What is the problem with seating all or a portion of FL delegates.

[boston bean]

The turn out was huge.

No one campaigned there. So that was even.

If you ask me it was probably one of the most untarnished votes of the whole primary season.

[MadBadger]

1. Untarnished votes?? You serious?

How does campaigning tarnish an election? What you are saying is that Hillary Clinton deserves to win because of name recognition.

[boston bean]

3. That is the lamest excuse of all. No one knew Barack, bull shit. nt

[NoBorders]

8. That is a retarted statement.

Voters know bill and hillary far better than Sen. Obama. Just because they might have seen Obama's name and face on the news once or twice is no comparison. He and the other candidates would have to have a chance to campaign.

They need to have a new caucus or primary, or don't seat them.

[joshcryer]

21. Both Obama and Hillary are for seating them.

They had an election unencumbered by large media campaigns and millions of dollars of money spent. This should have compelled those who were actually interested in the candidates to actually go online or seek out other methods to learn about them. Not glitz and glamour, all policy.

[NoBorders]

32. Then we should just eliminate all campaigning

and have people sit at home and read their policy positions.

Right.

[joshcryer]

35. I wish.

We'd be done with the fucking glitz and glamor that's for damn sure.

Oh and the MSM manipulation.

[boston bean]

38. That would be great. To much money and manipulation is involved. nt

[NoBorders]

73. Agreed. No more 'tears', 'snubbed handshakes', etc...

Definitely too much manipulation via the mass media.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

11. Obama ran ads in Florida against the rules! STILL LOST!

[jefferson_dem]

60. Untarnished votes = Hillary won.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

2. Why not just have a FL caucus to assign delegates?

Oh, that's right. Cuz Hillary would likely lose that.

[boston bean]

4. You're right, she does kick his ass in big state primaries. That's for sure.

So why would you assume FL would be any different.

[joshcryer]

10. They don't get doovers.

[durrrty libby]

12. Florida already voted. There is no reason to do it again

The only one who campaigned in Fl was Obama. He ran plenty of TV ads

[juajen]

22. Because you get unqualified voters in a caucus.

Why do you think Obama won so many? Cross-overs and unregistered voters. Give me a closed primary where pugs can't play with our votes. Obama openly says he wants republican and independent voters. Hint, hint. Case in point: Georgia

Ya'll do remember what happened to Cynthia McKinney, don't you. Pugs crossed over and voted for her opponent. Closed primaries should be mandated all over this country to prevent this.

Does anyone know how many states have closed primaries and which ones they are. I tried to find it online, but am not feeling well today and couldn't come up with it. Am typing slow too.

[joshcryer]

27. Great points. :)

[Iggo]

5. FL Dems knowingly broke the rules.

They were warned. They went ahead and did it anyway. National Dems want to change the rules and allow it? Fine.

But that's the answer to "What's the problem with...?"

They broke the rules.

[durrrty libby]

17. The voters didn't break any rules. They should not be disenfranchised

Weak argument

[joshcryer]

30. The party doesn't want to disenfranchise anyone, they want to seat the delegates.

[joshcryer]

6. I completely agree, it was one of the only real elections in the country.

The rest were MSM illusions.

[juajen]

7. There should be no problem. It's the only right solution.

Obama should take the high road and agree to this; but, I won't take any bets on it.

[joshcryer]

13. Both Obama and Hillary are for seating those delegates. Obama wouldn't if it hurt him though.

It'd be interesting if the superdelegates vote to seat them, though. Not sure if Obama would like that.

[NoBorders]

Yes, the Queen should always have her way. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. I Agree. Not Sure I Quite Understand The Outrage Either.

People went to the polls and voted. Not sure why those results all of a sudden should not matter.

[burythehatchet]

42. oF coursE yoU don'T, buT seE sometimeS ruleS matteR

an electorate may believe that FLorida's delegates will not be seated because why? Because that's what has been widely reported. Sooo, maybe a couple three peeps decide to stay home, and the next sagacious DUers wonder "huh, what? Hillary won, fair & square..."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Tell Me... What Were The Results Of The Election? In Real Numbers?

[burythehatchet]

45. soN, we've previously been unsuccessful in the exercise of didactic reasoning.

I'll pass.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. You'll Pass Because It'll Expose Your Argument For The Ignorance It Is. Let Me Spoonfeed You Ok?

2004 Florida Primary Results:

578,768 Kerry
75,219 Edwards
20,889 Sharpton
20,717 Dean
17,252 Kucinich
712,845 Total


2008 Florida Primary Results

857,208 Clinton
569,041 Obama
248,604 Edwards
9,537 Kucinich
1,684,390 Total

Gee. Only more than TWICE the turnout as the previous election. Yeah, looks like voters were REALLLLLLLLLY inclined to stay home.

:rofl:

But hey, you want to disenfranchise 1.7 million fucking people, be my guest.

Oh, and here are some links for ya to choke on.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/03/09/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#FL

[burythehatchet]

62. You're the guy in the office that keeps talking to the back of my head as

I'm trying to walk away down the hall.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Facts Really Hurt Your Brain That Much, Huh. Walk Away From The Facts All You Want. But When You

turn around, they're still there.

"neener neener I can't hear you! Noooooo!!!!! Nooooo facts!!!!! I can't take facts!!!!! Nooooo!!!! Get them away!!!! I can't hear you!!! I can't hear you!!!! Nooooo!!! I won't read them!!!! I just won't I won't I won't!!!!"

:rofl:

God you're just too much!

:spray:

[joshcryer]

44. Actually, most of the electorate didn't even know their delegates "didn't count."

[burythehatchet]

47. how many have you spoken with in that regard? The moral relativity is

astounding.

[joshcryer]

66. It was a poll. I'm sure more polls could be made.

[Mike Nelson]

14. Dems should include FL and do MI over

with approval of both candidates. If either says no, let their "no" stand up for the voters to agree, or not agree, via future support.

[joshcryer]

15. If you broker the MI delegates for Obama the outcome would be the same. No doovers.

Doovers mean no punishment which means those states got their way.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

18. Obama ran ads in Florida, Hillary didn't , SHE STILL WHOOPED HIM! It counts!

[sandnsea]

23. Ads do not equal a real campaign

Just more win at all costs unethical bullshit that we're accustomed to coming from the Clintons.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

31. Obama CHEATED by running ads AGAINST pre made deals! He still lost!

He tried win at all cost and LOST!

[sandnsea]

53. After Hillary claimed victory in Michigan

when everybody had pledged to stand by the DNC, and then she didn't, I would say running a national ad campaign was pretty tepid in "cheating" department. She has no ethics, none, zero, zip. Following someone with NO ETHICS is the definition of a cultist.

[boston bean]

25. If it was a low turnout, I might have a different opinion, but the turnout was huge! nt

[burythehatchet]

49. circumstantial rulemaking...I LOVE IT!!

[boston bean]

51. Common sense, looking for a solution. I LOVE IT TOO!

[burythehatchet]

55. Looking for a solution? Please. You're seeking an outcome not a solution

You're seeking to engineer the outcome to benefit your candidate. That's not seeking a solution, that's Clintonism.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. Wrong. You're Looking To Disenfranchise 1.7 Million Voters Because The Vote DIDN'T GO YOUR WAY.

Face up to facts pal. That's why, and it's fairly disgusting.

Don't put this on the Clinton supporters. The fact is, you would throw away the votes of 1.7 million fucking people because it might help your candidate win the nomination (which it won't). You should be ashamed of yourself.

The vote wasn't even close. The voice of those in Florida was obvious. If you can't admit that, if you can't see that, then you're just simply blind.

But don't say the Clinton supporters are trying to engineer the outcome. You are. You are trying to throw away 1.7 million votes because you're so selfish in your convictions for your candidate, that you don't give a fuck how you win, as long as you win. Disgusting.

[burythehatchet]

74. oh my god... how'd you get to this floor!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Turn And Run Little Coward. Turn And Run.

:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

76. You calling me out?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. I'm Sure There Are Lots Of Things You're Being Called.

:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

82. you're not worth it

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. You Mean You Can't Overcome The Context.

That's ok. Run away now. Run away! :hi:

[burythehatchet]

84. go fuck yourself

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. ROFLMAO!

You seriously need to lighten up a bit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. By The Way; Just To Be Clear, Was Your PM A Physical Threat And Attempt At Intimidation?

"whereabouts in Jersey are you? I get there quite a bit."

When I first replied to you, I was possibly foolishly under the lighthearted impression that you were like me, where the board is the board, but real life is real life, and in real life it's all good. That's why I responded kindly.

Course, in retrospect, seeing that you followed up your PM with the message you just posted here, now I'm under the impression that you were issuing a physical threat and attempt at intimidation.

Do you REALLY take stuff on a message board that seriously? Holy cow.

Course, if ya did mean it politely, let me know. I'll still buy ya that beer LOL

[burythehatchet]

87. So in real life you're not an asshole?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Nah. In Real Life I'm Cool As Shit (Well, Unless You're Doing 60 In The Left Lane)

I'm gonna PM ya somethin. Feel free to oblige...

[burythehatchet]

89. and just to be clear, what you engage in is stalking. I have told you I don't like you and don't

care to engage with you because you're a jerk. But you stalk. And then you mock. Son, I would never ever run away from anyone. But you seem to be convinced that I would. I never want you to have the impression that I would run from you. I just don't think you have the mental capacity to follow any form of argumentation that one might employ.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. Don't Flatter Yourself. You Think I Stalk You? ROFL

C'mon now. You've gotta be kidding.

And you're NOT a jerk? Yeah, your posts are so filled with bubble gum and roses :rofl:

Fact is, I posted some things in CONTEXT, and you refused to acknowledge them whatsoever. Instead, you turned it personal and ran away from the actual debate of context. So don't act like I'm just making that up or something.

You were presented with some pretty solid numbers above, that DIRECTLY refuted your point you had initially made to me. Once presented with them, you DID in fact turn tail and run from them. It's all still right up there.

[sandnsea]

54. Democrats are ready to get Bush out

That doesn't mean they got to make an informed decision between their available options.

[samrock]

16. What if

The results were the reverse.. You would have Obama trying to get them counted and Clinton trying to stop it.. This game is fun to watch... Pass the popcorn please..

[boston bean]

20. To be honest with you, it would be a hard argument to make although, I would try like O supporters.

[joshcryer]

24. If it were the reverse I would be for seating them as both Obama and Hillary are.

And I would dislike Hillary if she chose not to seat them. Many Obama supporters here believe Obama shouldn't seat them and that it's OK not to.

[sandnsea]

19. New candidates need the opportunity to campaign

Otherwise the former President tends to win.

People really aren't this stupid.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Hillary won. She would win the delegate count and the Obama followers know that. n/t

[jgraz]

28. This would be one of the best ways to tear the Dems apart

Surpassed only by a successful attempt to overturn the popular vote through superdelegates. You would lose every single Obama supporter for the general election, and it would be hard to blame them.

[joshcryer]

34. Actually, if they voted to seat them at the DNC, it would have to be by majority.

And most would have to agree that it was fair.

[jgraz]

57. A majority of the delegates, not a majority of the voters

The voters would tell the Dems to piss off if they did that.

[joshcryer]

67. The superdelegates alone could decide to seat them.

I expect Obama to have a point spread larger than the FL and MI delegates, though.

[Bucky]

29. Because we're not just a democracy--we're a nation of laws.

We should be a nation that, on principle, plays by the rules. The rules were quite clear to the Floridians who chose to defy the rules and get a jump start on the other states in the 2008 nomination race. When the DNC said "no, you can't do that" and laid out the consequences, they meant it. Florida had (and still have) the chance to choose their delegates within a permissible calendar guideline.

You don't get to ignore the rules just because you didn't do any harm when you broke them--particularly when the state broke them in defiance of repeated reminders of what the consequences would be.

[joshcryer]

36. Actually, the DNC rules allow them to be seated. So I don't see the issue.

[Orangepeel]

33. Well, here is the issue

The DNC has decided that they don't want a national primary. The members have discussed, voted and agreed that some states will go first, so that candidates can engage in "retail politics" -- meeting voters one on one and discussing issues. The purpose is to give lesser funded candidates that can't afford a mass media campaign a chance to catch fire.

It is, of course, arguable whether or not this is fair, right or even effective in doing what it is supposed to do. But, it is what the DNC has agreed to do.

The DNC agreed that Iowa and NH would be first (mostly because they always are). This time, SC and Nevada were added because they have high proportions of African American and Hispanic voters (unlike Iowa and NH) and these are important Democratic constituencies. SC and Nevada did have to apply to be added to the list of early states. Other states had the opportunity to apply to be early. Florida did not.

All other states were supposed to hold primaries no earlier than Feb. 5. Florida decided to hold their primary on January 19. The DNC told them they had to find some alternate solution, like make the 1/19 primary nonbinding and hold a caucus after the 5th or they would lose their delegates. Florida refused.

So, the issue is that Florida broke the rules and is being punished. Arguably, the punishment is unfair and stupid. But, the state party was told what it would be and refused to compromise.

If the DNC lets Florida seat its delegates, then there is no punishment for breaking the rules. Next time, all states that want to break the rules and hold their primaries early won't have a reason to comply. If that happens, either we will have one national primary or the early states will keep moving up and the election season will start 2 years before the convention.

