Grassroots Movement to Seat Florida and Michigan

[kennetha]

Fellow Hillary supporters. We should start a grass roots movement to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. We should organize a campaign to bombard the DNC with e-mails, petitions, etc. We should organize a 527 to run commercials in both Florida and Michigan urging voters there to make the voices heard and not let the DNC disenfranchise the 2.5 million democratic voters in FLa and MI -- two must win stats.

We should DARE the Obama camp to stand against the people and try to win the nomination on a technicality. THe people have spoken now let them be heard.

We don't want this to be just driven by the Clinton campaign apparatus.

Who is with me?

[MidwestTransplant]

1. Give it a rest. Nobody campaigned there but her because they promised not to. Are you a troll BTW?

[flyarm]

8. excuse me..Obama's many commericals came into my area of Fla..

and they were not supposed to.

fly

[kerry-is-my-prez]

37. Yep- those were the only ads I saw in FL- typical that Obama gets a free pass on that.

n/t

[stahbrett]

65. No free pass for Obama - votes for him shouldn't count either!

That's fair, right?

[themaguffin]

42. Yes, you might have seen his NATIONAL AD BUY

[flyarm]

66. and he knew that national ad buy would break the rules in fla..he was the only one who had

commericals coming into fla against the rules!

so cry me a river when you bitch about Hillary..she did not break the rules ..neither did my candidate Edwards ..nor did Kucinich..

so save it..Obama knew he would be breaking the rules..period!

fly

[Scurrilous]

47. Lucky you...

..I live in Florida's largest media market and I didn't see a single television ad for Obama (or any other Democratic candidate).

I feel left out.

[Kittycat]

2. How about you work to get the idiot FL DNC leaders out of their seats?

And in the process, get yourself a legitimate election down there by way of primary or caucus. Because what was held isn't legitimate.

[still_one]

10. Perhaps those FL Democratic leaders are so used to votes not counted and not following rules

they believe its the norm

They want to seat the delegates, then do a revote allowing all the candidates to campaign and have their names on the ballot

Same with Michigan

The rules were very clear to MI and FL, and they told everyone else, WE DON'T NEED YOUR RULES

[still_one]

3. It will be a grassroots movement to lose the general election if this is pushed without a redo /nt

[boston bean]

7. If they are not counted, it will be a losing strategy in the GE. nt

[still_one]

12. Then do a revote, because anything else isn't fair /nt

[flyarm]

4. ahhh Hillary won Fla with 1.7 million voters voting..and most of the FDP is for Hillary

just try taking the delegates ..it will never happen in Fla..most of all the powers that be in the state of Fla..support Hillary..

all the candidates were on our ballot.

fly former 2004 Fla delegate

[pampango]

33. Ahh, the key to Hillary's brilliant strategy in Florida. Agree to and abide by the

"no campaigning, no delegates" DNC rule in Florida (well, at least until after IA, NH, NV, and SC), then start lobbying for the delegates to be seated. The Florida Democratic party will go along since "most of the FDP is for Hillary just try taking our delegates ..it will never happen in Fla..most of all the powers that be in the state of Fla..support Hillary..".

The "no campaigning" part of the rule cannot retroactively be changed. It kept Obama, Edwards and the others from actively campaigning in Florida. Anyone who leads in the polls would love to keep challengers from campaigning. It's hard to catch up in a race if you can't campaign.

This way she "has her cake" (keeps her challengers from campaigning and threatening her initial lead in the polls) and still gets to "eat it, too" (by lobbying, with the help of the FDP, that the delegates be seated anyway, after all you don't want to "disenfranchise" voters and we're a big state that you need in the GE).

A brilliant, if not ethical, strategy. (I have jokingly suggested that the Illinois Democratic party decide to send a "winner-take-all" 100% Obama delegation to the convention. Currently the only reason they can't is the DNC rule about proportionality in awarding delegates, but Florida may establish the precedent that the state parties do not have to abide by DNC rules. They get to make up their own.)

If Florida and Michigan get away with this, will there be any rules for the 2012 primaries? Why bother if the candidates and states will just go ahead and do whatever they want? Why argue over primary schedules, primaries or caucuses, proportionality of delegates, and role of superdelegates, no one is going to pay attention to any rules that you make anyway?

