Howard Dean may be in for a HUGE fight!

[RiverStone]

Heard on the very cool liberal talk radio this morning - AM 620 KPOJ Portland - a very interesting discussion regarding a Howard Dean interview he gave on the M$M prior to last night's results coming in.

He was asked: What are you going to do Howard if the delegates in FLA/MI are needed to decide the nominee? He responded by deferring the decision (if they will be seated or not) to a large, yet to be established committee, who will make that determination at the convention. From there, the point was made that even if the delegates are seated, the resulting configuration would not be accurate (or fair) as Obama/Edwards did not campaign in either state, were not on the ballot in MI, and the penalty via the DNC was that the votes would not count anyway.

Howard never imagined a race this close or that FLA/MI would ever come into play by convention time. Of course, the possibility that the Obama/Clinton battle will go all the way to Denver without a known nominee is looming. Now there is talk that maybe we can seat them after all.

This would be a HUGE mistake!!!

The people of each state respectively needs to decide who the winners are in FLA and MI, not a select group of folks on a committee. If those delegates are seated, it would be a fiasco and legal challenges would certainly follow. It would be reminiscent of the SCOTUS giving the election to Shrub; the voters must decide our nominee - not some "committee".

The only really fair way to settle it is a re-do of the primary in both states. This was echoed on the radio as well. In may sound crazy at this point, but if it comes down to FLA/MI deciding who our nominee is, what other equitable solution do you propose? :shrug:

[polichick]

1. Either leave them out or re-do both primaries...

I'd hate to see Dems basically "stealing" our own nomination.

[flyarm]

2. this was caused by the DLC ..not Howard Dean..he is only following the rules..the dlc planned

this bullshit..all eyes should be on Rahmn Emmanuel!..he is the one responsible!

fool me onece...shame on who?

fuck the DLC..this was theirnplan to fuck Howard Dean..don't you believe otherwise!

fly from fla

[RiverStone]

8. Regardless of who is to blame...

This is falling on Howard Dean's lap - and folks are now scrambling to figure out a fair resolution to this clusterfuck.

What could that be???

[MonkeyFunk]

11. That's absurd

the DLC had nothing to do with this.

[flyarm]

16. bullshit! eom

[MonkeyFunk]

39. The DLC has no control

over the primary process. It's a think-tank.

[RiverStone]

26. fuck the blame part...

Its done.

What do you think is a fair solution to the mess? I'm looking for solutions here.

[KittyWampus]

56. It was Clinton crony Terry Fucking McAuliffe. And HE enforced these rules before.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. But who did it THIS year?

Howard Dean and the state parties. It had nothing to do with the DLC.

[Perky]

58. We agree on this

[Capn Sunshine]

65. Sorry, this was a carefully articulated DLC think-tank plan

the whole idea was In Blueprint Magazine some time back.

The premise is that elections are decided by media and the earlier a candidate is chosen, the longer they have to push their message.

[paulk]

25. maybe you could explain?

how the DLC is responsible for this?

[Cassandra]

45. I think Dean indicated early on

that he was stuck with rules decided on by McAuliffe and others before he took over. I understood it had to do with the timing of their primaries and preventing states from moving them around the calender.

[Coexist]

3. they were offered a caucus and said, "no"

a primary would be too expensive.

A Judge has ruled that the DNC has a right to enfore their own rules.

No delegates to anyone. No one will try thumbing their nose at the DNC next year. Problem solved.

[flyarm]

6. they were also offered $800,000.00...this was planned and executed by the DLC!

the other day Karen Thurman went to SE Fla to do a speech..and she was booed and people got up and walked out..fuck her and the lying DLC .

fly

[madfloridian]

4. I heard both interviews, also heard him later on NBC. He did not say that

he would seat the delegates. He evaded pretty much, and I don't blame him.

He said the credentials committee would do it.

They won't be counted in the choice of the nominee.

[RiverStone]

12. So if the "credentials committee" did it?

That opens the flood gates for a zillion other questions....

