home

Howard Dean: Only 2 Ways Fl and MI Will Be Seated

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:34:59 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Howard Dean on CNN tonight: There are only 2 ways Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated. One is if Hillary and Obama agree on a plan. The other is after the nominee is chosen when she or he will control the credentials committee.

In other words, Florida and Michigan are not getting seated in time to have a say in the nominee.

If I were a voter in Florida or MIchigan, I'd be livid.

The one thing neither Dean nor the DNC can control is whether the superdelegates consider the votes in Florida and Michigan. They can factor the votes into their own calculations of the popular vote. They can factor them into their decision as to which candidate is more electable in November.

Florida and Michigan voters who want their vote counted ought to let the superdelegates from the other 48 states know. Here is a list of uncommitted superdelegates, and here is a list of committed superdelegates. Both should be contacted since superdelegates can decide or change their mind any time before they vote.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< No More Drudgico! | Justice Dept Releases John Yoo Torture Memo >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Howard Dean: Only 2 Ways Fl and MI Will Be Seated | 249 comments (249 topical)
    This is where Gore is needed. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    He of all people can make the case that excluding FL and MI cannot stand.

    Where is Jimmy Carter? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:39:30 PM EST
    I know he has declined to endorse but his speciality is making sure votes count.

    [ Parent ]
    This is Dean's mess. (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:04:15 PM EST
    Gore and Carter want no part of it.

    And the longer the news media refuses to hold Obama's feet to the fire, the more confrontational things will get.

    I can't speak for Michigan, but I know down here in Florida there's organization among the 55+ lady Democrats for a mass voter registration exodus to Independent if the Florida vote isn't counted by June 3rd, and a closing of  pocketbooks to the DNC.

    If Dean thinks Michigan and Florida will fund the nominee when millions of voters were disenfranchised, he's in for a rude awakening.

    [ Parent ]

    This is Dean's mess (none / 0) (#235)
    by NANTU1938 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:28:13 PM EST
    I'd like to know more about the organizing of 55+ women to register with the Independents if this matter is not resolved by June 3rd.  I feel we here in FL must let Dean and all the DNC know we are furious about this mess.

    [ Parent ]
    He said he's staying out ot it (none / 0) (#4)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:41:03 PM EST
    as of last Sunday's 60 Minutes. Doesn't want to be the uberbroker.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but what about the election (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    broker? Doesn't Carter care about fair elections in THIS country?

    [ Parent ]
    President Carter has said (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:20 PM EST
    many times that US elections would never pass muster to be monitored by the UN/his team.

    Our elections are a joke and a nightmare...all at the same time.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't go with Carter (none / 0) (#40)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    his specialty is running elections, not power meetings.

    [ Parent ]
    why is this news? (none / 0) (#194)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM EST
    we have known since the decision in dc.

    what's the rumpus?

    [ Parent ]

    You don't have to be a voter (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by tandem5 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    in Florida or Michigan to be livid.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
    ... I'm pretty livid and I don't live anywhere near those two states.

    [ Parent ]
    Shouldn't the infamous MoveOn (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    be mobilizing its contributors?

    [ Parent ]
    Very funny... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by gmo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:43:48 PM EST
    ...but I dropped MoveOn after they openly endorsed Obama, and continue to be a part of the Obama network.  

    I may go back some day, but I don't think MoveOn had any business endorsing and working on behalf of a democratic candidate until the GE, especially because they now can't voice an objective opinion on critical issues like these.

    [ Parent ]

    It's the best outcome for obama (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    By treating FL/MI differently than other rule breakers, he gets 56 net votes of regular delegates.

    Alternatively, if FL/MI are treated the same as SC/NH etc, then you get:

    --Delegates (AP) with FL/MI estimate from demconwatch
    Clinton 1427,  Obama 1528 (101 diff)

    and with super delegates that means the current situation would be 68 difference:
    --Delegates (AP), and FL/MI estimate and super deleg (AP)
    Clinton 1677, Obama 1745  (68 diff)

    It is COMPLETELY unacceptable for people to be calling on HRC to resign in this situation.  Dean made a serious mistake early in the cycle, refused to correct it, Obama refused correction and now the democratic nominee is thus being handpicked by party leaders.  We won't be winning in nov with this sort of BS.

    [ Parent ]

    Not a penny... (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    ... more from me for the DNC, or any Democratic elected official or organization who has any role in this massive disenfranchisement of millions of voters, for a long, long time.

    I donated all those times so you'd fight for the public interest, not against it.

    Dean is playing into GOP hands re FL (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    and being a harda** by trying to look like a "tough enforcer" of the rules.  But the GOP will just find another way to screw Dems during the next primary season. It was so easy this time.


    [ Parent ]
    Now I see what Obama wants only pledged to count (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by lambert on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:45:24 PM EST
    He wants to disenfranchise MI and FL even in the judgment of super-delegates. Nice.

    GREAT (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    Well, if Obama wins because FL and MI are disenfranchised then the Democratic Party just lost my vote in November. I don't care if he choses to seat the delegates as a formality, that is not how Democracy works. You cannot disenfranchise people who do not wish to vote for you, and if you do so, you are not worthy of my vote.

    I am ashamed to be a part of the Democratic Party right now...

    Howard Dean is destroying the Democratic Party (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by reality based on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    before our eyes.  I just got off the telephone with a soft voiced fund raiser for my state party (neither MI nor FL).  She told me despondently that she was getting a lot of refusals from long time contributors because of this very issue.

    I had the same experience the other night. A lady (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:53:19 PM EST
    from the DNC called me and I lit into her, saying that there was NO way I would give the DNC money because of the way they were keeping their thumb on the scale for one of the candidates and the outrageous way that Hillary has been treated.  I said I was furious about this and that, if they kept it up, there is NO way I will vote for Obama in the fall.

    She said she had heard a lot of that and apologized and said she'd tell Dean (which I asked her to do -I said I had supported him in 2003 and 2004 and that disenfranchising Florida and Michigan was the stupidest thing I ever heard.)

    Anyway, I guess they are hearing it but it's going in one ear and out the other. It's amazing what cognitive dissonance can do.

    [ Parent ]

    My theory (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    My theory is that Dean and some people advising him have bought into the ridiculous "Clinton's negatives are too high for her to win" idiocy, and they're determined to do everything possible to throw the nomination to Obama, even if it means alienating two key states and a lot of Dems across the country.

    This is both wrong and stupid on multiple levels, the most notable one being that Obama will have negatives just as high as Clinton's once the Republican attack machine has a few months to chew on him.

    In the coming years there will be shelves of books written about this election, none of them pleasant to read for the blue team.

    [ Parent ]

    He's almost there (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    According to today's Rasmussen, Hill's negatives are 55 percent after 15 years of Republican attacks and a daily beating by the press, while Obama's are 50 percent with just a few years on the national scene and a daily pampering by the press...

    The republicans will not have to work too hard.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeez I hate to do this but I've got to (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:45 PM EST
    agree with Ed Rollins that Dean is the most incompetent chairman of either party in the last 40 years.  Hasn't outraised the RNC in this best of all years.  Completely screwed up the primaries with the disenfranchising MI and FL.  If he had any pride, he would resign now.


    [ Parent ]
    To the best of my understanding... (none / 0) (#176)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    Dean's mission has been a 50 state mission where previously the Democrats have focused too much time, energy and money on the presidential race to the exclusion of the more local city/county/state races.

    So in light of that as a mission, it's not that surprising that he would adopt some controversial methods and take a lot of criticism.

    The presidential contest between Hillary and Barack has sucked the air (and money) from the DNC and the notion was that the DNC would be able to raise money after the primary was settled. Clearly some of Hillary's supporters are unhappy and have suggested that the DNC and other Democratic organizations might find it more difficult to raise money from them this year - at least if they feel that their candidate is unfairly treated...and wrote Nancy Pelosi a letter expressing exactly those sentiments.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny that the first (none / 0) (#211)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:57:23 PM EST
    year where he can implement his famous "50 state strategy" we are down to 48 states. LOL. I guess if 2 of the 50 vote for Clinton they can't be part of the strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    If Hillary wins the popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:50:16 PM EST
    by more than say, 50,000 (including FL), and is denied nomination, we will have an illegitimate nominee on our hands.

