Hillary Supporters: Please Tell DU How You Feel About Seating Delegates from FL and MI

[K Gardner]

Some people here are very upset and cannot believe ANY supporter of Hillary Clinton would advocate seating delegates of states where fair and legitimate primaries were not held. Please weigh in and ensure others that you, as a supporter, do not support the illegitimate seating of delegates and that you would be very upset if the Clintons pursue this strategy. Thanks !

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K Gardner]

2. Was that a Yes Seat Them, or a No Don't Seat Them? Or crickets?

[Maine-ah]

dude, can you say anything else?

this is the third one.

[K Gardner]

23. LOL.. I've noticed. S'why I didn't bother responding. Looks like he's shootin macros, the same one.

[journalist3072]

3. Actually, I wholeheartedly support the seating of the MI and FL delegates, and I'll tell you why

In 2004, the residents of the District of Columbia had to fight to have our voices heard in the presidential election.

DC Democrats were trying to spotlight the fact that DC residents have no representation in Congress. To do that, DC decided to holding a "nonbinding" presidential primary, before the binding one.

And when we decided to hold the nonbinding primary, five of the nine Democrats running for President that year, wrote to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics and asked to have their names removed from the ballot.

And when the convention rolled around that summer, DC Democrats had to fight to have the issue of DC voting rights addressed during the convention. It was only after some people threated to nominate Eleanor Holmes Norton for Vice President on the same night John Edwards was giving his acceptance speech...that the Democratic Party allowed Eleanor Holmes Norton to have a primetime speaking slot.

So, I say all that to say that I know what it's like to want to have your voice heard as a voter.

And I've never understood why we get so hung up on the tradition of Iowa and New Hampshire going first. The voters and the people of this country, should come before "tradition."

[K Gardner]

5. How do you feel about the fact that the candidates signed a pledge, agreed to the terms, and

thousands and thousands of people did not vote? Should there be a new primary/caucus and ALL people allowed/encouraged to vote?

[MichiganVote]

9. And thousands and thousands of Mi residents pay for it? Not hardly, not likely, not going to happen.

The pledge was not to campaign. All of them could leave their names on the ballot. Most took their names off the ballot in Michigan. One did not. The delegates are awarded on a % basis. There is a large portion of uncommitted and a large portion for Clinton. THAT is the issue, not fairness, not legality, not the DLC or the DNC.

No, I am not in favor of a new primary and with the legislature in Michigan as it is---you're not going to see it.

[K Gardner]

12. What if someone else paid for it? Would you support a fair, transparent and fully-inclusive primary

or caucus for ALL the people to vote in and ALL the candidates to take part in?

[MichiganVote]

20. Oh get real. According to the law, it was a transparent and fair primary.

Regardless of who or how the early primary in Michigan was set up, it was as inclusive as the candidates themselves wanted it to be.

Michigan voters voted. It was a valid primary and it was paid for. We can't even pay for salting our roads and even if we could---you're not listening Democrats---we have a republican legislature, they are not going to assign another primary / caucus.

[RiverStone]

6. This happens - it will 100% assure a Hillary loss

Political pontifications aside...

When the public gets wind of this, the backlash against Hillary will very likely cost her the nomination. Fine with me.

Us political junkies on DU can debate nuances - we pay attention.

John Q. Public will simply see the rules were changed in the middle of the game - it will piss LOTS of folks off.

Even as an Obama fan, I'd think Hil supporters would be against this bs???


ooops - you just wanted Hil supporters to respond - sorry :hi:

[sniffa]

16. Next time, just say, "I want Hilary to win by any means necessary!"

You can even stop at "win" as I don't think the rest will be necessary for full disclosure.

[Perky]

4. I told you Tuesday night this was going to be a huge issue.

People shouldhave thr ight to vote in an election they believe has an impact on the selection of the nominee.


Hundred of thousands of Floridians did not think the election had any real value. To tell them they they do not now have a chance to have an impact is horrible.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. From Everything I've Been Reading, And From The Record Voter Turnout, I Don't See What Was Unfair

about it. It seems like the voters went to the polls in droves and more than doubled the turnout of 2004. Why shouldn't their voices be heard?

Now granted, when it comes to the actual primary process, caucusing, blah blah blah, I don't really know a lot about how it all works. But from the surface, looking at how the election was held and how the voters rushed to the polls, what was unfair about it? Are you trying to say that the 1.7 MILLION voters that went out didn't know what they were thinking? I don't get it. I don't see why they shouldn't be seated.

[K Gardner]

8. Thanks for going on record.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. No Problem. But Can Ya Maybe Respond To The Post?

[K Gardner]

19. Look, there are 50 dozen posts on here going into excruciating detail about the

problems and obstacles about MI and FL. I'd respectfully ask you to do your own studying on the history and the opinions rather than have me dissect it for you. As a reference point, you could check out the journal of Madfloridian. That poster has been doing an unbelievable job of keeping up with the daily updates and legal maneuvers of courts and campaigns regarding this rather complex issue. A DU search alone, not to mention Google or Yahoo, will turn up scores and scores of excellent discussions on the subject :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. So What You're Saying Is, You Can Make All Sorts Of Claims, You Just Simply Can't Support Them?

Yeah... now THERE'S integrity for ya.

:rofl:

[K Gardner]

24. LOL.. I'm not claiming anything, dude. I'm asking for YOU to state YOUR opinion to DU. Thanks anyway

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. Sure You Are.

One such claim was that the elections were unfair and illegitimate.

I posted my reasons as to why I don't believe that to be true.

You have been unable to support your position as to why you do believe it's true, and instead have only shown that you have no substance, but only the ability to post stuff that you can't defend. :hi:

[MichiganVote]

36. You know...I just love these 'bring me you reasons for' posts that turn into

'lets insult the responders with our not so hidden agenda' responses.

You have a position. It is clear what it is. If you were less disingenous you would state it up front.

[MichiganVote]

10. Absolutely correct.

[NoBorders]

11. How many people DIDN't go to the polls with the understanding

their vote didn't matter? They took the Dem Party at their word.

[MichiganVote]

13. Depends on your definition of "their vote didn't matter"......

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. I Would Have To Say That The Ratio Would Probably Break Out FAIRLY, And That The Number Wouldn't Be

anywhere NEAR enough to close the gap that the results showed.

Do you have any reason WHATSOEVER to believe that Obama supporters were more inclined to stay home than Clinton supporters? Oh, you don't? Do you have any reason to believe that the difference in numbers would'be been significant enough to even BEGIN to close a 300,000 vote difference? Oh, you don't?

See, I don't care much about theoretical theories about invisible people who may NOT have shown up, since in all likelihood that split would be about the same ratio as what the results were. What I DO care about is the 1.7 MILLION fucking people that DID show up. That CAN be counted. That DID voice their opinions. And I think anyone would be pretty hard pressed to try and claim that when 1.7 million people rushed to the polls for a PRIMARY, thereby more than DOUBLING the turnout from 2004, that a ton of people stayed home. No. They didn't stay home. They voted and let their voice be known.

Yup. That's what I'm lookin at...

[NoBorders]

29. Really? You know this? And the numbers...

You're omniscience is impressive--you know what proportion of people would show have shown up. In any case, the absolute numbers hardly matter. It would be one big bait-and-switch. Heck, by your logic we could just decide the primaries according to the polls.

They 'rushed' to the primaries largely because of an important property tax initiative that was on the ballot.

It's clear the Clinton campaign now realizes the race is closer than expected, and they are trying for an end-run around their original agreement.

I hope this can be resolved fairly, and that FL voters will have their voices heard, but prospects for this seem dim.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Do You Have ANY Reason To Believe Otherwise? ANY At All?

Is there ANY reason to believe those that stayed home wouldn't have broken out at around the same ratio?

And your comment that my logic states we should decide primaries by polls is mind bogglingly ridiculous. We're not talking about polls here. We're not talking about 500 people called or something. We're talking about 1.7 MILLION REAL PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY CAST A VOTE. Yeah, I'd say that's enough of a sample to base conclusions off of.

1.7 million people let their voice be heard. Largest turnout ever. Over twice the turnout of 2004. You want to just tell them all their voices don't matter?

You can rest on your 'we don't know how many stayed home or who they would've voted for' laurels all you want, but simple common sense would dictate that the argument is baseless and not a strong one. Since there are NO factors that would indicate that one side would stay home more than the other side, coupled with the fact that 1.7 million people actually went, it is more than easy to conclude that there would be a virtual non difference in outcome. If you don't see that, if you can't accept that, if you won't admit that, then that's merely because you are too closed minded to see it and too bitter that the results aren't the way you wanted them to be.

When you have a sample of 1.7 million people, and no weighting factors that would lend themselves to one side being more apt to stay home than the other, and a vote difference of over 300,000 towards one of the candidates, then you can pretty confidently call it a fair election. Get a grip.

[Politicub]

15. I'm thinking ahead to November - and think MI and FL matter

So seat the delegates. Obama may be the nominee, and we'll need the votes from voters in those states.

[jillan]

17. What I do think, is if Obama nor Hillary have enough delegates to win this thing,

Howard Dean may have to make some decisions what to do.

My answer is no, unless it is absolutely necessary - and to be done in a fair manner.
No, I don't have any idea how that would be done. That's up to the DNC.

[K Gardner]

21. Thanks Pirhana.. very logical answer :-)

:hi:

[paulk]

25. they will be seated, one way or another

your flame bait nonsense notwithstanding...

[MichiganVote]

26. Yes, they will.

[rodeodance]

27. I supported their enfranchisement since the day Sen. Clinton up for them. In fact, if

see my past posts, it was the day that i decided to support Sen. Clinton.


By the way--i do not appreciate being called out. You know better than that!

[smalll]

28. Hillarite here, I think FL delegates should be seated. MI, maybe not.

It wouldn't seem too fair to seat the MI delegates, as only Clinton and Kucinich were on the ballot. (The others all withdrew their names one after the other when the Richardson campaign came up with the bright grandstanding idea of taking Bill's name off.) Yes, in Michigan, there was a concerted effort by many anti-Hillary folks to encourage a "noncommitted" vote from the electorate. There were threads here pushing it even. But to be fair, there were a lot of Obama and Edwards people in Michigan who would have come out to vote for their choices if they had been available, but who didn't come out to vote because they weren't. So yes, I'll concede, it would not be entirely just to seat the MI delegates.

But Florida was another matter. All the candidates were on the ballot, including of course Hillary and Obama. No candidate campaigned there. Sure, some Obama ads bled into Florida from regional or national cable buys, and sure, Hillary flew in for a couple of hours for a fundraiser, but basically, no one campaigned. It was a level playing field, and turnout was nothing to sneeze at. In the interests of greater fairness and broader justice, those Florida delegates SHOULD in the end be seated.

And finally, the obvious point: those Florida delegates should be seated even more because they are from FLORIDA! Given the 2000 General Election debacle down in Florida, how could any Democrat seek to disenfranchise Florida voters? Blame the Florida politicians, blame the state legislature, blame the Republican Party in Florida and the Democratic big-wigs who went along with them to bump up Florida's primary to an "illegaly" early date. But the actual, real, grass-roots VOTERS who came out to vote in the Florida primary are blameless. Does anyone really want to disenfranchise Florida Democratic voters again? Well, some might, but let me tell you if they try, it will Not. Look. Good.

[MichiganVote]

30. So by your reckoning my vote in Michigan should not be counted

because Obama and Edwards chose to take their names off the ballot and the Democratic party refused to get their act together later to change the state rules to permit them to be write in's? It could have happened and the repub/ legislature would have voted it through with no problem. But they didn't do it.

So here's my answer to the exclusion of the Michigan delegates. Last week I got a Dem. party membership card. I cut it in two and included a note saying, 'If you can't bother to count my vote, I can't bother to count out any more money for this party. Mailed it back and you know what?

I'm waiting for a response. The convention will give me my answer.

[Aussie leftie]

32. Disenfranchising the people of Michigan and Florida from taking part in selecting a candidate

kind of reminds me of the "hanging chads" fiasco in Florida in 2000. In a free and democratic society everybody is entitled to a fair go.

[dsc]

33. I am split

Michigan, barring another election, shouldn't be seated. But Florida should. That election was fought under the same rules for everyone. She won it.

[MichiganVote]

35. Sorry you feel that way about Michigan. But I believe they will be seated anyway.

[dsc]

38. Michigan should rerun the election

I can't imagine you don't have some spot where you run elections between now and June.

[MichiganVote]

41. Well I can't imagine why the rest of the country doesn't get it

that we don't have the money for another election and we don't have a legislature friendly with the idea of another election. It won't happen.

[incapsulated]

37. I think there should be a "do over"

Redo the voting in both states.

[MichiganVote]

42. Won't happen.

[workinclasszero]

39. Hillary supporters are insane

if they think they will get away with this bloody outrage! If Obama enters the convention with the most delegates, he will win the nomination, period.

If Hillary breaks her promise to the party there will be hell to pay, count on that. It will rip the democratic party in two. How do you think millions of people all over America will feel when they find out that their votes for Obama were flushed down the toilet by Hillary Clinton?

The rethug's will run wild with it in the GE and you can say hello to President "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain.

I just have to believe that someone in the party with half a brain will not let this travesty happen.

[suston96]

40. Seat them. They voted and their votes must be counted. It's the democracy way.....nt

[IsItJustMe]

43. Seat them if it does not affect the outcome. The rules were made, live by them or allow those

Florida/Michigan to have another primary vote or some other equitable arrangement.

[mondo joe]

44. It's a DNC matter. The candidates can request it and lobby for it, and the DNC will have to decide.