I wish that the candidates would have blown off the DNC to begin with-- that's what I advocated for last August.
but there were a lot of us Hillary supporters who at the time believed it was a bad deal. Tigercourse at daily kos is as committed a Hillary supporter as there is, and he was absolutely livid that Hillary signed on to the deal.
But they didn't. Again, you aren't seriously suggesting they count those elections, are you?
I leaned heavily for it before, then against it, and now with Obama blocking the re-voting, I'm inclined to support their seating as is again if they don't get a re-vote. Obama took his gamble by pulling off the ballot and then blocking the re-votes, you can't hold it against Clinton for placing her bet too.
He didn't block it, even if he advocated against them, it wasn't in his power to make the final decision.
Regardless, it makes no sense to punish Obama when the results of such a move are more far reaching. It punishes the states who followed the rules and didn't move their dates forward, it punishes the voters in MI and FL who would have voted differently, it punishes the rest of the country by messing with the results of their election with an invalid uncontested vote.
You look at the big picture, and you realize it just isn't something you can do. It isn't a game of football where we give Hillary a 15 yard advance because Obama did something wrong, the ramifications are real and far reaching.
Won't Obama control the credentials committee by convention time? I think this is in the league of wishful thinking.
Obama miscalculated by taking himself off the MI ballot just as Hilary miscalculated by not putting more effort into caucuses.
Hilary has paid a price for her miscalculation and Obama may pay a price for his.
The fact that Hilary is willing to have a re-vote in MI, even though she'll do worse since Obama will get more votes than zero, is to her credit.
It's only to her credit if one thinks that there's any serious chance that a credentials committee would seat Michigan as-is.
Seating an election in which 45% of the voters were denied a chance to vote for a candidate of their choice is just plain undemocratic. And it doesn't matter if Obama took his name off intentionally (as he and all the others pledged to do -- "not participate", remember?) -- this is supposed to be about the voters. The voters didn't take his name off the ballot. They're disenfranchised.
On the other hand, a compromise delegation with the 45% uncommitted turned into Obama delegates, and possibly seated with the original DNC 50%-vote penalty? That might well fly. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
It would have been to her credit if she had been for it from the start, but coming out strongly for counting the invalid election was a hindrance to developing support for a valid election, not a support for it. Eventually, she switched around to supporting a new election, but it would have helped if she had started out in favor of that, rather than trying the "Oh, the invalid election that I won should count" line of attack first.
now with Obama blocking the re-voting, I'm inclined to support their seating as is again if they don't get a re-vote.
What you and Hillary are really calling for is a floor fight at the convention on a motion to overturn the majority of the credentials committee. This is a prescription for turning the convention into a bitter public fight a few months before the election. It sounds more like suicide terrorism than some sort of election strategy.
And this line that Obama somehow "blocked" a revote that was never even advanced by either state is just a way to blame the planned fratricidal floor fight on Obama.
To me it sounds like the prelude to a Hillary '12 strategy to make McCain a one-term president.
Obama has the tiniest lead in delegates. You probably remember Rube Goldberg. That is how Obama got this lead, with the craziest events happening. If there were no caucuses, Hillary would definitely been ahead now. If Howard Dean didn't try to remove two Hillary states from the primary season, Hillary would be winning by now or it would be a lot closer. These are all disenfranchisements that Obama needed to get this tiny lead.
Obama doesn't win the big states and if Hillary beat Obama in Ohio, McCain would too. Add another thing to the Rube Goldberg model, that the primaries were distorted as compared to the general election because the percentage of blacks and students are as high in the primaries as they would be in the GE. However, the non-blacks and non students who will vote in overwhelmingly larger percentages in the general election, especially in states where there were caucuses.
That is just the numbers and with Obama being the one who prevented Florida and Michigan residents to have their both candidates, he is toast and the super-delegates better wake the hell up and know that.
I seriously dislike Obama's tactics and I rather see a drag out floor fight in August than see Obama the candidate.
Clinton blocked revotes for six weeks. Her stance that the original elections counted blocked revote work during the time that something could have been done.
Obama "blocked" revotes for two. Blocked is in quotes because
So in the absolute worst case, if you deny all of 1-4 (and that's really hard to do, since they're all true), Obama blocked revotes for 1/3 the time Clinton did, and on top of that it was the least important 2 weeks out of the 8, since the one thing revotes needed was time to get things to come together.
