the FL/MI democratic mess

[nageov3t]

it's hard to find anyone in the news talking about anything other than prostitutes, but I heard on the news tonight that the FL democratic party is going to announce plans for some form of revote today.

hopefully it's something fair, easy, and cheap, but then again, it's Florida. but it'd be nice if the democratic party was able to somehow avoid this election being decided by the super delegates.

it might be less than ideal for Obama, but it could only help him in the fall.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

This idea that you can just change the rules in the middle of the game really bites me.

FL and MI had a choice and they chose to run their elections against the will of the party and they did so knowing that their delegates wouldn't be seated. This is nothing more than the typical Clinton BS of changing the rules when the game isn't going their way.

The Dems made their bed, they should lie in it. What a cluster foxtrot those fools have created this time around.

And from a practical point of view, all this does is extend an already long and expensive campaign for the eventual winner. In the end this only hurts the Dems.

 

[nageov3t]

in fairness, the FL primary was moved up because of the republican state party, not the democrats.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
in fairness, the FL primary was moved up because of the republican state party, not the democrats.

How do republicans tell democrats when to hold their party election?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: loki8481
in fairness, the FL primary was moved up because of the republican state party, not the democrats.

How do republicans tell democrats when to hold their party election?

the primary was moved up early as a result of a bill that was passed in the republican-controlled state legislature. the democrats were more or less strong-armed into going along with it, because the bill also contained measures for paper trails in FL elections, which based on Florida's history, I think everyone can agree were needed. had the D's not gone along, the initiative for the paper trails might have never seen the light of day again if the R's killed it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: loki8481
in fairness, the FL primary was moved up because of the republican state party, not the democrats.

How do republicans tell democrats when to hold their party election?

the primary was moved up early as a result of a bill that was passed in the republican-controlled state legislature. the democrats were more or less strong-armed into going along with it, because the bill also contained measures for paper trails in FL elections, which based on Florida's history, I think everyone can agree were needed. had the D's not gone along, the initiative for the paper trails might have never seen the light of day again if the R's killed it.

Didn't they have the option to run a caucus instead? I think I remember that part now. It was run the primary early or run the caucus at a tme that would be agreeable to the DNC. It was still the Dems choice.

Either way, my other point still stands. MI and FL are not small states and a campaign there would be very expensive for both Hill and Obama. It's not likely that those two states are going to swing hard enough either way to affect the outcome of this race. All it will accomplish is extending an already longer than expected campaign for the eventual winner and shorten the amount of time (and money) they have to campaign against McCain.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This idea that you can just change the rules in the middle of the game really bites me.

FL and MI had a choice and they chose to run their elections against the will of the party and they did so knowing that their delegates wouldn't be seated. This is nothing more than the typical Clinton BS of changing the rules when the game isn't going their way.

The Dems made their bed, they should lie in it. What a cluster foxtrot those fools have created this time around.

And from a practical point of view, all this does is extend an already long and expensive campaign for the eventual winner. In the end this only hurts the Dems.

Actually, the dems aren't changing any rules. And I agree, those delegates should be counted.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
All it will accomplish is extending an already longer than expected campaign for the eventual winner and shorten the amount of time (and money) they have to campaign against McCain.

If anybody thinks McCain has a chance of winning the presidential race, given the displeasure the people have with the lawless republicans, they are deluded. This is not about Hilary, Obama and McCain, it's about Hilary and Obama.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
All it will accomplish is extending an already longer than expected campaign for the eventual winner and shorten the amount of time (and money) they have to campaign against McCain.

If anybody thinks McCain has a chance of winning the presidential race, given the displeasure the people have with the lawless republicans, they are deluded. This is not about Hilary, Obama and McCain, it's about Hilary and Obama.

They got Bush re-elected didn't they? Never underestimate the Republicans in a national election. They are VERY good at winning those things. And even though polls this far out are worthless, McCain is in a virtual tie with both Hill and Bar.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Baloo
Actually, the dems aren't changing any rules. And I agree, those delegates should be counted.

wth

They are VERY good at winning those things.

Are they, or are the dems just so good at losing them? I suppose the end result is the same.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
All it will accomplish is extending an already longer than expected campaign for the eventual winner and shorten the amount of time (and money) they have to campaign against McCain.

If anybody thinks McCain has a chance of winning the presidential race, given the displeasure the people have with the lawless republicans, they are deluded. This is not about Hilary, Obama and McCain, it's about Hilary and Obama.

can you look into your crystal ball and provide us with some good stock tips as well??

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
All it will accomplish is extending an already longer than expected campaign for the eventual winner and shorten the amount of time (and money) they have to campaign against McCain.

If anybody thinks McCain has a chance of winning the presidential race, given the displeasure the people have with the lawless republicans, they are deluded. This is not about Hilary, Obama and McCain, it's about Hilary and Obama.

We'll see about that.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Why can't the DNC just slash the awarded delegates to FL/MI by half like the GOP did?
The idea of giving them a re-vote with their full delegates is ridiculous after they created this mess themselves.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Why do anything? The DNC and candidates made agreements a long time ago...I don't understand why they don't abide by these agreements?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
All it will accomplish is extending an already longer than expected campaign for the eventual winner and shorten the amount of time (and money) they have to campaign against McCain.

If anybody thinks McCain has a chance of winning the presidential race, given the displeasure the people have with the lawless republicans, they are deluded. This is not about Hilary, Obama and McCain, it's about Hilary and Obama.

If Hilary wins the nomination, the Republicans will have a decent chance of "stealing" another election. Don't start counting your chickens before they hatch.

 

[Moonbeam]

Obama agreed to play by the rules, rules which disenfranchised to states by the volition of those two states. His agreement was of no particular advantage at the time he made it, just an agreement to go with the rules. Now it turns out that Hillary will gain advantage is the agreement is broken and something is done to bring those two states in so she points at Obama and says 'you're not really going to discount all those voters, are you?'. He is thereby left to be blamed for the screw up over those two states, something he is not responsible for. The Democratic party needs to step in and say there will be no recount, no adjustment, no change regardless of what anybody says. The rules are the rules and you will play by them or live with the results. We are not going to change them late in the game when they will affect things to the advantage of one candidate who would be of exactly the opposite opinion were she in the other candidates shoes.

As in the 8 years of Bush the democrats are showing what incredible cowards they are. It may be better that we elect the scum we elect on the republican side. They don't much pretend to be otherwise.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Obama agreed to play by the rules, rules which disenfranchised to states by the volition of those two states. His agreement was of no particular advantage at the time he made it, just an agreement to go with the rules. Now it turns out that Hillary will gain advantage is the agreement is broken and something is done to bring those two states in so she points at Obama and says 'you're not really going to discount all those voters, are you?'. He is thereby left to be blamed for the screw up over those two states, something he is not responsible for. The Democratic party needs to step in and say there will be no recount, no adjustment, no change regardless of what anybody says. The rules are the rules and you will play by them or live with the results. We are not going to change them late in the game when they will affect things to the advantage of one candidate who would be of exactly the opposite opinion were she in the other candidates shoes.

As in the 8 years of Bush the democrats are showing what incredible cowards they are. It may be better that we elect the scum we elect on the republican side. They don't much pretend to be otherwise.

Well...I'll agree with you on one thing...the DNC needs to tell everybody to pound sand.

I find your Republican scum comment interesting...surely you can see that the "scum" door swings both ways...no?

 

[Moonbeam]

The sincerely perverse or the moral cowards.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I disagree with the way you frame this...Republicans have no lock on perversity and Democrats have no lock on cowardice...both parties are equally respresented in both these departments IMO.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
All it will accomplish is extending an already longer than expected campaign for the eventual winner and shorten the amount of time (and money) they have to campaign against McCain.

If anybody thinks McCain has a chance of winning the presidential race, given the displeasure the people have with the lawless republicans, they are deluded. This is not about Hilary, Obama and McCain, it's about Hilary and Obama.

They got Bush re-elected didn't they? Never underestimate the Republicans in a national election. They are VERY good at winning those things. And even though polls this far out are worthless, McCain is in a virtual tie with both Hill and Bar.

Don't underestimate the Republican machine and absolutely don't underestimate the Democratic party's godlike ability to blow it. The Democratic party is a lean, mean, screw up machine. It'd be an uphill battle for the Republicans to win, but their primary system did, IMO, successfully pick the best sacrificial turd from the turd pile. Say what you will about the Republican party, but at least they don't have an insanely complicated primary system coupled with a lack of party unity that results in them weakening their position for no real gain.

 

[M0RPH]

I don't know why you guys can't get this through your thick skulls.

When the DNC made these decisions about excluding FL and MI, they never anticipated that it would be a potential deciding factor in a very heated and contested election. It should be obvious to anyone now that had they known this at the time, they would not have excluded these voters, they would have found some other way to penalize these states. So to keep saying 'well , this is the decision that was made and agreed on, so we have to stick by it' is just stubborn and foolish.

It is simply not acceptable to have such a closely contested and controversial election like this decided without the inclusion of the voters from two crucial states. Regardless of who wins, the results will always be tainted with the exclusion of these voters, AND you risk alienating these voters from voting in the general election if they feel they've been excluded from the process of picking the nominee.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
I don't know why you guys can't get this through your thick skulls.

When the DNC made these decisions about excluding FL and MI, they never anticipated that it would be a potential deciding factor in a very heated and contested election. It should be obvious to anyone now that had they known this at the time, they would not have excluded these voters, they would have found some other way to penalize these states. So to keep saying 'well , this is the decision that was made and agreed on, so we have to stick by it' is just stubborn and foolish.
So, basically the Dem party screwed up. They did NOT think ahead or plan ahead. They knew the Repub model - take away half the delegates as punishment. By the Repub party doing that, the election (that the state of FL paid for) actually counted for something. No one can dispute the out come of their primary. Unlike the Dems, who by announcing the vote wouldn't count, completely wasted a "free" opportunity to vote. These are the people who are going to be running our country? God help us.

Moreover, they made the rules, now they don't like them? No problem, just change the rules when its suits you.


It is simply not acceptable to have such a closely contested and controversial election like this decided without the inclusion of the voters from two crucial states. Regardless of who wins, the results will always be tainted with the exclusion of these voters, AND you risk alienating these voters from voting in the general election if they feel they've been excluded from the process of picking the nominee.
Now, when it was expected that Hilary was going to be the "run away" winner nobody in the Dem party seemed to care that the people from FL & MI wouldn't have their votes count. Now they do?

On the one hand, Hillary, her campaign and supporters all acknowledge that her plan to win the nomination involves having the SD's ignore the elected delegates and instead select her because (insert reason). I.e., overturn the will of the electoriat - votes don't count.

On the other hand, we see them screaming about the unfairness of the voters in FL & MI NOT having their votes count. WTH?

So, lets have them re-vote because we MUST have their votes count. No matter those were the Dems' party's own rules. Then, after they vote Hillary et al will continue with their plan to have the vote overturned anyway and try to win by SD's.

Votes count but they don't count? It's enough to make heads explode.

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
I don't know why you guys can't get this through your thick skulls.

When the DNC made these decisions about excluding FL and MI, they never anticipated that it would be a potential deciding factor in a very heated and contested election. It should be obvious to anyone now that had they known this at the time, they would not have excluded these voters, they would have found some other way to penalize these states. So to keep saying 'well , this is the decision that was made and agreed on, so we have to stick by it' is just stubborn and foolish.

It is simply not acceptable to have such a closely contested and controversial election like this decided without the inclusion of the voters from two crucial states. Regardless of who wins, the results will always be tainted with the exclusion of these voters, AND you risk alienating these voters from voting in the general election if they feel they've been excluded from the process of picking the nominee.

So...let me get this through my "thick skull"...disenfranchising voters doesn't really matter unless circumstances change to the point where rectification of this previously ignored injustice is beneficial to the "party" or perhaps extremely beneficial to a particular candidate (wink, wink). BTW, "stubborn and foolish" describes FL and MI to a tee.

 

[nageov3t]

Obama's been the front-runner for a month and a half now, you guys need to stop being so paranoid.

he is going to be the democratic nominee for president in 2008.

a Florida revote will put him in a better position to try and win FL away from McCain in November, and more easily clinch the presidency.

maybe Obama needs to take his own advice...

We've learned that when we pass laws and make policy in this country, our government all too often forgets those in need.

Now, we are in danger of making a similar mistake, this time by potentially limiting access to one of our most fundamental and constitutionally protected rights: the right to vote.

it's just a weird turn of events that even though Obama sponsored legislation to allow mail-in voting, he now thinks mail-in voting is a bad idea? why'd he write the bill if he thinks mail-in voting is so fraud-ridden and is "disproportionately limiting voting access to seniors, minority voters, young voters, lower income voters, new voters, and new residents," to quote one of his people.

 

[ScottMac]

I Think the best solution I've heard for the Florida & Michigan situation is to just split the vote 50% to each candidate; then the delegates are seated, and neither candidate gains any additional advantage from the screw-up.

The mail-in vote thing they are now proposing looks like it maximizes the fraud potential ... par for the course, I guess.