Should they be seated Yes Or No? GFY exit Poll
 

Please tell us why you voted the way you did

why should the people of those states not be counted because of the decision of a few???

Rules are rules. How much clearer could this be. The rules are there, there is no doubt as to what the rules are, yet we are thinking of bending them in order to favor one candidate over another?

No they should be seated. As i sit here and listen to this i get more and more pissed :mad:

yes but the people of the state were not involved in making the decision to bend the rules. Why should they be penalized? Every vote should count. It has nothing to do with the candidates. The rules were flawed.

I voted no. The leadership of those states decided to go against what they'd been told not to do.

If they do decide to seat them, the only way I can see it would be fair is to totally re-do the entire primaries in those states.

At those states expense.

I agree. The only way for it to really be fair is to set a date and do a re-vote in those states. Neither campaigned in either state (although Hillary kind of did in Florida) and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. For it to really be fair they need to re-do things in those states.

This is just another shining example of how the democrats manage to fuck things up every election.

The leadership of Florida in question was a republican (Charlie Christ) who is on the short list for VP. He should not have been allowed to make that decision.

I do agree with you they should do a revote. That would be fair for everyone. They don't have time though.

Then why did you vote that they shouldn't be seated?

I agree that it needs to be redone but I don't think the peoples desires should not be acknowledged because those states decided to break the rules.

I don't really care too much either way but if I were from those states I would want my vote to be counted.

Did Hillary agree to the rules before she began to lose?
Did Obama agree to the rules before he was winning?

There you have it.

The real question is why Hillary thinks she should get both states votes without giving ANY to Obama.

This will help you with that.


http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/dc0b0f5ffc

I really have only a passing knowledge of the situation, and was not aware that one person held the authority to make that kind of change. Kind of seems like a flawed system.

I admittedly am very biased, because I cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

But I do find it pretty funny how she thought those states should not count when she didn't think she needed them. And suddenly, they should.

There in is the problem. If you lived in Florida you got the option of voting for either candidate, but since it was still early in the cycle many voters may not have known about any of the other candidates but Hillary. Still everyone was on the ballot so you could say it was technically fair. But in Michigan the only people on the ballot were Hillary and Dodd so if you are an Obama supporter you didn't even get the option of voting for him so chances are you didn't vote, or you voted for Hillary because she was the only option. The voters should not be penalized because of what the leaders said. There is still plenty of time for another vote. The convention isn't until lat August so there is plenty of time for them to put together a vote. Of course if they do this and they wait until say early July for the vote it just strings the whole process out even longer and potentially hurts them against McCain.

Fact of the matter is that the DNC did not feel that it was going to make any difference if FL or MI counted. They figured that someone would have clinched it by now.

By their own admission this has gone on longer than expected and they now realize that FL and MI do need to be seated.

:1orglaugh You really give the people of FL a lot of credit, don't you?

LOL is that whay they told you?

It was a typo on my part. I don't think they should be seated.

It will be interesting to see if the Democratic party is able to unite after this, and if they are able to do so in time to recoup before November.

Straight from Howard Dean's mouth.

I guess I'm a little confused by this. Do you mean I'm giving them credit because they had options and chose one, or that I'm not giving them credit or believing that without active campaign they are unable to do research on their own and choose a candidate?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...le=howard-dean

You just need to watch the first three minutes.

Is the DNC a private committee and not a government organization?

Your suggestion that people in FL only knew of Hillary.

I agree. I think they felt someone would have swept through the other super Tuesday states and won the thing outright a while back and Fl and MI wouldn't really matter so there wouldn't be much said about it.

But alas it came back to bite them in the ass.

Figures that a Ron Paul supporter would have no better response.

Dean is full of shit. Thats my point.

Yea only 48 states should participate... very democratic. :1orglaugh

Actually I don't think that is far off base. Everyone knows who Hillary is. I think some of them knew who Obama and Edwards were, but the rest of the candidates were pretty much unknown. And even of those that knew who Obama and Edwards were I would bet that many of them knew very little about them. People choose candidates for odd reasons and I think most people do very little research when it comes to choosing those candidates.

Here is an interesting site that shows who people actually know. It shows in 2007 about 93% of the people knew who Hillary was but only 61% knew who Obama was. At the same time only 69% knew Cheney was the VP and only 65% knew who the governor of their state was.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=319

so I don't think I am too far off base when I say that a lot of people were simply either unaware of who was running or that they knew very little about most of the candidates.

we live in a republic.

Oh I get what you did. lol

Most people are not going to answer this based on the rights of those people vs the rules, they are going to answer "no" if they like the hahahahahaha and "yes" if they like the socialist. Why even ask?

P.S. Kane must be retarded. One thing not in dispute is who Hillary's strongest supporters are and who Obama's weakest supporters are. Old people. If They campaigned there and he outspent her 3 to 1 the votes would be about the same.

I'm the retard for thinking that people might not be smart enough to turn off American Idol for a minute and do a little research on candidates, but you are the one who is Psychic and knows exactly how it would have played out? Please.

I'm not saying that Obama would have won the state. It may not have even been close. I'm simply saying that many of the people in that state (and across the country) might not fully realize who was running and what their stances on different things were.

rules are rules

They should not be seated in any form

the rules are in place for a reason

thats like it being 4th and 4th in the super bowl and coach poor loser decides that off side field goals should count

I know many many people here in Florida who supported Obama but did not vote as we were told it would not count... at all

and now Hillary wants it to count?

very unfair and pitiful

I think she is setting the women?s movement back by decades they way she is carrying herself in this race

and then all the brainwashed fem's saying they will vote for mccaine over Obama because they feel his campaign was sexist LMAO ROFLMAO


wonder what they will be saying when McCain appoints two seriously conservative judges to the supreme court and they overturn roe v wade

people are so stupid

the lady lost the game by the rules she agreed to... how can you change the rules after the games has been played

anyone who thinks those delegates should be seated as is has a serious lack of judgment and common sense

Sadly it is the democratic parties way to make it so there are no real losers. They split the delegates based on the number votes you get in a state that way if you lose, you still get a prize. They don't want anyone to actually lose, you just aren't the first winner. That attitude has cost the dems many elections.

Democrats hate dodgeball and little league games where they keep track of the score.

Seating 50% of them now...or even 100% of them...still will not clinch it for either candidate.

No shit. FWIW: I will take a conservative Supreme Court justice over a liberal any day of the week. Conservative judges follow the law, liberals follow headlines.

Your point being?

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT

and with each day you show your ignorance more and more

Got a Clue????

you should get one:2 cents:

lets see what happens to porn when your conservatives are seated on the bench

wow amazing that you are so stupid

LOL how true. When I was in grade school we played dodgeball. They don't anymore. The grade school I went to went up to 8th grade and then you graduated and went to high school. If you didn't have the grades, you didn't graduate. Now they don't even do that. They have a ceremony that is a "promotion of excellence" where they move you on no matter what your grades are. You can fail every class and they won't hold you back because we don't have losers these days.

You give all Negroes a bad name.

Obama is the only one who could have possibly benefit from it (she did not), that said, his agreement doesn't convince me of anything. It's easy to agree to something that gives you an advantage.

more proof of how ignorant you are

I am sure your daughter is ashamed you are her father... ask her

there is no way she's not

hopefuly her husband is nothing like you and can teach her about life and the real world and reverse all the crazy screwed up negative shit and image of what a man is that you have shown her

I pity you old man:Oh crap

When he agreed to it, he did not have the advantage. She was way ahead of him at the time, unless I am very fubar'd on my timelines.

You mean follow the law after they change it for the worse.

:1orglaugh One laughing smiley face is all I can muster for your ignorance is plentifull.

Yes, but I think everyone knew Hillary would win FL. You can argue she won because it was early on but I think in the case of a revote, she would win again, and by quite a bit. By that rationale, it is to his advantage to keep those delegates out and it was to his advantage to agree that they shouldn't be counted.

it will be interesting to see whether is a revote, and if so, who wins.

As I said before, I don't really care. Thay are both decent candidates. Neither is great.

The Delegates should not be seated, or should be seated 50/50 (the equivalent of not being seated).

Rules ARE rules.