Calls to seat Mich. delegates to grow

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They should just re-run the elections in MI and FL and get it over with. If they did that, Obama

would probably still keep his popular vote lead, but Hill wouldn't be too far behind.

That would be the only sensible thing to do at this point.

The result? Same dynamic we'd have if they weren't involved at all.

How do you figure? She'd be ahead in the popular vote & have more delegates.

I don't believe she'd be ahead in the popular vote but she would sure be a lot closer. Current polls put Michigan at about dead even so there wouldn't likely be many gains there, but in Florida it looks like she'd not only win, but she might even do better than she did before. It would make it close enough to get the "she's through" idea out of future voters in the remaining states- assuming they know the vote is happening or happened- which could possibly get some of her original supporters off the bandwagon and back in her camp.

"The votes in Michigan and Florida were official," Clinton told ABC News' Diane Sawyer, "I mean, they were certified by the secretary of state. It's just that the Democratic Party can't figure out what to do with all those votes, and try to seat delegates."

link

"By one (rightly disputed) metric --the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she’s in the lead, let us know."

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- which were not sanctioned Democratic National Committee primaries, where the candidates did not compete, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois was not even on the ballot in Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

link

There, I emphasized the truly important portions of this paragraph. Your attention was erroneously drawn to the rather irrelevant portion of it.

[no name 1]

See if you can follow the thread here....

They should just re-run the elections in MI and FL and get it over with. If they did that, Obama would probably still keep his popular vote lead, but Hill wouldn't be too far behind.

The result? Same dynamic we'd have if they weren't involved at all.

How do you figure? She'd be ahead in the popular vote & have more delegates.

I don't believe she'd be ahead in the popular vote but she would sure be a lot closer.

"The votes in Michigan and Florida were official," Clinton told ABC, "I mean, they were certified by the secretary of state. It's just that the Democratic Party can't figure out what to do with all those votes, and try to seat delegates."

"By one (rightly disputed) metric --the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000"

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

Edited April 24, 2008 by illumine

[dalegg 143]

They should just re-run the elections in MI and FL and get it over with. If they did that, Obama

would probably still keep his popular vote lead, but Hill wouldn't be too far behind.

That would be the only sensible thing to do at this point.

The result? Same dynamic we'd have if they weren't involved at all.

How do you figure? She'd be ahead in the popular vote & have more delegates.

I don't believe she'd be ahead in the popular vote but she would sure be a lot closer. Current polls put Michigan at about dead even so there wouldn't likely be many gains there, but in Florida it looks like she'd not only win, but she might even do better than she did before. It would make it close enough to get the "she's through" idea out of future voters in the remaining states- assuming they know the vote is happening or happened- which could possibly get some of her original supporters off the bandwagon and back in her camp.

At any rate is seems impossible she will catch up in delegates, but that clearly isn't her angle. She's trying to appeal to the supers. Supers of a party by the way that has said that in this day and age that the popular vote is more important than the delagate race.

I was responding to the notion that the elections should be re-run, not to the idea that the existing results should count. It would be unfair to count Michigan as it was and if you reran the election the polls show them to be even.

[SqdnGuns 21]

Imagine this, they are not seated at all.........Dems in Florida and Michigan are pissed and either do not vote in General Election or vote McCain.

The DNC really fux0r3d this one. An election year that they had a chance to OVERWHELMINGLY re-take the White House.

I see the General being a toss up no matter who is the nominee from the Demoncrats...........can you say 2000?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

See if you can follow the thread here....

They should just re-run the elections in MI and FL and get it over with. If they did that, Obama would probably still keep his popular vote lead, but Hill wouldn't be too far behind.

The result? Same dynamic we'd have if they weren't involved at all.

How do you figure? She'd be ahead in the popular vote & have more delegates.

I don't believe she'd be ahead in the popular vote but she would sure be a lot closer.

"The votes in Michigan and Florida were official," Clinton told ABC, "I mean, they were certified by the secretary of state. It's just that the Democratic Party can't figure out what to do with all those votes, and try to seat delegates."

"By one (rightly disputed) metric --the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000"

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

The essential fallacy of your argument being that the numbers you want to use to back your claim are numbers of votes past - with one of them being a vote where nobody of notice aside from Hillary was even on the ballot (and she still gathered just over 55% of the vote in that setting) - while the debate was actually about the effect a re-vote would have. There is no reason why anyone would believe that the outcome today would be equal or even similar to that of mid and late Jan. After all, Obama has shown time and again that he can win or narrow the opponents lead once he goes into a state and campaigns. So, the numbers you quote don't do a first thing in backing up your claim that she'd be ahead in popular votes if there would be a re-do of the MI and Fl votes.