Question
How much respect for the Democratic Party will you have if they turn around and try to redo the Michigan and Florida votes? How much less (if possible) will you respect the Clinton’s?
Personally I think this points back to the Andrew Sullivan article. The Clinton’s really are polarizing people and they don’t care if it is their own party they do it too. Win at all costs has taken new meaning to me.
In my opinion if they (the DNC) does go back on their word and redo the voting in any way other than what the first said they would do it will leave a bad taste in my mouth for the the entire party. Howard Dean included. Once they go back on their word they become just like the GOP. It will show me that all of them, the entire party, or at least the power part of it really doesn’t care about rules or standing by their word. It makes me sick.
Tags: 2008 Presidential, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics
Here’s the thing…
There needs to be a redo to avoid an even bigger shit storm at the convention.
If Florida and Michigan are contrite and say, “We’d really like to play by the rules and be a part of this process.” then everybody saves face.
Mascitti pointed out that the GOP had a better approach to the initial discipline by cutting the number of delegates allotted to those states in half.
Since we didn’t do that we have to think of some way compromise between:
The results stand (which is bullshit) and FL and MI have no say.
I understand in the case of Florida, it was the republicans who VOTED in their legislature to force both parties to hold early elections. The repukes knew very well that in doing so it would violating the Democratic National rules/regulations. Charlie Crist the Fla. Governor is now on the short list of the McInsane campaign. Do you think the repukes didn’t plan to steal another election (Florida), by overwhelming voting forcing the Dems to violate their own rules!
Crist just another Jebbie Bush! In the case of Michigan, in appears Clinton violated the DNC rules! the only remedy in my opinion, is to split the delegates giving half to each candidate.
That is not a bad idea for future cases like this.
If the vote if voided due to the state having broken the nominating rules, that state’s delegates will be spit evenly among the candidates still in the running when the voided primary/caucus is held.
I like it.
They’ll split anyway. If we’ve learned one thing it’s that the “big” states are a wash. Jason, I agree. Something has to be done. The last thing we need is a shadow over the Dem nominee.
Liz, your idea is a good one. Too bad Hillary will never go for it.
If Michigan and Florida want to have the delegates seated (if there is a clear winner by the convention, they will be seated, no prob), the only honorable way for them to get there is with a real primary. If they can find the money and the time, they should do it. The FL and MI problem is that they tried to jump to the head of the primary line, well after their state party representatives agreed with the DNC not to (which also includes agreeing to the penalties). They tried to change the rules for their convenience and got to pay the price they knew was coming. Frankly, I am delighted that Howard Dean has consistently resisted the efforts on behalf of these states to change the rules just for them.
But it is misguided to think that if the penalty had been taking away half of the delegates we would not be at this place. If there was a clear winner to the Dem primary no one would care. But Hillary has been stoking the fire on these delegates for sometime, evidently helping the FL and MI Dem Party folks believe that somehow they are being left out and that others are at fault. It is part of the strategy to keep the Obama delegate lead as small as possible.
You’re right, Cass. In my need for fairness I overlooked Hillary’s pandering. What a mess!
“I understand in the case of Florida, it was the republicans who VOTED in their legislature to force both parties to hold early elections. ”
Liz, while it is true the the Florida legislature is predominantly Republican, House Bill 537 was co-sponsored by 6 Democrats, and when the final votes was taken, between the State House and Senate, only two out of 157 people voted against it (and I believe they were both Republican, but didn’t check that fact).
So, some kind of Republican conspiracy cannot be claimed here. The Dems did it to themselves. If it was such a bad idea, why did the Dems vote for it?
liz trying to find a conspiracy?
Shirley, In addtion to the primary date, the bill included measures to shift to paper ballots and to do away with touch screen voting in all elections. There were other election reform items too. The Dems tried to get the primary(s)date changed to Feb 5 but were thwarted by the Rep majority. The reforms were considered so important that the Dems could not fail to support them, thus the record Dem support. They didn’t want the early primary but had to take it in order to get the reforms.
TomaHawk, thanks for that. Yes, when I researched the bill and the history of it I saw that the ballot issues were in there as well, but didn’t have the time (or even the interest) to go any further.
I still say the Dems did it to themselves. Why compromise on a bill to totally tell the DNC to go to hell? Isn’t that, in the end, their bread and butter? And the news articles from the time the bill was passed was all about the Dems wanting to make a difference in who the final candidate would be. They didn’t want to be showed up by old Iowa (a state we only hear about in an election year).
A mess all around, for sure. I have learned more in this cycle about the primary process than I ever really wanted to know. On both sides, the process is flawed, and it seems as though the powerful party faithful in the end controls the process.