If Michigan and Florida are allowed at the Dem conf, can Hilary still win?

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Michigan and Florida are not part of the equation...they broke the rules...the contests were not fair...end of discussion.

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy. :thumbsdown:

Newsflash: Obama didn't tell MI and FL to move their primaries. The 'elections' there were a farce. They shouldn't count. Either redo them or don't seat them.

he's done nothing to try and get the ball rolling on a revote or compromise (seat the delegates 50/50 is *not* a compromise)... I can't imagine it's going to play well in Florida when McCain already holds a pretty substantial advantage.

MI's a different story, though, and I think it'll still be blue in November.

How can you have a fair compromise when Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI and neither campaigned in FL? Even if they did a complete revote do you really think Clinton can win either let alone both of those states decisively enough to overtake Obama elected delegate lead?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Michigan and Florida are not part of the equation...they broke the rules...the contests were not fair...end of discussion.

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy. :thumbsdown:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.... We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

Who cares what Obama said?

Obviously he'd *want* to minimize MI and FL.

Obviously!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Michigan and Florida are not part of the equation...they broke the rules...the contests were not fair...end of discussion.

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy. :thumbsdown:

As opposed to Clinton's "Only 10 states really matter" strategy!? LOL!!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Michigan and Florida are not part of the equation...they broke the rules...the contests were not fair...end of discussion.

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy. :thumbsdown:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.... We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

Who cares what Obama said?

Obviously he'd *want* to minimize MI and FL.

Obviously!

Please read the thread, including my other post above. That quote is from Hillary's campaign, August 2007.

edit: /furiously taps sarcasm meter

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy.

Whose fault is that? Dean's perhaps, but certainly not Obama's.

The rules were established...two states chose to ignore the rules...all the candidates agreed to the rules...now Clinton wants to change the rules because another candidate dared to challenge, and successfully prevented her presumed rise to the nomination.

Clinton needs Michigan and Florida to claim the nomination...both would need them in the General Election...but there is no equitable way to bring either state into play for the DNC.

It really is that simple.

That's my concern. No matter who wins the nomination MI and FL are going to have PO'ed (D)'s and these are important states in the GE. Why do the (D)'s always shot themselves in the foot and why is FL always in the middle of the mess?

Well...you can blame the (R) state government. Have they polled the population at-large in FL and MI to see what percentage of people would change the party they'd vote for based on seating or not seating their respective delegations?

No, you can NOT blame them (R's); not if you've been paying attention.

The FL Dem's told the DNC to "frick off", thus angering the DNC. DNC officials were involved in the FL effort and have written about it.

The DNC doesn't blame the FL Repubs, that's why the DNC punished the FL Dems so harshly.

Fern

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy.

Whose fault is that? Dean's perhaps, but certainly not Obama's.

The rules were established...two states chose to ignore the rules...all the candidates agreed to the rules...now Clinton wants to change the rules because another candidate dared to challenge, and successfully prevented her presumed rise to the nomination.

Clinton needs Michigan and Florida to claim the nomination...both would need them in the General Election...but there is no equitable way to bring either state into play for the DNC.

It really is that simple.

That's my concern. No matter who wins the nomination MI and FL are going to have PO'ed (D)'s and these are important states in the GE. Why do the (D)'s always shot themselves in the foot and why is FL always in the middle of the mess?

Well...you can blame the (R) state government. Have they polled the population at-large in FL and MI to see what percentage of people would change the party they'd vote for based on seating or not seating their respective delegations?

I don't know if that poll was done or not. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea. If the (D)'s of FL are PO'ed enough to stay home or worse yet vote (R) out of spite it's going to be difficult to impossible to win here.

I was a registered (R) and I changed to (D) in case there was a revote in FL. Unfortunately, I was told my change was too late so I'm not officially a (D) until after the election. This was a few months ago. I don't know how long before an election you have to change but it seems a little lengthy.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Who cares what Obama said?

Obviously he'd *want* to minimize MI and FL.

Obviously!

I disagree. If he gets the nomination he's going to need those same MI and FL Clinton supporters in the GE. It would be a lot easier to convince them to vote for him in the GE if he didn't disenfranchise them in the primary.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Michigan and Florida are not part of the equation...they broke the rules...the contests were not fair...end of discussion.

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy. :thumbsdown:

As opposed to Clinton's "Only 10 states really matter" strategy!? LOL!!

Only big states matter

 

[Sinsear]

The Obamabots would be screaming bloody murder if it was their guy who needed the FL and Michigan votes counted. Go figure, Democrats always championing the cause of the common and little man. But then comes along the Black Jesus and it's "tough shit, you don't get a say". You guys and your party are laughable.

Here's to :beer:'s and 4 more years.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
The Obamabots would be screaming bloody murder if it was their guy who needed the FL and Michigan votes counted. Go figure, Democrats always championing the cause of the common and little man. But then comes along the Black Jesus and it's "tough shit, you don't get a say". You guys and your party are laughable.

Here's to :beer:'s and 4 more years of more war and bigger government.

Fixed for Republican reality.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
The Obamabots would be screaming bloody murder if it was their guy who needed the FL and Michigan votes counted. Go figure, Democrats always championing the cause of the common and little man. But then comes along the Black Jesus and it's "tough shit, you don't get a say". You guys and your party are laughable.

Here's to :beer:'s and 4 more years.

you live in some sort of alternate reality where logic and reason are absent from existence.

it has been proven why the votes should not count in those states quite succinctly, with logic and with reason. obviously they have escaped you.

the democratic party is failing right now yes, but people like you have made this country fail far beyond what any democratic party could do.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Michigan and Florida are not part of the equation...they broke the rules...the contests were not fair...end of discussion.

Dean and Obama's 48 state strategy. :thumbsdown:

Newsflash: Obama didn't tell MI and FL to move their primaries. The 'elections' there were a farce. They shouldn't count. Either redo them or don't seat them.

he's done nothing to try and get the ball rolling on a revote or compromise (seat the delegates 50/50 is *not* a compromise)... I can't imagine it's going to play well in Florida when McCain already holds a pretty substantial advantage.

MI's a different story, though, and I think it'll still be blue in November.

How can you have a fair compromise when Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI and neither campaigned in FL? Even if they did a complete revote do you really think Clinton can win either let alone both of those states decisively enough to overtake Obama elected delegate lead?

new primary in MI, seat FL's delegates as-allocated in the original primary, but cut them in half.

enough to give them a voice, an impact in the process, and not disenfranchise voters, but not so much that they'd fundamentally change the game.

I kinda-sorta sometimes on my good days want the democrats to win in November, and telling Florida to go F itself isn't the best foot to start out on.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The Obamabots would be screaming bloody murder if it was their guy who needed the FL and Michigan votes counted. Go figure, Democrats always championing the cause of the common and little man. But then comes along the Black Jesus and it's "tough shit, you don't get a say". You guys and your party are laughable.

If that were the case, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on either, assuming all of the conditions were the same with the exception of who would benefit from including Florida and Michigan.

However, the Florida and Michigan debate is fairly consistent with the character Clinton has shown during this whole process...the entire win at any cost mentality, with a little sense of entitlement thrown into the mix for good measure.

telling Florida to go F itself isn't the best foot to start out on

The voter disenfranchisement argument is a red herring.

At this point, the Democrats will piss off a good percentage of their support base regardless of the decision...the Hillary supporters believe she is the best candidate...the Obama supporters believe he is the best candidate.

Dean should have grown a pair and put an end to this before Texas/Ohio...hell, even after Texas/Ohio. Now that both campaigns have gone negative, there is an emotional element that will defy all calls to reason, logic or equity.

The battle lines are drawn, and as PA demonstrated, they aren't shifting much.

It really is a no win situation for the Democrats, but there is only one logical solution, and that is stick to the rules.