Hillary's Fla + MI totals = Barack's VA + MD + DC total

[kennetha]

Hillary got a combined total of 1, 185, 359 votes in Florida and Michigan, while Barack got a combined total of 1, 144, 549 votes in Virginia, DC, and Maryland. Florida and Michigan have between them have a combined 44 electoral votes. Virginia, Maryland, and DC have a combined 26 electoral votes. I don't think we want to alienate the good voters of Florida and Michigan. We should count their votes and seat their delegates.

I know the Obama folks don't want to do that. But that's only because with FL and MI added back in the mix, the delegate count gets back to being pretty close to tied.

[jefferson_dem]

1. You mean the MI where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot?

... And FL where nobody campaigned?

The rules were set. We don't change them now so Hillary can benefit. Remember, this is a democracy.

[kennetha]

2. RIght where he voluntarily removed his name from the ballot.

That was his choice, now he doesn't want to live with the consequences of his own choice. A real man for you!

[Inuca]

5. What an absurd argument!

Uninformed too.

[kennetha]

10. Hmm

Where's the absurdity? Obama signed a pledge not to campaign in MI. So did Clinton. The pledge did not require them to remove names from Ballots. Obama urged his supporters to vote uncommitted. So did Edwards. About 45% if I recall heeded the pledge. Seems like a legitimate test of their then strengths.

[awaysidetraveler]

18. Obama tells all his supporters to vote uncommitted, HRC does not. And the vote should count?

Have some grace. HRC lost, fair and square.

[kennetha]

25. Why shouldn't it?

40% of the delegates followed Obama and Edward's advice and voted uncommitted. Presumably some significant % of the MI delegation would be assigned to uncommitted. They would be free to vote Obama or whoever on the first ballot.

So I don't follow your logic.

[awaysidetraveler]

29. There's no campaign in either state, except by HRC, who broke her agreement in doing so.

Obama could win both Florida and MI as well, if he'd campaigned there.

That's what's unfair about it.

[kennetha]

30. None campaigned "in" Florida.

But Florida isn't an Island. They get the same national news that we all do. And obama was hot stuff. Plus Obama's national cable buy of ads ran in Florida. It's not as though Florida voters were voting in some sort of information vacuum.

No one campaigned in Michigan, exactly either, but still Obama and Edwards urged voters to vote uncommitted. 40% of them did. That seems like a good test of their then strength.

[awaysidetraveler]

43. HRC campaigned in Florida, breaking her own agreement not to. Link attached. Obama did not.

That's rewriting rules. It's dirty dealing and it's not fair.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341

[Yossariant]

56. LOL! Your link doesn't say that. Here's Obama breaking the pledge the day after he made it: Link:

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

[mckeown1128]

63. Arguing that Obama and Edwards voluntarily

took their names of the ballot....as an excuse as to why the delegates should go to Hillary is BS. Besides, the voters need to know ahead of time that they are voting for delegates. They were told that their votes would be worthless.



Hillary even said the primary wasn't going to count for anything:


NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"



http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

[awaysidetraveler]

78. Wow... you guys really are desperate.

Answering questions is campaigning? Get real.

[awaysidetraveler]

79. And my link did say that, and moreover here are the details on who is winning.

Florida and Michigan won't add up to a Hillary win without significant superdelegate support as well as
real wins in both Texas and Ohio. Moreover, the polls show HRC's lead is diminishing in those states.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4571054

HRC lost and Obama won.

[pampango]

26. They all signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in or get delegates from the two primaries.

It is reasonable to define "participate" as leaving your name on the ballot, so several had their names removed. Hillary chose to define "participate" as allowing her to leave her name on ballot (and now receiving the resulting delegates). I guess it boils down to what your definition of "participate" is. :)

[kennetha]

28. So did Obama and Edwards participate ..

by urging their supporters -- which 40% did do -- to vote uncommitted? If that's participation, then they all participation. IF that isn't participation, I don't know why the"non-act" of leaving one's name on the ballot counts as participation would be. One is active (the urging) one is passive (the leaving).

[pampango]

34. I don't want to get into an argument of the definition of "participate".

I believe that leaving your name on the ballot and wanting the resulting delegates awarded is a better definition of the word than urging your supporters to vote "uncommitted", but you can use whatever definition you desire.

[Yossariant]

39. Who cares? You're making up the "participate" nonsense.

[pampango]

42. Am I? Am I also making up the part that all the candidates agreed there would be no delegates

awarded by the Michigan and Florida primaries?

[Yossariant]

48. You sure are. The candidates don't award or not award delegates. You are confused.

[pampango]

51. Am I? I said that the agreement involved no delegates being awarded based on primaries.

I said nothing about candidates awarding delegates.

[Yossariant]

57. You remain confused. The candidates have nothing to do with awarding delegates.

[pampango]

62. Oh now I see your point. Hillary could have it both ways.

She could agree to no campaigning in Florida and Michigan and no delegates being awarded with the realization that the delegates would be awarded anyway. In this way she takes away Obama's campaigning ability (at which he has proven to be quite effective), while still ending up with the delegates resulting from the primaries.

I have often wondered what Hillary planned when she agreed to the party sanctions against those two primaries. Was she fully expecting that those two primaries would end up with delegates being awarded, despite her agreement that she didn't expect this? Or did she really plan her campaign without figuring on Michigan and Florida delegates and only change her mind after the first few primaries and caucuses?

You seem to argue that the former was the case and that she knew that the "no delegates" part of last year's agreement was unenforceable. She is indeed a shrewd campaigner.

[Yossariant]

38. Wrong.They pledged not to campaign. PERIOD.

You are confused.

The candidates are not the Party.

[Orangepeel]

70. It's absurd because the consequences should be defined by the rules that were in place

Why would he accept consequences that result from changes to the agreed upon rules (that the FL and MI primaries wouldn't count)?

[ShortnFiery]

6. dupe - self-delete

[ShortnFiery]

8. Wow! The DNC and the candidates themselves (incl. HRC) agreed to PLAY BY THE RULES ...

No, if MI and FL delegates are seated "as it stands" that would be nothing less than CHEATING, i.e., allowing the losing side to change the rules in the 3rd quarter. :thumbsdown:

[jefferson_dem]

9. Obama keeps his word. Seems Hillary doesn't and will do anything to cling to her POTUS dreams.

The rules were that those two states wouldn't count. Many voters didn't go to the polls because they understood the rules. Our party doesn't go around changing rules and disenfranchising voters in order to install people into public office just because they claim it's their turn. Hillary (and some of her supporters) need to come to grips that.

[kennetha]

11. THe rules don't prohibit the delegations from being seated

Nor do they prohibit the state party from assigning delegates. The party is free to do that on the basis of the primary. The party is then free to petition the credentials committee. The credentials committee is then free to seat the delegations.

Why would the credentials committee refuse to seat the delegations? Because they don't like the composition? Because they don't want Hillary to have more votes on the floor? Chicago style machine politics at its worst.

[jefferson_dem]

14. I hope they do seat the FL and MI delegations.

...Provided they have no bearing on the party's choice of nominee, as the agreed-upon rules stipulated.

[Maribelle]

19. So - it's now OK with you if the rules are changed ???

We can all go changing any rule we want as long as it does not negatively affect your candidate????

Do you even realize how the expression "forked tongue" came into existence? Maybe you need to look that one up.

[kennetha]

21. Rules don't stipulate any such thing.

Again, the rules leave it to the discretion of the credentials committee to seat the delegations from FLA and MI. That's all the"rules" do. They don't prohibit the state party from assigning delegates and petitioning to have them seated. You can cite the rules to settle an issue of discretion.

[Maribelle]

16. Why do you feel the need to distort the truth about Hillary to pump Obama?

Do you feel he can't win unless Hillary's record is distorted?

The truth is that Hillary will work within the rules of the DNC.

[polpilot]

40. pro-War Hillary brought us Iraq...NOT Healthcare although, since 1992, it's her 'passion'....

She hasn't delivered.

[JTFrog]

23. He stood for what was right while the MI/FL tried to push their way to the front of the line.

Hillary on the other hand seems to have a few problems standing up for those who play by the rules. Her people helped write the rules for the Nevada primaries, but when the momentum seemed to favor another candidate, they tried to take away union workers agreed upon voting places. When she took a pledge to uphold the DNC penalties against those who tried to game the system, she found a way around the rules and since it would favor her is trying to get those delegates seated. When she took a pledge not to debate on Fox and then found she needed free advertisement, she tried to muscle Obama into debates on Fox. She has no credibility and neither do the leaders in the states that tried to push their way to the front of the line.

Why is it so much more important for Michigan and Florida to have a say than my state? I don't get to have a say in this whole process and my state didn't break any rules.

[BayouBengal07]

52. The DNC invalidated their delegates

That was their choice, and now you don't wan to live with the consequences of their choice?

[Skip Intro]

77. Again, we tell FL and MI voters they are meaningless now, they will not show in Nov.

Why should they?

[PermanentRevolution]

83. Yes, we will

Why the hell would we stay home?

Everyone who voted in the primaries in FL and MI knew damn well that our votes were worthless and we wouldn't be getting delegates. We voted anyway. Now why would we go out and vote in a meaningless primary and then stay home from the General Election WHEN OUR VOTES ACTUALLY COUNT because the primary that we already knew was worthless stayed worthless?

[pampango]

3. Yeah, that's the only reason. Playing by the rules you agreed to before

the primaries and caucuses began has nothing to do with it. :banghead:

The power of superdelegates to do whatever they want is part of the rules (and favors Hillary). That no delegates come from the primaries in Michigan and Florida is part of the rules and favors Obama.

They both would like to change some of the rules and leave the rest unchanged. I hope they both realize the damage to our party and election prospects if they do that.

[kennetha]

7. The rules don't guarantee that MI and Fla won't be seated as is!

The credentials committee has the right to seat FLa and MI delegations. So the rules don't prohibit Fla and MI votes to be counted. They permit them to be counted. If the Obama forces control the credentials committee and prohibit FLA and MI delegations from being seated just because they would swing the nomination to CLinton, all hell will break lose and Obama will look like a glorified Chicago machine pol. Make no mistake, the state parties will assign delegates on the basis of the primaries. And they will seek to have them seated.

[pampango]

22. You're right. The credentials committee can do whatever it wants

and their options stink.

If they seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, they are effectively calling Obama a fool for agreeing not to campaign and participate in Florida under the assumption that the agreement that all the candidates, including Hillary, signed on to that there would be no delegates awarded. (This would certainly please the state parties in Michigan and Florida. They would have moved their primaries earlier against the party rules they agreed to, and then gotten the delegates seated in spite of the national party's efforts.)

If they don't seat them, they jeopardize our chances in November. I'm glad I'm not on that committee. I hope that some of our "wiser" heads come up with something.

[Obamanaut]

4. I disagree.

I think we should go with the rules that were in place on primary day. I am one of the good voters in Florida, and I suggest that we in Florida simply vote out any and all incumbents who are up for reelection this year - local, state, and federal.

[OzarkDem]

12. Agree, Obama is NOT ahead

Clinton won two of the most crucial states to winning the GE, yet everyone seems to count them out. They will count in November and Hillary is the one who can carry them.

[MoJoWorkin]

13. Yeah, give her uncontested votes. I dare say if Obama

had campaigned in those states, it would have been a different story.

If it were reversed and Hillary's name hadn't been on the ballot and/or she hadn't campaigned in the state, and at that time, many didn't even know who she was, and if Barack had been the one who had gone against party rules, and left his name on the ballot, and gone to FL for his "victory"---in other words, if she had been the one who had played by the rules, would you think it was fair? I don't think so.

If the Democratic Party wants to be seen as truly democratic, they cannot subvert their own rules. Hey, if you want, lets have a redo--both campaign in those states. I have no fear that Obama would do quite well in a fair contest.

Geez.

[kennetha]

17. Everybody knew Obama by then

He had won Iowa. Had been anointed the front runner. Was getting favorable coverage in the national media, New Hampshire had drawn huge media attention. True the wave had not caught on yet. It was at its low point, in fact. But so what?

[awaysidetraveler]

15. What do you think these numbers mean? And why do you want to break delegate rules now?

At this point, I'd be okay with allowing a timely and rescheduled vote to occur in MI and FL.

Once both candidates have had a fair shake at campaigning there, I think the votes would be legitimate.

While were at it, I'd like to see these superdelegates stricken from rolls of endorsements, given the fact that they're
muddying up the real results.

Does that sound fair?

[kennetha]

20. Again you are misinterpreting the rules

The rules don't require the credentials committee not to seat Fla and MI delegations. It's within their discretion to seat them. The rules don't require the state party not to assign delegates.

Given the discretion available to the state party and the committee, you can't just cite the rules to argue against seating the delegates. You have to argue that seating them would be an abuse of discretion. But why would it? Because Obama was at some disadvantage relative to Clinton? What disadvantage? Certainly none in Florida. And any disadvantage in MI is one of his own doing, since he CHOSE to have his name removed from the ballot. Nothing required him to do so.

[awaysidetraveler]

37. No, you're the one reframing the argument. That's changing the rules halfway through the game.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules, which is why the party will not seat them.
It is in their discretion not to seat the delegates of states that break the rules.

In Florida's case, it was a bunch of republicans running the change in our election schedule anyway.
That's what their republican electoral court came up with as a fair date.
That's why Florida's not being seated.

All the other players except for HRC recognized that they broke the rules, which is why they are not being seated.

Most people agree that they will eventually be seated, once the real contest is over.
It's not over yet.

Also, you've ignored the question on superdelegates. Are you happy with the democratic party offering HRC a hundred delegate lead? Do you think that's fair?

[kennetha]

44. I have no problem with super delegates

Delegates are delegates. THere are many ways delegates are assigned. Some are chosen in caucuses -- which are pretty undemocratic. Some are chose in primaries -- which are more democratic. Some of the primaries and caucuses are open to all comers; some are closed. I don't really think the open primaries represent the "party" so much. Super delegates are party people through and through and don't represent any narrow constituency or particular candidate but are charged with seeing to the best interest of the party as such. I think it's appropriate that they act like guardians of the best interest of the party as such. So no I don't have any problem whatsoever with super delegates.

[awaysidetraveler]

81. Super duper delegate math, or bong-hit math? Blub, blub, blub, she won! Yeah!

Here's the actual numbers as they're posted from several sources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4571054

Obama won, and FL and MI don't equal a win for Hillary.

[thoughtcrime1984]

24. Votes under the premise that the delegates would not count!!!!!!

I've said it a dozen times now. Let's have a re-do, complete with campaigning and a real reason for Obama voters to come out, and then let's see the vote totals. These 2 states broke rules and should not be rewarded for that. The voters of the 2 states need to hold those that broke the rules accountable. To award the delegates as is would be criminal. Obama would win Michigan and would be very close in Florida, if the voting were under a normal premise and circumstances. But I know many (NOT ALL) Hillary folks don't want to do that , because doing the right thing might be the final nail in their candidate's coffin.

[kennetha]

27. Silly argument

There won't be a re-do. The voters of Florida spoke. So do the voters of Michigan. Both in very large numbers.

Again nothing prevents these delegations from being assigned by the state party and seated by the credentials committee. What would be the argument for not seating them?

[thoughtcrime1984]

32. You have already been told, I am done explaining

The DNC already said no delegates before the vote. You would not be fighting for this if Obama stood to gain, now would you?? Let it go....

[kennetha]

35. I wouldn't be fighting for it

But I also wouldn't pretend to have an argument against it. I don't make disingenuous arguments merely for personal gain. It seems to me obvious that there will be no re-do. There will be a petition. And all hell will break loose when it's denied, if it's denied. On the other hand, hell will break loose if its granted too, unless the outcome isn't affected.

