DNC's Florida & Michigan problem

[kida]

The DNC has more than one problem - this is just one of them. The drawn-out campaign between Hillary and Obama could hurt them. This problem with Florida and Michigan, however, is a thorn in their side.

 

[HannerAnna]

i think they should redo their caucuses. it's the only way the Democratic party can cover all of their bases. otherwise they're handing the Republicans a huge advantage

 

[USAsince1680]

Michigan and Florida

No one really believed that the delegates would not be seated. On October 10, 2007, Nancy Pelosi made a statement to which Dean agreed at the time, "The reality is if you want to know if Florida is going to be seated, ask the Democratic nominee as soon as one emerges." On January 29, 2008, Mark Bubriski of the Democratic Party of Florida was quoted as saying, "We're fully confident our delegation is going to be seated. We expect that the nominee will seat the delegates." So now the only problem is how to allot the delegates. I don't see Florida as a problem. Obama broke the agreement by running television ads and Hillary attended two private fund raisers - allowable under the agreement. I think that was better than nothing so the delegates should be seated according to the election results. Michigan is, obviously, not so simple since Obama was not on the ballot. This was his choice and not a requirement of the agreement. However, Michigan voters who wanted to vote for Obama were instructed to vote "uncommitted". Consequently, allot the delegates in accordance with the election by giving all the "uncommitted" votes to Obama. Otherwise, each state should have to pay, out of their pocket, for any "re-do" . That's the cost of not following the rules.

 

[kida]

Michigan voters who wanted to vote for Obama were instructed to vote "uncommitted". Consequently, allot the delegates in accordance with the election by giving all the "uncommitted" votes to Obama. Otherwise, each state should have to pay, out of their pocket, for any "re-do" . That's the cost of not following the rules.

What about those who voted "uncommitted" for other candidates, like John Edwards, who would want their vote to go to Hillary now?

btw, welcome to PE :thumbup:

 

[jasonsmith1966]

Michigan Democratic Voters

I for one will vote Republican in the General election if the DNC allows Hillary Clinton to take the states of Michigan or Florida. If they are going to reverse their first ruling, they need to allow time to campaign in both states and allow both to be on the ballot in both states so....residents of each state can make a completely informed vote.

This entire thing smells of Hillary and Bill setting the stage to go down a path of legal-sleeze to steal an election. I will vote Republican if our party allows it and I vow to take as many other Democrats down the same path if we are swift-boated by Hillary and the DNC!

America is border line ridiculous as it is. Stay true to your ruling DNC...or set the course to a divided and failed Democratic Party!

PLUS....the Governor of our state is about an idiot in the first place...our economy under her watch is all the proof anyone needs to look at. I for one do not want her speaking for me at all. Everyone was supposed to be "BLOWN AWAY" in her second term by the results she was going to bring. People were blown away alright....by the winds of desperation...and they were blown away to different states!

 

[Unregistered]

Michigan and Florida Delegates

You can't cancel a ball game and then award a win to the team that shows up anyway. That, in essence, is what would happen if the votes from the Michigan and Florida primaries are counted. Either do them over, or leave the delegates unseated.

 

[kenjacks3329]

Let's assume the following:

• The Democratic Party has the responsibility for creating an “orderly” nomination process
• The party, if they do not decide to have a single day national primary, has the responsibility of developing an orderly calendar of delegate selection events.
• Both the nominating process and the delegate selection events must be governed by rules developed by the organization that has responsibility for the process and the events.
• Participants in the process and the events (i.e. state parties) are party to, apprised of and governed by the rules (the party's laws).

If those assumptions are true, then the actions of Florida and Michigan can reasonably be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the rules. When they were not granted permission to circumvent the rules, they decided to take a “power” position and break the rules. Justifiably, the Democratic Party management took a position that (1) the rule of law must prevail for the party to maintain its integrity and (2) no one, not even the candidates and the member state parties, are above that law.


It is unfortunate that the politicians in these states pulled a power play (regardless of how credible the reason) and in so doing put their citizens in the position that their hard earned, well deserved votes may not count. I believe the the Democratic Party bears a lot of blame for what transpired in Texas, Ohio and other places but the blame for the Florida and Michigan situation rest squarely on the shoulders of the elected office holders and Democratic Party officials in those states. If I was a resident of either of those states, I would be mad as hell at my state's political leadership; they failed their constituents!

 

[Unregistered]

They knew the rules

These states knew the rules and they decided to break them. They must pay the penalty for it. I don't believe that the candidates should be penalized, especially if it means 'giving' the nomination to the one at a disadvantage. IMO the candidates should not have entered the election that was not according to the rules. It is sad for the people of the states, but that's life. If there is a concern that the dems could lose the election in Nov. because of this, I say they deserve to lose it for making a mess of it. I am democrat, and I am sick of this party not getting anything done right.

 

[Unregistered]

The states new the rules and chose to break them, don't seat the delegates however, you can split delegates evenly because anything elese "will" be an unfair advantage for the candidates who did not campaign in those states.

 

[kida]

News this morning (via USN&WR):

(DNC Chairman) Dean "said on Thursday he would be open to allowing both states to restage their primary elections in June but at their own expense." CQPolitics.com reports Dean "outlined only two possible options for Florida and Michigan: either the states appeal to the credentials committee in July to have their delegations seated or they hold new contests that comply with national party rules."
...
"No one is willing to pay for new elections in Michigan and Florida possibly costing $25 million. And today Michigan's Democratic governor ruled it out for her state."
...
Clinton herself, in an interview with US News & World Report said she was opposed to a new vote in Florida. Clinton said, "I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated." She also rejected the idea of holding a Michigan caucus, saying, "I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted."

This is turning into an unholy mess. I wouldn't have had a problem with letting Florida and Michigan redo their primaries/caucuses or whatever. But if no one is willing to pay for it, and Clinton says she would not accept it, then the only two options I see left are to either halve the delegates or don't count them at all. I don't think she'll get enough delegates in the last 10(?) primaries to overtake Obama anyway, especially not with the increase in support he's getting from superdelegates.

 

[uprislng]

I agree with Dean's assessment. You either don't count anyone or you hold a revote, at the state's expense. Thats the fairest way to handle this situation. I don't believe all this negativity that the media puts on about the democractic voters not voting in the presidential race because their primary votes did not count. I do believe, however, that if this battle between Obama and Clinton doesn't end soon, the Democractic party is going to dig its own grave in the presidential election. The problem with this dragging on so long is that democrats are becoming more and more split, and more and more passionate about their favored candidate. It may be too late already, if you ask me. Come November, I foresee many people not voting or voting for McCain or Nader if their favored democrat doesn't get the nomination.
I say this because I detest Clinton, and I personally will be between a rock and a hard place if I have to decide between her and McCain. I can't choose either. I don't think either of them are a good choice at all. Clinton is too abrasive, and won't be able to work with the republicans. McCain is married to too many of Bush's policies that are just running this country into the ground. From what I have seen, and from researching what candidate views on topics I care about, Obama is the best choice.

 

[kida]

McCain is married to too many of Bush's policies that are just running this country into the ground.

As far as McCain is concerned, if he gets elected I don't think he'll feel too bound by Bush's policies. He'll accept Bush's endorsement, but when it really comes down to it, he's pretty opinionated about how he thinks things should be done.

 

[HannerAnna]

I wouldn't have had a problem with letting Florida and Michigan redo their primaries/caucuses or whatever. But if no one is willing to pay for it, and Clinton says she would not accept it, then the only two options I see left are to either halve the delegates or don't count them at all. I don't think she'll get enough delegates in the last 10(?) primaries to overtake Obama anyway, especially not with the increase in support he's getting from superdelegates.

but if Hillary's getting some more momentum now because of Texas and Ohio more superdelegates might swing her way. momentum makes a difference.

if they're not willing to do the revote, though, then they just shouldn't count them. it's the only way to do it that is fair in any sense. the Democrats might suffer for it in November, but its the state parties' faults. they took the risk of not being counted.

 

[kida]

This just in from USA Today:

USA TODAY's Fredreka Schouten reports that the Florida Democratic Party will announce plans this week for a June 3 mail-in primary.

Steven Geller, the Florida Senate Democratic leader, told Fredreka the state party will move forward with the plan despite the objections of Florida's congressional delegation. He said an announcement is likely on Thursday or Friday. "It is my hope that they will get more comfortable with the plan," Geller said of the House members.

Unless national party leaders and the candidates "are willing to write off the state of Florida in the general election, we have to do something that seats our delegates and reflects the will of the Florida voters," he told Fredreka.
....
Bill Cotterell, a Gannett colleague from the Tallahassee Democrat, writes that (Democratic leader of the Florida Senate) Geller said:

If Florida does not have a delegation to the national convention, 5% of those surveyed would not vote in November and 14% would "seriously consider" voting Republican. He said another 12% weren't sure what they might do if Florida is unrepresented. Geller said that means about 25% of Democrats would probably stay home or vote for John McCain, R-Ariz. "That means we can't win," he said.

 

[kida]

Cancel that...

The head of Florida's Democratic Party said Thursday the proposed vote-by-mail presidential primary is unlikely to go forward because of strong opposition and concerns about conducting the vote.

AP