Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Florida and Michigan is a NON issue made into an issue by the Clinton campaign...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 03:05 PM
Original message
Florida and Michigan is a NON issue made into an issue by the Clinton campaign...
Edited on Sun Feb-17-08 03:11 PM by Bread and Circus
I live in Michigan and I know of no one who has ever said they would sit on their hands in protest if the Michigan fake primary didn't get ratified by the DNC and have the Michigan delegates seated.

This was not on the "outrage radar screen" in any editorial or newspaper article prior to Hillary et. al. making this a problem after she realized she might not be able to win the nomination without Michigan and Florida.

Furthermore, she didn't make this an issue until AFTER Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada were out of the way and South Carolina was decidedly going Obama's way AND ONLY AFTER her campaign knew that the non-elections in Michigan and Florida were going to go her way based mainly on name recognition.

This "outrage" about voter disenfranchisement didn't come from the base or the grass roots. This came from the Clinton campaign alone.

This is eerily similar to how the Right Wing creates "issues" almost out of whole cloth that end up dominating the debate but has very little, if any, basis amongst the people on who's behalf the issue is seemingly being waged.

I can't entirely speak for Florida but as a resident of Michigan I can tell you there has been ZERO outrage in any of the papers or among the populace of any scale prior to Clinton making this an issue.

The only grumblings I am aware of were from the people who couldn't vote for Barack or Edwards and that wasn't a very vocal or very organized effort other than to "vote uncommitted" which was most prominently suggested by John Conyers.

Stabenow, Levin, and Granholm were silent and I've seen nothing from the main papers or local newschannels.

This is kind of like a "brownshirting" or "astroturfing" of the issue.

The fact that the pundits and even we are giving it serious discussion without paying attention to where this RUSE comes from (as it was Hillary who was one of the signers of the rules in the first place) just goes to show how easily it is to conjure a phantom issue like this.

Has anyone actually heard a rank and file Democratic voter from Michigan or Florida ever say they would sit on their hands come November if we actually followed the rules?

I know I haven't.

Some say this could cost us Michigan and Florida if we do nothing.

That is utter B.S. and there is no poll or survey to support that. It's another Mark Penn et. al. talking point.

If it comes down to Obama vs. McCain in Michigan, Obama will blow McCain out of the water.

I don't know about Florida as I don't live there but I doubt the deciding factors will come down to the petty disagreement with candidates following the rules that they agreed with and signed on to.

The Michigan and Florida problem is part of a bigger problem of how to arrange the primary schedule but that's not even being given the attention it needs and now is not the right time to be discussing it anyway. WE have the system we set in place and we have to follow the rules. What kind of party is the Democratic Party if it can follow its own rules?

The time to fix the overall primary schedule is next year, after we the election is over and before the next cycle has started.

But who's with me when I say that Clinton won't be leading on that problem, whether she wins or not?

Hell, none of these numbskulls have even made issue of the bigger problem, which is making sure ALL the votes are counted correctly.

Where's Hillary's outrage on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. I love how it's now a topic cable news
"This is quite the pickle that needs to be worked out."

It was worked out - they lost their delegates. Dean even suggested having caucuses so they could have their delegates back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Disenfranchise ALL the Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan?
Sounds like a idea born by rethugs. I hope the DNC counts ALL the votes and seats the Delegates from Florida and Michigan at the convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well, it was an idea born by the DNC and agreed to by Clinton, Obama, and Edwards among many others.
So, perhaps knowing the facts might help you "sort this out".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. It is NOT Clinton, Obama, Edwards or ANY other candidates call..........
the ultimate decision will be made by the DNC and I hope it is in favor of counting the votes and seating the delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. There are no delegates in Florida.
Unless Hillary sues. Go for it, Hillary. Let's see you make an even bigger issue of this. It will guarantee more voters for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yep. It's a no-winner for her.
At any rate, it won't be enough for her to secure the Nomination, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Reminds me of Humphrey's tantrum re: CA in 1972
Back in 1972 CA's June primary was winner-take-all. Back when Humphrey was the front-runner and it looked like he had a virtual lock on the nomination, he talked up how it was "the big one" and would put him over the top. He knew it was winner-take-all and was expecting to get all CA's delegates.

As soon as it became clear that McGovern was going to beat Humphrey in CA, he started making noises that the CA delegation should be split proportionally, possibly denying McGovern enough delegates to get the nomination on the first ballot. The convention ruled that "rules are rules", and all CA's delegates were McGovern's.

The fight went all the way to the convention floor, where Humphrey lost his challenge, and all of CA's delegates went for McGovern, according to the rules set forth before the primary. That floor fight pretty much sealed Humphrey's fate, and McGovern got the nomination.

I could see this going to the floor of the convention, and having a similar outcome. The MI and FL parties knew the rules before the votes took place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. And just like the Nevada lawsuit which sought to overturn
the at-large caucus sites, a lawsuit here will be thrown out as well.

Hillary's only hope is that the rules committee allows the delegates from FL and MI to be seated.

I don't think Dean and Pelosi and Reid want this to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gnister Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. Democrat FIRST.
Democrat FIRST.

Lets Unite to beat the republican candidate in November. No more betrayal and siding up with McCain or trying to break the Democratic Party by changing the rules when you are not satisfied with the result of them!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC