DNC lawyers say FL and MI must forfeit "at least half their delegates".. not half vote for each.

There is a difference, and these two articles point out what is likely to happen on Saturday. I seriously doubt that the Rules Committee will go against their own lawyers.

DNC Lawyers Rule Against Clinton



MSNBC's First Read did a good job of clarifying the difference between forfeiting half the delegates and allowing full delegates one half vote each.

The circus comes to town



I do not even pretend to understand that math, but Chuck Todd apparently believes in it. He has done a trustworthy job so far.

I think the inevitable nature of what will take place this week is beginning to come together....especially with the dismissal of the next to the last lawsuit against the DNC by FL.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"And every republicon occultist knows what that means. Smirk."

- Ronald Reagan's Dead Republicon Astrologer*


* Courageously channeled by Spiral Hawk from the vast netherworld of republicon occultism

Oh, that's an interesting wrinkle! That would mean that all the delegate counts would need to be re-calculated.

Interesting. I'll be very curious to see how this works out.

Republicans? You mean the same lawyers who approved the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and Supreme Court support to give Bush votes but not Gore?

Trustworthy job of negating delegates of MI and FL from the party?

They rule against the Democratic voters of FL and MI not Hillary Clinton. Against all of us really.

Who are you fooling?

a candidate's # go from 19 to 6?

as opposed to by delegate. Thats based on some districts getting more delegates than others. So its better for Hillary if they strike half the delegates (what they'll do), better for Obama if they strike half the votes.

They're hoping you won't notice.

your in the majority--they don't make sense to many of us:crazy:

Usually he's up on the rules. Half the delegates is half the delegates. Not half the votes.

Personally, I think there should be no adjustment of the original decision. But if there is, I hope the rules give the committee flexibility to ban the supers first. They're the ones who created the mess in the first place.

Thanks, once again, madfloridian, for keeping us all up to date on this. :toast:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/30/dnc_meeting/




There is a comment from staunch Clinton supporter Tina Flournay and another Clinton supporter, Don Fowler.



They all talk as though the 50% seating and the .5 vote are the same thing.

Is Chuck Todd right or wrong?

I haven't paid attention to Salon for a long time. Never liked their DLC attitude.

:crazy: my head is spinning...the numbers --THE NUMBERS!

I always hated Math...please make the pain STOP!:argh:

Fuzzy math indeed. 57 or one state more...Alaska and Hawaii to visit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

A friend of mine says there really are more states than that...if you count Mexico and Canada..Cuba, etc. in their Americas Union.

Obama and Bush need to sit down and get "eduated" about our country.

Yes...he's tied but why say that when he is confused? Where is that speech writer anyway? He's lost without him or are we?

dunno what you are trying to make a point about but there are 56 areas voting--give or take

They also said that none of Michigan's delegates could be given to Obama. Why did you leave that out of your OP?

Please do. I may have read it differently.

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects of persuading Democratic officials to override party rules and recognize all delegates selected in the Florida and Michigan primaries suffered a setback yesterday after lawyers for the party ruled that no more than half of those delegations could be legally recognized.

Democratic National Committee lawyers wrote in a memo that the two states must forfeit at least half of their delegates as punishment for holding primaries earlier than DNC rules allowed. Clinton (N.Y.) prevailed in both contests, although the Democratic candidates had agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, and Sen. Barack Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot."

And please do not accuse me of trying to mislead. I may make mistakes, but I do not intentionally try to mislead.

You always do that to me. I would like you to stop, please.

Why did you not use the same source I did? I will read your source, but you need to apologize.

"Some have suggested a fair solution would be to give Obama the uncommitted delegates from Michigan, but the Clinton campaign maintains Obama should not get any of the state's pledged delegates."

Where do you see the DNC lawyers saying that?