I expect tha FL and MI WILL count, and their delegates seated

It is my expectation that Obama will end the primary season June 3 with a pledged delegate margin of about a hundred votes.

Shortly thereafter, I hope the DNC, together with both campaigns, will announce they will recommend that the credentials committee seat the Florida and Michigan delegations selected at their state conventions, giving Clinton a 60 net delegate gain. Obama will continue to lead the total pledged delegate count by about 40 votes.

I think that a few hundred superdelegates will announce their commitment to vote for Obama at the convention. Obama will be the presumptive nominee, AND Michigan and Florida will have been counted in the total.

If the situations were reversed, and Clinton was ahead by any number of pledged delegates, she would be the nominee. To do anything else would leave her supporters feeling severely alienated and cheated. The Democrats won’t do that to either side. Since Obama will almost certainly be in the lead, he will be the nominee. I hope that the Democrats can then unite around Obama, our nominee, and win in November.

This will be much easier if one candidate has won both the pledged delegate race and the estimated popular vote. I'm hoping Obama will unambiguously win the pop vote, no matter how it is tallied. He is currently ahead in all 6 estimates at RealClearPolitics; I fervently hope that is true on June 4.

None whatsoever.

Furthermore, there is no way possible that they will have full delegate seats. Half will be the outcome.

The states must be punished. IF they do not punish FL and MI, all future primaries will be pandemonium.

And no way will they punish Obama for following the rules. IT sets a precedent for future candidates to ignore the rules if they know tey will be punished for following them.

States have a legitimate Constitutional right to regulate elections. Anyway, the candidates themselves chose to follow DNC dictates rather than legitimate state election rules when they voluntarily withdraw from the Michigan race. Who the fuck are to say they need to be punished? And, better yet, what makes you think we are in any position to do it? This is the fucking right to vote you arrogant son of a bitch! Dean is doing to FL and MI voters (not the election officials, but voters) what Bush and Harris did to FL in 2000.

This is why I can't commit to Obama. I can't take a chance that people like you will be in power. Eight years of that is more than enough for me.

but by the DNC (or RNC) which make and enforce their rules. That's who the fuck they are.

I am surprised that you need to be told this but... all the people on the internet who support Obama... you know... those people called ObamaRulez08 and IWantToHaveObamasBaby76... they won't be in power when Obama wins.

Relax, and find another dumb reason to vote for McCain. You want Roe v Wade overturned/ you want to stay in Iraq for forever, etc.

... and then grants these parties the right to conduct "primaries" and "caucuses" to determine nominees in whichever way they see fit. :shrug:

Your misunderstanding of the Constitution is why you can't commit to Obama? Isn't that kinda what you're saying? To compare this to Bush/Harris in the 2000 General Election is nothing short of absurd.

The point is this... the DNC will be forever weakened if the MI delegates are sat as-is. There would be nothing to stop any other state in the Union to gold-rush their way forward and cut in line. If they know there are no consequences, that the rules will never be enforced, then we're looking at chaos in election years going forward.

And another point... primaries/caucuses are not "one person, one vote." We elect delegates to conventions. The only people at risk of being disenfranchised this year are Michigan and Florida delegates... from their wine and cheese in Denver.

I'd like to see the delegates seated, and I'm certain they will be. We can't go to the convention with no delegation from these two crucial states. But not as is. And that was pretty much settled a long time ago, back when Harold Ickes, et al voted in that manner.

October 2007:

NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

because the founding fathers didn't have faith in the people to choose the President. That's why they developed the electoral college system, because it was not foreseeable that one person would be able to get an electoral vote majority, and therefore Congress would get the final vote on the presidency.

so the states must be 'punished'. And here's how they'll be punished. Once everybody realizes that Obama will win no matter how FL and MI will be seated, they'll seat them the way the FL and MI legislatures decide. Dean has done a great job of punishing the legislators for those two states. Everybody knows that FL and MI will be seated (just to make their voters happy). However, I guarantee you that not a day goes by in which their legislators don't get a ton of e-mails and calls complaining about the piss-poor job that they've done in disenfranchising them. Some of them will be voted out of office in the future just because of this, and Dean knows that this is the best punishment. I say let the legislators for those two states decide on a seating compromise and punish them by removing half of their delegates like the Republicans did. That way, the voters will have them to blame if they don't like it. Bottom line is those legislators who broke the rules better start looking for a new job. When the Convention rolls around, FL and MI will have the red carpet rolled out for their delegates and they'll be treated as if they are the two most important states.

