Did Seating FL & MI Late Affect the Vote?

The fight and the discussion continues as to whether Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated even after breaking DNC rules which stated the consequences for a state if it chose to move up its election.

However, the discussion now seems to be not if, but how each state's delegates will be seated.

If that's true and both states delegates are seated, it bears recognizing that such a decision could have been made months ago.

If that decision were made months ago, then the race would have been a true dead heat, and one has to wonder if voters who were on the fence in the potomac states, Wisconsin, Texas, and North Carolina ... would have been affected.

Whatever the decision is on seating FL & MI, it's bound to be pointed out that the decision could have been made months ago and thus could have created a totally different playing field. So ...

Did Seating FL & MI Late Affect the Vote?

That is in fact the main penalty the DNC desired. In the end, especially now that the seating of the FL and MI delegations will not change the outcome of the nomination, I believe the DNC does not and never did have the desire to eliminate the delegations. What FL and MI were going after was influence on the race, by reducing the delegations to nothing, at least temporarily, their influence has been removed. Once all the voting is done, their delegations can be reinstated without influencing the race. FL and MI can have their delegations, appeasing some in those states that feel disenfranchised, but the true punishment has been removing the influence they were seeking. This is one reason I am hoping any decision from either the RBC or the CC comes after SD and MT vote so that it does not impact those states.

Too true and very well stated.

I think you're spot on.

This year's election should hopefully impact any future attempts by states to increase their influence.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ow. I think I hurt myself.

Sorry. ::wipes eyes:: I find any complaint from an Iowan about states seeking "influence" to be hysterically funny.

:eyes:

I think the Iowa process has worked well.

Would you rather West Virginia go first?

(That's my best attempt at a Chewy roar.)

No, I wouldn't like WV to go first. I would just like another small state, one with different issues, to go first next time. Preferably one with industrial/manufacturing issues. (But not Michigan--too big, in the first place, too tied to the auto industry in the second. It makes for bad environmental policy positions.) Maybe Connecticut or Rhode Island?

Anyway, I'm just sick to death of hearing all about ethanol policy every four years, and nothing about industrial or urban policy. It's time for some other issues to have a chance to...ahem... "influence" the initial winnowing out of the candidates.

FL & MI will be seated, but long after they could have had a "king-maker" role in the election. Which is as it should be.

when Obama wasn't even on the ticket?

those are the facts.

I can only imagine that it's hard for her to get over the fact that if both those states would have had their elections when they were supposed to, she may have done very well in Florida, and okay in Michigan.

Her campaign could be in a different place right now.

But the reality is different.

She set the negative tone when she didn't pull her name off the ballot in Michigan as Edwards and Obama did. That made a huge statement.

She tried to back peddle on that when she told NPR that not taking her name off was no big deal because it wasn't going to count anyway. She knew and felt that not taking her name off the ballot could have negative effects with Democrats who want a nominee who can rise above the frey.

However, she threw that out the window when she realized the uphill climb she had without FL and MI. So, she chooses to manufacture her own reality.

she did win. He chose to remove his name. There were still 4 candidates on the ballot.

Exit polls show that she would've won by a sizeable margin even if all the candidates were on the ballot.

FL would have stayed Clinton most likely, but if MI had followed the rules, Obama would have won MI.

Obama campaigned in plenty of states Clinton won.

with the notable exceptions of the Appalachian states of WV and KY. I highly doubt Clinton would have held on to her lead.

That's why 238,168 Michigan voters (40.07%) voted for Uncommitted???

Keep kidding yourself.

If Obama's name was on the ballot he would have taken most of that vote.

If all the candidates would have campaigned in Michigan I believe the result would have been similar to Wisconsin.

Undoubtedly those who chose to do that skewed Obama/Edwards, since they couldn't actually register support for their candidate.

Uncommitted.

But the exit polls show with all the names on the ballot, Clinton would've won 46% to 35%, iirc.

campaigning occurred does not bode well for Hillary's chances. She'd have had to have done a far better job of stopping him than she was managing at that point.

Yeah, that Uncommitted campaign brought in millions of dollars.

Get a life.

Hillary was polling way above 50% and Obama below 23% before the primary. In an attempt to embarass their competition, the dirty trick colluders actively campaigned via flyers, and radio ads encouraging the Michigan voters to choose "Uncommitted" over Hillary. The colluders thought they could make a fool of her. Their dirty trick failed miserably. Hillary collected over 55% of the TOTAL vote (Uncommitted + Dodd + Kucinch + Gravel + Clinton).

instead of losing.

You have got to be kidding.

You're telling me "uncommitted" received 40% of the vote because of flyers and radio ads?

Fuck me ... I guess the Obama campaign should push for more flyers and radio ads; combined w/ the other efforts the general election should be in the bag.

Lotsa labor support for Edwards, and his chair was a popular former MI Congresscritter.

when it should have, in which case Edwards would have already dropped out.

come to think of it, if he'd had Michigan coming up, would he have dropped out? Debatable, at least.

That's the popular vote lead that Clinton is touting, with Michigan included.

Edited to add link to source.

he campaigned in PA and outspent her 3-1, and still lost. He campaigned in plenty of states that Clinton won.

Michigan is a northern, industrial state. Clinton's done well in those.

making up points as easily as he was early on. PA isn't a very good example for you, actually--he still made up more points in the polling than he would have lost MI by.

As a Michigander, I have very little doubt that a FAIR and decent primary campaign in the State of Michigan would have yielded a far, far different result at the polls. In prohibiting campaigning, the institutionalized (entrenched) political powers were protected from a backlash in the state with the HIGHEST unemployment and highest rate of foreclosures. Suffice it to say that I'm CERTAIN that it was in Hillary's best interests to preclude any campaign in this state. I'm also certain her campaign (and her in-state surrogates) knew this. Her best bet was based solely on name-recognition and an aborted primary.

The Democratic Party (state, national, and other states) FUCKED OVER the people of Michigan in protecting the established PRIVILEGE of voters in states that DO NOT MATCH the demographics of either the Democratic Party or of the nation. It is an appalling FUBAR.

Both states KNEW it.. they CHOSE to break the rules anyway.

Here's hoping the voters deal with the party officials/legislators they chose/elected.