Dear Florida, your party leaders are selling you short yet again...

[yourguide]

So, those leaders fighting for Florida essentially just conceded your vote is a half a vote...so what are they fighting for? Themselves.

Yes, your party leaders, represented by Jon Ausman speaking now are fighting for a full super delegate vote. So Florida, your vote is worth 50% but the super delegates of Florida who created this mess are worth 100% based on their statements.

Just want to make sure you are all paying attention.

[boobooday]

1. It sounded to me like they were quite reasonable

And respectful of the rules.

[yourguide]

2. How is it reasonable

to punish the voters more than the super delegates who created this mess.

[boobooday]

6. How did the superdelegates create it?

Sounds like our Republican leaders here in FL screwed us, and Florida Dems let it go because they thought the race would be over and it wouldn't matter. If you listened to the complete presentation, there were numerous chances to comply somehow with the rules, and precedents as well.

They just didn't think it was going to matter.

[yourguide]

8. Your FL dems introduced this bill.

All but one of your FL dems VOTED to move the primary up.

They were offered a revote, they turned it down.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Can you explain that again? I'm totally confused as to what's going on.

Allan Katz is speaking now about the 50% penalty.

[yourguide]

5. Ausman essentially stated

yes, Florida broke the rules and the pledged delegates would be subject to the 50% penalty.

The case he's making now essentially argues that the super delegates do not fall under the same penalty structure and are not subject to ANY penalty.

It's disgusting, they are up there fighting for themselves and not their voters.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Yes, but even if Ausman is correct and the SD's can still move, the SD's can

still change their minds and switch to Obama. But there are many more SD's who will also move to Obama. He's doing himself a disservice by invoking SD rules.

[yourguide]

11. Personally even if ALL of the SDs were Obama supporters...

I would still want them stripped of their votes. It's the principle of the matter. The party leaders created this problem yet they are fighting to be seated in full. It's garbage. They should be punished more so than the voters.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Then give the voters their say, 1/2 of their delegates stripped and strip 100% of the SD's!

That would be fair. Let Hillary, Obama and all of their supporters have the votes counted in FL. Strip the state 50% of the delegation and 100% of SD's.

[TexasObserver]

10. He's arguing what the rules provide.

If the arguments are to have any validity, they have to be based upon the facts and the rules. He's merely acknowledging what the rules provide. He is trying to make sure the penalty is no more than a reduction of half of the delegates that are not superdelegates.

[yourguide]

12. He was arguing for the supers...not for the rest of FL.

[TexasObserver]

14. You don't seem to understand the process.

He's arguing for what the rules provide. He's arguing for both the regular delegates and the superdelegates because that is his role. Both of them represent Florida.

This is exactly how one would expect the state party to argue. You seem to think he's giving up the regular delegates in an attempt to secure the superdelegates, but that's not what he's doing at all. He's arguing the rules. Do you understand that arguing the rules is how one addresses issues before a political group such as this?

[TexasObserver]

18. dupe

[yourguide]

23. I do understand what the rules provide

And I do understand arguing the rules. However his interpretation of the rules seem to stretch what the rules actually state.

He conceded the 50%, he is pushing for 100% of the supers.

Regardless, we shall see how the RBC interpret the rules.

[HooptieWagon]

17. Yes, that's to be expected from FDP leaders...

... what a bunch of self-serving, lying, theives. Doesn't surprise me at all that they care more about their "right" to party and drink in Denver than they do about running an election in compliance with the rules to ensure that our votes count.

[HockeyMom]

4. I knew my vote was NOT going to count at all

when I voted. If you lived in this state, you would have had to have been living under a rock to not know that. It was all over the news constantly. People went to the polls that day to vote on the Homestead Amendment. Since I was there anyway, I voted in the primary.

[boobooday]

19. Exactly. I believe the term used over and over again was

"beauty contest."

[Renaissance Man]

9. My proposed solution.

My proposed solution would strip Florida of all of its superdelegates and 50% of its pledged delegates.

[yourguide]

13. That's what I would like to see too.

However ausman was advocating for a full seating of the supers. It's garbage.

[JoFerret]

16. How about: Make better rules

.

[yourguide]

21. Ausman is interpreting the rules

in a fashion that benefits them. Not interpreting the rules as they are.

[JoFerret]

30. Of all the pics of Obama

do you particularly like that one?

[TexasObserver]

20. He's arguing what the rules and precedent provide, which is to be expected.

I would like to see all the Florida superdelegates stricken, but obviously, the State party of Florida wants as many delegates as it can get.

There are rules and precedents that the committee will follow. The guy you're upset about is merely arguing what the rules and past precedent provide. His approach is logical and appropriate, even if you disagree with the result he is seeking.

[yourguide]

22. I disagree...

for two reasons.

1. Merely Ausman's interpretation of the rules and I believe his interpretation to be incorrect.

2. Why should he even argue to not punish those who are responsible for this mess...I think that's Chutzpah.

[TexasObserver]

25. Well, he's right under the rules.

The RATIONAL approach is to use the rules and to argue for the most delegates that Florida can possibly get. He has done that.

Your approach is based upon your desire to punish the superdelegates. I have no problem with the Florida superdelegates being punished, but if I were given the task of representing the point of view of the Florida party, I'd be doing it exactly as this guy has. You want him to argue something that is based entirely on YOUR desires.

No one on the committee is asking himself or herself "I wonder how 'yourguide' would approach this?" They're asking "What do the rules provide for this situation?" That's what you should be doing, too.

I would love to see all the Florida delegates excluded from the nomination process, including the superdelegates, but that is not what the rules provide. I would love to see all superdelegates from Florida barred from the convention, but that is not what the rules and precedent provide.

[yourguide]

26. xoxoxoxox.

I get it, I just think it's unfair and a smidge screwy.

[TexasObserver]

27. We can agree that it is unfair and screwy.

In a perfect world, all the superdelegates would be stricken, and all the regular delegates would be allowed, but those delegates would be chosen in some new proceeding, whether an election or caucus. In other words, I would favor a do-over for the regular delegates and a ban of the superdelegates.

I agree with you that the superdelegates failed the state party and the citizenry.

[Nipper1959]

24. rules

I believe that it is known as FOLLOWING THE RULES! What a unique concept.

[iamthebandfanman]

28. its always been about Hillary

never the votes.

if it were, this same group of lawyers who keep sueing would also being sueing the RNC seeing as they imposed penaltys too.

i wish all these people woulda been around fighting for votes in 2000 and 2004.

[left is right]

29. The rule was stupid and it needed to be challenged

I am sorry that the state is loosing half of their delegates but I don't believe that the party should have any say in when a state can hold their elections, especially when it is used to allow to tiny states with diversity issues to have exclusive rights to being first. And before someone says anything about our two candidates--this has nothing to do with either, it's about every state having some say in the nomination process. We the citizens of late primary states are tired of the contest being over before we get a chance to vote. New Hampshire and Iowa had way too much say in 2004 sewing it all up for Kerry when many of us in other states realized that he was an ineffective presidential candidate--even though he was a good Senator.