Florida & Michigan delegates [modified]
-
Unofficial poll... Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention? Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself? Personally - I think they should either do like the RNC did, and just chop the awarded delegates in half, or have new primaries - on the state convention's dime. Lots of chatter on this topic around the net lately, and nobody's talking about it here. Seems like recently, there's an unwillingness to bring up highly controversial topics, I think we've all gotten sick of insulting each other... EDIT: We have not, however, gotten sick of 1-voting each other without saying why. Sigh.. :sigh: :doh:
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:27 PM
I think there will be another dead body at Fort Marcy park.
MrPlankton
-
Unofficial poll... Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention? Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself? Personally - I think they should either do like the RNC did, and just chop the awarded delegates in half, or have new primaries - on the state convention's dime. Lots of chatter on this topic around the net lately, and nobody's talking about it here. Seems like recently, there's an unwillingness to bring up highly controversial topics, I think we've all gotten sick of insulting each other... EDIT: We have not, however, gotten sick of 1-voting each other without saying why. Sigh.. :sigh: :doh:
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:27 PM
Patrick S, eh? ;)
Patrick S wrote:
Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention?
I wouldn't put it past her. Then again, that probably reflects my prejudices more than it does any real understanding of the topic.
Patrick S wrote:
Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself?
The snubbing of FL and MI? They exposed the joke that is the primary process, therefore, they were punished. The joke's on the Democrats though.
But who is the king of all of these folks?
-
Patrick S, eh? ;)
Patrick S wrote:
Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention?
I wouldn't put it past her. Then again, that probably reflects my prejudices more than it does any real understanding of the topic.
Patrick S wrote:
Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself?
The snubbing of FL and MI? They exposed the joke that is the primary process, therefore, they were punished. The joke's on the Democrats though.
But who is the king of all of these folks?
Shog9 wrote:
Patrick S, eh? ;)
I thought John C had a good point :)
Shog9 wrote:
The snubbing of FL and MI? They exposed the joke that is the primary process, therefore, they were punished. The joke's on the Democrats though.
Can't argue with that.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Unofficial poll... Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention? Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself? Personally - I think they should either do like the RNC did, and just chop the awarded delegates in half, or have new primaries - on the state convention's dime. Lots of chatter on this topic around the net lately, and nobody's talking about it here. Seems like recently, there's an unwillingness to bring up highly controversial topics, I think we've all gotten sick of insulting each other... EDIT: We have not, however, gotten sick of 1-voting each other without saying why. Sigh.. :sigh: :doh:
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:27 PM
Patrick S wrote:
Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention?
Only if they haven't been able to bribe enough super delegates. They can seat the florida and michigan delegates but force them to vote in line with the percentages of the total votes for the two candidates. Alternately they can have do-overs. The amount of money that would be spent in those two states would probably create an economic miracle in both of them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention?
Only if they haven't been able to bribe enough super delegates. They can seat the florida and michigan delegates but force them to vote in line with the percentages of the total votes for the two candidates. Alternately they can have do-overs. The amount of money that would be spent in those two states would probably create an economic miracle in both of them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
but force them to vote in line with the percentages of the total votes
How would that be fair to anyone, especially the voters in FL and MI ? Thats just as much disenfranchisement as not letting them vote at all. Of course Clinton will demand that they be seated, she'd be foolish not to (and as much as I disagree with her, she is not stupid). And Obama will not put up much opposition, because he can't afford to lose FL and MI in a general election either. Much ado about nothing. Someone should slap the crap out of NH and IA, who gave them exclusive rights on first?
-
Oakman wrote:
but force them to vote in line with the percentages of the total votes
How would that be fair to anyone, especially the voters in FL and MI ? Thats just as much disenfranchisement as not letting them vote at all. Of course Clinton will demand that they be seated, she'd be foolish not to (and as much as I disagree with her, she is not stupid). And Obama will not put up much opposition, because he can't afford to lose FL and MI in a general election either. Much ado about nothing. Someone should slap the crap out of NH and IA, who gave them exclusive rights on first?
Rob Graham wrote:
Thats just as much disenfranchisement as not letting them vote at all.
