"Have you actually read the rules?"

[MonkeyFunk]

A great article on the DNC rules and why so many of the arguments being thrown around here are false:

DNC Delegate Selection Rules: Florida & Michigan

True or False?

1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state’s delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state’s pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state’s pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

Much more at

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/have-you-actually-read-the-rules/

[cosmik debris]

1. We don't need your silly facts.

They just confuse our emotional decisions.

:sarcasm:

[papau]

22. Nancy Pelosi and Dean are just scared of Hillary - they feel need to FU Hill's supporters

[cosmik debris]

25. A lot of people are scared of HRC

She has had blood on her hands for 30 years or more. That is how she picked up the nick name Lady Macbeth when she lived in Little Rock.

I suspect that if she was elected President, her scorched earth policy would sweep through the legislative branch and the party hierarchy like a fire storm.

[indimuse]

37. explain.

!

[cosmik debris]

40. When Bill first ran for re-election as governor of Arkansas he lost.

The insiders in Arkansas politics attributed that to HRC's abrasive style and her obsession with destroying Bill's political opponents. Thus the name Lady Macbeth. Bill was rejected because his wife was exercising too much power and exercising it recklessly.

She may have changed her ways since then, but I have seen no indication of that.

[indimuse]

45. ok... well,

i don't know alot about any of that...but I DO appreciate a civil honest opinion. thx! :)

[cosmik debris]

51. It was just an inside joke until a pseudo-journalist

For The American Spectator (conservative rag) wrote an article called "The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock" in 1992.

[WeDidIt]

2. I've read the rules

The rules specify that removing half the delegates is the MINIMUM MANDATORY punishment and provides for further penalties as determined by the R&BC.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. And Howard Dean and Co. decided to totally blow it by going overboard in that respect

Because banishing all delegates is effectively collective punishment on the Florida Democratic voters.

Seriously, if we lose Florida this November, and Florida's electorals again make the difference, Howard Dean needs to go immediately for this collossal screw-up.

[LakeSamish706]

7. And that was decided long before Hillary was losing! n/t

[still_one]

10. Florida has more of a stand because ALL the candidates were on the ballot

not so with Michagan

Both states were also warned. Again Florida has more of an issue than Michigan because of the republican influence in that state determining when the primaries were run. However, the Democrats in Florida should NOT have let the republicans determine OUR primary

[WeDidIt]

11. Howard Dean had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

Howard Dean does not sit on the R&BC.

If you want to blame somebody, blame Harold Ickes who voted for it and Terry McAuliffe who set the standard of stripping all delegates in 2004 when he was the DNC chair.

[Alexander]

104. The DLC is scapegoating Howard Dean because they want Harold Ford in charge.

That's why you hear all the calls for Dean's head, despite the fact that, as you correctly pointed out, he had nothing to do with FL and MI.

[sandnsea]

13. That is not the issue right now

The issue right now is Hillary claiming wins in states where there was no legitimate election. If her voters would get it through their heads that she lost, force her to concede her delegates, MI & FL could be seated 100% tomorrow.

[indimuse]

38. and WHY NH...IA..and SC escaped penalty?

Did they know something WE DIDN'T?

[slinkerwink]

55. they asked for waivers to move date and got it. The waiver was to move the date up

but they still remained in the top four states.

[Tyler Durden]

58. May I see the waiver clause in The Rules?

No? Guess why. There isn't one.

They were excused punishment for the exact same rule infraction that MI and FL are accused of.

AND they still went first.

Hmmmm.

[Sancho]

72. That is the basis of the lawsuit...that a "mandatory" punishment was not applied.

So FL has a case. It really doesn't matter how passionately you defend your candidate, FL and MI should have revoted a long time ago. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to punish some states and not others.

The voters really don't care who is "first", only that the primary counts.

[Buck Rabbit]

65. By a committee dominated by Hillary's people.

Hillary needs to go immediately for this colossal screw-up. The committee was packed with her supporters.

[Sancho]

73. Hillary people were NOT the only "bad guys" in Florida...

FLorida leadership includes Kathy Castor and many others who have supported Obama openly.

[graycem]

127. Howard Dean

didn't decide this. That little committee did, and 13 of the members are her supporters, and one of those members in particular, Hillary campaign person Harold Ickes fully supported and voted for this penalty! You really should go and read what Hillary is clearly not telling you. Stop blaming Howard, he's only keeping this thing fair for EVERYONE, and he has said for quite a while now their delegations will be seated. Why do you think they're meeting on May 31st? To decide HOW they will be seated, not IF. The truth is, all the outrage is because they're not being seated to benefit Hillary. And well, that's tough, but it also happens to be fair.

[dave29]

81. I also read the rules. Thanks for pointing out more Clintonian parsing.

go figure.

[Sancho]

105. Then you support taking delegates away from NH, SC, etc...

please state that ALL states who voted early will lose all their delegates and candidates cannot campaign there. Is that your rules position?

[NJmaverick]

3. A Hillary supporters blog, is hardly a good factual reference

riverdaughter aka GB: Some of you may know me by my DailyKos username, goldberry. Since the Presidential Primaries of 2008 started to heat up, I’ve found DailyKos to be a less lucid place to post. I totally respect Markos. He’s created a beautiful thing. But he is running a business so the more the merrier. Unfortunately, that means the barbarians have crashed the gate and are marauding. So, *this* Kossack is in exile until the ravagers run out of fuel to burn.
My bio: I am a forty something resident of the deepest, darkest jungles of the central New Jersey suburbs. My hometown is Pittsburgh, PA and my relatives all had houses within site of one of the four rivers. The picture in the header is of the convergence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers to form the Ohio at The Point in downtown Pittsburgh. It seems like an apt metaphor for bringing the divided together again. We will start with the Democratic party and then work to bring together the rest of the country. We will come together at our common goals and go forward together, strengthened and mighty.
Politically, I am a lifelong Democrat who leans to the moderate side. I prefer to call myself a “rational” Democrat. In the mid-90’s, I ran for and was elected to my local school board. I support Hillary Clinton although I didn’t always. But she convinced me that she was better than the others at YearlyKos07.
I am not a paid staffer for any campaign.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. Given this fact, why is Clinton arguing for 100% seated?

The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state’s pledged and alternate delegates ...

100% is discretionary. 50% is mandatory. Am I wrong?

[WeDidIt]

14. And Terry McAuliffe set the precendet for 100% in 2004 n/t

[RiverStone]

15. Because 50% does not give her what she needs

Scorched earth is her only option now. I don't think party leaders will allow her to detonate that bomb.

[LakeSamish706]

17. It's impossible to get what she needs, other than claiming Popular vote total! n/t

[RiverStone]

21. But she can only do that if Hillary gets 100% and Obama gets 0% in MI

Gawd, when will this this ridiculus fuzzy math scenario come to an end? Won't it be wonderful when we are all (well, most of us) ONLY talking about beating McCain?!

[Sancho]

84. and stop picking on Hillary. I'm voting for the Democrat, but this is a little much

to continue to attack any given candidate.

Florida's issue has nothing to do with any given candidate (none of the original ones) PLANNING some kind of coup. It was a combination of GOP planning (which is working), Fl leadership stupidity, and DNC stupidity.

If ANY candidate was able to do so, they would always take a position that gained them the most...If Obama would not do so, then he is too weak or dumb for me to vote for. He knows that...so why don't you?

[madmom]

86. Isn't it funny how your post is about the only truthful one here and it's being ignored? BTW I agree

[AuntPatsy]

94. Thank you, no one disputed you, interesting.

[SwampG8r]

118. i wont dispute it but i

will add DLC stupidity at work also
the pot is kept stirred at this time by the DLC members mostly

[Doityourself]

20. BINGO!!!!!! POST OF THE DAY!

[Jen-MI]

23. I think FL/MI would be alright with following the origional rules...

It is the principle that no delegates will be seated that upsets most people. FL/Mi were treated unfairly! It is not in Obama's best interest to act as if neither state really matters. That is what makes me want to stay home on election day. What happens in the next couple of weeks will determine if I go anyway and hold my nose! I know the determination is not his fault, but Obama should be standing up for the citizens of both states because he knew when he signed the pledge that somehow both states would count at the convention. To say otherwise is just not very intelligent! Like the DNC is just going to ignore two big Democratic states? Yeah right! It is not about Hillary stealing a win...it is about being fair to two states that the Democrats are going to need in November.

As I have said before, Michigan democrats were told to vote and that somehow our state delegation would be seated. I voted!

The real problem is the leaders of the State Party and the DNC (rules committee) were acting like children!!!

[RiverStone]

41. Yes, it was not the voters fault

Too bad the arrogant state FLA/MI party leaders and DNC team were unable to forge a fair solution. Of course, voters need to be represented in some way from both states. But the end result will not be what Hillary wants - it will be a fair compromise to an imperfect situation and what ever number of delegates that are seated from both states will not change the inevitable, that Obama is the nominee.

The only thing left to look for over the next 2 weeks is if Hillary will make a complete ass out of herself and demand that her complaints be aired at the convention, and refuse to exit for the good of the party.

In that case, she will forever taint any future political hope she has and will likely be lead out the door in mass by a flock of SuperD's.

[Sancho]

96. You say that, but you don't have a crystal ball, and now the courts will say...

I suppose you didn't see the appeals court ruling on taking children in Texas, or don't remember Bush vs. Gore in 2000. There are several lawsuits filed about the this. I only takes ONE crazy GOP judge to toss the whole process and there are a bunch of them out there.

What are the delegates going to do if a court orders a revote in August? Appeal to a wildly laughing Supreme Count and argue with Roberts? You'd really make their day!

And no matter who the Candidate is, it won't matter and everyone will forget it IF they can't win in November!

I've often referred to an old journal article called "Eelworms, Bulletholes, and Geraldine Ferraro". The wildest crowds and meetings were for Ferraro when she ran and many people thought that meant that she was going to WIN. Oops. They forgot the "nonignorable, nonrespondants". That means the voters who were not at the rally that represented the majority.

The key to this election in NOT those who are at the convention center. It has two parts: 1.) that the GOP can't steal the election again 2.) that the independents, crossovers, GOP soccer moms, retired veterans, Hispanics, conservative Christians, Jews for Buchanan, tree huggers, blue dawgs, etc. will register, show up, and vote! DU is NOT a representative sample of the winning majority. Making half the country mad by being arrogant and saying to hell with MI and FL might just put McCain and his VP (Jeb? Chain Gang Charlie Crist? ???) in office for 8 years!

I don't want to spent what's left of the country on attacking Iran next. Don't win the battle and lose the war. It's a bad strategy no matter who your favorite candidate is...

[Sancho]

95. Yep

None of the candidates expected to run and ignore any voters. Exactly.

[Sancho]

74. Then go ahead and take half of NH, SC, etc.'s delegates and give FL theirs...

rules are the rules as you say...

[Sancho]

109. Then you support taking delegates away from NH, SC, etc...

that is the basis of one of the lawsuits. Anyone who voted early loses delegates.

[Sancho]

113. No, but you would also have to support removing delegates from SC, NH, etc.

if rules are applied whenever someone in a back room decides, but not applied to everyone, then they are not rules. Any candidate will do what gets them an advantage. The stupidity was that the DNC tried to manipulate the order of primaries plus some state committees tried to do the same.

Neither has anything to do with the fact that all voters should have a chance to pick a candidate.

[still_one]

6. The rules committee will make the decision. It could be argued that

Florida will need to be included because ALL the candidates were on the ballot, but there is NO WAY that MI can let it stand when Obama and Edwards were not even on the ballot at the request of the DNC, that is an extenuating circumstance that will NOT stand

However, like it or not, the election is effectively over. Obama is the nominee

The Clinton and Obama camps are negotiating closing terms right now

Incidently, I am not disputing the fact of what you say, I am just saying that it isn't going to happen that way

[indimuse]

39. THEY WERE! Then they TOOK their names off! not part of the roolz!

Thinking it would produce different results...backfired! Besides...John Conyers and his Wife ran gazillion Radio ads telling people to vote Uncommitted IF THEY WANTED TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR OBAMA! The past flyer's out...all over the state for Obama...Technically..that IS campaigning!

[still_one]

62. I am an Obama supporter, but I will be happy when this primary is over

and no matter how I have felt regarding my candidates opponents camapgin, there was never a doubt that I WILL vote for the Democratic nominee

[Sancho]

106. I will also vote for the Democratic candidate...and I'd like to win in Nov.

Some on the list are making the primary a losing cause for Democrats by the attacks. I am also tired of the primary, but I understand why some of us feel disenfranchised.

[JohnnyLib2]

8. I read the rules for DU--again.

One could make claims of hypocrisy about interpretations of rules.

:evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

9. Hillary said Michigan wasn't going to count anyway

and then claimed victory in an election where there was no campaign and her opponent's name on the ballot. The only difference in Florida is the ballot.

Why can't you guys admit what she's doing. She isn't who you thought she was. Let it go.

[Bread and Circus]

12. So Obama still wins.

[mcctatas]

16. ummmm...

what? "The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted yesterday morning to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews
C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party
provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes
the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior
to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the
event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after
such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to
the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
(50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National
Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from
that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In
determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s
delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the
nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the
next nearest whole number.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf
And who's arguing that all the delegates should be excluded?

[Debi]

28. The Rules Committe - who voted to exclude all the delegates

from your link:

<snip>

5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions,
including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C.,
against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to
the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C. ...

<snip>

[Marrah_G]

18. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids!

[suston96]

19. Good OP but I take it one step further.....

The Democratic Party Charter says that all members are guaranteed full and equal participation in the primary nominating process.

Excluding 2.3 million Democrats from that process violates the Charter.

The DNC, nor anyone else cannot violate that basic dogma with "rules" of their own choosing. Only the Democratic Party IN CONVENTION can change the Charter. And I doubt that the guarantee of full and equal participation for ALL members will ever be changed.

[anigbrowl]

24. Why did Clinton strategist Ickes and many others vote for the maximum penalty?

The only person who opposed it was an Obama supporter.

[Debi]

26. Here's a link to ALL the rules - not just the parts that the Clinton camp want us to see

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf

,snip>

5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions,
including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C.,
against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to
the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C. ......

<snip>

[Occam Bandage]

27. Okay. So why is Hillary pushing for 100% instead of 50%? Why is she demanding they break the rules?

The DNC's current punishment is quite legal. Hillary's demands are not.

[grantcart]

31. Well its been one hour and no response.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. Excuse me for being away from the computer

Do you really think I tend to run away from arguments here? Sometimes you seem very reasonable and then you pull shit like this.

Read the rest of the posted link - it explains the 50% vs. 100% argument.

3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is “changing the rules.”

FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.

[Writer]

29. No! You're supposed to tell us what we want to hear!

Stop it!

;)

[Occam Bandage]

34. And he is. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

[Sancho]

78. Because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

rules that only apply arbitrarily are not rules...

[PBS Poll-435]

30. Nice nt

[sudopod]

32. Some people raise confimration bias to an artform.

lolz

[yardwork]

33. I would comment on this thread but my comment would be non-unifying.

[indimuse]

35. and this person..which is on the ROOOLZ committee(Undecided my ass!!)

has been helping OBAMA this entire process! scam!

[mcctatas]

102. FAIL

Rules and Bylaws Committee Members

Co-Chairs - no endorsement
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington , D.C. )
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts )

Members - Clinton supporters (13)
Hartina Flournay (DC)
Donald Fowler (SC)
Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC)
Alice Huffman (CA)
Ben Johnson (DC)
Elaine Kamarck (MA)
Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
Mona Pasquil (CA)
Mame Reiley (VA)
Garry Shay (CA)
Elizabeth Smith (DC)
Michael Steed (MD)
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX)

Members - Obama supporters (8)
Martha Fuller Clark (NH)
Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Janice Griffin (MD)
Thomas Hynes (IL)
Allan Katz (FL)
Sharon Stroschein (SD)
Sarah Swisher (IA)
Everett Ward (NC)

Members - no known endorsement (7)
Donna Brazille (DC)
Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
David McDonald (WA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/meet-the-dnc-rules-commit_n_102924.html

[madfloridian]

36. You left out the part that the RBC has the option of taking ALL delegates away

from rogue states who are willing to lose half so they can butt.

I hate dishonesty.

[SoonerPride]

42. Then why is Hillary demanding FULL seating when the rules state otherwise?

The minimum penalty is 50%.

All Hillary fans should ask why does she hate the rules of our party so much?

[Sancho]

103. because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

I don't think some of you are getting the gist of the lawsuit. I'm NOT defending Hillary (because this is not about any candidate). The DNC cannot arbitrarily decide some states are "punished" and other are not without a fuss if it costs some voters their representation.

[Debi]

43. How did you even see this thread?

:hi: I figured it would be invisible to you.

[madfloridian]

47. I emptied my list....but it's growing again

:hi:

[Tatiana]

44. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

I want a Hillary supporter to answer that question.

[SoonerPride]

48. They refuse to deal with facts or rules.

It's funny that a Hillary apologist posted the rules thinking this somehow favored Hillary, when in point of fact it makes her argument look foolish and deceitful.

[Debi]

52. Or reality! n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

75. because the rules allow the committee

to change the punishment. Obviously, it's to her benefit to lift the punishment entirely. It's to Obama's benefit to keep the punishment. Each side is fighting for what benefits them.

First primary for you, is it?

[msallied]

77. THat doesn't answer the question.

"Changing the punishment" is different than what you are suggesting, which is NO punishment.

[Tatiana]

82. The MINIMUM sanction is 50%.

The minimum.

How can she advocate for 100% when the minimum sanction is 50%? You have not answered that question.

Considering I worked for (Bill) Clinton's campaign in '92 (along with Barack Obama, BTW), no, this is not my first primary.

[Occam Bandage]

89. The rules also state the mandatory minimum punishment is 50%. Why isn't Hillary fighting for that?

[intaglio]

123. You, Finally(!) admit that the R&BLC can

change the punishment. Congratulations! you're almost there!

So you have to admit that the R&BLC can increase the punishment from 50% to 100%. Be prepared for Hillary Supporters to begin attacking you ...

[mkultra]

46. rules commitee already ruled to strip them

The credential committee is what shes trying to use now.

[ClassWarrior]

49. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules? K&R for answers.

NGU.

[Sancho]

79. because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

rules applied arbitrarily are not rules....

[madfloridian]

50. Bill Clinton: 50% an appropriate penalty. Harold Ickes: only 100% seating will do.

Even Bill Clinton agrees with 50%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6081912

Hillary demanding 100

[Debi]

53. Through Harold Ickes - the guy who voted earlier to strip 100% of the delegates from FL/MI?

:rofl: That campaign is truly messed up!

[scheming daemons]

54. Fine.... let's go with #2.... we'll allocate half. Problem is... your candidate won't agree...

[ClassWarrior]

56. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

NGU.

[Occam Bandage]

57. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

[SoonerPride]

59. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

Won't any Hillary fan tell us WHY oh WHY oh WHY?

