OK, Solve the Michigan-Florida Dilemma

[tommyj]

IF we have to seat delegates from these states and you are Howard Dean and want to broker a compromise, knowing the respective campaigns positions on it -how do you do it..Or is it like the Mideast, unsolvable?

 

[smelter]

^ I haven't a clue how to resolve this dilemma, perhaps its time to break out the Magic 8-Ball!

 

[AdmiraalW238]

I think come the Convention it is going to be interesting either way

 

[PabloZed]

I believe it won't be an issue after March 4. In order to be viable Clinton must win by large margins (20+) in each state, which is basically impossible. In Texas less than 10 pts separate the candidates. I have no doubt the Clintons will want to fight on, but party leaders will start coming out in favor of Obama to put pressure on Clinton to drop out, just as GOP leaders are coming out for McCain. Clinton will not want to appear a nuisance like Huckabee.

 

[construct]

Seat only the superdelegates from Michigan and Florida unless there is a do-over.

 

[Kulindahr]

Seat only the superdelegates from Michigan and Florida unless there is a do-over.

Not a bad option. I was going to suggest seating them as observers, who can speak but not vote.

 

[syntax]

There is no dilemma to be solved. The DNC, including Sen. Clinton's adviser Harold Ickes, ruled that delegates from Michigan and Florida will not be seated at the convention if their states held primaries before Feb. 5.

What's the problem?

 

[White Eagle]

I'm gonna go with "the rules are do not move your primary ahead or you lose your delegates". Something to that effect.
They made their bed now sleep in it, and hope it is a hunk you wake up with. Not Craig fer sure.
Smelter, you could have at least posted an eight ball that worked.

 

[lancelva]

There is no dilemma to be solved. The DNC, including Sen. Clinton's adviser Harold Ickes, ruled that delegates from Michigan and Florida will not be seated at the convention if their states held primaries before Feb. 5.

What's the problem?

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:

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.

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?

 

[JackFTwist]

Michigan and Florida are two separate cases

I cannot speak to Florida

in Michigan Clinton agreed to withdraw her name from the ballot because of the violation of party rules and she broke her word

Michigan congressional district parties are pushing for Michigan to have a caucus in accordance with party rules

what the Clinton camp is missing here is they are alienating a lot of people with their current attitude on Michigan - being on usually quiet party discussion lists has been interesting - and today the issue broke out at a foreign student sponsers thing -

at least point I am pushing for a caucus - who knows what the results will be - we need to do the right thing and let those who oppose it bear the consequences

 

[construct]

Lance,

Has Sen. Clinton proposed disqualifying the delegates from all the pre-Supertueday states?

 

[syntax]

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?

The Democratic Parties of Michigan and Florida violated DNC rules. You can obfuscate all you want - as a supporter of Sen. Clinton, I expect you to do so.

 

[lancelva]

^I didn't say they didn't. But I posted Rule 11 and showed you how Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina violated that rule. That's not "obfuscat[ing]." How the hell can you refute it?

 

[lancelva]

in Michigan Clinton agreed to withdraw her name from the ballot because of the violation of party rules and she broke her word

That is a flat-out lie. Senator Clinton never--not once--agreed to remove her name from the ballot. The candidates agreed not to campaign in the state. Obama made the tactical error of thinking putting your name on the ballot is campaigning in the state. Senator Clinton thought the voters of Michigan were too important to completely ignore and decided to keep her name on the ballot. I'm sorry your idol screwed up--he didn't have to take his name off the ballot. That's his mistake and he'll have to suffer the consequences.

what the Clinton camp is missing here is they are alienating a lot of people with their current attitude on Michigan - being on usually quiet party discussion lists has been interesting - and today the issue broke out at a foreign student sponsers thing -

What you're missing is that it alienates people by telling them that their vote doesn't matter. How more arrogant can you be than to tell hundreds of thousands of voters that their voice is not important in this process? That's insulting.

at least point I am pushing for a caucus - who knows what the results will be - we need to do the right thing and let those who oppose it bear the consequences

Of course you are pushing for that because the undemocratic nature of the caucus system disenfranchises those voters who would otherwise vote for Senator Clinton. The people of Michigan and Florida have already voted and delegates have already been allocated. Live with it.

 

[lancelva]

Lance,

Has Sen. Clinton proposed disqualifying the delegates from all the pre-Supertueday states?

No, because she is saying that no state should be left out of this process--including Michigan and Florida.

 

[syntax]

^I didn't say they didn't. But I posted Rule 11 and showed you how Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina violated that rule. That's not "obfuscat[ing]." How the hell can you refute it?

You have listed Iowa, New Hampshire and SC that violated Rule 11 -all states that went for Sen. Obama. I take it that no state that violated Rule 11 went for Sen. Clinton?

 

[lancelva]

^Umm...Senator Clinton won New Hampshire. So what I'm saying is that you have two options:

1. Deny seating the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida because all of those states violated Rule 11.

2. Or seat all the delegates from all the above states.

Option 1 would unfairly disenfranchise Democratic voters and alienate the base in these states. So Option 2 is the best choice.

 

[syntax]

^Umm...Senator Clinton won New Hampshire. So what I'm saying is that you have two options:

1. Deny seating the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida because all of those states violated Rule 11.

2. Or seat all the delegates from all the above states.

Option 1 would unfairly disenfranchise Democratic voters and alienate the base in these states. So Option 2 is the best choice.

Thanks for the correction. I'll have to think these options over. Like Harold Ickes and Sen. Clinton, I can always change my mind later when it better suits my interests.

 

[construct]

The reason Rule 11 should be waived for IA, NH, NV, and SC but not MI and FL is that the issue was raised before the vote with respect to MI and FL but not with respect to the others. The result is that all the candidates were relying on IA, NH, NV, and SC primaries counting. By contrast, at most only one candidate was counting on MI and FL at the time the contests were held. (Was Sen. Clinton planning this ploy all along?) The argument for including them only arose after the fact and should be estopped.

The only remedy that comports with our common sense of fair play is a do-over. And the most effective way of ensuring that the party leaders in those MI and Fl do it over is to seat only them and exclude anyone whose seat depends on the tainted contest.

 

[floorrunner]

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that it was a Republican legislature and Repbulican administration in Florida that codified into law the date of the primary. The Florida Democratic party challenged the changing of the primary date and their challenge was denied.