Boz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:20 PM
Original message |
With all due respect, Ickes was right, the MI ruling is wrong |
|
Obama should not have been given ANY MI votes. They should have been UNCOMMITTED.
|
high density
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Yes and I'm sure Stalin would approve of your comment. |
bilgewaterbill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
pbca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message |
2. With all due respect, Michigan should not have counted n/t |
npincus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
Andy823
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 06:44 PM by Andy823
When I hear all the crap about breaking the rules by giving Obama delegates, and yet Hillary signed a paper saying those two states would NOT count, and Hillary wanted to get all the delegates even though Obama's name was not on the ballot, it makes me sick! :puke: Hell what was agreed to was put together by the democratic party in Michigan, why should anyone complain, this is what the state party wants?
|
futureliveshere
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
49. aaannnddd SLAM-DUNK!!! |
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
56. That's the point of all this. |
mckeown1128
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Ya...everyone knows... |
|
that no one in MI wants Obama for president. :eyes:
|
blonndee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I agree that it was wrong. NOBODY should have gotten any delegates |
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
11. IMO, it should have been 50/50 |
blonndee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
21. Well, that would be the same net. But maybe more palatable for some, so okay. |
Robyn66
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Michigan shouldn't have gotten any delegates at all. They had no excuse for breaking the rules.
|
trof
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
13. I was thinking more Gollum. |
|
"FILTHY OBAMA CAMP! THEY SSSSTOLE IT FROM USSSS!"
|
Zachstar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Stalin thanks you for those words. |
anonymous171
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I disagree. They should have gone to Kucinich. Just to fuck things up. |
quakerboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
quakerboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 06:35 PM by quakerboy
I think they should have randomly redistributed several other states delegates as well. Some from California to Kucinich. A few Arizona delegates to Gravel, just to mix it up. Maybe a couple New Jersey Delegates should be assigned to vote for Ron Paul, just to encourage him a little more.
|
DerekJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
10. The dictatorship of Hillaryland approves your message. |
Boz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. I am an Obama supporter and a parlimentarian,they broke the Rule of Law to award those votes to him |
|
They should have remained uncommitted he could have picked them up with a phone call, the same as Edwards delegates.
This ruling was not a legal compromise.
|
fed_up_mother
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. Not "legal?" So, you're going to take it to court? Good luck! |
Boz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
30. Like it or not we are a country of laws. They only let her go forward |
|
by breaking the rules for Obama.
They could have followed the rules of law and Obama would have been fine and picked them up as uncommitted the same as Edwards delegates, wih ou jusifying hr fighting on.
|
fed_up_mother
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
44. They should have counted NO votes according TO THE RULES. |
|
That would have been a much better result, but since so many Hillary supporters are so losers, they tried to reach a compromise.
|
BearSquirrel2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
58. This was a proposal from the state party ... |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 08:29 PM by BearSquirrel2
This was a proposal from the state party in order to have their representation restored after they broke party rules. The credentials committee accepted this proposal. Blame Michigan.
I'm sick of all these Clinton supporters fake outrage when Hillary said the contest would not count and Ickes previously voted to remove all delegates from Michigan.
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
22. hilary broke the rules..what say you about that |
dansolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
29. There is no "legal" issue here |
|
The DNC is a private organization, and the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that they have the right to award delegates in any manner that they see fit.
|
Boz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
34. There is no bylaw in the DNC that this is rooted in, They would need two motions to establish |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 06:38 PM by Boz
this motion legally they didnt cross there Ts and dot there Is and left a loophole for her to jump through.
The motion was wrong.
|
bigbrother05
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
40. The "election" was illegal. The committee supported the MI Dem Party's allocation. |
|
The distribution of the illegal primary was clearly unrepresentative of the intent of the MI voters. The 50/50 split was just as arbitrary. The only real choices were to maintain the 100% ban or support the request of the state party.
Compromise is seldom welcomed by all parties, but is often necessary to move forward.
|
azmouse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:23 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Then Hillary shouldn't have gotten any either. |
Boz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
27. While that would be the FAIR thing rules arent always fair, they have no self awareness |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 06:39 PM by Boz
MI had a certified vote, yes it was fucked up, but it was valid and the votes were cast for Hillary and none for Obama. Thats what they should have allowed to be used with the 50% and then Obama could pick up the unsupported in fairly quickly, this was a broken rule of law end run.
|
jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message |
14. I agree. NO delegates should be awarded. |
emilyg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message |
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:26 PM
Response to Original message |
17. The ruling was wrong - with only one name on the ballet the MI votes shouldn't have counted or 50/50 |
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
50. Kucinich and Dodd were also on the ballot |
gristy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message |
20. With all due respect, no delegates should have been awared from MI |
|
That was not an election. Democratic elections have all the candidates on the ballot.
So a compromise was reached.
|
dbmk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:29 PM
Response to Original message |
23. He was right about one thing only |
|
That the process was flawed. When the voters are told the vote will count towards 0 delegates and the participants told not to campaign, then the election result cannot be said to reflect the will of the people. The Michigan DNC then tabled what they saw as the best compromise, given the situation.
|
4_Legs_Good
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:29 PM
Response to Original message |
dansolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:31 PM
Response to Original message |
26. Uncommitted votes were clearly votes for not-Hillary |
|
Why should she get any of them? The best option for her would have been a 73-55 split, with her getting the 2 add-ons, with each delegate vote counting as 1/2.
|
AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:33 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Florida and Michigan should have gotten no delegates so Ickes can go to hell.
|
woolldog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message |
31. Yeah. Zero people wanted to vote for Obama. |
|
And the delegate count should reflect that. That makes sense.
|
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
42. And as the Chaos-bots like to say... |
|
Ignore them at your peril.
|
LiberalAndProud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message |
32. They ruled in favor of the state Democratic parties |
|
in both cases. I think in the end, it was the only option available, given the circumstances. I'm just happy they didn't kick it to the credentials committee.
|
Lerrad
(383 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message |
33. With all due respect MI should not be counted but.... |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 06:36 PM by Lerrad
Give all the MI votes to Hillary and Obama still wins. So lets stop this arguing and Beat the shit of John McSane!
|
my3boyz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message |
35. If I had my way Michigan would not have been seated! That was the fairest thing to do |
|
because those were the rules they agreed upon at the beginning.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message |
36. With all due respect, your OP is wrong. |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 06:42 PM by AtomicKitten
|
Boz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
39. I am an Obama supporter, This has nothing to do with either candidate |
|
It is the rules, many of us have complained about moving goalposts, this is just the same thing, it just happens to be for our benefit, but it is wrong just the same.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #39 |
41. Fairness and following the rules has nothing to do with partisanship. |
|
There was no way in hell Michigan could be seated without all players being on the ballot. This is a fair resolution.
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #39 |
52. the election was declared invalid.. |
|
by the Michigan Democratic Party.
|
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:43 PM
Response to Original message |
37. Tell that to the democratic party in Michigan, who proposed the solution. |
|
Apparently, the Clinton campaign knows better than the party in the states.
|
Kahuna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:57 PM
Response to Original message |
43. If you're "respecting the voters" you have to respect those who would |
|
have voted for Obama too. THAT is why they allocated the way they did. It was masterful, IMHO.
|
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #43 |
46. Obama didn't respect them |
|
he took his name off the ballot.
|
Kahuna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
54. Indeed he did. He asked them to vote "uncommitted." That's why he |
|
received credit for those "uncommitted" votes. It's really not that complicated.
|
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:46 PM
Response to Original message |
45. True, reasonable grounds for appeal |
|
Obama took his name off the ballot, though it was not required that he do so. He feared the loss in MI would hurt his chances in following primaries, as it would have.
|
Kahuna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
55. Great strategy on Team Obama's part. Why hate? |
mcctatas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:47 PM
Response to Original message |
47. I actually kind of agree.... |
|
no one should have recieved any delegates, the whole primary should be tossed out....
|
Gore1FL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:47 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Hillary netted delegates out of contests that were considered invalid. The rules were changed at her request and the outcome benefitted her.
To spin this as an outrage to Hillary is ignoring obvious facts.
Take the victory and feel satisfied that she and yo got your way.
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:50 PM
Response to Original message |
51. The Michigan Democratic Party.. |
|
declared their election invalid. I was very impressed that Michigan acknowledged the election was flawed, people were told their votes would not count, and that this was the solution they advocated and crafted.
|
Marie26
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message |
53. How does the apportionment work? |
|
Is it that all the uncommitted votes will be considered Obama votes when apportioning delegates, while the Clinton votes will be used to apportion her delegates?
|
BearSquirrel2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 08:26 PM
Response to Original message |
57. With due respect there should be 0 Michigan Delegates ... |
|
Remember Mr. Ickes voted against any Michigan representation before the contest and stripped that excercise of any legitimacy. Obama took his pledge note to participate seriously. Having your name on the ballot means YOU ARE PARTICIPATING.
The 50-50 split would have been the most appropriate avenue. But this was a good compromise to make the issue go away.
|
quaker bill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message |
60. There were no delegates |
|
delegates were not reassigned from one status to another because NO DELEGATES EXISTED until today. Michigan had exactly zero delegates walking in this am. Hillary had none, Barack had none, uncommitted had none. There were no uncommitted delegates because no Michigan convention delegates existed.
The Michigan Democratic party, through its own means, proposed a settlement for their willful violation, so that delegates could be created/accredited to represent them. The RBC accepted their recommendation with the automatic 50 percent sanction for the timing violation, as dictated by the rules.
The argument is stupid, because until today, no MI convention delegates existed.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:46 PM
Response to Original message |