Call me confused but, it was my understanding that the Democrats pulled Michigan’s delegates because they changed the date of their primary. In turn most of the candidates did withdrew their names from the ballet. Clinton did not withdraw her name and as a result received votes and won! Someone please confirm for me that she did NOT receive any delegates from this state.
On the other side of the race it’s clear cut who the top 3 are. Ummmm …Rudy, you’re not one of them. It’s a tight race for the number 2 spot so I think it’s anyone’s game at this point.
The scoop as I have heard it is that at this time she has not received any delegates, but they can come back around and those can eventually be awarded to her. I look for this to happen becuase I believe this was a back door deal Clinton made with Dem Party Leaders in Michigan. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Comment by Sheree — January 16, 2008 @ 10:05 am |
She received 0 delegates due to the DNC rightfully penalizing MI and FL for moving their Primaries. I agree with Sheree however that she’ll get these delegates through a back-door deal with the DNC.
Comment by jonolan — January 16, 2008 @ 10:23 am |
Hi Sheree and Jonolan!
Thanks for the info! I’m with Jonolan, the DNC did rightfully penalize MI and DL for moving their primaries. It wouldn’t be right if she receives these delegates in the end, I hope that’s not the case. It’s the principle of the matter.
Comment by Kim — January 16, 2008 @ 10:48 am |
From what I can gather, the delegates – both district and state level – who are “assigned” to the “unconfirmed” voter percentages will got to the National Convention where they can vote as they please.
Comment by jonolan — January 16, 2008 @ 2:08 pm |
Interesting. So the people of those states votes might not matter? I think the whole primary process needs to be revamped. Opinions I have many, solutions not so much
Comment by Kim — January 16, 2008 @ 2:18 pm |
Kim,
Actually this is part of an attempt to revamp the primary process. Several states were willing to hurt themselves this time around to showcase the issue of Iowa and New Hampshire having too much influence despite being tiny states delegate-wise.
Comment by jonolan — January 16, 2008 @ 6:31 pm |
I don’t think she can receive the delegates! And I recognize you Donolan! You and I had a funny exchange months ago on a group blog called Gay Men Rule. It was some bigot who kept leaving comments about gays. You said some funny things. Anyhow, our primary is in February. I’m gonna vote in a primary for the first time in my life. Unfortunately I can only vote for a Republican, cuz I’m registered as one. Never changed it when my parents ‘made me’ register as such as a youth. And it’s too late to change it before the primary. I didn’t think one could change it, thought it was for life. But people are telling me that you can if you do it in time. Anyways, I am gonna vote. Cuz I’m gonna do my part to vote for who is least likely to win, so that it helps none of them. Probably a dumb-assed idea, but I’m doing it anyhow!
Comment by Steve — January 16, 2008 @ 8:48 pm |
Oooops Jonolan, sorry for calling you donolan!
Comment by Steve — January 16, 2008 @ 8:49 pm |
No problem, Steve. I remember the thread and the bigot; he was funny actually
Hillary could get those delegates. The ones from MI that go to the Convention will be in effect “superdelegates” since they’re unpledged.
Comment by jonolan — January 17, 2008 @ 7:14 am |