Obama willing to go "more than half-way" on Florida and Michigan

[Jeepers]

I don't know what's worse: not counting the votes at all, or not counting the votes the way they were cast.

what about those that stayed home cause they were told the votes wouldnt be counting...

How are you going to reinfranchise those cats.. do you just tell them that they are shit out of luck.. ooops, sorry..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

what about those that stayed home cause they were told the votes wouldnt be counting...

How are you going to reinfranchise those cats.. do you just tell them that they are shit out of luck.. ooops, sorry..

Sour Grapes. A Vote was held, a legally binding vote, one that is CLEARLY covered by the rules in play BEFORE the vote. At the very least half of the delegates must be seated BY the rules the DNC established BEFORE the event or election. And as I read it ALL the Super Delegates from those two States DO NOT count.

They enforce that and howling will start half a second later.

 

[ReillyT]

here is the copy of dnc rule on candidates running an ad in florida/michigan...

OF COURSE THE BIASED NEWS DOESN;T COVER THIS!



ALSO, i just found the rule on seating half the delegates....the son of a bitch DNC and MEDIA not covering this opportunity to seat half the delegates ACCORDING TO THE RULES, FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN EARLIER , really pisses me off........

ALSO, another deceitful act on obama camp, spreading the rumor that it is HILLARY making up and changing all these rules midstream....they are in the fricking handbook....of course obama knew them....

what a scumbag....and they speek of hillary.....just unbelievable bunch of sheep, repeating lie after lie.... i just don't get it, as i didn't with the bush supporters???



will obama lose all of his delegates from those states?

if the dnc plays by the rules, the rules that obamaites INSIST on being played as writen....then he does lose them, and we once again, have a horse race!

What is all this whining? The DNC stripped the states of their votes. That was within their purview. The candidates based their campaign strategies on this understanding. Those were the rules in effect at the start of the primary season.

The DNC has the authority, should it choose to exercise it, to restore 50% of the votes. That is what the excerpt you cited (and the legal opinion commissioned by the DNC) says.

Obama losing his share of the 50% of the delegates for speaking to the press on one occasion? That is just silly. Clinton abided by the letter of the rule, but held very large fundraisers, and probably skirted the spirit of the rule. I don't begrudge her that. Obama arguably violated the letter of the rule, but in a de minimus way that probably had no effect on the subsequent vote, which was always acknowledged not to count anyway.

If you want to argue that the votes should be counted because the states are important in the general election, then fine, argue it from the political point of view. That I can see. But don't argue that it is unfair to count the votes in states where there wasn't campaigning, and in which the populations beforehand were told their votes don't count. There is no way you can draw the conclusion that the results that occurred are representative of what would have happened in a fair scenario.

 

[ReillyT]

ALSO, another deceitful act on obama camp, spreading the rumor that it is HILLARY making up and changing all these rules midstream....they are in the fricking handbook....of course obama knew them....

what a scumbag....and they speek of hillary.....just unbelievable bunch of sheep, repeating lie after lie.... i just don't get it, as i didn't with the bush supporters???

He is not a scumbag for taking the very reasonable view that the votes as cast should not count. The complaint with what Clinton is doing is that it reflects a change in point of view from that she had before the primary season started, and that this change clearly is in response to the benefits that would accrue to her in counting the votes.

Here is Clinton's position in 2007:

During an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio, a caller asked Clinton what was up.

"Now, just this week most of your Democratic competitors removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot. But you didn't, and my question is why?" said the caller, who identified herself as Elaine. "It strikes me as this is politics as usual, where the politicians say one thing and they end up doing something else."

Clinton responded that she stayed on the Michigan ballot because she didn't want to totally dismiss voters in an important swing state.

"It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said. "But I personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans were going to be campaigning between now and whenever. Then, after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in November 2008."

But really, Clinton said, leaving her name on in Michigan wasn't a big deal.

"I personally did not think it made any difference if my name was on the ballot," she said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90907222

Clinton could have strenuously argued that Florida and Michigan should count at the time the DNC stripped them of their votes. She did not. In fact, quite a few of her most ardent supporters were part of the committee that voted to strip the votes. She only took this position when it became clear that she would need these votes. Fine. She is a politician and this is what I would expect. However, how one goes from this to the idea that Obama is underhanded for not wanting to count the votes escapes me?

