Frankly I don't think ANY delegtes from FL and MI should be seated

1. Both state dem parties WILFULLY flouted the rules, with utter disregard for the interests of their constituents. They did this KNOWING the punishment that would befall them. They also did so hoping to hide behind our desire not to punish voters; hoping this desire would let them get away with their scheme. They used voters as HOSTAGES for their own selfish and immature ends.

2. I doubt the average voter in early November will care what happened in January, or in August, after we have a nominee. I highly doubt they will vote Republican becuase they are so mad that their delegates weren't seated as part of a convention to do what will be a foregone conclusion (i.e. nominate Obama).

3. Even if #2 is wrong, Obama does not need MI or FL to win. He could win all the Kerry states minus MI, plus OH, NM, CO, and IA, and would win with 276.

4. We need to put the Kibosh on this crap. We should work to evict from office any person responsible for violating the rules, through primary challenges. People who have so little regard for the voters and the rules don't deserve to be in positions of power.

5. There is no other way to effectively enforce the rules other than to deny delegates. the DNC is a private organization, and the states (as well as their parties) are independent. You can't sue them, you can't fine them, you can't jail the party leaders. I doubt Steve Geller cares whether Howard Dean likes him or not, I doubt Gov. Granholm gives a shit, she's not going anywhere.

Terry McAuliffe was right in 2004, if you let them break the rules you invite utter chaos in the nominating process.

If you can't enforce the rules, how are you supposed to reform the primary system?

Let's say FL and MI get their wish and in 2012/16 they go first in the contest. NH has a law, and that law says NH must have its primary more than 7 days before any "similar" contest. That means NH jumps ahead of FL and MI.

How do you propose to stop NH from doing that? You can't enjoin enforcement of the law, you can't sue them, you can't jail the legislature. The only thing you can do is say "if you don't change your law, we will deny you delegates and no one will campaign in your state." I seriously think FL and MI would have no problem with that punishment in this particular context. (NH = another story).

If you don't do that NO ONE WILL EVER GO FIRST EXCEPT FOR NH . Yeah it sucks for the voters, but we are stuck in a bind. We need order in our process. That's why I think unless FL or MI have another primary or caucus between now and the convention, their delegates should be denied.

If you were North Dakota you'd lose 10 1/2 votes, including superdelegates. Weigh that with the media advantages of bumping yourself to the first primary.

Small states might very well not see a 50% reduction as that much of a disincentive.

I'm very sorry that they did this to you. I hope you will work to get justice for yourself and others like you.

but I think it is because people like HArold Ickes always make me want to vomit, and I had a hard time agreeing with him to strip them completely.

if the state is big, then the candidates will still go, because it is still a lot of delegates, if the state is small, either they weren't going to go anyway or the loss of delegates is too small to register.

Also it ignores the fact that the earliness of the primary is what is the big draw to campaign in a state, not how many deleagates (at that stage).

Give Hillary everything she wants within the boundary of remotely fair. Then with her supporters placated, she still invariably loses, and there won't be much any of them can do to to reasonably to divide the party.

In short, they royally f'ed up this entire primary, and Obama wasn't even on some of the voting cards, so toss em all, and let the voters of those states take it out on their reps that did this stupid shit.

The only way to end this now is to have negotiated settlements that both states agree to.

That forecloses Hilly keeping up until the convention with her "Florida! Michigan!" battle cry.

1) The punishment of which you speak is against the voters, not the officials who engineered this whole scheme. Since you used the hostage analogy, that's like bombing the building where the hostages are held so the captors learn their lesson.

2) I disagree about the average voter forgetting about this in November. The Republicans won't let them forget how their party bosses "disenfranchised" them. Most, if not all, of the party loyalists and die hards will show up to vote Democratic in November no matter what, but we need more than that to win.

3) Never count out a state or say it isn't necessary. That's in contradiction to Dean's 50 state strategy, which Obama's campaign has tried to mirror.

4) I agree about voting out people who don't keep the interests of the voters at heart. The Democrats who supported this displayed astounding selfishness and cowardice. Unfortunately, looking big picture, Democrats are far outnumbered in the legislature and we need every Democrat we can get for the next time districts are drawn.

5) There should be sanctions because rules should be enforced, but I don't think completely leaving Florida and Michigan out of the convention is the right approach. At worst I think the delegations should be welcome as guests with nonbinding votes - like delegates non-states send to Congress. At best, I think the votes (not the delegation) should be weighted at .5 or split down the middle. In other words, the rogue states should have a presence at the convention, but it should be largely symbolic.

