Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?

[J. J.]

I'll answer it this way, if the credentials committee chooses to seat them, or the convention chooses to seat them, yes.

That said, I'd prefer a revote, and would recommend one.

[J. J.]

I'll answer it this way, if the credentials committee chooses to seat them, or the convention chooses to seat them, yes.

And maybe pigs will fly.

It takes a majority to do it, inclusive of the super delegates.  It's possible, and, it will put Obama in the position of disenfranchising the delegates, and ultimately the voters of two large states.

"Vote Obama, he doesn't want you vote to count!"

That seems to be the type of campaign you want him to run.

[J. J.]

I'll answer it this way, if the credentials committee chooses to seat them, or the convention chooses to seat them, yes.

And maybe pigs will fly.

It takes a majority to do it, inclusive of the super delegates.

Ah yes, the Catch-22 argument again.

J. J.: Hillary can win if the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated.
Me: The DNC isn't going to seat them.
J. J.: A majority of delegates at the convention can vote to seat them.
Me: So Hillary can seat those delegations and win a majority if...she has a majority of delegates. Which would make the entire issue pointless.
J. J.: *silence*

Because she can get a majority of the delegates with the super delegates and her own elected delegates.  She can walking into the convention without a plurality of the elected and get a plurality of the elected delegates.  Obama can no longer say, "I have more elected delegates than she has, so you should vote for me."

[J. J.]

And the whole point of that argument is supposedly to sway superdelegates. If she already has a majority with super delegates, it becomes moot.

Did this ever occur to you that the super delegates really don't want to seen electing a candidate without a plurality of elected delegates, but would be happy to elect Hillary, if she has that plurality of elected delegates.  They may be willing to help her get those elected delegates.

[J. J.]

I will say it is legitimate only because the candidates knowingly elected to remove their names from the ballot. Was it fair, of course not. I would love a revote, but that is dead. So, either seat the delegates or disenfranchise the people. It is that simple...yes it is.

Well, Obama has helped put himself (not it wasn't all his fault) in the position of "Disenfranchiser-in Chief."  Couldn't he still get behind a revote?

[J. J.]

Couldn't he still get behind a revote?

J. J., you haven't presented a compelling reason why he'd be stupid enough to get behind one.  If your best argument is that he'll be the "disenfranchiser".....fuggetaboutit.  He's already calculated that out and is not getting behind it.  His campaign has been anything but stupid....if it would hurt him to not support it,  he'd be screaming for a re-vote.

He's counting on the delegates not being seated; that is a mistake.  As we both know, if Clinton had hold a bare majority, including the super delegates, they can be seated.  That's the first reason.

The second is that it can have an effect on the MI voters (not to mention that Democratic Party operatives) in the fall.

He doesn't yet realize how damaging this can end up being.

[J. J.]

I certainly agree that it's wrong for Obama to be doing that. As I said, I think the DNC should have handled it differently to begin with. Without the benefit of time travel, the next best option is certainly a revote and I believe that to be preferable to either sitting or not sitting the delegates.

I'm sceptical of Clinton saying "just seat the delegates" and I'm sceptical of Obama saying to not seat them. They're both doing it because of what the end result would be, I think the best thing to do would be to revote.

First, I agree that problem was created by Howard Dean.  Clinton, however, encouraged a revote; Obama did not come out in support (big Mistake, INO)

[J. J.]

I certainly agree that it's wrong for Obama to be doing that. As I said, I think the DNC should have handled it differently to begin with. Without the benefit of time travel, the next best option is certainly a revote and I believe that to be preferable to either sitting or not sitting the delegates.

I'm sceptical of Clinton saying "just seat the delegates" and I'm sceptical of Obama saying to not seat them. They're both doing it because of what the end result would be, I think the best thing to do would be to revote.

First, I agree that problem was created by Howard Dean.  Clinton, however, encouraged a revote; Obama did not come out in support (big Mistake, INO)

A big mistake which only you are holding his feet to the fire for.....when I see Hillary flat out say it (not subtle innuendo)....maybe I'll agree with you.

She said it less than a week ago:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/784367.aspx

[J. J.]

I certainly agree that it's wrong for Obama to be doing that. As I said, I think the DNC should have handled it differently to begin with. Without the benefit of time travel, the next best option is certainly a revote and I believe that to be preferable to either sitting or not sitting the delegates.

I'm sceptical of Clinton saying "just seat the delegates" and I'm sceptical of Obama saying to not seat them. They're both doing it because of what the end result would be, I think the best thing to do would be to revote.

First, I agree that problem was created by Howard Dean.  Clinton, however, encouraged a revote; Obama did not come out in support (big Mistake, INO)

A big mistake which only you are holding his feet to the fire for.....when I see Hillary flat out say it (not subtle innuendo)....maybe I'll agree with you.

She said it less than a week ago:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/784367.aspx

Her comments about his pastor have been more of a lightning rod......the VOTERS are blaming this squarely on the DNC....not Obama.  This just doens't have the legs you think it does.

The key is, Obama "blocked" it, though in reality he just didn't push it.  It's a big issue in FL/MI, and possibly with the super delegates.

[J. J.]

Please don't take it that a lack of further responses indicates any agreement with you.  We've had too many of these round and rounds over the years, that I know better than to keep this going, even when you're wrong.

GM, you've asked why it's important and if Hillary has raised it; the answer to the second question very clearly yes.  It becomes exceptionally important if the Obama margin is below the net gain that Hillary had in FL/MI, because he cannot claim that he has a majority of the delegates.  Now, he's not at that point right now, but it is very close; if it gets within that range, he can't convincingly make one of his arguments.  That is the answer to the first question.