Dear, Hillary Supporters: How would you prefer to resolve Michigan?

[Ian_rd]

By the latest count I heard, if both Florida and Michigan are counted as-is, then Hillary would have a 100+ delegate lead over Obama, so I can understand that you want those states to count. But how do you think Michigan should be handled? Obama was not even on the ballot.

This is not flamebait. I am genuinely curious as to what you think is fair.

[corkhead]

1. First, seat them all. Hillary gets the ones she rightfully won, plus half of the uncommitted ones.

:evilgrin: :popcorn:

edit to add popcorn.

[Ian_rd]

2. I'm trying to be serious, actually.

[FredScuttle]

5. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

Seriously....there's no way to be serious about Michigan. There have been sensible compromises put forth by the state party leaders (including Clinton supporter Granholm) that were summarily rejected by Queen Hillary because she wants ALL of the Michigan delegates, even the "undecided/none of the above" ones.

Her greed and her ego know no bounds.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. You're wrong.

With Michigan and Florida counted as-is, Hillary STILL has a deficit of fifty-two pledged delegates. I have no idea where you got the numbers you reference, but they are utterly nonsensical. See here.

[Ian_rd]

4. OK, easy, easy. I just heard a news report on AirAmerica saying that those

two would put her in the lead by 100-something. If the graph o from your link is correct, then she'd still have a deficit of about 50. Maybe the news report was wrong.

Thanks for the link.

My question still remains though about how Clinton supporters think Michigan should be resolved.

[Maribelle]

8. I sincerely believe there are no resolutions.

As I Floridian I can see clearly the damage is set in stone. I heard Obama say today to the good folks listening in his audience that their voices should be heard, and I could not help but think of my 1.7 million fellow Floridians whose voices Obama does not want to hear.

It's too late now.


Where would we be today had the DNC only left the punishment at 50%?

[FredScuttle]

27. Where would you be if your state party leaders weren't such incredible idiots?

your anger should be directed at your state representatives, who moved the primary from what would have been a decisive date to one which doesn't even count.

Don't forgot....not only did Hillary sign on for the sanctions, her campaign advisor Harold Ickes voted for them!

[bain_sidhe]

6. Dunno if I count as a HIllary Supporter, but...

as a Michigan resident, I'd like to weigh in. First, I count my self as a Hillary supporter in that I like and respect Hillary, and I think she'd be a great president. My womanly heart absolutely loves that a woman has been taken seriously in the primaries. (Previous women candidates were treated as jokes.) I just think Obama is a better nominee for the general election, this time out.

However, as a Michigan resident, I'm in a quandry. I don't want to see Michigan go red this election, but I think there has to be consequences for our rogue primary. Don't get me wrong, I supported it at the time, and still do. Something needs to be done to break the "lock" that Iowa and New Hampshire have on the first two contests. A lot of people complained during and after the 2004 primary season, but the DNC urged us all to follow the rules "this time" (2004) and promised to fix it for the next presidential election.

Well, "caving in" got us nothing. Yes, they added two additional "early primary" states--all to the good--but Iowa and New Hampshire rescheduled their contests so that they were still the first two (Nevada was supposed to come between Iowa and NH) with no penalty. So, it's clear that SOMEBODY had to make a big enough stink about it that the DNC would take our complaints seriously "next time" (it's ALWAYS "next time" dontcha know).

But you can't engage in "civil disobedience" without expecting penalties. That's the POINT, IMHO.

My ideal solution would be that the DNC follows the penalty outlined in the original plan--the loss of half our delegates (or seating all of them with a half vote). Those seated as "uncommitted" should be free to pledge prior to the convention (I'm assuming they'll go to Obama). I would not be adverse to the Michigan superdelegates losing their vote on the first ballot. After all, most of them were the people who actually set/worked for the rogue primary.

Furthermore, whatever primary calendar is determined for the 2012 primaries, neither Michigan nor Florida should be considered for "early" spots on it. Neither, of course, should Iowa or New Hampshire.

Those are real penalties, but still give the citizens of Michigan a "voice" at the convention.

I would also accept seating our delegates for the purposes of the platform and other committees, but not allowing them to vote on the first ballot. But I think that would cause enough hard feelings that Michigan might very well go red in the general, and I really, REALLY, don't want that to happen.

So, that's my opinion, for what it's worth.

[TahitiNut]

12. The voters of Michigan won't have a "voice" at the convention ... nobody came and listened,

The kabuki of sending some party insiders to Denver for a vacation in August has NOTHING to do with the Michigan voters. The real impact of a primary is to have the candidates face the people - have a campaign and put campaign MONEY into the worst economy in the nation.

The candidates did NOT face the people of Michigan. The candidates did NOT LISTEN to the people of Michigan. The candidates did NOT address the concerns of the people of Michigan. The candidates did NOT spend campaign money in Michigan, BUT THEY COLLECTED IT.

I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the early primary FUBAR - Michigan was kicked in the teeth in 2004, took it, was promised 'better' in 2008, didn't get it, nad has been fucked over royally but party insiders ... party insiders at the state level, at the national level, and in four other states that "big-footed" the candidates in asserting a privileged position.

But January was a FUBAR ... and FUBARs don't get undone.

