The candidates must address Florida and Michigan NOW!

[Onlooker]

No matter who wins, we cannot afford to alienate those state parties. Both of those states are critical to Democratic chances in the fall, and McCain will be highly competitive in Florida because the elderly population will more easily identify with him than Obama or even Clinton.

Obviously, it's not fair to seat the delegates as is. It's especially unfair to Obama since he did not have the opportunity to introduce himself to the people of Florida. Clinton was already quite well known. So, one cannot blame Obama for wanting to stick to the original agreement. To change the agreement now would penalize him unfairly (though not to seat them would deny Clinton the right to 2 states that she very well might have won if they had held an approved primary).

A floor fight would be a terrible thing and very, very embarrassing for the Democrats and play into all sorts of stereotypes that the right-wing would certainly exploit. It would also lead to a split whereby the loser's supporters would at least consider someone else or not vote. The Party would lose the enormous momentum its built up thanks to Obama, Clinton, not to mention Edwards and the others.

I think the only kind of agreement that the candidates would possibly accept would tie the way that Florida and Michigan are seated to the number of pledged delegates.

Here's one way of doing it:
- If Clinton leads in pledged delegate count, Florida and Michigan should be seated.
- If Obama leads in pledged delegate count, and would still lead if Florida and Michigan were seated, then they should still be seated. (This would make it easier for Clinton to get the nomination from the Superdelegates.)
- For any of the above, the Party elders should urge the Superdelegates to vote for the one with more pledged delegates. (The candidates obviously won't urge that.)
- If Obama leads in pledged delegate count, but would not lead if Florida and Michigan were seated, they should be seated in numbers to create tie between pledged delegates, and the decision should be made by the Superdelegates.

My suggestion is by no means perfect (and maybe someone has a better one?), but I think if we want Obama or Clinton to win the general election, the Democrats need to address this problem and get the candidates on board. If the candidates express support for a solution now, it will lead to a far more harmonious convention.

[flyarm]

1. you will never get the FDP to seat delegates for anyone but the person who won the election

Jan29th..so forget about it.

fly

[pampango]

7. It does seem to come down almost to a state party rights vs national party rights question.

The national party says no delegates from the primary. The state party says they are awarding delegates based on the primary whether you like it or not.

Does the national party get to set the rules for the nomination process? Or does each state get to decide when and how it selects its delegates?

[Danger Mouse]

2. The choice is between possibly alienating Florida and Michigan voters...

and possibly fracturing the Democratic party, ESPECIALLY if Clinton wins through use of superdelegates and Michigan and Florida.
It would kill any chance we had of beating McCain.

[UALRBSofL]

4. Oh lord, I'm tired of the FL/MI mess

I think they are gonna wait to see what happens in the next several weeks.

[Danger Mouse]

8. I think the only way FL/MI are going to be seated is if it will NOT affect the final outcome...

I do NOT want the nomination to go to convention...if it does, it could get very, very ugly.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. me too, but because no one even considers North Carolina votes impt at all

we will be following the rules of the DNC party and will hold our PRimary
in May.

It sounds like there is a push to decide the nominee before we vote, and that
mathematically, our vote doesn't count any way.

Florida - try North Carolina's reality for a while.

We followed the rules, why should you be better than us?

[JorgeTheGood]

3. Wrong on one point ...

anyone with 2 pieces of gray matter moving, knows who Obama is ... he's been a high profile player since he spoke at the dem convention.

[flyarm]

5. most of the Fla superdelegates support Hillary..even if they are listed as

undecided..that is horse hockey..they support Hillary ..they did everything they could to help Hillary in Fla..

what part of that are you not getting..

the FDP will never go along with splitting the delegates between the two candidates..and since Hillary won overwhelmingly in Fla..it won't happen.

fly

[GodlessBiker]

6. Seat them, let them vote, but their votes don't count.

Their state party failed them. They would have had a much larger voice in the primaries if they had kept their primaries where they were.

The state party was warned. They acted anyway. Candidates based their campaign on a promise. Now, to change the promise after the candidates planned their campaigns a certain way would be unacceptable.

[flyarm]

9. it was dems in the state legislature that voted for the change..the dems did it knowing full well

that they were breaking the DNC rules.

and they did it anyway..

fly

[JorgeTheGood]

11. Yeah -- disenfranchise

2 million (+) voters in FL and MI ...

then watch the blowback from that well-thought-out move.

[WilyWondr]

12. You think no one will vote in the GE?

That is an amazing imagination you have.

Do you have basis for your theory of 0 turnout?

[VotesForWomen]

40. well, given that W 'won' the state by 537 votes in 2000, the number of FL voters who get pissed

and stay home could very well make the difference. surely even the most deliberately obtuse could see that.

[GodlessBiker]

23. The state party leaders did it to them. They are now like children asking not to be held ...

responsible for their actions.

[Onlooker]

16. I don't think that will work

Who wants to be a delegate if your vote doesn't count? I think they'll be very pissed off.

[GodlessBiker]

24. Tough shit. This is grown-up time. The state party's actions have consequences.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. So we should cut off our nose to spite our face?

Give up MI and FL in the GE to enforce a rule that protects a system everybody here professes to hate?

[JackORoses]

35. no, we should avoid letting Hillary steal the nomination with flawed delegations

it's just that simple.

No more manipulation.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. It's not stealing

to count the votes, and have the votes count. It's democracy.

[JackORoses]

38. when you attempt to claim a flawed election as a valid one, that is dishonest

when you try to use these flawed elections to take a nomination, that is stealing.

It's not Democracy.
It's what Democracy is set up to defend against.
Manipulation of the System by those with Power.

I guess you are one of those who believe that the Ends(getting Hillary nominated) justify the Means(lie, cheat, steal, etc.)

That is the Bush motto, as well.
Think about it before making it your own.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. It was no more flawed

than any othe contest, and much less flawed than any caucus.

[GodlessBiker]

43. Do you have any evidence that we would lose these states by enforcing the rules everyone agreed to?

[Henryman]

22. Excellent Analysis, GodlessBiker...

Also, there will be time after the convention to reconcile with FL/MI voters.
It would be nice, at that time, for the DNC to offer special attention to the democratic voters in these states.

[WilyWondr]

10. How bout they lower the required delegate count

by the number of delegates in MI and FL?

The delegates are not going to be seated and there is not going to be another primary in those states. Get over it.

[JorgeTheGood]

13. They will be seated ...

or Obama can start polishing his golf clubs because he won't be doing much presidentin' after FL and MI hand him his A$$ in the GE.

[UALRBSofL]

14. From a political standpoint you can't just say GET OVER IT

The democrats need the votes in FL/MI and to send a message like that will hurt the party. This is a delicate issue and hopefully it will be settled in a proactive way, not a reactionary way. :)

[pampango]

26. The Florida Democratic party, though, doesn't want to compromise to help

solve the problem. They seem to oppose any new primary, a caucus, any revision to the sharing of delegates. They just seem to say "no redos" then yell about "disenfranchisement" and "we're a big battleground state, so you have to treat us as special".

I realize that the state party favors Clinton. I don't know if that is the reason they refuse to budge, or perhaps any compromise would seem to them like an admission that they screwed up. Without the cooperation of the state party, I don't see how this can be resolved in any way other than an "all or nothing" decision.

[WilyWondr]

28. You think no one from MI or FL will vote in the GE?

Is that what I am hearing when you say "The democrats need the votes in FL/MI"? Because that is not true at all and you have nothing to base that theory on.

Get proactive then and start to get the mess straightened out for 2012.
Anything done to change the 2008 primary now would be reactionary.

[shraby]

15. As far as I'm concerned, the issue of Florida

and Michigan was decided when they agreed to not count and the candidates agreed to the the decision. Nuff said. It's already been decided and Hillary should accept it and move along.

[JorgeTheGood]

18. The problem is ...

the party leaders and legislatures of FL and MI don't have the power to dictate who gets their votes counted and who doesn't.

That durn constitution just keeps getting in the way ...

[Onlooker]

20. Then we lose in November

Those are two tough states for Democrats win in first place. If the state parties don't help out a lot it would be enormously difficult for Obama or Clinton to win those states. Remember, both Michigan and Florida are always really, really close races.

[dysfunctional press]

42. why?

have the voters said that if the primary votes don't count that they'll vote for mccain?

i keep hearing people say that it will alienate the voters of those states, and i just don't see why?

they KNEW at the time of the primaries that their votes weren't going to count- why should/would it affect their votes in the general election?

[billyoc]

17. The issue has been settled, both states' Democratic Parties have been stripped

of their delegations, period. They were betrayed by their own state legislatures.

[PATRICK]

19. Another small possibility

is to unpledge all those state delegates so they have no obligation to vote for any candidate. They will become in effect like superdelegates whi in many cases represent their state populations even more poorly. Obviously that creates an advatatage for Clinton but not any different than the current unpledged bulge awaiting at the Convention. If Clinton wants to win a noble edge she should "release" all of her Florida and Michigan delegates. If this seems such an obvious advantage "on behalf of those states" why doesn't she do it?

[totodeinhere]

21. This whole thing is my greatest worry.

I don't see any good way out of this mess. You deserve a lot of credit for trying to find a solution, but I don't think that your idea will be accepted by either side. Both sides have entrenched positions on this.

So I think that if the delegates from those two states could determinate the outcome of the race for the nomination, we are going to have a nasty floor fight. It would be almost like 1968 all over again.

The Dem party has worked tirelessly over the years to ensure that something like 1968 won't ever happen again, but all of that effort may turn out to have been in vain. Meanwhile, the Repukes are laughing again at our tendency to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.

So what to do? Well for one, we can hope that one candidate or the other has a sufficient lead in delegates that seating delegates from those two states won't change the outcome.

But in the mean time Howard Dean has got to get both sides together and to try to hammer out some kind of solution that is acceptable to both sides in case the worst case scenario happens. We have got to somehow solve this for the good of the party, or we might be facing a third Bush term in the person of McCain. We can't let that happen.

[flyarm]

25. i say seat the whole delegation and then do what the repugs did let 1/2 the delegate vote count. eom

[Onlooker]

27. A lot of people are missing the point

This issues has very little to do with the state parties, and it's not about Clinton.

It has to do with winning the national election. If a fair way is not found to appease the MI and FL state parties, then either Clinton or Obama will have a tough time winning those swing states. State parties provide ground troops, phone lists, mail lists, vote monitors, money, and other resources that are vital to a campaign.

The Democratic Party MUST come up with a solution that both Obama and Clinton can accept, or the Convention will be a nightmare.

[WilyWondr]

30. "the Convention will be a nightmare."

No it will not.
The MI and FL delegates will not be there.
End of Story.
Get over it.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. What a childish way to address this

It will have to be resolved.

[sniffa]

29. THE CANDIDATES ARE

Hillary wants to seat them. Obama backs the DNC.

Look how short and sweet this was.

[Debi]

32. Why must you yell?

x(

[sniffa]

34. Because I dream of a day where the hysteria stops.

:P

[question everything]

37. I disagree. No mater how s/he will address it, it will appear as a cheap campaign trick

and certainly will be interpreted like that by all the pundits and media outlets and blogs and... on DU.

Once there is a nominee then s/he should address it, while being careful not to take over the role of whatever committee drafted and implemented the rule.