Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is indisputable. Take away the SD's - he did not win. Selected, not elected. Sound familiar?
You've gotta say it louder!
And to think, in a few months we'll have the unique opportunity to watch Senator McCain follow Senator Obama's footsteps into this very same arena.
So I still don't understand...how is the party being unfair? She still would be much farther away than he would be from the nomination.
For me, it;s not a matter of them being fair or unfair. It's a matter of not abiding by the rules they set last year. They should have just said, look, we're sorry. No delegates will be seated from Florida or Michigan. They broke the party rules. They DNC changed the rules at the last minute to keep those states alive in the General Election. Imagine if Bush changed the rules...oh yeah, the Dems have already tried to eat him alive over that in Iraq.
In regards to MI; Took 4 delegates from Hill and awarded to Obama. Unprecedented move.
No, they did not. She had NO delegates from MI as the state had an illegitimate, invalid primary.
Gave 55 delegates to Obama, even though his name was not on MI ballot. The 30 member rules committee PRESUMED to know the intent and will of the MI voters. That's just not right.
Counting an illegitimate, invalid primary is not right. They simply allocated delegates so that the rule breaking state could be represented in Denver. They state should be grateful for such representation.
This is where Hill&Bill can make their case to the credentials committee.
Except that they do not have a case.
IMHO, Obama SHOULD have said - give them all to Hill&Bill, or the very least, don't give me anything. He still would have reached the magic number with SD's this coming week. Bad move on his part.
No, he did just fine.
MI is considered a swing state this time around. It's been a solid blue before this year. This could cost him with the voters.
MI is in terrible shape. Have a third term of W is the last thing that MI or any other state needs.
Perhaps you should focus on educating McCain on the basics of Iraq and economics here.
He also has consistently lost 1/4 - 1/3 of the several most recent primary votes.
No, they did not. She had NO delegates from MI as the state had an illegitimate, invalid primary.
Wrong. The STATE held a valid primary and the results are CERTIFIED. I think you mean the DNC deemed it illegitimate and invalid. A big difference.
Quote:
Counting an illegitimate, invalid primary is not right.
But, once they AGREE to count it, which they did, then they need to count it correctly.
Quote:
Except that they do not have a case.
So...pilfering votes from a candidate and giving them to another doesn't make a case? And then awarding a candidate delegates who was not on the ballot is.....democracy the democrat way.
You've gotta say it louder!
And to think, in a few months we'll have the unique opportunity to watch Senator McCain follow Senator Obama's footsteps into this very same arena.
How many stars will be on the flag over Obama's head?
"I've now been to 57 states." -- Presidential candidate Obama in May.
Wrong. The STATE held a valid primary and the results are CERTIFIED. I think you mean the DNC deemed it illegitimate and invalid. A big difference.
WRONG. The DNC already stated that the MI (and FL) contests would not be valid contests for the Democratic primary process. Candidates were asked to not to campaign (a significant function of a true election) and voters were told that there votes would not count (another incredibly significant issue in an election).
All the candidates agreed to the circumstances.
The contest as it happened, was illegitimate, invalid, and because of that, beyond flawed.
Quote:
But, once they AGREE to count it, which they did, then they need to count it correctly.
They agreed to represenation and nogitiated as such.
A compromise was worked out by state DNC officials of BOTH camps.
Quote:
So...pilfering votes from a candidate and giving them to another doesn't make a case? And then awarding a candidate delegates who was not on the ballot is.....democracy the democrat way.
She did not have any delegates. Keep rereading that until it sinks in.
As you mentioned he was not on the ballot. The DNC said that the contest would not count.
Any change after the fact is not legitimate, so they compromised to MOVE forward.
Seriously, this is not that complicated.
Maybe you should focus on McCain and Paul and their delegate issues.
Facts: The states held an election. The people spoke their voice. It was certified. The DNC at first ignored the results and to be frank, haven't really bothered to keep up with the waffling and what percentages they've determined each vote is worth.
The geniuses that ran this simple election want to run our healthcare.
Facts: The states held an election. The people spoke their voice. It was certified
...not for the DNC's purpose of nominating a candidate for POTUS.
This is NOT that hard to grasp.
For the issue of voting for the the choice of Democratic candidate for President, the DNC already invalidated the election date. Period.
Candidates could NOT campaign because of this. You cannot have a legitimate contest when candidates cannot campaign. Because if you do, it merely is a contest of name recognition.
And you cannot tell voters that the contest will not count and then go ahead count it, as many people did not bother to vote in a contest that would not count and where because of this, several candidates had their names removed.
Your “argument” is a fallacy, illogical, and extremely ridiculous.
...not for the DNC's purpose of nominating a candidate for POTUS.
This is NOT that hard to grasp.
For the issue of voting for the the choice of Democratic candidate for President, the DNC already invalidated the election date. Period.
Candidates could NOT campaign because of this. You cannot have a legitimate contest when candidates cannot campaign. Because if you do, it merely is a contest of name recognition.
And you cannot tell voters that the contest will not count and then go ahead count it, as many people did not bother to vote in a contest that would not count and where because of this, several candidates had their names removed.
Your “argument” is a fallacy, illogical, and extremely ridiculous.
From another angle. . . . It's clear that the DNC can throw out whatever votes and states they desire and, it appears, for whatever reason they see fit. Even if the states and voters themselves hold an election as they see fit. So much for every vote counts.
I see a lot of posts about the DNC doing things wrong, what exactly did they do that was so wrong?
Was it about the 4 extra delegates taken from Hillary at the rules meeting? OK that can be corrected, but what else?
Or maybe I should realize that some of the protesters there don't speak for the whole party.
I support Hillary Clinton
Only thing I can say is I will soon be registered ( hopefully ) as a Independent...
Woot Hillary
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