Who is on that committee and are they for Obama or Clinton or Edwards?

Why should said committee even have ANY OPTION to debate the question, it would be unfair to seat even one dang delegate?

Many, many more....

[Captain Hilts]

5. The MI and FL fiasco is ultimately HIS fault. nt

[flyarm]

10. bullshit!..this was planned and executed by the DLC!! eom

[Kittycat]

15. How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

Should we just let everyone change their dates at their own whim? Why even bother with Primaries - let's just let state party leaders decide who to endorse.

Seriously now.

[Captain Hilts]

20. No, but he's the Top Cat and the absence of any solution - rotating dates -

for example, is his fault.

He's The leader of the DNC. I don't like what MI and FL did one bit, but it's like punishing children for what their parents do. Voters in MI and FL deserve better. It's NOT fair their primaries are late.

NY/MI/FL/TX/CA/OH need to be placed in a lottery style hopper and have two pulled out to determine which get to have early primaries. Random, and fair.

That's not so hard to do, is it? Kind of like the NBA lottery.

[RiverStone]

31. Who ever has to figure it out - what do you think needs to happen?

Howard earned part of this mess - so did the state party's - but I'm seeking ideas for how to resolve this fucked up scenario in a fair way.

What do you suggest?

[marlakay]

7. I agree wait till end of march or april and do a redo

after the others are over. Then everyone can campaign. No one can say its not fair. If they seat it the way it is all of Obama's people all over the US will be enraged and rightfully so.

[flyarm]

13. no way i will stand up against that..and so will many many others!

bullshit..Obama came in after the decision in Sept and said he would seat delegates against the rules..Hillary did the same..Edwards did not cheat like the others,..and he was on our ballot when the election took place..

no way no how..no re-do..without Edwards getting equal delegates to obama and hillary..period end of story!

fuck the rule breakers ..who strong arm Edwards out..they cheated... and now they think they can come in a screw Edwards delegates..fuck no!



fly

[flyarm]

14. no redo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..eom

[RiverStone]

29. OK, then what solution do you suggest?

No sarcasm intended.

Seeking a fair solution here.

[TexasObserver]

9. Florida and Michigan Democrats misbehaved.

They knew the consequences. They are to blame. No good can come from removing their penalty. Next time, they won't thumb their nose at the party.

[DrDan]

17. whoa - please rephrase that

it was not Florida and Michigan Democrats.

We are the victims here - we were screwed by 2 power-hungry factions of the party.

It was the Florida and Mi Democratic Party heads who misbehaved - along with the DLC.

Both were willing to disenfranchise their voters. So screw 'em!!! My primary vote will be made at the GE. And I dare either to call me for a contribution.

[RiverStone]

23. I get you frustration!

Makes total sense.

And yet DrDan, what solution do you propose to resolve this if FLA/MI delegates are needed to decide our nominee?

[DrDan]

40. seat the delegates. Let them vote.

Both Obama and Hillary had an equal opportunity for voters - since neither campaigned. I think you would be hard pressed to find a voter who did not have an opportunity to learn about either - even though neither visited either state.

[RiverStone]

49. But are not those delegates weighted....

Already more for Hillary?

Many would assert that these folks should not vote because the voting itself was based on a primary that was not supposed to count.

[DrDan]

52. of course that is exactly what Obama will argue

but . . . what would he have said differently that would have changed any of the votes?

And would an in-state appearance really have made any difference?

[TornadoTN]

59. If he was able to spend money in that state, then yes indeed it would help

If he could have gotten on the ground and ran a campaign like in any other state, then the results could be dramatically different. To discount that is to ignore the reality of politics.

[DrDan]

68. well . . . why would that not also apply to Hillary

and in this day and age, even those of us in Florida have had a chance to see Hillary and Obama campaign events, debates, and an abundance of shows dealing with specific issues.

We have been spared the annoying dinner-time calls, the sound-byte commercials, and the littering signs throughout the neighborhoods. I can be argued that those of us in Florida and Michigan actually made up our minds via the issues, versus political trinkets.

[TornadoTN]

69. Perhaps, but things could be dramatically different if they BOTH could have campaigned on the ground

I'm not saying it just because I support Obama, but no candidate was able to get their message to the people of Florida. They all focused on other areas and catered to other demographics. If there were to be another caucus or primary, I feel it would be fair to all involved.

However, there were rules in place and everyone knew the score. These delegates would not be seated. Even the people of the state of Florida or Michigan knew that as well even though they turned out. I can't see rewarding any candidate by default just to make people feel better when the situation was well known beforehand.

[RiverStone]

70. agreed - but in reality, we will never know what might have been...

Can't go off of conjecture.

Either a total re-do or a total removal of those delegates from the convention count.

No in betweens will suffice.

[TornadoTN]

73. This would be a great opportunity to show people what we stand for

If we stick to our guns on the rules - then it shows we are committed to following the law after 8 long years of lawlessness and fraud.

If we allow a redo - then it shows that we value all voters in our Democracy and feel that everyone's voice should be heard clearly and fairly.

I think its a good opportunity for our party either way, if it isn't slammed by lawsuits and power grabs by the Clinton campaign.

[DrDan]

78. yes - but at the expense of disenfranchising voters

Do we not stand firmly against that?

[TornadoTN]

80. How do you disenfranchise voters by following the rules or allowing a revote?

I'm not sure I follow that argument. People KNEW this was the case when they went to the polls. To change the rules half-way through this campaign is akin to Bush getting the rules changed at every corner in the 2000 election. That's not something I want to see again, especially in my own party.

[RiverStone]

83. I doubt as many knew what was going on...

As we political junkies do on DU.

Believe me, many people did NOT vote because they knew about the DNC penalty - and many people voted not fully understanding the nuances.

We pay attention - but thats us.

You simply call foul and re-do the whole dang thing in both states. That would be the only way any legitimate seating of delegates could occur.

[TornadoTN]

84. Yes - A re-do is the only option that I see at this point that is a compromise

I have some friends and business contacts scattered all across FL who have told much the same thing. "I didn't vote because they aren't seating the delegates anyway" Unless there were ballot initiatives in specific areas, I would say that many people stayed at home either way they would have voted.

[DrDan]

86. well, if the rule is that women are not allowed to vote, do you

think we should sit by and be content with the outcome. Or is that rule worth breaking.

If the rules are that blacks get 2/3 of a vote, do you feel that represents Democratic party values. Or should that rule be corrected.

We have party leaders at various levels that are nothing more than power-grabbing opportunists, unwilling to to truly work for a mutually satisfactory solution, but willing to take away the voice of millions of party voters.

Having a rule that takes away anyone's right to vote is not a rule that should be adopted by the Democratic party. That is such a Republican thing to do.

[DrDan]

77. then a "re-do" is the only option

Democratic values can not allow disenfranchising any voters.

[DrDan]

71. but that is my point exactly.

What would they have said differently. Those of us in Florida have had ample opportunity to hear both Hillary and Obama - even though they did not visit.

How (and why) would they have a different message? There are retirees throughout the U.S. There are areas across the U.S. that are prone to natural disasters. There are educational issues throughout the U.S. There are medical insurance issues throughout the U.S. There are employment issues throughout the U.S.

What is it about Florida and Michigan that suggests a specific "message" for us. I don't believe there is anything - save pandering to the voters. And we have been spared that.

[TornadoTN]

75. I know many who appreciate a candidate paying attention to their state/region

I have heard it a lot here in Tennessee with issues specific to our region. When a candidate visits it gets "personal" and that can translate to votes. For instance, in Eastern Tennessee things were looking good for McCain. Yet Huckabee came into town on Monday and we saw a dramatic shift in last minute voters from likely McCain to voting for Huckabee. It helped propel him to victory in this state.

However, I respect your points and can see their merit, although I disagree.

[OzarkDem]

32. You need to get rid of the old leadership of your state party

You have my sympathy for the situation you're in, but it sounds like you need a grassroots movement to throw out the old leadership and put in new ones that follow the rules and represent all the Dems in your state. Many were controlled by union or other political leaders who gave money to and played both sides of the aisle. It was a mess in Ohio, the GOP had more control over our state party than we did.

Before Dean and the 50 state strategy, a lot of Dem state party organizations were filled with leadership that had "atrophied" or had sold out to members of the state GOP for "protection". They were invisible to grassroots Dems and they preferred it that way. The 50 state strategy opened up the state party organizations and the cockroaches scurried for cover. It takes a lot of work and organization to take back party leadership, but its worth the effort. The trick is in figuring out who you can trust.

[DrDan]

48. sure - in hindsight, that sounds reasonable

but are you willing to allow this disenfranchisement?

This is a critical election. And the two remaining candidates are extremely close right now. Doesn't it make sense to listen to ALL the D's?

I think leaders of all factions of the party should be replaced. They are all nothing but power-grabbing opportunists.

[TexasObserver]

38. Yes, it was the heads of the state party. That's what I meant.

Unfortunately for Floridians and Michiganers, their party leaders screwed them. Your recourse is to throw out your party leaders for ruining your chance to participate in the process. They had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing, and didn't.

The DNC cannot have each state party thumbing its nose at the national party on issues like primaries. You take your grievances to the convention, and fight about it there, but first, you obey the national party or you never get to the convention.

[DrDan]

54. my particular view is to throw out the state leaders AND the leaders of the DNC

I do not think either was willing to work out a mutual solution. And they were both guilty of being willing to screw the voters.

[Captain Hilts]

67. Agree, DrDan. nt

[JVS]

44. "It was the Florida and Mi Democratic Party heads who misbehaved - along with the DLC."

Then vote out those asses.

[RiverStone]

18. But still - if neither Obama or Hillary have the 2025 votes...

And we need the FLA/MI people to put someone "over the top" - there has to be a solution.

The time to figure it out probably should not be during the convention, with all of America watching the Dems rage a big battle on this.

Far better to get this shit figured out before hand - and that will be a very challenging task unless all agree to re-do the primaries. And who will pay for that? I promise ya, not the states!

[glowing]

21. Yo, the DLC fucked with us.. We didn't agree with the upper ups who

thought they could pull off this little ploy.. FL was more fair than MI because Hillary would win in a re-do as well... If you don't think we have cable, internet, newspapers, and other asshats pushing their candidates, your stupid... MI, is not fair because of undecided.. so give undecided to Obama.. only cat left... Then who wins? Also there are a few more states that are voting still.. If we keep this stupid little in-fight up, no one is going unite a damn thing but the repugs to come out and vote against...

[Captain Hilts]

22. Punish the voters of MI and FL for what their party heads did? Not fair. Lottery on dates. nt

[tridim]

46. The voters in MI and FL should punish their party heads.

Otherwise the entire country pays for their arrogance. That's even less fair.

[RiverStone]

50. Maybe - but who gets to vote (or not) if we fall short of the 2025 to nominate?

[LisaM]

19. The party thumbed its nose at Michigan and Florida

Each state will be in play, each is going to be desperately important in the GE, and I'm sure neither state believed that they could be in play this late. Michigan has been going through a one-state recession for years. Its problems are now suddenly the nation's problems. If the Democrats can win Florida, they can win the GE (could have happened the last two cycles). They are far more important in November than Nevada or South Carolina. The national party should have looked to states that will matter, and that have problems now, to help pick a candidate.

[Captain Hilts]

24. No, they thumbed their noses as the Party. But it's up to Dean to solve this problem and he didn't.

[LisaM]

27. Well, as a native Michigander, I see it differently

People in Michigan are not doing well. The state is bleeding jobs and lost population last year. IMO, when the party decided to add early states, that should have factored in.

Add to that: the state legislature took up the task of changing the date back and were stonewalled by the Michigan state Republicans, who are nasty, during a budget crisis. So the Dems lost the chance to change it back. It's not going to bode well in the GE. People are really frustrated and angry.

[OzarkDem]

37. Its just as bad here in Ohio, but we still followed the rules

We've had to deal with complete GOP control of the state government for the last 14 years and nearly as many years of crappy Dem party leadership at the state level.

Throw open the doors of your state party and clean the stables out. A lot of those people have probably been in charge way too long, trading favors, taking care of their buddies, playing games instead of growing the party. Get some new blood in and make the party operate transparently so everyone knows whats going on and leadership is accountable to the Dem grassroots organizations.

[Capn Sunshine]

66. They should be angry- Their Gov made a backroom deal with the Clintons

and in the process, fucked the man on the street Democrat over.

You should all join the party instead of crying on the outside about it, and throw those scheming bastards out ASAP. You have plenty of time to do so.

[TexasObserver]

82. I agree with you that the DNC should have moved Michigan up.

And it was dumb of them to bust out Michigan like that. Dumb to bust out Florida, too. These things should have been worked out. That said, it's incumbent on the STATE party officials to make a compromise happen. They have no bargaining power with the other 48 states reps running the show.

The DNC should have barred all the (Florida and Michigan) state party wonks from participating in the DNC, and forced those states to send new party leaders to represent the states in this matter. They should have punished the recalcitrant leaders instead of their constituents. But they didn't, and now it's a mess.

I'd like to see this fixed. We need Michigan and Florida more than we need Iowa and New Hampshire, but even so, this year the delegates cannot come in, and that's how it must be.

[tridim]

28. How about simply subtracting FL/MI delegates from the required total?

If they don't want to play along, they don't get to play. Maybe next time they'll get with the program.

[harun]

33. That is what they should do (n/t)

[RiverStone]

35. That's a new idea - and barring a re-do - might be one solution???

What a mess.

[IDemo]

72. Excellent suggestion, but that would be too easy and obvious

simply wouldn't do! ;)

[ieoeja]

74. I believe they already did that. n/t

[BattyDem]

87. That's the best idea I've heard so far!

:toast:

[JDPriestly]

30. The voters of Michigan and Florida get penalized.

The parties in Michigan and Florida get penalized. They made a deal. They knew what the rules were. They broke the rules. They broke their deal. They don't get to have delegates. That's the way it is. If you don't enforce the agreement and the rules, the party will no longer have the ability to organize itself. No one will be bound by the rules of the party.

So, it's either continue to be a Democratic Party with a modicum of organizational structure and discipline or just let people run on their own in individual states and have no party.

We have the same problem with "party discipline" in Congress. Even on important issues like telecom immunity, the Republicans vote pretty much in strict conformity while Democrats from certain states break ranks and vote against the majority of Democrats. That is, of course, the vision of the Founding Fathers on how Congress was supposed to work if you read the Federalist Papers. Representatives are supposed to represent the interests of the people in their region. But then, Hamilton on the one side and Jefferson on the other found that they needed to form political parties in order to achieve concrete goals.

Somehow the modern Democratic Party still clings to the original idea about politics -- just a bunch of folks with different ideas and interests standing up for whatever they happen to believe in at the moment. There is no concept of party loyalty or unity in the Democratic Party. That is why, although we Democrats represent the majority of voters, we don't get much done even when we have both the White House and the entire Congress supposedly on our side.

It's either Michigan and Florida go their own way and the party falls apart, perhaps not immediately but eventually, or their delegates are excluded and we have a real party that can decide on one course of action and get something done. It's going to be a big decision. Dean is wise to set up a commission to decide. If he decides himself it will be pay-back time from the DLC heavies, time to show Dean who is boss. This is not about Dean. This is about the party making rules and the members agreeing to follow them and then following them.

Florida and Michigan were wrong in holding rogue primaries. Those primaries may have been held by the state organizations, but they weren't held under national Democratic Party guidelines. Therefore Florida and Michigan will just have to hold their own convention if they want their rogue primaries to count. They can back one or the other of the candidates, but they aren't really a part of the Democratic Party.

[RiverStone]

42. Great analysis and a question...

Appreciate the perspective JD, but to over simplify...

It seems we either reduce from 2025 the delegate count needed to secure the nom (by the total delegate count from each state combined) or we re-do both primaries.

If it comes down to needing the delegates for either candidate to reach the 2025 threshold, what other fair solution is there?

[JDPriestly]

60. The number of delegates should be 1/2 of voting delegates.

I don't know what that is.

[Meshuga]

34. Re-election or no seating delegates for FL/MI

If you cannot run a re-election then the Florida and Michigan votes should not count. That would be fucked up. I will support Hillary Clinton in the GE if she wins the nomination fair and square (without receiving FL and MI as a present). But if the votes count (without redoing the primaries) and this is the deciding factor that Hillary wins the nomination, I will lose faith in the Democratic party and no longer want to be affiliated. That's the only scenario that would make me not vote in November. Otherwise, I will support the democratic nominee.

[RiverStone]

51. I agree and I sure wonder what party leaders think of this idea!

[Meshuga]

79. They better hope this is not a deciding factor or it is going to get ugly n/t

[RoadRage]

36. Either subtract those votes to lower the number required, or have a NEW primary in both states.

Simply "counting" them is completely unfair considering that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, and name recognition automatically gives Clinton an advantage in any un-campaigned state (FL).

If the votes are needed, announce a new primary date for sometime in March or April (or even May - some states will still be holding them then). Give both candidtes time to campaign for votes.. and then go from there.

But just "giving" Hillary the votes and deciding that they will count is probably the only way to ensure that I, and many like me will not vote for her in a general election. I don't like to lose, but a fair loss is something I will accept. A Bush style steal of this election will divide this party in ways that the republicans couldn't even fathom.

[RiverStone]

53. Yes- others in this thread also see this as the ONLY fair solution - me too!

[Apollo11]

41. As Democrats, we should defend the rights of voters in Michigan and Florida.

The situation is fu**ed up. Howard Dean is the only one is a position to fix it.

Michigan should be done over. The good people of Michigan have been f**ked over by the system. Their voices need to be heard in this process. Either a primary or caucuses.

Florida is a different case, because Obama was on the ballot at least. If Edwards delegates support Obama, then Florida is split 50-50. Doing it over probably wouldn't change that by much, if anything.

[RiverStone]

55. They should re-do both

Many folks in FLA did not go to the polls because they were told by the DNC/DLC that their vote was worthless (for a candidate).

The whole thing was a fiasco.

If ya re-do MI - you must re-do FLA.

[RoadRage]

76. I totally agree.. you RE DO BOTH!

Just because Obama was on the ballot doesn't mean a thing. 4 weeks ago his name recognition in a lot of states had him polling behind Clinton by 20+ margins.. give him a second to actually campaign in any state, and he either wins, or loses by a close margin in most cases.

Also, with John Edwards dropping out - that changes the votes of many as well. A Redo, or the votes don't count.

[AtomicKitten]

43. I fully expect Clinton to try to sue her way to the title.

After the 2000 judicial coup d'etat, I think most Americans have had it with the courts deciding elections. Enough.

1. The DNC set the rules, the same rules Clinton signed on to and obviously intends to try to break in the middle of the game for advantage.
2. Not all candidates were on the Michigan ballot and the Florida vote was name recognition only.

Bill Nelson lost his attempt to sue on this issue. I expect the same result if the Clintons are low enough to pursue that line of attack.

[Az_lefty]

47. I agree...

if Hillary isn't the clear winner by the convention the Clinton's will turn this into a disaster that just could guarantee a McCain win in Nov.

[TornadoTN]

62. You can bet on this becoming a reality

It will fracture the party to a point that it could destroy our viability for years. But we all know the Clinton's will do anything for power and they are best friends with the Bush clan so they have apt advisor's for legal actions.

[cottonseed]

63. Another election decided by the robed

Kind of tough to find the differences between us and 3rd world countries these days.

[Perky]

64. She won't win

The DNC has absolut control ofer the primary process. They set the rule. for the convention and who get seated. The party is a private entity and the bylaws were followed.


She has no case. She may not even have standing.


Even if those thresholds were met... She would prove to be the most polarizing figure not only in the american political landscape but withing the Democratic Party

[TornadoTN]

81. I'd say she pretty much already has that title sewn up

Just look around this and other communities, the evidence is overwhelming. Just look at the results in this election and hear the stories of those who have heard from friends and family that they won't, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton. My parents are of that mindset and they are Moderate-Left people who have voted Democratic their entire lives! Sure, it might be wrong but they aren't the only ones that feel that way. As for myself, I won't be pleased to have to vote for her if she wins but theres no real alternative for me.


The only thing that she will unite is the fractured and frantic Republican's who will turn out in droves to defeat her.

[Apollo11]

89. What about Obama supporters in Florida and Michigan?

Don't they have the right to have their votes counted and send delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver? Isn't that what "Democratic" means? :eyes:

Your post says nothing about citizens' rights. It only says that if the Clinton campaign tries to do anything about defending the rights of voters in FL & MI, then it will be pursuing a "line of attack" that will prove how "low" Hillary is.

Nobody here wants to deal with this in a way that is unfair to Obama.

I speculated that the likely result in Florida would be close to a 50-50 split.

But if it was up to me they would be forced to do-over the primaries in both States.

[AtomicKitten]

91. Take it up with Howard Dean and the DNC.

I'm fully behind a do-over with the candidates allowed to campaign in the states and all names on the ballot.

But that's not what Hillary wants. She wants the advantage of counting votes when all candidates' names weren't on the ballot (Michigan) and where Obama, the new kid, has not been able to campaign (Michigan and Florida), hoping to skate on her name recognition only.

That's not "protecting citizens' votes" as you seem to think (that would be the real democratic suggestion above) but rather seeking to gain advantage by any means necessary and that, my friend, is the antithesis of democracy.

Rules are rules, rules set by Howard Dean and the DNC, and she signed on to those rules before a single vote was cast. You seem to be imposing your displeasure with that simple concept on me which is as unfair as it is inappropriate, but so very DU. :eyes:

[Apollo11]

92. Sorry for imposing my displeasure on you

I am not so familiar with all the ins and outs of how this mess got made in the first place.

But I hope a fair and democratic solution can be found.

I know that's what you would prefer also. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

93. " ... a fair democratic solution" -- EXACTLY!

[jzodda]

61. Those Delagates Should NEVER be seated without Real Primaries

1. If you seat them you reward bad behavior. Every party needs rules to follow and to let them get away with it will encourage other states to further muddle an already muddled system.

2. If you need the votes from those 2 states to get a nominee then re-do those primaries. It will be fair that way and will also be great fun :)

[THUNDER HANDS]

85. split the delegates in half for each candidate

so at least they could be seated at the convention.

It's not very likely that either Obama or Clinton will be exactly tied by the time the convention rolls around, so split the delegates and whoever was leading at the time becomes the defacto nominee.

[BattyDem]

88. That's a good idea, too.

They can't seat delegates without a real primary because that's not fair to the voters or the candidates. In a close race, these two states would decide the nominee, but one state thought their votes wouldn't mean anything and the other state didn't have a choice on the ballot! Frankly, as a Democrat, I would be seriously pissed off if they were seated under the current circumstances.

So they have a few choices ... re-do the primaries, subtract the number of FL and MI delegates from the total required for the nomination so they won't be needed if it's a close race (which is tridim's idea), or simply split them evenly.

[Elspeth]

90. I do not believe in disenfranchising voters for breaking party rules

I always thought not having FL and MI count was not consitutional--and arrogant.