The only enfranchisement that they are entitled to is the one they will exercise in November. The rules for who gets to vote at the Democratic Convention are the business of the DNC. No one can say that the rules were not known when those two states changed their primaries. For them to whine about it now suggests the maturity of a five year old.
Rob Graham wrote:
Obama will not put up much opposition, because he can't afford to lose FL and MI in a general election either
I think that if the nomination is decided by any version of backroom politics, we will see a major walkout of delegates pledged to Obama. Rightly or wrongly they are totally committed to him and will not accept anything but his losing in a fair contest.
Rob Graham wrote:
Someone should slap the crap out of NH and IA, who gave them exclusive rights on first?
Well strictly speaking NH has been the first primary in the nation since 1920 and has held a primary every 4 years. Michigan has only held 10 primaries in the 170 years since its became a state. Although it did have a primary in the elections of 1916 - 1928, it then stopped having primaries until 1972.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:32 PM
-
Unofficial poll... Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention? Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself? Personally - I think they should either do like the RNC did, and just chop the awarded delegates in half, or have new primaries - on the state convention's dime. Lots of chatter on this topic around the net lately, and nobody's talking about it here. Seems like recently, there's an unwillingness to bring up highly controversial topics, I think we've all gotten sick of insulting each other... EDIT: We have not, however, gotten sick of 1-voting each other without saying why. Sigh.. :sigh: :doh:
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:27 PM
Patrick S wrote:
Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention?
Her campaign is talking about it openly and she has issued a statement saying she wants them seated. Whether she will try for it will depend on whether she thinks she can succeed.
Patrick S wrote:
Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself?
I think it is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Clintons. She is trying to break the rules for her own personal advantage. If she were to secure the nomination on the strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, then the Obama supporters would believe they had been robbed. This would split the party, completely alienate the black vote, and lose the Democrats the election.
Patrick S wrote:
Personally - I think they should either do like the RNC did, and just chop the awarded delegates in half, or have new primaries - on the state convention's dime.
Apparently it would be possible to have caucuses in the two states. Either do that or do nothing. The ideal scenario is that Obama has enough of a lead so it won't matter anyway and the issue never becomes controversial. Almost as good is that the super-delegates are disgusted by Clinton's actions and overwhelmingly swing behind Obama for the good of the party.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
but force them to vote in line with the percentages of the total votes
How would that be fair to anyone, especially the voters in FL and MI ? Thats just as much disenfranchisement as not letting them vote at all. Of course Clinton will demand that they be seated, she'd be foolish not to (and as much as I disagree with her, she is not stupid). And Obama will not put up much opposition, because he can't afford to lose FL and MI in a general election either. Much ado about nothing. Someone should slap the crap out of NH and IA, who gave them exclusive rights on first?
Rob Graham wrote:
Someone should slap the crap out of NH and IA, who gave them exclusive rights on first?
The DNC has specific sections for rules giving them first place in the start of the primary season. Historically they always did, so that was codified into the DNC rules. Personally, I think the whole primary/caucus system is a complete farce, in both parties. A popular vote, executed in every state on the same day, would be far more effective. Reasonable people can disagree I suppose, but the more I watch this go on the more it disgusts me.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Patrick S wrote:
Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention?
Her campaign is talking about it openly and she has issued a statement saying she wants them seated. Whether she will try for it will depend on whether she thinks she can succeed.
Patrick S wrote:
Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself?
I think it is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Clintons. She is trying to break the rules for her own personal advantage. If she were to secure the nomination on the strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, then the Obama supporters would believe they had been robbed. This would split the party, completely alienate the black vote, and lose the Democrats the election.
Patrick S wrote:
Personally - I think they should either do like the RNC did, and just chop the awarded delegates in half, or have new primaries - on the state convention's dime.
Apparently it would be possible to have caucuses in the two states. Either do that or do nothing. The ideal scenario is that Obama has enough of a lead so it won't matter anyway and the issue never becomes controversial. Almost as good is that the super-delegates are disgusted by Clinton's actions and overwhelmingly swing behind Obama for the good of the party.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think it is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Clintons. She is trying to break the rules for her own personal advantage. If she were to secure the nomination on the strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, then the Obama supporters would believe they had been robbed. This would split the party, completely alienate the black vote, and lose the Democrats the election.
