FL and MI. Agreed not to put her name on the ballot (at least in MI) and then did it anyway.....she knew she needed the votes after losing in IA. So, despite the other candidates keeping their names off the ballot and despite the party "punishing" those states for moving up their primaries, she put her name back on. I think she did it for exactly what is occuring now: she claims she "won" those states and should get those votes. It might not be an exact definition of "cheating" but it is renegging on her agreement and it is sleazy.
The agreement was to not campaign in those states. Some took their name off the Michigan ballot, but not Florida.
I think she is right, to some extent. Millions of people came out and voted anyway, knowing it wouldn't count. The Democratic party should not tick off these voters, especially Florida - given how important they will be in the electoral college this fall. The must find a way to include these voters.
The most fair thing, to me, that the DNC should do with these delegates (since a re-vote isn't an option), is to split Michigan evenly and divide Florida according to how they voted.
FL and MI. Agreed not to put her name on the ballot (at least in MI) and then did it anyway.....she knew she needed the votes after losing in IA. So, despite the other candidates keeping their names off the ballot and despite the party "punishing" those states for moving up their primaries, she put her name back on. I think she did it for exactly what is occuring now: she claims she "won" those states and should get those votes. It might not be an exact definition of "cheating" but it is renegging on her agreement and it is sleazy.
The agreement was to not campaign in those states. Some took their name off the Michigan ballot, but not Florida.
I think she is right, to some extent. Millions of people came out and voted anyway, knowing it wouldn't count. The Democratic party should not tick off these voters, especially Florida - given how important they will be in the electoral college this fall. The must find a way to include these voters.
The most fair thing, to me, that the DNC should do with these delegates (since a re-vote isn't an option), is to split Michigan evenly and divide Florida according to how they voted.
I believe in MI the candidates agreed to remove their names from the ballot, per the request of the DNC...Hillary changed her mind. It might not be cheating, but it's pretty sleazy.
FL and MI. Agreed not to put her name on the ballot (at least in MI) and then did it anyway.....she knew she needed the votes after losing in IA. So, despite the other candidates keeping their names off the ballot and despite the party "punishing" those states for moving up their primaries, she put her name back on. I think she did it for exactly what is occuring now: she claims she "won" those states and should get those votes. It might not be an exact definition of "cheating" but it is renegging on her agreement and it is sleazy.
The agreement was to not campaign in those states. Some took their name off the Michigan ballot, but not Florida.
I think she is right, to some extent. Millions of people came out and voted anyway, knowing it wouldn't count. The Democratic party should not tick off these voters, especially Florida - given how important they will be in the electoral college this fall. The must find a way to include these voters.
The most fair thing, to me, that the DNC should do with these delegates (since a re-vote isn't an option), is to split Michigan evenly and divide Florida according to how they voted.
The voices of the people in Florida and Michigan were heard. Those people (the people in Michigan and Florida) voted goons into local offices........ those goons chose to ignore the rules. If those people are "ticked off", they should be ticked off at their own representatives, not the Democratic party.
Why do you think Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan when everyone else took their name off of the ballot? She's trying to win at any cost........ even if it means skirting the system that's been decided on.
FL and MI. Agreed not to put her name on the ballot (at least in MI) and then did it anyway.....she knew she needed the votes after losing in IA. So, despite the other candidates keeping their names off the ballot and despite the party "punishing" those states for moving up their primaries, she put her name back on. I think she did it for exactly what is occuring now: she claims she "won" those states and should get those votes. It might not be an exact definition of "cheating" but it is renegging on her agreement and it is sleazy.
The agreement was to not campaign in those states. Some took their name off the Michigan ballot, but not Florida.
I think she is right, to some extent. Millions of people came out and voted anyway, knowing it wouldn't count. The Democratic party should not tick off these voters, especially Florida - given how important they will be in the electoral college this fall. The must find a way to include these voters.
The most fair thing, to me, that the DNC should do with these delegates (since a re-vote isn't an option), is to split Michigan evenly and divide Florida according to how they voted.
The voices of the people in Florida and Michigan were heard. Those people (the people in Michigan and Florida) voted goons into local offices........ those goons chose to ignore the rules. If those people are "ticked off", they should be ticked off at their own representatives, not the Democratic party.
Why do you think Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan when everyone else took their name off of the ballot? She's trying to win at any cost........ even if it means skirting the system that's been decided on.
I didn't realize they were asked to remove their names, I've never heard that before. I'll need to research and read more about that.
True, the state's reps should take the blame, but I doubt that'll be the case. I can hear the republican commercials now, "They don't care what you think, they don't want to hear from you hard-working Americans.
Think that's ignorant? Yes, but it'll be as effective as their strategy that Obama is an America-hating, flag pin loathing, elitist Muslim. If the talk show hosts say it enough, it must be true.
