Official DNC RBC Committee Discussion over MI and FL

[Conan]

Donna Brazile is a massive freedom fighter as well.

If by freedom fighter you mean fighting against freedom then yes. She doesn't want Michigan's votes to count.

[Conan]

These guys make me want to be sedated.

Donna Brazile is a massive freedom fighter as well.

If by freedom fighter you mean fighting against freedom then yes. She doesn't want Michigan's votes to count.

Don't talk, please.

Would you care to explain how I am wrong? It appears you would like to disenfranchise the 2.3 million people who voted in both swing states important to democrats winning the white house?

Also, there is nothing to suggest that somehow a disproportionate amount of Obama supporters stayed home than did Clinton supporters. That point is ridiculous.

[Conan]

These guys make me want to be sedated.

Donna Brazile is a massive freedom fighter as well.

If by freedom fighter you mean fighting against freedom then yes. She doesn't want Michigan's votes to count.

Don't talk, please.

Would you care to explain how I am wrong? It appears you would like to disenfranchise the 2.3 million people who voted in both swing states important to democrats winning the white house?

Also, there is nothing to suggest that somehow a disproportionate amount of Obama supporters stayed home than did Clinton supporters. That point is ridiculous.

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

And they are considering giving him the uncommitteds. So he's gonna get extra votes, now. So I really don't see what you're complainging about.

[Conan]

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

[Conan]

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

That's fine, but the DNC doesn't run Michigan elections. It was a perfectly legitimate election--internal to Michigan--for determining delegates to the Michigan caucuses. Michigan let Obama on the ballot and never told him he had to take his name off.

It's not really internal to Michigan in this sense: The point of the primary is to allocate delegates to the Democratic National Convention (though yes, I'm aware there's also an intermediate step).  The DNC does in fact control how many delegates each state is allowed to send to the convention.  At the time this vote was held, the DNC maintained that Michigan would not be allowed to have any delegates at the convention.

So Obama can hardly be "faulted" for taking his name off the ballot.  It goes completely against all standards of a free and fair election to then retroactively say that the vote counted after it's already been held.  How would we react if Chavez held a nonbinding referendum on his rule in Venezuela, and then, after the result is known and he's won, say "Oh, I guess that actually did count after all"?

This was a free and fair election. No one was forced off the ballot. You also know he took his name off so that it would be less of a loss or to complicate it.

[Conan]

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Yeah right.

Maybe you weren't listening, but it is widely known that he took his name off the ballot so that they would never be counted because he was going to lose.

[Conan]

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Yeah right.

Maybe you weren't listening, but it is widely known that he took his name off the ballot so that they would never be counted because he was going to lose.

Obama would have won Michigan if he had kept his name on the ballot.

He could have won it after february. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Umm....no.

Michigan Survey of 575 Likely Democratic Primary Voters
March 6, 2008

Clinton 41%
Obama 41%


There is no way Hillary would have gotton 55% in an election with Obama's name on the ballot. Some of that 55% were 2nd choice votes.  I would argue she would have likely lost it.

Hillary would have won it on that date, name on or off. Obama could have won it after his winning streak. All that's moot. Hillary Clinton got more votes than uncommitted and more than a majority. She won the Michigan primary.

[Conan]

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Yeah right.

Maybe you weren't listening, but it is widely known that he took his name off the ballot so that they would never be counted because he was going to lose.

Obama would have won Michigan if he had kept his name on the ballot.

He could have won it after february. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

I don't know how anyone could consider Michigan to have been a legitimate election: Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Because he willingly took his name off of course.

Because it was a non-binding "beauty contest" not recognized as allocating delegates by the DNC.

This was a state sanctioned election. It was a race Obama conceded because he knew he had no chance of winning it either way.

Umm....no.

Michigan Survey of 575 Likely Democratic Primary Voters
March 6, 2008

Clinton 41%
Obama 41%


There is no way Hillary would have gotton 55% in an election with Obama's name on the ballot. Some of that 55% were 2nd choice votes.  I would argue she would have likely lost it.

Hillary would have won it on that date, name on or off. Obama could have won it after his winning streak. All that's moot. Hillary Clinton got more votes than uncommitted and more than a majority. She won the Michigan primary.

Clinton's vote total of 55% IS somewhat inflated. Many voters picked her as a 2nd choice because their candidate wasn't on the ballot. She would have not gotten over 50% and she would have likely lost if they were able to campaign here.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Hillary Clinton. You are speculating.

