He's ahead in the delegate count and popular vote even counting Florida and Michigan.

[Hamlette]

Wiki allocates the Florida delegates 67 to Obama, 105 to Hillary and 13 to Edwards. Michigan has 128 pledged delegates and she got 55% of the vote (with noone else on the ballot). 55% of 128 is 70 delegates (I know the math is more difficult than that when allocating pledged delegates but I don't know how else to do it "fairly" with only one candidates.

He has 1845 now with supers. Add 67 for Florida he has 1912.

She has 1693 with supers. Add 105 for Florida and 70 for MI and she has 1868.

He's still up by 44 dels.

If you count popular vote he's up about 78K with Florida and MI and counting zero for the caucus states.

If you add some number for the caucus states based on the delegate vote he's up 188K.

If you play by the rules and leave out FL and MI but add a porportional share for caucus states he's up 811,000 votes.

For Hillary supports angry about Bush stealing the election, we'd feel the same way if she did this time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[LVjinx]

1. All the more reason to seat FL and MI - blunts the damage, but doesn't effect the outcome

[democrattotheend]

2. Exactly. I've been saying that since PA.

Since PA, it became clear that it would take a complete meltdown for Obama to fall behind in the pledged delegate count even with Florida and Michigan. Now it's pretty much impossible, barring some huge scandal that derails his campaign. So he should come out now and say let's go ahead and seat Florida according to the January results and seat Michigan 55-45 (since she got 55% of the vote) or even 60-40. That way it takes the talking point off the table and helps to heal any bridges that were burned in those states for the general.

[ORDem]

33. Have to disagree - what about the 48 states and territories that played by the rules?

[rateyes]

3. And, that's not giving Obama even 1 delegate in Michigan.

And, you know that he should get AT THE LEAST a THIRD of that delegation.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. So then just seat the damn delegates

And count my vote.

But oh no, we must maintain the sanctity of obscure DNC rules setting up the arbitrary order of state primaries. And for people who bothered to vote in Florida you should have "spoken up" after the fact to your legislators for changing the date of the primary so that the DNC would overreact and choose to disenfranchise voters instead of a far less draconian punitive measure. Sure, it wouldn't have changed anything, but at least you would have "spoken out" so you could all pat yourselves on the back for "speaking out". And then you can sit at home and watch the convention sans your delegates. But you would have "spoken out." And that's all that matters. Not exercising your vote, but "speaking out" about DNC rulebook technicalities. Which is way more important than voting.

:sarcasm: , in case you're incredibly dense.

What a sad, sad story.

[Hamlette]

5. yeah rules are the problem, not the ppl who break the rules

I still say don't seat either of them. Otherwise, you have states deciding when to hold primaries/caucuses and it will lengthen the election year which I think is too long already. Each state will want to go first and since New Hampshire's constitution proscribes it will hold the first primary we'll be holding primaries in 2009 for 2012.

Or do you just want to count states that break the rules if its your state?

My vote for Prez has never counted. I'm in a red state. So I'm not so sympathetic.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. I broke the rules? How?

By going to a voting booth and voting?

Collective punishment never works. Never.

[SanchoPanza]

9. Yes.

You voted in an unsanctioned primary.

The "don't punish the voters" argument is the height of bullshit pandering. It's used to let the leadership of the state party off the hook for gambling with YOUR vote and losing. They don't want you to blame them, because then you might do something rash like replace them with smarter Democrats. So they'll tell you to blame the DNC, who you have no control over whatsoever, and maybe Dean will take enough of the heat so you'll forget about them screwing up your primary.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Wow. That's gutsy.

I should be punished....for voting.

Amazing.

How very democratic (big D and little d) of you....

[SanchoPanza]

25. You're punishing yourself.

Continue ignoring the culprits at your own peril, not the rest of the Party.

Stomping your feet at some imaginary disenfranchisement will get you no where. Locking arms with the people who did this to you in the first place will get you no where. The rest of the nation should not be made to suffer the consequences of the stupidity of your state party's leadership.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

28. You're still not telling me what I did wrong

I voted. The state legislature did not vote to unseat the delegates. The state party did not vote to unseat the delegates.

