Its after Feb 5, The Delegates for FL and MI should now count

[BootinUp]

The whole issue with FL and MI was of course that they should not be able to move up the date of their primaries and effect the race before the other Feb 5 states. It was never that the peoples votes should be invalidated completely.

Their primary results were widely ignored and downplayed and had little to no effect on the outcome yesterday.

It is a true statement that Hillary broke no rules. Its a true statement that the delegates were not considered valid prior to Feb 5.

Award those delegates now.

[spinbaby]

1. If you want them to count, then have a proper election

[BootinUp]

51. What was improper about it?

[Occam Bandage]

61. Er, no campaigning? Hillary was the only candidate on the MI ballot?

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. Errr...too bad. The people voted in Florida.

Your guy lost.

[BootinUp]

76. Is it not true that

the reason the other candidates where not on the MI ballot was because they were couching favor with the other early states? I don't think that is Hillary's fault. Also there was a campaign against her there by high party officials.

As for no campaigning, trust me, in this modern age Florida was able to watch campaigning which goes on for a ridiculous length of time. The fact that turnout was so high is an indication that people were paying attention right there.

[enough already]

84. Stealing elections, plain and simple

This is what the Clinton campaign is all about at this point. Disgusting, but not surprising.

[BootinUp]

85. I notice you failed to justify that charge

with any logic whatsoever.

[in_cog_ni_to]

65. Obama lost. Hillary won.

In an Obama supporter's mind, that equals improper.:eyes:

[pampango]

77. Improper? It's revolutionary. All of our future primaries could involve telling

the candidates and voters that no delegates will be awarded and no campaigning is allowed. Then we hold an election anyway, wait a month or so, then yell, "Surprise! We changed our mind. We are going to award delegates based on the results of the primary voting. Gotcha!"

It really simplifies the primary election process. We don't have to listen to candidates' speeches, watch debates, endure the endless commercials, ads, and phone calls. It saves the candidates a lot of time and money.

It would be the opposite of Iowa and New Hampshire, where you keep running into candidates in restaurants and living rooms, when all you want is a hamburger and to watch the ball game. Hah, elections without having to listen to politicians. It is quite appealing.

[BootinUp]

78. lol, but the truth is

Florida was paying attention and listened to speeches debates read the news, this is evidenced by the massive turnout.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. So in essence, there'd be no penalty for violating party rules.

Great precedent to set. Let's open the floodgates so that every other state can follow suit. Hell, why don't we all just have our 2012 primaries now?

[BootinUp]

50. Not true. The penalty was no campaigning in the state. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. Which, what a coinky dink, helped your candidate.

Thus leaving her with an sizable advantage. Color me surprised that you'd express that opinion. :eyes:

[BootinUp]

58. Its not like they had no exposure to the campaigns

We have a super long primary season, and technology that lets people follow them like never before including the internet, tv, and traditional news outlets.

Its not like Florida had no idea who they were voting for.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. Florida was exposed to MSM national polls showing HRC 20 points ahead

People tend to pick a winner. In every state where Obama has actively campaigned he has narrowed the gap or won. I would expect her to win FL regardless but Obama didn't get a chance to interact with the voting public there.

[quinnox]

3. These delegates should count

Especially Florida, all the names were on the ballot there, fair is fair. No "do-overs".

[Oregone]

37. When people cannot campaign, name recognition wins by default

Rather than positions and policies. Britney Spears would of swept the state if she were on the ballot (not really, but you get my point).

Obviously you are a Clinton supporter, but that shouldn't obscure your view. Look, we should strive for educated and informed voters who have a chance to listen to a candidate, their message, their policies, and their ability to appeal to a variety of the voter's criteria.

If we were going to have elections without campaigning, why have a primary at all. Why don't we just throw everyone's name on a ballot, let them vote at once, throw the nominee on there with the Republican, and have everyone vote, and be done with it in a day's time? Because that is stupid.

[KaryninMiami]

4. No thank you. I'm in Florida and I was told that my vote didn't count.

Therefore, I voted for a candidate who had already left the race, knowing it would not count towards delegates. Had I known my vote was actually going to be counted I would have selected a different candidate. You cannot just change the rules now-it's not fair and I'm not sure that it's legal.

[Flabbergasted]

5. How do you calculate uncommitted votes into delegates as in MI.

[BootinUp]

9. Suggestions?

I don't know.

[joshcryer]

10. They go to Obama. Resolution at the DNC, "Vote to give MI uncommitted votes to Barack Obama."

It would pass fine.

[Bucky]

6. Exactly. When the Democratic Party lays down rules, they should NEVER be enforced.

Can I hazard a guess who you are supporting?

I think it's unlikely that you would feel that way if it had been Obama who ran unchallenged in those states.

[displacedtexan]

12. Don't worry. Obama now wants all of the committed super delegates.

LINK

"If this contest comes down to super-delegates, I think we're going to be able to say that we have more pledged delegates — meaning that the Democratic voters have spoken," Obama said. "And I think that those SD's who are elected officials, party insiders, would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, `Obama's our guy.'"

Is it OK for Obama to change this party rule for his own benefit?

[pdxmom]

18. How is that changing any rules? The superdelegates aren't committed. N/T

[displacedtexan]

53. I should've added the previous paragraph from Greg Sargent on committed super delegates.

Separately, at the presser, Obama also made some interesting comments about his route to the nomination, saying that he'll amass a higher total of pledged delegates as a way of putting pressure on committed super-delegates to honor the Democratic process, forgo back-room politics, and back the candidate with the most public support.

So, is TPM's Greg Sargent wrong about committed super delegates?

Edited to add: past tense in my OP

[Bucky]

71. He's not wrong, but he's using the word "committed" in a different sense

They may be personally committed to Clinton--perhaps some've given her their word how they'll vote. But that's not a contractual obligation like being an elected delegate is. I doubt pidgeonholing a party bigwig and saying, "Hey, go back on your word to a powerful US Senator and back me instead" is going to be an effective ploy.

The voters of the next 10-12 primaries are going to decide this nomination, not the superdels.

[displacedtexan]

72. Actually, they have already officially announced their support.

LINK

[joshcryer]

21. He's not changing any rules! Unbelievable.

[scheming daemons]

31. There is no such thing as a COMMITTED superdelegate...

...They are free to change their mind as often as they like.

It's IN THE RULES.

Obama has broken no rules... and Hillary goes out of her way to break them with regards to FL and MI.


You people are more and more like your candidate. No scruples.

[Bucky]

64. Sorry, but you just don't know Displaced Texan.

She backs a different candidate than us, but she's a long standing, fair minded DUer with more earned chops than you and me combined. Grown ups learn to disagree without being disagreeable. Please, join us.

[Bucky]

62. Are superdelegates "pledged" per se, or do they make their own choices?

I think it's fair game to lobby the SDs with whatever arguments a candidate wants to use. I'll argue that that's a far different problem than ex post facto rearranging the rules to allow excluded Michigan & Florida delegates to sit after candidates were told not to campaign in those states.

I just think it's better to stick with the same rules thru the whole process. FWIW I doubt Clinton will try to bump her delegate count over the top with a rule change for seating MI & FLA delegates. But more importantly, I don't think we'll get to April Fool's Day without a locked in nominee. I like the close race, but sooner or later someone breaks out front. Six weeks from now this will all be history.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. no....only a slimy, cheating fuck would do such a thing

Surely you're not suggesting that Hillary needs to steal votes Bush-style? I'm not in her camp, but I do appear to have more confidence in her abilities than you do. I think she'll be very competitive without trying to subvert democracy in order to win.

[joshcryer]

8. This is silly, just seat them via non-rule breaking DNC processes and be done with it.

[flyarm]

26. it is not that simple...there will be a blood bath over delegates in Fla..count on it! eom

[scheming daemons]

11. Only if we get to have a proper election with all candidates on the ballot in both states

Michigan ESPECIALLY shouldn't count... since Obama took his name off the ballot in abiding by DNC rules.


Set up a new primary date for both states, allow both campaigns to actually campaign there, and make sure both names are on the ballot.


If you don't do that, then it's not fair to count the FL and MI delegates.

[joshcryer]

14. I don't care what you think, FL and MI broke the rules, but their delegates will be seated.

Both Obama and Hillary have said as much.

Here's a link to Obama saying this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/29/618263.aspx

[flyarm]

39. and Obama and Hillary broke the rules..so i say Edwards being a

candidate on the Jan 29th ballot who did not break the rules should get all the delegates!!

orn say Kucinich..i don't think he broke the rules either...


believe me..i will be on this like stink on shit..and so will many Floridians who declared as delegates for other candidates per the FDP rules as delegates ..registered before the election date ends. Jan 29th 2008 !!

signed and noterized prior to 12 noon Jan 29th 2008..the day of the election ..i was registered as per the rules to be a candidate Delegate fornJohn Edwards..

i will sue the FDP and DNC if they try any funny stuff!

fly 2004 dem delegate for the state oof Florida.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. What rule did Clinton break?

[BootinUp]

52. Michigan is a more complicated picture

but there was a campaign to vote uncommitted run against her. I feel the people who voted for her should have their voices heard.

[Hawkowl]

13. No.

MI and FL will have a voice thru their superdelegates. If their delegates are seated, then look for the next primary season to be a complete free for all. Nobody will stick to any rules whatsoever.

[joshcryer]

15. FL and MI don't go toward the nomination!

OMFG PEOPLE. PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE.

[BootinUp]

54. I think its clear that if you don't follow the rules

the DNC and the other early states will keep you from affecting the race before the agreed upon date and will prevent candidates from campaigning there.

2008 is history and the problem was addressed already.

As for what happens the next time, if there is more state jumping the penalty could be more severe.

[stray cat]

16. Making the votes count after the fact sounds fishy.

[BootinUp]

49. I don't know, seems worse to try and ignore them completely

This was a scheduling conflict with the rules. It suggests that when the state delegates could be announced was the key consideration.

[MoonRiver]

17. Good point.

The whole issue was that they shouldn't be counted PRIOR to Feb. 5th. It's Feb. 6th now and time to count them.

[K Gardner]

22. Did anyone tell the OTHER CANDIDATES this?? Or is Hill the only one who knew? Or did she just

know she was going to pull an underhanded, scheming, dirty flip-flop all along? No better than Bush, if this is how she intends to "get elected".

[MoonRiver]

29. Maybe she just took a chance.

Maybe the others weren't willing to waste their precious time and money on a "long shot."

I really don't know what went on with all this. No way should any state's votes be negated, however.

[K Gardner]

34. WTF?? Unbelievable. You know EXACTLY what went on and you know damned well this is bullshit cheating

[enough already]

86. Bush looks like a choir boy compared to this bullshit theft

[scheming daemons]

23. That's the most convoluted reasoning ever....

...talk about Rovian politics.


Why are you Hillary supporters so interested in pulling Rove-like tactics? Come on, you're better than that. All candidates agreed to abide by the DNC's ruling. Don't renege now... show us that Hillary can keep her word about SOMETHING.


Rules were made. They were broken. MI and FL knew the rules, but violated them anyway. They were thusly punished.

Don't be whining weenies. FL and MI got what they deserved for breaking the rules. They will be represented through their superdelegates, and that's it.

[MoonRiver]

35. I was responding to the OP,

which seemed to say that the delegates couldn't be counted PRIOR to Feb. 5th. By that logic it's time to count them.

[flyarm]

19. just try and as a declared Delegate for Edwards, i will sue the DNC's ass off!!

as well as the state FDP and the State for disenfranchisement! and a bogus election!!...there were other candidates on those ballots on Jan 29th..not just Obama and Hillary..do not forget that!!

i won't. and i will sue over it if they throw my vote out from Jan 29th

fly ..2004 dem delegate for the state of Florida

[BootinUp]

33. Who said Edwards

should not get his delegates as well? Not me.

[flyarm]

41. no they were not allowed to campaign which disenfranchises the entire state..

people were told their vote did not count..by the media and the FDP and the DNC..many did not vote.

and candidates were not allowed to campaign..people were not allowed to hear the candidates..

and two candidates cheated after the rules committee placed the sanctions down..Obama and Hillary both told voting blocks they would seat the delegates against the rules ..

Edwards did not cheat.

fly

[BootinUp]

60. The turnout was massive. I don't believe that Edwards supporters

were disenfranchised anymore than the others. At this point there is no harm I see in awarding those delegates. Its the fair thing to do for the people of florida.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

63. Florida had a huge turnout.... people voted anyways here.

n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

20. and thus it starts

Clinton's "ace in the hole" the dlegates she couldn't have won otherwise.

Let them have a new primary then if having them count is that important.

Of course, the Clinton culture that rules are for suckers is pretty apparent in these cases.

[K Gardner]

24. Exactly. And I'm just about finished here if this is what DU is turning into.. people supporting

out and out cheating to win.. I'm out of here and will devote ALL my time and energy into making sure hillary clinton NEVER sees any kind of office again.

[flyarm]

42. i hate to tell you this..but obama has cheated just as much if not more! eom

[K Gardner]

44. Link? Proof? Anything?

[flyarm]

47. dupe

[BootinUp]

55. Please debate the OP with a counter argument.

and resist the flame throwing. :)

[K Gardner]

67. LOL.. who are you? My mother or the board monitor? I wasn't responding to the OP.. the OP which

condoned and promoted cheating. That doesn't deserve a response. I was responding to the subthread poster.

[scheming daemons]

27. This is right out of the Rove playbook...

....they should be ashamed of themselves.

[WillyT]

25. LOL !!! - Will Say And Do Anything...

Wow.

:evilfrown:

[jody]

28. Please remember FL's Repub controlled senate and house decided to hold primaries early. By denying

FL Democrats their voice in choosing the Dem presidential candidate, IMO the Dem Party loses and Repub Party wins.

[scheming daemons]

36. DNC offered to pay Florida to hold a caucus later... they declined....

Howard Dean gave the Florida Democrats an opportunity to PROPERLY, and WITHIN THE RULES, elect delegates.

They declined.

By doing so, they made their bed.



Let the DNC pay for the Florida dems to hold a caucus, and then there is no disenfranchisement.


Same thing in Michigan.

[flyarm]

45. yes the DNC offered $800,000.00 for Fla to hold a caucus..our FDP didn't hardly respond. eom

[flyarm]

43. ahhh excuse me but DLC state dem legislators voted for this bullshit as well..

please ..don't just make shit up..if you don't know what happened..don't act like you do..go read Madfloridian's Journals..and catch up with what happened here in Fla..

and don't just make shit up!

fly a 2004 dem delegate for the state of Fla

[madfloridian]

94. That is not true. The Dems voted with them 115 to 1...they were all for it.

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary that far ahead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1564

[cali]

30. not gonna happen, Jim

not a chance that they'll be counted at this point. You can demand it until you turn blue, but it ain't happening.

[Alexander]

32. No, they should have a new primary.

With every candidate on the ballot.

[totodeinhere]

38. That's not fair.

Why should Hillary get any delegates from Michigan? The other candidates followed the rules set out by the DNC and removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Hillary snubbed the DNC and remained on the Michigan ballet. Now as a reward for violating the rules she gets to have those Michigan delegates? That's just not fair.

As far as Florida goes, nobody knows what the results would have been if the candidates had campaigned there. But one thing we do know. Anywhere Obama has a chance to campaign his support goes up. So why should Hillary get any Florida delegates when it was not a properly contested election?

[flyarm]

46. it can not be done now..without lawsuits up the asses..Edwards was on the Fla ballot

and still had an active campaign ..many people were declared as delegates for Edwards.

fly

[PeaceNikki]

88. There was no requirement they remove their names. In fact, it benefited the others TO remove theirs

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html


The Biden campaign criticized Clinton and Dodd for not taking their names off the ballot.

"The Dodd and Clinton campaigns have chosen to hedge their bets, thereby throwing this process into further disarray," Biden campaign manager Navarro said. "In doing so, they have abandoned Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina."

CNN's Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider suggested the Democrats who withdrew may have calculated that it was simply in their best political interest to do so.

"If there's no campaign, the candidate most likely to win Michigan is Hillary Clinton," Schneider said. "Her Democratic rivals don't want a Clinton victory in Michigan to count. They want Iowa and New Hampshire, where they have a better chance of stopping Clinton, to count more."

[PeaceNikki]

91. It was an unneccesary step.

An "extention to their pledge" to the DNC that snubbed the voters there.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/leaving_michigan_behind.html

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday both filed paperwork with the Michigan secretary of state to have their names withdrawn, as did Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

"This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

[JackORoses]

40. this is Hillary's last stand, eh?

Only a sure loser would fight to have flawed Primary results used to determine the nominee.

If she really cared about the people of MI and FL, she would be pushing for a revote.
Instead she is trying to seat flawed delegations which just happen to be in her favor.

She will not get away with it. It would destroy the Democratic Party.
That doesn't mean she won't try. Why let a little thing like Party unity stand in your way?

[mmonk]

48. Why have any rules at all?

No. Something can now be worked on that is agreeable. Obama shouldn't be penalized for going by the rules. Maybe add in a caucus.

[ecstatic]

66. The problem is the Michigan ballots--not to mention, many people stayed home

over the situation. So really, the primaries would need to be held all over again. What a colossal F-up by the DNC. SMH

[mrgorth]

68. Nope

Howard Dean will fuck your shit up. Better luck next time.

[BootinUp]

81. I think Dean sees it more my way

there was a recent interview where he has already indicated that the delegates would probably be seated.

[BootinUp]

82. Credentials Committee mentioned by Howard Dean

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/06/what_does_the_muddle_mean.html

Still crunching numbers here, looking at absentees in American Samoa, reading the exits from Alaska, etc., and the one obvious conclusion is that the contest for the Democratic nomination may be decided by the very frightening Credentials Committee mentioned yesterday by Howard Dean. The Credentials Committee will try to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention, even though they are supposed to be punished for their jumping-the-gun impunity. That will, in turn, incite lawsuits galore -- really apocalyptic stuff with heavy hitters emerging from the Palm and the Capitol Grille to let fly with legal briefs that will curl the hair on your back. And that legal case will surely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

[arewenotdemo]

70. Bullshit.

[Bucky]

73. Oops, little typo error. I think you meant "The FL & Mich. delegates should NOT count"

Certainly you meant to say "Award those delegates... not."

[RiverStone]

74. No - either throw out the delegate's votes - or re-do both primaries

That seems to be the consensus in this thread - on topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4436846

[BootinUp]

75. But I have made a unique case here that after

reading all the responses still has merit in my view.

[madfloridian]

79. I thought you were joking. But you are not, are you?

You really are serious.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1813

[BootinUp]

80. absolutely. nt

[LordJFT]

83. no because the elections were not fair

[enough already]

87. If she succeeds in stealing those delegates, it will be all out war

You think this campaign is ugly now? You ain't seen nothing yet.

[BootinUp]

95. Who said anything about stealing?

Florida voted for her in a fair election.

[jefferson_dem]

89. What a load of illogical crapola.

Not even close to legit.

Cheaters never win.

[BootinUp]

93. Thats not a counter argument. nt

[elixir]

90. Well, Jim, you had to say it. I'm all for it but you've incurred the wrath of all manner of Obamite

[BootinUp]

92. Sometimes I just can't bite my tongue when I think I have

something important to say.

I hope others might pick up on this theme if it makes sense to them too.

[BootinUp]

96. kick