Official DNC RBC Committee Discussion over MI and FL

[bgwah]

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.

[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.

[Franzl]

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.

You do realize that he wasn't the only one to do so?

[Mr. Morden]

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.

A "free and fair election" in which both the candidates and the voters were told, at the time the vote was held, that the results would not be used to allocate delegates to the convention.

[bgwah]

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.

[tik 🪀✨]

So, does anyone know when this recess will end?

[Mr. Morden]

So, does anyone know when this recess will end?

It's ending right now.  The committee is reconvening as I type.

[Flying Dog]

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.

[Flying Dog]

Did he just say the Clinton campaign accepts a 73-55 split? Isnt that acceptable for Obama?

Yes, he did.  Obama is blowing it badly.

If you want $50 bucks, you ask for $100.

[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.

[Flying Dog]

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 think they should count, either. Plain and simple. Mark Brewer, Jennifer Granholm and Carl Levin new well of the consequences of their actions when they moved up the "primary".
Once again, you are drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid. This debacle will have a incredibly small, if any, consequence on the general election. If Obama loses Michigan, it won't be because of this, rather it will be because there are more racists in Wayne and Macomb then I expected, or the Western Michigan Bible Belt really turned out for McCain, or Detroit blacks didn't turnout like they needed.

[Franzl]

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.

You seem learning impaired.

It was universally recognized, even by the Clinton campaign, that Michigan would not be legitimate.

Tell me this, when did Clinton start talking about their delegation being seated, hmmm?

[Sam Spade]

Watching debates between hacks is amusing, sometimes...

[Eraserhead]

Can't somebody control these clapping idiots in the room?

[Meeker]

So the current motion is to seat the Florida delegation in full. It will obviously be defeated. I suspect next a motion will be made to seat the delegates with a half vote, and it will then be passed.

[Flying Dog]

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.

[Flying Dog]

So the current motion is to seat the Florida delegation in full. It will obviously be defeated. I suspect next a motion will be made to seat the delegates with a half vote, and it will then be passed.

Is only a simple majority needed?

[Meeker]

So the current motion is to seat the Florida delegation in full. It will obviously be defeated. I suspect next a motion will be made to seat the delegates with a half vote, and it will then be passed.

Is only a simple majority needed?

That's my understanding.

Ooh, one of the DNC members from Washington is speaking. On the righteous side of things of course.

[Flying Dog]

So there are 13 Clinton people and 8 Obama people on the Committee.

How many undeclared Committeepeople are there?

[YRABNNRM]

These people really need to calm the fcuk down. This isn't the convention.

[Mr. Morden]

Motion to fully seat Florida delegation is defeated 15-12.

[Alcon]

Motion fails 15-12 and idiots are chanting "Denver" (1 member cannot vote)

[Meeker]

Vote fails 12-15. Closer than I expected

Oh God, the Clinton people are chanting. Fools.

[YRABNNRM]

LOL

And Obama's supporters are supposed to be the brainwashed fools?