The strange part is, it seems like everyone can see that except Clinton and her most shrill supporters.
John Carson wrote:
The ideal scenario is that Obama has enough of a lead so it won't matter anyway and the issue never becomes controversial.
He'll have to pick up ALOT of super delegates in the next couple of months for that to happen - Florida & Michigan dole out 356 delegates between them. There aren't enough states left for Obama to realistically take that much of a lead. He'd have to pick them up in super delegates - that means pretty much every single remaining uncommitted would have to swing his way. We're going to see this become the defining issue one way or the other.
John Carson wrote:
Almost as good is that the super-delegates are disgusted by Clinton's actions and overwhelmingly swing behind Obama for the good of the party.
That's already beginning to happen. Clinton is beginning to leak super delegates, and uncommitteds are beginning to choose Obama. We'll see, I suppose. Add to that the internet-driven theory (and we know how reliable these are) that Bill Clinton is trying to sabotage her campaign, and this could all be very entertaining to watch, if it weren't so important.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Someone should slap the crap out of NH and IA, who gave them exclusive rights on first?
The DNC has specific sections for rules giving them first place in the start of the primary season. Historically they always did, so that was codified into the DNC rules. Personally, I think the whole primary/caucus system is a complete farce, in both parties. A popular vote, executed in every state on the same day, would be far more effective. Reasonable people can disagree I suppose, but the more I watch this go on the more it disgusts me.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
A popular vote, executed in every state on the same day, would be far more effective.
That would require every state party to give up much of their power and some of their reason for existence.
Patrick S wrote:
but the more I watch this go on the more it disgusts me
I find it fascinating. Of course,I try very hard to forget that its the real world and not a novel.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
John Carson wrote:
I think it is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Clintons. She is trying to break the rules for her own personal advantage. If she were to secure the nomination on the strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, then the Obama supporters would believe they had been robbed. This would split the party, completely alienate the black vote, and lose the Democrats the election.
The strange part is, it seems like everyone can see that except Clinton and her most shrill supporters.
John Carson wrote:
The ideal scenario is that Obama has enough of a lead so it won't matter anyway and the issue never becomes controversial.
He'll have to pick up ALOT of super delegates in the next couple of months for that to happen - Florida & Michigan dole out 356 delegates between them. There aren't enough states left for Obama to realistically take that much of a lead. He'd have to pick them up in super delegates - that means pretty much every single remaining uncommitted would have to swing his way. We're going to see this become the defining issue one way or the other.
John Carson wrote:
Almost as good is that the super-delegates are disgusted by Clinton's actions and overwhelmingly swing behind Obama for the good of the party.
That's already beginning to happen. Clinton is beginning to leak super delegates, and uncommitteds are beginning to choose Obama. We'll see, I suppose. Add to that the internet-driven theory (and we know how reliable these are) that Bill Clinton is trying to sabotage her campaign, and this could all be very entertaining to watch, if it weren't so important.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
He'll have to pick up ALOT of super delegates in the next couple of months for that to happen - Florida & Michigan dole out 356 delegates between them. There aren't enough states left for Obama to realistically take that much of a lead.
I don't know the full details here. Obama was on the ballot in Florida, though he didn't campaign, so I presume he got some delegates. In Michigan, Obama was not on the ballot, so the voters got to decide between Hillary and uncommitted. Hillary won, but uncommitted got over 40% if I remember correctly. Presumably, most of them will go for Obama. Accordingly, I suspect that the net lead for Clinton from the two states is a lot less than 356, but I don't have good information on this.
John Carson
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Someone should slap the crap out of NH and IA, who gave them exclusive rights on first?
The DNC has specific sections for rules giving them first place in the start of the primary season. Historically they always did, so that was codified into the DNC rules. Personally, I think the whole primary/caucus system is a complete farce, in both parties. A popular vote, executed in every state on the same day, would be far more effective. Reasonable people can disagree I suppose, but the more I watch this go on the more it disgusts me.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Personally, I think the whole primary/caucus system is a complete farce, in both parties. A popular vote, executed in every state on the same day, would be far more effective.
One suggestion I heard was to have it over 3 days. The smallest states go first, then the medium and then the largest. This gives every state some time in the limelight while giving the voters some time to size up the candidates.
