I am so hoping to God that there is a re-do so that when Obama spanks HRC in both MI and FL.
But you had some influence on the R side, so I don’t think it would be right for you to have influence on the D side as well.
You’re spot on about Granholm. She thought a Hillary election would be a Get Out Of Jail Free card and spring her into the Cabinet and away from her unfriendly legislature. So, like much of the primary season, the schedule and the rules were set to grease the skids for Hillary.
It doesn’t look like the DNC is going to budge and apparently Florida house members don’t want a mail in vote. If they forstall this much longer the delegates will never get sat. I’m beginning to think this will come down to the ultimate decision - which is to not seat the delegates. It sucks because Barak would do quite well in both states, much better now than in Jan. If they get sat as is, there will be a political upheaval in the dem side that will ripple through the party like an earthquake. I don’t think anyone would want that - excpet maybe Hillary…
Well, if it’s a true do-over, than my new Dem ballot would replace my old GOP ballot. Of course, it’s moot on the GOP side now, so there’s no reason to do the whole thing over, just the Dems. Any way it happens, or not, will be a bit unfair. I’d just like to be able to take part in the unfair process, even if it means I get some negligble advantage. And vote for my man, Barak.
I highly, HIGHLY, doubt they will sit the delegates as is. But a do-over if it turns in Baraks favor would cause Hillary to send in the bloody vogs - which would try and tear a hole in a win for him.
Am I wrong to think that if a mail-in ballot is used the dead will rise - and vote for Hillary?
What mechanism would prevent ballots being cast on behalf of dead voters? What about ballots delivered to nursing homes?
It’s one problem with mial in votes. Tampering. Said Nursing Home Director is a Hillary fan…3 out of 4 patients are Obama fans, said patients don’t get their mail for a week. Or they are filled out by someone else - Elderly mom with Alzhiemers has her ballot filled out by Hillary supporting daughter…Obviously this could work for Obama too, but then I’m not a Hillary fan so my bias is present.
There are all sorts of ways this could get mucked up. The quickest and easiest way is caucuses. Plain and Simple.
No, it won’t. It will mean that you got to vote twice. :smack:
Of course, it will also mean that all those that legitimately voted republican can do what you did the first time around and vote twice, too. So they can influence the results & try to put someone on the ballot that they feel McCain can beat in November. Some will think that is Hillary; others, Barak.
I know this is not a popular opinion in most circles, especially amongst Obama supporters, but Obama said from the very beginning that so long as it doesn’t affect the outcome in any way, Florida and Michigan will have their delegates seated at the convention, and I agree with him. And it’s looking more and more like seating them won’t make a difference in Obama’s pledged delegate lead.
I know the math is technically wrong, but I can’t find any actual numbers since no one’s reporting what the proportional delegate splits were, so I’m just taking the number of delegates and multiplying by the percentage of popular vote each took. I gave all of the 40% “undeclared” in Michigan to Obama, and I split the Edwards & Kucinich votes from Florida between each, giving the extra 1% to Hillary since they didn’t split evenly. So it would look like this:
Obama Clinton
Michigan 156x40%=62 156x55%= 86
Florida 210x40%=84 210x58%=122
Totals 146 208
That adds 62 pledged delegates more to Clinton’s column over Obama. He’s ahead in pledged delegates by 161 as of today, according to CNN. So that only reduces his lead to 99 pledged delegates. Add in the current superdelegates, where Hillary is ahead by 30, and the difference between them is still 69 delegates in Barack’s favor.
So long as he continues to maintain the lead by at least this margin until the last contest, and the supers don’t overturn the pledged delegate results, I say let them seat FL and MI as is and be done with it.
I think the main problem is the DNC is all about the rules, and the folks who didn’t vote for Obama and wanted to or voted uncommitted want to be heard. This could easily be over a million people. I think one way or another the delegates should be sat, but sitting them as is will be a tough proposition for quite a few folks. Even if it turns in Obama’s favor, Acts og God aren’t uncommon around Clintons so I’d be very wary.
A do-over is fundamentally un-democratic, since you cannot replicate the original results.
