Is it really fair to add MI and FL at this point?

MBrown

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
5,724
35
91
The candidates were told these two states were out and as a result Obama didn't do anything in these states (AFAIK). His name wasn't even on the ballot in MI. Is it really fair to add them now? Especially in MI. I realize the people in the states feel left out but...
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
I think both states have to be counted in some way so there isn't as much resentment toward the (D) party in the GE. FL could be seated as-is and while it wouldn't be completely fair to Obama he's got a big enough lead that he could accept it. Not sure how they could do MI given Obama wasn't on the ballot.
 

MBrown

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
5,724
35
91
Originally posted by: loki8481
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p

But isn't the Clinton campaign trying to say that MI was a fair vote? Thats what I hear them saying.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p

Why was Hillary's name on the ballot in the first place?
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
They broke the rules. Got nothing to do with fair or the Dems wouldn't have such a screwed up primary to begin with.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Of course we have to seat MI and FL, it's the only way Hillary can win! [/sarcasm]

The only thing thats fair is for everyone to follow the same set of rules. MI and FL broke the rules and they have to face the consequences. THAT is as fair as it gets.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: loki8481
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p

But isn't the Clinton campaign trying to say that MI was a fair vote? Thats what I hear them saying.

It's nothing more than an act of desperation. It's no different than her - a multi-millionaire - calling Obama an elitist who's out of touch with the common man. I don't know if these numbers are accurate but it looks like Clinton and McCain are the ones living in the ivory towers.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: loki8481
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p

But isn't the Clinton campaign trying to say that MI was a fair vote? Thats what I hear them saying.

It's nothing more than an act of desperation. It's no different than her - a multi-millionaire - calling Obama an elitist who's out of touch with the common man. I don't know if these numbers are accurate but it looks like Clinton and McCain are the ones living in the ivory towers.

Damn, Barack is baroke :laugh:
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: loki8481
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p

Why was Hillary's name on the ballot in the first place?

Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot to pander to Iowa ("hey look, I care about Iowa's status as first in the nation, vote for me!"). Hillary left her name on the ballot because she figured she was going to lose Iowa no matter what she did.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p

And I would argue that Michigan shouldn't be allowed because Hillary didn't have the balls to obey the party rules that she agreed to in the first place.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean
Letter to Democratic Presidential Candidates
August 31, 2007

As the leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules...
The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only 4 states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina - may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, 2008. The findings of Non-Compliance included a 100% loss of pledged and unpledged delegates.


Hillary Clinton Campaign
September 1, 2007

Clinton Campaign
Statement On The
Four State Pledge

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And 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.
Added: April 06, 2008

She ran unopposed and still only got a slight majority.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
the rules did not mandate taking their names off the ballot, it was a choice Obama and Edwards made for political reasons.

holding a new primary would also have been within the framework of the DNC rules.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
the rules did not mandate taking their names off the ballot, it was a choice Obama and Edwards made for political reasons.

holding a new primary would also have been within the framework of the DNC rules.

I wish that they would have. It would have put an end to the fiasco that is MI/FL and it would have pushed Obama solidly over the 2025 mark and hopefully would have shut Hillary up for good.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
the rules did not mandate taking their names off the ballot, it was a choice Obama and Edwards made for political reasons.

holding a new primary would also have been within the framework of the DNC rules.

Do you really think holding a new primary in MI would have given Hillary the lead? Even with a 60/40 split - which is unlikely - she'd still be far behind right now.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I wish that they would have. It would have put an end to the fiasco that is MI/FL and it would have pushed Obama solidly over the 2025 mark and hopefully would have shut Hillary up for good.

:thumbsup: to new primaries in both but wouldn't that 2025 mark be pushed back if FL and MI were included?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
Guys, they will add Michigan and Florida back in later when it doesn't matter as to the nomination. They will never add in those two states if it would change who was leading. It's as simple as that. The nomination process is over and Obama has won. Hillary will win a couple states in the near future, but it no longer matters.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: loki8481
the rules did not mandate taking their names off the ballot, it was a choice Obama and Edwards made for political reasons.

holding a new primary would also have been within the framework of the DNC rules.

Do you really think holding a new primary in MI would have given Hillary the lead? Even with a 60/40 split - which is unlikely - she'd still be far behind right now.

not really. I just question whether or not we're going to have Hillary spambots claiming that Obama is an illegitimate nominee all summer if MI/FL don't have their delegates seated in some sort of capacity that matters.

best option imo would be to seat them according to the original voting results (give MI's undeclared or whatever to Obama) and slice their delegates in half like the Republicans did. it gives them a seat at the table, an impact that seating them in a 50:50 proportion wouldn't, but won't actually affect anything major.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,781
1,386
126

Did the Democrats who made the decision to have an early primaries in MI and FL know ahead of time that the votes would not be counted if they moved the date up?

If so, why did they move the date up? who allowed them to do it?

From what little I have read about this, the Democrats have done this to themselves and now the party who is on the short end of stick wants to change the rules midstream?

Am I not understanding this correctly? :confused:
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Actually, it doesn't matter. With the margin of victory in NC last night, you can count MI and FL and Obama is still in the lead.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,650
132
106
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
The only thing thats fair is for everyone to follow the same set of rules. MI and FL broke the rules and they have to face the consequences. THAT is as fair as it gets.

QFT. The only problem/unknown is how pissed MI and FL would be if they don't get seated.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: loki8481
MI should be added just to spite Obama for not having the balls to allow a new primary :p

But isn't the Clinton campaign trying to say that MI was a fair vote? Thats what I hear them saying.

It's nothing more than an act of desperation. It's no different than her - a multi-millionaire - calling Obama an elitist who's out of touch with the common man. I don't know if these numbers are accurate but it looks like Clinton and McCain are the ones living in the ivory towers.

Damn, Barack is baroke :laugh:

Text


 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
It wouldn't be fair to count the "results" as they are, but fair and practical are not always the same thing.

The democrats are hoping that they can settle the nomination first, and then placate the voters of MI and FL by seating their delegates without them actually factoring in. It's an interesting situation.

Whether Obama and Edwards were pandering to Iowa is something we can't know. We do know that Hillary has no integrity about the situation and doesn't care how unfair it is as long as she benefits from it. And we know that regardless of who is at fault, the democrats will pay the price if they don't do something to make the voters of those states feel that they were not discounted.

Best case: Obama gets a flood of superdelegates over the next two weeks and then FL and MI can be seated without impacting the nomination. Worst case: the fight goes on and the democrats are forced to deal with this fiasco, leaving the winner in a situation where he/she gets torpedoed in the general election (by angry FL and MI voters or by angry black voters who feel the nomination was stolen.)
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: loki8481
the rules did not mandate taking their names off the ballot, it was a choice Obama and Edwards made for political reasons.

holding a new primary would also have been within the framework of the DNC rules.

Do you really think holding a new primary in MI would have given Hillary the lead? Even with a 60/40 split - which is unlikely - she'd still be far behind right now.

not really. I just question whether or not we're going to have Hillary spambots claiming that Obama is an illegitimate nominee all summer if MI/FL don't have their delegates seated in some sort of capacity that matters.

best option imo would be to seat them according to the original voting results (give MI's undeclared or whatever to Obama) and slice their delegates in half like the Republicans did. it gives them a seat at the table, an impact that seating them in a 50:50 proportion wouldn't, but won't actually affect anything major.

Sounds good to me. :thumbsup: It wouldn't be fair to Obama if this election was close but as it stands now it wouldn't hurt and it would put an end to the issue.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Hillary just had a news conference, she's going to continue campaiging and "wants to get this MI and FL issue resolved"

said "the voters are asking to have their votes counted, not me"

thanks Hillary, for looking out for the voters
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,783
6,187
126
Either way, but don't be surprised if Florida voters don't bother turning out for the general if you toss their primary votes out.