Florida the disenfranchisment is huge, AN ENTIRE STATE!

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

Yet people are concerned with 95k independants if California?

Amazing!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4487826&mesg_id=4487826

[Blue State Bandit]

1. Caucus

[NC_Nurse]

2. Their state party leaders screwed them.

Yes, it sucks.

[joshcryer]

3. But when a legal, within party rules suggestion is made, such as seating them, via vote...

...watch how quickly it gets shot down by people here. :)

[Barack_America]

8. Hey, if they want a second, legitimate primary, complete with campaigning...

I am fine with that. They can spend their money on whatever they want.

But no changing the rules after the fact. They had plenty of time to deal with this problem before election day.

[joshcryer]

11. Can you please understand that seating the delegates is well within the rules?

[Barack_America]

14. They can seat them, as long as they don't use the Florida "primary" results....

to determine the ratio. If they want to seat them according to the ratio of pledged delegates at the end of all this, fine. This has been discussed and I see some merit to that. But you cannot honor the results of that "election".

[joshcryer]

17. They can seat them in any capacity they so chose.

If the superdelegates, out of fairness because the vote is tabled, want to seat them, then there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[Barack_America]

21. If they allow those sham primaries and superdelegates decide the nominee...

That will be the end of the Democratic party.

The youths that signed up and came out to vote in droves....gone.
The independents who decided to side with the Dems....gone.
Basically everyone who supports Obama....gone.

[joshcryer]

24. It would reflect the pledged delegates and popular vote of the presumptive nominee.

Don't think that they wouldn't do it fairly.

[Barack_America]

27. I've come to expect...

...and suspect everything in this country, as far as elections go.

And I'm fucking sick of seeing them fixed. It's one thing to be able to blame it on *them*, but when it's our own party, that's inexcusable.


(that language reflects my feelings towards the issue, it's not directed at you)

[seybor]

34. I voted in that primary - the primary our state chose to have

Not a sham. I have to live with the fact that it might not count, and you need to live with the fact that the results were fair.
If Obama can't unite his followers behind any candidate he needs to to save us from another 8 years of warmongering and conservative justice appointments, he's not committed to the causes he promotes and he's either not committed or qualified to lead the country toward unity and change. Are you really sure you're speaking for him when you say he can't do that? If I were Obama, I'd be really embarrassed to read some of these posts.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

4. If it comes down to it being the difference, I will not support the democratic party.

[joshcryer]

9. Don't worry, it's highly unlikely MI and FL make the difference.

But Obama supporters are pretty obsessed about it.

Here's the perfect Obama-suicide scenario:

Hillary has less pledged delegates. Obama has more. Hillary and Obama have similar numbers of superdelegates. Hillary proposes seating FL and MI. The superdelegates and Hillary's delegates seat them. Obama can't stop them from being seated. The MI and FL pledged delegates make Hillary the presumptive nominee.

Epic on so many levels.

[Barack_America]

5. They knew going in that their votes weren't going to count...

That's a big difference.

Also, as has already been pointed out, they have their state party to blame for that.

[cyclezealot]

32. Its not a horse race

MI Democrats want to not vote for left overs from New Hampshire. We want to vote on the original choices. Michigan Democrats are tired of bigger states having no voice until we get the left overs. I don't care if Michigan delegates go or not. DNC does not want our electoral votes then just punish us bad boys.

[seybor]

37. Amen, brother! Do only teachers and parents know that

Naughty children are often crying out for help? We don't want leftovers, AND our state is in major peril. Note that our rate of unemployment is more than double those of IA and NH. I heard today that the count of recall petitions approved is up to 12 for our state leg seats, not to mention Granholm.

Did it not strike anyone as problematic that going into NH, after the shake-up Obama win in IA pundits were suggesting that an Obama win could clinch the nomination?

Sincerely,
Desperately seeking significance (AKA Michigan)

[seybor]

36. They, or we? I notice your MI icon

If you're from here - it's we and our. And, we have both our state party, the DNC, and ourselves to blame. That doesn't make it any less hearbreaking. It doesn't make it any less disturbing. Our entire party nomination process - at the state and national levels - is in shambles and needs a major overhaul.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. if something isn't proper then it needs to be corrected

[thunder rising]

7. LIVE FROM WEST PALM BEACH: Florida broke the rules and I will fight to keep the delegates out!

[joshcryer]

12. How care you going to fight to keep 2k+ people from voting to seat them?

Please tell me how, I'd like to know.

[BuyingThyme]

10. I don't think people actually have a right to participate in party primaries.

I could be wrong. I guess each state can write their own laws.

[Little Star]

13. Just a Question. What is the difference with MI? Both Kuch and

Clinton keep their name on the MI ballot. Why did Obama and Edwards not leave their name on in MI like they did in FL? Why did they later become the two known as uncommitted in MI?

[mohc]

15. There was no way

for them to remove their names from the FL ballot. If they could have they would.

[seybor]

40. Which would have been just as unnecessary and just as divisive

as removing their names in MI.

[Barack_America]

16. Florida law prohibited them from removing their names...

But they tried to do so in order to fulfill their commitment to the pledge.

[joshcryer]

18. The pledge never required them to remove their names.

[Barack_America]

22. The spirit of the pledge, however, did....n/t

[joshcryer]

25. Not really. That's just political talk.

[Little Star]

35. That was my understanding, The pledge ............

never required them to remove their names. Anyone have a link to the pledge rules for both FL and MI?

[seybor]

42. Check out 2008 Democratic Convention Watch site - "How would

the Florida and Michigan delegates actually be seated?" It gives some good info on how the rules work, as well as how the republican congresses in both MI and FL played into each state's dilema.

They also have great delegate count info.

[sandnsea]

20. Edwards & Obama stood on principle

And then at the last minute, Hillary didn't. I don't know at what point Kucinich made his decision.

[Barack_America]

28. Lol. Kucinich tried but couldn't get his paperwork together in time...

That's why he was still on the ballot in MI.

[sandnsea]

38. Thanks

I didn't pay that much attention to Dennis this time around, I didn't figure it was anything nefarious.

[seybor]

43. They colluded and Hillary didn't - the question of who's being principled is

Definitely up for debate. The consequence was no delegates. That was the harshest consequence the party could dole. Removing names felt like a really divisive slap - particularly without any conciliatory nod to the fact that the Republican party had brokered the early dates in both states or to the fact that MI is in far more need of help, leadership, and compassion than any of the 4 early states. I could never consider mean spiritedness a principled position - that's why I fell out of love with Obama.

[sandnsea]

46. Wow. Now that's a kool-aid drinker

Your Hillary supporting Dem Party leaders moved your election up in order to try to put states favorable to her first. Then when the rest of the country sided with the DNC, including ALL the candidates including Biden, etc., they had to shift gears. She waited until everybody had removed their name and then said she wasn't going to, precisely to play the game she's playing now. She intended to scam the state of Michigan's voters from the beginning. Now if you can support her after that, then you simply don't know the definition of principled.

[seybor]

47. Wrong, wrong, and more wrong

My support was Obama's to lose. I did think very highly of him. I respect his decision to stand by the consequences, though I think his delivery of the message could have been more compassionate. I'm disgusted by his act of removing his name to appease IA and NH - they carry way, way too much power. Going into NH, pundits were saying that if Obama won NH he could clinch the nomination. Michigan broke the rules in order to be heard - the statement re: NH proves it. Michigan was naughty, but fundamentally correct. And isn't that what counts? I could attribute his removing his name to a political maneuver - as you said, she'd have won it anyway, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was only doing it to win favor with IA and NH.

The MI dem leaders who supported moving the date up did not do so to be politically sneaky, but because they felt the large industrial states should be represented in the early 4. For Michigan, it was an act of desperation, not jealousy. It was not a ploy, not a game of chicken. We can't afford and do not have time for that crap here. We are dealing with the highest unemployment rate in the US by nearly an entire percentage point - only state with statistically significant loss of jobs in '07 with a loss of 78k. Several states had significant increases. 12 state legislators are under recall petition over tax increases. One of our strengths - our Universities - are under threat of losing international students b/c our repub Secretary of State has taken it upon herself to eliminate driver's licenses for residents here on legal work or student visas (even the repub attorney general says she's out of line). I drove down the street 3 blocks south of mine - working class neighborhood in the home of Ford's world headquarters. On one side of the street, within 5 or 6 blocks, I saw 4 or 5 foreclosures and 5 for sale signs. We're f*(#!'d. We're desperate for attention, for help, for a candidate that will take our concerns seriously and do something about them beginning in Jan. '09. We're in serious need of compassion.

