This isn't about seating Michigan and Florida...

[Keystone Phil]

I don't care whether you want them seated or not. I just want to know how the hell some of you have no problem with the Democratic party punishing states for moving up their vote. Even if you wanted the other states to vote before Florida and Michigan, how can you support denying the voters of a real contest in two of the country's largest states?

It boggles my mind when I stop and think that this was actually allowed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The GOP did the exact same thing, only their penalty wasn't as strict.

[elcorazon]

I don't care whether you want them seated or not. I just want to know how the hell some of you have no problem with the Democratic party punishing states for moving up their vote. Even if you wanted the other states to vote before Florida and Michigan, how can you support denying the voters of a real contest in two of the country's largest states?

It boggles my mind when I stop and think that this was actually allowed.

I have a big problem with it frankly and opposed it from the start.  Unfortunately  you can't unring a bell.  I was very opposed to the whole idea of it when it first started hitting the news and all the dates were in flux.

That said, there are lots of bad rules out there and this one has a legit purpose.  Compared to the new Indiana law the Supreme Court upheld, this one's not that horrible.  Bad politics though.

[Sbane]

We should have just done it the republican way and it would have been fine. Goddamn DNC

[Keystone Phil]

The GOP did the exact same thing, only their penalty wasn't as strict.

We still had a contest in both states but punishment of any kind is ridiculous, regardless of party.

[Meeker]

The DNC gets to decide the rules for nominating the Democratic candidate.

These two states broke those rules.

Therefore, they get punished.

It's a very simple concept. You break a rule, there are consequences.

[Alcon]

The GOP did the exact same thing, only their penalty wasn't as strict.

We still had a contest in both states but punishment of any kind is ridiculous, regardless of party.

How do you suggest that the party have handled it?

[Keystone Phil]

The DNC gets to decide the rules for nominating the Democratic candidate.

These two states broke those rules.

Therefore, they get punished.

It's a very simple concept. You break a rule, there are consequences.

Ok, I understand the concept that if you break the rules, there are consequences. Maybe you aren't following my point - The "rule" was absolutely assinine.

The GOP did the exact same thing, only their penalty wasn't as strict.

We still had a contest in both states but punishment of any kind is ridiculous, regardless of party.

How do you suggest that the party have handled it?

From the beginning? Let the states vote. Seat all the delegates.

[Smash255]

I don't care whether you want them seated or not. I just want to know how the hell some of you have no problem with the Democratic party punishing states for moving up their vote. Even if you wanted the other states to vote before Florida and Michigan, how can you support denying the voters of a real contest in two of the country's largest states?

It boggles my mind when I stop and think that this was actually allowed.

So many states were moving up earlier and earlier and something had to be done.  If Florida and Michigan were allowed to move the Primaries up with no consequences a bunch of other states would have followed suit and we would have likely wound up with Primaries before Christmas, which would have been utterly ridiculous.   Also keep in mind they weren't punished for simply moving up the vote, they were punished for how far they moved it up

[elcorazon]

The DNC gets to decide the rules for nominating the Democratic candidate.

These two states broke those rules.

Therefore, they get punished.

It's a very simple concept. You break a rule, there are consequences.

Ok, I understand the concept that if you break the rules, there are consequences. Maybe you aren't following my point - The "rule" was absolutely assinine.

The GOP did the exact same thing, only their penalty wasn't as strict.

We still had a contest in both states but punishment of any kind is ridiculous, regardless of party.

How do you suggest that the party have handled it?

From the beginning? Let the states vote. Seat all the delegates.

and let the process go back into 2007 and have the order completely unmanageable?  I suppose you could do it, but unfortunately the party likes to have Some control over the way it goes.  Maybe they just shouldn't bother.

[Meeker]

The DNC gets to decide the rules for nominating the Democratic candidate.

These two states broke those rules.

Therefore, they get punished.

It's a very simple concept. You break a rule, there are consequences.

Ok, I understand the concept that if you break the rules, there are consequences. Maybe you aren't following my point - The "rule" was absolutely assinine.

Which rule? The one that says they should get punished or the one that says they weren't allowed to hold their contests before February 5th?

[Mr. Morden]

It's a very simple concept. You break a rule, there are consequences.

Unless you're Iowa or New Hampshire.  In that case, you break a rule, and the rules get rewritten for you.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't care whether you want them seated or not. I just want to know how the hell some of you have no problem with the Democratic party punishing states for moving up their vote. Even if you wanted the other states to vote before Florida and Michigan, how can you support denying the voters of a real contest in two of the country's largest states?

It boggles my mind when I stop and think that this was actually allowed.

So many states were moving up earlier and earlier and something had to be done.  If Florida and Michigan were allowed to move the Primaries up with no consequences a bunch of other states would have followed suit and we would have likely wound up with Primaries before Christmas, which would have been utterly ridiculous.   Also keep in mind they weren't punished for simply moving up the vote, they were punished for how far they moved it up

So they moved it up and then what happen? The campaign went on. I didn't like all the frontloading but oh well. Don't punish the voters because you don't like it.

and let the process go back into 2007 and have the order completely unmanageable?  I suppose you could do it, but unfortunately the party likes to have Some control over the way it goes.  Maybe they just shouldn't bother.

I was outraged at the idea of that happening but what does refusing to seat the delegates do? It only makes things worse.

Which rule? The one that says they should get punished or the one that says they weren't allowed to hold their contests before February 5th?

Uh, both ideas.

[WalterMitty]

ive always said...if obama had won michigan and/or florida...jesse jackson would be nearly dead from a hunger strike by now...and keith olbermann would be crying every day about it.

[Meeker]

Which rule? The one that says they should get punished or the one that says they weren't allowed to hold their contests before February 5th?

Uh, both ideas.

Well to the first one, there isn't much of a point in having rules if you aren't punished when you break them. Again, a very simple concept.

As for the rule for not holding the contest before February 5th, I'm sure you understand the logic behind why the DNC made that decision.

Those were the rules decided and those were the rules that Michigan and Florida had to follow or face the consequences. I don't understand why people are so outraged about this. It's not like it was some sort of surprise or underhand trick.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

ive always said...if obama had won michigan and/or florida...jesse jackson would be nearly dead from a hunger strike by now...and keith olbermann would be crying every day about it.

Absolutely, and 3/4 of this forum would be saying how voters are being disenfranchised. The Democratic party always talks about "counting every vote" all the time. Kerry said it over and over again. Then when the DNC decides not to count the votes, most of the Democrats just say "well that's life, they did break the rules," and move on.

[Sbane]

ive always said...if obama had won michigan and/or florida...jesse jackson would be nearly dead from a hunger strike by now...and keith olbermann would be crying every day about it.

Yeah too bad Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot because he actually might have won it. Sucks that Obama followed the rules unlike another particular candidate.

[Smash255]

I don't care whether you want them seated or not. I just want to know how the hell some of you have no problem with the Democratic party punishing states for moving up their vote. Even if you wanted the other states to vote before Florida and Michigan, how can you support denying the voters of a real contest in two of the country's largest states?

It boggles my mind when I stop and think that this was actually allowed.

So many states were moving up earlier and earlier and something had to be done.  If Florida and Michigan were allowed to move the Primaries up with no consequences a bunch of other states would have followed suit and we would have likely wound up with Primaries before Christmas, which would have been utterly ridiculous.   Also keep in mind they weren't punished for simply moving up the vote, they were punished for how far they moved it up

So they moved it up and then what happen? The campaign went on. I didn't like all the frontloading but oh well. Don't punish the voters because you don't like it.

So we basically turn it into a battle royal with every state trying to one up each other moving the Primaries up further and further??  Having Primaries prior to Christmas??  That would have been exactly what would have unfolded.  Thats insane.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have no problem with the punishment - frankly, parties are NOT democracy - they have the right to do whatever they want, and I would lose a lot of my admoration for Dr. Dean if he caves in.  The only reason I have  him on my wall of political icons is his firey spirit and his determination to stand up to people in the face of ridicule.  If he loses the 2nd one, he's no better than a high school cheerleader before a football game.

[WalterMitty]

ive always said...if obama had won michigan and/or florida...jesse jackson would be nearly dead from a hunger strike by now...and keith olbermann would be crying every day about it.

Yeah too bad Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot because he actually might have won it. Sucks that Obama followed the rules unlike another particular candidate.

well lets have a re-vote in michigan.

[nyquil_man]

The DNC effed this thing up from the start. It should never have stripped FL and MI and should never have encouraged the candidates to drop their names from the ballot in those states.

Of course, the states' original reason for pushing the primaries forward - to give their states a greater voice in the process - has been thrown out the window in the Dem primary. If Michigan and Florida had waited until, say, now - imagine how much influence they might have had on the nomination process.

[Sbane]

ive always said...if obama had won michigan and/or florida...jesse jackson would be nearly dead from a hunger strike by now...and keith olbermann would be crying every day about it.

Absolutely, and 3/4 of this forum would be saying how voters are being disenfranchised. The Democratic party always talks about "counting every vote" all the time. Kerry said it over and over again. Then when the DNC decides not to count the votes, most of the Democrats just say "well that's life, they did break the rules," and move on.

So you think that the MI primary, where Obama did not even have his name on the ballot, should count? I think using the FL popular vote totals are fine in determining who won the popular vote even though Obama did not campaign there. Also I do not understand why half the florida delegates are not seated. Obama would still win regardless.

[Sbane]

ive always said...if obama had won michigan and/or florida...jesse jackson would be nearly dead from a hunger strike by now...and keith olbermann would be crying every day about it.

Yeah too bad Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot because he actually might have won it. Sucks that Obama followed the rules unlike another particular candidate.

well lets have a re-vote in michigan.

Are you paying for it?

[Smash255]

ive always said...if obama had won michigan and/or florida...jesse jackson would be nearly dead from a hunger strike by now...and keith olbermann would be crying every day about it.

Yeah too bad Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot because he actually might have won it. Sucks that Obama followed the rules unlike another particular candidate.

well lets have a re-vote in michigan.

One of the problems would have been what to do with the voters who would have voted in the Dem Primary, but voted in the GOP Primary under the assumption that the Dem Primary was never going to count.

[Keystone Phil]

Well to the first one, there isn't much of a point in having rules if you aren't punished when you break them. Again, a very simple concept.

Maybe you aren't following this very simple concept - there shouldn't be a "rule" designating when a state can vote. It shouldn't be punishable. Again, a very simple concept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, I understand the logic. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So we shouldn't be outraged at something as long as it wasn't a surprise?  

Just because a party makes a rule doesn't mean that simply being aware of it makes it right.

So we basically turn it into a battle royal with every state trying to one up each other moving the Primaries up further and further??  Having Primaries prior to Christmas??  That would have been exactly what would have unfolded.  Thats insane.

Let's get real here, Smash - No state was going to move up before Christmas. It was only Iowa arguing for that because they have that pride thing. No one else even threatened to do that so for you to say "that would have been exactly what would have unfolded" is simply more of your delusional nonsense.