    The popular vote isn't the (none / 0) (#29)
    by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    measure that's used. It's the delegate count.

    [ Parent ]
    Keep yelling that (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    but with two states not included, there will be a tainted count.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever. Adults made fully (none / 0) (#42)
    by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:59:19 PM EST
    informed decisions and suffered the consequences. Such is life. I thought only the GOP didn't care about the rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:01:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    1.7 million Fl democrats made a (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    choice to vote in the primary in Jan.---a record turnout, by any metric. They voted because they wanted their votes counted.
    So screw them?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama, Meet Bush (none / 0) (#143)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:56:03 PM EST
    Barack Obama has now joined George W. Bush in seeking to achieve power despite the will of Florida voters.

    What an exclusive club!

    [ Parent ]

    You can focus on rules (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:02:11 PM EST
    all the way to defeat in November.

    Michigan is a "must win" state.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you say something about consequences? (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by MaxUS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EST
    From http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.


    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of rules.... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:08 PM EST
    do the rules say one candidate get all the votes cast for "none of the above" if that candidate deliberately takes his name off the ballot?

    [ Parent ]
    Sort of a "scorched earth" policy (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    Obama chose early in this election to use tactics that would divide the party. He seems to be incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions. When he bought the house with Rezko, when he chose to remain in a church in spite of a "controversial" minister, when he repeatedly told lies about his birth and early childhood... each time he had short-term gains, but he made the choices without considering the long-term implications.


    [ Parent ]
    That is an interesting (none / 0) (#93)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    data point.  Would you take the next step, and say that this piece mitigates or reverses the fact that the DNC, all candidates, and all voters knew and acted on the fact that the MI D primary would have no affect on the delegate selection process?

    [ Parent ]
    The candidates didn't think no effect (none / 0) (#114)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:43:07 PM EST
    the ones who took their name off the ballot thought Michigan would have a minimal effect.

    After all, he (or she) who wins early, generally wins the nomination.

    In Florida, Obama did hint that he thought the delegation would be seated.

    The Tampa Bay Online still has the story posted.

    [ Parent ]

    And if they thought MI wouldn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    then why did Obama and Edwards lobby for people to vote "uncommitted" in that primary?

    Clearly, they were hoping to make points.

    [ Parent ]

    Which adults are those? (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:14:02 PM EST
    The people of Florida and Michigan did not choose to push their elections forward. They had no say in the matter. They do have a say in how they will vote this fall, and Obama won't have any way of ensuring that their votes don't count in that election.

    [ Parent ]
    what about the (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    voters. This is not about the pols, what about the votes of regular people.  Why are they being punished, they did not break any rules!

    [ Parent ]
    I care about rules (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:34:33 PM EST
    like equal protection under the law. I have another rule - I don't support a party or a candidate who disenfranchises voters.

    I'm an adult and fully aware of the consequences of my decision.

    [ Parent ]

    What's J's defin. of "chatterer" again? (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:05:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't matter anyway. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    We lose in Nov.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the smugness (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    that I love so much about comments like this.  I've been wondering for awhile now ...  what is it?  Is it the tunnel vision?  Is it the short-sightedness?  Is it the thin-lipped grip on the rules?  

    Sigh.  All of these are strong contenders for the prize.  But I'm going with the smugness, because you could have all of the above, and if there was ALSO an element of humility or even modesty, the whole feel would be different.

    Congratulations; you pegged the smug-o-meter.

    [ Parent ]

    It is (none / 0) (#118)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    allready illegitimate if Fla and Mich do not get to vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Not exactly (none / 0) (#122)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:48:52 PM EST
    I agree with you that if Hillary is ahead in the popular vote including FL, she has a valid claim on the nomination.  I would not consider it illegitimate if the super delegates decided to vote for her -- even if Obama were ahead in pledged delegates.