Now, she didn't campaign here. Her website didn't even have a MI page.
Obama's did and it advertised "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies. I saw them when I went to his site to do research and email his campaign about the MI primary the week beforehand. Now that's dirty.

[Little Star]

33. .

[seybor]

39. Removing names was not in the original DNC agreement

It was a personal decision on the part of each candidate. What I've read is that it began in the Obama camp. He went candidate to candidate and said, "I'll take my name off if you take yours off." Hillary was the only one who did not agree. Apparently Kucinich lost the paperwork - I don't think that helped his cause any around here. What I haven't seen published is why Obama did that.

What I can say is that it was the beginning of the end of my love affair with Obama, and the final nudge I needed to push me toward Clinton. I'm willing to accept the consequence - I think it's unwise to alienate a major set of swing states, and I'm troubled that in a campaign about change and unity some common ground couldn't have been found - but I know ours is a bed we made. That said, it felt like a real #*!@ you move to go the extra step to file paperwork to get removed from the ballot. My bias foreclosed, I offer these thoughts/theories:

- MI is a huge union state and, by exit poll demogs in other states, looks more like a Clinton state. Strategically it makes sense that it could only hurt Obama to remain on the ballot and lose. He can take the moral high ground for following rules. In effect, he took a vote that might not have resulted in seated delegates (a fair punishment), and made it appear to outsiders that it was completely invalid since he wasn't in it. Maybe he felt it would be unfair for Clinton to benefit from the bump she'd have seen, giving MI some power afterall and compromising the spirit of the consequence, so he went an extra step to make sure the wind was out of the state's sails. I'm trying to be fair here and make an honest effor to understand.

What first really turned me off from Obama was actually not the slap of removing his name, but upon going to his website to contact the campaign about my worries I found "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies advertised in the Michigan section of his blogs. Conversely, when I went to the Clinton site, the Michigan page indicated "nothing to report". It felt like dirty pool, and it made me take a much longer, harder look at Obama's very appealing platform of unity and change. I'm still hoping that, whoever the nominee is, people will come together. An inspiring speaker can talk about unity - it's on us to actually unite.

[LittleClarkie]

19. If she hadn't won the vote there, would you give a shit?

If Obama had won, would you be posting now about the disenfranchisement?

[Barack_America]

23. I'm waiting for this answer.

Hopefully it will be an honest one.

:popcorn:

[joshcryer]

26. I would be. And I'd be pissed at Hillary supporters trumpting not allowing them to be seated.

Crying foul, bitching and moaning and begging for those 1.7 million peoples votes not to be heard on a dozen assinine reasons.

[Barack_America]

30. I've never said that I don't want voices heard...

...just that I don't want the results of those primaries to be held as meaning anything.

Find a different way of proportioning the delegates and I'm fine with it.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Before I was an Obama supporter, I supported Gov. Dean

I don't care who would have won the elections in Michigan and Florida, they got themselves into this mess and gave the DNC no choice. Their actions had consequences.

And I'd still be saying that if Obama had won the vote in those states.

[UALRBSofL]

29. I'm ready for a legal battle

I hope it goes to court because I want my vote counted regardless of what the DNC and Florida Democratic Party decided. They didn't console me so therefore I didn't have a CHOICE. Also, I would think some of the residence of florida might take it upon themselves to take legal actions with the DNC. That's my 2 cents.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

41. Citizens of Florida should sue!

[seybor]

44. Yes - for the same reason Hillary voters say they would vote

for Obama in the GE. I want to see the best outcome for everyone.

I can honor the position that the consequence should stand - though I think it would be in poor judgement.

If Obama had succeeded in getting a majority of the "uncommitted" votes he only kind of sort of campaigned here for, would you feel differently about seating the MI delegates? Would the primary still be a "sham"?
If his regional ads that aired in FL prior to its primary had resonated with FL voters and they had voted for him as a result, would you give a shit?

I'm surprised it doesn't bother everyone - that it seems to bother people more that we are living with other party rules like super delegates. Was it really such a sin for two struggling states living with vile republican-held state legislatures who forced the early dates to actually hold primaries a little early? If so, it's only because MI and FL were right to think that holding primaries early was about more than "craving to be first."

[seybor]

45. I'm waiting for an answer