Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?

[they don't love you like i love you]

No.

[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.

[exopolitician]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[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.

[exopolitician]

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.

Your*

[they don't love you like i love you]

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*

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

By choice, of course. 

And it's not like Obama's people weren't campaigning heavily for "Uncommitted."

[they don't love you like i love you]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

By choice, of course. 

Would that choice have been made if the presented facts were that the election would count?

[MODU]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

They took their names off the list and/or did not follow the procedures to get their names added.  So, as far as that goes, yes it was a fair election.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

They took their names off the list and/or did not follow the procedures to get their names added.  So, as far as that goes, yes it was a fair election.

That's like saying that if a runner is told that a race is scheduled to start at some time, then the time is later changed and the runner is not informed of the change, resulting in the runner missing the race, and then saying that it was the runner's decision not to show up and thus it was fair race and fair that they "lost".

[MODU]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

They took their names off the list and/or did not follow the procedures to get their names added.  So, as far as that goes, yes it was a fair election.

That's like saying that if a runner is told that a race is scheduled to start at some time, then the time is later changed and the runner is not informed of the change, resulting in the runner missing the race, and then saying that it was the runner's decision not to show up and thus it was fair race and fair that they "lost".

No, since that wasn't the case.  The agreement was that none of the candidates were going to campaign in the state.  Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot, though no one told him to.  So, using your example, it would be like the runners agreeing to run without shoes, but one runner decided to cut his feet off all together.

[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."

[they don't love you like i love you]

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."

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

[Mr. Morden]

We should retroactively make every straw poll count towards awarding delegates.  Because after all, people voted, right?  Who cares what the rules were at the time of the voting?  As long as people are voting, those votes should count towards deciding the nomination, no matter whether the candidates and potential voters were told at the time that it would count, right?

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

They took their names off the list and/or did not follow the procedures to get their names added.  So, as far as that goes, yes it was a fair election.

That's like saying that if a runner is told that a race is scheduled to start at some time, then the time is later changed and the runner is not informed of the change, resulting in the runner missing the race, and then saying that it was the runner's decision not to show up and thus it was fair race and fair that they "lost".

No, since that wasn't the case.  The agreement was that none of the candidates were going to campaign in the state.  Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot, though no one told him to.  So, using your example, it would be like the runners agreeing to run without shoes, but one runner decided to cut his feet off all together.

Also all the runners agreed beforehand, and were told beforehand by the race organizers, that it wouldn't count for anything.

[WalterMitty]

no.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

OK, that's true if a majority of superdelegates were so in love with Hillary they just HAVE to anoint her but want to make it look fair. That doesn't appear to be the case though.

[SPC]

No, due to unfair actions taken by both sides. The State of Michigan had no right to push forward the Democratic primary, the DNC had no right to penalize candidates who visited the state.

[The Hack Hater]

If all other candidates besides Hillary and Mike Gravel withdrew their names from the Michigan state ballot, then of course it's not legtimate. A redo would be nice, but it isn't possible for reasons that most people probably know.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

By choice, of course. 

Would that choice have been made if the presented facts were that the election would count?

I'd have imagined that Barack Obama would have put his name on the ballot had he known it would have definitely counted, but the main reason he took his name off the ballot was just raw political strategery.

In a fair Clinton v. Obama fight, Clinton would have won handily.  Obama knew this, and decided to take his name off the ballot to (1) boost his standing amongst other voters by playing the "good Democrat" who honors New Hampshire and Iowa's first-in-the-nation status and (2) a big loss to Hillary in a state like Michigan would have set him back PR-wise, and would have given Hillary a much better chance at getting the results included.

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot because he was playing politics.  It was smart politics and the right thing to do from a strategic perspective, but it's hard to argue that Michigan's results aren't valid simply because Obama made the choice to keep his name off the ballot.

[Aizen]

No, it wasn't fair and legitimate (Normal)

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely correct, but it is valid to argue that when the rules said the delegates would not count, and one comported oneself accordingly, to then do an after the fact deus ex machina reanimation of the living dead to load the dice, is dirty pool.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fair, yes, legitimate, no (because legitimacy in internal elections is something set by the party in question).