    However, if Obama remains ahead in pledged delegates, it wouldn't be illegitimate if the super delegates voted for him, either.  Basically, the primaries would be a split decision and the super delegates would have to decide.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that's a fair assessment UNLESS (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:08 PM EST
    with the inclusion of FL delegates, Hillary would also have a pledged delegate lead. (unlikely)

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know about illegitimate (none / 0) (#147)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    But I expect she will get the nomination if she makes up that much ground.

    [ Parent ]
    If the percentage of pledged delegates (none / 0) (#184)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
    is the same as the percentage of popular vote, I would agree with you.

    Unfortunately, Obama's percentage of pledged delegates is a point or two above his percentage of the popular vote (including estimates from caucuses).

    Proportionality is skewing the results.... and frankly that's one of the places superdelegates should balance the scales.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:50:49 PM EST
    that seems to seal it.  He seems to really want the Boy Wonder (as in Batman) to be the nominee.

    I don't even recognize the Democratic party anymore.  You'd think after 2000, they wouldn't do anything so STUPID!

    Dean has helped me make my decision.  I will definitely do one of two things:  sit out the election,or vote for someone other than Obama.

    "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn."  Screw Dean ad the DNC.

    And my friends and family will probably be doing the same.  We are all big Hillary supporters from PA.

    Just vote for Dems downticket! We have to stop (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:54:29 PM EST
    the privatization of social security and the 100 year war!

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by honora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:38:44 PM EST
    The Democratic Party is doing the disenfranchisement. Howard Dean will not take my calls, but he takes calls from my Democratic Governor, my two Democratic Senators, my Democratic Representative.  If the Democrats that we elected were doing their jobs, then Dean and Pelosi would not be able to do what they are doing.  At some point we have to say "enough is enough". I am going to write in Hillary and leave the rest blank.  I did not come to this decision lightly, but it is my vote and I will not give it to the current Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll be writing her in also (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:09 PM EST
    I'll be writing to some super delegates and will still vote Dem in my state since many are Hillary supporters, but anyone that I find is an Obama supporter won't get my support.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary write-in and... (none / 0) (#209)
    by alexei on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    actively working against those that support the disenfranchisement of MI and FL voters is my plan.  I have said that this was my litmus test and the Dems are failing.  Therefore, I will renounce my life long Democratic Party affiliation and join the Progressive Party if this happens.

    I sure wish that I had not supported Dean.  He really has been terrible.  

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see how Obama could win FL (none / 0) (#123)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    in the general. But in his "270" calculation, is he even including it?


    [ Parent ]
    I'd be livid at my state representatives but (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    that's about it. Though, considering the fact that their votes rarely counted anyway, I don't know why they'd be that angry. Their states tried to get away with breaking the rules to make themselves more important (and I do understand why they'd want to be more involved but the DNC didn't allow for it this year) and they suffered the consequences they were warned of.

    Why? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:25 PM EST
    My state representatives changed the Repub primary date and somehow the RNC handled it without disenfranchising any voters. It's a sad day when the Repubs are more competent than the Dems.


    [ Parent ]
    It has nothing to do with competence. States (none / 0) (#37)
    by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:57:31 PM EST
    were warned in advance. FL GOPers lost 1/2 of their votes from what I recall. Why weren't the people out marching in the streets against the coming actions of their representatives if it was such a big deal?

    [ Parent ]
    It is about competence and values (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:00:36 PM EST
    Of course it has to do with competence. Same action. Same rule broken. One group, RNC, follows their outlined punishment and manages to avoid disenfranchising voters. Other group, DNC, decides to up their punishment (they are allowed to do that) and disenfranchises voters.

    If you think only people who march in the street matter, you are living in a strange world.

    [ Parent ]

    it's worse than that (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:08:05 PM EST
    The DNC selectively enforced the rules using two different standards of judgment.  MI/FL got it hard, the other states didn't even get a slap on the wrist.  And it's their own management idiocy for setting up a situation that would later come back to haunt them--oops, a tight race.

    Hell, if they'd halved the votes from all the rule-breakers Obama would still have a larger lead, but it wouldn't be as blatant and might have squeaked past the press.  The blatant disregard of the voters is another thing entirely.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:34:22 PM EST
    If the DNC had stuck with the 50% loss of delegates for breaking ranks, most voters would have understood that. Completely disenfranchising is a whole other ball game.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC followed it's outlined punishment as (none / 0) (#58)
    by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:03:47 PM EST
    well. What people want is for them not to. That's not very adult thinking.

