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

[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.

Are you paying for it?

well, for damn sure the taxpayers shouldnt pay for it.

let's do it by thirds.  1/3 obama campaign money, 1/3 clinton campaign money, 1/3 dnc money

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Phil, do you hold the same opinion toward the joke contests that the GOP has in states like West Virginia, Montana and Wyoming? (Not to mention your own isn't exactly held in a very democratic manner.)

[Mr. Morden]

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.

I must have missed the part where the candidates took their names off the ballot because the DNC told them to, rather than as a tactical decision re: whether it helps them to participate in a symbolic beauty contest that awards no delegates.  In fact, I must have completely missed the DNC making any comments whatsoever about whether candidates should pull their names from the Michigan ballot.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, do you hold the same opinion toward the joke contests that the GOP has in states like West Virginia, Montana and Wyoming? (Not to mention your own isn't exactly held in a very democratic manner.)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of every contest but if they denied voters and delegates then I'd have a problem with it.

As for PA, I have no idea how our contest wasn't democratic. How is actually picking the delegates un-democratic?

[Meeker]

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.

Because, as Smash has said, if the DNC doesn't lay down some ground rules then everyone will just be continuously leapfrogging. The DNC made the wise decision to try to keep the primary process somewhat sane.

[Smash255]

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.

The vote to strip the delegates was made in August after the votes to move the Primaries up.  The threats of removing the delegates was well before that.   Every state was trying to one up each other by moving their Primaries up further and further, the DNC's decision to strip the delegates of FL & MI pretty much put a stop of that.   If the DNC did not do that, and did not make the threat to remove the delegates you would have likely seen other states jump in front of FL & MI as a result of FL & MI moving the Primaries up and you would have had this cycling of one upping each other which was getting out of hand.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Phil, do you hold the same opinion toward the joke contests that the GOP has in states like West Virginia, Montana and Wyoming? (Not to mention your own isn't exactly held in a very democratic manner.)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of every contest but if they denied voters and delegates then I'd have a problem with it.

In Wyoming and Montana only a selected group of GOP officials were allowed in vote, in Wyoming too the delegates were allocated by a ridiculous manner of 1 per county, with many counties not counting including the second largest (they were designated "Alternate" status.) West Virginia used a ridiculous convulted convention system.

As for PA, I have no idea how our contest wasn't democratic. How is actually picking the delegates un-democratic?

Because who the delegates support isn't labeled on the ballot, the actual vote is meaningless, and all the statewide delegates are not elected at all, just appointed by the state committee.

[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?

well, for damn sure the taxpayers shouldnt pay for it.

let's do it by thirds.  1/3 obama campaign money, 1/3 clinton campaign money, 1/3 dnc money

Might not be a bad idea if say on June 3rd Obama has the delegate lead but is losing slightly in the popular vote( including FL). But then FL will also demand a revote and things will just get messier. If Dean was smart he would come up with a compromise seating half of FL's delegation and perhaps seat half of MI's delegation with uncommitted vote delegates going to Obama. That way the states get represented as well as punished. I really dont understand why the democrats suck so much at keeping their party unified and resolving conflicts. 

[Keystone Phil]

Because, as Smash has said, if the DNC doesn't lay down some ground rules then everyone will just be continuously leapfrogging.

I think that's really exaggerrated but oh well.

The vote to strip the delegates was made in August after the votes to move the Primaries up.  The threats of removing the delegates was well before that.   Every state was trying to one up each other by moving their Primaries up further and further, the DNC's decision to strip the delegates of FL & MI pretty much put a stop of that.   If the DNC did not do that, and did not make the threat to remove the delegates you would have likely seen other states jump in front of FL & MI as a result of FL & MI moving the Primaries up and you would have had this cycling of one upping each other which was getting out of hand.

Maybe you aren't getting this point - the threat of stripping delegates was completely outrageous. I don't care when "the vote to strip the delegates" was held. Being aware of consequences doesn't make the rule right.