Even worse (imho) is the opportunistic, self-serving, hypocritical posturing by the Clinton campaign ... who haven't done SHIT for the people of this state.

[bain_sidhe]

16. Excellent points.

In my view, Michigan (and Florida) "took one for the team" (i.e., making such a ruckus that the 48-state concern over the influence of IA & NH would be taken seriously next time). But the voters weren't asked to do that, the party leaders decided to sacrifice us without asking if we wanted to do that. And the issues we wanted to see addressed--esp. industrial & manufacturing decline--weren't.

[Ian_rd]

14. Awesome post. Thanks!

I used to think that all state primaries should occur at the same date - that way no state would have a far greater "say" in who the candidate would be. But then I heard the argument that early, small state primaries allow a candidate without a fortune in campaign funds to prove themselves to voters and have a chance at a national contest. It's a way to prevent the richest candidate (the one able to campaign in most states at once) from being the guaranteed winner. This argument won me over. But this does not necessarily mean that it ALWAYS gets to be Iowa and New Hampshire. Why can't they switch it around? It could be a set rotation or maybe even a lottery of sorts between small states to see who gets to go first.

I also think that rules need to be made regarding when primaries are held and penalties suffered when they are not. Not just for the reason of allowing lesser-financed candidates to have a chance, but also to prevent the primary season from getting earlier and earlier and earlier. IMO - it already starts WAY too early and they need to fix this. As a result, it is costing way too much money to win a nomination, especially if it goes on as long as the DEM one has.

It hugely sucks what happened to Michigan and Florida, but it remains the fault not of Obama (or Clinton for that matter who pledged to it), but of the State Party bosses who made the moves. They really really screwed it up for the voters in their states.

[bain_sidhe]

17. I agree with some small states going first

I think that's wise too. But my preference would be that the "early states" would be one state from each region, and barring IA & NH from being in the running for a spot for the next couple of election cycles. They're great people, but they've had their turn at the front of the pack. It's somebody else's turn, and there are a lot of small states to chose from.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. Iowa and NH moved because of Fl and MI moves -

Iowan and New Hampshire have state laws that require them to be first.
This is not new.

Big states Fl and MI went against the party rules, jumped the line,
so the line was moved to mitigate the effect.

Frontloading a primary with big states like Fl and MI would benefit big name
big money candidates like Hillary Clinton.

It hurts candidates like John Edwards or other candidates that we would like to
be able to choose from.

[bain_sidhe]

29. "state laws that require them to be first"

Well, isn't that special. But who died and made them the primary god? Any other state could put such a law on their books, too. And it would be just as relevant to the national party's decisions about who *they* think should be first.

BTW, I agree some small states should be first. I did not think, and do not now think, that Michigan should be first. I just think that some *other* small states should be first, next time.

[EFerrari]

22. I had no idea that happened to MI in 2004.

But you know, I trust Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi (did I say that) to settle the seating of these delegates in the fairest way available.

[moobu2]

7. Seat them as is

Obama knew what he was doing by removing his name.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. So what happens to those who voted 'Uncommitted'? Disenfranchise them?

[bain_sidhe]

15. Encourage them to "pledge" prior to the convention

I assume most of them will go for Obama, since Edwards was the other big "uncommitted" support base, and he's endorsed Obama.

Uncommitted just means they haven't promised to vote for a particular candidate on the first ballot. That doesn't mean they can't announce who they'll vote for... they're just not bound to vote for a person.

[cali]

10. So you're fine with disenfranchisement of the many who voted

uncommitted and against Hilly? Just what I thought. You people don't give a rat's ass about disenfranchisement of voters as long as they aren't hilly voters. Ugh.

[onenote]

11. by seating them "as is" do you mean that they can cast their ballots for Obama?

Just checking.

After all, if they are uncommitted to any candidate, it follows that they are free to vote however they want.

Or do you think that the proportion of the delegates representing the "uncommitted" vote has to sit on their hands?

[Romulox]

18. The uncommitted delegates are absolutely free to vote for Obama

I don't think Obama should get any portion of the votes cast for Hillary (as in the lame-brained "compromise" position put forward by Michigan Dems...)

[rucky]

13. How about the ones who had the opportunity to vote for Hillary

and chose not to?

[Romulox]

19. Life rewards those who take action. Not voting is, in itself, a kind of a vote...

[EFerrari]

23. That's right. He was playing by the same rules Clinton agreed to. n/t

[not_too_L8]

21. allocated a total of 313

Michigan and Florida would have allocated a total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of the vote. Using the results of the January elections, Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a 111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180 delegates, that's still 69 shy of the lead

[Justice Bork]

24. I bet Hillary thanks Carl Levin every day.

He created the wedge issue that is keeping her campaign afloat. Once Michigan is resolved, her major talking point is gone, which is why she has already rejected Obama's compromise. It doesn't matter how it is resolved, once it is, she is finished.

[musicblind]

25. I think the best solution is a revote.

[ronnykmarshall]

26. Good ol fashion log rolling.

[PBS Poll-435]

28. Simple. Obama can have all the delegates from the U.P.

Give Clinton the ones from the lower penninsula.


See - 50/50!

[rug]

30. Make them stand for the whole Convention.