 

[Care4all]

He is not a scumbag for taking the very reasonable view that the votes as cast should not count. The complaint with what Clinton is doing is that it reflects a change in point of view from that she had before the primary season started, and that this change clearly is in response to the benefits that would accrue to her in counting the votes.

Here is Clinton's position in 2007:


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90907222

Clinton could have strenuously argued that Florida and Michigan should count at the time the DNC stripped them of their votes. She did not. In fact, quite a few of her most ardent supporters were part of the committee that voted to strip the votes. She only took this position when it became clear that she would need these votes. Fine. She is a politician and this is what I would expect. However, how one goes from this to the idea that Obama is underhanded for not wanting to count the votes escapes me?

Good morning Reilly,

To me, this is a MAJOR TWIST AND TURNER of the Obama camp and the media against her...

She was VERY CLEAR in her message of why she kept her name on the ballot and how she felt about the disenfranchisement of the Michigan voters and not wanting the republicans to sweap the state...

AND SHE WAS RIGHT....

The Democratic party did not make their final decision on disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, until the week this supposed interviewer asked Hillary this question, and AT THAT POINT it was clear that the votes would not count in Michigan, BECAUSE the DNC had just made the FINAL decision on their stance.

Hillary Clinton HAS ALWAYS stood for the votes/delegates to be seated for those states.... you can go back to comments of hers from when the DNC first said they were going to punish them back in June of 2007, at that time, punishments for campaigning were not discussed yet, she said she would be campaigning in ALL STATES....this link was posted earlier in this thread...

She knew that she could have a huge shot at having these delegates seated, based on the rules that came out...where as the front runner, people from her camp, would be seated on the rules and bylaws committee making this final decision in May of 08....

THIS WAS IN THE RULES set out, and as the front runner, she knew that these delegates WOULD HAVE TO BE SEATED in order to win the General....

And guess what, they DO HAVE TO BE SEATED in order to win the General Election or the back fire from this will comeback to bite them, and we may lose to mccain.

Obama was ALSO AWARE of the May 31 meeting that were part of the rules, to seat the delegates from the states that broke their primaries early....

Obama also was aware that in the DNC rules that he was not allowed to run any Campaign ads in Florida and michigan before their primary or his delegates would be taken away from him, but he CHOSE TO RUN his national ad spread IN THOSE FORBIDDEN STATES prior to their primary and prior to the Feb 5th date....2 days before the florida election....

If the DNC does actually follow the rules, Obama would be STRIPPED of all of his delegates for his breaking the DNC rule regarding these states and Hillary would get all of his delegates...

You don't ever hear the Obama camp regarding their msnbc and cnn advertising campaign run there prior to the primary....and him breaking the rules of the DNC and the sanctions that come with breaking the rules....

Hillary has always been for the votes to count in those states....THERE IS NO REASON for her not to want this from the very beginning because she was ALWAYS the front runner.....and she knew she would have the chance to plead her case for Florida and Michigan being counted before the board on May 31.

This WAS PUT in to the rules of the DNC....Obama should have been aware of it and it was NOT Hillary's job to tell them.

NO ONE, NOT ONE Presidential Candidate signed an agreement NOT TO HAVE THEIR NAMES ON THE BALLOT....

This was a CHOICE that the LOSING CANDIDATES in that state, chose to do....

THIS WAS NOT, in any agreement...Obama chose to do this for ONLY POLITICAL REASONS, thinking it would better position him in the long run because it would NOT SHOW UP as a loss if he did not have his name there...

Well hells bellls Reily...that is NOT Hillary's fault that some of these guys did what they thought was best for them politically, and they turned out to be wrong?

And taking the side of the DNC as Obama did from the very beginning, in my humble position was the wrong decision....he should have always taken the position of siding FOR THE PEOPLE of those states and not some DNC bureacracy that wanted to disenfranchise them because they were too lazy to negotiate with them and find a solution?

Florida and Michigan, if the DNC does not change their rules will NEVER EVER COUNT in any future presidential elections, their vote will NEVER COUNT AGAIN...their dates are what they are, and the DNC better damn well do something about it or they will lose MILLIONS of Democratic members for a generation to come...

Care

 

[ReillyT]

Good morning Reilly,

To me, this is a MAJOR TWIST AND TURNER of the Obama camp and the media against her...

