It is not against the rules to seat the MI and FL delegates

[boston bean]

so stop that meme.

The rules are that the credentialing committee makes those determinations. So it is within the rules to have this revisited and and voted upon have those delegates reseated. All delegates go through this process.

STOP trying to change the RULES in the middle of the game!

[Guava Jelly]

1. I say sit them

50/50
No one gains over a contest that wasn't supposed to count in the first place.

[FrenchieCat]

9. No, it's only against all human decency!

But that doesn't count....just like various states don't count as much, right?

[Guava Jelly]

15. I am against them being seated myself without a revote.

But if they do nobody should be the benefactor of a contest that was for entertainment purposes only

[LiberalFighter]

40. Some people think that how many states a person wins should be the criteria

[kennetha]

58. Why? Because Obama lost?

You are so lacking in principle. If Obama had won FLA and MI, you'd be arguing that those delegations ought to be seated, that the voters should be heard. You only want to hear the voters when the speak in your favor. Just like your dishonest dissembling candidate.

[Zhade]

65. "you'd be arguing" - you don't know that. Talk about dishonest!

Clinton's the one who wants the delegates because she's losing. She's trying to cheat. Fuck her.

[LiberalFighter]

39. It's not up to us. The national delegates get to decide that.

[kennetha]

59. 50/50 is the same as 0

It still disenfranchises the voters of MI and FLA. The people have spoken. Let their voices be heard. This is not about the candidates. It's about the voters.

[bvar22]

80. But "The People" did NOT speak.

It was a sham "election".
Each and Every citizen was told UPFRONT that his/her vote would NOT count, and no delegates would be seated.
To change the rules NOW and seat the pnony delegates would be tantamount to Election Fraud.

I am NOT an Obama supporter.
I am a Progressive Democrat who no longer has a candidate that is represenative of my values.
I DO still care about our democracy and fair elections.

[totodeinhere]

2. The credentialing committee had better not overrule the will of the people.

Even counting Michigan and Florida votes Obama has more popular votes than Hillary does. If that trend continues, the credentialing committee won't dare side with Clinton. Plus the way things are going Obama will probably control the credentialing committee anyway.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Not all of those "people" are Democrats or have legitimate rights to vote in primaries and caucuses.

[totodeinhere]

56. Open primaries have existed as long as the primary system itself.

But now that your candidate is losing suddenly those primaries are not legitimate anymore. If you don't like open primaries then petition the Democratic National Committee not to recognize them next time. But during this election cycle all campaigns were aware that some of these contests were open contests. It was a level playing field and every campaign had the same opportunity to compete for votes in every primary and caucus, open or closed.

[LiberalFighter]

75. To argue that the caucuses and primaries are representative of the people...

makes you blind as a bat. Conducting the presidential preferential elections with different systems that don't have the same requirements in each state does not support the claim that more people support one candidate over the other. And it does not support the claim that one candidate will more candidates than the other. Comparing primary turnouts with general election turnouts is total folly. Anyone that is experience in political elections knows that.

By the way, you say that every campaign had the same opportunity to compete for votes. That is true. And every campaign had the same opportunity to compete for the unpledged delegates. But Obama and his supporters are crying foul. They want those delegates to automatically go to whichever candidate receives the most votes in the state. That is not in the Democratic Party's rules. They can endorsed anyone they want and change their vote anytime until the vote is called for at the convention.

In addition, neither candidate has a clear edge in this campaign. Saying a candidate has the edge because they have "won" the most states does not win elections. If those states all had the same population and same number of delegates or electoral votes as in the general election then it would be valid. Saying a candidate has the edge because they received the most votes in all elections held doesn't hold water either when they use different methods in each state. Not the case in the general election. Saying that with the voter turnout is greater than the Republican turnout will result in a Democratic candidate winning a red state is a unreliable gauge of the general election result. It has never been a reliable means to determine the election. Anyone that considers that as a indicator is a fool.

Elections are not won by getting more votes than they do in the Republican primaries. Elections are won by the candidate that can get the most votes in the general election. Whoever the candidate is that comes out of the convention will still have to run a good campaign. If they don't communicate their agenda they won't get elected. And it is still a longs ways before the general election.

As for open vs closed primaries my preference is neither. Rather that every state party conducted caucuses and they be restricted to local party activists which consist mainly of precinct/ward chairs and vice chairs and regular volunteers. And they have to be registered to vote in the county where the caucuses are conducted. Primaries might be conducted but would be non-binding and would at best provide more of a survey of the voters.

[kennetha]

60. All Kinds of Ways to choose a delegate

Some delegates are chosen in caucuses; others in closed primaries; still others in open primaries. Some delegates are delegates in virtue of their position within the party. You can't really say that all delegates are created equal. Delegates chosen via an open primary don't really represent the heart and soul of the democratic party so much. Delegates chosen at caucuses, even if closed, represent some highly energized and motivated segment of the party, but not the party at large and certainly not potential cross-over voters for a democratic candidate at large. Superdelegates are steeped in the party, play major roles in the party, and may bring to bear a valuable independent perspective. I think the mix of caucuses, closed and open primaries, and superdelegates is an interesting mix. I think somehow that the delegates elected by "popular vote" should somehow determine all, is a little ludicrous. First, because of the mix of ways in which that vote is generated. Second, because it simply ignores the role that the superdelegates were intended to play.

Seating the FLA and MI delegations wouldn't be "overturning" anything that has any independent standing. It would be adding two more sets of voices to the mix to deliberate about who our nominee should be.

Obama folks are playing a dangerous game, trying to threaten and intimidate, trying to ram a unilateral solution to FLA and MI debacle down the throats of the party. They are like spoiled children who if they don't get their way will smash the toy so that nobody can play with it.

THis is their "new" politics???? If it is, I don't want any parts of it. Cause it is butt ugly and looks more to me like old fashion, brass knuckle Chicago machine style politicking.

[LiberalFighter]

77. Well Obama did live in Chicago during that period. Some of that would rub off on him.

Are there any other Chicago connected in his campaign?

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Yeah! Validate those undemocratic straw polls and call them primaries!

That's what democracy is all about!

[boston bean]

4. the rules are the rules, why do you want to change them? nt

[tekisui]

5. All candidates agreed to the sanctions before a vote was cast. Period.

[boston bean]

6. It was always within the rules that the credentialing committee would

make the final decision regarding those states.

[tekisui]

10. I think they'll do the right thing.

FL and MI will NOT change the outcome of the Primary. No matter how they are sat or allocated. Seating them right now, as they are still wouldn't give Hillary a lead. That's the bottom line.

[mkultra]

7. sorry, wrong again

FL and MI will not be submitted to the committee as the DNC(which the committee reports to) has already ruled on the issue.

gg thx for playing. You lose in real life.

[boston bean]

8. you need to do some more research. nt

[mkultra]

16. she can appeal to the comitee

but the comitte will be controlled by the person wit the most pledged delegates


Even so, she signed a written pledge to not honor those delegates. Shes dishonest for pressing the case and she makes the dems look like the cant run a ice cream social.

Shes and idiot.

[kennetha]

61. NOt necessarily

Both campaigns will appoint members to the credentials committee. But HOward Dean gets to appoint 25 members. Don't know how many members in total. The balance could be so close that the dean appointees are the deciding vote.

[JVS]

11. ...so stop saying that!

[MaineDem]

12. Actually the convention will make the decision if it comes to that

The Committee on Credentials will present it to the convention. Those delegates already seated will make the final decision.

[CorpGovActivist]

13. The Credentials Committee members will be thoroughly researched.

Fair warning. All their ties. All the money they've taken. All the jobs they've recently received.

- Dave

[kennetha]

63. More threats and More intimidation from the Obamaniacs!!

Going to compile a Nixon-style enemies list next?:

New politics my arse.

[nomorewhopper]

14. Hillary is getting crushed on Meet the Press over this issue right now

it's not logical, and it's going to sink her

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gerrilea]

20. You should be lynched for your ignorance!

[LiberalFighter]

42. I second that! Is there any discussion? I see none. All in favor? The Ayes have it!

[writes3000]

31. Stop being disgusting.

You're not helping ANY side you're trying to advance. Even if you're a Republican.

[JVS]

68. please refrain from using such terms.

besides, what you describe is a purging, not a lynching.

[9119495]

18. Yeah, her comments toasted her on this issue...

In September, the contests did not count for her...now they are supposed to.

We can act like this is up to the credentials committee but the original poster is trying to make this an issue of semantics. No one says the credentials committee can't rule. The practical reality is that if Clinton gets a victory this way, it will be a huge story everyone will know about and people (not just Democrats) will not like it. The credentials committee is made up of PEOPLE. These people have futures and pasts in politics and they are not going to divorce themselves from the party. If they selected Clinton for the nomination and she loses, their time with the party is over.

This shit about "playing by the rules" and letting the credentials committee decide is NOT separate from other issues. But if you follow the poster's other threads, you'd she MassDem doesn't have much knowledge of the political realities of this process. The OP seems to think only the credentials committee will have a say in this process. That is simply not the case.

[dana_b]

50. you know, the more I read/hear about this,

the creepier and dirtier Hillary and her campaign seems to me. The two cndidates may be similar on the issues, but definitely not how they play. No, I'm not naive and I realise that this is how politics is played, but that's one aspect of what needs to change, imo. I really dont know who I'm voting for yet, but she's losing points in my book.

[kennetha]

66. Obama and his supporters are the one's threatening to blow-up the joint!

They are the one's who are threatening to blow up the party over this. Doug WIlder threatened riots in the streets by the Obama side if they do not get their way. THat's ugly, ugly, ugly. They are also the one being unprincipled opportunists, trying to disenfranchise over two million voters in FLA and MI, trying to denude the super-delegates and turn them into a rubber stamp. Shameful and ugly, I say.

New Politics, my arse. Same old dirty double dealing

[NeedleCast]

19. The GOP is loving this

I can see the commercial already. They'll show Hillary agreeing to the DNC punishments for FL/MI moving up their primaries. Then they'll show her fighting to get them seated. They'll add some deep, forboding music, and an attack sound bite and have a great commercial for McCain.

It sucks when we write their material for them.

[Thepricebreaker]

46. Bingo...

[Honeycombe8]

You are wrong. The DNC decision was made early 2007, in accordance w/the rules.

The states were written a letter BEFORE they moved their primaries up, telling them that if they did so, their delegates would not be seated, in accordance w/the rules. They moved up the primaries, anyway.

It would be against the rules now to count those delegates. More importantly, it would be grossly unfair to all but Hillary Clinton. And you know that.

[LiberalFighter]

44. And the Florida DNC members voted on it at the DNC meetings

They consisted of the following:

Florida DNC Member -- Jon Ausman
Florida DNC Member -- Terrie Brady
Florida DNC Member -- Mitchell Ceasar
Florida DNC Member -- Joyce Cusack
Florida DNC Member -- Diane Glasser
Florida DNC Member -- Allan Katz
Florida DNC Member -- Raul Martinez
Florida DNC Member -- Chuck Mohlke
Florida DNC Member -- Janee Murphy
Florida DNC Member -- Rudolph Parker
Florida DNC Member -- Karen Thurman
Officer -- Andrew Tobias

Karen Thurman is the Chair
Rudolph Parker is the Vice Chair

[gerrilea]

21. So the voters in Fl & MI Should loose their votes?!!!

:mad:

It doesn't matter who the winner could or could not be...doesn't anyone here remember all the whinning in 2000 with Gore???

Wake up...

[x-g.o.p.er]

23. Uh, they voted

And their vote will count in November, so they haven't been disenfranchised.

[gerrilea]

25. Wake up please...please, please, please

They will vote in Nov on a candidate they didn't have a voice in choosing...the candidate was "picked" for them...this is democracy?

[verges]

52. That's a natural hazard

of a staggered primary/caucus system. Fla/MI moved their primary too early, against party instructions, and the party didn't like it. Rightly so.

I live in Ohio. This will be the first time I have ever had a primary vote that might count. Nobody ever pitched a fit saying it wasn't fair. It's just the way the system works. If FL/MI are seated, get ready for the campaign for 2012 to start in February 2008. Because there is obviously no reason not to try to schedule your primary to be the earliest. Then NH re-schedules. Then you re-schedule etc.

If you really have an ethical problem here (not a political problem), I suggest that you accept the situation this time, and act to change the system for a universal primary in 2012.

[Moochy]

48. Maybe you should have been more active

when the party officials sided with republicans to move the date of the primary against the rules.

[Zhade]

67. Considering they GAVE THEM UP, yes.

If they hadn't wanted NON-BINDING primaries, maybe they should have done their civic duty to ensure they counted.

Candidates don't get to change the rules mid-contest just because they're losing. Deal with it.

[x-g.o.p.er]

22. Sure, if you change the rules set forth originally

Not saying what she's doing is or isn't legal, because if they sue and win, it's legal. If they get the DNC to change their mind and seat them, it's legal. But it seems shady and underhanded, like most of their time in office, and it gives people an uneasy feeling about the Clintons as obcessed with power and status, and doing what's good for them, not the party.

It also smacks of desperation and a "do anything it takes" to win the nomination, and if she does win it that way, I think it will fracture the party and it will take years to fully recover from it.

[gerrilea]

24. How are we to affect change if we all follow the rules???

I feel like I'm in some alternate universe...the corrupt party officials want total control of who we vote for and currently the have it...why does it matter when Fl & MI have their primaries...this is all about control...not democracy....

[crispini]

26. The DNC is trying to get some control over the primary schedule madness.

It's too early, and it's too frontloaded, and it's the same old states every time. We need to organize a schedule of rotating regional primaries so that different groups of people have a voice in the nominee. Florida and Michigan, by challenging the efforts of the DNC (remember, the DNC did move four states up to try and make a start at this)... FL and MI are threatening the control that the DNC is trying to assert over the party primary schedule.

They knew the rules, they broke 'em. No soup for you!

[gerrilea]

27. My exact point., it's about control nothing more...

Following the rules does not allow for change...as per Obama's mantra....Am I missing something?

[crispini]

28. Um, sometimes the rules are meant to cause change.

Howard Dean is trying figure a way to give us ALL a voice in the primary by keeping control of the schedule. Working towards changes to make it fair for everyone requires central control from the DNC. How do you think it feels to be in a state that never, EVER has any voice in the primary? I have never, EVER in my lifetime (20 years of voting!) voted in a Democratic presidential primary that meant anything. You think I appreciate that?

Florida and Michigan are being big ol' publicity hogs and vote hogs and it bit them in the ass. I have zero sympathy for them.

Florida voters disenfranchised? I've been disenfranchised for MY ENTIRE VOTING LIFE.

[gerrilea]

35. So your final thought is: no sympathy, no vote

I live in NY and when I vote it really doesn't mean much here...but I still have my vote counted...so why shouldn't all the states vote in the primaries on the same day...and time??? Fair to all...just like the GE in November...simple solution...

As for your claim that you have been disenfranchised for your entire life is absurd...your vote was most likely counted...I don't know where you live though...so I assume here...sorry.

We claim to be a democratic republic...so why is the system set up to unfairly give smaller states more power...oh...I keep forgetting...the smaller states won't have an equal voice because of population...but democracy isn't always so pretty...

[crispini]

37. A one-day primary would mean only big-money candidates can afford to run.

That's not what I want. I want it to be possible for somebody with just a little bit of money to get in the race and do retail politics and climb up the ladder. That's why we have some small states in the mix. So I want a system of rotating regional primaries to go first. The DNC was trying to get us a step down that road by moving four states up to get a bit more diversity. Then FL and MI tried to hog the spotlight. They are not helping the problem just adding to it.

And, I'm quite sure my primary votes were counted, but none of them meant anything, because the nominee always was determined by the time my primary rolled around. So why even vote?

[Zhade]

69. Publicly-funded campaigns, problem solved.

NT!

[LiberalFighter]

54. If you have the primaries all held at the same time it would make it impossible

for anyone without sufficient funding to campaign and win.

[Moochy]

49. Logic, Ethics, a sense of fair play

That about covers what you are missing.

[MaineDem]

51. Yes, parties make the rules

The Supreme Court has already affirmed that. Parties make the rules concerning how their nominee will be selected. It's one of the tasks a political party faces.

The Rules are made by a committee and approved by the entire DNC, with members from all states.

[verges]

55. Yes, you are.

They challenged the rules. They knew they were challenging the rules. They lost. They were punished. (the candidates also agreed to this.) If they are not punished, they get away with breaking rules that were made for a good reason. Kinda like Bush probably won't be punished. Does that seem right? That we scream for Bush's punishment, and then don't accept responsibility for our own breaking of the rules?

The problem is with your state committee. Bitch to them for placing you in this situation.

[LiberalFighter]

53. Don't forget that the DNC consists of over 400 members from all states and territories.

They vote on the rules. They are generally not elected officials. Chairs and Vice chairs I believe are automatically members. They are generally elected by state convention delegates but don't necessarily have to be a state convention delegate to run for national convention delegate.

[madfloridian]

29. Seat them all you want.....just don't count them.

[Debi]

43. Yes - and DON'T count the super-delegates (the people that got their states into this mess)

I'd love to have Levin/Granholm and Nelson/Wasserman-Shultz left at home while their delegates headed to Denver.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

32. Love it--thanks.

[rodeodance]

34. I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[rodeodance]

36. Obama was the first Candidate to say he would seat the Florida delegates if he was nominee!

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Obama was the first Candidate to say he would seat the Florida delegates if he was nominee!
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4610281#4610281
4610281, Obama was the first Candidate to say he would seat the Florida delegates if he was nominee!
Posted by flyarm on Fri Feb-15-08 08:13 PM

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking
Barack Obama held an impromptu news conference after a Tampa fundraiser Sunday.


By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 30, 2007



TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that's the case, then we won't do it again."

[LiberalFighter]

78. What's the point of seating the delegates if the nomination is already decided?

[stevenleser]

38. Getting a rules committee to change the rules after the game is still changing the rules after the

game. The NFL has a group that decides rules too. They are "part of the rules" in the same twisted way you imply that the credentials committee is "part of the rules". If they decided tomorrow that a number of plays the Giants ran in the superbowl should not be legal and therefore, they were awarding the game to the Patriots, it would be just like the Credentials committee seating the Florida and Michigan delegates. And, just like in the case of the superbowl, everyone would recognize if for what it was, changing the rules after the game is played is cheating.

I guarantee you that the McCain campaign has an entire line of attack on Clinton about this ready to go if this is somehow the way she pulls this out. The entire Presidential campaign from the time the Denver convention ends until the November election will be about how Hillary cheated to win the nomination and how could you want someone like that as President. There will be no discussion of issues. The entire 1990s GOP line of attack on the Clintons would also be referenced as the sleazy way she won the nomination would be suggested to be the latest line in underhanded Clinton dealings. that is all we would here for about 4 months, culminating in a McCain landslide.

[Vinca]

45. Let's face it. The Hillary camp wants to win at all costs whether fair

or unfair. They agreed to the stupid Michigan/Florida primary scheme way back when, but now - no problem. Doesn't matter that the other candidates didn't campaign in the states. Doesn't matter that other candidates didn't have their names on the ballot. Doesn't matter she would not only be screwing over Obama, but John Edwards as well. After all, with his message, Michigan was made for him. The only thing that matters is that fair or not, Hillary wins. It's a shame her underhanded tactics might cost us the White House.

[Moochy]

47. Ends Justifies the Cheating

[lynch03]

57. I thought clinton supporters were better then cheating to win

I guessed wrong. The only reason you want them seated is because clinton won, looking at it objectively there is no way you could possibly say that seating michigan and florida is anything about extremely unfair. The reasons are obvious, but you're all just blinded by your intense desire for a clinton presidency

[Zhade]

71. Seems some Clinton supporters could have been in the mob that shut down the FL recount in 2000.

They don't mind cheating, when it suits their purposes.

Hypocrites!

[WillyT]

62. Fine... Seat The FL & MI Delegates...

they can vote on the platform changes, they can go to the parties, the can dance the night away.

They just don't get to cast their votes for any nominee.

Seems fair to me.

:shrug:

[Zhade]

73. That's actually generous, but not a bad idea at all if it breaks no rules.

NT!

[Zhade]

64. Yes, it is, despite your spin. It's changing the rules in the middle of the game.

They KNEW they wouldn't count, now the Clinton campaign wants them to count because she's losing.

Fuck that. We call that cheating where I come from (ironically, Florida).

[in_cog_ni_to]

70. Oh GOOD. Now we can follow the LONG STANDING RULE that Super Delegates can vote for the candidate

they CHOOSE to vote for and NOT be threatened by Obama supporters to riot in the streets if they don't select Obama.

GOOD. I'm glad we've straightened out the "no changing the rules in the middle of the game" thing.

[Zhade]

74. Hey, if it's what they've been allowed to do, I agree.

Full disclosure: I don't support Obama. I just REALLY don't support the type of cheating Clinton's campaign is advocating (nor do I support her).

That said, if Obama continues winning and the SDs swing it to Clinton, it'll be a scumfucker move, legal or not.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. Good. I'm glad we agree. n/t

[Gnister]

72. Democrat FIRST

We have to stop arguing about this and unite in order to beat the Republican nominee in November. The rules were set before the primaries even started and EVERYONE agreed upon them!!!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

79. K&R. Great point.

The Rules Committee do not meet till August, I think. Till then, we all can twist in the wind. Directionless.

Unless Obama takes the lead wholeheartedly, thus causing Hill to wind up fully in the ditch.

Wait et See is very difficult to do, esp. for us stupid Michigan voters.