One thing I will concede to the Clinton folks regarding Michigan and Florida:

We should have a real vote in those two states. I think the margins would be close enough in both states that Obama would still lead in pledged delegates and in popular vote. I think they'd tightly split Michigan and She'd handily win Florida (55% to 58% of the vote there).

Outside of that I think I could live with "apportioning" the delegates in both states in the following way: 55% Clinton 45% Obama. Based on regional factors, that isn't too far from the typical demographics of those two states. That would be slightly biased in Clinton's favor and pad her with with another 30 to 50 delegates but still not enough to win. Then you could reasonably level a penalty and split the delegate count in half just like the Republicans did.

It's clearly not fair to count them as is because neither state had a real primary. However, in my opinion its not fair to discount them altogether either.

But by any math, other than the insane proposition of counting Michigan and Florida as is which would be grossly unfair (I would truly then become a disenfranchised voter), Obama would clearly win the pledged delegate race in any reasonable scenario and thereby the nomination.

I also firmly believe that the super delegates will have to follow the split on the pledged delegates unless either candidate was grossly unable to demonstrate suitability for the nomination. As low as Clinton has gone in this process and as Republican-style of a campaign she has waged, she is still reasonably fit for the nomination. It's not as if she was cheating on her husband or anything like that.

knowing two large and important states were disenfranchised. And DON'T GIVE ME ANY BALONEY about the rules.

The fact is that there are millions of voters in those two states who are ultimately going to have less say than the people of Guam, and he really shouldn't feel comfortable about that.

although I said long before the primaries that I thought the rules were f***ed and that Michigan and Florida, with their economic issues, deserved an earlier shot at the primaries.

Of course, we now know that they could have had a voice anyway, but no one knew that ahead of time.

I think it's sad, and I think that it will tarnish an Obama victory, if he prevails.

I don't live there now, but I go back often and have a lot of ties there.

My mother says she gets fundraising letters from the DNC and she sends them back with "if you don't want my vote, then why do you want my money?"

Michigan's problems go back farther than NAFTA. It was Reagan who started dismantling the unions.

vote because they were told that it would not count.

i dont know how anyone can insist an election be made valid when candidates didnt campaign

i dont know how anyone can be blaming dnc or especially obama when it was clear to the state officials votes wouldnt be counted

Obama had an advantage there by being the lone candidate advertising in the state. Record turnout in Fla. which exceeded ANY turnout in this primary. Those results should stand. Count Fla. votes. I'm surprised we've forgotten so soon how important Fla. voters and their votes are.

there.

real campaigning, they would rightfully be considered farcical.

How that translates into "that makes the votes all that more significant" is beyond me.

The demographics favor McCain over either Democrat. We shouldn't waste too many resources on FL. It is corrupt, run by Republicans, and even the Democrats are in bed with the enemy. I say fuck them. We can win the election without them.

How many other states are you willing to fuck? Do you really think Obama is going to win those southern states that he swept in the primaries?

Bake

has very recently stated, but it will be one that both candidates can live with as well. The other thing that he made very clear is, with respect to the two states... The DNC cannot change the rules at the end of the game.

go, anything other than that and they are choosing to disenfranchise voters. The poor would certainly be affected in Florida because after hearing that their votes wouldn't count, many poor folks I'm sure didn't take off work or pay for a sitter or even waste the gas to vote "just for fun". I only see Clinton supporters saying that Florida should stand the way it is, I assume that is because they are like Clinton and don't care about disenfranchising voters, they care about a win at all costs.

What amazes me, is that the rules were accepted by the candidates, they acknowledged that people wouldn't count and then started speaking out when they needed the votes, showing Americans that they were only concerned with themselves winning and not the voters at all. Very selfish and not someone that should be representing the people!

if there was a re-vote. I said about a month ago that this could come back to bite Hillz in the ass.

:patriot:

She's like a dog and Obama has thrown her the MI and FL bones for her to chew on to keep her busy. Pretty good strategy by his campaign. She's having to spend too much time worrying about MI and FL and it's distracting her from better campaigning in other states.

have to come to the convention - it's wrong to leave them out. I think 50/50 is the only fair thing, but perhaps Dean can come up with something that will appease everyone.

Only solution to this mess are new elections in those two states.
Otherwise, we'll never come together to support one candidate.

It's a forest / tree thing.

We all knew about the DNC rules and the stripping of delegates. There was no uproar about it prior to the election. We knew it "wouldn't count for anything". Given past primaries, the assumption was it wouldn't make a difference. Anyone who wasn't raising a stink prior to the delegate-free primary, is not in a good position to claim to be a champion of Michigan's voter rights now.
Both campaigns have made political moves around this topic. Clinton didn't fight for Michigan's vote prior to the primary because it would have killed her in Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama taking his name off the ballot was a political move which made it more difficult for Clinton to change her tune once the "vote" was done.
While I will concede that the phrase disenfranchised may very loosely apply here, it doesn't fit completely. There is nothing in the constitution about the right to vote for a party's candidate. A party could choose their candidate any way they see fit. Our right to vote starts in November, and we will have a REAL VOTE then.
Anyone who says that they will not vote because they were not properly courted (like the special flower they are) during the primary season either has no idea what civic duty is or is just using that as an excuse to do what they were already going to do.

and a member of the "*Democratic*" party can choose to leave that party any time he or she wishes.

What if a few government and party leaders had screwed up and made it impossible for some other
sector of the party to vote?

Like for example, all bald people? Or people over 6 feet tall? Or all black people?

A sector of the party's voters is a sector whether it is based on geography (state), hair, height or race.

Spin it all you want, it's wrong and you know it.
You are blinded by your dedication to your candidate.
Case closed.

It's referring to the notion that some people were denied the right to vote. But voting in a primary is not a right. And I stand by the statement that a party can choose their candidate any way they see fit, including a dartboard or lottery. Of course if they want to remain viable in a national election, ideally they would include as many people as possible in that process and it would represent democracy as best it can.
But the Democratic party also did not want a free for all in primaries where only candidates with huge amounts of money going into the primaries can survive. Candidates already need to raise rediculous amounts of money to campaign. Allowing a system which would increase those needs up front (even before the campaign starts) only serves the established and the rich.
The Democratic party did not want this mess in Michigan and Florida, but they layed out the rules. They let the states know the penalty, and Michigan and Florida went ahead anyway. And when the penalty was announced, where was the outrage? Where were the vigils for voter rights? Where was Senator Clinton? and where were you?
Outrage after the election is hollow spin, it's wrong, and you should know it.
The Democratic party did not violate your rights. I wish there would have been a legitimate election here, but there wasn't. A redo that excludes part of the electorate in a state that has open primaries adds no legitimacy to the process.
It's not what the DNC wanted, but it's what happened.
If you feel you must leave the democratic party because you feel your inability to vote in a legitimate primary outweighs the issues facing us in the general election, that is sad. I would consider taking it up with the democratic leadership in Michigan, but that's me.
Come November, I will be voting for the democrat. Good luck to you.

revote
revote
revote