Log In | Register
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd on Saturday's DNC delegate meeting in Washington. How will the party solve the Florida and Michigan problem? A look at some possible outcomes.
Nothing is fair about Florida and Michigan
Seeded on Fri May 30, 2008 10:30 PM EDT
Article Source: msnbc.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (151)
I don't know about this.. I like Hillary, I thin she would have made a good president. Now that she is trying to bend the rules, she just seems like another person that is unwilling to loose, at any cost. Another Bu@!$%#e sort of person that will take the win at any cost. Hillary, you lost,, back down
- 1 vote
#1 - Fri May 30, 2008 10:30 PM EDTNow that she is trying to bend the rules, she just seems like another person that is unwilling to loose, at any cost. Another Bu@!$%#e sort of person that will take the win at any cost.
Once upon a time I thought I liked Hillary and then she came to the Administration of agribusiness and Monsanto crops and hormone milk and to add insult to injury to be my Senator who got funds for Wall Street's 9/11 losses as workers from Ground Zero still die without work related health benefits.
The Clintons are expert rule benders and now that the pressure is on her true colors wave.
- 3 votes
I don't know if that is true or not, Hillary is doing what she feels is the right thing.
The Rules committee just needs to get over this whole Hillary vs. Obama thing and look at what the party really wants. The question is, "complete Change" verse "thought out course correction." Bill Clinton was elected for the simple reason he was the change candidate of his time. Hillary unfortunately, is no longer a change agent. She is a "stay the course, but steer more carefully." The reason the Ross Perot people (throw the bums out) split the republican vote for Clinton, because they too wanted change. Now it looks like that is going to happen again, with Ron Paul, except, the Ron Paul people will break for Obama, not Hillary because the Paul People, more or less share the common notion of change.
The rules committee just needs to decided, which campaign is carrying the true message of the party is (Change or Course correction) and make it work.
- 2 votes
Since when has it been the right thing to sign a pledge and then back out of it when it suits you? I beleieve that used to be called chicanery.
- 4 votes
As a registered Democrate in Florida I have lost faith in my Party and will vote Republican. If the Democratic Party dose not want my vote, I know McCain will.
#2 - Fri May 30, 2008 10:46 PM EDT
Your vote is your own, but I hope you seriously consider what you're saying: You're saying that you would rather vote for someone less likely to put forward and support programs you agree with simply because of a relatively minor matter involving delegate selection. Is four more years of Republican rule, especially considering there are at least three likely Supreme Court retirements coming, worth spiting the party?
If it is for you, go for it. But think carefully.
- 7 votes
Let me get this right. I recall clearly both camps (Clinton/Obama) openly saying that Michigan and Florida were "beauty contests". When this thing started it was quy/girl with the most deligates wins. Some Clinton supporters assert sexism and unfairness.
In my personal view for sure there is sexism. Honest to God when I hear the Clinton supporters changing the rules, twisting words, and making false claims.... it reminds of arguments I had with my sister ending with my Dad saying"Let her have it she's the girl".
#3 - Fri May 30, 2008 10:52 PM EDTnotice how the media never explains how Fla and Mich. were excluded- Well here it is kids-The Congress is controlled by the REPUBLICANS and they set the dates of the primaries Hmmm!!!-you knew they had to have a hand in this somewhere. Alas!!!!- So the Dems agreed to forfiet fla. and mich. for a peice of legislation that they wanted past, in agreement with the Republican Congress to hold the primaries early., thinking Hillary had the nomination sewed up anyway. WRONG!-that is why Obama didn't put himself on the ticket.Coluldn't guess at that point who started the bad press on Hillary and good press on Obama. that stirred the pot.The republicans are afraid of Hillary because they had no one to match her and they knew she would win the election over whoever they shoved out there. so in essense we dropped a brick on our own foot and now we are paying for it. and the Republicans are loving the mayhem. you didn't think they were going to give up after stealing the election in 2000 did you!!!If any of the delegates or heads of the party are reading this, the most logical way to beat the Rep. is a Clinton /Obama ticket. .....and we all lived happily ever after....well for a while anyway!! THE END
- 2 votes
#4 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:00 PM EDTHate to break it to you, but Congress is currently run by the Democrats and the other party NEVER sets the dates for the other party. Don't know where you got your info from, but it is very wrong
- 3 votes
Both sides are corrupt, follow the money and check them out one by one. Dividing on party lines is the recipe for disaster we've been using for too long. Take names, not party platform BS.
- 2 votes
The date of the state primaries are set by the state parties and are governed by state law if (and only if) they are held in conjunction with a statewide election. The Congress of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with it.
While we're on the topic, we need to realize that the debate is over the Party primary system. No one is being elected. No one can be disenfranchised, as there is NO election. This isn't a vote: It's a poll.
The Democratic party, in my opinion, is living up to its legacy: Morally superior ideas that fall apart when subjected to actual practice.
The rules of the primaries are determined by the party National and State committees, and the Congress of the United States has nothing to do with it. In fact, because it's not an actual election - there is virtually no Federal regulation at all.
In my opinion, the article details yet another case in which the Democratic Party unites behind morally superior concepts that do not work at all in practice.
I think Chris is referring to the FL legislature, which is controlled by Republicans. The Democrats voted for the same measure that included the earlier date change, largely because it included a measure for voting machine paper trails for their touchscreen machines.
- 4 votes
The Democrats voted for the same measure that included the earlier date change, largely because it included a measure for voting machine paper trails for their touchscreen machines.
So, in essence, the Florida Democrats traded an election that counts for one being more accurate. Smart!
By the way, Florida HB 537 is interesting reading ... especially the vote margins.
- 2 votes
Hillary and her surrogates keep harping on about the votes in Florida and Michigan. The candidates did not campaign in those states. Her name was the only one on the ballot in Michigan. Yet she is declaring that she "won" those states. I live in Florida. Many of us did not vote because we were told our delegates would be disqualified. Senator Cliton agreed and signed onto the sanctions which were imposed. When she realized she was losing to Obama she wanted the DNC to change the rules and hand her the nomination. If she was in Obama's position the nomination would have been completed weeks ago. Hillary is using voters in Florida and Michigan the same way Bill and her used African American voters to get elected. It's not about the voters for the Clintons ... it's about their legacy, egos, power, wealth and getting even. Hillary should go back to being a Republican. She ran a dirty, deceitful campaign just like them!
I agree with you Chris to a point. I don't live in FLA but in OH and i understand your point about the repugs in FLA control your state, but my question to you Floridians is, Why would you allow that? It's not the DNC or anyone elses fault but yours that the repugs control YOUR state.
Take the responsibility of that first then you can take the responsibility for your votes. Florida needs to stop letting the repugs dictate their state and take it back so you don't have these issues. Don't complain if you can't or won't change it. If 2.2 million people can come out to vote for a presidential candidate then that same 2.2 million can change your current situation within your own state.
Cry to someone else, we here in OH couldn't stand our "howdy doody" gov.(rep) and we changed him and the legislature, so no sympathy from us.
We did something about it not whined after the fact.
- 1 vote
I see two logical solutions to the Michigan and Florida delegate problem. By all means, we want the people of the states to have their vote count. Solution number 1: Since the people of Florida have already voted, the DNC could automatically vote all of Florida's delegates & super delegates between Clinton & Obama based on the percentage of the state's popular vote and not allow Florida's delegates at the National Convention, as punishement for their early primary. For Michigan, the Democratic party could pick up 100% of a new, Democratic only, primary, with Obama & Clinton on the ballot, so that the state's popular vote could be counted, then the DNC could automatically vote all of Michigan's delegates & super delegates between Clinton & Obama based on the percentage of the state's popular vote and not allow Michigan's delegates at the National Convention either. Solution number 2: If the Democratic party can not afford to pay for 100% of a new Michigan Democratic primary or would refuse to do so, a choice could be to follow Solution number 1, with the following exception: to automatically split the Michigan delegates & super delegates 50/50 between Clinton & Obama.
#5 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:06 PM EDTHere's a thought, how about as a first the Democrats decide to play by the same rules the Republicans are forced to follow. Fact, they were required to hold their votes over a certain time period. Fact, the penalty for not abiding by those rules is to have those votes stripped. Now, enter two states who decide that they don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else, and when they're (gasp) punished as absolutely required for breaking the rules, they throw a fit and try to have the rules changed after the fact.
Proof positive of a horrible presidential candidate is someone who will actually attempt to have that required punishment revoked so that he/she can obtain more delegates and/or super delegates. A show that the rules should not apply in order to benefit that individual is not a good sign of leadership. There's nothing moral or ethical about that act, this is a continuation of the antics this party pulled last election, and the election before that, and the last few before that. Just once, I'd like to see an election where the Democratic Party decides that it needs to follow the same rules as any other party, and admits that their party is not somehow more special than the rest of us lowly old people outside of the party who are actually looking at proposals that help everyone without robbing from people or controlling them. Clinton is showing how very like her husband she truly is. He pardons mass murderers for profit, many of whom have committed crimes since, and she just tries to have the rules changed so that there won't be any punishment needing pardon. So we have the liar and cheat there, and then Obama who is showing that he will cave into pressure from those demanding special treatment, in order to appease the masses. A liar and cheat as one candidate, and someone who will ignore what is truly the best choices, actions that oftentimes warrant deeds outside of popular opinion, as the other. The choices are better for them than we faced in the last election, but not by a whole lot; they haven't seemed to come up with even a moderately decent candidate in a couple of decades, except for a few who were crushed before the election campaigning really even left the ground.
- 1 vote
#6 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:07 PM EDTHere's a thought, how about as a first the Democrats decide to play by the same rules the Republicans are forced to follow.
Because each party sets its own delegate selection rules. Asking Democrats to follow Republican rules is kind of silly. The rules aren't set by anyone but the parties themselves.
Fact, they were required to hold their votes over a certain time period. Fact, the penalty for not abiding by those rules is to have those votes stripped.
Both the DNC and the RNC set a similar calendar for when the first contest could be held and by when the last contest had to be held. The calendars were virtually identical. The penalty for stripping delegates by the DNC could have been as little as half the delegates or as much as all the delegates. The rules committee decided to impose the harsher penalty because both states were warned far in advance and had ample opportunity to change their date or the state party itself could have held a second primary or delegate selection caucus if the state legislature failed to act.
Now, enter two states who decide that they don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else, and when they're (gasp) punished as absolutely required for breaking the rules, they throw a fit and try to have the rules changed after the fact.
This much is true. The state parties in each state have served their constituents poorly.
Just once, I'd like to see an election where the Democratic Party decides that it needs to follow the same rules as any other party, and admits that their party is not somehow more special than the rest of us lowly old people outside of the party who are actually looking at proposals that help everyone without robbing from people or controlling them.
Except that each party decides its own delegate selection rules. And FL and MI moved up their primaries in violation of the RNC rules, too, which is why the RNC stripped the FL and MI delegations of half their delegates. It wasn't a problem that affected only the Democrats.
Obama who is showing that he will cave into pressure from those demanding special treatment, in order to appease the masses.
Neither Obama nor Clinton have any direct influence over the final decision by the party. It's true that they have plenty of indirect influence, however.
- 2 votes
FL & MI got themselves into this mess and regardless of what "plan" is followed on how best to resolve it, they need to receive some incentive to not screw around the next time. To that end, I propose that:
all of the delegates for both states be seated but their votes be halved,
the super-delegates not be seated at all (since they should share in the responsibility),
the "uncommitted" delegates in MI be awarded to Obama in their entirety (since Clinton chose not to abide by the agreement and remove her name from the ballot),
and that FL's & MI's primary dates for the next election, in 2012, be moved to the back of the list.
In other words, in order to see their delegates seated, they must mutually agree that their primaries for next time cannot occur until ALL OTHER primaries have taken place. After 2012 they can change their dates as they like (so long as they're properly permitted this time).
- 1 vote
#7 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:08 PM EDTI'd be more hardassed. The states were told what would happen; they chose to ignore the rules. The punishment should stand.
If you ground your kid, and then back down, what lessons do you teach? This should work the same way. The voters of those states should vote out whoever made the bad decision to move up their primaries against the DNC rules.
- 1 vote
Ironically, if FL and MI had gone last this year, they would have been the most influential of all the contests.
- 1 vote
I say count all of the votes and fire the Democratic chairs of the respective states. I think it is shameful that the DNC would disenfranchise voters like this. If they don't seat all the delegates, I'm re-registering as an Independent.
#8 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:11 PM EDTIt is a shame the DNC was so strict, but the fact of the matter is the party leadership for the states knew what they were doing and what would happen. A studip rule? Yes! None the less, it was a rule the DNC set down and it was broken. The DNC isn't very worried about the people's vote anyway... that's why they have super deligates... They will nominate who they want regardless of what the people think.
If they don't seat all the delegates, I'm re-registering as an Independent.
What a threat to the DNC. I'm a registered independent, and yet I was allowed to vote in the Democratic primary for my state. And my answering machine got filled up several times by people trying to make me vote for Hillary or Obama. I hope you don't have kids, because you don't seem to believe in consistent discipline. They knew what the rules were, and what the consequences would be. They ignored them. Vote out the state officials who did this, if it rightlfully pisses you off.
I don't think they can be fired. State party leaders are elected, typically at state party conventions. Here's hoping the state party leadership is challenged this year by dissatisfied voters. I don't pay enough attention to either MI or FL media markets to know if people are blaming the state parties, where the blame really lies, or the candidates and the national party.
- 1 vote
The DNC is not disenfranchising the voters of these states. The representatives from these states did this to the voters. I rules are not adhered to why have them? If I drive drunk I will definitely be penalized. My state will not change the driving rules to accommodate my behavior or desires. It doesn't work that way. So, the DNC cannot change their rules in the middle of an election year. If they do, demcrats should not vote but prepare to initiate a new party for themselves. It's possible!
- 1 vote
Nothing is fair about Florida and Michigan? Here's the way to make it absolutely fair for everyone...make them follow the same rules as the Republicans, and the same rules as every other state for the Democrats. This means that as required, they lose their delegates and superdelegates. Nobody to blame but themselves, those are the rules everyone else followed, and if other states followed in Florida and Michigan's example, then they could have wrongly obtained non-approved benefits as well. The only way things are not fair for the two states, or anyone else, is if they allow ANY votes through. It is wrong and immoral on every level to allow only two states to modify the rules, while the rest must obey the rules as set forth. Any votes allowed in from those two states is a vote that the Democrats obtained by cheating, which while attempts at cheating or changing the rules whenever possible is nothing new for that party, it still remains just as wrong as every other time they attempted to circumvent the rules.
- 1 vote
#9 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:12 PM EDTNothing is fair about Florida and Michigan? Here's the way to make it absolutely fair for everyone...make them follow the same rules as the Republicans,
Each party sets its own delegate selection rules.
and the same rules as every other state for the Democrats.
That's what the punishment is about: forcing the state parties in FL and MI to comply with the DNC rules.
- 1 vote
I think she keeps running because she knows that the repugnantcans have never been more beatable than they are now nor are they likely to be so down again in this lifetime, if she can just get her hands on the nomination.
as to what to do, toss a coin to decide how you're going to commit political suicide and go with it. "Breathe deep the gathering gloom..." because no matter how things turn out someone will be angry enough to cut off their own nose to spite their face.
I must one day thank Scott Mccelland for rubbing my face into what a fool we've been made into
#10 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:26 PM EDTThis is an EXCERPT from a very insightful Newsweek Article dating back to March. Title:
"A Redux Convention for Lady of the House (Pelosi)"
Party squabbles parallel '84 for Democratic convention's lady of the House
_________________________________________________________________
The FL/MI and Superdelegate never-ending saga ...
After reading the article, I knew exactly why our Party was subjected to the "Florida/Michigan fiasco" and "Superdelegate Scandal." Wow! Talk about Déjà vu ...
Here's the Newsweek excerpt:
__________________________________________________________________
"... In advance of the 1984 convention, it fell to Pelosi to take a hard line against New Hampshire and Iowa as they threatened to---and then did---schedule their contests earlier than party rules allowed ..."
Let's fast forward a bit to the bottom line:
" ... Mondale came into the convention without enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination, although he had many more than rival Sen. Gary Hart and was ahead in the popular vote. After the voting was all over, the support of superdelegates--who Mondale courted early as Clinton has during this race gave him the edge. ...
... Superdelegates are poised to play an even more defining role in this year's contest, with Clinton and Obama much closer in the delegate and popular vote count ..."
_______________________________________________________________________
My comment/opinion:
NOW I KNOW WHY FLORIDA/MICHIGAN and THE SUPERDELEGATES ARE SO IMPORTANT TO HILL & CO. Is SHE this election years Mondale?
This Superdelegate Showdown seems like it was setup WAY IN ADVANCE huh? Wow! I just hope that that Rules and Bylaws Committee sees right through all the shenanigans that are apparently still goin' on.
May God help the DNC Committee with this very important, historical, decision. Our Party has been torn to pieces over this and we need to put this behind us once and for all.
P.S. Obviously, HRC didn't follow the '84 script word-for-word, nor is she in the exact same position that Mondale was in at this particular point, but it sure seems like her camp is still trying to pull off a similar plot.
Personally, I think Obama won our Primary fair and square. Nonetheless, I know that there are countless Hillary supporters that feel differently. And I respect that. I just hope and pray that we can all come together after this mess is dealt with come tomorrow.
God Bless America!
#11 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:27 PM EDTThe way I look at it is this. Put both of them on the ballot. Let the people vote, and count every last vote. Whoever wins, wins. This country is screwed up with its government anyway and its only going to get worse. The way the voting system, or electoral ballot is now, as state may be made up of 5 sections, (we will keep this simple) if 3 of those sections have 2000 voters in them and the other 2 have 5000, it kinda screws with things. If one candidate wins the 3, 2000 voter areas by 500 votes, (1500 to 500) that is a difference of 1500 actual votes, if the other candidate wins the 2, 5000 votes by the same .75% (3750 to 1250), they lose the state, even though they won by 2000 total votes. Not the way the voting system was made. Each persons vote should count. I for one will be using my constitutional right of a fill in. I do not believe there is a spot on the ballot anymore for this, but, I will not be voting for McCain or Obama, and if Clinton is not on the ballot, I don't want anybody to come back later when I'm complaining about a screwed up president and say, "well did you vote" or "if you didn't vote, you don't have any room to talk". PEOPLE, GET IT ACROSS TO THIS GOVERMENT SYSTEM THAT WE ARE FED UP WITH THEM AND FILL IN YOUR OWN NAME IF NOTHING ELSE. This country is going to hell every day, a handfull of people, make up laws that are supposed to help you when in fact they are taking more and more rights from you. Its time to take this country back in my opinion, and this is what the 2nd amendment is all about. READ IT. Take it back, start by voting by fill in if you don't have who you want on the ballot. Maybe someone in Washington may get the hint that we are fed up.
#12 - Fri May 30, 2008 11:44 PM EDTcommon sense- that was only after the first of the year, after the deal was sealed last year. Get your facts straight!!!! the campaign has been going on for awhile. Hello!
#13 - Sat May 31, 2008 12:17 AM EDTI can not believe that the Democrats are really looking at making BaracK Hussein Obomba the Democratic nominee. The Republicans won, the dumb Demo's played right into their hands and they can't see it. Obomber will never win. I have always been a Democrat but if Obomber is the nominee I will for the first time in my voting life (34 years) will vote Republican. I will never vote for a "wolf" in sheep's clothing.