In Florida, the Republican dominated legislature is certainly not going to pay for another primary or caucus and the state party doesn't have the money. Rules are rules, but the rules in place are terribly unfair - what makes New Hampshire (and Iowa) so special anyway? What if California passed a law saying its primary should be first? See how silly this could get?

(1) Do you think murderers who are the sole providers for their children should be excused from jail? If no, why are you punishing the children?

(2) the hard core loyalists, whom you say will show up anyway, are the most likely to care about this! Other people won't care and won't pay it any mind.

(3) Undoubtedly, but I'm pointing out it is not fatal to lose those states. Im not saying he should write them off.

(4) Do primary challenges, but if they fail, vote for the D always.

(5) I have no problem with that, but I think they shouldn't get to vote at all.

If the rules are unfair, the way to deal with it IS NOT by doing this. If CA passes such a law as you say, how would you stop them form using it to wreck our primary plan?

3. Even if #2 is wrong, Obama does not need MI or FL to win. He could win all the Kerry states minus MI, plus OH, NM, CO, and IA, and would win with 276.


McSame would kiss you if you took FL and MI off the map...FL is not essential to a Democratic victory but I doubt you can find a serious political analyst who would say MI isn't...

you could easily add VA, IN and possibly NC to that mix.

OH, NM, CO, and IA,

NT

was no campaign, no participation, no delegates. That being said, i will not be too uncomfortable with a negotiated settlement that does not affect the race and gets all parties to drop challenges and lawsuits (permanently and with prejudice, so they cannot be refiled).

If I was the RBC, I would demand a catagorical agreement from HRC to drop all further challenges to include appeal to the convention, then agree to seat a rational apportionment of the delegates, perhaps 50%.

Dispute negotiation is something I do for a living. RBC has all the cards in its hand. Failing a rational settlement that does not disturb the race, they can still go with a recommendation of zero. As Hillary seems willing to play hardball, they need to meet her there, show her that she does not have the votes, then offer a reasonable settlement that retains a significant penalty and does not affect the result.

you are writing off two states that the Dems need in the GE.

Just a good things folks smarter and more flexible than you will actually be deciding.

I suppose you would support the unofficial back-of-the-bus of the '50s. After all, let them uppity folk ride up front, they will want to all the time. Even take away seats from the white folk.

this is not the civil rights movement or anything like it.

This is about a bunch of idiots who thought they could use the voters as a cudgel to get away with breaking the rules - they were wrong.

the DNC and the state both grabbing power - just typical politician crap.

And it is like the civil rights movement - my vote was taken away by these greedy politicians.

And please - I do not need any of this "grow up" stuff - save it for the other posters you are trying to push around.

Well - you are right about one thing. They are idiots - on both sides - the DNC and the state both grabbing power - just typical politician crap.

And it is like the civil rights movement - my vote was taken away by these greedy politicians. But the worse part is the pseudo-Democrats on this site like yourself who stand around with their "its the rules" mantra.

And please - I do not need any of this "grow up" stuff - save it for the other posters you are trying to push around.

5 children, should he escape jail for his crime? If NO, then why are you punishing the children?

I do not follow

if someone commits murder, but he has 5 kids who have no other source of income other than the murderer, do you think that he should not be put in jail out of concern for the welfare of the children?

If you think he still should be put in jail, isn't that "punishing" the children?

Your analogy is just too confusing.

Are you associating the state lawmakers with the Father and the voters with the children? The lawmakers (the Father) broke the rules. And under the invalid DNC rules, the voters (the children) are to be punished? Is this your analogy? Are you suggesting that it is ok for the DNC to "punish" the voters for the sins of the "Father"?

Of course the Father is to be punished. He violated the law. Are you suggesting that because he has 5 children, he gets a pass on the law? The children will be cared for, of course. Your analogy just falls apart on the grounds of lack of reality.

the facts say that he is the children's only source of support.

Yes, they will be "taken care of" but at a much much lower standard of living. But the principle is the same.

the father should have thought of his children before committing murder and FL and MI should have thought of the voters before moving their primaries.

so perhaps they will be better off.

The analogy is a bad one.

Anyway - I think the DNC screwed up in punishing the voters. And I think they realize it - and are doing their best to figure out an honorable way to rectify the problem. I guess we will know their intent over the weekend.

What you are claiming is unfortunate circumstances.