[flyarm]

63. ahhh excuse me but Obama had many commericals coming into fla against the rules..set forth

by the DNC..it was all the other candidates that followed the rules..it was only Obama who broke the campaign rules.

and i was for neither i was for Edwards..and i like many good dems tried to stop this bullshit in march of last year..but the media and dems ignored those of us who were speaking out as loudly as we could with no media backing.

fly

[Dawgs]

68. Fine, then neither should have their votes counted.

[pampango]

70. And he hardly broke the campaigning rules in a major way. If he had

done anything like his usual campaigns of speeches and ads, then I would heartily agree. I just think that if anyone wants the primary to be treated like any other in terms of delegates being awarded, then you should treat it like any other and allow full campaigning on all sides. Obviously you can't go back in time and do that and the Florida Democratic party seems to refuse any new primary, so we are stuck.

I understand why the FDP doesn't want it. It is an admission that they screwed up and it's unlikely to go as much for Hillary and they favor her. It's just that the voters in Florida get caught in the middle.

[Coexist]

5. I think you should go with a 527 - you get it started.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/index.html

Let me know when you're all set up.

[kennetha]

6. I don't expect Obama supporters to join up!

Actually, I expect you all, and your candidate to resist like heck -- sort of the way the Repugs resisted having Florida's votes be counted in 2000. In fact, I WANT you and Obama to resist. I want to show that you stand more for yourselves than for the people, despite your rhetoric to the contrary.

[still_one]

15. Go ahead, push it, and see what happens in the general election /nt

[UALRBSofL]

16. Kennetha I'm in favor of it

But not because it would favor Hillary but it's the right thing to do. In all honesty I think we need another primary but DNC is saying it's too expensive.

[kennetha]

21. Great!

I'm going to try to get this ball rolling a little bit with some people I know.

[emilyg]

32. Some friends in Fl. are doing it.

[kennetha]

34. Have they formed a 527?

How many are they? Don't want to duplicate efforts. I think we can get this going pretty fast and build a pretty strong org pretty quickly.

[still_one]

22. The DNC is wrong. Have another primary, also in MI, otherwise push this

and if the nominee wins because MI and FL are seated WITHOUT a redo, WE WILL LOSE the general election

[BlackVelvet04]

40. How do you figure that? n/t

[still_one]

59. Remember when you said yesterday you would not vote for the nominee unless it is Clinton?

Well, if Clinton wins the nomination based on MI and FL voters getting seated without an election redo, I suspect there will be many Obama supporters not voting for President in the general election

However, if Hillary wins without that or with a redo of those primaries there won't be a problem

Let's see her win without Obama supporters if she gets the nomination that way

What comes around goes around, doesn't it

[BlackVelvet04]

62. I was just asking for your thinking on the subject....

the snark wasn't necessary, but clearly typical.

[still_one]

69. The "snark" wasn't actually meant as that, but to express the opinion that

united we stand, divided we fall

[Cameron27]

41. I seriously doubt that the voters in either state

will submit to a redo. That would only confirm that their original votes were disenfranchized by the DNC.

[still_one]

60. Or that MI and FL decided to run based on their own rules, in spite of what the DNC said

[verges]

28. I'm as yet undecided...

but, I think this is shameless manipulation of the system. The Hllaary camp should be ashamed. The time to have contested this was BEFORE the Fla/Mich primaries. Doing it now, after having agreed to the rules and then winning anyhow is just poor sportsmanship.

It actually turns me off and a bit away from Hillary.

Now, ask yourself: If Obama had won Florida, would you still be so keen to see the delegates seated?

[nomorewhopper]

9. have fun blowing the party to pieces so your candidate will win....

[samrock]

20. HA!

I say that RIGHT back at you!!

[still_one]

24. The only thing their candidate will win is the nomination, not the General Election

if they proceed without a redo

[Renew Deal]

11. I support having new elections there.

That's the fairest solution.

[kennetha]

13. The People Have Spoken

Now let their voices be heard.

[Yossariant]

I want to hear their voices! Count those votes!

:woohoo:

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. Chanting your mantra, & trying to steamroll those who followed the rules, reminds me of Dick Cheney.

[Renew Deal]

26. No they haven't

And the campaigns haven't spoken either. There was a popularity contest with most of the candidates missing from the ballot (in MI). The only way to truly "let their voices be heard" is to let them vote in a true election.

[Renew Deal]

27. dupe

[Hugabear]

51. Just like how the Iraqi people kept voting for Saddam over and over

Kinda convenient when you're the only major candidate on the ballot, isn't it?

[tabatha]

14. There should a grassroots movement for proper primaries

in those states. If Hillary wins with a blowout then there cannot be any arguments, and it will appear to be fair to everyone.

It has happened too often in the past, where Hillary had a large lead, only to lose it after Obama physically campaigned in a state.

[K Gardner]

17. Oh goody ! A grassroots movement for bait and switch cheating/breaking pledges ! Talk

radio has been all over this tactic and not in a good way, as has the MSM. It is only seen as another desperation measure, so yeah, GO FOR IT !!!

[darknemus]

18. Wow, Hillary people are desperate.. no big shock, but.. wow.

Seriously - I'm laughing over here. Even IF you manage to get the Delegates from both states seated (and, FL, you *might* have an argument.. but, Michigan? BARACK WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT THERE!) chances are you're still going to lose the nomination. Sorry, its just not 'her time' this time. Why is that bothering you so much? They're both good candidates - both equipped to make big changes come 2009 - but, guess what, the 'popular' guy is winning right now. It happens. Sorry if that upsets you. Sorry the whole 'rock star' thing pisses you off so much. I might not be thrilled with it - but, guess what, its WORKING. I can't knock strategy that works.. sorry

GOBAMA. And good luck, Clinton - You're prolonging the inevitable, but good luck, regardless.

[Mme. Defarge]

19. You can't be serious.

[bowens43]

23. Yes a grass roots movement

to cheat and violate the will of the people, if this doesn't work you can blackmail the super deligates into violating the will of the people./

[bunnies]

29. And what do you propose be done about MI?

Will you simply guess how many of those votes should be Obamas? Or are you all in favor of making sure his supporters votes wont count AT ALL due to some, as you call it, technicality. Come on.

These states moved up their dates knowing FULL WELL what would happen. Now they've been given the chance to re-vote and actually get a legitimate result.

That *any* Democrat would try to seat Delegates awarded so undemocratically absolutely blows my mind.

[kennetha]

30. Obama and Edwards URGED their Voters in MI to vote Uncommitted

I propose that the delegates be apportioned in accordance with the vote in MI. Some would go to uncommitted. They would be free to vote for whomever at the Convention.

[bunnies]

46. They need a re-vote will both names on the ballot.

Anything short of that and the voters are STILL not being heard.

[UALRBSofL]

31. If people want to talk about changing the rules

Obama is trying to change the rules of the superdelegates. They have been in place for years and now Obama gives the indication they shouldn't determine the nominee, that they shouldn't count.

[bunnies]

44. Obama is not trying to change the rules.

Show me a link where Obama has made an effort to change the rules as outlined by the DNC. You cant. What Obama has done is state his opinion which is that super delegates should not overturn the will of the people. If you think they should, thats your opinion. But I happen to agree with him.

Clinton, on the other hand, IS actively trying to change the rules that she had NO issue with when they were instated months ago. Did she try to get FL and MI to push back their dates so they would count? No. Did she even protest the DNC decision that they wouldnt? No. But now that she's behind in delegates and is desperate to catch up... NOW she wants those states to count. Please.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. The superdelegate system has been in place since 1982.

They have NEVER voted against the will of the majority of Democratic voters. Nor have they ever voted FOR a candidate who went into the convention with fewer delegates.

And do you really think they're going to support a candidate who a majority of Democratic voters don't want, who has shown herself to be potentially unelectable, and incapable of drawing the kind of broad-based support that her opponent has? That's completely out of touch with reality.

[HeartlandDem]

35. Oh, great so now we're taking a page from the Repukes?

You don't change the rules to fit your own agenda, haven't you learned anything in the last eight years? If HRC can't win on her own against Obama, then we should go with Obama. The only way Florida and Michigan should be seated is if the DNC agrees to a redo of their primaries (no matter what it costs). It's the only fair solution. FL and MI voters have their idiot party leaders to blame for this fiasco... asking the rest of us Demo voters to indulge their arrogance goes beyond the pale.

Grow some integrity.

[goldcanyonaz]

36. Uncommited ran hard in Michigan and it lost. Give Clinton her delegates.

[darknemus]

38. Nope :-P

She'll have to win in states where she's actually contested / campaigned against in. The days to her inevitable 'concession for the good / unity of the party' are rapidly ticking down. Oh well, que sera sera. Not her time this time. It happens.

[kennetha]

39. This is not about Clinton or Obama. It's about the Voters!

It's about their right to be heard and to have their votes counted. You all keep making it about your candidate. Screw democracy in the name of victory, eh?

[BlackVelvet04]

43. I personally think this is a fight up to the people of

FL and MI. Sorry, I can't join in this battle.

[suston96]

45. Millions were denied their votes counting......USSC says primaries are elections subject..

....to constitutional protection.

Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4589597&mesg_id=4589597

[hayu_lol]

53. Some of the posters here on this thread just 'don't get it'...

Michigan: Both Obama and Edwards(through inexperience)both pulled their names off the ballot so that they could pander to the upcoming Iowa/NH primaries. They WERE NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO. Hillary, Dodd, and Kucinich left their names on the ballot(Kucinich claims that he was going to pull his name off but screwed up the paperwork). As a result, no-one except Kucinich campaigned in the state--yeah, he broke the rules--and the voters still held their primary in large numbers.

Florida: All candidates were allowed to hold fund raisers in Florida. Certainly Obama and Clinton did so. There was to be no rallies or press conferences, but Obama fudged on this one and did talk to the press(not allowed). Obama also made a national buy on ads, some of which were shown in Florida--against the rules.

Both states had very large turnouts. Those votes were for Democratic candidates. Both states should have their delegates seated at the convention. There is no way to redo the primary in either state.

Hillary supporters are for the seating of the delegates. The Obama supporters are against this. Not hard to figure out why is it?

It is the voters and their votes that must be honored. The party hacks in both Michigan and Florida who dreamed up this mess need to be punished--don't know how. Bill Nelson was partly responsible for the Florida debacle--perhaps he should be censured.

[kennetha]

55. Excellent post!

True analytical clarity -- something rare on DU these days.

[Independent-Voter]

49. A wee bit late don't you think

Whine to you elected representatives that fucked this up for you. They know the deal and voted for it anyway.

[kennetha]

50. Not at all Late

The credentials committee can decide to seat the FL and MI delegations. The state party can apportion the delegates on the basis of the vote. What we need to do is to put political and moral pressure on the credentials committee to see the FL and MI delegations. So it's not at all too late. It's just about the right time, in fact, to start generating pressure.

[Independent-Voter]

56. Again, your belated bitching is pitiful

Your elected officials sold you up the river. It's that simple, so shut the fuck up.

[nancyharris]

52. Hillary does, I think, have a strong case.

The agreement signed by the candidates was a commitment on their part not to actively campaign in either Florida or Michigan. They did not sign an agreement that any delegates from these states would not be seated at the convention and they did not sign an agreement that they would remove their names from the Florida and Michigan primary ballots. The former was a DNC decision (to not seat the delegates) and the latter a decision by the individual candidates (whether or not to have their name on the ballot).

There is absolutely no reason why Hilary would not want to see these delegates seated. She played by the “rules” and has every reason to expect that the delegates will be seated. Hillary did not decide (or approve) to ban the seating of delegates and Hillary did not decide (or approve) that Obama remove his name from the Michigan ballot.

Her case regarding “super-delegates” is, I think, as equally strong. The decision to have super-delegates in 2008 with an independent vote at the convention was made by a majority vote at the 2004 Democratic convention. Again, she is playing by the rules.

[RunningFromCongress]

54. You have to ask yourself, would you be fighting if Obama won? The states broke the rules

They got punished. Simple as that. If you don't like it change it for THE NEXT TIME AROUND.

[4themind]

58. hmmm

What I still haven't seen explained from her is her rationale for pledging not to campaign there, while later on making a concerted effort to have the numbers count, and if there's a conflict in reasoning there, her explanation for how she reconciles these differences. I think an election is fairest to ALL parties(not just to her interests), when the voters have full notification as to how those results would be counted before they do so. Regardless, of claims as to what she did or did not agree to in the pledge, I think an explanation of her mindset during both times (signing the pledge, and announcing to voters in florida that she'll push for their voices to be heard) will be needed to allay suspicion on some voters minds that could be critical to her election hopes in the GE if she's the nominee. She can fight to protect those interest, but she'll be subject to the scruitiny of others who don't hold the same values as she, and in a democracy that can be a very self-destructive mindset for an elected official, and may limit some of her choices for her future electoral options( which ironically may be against her long term interests)

[kennetha]

57. Another Reasons Obama-ites want to ignore FLA and MI

Because they are big swing states that Democrats MUST carry to win. They don't want to admit that their guy got creamed in two more bellweather states. They want to have the excuse that "it wasn't fair" "it shouldn't count" "he didn't have a chance to chant -- er campaign." Notice how when the Obama camp is counting up "wins" for Hillary and Barack, they conveniently exclude Fla and MI from Hillary's totals.

It's pretty transparent and cheap. But unfortunately, that meme has entered the MSM. We need to change the narrative and get the facts out. A grass roots campaign is the way to do it.

[MagsDem]

61. I'm with you!

[madfloridian]

64. Go for it. It would be the best thing that could happen to Obama.

It would turn so many against Hillary. Go for it.

[Arugula Latte]

67. Ugh.

This stuff makes me sick.

Screw the ground rules that were laid out -- Hillary was SUPPOSED to be doing better so you're willing to cheat and rip the party to shreds to make that happen.

Great. Just great.