    Ok. So no marching in the streets. In what way did the citizenry of MI or FL fight to have their legislatures keep the date where it was so that they wouldn't be punished?

    [ Parent ]

    1/2 the delegates (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST
    was actually the original outlined punishment for the DNC as well.

    [ Parent ]
    You (none / 0) (#158)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    obviously don't know what you are talking about. As the rules clearly said 50% delegate reduction. If you are just repeating talking points, I would suggest you actually do some research into the issue before you state any more factual errors.

    [ Parent ]
    One reason is (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    that we wanted our paper trails.  Another is that we thought our party would be reasonable and not punish us for what the Republican led legislature did.

    Now, guess what?  Republican legislatures in every state know how to mess around with Dem party unity.  Way to go DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    Florida voter (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM EST
    As a Florida voter, I am not livid. I was livid last summer but now I'm more or less resigned to the fact that the Democratic party doesn't care about Democratic values. And they sure as hell don't care about Democratic voters.

    I've said since this first occurred last summer, no primary vote means no general vote from me.

    Did you fight the change of the date (none / 0) (#38)
    by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:58:08 PM EST
    when your state said they were going to do it?

    [ Parent ]
    RMcCauley (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:02:52 PM EST
    We get your point. Stop trying to dominate the thread. Come back tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure you do and I'm happy to stop (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:07:32 PM EST
    but as you can see no one here can point to any action taken to fight their legislatures movement of the primaries even though they knew that their votes wouldn't count in the primary should the date be moved. Outrage at an action that everyone knew would take place when no one did anything about it is misplaced at best. Also, no one seems to be taking to task the actual people responsible for MI & FL losing their delegates, the states themselves.

    At some point the people have to realize the DNC is simply enforcing the rules that were violated. Something we take our government to task for not doing. They want MI & FL to receive a Libby. That's irresponsible.

    Have a good night!

    [ Parent ]

    RMC thinks voting should be difficult. (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    He thinks you should have to demonstrate in the streets to get the right to vote.
    This is SUPPOSED to be the USA, not the Ukraine!

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently, he also thinks (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    that Florida's Democratic voters would have had sway with their Republican-controlled legislature.

    ??

    Gee, if only you Fl people had been willing to fight it out in the streets, you coulda been a contender!


    [ Parent ]

    Do you honestly believe (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:20:32 PM EST
    that the minority Democrats could have persuaded the GOP majority legislatures' to honor the 'rules' of the DNC?

    [ Parent ]
    Keep your sympathy (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    I blame you for the Iraq war. You voted the idiots into office that were responsible so obviously using your logic it is your fault.

    Anytime Repubs pass laws to restrict voters rights, I see people complain about the laws. Except in this situation. This time, because a law was passed which caused the DNC to disenfranchise voters it was the fault of the Democratic voters in the state. How people are willing to contort themselves to justify the unjustifiable is beyond me.

    [ Parent ]

    "cut in half if not a quarter." (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    Maybe you can reduce the state's value in the General also?

    [ Parent ]
    My understanding is that the vote (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:35:46 PM EST
    in Florida to move the date up was unanimous because it was part of a bill that eliminated touch screen voting. That bill was necessary to get the hated machinery out of Florida in time to substitute a better voting technology in place for November.  If this is accurate, I can see why the Dems might vote unanimously.

    [ Parent ]
    obviously you have no Idea what was on the (4.66 / 3) (#156)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:06:57 PM EST
    bill that was voted on in Florida.  Since 2000 the Florida Democrats had been trying to have a paper trail set for electronic voting in florida.  That was part of this bill if you did not vote for this bill you would be voting against having a paper trail during elections.  The Democrats tried to have the Bill divided into two and failed.  That is why even the Obama backers in the Florida legislature voted for this bill.  Please if you don't have the details do not comment on the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't hear a peep? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:45:13 PM EST
    You weren't listening.

    Nelson suggested the 4 early states move up their dates since the Fl Dems couldn't change the date. The DNC said no.

    The FDP looked for alternatives, but couldn't afford any. They took in just under 5 million last year, meaning they couldn't afford any solutions unless they got money elsewhere. They asked the unions about contributing some money but were turned down. The DNC offered around 880k but it wasn't nearly enough for anything. Without the money there was no other solution possible.

    The reason why you started to hear about a revote was because others stepped forward to offer financing. They didn't whip together that plan, it had been on the table since last year.

    Just because you were listening doesn't mean there was peeping going on.

    [ Parent ]

    then you weren't listening , we in Fla (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by fly on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:36:26 PM EST
    did everything we could to make this a national issue long before January!..we were screaming about it and screaming to the dem party and the DNC to no avail..just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean we weren't trying to resolve this!
    All our Fla papers rans stories about hwo unfair it was and how Obama cheated the day after he signed the sanctions!

    Stop blaming others because you were ignorant to what was going on.
    We in Fla were not.

    from a 2004 Fla dem delegate.

    [ Parent ]

    What world do you live in? (5.00 / 11) (#55)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    Are you insane? How do you propose that I stop my state legislature from passing a bill. Because if I could do that I would stop them from their Take Your Uzi to Work bill that they are currently passing.

    Why don't you stop funding the Iraq war and get back to me on how you finally brought the troops home before you lecture me on how I'm somehow responsible for a primary date change.

    [ Parent ]

    How do you prevent (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    Primaries in December, or having most of them in January?  

    [ Parent ]
    Have they prevented that yet? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:15:25 PM EST
    Have they prevented it with this action? I don't think so.

    You want to control state legislatures by taking action against party voters? It doesn't make sense. If you are from one party and control the legislature of a state and you know the other party will shoot itself in the foot if you move up the date, why not? All the Dems have done, is show that any Repub controlled state should move up its primary and then sit back and watch the party implode.

    If you want to keep legislators from voting to move a date, you take directed action towards legislators. Not voters.

    [ Parent ]

    How do you prevent (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    legislators from doing that?  

    There is no easy way....but there needs to be a way of enforcing some order on the process.

    Dean and Ickes, now a Hillary supporter, decided to not count the delegates....That was deemed reasonable and necessary at the time....  

    [ Parent ]

    You don't do it by disenfranchising voters (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:33:42 PM EST
    It was neither reasonable nor necessary. You never punish people for the actions of others.

    There were other actions available to them. Delegate cuts (as long as you leave a few delegates people aren't disenfranchised) to lessen impact of early states. Financial repercussions for Dem legislators to discourage voting for legislation. You NEVER disenfranchise the voters.

    The truth is they did it because they could and because it had no cost in their mind. Because actually punishing legislators might have consequences where voters don't matter to them. Dean said last year he believes voters won't care because other issues like Iraq will matter more. They expect that Dems will vote for them no matter what. They can disenfranchise voters, they can fail to act on Iraq, they can allow the administration to repeatedly break the law and people will still vote for them. Because what other choice do people have?

    They had choices. They chose poorly. Now I'll remind them I have the choice not to vote for them in the general. It won't restore my primary vote, but maybe it'll remind them that they need to earn support not expect it.


    [ Parent ]

    Why does that concern (none / 0) (#172)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    trump the right to vote?

    It doesn't.

    [ Parent ]

    Why all the hostility (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:28:19 PM EST
    towards FL voters?  How does blaming the victims help here?

    [ Parent ]
    It's the only way to defend Obama (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    The only way anybody can justify disenfranchising millions of voter's in order to benefit one candidate over another is to suggest that they are being justly punished for their transgressions. It's a thin argument, but it's the only one Obama supporter's have, so they are clinging to it like a barnacle to a stone.

    [ Parent ]
    Well I hope they are happy (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    with their self-righteousness when I'm at the beach Nov. 4.

    Yeah, I know it's an empty threat.  I'm one of the suckers Dean is talking about who will vote against McCain no matter what. But the DNC isn't getting any of my money.  Those Obamafans are on their own funding this one. Hope they still have some money left on Dad's credit cards.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know what I'd do... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:22 PM EST
    ...if I were in a state that was competitive. I'm in California.  Whether I vote for the Democratic candidate or not my electoral college votes will go Dem. I won't vote for Obama, and I won't contribute the the DNC or his campaign (I gave a lot to Kerry)., but I will vote for and support downticket Dems. They're not all bad. But I'm not going to get emotionally vested in an election I don't think we can win. We have to focus on making sure that the Congress is as strongly Democratic as possible to minimize the damage.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm with you (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:00:39 PM EST
    Obama may get my state, but he won't get my vote. I will support keeping a strong majority in congress. But I gotta tell ya, even that is going to tick me off.

    Oh well, with out being invested in the race, I'll be able to concentrate on my other 'stuff'  

    [ Parent ]

    sorry (none / 0) (#186)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    But I live in SF, and i will strongly oppose pelosi, she's done a poor job as it is, but this straw broke the camel's back.  In fact I am strongly considering voting against dems until they get their act together.  

    Democracy requires clear procedures, clear elections, clear discourse and even when the democrats totally control the process they are too anti-democratic to do the right thing.

    How can I support a party that subverts the foundations of a functional democracy even when they have no excuses and can't blame anyone else?

    [ Parent ]

    You can support the party... (none / 0) (#203)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:45:25 PM EST
    ...because by not supporting it you are supporting a party that is far worse. I won't argue over Pelosi, but let's not forget that the right wing is out there waiting for us to give up and let them win. I hope we'll all be very careful about how we protest the actions of the party. Protesting their actions is important, but it's also important to not strengthen the right.

    [ Parent ]
    My .02 (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by cloudy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:03:13 PM EST
    This is what really gets my gourd about the "It's the Rules folks, you elected these people in to office retorts".  Nowhere does it address the basic, fundamental right to vote.  Of all the issues an individual needs to consider when casting their vote, the one thing they should never have to, in 2008, is their right to vote.  If we lose that most basic right, if it's so easily taken away from us, what does it say about our government?  What does it say about the people who help them?

    The folks in Florida and Michigan had no power over what the DNC choose to do.  Last I checked, no one's cast a ballot for Donna Brazille.  The DNC choose to disenfranchise millions of voters.  They could have taken another path, one that stood behind the fundamental right to vote.  They didn't.  It's on them.  Still, with time running out, they could step forward, show leadership, and find a solution that again, stands behind the fundamental right to vote.  Instead they've sat on the sidelines while Obama has blocked any road to a solution where real votes are cast.  

    It's really simple see?  Everyone should have the right to vote.  That vote should count once.  If that isn't a prinicple that the Democratic Party can stand behind then I'm ashamed to be a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    It was the same bill to ban DRE voting machines (none / 0) (#237)
    by fly on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:31:05 PM EST
    and to MANDATE ..VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS..NO WE DIDN'T FIGHT TO CHANGE THAT BILL..but that is the very bill the republicans tied the amendment to change the date of the primary on.

    Any dem who would have fought that bill would have had their heads removed in this state after wen endured 18,000 missing votes in Sarasota in 2006 in Katrine Harris's county..

    but we were the very first state to Ban the DRE voting machines for the 2008 election and the first state in the nation to mandate VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS..for the 2008 election..the only state to do so in the nation!!!!!!!!!...but call us silly..

    but this is the very bill Dean punished us for!!

    and Yes the FDP tried to get that amendment removed for that bill to no avail!

    Dean is a liar , he planned this he planned it because as soon as this bill was signed he began pushing the FDP into a caucus..and his push kept it up and in Oct or Nov he offered the FDP $800,000.oo + to do a state wide caucus..so no one will tell me his plan to steal elections by Caucus was not planned!

    Howard Dean is a crook..he is a cheat and so is Obama ..this was all planned!

    [ Parent ]

    does this mean (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    we have to go back to the 48 star american flag?

    48 Only (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:48:32 PM EST
    Is there a graphic of this - Obama's "States of the Union"?

    Doesn't Obama always talk about the "United" States of America?  

    [ Parent ]

    clearly (none / 0) (#144)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:56:25 PM EST
    he will now do his best to ensure that the delegates are seated. we'll be watching.

    [ Parent ]
    What a great idea (none / 0) (#189)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    I'll pass it on

    [ Parent ]
    And the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:10:49 PM EST
    will have to change its name to the D(EFM)NNC

    (The Democratic (Except in Florida and Michigan) Non-National Committee)

    [ Parent ]

    ...and the Obama blogs (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:59:46 PM EST
    will be cheering.

    Pretty pathetic.

     

    They (none / 0) (#126)
    by sas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:49:18 PM EST
    need Hillary's voters to win.

    specially in m state of PA.

    Well they're not getting them.  They can augh their arse out of about 27 electoral votes.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh...time for a populist party (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM EST
    Heck with them.  

    I actually wonder what the polling would be... (none / 0) (#248)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    in a three way race with McCain Obama and Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard Dean (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:03:17 PM EST
    and I was stunned. Is he that clueless? Does he not realize that by not including FL and MI, he has handed the White House back to the Republicans? I am sick. I have not given cent to the DNC and my checkbook is now closed in the future as well regardless the nominee. I will continue to support Sen. Clinton.

    Is he that clueless? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:14:06 PM EST
    Yes. He is that clueless.

    The democrats have found a way to snatch defeat from the overwhelming chance they had for victory.

    And, the sad thing for me is that at this point I could care less.

    The last time I felt the merest breath of optimism was when the dems regained the house and senate in 2006. And look how that turned out.

    [ Parent ]

    They act like (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    the Democratic Party is its own branch of government.  Sadly, it's just not true.

    [ Parent ]
    Right. It's like they don't need us. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    We don't matter to them. They can live on ether, I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    And do we see... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by rebrane on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:12:07 PM EST
    This video of a Florida Democratic leader openly mocking the DNC's warning of sanctions and making it totally clear that he welcomed moving the primary up  is really instructive to watch to overcome BTD's spin about this whole disenfranchisement crap. The situation is regrettable, but who should Florida Democrats really be angry at? The DNC for not performing the traditional Democratic spinal reversal in response to any pressure, or their own state party leaders who irresponsibly started a showdown with the DNC that they appear to be losing?

    By the way, really smart move by the Florida Democratic party there. Because if they had scheduled their primary for the second Tuesday in March, it wouldn't have gotten any attention from the candidates or the media at all. Nope. Good thing they went for it!

    What does it matter who I am mad at? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    It is wrong, no matter who was responsible. It needs to be fixed, no matter who fixes it.

    [ Parent ]
    You can't unscramble an egg. (none / 0) (#85)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:25:09 PM EST
    I don't think there IS a fix for this anymore. All anyone can do is make sure this doesn't happen again. Which is actually what I think Dean is trying to do, by seeing that states aren't rewarded for bad behavior, though obviously not everyone agrees with his course of action.

    [ Parent ]
    That is obviously NOT (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    "all" we can do. Dems in MI and FL, for example, can sit out the November election. Dean's pronouncement that they will vote for the Dem candidate anyway because McCain is so bad is pure hubris. It is in the spirit of "lie back and think of England." Unacceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    That doesn't fix anything. (none / 0) (#131)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    It might help insure that this doesn't happen again, but it certainly doesn't repair any damage.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it doesn't fix it. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    But Dean has given up on fixing it, and I think he is nutty to believe that Dems in FL and MI will fall in line.

    [ Parent ]
    Good idea (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    Let me know when it's fixed so I can consider voting for Democrats again.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC is punishing FL and MI voters unfairly (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by echinopsia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    So I'm not going to reward the DNC for this behavior.

    We are Democrats. We COUNT votes.

    And the day we stop doing that is the day I stop being a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    I read something yesterday that said that all the (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:42:06 PM EST
    Florida Dems fighting for the date change were supporting Obama.  I wish I could remember where I saw that.  But it just occurred to me, could they have been trying to screw up that primary too? Maybe he also realized he couldn't win Florida and that by supporting moving the primary up, it might compromise Hillary's win as it has? If he was plotting that in Michigan, maybe he was plotting it in Florida too?

    I never thought of that before.  Wonder if there would be any way to find out.

    [ Parent ]

    You realize that the man who is a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (