Michigan Democratic Primary Rules-Certified Vote Changed

But I really cant see how it comes out that way given all the facts?

It seems to me the gamesmanship has been pretty much on the Hillary side.

I mean I have never been a Hillary hater or fan and I became an Obama fan in part because of how she campaigned.
 
Mottleydude said:
This sounds rather strongly of a Clinton partisan with a case of sour grapes.
Click to expand...

This is not sour grapes, it involves the integrity of our Secret, private, individual votes, in which the DNC, decide thru a BACK ROOM, illegal machinations, take those votes away from the voter that had cast them and give them to someone who legally never got them, ACCORDING TO THE DNC AND Michigan Rules.

Simple as that....

And I have NO PROBLEMS with Obama receiving the nomination, with the approprate votes, done in a legal, by the Rule, manner.....

IT WAS ALWAYS IN THE DNC RULES, that these states running earlier than the date would be sanctioned by the DNC:

a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
Click to expand...

The DNC had in their rules to punish these states by taking away 1/2 of their delegates, which was also ALWAYS OPENED FOR APPEAL, by the states that broke this rule...

THE DNC overreached with their power and broke their own DNC CHARTER, by stripping these states of all of their Delegates, because their charter states that all 50 states must be seated to cast their votes for President...

They overreached on the sanctions, HOPING it could stop other states that were moving up their primaries....they doubled the true punishment according to their rules.... I understand their reasoning....though I do not personally agree with the 4 early state process and the elitist system that they have created with it....

The DNC knew that they would always seat at least half of the delegates of these states....by them over reaching, they screwed up bigtime because it allowed people like Obama who were losing their butts to do whatever they felt like and remove their names for their own political purposes...

IF THEY HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN RULE: Then Hillary would not have lost her lead from DAY ONE, by them not counting the very citizens that voted in these states...

this put her UNFAIRLY in a position of not being the frontrunner and not being able to garner further campaign financial support.

She was DICKED by the DNC....from the very beginning, by this action of theirs in which they KNEW, they would be seating at least half the Michigan and Florida delegates.

You know, FOLLOW THE DAMN RULES and DO NOT CHANGE THEM IN THE 11TH HOUR, after the race was near over....

The Obama camp was pretending to take the higher ground (on the FRONT) BUT WAS WORKING THE SYSTEM SO THAT VOTERS COULD BE DISENFRANCHISED, in order to win....

They blamed Hillary and said she was the one that was changing the rules, while it was the decitful Obama, all along....

you got yourselves a Democratic Bush.....hope you are proud of what you did to CHEAT to get there.... yes cheat.

This could have been done legitimate;ly, and Obama could have won legitimately, via the people's votes, BUT HE CHOSE NOT TOO, and so did the DNC....for their own political purposes.
 
Here is the second part of that DNC rules and bylaw:

b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.
Click to expand...

To ensure that the candidates did not campaign there....

NOTE, nothing on pulling off their names from the ballot....
 
What I would like to know in this entire sordid affair is how the HELL a political PARTY has the authority to tell a state GOVERNMENT what they can and can not do with their elections. Last I looked, the Constitution gave the STATES the authority to choose how primary elections are held. No where do I see anything about political PARTIES being able to tell a state "if you change your primary, your votes will not count."

That is utter, total bullshit from the get go, and if I were a registered democrat in either of those states I would be taking the DNC to court for violating my franchise.
 
Desh said:
But I really cant see how it comes out that way given all the facts?

It seems to me the gamesmanship has been pretty much on the Hillary side.

I mean I have never been a Hillary hater or fan and I became an Obama fan in part because of how she campaigned.
Click to expand...
Read Care's posts. Then, if you put yourself in her shoes you'll be able to see it.

Personally I believe that the D Party, that half that aren't voting for Hillbilly anyway, are just now understanding what many on the right saw long ago.

However, I know that if I really liked a candidate that I thought was being robbed, that was getting very close to half the votes and being portrayed like Hillbilly currently is by the press and others in her party I would be pretty much like Care.

I can see this both ways. And the reality is that about exactly half your party seems to think she's the better choice.
 
Hillary Clinton Campaign
September 1, 2007

Clinton Campaign
Statement On The
Four State Pledge

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
Added: April 06, 2008
 
Obama campaigned in those states by breaking this rule by running ads on msnbc and on cnn for a two week period...prior to February 5th.

According to the rules, they should have STRIPPED HIM from all delegates in Michigan and Florida....

WHY ARE ALL OF THE RULES being changed midstream and ALL OF THEM being changed so to benefit obama and get him the nomination BEFORE HE ACTUALLY EARNED IT?


why? Is he that much of a Washington insider, that the entire DNC is willing to bastardize themselves in order to HAND HIM the nomination?

maybe a woman president was just too much for them...?
 
Desh said:
Hillary Clinton Campaign
September 1, 2007

Clinton Campaign
Statement On The
Four State Pledge

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
Added: April 06, 2008
Click to expand...

yes desh, the candidates HAD TO SUPPORT the dnc as a candidate of the DNC

HERE are Hillary's comments and stance on it early on: before the DNC had actually made their final decision on sanctions...

Nelson and Thurman said they had not received any commitments from any of the candidates to campaign in the state, but they did say it would be unwise to wait, because it would give Republicans an advantage in the general election.

An official with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign said the senator would campaign and compete in every primary, but was hopeful the state party and national committee will find common ground.

The official hastened to add that the candidates don’t set the schedule.

Other campaigns seemed to be struggling with how to deal with the state party’s weekend decision to embrace the early primary.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html
 
If she truely felt that way she should have said it herself and not had an anonymous official say it so her faithful could quote it later.

It says right in the quote that the other candidates did not know what to do about it at that stage.
 
we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role

That was from her mouth or campaign at least. Think of fwhat would have happened if there was no date before they were allowed to hold their primaries?

50 states would have been vying to be the first to vote.
 
Care4all said:
I woke up this morning, feeling even worse about what is going on in my country regarding the votes of the people, than I did after the Bush v. Gore fiasco was over....though Bush v. Gore is close. I feel this way because it was MY PARTY that was causing the Fiasco and CHANGING THE RULES MIDSTREAM THEMSELVES.

I am not sure if you guys are aware that the uncommitted vote, in the Michigan Primary was governed by certain Michigan Primary Rules, put in place before their primary began.

Each Candidate, was aware of those rules and sent a copy of those rules when they were made.

Here is the Cover letter and News release that the Democratic party sent out to their members:




So then i read that not Only did Obama CHOOSE to take his name off the ballot volluntarily but he didn't even fill out the application for him to be eligible for COMMITTED delegates to himself, via a write in vote. (This WAS ALL a CALCULATED POLITICAL DECISION on the Obama camp's part)

http://www.woodtv.com/global/story.asp?s=7579960

And then I read that Obama is in one of the Early states that he made a pledge to, Iowa, out there campaigning that he was 'On their side, with banning Michigan, he even withdrew his name for them, because they are the citizens that deserve the elitist right to choose our president' paraphrased.

Then I read article after article and blog after blog on bashing Hillary for NOT removing her name.. Obamaites sent in to Petition and Contest the results of the fricking primary that Obama chose to pull his name off of in April, that Hillary violated rules for having campaign fund raisers and for not pulling her name off the ballot...yes a Legal meneuver alla Bush....

9. Petitioners assert that the Reg. 3.4.C time for filing does not begin running until
the list of selected delegates is published. In any case, the petition will be filed
prior to the final action of the Michigan Democratic Party on May 17, 2008.
10. Petitioners allege the pledged delegates and alternates do not fairly reflect the
expressed presidential preferences of convention participants on April 19, 2008.
11. Petitioners allege the unpledged and pledged party leaders and elected official
(PLEO) delegates did not abide by approved DNC Rules, resulting in the
unsanctioned presidential primary. Their actions have injured petitioners.
12. Petitioners allege the PLEO delegates are not selected by approved DNC Rules,
specifically Rules 9.C and 9.D. This action will injure petitioners.
13. Petitioners allege the Clinton campaign failed to abide by approved DNC Rules,
specifically Rule 20.C(1)(b). Their actions have injured petitioners.
--------------------------------------
But the votes went to certification by their Secretary of state and went on to the DNC by the May 17th RULE cut off date...

Official count:

http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/08PPR/01000000.html

NOW, going back to what Michigan Democratic Party has in their rules and the DNC ALSO has in their rules on Uncommitted Votes:

8. A vote for “uncommitted” is a vote to send delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are not committed or pledged to any candidate. Those delegates can vote for any candidate they choose at the Convention.

The Rules and Bylaws committee yesterday, made a decision to take the Michigan State, legally Certified votes, and CHANGED THIS RULE on Uncommitted Delegates that Hillary was counting on to capture more uncommitted delegates of Biden's and Edward's and others that dropped out or were left in the LEGAL COLUMN OF UNCOMMITTED VOTES, absolutely in the 11th HOUR , yesterday, which is what the Obama legal team was SHOOTING for....the disenfranchisement of legal votes and the reallocation of legal votes CASTED in the Hillary column, AND they THREW OUT the Michigan Legal Rule Governing Uncommitted votes and gave ALL OF THOSE SUPPOSEDLY UNCOMMITTED VOTES that were up for grabs legally BY THE RULES OF THEIR PRIMARY ELECTION, to COMMITTED VOTES ALL IN OBAMA'S DELEGATE COLUMN yesterday.

Then on TOP of this egrecious act and violation of their own party rules for Uncommitted votes, they took the actual votes casted in this Primary and reallocated the ACTUAL Citizen's vote based on a exit poll from oblivion which resulted in TAKING AWAY 4 actual pledged delegates that the Citizens gave to Hillary and that was certified already as Hillary's.

NOW, this was the OBAMA TEAM STABBING HILLARY IN THE BACK AND TWISTING THE KNIFE AS SAYING IT WAS A FAIR DECISION.

He could have taken the high ground and been diplomatic and given Hillary the votes that she DESERVED AND GOT THRU THE ACTUAL VOTES CASTED by individual citizens,

since he already used the male dominated DNC machine and Lawyers to finagle them in to giving HIM all of the uncommitted votes and transfering them ALL in to COMMITTED PLEDGED DELEGATES IN HIS COLUMN, after the legal certification of otherwise.... which gave him 45 pledged delegates officially added to his column OVERNIGHT, and thru BREAKING THE ACTUAL RULES OF THE DNC FOR UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES,

Taking away, the opportunity for Hillary to capture those uncommitted votes in to her column...which may NOT have been likely, HOWEVER he slapped her and her constituants in the face and thru the old boys club and his lawyers, he managed to CHANGE THE RULES and to play the System so to eliminate his Opponent thru Technicalities and thru disenfranchisement of the actual voters.

I don't KNOW WHERE the Michigan Democrats got the polls they used to actually TAKE THE VOTE OF THE CITIZEN AWAY FROM THEM and recalculate what they THINK THEY MEANT other than their vote that they casted, and then take VOTES THAT HILLARY ACTUALLY GOT and give THEM TO OBAMA.....

Breaking the fundamental Rule of the Democratic Party and Democracy in general, one man, one vote casted and that the Privacy of our vote is SACRED and ours alone to make....

Obama was polling around 22% prior to the election and Hillary 58%, Biden and Edwards were in there somewhere too.

Hillary got about 58% in the Actual Vote of the Citizen...and looking at the demographics of white verses black verses female verses male was the actual trend at the time....

REMEMBER, this was early on and a January 15th Primaryin Michigan.... before obama started the trend of winning on super tuesday, and this is when they legally had their primary...

TO COME IN NOW, and try to make it like Obama would have gotten more votes if his name was on the ballot, THAT HE CHOSE FOR POLITICAL POSTURING, taking his name off the ballot and not applying for a write in position via their laws, is changing the actual vote that the citizen's casted, on that date.

THIS IS WHAT THE OBAMA TEAM FOUGHT FOR and was holding out for...his first choice was that Michigan would not count at all...this wiping out delegates that he KNEW would go to Hillary at that time because she was polling way ahead...(the trend of his knocking out opponents thru legalities and disenfranchisement of the citizen vote)

THEN. his team wanted all of the uncommitted votes by rules and certified by law to be changed in to Pledged delegates for him...then he wanted all of the votes that were actual cast, and CHANGE THEM to favor his column again.

WELL , my dear friends, that to me is one of the MOST unethical things that a group of politicians could do, ACTUAL CHANGE THE CITIZEN'S PRIVATE VOTE, and add them to another person.


Here is polls right prior and after their primary election:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/midem8-706.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225987

bottom line, what happened yesterday at the DNC rules and bylaws committee was one of the SCUMMIEST, ELITIST,UNETHICAL THINGS THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN A POLITICAL PARTY OR CANDIDATE DO....

AND it undermines the fundamental basis of Democracy.

ANOTHER SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008#cite_note-8
Click to expand...

Keep on blowing McCain Care, it's pretty well established that you hate our troops and want our civil liberties to keep eroding. You are a piece of scum.
 
Care4all said:
Sorry Desh, that is purely a LIE....

She, nor any of the Candidates signed a pledge on how to deal with these states with the DNC, though the DNC had their own rules governing these situations of which they themselves violated by taking away all of the delegates in the first place, because the rules allowed for half of the delegates to be stripped from them but not their full delegation.

It is an absolute LIE of the OBAMITES to continue to pass on that they agreed to take their mname off of the ballot per their Pledges.

LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE......And you should know better Desh, with all of the information that you read daily, though I am realizing now that you only read from Obama supporting media.

OBAMA CHOSE for his own political posturing with the Early states to take his name off the ballot AND MOST IMPORTANTLY because he knew he was losing BIGTIME in this state and it looked better and was better for his political reasons, to take his name off and to PRAY LIKE HELL that Michigan never gets their votes to count....that was his position....in order to beat Hillary.

Hillary felt that the people of Michigan deserved to have someone on the ballot, she took the PROPER AND RIGHT DECISION, unlike OBAMA....and she knew the stakes in the General for the DNC ruling.

She signed nothing with the DNC, but respected it, and their reasoning regarding states moving up, but she always knew that according to the rules, the states would have their opportunity to appeal to the DNC, which was that meeting that was on the scedule for May 31st, SO DID OBAMA KNOW that the votes of the michigan and florida voters would eventually be seated by at least half.

They signed a pledge with the Early primary states not to Campaign in Michigan and Florida with Ads, meeting with the press, or the public...Campaign fund raisers EXCLUDED....THAT'S IT.

All other political strategic moves were done by the candidates...hillary took the chance that the rules committee yesterday would seat delegates from those states and Obama took the initial stance that they should not get the opportunity to count and took his name off the ballot.


care
Click to expand...

You are a fucking liar. You are just working for McCain and LYING AND PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY. What a fucking disgrace.
 
Temp said:
Yes Desh, Care is saying that Obama planned this all way in advance. Which is exactly what YOU AND BAC seem to be saying clinton did!

LMAO.

The truth? You both ascribe the most evil motives to the other candidate, and you both seem to think they're evil geniuses.

Neither of them planned this. Neither of them could have. Hillary lost this in February, she would have won it if this was the repuke winner take all system, on Super Tuesday. They ran a winner take all campaign in a proportional primary. Obama has only won 6 out of the last 13 primaries, and her supporters are pissed, because they look at that and see her as getting stronger. Meanwhile, NATIONAL polls among democrats indicate she's actually getting weaker.

Meanwhile meanwhile - the race is over, Obama is our nominee, vote for him don't vote for him, stay home, vote for McCain, whatever, nothing is going to change this: Obama is the nominee.

It's over.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you suggest I said Clinton planned .. other than she planned to win .. and didn't. She knew the Mi votes wouldn't count and she agreed with it.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.
 
Temp said:
Yes, but when "the court" is used in this context, it means, we'll take Roe. It's become like blackmail. I see it everywhere, for months now. Not even, "it's time to bring the party together unless you want McCain extending this war, thus causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and the suffering of God knows how many more". Nope. Roe.

Stick it. that's my answer. Not that many people like to be blackmailed.
Click to expand...

You can call it "blackmail", others call it a political opinion .. and that is why we're here, is it not? .. Political opinions ..

Your answer doesn't come in one size fits all.
 
Good Luck said:
What I would like to know in this entire sordid affair is how the HELL a political PARTY has the authority to tell a state GOVERNMENT what they can and can not do with their elections. Last I looked, the Constitution gave the STATES the authority to choose how primary elections are held. No where do I see anything about political PARTIES being able to tell a state "if you change your primary, your votes will not count."

That is utter, total bullshit from the get go, and if I were a registered democrat in either of those states I would be taking the DNC to court for violating my franchise.
Click to expand...

Just means you don't understand political parties .. which are not owned nor operated by states. States don't have political parties.

The DNC didn't tell the state they couldn't move their primary, they told the Democratic Party of Mi and Fl they couldn't move their primary.

If you're a registered democrat in either of those states, you have the option of joining the republicans .. who also tell their state parties what they can and cannot do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top