Even before the Obama on the ballot issue, you’ll have more voter participation focused on the two neck-in-neck candidates. The results aren’t replicable, and the local party made the decision to switch knowing the consequences. Frankly, the only reason to want those delegates is to alter the results of an election process you just don’t like- sure, it’s messy and comes down to the superdelegates. That’s why the primary process exists.
Reminds me of Florida in 2000- they declared it too early for Gore, caused a spike of participation in the later-timezone panhandle that gave Bush a huge push of votes. There’s no way to have a truly democratic representative election in these states now.
The only valid option is to count the delegates as they’ve come in, and sure, Obama wasn’t on the ballots yet- well, that’s what happens when you’re an underdog candidate and part of why it was such a bad idea to move up the MI primary.
Oh, I agree, somebody’s going to be pissed off no matter how this gets resolved, because there are some people who just like to complain no matter what.
But, I know as an Obama supporter, if I lived in one of those states and was angry that I didn’t vote so my voice wasn’t heard, but Obama won anyway, I wouldn’t care, I’d let it go. What’s to bitch about anymore? My guy won, now let’s move on and start campaigning for him to win the general election.
I also know that if I were a Hillary supporter in one of those states, I now can’t bitch that do-overs weren’t fair or any other nonsense because my candidate took the winning numbers from those states, it just didn’t turn out to make a difference.
If I’m in one of the state legislatures, I can’t bitch that my state’s delegates didn’t get seated because they did, and it didn’t cost me or my taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
And if I’m the DNC, I can’t bitch because there’s no change in the outcome because of the states breaking the rules anyway, so it can’t be seen as the states “winning”, and I wouldn’t want to risk pissing off the electorate in those important November states.
There’s no solution that’s going to please every single individual. But I think you have to look at what will piss off the fewest, and I think this is it, again, so long as it doesn’t affect the final result in any way.
I’m inclined to agree, Shayna. Seating the delegates as they are may be a win-win. It lets Obama look magnanamous, and it denies Hillary (should she win the do-overs) the chance to crow about “momentum” from what would be the last two primaries.
I agree with you both - however…Do people think the DNC is truly going to seat them? I’m doubting it because that Dean fellow is so completely against it. I agree Obama is going to win no matter…but I’m not 100% they are going to seat those delegates outright.
What sort of action portends what for each side any way?
Seating as is.
Obviously Clinton likes it. Obama would for sure seat them once Clinton is out. But not gonna happen until then. It narrows the amount of the supers swing that Clinton would need but doesn’t really help her convince any of them that she deserves the swing. May even swing a few the other way. Still, anything that gets the pledged delegate count difference under 100 is dangerous for Obama to agree to.
Argue for seating them and take nothing less. They don’t get seated and no real vote is done.
Good for Clinton really. Possibly the best. Her one hope is a solid win in Pennsylvania and then selling the supers. With no real vote she can convince them that while she didn’t get delegates there she has shown that she is significantly more popular in yet another battleground state. Better than actually having a do-over that she wins but not by as good of a margin, picking up only a dozen delegates or less and decreasing how many supers Obama needs to cinch as well. Not bad for Obama as it keeps his solid lead where it is.
Mail-in with the few on-site voting locations.
Clinton can possibly pick up a few delegates but it would be a bit like a caucus in that a small number of motivated workers on the ground going around, ringing doors, and coaching people to do the mailer and do it now, can have a big effect. Hillary’s older voters may not deal well with a new system. More of a downside than an upside risk for her really.
I predict a stall on the decision for as long as possible. Team Clinton happy enough to take credit for Florida as is as part of their sell to the supers, better than risking not doing as well in a real vote of any sort, Obama’s group happy to keep his delegate lead secure and to argue that it doesn’t count even in the supers’ considerations, Florida politicians happy to not surrender, save face, and to save any expense of a new real vote, and DNC leadership hoping that Obama puts it away by Pennsylvania so he can magnaminously offer to seat the delegation anyway.
So Michigan may hold a real primary after all.
And Florida Democrats reject any vote that can count.