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

[JEDI]

Mi and Fl have a hefty # of delegates.

Superdelegates will vote what the voters voted for. they will not vote for Hilary and let her steal the nomination.

but what about MI and FL? besides the delegates, the supergates of that state are free since their state's delegates didnt count in the 1st place.

Can Hilary win with Mi and FL delegates/superdelegates?

 

[nageov3t]

probably not going to happen, Obama's already crushed it because he's afraid of the wicked witch.

 

[Lemon law]

To be in any way fair, it would take a complete re vote to include the regular delegations of Michigan and Florida. In one State there was no Obama campaign and in the other the Obama name was not even on the ballot.

There has been some on and off negotiations on how accomplish such a re vote, but the national party refuses to pay for it, and State leaders can't agree on a mechanism. And repubs in each state would probably block the effort. And by July 1, the argument may well be moot.

 

[351Cleveland]

I pray that at a minimum the popular count in Florida is considered. That nerrows the gap considerably, and isnt compromised considering both were on the ballot. There is no reason that the Florida delegates CANT be seated. Michigan is another story altogether though. That just plain cant be used.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To be in any way fair, it would take a complete re vote to include the regular delegations of Michigan and Florida. In one State there was no Obama campaign and in the other the Obama name was not even on the ballot.

There has been some on and off negotiations on how accomplish such a re vote, but the national party refuses to pay for it, and State leaders can't agree on a mechanism. And repubs in each state would probably block the effort. And by July 1, the argument may well be moot.

In Florida, there was no campaigning at all by any of the Dems if I remember correctly. If nobody campaigned, nobody had an advantage, the vote count was just the people voting... we CAN count those... but I dont think we WILL count those.

Again, Michigan you are right on... no way those should be seated.

 

[jpeyton]

They both broke the rules, and their delegates will not be counted. Simple as that.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

 

[Vic]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the Dem party in Oregon chose to follow the rules, reversed their decision last year to hold their primaries earlier, and moved them back to May 20th. It would not have been difficult for FL and MI to do the same. And, ironically, it would have made their primaries even more important on the national stage had they done so, when the only reason they moved them up is because everyone was concerned last year that holding their primaries late made them irrelevant (because a frontrunner would have already been picked).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
I pray that at a minimum the popular count in Florida is considered. That nerrows the gap considerably, and isnt compromised considering both were on the ballot. There is no reason that the Florida delegates CANT be seated. Michigan is another story altogether though. That just plain cant be used.

There are 2 reasons.

1. They broke the rules, and the official decreed consequence is that their delegates won't be seated (at least until after the nominee is chosen).

2. It was an unfair election. In the absence of campaigning the candidate with better name recognition is going to win. Plus, without campaigning what do you base your vote on? How many (new) voters never bothered to go to the polls because they knew the vote wouldn't count? It was a fataly flawed election.

Fern

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the Dem party in Oregon chose to follow the rules, reversed their decision last year to hold their primaries earlier, and moved them back to May 20th. It would not have been difficult for FL and MI to do the same. And, ironically, it would have made their primaries even more important on the national stage had they done so, when the only reason they moved them up is because everyone was concerned last year that holding their primaries late made them irrelevant (because a frontrunner would have already been picked).

Yes, both states could have and should have. To listen to our Governor (Granholm), Michigan was treated and is being treated unfairly because otehr states like New Hampshire moved up their primary. Well, too bad. The rules were quitre clear and now millions of voters will be disenfranchised because our idiot governor as her head up her a$$.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the Dem party in Oregon chose to follow the rules, reversed their decision last year to hold their primaries earlier, and moved them back to May 20th. It would not have been difficult for FL and MI to do the same. And, ironically, it would have made their primaries even more important on the national stage had they done so, when the only reason they moved them up is because everyone was concerned last year that holding their primaries late made them irrelevant (because a frontrunner would have already been picked).

I would like to point out that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the rules with regards to moving up their elections. The DNC did not punish them but instead chose to selectively punish Michigan and Florida for moving up their dates. Howard Dean and the DNC screwed up. They need to resolve this fairly. Unfortunately, any decision will leave about 1/2 of the party unhappy.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I would like to point out that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the rules with regards to moving up their elections. The DNC did not punish them but instead chose to selectively punish Michigan and Florida for moving up their dates.

