One way to deal with Florida and Michigan that I have not seen discussed here

[Johnny__Motown]

It may be a bad idea but it should be debated (if only slightly)



The Repugs have removed only half of the delegates from Fl and Mi.

What if we followed that precedent and simply cut the number of delegates in half? This would favor Clinton because she "won" both but it would reduce the impact of those wins without removing it completely. (all Michigan's Uncommitted delegates would go to Obama)

This decision could be made at the convention once we were certain that it would not "flip" the outcome of pledged delegates won from one candidate to the other.

We could then seat the delegates without any "redo" and without an even 50-50 split (which is the same as not having any delegates at all since they cancel each other out).


*Disclaimer* I am not saying that this is a great idea or that anyone would agree to it as a reasonable compromise, just that it deserves to be discussed. If only to be dismissed after that discussion.

[rpannier]

1. It's an interesting idea

My only problem with it is...

Obama honored the pledge not to campaign in either state.
HRC had the aid of surrogate campaigners.

Unfortunately it benefits the one who skirted the rules while penalizing the one for following them.

That being said, I'm glad you did post it.
I think all ideas should be out there and debated.

Yours is just as valid.

[Johnny__Motown]

9. I agree that it gives Clinton the advantage, but we can wait till the convention to make this choice

[juajen]

2. I'm guessing you're an Obama supporter.

She won and her delegates should be given to her, it's that simple. Yes, Obama should have the uncommitted vote in MI, but Clinton obeyed the rules, she did not advertise in FL and Obama was on the ticket and as well known as he would have been later. I believe it would only have been a few weeks if they had stayed in line, but I can't remember the exact date.

If anyone should be punished, it should be the Florida Democratic Party, not the voters. Nor should future voters be punished for something they had no say in. Fine the party and proceed with seating the delegates.

The truth is, if this fiasco had not happened, Obama might not have had momentum, but Hillary would have because of both wins. She still has huge support in FL. I do not know about Michigan. Why did HIllary win in Michigan, when it is so close to Ilinois? Shouldn't Obama have had more support because of this? I believe both wins were legitimate, but, that the GOP worked its magic and interfered again, expecting bedlam and decreased momentum for Hillary.

It's foolish for Obama supporters to believe that the GOP is afraid of an Obama win. He is the least experienced, easily beat out by an overly-experienced McCain, and is bound to rouse their bigoted base. There are plenty of female voters in the GOP, but almost no black Americans. Hillary and Bill are a formidable team and beat the GOP twice and even overcame an impeachment with over 70 percent approval rating upon leaving the White House. They also enjoyed a rightly earned African American base, which was cut out from under them by making them seem racist, when everyone knows nothing is further from the truth.

Why don't all of you Obama supporters admit that if the situation were reversed and Obama had won those two elections, that ya'll would be "fighting in the streets" to claim them for Obama. You are hypocrites if you don't admit this. You know what the right thing is to do and I am sick of your posturing.

What world do Obama supporters live in that they cannot see that they have been greatly manipulated in this election process? I know there are clearer heads than I have seen so far with the young voters that have been posting on DU. I have seen quite a few that I would love to meet. They really seem like nice people. A lot of the bitterness that is now prevalent on this Board would not be on here now if we had a rule that no new people could join until after the primaries. This is just not fair to people who love this board. I hope Skinner will do something about this before the next primary.

[TAWS]

6. You better compromise on the issue or she isn't going to get any delegates from there

Dean flat out said he would not count them. And the credentials committee is not going to reverse the decision at the convention.

[Johnny__Motown]

8. she won't get those delegates seated.. cry all you want she said it wouldn't count and she was right

[Birthmark]

3. It is an acceptable solution for FL

...but I don't think it works for MI where most candidates weren't on the ballot.

[Johnny__Motown]

11. That is why I said all Uncommitted go to Obama, seemed reasonable to me

[BalancedGoat]

4. Could've been a good idea.

If only they had chosen this route before the votes had taken place. Obama tends to bring in a lot of first time voters and young voters; exactly the kind of people that very well could've stayed home if they were told that their vote wouldn't count. You can't just say "This vote won't really count" and then change the tune after the vote has already taken place. I do, however, feel that the voters in both states should get a say in determining the nominee. The only fair way to give them that say, in my opinion, is to have a re-vote.

[Johnny__Motown]

12. I agree but I don't think a re vote will happen. I live in MI and have been watching closely,

losing hope

[Yossariant]

5. That is actually the DNC sanction for early primaries -- just like the GOP.

But then Mr. "Fifty State Strategy" :evilgrin: followed Donna Brazile (who so brilliantly managed Gore's campaign) :evilgrin: to give Florida to the GOP without a fight and to make "examples" of Florida and Michigan.

"That's one reason why Clinton's campaign probably hesitated before signing the pledge.

The other is that Clinton's strategists disagree with the DNC about Florida's viability in the general election. Clinton's team believes she can win there; the DNC is more skeptical that Democrats can recover. Clinton doesn't want to give Republicans a heads-up there."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/the_jockeying_behind_the_four.php

The DNC is hoist on its own petard at this point. It's far too late to impose the correct sanction -- counting half the votes.

Dean has to go and maybe the Dems will have a chance at the White House in 2012.

[Johnny__Motown]

13. Clinton was trying to "front load" the calender so it would end by 2/5

That is why they may have hesitated before signing the pledge, MI and Fl were doing exactly what they knew would help Hillary.


I still think we can impose the correct sanction, this decision will not be made until the convention. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise that would keep FL in play, not just for this election but for others we will need to hold there in the future.

[Skip Intro]

7. I think that's where this might come down.

we can't just ignore those votes

[Unsane]

10. Having Michigan, a primary where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, count is ridiculous

[Johnny__Motown]

14. We can give him the 40% that voted Uncommitted then it would be 55-40

and cut the delegates in half to make it a net of a 7.5% for Hillary


I admit it is an advantage to Hillary, but if we do this at the convention and are certain it won't "flip" the winner of pledged delegates from one to the other it may be acceptable to the Obama camp.