So, now it appears that the Democratic candidates will have only half the votes from Michigan and Florida. Does that represent they are only half the people the DNC thought they should be? The people voted fair and square. If those states chose to move up their primaries, the voters should not be disenfranchised into becoming Half-Voters each on account of their respective state's decision which the voters had no control over. How about each Democratic candidate sharing the White House and Presidency half and half, each one for two years if the Democrats win?

ABC News: Officials Say Fla., Mich. Delegates Will Get Half-Votes

Dear SkyGem

Rules are rules, and there were arrangements made prior to rescheduling the dates.
Next to that : does it matter? Face it : Obama won the race already several weeks ago.
What is important that you vote when it really counts : during the actual election for the next US president !
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Dear SkyGem

Rules are rules, and there were arrangements made prior to rescheduling the dates.
Next to that : does it matter? Face it : Obama won the race already several weeks ago.
What is important that you vote when it really counts : during the actual election for the next US president !
:)

---

Dear Credendovidis, I would just like for you to take that argument to Floridians and the people from Michigan and see if they agree with your advise and logic. :)

Hillary originally didn't want the Florida or Michigan delegates seated because she thought she wouldn't need them. Of course, however, knowing the score she became more than wiling to favor circumventing those same rules. Obama proposed seating one hundred percent based on half votes to the delegates for Florida, where he didn't even campaign, and in Michigan, where he was not even on the ballots. That was a great concession and kindness on his part. I'd also make note concerning Michigan, of the 19 or 27 DNC rules committee members that voted for the proposition they were actually made up of Obama supporters and about half of those were Clinton supporters. Yup! The Clinton supporters are turning to Obama backers and in spite of the hold out the few Clinton scorched earth screamers, the Democratic party showed signs of unity today, to the Republicans disappointment. It was a great day for the Obama campaign and the Democratic party. :)

I still say a better compromise would've been to count them as 3/5th a vote.
The mostly insignificant Rules Committee came out from obscurity ;put on their makeup for C-Span and showed that rules don't matter. So the question then begs to be asked;why have rules ?

Sen Carl Levin mentioned at the meeting yesterday that N.H. broke the rules this cycle also and are facing no consequences. 2004, the DNC Rules Committee decided that New Hampshire would go third in the primary schedule and the second spot would rotate . According to Levin, New Hampshire decided they would not abide by these rules, and scheduled their primary in the second position. 2006, the Rules Committee recommended New Hampshire hold their primary January 22,and Nevada take the number 2 spot January 19. New Hampshire decided it did not have to follow DNC recommendations .It was only then that Michigan decided to move up it's primary date. The Committee decided to punish Fla. And Michigan but NOT New Hampshire. They were inconsistent in their selective use of the rules.

I would say that the Dems almost assured that Fla. And Michigan electors cast their ballots for McCain in Nov. Good job from that party that says all votes should count (even dead people from Chicago but not military personel casting absentee ballots).

The net result of weak decision is that they have moved the goal posts again and that now Obama is further away from clinching. They have guaranteed a floor fight unless Madam Mimi San Fran Nan Pelosi stifles it at the convention.

Both Parties need to review their rules for 2012 .The “front-loaded” calendar needs to be eliminated .I also think primaries need to be closed to registered voters;no crossover. The Democrats need to abolish superdelegates, proportionality in delegate allocation, and need to establish clear unambiguous punishment for states that break the rules.I don't think that losing delegates is the wisest answer.

The Republicans have already adopted a blueprint for change. They met in April in one of those unreported events and adopted the "Ohio plan" . Smaller states will vote first, followed by groups of bigger states, whose position on the calendar would be rotated each election cycle.This will not be finalized until the Republican Convention so it could fall prey to those who want the election cycle for 2012 to begin in 2009.

If the Dems win Nov. 4, the Repubs maybe could contest the validity of the winning Dem candidate based on his/her unconstitutional selection as the nominee. Counting humans as a fraction is frowned upon. All men are created equal?
Or could they contest it after the convention and tie up the Dems for 2 months before the election?
A political party overruling a sovereign state legislature and disenfranchising American citizen voters is a really big deal, and may cost Dems a lot of votes for stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I would say that the Dems almost assured that Fla. and Michigan electors cast their ballots for McCain in Nov. Good job from that party that says all votes should count (even dead people from Chicago but not military personel casting absentee ballots).

The net result of weak decision is that they have moved the goal posts again and that now Obama is further away from clinching. They have guaranteed a floor fight unless Madam Mimi San Fran Nan Pelosi stifles it at the convention.

---

I disagree on several other things that you've opinionated here, but I'll touch upon the few glaring ones as I'm heading out the door for work this morning. First, actually it puts Obama closer to reaching delegate count needed simply because he was already closer to the finish line. That being said it's expected according to most news networks that undecided super-delegates will be making their minds up soon, perhaps as early as by June fourth. Secondly, Michigan will perhaps be a Democrat state in November, a good chance. I'm conceding Florida only because it appears to be a Republican state regardless ever since Jeb Bush manipulated voting standards, but maybe the people will figure it out come general election this time. Lastly, Clinton can't have a floor fight at the convention and speak out the other side of her mouth on party unity. Although the few remnants of scorched earth campaigners may want that and Hillary may even threaten, but she'd all but ruin her career. Which in my book has already become tarnished anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

If the Dems win Nov. 4, the Repubs maybe could contest the validity of the winning Dem candidate based on his/her unconstitutional selection as the nominee. Counting humans as a fraction is frowned upon. All men are created equal?
Or could they contest it after the convention and tie up the Dems for 2 months before the election?
A political party overruling a sovereign state legislature and disenfranchising American citizen voters is a really big deal, and may cost Dems a lot of votes for stupidity.

---

This was in court a week ago, coincidentally by a Hillary supporter, and the judge ruled the DNC is permitted by setting their own guidelines in their own party. Any persons, or state elections in this case, not following those rules are subject to penalty.

Rules for Democrats? Precedent? Common sense? You kidding? Why, the supreme court rules, of course. And in this instance, Obama gets delegates from Michigan when he was not even on the ballot. Talking about a fix. They're all siting in their lifeboat with a big leak, and they don't see it.

Hillary was for the rules before she was against them.

First we have to remember this is not an "election" the state did not even have to do a vote it could have done a caucus as other states did and not even do voting. I don't see anyone up in arms that those states don't even get to vote.

They also were given the chance to have a new election if they wished to pay for it, and they did decide it was better not to count the votes than to spend money.

And in the end with the ability of the super delegates, they take the real choice out of the peoples vote and put it into the hands of the party leadership anyway, They could have saved all the trouble and let the party pick the person to start with, since that is why and how it ends up anyway.

Hello Sky:

Yup. It looks like your guy McBush is going down in flames a second time... He's going to lose to a black man who has no church. That ought to fry your born again tookas.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Sky:

Yup. It looks like your guy McBush is going down in flames a second time.... He's gonna lose to a black man who has no church. That ought to fry your born again tookas.

excon

---

Ah, spoken like a true Torah-thumping Rabbi!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

If the Dems win Nov. 4, the Repubs maybe could contest the validity of the winning Dem candidate based on his/her unconstitutional selection as the nominee. Counting humans as a fraction is frowned upon. All men are created equal?
Or could they contest it after the convention and tie up the Dems for 2 months before the election?
A political party overruling a sovereign state legislature and disenfranchising American citizen voters is a really big deal, and may cost Dems a lot of votes for stupidity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

First we have to remember this is not an "election" the state did not even have to do a vote it could have done a caucus as other states did and not even do voting. I don't see anyone up in arms that those states don't even get to vote.

---

smearcase--
The Friar and I disagree about several things, but he's spot-on here. The Constitution is silent about the nominating process, so all this blather about "unconstitutional disenfranchisement" is just so much hyperbole designed to put "lipstick on a pig".

And of course it is funny that Hillary can't get all the votes on a ballot where she is the only one running

Quote:

---

Michigan will perhaps be a Democrat state in November, a good chance.

---

Yes Bobby ;they demonstrated the wisdom of Solomon in splitting the votes in Michigan even though Obama got none in the primary. It showed the Dems for the hypocrites they are... set aside election results they don't like. Michigan white working class swing voters and Hillary supporters are certainly going to go Democrat after that!. not ! If this is a close election ,Obama will need Michigan . But now he and the Dems have spit in the eye of the Michigan voters .

Not only that ; had they stroked Evita it would have made no difference in the results ultimately but it would've given her a graceful exit .Now they have given her another reason to be defiant . She will take it to the convention floor simply because nothing but the top prize interests her.But now her ambition has a cause ;"democratic principles " .
HILLARY'S CRAZY CREW - New York Post

BTW that was really classy the way they man-handled the Evita supporters Sat . When they tossed them out and closed the doors in their face .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes Bobby ;they demonstrated the wisdom of Solomon in splitting the votes in Michigan even though Obama got none in the primary. It showed the Dems for the hypocrites they are ....set aside election results they don't like. Michigan white working class swing voters and Hillary supporters are certainly going to go Democrat after that!....not ! If this is a close election ,Obama will need Michigan . But now he and the Dems have spit in the eye of the Michigan voters .

---

Isn't the wisdom of Solomon, considering the FACT that Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan, better than turning a blind-eye to dictatorial styled results?? How about this? John McCain not having his name on ballots in the Michigan come general election and we count the votes as is? Surprisingly you seem to be all for it. Michigan had there eyes spit in by George Bush the past two terms so come general election the Democrats will dry those eyes. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Not only that ; had they stroked Evita it would have made no difference in the results ultimately but it would've given her a graceful exit .Now they have given her another reason to be defiant . She will take it to the convention floor simply because nothing but the top prize interests her.But now her ambition has a cause ;"democratic principles " .
HILLARY'S CRAZY CREW - New York Post

---

She'll effectivly lose that argument when the super-delegates chime in soon.

Quote:

---

She'll effectivly lose that argument when the super-delegates chime in soon.

---

More Democrat "democracy " in action. Her new campaign ads point out her record 17 million votes in this nominating season . Her supporters will not be satisfied with the notion that Party elites will decide the nomination over the will of the primary and caucus voters. I see a repeat of 1980 Kennedy all over this .

Quote:

---

all this blather about "unconstitutional disenfranchisement" is just so much hyperbole designed to put "lipstick on a pig"

---

Wow, so just because it's a primary it doesn't matter if their vote doesn't count? I'd be pi$$ed if my vote didn't count in ANY election. "Lipstick on a pig!" was exactly what one of the attendees thought of the outcome.

I think it's hilarious, after 7 years of people complaining Bush stole the 2000 election in the ultimate "disenfranchisement," that the Dems are giving half votes and estimating delegates.

If they broke the rules then I reckon they're lucky to be even getting half a vote. Seems pretty simple to me!

Or is all this carry on just another act in this marathon theatre production called a presidential election? Must be! Speilberg & Lucas would be proud!