Hillary Pushes DNC to Seat Michigan and Florida Delegates

If she wins because of this I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER (0.00 / 0)

I was going along with the "support whoever wins the nomination" line of thought up until this last month or so, but Clinton's tactics while campaigning have turned me away.  At best I'll vote for her holding my nose.  But if she wins through dishonesty and cheating by getting Florida's and especially Michigan's delegates (where she was the only one on the ballot except Kucinich )seated to vote for her, she will have lost my vote in the general elections.  Maybe if enough Democrats say what I'm saying here, the party won't let it stand.  Hell, I'd even vote for McCain, because while I disagree with most of his positions, at least I respect him as an honest and decent person.

The best thing to do is to have Michigan and Florida vote again.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM CST

If you think (3.00 / 1)

John McCain is decent and honest, you've been listening to too much of the corporate media BS. His entire career has been about pay-to-play. If you look past the titillating aspects of the NYT story, it's all about kowtowing to the lobbyists.

I'll certainly honor his service as a Navy pilot and POW, but to say his career as a senator is decent and above reproach is nonsense.

---

by: davew @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:24:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The best thing (0.00 / 0)

is to FOLLOW THE RULES.  They knew the consequences of moving their primary up. I'm tired of this MI / FL ass kissing.   The real disgrace would be if we change the rules in mid stream.  Don't Democrats stand for something?  What do you think will happen the next cycle if the MIFLs are let off the hook?  

---

by: bb1 @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 13:43:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What about those that didnt vote! (0.00 / 0)

...because they were told it wouldnt matter!

some voter protection group better find 100 such citizens who declined to vote since it was all agreed to be non-counting, and get them into counter-suit ASAP to either get a re-do, primary or caucus.


-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM CST

I get the impression (0.00 / 0)

that, when the Clintons make comments such as that, they harbor a mentality of "win at all costs, even if it destroys the party, because we can always rebuild it in our image once we win."

---

by: patknapp @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:00:56 PM CST

Disenfranchising Michigan and Florida is a disgrace (0.00 / 0)

Democrats all over the country are fighting Republican disenfranchisement of folk by voter ID bills, and here we have disenfranchised more people than they could ever hope to.

This was a stupid decision when it was made, and remains so now.  I much preferred a 50 state stragy to a 48 state one.

Ordinary people in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo and Orlando had nothing to do either with the events which led to or the making of this Mickey Mouse decision.

It looks and smells horrible, especially to the international community, and the more so now due to the proximity of Florida to Cuba and recent events there.

One thing of which I have become convinced this election cycle is that both political parties have slapped the average voter in the face time and time again.  The Texas causcus is another example.  Things have gone way too far when Texans are crowing on Daily Kos about getting to vote twice.

One person, one Vote.  This is a mess in need of repairing.

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.

---

by: othniel @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM CST

I agree, but counting those votes from an unfair election would be worse. (0.00 / 0)

When only one major candidate is on the ballot, or one candidate brakes her pledge to not campaign in a state and a state that matters is told it won't matter so voter turn-out is low, that is nothing like a fair election.

The best option is new elections where the game is played on equal ground.  But counting the votes from those farces of elections that did occur would be ridiculous.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This isn't disenfranchisement ... (0.00 / 0)

I think on a couple of points you are off base.

No one is guaranteed the right to vote in a primary. As crappy as that sounds, the party gets to decide on the rules of the primary and that includes both the dates and delegates of a primary and the decision to allow superdelegates. You have to take it all and that includes voting in primaries and the fact that no one is guaranteed a vote unless the party says so.

The other point when you're off base is the fact that Texans get two votes. Basically, we all get one vote for two separate sets of delegates. No one's vote weighs more than any other person, unless you don't vote.  We're not voting twice and no one has more of chance to vote than anyone else. Saying that we vote twice is a cute way to remind everyone to caucus.

The rules were set before we ever began the campaign and everyone agreed they were fair. We now have to play by them, to come back and change the rules halfway through is unfair.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am reporting what others said about 2 votes (0.00 / 0)

I understand and have studied the system.  My concern is more with public perception, and with the integrity of the system.

I do take hope that at least this election does somewhat appear to be about change, and in some measures change is long overdue.

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.

---

by: othniel @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 13:00:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

MI and FL do need to be heard, but within the rules (3.00 / 1)

Michigan and Florida staged pre-season contests and want them to count, lest millions of voters lose their say. But counting those contests is totally unfair to those voters and candidates who, as instructed, treated the events as mere exhibitions. What to do?

The only fair resolution is a do-over. Have a caucus, have a vote-by mail, or find the money for an actual primary. I don't care which. There's plenty of time for a genuine campaign in those states, a campaign that would help Democrats prepare for the general election.

The trouble is that the two state parties have absolutely refused to consider anything other than counting their rogue primaries. They, and not the DNC, are holding their voters hostage. They, and not the DNC, need to release them.  

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:29:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Legislatures Disenfranchised (0.00 / 0)

The DNC put up rules.  The legislatures were fully aware of these rules well before they made their decision to move up their primaries.  Nonetheless, they broke the rules like children do when their testing they're parents.  They certainly didn't need to break the rules, but they did it on their own volition.  If I were a Florida or Michigan resident, then I would blame the legislature but not the DNC.  I suggest activists run primary opponents against all of the reps who voted to move up the primary.

---

by: blank @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disenfranchising? (0.00 / 0)

I don't get the argument that Florida and Michigan voters should be treated like victims.

(A) Their party leaders knew the rules before they broke them. While the primary system may need reforming, the time to do that is at a DNC meeting. Not with unilateral one-upsmanship. The rules weren't put in place just for the egos of Iowa and NH, but to help less well known candidates have a chance to shake things up.

(B) The states' party leaders are chosen by their citizens.  If you don't like being disenfranchised by the officials you chose, do something about it. Stop the officials from making a bad decision when it was being made. Get them to change it once it was made. Ask for a re-vote now that their delegates matter so much.

This wasn't anything along the lines of one party's voters being dropped from the rolls by another party's operatives. The Dems in Florida and Michigan did this to themselves.

If we're complaining that one of the largest problems in the last 7 years is the replacement of the rule of law with "signing statements", "political hirings for non-political positions", etc. why are we now wanting to ignore the rules of our own party?

The problem has a solution: re-vote in the two states before the convention. It's costly and a pain. But if the voters want their votes to count, a little effort on their part seems reasonable. And, for a party that can afford to give two candidates enough for each of them to spend $1million/day, I think we as a party can afford to give a couple of states some support for the do-over.

---

by: GlennM @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:34:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

party leaders (3.00 / 1)

from what I understand, in Florida, it was the Republican leadership that was hellbent on moving the date up.  So it's not exactly fair to claim that they brought this on themselves.

I agree on your solution.  I read somewhere that the DNC has offered to pay for it, but we'll see...

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 14:29:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My thoughts (0.00 / 0)

This isn't voter disenfranchisement, because the rules weren't designed to exclude folks from voting. This was a dumb move by the Michigan and Florida delegations. Both could have done something different -- there are mechanisms for meeting and passing emergency party rules to hold a separate primary or caucus that would have met the deadline -- but everyone was too proud. If Michigan and Florida really wanted their delegates counted, they would have followed the rules -- heck, they could be voting on March 4 and be deciding the election, along with Ohio and Texas.

I think every delegate from Michigan and Florida should be seated, and their votes should be evenly split 50/50 between Obama and Clinton. I think Markos made the best argument for that.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:24:39 PM CST

Markos himself (0.00 / 0)

has caused one of the more complex hiccoughs in seeking a resolution with his Democrats for Mitt campaign in Michigan.  How many Dem voters voted Republican as a result, and would be dissalowed from any corrective primary or caucus?

I say this not in criticism of Markos(far be it from me to do so), but to illustrate what a mess we have made.

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.

---

by: othniel @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 13:40:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is why (0.00 / 0)

we want a solid Obama delegate pickup in the upcoming states to dampen the calls to seat MI and FL.

---

by: TheUNTEdge @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 15:38:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The state parties (3.00 / 1)

in Florida and Michigan brought this on themselves and have no one but themselves to blame for this travesty. Clinton's tactics to have these delegates seated as if nothing happened smack of desperation.

I think people that have yet to to vote will see this behavior, and take it into account when they make their decision.

---

by: davew @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM CST

It is a deseration tactic but it's right (3.00 / 1)

Yes, it is a desperation tactic to get Hillary more delegates.

It's also the right thing to do.  Every vote counts.

It's also the smart thing to do.  Hard to tell Floridians and Michiganers that we want their votes in November when we don't want them to have any involvement in who our nominee is.

One way or another, the Michigan/Florida situation needs to be fixed.  Either sit them or vote again.  But Howard Dean needs to fix this idiotic mistake of his.

---

by: TeamTexas @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not right when it wasn't a fair race. (3.00 / 1)

When only one candidate is on the ballot, it's a huge farce.  And it's a farce when everything thinks an election isn't going to matter and one candidate breaks her promise not to campaign there, and then it ends up mattering.

I'm sure the DNC wants their votes to counts, but it's not his fault that Florida and Michigan CHOSE not to play by the clearly articulated rules.  The state parties were responsible for placing the voters of their state in this situation, not Howard Dean.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 13:18:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How is this Howard Dean's mistake? (3.00 / 1)

The legislatures and state parties of Florida and Michigan knew the rules and were told the consequences if they made the decision to break the rules. They decided to break the rules. To say that this is Dean's mistake is bullshit. He did everything he could to get them to abide by the rules and they essentially told him to get lost.

You're right about one thing--this needs to get fixed one way or another. But the people of Florida and Michigan have to understand that it was their own people who f***ed them over, and that they're going to have to accept whatever decision is handed down. I'm sorry, but if the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties don't like it, tough shit. They should have thought of that before they blatantly broke party rules for their own selfish ends.

---

by: davew @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 14:40:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama was not even on the ballot (0.00 / 0)

in Michigan.  How is that right?  There is nothing that needs to be fixed.  They violated the rules so they don't get any delegates.  The people who voted knew at the time they voted that would not get any delegates. It is only a problem that needs to be fixed if your candidate needs a rule change to steal the nomination.

---

by: bb1 @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 14:42:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Top Clinton supporter in Valley says New York senator has little chance (0.00 / 0)

http://www.riograndeguardian.c...

---

by: mitch2389 @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 13:02:29 PM CST

Key quote lost (0.00 / 0)

When Matt and I posted the same time, the two were combined. The key Clinton quote was inadvertently missed. It is:

I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 13:30:41 PM CST

do you disagree? (0.00 / 0)

I think the last time a Democrat won Texas was before all the dixiecrats turned republican.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 14:32:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I do disagree (0.00 / 0)

There's no question that in the wake of Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts that racist southerners deserted the Democratic party. It doesn't necessarily follow that Democrats needed the racists to maintain power. As you can see this year, there are plenty of Democratic voters -- hundreds of thousands -- in GOP counties and precincts that we didn't talk to for far too long.

The problem was we didn't have the resources to compete, especially after moderate Democrats like Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Hobby left office. So, at a time when we needed more resources, we had less resources.

The resource problem was exacerbated by the D.C. decision that Texas was gone forever, no need to pay attention to it. Also, of course, we failed to adequately target and organize the potential Democratic vote in all 254 counties.

But that was not an intellectual failure. Everyone knew we should target a much broader segment of the electorate. It was a resource problem, and that problem was, in part, the fault of the Clinton mindset.

I don't want to discount other mistakes that were made statewide and locally. But had there been a sustained national commitment to Texas -- and had just a reasonable percentage of Texas Democratic contributors' money to national groups and candidates been returned to Texas -- Democrats would not have fallen into the hole we fell into.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 14:43:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think (0.00 / 0)

we could have competed in Texas during that period even if we had resources.  We might have been able to slow the decay, but not change it into positive momentum.  Resources definitely help, but the overarching ideological trend Across the Country during the years 1980-2004 was towards a more conservative governing philosophy.  I personally thank the Clintons for breaking up Republican dominance for eight years at the federal level (remember, 1992 was a huge upset -- that's why yahoo Bill Clinton was the nominee instead of Sam Nunn or someone else more qualified).  I think the momentum that we've seen in the last 5 years has been largely the result of two factors:  1. a failure of the conservative ideology and 2. Demographics.  Our party (post WWII) has always been a party of coalitions, not ideology.  We must remember that as we move forward and implement practical solutions that work for everyone.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 15:16:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It was not just a resource problem (0.00 / 0)

In years like 2002 we had PLENTY of resources.  Not much changed.

Bill Clinton did better in Texas than candidates like Walter Mondale and Micahel Dukakis did.

But, still, I do understand you're point.

BUT do you really want to criticize a Democratic candidate for saying Florida is a critical state? I don't see how that makes sense.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 21:21:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

strange reading of history (5.00 / 1)

I thought we lost all of those seats because Dixiecrats turned Republican.  Strange that apparently the entire south fell victim to the Clintons' neglect.  I guess if only Bill had campaigned in Texas, Rick Perry would still be a Democrat today!

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 14:40:52 PM CST

Revote in MI and FL (0.00 / 0)

Would this solve the problem?  It's an option that should be considered.  I don't think it's fair to Obama since he did follow party rules and not campaign.  Revoting means they both would start on a clean slate to state their case and earn votes.

---

by: TheUNTEdge @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 15:40:16 PM CST

yeah (0.00 / 0)

and you'd have to think that if current trends continue, Obama would probably win the revote anyway.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 15:43:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

DNC Had No Business... (0.00 / 0)

DNC had no business whatsoever to disqualify or not count votes for any state during primary season.  A state should be able to choose when it wants to have its primay, as long as it doesn't conflict before the general election -- national election.

The motto is every vote counts -- aren't we being a hypocrite if we say the opposite?

---

by: Sean123 @ Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:40:23 AM CST

Opinion (0.00 / 0)

Hello to all the members. This is Jones. Hillary had tried his level best to be the winner but that had not happened. But she is having a great response from all the Delegates.
____
Jones

florida drug rehab

---

by: jones9985 @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM CST