home
The Delegate Race Isn't Over | 72 comments (72 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama's worst-case scenario (none / 0) (#2)
by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:11 AM EST
Is that FL and MI are counted, but he gets teh uncommited delegates in MI.

Awarding him 0 delegates in MI is just not going to fly, my friends.  It's doesn't pass the smell test.

i hope he does (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by irene adler on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:24:02 PM EST
he's entitled to MI's uncommitted delegates. and i can see why you call it a 'worst case scenario' for him.

i posted this on a previous thread...

everyone in MI who wanted to vote for Hillary did. those who wanted to vote for someone else voted uncommitted. since Obama is the only someone else in the race, he should be entitled to all the uncommitted delegates. at least that follows the choice made by MI's democratic primary voters.

[ Parent ]

No, sorry (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Anne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:37:59 PM EST
With choices come consequences.  In choosing to take his name off the ballot, he did so knowing there would be no delegates awarded to him; he does not get to claim uncommitted delegates by virtue of being the only other one in the race.

Uncommitted delegates should go to the convention as uncommitted delegates, and allowed to vote for either candidate.

[ Parent ]

By that logic (none / 0) (#48)
by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:01:36 PM EST
shouldn't clinton's choice not to oppose the penalty imposed on MI and FL at the time it was imposed preclude her from arguing for seating the delegates now?  You can either make a will of the people argument, which seems to support giving Obama the uncommitteds, or a live with the consequences argument, which seems to argue for not seating FL and MI at all, or seating them with a 50% penalty or something.  But its hard to see a logical argument for having it both ways.  Not that there are is a lot of logic flying around these days.

[ Parent ]
Uh, no (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Anne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST
because "the rules" allow for appeals to the credentials committee, and to the DNC, at any point in the process, right up to the convention.  How do you think it came to be that the DNC was involved in talks to approve plans to re-vote?

I still do not understand how a "will of the people" argument supports giving Obama the gift of the uncommitted delegates - you have to make an assumption that all of those votes were for him, and since he was not the only one who took his name off the ballot, I don't think that assumption holds up.

I think the problem is that Obama is for any scenario that will give him delegates he did not earn through the voting process.  Hillary is not advocating to get any more or any fewer delegates than what the votes would call for, and she was willing to go through a re-vote and accept those results, which she knows could end up giving her fewer delegates than would be allocated according to the January votes.

Whether she benefits in the end, or she doesn't, it is hard to argue that advocating to count the votes is the wrong position.

I have a hard time supporting someone who so clearly seems to care about the right to vote only as long as, and in situations where, it benefits him.  It will stand as an example for years, and will be thrown in our faces with some glee, every time we try to argue for the integrity of the right to vote.

Once again, Obama is choosing the short-term option and ignoring the long-term consequences.  Not exactly reassuring, for me, anyway.

[ Parent ]

How can you support anyone? (none / 0) (#58)
by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
I have a hard time supporting someone who so clearly seems to care about the right to vote only as long as, and in situations where, it benefits him.

But Hillary did not care until making sure FL and MI counted was to her benefit.  

There is no version of counting MI that reflects the will of the people.  Hillary said before that election that it would not count.  Clearly some significant number of those who voted uncommitted supported Obama.  

I supported a revote and I am disappointed that it did not happen but counting these severely tainted elections is not a fair solution to voters who supported Obama.  Its about counting all the voters, not just those who supported Clinton.

[ Parent ]

NO Edwards was still in the race (none / 0) (#68)
by debcoop on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
so some of those uncommitted were for him....probably 1/3 of the 45% uncommitted...So Obama is only entitled 30 of the uncommitted delegates and the same goes for the popular vote totals in Michigan

[ Parent ]

The Delegate Race Isn't Over | 72 comments (72 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft