HER BIGTIME....because of what they did, out of pure arrogance!

And Good Morning Gunny

Care

Care, this was done in August, when Clinton was cleaning up in the polls. Why do you think is all part of an anti-Clinton conspiracy? At the time, it was envisioned that she would probably walk through the primary calendar.

I also question whether these are two of her biggest states. In August, it wasn't clear where she would perform strongest, except that New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Arkansas would all be headed her way. Why, for instance, would Michigan be counted as a Clinton stronghold, as opposed to say... Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, etc.?

Further, at the time, no candidate had stronger support within the DNC than Clinton. If you look at the superdelegates that committed before the primaries started, nearly every DNC official backed Clinton.

I am sorry. The idea that this action was taken to negatively affect Clinton, as opposed to just punishing states for jumping the calendar, is quite a stretch.

In August, Clinton was beating Obama by about an average of 20% in polls that were taken. In October, her lead had jumped to about 30%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

 

[Steerpike]

They ABSOLUTELY without a doubt in my mind, set it up so that Hillary would lose the Nomination....two of her strongest states, with the MOST delegates at state, were taken OUT COMPLETELY from the Primary Race....

At the time the decision was made, the DNC didn't think it would prevent Hillary from getting the nomination. Quite the opposite - they thought at the time she was going to walk away with it. So did Hillary, which led to poor campaigning and her eventual loss.

 

[Care4all]

At the time the decision was made, the DNC didn't think it would prevent Hillary from getting the nomination. Quite the opposite - they thought at the time she was going to walk away with it. So did Hillary, which led to poor campaigning and her eventual loss.

But how could they possibly think that disenfranchising the citizens in two of the biggest states in Hillary's favor, and one of the most critical states in winning a general election, Florida, could POSSIBLY HELP HILLARY?

I don't see it, in the least...?

care

 

[ReillyT]

But how could they possibly think that disenfranchising the citizens two of the biggest states in Hillary's favor, and one of the most critical states in winning a general election, Florida, could POSSIBLY HELP HILLARY?

I don't see it, in the least...?

care

Perhaps it had nothing to do with helping or hurting Clinton. I am sure it had nothing to do with alienating the population of Florida for the general election. Perhaps it occurred for exactly the reason they said: it was meant to keep the primary calendar in order.

 

[Steerpike]

But how could they possibly think that disenfranchising the citizens in two of the biggest states in Hillary's favor, and one of the most critical states in winning a general election, Florida, could POSSIBLY HELP HILLARY?

I don't see it, in the least...?

care

Like Reilly says they did it to keep out the chaos of a bunch of states moving their primaries, and Hillary was so far ahead they figured it wouldn't make a difference.