She was VERY CLEAR in her message of why she kept her name on the ballot and how she felt about the disenfranchisement of the Michigan voters and not wanting the republicans to sweap the state...

AND SHE WAS RIGHT....

The Democratic party did not make their final decision on disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, until the week this supposed interviewer asked Hillary this question, and AT THAT POINT it was clear that the votes would not count in Michigan, BECAUSE the DNC had just made the FINAL decision on their stance.

Hillary Clinton HAS ALWAYS stood for the votes/delegates to be seated for those states.... you can go back to comments of hers from when the DNC first said they were going to punish them back in June of 2007, at that time, punishments for campaigning were not discussed yet, she said she would be campaigning in ALL STATES....this link was posted earlier in this thread...

She knew that she could have a huge shot at having these delegates seated, based on the rules that came out...where as the front runner, people from her camp, would be seated on the rules and bylaws committee making this final decision in May of 08....

THIS WAS IN THE RULES set out, and as the front runner, she knew that these delegates WOULD HAVE TO BE SEATED in order to win the General....

And guess what, they DO HAVE TO BE SEATED in order to win the General Election or the back fire from this will comeback to bite them, and we may lose to mccain.

Obama was ALSO AWARE of the May 31 meeting that were part of the rules, to seat the delegates from the states that broke their primaries early....

Obama also was aware that in the DNC rules that he was not allowed to run any Campaign ads in Florida and michigan before their primary or his delegates would be taken away from him, but he CHOSE TO RUN his national ad spread IN THOSE FORBIDDEN STATES prior to their primary and prior to the Feb 5th date....2 days before the florida election....

If the DNC does actually follow the rules, Obama would be STRIPPED of all of his delegates for his breaking the DNC rule regarding these states and Hillary would get all of his delegates...

You don't ever hear the Obama camp regarding their msnbc and cnn advertising campaign run there prior to the primary....and him breaking the rules of the DNC and the sanctions that come with breaking the rules....

Hillary has always been for the votes to count in those states....THERE IS NO REASON for her not to want this from the very beginning because she was ALWAYS the front runner.....and she knew she would have the chance to plead her case for Florida and Michigan being counted before the board on May 31.

This WAS PUT in to the rules of the DNC....Obama should have been aware of it and it was NOT Hillary's job to tell them.

NO ONE, NOT ONE Presidential Candidate signed an agreement NOT TO HAVE THEIR NAMES ON THE BALLOT....

This was a CHOICE that the LOSING CANDIDATES in that state, chose to do....

THIS WAS NOT, in any agreement...Obama chose to do this for ONLY POLITICAL REASONS, thinking it would better position him in the long run because it would NOT SHOW UP as a loss if he did not have his name there...

Well hells bellls Reily...that is NOT Hillary's fault that some of these guys did what they thought was best for them politically, and they turned out to be wrong?

And taking the side of the DNC as Obama did from the very beginning, in my humble position was the wrong decision....he should have always taken the position of siding FOR THE PEOPLE of those states and not some DNC bureacracy that wanted to disenfranchise them because they were too lazy to negotiate with them and find a solution?

Florida and Michigan, if the DNC does not change their rules will NEVER EVER COUNT in any future presidential elections, their vote will NEVER COUNT AGAIN...their dates are what they are, and the DNC better damn well do something about it or they will lose MILLIONS of Democratic members for a generation to come...

Care

She was very clear in 2007 that those votes would not count. I have no doubt that she believed that when the nomination was wrapped up, the DNC would reverse and let those delegations participate. However, the nomination was never wrapped up, so it appears that she miscalculated in not pushing for those votes to be counted in the beginning. Obama only miscalculated if those votes end up counting, but in all likelihood they won't (at least to a degree for it to matter in the nomination process).

It may turn out that taking the position that the votes shouldn't count will hurt Obama in the general election. Time will tell. However, Clinton has no one to blame so much as herself that the delegations were stripped in the first place. At the time it happened, there was no stronger force in the DNC than the Clintons and their supporters, and they acquiesced from the beginning. In this sense, it was her miscalculation that she is now trying to correct.

Perhaps the people of Florida and Michigan are being screwed, but that is partly the fault of their own representatives. I have no doubt that this situation will be corrected for the next presidential primary season, but that is besides the point for the moment.

