FTFA- provided that they're seated with full voting power.

Which isn't going to happen, so the hillary folks and the repugs that are also pushing this can just give it up.

The Detroit News is a notoriously Republican-leaning paper, and the column is written by a Republican lobbyist.

Well I hope she won Michigan, given that she ran against nobody. that would have been pretty embarrassing had she lost, huh?

This should go well.

ral315: The Detroit News is a notoriously Republican-leaning paper, and the column is written by a Republican lobbyist.

And it's certainly not that a Michigan paper has any interesting in making their state seem important.

Isn't it true that counting Florida, Hilary has the lead in popular vote?

If so, I'm surprised that Obama has resisted a revote in Florida and Michigan. He seems to do much better wherever he actively campaigns.

Well I hope she won Michigan, given that she ran against nobody. that would have been pretty embarrassing had she lost, huh?

And yet she still only got 55% of the vote...That = pathetic if I am giving my opinion.

SangamonTaylor: Isn't it true that counting Florida, Hilary has the lead in popular vote?

You have to count Florida AND Michigan for that. And given Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan (therefore received NO votes), there's no way this can be considered. As I said before, given she ran against no one, she better have won Michigan.

If so, I'm surprised that Obama has resisted a revote in Florida and Michigan. He seems to do much better wherever he actively campaigns.

I do agree on this. Not only is this entire situation going to disenfranchise voters in those states and possibly push them away from the Democratic party (maybe another reason Hillary is pandering?), even with results like PA in those states for a revote, Obama would still be winning.

Visualingo: You have to count Florida AND Michigan for that.

And Olbermann had a decent point last night. Give Obama the undecided votes in Michigan (40%?), and he's up again by 105,000 votes overall. She's only ahead if Michigan is counted with no Obama votes. I'm sure that would have been the outcome, right?

She has no honor or integrity whatsoever. She will do anything to win this nomination including stealing delegates from a state she agreed would not count.

The time and effort she's putting into MI shows that she is willing to override the will of the people for her own personal agenda. I hate her more and more everyday.

I really hope Obama crushes her in NC and IN in 2 weeks.

srhp29: Well I hope she won Michigan, given that she ran against nobody. that would have been pretty embarrassing had she lost, huh?

And yet she still only got 55% of the vote...That = pathetic if I am giving my opinion.

She BARELY defeated "UNDECIDED" in Mich.

King Something: She BARELY defeated "UNDECIDED" in Mich

She beat it by over 15 points.

I generally do not read Rolling Stone, much less quote from it, but I thought this (pops) was worded very well:

If this race ends up getting decided by a bunch of political insiders, in defiance of the popular vote, it's going to render all self-righteousness about the 2000 debacle meaningless. And if Hillary ends up winning it by claiming Florida delegates from an uncontested election, in the process once again disenfranchising thousands of minority voters in Miami and other urban areas (who would have voted for Obama, just as they voted for Gore in 2000), then it'll end up being a double fark-you to the public, a signal that the Democrats are no different from the Bush Republicans.

Assuming Obama finishes with more delegates, if Hillary was to wrest the nomination away through back-room deals at a brokered convention, you can bet that the republicans will have a whole truck full of video clips showing democrats harping on "the will of the people" and "every vote should count" etc.

I don't see how the delegates could be split between the candidates. The selection rules pretty clearly state that the penalty for early voting is that the violating state loses 50% of its delegates. And it allows for further sanctions, which I suppose is where the 100% penalty fits in. So, maybe they've got leeway to reverse the extra sanction, and seat half the delegates, but I don't see anything in the rules that allow them to seat them all, regardless of allocation.

Hillary Clinton wants to count Soviet-style elections. That's really all you need to know.

mrCasual: I don't see how the delegates could be split between the candidates. The selection rules pretty clearly state that the penalty for early voting is that the violating state loses 50% of its delegates. And it allows for further sanctions, which I suppose is where the 100% penalty fits in. So, maybe they've got leeway to reverse the extra sanction, and seat half the delegates, but I don't see anything in the rules that allow them to seat them all, regardless of allocation.

They are not bound by law. If the right people want to change the rules, they can and will. Hillary's just trying to convince the right people.

1. This article is completely manufactured B.S. It is an attempt to bait the Clinton supporters into believing they are getting shafted...while baiting the Obama supporters into being defensive.

2. The DNC has specifically said that they will do everything in their power to seat the delegates, provided both parties agree to the solution.

3. Hillary signed on and agreed to play by the rules set for by the DNC. I'm not talking about the specific rules set forth in Florida and Michigan, but the penalty the DNC came to a consesus on and she agreed to compete under the stipulations of that penalty. She was fully aware of the situation in Florida and Michigan before hand. She deliberately kept her mouth close when she signed on, because she didn't want to alienate the earlier states that consider their place very important. As soon as the primaries ended in those states, she attempted to change the rules in mid-stream. The DNC and Obama could of nailed her to the cross at this point and ended the election, because she was specifically undermining the party rules that she agreed to play by. They decided not to make a big deal about it because they didn't want to disenfranchise her voters... and we hoping the situation would work itself out.

4. The fact that she is willing to undermine the DNC and the intelligence of the members of the DNC basically underscores just how manipulative she is.

5. Whether or not the voters of Florida and Michigan are alienated = a moot point in this campaign, since Florida has no possibility of going to the Democrats and Michigan will definitley go.

6. There is no possible way they will overturn the Florida and Michigan decisions if it changes the outcome of the election. It will split the party down the line of "people who pay attention and vote democratic because they are the lesser evil" and "people who have absolutely no idea WTF is going on but support vagina"

7. Print this out and give it every Hillary supporter you know, this is information the DNC should of been mass mailing from the get-go and this race would of been OVER a long time ago.

And BTW the youtubes are filled with idiots spreading the "isn't it true that if you count Florida she has the lead in popular vote".

I've seen this posted far too many times since Pennsylvania for it to be random idiots.

Even if you count Florida: Hillary is behind over 200k.

fark off.

Neurochemist: And BTW the youtubes are filled with idiots spreading the "isn't it true that if you count Florida she has the lead in popular vote".

I've seen this posted far too many times since Pennsylvania for it to be random idiots.

Even if you count Florida: Hillary is behind over 200k.

fark off.

Much more than that. All these popular vote counts are disenfranchising the caucus states which don't report the popular vote, including WA, IO, and ME. His lead is bigger than that - much,

In the future, I'll bet the DNC is smart enough to add a clause that says: if you deliberately criticise the party by undermining the rules you agreed to, the DNC has the right to remove you from the primary process.

Neurochemist: And BTW the youtubes are filled with idiots spreading the "isn't it true that if you count Florida she has the lead in popular vote".

I've seen this posted far too many times since Pennsylvania for it to be random idiots.

Even if you count Florida: Hillary is behind over 200k.

fark off.

Careful, people may be misguided but they're still the one's you want supporting the nominee when that person is finally named.

This doesn't matter. Obama can win without Michigan or Florida. But Hillary won't stop trying to break the party. Go ahead Hillary. Drive everyone out of the party, because you "deserve" it.

The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

You're too late. Next time you should try to arrive a bit early so you can get your lame ass attempt at a troll in on time.

Heil Hillary!

Things are so simple when there is only one candidate on the ballot. Now if we had only one party, one branch of government, one leader for life...

Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

The voters in Michigan were not given Obama as a choice on the ballot. He didn't campaign in Florida. Because Michigan and Florida ignored the party's rules, and the candidates said they wouldn't campaign there. Hillary is a sleazy, cheating scumbag, and this whole scandal with Michigan and Florida is disgraceful. If their delegates are going to be seated, they NEED TO REVOTE. Or it's cheating, pure and simple.

rppp01a: You're too late. Next time you should try to arrive a bit early so you can get your lame ass attempt at a troll in on time.

I been a voting Democrat since 18 and if this harpy happen to win by some BS I will not vote

LordJiro: Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

The voters in Michigan were not given Obama as a choice on the ballot. He didn't campaign in Florida. Because Michigan and Florida ignored the party's rules, and the candidates said they wouldn't campaign there. Hillary is a sleazy, cheating scumbag, and this whole scandal with Michigan and Florida is disgraceful. If their delegates are going to be seated, they NEED TO REVOTE. Or it's cheating, pure and simple.


Be that as it may, Hillary has received more votes than Obama.

The Democrats need to show some balls and tell Michigan and Florida to fark off. They knew the rules. Those in power, DOCTOR DEAN, need to just tell Michigan and Florida to STFU and GBTW.

If the primary timing rules are to have any credibility next time around they need to be enforced this time.

Yeah, I'll believe the particulars of this article when they don't come from a source so obviously partisan AND prone to error.

Like this:

"It's becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn't have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month."

Why do they insist on pretending that this whole thing was up to Obama? He had very little say in the matter, and CERTAINLY didn't get to decide whether they get a revote or not.

The author clearly has an agenda of desiring the gloomiest and doomiest scenarios possible to come to pass for the Democrats. Keep this in mind and take the conclusions of this article with a rather large grain of salt.

Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

I know this is how you guys like to spin this situation, but how do you reconcile the fact that if Michigan is counted, Hilary's voters in Michigan will "get the franchise" but those supporting any other candidate will remain disenfranchised?

It's a gross violation, and you know it. You just want Obama to be taken down, and you don't really care how. Admit it.

Descartes: Be that as it may, Hillary has received more votes than Obama.

Only by a technicality, that his name was not on the ballot in an entire state. A ballot which, may I remind you, Hillary also pledged to remove her name from. I guess she conveniently forgot. Or maybe she misspoke?

Why is it only Hillary gets to decide when states count and when they don't?

I for one welcome a Bill Clinton shadow presidency.

Wow, what a crock.

Neurochemist: 1. This article is completely manufactured B.S. It is an attempt to bait the Clinton supporters into believing they are getting shafted...while baiting the Obama supporters into being defensive.

2. The DNC has specifically said that they will do everything in their power to seat the delegates, provided both parties agree to the solution.

3. Hillary signed on and agreed to play by the rules set for by the DNC. I'm not talking about the specific rules set forth in Florida and Michigan, but the penalty the DNC came to a consesus on and she agreed to compete under the stipulations of that penalty. She was fully aware of the situation in Florida and Michigan before hand. She deliberately kept her mouth close when she signed on, because she didn't want to alienate the earlier states that consider their place very important. As soon as the primaries ended in those states, she attempted to change the rules in mid-stream. The DNC and Obama could of nailed her to the cross at this point and ended the election, because she was specifically undermining the party rules that she agreed to play by. They decided not to make a big deal about it because they didn't want to disenfranchise her voters... and we hoping the situation would work itself out.

4. The fact that she is willing to undermine the DNC and the intelligence of the members of the DNC basically underscores just how manipulative she is.


Sometimes I wonder if shes thought her clever plan through...lets say she does manage to wheel, deal, and steal the nomination. As stated many times this will rip apart the Dems. Lets say somehow she wins the general, 99% says the Repub machine will eat her alive, but lets just play along here....

So she gets her entitled presidential position. I dont think she realizes that after generally farkin the entire Dem party they will have nothing to do with her. To save face with the voters, and protect thier places come midterm elections, the Dem reps and senators will snub her. She will be an absolutely impotent president. The repubs will have a 4 year field day making her look terrible.

Stealing this election will effectively end her political career, and I dont think she knows, or doesnt belive it.

GOLLARY!

Descartes: Be that as it may, Hillary has received more votes than Obama.

Where do you get those numbers? Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. That aside, there are no votes in caucus states, which means that all of the states Obama won wouldn't count in your grand total.

/Seriously though, where did you get those numbers?

Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

By counting the votes in Michigan and Florida you are disenfranchising those who didn't vote because Party rules said they wouldn't be counted. Why doesn't Hillary want to disenfranchise the politically aware who realized it was a pointless primary.

Descartes:

The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.



/ begone, ye dweller of underbridges

(Prescient Post)

Denver was so nice before the riots....

Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

Obama didn't disenfranchise anyone. Those state's parties tried to defy the national parties by moving their primaries up and were stripped of their delegates.

If you're looking for someone to villify, look at the state parties. Or at Clinton for keeping her name on the ballot and visiting these states after all of the candidates agreed not to, because she she intended from the very beginning to make a stink about having "won" them despite the fact that other people's names weren't even on the ballot.

Her "I'm going to look through every agreement I make with a fine-tooth comb and try to screw you" attitude (e.g. you didn't explicitly say I can't put my name on the ballot) is what we need to get rid of.

Michigan voters are smart enough to know who got them into this mess in the first place. (Florida might, but not holding my breath.) All the state legislature opponents have to say is 'My opponent made the decision that stripped you of your vote in the most important election of our time' and the targeted incumbent is toast.

Descartes: LordJiro: Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

The voters in Michigan were not given Obama as a choice on the ballot. He didn't campaign in Florida. Because Michigan and Florida ignored the party's rules, and the candidates said they wouldn't campaign there. Hillary is a sleazy, cheating scumbag, and this whole scandal with Michigan and Florida is disgraceful. If their delegates are going to be seated, they NEED TO REVOTE. Or it's cheating, pure and simple.


Be that as it may, Hillary has received more votes than Obama.

To get this result, you need to count Michigan as a 328,000 to 0 Clinton victory, and you need to discount caucus states because Clinton has decided that they don't count because they didn't vote for her. Seriously - I'm not making this up.

Descartes: The only way that Obama can even claim to have more votes than Hillary is to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington don't report popular vote totals. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't campaign in Florida.

If you take the absolute most ridiculous measure of the "popular vote" (which means excluding the fair contests in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington but counting the unfair contests in Florida AND Michigan, while giving Obama 0% in Michigan rather than the 40% that voted for "uncommitted") then she leads 15,116,304 to 14,993,833. That's a difference of 122,471 or .04%.

If you do something still incredibly unfair (exclude Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, while counting Florida and Michigan) but allocate the 237,762 Michigan "uncommitteds" to Obama then HE leads by 115,291 votes!

That grows if you count the estimates of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (she then leads by only .04%).

Additionally, caucuses (which Obama tends to win) take more time than simply voting does, so they have depressed turnout. If those states were to have held primaries he'd be winning by even more.

But EVEN if we take the silliest possible accounting of "popular vote" that lead will disappear after North Carolina. So those that are screaming "SHE'S AHEAD IN THE POPULAR VOTE" should just admit it's silly now cause you're going to have to in less than 2 weeks.

EVERYONE talking about her winning the popular vote now is nothing more than a troll with a new talking point.

Fark fundraising drive for a few hundred charter buses to let some of the fine residents of Detroit come to Denver and explain very politely in person that they did not actually vote for Hillary Clinton?

Does this really help Hillary though?

The more Wisconsin is seen as some ridiculously unfair and unrepresentative group of delegates, the less likely it is to be seated at the convention

Neurochemist: Even if you count Florida: Hillary is behind over 200k.

She's claiming to have the popular vote lead with Florida AND Pennsylvania counted.