Hillary will now roll out the "must seat Forida and Michigan" card

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

Under that theory the Super Delegates get full votes, just so realize that.

Huh?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does Bill Nelson move up as a possible Dem VP nominee to appease Fla.?

Bob Graham would make a lot more sense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida wanted to spend the extra money, it could be a party run primary.

Primaries are very expensive.  Michigan is flat broke.  Unless the Democratic Party is willing to spend the dough to finance it, that probably couldn't happen.

If Michigan and Florida don't want to pay for a re-vote, then they shouldn't get any delegates.

Michigan might if its a caucus, though stated before they are flat broke and Florida is laughing at the fact of a re-vote to seat their delegates. So I doubt neither will go for it, and alot of people inside the democratic party wont be happy if the DNC actually went through with it.

Fine, then no delegates. You can't run a campaign against Bush's breaking all the rules when you let Michigan and Florida break all the rules.

Under that theory the Super Delegates get full votes, just so realize that.

Huh?

If you are saying, "Obey the rules," those same rules say that those super delegates can vote for whomever they wish to, even against the candidate that had a majority of elected delegates.

In the case of the FL at least, I really don't see any way to say, "Don't seat them because they violated the rules," and then saying "The super delegates, who under the rules can vote, shouldn't be choosing the nominee."  You can make both claims, and be branded as a hypocrite, of course.

I didn't say that the superdelegates can't vote for whoever, it would just be a bad thing if they didn't vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Many people have said they would leave the party if that happened.

In the end, I think they will vote for the winner of the pledged delegates, no matter how much the Clinton supporters like to tout the delegate numbers with superdelegates, and incomplete pledged delegate counts to make it sound like Clinton is doing better than she really is.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I didn't say that the superdelegates can't vote for whoever, it would just be a bad thing if they didn't vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Many people have said they would leave the party if that happened.

I didn't say that you did, but I wanted to point out that this would be the logic of your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On that point, I disagree.  If Clinton can win it only with the super delegates, that is what will happen.

I think there is nasty little pit that was dug for Obama to fall into in August.

Obama says:  We should follow the will of the elected delegates.
Clinton says:  Sure, then seat the elected delegates from FL and MI.
If Obama says no, he looks like a hypocrite.

Clinton is exceptionally nasty, but she's also very good at campaigns.

Florida and Michigan were offered to revote, like Delaware had to in 1996. If they don't want to revote, that's their own problem. They broke the rules, not the DNC or Obama.

Of course all of this is irrelevant if either Clinton is ahead among actual pledged delegates, or if Obama leads by more than the difference of Michigan and Florida. Michigan is especially a problem, are those "uncommitted" non-existant delegates going to vote for Obama?