Forty-eight of the 50 states have had a chance to decide when and how they wold hold their primaries, if they held any at all. If I were a resident of any of those states, my vote would have counted for something. The Democratic Party has decided that what the people of Michigan may want is not in the figuring. It makes no difference to me, whether it was the National Democrats or the State Democrats, the party or the politicians, the majority or the minority. Fact is, we're out of the process.
So, Hillary is out of the process, too.
In all fairness, a number of delegates equal to the number of delegates from Michigan and Florida should be subtracted from every candidate.
-Bud
5 comments:
I have often heard it argued in the middle of a contest that the rules ought to be changed. For example, during my soccer game last night, the other team seemed to think that it ought to be able to place the ball about 10-15 yards closer to our goal for every free kick. This was unpopular, you see, because at the outset of the contest, our team had agreed to abide by a certain set of rules, and this innovation about placing free kicks was not one of them.
Regarding politics, if Hillary truly cared so much about the sanctity of Michigan's vote, she might have made a peep about the disenfranchisement issue BEFORE Michigan voted, and BEFORE she started losing other states.
As it was, the DNC issued a set of rules about the timing of primaries and caucuses, and the Legislature of the State of Michigan decided to ignore those rules. The consequences weren't unknown. Now, it's the nominee of the party that is in question, and that's up to the party to choose. They could pull names from hats if they wished, I suppose.
As it is, once again, Hillary's moral stands depend 100% on political expediency, not on principle. So screw her.
The fact that none of us Michiganders don't get counted isn't Hillary's fault. She's the one person we know didn't cheat us.
I bet you think that bad grammar isn't worth repeating. :)
Nobody said it was Hillary's fault, but she stands to benefit, so OF COURSE she's all for counting the tainted delegates. I'm just saying that her arguments don't hold much water, and if, in spite of the rules announced prior to the primary, she benefits from her willingness to participate in a primary her national party had already declared invalid, that just wouldn't be cricket.
It wasn't Obama's fault, either. All he did was abide by the party's rules. It would be dirty pool to punish him for that, ex post facto.
Using Michigan's boycotted "primary" to allocate actual delegates is LESS valid than using, say, a telephone poll.
My complaint is that whether it was Democratic politicians or politicos or whoever, they have denied representation to two states with enthusiastic voters. In the process, they have effectually penalized only one candidate.
What are they going to do about this injustice?
Post a Comment