Florida should be seated but Michigan shouldn't be

All of the candidates are on Florida's ballot, and if Clinton stays out of the state, none of the candidates will have campaigned there. In short, Florida is a fair race. Michigan wasn't. Michigan deserves not to be seated. They messed up their primary in 2004 and decided, arrogantly to still try to have an early primary. Florida surely isn't entirely clean here. But Democrats were far less involved in the decision to schedule that primary than they were in Michigan. I don't see too much difference between the race in Florida and places voting on Super Tuesday. Many of those won't see much campaigning either. Let Florida in, but make Michigan either revote or sit out.

On edit: Issue 1 will bring out Democratic voters and should also negate the turnout problem.

MI and FL delegates? Billary only cares about MI and FL now that they need them.

Michigan shouldn't be seated because it wasn't a real race. But I fail to see why Florida is unfair.

Florida HAS all 3 dem candidates on it's ballots and hasn't been already "decided" while Michigan only had one democratic candidate's name-anybody wanna guess which one?

and frankly the Democrats there were up to their necks in that decision. Florida seems much more of a GOP thing and seems to be a fair fight.

hasn't been decided yet and with only one choice on the democratic side of the ballot...she has a nerve to even SUGGEST Michigan should count now. Very George W Bush-like IMO

dems Michigan's 17 electoral votes. Only 17. Not important.

it is fairness. Edwards nor Obama were even on the ballot.

besides, under the rules of the MI primary, Edwards very likely will get his share of the 40% of the delegates chosen as uncommitted.

We can't know what his share or Obama's share is.

Is the only one running campaign ads there? After they agreed not too? Before bashing Hillary, stop and think about it. She is for giving the people the vote they are entitled to but she has not run any ads there but BO has. Ya, she's so evil.

How is that different?

If she merely goes there on primary night, then I don't see the problem.

If only one were to be seated, the stronger case would be for Florida. But it is dangerous to bar the door and send Democratic delegates home from any State. I am a strong supporter of the 4 State Pledge that attempted to punish the leap frogging states by denying them the campaign attention that they sought when they broke the DNC rules. The pledge not to campaign inside either state deprived both states of a lot of media attention, and the influence and the money that comes with that attention, without angering the actual delegates and disenfranchising the voters of those states.

Instruct the delegates that they should be guided, but not bound by the popular vote in their district.

People in Florida see Hillary and think of Bill. Edwards and Obama aren't allowed to campaign there to introduce themselves to the voters. So how exactly is this fair?

Obama is currently running ads there (yes part of a national buy but they still air there). It is beyond absurd that masses of people who vote in a Democratic primary have no idea who these people are.

and campaigning and you know it. Get real now

I have only seen one candidate at a rally. I have seen tons of ads. I don't really see the handicap here.

I mean why the hell do these people spend weeks going across a state?

such as in Iowa, NH, and SC people will do that to get national press. But by Super Tuesday the remaining people are known quantities and don't need the time campaigning.

They're the ones who did this to us, so keep them home. Send our proportional delegates instead, splitting the uncommitted evenly between Obama and Edwards. Better still, have the MI state party have a caucus in May or June (then the state doesn't have to use tax payer money to do it) with all three on the ballot for a real accounting of whom everyone prefers--and still strip away our superdelegates. They don't deserve to go.

Stripping the superdelegates is exactly what should have been done in the first place. They do have exit polling on Obama and Edwards that could be used to determine the Uncomitted.

We could just list candidate names on the ballot and see what happens.

should we not have votes there? Edwards was our nominee for VP four years ago. Obama is running ads there as we speak.

and all three candidates have been visiting the larger states whenever they could. :eyes:

for the same reason (to fundraise). My state votes in May. We have had no ads. Except for Edwards, who lives here, we have had one visit from Obama and none from Hillary. Yet, I and other North Carolinians are perfectly capable of figuring out whom to support.

I had no choice in my vote. Uncommitted was the best I could do as a vote against Hillary. There is no way I could indicate a vote for Edwards. Michigan Democratic voters were not helped by our Rethug state legislature nor our Gov. Granholm who is not shy about promoting Hillary (and perhaps getting herself a nice position in a Clinton Admin.).

Remember, too, that we who follow politics are more aware of what's going on than the average bear. How many Dems got to the polls and found only Hillary on the ballot but no Edwards or Obama? Who do you think they voted for. It wasn't necessarily a vote FOR Hillary. Plus a lot of Dems didn't bother to get out and vote since they believed our delegates would not be seated anyway.

It was a total clusterf_ck and should not be validated. And Hillary, dear, you're looking quite desperate.

did you even read my post? I mean really. Did you even read a single solitary word?

Answered under the wrong post. There were many others saying Hillary should get the delegates.

They shouldn't get to seat their full contingent of delegates because they broke the rules.

I suppose that's why his supporters want Florida to count. See, conyers campaigned for him in Michigan and Hillary beat the pants off him. Now since he has run all those ads they think it will give him a break. WON'T MATTER. Let them vote. Hillary is gonna win.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

It wasn't the Michigan voters who pulled those candidate's names off the ballots. It was the candidates themselves. And the fact that they're still on the ballot in Florida only adds to the ill will I feel towards them for that. Somehow, Edwards and Obama decided that it was "ok" to ONLY slap Michigan voters in the face. Well, fuck them, and fuck you too. To then reward them for that by seating Florida delegates and not Michigan delegates is perverse. I accepted the "punishment" for breaking the rules, but I will NOT accept rewarding them for slapping Michigan, and adding a monumental DNC slap by seating the delegates from equally rule-breaking Florida simply because Obama and Edwards DIDN'T slap those voters.

As it is, I will vote for Obama or Edwards if they are the nominee. Work for them? Probably not. I'm still pissed at them.

...caucusing. I don't get the issue.

She's smart! You think she came up with this tactic only after losing South Carolina? This has been in the works for months. Just because "I'm such a perfect little angel" Edwards and Obama insist on playing by the rules doesn't make it the smart choice. Karl Rove taught us you win at all costs, and Hillary was the only Dem candidate intelligent enough to learn that lesson!