Well who didn't see this coming? We can't have a couple of rule breaking states feeling 'disenfranchised' now, can we?

50% means this is over. She'll drop out between the 4th and the 6th.

Hero? Aquaman's a hero! He can talk to the fishes! What the fark can Hillary do?

TheCid: 50% means this is over. She'll drop out between the 4th and the 6th.

I'll believe it when I see it. 50% does mean its over, but let's see what plays out tomorrow.

Yay, my first green light in a while!

She was going to be told point blank tomorrow to drop out by the party. This is the face-saving gesture.

gilgigamesh: TheCid: 50% means this is over. She'll drop out between the 4th and the 6th.

I'll believe it when I see it. 50% does mean its over, but let's see what plays out tomorrow.

Sure. But I guarantee you she's dropping out between the 4th and the 6th if Obama has it won.

Whamdangler: She was going to be told point blank tomorrow to drop out by the party. This is the face-saving gesture.

She won't drop out before the last 3 primaries. There's literally no reason to drop out between now and the 3rd. If she's gone this long, she can wait til after the 3rd.

*holding breath*

Hillary hates white people

/There. It has been said.

You have no idea how angry this makes me.

Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone. And I'm not saying they were invalid because Dean said so. They were invalid because (arguably) neither candidate campaigned the way they normally would have. How can you possibly say those results are reflective of true will of the people?

And don't even get me started on Hillary being the only name on the ballot in MI. That's a double invalidation.

Diogenes: You have no idea how angry this makes me.

Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone. And I'm not saying they were invalid because Dean said so. They were invalid because (arguably) neither candidate campaigned the way they normally would have. How can you possibly say those results are reflective of true will of the people?

And don't even get me started on Hillary being the only name on the ballot in MI. That's a double invalidation.

As if common sense has ever prevailed

muslim_pakistani_guy: As if common sense has ever prevailed

Indeed. Common sense is a rare commodity these days.

Better to concede the point graciously today, than to lose entirely tomorrow.

Good, does this mean Rachel Maddow will stop her "Oh noes, Hillary's going to go to the convention= John McCain wins" stuff?

Diogenes: You have no idea how angry this makes me.

Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone. And I'm not saying they were invalid because Dean said so. They were invalid because (arguably) neither candidate campaigned the way they normally would have. How can you possibly say those results are reflective of true will of the people?

And don't even get me started on Hillary being the only name on the ballot in MI. That's a double invalidation.

Thank you! Someone has a clue! The votes in those two states are utterly meaningless.

TheCid: 50% means this is over. She'll drop out between the 4th and the 6th.

No she won't. In her warped mind, 50% of FL's & MI's delegates just put her closer to the nomination.

Hillary conceds

That's all the headline really needs.

Diogenes: And don't even get me started on Hillary being the only name on the ballot in MI.

She only got 55% of the vote against no one. An empty chair was within 5% of beating her.

Diogenes: You have no idea how angry this makes me.

Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone. And I'm not saying they were invalid because Dean said so. They were invalid because (arguably) neither candidate campaigned the way they normally would have. How can you possibly say those results are reflective of true will of the people?

Nestea Plunge: Why'd that coont Dean let her get away with this?

It's worth noting that the initial rules said that the penalty was worth losing half the delegates, and the rules committe later voted to make it losing all.
Even the half penalty results in the difference between the candidates being marginal, so this is acceptable.

brigid_fitch: No she won't. In her warped mind, 50% of FL's & MI's delegates just put her closer to the nomination.

She'll drop out between the 4th and 6th because the last primaries are held on the 3rd and the 6th is the Friday. She *might* drop on the 7th but I doubt it.

So, um... yeah.

Like I said, let's see what happens tomorrow.

Visualingo: Hero? Aquaman's a hero! He can talk to the fishes! What the fark can Hillary do?

Maybe talk to the fishes, maybe have some fun
Maybe shake my pale fist at the angry stars
While I dance a jig under the eyes of Mars

/Actually reasonably obscure
//Some FARKer will get it, though, I'm sure

Why the hell are they holding the vote on a Saturday anyway?

I'm not so sure about this.
Less than two hours ago, Clinton lawyers were stating that "the committee is compelled to seat both delegations fully and not award Barack Obama any delegates from Michigan." ^(pops)
That's an awfully quick reversal.

Diogenes: Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone.

If Hillary wasn't equating the plight of Mi and FL to that of Rosa Parks for the last two months, we wouldn't have this problem.

As it is, the DNC has to keep these voters from feeling disenfrenchfried.

submitter: splitting the delegates in FL and MI 50/50

I don't think that this is what TFA says. I think it says that half the delegates will be seated. How they will vote is another issue.

TheCid: Diogenes: You have no idea how angry this makes me.

Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone. And I'm not saying they were invalid because Dean said so. They were invalid because (arguably) neither candidate campaigned the way they normally would have. How can you possibly say those results are reflective of true will of the people?

Nestea Plunge: Why'd that coont Dean let her get away with this?

It's worth noting that the initial rules said that the penalty was worth losing half the delegates, and the rules committe later voted to make it losing all.
Even the half penalty results in the difference between the candidates being marginal, so this is acceptable.

brigid_fitch: No she won't. In her warped mind, 50% of FL's & MI's delegates just put her closer to the nomination.

She'll drop out between the 4th and 6th because the last primaries are held on the 3rd and the 6th is the Friday. She *might* drop on the 7th but I doubt it.

It's the principle of the thing for me, obviously. But Hilldabeast wants to save face and Dean, for whatever reason, is willing to let her get away with it. Probably to pacify the delegates going to convention in the fall.

gilgigamesh: So, um... yeah.

Like I said, let's see what happens tomorrow.

First off, linking to PDFs w/o warning is irritating.

But yeah; that's not gonna happen. Dean's already made it clear that there will be some sort of penalty.

jenniferwillow: Yay, my first green light in a while!

Hey, congratulations! You wrote a headline that in no way represents reality, or even what's in the linked article! Awesome!

The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway.

They conceded that FL and MI broke the rules. They haven't agreed to 50/50 or anything of the sort.

But everyone discuss what's in the fictional headline.

GOD DAMN IT SO MUCH

Diogenes: It's the principle of the thing for me, obviously. But Hilldabeast wants to save face and Dean, for whatever reason, is willing to let her get away with it. Probably to pacify the delegates going to convention in the fall.

No. Dean has made it very clear that the two states WILL be punished in some way to discourage this from happening in the future. They will not be seated in full.

They won't be completely un-seated to stop the Repubs from going "SEE THE DEMS ARE DISENFRANCHISING YOU!!!" and winning more of the idiot vote- Florida is a battleground state.

TheCid: First off, linking to PDFs w/o warning is irritating.

Really? Why?

I had no idea that was poor form.

Diogenes: Probably to pacify the delegates going to convention in the fall.

And possibly to pacify the voters in November.

gilgigamesh: I had no idea that was poor form.

a pox on your genitals

Nestea Plunge: It was their own damn fault, the voters were warned well ahead of time and frequently what would happen if they held their primaries early.

But the fact is the democrats cannot just tell two states - two big battlegrounds - to go fark themselves. The republicans will be all over them as hypocrites in the general.

They have to make some concession.

truth_is_stranger_than_fishin: a pox on your genitals

So that's what that itching is. For a minute there I thought it was crabs.

gilgigamesh: Diogenes: Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone.

If Hillary wasn't equating the plight of Mi and FL to that of Rosa Parks for the last two months, we wouldn't have this problem.

As it is, the DNC has to keep these voters from feeling disenfrenchfried.

I'm glad you qualified it as "feeling" disenfranchised. And it wasn't disenfranchisement. I feel more wounded by having my vote in January count toward the final selection, when the primary's status was questionable at best.

I was feeling pretty bitter toward the FL state Dems for not protesting the calendar change more strenuously. But I saw Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (FL-D) on Chris Matthews last night and she explained some more about what really happened on that vote.

It turns out that what they were voting on was an omnibus election reform bill where one of the most important provisions was to allow for recounts (so as to avoid another 2000). They couldn't strike the calendar change from the bill. So they were kind of between a rock and hard place, and decided violating the will of the DNC was preferable.

It does't make me feel much better about this primary, but I'm heartened that my state Democrats aren't completely cowardless tards that just rolled over.

gilgigamesh: TheCid: First off, linking to PDFs w/o warning is irritating.

Really? Why?

I had no idea that was poor form.

Because Adobe Acrobat is f*cking slow. I have some other stuff on my home computer but I'm in a lab at the moment and most people have no idea Foxit even exists.

TheCid: Because Adobe Acrobat is f*cking slow. I have some other stuff on my home computer but I'm in a lab at the moment and most people have no idea Foxit even exists.

Oh damn. Sorry about that. I'll remember it for the future.

gilgigamesh: So, um... yeah.

Like I said, let's see what happens tomorrow.

Wow. Just wow. How can an attorney write that with a straight face.

1) Make agreement to honor the punishments doled out to Michigan/Florida by the DNC.
2) Have every other candidate take their names off the ballot in Michigan.
3) Leave yours on, in violation of the agreement you signed.
4) Profit?

Nestea Plunge: It was their own damn fault, the voters were warned well ahead of time and frequently what would happen if they held their primaries early.

Did the voters decide this or did the Michigan Democratic Party? If the party itself, and not the voters, I'd have to say your comment is misplaced. If the voters did, well, you're right.

Diogenes: I'm glad you qualified it as "feeling" disenfranchised.

Well, yeah, I did that because I'm not an idiot.

I know it isn't disenfranchisement, but I also know perception is reality in politics. And that handing the republicans the argument "See? The democrats only cared about you florida voters in 2000 because it helped them. Civil rights!! Civil rights!!" is unsmart.

The Michigan voters did not have any say in when the primaries took place. The party leaders decided and we knew as early as October that we were going to have an early primary and in all likelihood it wouldn't mean anything.

I think its the in-state party leaders that have to worry about vindictive voters. The Presidential candidates are free and clear of all of this.

Visualingo: Nestea Plunge: It was their own damn fault, the voters were warned well ahead of time and frequently what would happen if they held their primaries early.

Did the voters decide this or did the Michigan Democratic Party? If the party itself, and not the voters, I'd have to say your comment is misplaced. If the voters did, well, you're right.

See my above post. I don't know what the deal was in Michigan but Florida did it because the state legislature was debating a omnibus election reform bill. The calendar change was less important than the recount provision. So it got voted in.

Headline:

Hillary conceds to splitting the delegates in FL and MI 50/50. Game over

FTFA:

In today's conference call, the Clinton campaign conceded any rules-based or fairness-based argument for the full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations . . . The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway

There are a lot of misleading headlines on FARK, but this one isn't close. Modmins should change it to something like:

Clinton campaign concedes one argument for seating all of the FL/MI delegates, but will continue to push forward with other arguments

Visualingo: Hero? Aquaman's a hero! He can talk to the fishes! What the fark can Hillary do?

Make enemies sleep with the fishes.

Visualingo: Hero? Aquaman's a hero! He can talk to the fishes! What the fark can Hillary do?

HA.

/Aquaman '08

Diogenes: Counting the votes in two invalid primaries should not be acceptable to anyone.

Why should the (Dem) voters lose their say because their state party did a bunch of shenanigans that created this mess in the first place?

And an explination of what happened.

Not a RicRoll, promise. (new window)

tallguywithglasseson: They conceded that FL and MI broke the rules. They haven't agreed to 50/50 or anything of the sort.


FTA:
The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway. It seems to me that the obvious response by the RBC is to rely on its staff memo which says it can only restore half of the delegates, and that to honor the voters of Florida and Michigan, it will magnaminously do so. [More...]

I am not sure that Barack Obama or the DNC objects to such a result and the Clinton campaign has no justifiable basis anymore to object to it. To me, the statements made in today's conference call make tomorrow's meeting a mere formality.


Looks to me that if it's to restore half of the the delegates, that would indeed make it 50/50. Maybe not 50 for Obama and 50 for Clinton, but at the least 50 to take part and 50 not to take part. Furthermore, they're still going to have to figure out which of those 50% goes to the Convention. Are they all going to be Hillary supporters, when Obama and Edwards played by the rules? That would not be fair to them. Honestly I thought the best thing to do would be to hold a 'runnoff' election in FL and MI, so that both could compete within party rules. But Hillary doesn't have the funds to do that, whereas Obama does, so the next best shot Hillary had was to push for all of FL and MI to go to her. As it stands, assuming that this is announced formally tomorrow, she will get only 50% of those delegates seated at most, and of those 50%, there is no guarantee that they will all vote for her.

dj_bigbird: Why should the (Dem) voters lose their say because their state party did a bunch of shenanigans that created this mess in the first place?

because we (in Michigan) also realize that the fact that Clinton was the only major name on the ballot discouraged a lot of voters (both for and against her) from even bothering to show up.

So we have a choice between no results and deeply flawed results. Personally I'd rather we not make things worse by counting any of our votes.