#14 - Sat May 31, 2008 12:38 AM EDTYour comments have been reported as inflammatory. You're welcome to your opinions, but the "Obomber" stuff is out of line.
You're a hater! It's your right to vote for whomever you desire. Knock yourself out!
- 1 vote
No wonder our country is sliding downwards towards hell? Ignorants like you make us a laughing stock around the world! You represent a minority in the world's population. Thanks to your hero ... Bush/McCain we owe money to China and we've lost trillions in Iraq. We depend on Muslims for oil! The Bush family and the Bin Ladens have been parteners in the oil industry for years. After 9/11 the only plane which the Bush administration allowed to leave the country carried the Bin Laden family. Now go and ask your Republican heros why you are paying so much at the gas pump... then go ahead and vote for them .... Go get an education and learn the facts!!!!
Hitlery will inevitably win the nomination by winning all the delegates from MI and FL. She is GOD's chosen one and an act of GOD will happen to insure that Hitlery becomes president. Her entitlement to the presidency is sanctioned by GOD himself. Is is the word and will of GOD that she becomes president and she will fulfill her destiny by any means necessary. She is unstoppable because she has the power of GOD behind her. She is more powerful than the DNC and has GOD's power to control the election. Obama and McCain will feel GOD's wrath.
- 1 vote
#15 - Sat May 31, 2008 12:42 AM EDTThis is a bunch of non-sense. God has no part with cheaters because He is a God of righteousness. You will see that she is stoppable. She will not be president of this country because she has so divided the Democratic Party. "God is behind her?" You said that right! Behind her and not within her. God is not behind those that he empowers but within them....Yeah, it seems that he must be behind her not within her. Her behavior throughout this campaign has shown us that he does not live within her. Obvioulsly, she's empowered by a spirit that is not of God.
- 1 vote
The thing that nobody ever mentions is that the votes shouldn't count because THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE! If I am told that my vote won't count, and I don't show up, and then they decide later that the vote would have counted had I shown up, that is not a fair election. To count Florida or Michigan votes is not fair to people who can read, and therefore didn't even show up. Since people who are more educated tend to vote Obama, this is especially unfair to him.
Remember Clinton:
Deregulation that brought media consolodiation - this allowed the Republicans to take us to war, the oil companies to lube us up, and a 13 trillion dollar defecit while we watch a missing girl in Aruba on the "news".
NAFTA - Even though we declared hamburger making as manufacturing and reset the counter, we've still lost jobs.
Housing Bubble - Started under Clinton - gee has it burst?
Dot-com Bubble - Protecting wall street has really paid off.
Perjury - If you think we don't get real news now, just wait until BC stains another coat.
Bring another Clinton in? You've got to be kidding me. Their public service has netted them $110,000,000.00!!! Where did that money come from? It doesn't come honestly.
- 1 vote
#16 - Sat May 31, 2008 1:20 AM EDTLook, rules are rules. Representatives from Florida and Michigan knew the rules of the DNC and the penalties for breaking the rules. They opted to break the rules. These are adults, not children. Hillary Clinton should not receive any of the delegates. Obviously, she had no problem with the rules of the DNC until she discovered that she couldn't win the nomination fairly....now in desperation she wants to cheat and win anyway she can. It doesn't matter that Obama has run a race of integrity. She really believes she should get all the delegates and Obama get none. Is she sick or what? The woman has to be either mentally ill or in need of a spiritual awakening. She doesn't seem to have any concept of right and wrong. Totally unethical. The fair way to settle the dispute if there is a dispute...is to penalize every body who has broken the rules of the DNC. Otherwise, why have rules? I use to be a Hillary Clinton supporter but after watching her behavior throughout this campaign I am done with her. She has really revealed her true character. She is not the person of integrity that she had led citizens to believe. Her attitude is this..."I couldn't win the nomination fairly, so just give it to me because of who I am. I'm more electable and Obama is not." Surely, the DNC and no other committee will cater to this woman's every desire and command. We don't change the rules to accommodate Hillary Clinton i the middle of an election year. That would be devastating to the Democratic Party! Hillary needs to give it up and stop dividing the Dem Party. She seems to have the attitude that if I can't win this, nobody will...I'll just tear it up. She has become absolutely disgusting!
