So "disenfranchising" Obama supporters in MI is OK?

I just don't understand how Hillary supporters have the gall to say that MI should be seated "as is", when they know the vast majority of the "uncommitted" votes were actually votes for Obama.

So Hillary supporters, what is your solution to prevent the "disenfranchisement" of Obama supporters who were UNABLE to vote for him in the Michigan Primary? Is your answer honestly "Screw 'em, they didn't vote for Hillary!"? Is your strategy really "win at all costs", even if it's the cost of the general election to John McCain? Are you really prepared to sacrifice the welfare of your party and your country for Hillary's ambitions?

TWISTED LOGIC>

One voted uncommitted, one voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary because he did not think the Democratic primary mattered.

I've voted for candidates in primaries that didn't win....not once did I think I was disenfranchised.
It is a vote damn it and some times you don't win.

Bells don't get unrung and Humpty Dumpty can't be reassembled, even if the Queen's horses and Queen's men scamper around yelling.

It was a FUBAR. If a Union held such an "election" it'd be invalidated in the courts. Suppression of 3/4ths of the vote cannot be regarded as acceptable.

There is absolutely no valid or legitimate basis for sending ANY 'delegation' from Michigan. Period!

As a Michigan voter, I don't give a rat's ass WHAT rationale is employed or WHAT anyone from Michigan is called who spends a few days in Denver engaging in some cluster-fuck. They're NOT 'delegates' in any way, shape, or form.

On the day it was held, the Michigan 'Primary' was a FUBAR ... totally and completely invalidated. It was vote suppression on a grand scale. It was less legitimate as an 'election' than ten dogs fucking in the park.

While a state Democratic caucus might have achieved some approximation of legitimacy, it never happened.

I see no way the state might have held a wholly legitimate "do-over" primary. Since votes were, in fact, tallied in the GOP primary, any "do-over" would have violated the "one person one vote" principle. But that never happened either.

FUBAR.

Deal with that FACT.

:rofl:

ow! my stomach hurts! :D

from the ballot. That was his choice.

Uncommitted does not equal Obama. Unless you are going to argue that his camp was behind the gotv effort on behalf of the uncommitted option. However, if you argue that, then you must accept that he indeed did break the rules by campaigning in that state, the one action not allowed by the pledge.

And even then, uncommitted does not equal Obama.

the ONLY fair compromise would be to
SPLIT the half delegation that will
probably be seated.

Obama should not be penalized for following
the rules.

Hillary should NOT benefit for being
a SCAB politician in the Michigan "primary".

Your logic is completely mind-boggling. First, we should count all the votes AS IS, AGAINST DNC RULES because we are "disenfranchising" if we don't. Then, we cannot count any votes as being for Obama or that would be "breaking the rules".

Do you realize you are only applying "rules" when they are to the advantage of your candidate? What kind of insanity is this?

That said, let's look at FL for a sec. There a vote for Hillary was a vote for Hillary and a vote for Obama was a vote for Obama. The delegates there should be counted and allocated proportional to the vote, as they would have had the primary date not been changed. Allocate them that way and then give each del one half vote instead of a whole vote? Well, that might be the best solution. But telling them they don't count at all, that is political suicide.

As far as MI goes, there is no way to know what percentage of "uncommitted" votes were actually votes for Obama. There are two questions w MI. First, do we tell the voters in MI that they don't count, that the Dem party doesn't give a damn what they say? Again, we only screw ourselves with that option, so the votes should count, at least as outlined above in the FL example. But then we have the second question, how do you read the minds of those who voted uncommitted? How do you determine what percentage of those voters actually wanted to vote for Obama? I'll just note again that all Obama supporters in MI could have voted for him had he not removed his name from the ballot. He was not required to do so. So are we left to bring in psychics to determine how many uncommitted voters secretly voted uncommitted while thinking Obama? What about Edwards? And my logic is twisted?


Yes, the votes must count, in some fasion, and dels awarded thusly, and no, a vote for uncommitted just does not translate into a vote for Obama.

Is not "standing up for the voters" in any way. It is attempting to skew the results in favor of your candidate, which borders on out and out election rigging.

she pledged to take her name off the ballot and didn't.

Dodd left his name on the MI ballot, btw.

But the pledge was to not campaign in those states. Obama and Edwards removing their names was a political ploy to at once pander to Iowa an deny Hillary any kind of momentum from a poll-assured victory in MI.

stay with me here....

A) All votes for Sen Clinton get counted for Sen Clinton (because she won them, right?)
B) All "uncommitted" votes get split down the center between Sens Obama & Clinton.
C) The result is 78% of the delegates are awarded to Sen Clinton! Simple math!

oy.

5. Seat ALL the Delegates: Everybody keeps talking about seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, but for some reason are missing the real elephant in the room- what about all the Republican delegates from the fifty states. As of right now, none of them are being seated at the DNC, and that is a damned outrage. Everyone knows there is no way we can win in the fall without Republican votes, so I don’t know why we want to risk alienating millions of Republican voters in all fifty states. Since Hillary is clearly more popular with conservatives, Fox News, and Republicans, and since the Republicans run winner-take-all primaries, all of the delegates should be seated for Senator Clinton.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10477

also

1. The Gender Gap apportion: As we know, Clinton often cites the statistic that women only earn 69-77% of what men. Due to the rampant sexism and misogyny of the media, the Rules Committee should level the playing field and punish Obama (hey- Hillary’s supporters are going to punish Obama in the fall for the media’s behavior, why can’t the DNC?). To level the playing field, Obama should only get 77% of the pledged delegates that he earned, the other 23% should be awarded to Hillary.

2. The Legacy Vote: States that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 and that Hillary won in 2008 shouldhave their delegates count twice. Why? Because they really, really, really like the Clintons. And after all, since we are no longer paying attention to delegates and are making all sorts of other stupid arguments about why Clinton should win, isn’t that as good a reason as anything?

3. A Michigan Plan: To solve the Michigan crisis, I propose we award Hillary all the delegates she “won” in the primary she said would not count, and then give her the majority of the delegates who voted against her in the primary she said would not count. That sounds fair. {Oops. My bad. Lanny actually already proposed this. -ed.}

4. Count all the votes!: All of them. Every vote for dogcatcher, judge, state Houses and Senates, and everything should count- against Obama. Because, let’s face it, if they were not voting for Obama, we might as well count it as a vote for Hillary.

And then tell us why each one is sexist.

Sarcasm, bro. :)

As one who often needs to point out sarcasm (I refuse to use the sarcasm-smiley), I feel properly chastened.

If she refuses to follow the rules of her own party. Go ahead and run as an independent if you can't accept the rules of the party you are SUPPOSEDLY a member of.

:shrug: See how easy that is?

...like Bush**, Cheney**, and Clinton apparently think.

NGU.

And as a member, he agreed to follow the rules of the party. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Maybe it is if your loyalty lies with Hillary Clinton above your party, your country, and everything else.

John Conyers Told Obama supporters to....vote "uncommitted" in the Michigan primary. They did. 274,000 of them. They belong to Obama.

What's the problem?

Shall we tally all of those for him as well? (BTW ... When did you move to Michigan? :eyes: )

defend Clinton's stance on MI. To me, this one thing reveals how disingenuous all this is. And the amount of time and money and mental energy dedicated to what amounts to complete BS.