Florida delegates fully seated with one-half votes each

[Ravi]

Not really. You don't get the vote if poll taxes and grandfather clauses keep you from voting.

And no, sorry, women weren't slaves nor anywhere close to them. They had little power, but they weren't out there picking cotton.



Its not based on past harms. Its based on the perception that they are STILL disenfranchised. Which is why the black vote is going MUCH higher for Obama than the women vote is going for Hillary.

Even that is wrong. Most recently it has been women and those that voted for a woman that have been disenfranchised.

 

[dilloduck]

Even that is wrong. Most recently it has been women and those that voted for a woman that have been disenfranchised.

Only by the democrats-who woulda thunk it?

 

[Larkinn]

Even that is wrong. Most recently it has been women and those that voted for a woman that have been disenfranchised.

And those who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan weren't disenfranchised?

 

[Ravi]

And those who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan weren't disenfranchised?

Nope. Nothing prevented them from voting but their own laziness. If anyone didn't vote, that is.

 

[ReillyT]

Nope. Nothing prevented them from voting but their own laziness. If anyone didn't vote, that is.

Generally, the amount of effort one puts into something is related to the expected payoff. I don't know that I would describe it as laziness when someone doesn't vote after being told their vote won't count.

 

[Larkinn]

Nope. Nothing prevented them from voting but their own laziness. If anyone didn't vote, that is.

Umm, except that Obama wasn't on the ballot.

And what Reilly said.

 

[Larkinn]

Generally, the amount of effort one puts into something is related to the expected payoff. I don't know that I would describe it as laziness when someone doesn't vote after being told their vote won't count.

Or the people who didn't go out to vote cause their candidate wasn't on the ballot.

 

[ReillyT]

Or the people who didn't go out to vote cause their candidate wasn't on the ballot.

True as well.

 

[dilloduck]

Or the people who didn't go out to vote cause their candidate wasn't on the ballot.

No excuse---You can write in the candidate of your choosing

 

[Care4all]

i wonder why the 600,000 people came out to vote in Michigan when they supposedly knew their votes wouldn't count?

I wonder why the 1,750,000 people in florida came out to vote in Florida when they knew that their votes would not count?

Pure laziness and ignorance kept people from voting and this happens WITH EVERY ELECTION....

We do not go back in to the certified vote cast and accomodate all of the registered voters that do not come out and vote....

WE NEVER HAVE....

And even in Bush v gore....where the butterfly ballot in west palm beach, that was totally messed up and 15,000 voters voted for AlGore but it showed up in Pat Buchanons sp?, column, these voters were totally disenfranchised, the ruling was that they could NOT CHANGE the votes these people cast and make them what these people actually wanted....

this went to the SC thru suit, and they could not reallocate these votes to where the voter intended...

So I ask, how did the DNC GET AWAY with doing this in Michigan, change the actual certified vote, in to what they THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE, based on POLLING?

 

[Ravi]

Umm, except that Obama wasn't on the ballot.

And what Reilly said.

Oh, yeah, in Michigan Obama actually prevented them from voting for him.

 

[dilloduck]

i wonder why the 600,000 people came out to vote in Michigan when they supposedly knew their votes wouldn't count?

I wonder why the 1,750,000 people in florida came out to vote in Florida when they knew that their votes would not count?

Pure laziness and ignorance kept people from voting and this happens WITH EVERY ELECTION....

We do not go back in to the certified vote cast and accomodate all of the registered voters that do not come out and vote....

WE NEVER HAVE....

And even in Bush v gore....where the butterfly ballot in west palm beach, that was totally messed up and 15,000 voters voted for AlGore but it showed up in Pat Buchanons sp?, column, these voters were totally disenfranchised, the ruling was that they could NOT CHANGE the votes these people cast and make them what these people actually wanted....

this went to the SC thru suit, and they could not reallocate these votes to where the voter intended...

So I ask, how did the DNC GET AWAY with doing this in Michigan, change the actual certified vote, in to what they THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE, based on POLLING?

Because it's their primary and the can do whatever they want.

 

[Care4all]

Oh, yeah, in Michigan Obama actually prevented them from voting for him.

Correct....his goal was NOT to any of these votes count....for political gaining.

He not only took his name off the ballot, but he took his name off of the WRITE in votes, he did not file the paperwork to allow them to be counted even with the State of Michigan notifying him of such and sending him the paperwork...

HIS GOAL WAS NOT TO COUNT THE VOTES THERE BECAUSE HILLARY WAS BEATING HIM BIGTIME IN THE POLLS leading up to the Primary...

When Obama took his name off the ballot BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2007, Obama was ONLY POLLING 11% of the Michigan voters, Hillary was polling 45% back in October.

11%.....no wonder he took the position of NOT COUNTING MICHIGAN....makes sense politically....

 

[ReillyT]

Correct....his goal was NOT to any of these votes count....for political gaining.

He not only took his name off the ballot, but he took his name off of the WRITE in votes, he did not file the paperwork to allow them to be counted even with the State of Michigan notifying him of such and sending him the paperwork...

HIS GOAL WAS NOT TO COUNT THE VOTES THERE BECAUSE HILLARY WAS BEATING HIM BIGTIME IN THE POLLS leading up to the Primary...

When Obama took his name off the ballot BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2007, Obama was ONLY POLLING 11% of the Michigan voters, Hillary was polling 45% back in October.

11%.....no wonder he took the position of NOT COUNTING MICHIGAN....makes sense politically....

Okay. Let us assume you are right. The DNC said that Michigan would not count. Obama didn't want to get trashed in a state even if it didn't count because it would look pretty bad, so he took his name off the ballot. So what? Doesn't the problem lie more with the initial decision of the DNC rather more than with any of the candidates, each of whom was acting in their own electoral interests?

