You can’t say you got more of the popular vote when one candidate wasn’t on the ballot. The ballot that didn’t count in the first place.

I agree with Eileen.

/about everything
//my life just got a whole lot simpler

It sucks for the voters of FLA and MI. But their state officials created this mess. A do over would be like the cops breaking up your party in college and taking away the keg of Milwaukee’s Best…only to return two hours later with three kegs of Sam Adams, an ice luge and the Swedish bikini team.

What kind of lesson is it to reward FLA and MI for breaking the rules by giving them more influence over the outcome now? It sucks, but it’s not fair to give them another crack at it.

Re: 3. Outsider

Word.

It’s certainly not democratic to disenfranchise them though. I think one thing we can all agree on is that we would like to see our democracy become a more transparent open process. Claiming that a large chunk of the electorate shouldn’t count because of the rules, which are ridiculous lets face it, is exactly the sort of political gaming of the system that I thought we were supposed to be trying to change away from.

PL, I would agree with you if Obama had been on the ballot in both states. But he wasn’t because the rule of law (and by rule law I mean DNC primary rules) means something to him. If he had been on the ballot and Hillar still had the popular vote I would dutifully back up the Hillary supporters and support her decision to stay in the race.

Of course, what I just said is a total lie. I will not pretend that I formed this opinion based on principle; it’s based soley on my hetero-mancrush on Obama. He’s just too dreamy not to be President.

Re: 5. Dukakis_in_a_Tank

Did the rule of law only mean something to him in Michigan then?

I agree that voters deserve to have their votes count. But 1) his name not on ballot… and 2) there’s no possible way to know who didn’t show up at all or who might have voted in the GOP primary because of the situation. Unless you hold new GOP and Dem primaries, you can’t go back and redo it fairly. And although it’s unfortunate, I think that the fairest thing is to go with the rules that were agreed upon at the beginning.

Re: 5. Dukakis_in_a_Tank

Given her wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, it’s a pretty good bet Clinton would have won Michigan too. Obama was on the ballot in Florida. Neither campaigned in MI or FL.

Since winning both of those states will be critical in the general election, it stands to reason that the Democratic Party needs to figure out a way to have those voters heard in the primary.

This is a historic opportunity of the Dems to finish off modern conservatism.
http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/04/24/blumenthal_death/
They’re blowing it.

I’m sorry… What does this have to do with labia?

-Put

When I first saw the title, I thought you were writing about something interesting like Methletes.

She doesn’t need new math to defend her decision to stay in. It’s a close race. Anything can happen, but her scorched earth policy is damaging everybody but McCain.

Here’s the question I would ask of both, “If you do not get the nomination, will you throw all your support behind the winner and ask your supporters to do the same or will you take your ball and go home?”

MI and FL voters should fix their problem in the next state election and replace their boneheads who screwed them. It’s not my problem. If I showed up at the polling place a month before the election and cast my vote, it would not count either. It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with rules. We are a nation (party) of laws (rules) not crybabies.

/Figures never lie, but liars always figure.

For those of you who keep citing “the rules”:

“Have you actually read the rules?”

DNC Delegate Selection Rules: Florida & Michigan

True or False?

1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state’s delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state’s pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state’s pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is “changing the rules.”

FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.

4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state’s primary in compliance with DNC Rules.

FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state’s Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.

Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.

5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference.

6) Hillary violated the DNC Rules by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Nowhere in the DNC’s Delegate Selection Plans is there any suggestion or command that any candidate remove his or her name from a ballot in a state that is in violation of timing rules. This is why Obama and Edwards were on the Florida ballot, in spite of its primary also being before February 5.

7) Hillary manipulated the process by being the only candidate who kept her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel also kept their names on the Michigan ballot. In fact the decision of some candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot was a tactical move designed to curry favor with Democratic Party officials in Iowa who were concerned that the significance of their first-in-the-nation status was being diminished. The risk paid off handsomely for Obama.

8) Because Edwards and Obama were not on the Michigan ballot, that election cannot be considered a legitimate expression of voter preference of a presidential candidate.

FALSE: According to the Delegate Selection Rules & Bylaws, “Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters…” The Michigan ballot included an option for “uncommitted” to ensure that voters could express a presidential preference or uncommitted status consistent with this rule. Nothing in the Rules requires a state to allocate delegates to candidates who voluntarily remove their names from the ballot as John Edwards and Barack Obama did.

9) The primaries in Florida and Michigan are invalid because voters were under informed due to the lack of active campaigning.

FALSE: Voters in Florida and Michigan were very well informed. They had ample access to newspapers, television, books, radio, and the Internet. They could have availed themselves of over a year of coverage of the 2008 election. They could watch every campaign commercial on YouTube. They had the same opportunity as the rest of America to watch 17 televised debates.

Moreover, nowhere in the DNC rules does it specify that candidates must campaign directly in a state to make its primary a legitimate expression of voter candidate preference. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii never get visited by the candidates.

10) All the candidates signed a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in the states violating primary timing.

FALSE: The candidates signed no such pledge to the DNC.

11) Hillary violated the rules against campaigning in Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: Jurisdiction over determinations of whether a candidate shall be considered in violation of the relevant rule (Rule 20 C.1.b.) lies with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Because the Committee has not ruled against either candidate, it is false to assert that either candidate is in violation.

12) Hillary signed a pledge that she violated by remaining on the ballot in Florida and Michigan?

FALSE: The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

13) Hillary’s activities in Florida and Michigan look suspicious, between fundraising and holding a victory rally in Florida.

FALSE: Hillary acted well within the letter and spirit of the rules. The rules stipulate that candidates can fundraise in states violating the timing rules and that fundraising activity is not considered impermissible campaigning. Further, the prohibition on campaigning in any state ends as soon as the primary in violation concludes. Hillary’s victory party was within the rules because she did not appear at a campaign event in Florida until after the polls closed.

14) Barack Obama would likely win more delegates if there were a new contest.

FALSE: The rules provide that a candidate who campaigns or holds press conferences in a state in violation of timing may not receive any of the pledged or unpledged delegates from that state. Because Barack Obama campaigned in Florida when, on Sunday September 30, 2007, he held an impromptu public news conference in Florida, when he bought television advertising time on stations in markets which included much of Florida, and when he ran a campaign in Michigan to encourage voters to vote “uncommitted,” Barack Obama may not be entitled to receive any delegates from Florida or Michigan.

15) Reinstating any of the delegates from either Florida or Michigan would be a travesty against democracy and fair elections. It would be cheating.

FALSE: There are many good and valid reasons for the DNC to have rules regarding delegate selection timing, but none of these reasons relate to ensuring that primaries accurately reflect voter preference. None of these involve the preservation of democracy.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has the power to reinstate the delegates unless they already have won 50% plus 1 of the total delegates. Therefore neither has the power to cheat. This matter lies in the hands of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee which is neutral.

Were Obama to gain control of the Credentials Committee at the DNC, he would have the power to exclude the delegates from Michigan and Florida. That would be a biased effort to disenfranchise two large states. That would be a travesty and one the Republicans could easily exploit in November.

16) Hillary has changed her position on Florida and Michigan now that she may not receive 50% + 1 of the total delegates need to win before the pledged delegate primaries conclude.

FALSE: From the beginning of the Florida controversy, Hillary has consistently stated that if she wins, meaning securing 50% + 1 of the total delegates, she will reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegation at the convention if the DNC fails to resolve the problem on their own before such time.

Obama has changed his position now that seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would put Hillary in the lead. In August of last year he said that resolving the delegate issue was not his job (”I’m like a player on the field. I shouldn’t be setting up the rules” ) and in September he suggested to Florida donors that if he were the nominee whether he would seat in the state’s excluded delegates, declaring that he would “Do right by Florida voters.”