Yes, Obama and his camp are currrently doing what is best for them politically. Clinton is doing the same thing, and both would be doing the very opposite if it suited them better. I see no reason to demonize Obama any more than I see a reason to demonize Clinton.

On a side note, I doubt this will have much affect on any future general elections than the one we are currently involved in. The situation will be corrected, and people have short memories. It is not as if people are not being given the chance to vote because of their race or gender. It is purely a technical situation of the nomination process.

 

[ReillyT]

By the way, Care, good morning.

 

[Care4all]

By the way, Care, good morning.

btw, the link / article you gave from NPR has a very deceiving header....

it says Hillary clinton's shift of the florida and michigan votes counting...

The article indicates she had been taking a stance on these votes counting from the VERY BEGINNING, only now to chnage her position.

IF YOU BELIEVE what npr is saying, then it is as I have said, she always stood for the votes of florida and michigan counting, as I mentioned there was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for her personally taking the position of NOT having them count because she WAS THE FRONT RUNNER, BIGTIME, in these states...OF COURSE SHE wanted those votes to count...silly really, for the Obama camp to play her response to this woman about the stance of the dnc just taken for michigan as HER PERSONAL POSITION?

Just a twist and turn to no end....

And no, she did NOT make the decision to ban these states...just because the people on the board did such, does not mean it was her stance.

She had NO REASON to ever take that stance of not counting the votes of these states because she knew they would be needed in the general election to win and she also knew there was no threat of any other candidate of beating her there.

Also, please note that on the michigan and Florida Democratic Party's websites before their primaries they went in to detail of how the voters MUST come out and vote and how they had a grassroots effort going to get people out to vote for president, that they would be heard in this Presidential election and they would be heard first...

Michiganians were told to vote for hillary or any of the other candidates by selecting the other column...55% chose hillary, some chose others on the ballot 5%, and 40% picked other....that was Obama and Edwards and a couple of others running at the time...that did take their names off.

to take hillary's votes completely away from her because obama and edwards chose to try to make themselves look better is a real problem to me.....

here is what the Florida Democratic Party said after the election:

News Room Amazing Night For Democrats Everywhere
No campaigns? No delegates? No problem. Florida Democrats prove America is ready for change

For Immediate Release: January 29, 2008

ORLANDO - Florida Democrats today surpassed the total combined vote in the first four "early states", topped the total population of New Hampshire, shattered the previous state record for turnout in a Democratic Presidential Primary, and even broke the previous record for turnout in ANY Democratic primary in Florida.

Incredibly, Democratic turnout has exceeded 1,708,489 voters with 97% of precincts reporting - only 195,074 less than Florida Republicans whose turnout was relatively dismal, considering five multi-million dollar GOP presidential campaigns were working the state for months. Republicans appear to have even failed to meet their own expected turnout, which was rumored to be between 2.2 and 2.5 million.

"Florida Democrats have spoken, and they are being heard loud and clear. More than one and a half million Democratic voters went to the polls and made a powerful collective statement,'" Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen L. Thurman said. "The nation's largest battleground state proved today that America wants change. Democrats clearly have the momentum in Florida and across this country. No matter the challenges we face, Florida Democrats will deliver for this country in November just like they did today. This is an incredible night for the people of Florida!"

Florida Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Turnout: 1,708,489

Population of New Hampshire according to 2007 US Census Projections: 1,315,828

1988 State of Florida record for Democratic Presidential Primary Turnout: 1,273,338

Combined 2008 turnout of the 4 early states (IA, NH, NV, SC) - 1,174,227 voters

They HAD RECORD NUMBERS on their turn out to vote for president...what happened to counting every dimple and every hanging chad, if it was to discern what the voter really wants, the citizen really wants?

Florida.....look at the darn numbers there....ALL OF THE 4 EARLY STATES that were permisted to run ALL COMBINED do not come to the total turnout of voters in Florida....

The DNC has got a problem on their hands alright...a huge one and we will lose this election in November if they don't do something.

Btw, Hillary DID NOT CAMPAIGN in those states...Obama did....yet she still won...he should lose all of his delegates there for doing such if the rules are really played by....

sure, Michigan bothers me a little, but truthfully, it was NOT hillary's fault and Obama has taken the wrong stance on this and has made the wrong moves like taking his name off the ballot...a slap to michigan, when it was not called for by the RULES, if he really wants to be our president he needs to take it on the chin and fight for these disenfranchised voters imho.

care

 

[Care4all]

By the way, Care, good morning.

mornin'

 

[Ravi]

Not seating all the delegates in Florida brings the exact same result as changing the votes to reflect that the majority in Florida voted for Obama.

No matter what they do on Saturday, the DNC fukked up big time and there is no way to fix it without pissing people off.

 

[Jon]

what about those that stayed home cause they were told the votes wouldnt be counting...

How are you going to reinfranchise those cats.. do you just tell them that they are shit out of luck.. ooops, sorry..

Yep, you do. You can't cast votes that weren't cast. And you can't place delegates based on "what would have happened if the people of Florida really thought this was going to count." You can only count the votes that were cast.

 

[ReillyT]

btw, the link / article you gave from NPR has a very deceiving header....

it says Hillary clinton's shift of the florida and michigan votes counting...

The article indicates she had been taking a stance on these votes counting from the VERY BEGINNING, only now to chnage her position.

IF YOU BELIEVE what npr is saying, then it is as I have said, she always stood for the votes of florida and michigan counting, as I mentioned there was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for her personally taking the position of NOT having them count because she WAS THE FRONT RUNNER, BIGTIME, in these states...OF COURSE SHE wanted those votes to count...silly really, for the Obama camp to play her response to this woman about the stance of the dnc just taken for michigan as HER PERSONAL POSITION?

Just a twist and turn to no end....

I am sorry. I read that article very differently from you. It seems clear to me that she acknowledged the votes (or at least Michigan's votes) would not count, but that she was keeping her name on the ballot so as not to alienate the population for the general election. While that may have been a smart move, it doesn't negate her acknowledgement that the vote wouldn't count.

And no, she did NOT make the decision to ban these states...just because the people on the board did such, does not mean it was her stance.

No, she personally did not. However, the DNC board, which was disproportionately packed with her supporters, did make that decision. The proper time to use her influence to get those votes counted would have been before the DNC decision, not after. If she couldn't change the minds of the DNC board before there had been a vote, why should the DNC board reverse itself now, when the result of including the essentially uncontested primaries could overturn the results of the other primary contests (assuming Obama will eventually win on the backs of these contests).

She had NO REASON to ever take that stance of not counting the votes of these states because she knew they would be needed in the general election to win and she also knew there was no threat of any other candidate of beating her there.

She personally would have had no reason, but the DNC had a reason (and I think a good one), and she may not have felt that Obama posed large enough of a threat to her to consider the long-term ramifications of this decision.

Also, please note that on the michigan and Florida Democratic Party's websites before their primaries they went in to detail of how the voters MUST come out and vote and how they had a grassroots effort going to get people out to vote for president, that they would be heard in this Presidential election and they would be heard first...

That's nice, but posting on the DNC website is less influential than the open statement that your votes will not count.

Michiganians were told to vote for hillary or any of the other candidates by selecting the other column...55% chose hillary, some chose others on the ballot 5%, and 40% picked other....that was Obama and Edwards and a couple of others running at the time...that did take their names off.

I do not believe the option of "uncommitted" necessarily produces the same result as actually having the name on the ballot. More important to me, however, is that the candidates didn't campaign in the contest, which was held early in the primary season, so it is likely the populace was not as familiar with the candidates as they are today.

to take hillary's votes completely away from her because obama and edwards chose to try to make themselves look better is a real problem to me.....

It isn't just Clinton. Votes towards all candidates were stripped. That was the rule of the DNC. Hence, there was no campaigning. Clinton did say that she didn't think it was important that she kept her name on the ballot. She said it wouldn't make a difference. Apparently, she has changed her mind on that.

They HAD RECORD NUMBERS on their turn out to vote for president...what happened to counting every dimple and every hanging chad, if it was to discern what the voter really wants, the citizen really wants?

Florida.....look at the darn numbers there....ALL OF THE 4 EARLY STATES that were permisted to run ALL COMBINED do not come to the total turnout of voters in Florida....

Florida is a big state. Would the turnout have been different if the votes had been acknowledged to be counted? I would think so. How would it have been different? Who knows? Would the results of the contest been different if all the candidates had campaigned in the state? I think so. How would it have been different? Who knows?

The DNC has got a problem on their hands alright...a huge one and we will lose this election in November if they don't do something.