The DNC is the one who choose to unseat the delegates. Hence, I am angry with the DNC for taking out its punishment on people who simply did their civic duty and voted. There's no justice or logic there at all.

Is it really that hard to understand? Seriously.

[SanchoPanza]

38. Wrong again

The state party gave full support to a primary schedule they knew would have negative repurcussions. In a very real way, they did vote to unseat their own delegates. It was simply ego that made them believe that the DNC wouldn't give more than a slap on the wrist to the oh-so-important Florida party. This isn't about breaking New Hampshire's stranglehold on the first primary, this is about the peacock flourishing its tailfeathers. Florida is more important than any other state, so Florida can do whatever the Hell it wants.

Witness every thread concerning the Florida dispute.

"We can't win without Florida."

"Florida will revolt and back McCain."

"The DNC is writing its own obituary."

Ad nauseum. The day that Florida Democrats wake up to the fact that their state leadership was trying to make a power play and, as with most of their shenanigans, lost badly, is the day we can have a realistic debate on a primary schedule that suits everyone's needs. Until then all this serves to show is that your state party leadership is dumber than a sack of rocks.

Seriously. They could have kept the schedule, or at very least made an EFFORT to show that they were trying to adhere to the established rules, and would have been in a better position to change the outcome of the primary season. Witness Pennsylvania. Witness North Carolina. Witness Ohio. But no. They wanted a front-row seat, and used your voice in the primary as their ante. When that failed, they tried to launch a protest campaign against the DNC. Is anyone surprised that this failed too? Can your state leadership do anything BESIDES fail?

At least here in New York our party leadership only screws high-priced hookers, and not our convention seating.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

39. Okay, let me go at this slowly so you can hopefully understand the point here

How does....what the....state party leadership does....or state legislature does...somehow....import guilt.....onto......Florida voters?

You comprehend?

And please spare us the "Well, Florida voters should have spoken up when the legislature wanted to change the primary date." I'm sorry, but with the amount of crap that is going on in this country (War in Iraq, economy in the tank, mortgage crisis, lack of health care, high gas prices), do you serious believe that the average Florida voters would have placed issue number one as whether Florida's primary should be January 29th as opposed to February 6th? As if they had nothing better to do but to bus up to Tallahassee and wave signs saying "No to the earlier primary! New Hampshire forever!". Your rationalization of this is bordering on the ridiculous--no, strike that, your rationalization simply is ridiculous.

Rationalize away, but there is no excuse as to why over a million Florida Democrats are punished by the DNC for a perceived violation of a petty DNC rule. This has nothing to do with any candidate. This has nothing to do with the Florida Democratic Party. This has nothing to do with the Florida legislature. This has everything to do with the DNC and its foolish knee jerk reaction to punish an entire state's voting populace for something that was done by a select few.

[SanchoPanza]

40. Failure Continues

This issue is traced back before the primary, when Florida democrats elected the most incompetent lot in the nation to lead their party. Their priorities on issues is irrelevent. This is advanced citizenship. This is coalition building. If you don't have competent people to push your agenda, you will get no where. The people your state elected to push that agenda have gotten into the habit of rolling over for Republicans and trying to muscle its way into controlling the national party.

You are being indirectly punished for their actions, and you are demanding that someone else besides them be held accountable. The fact remains: You participated in an unsanctioned primary. Your leadership knew it was unsanctioned, and didn't care. They voted in overwhelming majorities in the state legislature, and ran a media campaign against the DNC to get their way. At least the people in Michigan knew what was going on, and many organized an "Uncommitted" campaign partially in protest of their own state party. Maybe they're just better at multi-tasking.

Your response? Attack the DNC for not catering to the demands of incompetent egomaniacs. Yes. I'm the one who's being ridiculous. They grabbed your hand, stuck it in a lion's mouth, and now you're upset at the lion for... gasp... being a lion.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. Good God man, these are people's VOTES you are talking about...

