The only way FL's delegates won't be seated is if Obama choses not to seat them...

[joshcryer]

...in an unlikely event where seating them would take him out of contention. This comes directly from both Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean's mouths. The nominee will seat the delegates in order to bring unity to the convention. In the event that Obama is the nominee, and seating the delegates will affect the outcome of his nomination, he will not seat them (and he will not win the GE if he does this).

Please keep this kicked all day, because it seems to be a completely misunderstood point, that even Obama's manager doesn't comprehend (heard it on Morning Joe, where the manager had called in and dismissed a FL win for Hillary as "nothing" since "the delegates don't count").

---

http://floridanetroots.blogspot.com/2007/10/floridas-democratic-delegates-will-be.html

"The reality is if you want to know if Florida is going to be seated, ask the Democratic nominee as soon as one emerges," Pelosi said.

Dean agreed.

"At the end of the day, the nominee will make a decision, essentially about who gets seated," Dean agreed.

[Guava Jelly]

1. I am not an Obama supporter

But this sounds kind of like if you play a game of Poker for entertainment and you win you want to get paid for it.
When you knew it was for entertainment purposes only.
I think ignoring the Delegates was a mistake to begin with.
But the choice was made and it is what it is and the decision should be honored.

[joshcryer]

3. The decision will be honored, the delegates won't count toward the nomination.

But as far as I understand, once nominated, the delegates will be seated by the nominee, meaning that the only scenario in which those delegates would not be seated, is if they went against the nominee once they were seated. And they could only do this in the unlikely event Obama was the nominee AND the margins were so close as to make him lose the nomination.

It's an extremely unlikely scenario to happen, either way they will likely be seated.

[comradebillyboy]

96. then Florida will go Republican in the general

if the national democrats shit on the Fla dems and don't seat them, no matter who the nominee is. Ditto with Michigan. besides the nominee is not really the nominee till the convention selects him/her.

I don't think the democratic party can just kiss off Florida and Michigan unless it wants president McCain.

[demo dutch]

98. You are absolutely right! Pathetic just as the Dems are making long awaited

progress in FL, the Party heads screw it up.

[GoldieAZ49]

110. But if Obama has already won the nomination

The delegate count if they voted for Hillary would be over because he already won

The Super Delegates could counter them also

[jefferson_dem]

2. Why do you want to change the rules now that your candidate is in trouble?

[joshcryer]

4. I'm not.

Dean and Pelosi both said the delegates will be chosen to be seated by the nominee. I can find the link if you want. The fact remains that the only scenario where they WILL NOT be seated is in the unlikely event Obama wouldn't want them to be.

[BenDavid]

5. Seems to me obama is the one in trouble. Even after his win

with aid of the mediawhores obama has thus far received no bounce, and if he believes Ted Kennedy is going to help win him many latino voters he is sadly mistaken. The Kennedy that helped the latino people was Bobby Kennedy, and his children are supporting HRC.Your candidates name is on the florida ballot and after tonight when hrc again defeats obama then I do not want to hear any excuses.....

[joshcryer]

6. Could enjoy some kicks and recs for this incontrovertible fact all day today.

Down with the flu and won't be posting much. But I think the FL and MI voters need to be defended from the Obama smears, because they don't understand how the convention actually works.

The nominee will seat the delegates unless it will hurt them. And the only way they won't be seated, statistically, is if Obama doesn't want to seat them. Simple.

[kdmorris]

10. "The nominee will seat the delegates unless it will hurt them"

You say that in one sentence, then turn right around and make it about Obama. ANY OF THE THREE will only seat the delegates if it doesn't hurt them.

[joshcryer]

12. Statistically, it would only hurt Obama at this point in the race and how the polls are leaning.

[kdmorris]

16. Who gives a shit how the polls are leaning or about statistics?

You make it sound like Hilary Clinton is a saint and only Obama would not seat the delegates. You post this tripe with the intention of making Obama look bad, while not really acknowledging that it's NOT just Obama.

ANY OF THE THREE will not seat our delegates if it would hurt them. It's not about Obama or Clinton. It's about the fact that, whether they are seated or not, after the fact, FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHO THE NOMINEE IS, thanks to the Florida Democratic Party and their good friends, the Republicans in the Florida State House.

I would like to add that Hilary didn't give a flying fuck about seating our delegates until she LOST in South Carolina.

[joshcryer]

19. It won't hurt Hillary and it won't hurt Edwards. Care to argue otherwise?

I'm pointing out the REALITY, not some metaphorical BS about who is better than who. I would expect any politician not to seat the delegates if it would hurt them. But the trend I see now is that Obama would be the only one not to seat them. Unless you'd like to argue a way that this would not happen, where Hillary not only got the nomination, but decided not to seat the delegates of a state where she had the majority, then I would be VERY INTERESTED in seeing THOSE assinine numbers.

Hillary will seat your delegates if she wins the nominee. Obama may not. If this doesn't bother you, I don't know what can.

[kdmorris]

33. Clinton will ONLY seat my delegates if it doesn't hurt her

That is the point I'm trying to make. You are apparently are more interested in making it look like Obama is the only one who would do this and I'm saying IT'S NOT TRUE.

While I may even agree that Clinton will likely be our nominee, that is absolutely not the point. Just because she will seat them IF it suits her to do so DOES NOT mean that, given the opportunity, she wouldn't ALSO keep them from being seated if it would hurt her, just like Obama.

"If this doesn't bother you"... this whole election season has bothered me. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Hilary will only seat my delegates if she wins the nomination IF IT WOULD NOT HURT HER. Now, you may say that polling and statistics show that it won't hurt her, but the character of the person is what I'm discussing. She MAY not seat them, as well.

Just because there is less of a chance that she won't seat them than Obama doesn't mean that she is somehow guiltless.

And if THAT doesn't bother you...

[joshcryer]

44. Obama will not win FL, thus it will not hurt her. Understand? $50.

[kdmorris]

47. Yes, I get that Obama won't win in Florida

BUT, just because he's in the position of losing DOESN'T MEAN THAT CLINTON WOULD NOT DO THE SAME DAMNED THING IN HIS SHOES, and, therefore, she can't be seen as blameless.

[joshcryer]

49. GOD! I'm not saying Clinton wouldn't do it! UGH! Of course she would.

I SAID ANY POLITICIAN WOULD! FUCK!

[kdmorris]

59. Then why the fuck are you arguing with me?

Yes, you most certainly are saying Clinton wouldn't do it, but leaving out the fact that she would and concentrating completely on the fact that Obama is more likely to be in that position.

[joshcryer]

63. You're the one starting this BS. I'm pointing out REALITY.

You sit here thinking I'm making some sort of moral argument about Obama when I'm merely talking about POLITICAL REALITY.

[kdmorris]

68. Yeah, whatever.

I'd love to sit here and continue this tortuous exchange, but I have to go vote and then go to the airport.

You are making a moral argument. Sorry, but you are. The way you've phrased everything and the way it's written is all about how Obama will not seat them and Clinton will.

Have a great week. I won't be on much.

[joshcryer]

77. Enjoy your flight, sorry if I come off that way, but it is not the intent.

[rodeodance]

70. just did. Take care--.

[joshcryer]

78. Thanks, sweet of you. =) I'm off for now. Good luck to the candidates!

[Yossariant]

7. Dean said:

"Their primary essentially won't count, " Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said of Florida. "Anybody who campaigns in Florida is ineligible for delegates."
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/13/State/Florida_primary_will_.shtml

Then what does Dean mean about being "ineligible for delegates?"

Is he saying that Barack is ineligible for ALL delegates because he campaigned in Florida?

If it's only the Florida delegates that don't count and won't count, what difference does it make if they campaign there?

[Kittycat]

9. He didn't campaign there, and welcome to DU

[Yossariant]

20. Yes, he did. Thanks.

[Kittycat]

23. When did he step foot there?

Oh, he didn't. And it was a national ad buy, not a florida one. Clinton could have done the same thing.

[Yossariant]

38. Could have, but didn't because it would violate her pledge.

"Campaigning" includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying campaign materials to be used in such a state.

AND:

By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 30, 2007

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there...
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

[joshcryer]

101. Good, Obama would seat them if he was the clear nominee. Good!

Better not spoil my topic by making Obama this evil overlord by desiring not to seat them at whatever costs!

[joshcryer]

11. At the convention, anything goes.

Read this: http://floridanetroots.blogspot.com/2007/10/floridas-democratic-delegates-will-be.html

"The reality is if you want to know if Florida is going to be seated, ask the Democratic nominee as soon as one emerges," Pelosi said.

Dean agreed.

"At the end of the day, the nominee will make a decision, essentially about who gets seated," Dean agreed.

---

Does it makes sense to you now?

[tkmorris]

14. Well, sure, but who cares?

The only thing that really matters is whether the Florida delegates have any say in who the nominee is. They don't.

Getting seated after the fact just doesn't matter a whole lot.

[joshcryer]

15. People are saying FL's delegates won't be seated and don't matter. They do matter, though.

They matter to Obama in the unlikely event he can disenfranshise millions of voters.

And they'll be seated in any other concievable scenario.

[tkmorris]

27. Oh I see. An attempt to frame Obama as the bad guy

Technically you are correct of course, if Hillary wins the nomination she will gleefully seat the delegates, whereas Obama would not if it were to change the outcome. Of course, you leave out a thing or two.

Number one, if Obama were to win Florida and the same shoe was on Clinton's foot come convention time, she wouldn't seat them either. That will almost certainly not happen, but you can't paint Obama as the bad guy when you KNOW she would do the same thing. Furthermore......

Would it be somehow proper to seat delegates after NOT allowing the candidates the opportunity to properly campaign in the state? Perhaps if Barack could have come here to speak to the people, he would be polling ahead right now. Same for John Edwards, also not allowed to bring his message to the people of Florida. Does that sound fair to you?

You are attempting to somehow paint Obama as the bad guy in this scenario, when in fact he is just a victim of circumstances beyond his control. It's pretty lame friend.

[joshcryer]

41. I'm not intending to paint Obama as the bad guy, I'm giving the scenario as I see it.

People here, Obama supporters most loudly, think that FL's delegates don't matter. But the DNC thinks they matter, and they would certainly matter to Obama in the event that they, well, would take him out of contention (and cause a party convention never before seen in the history of our country).

If Obama were to win FL of course Hillary would not want to seat the delegates, but since the polls are not indicating that (and the polls tend to be accurate in these scenarios), I am going to basically state the obvious as the numbers are indicating, especially since it does tell Obama supporters that their belief in "FL delegates not mattering, FL doesn't matter" is completely naive and delusional. Someone has to do it, if it has to be a guy sick with the flu, so be it. I don't like this idea of votes not mattering.

Also, I think that these delegates should count even if candidates didn't campaign, after all, the states do deserve some bit of punishment (and the more I think about the DNC's punishment process, the more I think that they're doing it fairly, I don't think revoking the delegates was a bad punishment, now that I understand that they WILL be seated, just AFTER the nomination, in party unity; unless you want to make an unlikely power grab). Keeping campaigns out of a state hurt it economically (nothing like campaign funds to help the local economy) and politically, but not so much as to destroy the party in those states.

This also goes for MI, where candidates took their names off the ballots (without being asked to do so). They chose not to be represented on their own accord, thus that's what they did, the people in that state had no choice (and I think the delegates can be brokered anyway, since 40% were uncommitted, it will probably bode the same way as if they were on the ballot).

[robbedvoter]

29. Florida democratic voters. And you should too. How many electoral college votes in Florida again?

Can we win the GE without them? Do you want us to win in GE?

[tkmorris]

32. I AM a Florida Democratic voter

None of this need have any impact whatsoever on the GE. Anyone who gets their knickers in a twist and refuses to vote in the GE, or worse yet, votes for the Repub is simply beneath contempt.

[rodeodance]

79. I agree, giving up your vote is a vote for the Repug. Plain and simple.

[Yossariant]

18. I think it makes sense if

they are assuming we'll have a nominee before the convention.

But I'm not so sure that we will.

[joshcryer]

22. We'll have a nominee at the convention, they'll decide it less FL and MI's numbers.

That's the scenario where it's "so close" that Obama could chose not to seat FL's delegates because it wouldn't be in his favor.

[kdmorris]

8. And I repeat

No matter who is the front runner going into the convention (ANY of the THREE), the nominee presumptive will only seat the delegates IF IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHO THE NOMINEE IS. You want to make this all about Obama, but it ISN'T.

AND, so, we have NO CHOICE in the nominee. And the votes really don't count.

Yes, please keep it kicked all day, since THIS seems to be a completely misunderstood point.

[joshcryer]

13. Statistically it is about Obama. He would be the only one, at this point in the numbers race, not...

...to seat them. In fact, I can't think of a scenario where Hillary, winning FL in huge numbers, would not seat the FL delegates.

[kdmorris]

17. Hilary... winning huge numbers in Florida...

THAT is what I'm saying. WHAT if Obama wins in Florida? You think she'll still want to seat the delegates from Florida?

No, she won't. Stop engaging in hero worship and realize that your candidate has clay feet as much as the other.

[joshcryer]

21. Obama will not win in FL. Please, don't be delusional.

[kdmorris]

35. When your argument breaks down... start with the insults

typical...

[joshcryer]

43. I bet you $50 Hillary Clinton wins FL, care to take it?

I expect people to shut up when money is involved.

[kdmorris]

54. No, I'm not shutting up and I'm not taking your stupid ass bet

You fail to see what I'm saying:

Yes, Clinton will probably win in Florida, but that's NOT THE POINT.

Clinton is NOT blameless. She would do the same thing as Obama if she were in his shoes concerning the delegates. And THEREFORE, your assertion that Obama is the only one that will do this, because he is likely to lose, is disingenuous. Even Edwards, if he were in the same position as Clinton or Obama, would NOT seat the delegates if it hurt him.

AND therefore, NONE of them are blameless. NONE of them are above board. They are all human and would do the same thing. Saying that Obama is the only one that would do it because he is likely to be in a position where it would hurt him makes it seem like you believe Clinton WOULD seat them if they were to hurt her.

And my assertion is: THAT'S NOT TRUE.

[joshcryer]

60. I'M NOT SAYING CLINTON WOULDN'T DO IT EITHER

I'M SAYING THAT OBAMA IS THE SCENARIO IN WHICH IT WOULD HAPPEN

[kdmorris]

62. Again... then why are you arguing with me?

Because, by omission, you are saying that Obama would do it and Clinton wouldn't. Care to re-read the part where you condescendingly told me that it should bother me that Obama may not seat them but Clinton would?

[joshcryer]

65. I'm saying Obama may but Clinton won't.

That's reality.

[kdmorris]

73. And that's where I'm having an issue with your statement

She would if she got the chance. Making a statement like that makes it seem like she's above board. And she's not.

Like I said...I have to go.

[joshcryer]

76. You're the one placing moral attributes to fact based observations. I make no such illusions.

[Yossariant]

25. The playing field is level.

There can be no whining that he idiotically took his name off the ballot like he did in MI.

Except for the fact that he cheated by campaigning there, what's Barack's whine about seating the delegation?

The voters? That's all that's left. He's whining because of the voters not voting for him, if they don't.

[suston96]

34. What a ludicrous statement...She already has said BEFORE the Florida election...

.....that she wants the delegates seated.

[kdmorris]

37. Yes, she started saying it on Jan 25th

when she realized she was going to lose SC.

[tkmorris]

40. Do you really think she would have said that

If she DIDN'T have a double digit lead in polling in the state? Please.

[joshcryer]

45. It would be unconscionable for a nominee not to seat their delegates.

[robbedvoter]

72. She said they should be seated anyway. You think Obama might reverse his opposition if he'd win?

[joshcryer]

74. Haha, of course. This is politics. She'd reverse, too! :)

It would be SO INCREDIBLY UGLY.

[kdmorris]

87. Yes, I do, in a heartbeat n/t

[rox63]

24. This is the decsion of the DNC, not Obama or Clinton

The FL and MI nomineess will only be seated if they would make no difference in who gets the nomination. And that is not Obama's or Clinton's decision to make. It is the decision of the DNC.

[joshcryer]

26. It is the decision of the nominee, both Pelosi and Dean agree.

The nominee, for party unity, will chose to seat those delegates, unless they take them out of contention (an unlikely scenario though it may be).

[rox63]

39. But there will be no nominee to make that decision if those delegates would decide the matter

They won't be seated until after their votes wouldn't make any difference in the outcome of the primaries.

[joshcryer]

46. Right, and the only nominee not to seat them would be Obama. $50.

[MaineDem]

82. Actually, I think it will be the decision of the convention

The Credentials Committee will make a recommendation and the entire seated delegates will vote on it.

[robbedvoter]

28. This makes feel better about Dean - thanks for posting it. I also feel better

about mu decision to support Hillary now.
You may or may not believe me - but I want Floridians votes to count regardless of the candidate who would benefit from it. Voting rights in my book are more important than any specific candidate in this race.

[joshcryer]

48. I appreciate the DNC's decision about revoking FL and MI delegates.

It makes perfect sense and is very fair. The only outcome that would be disasterous would be the one I outlined in this post. It would be very bad, but hey, it wouldn't be so exciting if we didn't have that small chance of some crazy shit going down.

[suston96]

30. Florida and Michigan will go Republican in November if their primary voters are ignored....

I cannot think of anything more stupid and divisive ever done by the Democratic leadership than this trashing of the voting rights of rank and file members.

[robbedvoter]

56. At least there is a way out - I wish Obama had been less categorically oppposed

to it when asked this Sunday

[joshcryer]

61. You think even if he had a clear nomination he wouldn't seat them?

Talk about party disunity.

[Labors of Hercules]

31. So basically...

Obama either needs to win enough delegates elsewhere that Florida's won't matter (so he can seat them anyway and win the GE) or he needs to win Florida?

Whatever happens, the Democrats should do whatever we can to make sure the GE does NOT come down to Florida this time.

[joshcryer]

50. Basically, yes. Unless he wants to cause a big controversey in Denver come Nov.

[Cameron27]

36. I don't know how this would make the FL delegates

feel any better if they're being seated after the nominee is selected. What am I missing?

[joshcryer]

51. It's a compromise, they voted early, and though their votes should count...

...and only wouldn't count under the scenario I outlined (margins too close, Obama with the nomination), for party unity the nominee would seat them.

Don't think they don't count, because they most certainly do.

[Amanita]

42. When Obama was asked on Sunday (Snuffy) if he'd join Hillary in

asking for the delegates to be seated, he said "absolutely no". A more seasoned politician would have answered: "This is a premature decision to make - let's wait until the convention". But a seasoned politician wouldn't have thrown the "I have more delegates, you lose" tantrum after Nevada either. He seems to forget that the voters ultimately do count.He'll need them again - hypotetically - in the GE.
I wonder if the Nevada Fla, Mi voters he dissed woud turn out for him in the GE.

[rodeodance]

94. I do not think Obama engendered a kindred spirt with Florida voters on this decison to say NO.

[Tatiana]

52. Florida delegates should not be seated unless there is a clear winner.

Rules are rules and if Florida delegates get seated even though they violated the rules, then what about Michigan?

[joshcryer]

55. The topic could've been "FL and MI" delegates.

But I don't want to discuss MI in length here because it's a more complicated scenario.

Please read the OP about how the delegates will be seated by the nominee, unless the nominee choses to disenfranchise voters.

[Tatiana]

75. Only if there is a clear winner.

There is no way they get seated at a brokered convention.

[demo dutch]

100. There will be clear winner, I think.

[oasis]

53. The high priest of "the politics of hope" kneecaps the Florida delegates.

That image will be tough to overcome in the general election.

[islandmkl]

57. As a life-long Democrat in Florida (sorry for the re-use)...

who says you need to understand what has happened down here in this not-so-insignificantly-sized state. The Republicans in the state legislature moved the primary date up, knowing full well the response the DNC would have. The DNC promptly put Florida off-limits to in-state campaigning, and "took away" the delegates. Hillary maintains a sizable margin in polling, and will undoubtedly win by same. No real race here, just watching everyone else get to ask questions and get answers. Now, all of a sudden, the Florida delegates are the BIG QUESTION...if HRC needs them, they MUST COUNT. It isn't just Barack that says don't seat them...Florida Democrats are pissed at the DNC and the backlash will be felt next November. The DNC has taken a major state and neutered it, until those votes are "needed". Well, screw the DNC...they engineered 2006 (good job) and have subsequently aimed squarely at their own feet with double-barreled shotguns. Our Congressional "leadership" has lost all direction and momentum in less than a year. They are afraid to lead...their jobs are more important. More of the same is all good. Bush has to leave, regardless. So...screw all of us, too. The DNC is afraid of real change, because we would change them, too. So the party will follow Hillary one way or the other, regardless of what may or may not be best for the country, let alone the party. Regardless of who one favors in all this, do not ignore the way the DNC is designing the program and facilitating the design.
DNC = Deliver the Nomination to Clinton!

[robbedvoter]

64. I doubt it was DNC's intention to help Hillary here, but you remind me o this cartoon

http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/b/2092888947763850452

[joshcryer]

67. You don't understand, Hillary cannot WIN the nomination with FL or MI delegates. Neither can Obama.

But Obama can stop those delegates from being seated if the race is so tight that they would go Hillary's way. Do you understand?

[tkmorris]

69. I'm sorry but that's just not true

The Florida Democratic Party was complicit in the decision to move the primary to a date that they knew was against the rules. They were not victimized by a Republican legislature, they acted in concert with it. They were given multiple opportunities by the DNC to accept any of several different compromise scenarios which would have allowed them to keep their delegates, they adamantly refused.

THEY are the ones who took my vote away, and yours.

[islandmkl]

84. I don't totally disagree

but the Dems could not do anything to stop the date. Look at the 'compromise' proposals, check the details, evaluate the probabilities of successful conclusion. Rules either can not be changed in process, or all rules can be changed in process. Explain the DNC's objective re: FL & MI, and just how was the party helped, let alone strengthened in the fight for 2008?

[madfloridian]

109. They in their own words...did it for "relevance."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1459

[joshcryer]

58. It should be stressed that it's a highly unlikely scenario, in any event.

We should have a clear winner at the convention, and that winner will seat the delegates in both MI and FL.

[robbedvoter]

66. I agree. But nevertheless, it was the issue that decided my vote. And I am NOT

in Florida.

[joshcryer]

71. As you can see this is a very passionate issue for me. Posting here with the freaking flu.

I didn't want this topic to die and I hope it doesn't throughout the day, because these votes do matter.

edit: I wasn't in FL during 2000, but it was my first vote for a Presidential candidate, and ever since then this sort of thing has been on my nerves. I personally am against the caucusing/delegate system itself, but that's another matter!

[robbedvoter]

88. It is for me as well - see my handle?

[rodeodance]

80. Is that like a SNUB?

[robbedvoter]

89. Yup. It's part of the same attitude - and feeds in the same perception

[oasis]

95. Obama has taken on a Bushlike persona, a combination of charm and arrogance.(eom)

[madfloridian]

81. Looks to me like FL MI delegates won't count unless a clear winner.

In my mind that would be either or Obama OR Clinton.

These are 3 paragraphs from MyDD and 2008 Convention Watch, referring to Hillary's pronouncement in Florida that she would seat the delegates. It was sort of a grandstand play.

This appears to be the scenario.

And we have a vote, state-by-state, the first meaningful state-by-state roll call at a Democratic Convention since 1980. Clinton would need a majority of the delegates (not including Florida and Michigan) to approve the Minority Report.

And then reality strikes. If Clinton can get a majority of delegates to support the Minority Report, than she has a majority of the delegates supporting her anyway, and she doesn't need Michigan and Florida.

But if she doesn't have a majority of the delegates supporting her, its hard to see why delegates supporting other candidates would vote to seat the two delegations, essentially helping her out. After fighting for the nomination for 2 years, why would Obama or Edwards and their delegates give up the fight in this way. It's just not going to happen. The delegations will NOT be seated if the nomination is contested.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/27/192143/621

[joshcryer]

83. Right, Obama would not seat them unless he had such a clear majority it wouldn't matter.

Why *wouldn't* he seat them if it didn't matter? He'd only not seat them if it would affect his candidacy. Edwards does come into play here and I didn't consider his role.

[robbedvoter]

85. and in that case, he'd still have to go back on his word "I won't ask for them

to be seated"

[joshcryer]

92. Wow, that is epicly wrong on so many levels. He must not understand what that means.

He needs to understand that if he gets a clear majority with the election he would have to seat those delegates for party unity. Otherwise he can kiss FL goodbye.

[joshcryer]

93. Wait, look at VII-(J)(1,2,3). He'd have to contest their seating.

They'd still (likely, for party unity) be seated. I knew something wasn't right here. So yes they'd be seated if he had a clear majority and it didn't screw up his plans.

[robbedvoter]

86. But Obama clearly declared he won't seat them.

[joshcryer]

91. If this is true, Obama will not seat the delegates if he wins the nomination.

And he's a clear winner. Then we have a huge huge huge electablity problem coming into the GE. HUGE.

[joshcryer]

90. I can't edit my post, here are the scenarios:

Scenario 1: Obama has the majority of the vote, but only by a very slim margin, well under a few dozen. Hillary is down by a dozen or so. If Obama votes to seat the delegates of MI and FL, he loses the nomination to Hillary. He doesn't do it, obviously. THE ONLY SCENARIO WHERE THE DELEGATES ARE NOT SEATED.

Scenario 2: Obama has the majority of the vote, but by a wide margin, where the vote of MI and FL does not matter. He votes to seat the two states out of party unity. Everyone agrees, a likely scenario, no contest.

Scenario 3: Hillary has the majority of the vote, by any margin (1 vote). Hillary decides to seat FL and MI. FL and MI are seated. Simple.

Scenario 4: Edwards nominates Al Gore and because his votes are so important to the nomination chaos occurs. ;)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

106. I feel for you Florida, but the planets really have to be aligned

for this scenario to happen.

There are 4049 potential delegates - and you need 2025.

Florida has 210 unseated delegates. According to the latest Florida poll, Clinton is
leading 49%, Obama 29%, Edwards 14%. For argument's sake, lets say Edwards drops
out and his delegates split evenly as well as undecideds. Clinton 60%, Obama 40%. Equating to delegates, Clinton will earn 126 and Obama 84 of unseated Florida delegates. Difference of
only 42 delegates.

Michigan has 156 unseated delegates. Here, it was closer 55% Clinton; 45% Non-Clinton. For
argument's sake, lets say the 45% would vote for Obama if seated. The delegate split 86 Clinton; 70 Obama. Difference of only 16 delegates.

Total Michigan and Florida: Clinton-126+86=212; Obama-154 (+58 spread for Clinton)

Total delegate difference in question = + 58 Clinton Votes.

So bottom line, the only time he'd be "stealing Hillary's win" would be if he was ahead by between 1 and 58 delegates before FL and MI.

If he wasn't leading at all, the whole thing is moot because he wouldn't have a say so in seating the delegations.

And, if he was ahead more than 58, adding the states would not be enough for a Clinton win, even if all the delegates were seated. No harm, no foul there.

[joshcryer]

107. Yeah, I said it was a highly highly unlikely scenario, so FL (and MI) are seated. Done.

Why can't people get this.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

111. sorry - I was just trying to figure out, for my own mind, the range

of probability. I can't even imagine what it would be like if it were to ever get down to the wire - and be so close. No matter who emerges - the other side would be devastated. Almost like the Supreme Court handing DimSon the presidency. Guess in former years - the whole primary math wasn't hyper-analyzed like it is this time - typically a leader emerges and it isn't even close.

[joshcryer]

120. The point I wanted to make was that FL (and even MI) delegates will be seated.

Something that Obama supporters don't seem to get. If they are seated, and there is a potential scenario for them to not be seated, then clearly they matter, even if they don't create the nominee outright, they have political power. They are part of the process!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

124. Who the hell came up with this cluster f$$k ? If they made the

rule, they should stick to it. Otherwise, it's a travesty if no one even campaigned and they seat delegates based on nothing.

[napi21]

97. As I understand it, the only way there will be a problem is if the

nomination ISN'T chosen during the primaries and it goes to a brokered convention.

[joshcryer]

99. The seating of the delegates happens before the defacto nomination.

But the majority candidate at that point can have them seated, as far as I understand here. 1 vote majority for Hillary means MI and FL get seated.

[demo dutch]

102. The whole think is pathetic. It should be about the voter, no matter what the party heads decide.

They should have made it work and the candicates should have spoken up earlier before the primaries started. The whole primary election is a joke, it's undemocratic and it needs to be overhauled.

[joshcryer]

105. I agree completely, it's about elites saying who is who. I don't like it one bit.

[robbedvoter]

108. Hear hear! This cartoon sez it all:

[islandmkl]

116. The best thing about old Katherine

is the way Dick and Karl kicked her ass to the curb after she performed her 'service'. She thought she was the darling...yeah, the darling of the Bush dungheap!

[joshcryer]

117. Hilarious.

[ieoeja]

103. A committe of 130 delegates at the convention will decide for the Michigan and/or Florida delegates.

They may do what the presumptive nominee requests. They may do what the chair requests. Or they may tell both to take a flying leap and do something else entirely.

Anything else is just someone's guess.

[joshcryer]

104. The presumptive nominee has a lot of sway.

And ignoring that nominee would be a slap in the fucking face to that nominee and all the delegates (good luck manipulating the convention from that point on).

[ieoeja]

112. Bob Dole in 1996.

Presented his platform which the RNC summarily voted down before going on to write a platform without consulting the nominee.

[demo dutch]

113. Josh, so what happens in this scenario. Let's say the race is extremely close.

Obama wins because FL and MI aren't counted, but Hillary wins if FL and MI are counted. Would they actually go against the people's will because of some stupid technicality??

[joshcryer]

118. It's very possible, but I think if it was that close we'd have a brokered convention anyway:

Edwards may in fact wind up on top, if not my hero, Al Gore.

Like I said it's an unlikely as hell scenario.

[demo dutch]

122. Brokered would be undemocratic as well under these circumstances it may

not necessarily represents what the people voted for. The primary process needs to be overhauled. To have nominal, irrelevant states such as Iowa and New Hampshire always leading the way and virtually determining who gets to run for president every cycle is unfair. There should be a blind rotation or we should have a national primaries on the same date through out the country like other countries. It's a fine example of why we should go to a one person one vote system versus party controlled caucuses and primaries that do not require delegates to vote the popular vote. And then people wonder why only half the eligible voters even bother!

and then there's is the media, don't even get me started!

[robbedvoter]

114. As usual, kerry shows his contempt for the voters: asks media not to cover race

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4268328&mesg_id=4268328
John Kerry: “Bottom line: Florida has no delegates.”

[demo dutch]

115. Well screw him! Typical he didn't want to count the vote in 04 either!

I never liked him to begin with! and will never support him again! Parties aren't even in the constitution, and now they get to decide whose votes count? Last time we didn't count, at least it was the Supremes who said so. Now it's Mighty Mouth.

[joshcryer]

119. UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE.

OMFG! THEY HAVE DELEGATES, DELEGATES THAT WOULD MATTER ON EPIC LEVELS IN A VERY UNLIKELY SCENARIO.

[joshcryer]

121. FL and MI should see themselves as the metric for a clear candidate mandate, if they aren't seated:

Then clearly the person preventing them from being seated does not have a mandate, and this would lead to a fully brokered convention, with the person failing to seat the states being nullified from having the nomination completely. If they cannot unify the party by having enough delegates to safely seat these two states without being put out of running, then they have no business even pretending their delegates have say.

[joshcryer]

123. Kick for idiots who don't understand the process.

[robbedvoter]

125. Needs a kick today - for the 1,300,000 voters who showed up!