Perhaps, but it is a little early to tell.

Btw, Hillary DID NOT CAMPAIGN in those states...Obama did....yet she still won...he should lose all of his delegates there for doing such if the rules are really played by.

No she did not campaign, but she did hold very large fundraisers that may have had some of the same effects of campaigning. It is arguable whether Obama campaigned. The nationwide ad buy could not exclude Florida. Regardless, I don't think either did the sort of campaigning necessary to really effect the vote, coupled with the fact that we don't know which parts of the population didn't vote that would have were the results to have counted.

sure, Michigan bothers me a little, but truthfully, it was NOT hillary's fault and Obama has taken the wrong stance on this and has made the wrong moves like taking his name off the ballot...a slap to michigan, when it was not called for by the RULES, if he really wants to be our president he needs to take it on the chin and fight for these disenfranchised voters imho.

care

The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place. Let's not confuse this with blacks in the 1950s. Besides, Clinton said that leaving her name on the ballot was essentially symbolic, since the vote wouldn't count anyway. Obama only made a miscalculation if the delegates are seated to his significant detriment, which they likely won't be.

 

[ReillyT]

Yep, you do. You can't cast votes that weren't cast. And you can't place delegates based on "what would have happened if the people of Florida really thought this was going to count." You can only count the votes that were cast.

Or not. Recognizing that the Florida vote may not be representative of the will of Floridians, and that the candidates didn't campaign, one could take the reasonable step of not counting the votes at all - which is essentially (50% shenanigans aside) what will happen.

 

[Jon]

However, the DNC board, which was disproportionately packed with her supporters, did make that decision.

Actually, moreso, it was the Florida state legislature that ultimately made the decision to screw over the voters in Florida. The DNC and the RNC told them to change their primary date, they refused.

The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place.

Not true. I think a LOT of voters in Florida knew they should vote that day because they knew that ultimately the DNC could decide to count their votes. I also think that Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dean, and the rest of the Democratic party knew the delegates would be seated eventually, because they knew they wouldn't want the voters in these two states to feel left out. What I don't think anyone expected was that seating the delegates could decide the outcome of the race. But, here we are, now what are they gonna do about it?

 

[ReillyT]

Not true. I think a LOT of voters in Florida knew they should vote that day because they knew that ultimately the DNC could decide to count their votes. I also think that Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dean, and the rest of the Democratic party knew the delegates would be seated eventually, because they knew they wouldn't want the voters in these two states to feel left out. What I don't think anyone expected was that seating the delegates could decide the outcome of the race. But, here we are, now what are they gonna do about it?

All true, but all that I meant is that in a party primary system, one doesn't have the legal right to vote, although the vote cannot be denied on some specific criteria such as race, gender, et.

I am sure that lots of voters did vote for precisely the reasons that you state. However, we will never know how many voters did not vote who otherwise would have, and we don't know who they would have voted for, and we don't know that the results wouldn't have been different had the candidates campaigned.

 

[Jon]

I absolutely agree. But we can't seat delegates on what might have been, either. We have to seat delegates on the votes that were cast, period.

 

[Ravi]

The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place.

hmmmmmmmmmm?

 

[ReillyT]

The voters are not disenfranchised because they had no right to vote in the first place.

hmmmmmmmmmm?

That is right. Disenfranchisement technically assumes a right to vote that existed in the first place. Illegal aliens are not disenfranchised because they have no right to vote in the first place. Legally, people have no right to vote on the nominee of any particular political party. Thus, states can be stripped of their opportunity to vote for a nominee, and yet they haven't been disenfranchised.

 

[Jeepers]

Hillary has always been for the votes to count in those states....THERE IS NO REASON for her not to want this from the very beginning because she was ALWAYS the front runner.....and she knew she would have the chance to plead her case for Florida and Michigan being counted before the board on May 31.

Good morning Care...


I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....

 

[ReillyT]

I absolutely agree. But we can't seat delegates on what might have been, either. We have to seat delegates on the votes that were cast, period.

True, but in light of the uncertainty of the Florida vote, whether it was fair to the candidates and the people, whether all those who would have voted did so, we can choose to not factor in these votes to the nominating process. No delegates must necessarily be seated from these states. It would be nice if they can be, but it is reasonable to have questions about the representativeness of the vote in light of the circumstances.