 

[Care4all]

Okay. Let us assume you are right. The DNC said that Michigan would not count. Obama didn't want to get trashed in a state even if it didn't count because it would look pretty bad, so he took his name off the ballot. So what? Doesn't the problem lie more with the initial decision of the DNC rather more than with any of the candidates, each of whom was acting in their own electoral interests?

yes, the DNC and Obama and Hillary and every DNC member outside of the Rules committee all knew that the votes of michigan and Florida would eventually be seated....

EVERYONE KNEW THIS....because there was no way that they would go in to a General election with just 48 states seated in their Primary...

They need Florida and Michigan in order to win and they also knew the sensitivity of the Florida voters on their votes counting....

NO, Obama knew that these votes would eventually count by at least half.

He still CHOSE for HIS reasons to take his name off the ballot for HIS OWN POLITICAL purposes.....and Hillary should not be PENALIZED for Obama's decision and him REWARDED for his decision to take his name off bothe the ballot and write in spot.

INSTEAD he was REWARDED with all of the write in votes, and all of the undecided votes of Biden, and Edwards and 4 additional delegates that Hillary had earned through the actual certified vote....

Giving him 59 pledged delegates, that he did not earn according to Michigan Election Law....

I will NEVER EVER forget this unethical maneuver that the DNC took JUST TO PUSH HILLARY OUT of the race.

 

[ReillyT]

yes, the DNC and Obama and Hillary and every DNC member outside of the Rules committee all knew that the votes of michigan and Florida would eventually be seated....

EVERYONE KNEW THIS....because there was no way that they would go in to a General election with just 48 states seated in their Primary...

They need Florida and Michigan in order to win and they also knew the sensitivity of the Florida voters on their votes counting....

NO, Obama knew that these votes would eventually count by at least half.

He still CHOSE for HIS reasons to take his name off the ballot for HIS OWN POLITICAL purposes.....and Hillary should not be PENALIZED for Obama's decision and him REWARDED for his decision to take his name off bothe the ballot and write in spot.

INSTEAD he was REWARDED with all of the write in votes, and all of the undecided votes of Biden, and Edwards and 4 additional delegates that Hillary had earned through the actual certified vote....

Giving him 59 pledged delegates, that he did not earn according to Michigan Election Law....

I will NEVER EVER forget this unethical maneuver that the DNC took JUST TO PUSH HILLARY OUT of the race.

Care, you are being irrational (and I am not being sexist here). We have already discussed why the votes were stripped and there is no reason to think anyone was targeting Clinton, who it was believed would walk through the primaries easily. All of the Clinton supporters on the DNC committee approved this measure.

I give you that many people though the votes would probably count because many people thought that the primary season would end in February with a Clinton victory, so that there would be no problem reinstating the votes. Events failed to conform to expectations, and Obama played the rules and the structure of the primary system very well - as a candidate should.

 

[ReillyT]

Giving him 59 pledged delegates, that he did not earn according to Michigan Election Law....

I will NEVER EVER forget this unethical maneuver that the DNC took JUST TO PUSH HILLARY OUT of the race.

In light of events, it appears it wouldn't have mattered whether he actually received those 59 delegates or not. Superdelegates went to him because he won the pledged delegate vote, which he won by more than 59 delegates.

I think as a matter of basic fairness, the DNC was loathe to count Michigan and give him none of the vote. I can see their point.

 

[Foxfyre]

In light of events, it appears it wouldn't have mattered whether he actually received those 59 delegates or not. Superdelegates went to him because he won the pledged delegate vote, which he won by more than 59 delegates.

I think as a matter of basic fairness, the DNC was loathe to count Michigan and give him none of the vote. I can see their point.

I am an unashamed conservative so of course I will be voting for the most conservative candidate come November. But in both the GOP primary process and the DNC primary process I believe the process has not produced the best choice as candidate for the President of the United States.

It's sort of like when the American Idol was Taylor Hicks. Adorable guy, but best man/woman for the job? No way.

 

[Care4all]

In light of events, it appears it wouldn't have mattered whether he actually received those 59 delegates or not. Superdelegates went to him because he won the pledged delegate vote, which he won by more than 59 delegates.

I think as a matter of basic fairness, the DNC was loathe to count Michigan and give him none of the vote. I can see their point.

Sure it mattered and to pretend it wouldn't is just a fairy tale...

Those 59 pledged delegates that he was given, according to the rules, were OPENED for grabs, they CLOSED them for grabs by CHANGING MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW....by making all of these unledged delegates by law in to PLEDGED DELEGATE which is not in Michigan law NOR the DNC Rules and Bylaws....

Obama ONLY could claim victory last night with these Michigan pledged votes that he did not earn, in his column...he only had 30 delegates in total that brought him over the winning number....thus she has a case to appeal with the credentials committee...she probably won't and will come to some kind of deal, to prevent her from taking this to the Credential committee.



care

 

[ReillyT]

I am an unashamed conservative so of course I will be voting for the most conservative candidate come November. But in both the GOP primary process and the DNC primary process I believe the process has not produced the best choice as candidate for the President of the United States.

It's sort of like when the American Idol was Taylor Hicks. Adorable guy, but best man/woman for the job? No way.

As an unashamed liberal, I think that the best candidates from both parties were chosen (although Clinton would not have turned me off too much either). Of course, the fact that I am a liberal and preferred McCain to any other Republican may be the same reason you are dissatisfied with McCain.

I refuse to take a position on the contentious issue of Taylor Hicks.