Hillary will now roll out the "must seat Forida and Michigan" card

[agcatter]

In the name of fairness of course.  That will net her +80 delegates and at current projections would probably be the difference she needs.   No way she agrees to caucuses in those states.  Are you kidding?  After what's been happening in the caucus states?  No way.  It will be a messy way to win the nomination no doubt, but in the end, a win is a win and afterall, aren't the Clintons always about winning?

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Not even Hillary could get MI delegates seated.  I don't believe Obama's name was even on the ballot.  Did she run and win against Uncommitted?

[True Democrat]

Not even Hillary could get MI delegates seated.  I don't believe Obama's name was even on the ballot.  Did she run and win against Uncommitted?

There's talk of a revote in Michigan, which would be more likely than Florida.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

A MI re-vote would be fair with both campaigning ( obviously ).  Clinton favors primaries, Obama favors caucuses.  Make it a primary.  I believe Obama will win or at least break close to even in delegates

[agcatter]

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

[Bacon King]

A primary would cost to much money, I've heard. If there's a revote, I'm betting it would be a caucus.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Calling a caucus a "revote" is a violation of all trades description laws known to man.

[Mr. Morden]

Don't worry, back in October, Clinton told NH voters that it didn't matter that her name was being left on the ballot in Michigan because the election was meaningless anyway.  She wouldn't reverse herself now: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TomC]

Calling a caucus a "revote" is a violation of all trades description laws known to man.

Telling state governments and candidates "This won't count; don't participate in them," and then saying afterwards "Oh, by the way, yes, they will" amounts to an ex-post facto law that violates constitutional principles. The thing is, we're not talking about constitutional principles or "law," but the nominating contest of a party.  The DNC told the states what would happen if they violated the calendar rules; two states broke the rule anyway. To change the rules now removes the guiding principle (known to man) of "rule of law" in favor of arbitrary decision making.

My opinion, fwiw, is that one should count and one should be a revote.

[Padfoot]

Typical Clinton tactics, everyone should follow the rules except when it keeps us from getting what we want are entitled to.

[Aizen]

It was admirable but a little naive of Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. For Clinton it was just deplorable to leave her name on when everyone else took it off. No comment for Florida.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

[Frodo]

Hillary makes Romney look as if he has principles....   

[exopolitician]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

[J. J.]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

Under that theory the Super Delegates get full votes, just so realize that.

[TomC]

Does Bill Nelson move up as a possible Dem VP nominee to appease Fla.?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

Under that theory the Super Delegates get full votes, just so realize that.

Huh?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does Bill Nelson move up as a possible Dem VP nominee to appease Fla.?

Bob Graham would make a lot more sense.

[J. J.]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

Under that theory the Super Delegates get full votes, just so realize that.

Huh?

If you are saying, "Obey the rules," those same rules say that those super delegates can vote for whomever they wish to, even against the candidate that had a majority of elected delegates.

In the case of the FL at least, I really don't see any way to say, "Don't seat them because they violated the rules," and then saying "The super delegates, who under the rules can vote, shouldn't be choosing the nominee."  You can make both claims, and be branded as a hypocrite, of course.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

Under that theory the Super Delegates get full votes, just so realize that.

Huh?

If you are saying, "Obey the rules," those same rules say that those super delegates can vote for whomever they wish to, even against the candidate that had a majority of elected delegates.

In the case of the FL at least, I really don't see any way to say, "Don't seat them because they violated the rules," and then saying "The super delegates, who under the rules can vote, shouldn't be choosing the nominee."  You can make both claims, and be branded as a hypocrite, of course.

I didn't say that the superdelegates can't vote for whoever, it would just be a bad thing if they didn't vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Many people have said they would leave the party if that happened.

In the end, I think they will vote for the winner of the pledged delegates, no matter how much the Clinton supporters like to tout the delegate numbers with superdelegates, and incomplete pledged delegate counts to make it sound like Clinton is doing better than she really is.

[J. J.]

I didn't say that the superdelegates can't vote for whoever, it would just be a bad thing if they didn't vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Many people have said they would leave the party if that happened.

I didn't say that you did, but I wanted to point out that this would be the logic of your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On that point, I disagree.  If Clinton can win it only with the super delegates, that is what will happen.

I think there is nasty little pit that was dug for Obama to fall into in August.

Obama says:  We should follow the will of the elected delegates.
Clinton says:  Sure, then seat the elected delegates from FL and MI.
If Obama says no, he looks like a hypocrite.

Clinton is exceptionally nasty, but she's also very good at campaigns.

[Gabu]

Obama says:  We should follow the will of the elected delegates.
Clinton says:  Sure, then seat the elected delegates from FL and MI.
If Obama says no, he looks like a hypocrite.

Clinton is exceptionally nasty, but she's also very good at campaigns.

But technically speaking there were no elected delegates from FL and MI.

[The Mikado]

And if Obama has enough delegates that he has a pledged delegate lead even with FL&MI (assuming MI Uncommitted end up in his column), but not enough delegates to sow up the nomination? (A possibility I think might happen if Obama keeps ringing up these massive wins in small states)  Puts the burden back on Hillary, doesn't it?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I didn't say that the superdelegates can't vote for whoever, it would just be a bad thing if they didn't vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Many people have said they would leave the party if that happened.

I didn't say that you did, but I wanted to point out that this would be the logic of your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On that point, I disagree.  If Clinton can win it only with the super delegates, that is what will happen.

I think there is nasty little pit that was dug for Obama to fall into in August.

Obama says:  We should follow the will of the elected delegates.
Clinton says:  Sure, then seat the elected delegates from FL and MI.
If Obama says no, he looks like a hypocrite.

Clinton is exceptionally nasty, but she's also very good at campaigns.

Florida and Michigan were offered to revote, like Delaware had to in 1996. If they don't want to revote, that's their own problem. They broke the rules, not the DNC or Obama.

Of course all of this is irrelevant if either Clinton is ahead among actual pledged delegates, or if Obama leads by more than the difference of Michigan and Florida. Michigan is especially a problem, are those "uncommitted" non-existant delegates going to vote for Obama?