These two are synonymous. If the leader in delegates gets overruled by the superdelegates, McCain wins in 2008 and the Democratic Party would probably lose seats in Congress as well as kiss 2012 elections goodbye as well.
This isn’t a “technically by the rules” argument, it’s a “reality check” argument. If it’s perceived that the Democratic candidate is elected out of subterfuge, backdoor dealings, or crafty political manouvering, the Republicans will hammer the Democrats mercilessly. It’ll be the talking point of the century for Republican pundits.
Without Michigan and Florida do we get a real accurate count for president.? Rather than arguing the punishment is proper ,we should be trying to get to the truth of who America supports. We should have a new vote.
While it is very much a State Democratic infighting problem, it also impacts the national counts for presidential candidate. Should we not error on the side of accuracy.?
Great idea! Now tell that to both the Florida and Michigan Legislatures and Democratic Party leaders who elected not to have a re-vote.
So now what do you recommend?
This isn’t about accuracy. There’s nothing accurate about either state’s results as they stand, since tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people either didn’t vote at all, voted in the Republican primary, or didn’t know the candidates well enough to make an educated decision. The only possible way to get close to an “accurate” count is to re-do the primaries in those states. See above – it’s simply not going to happen.
The only solution now seems to be, to wait until all of the contests are over and allow whoever is in the lead to agree to seat the delegates as they currently stand.
Any disagreements that currently exist between Clinton and Obama will be long forgotten by November. If Obama loses the election, it’ll be because he lost and McCain won not because Clinton ruined the election for him. And the same will be true for Clinton if she’s nominated. Any candidate who can’t shake off their primary challengers after being nominated doesn’t deserve to defeat their actual opponent.
Obama is running for the Presidency. He’s going to be facing off against challenges from Russia and Iran and China and North Korea. If he’s so weak that he can’t recover from a contested primary challenge than it’s better off that we find that out before the election. If Clinton’s ongoing challenge defeats Obama then he deserves to lose.
Not if they involve reversal by superdelegate, they won’t.
Hell, I’m not forgetting anyway. I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton for dogcatcher, and that’s that. She’s effectively endorsed McCain over Obama. Twice. She’s chosen to ally herself with a professional union-buster who decided to wheel and deal on behalf of a country where 2000 union organizers got assassinated in the past two decades, and was only able to obtain a few dozen convictions.
Like I’d vote for trash like that. If she wins, I’ll write in Elizabeth Edwards.
So what are you going to do when Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination and a few minutes later you see him hugging Bill and Hillary and they’re all friends again? Will you decide Obama sold out?
[url=]The rules committee settled on a compromise: All Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the convention, but they’ll only get half a vote. (Just like the Pubs did it from the start.)
Michigan did not have an election. Obama did not appear on the ballot and no one campaigned. That was not an election at all. As for half votes ,where are they going to get all those midgets
The Democratic leadership should have stuck to their guns. 2012 (or 2016, depending) is going to be chaos.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but let’s pick, say, Pennsylvania. Typically, the nomination is pretty well decided by the time of their Primary.
So, Pennsylvania moves their Primary to January. Instead of getting their usual number of totally irrelevant votes, they get half as many votes that are a very big deal.
