Would a 100 percent re-instatement of delegates now create havoc in 2012?

[IDemo]

If there are zero negative consequences resulting because of a state's non-adherence to the DNC's rules, won't that simply pave the way for a replay of this clusterf*#@ in 2012 or 2016? What motivation would any state have for not moving their primary if they can expect no punishment for doing so?

[Oregone]

1. There should be a reward for what they did. I think they deserve 200%, with them ALL going to Hill

Afterall, her campaign had a black woman talking about Apartheid.

[newmajority]

2. We won't need a primary in 2012

As we'll have an incumbent President. But I would say that we need to take the next 8 years to take a serious look at the whole damned process and have something better in place for 2016.

[IDemo]

That's why I included 2016

And agreed, we need to re-invent this process or it's a given that this will happen again.

[chascarrillo]

3. Amen!

[Benhurst]

5. We had an incumbent president in 1980, too. The process should be fixed for

the 2012 election.

[gristy]

4. Yes it would - and that is a principal objective for many in this crowd

These guys are nothing if not planners.

[Skip Intro]

6. That thought sure knocked mr. unity Wexler off his game, didn't it?

[AllentownJake]

10. Poor Mr. Ickes

Was so upset he had to walk out. :rofl:

Giant baby.

[Ravy]

7. There have *already* been negative consequences.. so no, I don't believe so. nt

[GCP]

8. There would be peoples' heads blowing up on here

Right now if it happened

[stillcool]

9. anything goes...

If all these members get together and establish rules for a nominating process, and what they decide doesn't mater, why bother?

[LordJFT]

11. of course, but it won't happen

[TexasObserver]

12. Yes, it would create havoc. There must be a penalty, and it must be significant.

If there is no penalty, there is no disincentive to future misconduct by states.

Each state has to lose half its delegates, at a minimum. Each state should lose at least half its superdelegates, too, but that probably won't happen.

[hedgehog]

13. Absolutely! I just tuned in for a glimpse, and I think Levin was complaining that New Hampshire

wasn't supposed to go first this year, but asked for and received a variance before election day. If Florida and Michigan can jump the gun now with no penalty, why should New Hampshire ever step aside to let someone else go first?