Maybe it would be good to have a national primary, but the DNC doesn't want to for the reasons above. No one can think that starting the election season even earlier is a good idea.

[joshcryer]

40. That's not true, it's actually quite fair. If the delegates are seated it doesn't mean they're...

...not punished, because those delegates will not have a say at the DNC until they are seated. Their punishment was not being able to be part of the campaigning process.

[Orangepeel]

48. It was a punishment not to have to watch political ads?

That's like a parent telling a child that he has to be good or he doesn't get any broccoli! :D

Actually, the punishment was losing their delegates. The candidates agreed not to campaign in the state as a consequence of that. Whether or not that was a fair or sensible punishment is a different question. But losing their delegates was the penalty. The republican party took away half of Florida's republican delegates for the same reason, but nobody cared.

[joshcryer]

68. Well, campaigning infuses a lot of free money to a state.

Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would've went to the local economy.

[Orangepeel]

71. true. n/t

[IndieLeft]

37. You're kidding right? Now who's drinking the Kool-Aid

Hillary won on name recognition. If you want to seat the delegates, then lets have a real primary.

Let's have a redo; there and MI. Let them campaign for a week in each state, and then we can see who wins.

THAT... would be the fair way to do it.

[boston bean]

39. I almost agree, but the turnout was huge. They were fired up and voted. nt

[joshcryer]

41. If they get a redo then they don't learn their lesson.

Voter turnout was ridiculous, thus the primary mattered to the voters.

[samrock]

46. Won't it be ironic

IF the delegates were not counted.. Obama gets the nomanation because of that. and McCain narrowly wins Florida (again) and ends up as our next president...

[Blue-Jay]

50. Ironic:

i·ron·ic (ī-rŏn'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.

[Orangepeel]

52. Unfortunately, McCain is going to win Florida regardless.

Independents in Florida will associate him with Crist rather than with Bush and Crist is extremely popular.

[joshcryer]

77. It'd be a travesty.

[wiggs]

56. Seating these delegates now would be grossly unfair. There's no way around iYou can do the election

over or have a caucus after setting a date in the future for campaigning there, if you like. But you can't seat delegates without a real contest. There was no official contest, no campaigning, no appearances in Florida. Those who voted may or may not have seen all they needed to choose. They didn't have opportunity to ask questions that pertain to them. Candidates didn't have a chance to speak to Florida issues.

If the DNC prohibited campaigning and then changed the rules and allowed delegates to be seated anyway, I would be suspicious that the system was being manipulated to benefit one of the candidates. Can't happen...can't have yet another barrier between voters and candidates; there are already too many (ie superdelegates). Election integrity is wobbly enough. It isn't right.

I can't believe this would be seriously considered.

[boston bean]

58. There are many states like MA that got just 1 visit. Does it really make that much difference. nt

[wiggs]

61. Depends on the candidate, doesn't it? It COULD make a difference, and that's all the

difference needed.

[wiggs]

63. And here's a reasonable article on MI and FL. The article points

out that some of the people involved in the decision worked for the Clintons. It's NOT saying that these aren't people with integrity. It IS saying that there could be questions....an appearance of impropriety. Doesn't look good; possible it isn't good. Why do it? Doesn't this tainted process FURTHER take power out of the hands of voters and put it in the hands of DNC leaders?

The only thing worse than having a fair, honest election that doesn't count....is having an unfair, questionable election that DOES count.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/036

[NC_Nurse]

65. Because some of the voters may stayed home thinking their votes

wouldn't count. That's not fair.

It's not fair to change the rules that both candidates knew were in force when the election happened.

[Laelth]

70. Rules are made to be followed.

If you break them, you pay the price. That's why Florida's delegates should not be seated.

-Laelth

[joshcryer]

78. Seating them is within the rules.

I guess you must be confused about something.

[frazzled]

72. How can we ever hope to achieve party discipline if we don't even follow our own rules?

And nobody pays a price for breaking the rules? And you wonder why Harry Reid can't get all the Democratic senators to vote one way?

Voting (absentee, early) started there as early as December 15, before even the Iowa caucuses, and certainly before NH and SC. The election-day voting broke party rules by taking place before February 5.

If we're going to be a party, not a chaotic amalgam of different interests in different parts of the country, then we need to take our own rules seriously, or we're going to keep losing to Republicans.

[joshcryer]

79. The price is not counting toward the nomination.

That's a big enough price to pay.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

81. Go here for DNC contact info, VOTES MUST COUNT!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4489179