[Conan]

The Clinton people need to shut the f**ck up. They are not coming off well

I suppose disenfranchisement of 850,000 people is coming off well?

[Conan]

The Clinton people need to shut the f**ck up. They are not coming off well

I suppose disenfranchisement of 850,000 people is coming off well?

You need to stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.

You're the one embarrassing yourself. You are officially joining a camp of not counting votes. You're unAmerican. We don't disenfranchise people in America. I will give leeway with Michigan, but absolutely not for Florida.

Democrats can no longer claim to have any moral authority over voting rights.

[Conan]

The Clinton people need to shut the f**ck up. They are not coming off well

I suppose disenfranchisement of 850,000 people is coming off well?

You need to stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.

You're the one embarrassing yourself. You are officially joining a camp of not counting votes. You're unAmerican. We don't disenfranchise people in America. I will give leeway with Michigan, but absolutely not for Florida.

Democrats can no longer claim to have any moral authority over voting rights.

George Bush, is that you?

You're in the same camp that he was in in 2000. So I don't know why you're asking me.

[Conan]

The Clinton people need to shut the f**ck up. They are not coming off well

I suppose disenfranchisement of 850,000 people is coming off well?

You need to stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.

You're the one embarrassing yourself. You are officially joining a camp of not counting votes. You're unAmerican. We don't disenfranchise people in America. I will give leeway with Michigan, but absolutely not for Florida.

Democrats can no longer claim to have any moral authority over voting rights.

Follow the rules and we count your votes. Kthnxbye.

And I'm just shocked to see a Clinton supporter using Republican talking points. Shocked I say.

You're using republican tactics of disenfranchisement to win an election and Obama has been using their tactics, and so has Hillary, this whole campaign.

I will support Obama as a nominee. Until he's the nominee, I will fight for my choice.

[Conan]

By the way, if anyone needed any more proof, the Clintons are no longer in control of the Democratic Party.

You bet your ass.

This has been evident this whole campaign.

[Conan]

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.

There was a same rumor going on about Clinton having superdelegates stockpiled, too.  If Obama is savvy or capable enough, which he certainly is, then he probably does.

[Conan]

Guy this is over, Hilliary is in this for herself and don't care about the party or America. She will take this to Denver. The party will be split and we will have McCain as president.

Please. So is Barack Obama. He has no experience or accomplishments, and has been so ambitious in that he'd quit his church for political convenience and run for president shorter than 2 years after being sworn in as a US senator. He is as ambitious as it gets.

[Conan]

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.

There was a same rumor going on about Clinton having superdelegates stockpiled, too.  If Obama is savvy or capable enough, which he certainly is, then he probably does.

I actually haven't heard that rumor about Clinton.

No. This was a long time ago. Like in February after her losing streak.

[Conan]

Jerry Brown and Ron Paul had/have supporters?

As of Tuesday, Barack Obama will be the official presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.  At which point Mrs. Clinton and her bitter supporters will be also-rans.  If they contest from that point, they look like sore losers and jokes (not that she doesn't already).  The contest, were it to happen, will  be tabled and not reach the convention floor. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will use their leadership positions to round up Congressmen and Senators backing Clinton and force them to back down (or at least Pelosi will).  If Hillary Clinton tries to upset our convention, she'll only show the entire world how little power she actually retains in the Democratic Party.  I don't think a Clinton challenge will damage Obama one whit.

I don't think her and her probable majority of voters will not carry any weight.

[Conan]

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.

There was a same rumor going on about Clinton having superdelegates stockpiled, too.  If Obama is savvy or capable enough, which he certainly is, then he probably does.

I actually haven't heard that rumor about Clinton.

Again, see my comment about February. I'm not referring to now. I was referring to when she was on the losing streak.

[Conan]

Rumors are that he's stockpiled 30 superdelegates already.

There was a same rumor going on about Clinton having superdelegates stockpiled, too.  If Obama is savvy or capable enough, which he certainly is, then he probably does.

I actually haven't heard that rumor about Clinton.

Again, see my comment about February. I'm not referring to now. I was referring to when she was on the losing streak.

Obama did have those 50 delegates. He just released them in a steady stream to keep up the perceived momentum he had. Releasing them all at once would have been stupid.

I'm talking about the Hillary having them rumor. And I also think you're speculating with regards to Obama. Sure it's possible the supers decided, but I don't think he knew of most of them or had a plan.