Care to bet on if they get seated as is? Because I'll tell you now... 100% no chance in hell that will happen. They will get seated, but MI will NOT get seated as is.
Florida most likely at the original DNC 50%-voting-strength, no-SD penalty, if there's the slightest doubt as to the nominee.
Michigan, possibly, as a compromise delegation, the uncommitteds turned into Obama delegates, original DNC penalty. Alternately, 50/50 split.
I leaned heavily for it before, then against it, and now with Obama blocking the re-voting
We've heard this from lots of people without any kind of evidence being presented.
But finally someone with credibility is saying it -- someone who can and will back it up?
(Holding my breath here.)
Marc Ambinder covered it, go and read his reporting.
The same Ambinder that just runs rightwing viral videos embedded right into his page? Yeah, I'll trust him.
That isn't an answer worthy of you.
Tell you what - I'll grant you your numbers if you'll grant me two things.
First, the numbers depend on Democrats recognizing the results of the MI and FL contests.
and
Second, they depend on awarding Barack Obama zero delegates in Michigan.
Unless Obama is caught with a live boy or a dead girl, there is zero chance that a majority of the Democratic party (or its supers) would go for that result. Not a chance.
You're trying to change the rules halfway through the game.
Give me a good reason why Obama would block a revote. It's a virtual tie in the polling and if he went in an campaigned he'd probably win it. So what is his sinister motive?
he might probably win the delegate count if he remained within 5 points of Hillary in MI. Seeing that many detroit city precincts would come in huge for him.
Hillary's gamble was (through Harold Ickes) decertifying Michigan. She isn't innocent in this at all.
I like the non-judgmental way this is rephrased in terms of gambles. Hillary took a gamble that she could decertify the Michigan election, but leave her name on it, and then claim victory afterwards as if she hadn't moved to decertify it.
Let's see. This is like the following:
War Admiral and Sea Biscuit have a race on Tuesday, but War Admiral tells Sea Biscuit, "The race is off, dude."
But War Admiral still shows up on Tuesday, runs all by himself on an empty racetrack, and claims victory. When other people point out that this isn't really a race, War Admiral says, "I made my gamble, and Sea Biscuit made his."
As if that makes any sense at all.
am i missing something? are you in your piece counting Michigan as 81 delegates for Hillary and 0 for Obama as per the beauty contest results? even you must admit THAT will never pass, lol its simply not fair and would never pass the smell test anywhere. The best that is going to happen for Michigan is 50/50 how is it fair to count the current Michigan beauty contest with Obama getting no delegates from there? really?
As for Florida i'm pretty sure i saw a report today about the Obama campaign talking to the Florida democratic team to try and work out a solution and that in-fact the HRC camp hadn't yet responded to those discussions.
The only way FL and Michigan gets seated is FL get "punished" by losing half their delegates same as what happened on the republican side, and Michigan being split 50/50.
FL and Michigan broke the rules, there is no way most of the country will accept for their delegations to be seated as is no matter what the HRC campaign of the supporters do. Since the re-do's are dead and the BO camp will have a say in the credentials committee, the only way is a fair settlement.
i also suspect by the time Indiana votes if BO is ahead in delegates and popular votes he'll come up and say MI and FL get seated as is. I also suspect by that time most of the super delegates will have come out to make their choices so we should have a pretty clear picture on who's the nominee.
But to suggest that HRC will go to the convention to fight to get MI and FL seated AS IS to give her a victory won't happen. The supers won't let such a fight at the convention happen all this is going to work out by early June i suspect they won't risk a split democratic party because that's a sure way for McCain winning. That's one thing both sides and the democratic party does not want to see happen regardless of who you support.
Hillary won 55% of the votes in MI. To split the delegates 50/50 is to take 5% from her. This is called 'vote theft'. Any candidate that does so, destroys the legitimacy of the nomination.
Ladies and gentlemen -- look! A perfect circle!
The fact that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot doesn't bother you at all? Do you really believe that out of the 55%, at least 5% wouldn't have voted for Barack if he was on the ballot? The point is, we will never know. Edwards was in teh race as well. Maybe if his name was on the ballot, then he would have drawn votes from Hillary as well.
Do you see how invalid the entire primary is when everybody's name is not on the ballot?
I'm not even going to start with how MI demographics favor Obama, and how people stayed home because his name wasn't on the ballot.....
Fine, 55/45... That will net her a couple more delegates.. it still isn't going to change anything...
