Officials say Fla., Mich. delegates will get half-votes »
Posted By TheVisionary 4 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsDemocratic party officials said a committee agreed Saturday on a compromise to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes after Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get enough support to force their positions through.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 83
-
0%
1-2-Oscar4 months, 2 weeks ago
After Tuesday's primaries in South Dakota and Montana, there will be nothing left for Sen. Clinton to do short of destroying the Democratic Party. The question remains: "Will she tear down this year's nominee in an effort to assure her own nomination four years hence." Personally, I think that would be a stupid decision on her part, but she has demonstrated ample capacity for stupid decisions throughout this campaign.
Network commentators have suggested that Clinton will attempt blackmail at this point--and withhold her support for the presumptive nominee until she is either offered the vice presidency, or a seat on the Supreme Court. I certainly hope that neither is true.
Reply-
0%
Beau78904 months, 2 weeks ago
If Clinton thought she could tear down this year's nominee to assure her own nomination in 2012, she's badly mistaken. She would be remembered for irreparably fracturing the party, and she'd lose all credibility in any political circle.
It's very hard for me to imagine Obama choosing her as his running mate. And I think she would lose the support of her own backers if she were to tell them not to vote for Obama over McCain. She may have had some tremendous lapses in judgment while campaigning, but those would pale in comparison to withholding at least a cursory endorsement of Obama.
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa4 months, 2 weeks ago
If Hillary is not the nominee, she will do what is right for the party. She will not tear it apart, rather, she will endorse Barack. Having said that, I do not understand why people are so worried about her staying in the race. The party will not rupture just because the polls are close. The dialog that has been generated by this contest is good for the party. It flushes out minimal differences which pale when compared to the stark reality of what McCain wants to offer the US.
Reply -
0%
aniokly4 months, 1 week ago
That only applies if Obama wins in November. If she says he can't win, she has the popular vote, and he is losing to her 2 to 1 in the last several elections. If she points out he has lost every battleground state, and he proves what she said by losing to McCain, she's sitting pretty for 2012.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
TemplarScribe4 months, 2 weeks ago
Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice? Man, I'd find that hard to swallow. And here I thought Alito and Scalia were poor choices!
Now, VP, I could believe, although I'm betting that's already been offerred to John Edwards, and they're waiting for the convention to announce it.
More likely, she'll be offerred some other high profile position before the convention, to bring her into the fold. Something like Sec'y of State. Although, knowing Hillary and Bill, their combined egos might not accept anything othyer than a co-equal presidency.
Or a VP position with as much power as Cheney wrangled.
My guess is, she'll turn it down at first, then gloriously join up with the Obama tidal wave at the convention, with a much ballyhooed speech of unity. If she's given the role of ultimate fence-mender, that might be enough to solidify what she considers her role in history.
Until 2012, that is.
Say, when did the Mayans say the world was coming to an end?
Reply
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
memestryker4 months, 2 weeks ago
What kind of political party would punish state organizations for acting based on situations essentially beyond their control, such that some candidates chose not to put themselves on the ballots in the first place, and the delegates' votes eventually only counted 1/2?! Talk about a broken party!
So the "winner's" success is bittersweet and the people's votes don't mean much, if anything.
Reply-
-
0%
TemplarScribe4 months, 2 weeks ago
Memes,
The Republicans have already done the exact same thing, punishing Florida, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Wyoming for moving their primaries up too soon by stripping each state of half their delegates.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008...
A far dire situation than what the Democratic party is in now.
If the state delegations responsible for this are not made to understand that rules are rules, then the primary season becomes a free for all. And you'd have primaries a year and a half ahead of the election -- some states were threatening to hold theirs in November and December of '07.
Of course, the irony of all ironies is that the losers aren't the voters, but the impression of the voting process, instead of the real idiots, the state pols responsible.
Reply
-
-
0%
NoWayMan4 months, 2 weeks ago
the half-vote rule wasn't invented yesterday for just this situation. its been around.
as for your assertion that votes don't mean much...
on the contrary, more people have voted in this dem primary than in any other primary in history. and since the dems split the delegates of each state based on percentage of votes, each vote was very important.
and none of this would've happened if there weren't two bonafide heavywieghts going toe to toe. so the dems have no shortage of quality candidates.
meanwhile, on the GOP side...
Reply
-
-
0%
Tcaros4 months, 2 weeks ago
The fat lady is singing for Hillary. She needs to find a graceful exit.
Now we can focus on that repub nut job McCane.
Reply -
0%
mackiemesser4 months, 2 weeks ago
I wonder who formulated this rule that punished Michigan and Florida Democrats for holding an early primary? I thought way back then that it was another stupid move by the DNC that would come back to haunt them. The rule is anything but democratic as it usurps the right of the state party to determine when to hold its primaries. What is so important about holding later primaries that it would lead to disenfranchising millions of Democrats? It sounds petty and arbitrary and now the party has a huge problem in its hands. Stupid rule, predictable result. How could those political pros not have seen this then?
Reply-
-
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
The MI delegation came up with the compromise based upon the popular vote, exit polls and a survey they did
What the committee has no authority to do - give delegates won by one candidate to another - according to their own charter
This is exactly what the MI compromise did and the Rules committee agreed to
That has set them up for another challenge at the convention
Reply
-
-
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
"I wonder who formulated this rule that punished Michigan and Florida Democrats for holding an early primary?"
It is in the charter of both the Democrats and Republicans
The Rules committee can reduce the votes of pledged delegates by 1/2 if a state moves a primary to an earlier date
Neither charter fives the rules committee the authority to refuse to seat an entire delegation - the Rules committee for the Democrats violated their own charter by initially refusing to seat the FL & MI delegations
Reply
-
-
0%
jmopinion4 months, 2 weeks ago
I was shocked to hear that Hillary had the lead in the popular vote. The way the media has been trashing her I was really surprised.
Reply-
-
0%
TemplarScribe4 months, 2 weeks ago
Inmy,
Her math is fuzzier than Gore's was.
Her "lead" is only real if you count all the votes for her in both Florida and Michigan, and none for Obama in Michigan (since technically his name was removed from the ballot).
It's safe to say, with a sizeable lead in funds and a stronger campaign at that time, Obama would have won in Michigan, and would have been very close in Florida. Many Obama supporters have said since his name wasn't on the ballot and they were told their votes wouldn't count, that they didn't bother voting in Michigan.
Hillary's ability to completely overlook her agreement to not count Michigan, made at the time knowing Obama would win there, is simply appalling. This look into her desparation to win at all costs, is perhaps the most revealing element of this whole debacle.
Reply
-
-
0%
CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago
She doesn't. She is just making it up. She has been lying so blatently and frequently she might as well be a republican. The media also has not been trashing her. Thats just another of her lies. She has no chance of getting the nomination but the media has been pretending that she is still relevent.
Reply-
0%
obiefrommuskogee4 months, 1 week ago
Yes, I think the media still trumpeting her every wish out of deference to big bully Bill Clinton, who at one time was fairly respected as an ex president, but now has not a shred of dignity left. That's all they have left, is the media, which is largely jewish-owned anyway and clearly biased in favor of someone who wants to OBLITERATE IRAN. IT's a shame what a small minority of the population is doing to the great nation that was the United States of America.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Ratskii4 months, 2 weeks ago
Why is awarding the two states only half their delegates a problem for the Democrats but not for the Republicans? Why do so many Republicans think that people, who made stupid decisions in scheduling their democratic primaries early, should be rewarded, while people who made stupid mortgage decisions should be punished?
Reply-
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
The Rules committees of both parties have the authority under their charters to reduce the votes of pledged delegates by 1/2 for moving their primaries to an earlier date
They DON'T have the authority to refuse to seat an entire delegation for moving a primary. This is what the Democrats tried to do. That is why there was a drive by Democrats from FL and MI to at least seat the delegations and give the pledged delgates 1/2 vote
Reply -
0%
aniokly4 months, 1 week ago
The delegate count did not really count that much for McCain to win the nomination, he was so far ahead of the next candidate, Huckabee. It matters in the Democrat race because Hillary, and Obama are very close in Voter, and delegate support.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago
The party leadership knows Obama will be the nominee. They also know that there is a significant block of old white women who were the start of the feminist movement. My mom is one of them. She knows almost nothing about politics but supports Hilary because "its her turn". They see this as the last chance to see a female president in their lifetime. The leadership wants to hold onto this block but they know if they give her the nomination with a back room deal changing the rules after Obama won they can kiss the black vote goodbye. They will give her delegates to keep the old ladies happy but they will make sure they do not give her enough to win.
Reply-
0%
earthlingerer4 months, 1 week ago
Yeah, they could lose the black vote, but they won't be moving towards McCain, like a lot of women, hispanics, and white people in general will be.
The republicans are EAGER to go up against Obama... it won't even be about McCain, but something along the lines of republicans putting forth "don't vote for the BLACK guy", and a few months of Obama saying "I am NOT a muslim.", and a whole lot more of him saying what he isn't.
Reply-
0%
CaptainLucid4 months, 1 week ago
The neocons prefer running against Hilary. Their propaganda ministry has been hating on her for a long time. If you ask most Hilary haters why they hate her you will find lots of blank stares or "Hilarly care" from her failed attempt to reform health care when Bill was in office. If you ask most neocon haters what her health care plan would have done I doubt any of them would know a thing. They will probably know the "talking points" and repeat them like "socialized medicine". The repulicraps have invested so much money in appealing to the reptilian brain and Pavlovian conditioning against Hilary. It would be a shame if Obama won and the neocons spent all that effort in vain. Now they will be starting from scratch.
Reply
-
-
0%
aniokly4 months, 1 week ago
And that is Obama's big problem. He is going to lose that "white women's vote", because they will not be placated. In a close election that "old White Women's" vote can throw the election to McCain.
Reply
-
-
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
the "1/2" is stipulated in the charters of the DNC and RNC as the punishment for moving the primary date
Reply -
0%
motivator9114 months, 2 weeks ago
_Q#*%)&Q#%^_(*Q#&% )(???????????? when did a few individuals obtain the power to decide weather or not another americans vote counted ??????? this is B S there is no way our forefathers would allow this, why do we???. the only American citizens who's votes should not count are convicted felons and we are counting there votes in P.R., V.T and Maine what the hell is going on in this country I am an independent not supporting either candidates at this time but regaurdless all votes should be counted ALL.
Reply-
0%
obiefrommuskogee4 months, 1 week ago
Deal or No Deal? Tell Clinton to take the deal or they get nothing--Fl and Mi will not be seated.
It's time for the ugly witch to exit gracefully and take her shrill supporters with her. The Democratic party does not need HillBilly or her racist supporters. Thank God we now know who they are so they can be ferreted out like the vermin that they are.
Reply -
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
The Rules committee has been violating their own charter
If you look at what they did in MI, they took votes away from Clinton by giving some of her delegates to Obama
It's the same in both perties - control by the elite
Neither party cares about the voters - they only give lip service to "every vote should count"
Reply
-
-
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
I watched the entire debate on CSpan
Sections of the Charter were quoted numerous times during the debate
What became obvious:
1. The Rules committee created this entire debacle by failing to follow their own Charter
2. The Charter specifies they may reduce the votes of pledged delegates by 1/2 if the date of the primary is moved up - prior to the date in the schedule of primaries established by the DNC. They have no authority to refuse to seat an entire delegation for moving a primary date. The reason they gave for initially refusing to seat an entire delegation - they were sending a message to states who may try and move their primaries in the future
They have no authority to reduce the votes of the Super delegates by 1/2 - something they also did. The selection of Super delegates as outlined in the Charter is in a separate section and is not dependent upon when the primary is
Reply-
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
They have set themselves up for a challenge at the convention:
They have no authority to reassign delegates - give delegates won by one candidate to another - this is what they ended up doing with MI. They gave delegates Clinton should have to Obama (4 delegates)
Based upon the popular vote in MI, the pledged delegates should be: Clinton 73, Obama 55
They made it clear numerous times that there were no rules in the Charter or any state laws which required Obama to remove his name from the MI ballot
Obama, Richardson and Edwards had removed their names from the MI ballot
In the popular vote, one proposal would have given Obama ALL of the "uncommitted" votes. This would have given him 51 delegates. Clinton should have won 73 but ended up with 69
In effect, the rules committee disenfranchised some Clinton voters
If there is a challenge at the convention, it will be based on the decision the Rules committee made regarding MI
Reply
-
-
0%
Skeptic4 months, 1 week ago
Is this a sign of the way the Democrat's nominee, whoever he or she may be, is going to handle negotiations with the United Nations or North Korea or Iran or any number of governments that hate the United States?
