OK, Solve the Michigan-Florida Dilemma

[lancelva]

^^ IC even if the Rodhams won't admit it the underlying problem is that if she gains the nomination through the addition of disputed delegates the democrats lessen their chances of victory come November.

If democrats believe they got cheated in 2000 because their guy got the most votes and lost then their path is clear.

Sure...and pissing off the Democratic base in two very important swing states won't "lessen the democrats [sic] chances of victory" in the general election? One of the states in question is the state at the center of the 2000 election, to which you allude. How can we win these states if we have told Democratic voters that their voices are not important in this process?

 

[White Eagle]

Ok I'll accept what you say. My problem is apparently not knowing Rule 11. Where do I find it.

Originally Posted by White Eagle View Post
I found this thru google, does it help?

lancelva
That's what Rule 11 did--created exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to hold their first determining step before the first Tuesday in February. The rule, however, provides the earliest dates on which they could conduct their primary or caucus. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada held their contests earlier than the earliest date set by Rule 11. But since no voter should be disenfranchised in this important process, we should seat the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina as well as the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Ok I found and read up on Rule 11.A. I think I have to agree with khushibagh who had a post of this:

khushibagh
I don't think so. Rule 11 always contemplated that IA, NH, SC and NV would go before Super Tuesday. MI and FL tried to muscle in and got slapped down. IA, NH and SC decided that they wanted to go a few days earlier than permitted by Rule 11 and the DNC ultimately decided to accomodate them by granting a waiver. It was not such a big change to the idea of having four showcase contests in four relatively small states in different regions pre-Super Tuesday to grant them a waiver of a few days. It would have been a much bigger deal to allow two fairly large states to jump the queue. The situations are not really comparable.

The only thing that would make me change my mind would be if the 4 states was not granted the waiver to go a few days earlier.

Lance, I started out on the side of Hillary, but as time went on all her web site wanted was donations. They stopped sending info about the election and it all came down to wanting my money. Which I cannot afford to be doing. A lot of newsletter places, when you unsubscribe, will ask why are you doing this. What can we do to change. I got nothing from Hillarys site. I guess they didn't even know I was there let alone that I left.
Then Bill started his shit that just pissed me off. It is not necessary for either of them to be throwing the mud. Now its Obama is plagiarizing. Words that the Mass Governor told him to use.
It is entirely against my feelings to be voting for her in the primaries. Now if she gets the nomination I will vote for her because we cannot take 4 more years of asshole-in-charge politics.

 

[gomer]

I'm with you. The rules were clear. Move up your Primaries and lose your delegates. Therefore, no delegates from these states should go to the Convention. Pretty simple solution. You don't reward bad behavior, otherwise it encourages more states to do it in the future.

according to rule 20C, the states found in violation of moving up their primaries (except as pointed out Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina which were given selective waivers to protect their status) were to lose 1/2 of the delegates and all their superdelegates ... these are the same rules as the Republicans. The DNC rules committee went out of their way to offer harsher punishment for Michigan and Florida by stripping them of all their delegates. That is not fair and is selective punishment.

 

[lancelva]

That is a mischaracterization of my post. This is the DNC's blunder all around, and the DNC should pay for this to be repaired, or those two states should have no say as we all have been led to believe.

If fault rests with the DNC, why punish the voters who played no role in the decision?

That is the only viable option if the citizens of those states want ALL of their voices to be heard.

Their voices were already heard. One candidate didn't think they mattered (at least in Michigan) and another did.

No they didn't. Many were misled into thinking that their voice wouldn't count anyway.

Then wouldn't that apply equally to supporters of all candidates Besides, Obama was running ads in Florida and telling supporters in Michigan to vote uncommitted.

No, the error is on Rodham and her supporter who thinks they should get away with stealing. It only goes toward the condemnation that she is very much Bush-lite.

How is it stealing? She spent as much time in the states as the other candidates and they all had equal access to the ballot.

... btw, if those states were going for Obama, I'm fairly certain you would not be whistling this same tune. I, on the other hand, would be as I've condemned this DNC fuck-up when it was first announced.

Senator Clinton would not be stupid enough to take her name off the ballot. And if this is a "DNC-f-up" then the voters shouldn't be punished.

 

[naked gent]

Sure...and pissing off the Democratic base in two very important swing states won't "lessen the democrats [sic] chances of victory" in the general election? One of the states in question is the state at the center of the 2000 election, to which you allude. How can we win these states if we have told Democratic voters that their voices are not important in this process?

So lance is it your belief that democrats in Florida and Michgian will vote republican come November just to spite the DNC?

Or will they just stay home?

Even if they feel their voices were not heard and hold the DNC responsible its still better treatment than they've experienced from republican rule these last eight years.

 

[MystikWizard]

according to rule 20C, the states found in violation of moving up their primaries (except as pointed out Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina which were given selective waivers to protect their status) were to lose 1/2 of the delegates and all their superdelegates ... these are the same rules as the Republicans. The DNC rules committee went out of their way to offer harsher punishment for Michigan and Florida by stripping them of all their delegates. That is not fair and is selective punishment.

Rules are rules. Those were the terms. You move up your Primaries ... you lose your delegates. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. And that is the Bottom Line. There are no If's, And's, or But's about it.

Many voters stayed home, knowing that their votes would not count. Therefore, the ruling needs to stand. This is another pathetic and desperate attempt from the Clinton Camp to steal the nomination.

The terms were pretty clear from the get-go. That's the way the ball bounces.

 

[lancelva]

So lance is it your belief that democrats in Florida and Michgian will vote republican come November just to spite the DNC?

Or will they just stay home?

Even if they feel their voices were not heard and hold the DNC responsible its still better treatment than they've experienced from republican rule these last eight years.

Telling voters in one of the most important swing states in the country that their votes don't matter doesn't come without its repercussions:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%. This dynamic is the opposite of what we have found in most other states where Obama typically outperforms Clinton in general election match-ups.

The Florida results for a Clinton-McCain match-up are fairly similar to other battleground states--the race is competitive, Clinton does better among women than men, and McCain leads among unaffiliated voters.

However, the poll contains hints that suggest the controversy over Florida’s convention delegates may be hurting Obama. Most notably, just 55% of Sunshine State Democrats say they would vote for Obama over McCain. Thirty-one percent (31%) say they would vote for McCain. These results are especially striking given that Obama leads McCain among unaffiliated voters in the state.

 

[naked gent]

^^ Hey look lance I can selectively quote from your links too.

"In the end, if Obama is the democratic nominee, it is likely that most of the democrats currently unhappy with him will come home and vote for their party rather than John McCain."

So much for your feared repercussions.

 

[tommyj]

The problem is that Michigan and Florida were not the only states to violate the delegate selection rules. So if you want to punish them, then you would have to punish Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Rule 11 of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention:


So in order to be in compliance with these rules, Iowa could not have held their caucus any earlier than January 14th (the caucuses were actually on January 3rd), New Hampshire couldn't have conducted its primary earlier than January 22nd (the primary was on the 8th), and South Carolina couldn't have held its primary earlier than January 29th (it was actually on the 26th). So why the double standard? If you want to punish Florida and Michigan, why not punish Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?

Lance, did not these examples receive a waiver from the national party? I believe they did because of the particular state laws on the books for years in Iowa and NH. Please investigate this and get back to us.