Florida & Michigan delegates

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 3:52 PM GMT
    There are a couple of threads about who should be the Democratic nominee and who should be VP, but before we can seriously talk about those we have to sort through the delegate numbers.

    Clinton has stated a few times that the delegates from FL & MI should be seated at the DNC, even though the party decided months ago that they were disqualified this year for holding early primaries. Clearly she's worried by Obama's political rise and is probably even more so with his wins last night in HI & WI.

    I know that politics is a dirty game, but she should play by the rules established this year and earn the nomination by winning again. What do you guys think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 3:55 PM GMT
    I am a Clinton supporter, but to try and change the rules now shows how desperate the Clinton camp is getting. No they should not be seated at the convention, period!
  • shoelessj

    Posts: 511

    Feb 20, 2008 4:31 PM GMT
    It tells you about what sort of person she is that the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, but she nonetheless claimed 'victory' as soon as those primaries were over. Desperate, yeah, Dishonest, as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 9:35 PM GMT
    It is my hope that the FL and MI delegates are sat. It would be a shame to disenfranchise those people because their state party made a stupid gamble.

    But like you said, she should be focusing on winning and not securing the nomination through shady back door deals involving his super delegates or MI and FL.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Feb 20, 2008 9:47 PM GMT
    Clearly the only fair thing to do is nothing at this point. The DNC made the rules perfectly clear, everyone agreed, then the state parties gave a big "fuck off" to the national parties and held their primaries early anyway. The voters in those states voted with the assumption that this was purely a beauty contest with no delegates awarded. To change the rules now will cause nothing but havoc at the convention.

    If voters in MI and FL are disenfranchised, then they have no one to blame but their state party leadership. Fire their asses pronto, but you can't change the rules now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 10:18 PM GMT
    yeah, it is really frustrating to me, too. Especially when Clinton and Dodd were the only two on the MI ballot. What is amazing is that the democratic leaders of those states voted to allow the change basically screwing their constituency. Disenfranchising the voters sucks, but so does dealing with the fact because the other candidates followed the rules and did not campaign there they are penalized on delegates as well.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 20, 2008 10:23 PM GMT
    I can really see both sides of the issue here.. Florida and Michigan should count... but voters should be frustrated by the state democratic establishment, not the DNC. In this year, it would be hard to eliminate their delegate votes, but the states made the decision as to when their primaries were to be held.

    Hopefully a reasonable accomodation can be made. Clearly Hillary can benefit from their seating, but I'm more concerned about those states and their democratic voices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 10:32 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidIt is my hope that the FL and MI delegates are sat. It would be a shame to disenfranchise those people because their state party made a stupid gamble.


    Sorry MunchingZombie, but I think you've bought into a talking point about "disenfranchisement" here. It sounds good, but, like many things in Clinton-land, it has little basis in fact.

    The state parties knew they would be penalized for moving up their primaries, but they did it anyway. When the DNC said it would not seat their delegates, they could have rescheduled, but they did not.

    But if Florida and Michigan really want their voices to be heard, they can still do it. Yep! They are still allowed to hold caucuses that will send legitimate delegates to the convention.

    So don't cry for Florida and Michigan, MunchingZombie! The truth is they still have options...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 10:32 PM GMT
    I agree, but either way, I feel voices will not be heard. Especially people who didn't feel it was imperative to vote because it wouldn't count. If they re-did the primaries, I think that would be good, but I am pretty sure that is impossible.
  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Feb 20, 2008 10:44 PM GMT
    Call me crazy but I have a problem with a political convention telling any state what they can and cannot do with their election process. It's bullshit, and should not be tolerated.

    Now I live in Michigan and I'm mostly a Democrat. I also happen to think the decision to move the primary was not smart, but it IS the right of every State to do as they decide best, not what the DNC tells them. Same with Florida.

    If the DNC persists in their "punishment" of Michigan and Florida by robbing them of their delegates then the DNC deserves to be dethroned.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Feb 20, 2008 10:55 PM GMT
    fitnfunmich saidCall me crazy but I have a problem with a political convention telling any state what they can and cannot do with their election process. It's bullshit, and should not be tolerated.

    Now I live in Michigan and I'm mostly a Democrat. I also happen to think the decision to move the primary was not smart, but it IS the right of every State to do as they decide best, not what the DNC tells them. Same with Florida.

    If the DNC persists in their "punishment" of Michigan and Florida by robbing them of their delegates then the DNC deserves to be dethroned.


    Think of the DNC like any other national organization. It has chapters at the state, county and local community level. When the national body makes rules, they are voted on and agreed to by the "chapters" if you will. Everyone agreed upon the primary/caucus schedule ahead of time, and also on the punishment for breaking the rules.

    The party leadership (read: state legislators) in FL and MI decided to play chicken with the national organization, and they lost. I agree that a do-over might be acceptable (if hugely impractical), but I for one do not want to reward bad behavior. The state party officials that thought they would get away with this should be thrown out of office yesterday by their constituents. If they are allowed to get away with this now, 2012 will be a nightmare of jockeying for position by all 50 states (at the last minute, just like this was), since there will obviously be no enforcement power with the national party.
  • BizzQuik

    Posts: 116

    Feb 20, 2008 11:15 PM GMT
    I totally agree with them not being seated at the convention. What we do need though is a national primary. Where everyone votes on the same day so that way all the states will have a say and none of them will end up with the punishments for trying to move it up. The system needs to change, but I don't expect to see it change anytime soon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 12:51 AM GMT
    meb3031 saidSorry MunchingZombie, but I think you've bought into a talking point about "disenfranchisement" here. It sounds good, but, like many things in Clinton-land, it has little basis in fact.

    The state parties knew they would be penalized for moving up their primaries, but they did it anyway. When the DNC said it would not seat their delegates, they could have rescheduled, but they did not.

    But if Florida and Michigan really want their voices to be heard, they can still do it. Yep! They are still allowed to hold caucuses that will send legitimate delegates to the convention.

    So don't cry for Florida and Michigan, MunchingZombie! The truth is they still have options...



    Oh no. These people are being disenfranchised. Their state parties were well aware of the rules and broke them. The primaries in MI and FL are practically meaningless because the state parties had their heads up their asses. Can they have binding caucuses? The state parties are giving no indication that they plan on it. Ultimately that means that it is individual voters who lose no matter who they support.

    My point was that it would be great if the delegated could be sat because then voters would be heard. The way delegate counts are now, MI and FL are moot. She is 50 behind now and she would be 50 ahead if they were counted. The poll numbers in TX and OH (her NEW firewall states) are showing her lead slipping. THe Potomac primaries and Wisconsin show Obama taking her base voters. Even Bill Clinton today said she has to win TX and OH to stay in the race. If he gets the number of delegates to win the nomination (which he thankfully will) then seat MI and FL. What ever love they had for Hillary will no longer matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 1:48 AM GMT
    the people of those states did take the time out to vote and should have their voices heard in some way. that's like saying they just don't matter. personally, if i lived in Florida or Michigan, i'd be pretty pissed.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 21, 2008 11:25 AM GMT
    right now I don't think it's gonna amount to much
    because Obama is going to be way ahead because he's likely going to take everything from Hillary
    but if there was a brokered convention there would have to be a resolution
    either a redo of the voting...expensive
    a 50:50 allotment of the delegates
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 12:56 PM GMT
    jarhead5536 said
    If voters in MI and FL are disenfranchised, then they have no one to blame but their state party leadership. Fire their asses pronto, but you can't change the rules now.


    Well, Jarhead, that's not quite accurate. Here in Florida, the state legislature, controlled by Republicans, gleefully forced the Democratic party to walk the plank, knowing full well what the consequences would be. The Democrats were unable to prevent this.
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Feb 21, 2008 1:05 PM GMT
    How do the party presidential nomination procedures fit into the more general rights to vote for political representatives? On what grounds are the two primary parties bound to general US enfranchisement (tradition?)?
  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Feb 21, 2008 4:24 PM GMT
    Jarhead: What you fail to realize is that a State is free to write its own laws as it sees fit. Having the DNC dictate voting dates is like the National Rifle Association telling states what laws they are allowed to pass for gun control.

    Any organization cannot set State policy or laws. Now we can choose to abide by the "rules" that these local or national organizations arbitrate, but when it comes to making laws this is under the jurisdiction of state legislators, not by them.

    I can see why the DNC wants states to have presidential primaries spread out vs. all at once, but I can also see why the sovereign states of Michigan and Florida chose to do whatever they feel is in the best interests of their citizenry. So when those states wrote laws changing the voting primary, the DNC should have respected that.

    By doing otherwise, they are effectively elevating themselves above the governing bodies of individual states, which is unconstitutional.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Feb 21, 2008 4:32 PM GMT
    State law does not determine primary or caucus dates. Those are establised by the party, and executed by the party. The state's role is to supervize the polling to ensure that it is free and fair (state Board of Elections). The RNC and DNC make the rules, not state legislatures. It so happens, however, that most of the party bosses on both sides are in fact state legislators.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Feb 21, 2008 4:34 PM GMT
    In any case, seating the delegate now would give Hillary an advantage, and GOD FORBID Hillary be allowed to prevail in any way. The Wonder of O would not permit that...
  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Feb 21, 2008 4:57 PM GMT
    LOL. Well clearly Hillary has to want the delegates cuz she won here in the (meaningless?) Michigan primary.

    Thanks for the clarification about the laws--I though it was a legislative issue. In any case, if the DNC persists in punishing Michigan and Florida it's ultimately the citizens whose votes are being cast aside, and I'm not really sure that's wise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 5:20 PM GMT
    jarhead5536 saidState law does not determine primary or caucus dates. Those are establised by the party, and executed by the party. The state's role is to supervize the polling to ensure that it is free and fair (state Board of Elections). The RNC and DNC make the rules, not state legislatures. It so happens, however, that most of the party bosses on both sides are in fact state legislators.


    Well, that's sort of true and sort of not. Elections don't happen without funding...for machines, for vote counting, etc. State legislatures provide that funding and they can bloody well say they're going to do so on certain dates and not others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 5:27 PM GMT
    Voters in Florida are used to being disenfranchised, so it's nothing new to them. Another point to be raised, even if Hillary gets them seated, there is nothing binding saying that the delegates HAVE to vote for Obama or Hillary at the convention. They sign pledges to, of course, but they can still change their minds if they want. Which is why each side is now going after the others delegates. So this is a whole big toss-up anyways, that'll come down to Howard Dean sitting them both in a room and screaming at them.

  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Feb 21, 2008 5:34 PM GMT
    That whole Superdelegate issue is interesting. We could face a situation where Hillary is given the nomination by these superdelegates, even though more states and more voters chose Obama.

    That's reminiscent of the Bush and Gore fiasco, and I would hate to go there again...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2008 12:01 AM GMT
    We Republicans don't have such problems.