Reid says delegates from MI an FL WILL be seated.

[Skip Intro]

From a report referenced in another thread, which focused on a different part of the article:

-----------------------------
The punishment was intended to be symbolic, on the assumption that a nominee would be decided early and delegate counts wouldn't matter.

That has turned out to be a bad assumption. Now Hillary Clinton, who won both states and trails in the delegate count, says Michigan and Florida shouldn't be left out, even though Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

...

"Michigan and Florida delegates are going to be seated. They're going to be a part of the convention," he said. "It's a question of whether anything can be worked out to change this prior to the 2,025.

"They're the ones causing all the problems. No one else did. And so they will be seated. They're big states. They represent 29 million people. We want to make sure their delegates are part of the convention that takes place in Denver."
------------------------------

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html


I've said before and I'll say again, and Reid seems to get this, if we tell DEM voters in those states we don't care what they think now, they will not show up in November. Not sure what Reid is referring to here, seating them without letting them vote will not suffice. We will seal our fate in November with how this is handled.

[tekisui]

1. Oh the horror!! A Democratic win is completely dependent on seating MI and FL

I'm not buying it.

[Skip Intro]

2. Right. Who needs FL and MI? Hell, if Obama is the nom, he'll carry Utah!

If we all HOPE hard enough, I guess?

[tekisui]

10. I don't insult the intelligence of the Democratic voters of MI and FL.

I don't belittle them by saying that they will not support the Dem in November due to a grudge. The DNC will work something out, and it will have little to no effect in November.

We can't count on FL, anyway. This idea that FL and MI Primaries are absolutely necessary to a GE win is ridiculous.

[anonymous171]

3. Revote or no deal.

[stahbrett]

7. Nah... taking away their ability to affect the nomination is enough punishment/deterrent

In my opinion at least...

[stahbrett]

4. Of *course* they'll be seated - anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts

The "catch" is that they will NOT be seated in a way that lets them change who the nominee is. So if Hillary concedes the nomination, then some sort of arrangement to seat them will be made. I'm partial to penalizing them by either 50% or 75%, sort of what the Republicans did.

[SoonerPride]

5. They'll be seated when Hillary concedes. Which will be in the next 3 weeks.

The party movers are going to drag her from the scene and then we'll seat Michigan and Florida.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. You left out a part. Wonder why?

Adding delegates for those states, he noted, would alter the number of delegates needed to get the nomination, currently 2,025. It wasn't crystal clear, but Reid seemed to suggest that delegations from those states should get to attend the convention, but not vote.

[Skip Intro]

12. Well, I was limited to four paragraphs per DU rules, but said as much in the final part of my post.

What's the problem?

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Ah. Ok. Now his quote makes more sense. Thanks nt

[Alexander]

8. It won't matter. Obama will win the nomination regardless.

At this point, allowing Hillary to have those delegates won't change the outcome at all.

[madfloridian]

9. Seated, not counted. Please be honest. Your subj line is dishonest.

"Adding delegates for those states, he noted, would alter the number of delegates needed to get the nomination, currently 2,025. It wasn't crystal clear, but Reid seemed to suggest that delegations from those states should get to attend the convention, but not vote.

"Michigan and Florida delegates are going to be seated. They're going to be a part of the convention," he said. "It's a question of whether anything can be worked out to change this prior to the 2,

"They're the ones causing all the problems. No one else did. And so they will be seated. They're big states. They represent 29 million people. We want to make sure their delegates are part of the convention that takes place in Denver."


They are not going to decide the nominee. They might be seated, but not get to count.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. I don't get this:

"They're the ones causing all the problems. No one else did. And so they will be seated."

They caused the problems, so we're going to seat them... Is this confusing anyone else?

[gkhouston]

14. Maybe they're ordering up a bunch of "naughty chairs" for the delegates?

:shrug:

[tekisui]

15. The article says seated, not counted.

Nothing new here.

[TheDoorbellRang]

17. Oh, they'll be seated, all right

They'll be seated in the corner in their "time out" chairs. :rofl:

"Michigan and Florida wouldn't play by the rules," Reid said. "They're not my rules. They're not the caucus' rules. They're DNC rules. They broke the rules."

[VolcanoJen]

16. Yes, as soon as Obama secures the nomination, the MI & FL delegates...

... will no longer be disenfranchised from their cheese and wine in Denver. They'll be seated, and counted, one way or another, but they will not be permitted to change or tamper with the results of the other states who played by the rules.

I mean, that's kind of a "no duh," isn't it?

[ossman]

18. Amen. After Obama has an insurmountable lead (already), they will sit both.

[Johnny__Motown]

19. How will they be seated? a 50/50 split means they cancel each other out and have no effect

Giving them 1/2 a vote each would make a difference but not much (depending on what they do with the Uncommitted in MI)

[Thepricebreaker]

20. He has no say.. AT ALL