Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did HRC hope quietly to net ***121*** tainted delegates from Florida and Michigan?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:34 AM
Original message
Did HRC hope quietly to net ***121*** tainted delegates from Florida and Michigan?
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 01:40 AM by ProgressiveEconomist

The most definitive source of Democratic Primary delegate counts, TheGreenpapers, lists a net of 79 tainted "soft" delegates theoretically allocatable to Hillary in Michigan, and a net of 42 tainted "soft" delegates for Hillary in Florida.

TheGreenpapers "soft" counts include superdelegate estimates, so that's how Obama could get 1 "soft" delegate in Michigan, and why the totals exceed primary pledged counts of 128 for Michigan and 185 for Florida you may have seen in the media.

I am truly amazed to find these figures so large, and NO discernible discussion of them in the media.

What do you think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions from http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html :

The "hard count" consists of a count of the National Convention delegates as they are formally allocated ... No delegates are placed in the "hard count" column unless and until they have been so allocated. ...

The "soft count", meanwhile, is an estimation- based on the best possible information available to "The Green Papers" at the time- as to which presidential contenders delegates (even those who are nominally "Unpledged") will support on the floor of the Convention. ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Regardless of whether pledge delegates from MI and FL
are seated, or if their is a do over, the super delegates from those states should not be seated, since it was the likes of them that caused this shit in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree with you that those who created this divisive fiasco deserve punishment.
But would lowering the influence -- relative to voters in other states -- of legitimate Michigan and Florida voters in do-overs be the best way?

IMO, the candidates who did not remove their names from the Michigan ballot are most culpable (see the official ballot image at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/PriPresBal_final2... ). IMO the very best way to have ENSURED there would be no finagling with spurious Michigan votes would have been for all candidates to do what Obama, Edwards, and other honest candidates did: remove their names from the dishonest Michigan ballot.

I understand that the honest candidates tried to remove their names from the Florida ballot as well, but a Republican-appointed Secretary of State preferred to set in motion the trainwreck we have now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. The net of 79 in MI =73 pledged+ 6 super; FL's 42=38 pledged and 4 super
So superdelegates are not the main source of the high estimate, but rather the lack of fairness in each primary, particularly in Michigan.

In fact, TheGreenpapers even allocates the tainted pledged delegates by Congressional District:

at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml for Michigan and

at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml for Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC