Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How cd HRC POSSIBLY overcome Obama's 140+ lead? Simple: w net ***121*** tainted FL and MI

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 01:05 PM
Original message
How cd HRC POSSIBLY overcome Obama's 140+ lead? Simple: w net ***121*** tainted FL and MI
delegates. Hillary's "magic number" in remaining legitimate primaries and caucuses may only be in the 20's -- not in the 140+ range.

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.

The net of 79 in Michigan includes 73 pledged and 6 superdelegates; Florida's net 42 for HRC comprises 38 pledged and 4 superdelegates.

TheGreenpapers even allocates the tainted pledged delegates by Congressional District, at-large category, and PLEO (Political Leaders and Elected Officials] allotment, at

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

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml for Florida.

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

IMO, THIS must be how Hillary hopes to catch Obama before the first ballot in Denver, just after a rigged credentials committee desicion to seat FL and MI delegates from spurious "elections".

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
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. They will NOT be seated, as is. Dean assured it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. My TV did not get the message
all they are saying it will still come down to FL and MI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. That's not what I heard Dean say on MSNBC Wednesday morning (or was it Thursday)
I heard him say that there were TWO ways Michigan and Florida delegates could be seated.

(1) They could hold re-votes that met the same standards the other 55 jurisdictions that are likely to be seated have met; or

(2) They could be seated AS IS, on a favorable decision from the Credentials Committee in Denver. And guess whose supporters are almost certain to dominate the Credentials Committee?

All the nightmare scenario I've laid out needs to come to fruition is a lot of TALK about re-votes in Michigan and Florida, but no ACTUAL revotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Essentially, by stealing the nomination the way Bush stole the presidency.
If she can't be trusted when wooing the base, why should we trust her in the general or as the president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. Exactly. A Hilliary-dominated Credentials Committee decision = Bush V Gore
There would much gnashing of teeth after the fact, but eventually virtually everyone would accept HRC as pResident (assuming she could beat McCain). just as fewer and fewer found anything questionable about Dubya's legitimacy each year after 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. no, just no.
MI is with Obama getting NO delegates (his name wasn't on the ballot). If they are seated, it will be a revote, no question

Florida will be a revote as well.

Overall between the two she would probably get about 20-30 max (almost all from Florida, she may not even win in MI, recent polls have them tied).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. I heard Bill Nelson say on MSNBC that seating FL would "only" net HRC 38 votes:
That matches EXACTLY what I posted in the lead-in.

And if thegreenpapers are in accord with what the top Democrat in the state says in the national media, why wouldn't they be correct about Michigan too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Huh?
121 delegate gain in 2 states? No way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. thats because this is assuming Obama would get zero delegates in MI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. That could not, would not happen
obviously
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. It SHOULD not, MUST not, but could happen, jsut like Bush V Gore. See #10.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. not going to happen esp in Michigan where Obama was not on th ballot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BringBigDogBack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Bingo. And to seat florida, you would have to seat them all,
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 01:10 PM by BringBigDogBack
meaning you would seat Obama's. It wouldn't be a net pick up anywhere close to what the author is insinuating. Doesn't pan out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. No, the 38 delegate pickup in FL is about right
I calculated it to be 37 based on proportioning the delegates based on the popular vote in the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Thank you. The way 105 pledged delegates wd go to HRC, and 67 to Obama, is
that proportionality is applied WITHIN each of FL's 25 Congressional Districts, with other allotments for a statewide at-large component and for a statewide allocation to "PLEO": Poltical Leasers and Elected Officials. See the bottom table at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml
for the gritty details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. How does Edwards get delegates?
Isn't he supposed to reach the 15% popular vote threshold? At 14.39%, he shouldn't get any delegates. That should affect the numbers a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Do me a favor: Just click this link (from the OP), read it, and reassess your comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. 2025 del count needed does not include FL & MI
If FL & MI are included, you need to add their total delegate counts to 4049 then divide by 2 to get the actual delegate count required for nomination.

It's incorrect apply FL & MI's delegate counts to 2025. 2025 is the delegate count required to win with FL & MI's delegate counts excluded.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. The actual numbers
The total number of delegates (FL & MI excluded) is 4047. The number of delegates required to win the nomination without counting FL & MI is 2024.

The total number of delegates including FL & MI is 4414 and the number of delegates required to win the nomination is 2207.5 (more realistically, 2208).



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. IMO you are correct. Excluding MI and FL, the total is 4047,
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 02:44 PM by ProgressiveEconomist
according to the cumulative chronological delegate summary at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ccad.phtml .

But how does that fact change the "horserace" between HRC and Obama?

Seating MI and FL with no re-do still nets Hillary at least 121 delegates, cutting deeply into Obama's 140+ lead so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. FL is realistic, even with a revote. MI is not.
Hill is not going to get 100% of the delegates in MI in a revote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. There may not BE any re-vote--Here's yesterday's Detroit Free Press editorial:
From http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2008030...

"RECOGNIZE MICHIGAN'S PRIMARY

... Michigan has already spent $10 million on the Jan. 15 primary. There was nothing illegitimate about that election, no reason to doubt the veracity of the results. So that's what the party ought to be forced to work with, unless it's willing to hold its own election, staged and paid for with its own effort and money."

IMO, this sentiment echoes the opinions of both top Democrats in Michigan--Gov Jennifer Granholm and Sen Carl Levin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. The type of editorial no one would ever sign...
...because he'd be known as an idiot for the rest of his life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wileedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. What?
"here was nothing illegitimate about that election, no reason to doubt the veracity of the results. "

There is nothing illegitimate about an election where one guy's name was not even on the ballot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
42. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
powergirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
38. Soviet Union style voting
So . . there is nothing "illegitmate" of you agreed that those delegates would not count and your name is the only one on the ballot??? I'm so confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
56. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. So she can win the nomination only if nobody is running against her
That's perfect.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. And then, as pResident, she can put National Election Reform back on the agenda!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
16. EVEN if this is true
And it sounds like a stretch...

An Obama lead of 20 pledged delegates with only 11 jurisdictions to go would still be pretty hard to beat. Notice how even in Clinton's "big" win in Ohio, her net delegate gain wasn't that significant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. You may be right. But 20+ is not as insurmountable as 140+, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. oh, definitely.
It's good to look at the extreme cases and assume the reality will be somewhere in the middle. My point is, even in the extreme case outlined in the OP, it will be tough for Clinton to win the pledged delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. IMO this is NOT an "extreme case"--this is what inertia on re-votes SURELY will bring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
25. It is really only about half that
The superdelegates will not be allowed to vote, and the total number from MI is way too high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. What's your source for that opinion? And theGreenpapers omits 20 superdelegates
(out of 28) from Michigan, and 14 superdelegates (out of 26) from Florida. In the worst case scenario, add 40 to the 121 and you get ***161*** net delegates for HRC.

TheGreenpapers simply fills in the "zero" delegate counts for Florida and Michigan you'll find on CNN, cq.com, and other better-known sites that don't go the extra 100 miles on thoroughness.

I envy your complacency. Just click these links and read down to get the same shock I experienced:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml and
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml .

It really IS the 2000 General Election all over again, IMO.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. The DNC won't seat them
There is also absolutely no way that the MI delegates would be seated with none being given to Obama. If the pledged delegates are split 55%/40% (Obama awarded the uncommitted delegates), then that equates to a 20 delegate difference. (74 for Clinton, 54 for Obama)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. It's possible the Credentials Committee could award all "uncommitted" to Obama.
But IMO it's more likely a Hillary-dominated Committee would seat the MI delegation AS IS, and the "uncommitted" would be free to vote for HRC as ordered by the Machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hell-bent Donating Member (593 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
35. The only thing "spurious"
was Obama's attempt at getting votes in Florida with his TV ads. He was aware that no campaigning could be done in Florida. Does he think he is above the "rules"? I live in the middle of the state and I saw numerous TV ads on MSNBC. :wtf: Let's do the election in Florida again. Rasmussen reports that Hillary will kick his ass with 59% of the vote.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics... Michigan votes should not count as his name was not on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. You seem to be making much of "spillover" from Super Tuesday ads aimed at AL, GA,
and other Southern states a week after Florida's Jan 29th sham primary. It's hard to cast a dragnet over Super Tuesday states without wasting a bit of your advertising effort of a Florida that would not count.

Could these minor spillover ads into Florida have outweighed Clinton's name recognition advantage? She still netted 42 more tainted delegates and 288,000 more tainted popular votes than Obama.

Do you think she should be awarded a BONUS on top of those phoney votes? As it is, FL's phony election IMO is grossly unfair to voters in other states that held LEGITIMATE primaries and caucuses where a TENTH of HRC's spurious Florida margins was the result of hard, hard, campaigning and precinct work, not the result of name recognition for a candidate's former President spouse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
powergirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
37. Isn't it true that if new primaries were held in Florida and Michigan, Obama still wins?
With proportional voting, wouldn't Obama's lead remain? Unless Clinton wins by 70%?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Depends on the design of those new primaries. But if they were fair, YES, IMO,
Hillary would have not a smowball's chance in hell catching up to Obama without other kinds of shenanigans, like goint to state conventions and twisting the arms of "pledged but not bound" Obama delegates to change sides.

What worries me is that the path of least resistance to Denver is along the lines of what I laid out in the OP. I'm worried there may be a lot of TALK about re-dos, and we may ALMOST get fair election re-dos, but in the end the trainwreck I fear will take place at the Convention Credentials Committee meeting in August.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Kick! How about a few K&R's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
43. I believe that's her only chance to even come close ...
... that AND mudslinging combined.

Holding new elections in Florida and Michigan won't move the numbers much at all.

Watch as it gets very ugly from here on out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Here's the math ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. EXCELLENT post. But did your MI and FL scenarios adjust for the increase in the 4047
delegate total without MI and FL?

See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ccad.phtml for a chronologically cumulative count of delegates. Notice how there are no bumps up for MI and FL in January.

So the target number of first-ballot delegates would shift farther away if MI and FL were put back into the count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Thank you, and Yes, they were increased for FL and MI
Thumbs up and a rec on your OP as well

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. HRC 2 days ago: 'I don't think that there should be any do-over...Florida should be seated.
(and net her 42 delegates and 288,000 votes in a no-campaigning-allowed name recognition farce)

She also appeared to echo Michigan Governor Jennifer Granhold in urging that the current Michigan delegation be seated in Denver (and net her 79 delegates and a Soviet-style 328,000-vote "landslide")as "a civil rights issue":

From http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/... ,

'On a "do-over" in Florida and Michigan, which held nominating contests that broke Democratic Party rules

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Even if HRC gets her wish, and they are seated as is ...
... she would still need to garner 54% of the remaining pledged delegates in all races to catch up. In other words, EVERY state's results from here on out would have to be just like Ohio's results.

She would need 59% of the remaining pledged delegates in all races if Florida and Michigan held new elections. This is why she isn't fighting for new elections.

The way it is now, status quo without Florida and Michigan, she would need 63% of the remaining pledged delegates in all races to catch up. She's only won one state over 60%: Arkansas.

Thanks for the link to the article!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Thanks for the extra effort--It's good to know the hurdles to a HRC 1st-ballot win. But
can Obama get a 1st-ballot win, unless Superdelegates intervene en masse before Denver? I haven't done the math, but I don't think so.

Also, have you thought about "the math" for the popular vote? By my reckoning (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ), Obama is about 570,000 cumulative popular votes ahead from LEGITIMATE primaries and caucuses. But with FL's tainted net 288,000 and MI's Soviet-style 328,000, HRC ALREADY could claim a popular vote advantage.

Hillary, Bill, and their supporters could argue to the Superdelegates that the delegate vote and popular vote "cancel each other out" and "electability" is key. Maybe that's why Hillary keeps telling mass audences that McCain would make a much better president than Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Neither candidate can win on 1st-ballot
Obama comes up 28 delegates short. Clinton would be short over 150 on 1st ballot.

You're right on the popular vote, but that will only come into play by changing the rules for Michigan and Florida. We realized the hard way with Al Gore that popular vote doesn't necessarily carry an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. So Superdelegates MUST act en masse before August
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #47
57. hmmm... a revote may be impossible if what I heard
on CNN earlier was right. I just walked into the room so I didn't catch the guy's name but one of the pundits said that all of the elections must be done by June 10th. In Fla, I believe he said, the filing deadline is 90 days before the election. That would be monday. If it's true, there can't be a revote there then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Sounds like the Republican Secy of State is keeping the train wreck on schedule
I read somewhere that Obama and other honest major candidates tried to withdraw from the Florida primary just the way they withdrew from Michigan, but the Secretary of State would not allow them to.

I guess extension of the deadline is out of the question too.

My fear is that there will be much TALK about re-votes in both states, but no actual re-vote in either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
48. She had a lot of early support
and those voters deserve to have their votes counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. When on the rulkes committee
Harold Ickes, now of the Hillary campaign, cast a vote saying FL and MI should face the consequences they now are dealing with.

Quite a flip flop of opinions in her campaign.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awaysidetraveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
51. The funny thing is that it's okay... by the end of the election, Obama will win more pledged
delegates. There's no mathematical way around all of that. To tell the truth... I'm not so certain that I care
whether or not those delegates are seated. Obama will win regardless. In all fairness, I'd like to at least see a second vote in MI, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yossariant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
60. MI and FL don't need to be seated. She has been seen to be fighting for them.
Doesn't it occur to anybody that the superdelegates know all about Florida and Michigan.

Hint: They have tv.

Her fight for Florida reinforces her strength in a state she already thought she could turn blue.

Clinton was reluctant to sign that pledge because Dean was writing off Florida to the GOP and she always thought she could win there.

I expect the superdelegates to consider this and an electoral college map when they vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Interesting perspective. "She's been seen to be fighting for FL". But let's think this through
1. Hillary said Thursday 'I don't think that there should be any do-over...Florida should be seated' ( http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/... )

2. She netted 42 tainted delegates and 288,000 tainted popular votes the first time. In Texas and Ohio primaries, she netted only fractions of those figures, and likely would not do any better in a second Florida primary than she did in TX or OH.

So IMO clearly Hillary would prefer no re-do. But, if there are re-dos despite her opposition, IMO you are correct, she's strengthening her very diminished advantage in a FAIR election by being seen as a "fighter" for the people of Florida and Michigan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yossariant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Let's think it though even further.
Except for his home state, Obama has not one an election in any big state that the Democrats need to win in the general.

Her fight to count the votes in Florida would help her win Florida in the general --- as she always thought she could.

If Obama cannot win Florida or Ohio, he cannot win the general.

Neither is a likely prospect for him.

~ Not sure why you capitalized FAIR.

:shrug:
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 Oct 21st 2014, 10:52 AM
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