Michigan Democratic Primary Rules-Certified Vote Changed

[Cancel 2016.2]

She hasn't lost her mind. She just thinks a different candidate is being robbed.

Personally, If the uncommitted vote's delegates were ALL given to Obama, then I would agree with Care that Hillary is being robbed. Because to suggest that no one would have voted for Kucinich, Biden, Edwards etc... is ridiculous.

Also, if they were going to assign delegates based on a friggin poll, then why bother to vote?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What happened to you, Care?

I really don't understand why Hillary's campaign & supporters are upset about the weekend decision. The only thing I can conclude is that the only acceptable outcome for them would have been if the rules committee had found a way to get her every single delegate from both FL & MI, so that she could somehow have a chance of overtaking Obama in the delegate count. Just find a way to have all of them go to her, and none to Obama.

Anyway, you've all lost your collective minds. It's really weird, and difficult to watch.

Wow, the Obama kool-aid must be laced with some really good shit. What part about using an EXIT poll to determine how delegates are allocated seems right to you?

How do you take the ACTUAL vote and say 'well the exit poll said something else, so we will ignore the votes?

How do you ASSUME that ALL votes other than Hillarys would have gone to Obama?

 

[Cancel7]

Wow, the Obama kool-aid must be laced with some really good shit. What part about using an EXIT poll to determine how delegates are allocated seems right to you?

How do you take the ACTUAL vote and say 'well the exit poll said something else, so we will ignore the votes?

How do you ASSUME that ALL votes other than Hillarys would have gone to Obama?

So the only other alternatives were to give all the votes to Hillary or to have a revote. I wish we had a revote because then the hillary nuts could stfu, or probably still not.

But as stands, there was no perfect solution, so they tried to find the fairest one.

Obama won with or without michigan, so nothing about Saturday changed the outcome, and only someone who had gone nuts would say it had.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So the only other alternatives were to give all the votes to Hillary or to have a revote. I wish we had a revote because then the hillary nuts could stfu, or probably still not.

But as stands, there was no perfect solution, so they tried to find the fairest one.

Obama won with or without michigan, so nothing about Saturday changed the outcome, and only someone who had gone nuts would say it had.

No, that is not the only alternative. I would think it natural to assume the majority of the "uncommitted" would have gone to Obama. As Hillary voters would have already given their vote to her directly.

Two things seem wrong about this:

1) they assumed ALL of the uncommitted would have gone to Obama. WHat about those that would have voted Edwards? Given that is a particular demographic that Obama has had trouble with, I think it odd that they give those to Obama. I do agree that is would be safe to assume the majority of them would have gone Obama.

2) The actual vote, as Care pointed out, was tossed out. They took delegates away from her by going with an exit poll rather than with the actual vote. This is larger issue in my opinion as the first is an arbitrary decision. But this one takes the actual vote and tosses it out.

 

[Dilloduck]

So the only other alternatives were to give all the votes to Hillary or to have a revote. I wish we had a revote because then the hillary nuts could stfu, or probably still not.

But as stands, there was no perfect solution, so they tried to find the fairest one.

Obama won with or without michigan, so nothing about Saturday changed the outcome, and only someone who had gone nuts would say it had.

I'm cool with how it all turned out and very frankly don't care who our next president is but let's put the rest any righteous indignation and admit that Democrats really don't care if every vote is counted. An educated guess works for them.

 

[Onceler]

"but let's put the rest any righteous indignation and admit that Democrats really don't care if every vote is counted"

Still going with that lazy, dumb comparison, eh?

 

[Dilloduck]

"but let's put the rest any righteous indignation and admit that Democrats really don't care if every vote is counted"

Still going with that lazy, dumb comparison, eh?

I may have to stop it because being called lazy and dumb really hurts me.

 

[Onceler]

What people have to realize is that the DNC & the rules committee didn't have to do a damned thing. MI & FL broke the rules by moving their primaries up. If those rules aren't enforced in some way, it could easily create chaos for the next primary season; there are a lot of good reasons why the rules are as they are. They found of way of enforcing the rules, and it was agreed upon by BOTH Obama & Hillary's campaigns. If this wasn't a close race, and it was decided in Feb. instead of June, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

But we are talking about it, which invites the usual hacks on the right from chiming in with calls of hypocrisy & Dems "not wanting to count every vote." Never mind that this was all done last fall, and that the GOP had similar sanctions against states that moved their primaries up.

The fact that the DNC did anything on this at all is a testament to how much they wanted to try to meet both campaigns halfway, and appease (ooh - there's that word!) those on Hillary's side who bought into her "those were fair votes & should be counted!" line. The fact is, they were not fair votes, and not conducted in a way that bears even the slightest resemblence to a "fair" and normal primary vote. So, they did what they could, as a way of getting delegations from both states seated and putting the issue to rest.

I'm convinced - absolutely 100% convinced - that there really isn't anything they could have done to make Hillary's supporters happy, or to keep the right-wing hacks from disingenuously shouting "disenfranchisement!"

 

[Care4all]

So the only other alternatives were to give all the votes to Hillary or to have a revote. I wish we had a revote because then the hillary nuts could stfu, or probably still not.

Where do you get this shit from Darla? NO ALL THE DELEGATES would not have gone to hillary base on the Laws Ruling the Michigan Primary.

Only the delegates from the votes that were cast in her favor, but all of the delegates from the uncommitted votes of obama, edwards and Biden and other uncommitted's that might have eventually chosen hillary, laws of Michigan., ruling their primary, states that these are Uncommitted votes and delegates, to have their final committment at the convention...

The DNC rules ALSO state such Darla, these were the actual rules when the game began...for ALL STATES.

Even the rpublicans, who had all names on their ballot, had 18,000 voters that voted UNcommitted, they had not made up their mind or they weren't quite ready to commit to their favorite...

this allows the uncommitted/unpledged delegate, that can make up their mind at the last minute, give representation to those 18k of uncommitted voters.


But as stands, there was no perfect solution, so they tried to find the fairest one.

The only, legal fair decision, would have been to count the Certified by LAW votes that were cast, and send the other delegates to the convention of the uncommitted votes.

There is no reason why these uncommitted votes would not go to obama eventually.

You can not use a poll to determine what any voter would do behind the curtain of the voting booth with their precious, secret ballot.

Every year, there are millions of voters that do NOT VOTE, we do not use a poll to calculate them in to the picture.

Obama won with or without michigan, so nothing about Saturday changed the outcome, and only someone who had gone nuts would say it had.

Obama has not won the vote of the people....delegates are not distributed equally for all citizens votes, i found out. More delegates are givern per person that voted in a Democratically dominated precint per person than delegates given for votes that came from undominated Democratic region...

So, basically, all of the City folk, had their votes count moreso than those in the su(berbs, which is another thing that I happen to diagree with the Primary that i don't agree with, but that are in the rules, so i can't complain now, but can only work to change that rule...

Obama LOST THIS ELECTION if the actual rules of the DNC had been enforced, Florida and Michigan with 1/2 votes/delegate votes because Obama broke the DNC RULES, regarding running Campaign paid advertising in the states of Florida and Michigan during the sanctioned period.

The DNC rules state that the Candidate that breaks this rule with any paid ad, loses his delegates of that state...

This was the Dem rule, and the Dem rule was also to strip 1/2 the delegates of the states out of bounds, but they arrogantly and illegal to the DNC Charter, said they were going to take away all of the seating of delegates.

Obama broke the rule, but the DNC decided not to sanction him and enforce the rule....if the rule had been enforced, like if Hillary had campaigned there with ads, you can bet your bottom booty that she would have been sanctioned...as the RULES STATE....

so my dear, this is filled with nuances that will be gone over from here to kingdom come and although i do agree her campaign could have been stronger than what it was, she still won the popular vote, for those that did vote....just as Gore did, and as with him, there were many reasons he did not win the Presidency involved with his campaign BUT ALSO involved with the way that rulings came down....same with Hillary.

 

[Cancel7]

No, that is not the only alternative. I would think it natural to assume the majority of the "uncommitted" would have gone to Obama. As Hillary voters would have already given their vote to her directly.

Two things seem wrong about this:

1) they assumed ALL of the uncommitted would have gone to Obama. WHat about those that would have voted Edwards? Given that is a particular demographic that Obama has had trouble with, I think it odd that they give those to Obama. I do agree that is would be safe to assume the majority of them would have gone Obama.

2) The actual vote, as Care pointed out, was tossed out. They took delegates away from her by going with an exit poll rather than with the actual vote. This is larger issue in my opinion as the first is an arbitrary decision. But this one takes the actual vote and tosses it out.

You know, I didn’t watch the whole fiasco, and I will tell you why: I don’t care. She lost. She lost this a long time ago and this is all bullshit now. So I don’t know the intricate details of why they decided to do each little move they made. But what you are talking about equals four delegates.
Do I have to listen to this screaming and caterwauling for years over four delegates which aren’t going to change the outcome anyway? Michigan and Florida could not be allowed to move their primary to whenever the hell they wanted to. If so, we’d have chaos, and you’d have that in the R party too. So, rules do matter. It’s a bad position to be put into, disenfranchising voters in a state over something the state party did, but what else are you going to do? The best thing would have been for the legislators to not attempt to be comedians. But they did and now Hillary has taken a lost campaign, and her campaign is lost, and is trying to hang it onto this. It’s bullshit all around. I’m sorry that some women are so invested in her that they can’t stand a man winning. Again, I am more invested in the women, children and innocent men who are being raped, blown up, burned alive, made homeless on account of endless war. Hillary is a part of that. So let me be really clear:

I DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FOUR DELEGATES.

 

[Cancel7]

What people have to realize is that the DNC & the rules committee didn't have to do a damned thing. MI & FL broke the rules by moving their primaries up. If those rules aren't enforced in some way, it could easily create chaos for the next primary season; there are a lot of good reasons why the rules are as they are. They found of way of enforcing the rules, and it was agreed upon by BOTH Obama & Hillary's campaigns. If this wasn't a close race, and it was decided in Feb. instead of June, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

But we are talking about it, which invites the usual hacks on the right from chiming in with calls of hypocrisy & Dems "not wanting to count every vote." Never mind that this was all done last fall, and that the GOP had similar sanctions against states that moved their primaries up.

The fact that the DNC did anything on this at all is a testament to how much they wanted to try to meet both campaigns halfway, and appease (ooh - there's that word!) those on Hillary's side who bought into her "those were fair votes & should be counted!" line. The fact is, they were not fair votes, and not conducted in a way that bears even the slightest resemblence to a "fair" and normal primary vote. So, they did what they could, as a way of getting delegations from both states seated and putting the issue to rest.

I'm convinced - absolutely 100% convinced - that there really isn't anything they could have done to make Hillary's supporters happy, or to keep the right-wing hacks from disingenuously shouting "disenfranchisement!"

I agree. Good post.

 

[Dilloduck]

You know, I didn’t watch the whole fiasco, and I will tell you why: I don’t care. She lost. She lost this a long time ago and this is all bullshit now. So I don’t know the intricate details of why they decided to do each little move they made. But what you are talking about equals four delegates.
Do I have to listen to this screaming and caterwauling for years over four delegates which aren’t going to change the outcome anyway? Michigan and Florida could not be allowed to move their primary to whenever the hell they wanted to. If so, we’d have chaos, and you’d have that in the R party too. So, rules do matter. It’s a bad position to be put into, disenfranchising voters in a state over something the state party did, but what else are you going to do? The best thing would have been for the legislators to not attempt to be comedians. But they did and now Hillary has taken a lost campaign, and her campaign is lost, and is trying to hang it onto this. It’s bullshit all around. I’m sorry that some women are so invested in her that they can’t stand a man winning. Again, I am more invested in the women, children and innocent men who are being raped, blown up, burned alive, made homeless on account of endless war. Hillary is a part of that. So let me be really clear:

I DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FOUR DELEGATES.

I believe ya but guess what. People who think they have been fucked around will hang on to it for YEARS as evidenced by those who are still whining about Gore in Florida after 7 FRICKEN YEARS !

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You know, I didn’t watch the whole fiasco, and I will tell you why: I don’t care. She lost. She lost this a long time ago and this is all bullshit now. So I don’t know the intricate details of why they decided to do each little move they made. But what you are talking about equals four delegates.
Do I have to listen to this screaming and caterwauling for years over four delegates which aren’t going to change the outcome anyway? Michigan and Florida could not be allowed to move their primary to whenever the hell they wanted to. If so, we’d have chaos, and you’d have that in the R party too. So, rules do matter. It’s a bad position to be put into, disenfranchising voters in a state over something the state party did, but what else are you going to do? The best thing would have been for the legislators to not attempt to be comedians. But they did and now Hillary has taken a lost campaign, and her campaign is lost, and is trying to hang it onto this. It’s bullshit all around. I’m sorry that some women are so invested in her that they can’t stand a man winning. Again, I am more invested in the women, children and innocent men who are being raped, blown up, burned alive, made homeless on account of endless war. Hillary is a part of that. So let me be really clear:

I DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FOUR DELEGATES.

I agree with most of what you stated.

1) It is indeed over, has been for some time.

2) I do think the rules are important... my problem lies in the fact that they are changing the rules as they go.

3) I agree that Hillary is using this as the last straw to grasp at to save her "inevitable" campaign.

4) But four delegates DO indeed matter in the sense that you are taking away the will of the voter. Those four more than anything matter. (assuming of course the DNC seats the delegates they said would not be seated.... according to their rules that violate their rules.)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What people have to realize is that the DNC & the rules committee didn't have to do a damned thing. MI & FL broke the rules by moving their primaries up. If those rules aren't enforced in some way, it could easily create chaos for the next primary season; there are a lot of good reasons why the rules are as they are. They found of way of enforcing the rules, and it was agreed upon by BOTH Obama & Hillary's campaigns. If this wasn't a close race, and it was decided in Feb. instead of June, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

But we are talking about it, which invites the usual hacks on the right from chiming in with calls of hypocrisy & Dems "not wanting to count every vote." Never mind that this was all done last fall, and that the GOP had similar sanctions against states that moved their primaries up.

The fact that the DNC did anything on this at all is a testament to how much they wanted to try to meet both campaigns halfway, and appease (ooh - there's that word!) those on Hillary's side who bought into her "those were fair votes & should be counted!" line. The fact is, they were not fair votes, and not conducted in a way that bears even the slightest resemblence to a "fair" and normal primary vote. So, they did what they could, as a way of getting delegations from both states seated and putting the issue to rest.

I'm convinced - absolutely 100% convinced - that there really isn't anything they could have done to make Hillary's supporters happy, or to keep the right-wing hacks from disingenuously shouting "disenfranchisement!"

Right... and I am 100% convinced that the kool aid induced worship of Obama blinds you to this.

Had they given ALL the uncommitted delegates to Obama, that would be an arbitrary decision, which in this case if they wish to seat the delegates now, then no matter what they do with the uncommitted delegates it would be done arbitrarily. Fine.

But explain to us all.... why is it that they used the exit poll rather than the actual vote with regards to the COMMITTED delegates?

 

[Care4all]

What people have to realize is that the DNC & the rules committee didn't have to do a damned thing. MI & FL broke the rules by moving their primaries up. If those rules aren't enforced in some way, it could easily create chaos for the next primary season; there are a lot of good reasons why the rules are as they are. They found of way of enforcing the rules, and it was agreed upon by BOTH Obama & Hillary's campaigns. If this wasn't a close race, and it was decided in Feb. instead of June, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

But we are talking about it, which invites the usual hacks on the right from chiming in with calls of hypocrisy & Dems "not wanting to count every vote." Never mind that this was all done last fall, and that the GOP had similar sanctions against states that moved their primaries up.

The fact that the DNC did anything on this at all is a testament to how much they wanted to try to meet both campaigns halfway, and appease (ooh - there's that word!) those on Hillary's side who bought into her "those were fair votes & should be counted!" line. The fact is, they were not fair votes, and not conducted in a way that bears even the slightest resemblence to a "fair" and normal primary vote. So, they did what they could, as a way of getting delegations from both states seated and putting the issue to rest.

I'm convinced - absolutely 100% convinced - that there really isn't anything they could have done to make Hillary's supporters happy, or to keep the right-wing hacks from disingenuously shouting "disenfranchisement!"

This is where YOU are wrong...The DNC messed up, when they stripped completely, Florida and Michigan of their delegates.

They could NOT DO THIS, According to their own DNC Charter, this is not being covered by the media, but I am not surprised.

The DNC Charter STATES that all 50 states with their delegates MUST BE SEATED BEFORE THE CONVENTION BEGINS....

NOT 48 states, not 35, not 49, not 5, but all 50 states must have representation seated, MUSH HAVE THEIR DELEGATION SEATED.

So, there would be NO CONVENTION to nominate a nominee, because the Convention COULD NOT TAKE PLACE, with the way the dnc illegally sanctioned Florida and Michigan, because they would have had ONLY 48 states seated, leaving fla and mich out....

they had to correct this mistake of theirs, there was not choice....

They still have twisted their own charter and are saying they are seating all of Florida's and michigan's delegates, so the charter is not broken in their heads, but i believe it is still being broken because they have cut the vote of these delegates in half, and the charter does not seem to allow for such sanctions....and RIGHTFULLY SO.... a citizen's vote from one of our 50 states should never be diminished by the DNC or the RNC, it is our certified by law, vote.

 

[Bonestorm]

Whaaaaaaambulance!

 

[Onceler]

"They still have twisted their own charter and are saying they are seating all of Florida's and michigan's delegates, so the charter is not broken in their heads, but i believe it is still being broken because they have cut the vote of these delegates in half, and the charter does not seem to allow for such sanctions....and RIGHTFULLY SO.... a citizen's vote from one of our 50 states should never be diminished by the DNC or the RNC, it is our certified by law, vote."


Is it your opinion, then, that states can decide when to have their primaries, and move them to whatever date they wish?

 

[Care4all]

"They still have twisted their own charter and are saying they are seating all of Florida's and michigan's delegates, so the charter is not broken in their heads, but i believe it is still being broken because they have cut the vote of these delegates in half, and the charter does not seem to allow for such sanctions....and RIGHTFULLY SO.... a citizen's vote from one of our 50 states should never be diminished by the DNC or the RNC, it is our certified by law, vote."


Is it your opinion, then, that states can decide when to have their primaries, and move them to whatever date they wish?

Yes, I believe that legally, ONLY the State government can determine the State's Primary date.

This does not diminish the DNC's capability of negotiating with the states to make them all happy or find a way to make most happy....it is an elitist way to choose a president the way we have it set up, giving more favor to some over others and this is inherently flawed to the citizens of those Other states...

It was not always this way, McGovern had it changed or modified .....to the early state primaries the way they are now I believe in the 80's

I personally believe we should have ONE PRIMARY, where all states can vote on the same day, for both Parties....so that people will not have the opportunity to cross over vote, like they did this time around with McCain being called for their Primary nominee before we called a nominee..., allowing the citizens of the later states, to cause shenanigans...

And also, this wasy all citizens of the United States, no matter what state, have equal opportunity, to pick their presidential nominee.

 

[Onceler]

"I personally believe we should have ONE PRIMARY, where all states can vote on the same day, for both Parties...."

I actually think that's less democratic. It favors the big money, name recognition candidates, and would narrow the field considerably for any given primary.

 

[blackascoal]

I agree with most of what you stated.

1) It is indeed over, has been for some time.

2) I do think the rules are important... my problem lies in the fact that they are changing the rules as they go.

3) I agree that Hillary is using this as the last straw to grasp at to save her "inevitable" campaign.

4) But four delegates DO indeed matter in the sense that you are taking away the will of the voter. Those four more than anything matter. (assuming of course the DNC seats the delegates they said would not be seated.... according to their rules that violate their rules.)

There is a 5) The Michigan Democratic Party and legislature, those who were Hillary supporters, took away the will of the voters when they decided to move their porimary up in violation of DNC rules.

And a 6) Obama had the votes to split the delegates even in Michigan, but he agreed with a division that gave him less delegates.

And a 7) Since there were no delegates awarded in Michigan before saturday's meeting, those 4 delegates were not Hillary's to take away.