Should Florida and Michigan Seat their Delegates?

[Flatbutt1]

Well what do you guys think? My cynical side thinks it wouldn't be an issue if Clinton were winning but that is VERY cynical.

[kach22i]

I'm in Michigan.............it's over, damage is done - NO DO OVER.

[Rick Lee]

You gotta dance with who you brung.

MI and FL knew the rules, ignored them and they should pay the consequences. Just because Hildabeast thinks she can catch up in delegates is no reason at all to redo the primary. If they do, Hildabeast and Obama should foot the bill.

[Dueller]

No. But let their previously appointed superdelegates vote.

[hytem]

Florida is clearcut yes. It was the Republican legislature that changed the primary date. It was stupid for the DNC to intervene. But then, it's the Democrats. Their primary system is too complicated and needs an overhaul.

Michigan is less clear cut. Obama dropped his name off the ballot, but I understand put delegate slots on the ballot. Why did he drop his name off? Maybe because he thought he couldn't win.

Clinton won both states handily,without campaigning, and would probably win them again. Obama has shown he is weak in big working class states. The last thing she wants is "caucuses"--Obama gets huge turnouts of rabid supporters at those things which older working class Democrats don't bother with.

[Neilk]

I initially thought that they should do a do-over, but with McCain supporters openly voting for Hillary because she would be far easier to defeat, I think it would turn the do-over into a joke.

They should split the delegates based on popular vote.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by hytem

Michigan is less clear cut. Obama dropped his name off the ballot, but I understand put delegate slots on the ballot. Why did he drop his name off? Maybe because he thought he couldn't win.

I have not heard the "delegate slots" angle, what is that?

All the Dem's agreed not to campaign in Michigan and to remove their names from the ballot. Hillary later said she only promised not to campaign. Dobbs, who knows.

We had two names on the ballot, neither one attracted me so I voted for Ron Paul.

If there was a RE-DO, will anyone who voted "R" be prohibited from voting?

I wanted to vote for Bill Richardson (the most qualified) but never had the chance, is that fair? If a RE-DO is about being fair, how will anyone keep the republicans from messing with the results?

[URY914]

I'm in Florida and I say no. Don't change the rules after the game has started. Howard Dean made the rules, he needs to play along. Now the Dems have "disenfranchised" thier own voters.

[cgarr]

NO! No more days off for federal workers...

EDIT: Oh wait, if I can vote on the Dem side, then yes, anything to toss more gas on the fire!!

[PorschePilot]

The Democrat leadership knew what was going on before the primary season started and made a decision, so have the balls to stick with your decision.

Hillary needs the two states delegates and will make a big stink until she gets them.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by URY914

I'm in Florida and I say no. Don't change the rules after the game has started. Howard Dean made the rules, he needs to play along. Now the Dems have "disenfranchised" thier own voters.

Agreed. Show some integrity and stick with a decision. Funny now that Hillary is behind, all of a sudden they start to second guess themselves. I hate politics.......

[legion]

Seat them as they are.

Hillary getting the Dem nomination will ensure McCain is president.

[Dueller]

I say seat the super's and let them vote with their conscience. More have already committed to Hill so that should shut her up. Let Obama woo the others if he can.



Florida: 23 superdelegates, and 3 add-ons.


Clinton has 8 of them: Sen. Bill Nelson, Chuck Mohlke, Raul Martinez, Rep. Alcee Hastings, Rep. Corrine Brown, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Kendrick Meek, Ken Curtis
Obama has 4: Allan Katz, Joyce Cusack, Rep. Kathy Castor, Rep. Robert Wexler
11 are Uncommitted: Rep. Allen Boyd, Diane Glasser, Jon Ausman, Janee Murphy, Karen Thurman, Mitchell Ceasar, Rep. Ron Klein, Rudolph Parker, Terrie Brady, Rep. Tim Mahoney, Andrew Tobias



Michigan: 26 superdelegates, and 2 add-ons.:

Clinton has 7: Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Rep. John Dingell, Rep. Sander Levin, Rep. Dale Kildee, John Cherry, Joel Ferguson
Obama has 1: Rep. John Conyers
18 are Uncommitted: Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Rep. Bart Stupak, Arthenia Abbott, Debbie Dingell, Elizabeth Bunn, Robert Ficano, Jeffrey Radjewski, Joyce Lalonde, Lauren Wolfe, Michael Tardiff, Richard Wiener, Virgie Rollins, Eric Coleman, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Lu Battaglieri, Richard Shoemaker, Mark Brewer

