Allowing FLA and MI's Primaries To Count Will Create Future Chaos In The Party

[Yavin4]

Not only is the Clinton campaign willing to scorch the earth for this primary, they are also willing to throw future Dem primary and caucus seasons into complete and total chaos. In essence, the Clinton campaign is arguing that FLA and MI should have been allowed to move their primary to an earlier point in the primary calendar. If these states are allowed to do this, then what's to stop other states to do the same. Heck, why can't a state like New York move up their primary to August 2011?


In addition, by moving large states like FLA and MI up early in the primary, you can kiss little known and underfunded candidates goodbye. No more Howard Deans. No more Dennis Kuncinich. Say hello to the big donor/DC lobbyist backed candidates. Good luck getting a national health care plan when every Dem candidate is begging HMO lobbyists in order to run ads on expensive media in Detroit and Miami. Giving states like Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC the first crack allows for a modestly funded campaign a chance.


I'm sorry, but Florida and Michigan should not be rewarded for jumping the line.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Why not

just SOLVE THE FUCKING PROBLEM that makes states want to jump ahead of Iowa and New Hamshire? You guys act like it's an insoluble problem. It isn't.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. The problem is, someone is ALWAYS going to feel left out no matter what system is in place.

If we do it all at once, the less populated states will gripe they have no say because the candidates will ignore them and focus on the big states.

If we pick and choose who goes first, the people in the middle and end start feeling left out of the process and want to move their primaries forward.

[Yavin4]

4. So, When The Big States Jump Early

And little known candidates like Howard Dean can't compete because of money, you'd have no problem with that? You'd have no problem with our candidates whoring themselves even more to big lobbyists in order to buy media time in NY because that state comes first.

Think very clearly about what you're asking for here.

[msongs]

2. MI and FL knew the rules and deliberately violated them. tough you know what for them nt

[DrDan]

6. you do know it was not the voters that violated any rules, don't you

it was party leaders.

So why would you support any punishment against the voters? Does that make ANY sense at all?

[DrDan]

5. don't you think you are being a little melodramatic?

you know - it wasn't the voters that jumped any line. It was the party leaders. So why would you want to punish the voters? Does that make any sense at all?

and I say this NOT as a Hillary supporter.

and let me ask you this as well - I don't know where you are from - but what difference does it really make when the various states vote? Does it really make any difference at all? And all this "chaos" talk is simply nonsense - imho. What chaos? What does that mean? rioting in the streets? looting? what does that mean? If they (Florida) decided to have a primary 2 years in advance, why should anyone care? Can you give me 1 reason why someone from another state should care?

[Yavin4]

7. No, I'm Not Being melodramatic

<<what difference does it really make when the various states vote? >>

It makes a huge difference. Do you know how expensive it is to run a state wide race in a big state like Florida and MI right off the bat? If a state like NY (which I am from) went early, only very well funded candidates could compete here, and guess where that funding would come from? Big corporate lobbyists.

<<What chaos? What does that mean? rioting in the streets? looting? what does that mean? If they (Florida) decided to have a primary 2 years in advance, why should anyone care? Can you give me 1 reason why someone from another state should care?>>

I will explain it to you again. By letting big states go early, you will be cutting off little known, underfunded candidates. If NY, Cal, Ill, Fla, and MI all went early, then the mid sized and smaller states would be completely ignored, and the Dem candidates would forever be beholden to corporate interests. That's the chaos that I'm talking about.

[avenger64]

8. Yes, we must fear democracy...

.... letting every vote count may lead to the chaos of the people's choice winning. Florida 2000 was the best thing that ever happened to the U.S.:sarcasm:

[gristy]

16. Are you even trying to understand the OP's point?

If so, you've shown yourself to be completely unsuccessful.

[MichiganVote]

9. Oh right. :rolls eyes:

[LucyParsons]

10. "you can kiss little known and underfunded candidates goodbye"

........maybe that's precisely what Clinton and her ilk WANT.

Agree with your post 100%

[Yavin4]

11. Thanks for Your Support

And the people on this thread that disagree with me will be the first ones crying about how the party has sold its soul to the corporate special interests.

[Yavin4]

12. For All The Clinton Supporters On This Thread

I will let your man, Terry McAuliffe, explain it you from his own damn book. When Terry was the DNC chair in 2004, MI wanted to move up their primary:

"I'm going outside the primary window," told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

[Johnny__Motown]

13. The half delegate solution seems to be reasonable, IF they don't let the SD vote at all.

That may be the way to find a compromise to satisfy the voters and still pressures the states to abide by the rules

[rucky]

14. Not if we agree to change the process for the future.

Maybe that's what they're negotiating behind closed doors - in addition to finding a way to seat the delegates?

[Patsy Stone]

15. As a Floridian

I've been saying this all along. The irony is, during this primary season, FL and MI would have been huge kingmakers right where they were originally scheduled.

[ShortnFiery]

17. The delegates should be distributed equally among Obama and Clinton but the vote should not count.

The Democratic Leaders figuratively "spit in the face" of the DNC. They RUINED the popular vote for their states. The DNC begged these party leaders to delay their primaries but they FLATLY REFUSED to abide by the rules. Both Obama and HRC signed the DNC rules.

No, the Clintons can NOT circumvent the DNC rules. Not even THE CLINTONS can get by with that bunk. :thumbsdown: