I knew they would try it, but it still amazes me. The Michigan state party is proposing a 69C-59O delegate split.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...
What part of HE WASN'T ON THE BALLOT do they not get? Seriously, has a certain segment of the Democratic Party gone off the deep end? We are really considering giving her a win in a contest where he was not listed on the ballot and at a time when it wasn't anything close to a two person race? It is so wrong on so many levels. This can't happen. Not for Michigan. The "anybody but her" vote was in the neighborhood of 45%. Add that to the miscellaneous votes other non-viable candidates got and you practically have a statistical dead heat anyway. I don't agree with seating Florida either, but at least there you could argue that Floridians could have voted for him. How can the party that was so indignant about the games played with the election of 2000 be the party playing these games now?
I have been reading and watching the John Adams series. Are there any statesman left in America? Anyone willing to put country before self? Can someone explain to me how the party and candidates can agree to one set of rules and then change them when the expected candidate is not winning - and actually have it seriously debated as an option?