Regarding the FL and MI Democratic delegates

According to this poll , a significant number of people seem to think that Florida’s and Michigan’s delegates should be seated per the early primary results. What are these people thinking!? I could see a very weak argument for Florida, but I can’t believe that even the most steadfast Clinton supporter could truly believe that Michigan should count. Wanting it to count is another story.

Hopefully the question of FL and MI will be moot come convention time anyway, but these results just blow my mind.

Hillary has started campaigning to get both primaries to count. Her people are already tossing around charges of “disenfranchisement” as if it had been the Republicans or the Diebold Company that had ruled made the ruling on disqualifying the FL and MI delegates, rather than the Democratic Party itself.

Color me disgusted, but hardly surprised.

This is coming from someone whose campaign manager has promised to start trying to convert Obama’s pledged delegates to support her at the convention. That’s not superdelegates, by the way- that’s regular, run-of-the-mill delegates that the public has elected in primaries and caucuses. If that’s not a subversion of the democratic process, I don’t know what is.

I’m not surprised to see this from the Clinton campaign, but what surprises me is that so many “regular people” would feel the same way.

Obama was not required to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. He did that himself.

There was always a chance that those delegates would be seated through a waiver from the DNC. He’ll have to live his decision to remove himself if that happens.

Is it treally going to matter after Mar. 4th?

Hopefully not.

In the same way that there’s always a chance that all the delegates will just decide to pick Al Gore. They could do that. But no serious person expects it, or is planning for it. Just like no serious person expected that one of the major candidates would try to seat the delegates that Hillary Clinton herself said will not count. Her explanation of why she kept her name on the ballot, when every other Democrat tried to remove his name, says nothing about the contingency that MI might count. She said:

When did she change her mind? As soon as it became clear that she might need those delegates. At the same time that she’s arguing for Democracy she’s arguing that 40 of the states, the ones that Barack Obama has won, don’t really matter; the voters of South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Colorado don’t matter–they’re not representative, a bunch of backwaters, but Florida and Michigan do matter. Someone needs to “get real,” and it ain’t Obama.

With this “superdelegates” crap the DNC can completely ignore the very people who cast their votes…and go ahead and nominate whoever they choose. Doing so for their own personal gain I’d wager.

How is that a Democracy, exactly?

New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina were all granted waivers after they broke the rules and moved their primaries to before Feb. 5th

Michigan and Florida were punished.

NH and Iowa were already allowed to do so (in fact, New Hampshire law forces them to do so, if another primary state leapfrogs ahead of them). South Carolina got the waiver first, I think.

Not true at all. New Hampshire and Iowa have had waivers since the first rules to combat “primary creep” were established in the 1980’s. South Carolina and Nevada were invited by the DNC to begin delegate selection before Super Tuesday to diversify the base of early-voting states.

These two articles seem refer to a 28-2 vote on granting a waiver to New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina by the DNC Rules & ByLaws Committee.

Dems OK NH date, penalize Michigan

and

DNC Rules & ByLaws Committee Overwhelmingly Supports NH

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Why shouldn’t the DNC be able to nominate whoever they want? This isn’t an election. It’s a process that the Democrats are using to select their candidate, and they just as easily could have used any other method to select their candidate, like putting forth whoever happened to be caller 13 to their hotline, or whoever drew the winning numbers in a lottery.

It’s the thread topic.

What does “New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina were all granted waivers after they broke the rules and moved their primaries to before Feb. 5th . . . Michigan and Florida were punished.” have to do with the topic, or for that matter your argument that “[t]here was always a chance that those delegates would be seated through a waiver from the DNC?”

Who is supposedly being disenfranchised? The delegates or the voters by proxy?

I feel somewhat the same way about this as I did about the sudden unexpected “Jews for Buchanan” turnout in Florida’s Palm Beach County in the 2000 campaign: The state was won on a technicality (or a mistake if you want to call a spade a spade) and I wish it hadn’t happened that way. That is, Florida should not have moved its primary date and its delegates should have been heard.

Then why even fucking bother with the whole idea of people voting?

WTF good is it even for?!?!

The OP is asking what people are thinking when they support the MI and FL delegates being seated at the convention.

My comments are in relation to why I think they should be seated, any why the poll respondents might think that MI and FL are being treated unfairly by stripping their delegates.

Tea in china, indeed.