[thoughtcrime1984]

41. It SHOULD be denied, the votes were never going to count and everyone

who voted KNEW that. I will not reply further on this. Good day.

[bowens43]

31. There are no deligates in Florida or Michigan.

Of course Hillary voters have no problem breaking the rules if it puts Hillary on her throne.

[thoughtcrime1984]

33. Try telling that to the OP

Some just don't get it.

[kennetha]

36. there are delegates

They may not be credentialed by the Credentials committee. But both states will assign delegates. It's up to the committee to accept or reject their credentials. At the moment, that's an open question. But it will have to be addressed either now or later.

[Thepricebreaker]

46. Its not an open question at all.

Its not an open question at all... what are you talking about? Unless there is some backroom deal to get them seated to get her to win - LOL you think Obama and the country for that matter would deal with something like that AGAIN? Another selected, not elected ??

[pampango]

47. I think that kennetha means it's an "open question" in the legal sense

that the credential committee is charged with deciding whether to seat delegations or not. I think you are arguing that morally, ethically, and politically the credentials committee had better not do that. While I agree with you in your sentiment, I think kennetha is right in the "legal" sense. :)

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marshall]

49. Which is why his is going to get UGLY

Hillary's camp will pull every rabbit they can out of their hat in order to get those votes counted. This is going to go right up to the finish line and it ain't going to be pretty.

[golddigger]

53. And the Obama camp would be doing the same thing if he had won.

[pampango]

58. Not the "you would do it, too, if..." argument again.

If one is proud of what one does, you don't argue that your adversary would have done as you did.

If one is not proud of what one does, it does no good to argue that "you would have done it, too, if you were in my position". It is an unprovable assertion that relies on the assumption that everyone lives by the same principles that you do.

[golddigger]

59. Ok, scratch what I said. But, let me say this again...

they will seat them.

[pampango]

65. For the sake of those voters and our party in November I hope you are right.

For the sake of Obama (if he has more elected delegates) and his supporters I hope that it happens in a way that does not damage our chances in November.

I understand now that Hillary's agreeing to no campaigning and no delegates in Michigan and Florida was a shrewd political move. At the time of the agreement last year, she was way ahead in all polls. By eliminating campaigning in those states it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, for Obama, Edwards, or anyone else to cut into her lead in the polls.

At the same time agreeing to not having delegates being awarded by the primaries was effectively meaningless, since the state Democratic parties (which both support her candidacy) could put forward delegations based on the primary results and leave it up to the Credentials Committee at the convention to decide whether to seat them. The CC will be under pressure not to "disenfranchise" the voters in those two large and important states.

It is a reminder that some politicians can sign on to agreements that don't mean what they appear to mean to the uninitiated.

[marshall]

67. Didn't he follow the rules and take his name off the ballot?

At any rate, Hillary would draw a lot more respect if she were calling for a legal primary NOW in those states rather than clamoring for these ill gotten votes.

[KaryninMiami]

50. I'm in Florida and I would be livid if that happened. You can't change the rules AFTER the vote

We voted knowing our votes would not be counted. Many didn't show up at the polls at all and others voted for candidates knowing that those candidates would not win but because they wanted to show support- knowing that there were no delegates attached. They can't simply seat those delegates now - now without a re-vote of some type - that would be blatantly unfair.

To complicate matters, Hillary who apparently decided that she was above having to play by the rules (her team called her Florida events "fundraisers" not campaigning- give me a break). She got media attention during those events on all of the local stations - free press- as a result of those events. How could anyone think they were playing fair?

We either need another primary or caucus or if anything, split the delegates between the two candidates in the same percentages as the rest of the country is averaging. Simply seating those delegates will cause a wave of anger in our party which will be very difficult to overcome.

[HockeyMom]

54. I voted in Florida

and agree with everything you say. I knew my vote wouldn't count when I voted. How many people didn't bother to go at all?

Either don't count them at all or hold another election.

[SteppingRazor]

75. Also a Florida voter, also think that seating FL delegates is wrong.

I blame the FDP entirely for what happened here, not the DNC. Our state party acted like a bunch of fuckwits. But as it stands, our delegates should not be seated.

[beachmom]

55. It doesn't count. Obama was not even on the MI ballot, nor did

he campaign in either state. Everyone knew the rules BEFORE the elections were held, yet you can't accept it. Unbelievable.

[Yossariant]

60. LOL! He didn't campaign until the day after he made the pledge.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

[goldcanyonaz]

61. You're forgetting that Clinton did not campaign in either state either.

[golddigger]

64. Yep, The Obama people seem to forget that.

[goldcanyonaz]

68. They have very selective memories. Obama= Messiah Clinton = Devil.

This forum has been the voice of the RW in swiftboating Hillary and I won't forget.

[beachmom]

73. Somebody is in their own insulated world. I am first and foremost

a Kerry supporter, and do not think Obama is the messiah. Talk about swiftboating, the way you talk about supporters of other candidates. Since you can't win the argument, you go for the ad hominem attack.

[beachmom]

71. Clinton has name recognition, and hello! She was the only name

on the MI ballot.

I'm done with this. We'll see how this argument plays out in the Party.

[goldcanyonaz]

72. Uh huh. I guess you forgot the get out and vote uncommitted campaign.

[catgirl]

66. You're forgetting to give Obama FL delegates

He did get 33% of the vote there.

Sure, give them their say. Have new primary contests
where they can campaign.

Btw, instead of belatedly coming down on the DNC now,
why didn't the voters in each state protest loudly to the
persons responsible for moving up the elections and in
effect, causing the voters to lose their say in the first place?

I think it's rather telling that Hillary spoke up after the fact.

[Yossariant]

69. No can do. The DNC rule is that anyone who broke the pledge gets no delegates. That means Obama

cannot get delegates in Florida.

Not exactly sure how having surrogates like Conyers campaigning for him in Michigabn will be viewed, but I expect he won't ne allowed to have delegates from there, either.

[awaysidetraveler]

80. Is this like a bong hit math thing? Blub blub blub blub blub, yeah--we're winning.

Here's the real math.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4571054

[miceelf]

76. Real reason Hillary didn't speak up until recently

If she had spoke up at the beginning, she would have risked pi$$ing off the Iowa and New Hampshire voters. She waited until those contests were well behind her before raising this talk of seating Florida and Michigan.

Florida and Michigan were punished to protect the first primary/caucus statuses of New Hampshire and Iowa and (to a lesser extent) Nevada. That's why she was silent until those contests were over.

So she was also lying (by omission) to the Iowa and NH voters. had she been lobbying for the florida and michigan votes to count at that time, how many of those early voters would have supported her?

[pampango]

82. You're right. She could have just refused to agree to the sanctions imposed on

Michigan and Florida last year.

It is a testament to how shrewd a campaigner she is, however, that she knew that if she refused the "no campaign/no delegates" agreement last year, Obama and the others would have felt free to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Since she was way ahead in the polls last year, getting your competitors to agree not to campaign is quite an accomplishment. It made it very difficult for them to catch up in those states' polls.

It was pointed out to me upthread that, in another testament to her campaign's tactical brilliance, the "no delegates" concession wasn't really much of a concession. It is the state parties that decide who the delegates are, not the candidates, so she could agree to "no delegates" part of the agreement with the realization that the state parties could still use the primaries to determine delegates and then leave it up to the Credential Committee to determine if they were acceptable. Leaving it up to the Credentials Committee is not a sure thing from her perspective (indeed it may fracture the party), but she may have thought (and apparently still thinks - no redos seems to be the mantra from her camp) that it is a better option for her than a competitive primary with full campaigning.

Thus she could commit to a "no campaign/no delegates" pledge regarding Michigan and Florida (at least until the early primaries and caucuses were out of the way), while accomplishing two goals. The newcomers trying to catch her would have agreed not to campaign and she would still have a good shot at getting all of the delegates who would result from the sanctioned primary by figuring the state party officials would play along with her.

[IndieLeft]

74. Actually... her total is 0