stack | May 30, 2008 3:03:55 PM

Stack, contrary to notions that are popular in Hillary's camp, my most recent readings have suggested that the candidates WERE required by DNC rules to remove their names from the ballots on those renegade primaries, "where possible".  I haven't run across a copy of the rules themselves, so I can't confirm that for myself, but what I've been reading sure does suggest exactly that.

I'm hoping that the R&B Committee issues some "findings" on this when they announce their decision.

Why dont Hillary camp understand that there has been a problem, thats why we are looking for a solution.

Seating all delegates in full it means they are pretending nothing occurred, and tend to have a blind eye.

You do not hear any other states complaining, because they abide with the rules.

I think the whole world is laughing on this!

Actually, the howls from crying wolf so much from Clinton supporters are getting fainter and fainter. Hillary who?

Also, stop fooling yourselves. You know d*** well Clinton doesn't have snowball's chance in hell to be elected to anything else. Well, maybe PTA President in West Virginia. (SMILE)

In just a few days, they will be muted completely.

Even if the phony gets enough superdelegates to push him ahead now, these "superdelegates" can change their minds over night.

Nobody is nominated until the vote calls in the convention and the number exceeds half of the people in the hall.

Nothing gives the phony hypocrite the self-proclaimed presumptive nomination, as long as there is another candidate in the race.

That's the problem here. Polls from Michigan shows Obama and Clinton tied. Is Clinton trying to suggest that if an election were held in Michigan today, Obama gets zero votes? How is this ethical? Not only is she calling for the rules to be reversed, but she is saying, "give him zero Michigan delegates." Can somebody please defend this madness? A month ago Bill Clinton was saying that he thought it was fair to give Obama the uncommitted delegates. Now he has reversed course. why?

you people are funny and sad...

Obama is overwhelmingly favored to win the presidency when you look at REAL numbers...

it's 1.5 to 1 that a dem will beat the republican this year...

and if you look at the turn out in primaries and the fact that we haven't fought on issues (the issues that are killing us right now and obama wins hands down on) this will probably be a blow out.

but you all keep saying otherwise.

and by the way the defectors numbers that Obama is showing with Hillary people...is similar to Bill clinton's in 92

but you all keep feeling better about your spite and losing by saying otherwise... atleast I if not all Obama supporters understand how people make themselves feel better when they have lost.

an overturn would be whacked and crazy...it's not going to happen but again keep telling yourselves we will go to Mars tomorrow too.

Clinton supporters i challenge you: Please ethically explain how Obama gets zero delegates from Michigan? Please explain this madness?

For those of you that haven't been paying attention. At a press conference in Dover, New Hampshire last August 9, the New Hampshire Secretary of State indicated he was going to schedule his state’s primary before the date specified in the DNC rule, clearly defying the sequence and timing the Rules and Bylaws Committee had set. Michigan Democratic leaders wrote to Governor Dean asking if the DNC intended to enforce the rule against New Hampshire, but the DNC refused to act or even to answer our letters for months.

The Democratic National Committee then proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. On December 3, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to give New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. Michigan requested a waiver and was denied. When the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself decided not to follow its own newly adopted, hard-fought for rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present situation.

Does the group making these demands include Terry McAuliffe? He's her campaign manager. He's also the one who was head of the DNC when the rules were put in place, and the one who said the delegates would NOT be seated, "and you can take that to the bank!"

I can't believe Obama's people are letting this woman dare suggest that he gets ZERO delegates from Michigan. How can they let her make this argument and her DISHONEST popular vote argument? How? Obama, wake up and fight.

--I can't believe Obama's people are letting this woman dare suggest that he gets ZERO delegates from Michigan. --

Obamarama chose not to be on the ballot in Michigan. He has the Right to choose, and, now, he must suffer the consequences of that choice. He's big enough to take his medicine, isn't he??

Obama needs help from Hillary much more than the other way!!!

Rock the Bleachers:

The difference, I'm thinking, is that New Hampshire is, with a long history, already an early voting state while Michigan was trying to "make a move" into that category. So, you're comparing apples and oranges.

And look where early voting got Califoria! With a June 3rd vote, we could have been a difference-maker, with Hill now trailing Senator Obama significantly in polls in the state. And without the early CA win, Hill would not have been as strong a candidate!!!

Obama 2008 -- Ys, WE CAN!!!

If your name is not on the ballot, you get zero votes, plus the write-ins.

Folks there is a definate differnece between what has been said here:

The "crying" remarks came from Pfleger not Obama. Plus he apoligzied and rebuked those remarks

The R Kennedy "assasination" remarks came directly out of Hillarys mouth. She cannot deny them!

rockthebleachers

did you not see Terry McAuliffe's much publicized conversation with Michigan..why would things change ?

Dean told everyone a year and a half ago what the rules were. Hillary's campaign team is made up of the three most prominent influences on those rules and were involved in the process...not to mention because Hillary was seen as the most likely nominee overwhelmingly she had more knowledge of these than anyone.

NEVER did she object. Until it hurt her.

The rules and by-laws committee is politically and ethically bound to cut the delegates in ahlf...not to mention their lawyers have said legally.

Michigan screwed up and hopefully their voters are going to take them to task in the future.

No one needed

Kevin -

Your political Jesus voluntarily took his name off the ballot, thereby forfeiting his candidacy in MI. Thus, he has zero votes from the ballots. If you wish to count all the write-ins, you need to petition MI secretary of state to count them.

obama and edwards took their names off the ballots in mi they were following the rules unlike hillary who doesnt know what a rule is liked a spoiled 2 year old hillary you are a disgrace to all woman children men black white old young poor or rich you are not the person fit to run this country and i pray the day never comes that you do!!!!

Hey if we can give Amnesty to illegal aliens by bending the laws of the land, why don't we seat those delegates. We are good at one thing, and that manupilation and deceit when it comes to politics. Its pathetic.

Wikipedia (as of 5/29) shows Obama has 1984 Total Delegates, to Clinton's 1781 Total delegates.

Lets assume the DNC seats 100% of the Florida and Michigan delegates. In Michigan, Clinton won about 56% of the vote, of which there are 128 pledge delegates. Obama wasn't on the ballot. From Michigan, Clinton picks up 72 delegates, Obama none (assuming the uncommitted are not given to Obama).

In Florida, there are 185 pledge delegates. Clinton took 49.7%, Obama took 33%. Clinton would pick up 92 delegates, Obama 61.

Further, lets assume Clinton wins both South Dakota and Montana by, say, 60%. She would get 9 delegates from SD, 10 from MT. Obama would get, say, 6 from SD, and 6 from MT.

Further, lets assume Clinton gets 100% of the Puerto Rico delegates, all 55 of them.

Clinton would still be 38 delegates short of Obama. If we let the people's vote count, and the Super Delegates honestly vote according to the popular vote, then one would expect the uncommitted super delegates to be split 50/50.

Clinton is still short. And it is very unlikely that the decision will be as lopsided toward Clinton as I've outlined above.

Even the Nevada bookies are giving 8:1 odds on Clinton, and 1:5 odds on Obama. And those guys are really good at predicting the outcome of races.