Clinton backers at odds with... Clinton

[syntax]

Oh yeah! Once the TX and OH primaries are over, MI is going to rally behind the Democratic nominee and deliver the state in November.

I only regret that I can't cancel out my father's vote this time.

 

[khushibagh]

M Go Blue!

M Go Blue to you too! I voted for Jesse in my one Michigan primary (when I was a law student). My dad was a Spartan thoough so no hate on MSU, especially Syntax70

 

[syntax]

M Go Blue to you too! I voted for Jesse in my one Michigan primary (when I was a law student). My dad was a Spartan thoough so no hate on MSU, especially Syntax70

We are turning this thread to a MI love-in. I love MI. I want MI to go Dem. And CO is going Dem. too in 2008 for Obama.

 

[floorrunner]

Has anyone bothered to read the rules. Here are some of them and my take on what they mean.

Rule 11.A - No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

Rule 20.C.1(a) - In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation.

Rule 20.C.1(b) - A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.

Rule 11.A
If we are to go by timing of the primaries and caucuses, then all the states that held those contests prior to super Tuesday violated this rule.

Rule 20.C.1(a)
This rule shows that the DNC violated their own rules. According to this half the delegates should be seated.

Rule 20.C.1(b) This rule was violated by Barack Obama with his ads showing in Florida. According to this rule he should get no delegates from Florida.

Here is a link to all the rules. http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

It appears to me that a lot of people no matter who they are supporting are violating the rules.

 

[JackFTwist]

I don't speak to Florida other than to comment that Obama's ads were part of a national buy, thus not a violation. Hillary campaigned in Florida, a violation of the rules, or in another interpretation, attended some fund raisers there, not a violation.

 

[floorrunner]

I don't speak to Florida other than to comment that Obama's ads were part of a national buy, thus not a violation. Hillary campaigned in Florida, a violation of the rules, or in another interpretation, attended some fund raisers there, not a violation.

The advertisements were campaign ads, thus campaigning, whether he was physically there or not.

 

[letme]

I don't speak to Florida other than to comment that Obama's ads were part of a national buy, thus not a violation. Hillary campaigned in Florida, a violation of the rules, or in another interpretation, attended some fund raisers there, not a violation.

No Jack , they Were not part of a National buy. They were local buys.

I was in 4 States prior to Fl. NEVER an add on TV or the Radio.

 

[letme]

Floor..
Thanks for Posting the #11 rule. I did not know what it was,but reffed to often.

 

[JackFTwist]

No Jack , they Were not part of a National buy. They were local buys.

I was in 4 States prior to Fl. NEVER an add on TV or the Radio.

I cite Clinton supporter PA Gov Rendell in the OP story

In Florida, Rendell said, the Clinton campaign can mount a "tenable argument" that delegates should be awarded. Obama was on the ballot in Florida, for one thing. And Obama ran a television campaign ad there. It was part of a national cable ad buy. Rendell said it was likely an accident that it ran in Florida:"I believe he just didn't think to redact Florida from the buy," the Pennsylvania governor said.

The Clinton campaign has said that by airing the ad, the Illinois senator violated the pledge not to campaign in Florida.

And Clinton maintains that she did not campaign in the state, though she did appear there for several fundraising events before the vote. When it comes to Florida, Rendell said, "At least you can make a tenable argument . . . I'm not sure it's a winning a

 

[tommyj]

If Hillary had vigorously protested the exclusion of Fl and MI delegates beginning when the DNC voted to exclude the delegates, I would have some respect for current efforts to seat them. I hope someone in MI and FL will take this to court and demand the state party or DNC to repay the state for a very undemocratic primary. It is not fair to taxpayers to pay the expense of a party primary if the people's voice is not heard.

This wouldnt be heard by the courts...they have always taken the stand primaries are a party issue and the parties make the rules..

 

[seamusnewwest]

I don't really care about the party's rules, or which candidate would benefit if the delegates were counted or not.

And I don't think the parties are "private" organizations, in the sense that members of the general public, including Republicans, can vote for the Democratic nominee.

But regardless, I really don't think that it is just or right for the Democratic party, which rightly made the voters right to have their vote counted REGARDLESS of legal and time constraints a priority in a previous Presidential election, to tolerate in any what the effective disenfranchisement of two states for the Democratic nominee.

It is just wrong to not allow those states to vote. Historically, there have been a lot more heated and important disputes within the party, and between a state branch and the national party. So we take their votes away? The party was pissed, it could have levied penalties (including fines) on the rebel states, but it went for complete oppression and actually took their votes away completely.

And by the way, those two states were absolutely right in their original motivation. The primary system is skewed and unfair to all states, and never should have been defended by a national party in the first place.

Any group can write a rule that it knows someone is going to break, or write a rule to ignore and severely punish a minority viewpoint. The rules are supposed to be the details of the right to vote, not to punish by withdrawing the right to vote.

The precedent has been set. Next time, maybe it will be your state.

 

[snapcat]

Perhaps the voters in MI & FL should address their concerns to their state Dem party officials who violated the party rules?