Ass-backwards is actually charitable. The DNC makes the rules governing primaries. MI and FL broke the rules, they shall suffer consequences.

No fucking way the delegates should be seated. And I have a horse in this race, since I'm from Florida.

Karen Thurman should NOT be rewarded for agreeing to and then breaking the rules... no fucking way.

are only clinton supporters...

whod have thunk that ?

she signed a pledge saying she agreed florida and michigan didnt count.

Obama supporter. I'm a FLORIDIAN. I am not a supporter of either of these candidates, but I will vote for whichever wins the nomination in November. I am an Edwards supporter, not that it should make a damned bit of difference where this is concerned.

When Florida broke the rules, they were sanctioned by BOTH parties. Half of the delegates were taken away. The Dems went further and removed all the delegates (we have super delegates, you know. Republicans do NOT have super delegates). My state party chairperson, Karen Thurman, agreed to the rules, pledged to uphold the rules, then went home and worked with the Republicans to break the rules.

*I* knew about this WAY before GD:P did. And I feel that the DNC rules committee was correct in their "punishment", EVEN IF IT MEANS I DIDN'T GET TO VOTE FOR DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION TO CHOOSE THE NOMINEE.

We have a whole bunch of new folks descending today. Lots and lots and lots.

I can't believe that ANYONE on this board is against seating MI and FL IF they won't even matter and if Obama will still be the nominee.

This isn't about your egos, or "rewarding" or "punishing" the leaders of the two states. This is about winning in November. If Obama is ahead even with MI and FL, we need to run with that and seat them fully. Otherwise, the Republicans are going to use that issue every day from now until November, and we will lose MI and FL.

I know FL is going to be hard this year anyway, but if we lose MI, we are finished. Anyone who disagrees simply does not know how to add or is completely deluded.

I can't believe there are people in the Democratic party who would rather "stand on principle" and "punish" the leaders of FL and MI, than to seat them fully and take the issue out of the Republicans mouths in November. It isn't about setting a precedent, or preventing other states from leapfrogging in 2012, because in this case, it clearly didn't affect the outcome. Such states will know that if their votes will affect the outcome, they might very well not count next time around.

No, it isn't about that. It's about peoples' petulant hate. Some people are so angry at their state leaders that they would rather "punish" FL and MI, and possibly lose them both in November, than to be the better men/women and seat them. And you wonder why we keep losing elections.

Most of the people in FL and MI understand what happened. We aren't going to all go out and vote en mass for the Republican.

I'm so sick of this argument.

I live in Florida. I'm against seating our delegates as there was never a VALID vote for the delegates. If they want to have a caucus or a primary, I'll show up and vote in it. I voted in January, even though I knew it wouldn't count. I mainly showed up to vote against the piece of shit "tax reform" bill.

The hypothetical assumes that Obama will be ahead regardless. So it won't affect the result. Repeat: won't affect the result.

If the states are "punished," the Republicans WILL use the argument, and it may be effective in a very close race. I never said you ALL are going to go out and vote en mass for the Republican. It simply might affect a small number of voters that might or might not swing the election one way or the other. I'll take your word for it that most people know what went on, but it would be incredibly naive to think that it won't affect anyone.

The didn't get all the delegates taken away, but they did get the "standard" punishment of half of the delegates taken away.

The Republicans really can't use this as an argument, because they did "punished" their people, too.

for them to argue that we ignored their voters.

And before South Carolina, they weren't arguing that, either. There's no fucking way the delegates should be seated in ANY capacity without a re-vote or a caucus. NO WAY.

And Michigan is even worse. The only person (of the front runners) that was on the ballot was Clinton. There's no way in hell those should count.

You said:

"This isn't about your egos, or "rewarding" or "punishing" the leaders of the two states. This is about winning in November. If Obama is ahead even with MI and FL, we need to run with that and seat them fully. Otherwise, the Republicans are going to use that issue every day from now until November, and we will lose MI and FL."

No.

"I can't believe that ANYONE on this board is against seating MI and FL IF they won't even matter and if Obama will still be the nominee."

Yes, I am against seating them as is.

"I can't believe there are people in the Democratic party who would rather "stand on principle" and "punish" the leaders of FL and MI, than to seat them fully and take the issue out of the Republicans mouths in November. It isn't about setting a precedent, or preventing other states from leapfrogging in 2012, because in this case, it clearly didn't affect the outcome. Such states will know that if their votes will affect the outcome, they might very well not count next time around."

Actually it is very much about principle. It is how a party and a country survive...rules and organization.

so we can avoid this issue in November.

Are you saying the Republicans aren't going to bring it up? Or are you saying that you don't care either way, even if it causes us to lose one or both of the states? Do you care more about preventing leapfrogging than winning in November?

push the red button at the top of my posts and do some research.

I have been researching this forever, time for you to start. You don't have to agree, but don't just argue to be arguing.

I understand that you are opposed to seating them if it will help Hillary in any way. I strongly disagree with you here, but your argument is plausible.

But I cannot understand why you are opposed to seating them if it will not help Hillary in any way (if Obama is positively the nominee). Not seating them will cause so much trouble in the GE. It sort of represents the side of DU that really doesn't care as much about winning elections (or at least has a long list of things that trump winning elections). People who think a mechanical adherence to principle that results in losing elections is OK and admirable. The only explanation I can think of for this attitude is simply not understand what the stakes are, and not understanding that everyone's lives will only improve if we win elections.

And well might.

If our primary period is extended, thats an inconvenience. If Stevens is replaced by a Scalia on the SCOTUS, that's a disaster.

But even if I didn't care more about this election than future primary seasons, seating the delegates (even at 1/2) would not create a bad precedent, because their votes did not decide anything this time. States would still know that if they want their delegates to actually decide something (when the outcome isn't determined without their votes), they need to play by the rules.

And if they don't care about whether their delegates will actually decide something, no amount of punishment now will change that. Not seating them at all will not change that. It will just hurt us in this election.

... on this very topic.

You're barkin' up the wrong tree, there, zlt234.

away from working class voters in rustbelt states and toward more upscale voters in the west and east.

In my opinion, there is a conscious effort to run working class voters out of the Democratic party (Obama's "bitter" comments were not, imo, heartfelt on his part, but rather an attempt to pander to these upscale voters.)

PROVIDES EITHER CANDIDATE W/ AN ADVANTAGE. 50-50 SPLIT THAT FAVORS NO ONE IS THE ONLY FAIR SOLUTION

sorry about the caps

EOM

He is giving them the thumbs down.

How can you call what happened in MI and FL elections? They weren't. They were simply disasters whose results in no way represent the will of the voters in those states. They were disenfranchised by their state parties long ago. No action by the Obama or the DNC can right that wrong at this point.

What keeps you hoppin? The jazz of it? Don't like defeat? What is it?

FL and MI's punishment is that they are counted only when it's clear they don't change the outcome.

Or maybe I'm misreading.

I think the OP is saying that MI and FL will get seated, but it won't matter because Obama will get the nomination. Which I think is basically the best outcome.

However, in order for this to work, I think that Hillary needs to concede the nomination. Once Hillary concedes, then we can seat all of the delegates we want, because it doesn't matter anymore. So I would say it would be wise to seat MI and FL, just to avoid any bad feelings or accusations of disenfranchisement etc.

I definitely don't think we should seat FL and MI if there is any chance it would swing the nomination to Hillary. Because the rules are the rules, and those states did break the rules, so they should play no role in determining the outcome. Nothing against the people of FL and MI, just that those were the rules.

As long as Hillary is still in the race, deciding to seat FL and MI will just give her more fuel to keep going and do more damage to the nominee and the party.

But as soon as Hillary concedes, we can begin to heal, and the first step is to seat all the delegates from all the states. Which is why Hillary should concede. Soon.

Clinton's net gain of 60 delegates from FL/MI will NOT put her into the lead.

You're right, mathematically Obama will win more PDs even if FL and MI are counted. However, if the DNC decides to seat MI and FL while Hillary is technically still in the race, it could give her more ammo to continue her campaign. Which is bad because we need to unite behind one candidate as soon as possible.


We're kind of in a tough spot. We know Obama is our nominee, but we have a lot of upset Democrats. First, (some) Hillary supporters. Second (some) MI and FL voters who didn't get to participate. We need to get everyone on board because the real opponent is McCain.

So we want to seat MI and FL, but not in such a way that gives Hillary any kind of justification (albeit flawed) for continuing. Even though it doesn't affect the outcome, deciding to seat FL and MI too early could still have negative effects by prolonging Hillary's campaign.

for the sake of Obama winning in November?

I don't know if it will happen. But I think that's the ideal situation.

Hillary drops out. We seat all the delegates from all the states.

And then we stop fighting and pointing fingers at each other and start making amends with all the Democrats who have been alienated by this process.

a few hundred super-delegates will announce their commitment to vote for Obama at the convention
There's fewer than the total undeclared now. And they are currently declaring at a rate of several a day (50 in the past 14 days), and that rate is increasing.



Even if it's not going to change the outcome, the MI and FL delegates are still not going to be counted. The party is not going to set the very bad precedent of allowing MI and FL to break the rules without penalty. Their lives would justifiably be miserable in 4 (hopefully 8) years. And finally, the final "score" is quite important, historically speaking. The party wants just one asterisk next to that score. They do not want two.

Several SDs have endorsed Obama, but said they will vote for the PD winner (Daschle)

Several SDs have endorsed Obama, but said they will vote for the PD winner (Lynn Woolsey, Jackie Speir)

SDs will make an iron-clad committment to vote for Obama once it is clear he has won the majority of the pledged delegates (PDs).

As a Michigan voter, I'm 90% likely to be voting for Obama ... BUT

(1) I take offense at the out-of-state vultures sitting around deciding how to take best ADVANTAGE of the January FUBAR ... a FUBAR in large part created by the state parties of four OTHER states (more out-of-staters) protecting a PRIVILEGED status granted for decades to conservative states that DO NOT demographically match the Democratic Party nationally.
(2) The citizens of Michigan spent MILLIONS on a primary and the candidates DIDN'T SPEND A DIME in the state suffering the worst unemployment and having the region with the highest foreclosure rate in the country.
(3) The Democratic candidates have not faced the voters of the state of Michigan and EARNED their trust or LISTENED to their priorities.
(4) At the same time that SPENDING was prohibited, COLLECTING FUNDS from the fat cats and more affluent people continued happily.
(5) The posturing about "delegates" doesn't do the first thing about correcting the above issues.

As far as I'm concerned, it makes not a whisker's difference at this point - fuck pretending to have ANY 'delegates' whatsoever. The FUBAR can't be undone. The political insiders of BOTH parties, but particularly the Democratic Party, both in-state and national, CREATED this FUBAR. What's particularly NOXIOUS is that they continue to be self-serving and ignore the people of the state themselves.

The FUBAR will cost, I estimate, about 5% of the vote in November. I don't see that changing - especially not with the bullshit, self-serving posturing. Every time some asshole with shit for brains shoots off his or her mouth and blames the VOTERS of the state of Michigan, they make it even LESS likely that the Democratic party will carry Michigan in November.

:grr:

"shoots off his or her mouth and blames the VOTERS of the state of Michigan".

I can't say I've ever seen the blame assigned with the voters. What is the logical connection? How does anyone say that the voters in MI have anything to do with their state party's disaster of primary scheduling?

If we "punish" Michigan, the Republicans will be using that issue every day from now until November. In a close election, it will matter.

I don't care how unfair the election was in Michigan. That doesn't matter, because this whole hypothetical assumes that Obama will be the nominee regardless.

... "THEY broke the rules!"

First of all, "Michigan" is all of us who live here and vote here.

Second, fuck the bullshit about the rules! This has been a PRIVILEGE granted to the same ol' states for decades! Privilege! The protection of privilege is a conservative trait, not a liberal trait. Liberalism is about equity and justice for everyone, not just "mob rule." The penalty of ZERO representation for breaking "rules" that other states ALSO broke (read them!) was draconian ... part of a party insider power struggle.

Lastly, treating PEOPLE as bargaining chips and wheeling and dealing without listening to THEIR voices and THEIR concerns is dehumanization. It's appalling.


I'll demonstrate the respect that so few DUers show and NOT pretend to speak for Florida ... and, IN PARTICULAR, I won't engage in brainless rhetoric that infers the situations in Michigan and Florida are the same. They just ain't.

And I'll tell you what: I am an ex-medic so my devotion to non-violence is strong, but if one of those assholes who constantly tells me to "Get over it!" did so in front of me, I suspect I would be under arrest for assault.

Our Party demonstrated once and for all that Political Parties are conniving, dishonest, and predatory. They should all be abolished.

You are 100% correct. The issue at hand was not handing Michigan (which was red from 1972 to 1992) to the Republicans. As a fellow resident of the disaster area called the State of Michigan, I applaud your analysis of how this disaster will cost the Party the support of the state in November.

The Party was ahead of the Republicans by 13% this time last year, using "Generic Democrat" as the candidate against all possible Republican Candidates. Now, after everyone on both campaigns (National and State), The State Party AND the National Party doing every single thing wrong, we stand to lose the election against a senile Neo-Bushite.

We have demonstrated once again the infernal talent of the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Here's to herding cats, once again.

How come we are not hearing anything on the republicans punishing these two states? They punished them as well, they took half the delegates so saying the democrats don't have that right is ridiculous.

because that leaves the issue on the table in November.

Obama wins either way.

Seating them as 1/2 leaves him no argument, since thats exactly what the Repubs did.

they knew that their delegates were stripped in advance of the elections. I challenge the assertion that that election expresses the true will of democratic Floridians.

Besides, in case you haven't noticed, when it comes to the election, Republicans would vote for a turd with ketchup on it as long as it had an "R" after it.

This is precisely the reason that the presumed winner (Obama) and their campaign had better start moving 24/7 toward building bridges to the other candidate's supporters; ones that do not involve "You Lost/broke the Rules/were racist/liars/etc."

try it in the future.

Of course the DNC shouldn't completely disenfranchise the MI/FL voters (though they were warned that the votes would not count). But seating the delegates as is would amount to rewarding the MI/FL Dems who deliberately violated the rules (though THEY were warned that the votes would not count). The DNC also have to show respect to the states that DID obey the rules, and to those in MI/FL who didn't vote because they believed the DNC when they were warned that the votes would not count.

There's no way the DNC can make everybody happy on this. But there's a way in which they can preserve their authority, punish the guilty parties, discourage other states from violating their rules, and seat the delegates in way which acknowledges that people voted but doesn't give any candidate an advantage (because, after all, the DNC did warn everyone that the votes would not count). Seating the delgates 50/50 and not seating the superdelegates is the only way to do that.

:headbang:
rocknation

... Obama will go into the convention with a large enough lead and the two states will be seated. It won't be close enough to change the nomination.

... and Clinton still loses.

My guess is if Clinton doesn't withdraw 5/20 after Kentucky and Oregon, Obama will play his SDs and cash out at 2025.