Could you please provide a link/proof of this?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Vic
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the Dem party in Oregon chose to follow the rules, reversed their decision last year to hold their primaries earlier, and moved them back to May 20th. It would not have been difficult for FL and MI to do the same. And, ironically, it would have made their primaries even more important on the national stage had they done so, when the only reason they moved them up is because everyone was concerned last year that holding their primaries late made them irrelevant (because a frontrunner would have already been picked).

I would like to point out that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the rules with regards to moving up their elections. The DNC did not punish them but instead chose to selectively punish Michigan and Florida for moving up their dates. Howard Dean and the DNC screwed up. They need to resolve this fairly. Unfortunately, any decision will leave about 1/2 of the party unhappy.

MI and FL moved their dates ahead of NH and that is why they were punished and rightly so. Moving dates per se was not wrong, moving ahead of NH or IA was

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fern
There are 2 reasons.

1. They broke the rules, and the official decreed consequence is that their delegates won't be seated (at least until after the nominee is chosen).

2. It was an unfair election. In the absence of campaigning the candidate with better name recognition is going to win. Plus, without campaigning what do you base your vote on? How many (new) voters never bothered to go to the polls because they knew the vote wouldn't count? It was a fataly flawed election.

Fern

Count me in that crowd.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Vic
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the Dem party in Oregon chose to follow the rules, reversed their decision last year to hold their primaries earlier, and moved them back to May 20th. It would not have been difficult for FL and MI to do the same. And, ironically, it would have made their primaries even more important on the national stage had they done so, when the only reason they moved them up is because everyone was concerned last year that holding their primaries late made them irrelevant (because a frontrunner would have already been picked).

I would like to point out that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the rules with regards to moving up their elections. The DNC did not punish them but instead chose to selectively punish Michigan and Florida for moving up their dates. Howard Dean and the DNC screwed up. They need to resolve this fairly. Unfortunately, any decision will leave about 1/2 of the party unhappy.

The rules were clear and had been in place since 2006. Contrary to what you said, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (and Nevada, you forgot to mention) did not break any rules and were in compliance as "approved early-voting states."
Florida OTOH knowingly broke the rules, and even then was given nearly 6 months to reverse their decision and comply. They didn't. Florida democrats even took it to court and lost, and then still held the primaries early anyway. So there's nothing "unfair" or selective about it.

And ironically, here's a quote I found from the Clinton campaign last August about the issue, when Clinton pledged not to campaign in FL and MI, and not accept primary delegates from those states, if they held their primaries early:
"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."

So please point out to us where Dean and the DNC "screwed up."

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I would like to point out that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the rules with regards to moving up their elections. The DNC did not punish them but instead chose to selectively punish Michigan and Florida for moving up their dates.

Could you please provide a link/proof of this?

Section 11

No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

There were rules saying what the penalties are, the DNC chose not to punish Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the Dem party in Oregon chose to follow the rules, reversed their decision last year to hold their primaries earlier, and moved them back to May 20th. It would not have been difficult for FL and MI to do the same. And, ironically, it would have made their primaries even more important on the national stage had they done so, when the only reason they moved them up is because everyone was concerned last year that holding their primaries late made them irrelevant (because a frontrunner would have already been picked).

Same here in NC. Plus DNC awarded us extra delegates for complying and keeping our date at May 6th.

And for the first time in a long while, our primary actually counts. Not only that, but it's seen as very significant - a 1st as far as I know.

Fern

 

[Starbuck1975]

Michigan and Florida are not part of the equation...they broke the rules...the contests were not fair...end of discussion.

 

[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:

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[nageov3t]

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.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Mi and Fl have a hefty # of delegates.

Superdelegates will vote what the voters voted for. they will not vote for Hilary and let her steal the nomination.

but what about MI and FL? besides the delegates, the supergates of that state are free since their state's delegates didnt count in the 1st place.

Can Hilary win with Mi and FL delegates/superdelegates?

She'd net 36 in Florida and 24 in Michigan for a total of 60, assuming you give the uncommitted delegates to Obama.

That would mean she'd only need to win the remaining states with 61% each in order to catch up in pledged delegates (assuming she gets 50% of the remaining available superdelegates). Not seating MI and FL, she'd need to win the remaining states with 69% in each...

 

[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?

 

[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."

 

[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?