In Wyoming and Montana only a selected group of GOP officials were allowed in vote, in Wyoming too the delegates were allocated by a ridiculous manner of 1 per county, with many counties not counting including the second largest (they were designated "Alternate" status.) West Virginia used a ridiculous convulted convention system.

Yep, very stupid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, we should label them on the ballot but the other stuff doesn't really bother me or seem un-democratic. After all, the whole statewide delegates being appointed by state committee can be solved in a democratic manner - don't re-elect your state committee member if they are promoting someone you don't like. State committee members are elected here. We actually voted for them during the last primary.

[Smash255]

Maybe you aren't getting this point - the threat of stripping delegates was completely outrageous. I don't care when "the vote to strip the delegates" was held. Being aware of consequences doesn't make the rule right.

The situation was getting out of control, something needed to be done in order to end the states  from trying to one up each other and moving the Primaries further and further ahead.  There really was no other way to stop states from continuing to move up.  This is not the fault of the DNC, this is the fault of Michigan and Florida for getting too greedy and going ahead with that greed even though they knew what the consequences were going to be.

[Keystone Phil]

Maybe you aren't getting this point - the threat of stripping delegates was completely outrageous. I don't care when "the vote to strip the delegates" was held. Being aware of consequences doesn't make the rule right.

The situation was getting out of control, something needed to be done in order to end the states  from trying to one up each other and moving the Primaries further and further ahead.  There really was no other way to stop states from continuing to move up.  This is not the fault of the DNC, this is the fault of Michigan and Florida for getting too greedy and going ahead with that greed even though they knew what the consequences were going to be.

LOL

"Going ahead with that greed."

Yeah, it's not like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina haven't been hogging the early dates every four years...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Phil, do you hold the same opinion toward the joke contests that the GOP has in states like West Virginia, Montana and Wyoming? (Not to mention your own isn't exactly held in a very democratic manner.)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of every contest but if they denied voters and delegates then I'd have a problem with it.

Wyoming is county conventions.  I don't remember the other 2.  WV is something like a convention though, but not exactly.  They may have a beauty contest that goes along with it, but I'm pretty sure that people don't have any direct say.

As for PA - it's democratic when it comes to selecting delegates, but very undemocratic and more of a representational governmental form when it comes to a nominee.  The thing is, the delegates don't have to say who they're for.  Does it make people dig deeper into finding how the delegates stand?  Yes.  Is that good? absolutely.  Do most people do it?  No.

As for PA, I have no idea how our contest wasn't democratic. How is actually picking the delegates un-democratic?

[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.

I must have missed the part where the candidates took their names off the ballot because the DNC told them to, rather than as a tactical decision re: whether it helps them to participate in a symbolic beauty contest that awards no delegates.  In fact, I must have completely missed the DNC making any comments whatsoever about whether candidates should pull their names from the Michigan ballot.

True enough. The DNC did not tell the candidates to withdraw from the MI and FL ballots. I was wrong on that point.

It did, however, secure from the candidates a pledge to not campaign or participate in any pre Super Tuesday primary not approved by the DNC (namely, Florida and Michigan).

[Mr. Morden]

It did, however, secure from the candidates a pledge to not campaign or participate in any pre Super Tuesday primary not approved by the DNC (namely, Florida and Michigan).

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong on that too.  The DNC initially proposed to strip delegates from candidates who campaigned in states that broke the rules, but then they changed their minds.  The final rules just stripped the offending states of all delegates, but didn't say anything about campaigning there.

It was the chosen four states (IA/NH/NV/SC) who demanded that the candidates not campaign in FL & MI (the "four state pledge").  The candidates chose not to campaign in FL & MI in order to appease those four states.  Not to appease the DNC.  (Note also how, once those four states had already voted and she didn't need to pander to them anymore, Clinton suddenly decided that the FL & MI delegations needed to be seated, after being more or less silent on the matter up until then.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Of course, what's the point of campaigning in a state with no delegates anyway?

