I am looking for Hillary supporters. If you’re in Hils camp, would you pop by here when you get a sec?

http://livefrankly.wordpress.c…..upporters/

Thanks in advance!

Obama had a distinct minority of 8 and to pas anything on an ideological basis (since neither co-chair ever voted except in case of tie) Obama had a much higher hill matematically than Clinton to achieve results.

The vote to strip double the automatic 50% penalty [which is what the RBC put back into place yesterday] – i.e. all 100% of the state’s voting/seating rights was almost unanimous last August – with the exception of one verified Obama supporter who voted against stripping the delegates.

That means that Haold Ickes – the man who complained that this vote hijacked Hillary’s win in MI – was one of that near-unanimous group voting MI and FLA out of the race.

Of course, in last August,k Hillary was stating in interviews that she was prepared to stay in through the very end of the race which she then defined as February 5th. Her cache of supporters on the Committee believed that the message to the other 48 states was more importanat than playing chicken with the Dem parties of MI and FLorida.

They’d had a year long competition to add two more geographically/demographically diverse states – 12 states entered the COmpetition in cluding MI [no Florida] and NEV and So CAR ‘won’ the window of a 4-state group for candidates to syump in – even poorer candidates could afford that – before the SUper Tuesday batch.

There was a lot of rubmbling that if the Dem party let MI and FL jump – even after that hue competition there would be chaos.

The data used can be summarized as follows:
in the actual vote, in addition to the 40% voting for ‘not-clinton’ – i.e. ie one of the group of four who pulled their names, all of whom have either publicly or [as with Biden] privately endorsed Obama, the following happened:
(1) another 5% of voters – numerically this was 30 thousand voters – had their votes thrown out as they were write-ins. A state statute forbid counting write ins unless a canditate explicitly asked the election commissino to count write ins for that candidate. The Rules commitee “no campaignin or participating’ pledge had already led the four top candidates of Edwards, Obama, Dod amnd Biden to pull their names and obviously none then wrote it to say ‘but write-ins are ok’ Thus this voter consituency had niull effect.

(2) The exit poll [acknowledged as a flawed method but pointed to as ‘all they had] illuminated additional bizarre anomolies[sp?]:
(a)not ONLY was the polling for Hillary weaker by 9 points than the actual vote, but there were somie clear indicators that factual bases underlay this difference:
(b) groups of people who stated that Hillary was their second choice but voted for Hilary rather than uncommitted [I do not have the polling questions, the MIU presented summarized these data]

(b)others stated that they voted – or would have wanted to vote – on the [open] Republican side

(3) The Democratic turnout was lower than the Republican turnout – an anomaly that was only replicated in Florida [may have been one other state] implicating the Rules Committee itself in suppressing voters who believed that there was no point in going to the poll, and whose voices deserved some kind of factorin in – their absence in the voting booth having been attributable to the Dem party. These voters would less likely be Clinton voters than voters for one of the other candidates who endorsed Obama.[a

factoring in this data resulted in 69 [four down from 73] for Clinton, and 59 [four up from 55] for Obama].

This mathematical approach also, as it happened – split the difference between the official positions of the two parties, as presented to the MI Democratic party when it asked for input in crafting its position.

After the decision was made, the Obama campaign said it would accept the result, and the CLinton camp said it would not.

It appears that the Clinton position was that She had a right to a share of the 55 uncommitted vote. The legal team for the DNC differed, saying that it should be assumed that the Uncommitted vote was presumptively for one of the four unlisted candidates.

Because of the Clintoe position, the Obama campaign took its 50-50 claim to the Rules Committee, though signalling it would accept the DNC decision regardless of what that decision would be.

Thus the Rules committe was faced with a Clinton Chanllenge to the MI positikon, in which the Clinton campaign wanted 73 for her and zero for Obama, with Uncommitted to be fair game between Clinton and Obama.

faced with this choice and unable to craft a choice other than that crafted by Michigan, the DNC chose the Michigan plan.

I note herer that the Congressional Quarterly on May 30 published an article quoting Hillary the prior week as stating that she would support the lected officials and voters of Michigan if they choise to fight the DNC.
As it turned out Clinton was fighting BOTH the DNC as well as the elected officials of Michigan who were elected by the MI Dem party to craft its presentation.

I understand that members of the DNC were reservations but they were challenged to come up with an allocation more fairly reflective of the very badly flawed process and since they could not, they accepted that the unanimous Michigan decision was at least Salomonic [sp?]

Sorry for the length and/or spelling/syntax boo boos; and hope this helps

Democrats in FL had nothing to do with their primary being moved, yet the DNC punished them to the greatest extent possible. What’s “fair” about that? Floridians were/are rightfully angry.

BAC she is only interested in these voters in so far as they help her. If they were BHO voters she would have no interest in their votes. and for all the BHO voters who were disenfrachised in a flawed primary process in FL and MI – she has no interest in their votes counting either.

Scroll down the page. There’s a pretty comprehensive timeline there.

The meeting today wasn’t about either candidate, it was about recognizing millions of voters.

Democrats in FL had nothing to do with their primary being moved, yet the DNC punished them to the greatest extent possible. What’s “fair” about that? Floridians were/are rightfully angry.

MI has different reasons for their anger, but it doesn’t make it any less valid.

The only connection this has to either campaign is that Sen. Clinton is the only candidate to recognize these voters are upset. She is the only one willing to stand up for them.

There was no compromise on the part of the Obama campaign today. If Obama is truly about “Unity” then the right thing to do would have been for HIM to advocate for all the delegates to be seated with full voting rights.

All the pundits are saying FL and MI won’t “save” Sen. Clinton, so what harm would it have caused Obama to do the right thing?

The fact that he didn’t says he’s as much about “politics as usual” as anyone.

BAC