#17 - Sat May 31, 2008 2:08 AM EDTClinton makes sense and she has the experience and obviously the determination to help our country in this time of crisis that the Bush Baby administration has created. Obama is the one who is crazy. How can he say he will invite people like Raoul Castro to the White House without pre-conditions? How can he call a woman "sweetie" in a professional situation? Will he call a female dignitary "sweetie" when he doesn't want to negotiate with her? He said himself it is a bad habit of his. I need time to see how he works on capital hill and see if he gets rid of that bad habit of his before he will get my vote. I was not fooled by Bush and I won't be fooled by him just because he's a good speaker. He's not that good. The "sweetie" comment was disgusting to me. It's also disgusting if all of us as Americans don't fight and protest if Florida and Michigan voters aren't counted. This is "government by the people for the people" not "government by the delegates for the delegates." Clinton is right to say Florida and Michigan should be counted and if Obama agrees that they shouldn't be counted then that's disgusting. Whoever becomes president has to take all the states into consideration and do the best for all of them not just certain states.
Those two states out and out broke the rules, and they knew the outcome. If the DNC changes their own rules, then I will know what the Democrates stand for, which actually will be, rules don't matter. If the dems allow the blantant breaking of the rules, what else will they allow? The two states involved are not being deprived of voting in november, nobody is being deprived of a vote. Those that advocate breaking their own rules and letting them get by with it might as well register as republicans, who do it all the time....just look at the present administration. Also look at the trouble they are in, thanks to our president and his administration.
#18 - Sat May 31, 2008 3:26 AM EDTWhat I would consider a lifetime Democrat, I'm seeing more and more examples of not doing what is right. As if 'Rules Committee' doesn't have the word 'Rules' in it. Just as 'Illegal Aliens', begins with the word 'Illegal'. Why am I seeing in the Democratic Party traits I've long thought to be more in line with 'some other party'?
Rules are RULES!
Illegal is ILLEGAL!
If the Dems can't, and/or won't see that, and act in a proper fashion...Third Party here I come!
Those who broke the rules NEED to be punished! But as the article said, it wasn't the voters fault.
No, they just participated in it???? Where were their voices when the rules were ABOUT to be broken?
Now everyone in two states are whining.
Get Over It!
#19 - Sat May 31, 2008 4:06 AM EDT(Let's see if it posts this time...)
What I would consider a lifetime Democrat, I'm seeing more and more examples of not doing what is right. As if 'Rules Committee' doesn't have the word 'Rules' in it. Just as 'Illegal Aliens', begins with the word 'Illegal'. Why am I seeing in the Democratic Party traits I've long thought to be more in line with 'some other party'?
Rules are RULES!
Illegal is ILLEGAL!
If the Dems can't, and/or won't see that, and act in a proper fashion...Third Party here I come!
Those who broke the rules NEED to be punished! But as the article said, it wasn't the voters fault.
No, they just participated in it???? Where were their voices when the rules were ABOUT to be broken?
Now everyone in two states are whining.
Get Over It!
#20 - Sat May 31, 2008 4:19 AM EDTThe really sad part of all this is the reason the rules are set up like this in the first place is to enforce the nonsense perpetrated by Iowa and New Hampshire that they are somehow entitled to be first to vote and no other state can be earlier. It is presumptuous to assume that those states, Iowa in particular, represent in any way the national will for who should be president.
#21 - Sat May 31, 2008 5:10 AM EDTThe reason the rules were set up the way they were this time was as a temporary compromise until the issue of early states could be worked out after this presidential election. The compromise, to address your very concern about Iowa and its representativeness, was to push NV and SC up in the schedule, and everyone else was supposed to wait their turns after those four states went. MI and FL agreed to that compromise, but then broke it.
Hopefully, the bad blood won't be so bad after this that they can't continue working on a long-term solution to the problem.
- 1 vote
I want names. Who made the decision to move the primary dates up in Florida and Michigan? I think everyone should know and they should be held accountable. How can the DNC penalize the voters who had nothing to do with the primary date? When did it become "government by the delegates, for the delegates," instead of "government for the people, by the people." I'm tired of seeing the majority of votes in a state go to one candidate only to find out the delegate of that state went against the majority of his/her constituents and voted for another candidate (i.e. Yarmuth of Kentucky and Bryd of West Virginia) Who are the delegates supposed to be representing? I think the voters need to know the names of anyone who went against the majority of their constituents and especially know the names of the ignorant leaders who made the decision to change the primary voting days in Florida and Michigan. No more votes for those elected leaders. They are as bad as Bush.
#22 - Sat May 31, 2008 5:47 AM EDTMichigan/Florida knew the consequences before the race began. They had a choice, and decided to hold their primary when they wanted to, instead of abiding by the rules. To change the rules at this point would be unfair to any candidate involved. Letting Michigan and Florida count or re vote would create a nightmare in the future of voting and primaries. Every 4 years we will have states ignore the regulations and want their votes counted when it is convenient, and they would have this instance to back up their claim.
I feel bad for the people of Michigan and Florida, it was not their choice, but it is not the first time the people must suffer the consequences of poor political strategy. Fortunately we also get to enjoy the consequences of good political decisions to balance it off
- 1 vote
#23 - Sat May 31, 2008 6:56 AM EDTThe real solution for the whole primary mess is to just have the primaries in all states on the same day. There is no good reason to give voters in New Hampshire more significance than the voters in other states. It isn't fair for voters in late primary states to not have the same full field of candidates that the early primary states have.
#24 - Sat May 31, 2008 7:42 AM EDTThis is how I feel about this , Obama SHOULD NOT GET ANY MICHIGAN VOTES it was his choice not to put his name on the ballot and Clinton won Florida fair and square and should have what is rightfully hers. Just like where I live in Oregon, by the time the Republican race got here, we did not even have a choice so I agree with Dan, we need one day for the primary and one day for the National Elections. The states with later primaries have been left out the last few elections and I as a registered voter am tired of it.
Obama SHOULD NOT GET ANY MICHIGAN VOTES it was his choice not to put his name on the ballot and Clinton won Florida fair and square and should have what is rightfully hers
.
First of all, Obama's name was on the Michigan ballot, it was removed by council of the DNC as the early voting broke DNC rules. Even Hillary said that that contest did not count:
"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."
Also, how would you handle the 40% of Michigan democratic primary voters who voted "undecided?" Obviously they did not vote for Hillary, but who is to deprive them of their real choice?
Obama's history is one of getting increasing support in states which he campaigns ... and he did not actively campaign in Florida (with the exception of some national TV spots which happened to show in FL.) If Hillary and Obama had actively campaigned in Florida, would the result be the same? If one cannot say yes to that question, who says who deserves how many delegates?
The compromise was a good one, IMHO. And be happy that Hillary gained net delegates from that compromise.
- 2 votes
Roy Batty makes a very good point. Hillary would have won regardless in January, because she is better known, generally speaking, and Obama was just coming on the scene. That was then, this is now. Obama is much better known now, and had the election occurred today in Florida, it would certainly be a much different result.
- 1 vote
NBC News Political Director. I thought it was the responsibility of the news media to report on newsworthy events with objectivity, not create a position for a Democrat political hack to provide 'direction' for the party of his choice. Please don't insult your readers by feeding them liberal propaganda under the guise of genuine journalism. Just change Chuck Todd's title to 'The Democrat's Political Director' and I'll have no gripe. Thank you.
#25 - Sat May 31, 2008 9:06 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