[JohnCA246]

I don't think the contests should count because that's what the DNC said would happen.  It would be like if you scheduled a pre-season football game and the coach benches his starters because the league says it wont count, and then afterwards saying the game counts after all. 

Now if MI and FL want to re-vote then re-vote.  You cannot say a contest will not count, and then go back and say it does after all.  If they want a new one that is fine and 100% legit. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why don't we have the 2012 primaries now while we're at it?

Seriously, this stupid Michigan and Florida is only being brought up because it will hurt Obama.

[nyquil_man]

The candidates chose not to campaign in FL & MI in order to appease those four states. 

Nonsense. The candidates didn't sign those pledges to "appease" the small states. They signed those pledges because the DNC - by stripping FL and MI - gave them no reason not to. The candidates wouldn't have hesitated to campaign in FL and MI if those states hadn't been stripped of their delegations, the "four state pledge" be damned. Even with halved delegations, Michigan and Florida would still have been among the biggest prizes pre-Super Tuesday.

[Franzl]

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.

And Hillary would be using the same arguments that Obama people are now.

[© tweed]

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.

you're not going to convince me this is true.  I'm not nearly naive enough to think Obama is immune to hypocrisy nor Machivellianism, but the way Clinton and McAuliffe and co. handle things like this is one of a kind.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Because, as Smash has said, if the DNC doesn't lay down some ground rules then everyone will just be continuously leapfrogging.

I think that's really exaggerrated but oh well.

Why is it exaggerated?

Isn't that exactly what FL and MI tried to do?

if they got away with it, and got the extra influence that came with it, why wouldn't other states do the same?

[Mr. Morden]

The candidates chose not to campaign in FL & MI in order to appease those four states.

Nonsense. The candidates didn't sign those pledges to "appease" the small states. They signed those pledges because the DNC - by stripping FL and MI - gave them no reason not to. The candidates wouldn't have hesitated to campaign in FL and MI if those states hadn't been stripped of their delegations, the "four state pledge" be damned. Even with halved delegations, Michigan and Florida would still have been among the biggest prizes pre-Super Tuesday.

Well, OK, that is sort of what I meant, but perhaps I could have explained it better.  You said "It did, however, secure from the candidates a pledge to not campaign or participate....", which is not really correct, as the DNC didn't secure that pledge.  The DNC did *enable* that pledge by stripping the delegates.  And yes, if they hadn't stripped the delegates, then the candidates would never have gone along with the four state pledge.

But if it wasn't for IA/NH/NV/SC demanding the candidates' loyalty, I think there still would have been some campaigning in FL & MI, at least by Clinton.  True, no delegates, but if she thought she was going to win them, and she wasn't constrained by any promises to ignore those contests, she would have still made some kind of effort there, in order to make them seem important, so as to get some kind of momentum boost.  Same reason why so many candidates spend so much money on the Iowa straw poll, even though it awards zero delegates.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

Exactly right.  The (hopefully soon to be "ex")party leaders in FL and MI didn't think the DNC had the balls to punish them.  They were wrong.

These same party leaders who want every vote to count achieved the exact opposite of what they constantly gripe about. 

[Mr. Morden]

The (hopefully soon to be "ex")party leaders in FL and MI didn't think the DNC had the balls to punish them.

Too bad the DNC didn't have the balls to punish IA & NH too.

[specific_name]

Seems to me like the punishment fits the "crime." Rules are not rules unless they have repercussions. If a party wants to set their primaries for one day, they can do this, but it should be in the rules before not after. If that party's leadership does not want every state to vote on the first day of the year (the logical result of such frontloading), they have to take action to stop it. It doesn't matter if you don't like the Democratic Party's reasoning, it's not a public institution and there's no reason that the public should have a say in the workings of the party (other than to never vote for it again).