DNC suggests caucuses in Michigan, Florida
Man oh man we’ve got some smart readers around here. Last night I pissed on this idea and now.. Voila!
LANSING — The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold Democratic presidential caucuses so the delegates they’ve lost for holding January primaries can be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said today.
DNC member Debbie Dingell said it’s unclear whether either state would hold caucuses since they’ve already held primaries, Michigan on Jan. 15 and Florida on Jan. 29.
But she said the DNC is asking the two states to consider such a plan as the likelihood grows that the selection of the party’s nominee could come down to the national convention.
“There’s obviously going to be a lot of intense pressure to figure it out,” she said.
DNC spokesman Damien LaVera said the committee is not applying new pressure to either state.“We have consistently said that we want states to submit plans that are in compliance with the rules,” he said.
Deep down you had to know this was coming.
This just shows (should anyone be surprised) the sleaziness and corruption of the political campaigns. We’ll sign off on the original ‘punishment’ but when it looks like we (Hillary) might need those delegate votes, let’s see what we can do to change it. That was a decision made early on and allowing it to be cirucmvented now is a slap in the face to everyone who stands for honesty and transparency.
That’s kinda why I pissed on it originally.
But, think about it, it both camps sign off – no harm no foul.
I disagree with Martha. I think that not addressing this would’ve increased the opportunity for sleaziness b/c Hillary would have sought to have the delegates seated from the bogus primaries using her ‘inside’ game.
There is certainly no guarantee that she would win either or both of these caucuses b/c (a) Obama, I think, has won every contested caucus so far except for NM, and (b) the national landscape when these events take place, IF they take place, may well favor Obama.
Finally, I think the caucuses should take place b/c, no matter which candidate you support, the voters in these two states should not be disenfranchised b/c of the intransigence of their states’ respective party officials.
“But, think about it, it both camps sign off – no harm no foul.”
With that I agree, but the last I heard was that Obama’s campaign was not agreeing to it. Just don’t want to see the ‘party’ slide something thru that will benefit one campaign and not the other. Call my cynical if you want….
Well, I think if they made those caucuses in June, Obama could win both.
The problem with this scheme is that caucuses would eliminate all the absentee votes in both states and nullify early votes that were cast in the Florida primary – many of them for Edwards.
Well, GRex, Florida was officially a ‘beauty contest’ with no binding of delegates to results. And Michigan was a rogue primary that Hillary glommed onto b/c she needed a boost, no matter how tainted the source.
No one will be disenfranchised if these states do caucuses, but Democratic voters in both states will be disenfranchised if some legitimate means of enabling their votes to count is not identified.
Just added my 20,000 cents. 😉
Oops, wrong thread. LOL.
That’s true, Steve; Floridians didn’t expect their primary votes to count in the first place. Michiganders still hoped theirs would count through some last minute deal. On the other hand, caucuses are by nature undemocratic because they eliminate absentee voting, so all servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world are automatically disenfranchised. And then there’s the second choice nonsense. Look at what happened to the W Va caucus, for example.
G–
It is “instant run-off voting” and it is perfectly democratic.
“Okay – my first choice isn’t going to make it…who do I like secnond best?” It is MORE democratic.
As for the absent. No system is perfect.
Looks like they won’t be agreeing to a do over after all –
” The second fight is likely to be over seating delegates from Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party has already voted not to seat their delegates because they held early primaries.
Clinton won both contests, and she wants those delegates seated.
On the Senate floor on Friday, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida — a Clinton supporter — predicted a “potential train wreck” when deciding what to do about the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan.
He opposes Dean’s suggestion to consider a new vote.
“It’s a basic underpinning of our democracy and it is a basic underpinning of our constitutional right to vote and to have that vote counted,” Nelson said.
“You can’t undo an election with a caucus. And especially you can’t undo an election where 1.7 million Florida Democrats have gone to vote in a secret ballot and replace it with a caucus that maybe 50,000 people would show up,” Nelson added.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/dem.delegates/index.html