Deal on Mich., Fla. Unlikely Before June

Yeah - this proposal is ridiculous. Award based upon the popular vote? Award based upon a vote where some names weren't on the ballot? What the heck are these people thinking?

If we can adopt a plan like this, why don't we just award the delegates based upon the total delegates won nationwide?

Popular vote! Come on. And am I mistaken in believing that the popular vote numbers aren't even accurate?

Yeah the popular vote for the nation certainly doesn't represent Michigan's votes, because if that were the case, Hillary wouldn't have won such a high percentage in Michigan.

There really isn't a way right now for them to choose Michigan delegates based on Michigan citizen votes because the votes from January don't count. They need to get as close to that as possible, and using the national vote won't work. If they did use the national vote, the candidates are separated by less than one percent so the votes would be split 50/50. I could live with that, but it's not a true representation of how Michigan voted.

@dem There is only a 1% difference in the vote of the primaries counted so far. Actually the DNC gave NH a waiver something that could have been done for FL and MI too. The DNC chose not to.

So actually the popular vote can be used in theory.

Wrong answer! It doesn't matter what waivers the DNC gave NH because there's no getting around the fact that Florida and Michigan knew in advance the rules and chose not to follow them. Don't you realize that if these states get away with having their delegates seated than the DNC will catch he double hockey stick in the next election. I am very sympathetic for the citizens of both states because if I was in their situation I would be furious that some elected official put me in that position but that still would not change what had already been done. Now if the DNC broke the law or violated the voting rights act than that's a different discussion.

LOL. The twists and turns people must take to buttress these pathetic arguements.If Obama were behind now, his people would be taking EXACTLY the same attitude and position the Clinton people are. As my dear departed mom used to always say, i "it depends on whose ox is getting gored".

There is only one dominant issue in this, are 4 million people going to have their right to have their voice heard disallowed by a capricious, arbitrary, ill conceived 'rule'? If that is the position the DNC stays with, they better pray every evening that the January results of these two states don't become material to the final outcome, in terms of either the delegate count or the popular vote total nationwide. Because if they do, and they are not counted, all hell will break out in the Democratic Party.

There is one fairest way to resolve this. Revote the two states. Will someone in charge please come to their senses?

I think it's ridiculous that NH, IA, SC and NV get to go ahead unchallenged, and one of the benefits of Florida and Michigan going ahead is that it highlights the issue. Why should these 4 states out of 50 get the benefit of testing candidates? A better way would be to mandate groups of Super Tuesdays, with no state getting special privilege as first in the nation. Anyway, dont forget that it wasnt the Democratic parties in MI and FL that placed the primaries on those dates, it was their state legislatures. Yes, the local organizations didnt have to go along with that, but it seemed more obvious to them to do that than not. Michigan was always going to be definite problem case because only Hillary (and Kucinich) was on the ballot, but the voters in FL werent sure at the time their votes wouldnt count.

Anyway, I think the superdelegates should be allowed vote, as whatever the result of the primaries in those states, whenever they would have been held, it wouldnt have been binding on them.

Why is it so hard for everyone to understand why Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada were allowed to vote early?

Elections cost A LOT of money. With few exceptions, like Hillary, many candidates start primary season with little of it (relative to what they end up needing to finish the primaries, and then the General Election). By holding early contests in these small states, where getting the message out is way cheaper and easier to do than in, say, Florida, no-name candidates have an opportunity to make a name for themselves. Obama was not expected to win this nomination, but because of his win in Iowa and close second in New Hampshire, he got the boost he needed to be competitive... and also the donors.

Imagine if we had a National Primary... save for a few very well known, very popular candidates, no one would be competitive! There would have been no race... and it would have come down to a few "battleground" states that would determine the candidate, and likely the winner would be the person with most name recognition.

Instead of being bitter or feeling that the Dem party is screwing FL and MI, thank them! This primary system benefits the democratic process. It allows a no-name to make a stand in a small state, win, and then go on to be competitive. It gives us more of a choice. Both parties should preserve this rule, and go forward to protect it.

They broke the rules after being told not to.

They knew the consequences before they broke the rules.

They broke the rules anyway.

What is the debate, here? If you want your delegates to count, follow the rules set forth by your party. This is logic you learn in kindergarten...

Who is this 'they'? Certainly not the voters of these two states. But even more than that, there are RULES in place now in the Democratic party that permit a revote in Fla and Mich, in the name of fairness. Fairness dictates that the original vote in Michigan should not count as Obama was not on the ballot.( The same can be said to a lesser degree in Florida.) Fairness also dictates that the voice of these millions of Democratic voters be included in deciding the nominee. They should suffer because some idiot(s) at the DNC decided on a preposterously unfair 'rule'? The people of the United States are not so stupid as to just happily accept this sort of heavy handed behavior from the party bigwigs.

There are immense ramifications to simply disqualifying the Fla and Mich vote and saying that is that. It is not going to stand, in terms of party 'unity' for the November election. There are millions of Democratic voters who are moderate to begin with, and don't need that much of a push to go to a 'moderate' Republican like McCain. Railroading Hillary Clinton like this is in effect pushing those people with both hands toward McCain, or toward sitting out the general election.

If Obama deserves to be the candidate as the people's choice, he can do so by competing in a revote in Mich and Fla, and if he deserves to win in those states, he will. What is he so afraid of?

There are immense ramifications to simply disqualifying the Fla and Mich vote and saying that is that. It is not going to stand, in terms of party 'unity' for the November election.
I keep hearing this refrain, and never from someone who lives in these states and is likely to vote democratic.

Those of us who do, and are, largely believe it is time to move on. Split them 50/50 or split them according to the elected delegates, and let's move forward.

'Split them 50-50 and let's move on' ROFL.

The only judicious end to this is to revote these states. It now appears that these states may be the difference between Obama or Clinton winning the popular vote nationally when all is said and done. It is preposterous, almost beyond description, that in such a circumstance these two states will not be included in deciding the nominee.

If they get split 50/50, they do nothing to lessen the gap between the two candidates. So you know that's what I hope happens.

Even though it still won't represent the voters of those states. Their leaders gave up that privelege when they broke party rules, but still. I wish someone would pay for a re-do.