John Carson
-
Patrick S wrote:
Who here thinks Clinton will try to go for broke and get the delegates in those states seated at the convention?
Her campaign is talking about it openly and she has issued a statement saying she wants them seated. Whether she will try for it will depend on whether she thinks she can succeed.
Patrick S wrote:
Side question, and probably the real topic of discussion: what do people think of that issue in and of itself?
I think it is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Clintons. She is trying to break the rules for her own personal advantage. If she were to secure the nomination on the strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, then the Obama supporters would believe they had been robbed. This would split the party, completely alienate the black vote, and lose the Democrats the election.
Patrick S wrote:
Personally - I think they should either do like the RNC did, and just chop the awarded delegates in half, or have new primaries - on the state convention's dime.
Apparently it would be possible to have caucuses in the two states. Either do that or do nothing. The ideal scenario is that Obama has enough of a lead so it won't matter anyway and the issue never becomes controversial. Almost as good is that the super-delegates are disgusted by Clinton's actions and overwhelmingly swing behind Obama for the good of the party.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
She is trying to break the rules for her own personal advantage.
So? She's a politician, it's what they all do.
-
Patrick S wrote:
He'll have to pick up ALOT of super delegates in the next couple of months for that to happen - Florida & Michigan dole out 356 delegates between them. There aren't enough states left for Obama to realistically take that much of a lead.
I don't know the full details here. Obama was on the ballot in Florida, though he didn't campaign, so I presume he got some delegates. In Michigan, Obama was not on the ballot, so the voters got to decide between Hillary and uncommitted. Hillary won, but uncommitted got over 40% if I remember correctly. Presumably, most of them will go for Obama. Accordingly, I suspect that the net lead for Clinton from the two states is a lot less than 356, but I don't have good information on this.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I suspect that the net lead for Clinton from the two states is a lot less than 356,
I heard on MSNBC last night that counting the delegates from the two states, Obama remains in the lead for pledged delegates. A quick Google didn't turn up anything to support this, but apparently she's counting on these two states plus enough of a win in OH, TX, and PA to declare herself the winner.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
John Carson wrote:
She is trying to break the rules for her own personal advantage.
So? She's a politician, it's what they all do.
Steve_Harris wrote:
So? She's a politician, it's what they all do.
That is demonstrable nonsense. Politicians differ, just like the members of every other occupation. It is only intellectual laziness to claim otherwise.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
I suspect that the net lead for Clinton from the two states is a lot less than 356,
I heard on MSNBC last night that counting the delegates from the two states, Obama remains in the lead for pledged delegates. A quick Google didn't turn up anything to support this, but apparently she's counting on these two states plus enough of a win in OH, TX, and PA to declare herself the winner.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I heard on MSNBC last night that counting the delegates from the two states, Obama remains in the lead for pledged delegates. A quick Google didn't turn up anything to support this, but apparently she's counting on these two states plus enough of a win in OH, TX, and PA to declare herself the winner.
Even so, in Florida, Clinton would have earned 105 pledged delegates, 38 more than Obama's 67. In Michigan, where she was the only candidate to keep her name on the ballot, the state party has allotted her 73 delegates, 18 more than a bloc of 55 "uncommitted."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/16/disallowed_delegates_fate_crucial_to_democrats/[^] So that is a net 56 to Clinton plus 2*(every one of the 55 uncommitted she gets).
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
I heard on MSNBC last night that counting the delegates from the two states, Obama remains in the lead for pledged delegates. A quick Google didn't turn up anything to support this, but apparently she's counting on these two states plus enough of a win in OH, TX, and PA to declare herself the winner.
Even so, in Florida, Clinton would have earned 105 pledged delegates, 38 more than Obama's 67. In Michigan, where she was the only candidate to keep her name on the ballot, the state party has allotted her 73 delegates, 18 more than a bloc of 55 "uncommitted."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/16/disallowed_delegates_fate_crucial_to_democrats/[^] So that is a net 56 to Clinton plus 2*(every one of the 55 uncommitted she gets).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
good catch and a good article. It also spells out the process by which the delgates will be seated or not in a clear and concise manner.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface