Rewarding FL and MI would create CHAOS in the next presidential primary.

[Skwmom]

If these states are rewarded by seating their delegates and permitting their superdelegates to vote, why would states follow the DNC rules in future primaries? There would be no deterrence for breaking the rules.

At a minimum the states should be stripped of superdelegates and the majority of their elected delegates (50%-75%). Any compromise to seat the entire delegation based upon some arbitrary allocation is ridiculous. And a do over is absurd. It would reward FL and MI AND make them the most important states in determining the nominee.

[Pawel K]

1. The only fair way to deal with this is to give them as many delegates as Hillary needs to win.

At least that's what her supporters will tell you, and they'll do this with a straight face.

Personally I think the best way to deal with this is just move on. Let Hillary and her supporters make all kinds of noise about MI and FL. No body cares, it's time for Obama to move on to the GE.

[leftofcool]

2. You Obama supporters sure do care about the DNC

too bad you don't care as much about four million voters.

[nichomachus]

5. please

:nopity:

It's the state's that don't care about their voters by scheduling the primaries in open defiance of the rules.

Don't you care about the voters who didn't vote because they were told it was a meaningless exercise? Shouldn't they get a chance to make their voices heard if the rules are bent for one candidate. Don't you care about them.

Yeah yeah, I know, "they had a chance to vote."

Well, the states had a chance to follow the rules -- and they didn't do it.

[DemVet]

8. So much for "Count Every Vote!" We'll never be able to say that again.

[MercutioATC]

10. Well, it's the VOTERS in FL and MI who bear ultimate responsibility for this.

They are the ones who elected the legislators who made these decisions.

Maybe they'll elect more responsible leaders in the future.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Okay, so if....

Myself and the other good citizens of Florida realize the horrible error of our ways (for umm..umm...living in Florida? Breathing? Existing? That's it!) and vote those dastardly legislators out of office, do we get to have a "do-over" two years after the fact?

The lengths some will go in attempt to rationalize this insane collective punishment is disturbing me as a Democrat, as an American, as a human being.

[MercutioATC]

17. Right...and we all get a do-over on the Iraq War if we vote Bush out of office.

:eyes:

FL is an even worse case than MI. All but one of the Dem legislators voted with the Repubs to change the date and then they introduced a bill protesting the date change and then laughed that they were going to going to show it to the DNC to avoid being disenfranchised.

Sometimes we (the voters) elect people who don't do what we think they're going to do. The decision to elect them is still our responsibility.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. What is the Democratic party without Democratic voters?

The Democratic party is not Howard Dean. It is not state or national Democratic party leaders. It is not some random provision deep in the pages of DNC rulebook about which states vote when. It is about electing Democrats to office via the democratic process, i.e. voters being able to go to the polls and cast their vote. And that's what happened on January 29th in Florida. But because your agenda did not favor what happened, it means nothing to you. And it will continue to mean nothing to you until it happens to you.

What you are arguing for here is collective punishment. If one person does something wrong, everybody is made to suffer. Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid a concept that is? And how counterproductive that is in the end, that it only makes people angry and bitter and discouraged?

[MercutioATC]

38. It's not "collective punishment" any more than hundreds of other rules.

...and this was NOT some "random provision", it's a rule that meets with disagreement every cycle. FL and MI were warned specifically not to do it and they chose to do it anyway.

If those delegates are seated, what is the disincentive for states to break any party rule they wish? Rules are necessary, and they're worthless unless they're enforced.

[eridani]

41. It's all about starting the 2012 primaries on Feb 1st 2009, right?

If some state wants to do that, should it be allowed?

[TheDoorbellRang]

21. If the DNC punishes the super delegates in FL and MI

Then the voters in those states would not be "dissed" -- disenfranchised is the incorrect term here.

If you weren't aware, this is the second time MI has pulled this -- they did it in 2004 and got seated at the convention with no penalty. So this year two states pulled the same stunt. There has to be some punishment or even more states will jump on the "me first" bandwagon in 2012.

I think the super delegates from both states should not be seated, as they were the ones responsible for this whole mess.

I think the "uncommitted" vote in MI should be given to Obama, as the vote Clinton received there is arguably her ceiling of support.

I think the worth of the pledged delegates should be cut in half, which would represent the voters in those states but be fair to the other 48 states that obeyed the rules.

And I think the voters in FL and MI should trounce their party leaders at the polls.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

33. Fine, but what the current situation is right now is that....

...no delegates get seated at all.

Which means that we have the effect of where your vote getting placed into a theoretical locked ballot box, and my vote getting placed into a theoretical paper shreader.

If there be some form of sanctions, fine. I can live with that. (It might not be fully democratic for my vote to count half as much as it should, but then again, neither is the electoral college fully democratic either, so I digress.) But not the total refusal to seat all delegates. That, my friend, is disenfranchisement.

[TheDoorbellRang]

36. Dean has said they WILL be seated

Just how they will be seated will be decided when the committee meets on May 31st.

The main thing is, there has to be some sanctions so we don't have a free-for-all with even more states in 2012, but OTOH they have to include the two states' voters delegates at the convention. No matter what they decide, someone will be unhappy.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. That's good.

And yeah, there will be some unhappy folks regardless, but as long as there is some representation of Florida and Michigan, I am personally content with that.

I just can't believe there are some people who would sit here and justify total disenfranchisement of the Florida vote via disqualification of all delegates. Now that is atrocious. That viewpoint should not be propagated on a Democratic/liberal/progressive website.

[eridani]

43. Clinton was the one who DEMANDED those rules

She wanted a frontloaded primary that would be over on Feb 5th. She got the frontloaded primary she wanted which favored money and name recognition, but she didn't win. And now she's whining about her own rules.

A frontloaded primary setup is INTENDED to disenfranchise 70% of all Dem voters. Where were your objections to it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

49. I don't really care what any of the candidates wanted or didn't want

As I've always said, this isn't about the candidates. This is about my vote and ensuring that it counts for something, as is the American way.

[eridani]

50. 90% of primary voters since 1984 have had totally meaningless votes

What makes you so special?

[nichomachus]

12. That's just crap

If Hillary had had her Super Tuesday blowout, as her supporters wanted, then they would have given one sweet shit about the votes or voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, South Carolina or anywhere else.

If Hillary's Shock&Awe had won, no one in NC would have seen hide nor hair of any of the Clintons. They'd all be in DC swilling the chardonnay with Penn, Carville and the others.

So spare me the crocodile tears.

[leftofcool]

13. That's for sure

[Skwmom]

22. After the black voter suppression that occurred in this primary, you're right about that.

[Hugabear]

16. Please, answer me this ONE question

Why didn't Hillary and you folks raise a fuss about Florida and Michigan BEFORE their primaries? Why did you wait until AFTER, and when it became apparent that Hillary would need those votes, to start speaking out?

If you REALLY cared about Florida & Michigan, you would have been raising hell from the very minute that the DNC decided not to seat their delegates. But you DIDN'T, did you?

[LynneSin]

20. It wasn't the DNC that screwed over 4 million voters

The DNC told the party leaders in MI and FL to not schedule their debates so early in the season but the state party officials ignored them.

The DNC did the right thing. If FL & MI want to count at the convention then they need to reschedule a primary now or at least a caucus to determine how their states will vote that does not take into consideration these illegal primaries.

Thanks to Florida and Michigan we still have the primaries going on - perhaps the choice would have been clearer a few months ago if they scheduled them for permitting time periods.

[cottonseed]

30. What will we tell the children?

That the wife of a former president can change the rules when she finds out she's losing?

[stillcool]

39. "I" care about the "Democratic Party"

and "I" really care about the "Truth".

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her. “I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5. The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.
"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
****...Why did only 1.7 million Florida Democrats vote?....
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15.
"We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.
State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.
The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.
Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the
Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.
The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.
Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates
National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."
The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's
historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot. The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates
By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.
The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.
The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

[eridani]

40. You didn't care about all the irrelevant voters in 2004

Most states were irrelevant after March 2004, and that's way more than 4 million voters. You care now because why?

[Dr. Strange]

3. You're right.

This is all very Battlestar Galactica (it has happened before, but hopefully won't happen again):

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/25/165935/668

[WA98296]

4. Some punitive measures are warranted, or what stops my state from such a stunt next round?

[MidwestTransplant]

6. it's not rewarding them. Any resolution will ensure the outcome doesn't change

so ultimately they didn't have a say in the outcome but the people can feel good.

[wileedog]

14. Which is why they will be seated 5 minutes after Hillary concedes

[Skwmom]

23. Bingo. She is still trying to increase her delegate count, and it's certainly not just for the fun

of it.

[DemVet]

7. I fear what happens...

...if these delegates ARE NOT seated.

Besides, all primaries should be on the same day next time. I'm writing Howie and asking him to change the way WE do things.

[MercutioATC]

11. I agree about same-day primaries.

It would eliminate at least this problem.

[Skwmom]

24. Of course, that way the WELL KNOWN ESTABLISHMENT candidate will always win.

Great idea you have there.

[eridani]

45. Utterly pointless. You may as well do away with primary elections entirely

Just look at the dollar totals on the FEC report and award delegates for dollars.

[dkf]

9. Completely agree.

[northzax]

18. states should be able to schedule their primaries for whenever they want to

after January 1. why must we genuflect at the feet of Iowa and New Hampshire?

[TexasObserver]

19. Does the party reward or punish cheaters? That is the issue.

Fifty kids in a class. All agree to be bound by certain rules on a project they each work on. Two students decide not to follow the rules. Their projects are banned from the competition. They complain. They whine. Their parents say it's not fair.

Do you ....

1. Tell them that's what happens when you cheat?

2. Let them do the project anyway, the way they wanted to do it, in violation of the rules?

3. Give them a "do over" with no penalty?

4. Give them a "do over," but impose sanctions that punish their prior misconduct?

5. Let the class of 48 who did follow the rules decide?

These two states misbehaved. We cannot reward them, or next time the problem will be 20 states, not two.

[madfloridian]

25. Amen! The two states have been used as tools.

Thanks for the post.

[dnbmathguy]

26. I would punish the superdelegates

1/2 pledged delegates, no superdelegates in '08 (full pledged delegate representation if they have a do-over)
No superdelegates in '12

We shouldn't disenfranchise the actual voters, but we should definitely be sanctioning the party leaders who pushed this through.

[thoughtcrime1984]

27. I would say no SD's from the 2 states for sure, maybe count pledged delegates 1/2

Obama gets half of ALL of the uncommitteds in MI. She'd gain quite a bit, but he'd still maintain a healthy lead, and the states would have some sort of representation. I think a gesture to seat the delegations in this manner would be acceptable to the states, as they could not possibly expect to count as they were voted. There has to be some kind of repercussions for breaking rules, and the voters of MI and FL would be wise to hold those responsible in their respective states by voting for primary challengers to send a message.

[IronLionZion]

28. I think it's idiotic and dishonest to say they won't be seated.

Of course they'll be seated, they just won't get to select our nominee. They can sit at the convention and support the Democratic party's candidates in the general election. Those who didn't vote in the primary must not care about the downticket races. President is not the only election.

Many states have not had the chance to select the presidential nominee before this year. All this talk of disenfranchisement is just plain HILLARYous.

Anyone trying to convince the Dems in Florida or Michigan that Obama had anything to do with any of this is certainly supporting McCain.

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Here's a wacky idea -

how about fixing the problem so that states aren't so angry that they try to get around the rules?

You guys are now so intent on defending a system that, a year ago, NOBODY liked. But now to defend Obama, you're all big fans of Iowa and New Hampshire primacy. It's bizarre.

[eridani]

46. People have been suggesting rotating regional primaries for years

--to no avail. Maybe next time's the charm.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. The regional primary areas that have been proposed are too freaking large. Here's a solution:

First, what NOT TO DO:

Four mega-regional primaries (like the "party elders" want) would amount to five Super Tuesdays, with the first one being totally decisive. E.g. the entire Northeast or the entire West voting as a "region". This would not fit the concerns of small states.

Rotating regional primaries will continue to die until you break it up into at least 15 regions, e.g:

1. New Hampshire + Iowa + Nevada initial contests (grandfathered in)

2. New England (MA CT RI ME VT)

3. Mid-Atlantic (PA NJ DE)

4. Upper Midwest (WI MN MI)

5. Ohio Valley (OH IN KY)

6. New York + California super-primary

7. Pacific Northwest (WA OR AK HI)

8. Carolinas (NC SC)

9. Mid-South (TN AL GA)

10. Mississippi Delta (AR LA MS)

11. Florida + Texas super-primary

12. Potomac (WV VA DC MD)

13. Southwest (UT AZ NM)

14. Central Great Plains (CO KS NB OK)

15. Upper Plains / Mountain States (ID MT ND SD WY)

16. Illinois + Missouri super-primary

Give the candidates three weeks in each area,
and double up the regions for variety (two regions
every three weeks, not including super-primaries)
and you have an 18-week (4 month) primary season
from January to April.

[pampango]

31. It would just mean that the party couldn't force states to follow ANY rules next time.

The party could adopt any rules it wanted beforehand, but the states would know that they could do whatever they want regardless of the rules.

Perhaps this is a "states' rights" issue. Some contend that the states should be able to handle their role in the nomination process however they want without the national party forcing them to follow certain rules. Others want the party to set and enforce national rules that govern how the nomination process is conducted.

I wonder how much of the disagreement over Florida and Michigan is a fundamental difference of opinion over the roles of the national and state parties and how much is simply which candidate you support.

[gal]

34. I agree, you can't seat them as normal.

You have to set some precedent and stick to it. You have 48 other states that wanted to be important to, but they played by the book they were given.
The DNC has to consider the people in the other 48 states as well as the voters in Michigan and Florida. I believe the population in these other 48 states out number the people in the 2 rebel states and don't be fooled into thinking we don't have opinons as well.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Spilt the delegates 50:50 or nothing. HRC needs to be FORCED OUT NOW!!! eom

[ruby slippers]

42. yeah, then the next primary we would have to endure perhaps TWO years of Tweety, Rush, and KO.....

...seven weeks in PA was bad enough....

[juajen]

44. Hardly, The rules were always ridiculous, so they will be changed

in Denver, unless they want another mess like this one.

[Duke Newcombe]

47. Possible solution--and the ONLY one I'd accept: The "Pound of Flesh"

1. Both states lose 50% of their delegates
2. Award proportionally in FL
3. Award MI delegates 50/50 for the candidates
4. The top three leaders of each state's Democratic Party lose their seats/jobs-tender your resignation on Day one of the convention.

Duke

[davidpdx]

51. I actually like that suggestion

Personally I'd like to see 1,2,3 of what you said and change 4 to Michigan and Florida get no super delegates.

If people are continually claiming the DNC is punishing the wrong person, then stripping all super delegates from Florida and Michigan would make the argument that the right people are getting punished.


*Celebrating my 600th post*

[depakid]

48. It also makes no sense to go overboard- and cut off noses to spite faces

Michigan's swing from 2004 is a little over 4% -Democratic.

Florida's was about 5% -Republican.

(splitting the difference of the minor parties).

Absent some major meltdown or revelation in the Obama campaign- neither of the two states will make much of a difference in the final primary tally, but they do have a potential impact on the GE.

Even though Florida is (for several reasons) an unlikely win, forcing Republicans to spend money there is smart strategy.

Michigan is another matter. In almost no reasonable scenario, can Dems win without its electoral votes- and while 4% is a healthy swing, it's important to recall that Michigan went for Bush rather than Dukakis in 1988.

And I hope the reasons why that happened aren't lost on those making (hopefully rational) decisions about how to seat their delegates....