The intentional decision of the DNC to strip all of Florida's delegates and make void the effect that state's votes is not an unfortunate circumstance.

It is an overbearing and collective punishment on individual voters who did nothing wrong.

can I get you on my jury, my client goes on trial tomorrow :eyes:

the state does not HAVE to put the father in jail for murder just like the DNC does not HAVE to strip the delegates. However, both the state and the DNC have NO CHOICE. THere is no other way to enforce the laws/rules. both the voters and the children are hurt by this necessary punishment - it's unfortunate but true.

party leaders were power-grabbing - at the expense of the voters.

but I think a better alternative would be to seat both delegations (MI at the compromise that's been agreed to) and Florida at 50% of the delegates based on the results of the Feb 19th election. In the end, Clinton will only net about 30 delegates.

Now this is where you smack the two states delegations in the mouth (figuratively speaking), don't give them any super delegates. They screwed up, they deserve to have zero super delegate votes.

to cause disruption and they did and now they're whining and lying some more.

Oh that Dean could just give something to them with penalties and hilary doesn't get a damn thing for her tricks.

If Obama didn't remove his name from the MI ballot, and had won both states, would Obama supporters feel the same as they do now? Would Hillary supporters feel the same as now if she lost both states? I bet 90%+ of both candidates' supporters would have the opposite viewpoint, and would be pushing it just as strongly.

If so, that would indicate that it really boils down to what is best for their candidate, not what is right or logical.

This is my first post in Primaries, but in the 2 months I've browsed, it seems at least 90% of the hate/attack posts are against Clinton (some deserved), and certainly the viciousness of the posts is higher for a subset of Obama people than the corresponding subset of Clinton people. I hope the worst of them are republicans in disguise with an agenda here.

I might even go far enough to to say some Obamaphiles would have sigs like "Bush and Hillary: Disenfranchising Florida voters since 2000" or "Proof that Hillary is a repuke: her actions in Florida and Michigan to prevent votes from counting." Or being outraged that a democrat would even consider letting some votes not count. And Hillary's most ardent fans would be screaming about rules and what everyone agreed upon before, and demanding a 50/50 split if they are counted at all, despite losing those states.

Personally, I'm neutral and will be fine with either candidate, but I didn't want either as the nominee because I know how, well, stupid the American voters can be (proof: Bush not losing by 20% in 2004, and the fact that the more physically attractive candidate has won every time since 1980). I knew the GOP has an irrational hatred of Hillary that helps GOTV and her negatives are high. I also knew there are a lot of douchebags that won't vote for Obama because of his race or middle name. Sucks, but as someone smart once said "Nobody ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public".

There should be consequences.

If the seat the entire delegation without penalties, what's going to happen in 2012? If they're not going to enforce the rules, then there won't be any.

The whole primary system needs major reform anyways.

But for you to go on the board and argue for disenfranchisement against members of your own party, who are guilty only of going to the polls and voting on the only day they could, that is utterly disgusting and truly undemocratic. (Little d and Big D).

the time to do it is before the primaries not during them.

I am in Mi I knew it wouldn't count,but I voted uncommitted any way.
I have not been disenfranchised,but if Hillary gets her way I will be,she only wants to count her votes not the uncommitted.

No matter what the rules committee decides I will still be able to vote in the GE. (for Obama.)

I say 50/50.

This needs to be addressed in the future, but we have to count those votes or the whole party will be on trial in November.

And Obama's nomination will carry a taint.

The rules allow for a compromise and I think we have to make one.

Unless Hillary asks for the ridiculous in delegates. Then no deal and then the DNC has to make that case to the people!

In any event, I think the DNC itself should go on the offensive and make clear THAT the popular vote does not matter in the primary and WHY the popular vote does not matter in the primary.

And I agree that we need to have some order. IMO the solution to all of this is party imposed spending limits on all of the candidates. Campaigns end because the candidates run out of money. If all candidates have the same amount of money then the later states will get a voice.

But since it will be a cold day in hell before that happens, I do not think a state the size of Florida should be going early. No frankly it's not fair that Iowa and New Hampshire go first. But the upside to those two states going first is that anybody can win there if you have good enough grassroots supports and retail political skills. If you let a state like Florida go first you eliminate candidates by fundraising ability. I'd rather that every candidate gets at least an outside chance to win than to have my state go first.

Iowa and New Hampshire don't necessarily have to be the first states but it should be small states that have the first primaries.