Comments on: If Michigan Had Voted

By: West Virginia vs. Michigan - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:57:57 +0000

[...] Actually I thought that Hillary was fighting for herself, not Michigan, when she sought to disenfranchise those of us who supported Obama by grabbing more delegates than she would have won in a real primary battle. [...]

By: Further Thoughts on Yesterday’s Compromise - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:34:11 +0000

[...] The Democratic Party had no choice but to arbitrarily divide up the delegates. The Michigan compromise was the easiest to go with as the state party, dominated by Clinton supporters, were pushing for it. It would have been just as valid to award Clinton zero delegates, which might be justified as it was she who violated earlier agreements. Obama had the votes to achieve a 50:50 split and but wisely went for this compromise for the sake of party unity, even though it gave Clinton more delegates than she deserved (or would have won if there was an actual primary). [...]

By: Obama Still Out Smarting Clinton By Taking The High Road - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sat, 31 May 2008 20:37:08 +0000

[...] is exacerbated by the fact that only Clinton’s name was on the ballot in Michigan, and Obama most likely would have won in the state if there was a fair primary. For all practical purposes she began campaigning at the [...]

By: My Democrats Friends

My Democrats Friends — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:16:02 +0000

Rational Solution To The Michigan Vote, Here’s How…

I have a problem with the current demand of Clinton to include the Michigan delegates in the delegates that would vote for her.
She got 55% percents of the votes and she didn’t even have to compete with Obama. Andrew Sullivan analyzed that …

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 25 May 2008 18:28:44 +0000

That's the idea--to keep Michigan and Florida voters from feeling totally left out of the process. As there was not a meaningful vote in either state the delegations should be split in half so that the states do not have an impact on who wins the nomination.

The other question is the superdelegates in each state. I wonder how many of the superdelegates from each state are party insiders who are responsible for the mess caused by moving up the primary dates. If many of the superdelegates were involved in this, I could see this as a strong argument to not seat the superdelegates from Michigan and Florida.

By: Julia

Julia — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:24:43 +0000

As splitting the delegates won’t help anyone it makes more sense to keep them out of the game unless it is just to help the Michigan voter feel involved which is a goal by itself.