Of course, this is a democracy.

She can't.

MI won't be 55% to 0%. That's not democracy. It'll be 55% to 40% at a minimum or, as HRC said, it won't count. FL can be seated as is and she still can't catch up.

Only using Karl Roves THE MATH can she catch up and we saw how well that worked for Karl.

Hillary Clinton herself said, before the elections in those states, that the votes wouldn't count.

why are you so resolved to cheat?

absolutely shameful.

Michigan and Florida SHOULD have real votes, i'd be glad to count those. and HELL YES i'd ask Obama to drop out if he was in 2nd after all the voting.

Yes i will urge HRC to drop out and campaign for BO is this turns out to be the case.

david

Well, what if he leads in pledged delegates even counting those contests?

I agree.  My concern is with the saber-rattling I've heard from the Clinton camp over credentials fights and trying get pledged delegates to switch votes on the floor of the convention.

A candidate does not have to "drop out" until the convention has met and made their decision. It is way too soon to call this race over. There are millions of people who are excited about being a part of this process, including young people on both sides who are getting involved in ways even their parents don't remember. The "rules" are that the delegates to the convention (pledged, unpledged, and super) "informed by" the popular vote (as shown by the actions of pledged Democrats on the 1st ballot)shall choose the candidate who they believe IN AUGUST will be the best candidate to lead the party AND our country. As of this writing, neither candidate is going to the convention with anywhere near the required majority in pledged delegates except in the wishful thinking of his/her supporters. It's time to get both candidates and their supporters to focus on the issues that will matter on 1/20/2009.

 - maybe - if you don't count the caucuses and give BHO a zero in MI. Neither of those things will happen.

Apparently, you didn't read the diary.  The question I asked assumes that all delegates, both pledged and super, are decided sometime in June, two months before the convention.  Thus, everyone has their vote and their say.

Correct -- as far as is known about convention rules, they are only "pledged" for the first and maybe the second round of voting. After that they are free to vote as they please. And with all this talk of attempted poaching of pledged delegates (on both sides) they may not even be totally pledged for the first round. Though, this is a new wrinkle. Don't remember hearing about poaching before this. But it may have gone on.

Right, but keep in mind these people weren't exactly picked out of a hat. They are all ardent Obama or Clinton supporters and activists. Not likely to switch sides.

Actually, no delegates are truly bound even for the first vote. This was changed after the '80 election in which Carter's popular support was crashing at the time of the convention and Ted Kennedy had scored huge primary victories in the later part of the primary season, but Carter had won the necessary pledged delegates in the early primary season when he was still reasonably popular. There was an attempt at the convention to release the pledged delegates from their pledges before the first vote, but it was not successful; the pledged delegates voted as required, Carter was the nominee, and the rest is history. In '82, the party modified the rules to allow the delegates to vote their consciences on the first ballot.

I can't remember where I learned all that (somewhere recently), but I just googled to confirm that my understanding was correct.

Apparently, that '82 conference was also when the super delegates were added to ensure victory for the establishment candidate.

You'll need them when this comes to pass mid-summer.

Rezko will probably be convicted, but Obama is in no way implicated. Trying to pin Rezko's misdeeds on Obama is utterly shameless. Obama has much less association with Rezko's crimes than Clinton had with the Whitewater scandal (and people went to jail for their crimes for that as well).

To beat a dead horse further, they are bogus because:

A. Both candidates agreed that they wouldn't count.

B. Florida's voters didn't have the benefit of two candidates who campaigned vigorously in their state.

C. Undoubtedly, some voters chose to stay home in primaries that didn't count.

D. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.  If I were the only person on the ballot, I'm quite certain I'd win too, but that doesn't mean Michiganers want XoFalconXo for president.

So, yes, they were bogus primaries.  If you want to argue that they should be redone, then fine.  But thats an argument for a different diary.