Currently the race for pledged delegates is so split that neither candidate will receive the 50% plus 1 delegates they need to seal their nomination before the Convention. Obama now wants to set the rules and insists that the DNC must refuse to seat Florida and Michigan’s delegates, even though DNC Rules clearly provide remedies to include them. His arguments are not based in the rules and are not in the interest of democracy or the Democratic Party, but only in the fact that those delegates reflect a greater nationwide preference for Hillary Clinton.

17) A new primary or caucus would settle the issue in a fair way that would maintain party unity.

FALSE: A new primary or caucus that complies with timing rules would have been fair if the date had been set before people started voting in Iowa. Once people started voting, each subsequent primary or caucus was affected. The campaigns have campaigned and spent money in reliance on this calendar. The candidates, campaigns, and electorates are not the same today as they were before voting began. Any new contest would be on an unlevel playing field. It is unnecessary, an insult to the voters who already voted, and unacceptable.

TM UPDATE: The following comment was made below and it’s important to add:

At a strategy session yesterday, Terry McAuliffe alerted those present that the superdelegates from Florida had filed a formal complaint with Party’s rules committee board, because regardless of the status of the seating of the Florida delegation, it is a violation of DNC rules to refuse to seat the Florida’s superdelegates (superdelegates are not chosen by primary). Guess what Howard Dean is doing? Refusing to refer the complaint to the rules committee. Terry urged everybody in the room and everybody we know to contact the DNC and specifically ask that the RCB address the complaint filed by the two Florida delegates. - HLF

Sources:
2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention (hereinafter “DNC Rules”), Rules 19-20, Sections C. 4-9, Section D.
DNC Rules, Rule 20, Section C.1.a.
DNC Rules, Rule 20.C.5-7 provide several remedies including empowering the Rules & Bylaws committee to implement processes to seat the delegates from an offending state
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.7.
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.6-7
DNC Rules, Rule 13 A.
DNC Rules, Rule 19 B., Rule 20.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/cont ent/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-what s-right/?news-breaking

Oh, please. Remember that New Hampshire cheated too. How do you like THEM apples? Seriously. Explain this one and I’ll give up MI and FL.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Last August, the New Hampshire secretary of state indicated he was going to schedule his state’s primary before the date specified, clearly defying the sequence and timing the party had set. Michigan Democratic leaders repeatedly asked the Democratic National Committee if it intended to penalize New Hampshire for this violation, but the committee refused to act.

Rather than allow this broken system to persist, we challenged it by deciding to apportion our delegates according to the results of a primary scheduled by the Michigan Legislature for Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. It gave New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. But Michigan and Florida, which had also moved up the date of its primary, were denied waivers. When Howard Dean, the party chairman, says that states should not be allowed to violate the rules, he ignores the fact that when the committee itself decided not to follow the rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present impasse.

Re: 11. West Texas Hillbilly

This is not nam smokey there are rules.

I think a complete open re-vote could be agreeable, all registered voters could vote, I do not think this gives these states any more influence on the process, because it’s pretty clear we are going to have 52 or so primaries, and everybody’s vote is going to count.

Also see my comment 61 here: http://www.inthepinktexas.com/2008/04/22/im-dying-dont-talk-to-me/

The political parties run the primaries. Everyone is complaining about the “process” but who is talking about doing something about it? Nobody. Let’s try to get the word out that this is OUR system - we have to fix it. THEY won’t. There is no THEY. Get involved in your party - it is the only way.

Ah… But if Obama had campaigned in FLA or MI it might have made a difference. He didn’t have the same name recognition at the time as HRC.

Remind me, but was the voter turn out in either state high? Were folks who might have otherwise been motivated avoiding the polls?

I think a do over would be nice, but only if I get one too.

I admit it - I’m a true believer. But I can’t help it!

Re: 12. Pink Lady

New Hampshire was granted a waiver and MI and FL were not.

There you go, explained, now give up.

Eileen,
I love your blog been following it for months. I live in Florida(Tampa)my family is in Austin. I voted for Hillary and I want it counted. The Republican party of Florida created this mess that feature is often not mentioned in the press. I am with Hillary all the way until the Final, final….katie

Re: 16. Lefty

So effectively what you are saying is that it is acceptable for the DNC to potentially steer the primary by shuffling the voting order. Obama is right, the system is broken!

if the votes are not counted in November, none of this matters.

I am not convinced they will be.

/crooked Democrats making it up as they go…wow..that’s new…

// who cares when the GOP owns the ballot boxes

/// I’m not angry

Re: 17. Jimbo

Re: 16. Lefty

I did not say it was acceptable, preferable, good, bad or otherwise. Unlike some people you may know, I am able to state a fact without making a value judgment about it or how it effects the candidates.

Was it right for the DNC to give NH a waiver but not FL and MI? I don’t know, maybe not because it has had the effect of not allowing the voters in FL and MI to have any say at all in the nomination.) But the FACT that they did give NH a waiver and not FL and MI established the rules for playing the game going forward. Changing the rules now would be patently unfair. Ex post facto etc. (I know I’ve made a similar comment to this effect before.)

Re: 14. Lovecow2000

They both agreed not to campaign in either state. So, neither of them campaigned.

(And there was record turnout in FL.)

Re: 16. Lefty

Come on.

This is all so much BS. What are you going to do about the states that held caucuses insted of primaries? Caucuses always have lower turnouts. And in some states, they don’t even have an accurate count of who attended the freakin’ caucuses.

I just wish she would show an ounce of class and bow out. It’s clear she’s never gonna be the nominee unless she can convince enough supers to come to her side, and that looks very unlikely. I have to wonder now if she’d rather McCain win elected than another Democrat — any Democrat than a Clinton.

Maybe, but MI and Fla were two of only a handful of states (maybe the only?) Where GOP turnout beat Dem turnout, so clearly something was amiss…

Re: 20. whiskeydent

Correction: …rather McCain win than another Democrat not named Clinton.

/Time for cocktails!

Re: 20. whiskeydent
It has been suggested that she IS throwing it to McCain, and this is all preshow for 2012, a year in which the Aztecs are predicting the end of the world, I might add.

/do Aztecs vote?

//are they considered illegals?

NMI:
Difference in average total delegate counts on March 30: Obama +129
Difference in average total delegate counts on April 25: Obama +133.8

Difference in average superdelegate counts on March 30: Clinton +31.9
Difference in average superdelegate counts on April 25: Clinton +22.1

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

A news story in early December:
“Michigan officials defended their early primary, saying it helps provide geographic, racial and economic diversity early in the primary calendar. …”
Are you KIDDING me? How, please tell, does MI add geographic, racial and economic diversity to an early calendar that already has Iowa, NH, Nevada and South Carolina? By upping the Chilly White People ratio? They wanted the money. Period.
Party leaders wanted to respect the historic roles of Iowa and NH and so they gave NH a pass. They’re in charge and that’s what they wanted. This is not a Democratic process, this is a political party choosing its nominee. However the hell it wants to.
The whole disenfranchisement argument is so disingenuous. The moment you seat those delegates, you disenfranchise every single person who wanted to vote for Obama but couldn’t or didn’t because nobody thought the vote would count.

PL, nobody’s saying THE RULES ARE FAIR. But why is it ok to just change them only after your candidate needed them to be changed? Where was HRC’s hollering and screaming back when they were discussing this in December?

Nowhere, because then it was still hers to lose and she didn’t think it would matter.

Re: 24. Lurkette

RIGHT ON!

/Rush is calling for street riots in Denver, I’ve heard.

//gitmo that mo fo

Re: 7. Jimbo

The rule of law only applies when he tells me it applies; that’s how a cult of personality works. Sorry, I didn’t make the rules

Re: 9 Shriz-noat

I guess I would have to do actual research to respond to that, involving demographic data and polls and such. Of course I would then have to statistically adjust these polls to account for the fact that Michigan voted before “NAFTA-gate” (unlike Ohio) and before my man told all of rural America to where they could stick their shot-guns and bibles (before Penn). I would then have to make several other statistical adjustments to make the data say what I wanted it to say, thus forcing you or anyone else who argued with my “finidngs” to reverse engineer my analysis and call me a complete fraud.

How about I save us both a lot of time and say who the hell knows what would have happened had they had both been on the ballot in MI? All I know is that right now, more people who actually count (delegates) support Obama. That, and that he looks better in a suit.

Re: 12. Pink Lady

You’ve convinced me. New Hampshire should be stripped of their delegates as well. Problem solved.

I think the Democratic party should be split in half.

/oh. wait.

Re: 12. Pink Lady

Here is the best line from the NYT piece: “the system remains deeply flawed.”

I truly wish that MI and FL were represented fully. But their decision has produced flawed results that cannot be corrected in any way. Yes, New Hammie got a favor for a smaller infraction. But their motto is Live Free or Die. Would you want the souls of those 1.2M people on your conscience because you denied them some freedom?

Why do you hate freedom?

By the way, Florida’s motto is “In God we Trust.” LOL. A lot of good that did them!

Michigan’s is “Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice (If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you).”

On that note, I hope you open your eyes and that you and Mr. PL have a pleasant weekend.

PL - preach! Give FL and MI a do-over, put Obama on the ballot and give the VOTERS of those states some say in who leads our country. Screw the party establishment.

Of course Obama would feel differently if Hillary was in the lead. Its easy to take the high road and play by the “rules” when you stand to lose ground by doing the right thing for the voters.

Re: 28. Pink Lady

Oh, it’s good for us. I’ve never been a fan of Group Think and I’m not gonna start now. Battle on, I say. That which does not kill us makes us stronger. This is our year.

Personally, I think it’s refreshing to make us all defend our opinions and actually let voters choose our nominee instead of just taking whoever the party leaders decide - which is always how it’s been. I’m sick of being told to line up behind someone just because he’s the only D we’ve got.

This fight, and I’ve said it before, is putting Democrats on the map again. People are paying attention. They’re remembering that we can actually choose our own president instead of blindly just voting D and that’s it.

PL, you’re a sweetheart and I know you dont like confrontation (unless its a barrista who ddn’t get your latte just SO) but i really, really believe with all my heart that THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR US. Hang in there. Vote Obama in November. Peace.

Re: 28. Pink Lady

“Please, my lord, give her the living [Democratc party]! Don’t kill [it]!”

I never thought I would have said this 10 years ago, but I have become convinced that the Clintons will abide by every rule and law that does not interfere with the outcome that they want, in which case they will attempt to change the rule and may break the law. This is even more that case with Bush and Cheney.

PJunkie is right. This is about the delegates. Obama has designed and executed a much better strategy to win under the rules.

What is more shocking to me than the Clintons wanting to count tis thing differently is that we are here in the first place. Ready from day one? For what? To poorly execute campaigns? To be so close to advisors that you are blind and deaf to cronyism? To take a sure thing and so mismanage it that you are $15 million in debt and willing to take down the party in search of your own ambitions?

Re: 12. BetterNotBitter

Wow. I love it when someone does my research for me. I hope everyone takes the time to read your True/False post. I know there are attorney types on this blog — dig in guys. Good luck.

Re: 19. Katie

If Hillary gets this, the final final is SO ON ME.