If you feel it so necessary for the DNC to sanction the party leadership for moving the primary, so be it. I really don't care one way or another about the ordering of primaries--I just want to be able to vote and have my vote count towards something. Just don't advocate for punishment of voters who had nothing to do with anything regarding the controversy.

It's not as though we had a choice in the matter, and we could have either voted during the frowned upon January 29th date, or later at a DNC pleasing date. We had one and only one opportunity to vote in this primary election. These were free and fair elections, held at our ordinary polling places, ran by the Supervisor of Elections, where precinct workers checked our official voters registration cards for verification. This was not some willy-nilly underground sham passing as a vote. This was an official vote.

But according to you, the mere fact that I and over another million Florida Democrats bothered to show up and vote at our assigned precincts is cause for punishment just because we didn't show sufficient outrage over some spurious dispute between state and national party leaders about the ordering of primaries.

Bullshit. Bull-shit. Total, unequivical, absolute, reeking, rancid bullshit.

Could I assume that you would argue in the late 19th Century blacks who were forced to endure poll taxes and poll tests and every ridiculous hurdle in order to exercise their right to vote had it coming just because they weren't able to advocate for the repeal of Jim Crow laws? That prior to 1920 women who couldn't vote were too shy and timid in voicing their objections?

I sure hope not, but such logic is only one or two steps away from your arguments here.

[SanchoPanza]

42. The DNC has little recourse

It is unfortunate the Florida voters reaped the whirlwind, but reality is what it is.

The "fairness" of the primary is something you're assuming. Personally, were I a candidate, I wouldn't want my fate decided by name recognition alone. You need to campaign in a state in order for any sense of fairness to held firm. All campaigns agreed not to.

So your entire party apparatus participated in the process. And? Does that have any bearing on whether or not its a legitimate primary? No, it doesn't. My state could hold an election tomorrow for the impeachment of King Abdullah of Jordan. The entire state apparatus could be used as in a standard election or ballot initiative. Still doesn't make it a relevent process. Relevence, in this instance, is decided by the national party. Not the Democrats in the Florida Legislature who embraced this plan whole-heartedly.
The consequences for violating the rules were out there for everyone and anyone to know, and know they did.

You're insistance on being "disenfranchised" is absurd. This is not a process mandated by the Constitution, but by the nominating organizations. In this case, the DNC. You're argument concerning Jim Crow is thus an irrelevent distraction trying to paint me as the bad guy instead of your shoddy leaders. Can't make Bill Nelson look bad, now can we?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. Absurdity on all counts

The whole "name recognition" argument is total bunk. We aren't living in the 1800s. We're living in a 24 hour news cycle, with candidate websites and discussions boards much like this very one. We were treated to countless debates amongst the primary candidates, nationally televised, before the first ballots were ever cast. I know because our local Democratic clubs actually had viewing parties for these debates. For anyone to say they were not prepared to make an informed choice as to which candidate to vote for just because they didn't campaign in person in Florida is absolutely ludicrious.

Your argument about King Abdullah is off base, as is your entire argument that just because the primary process isn't specifically in the Constitution doesn't give it a public effect. Federal and state election laws still govern the rules of primary elections. If someone commits election fraud during a primary election, it still is a crime punishable by the state. And the subject of the election isn't some far off, nebulous concept--it's concerning who the people want as a final nominee of a party for the general election to take on the office of the most powerful person in this land. Otherwise, we'd all have Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, etc. facing off against Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. in November and it would be an insane free for all. Primary elections are recognized by the state so that the ballot in the general election will be short and orderly. Therefore, there is a clear federal and state interest in the primary election, which is why they are governed by federal and state law. Therefore, any interference in one's ability to vote (who is legally eligible to vote) or the failure to count or give effect to one's vote, is disenfranchisement.

Spin it any way you want, but at the end of the day, you are still arguing for disenfranchisement of voters who did nothing wrong other than to show up at the polls. And that is one of the most loathesome arguments a citizen of this country could make.

[SanchoPanza]

44. Beg to differ

The ratings for every debate prior to the Flordia primary do not reflect the notion that everyone who voted watched them all. Or even watched some. Of the twenty or so televised debates which ran prior to January 29th, precisely three were carried by the broadcasters and NPR. Not everyone has a cable or satellite provider. Not everyone has at-home internet access.

Even if many did go to organized public viewings, one wonders why they didn't ask why their primary was unsanctioned. Oh, I forgot. Too busy worrying about the war. Not busy enough to attend a public viewing of a debate being physically held in Iowa or New Hampsire, but too busy to hold their party leadership accountable. Gotcha.

As for state regulations of primaries, can the Helen Lovejoy routine and Google "Cousins v. Wigoda". The nonsense you're peddling was settled over thirty years ago. Here, I'll do it for you.

"2. In the selection of candidates for national office, a National Party Convention serves the pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process, and the Circuit Court erred in issuing an injunction that abridged the associational rights of petitioners and their Party and the Party's right to determine the composition of its National Convention in accordance with Party standards. Pp. 419 U. S. 487-491."

Justice Brennan, that loathesome fascist asshole, delivered the opinion of the court.

[Hamlette]

12. when congress passes a law you don't like, you can't disobey it without punishment

same deal

If someone were to murder your loved one then claim he did not vote for a law outlawing murder he should walk?

Honestly, the logic here isn't making it with me.

You elected ppl to the legislature, the legislature passed a bill setting the date not sanctioned by the rules of the party.

Now, you can drop out of the party or elect new representatives.

You have NOT been disenfranchised. You have not been punished. You have agreed to live together in a government of laws not of men (or women.)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. What?

I don't even come close to getting your analogy. Voting is like murder?????


:wtf:

[shraby]

7. If the rules are totally ignored, what happens next

time when states decide to move their primary anyplace on the calendar they damn well please? Apparently there are no consequences if FL and MI are counted.

[GihrenZabi]

8. They shouldn't count them

ESPECIALLY now as their votes don't MATTER.

They don't decide this race. End of story.

Let the people of MI and FL take the fight to their State officials who created this mess. If they don't do so, sit down and shut up. YOU let this happen by not campaigning in your states to get those movements to advance the primary dates killed. If you really gave a damn about your votes being counted you would have raised holy hell when your State governments tried to change things.

If you DID actively fight the movements to advance the primary dates, then you have every right to complain and I stand with you. Completely.

If you didn't actively fight, stop whining. You got what you deserved. Now turn that energy into getting everyone responsible for his mess - your State government - voted the hell out of office. Do something proactive for the love of Christ instead of whining on DU.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. Let's be honest about things.

Florida did not take the power of my vote away.

The DNC took the power of my vote away.

So I then should be mad at Florida for something the DNC did?

Come on. Think for a change.

I cannot get over the gall of some people who just because it isn't their vote on the line, they think it's important enough for some obscure DNC rule to disenfranchise millions of people.

[Hamlette]

13. DNC didn't "take" your vote away, your elected representatives did

when they voted to break party rules.

If the dems had voted against moving the primary up, I'd listen to you. But they didn't. I didn't elect your legislators, why should I have break my party's rules, rules BOTH candidates agreed to?

Maybe you should take it up with Hillary if you're pissed. Tell her she's a bad canidate bec she agreed to rules that stole your vote from you.

Play by the rules or get out of the game.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. The DNC had the final say on how to address the situation.

If the sanctity of their rules was such a big issue, they could have choosen any number of ways to sanction the state party without disenfranchising the vote. Instead they choose to strip the delegates. The DNC was wrong.

And FWIW, I voted for Edwards. This isn't about any candidate. It's about being able to say I participated in my own party's election by exercising my American right to vote.

2000. It seems like such a long time ago, but on the other hand, how much has changed?

[Hamlette]

20. well, hell, your vote doesn't count anyway!

your "delegate" will be voting for a man who is not even running.

And you are complaining that your vote doesn't count?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. He was on the ballot....

I voted for him. My vote got recorded. Whether he dropped out or not, he represents the choice I made on January 29th. Just because the person you vote for doesn't win doesn't mean your vote doesn't get counted.

Jeez, I feel like I'm explaining Brawndo to President Camacho's cabinet. ("Brawndo's got what plants craves! It's got electrolytes!")

[madfloridian]

27. That is not true. Hillary has done her propaganda quite well.

It infuriates me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. This isn't about Hillary.

It's about my vote.

[madfloridian]

30. That's a shame.

She has done a major job on Florida, as have her surrogates here.

They attacked and blamed their own party, and I can never forgive her for using this state like this.

[Cha]

31. I went round and round with this poster

before and he refuses to get his head outta the sand. It lives to get on DU and complain about the DNC when it wasn't the DNC's doing at all. You know that, I know that, and all high information voters know that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. Only the DNC has the power to block the seating of the delegates

Blocking of the seating of the delegates is a communal punishment against the people of Florida for something that the Florida legislature did. The DNC, in its idiotic wisdom, somehow thought this was a good idea, for whatever unexplainable reason.

And now, if the delegates remain unseated, there is no way Florida goes Democratic in November. No way. We're digging our own grave. You don't have to be a "high information voter" (whatever the heck that is supposed to infer) to realize this.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

35. But it wasn't Hillary Clinton, the Florida Legislature, or the Florida Democratic Party....

....who decided to strike the delegates from Florida. Or Barack Obama for that matter.

It was the DNC who did it, because only the DNC can strike the delegates. The DNC could have choosen to reasonbly sanction the party if it thought the party broke the sacred rule of primary order. Instead, the DNC choose to sanction the voters by taking away the effect of their vote. In other words, disenfranchising them.

That's communal punishment. It's an insane move on the DNC part and one that could only serve to be counterproductive in November. The question isn't why am I not more angry at the Florida party; the question should be why aren't you more angry at the DNC for doing something so stupid and reckless that could plausibly cost us the election?

[dansolo]

32. They will be seated

The rules spell out the steps that need to be taken. When the rules committee meets, they will very likely seat the delegation. I'm guessing that 50% of the delegation will be seated, as per the rules. Do you honestly believe that there will not be a delegation for FL and MI?

[Texas Hill Country]

14. ok, so seat FL and MI as is and bring the party back together

[nyccitizen]

15. It will happen...

It's only a matter of when. By May 31st when the rules committee meets, Obama will have so firmly sewn up the nomination his people will make sure they come out with a fair solution to seat the delegations without affecting the nomination.

[suston96]

18. Repeating what others have said, counting Florida and Michigan should not be a problem.

So count them and seat the delegates. The "uncommitted" Michigan votes can be split between Obama and Edwards and anyone else according to contemporary polls.

Or seat the "uncommitted" and just let them vote in the first round.

Ignoring two states completely will forever tarnish the nomination. Like, a win with an asterisk -* won with only 48 states.....

Oh, and about "the rules"? They violate the Democratic Party Charter which states that ALL members will be guaranteed equal participation in the nominating process.

Democrats who don't want to count votes unless it helps their candidate? I thought only Republicans did that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

36. So simple yet makes so much sense

"Or seat the "uncommitted" and just let them vote in the first round."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

So simple, yet makes so much sense.

I wish our party leaders had that much common sense.

[stillcool]

19. Doesn't matter. Obama is black.

[Zachstar]

22. Lets not start that crap.

The time you took to post that could have been better spent on Phonebanking

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/phonebankmap/

[stillcool]

23. thanks. You are right!

[Zachstar]

21. He is ahead but not the winner yet.

There is still ALOT of work to do! So PLEASE phonebank!!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/phonebankmap/

[Dems to Win]

24. YES! Obama is AHEAD when ALL votes are counted.

[Independent-Voter]

37. And yet, most of her dumbass supporters will continue to ignore this fact!