[FredScuttle]

61. Why, oh why, is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

n/t

[Sancho]

101. because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

rules applied arbitrarily are not rules

[yewberry]

111. SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates because

they didn't break the rules.

They were allowed to move their dates to maintain the calendar approved by all of the states.

[Sancho]

122. Show me the St. Pete Times article where Fl supported "all the states"

What is the RULE that includes "all the states"? The logic is simple. You're not going to get "all the states" to agree to anything. Why blame Hillary or any other candidate for stupid and arbitrary applications of "rules" followed by months of knowing it was a problem and failing to revote or whatever?

Again, a rule applied to some but not all is a rule doomed to be worthless! By obvious observation, some states did not "agree" - or at least those who set the primary dates didn't agree! In FL, that was going to be a GOP legislature.

[progressoid]

60. K/R...for best 'shooting oneself in the foot' thread.

[FatDave]

71. Yup. Reccommended. (nt)

[tkmorris]

63. Are you arguing that 50% should be seated?

The rules say that is the MINIMUM penalty after all. If the rules are the basis of your argument 50% is the most you could possibly argue that Hillary deserves.

[stillcool]

64. the DNC "voted" for the sanctions...

among them Harold Ickes. Of course, you could also provide the link to the DNC rules, and read them as the words appear on the page.
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

[MonkeyFunk]

76. Who cares who voted for them?

What does it matter? Seriously - it's about principle, not people.

[stillcool]

85. I kind of think there are rules needed...

for determining how a Democratic National Primary is going to be executed, I think it's kind of important that all the Democratic Candidates running for the Democratic Nominee for the President of the United States agree to those rules as well. It's the principle.

[rucky]

66. Thanks! I forwarded this to the Clinton Campaign.

[dchill]

67. "The MANDATORY penalty is exclusion of one half ...

of the offending state’s pledged and alternate delegates."

Careful what you wish for. I'd be fine with that. Know why? - It's in the rules!

Edit to add: It's YOUR candidate who won't go for that - no how, no way. You should maybe ask HER if she's even read the rules.

[Sancho]

107. So you want half the delegates from SC, NH, etc. excluded also...

is that your position? Apply the rules to all the same way, or not at all. No back room deals allowed.

[Abacus]

68. Which arguments are false?

I haven't seen anyone debate the 50% - 100% penalty. Hillary has been arguing for a 0% penalty and has been unwilling to compromise. I think the rules committee should have gone with 50% from the start, but it was their decision and the decision was made before the primary season. That ruling became part of the rules.

[ClassWarrior]

69. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

NGU.

[Sancho]

97. because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

rules applied arbitrarily are not rules...

[yewberry]

108. SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates because

they didn't break the rules.

They were allowed to move their dates to maintain the calendar approved by all of the state.

[Sancho]

116. which was the original issue that allowed Fl to be dumb...

but that is NOT an argument that the DNC shouldn't fix the problem. It is not any candidate's fault that they argue for their best advantage. It was, in hindsight, dumb to make a deal for some states and exclude others and punish some and not others.

Except for a revote, how would you fix it IF you wanted to win the Nov. election? That is Dean's issue.

[FatDave]

70. Can you answer the question MonkeyFunk?

Why is Hillary demanding that 100% of the delegates be seated when the rules state a minimum penalty of 50%?

[Sancho]

100. because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

rules applied arbitrarily are not rules

[yewberry]

110. SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates because

they didn't break the rules.

They were allowed to move their dates to maintain the calendar approved by all of the states.

[Sancho]

120. hmmm...please post the link where the state legislatures voted on a calendar?

You are now replying to the issue, and it is NOT a given candidate. The problem started when the DNC did not anticipate a "fair" way (such as rotating primary dates or the same date for everyone) to set the order of primaries. Then some local state leaders also got involved. Who set the primary date in FL? A GOP legislature and a GOP election commissioner runs it.

To the average Jane and Joe, they didn't have anything to do with "all the states" and even some of us who have been active voters didn't hear about it until after the fact!

That is not "all the states" nor is it the candidates agreeing. That is why it is in court, and regardless of the court involvement, this runs the risk of giving away the general election in two large states.

[msallied]

83. It appears you're suggesting that since the R&BC can change the punishment

that means that they can also make no punishment and give Hillary exactly what she wants, which is in direct violation of the rules you posted. LOL

That's some hilarious shit, now.

[ClassWarrior]

87. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

NGU.

[Sancho]

99. because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

rules applied arbitrarily are not rules

[yewberry]

112. SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates because

they didn't break the rules.

They were allowed to move their dates to maintain the calendar approved by all of the states.

[Sancho]

115. which is a back room deal...and opened the door for local legislatures to act...

that is the stupidity of the DNC, but has nothing to do with a particular candidate. The action of local state leader to try and manipulate at that point was also stupid and had nothing to do with any particular candidate.

So why cause a mess and maybe lose an election in November because of stupidity (or court cases)?

[Occam Bandage]

88. So why is Hillary pushing for 100%, instead of the 50% required by the rules?

[SoonerPride]

91. We all must be on Monkey Stank's ignore list.

Surely he would have replied by NOW.

Or at least re lied.

[Occam Bandage]

92. Well, he's said elsewhere that the committee is free to change the rules around,

but that makes one wonder why he brought up the rules in the first place.

[Sancho]

98. because SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates.....

rules applied arbitrarily are not rules

[yewberry]

114. SC, NH, etc. didn't lose their delegates because

they didn't break the rules.

They were allowed to move their dates to maintain the calendar approved by all of the state.

See how much fun it is to spam the board? Regardless of how many times you post the same thing, it is still not true. The early-voting states were allowed to move their dates to preserve the calendar order that was approved by everyone. They only moved because FL & MI tried to bully their way to the front, and the DNC didn't want to allow those two states to completely run roughshod over the agreement that all of the states agreed to.

[Sancho]

119. Here is your question...

how did you get the GOP legislature in Florida to agree "with all the states" to the DNC schedule? Did the MI voters have a referendum to pick a primary date knowing that would cost them their delegates? Is there a DNC rule that includes "all the states" voters that they can deal with that is fair?

I hope you can see that some were NOT represented by the idiots in charge of both state parties and the DNC when they created this mess. I don't think the candidates were to blame individually or as a group and any candidate will get as many delegates as they can...

I don't think that "all of the states agreed to" is accurate or fair to a couple million voters.

[yewberry]

125. We're just talking past each other here.

Firstly, the early states were given permission to move only because FL & MI moved. Your posts about having rules applied to all are disingenuous.

All of the state parties did agree to the schedule with the DNC. We know that.

The FL legislature may be GOP-controlled, but the FL Dem party actually introduced the measure to move the date. They voted for it almost unanimously. Blaming the GOP for this one is bull. The FDP gambled with their constituents' votes and lost. They are to blame for FL's sanctions.

I'm more perplexed by the actions of the MDP. I really sympathized with them until they lied about the calendar and called NH and IA "rogue, terrorist states." No joke.

Here's the thing: I don't want to penalize FL or MI voters. I do want the state parties to apologize to their own voters and to the Dem voters in the rest of the country, though I'm not holding my breath. I think the state parties should lose their SDs.

Beyond that, it gets hard. I don't want any candidate to gain any unfair advantage...and how do we determine that when the states both refused a revote?

[Sancho]

129. If you talk to some who voted, like my state legislator, you'll see...

it was not that simple. First, the GOP was going to move the date anyway and planned the amendments. The state Democrats all knew that they were wasting time to file a protest vote. Regardless, the state leadership made the call to move the date and the local reps did as told. Since they are outnumbered 2 to 1, they try to vote together. Virtually nothing was clear about losing all the delegates until after the date was a done deal.

We all agree that the state leaders were dumb. I've said for months that the state leadership should be punished, not the voters! Some active voters don't understand (especially independents and moderates and older folks) why SC or NH got "permission". Back room deal and smoke-filled room? Either all states can get "permission" or none. Rules or not.

It was mixed about a revote. There were some who certainly would have done that, others who argued about the cost, etc. etc. The DNC could have more easily gotten the revote if they had acted in a more timely fashion. When it got down to two candidates, there was no way.

There are plenty of Floridians who realize that voter registration here may turn the election. It is really important to the DNC that candidates get voters registered early and that they test the registration (with a primary) or they risk thousands being uncounted. After years of fighting (like I have) to get a better process in Florida, this is one more GOP trick to prevent Democrat voters from being counted. Why punish a swing state's voters if any other options are possible?

This was never started by any candidate as a planned strategy, so blaming any one candidate is not the issue.

The last problem is simple according to the "academics". In fact, it is a viable legal issue that some "protected group" like Hispanics or whatever could argue that they were excluded by the DNC action and ask for court intervention. If presented properly, some court might rule on that process and create havoc. Why spend time and money on that possibility?

[Sancho]

117. I hope that we are now getting to the point!

It is not Hillary, Obama, or whomever that is the problem here. This has been brewing for many months before the primary was as close as it is now. Some of us were worried that it would end up in unpredictable court cases or cost a general election.

If you have a rule, then you can't decide it only applies to those who you want to be included or excluded unless you have some fairness (due process) and don't discriminate, etc. A rotating primary makes sense for example.

Any deal that included SC, NH, etc. and excluded MI, FL, etc. would always have some group or subgroup that could cry foul and go to court. Pretty easy to see in hindsight!

[TornadoTN]

90. Fine. Then why was she ok with this arrangement at the beginning?

Nary a word from her, she thought she was the nominee already.

I could give you a ton of quotes from her staff and supporters that say that they will abide by these rules, but I'm sure you've seen them and discounted them in record time.

[SoonerPride]

93. Monkey you're being paged.

c'mon in and answer

[yewberry]

121. Yes. Yes, I have.

1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

Yes, and the RBCCC ruled that the FL & MI delegations would lose 100% of their delegates, didn't they?


2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state’s delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state’s pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state’s pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

Yes, unless otherwise provided, the mandatory penalty is the exclusion of 1/2 of a state's delegates. It was "otherwise provided" months ago, when, in an attempt to maintain the calendar, the DNC was clear about losing 100% of the delegates if FL & MI leapfrogged.

[Sancho]

124. Now you have hit the nail on the head!

"in an attempt to maintain the calendar"

That attempt was not a consensus of "all the states" nor "all the candidates" nor any big public discussion! I certainly think that FL and MI state Democratic leaders were likely dumb and to blame for some of their choices. I am not defending those who were idiots.

On the other hand, it was pretty easy to see a long time ago that threatening FL with loss of delegates was not going to be a useful strategy when the dates were being set by a GOP legislature. In fact, they not only set the date in violation of the DNC, but added a bunch of important constitutional amendments to the ballot to ensure that IF the local primary was not on that date, then Democratic voters would likely show up in smaller numbers!

If you have a mandatory "rule" then it applies all the time to all the states. If you can waive, bend, change, or modify the "rules", then there needs to be a fair solution to the issue.

Simple, huh? It was NOT a candidate that created this mess, and specifically it was not Hillary Clinton. This was a big problem the minute that it happened.

[intaglio]

126. Just an observation

If you are Sancho - does that make Hillary Don Quixote?

BTW you had better tall all the Judges in the world that they cannot sentence anyone to more than the mandatory sentence for a crime.

[Sancho]

128. The name Sancho comes from Don Quixote (I'm not Hispanic)

In Florida's courts, anything can happen. I'm sure that I'm tilting at windmills on many occasions...