[Rick Lee]

On the Dem side, do all the states award delegates proporitional to the popular vote or are some winner takes all? The problem with redoing MI and FL, if they are proportional, is that Hildabeast might win them, but still won't be able to get all the delegates. I just read that Obama now won a majority of delegates in TX after the final caucus numbers were tallied. I also heard that he picked up more delegates in WY than Hildabeast netted in TX over him. She is basically a salmon swimming upstream and unable to get to escape velocity. At the moment, I think her lead in superdelegates is still less than she needs to beat Obama in pledged delegates. She'd have to make clean sweeps in all the remaining states to win legitimately. And that means there will be some drama and shenanigans coming up. I'd put nothing past her.

[Dueller]

Dems are all proportional. Yeah, Rick...you've hit the nail on the head with the dems. I think given the way they allocate delegates in the primaries she'd have to win 60+% of the remaining popular vote AND have all uncommitted superdelegates go her way. I'm not quite sure how Edwards' delegates will be allocated.

She sure is swimming upstream at this point. She obviously thouhgt it would be over after Super Tuesday....WRONG. And no contingency plan. But I wouldn't put anything past her. If Obama goes into the convention leading in popular vote and pledged delegates and she gets the nominnation thru back room shennanigans the Democratic party may implode.

Gonna be interesting fer sure.

[BeyGon]

Would it be to simple to give each one, Obama and Hillary, 50% and let it go?
Why do anything over, if the DNC wants to spring for it I have no problem but if tax payers pay one cent it is too much. Just split them and let it go.

[URY914]

If you're just going to split them 50/50, why the hell do it at all?

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by URY914

If you're just going to split them 50/50, why the hell do it at all?

Exactly, except they can't claim they didn't have a vote, they are represented, they screwed up but still are represented. Otherwise, if it costs the taxpayer one penny it is still too much.

[hytem]

To respond to a couple of things, I'm not sure about what Obama had on the ballot in the way of "delegate slots"--but I read that he had something. There must be info somewhere on that. Newsweek?

The Democrats have made their primaries needlessly complicated--even more than Republicans. McCain is clear cut because their big states won mostly by him were winner take all. Obama-Clinton is not clear cut because their big states apportioned delegates by vote percentage. This hurt Clinton because she has won most of the big states, and would be ahead by 200 delegates or so by the Republican system.

In Texas, Republicans crossed over to vote for Obama by 53-47% over Clinton--Clinton won Democrats by 54-46% (USA Today). Republicans are not voting for Clinton--they are voting against her--because they have lost to the Clintons twice. They fear the Clintons more than Obama. He is an unknown waiting to be defined. The Clintons are an open book.

Right now, Clinton looks like the stronger candidate, because Obama's constituency (the young, the rich and the black)are more likely to vote for Clinton than Clinton's constituency (women, white working class) will vote for Obama. That's what the polls are showing.

Obama has won a lot of Southern states because of the black vote. The majority of his votes in Mississippi were black voters. Trouble is, the Democrats aren't going to win most of those red states. They need to win the big industrial states, where Clinton seems to be stronger. That is a dilemma for the Democrats.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by hytem

To respond to a couple of things, I'm not sure about what Obama had on the ballot in the way of "delegate slots"--but I read that he had something. There must be info somewhere on that. Newsweek?

The Democrats have made their primaries needlessly complicated--even more than Republicans. McCain is clear cut because their big states won mostly by him were winner take all. Obama-Clinton is not clear cut because their big states apportioned delegates by vote percentage. This hurt Clinton because she has won most of the big states, and would be ahead by 200 delegates or so by the Republican system.

In Texas, Republicans crossed over to vote for Obama by 53-47% over Clinton--Clinton won Democrats by 54-46% (USA Today). Republicans are not voting for Clinton--they are voting against her--because they have lost to the Clintons twice. They fear the Clintons more than Obama. He is an unknown waiting to be defined. The Clintons are an open book.

Right now, Clinton looks like the stronger candidate, because Obama's constituency (the young, the rich and the black)are more likely to vote for Clinton than Clinton's constituency (women, white working class) will vote for Obama. That's what the polls are showing.

Obama has won a lot of Southern states because of the black vote. The majority of his votes in Mississippi were black voters. Trouble is, the Democrats aren't going to win most of those red states. They need to win the big industrial states, where Clinton seems to be stronger. That is a dilemma for the Democrats.

Nothing new here, should the delegates be seated?