Reply -
-
0%
nostalgia4 months, 1 week ago
"stay with the original concept."
They can't. The original decision to not seat the FL and MI delegations was a violation of the Charter - specifies that the Rules committee only has the authority to reduce the votes of pledged delegates to 1/2 as punishment for a state moving the prinary date forward
Reply
-
-
-
0%
earthlingerer4 months, 1 week ago
Actually, by empowering the proletariat class through labor unions and representatives, Marxism actually GAVE people a voice.
Sadly, the opposite is more true of the current USA.
Reply
-
-
0%
EDWARDIII4 months, 1 week ago
Hillery is showing us that Father P. was exactly right about her. Obama should not have withdrawn from his church except, as he said, to protect the privacy of paritioners from the media. His heart is still in the congregation, where it should be.
Reply -
0%
THOMNH624 months, 1 week ago
this just shows what a cluster funk the dem party really is, who care about votes, we don't need no stinking votes.
Reply -
0%
sparky0554 months, 1 week ago
sorry, i do not get any feeling that hellary will give up until someone slaps her upside her phoney, smiling, lesbo head....and tells her and billary that its not all about them for once....the clintons have always been about themselves let someone tell me any diff....you got my addy...she cannot catch obama in delagate votes....that is a fact...delagates nominate the party choice....so she knows the only way she can win is if the supers cast their votes for her, which would so totally p off the blacks (14%) of the votes that it would split the party...for a long time (anyone care to differ?) so....if she was the nom she would lose all the black vote..and then? what smart a dems? so she is all about the party? how? someone tell me? mi, and fla will not matter and she was the only one on the ballots for gosh sakes...and i never heard of a half vote if someone would like to clue me in gosh what a mess
Reply -
0%
kalboy17834 months, 1 week ago
I believe Clinton has a right to be upset at Obama getting 100% of the uncommitted voters in Michigan - HOWEVER - I also believe that Clinton does NOT deserve to get all of her vote either. I have a number of friends in Michigan who went to polls supporting someone other than Hillary Clinton that ended up casting a vote for Hillary - not because they suddenly had a change of heart - but because people would rather cast a vote for someone than a vote for no one. Imagine a voter goes into a polling place ranking candidate A & B, liking one more than the other but able to get by if the second choice is elected (after all, Clinton's and Obama's stances are fairly equal). When they see the ballet, only candidate B is listed, so that's who they end up voting for.
This has happened in Michigan and no one is talking about it. The answer to Michigan is an acceptable one, but because the names were not on the ballet, any answer they give is a farce to the political process.
Reply -
0%
sparky0554 months, 1 week ago
some how i know hellary will lose and it will not be her fault..of course
Reply -
0%
sparky0554 months, 1 week ago
well a half vote sounds just right for the "fair" party..whats next a half and half candidate lol
Reply -
0%
sparky0554 months, 1 week ago
i am really sorry for the lez woman left but you aint got a chance....even if it is close ob has the race black card which trumps the woman lez card you know it and i know it
Reply -
0%
aniokly4 months, 1 week ago
Hillary Clinton will give Sen Obama the most beautiful endorsement ever issued an opponent. Publically. It came out this morning that there is a tape of Michele Obama admonishing "Whitey", and everyone is looking for it. Newspapers, the Clinton campaign. It is a tape made at TUCC. Other leaks will come out between now, and November, and Hillary's hands will be clean.
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.