Re: 12. BetterNotBitter

I’ll take a stab at 14). You cannot predict the future with a conjecture. If you are saying that Obama deserves 0 delegates from Florida because he broke the rules, then that is answering a different question than you asked. Furthermore, you claim 14 is absolutely FALSE but then use the word “may” at least twice in your explanation.

I seem to recall reading that Hillary made a public appearance before a fundraiser in FL. Did your research miss that or is this a biased analysis?

Did you do all this research yourself? Impressive. Are you Mark Penn?

All of Hillary’s “I’m ahead if you only count left-handed Jews” arguments are those of a loser. Sorry. The game is for delegates. Were the game for raw vote totals, everyone would ignore Iowa (not that big, and caucuses require more effort and therefore turnout is lower), and everyone would have been in California al the time, from the start.

DId that happen? No? Maybe it’s because that’s not the way the game is played.

Hillary’s a really poor loser.

Re: 41. West Texas Hillbilly

Billy,

Good call. This has appeared on numerous blogs, TPM and Slate among them, which lends credence to your supposition that these are HRC talking points.

Everyone knows MI and FL will get seated in some form or another. Everyone knows HRC will lose pledged delegate ground in those two states if there are do-overs there. So why the clamor?

Because she needs to delay the supers from committing for as long as possible and, overall, these would probably lessen Obama’s delegate margin and popular vote margin (but not overcome either) and they would then make the pitch to the supers (as they are trying to now) that they’ve got momentum and they (supers) should overturn the will of the pledged delegates, the majority of democrats participating in the nominating process and the better performer in the polls (both against her and McCain). Can’t blame her for trying, I suppose. Desperate times, desperate measures, you know?

My question to all you HRC supporters: If Obama obtains enough commitments from superdelegates before the convention to give him the numbers to win the nomination, will you, at long last, quit whining? Who among you will take the pledge?

Re: 23. Pink Lady

A couple of additional items no one has mentioned:

1) According to Howard Dean (yesterday’s MTP), the DNC setup the primary calendar to ensure that the early primaries represented a cross-section of the US with diverse demographics. This is why the original calendar was: IA 1/5, NH 1/10, NV 1/22, SC 1/26). MI and FLA jumped in on 1/17 and 1/30 respectively and messed up the balance. Perhaps that’s why NH wasn’t punished… because they were always slated to be in the first four this year.

2) While FLA and MI may have had record turnout, the GOP crushed the Dems in both states:

MI: 868,002 GOP vs. 592,261
FLA: 1,942,346 GOP vs. 1,734,456

The only other states where the GOP received more votes than the Dems? Alabama (19k more votes for the GOP) and Arizona (84k more votes). To be fair, the GOP fight was basically over after SuperTuesday, so that accounts for some of the imbalance.

One could fairly conclude that many Dem voters didn’t vote in FLA and MI because they knew it wouldn’t count. So you could make an argument that seating the delegates in those states based on the results in the first primaries disenfranchises a lot of people who might have voted had they known that their votes would count.

The only fair solution is to re-vote with the original rules (that means Independents and GOPers can vote in MI, by the way). Anything else unfairly benefits one of the candidates and disenfranchises somebody.

Re: 44. Outsider

And an open re-vote would be problematic as well. Has anyone listened to Limbaugh lately? I have, during a 3-hour car trip last week. Lord, his signal carries. A. long. way. I thought it would be good to catch up on the screaming-head opposition. He calls his little joke “Operation Chaos” and is claiming responsibility for Clinton’s recent vote totals. I thought that was absurd until I heard caller after caller after caller calling in to report their groups’ activities on election day. More than a little disturbing.

As for 12. BetternotBitter.
I would have time to read your brief if I didn’t have a job. Chill.

“The assistant high school football coach taught my geometry class. He compared everything to a football field.”

Our assistant baseball coach taught the coveted class on Health and Human Reproduction. He analogized males and females to pitchers and catchers.

Re: 43. PJunkie

Without whining, this blog wouldn’t exist. And then where would you go?