Dems: Florida and Michigan looming trouble...Lead Story Saturday WSJ (1 Viewer)

[Pure Energy]

The DNC is national level, state party leadership is separate.

It appears that's the perspective taken by the State and National Leadership--they're separate and only have party affiliation in common. In my opinion, integration between State and National organizations was lacking. By contrast, the RNC's approach of only penalizing the state a percentage of delegates (~50%) seems a better approach of leveling sanctions against a State who moved up their primary without totally muting the voice of the voters. It's quite possible the RNC just got lucky while the DNC drew the short straw.

 

[Richard]

It would be decidedly unfair in the process to award delegates based on the Florida or Michigan results since the rules would be changed after the fact. Obama (or even Edwards) didn't campaign in those states the way they would have had those states been in play for delegates. If delegates for either state are included using prior results or even new caucuses, it will be an effort to hand the election to Hillary and IMO would make a mockery of the process.

One way to solve all of the jockeying states have been making to make their primaries/caucuses relevant would be a rotating system whereby five states vote every two weeks with a state from each region represented.

For example

1. Iowa, New Hampshire, Alabama, Arizona, Montana, DC
2. Kansas, Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan, Oregon
3. S. Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, California, Idaho
4. Louisiana, Nevada, Alaska, Illinois, New York
5. Florida, Texas, Rhode Island, N. Dakota, W. Virginia
6. Mississippi, New Mexico, Washington, Ohio, New Jersey
7. Georgia, Utah, Minnesota, Indiana, Connecticut
8. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kentucky, Maryland
9. N. Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, S. Dakota, Delaware
10. Tennessee, Hawaii, Nebraska, Maine, Pennsylvania

Every four years, a new group moves to the front of the line and the one that was first goes to the back of the line. Iowa and New Hampshire would cry about it, but it would be fair to all of the other states.

 

[RABDOG]

It would be decidedly unfair in the process to award delegates based on the Florida or Michigan results since the rules would be changed after the fact. Obama (or even Edwards) didn't campaign in those states the way they would have had those states been in play for delegates. If delegates for either state are included using prior results or even new caucuses, it will be an effort to hand the election to Hillary and IMO would make a mockery of the process.

One way to solve all of the jockeying states have been making to make their primaries/caucuses relevant would be a rotating system whereby five states vote every two weeks with a state from each region represented.

For example

1. Iowa, New Hampshire, Alabama, Arizona, Montana, DC
2. Kansas, Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan, Oregon
3. S. Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, California, Idaho
4. Louisiana, Nevada, Alaska, Illinois, New York
5. Florida, Texas, Rhode Island, N. Dakota, W. Virginia
6. Mississippi, New Mexico, Washington, Ohio, New Jersey
7. Georgia, Utah, Minnesota, Indiana, Connecticut
8. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kentucky, Maryland
9. N. Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, S. Dakota, Delaware
10. Tennessee, Hawaii, Nebraska, Maine, Pennsylvania

Every four years, a new group moves to the front of the line and the one that was first goes to the back of the line. Iowa and New Hampshire would cry about it, but it would be fair to all of the other states.

now that is a good solution and a good idea

 

[workhorse]

The rumor mill is that DNC insiders have proposed holding Michigan and Florida caucuses to seat their delegates and the DNC brass are strongly considering.

Source: Morning Joe earlier this week.

Hill and Bill will fight the caucuses, especially since, technically, she got more votes in each state. Obama has won every democratic caucus so far. The pundits believe it is because his supporters are more passionate and will be heard more loudly during the caucuses. Hillary strength is in primarys where having the organization to get every vote out counts...

Seeing the DNC tied in knots makes me giggle...

 

[SaintsFan11]

Hill and Bill will fight the caucuses, especially since, technically, she got more votes in each state. Obama has won every democratic caucus so far. The pundits believe it is because his supporters are more passionate and will be heard more loudly during the caucuses. Hillary strength is in primarys where having the organization to get every vote out counts...

Seeing the DNC tied in knots makes me giggle...

Obama didn't win in Nevada, which was a caucus.

But you're right, the Clintons would never agree to a caucus. One idea they mentioned on one of the talk shows was to seat the delegates from each state according to the national popular vote. This would put each one pretty much with the same delegate total thereby recognizing each state, but in a way that is fair to both sides.

Let's face it, the Clintons won't agree to a redo (which would have to be a caucus because a primary election would be too expensive) and the Obama campaign won't agree to give Hillary the election when he followed all the rules. It's the only way I see a resolution of this conflict.

 

[ArmoredNOSaint]

The Speaker of the House weighs in on the possible crisis for the Dems:

Pelosi: Don't Overrule The Voters

 

[Pure Energy]

The Speaker of the House weighs in on the possible crisis for the Dems:

Pelosi: Don't Overrule The Voters

She speaks from both sides of her mouth--don't mute the voice of the voters...mute the voice of the voters. Her issue is with the Party, but the net-net is to silence the people. Democracy at its finest.

"I do think that they have a respect -- it's not just following the returns, it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people," Pelosi said. "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."


Pelosi had one more stunner in the interview: She said the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination.

 

[Shawn]

She speaks from both sides of her mouth--don't mute the voice of the voters...mute the voice of the voters. Her issue is with the Party, but the net-net is to silence the people. Democracy at its finest.

How do you see that?

Because she wouldn't seat the Florida and Michigan delegates? That's a bunch of partisan horse crap.I don't like Pelosi at all, but she's absolutely saying the right thing here.

 

[Pure Energy]

How do you see that?

Because she wouldn't seat the Florida and Michigan delegates? That's a bunch of partisan horse crap.I don't like Pelosi at all, but she's absolutely saying the right thing here.

Frankly, I don't care if the delegates are seated or not. However, it's a bit hypocritical to say in one sentence the Super delegates should heed the voice of the People and in the next say it's quite alright to mute the voice of the People in a state who's party leadership didn't follow the rules. I'm not taking a tops--down perspective but rather a bottoms---up perspective and looking at it from the view of the individual voter in Michigan and Florida.

Something to think about: My perspective is the DNC wants it to appear as if there wasn't a vote in FL or Michigan and the DNC might have been better off if there wasn't; but then again, would they really have been better off if the did not allow any votes to be cast?

 

[JimEverett]

Frankly, I don't care if the delegates are seated or not. However, it's a bit hypocritical to say in one sentence the Super delegates should heed the voice of the People and in the next say it's quite alright to mute the voice of the People in a state who's party leadership didn't follow the rules. I'm not taking a tops--down perspective but rather a bottoms---up perspective and looking at it from the view of the individual voter in Michigan and Florida.

Something to think about: My perspective is the DNC wants it to appear as if there wasn't a vote in FL or Michigan and the DNC might have been better off if there wasn't; but then again, would they really have been better off if the did not allow any votes to be cast?

I think you are missing the whole point of the primary season. These primaries and caucuses are creatures of their respective parties. They set the rules - period.

Maybe you are upset at that idea. If so, make it clear. Because both sides have some weird, undemocratic rules in place. Just look at how delegates in Louisiana are allocated by the Republican Party - not real democratic. But its a party issue, and under party control.

 

[Shawn]

I think you are missing the whole point of the primary season. These primaries and caucuses are creatures of their respective parties. They set the rules - period.

Maybe you are upset at that idea. If so, make it clear. Because both sides have some weird, undemocratic rules in place. Just look at how delegates in Louisiana are allocated by the Republican Party - not real democratic. But its a party issue, and under party control.

Exactly. Neither party does things quite the same way, but there is a consensus and agreement beforehand about what rules to follow.

The primaries in those two states don't refelect the "will" of the people. I don't know what they reflect exactly...nobody does.

Edwin Edwards legalized Casino gambling by putting it to the vote of the legislature. However, the vote was taken during the middle of the night, a vote which many of the opponents curiously, perhaps "accidentally" didn't know about. But it went to a vote and passed. Democratic? The will of the people?

I find the remarks about hypocrisy to be a lame attempt to attack Pelosi because of partisan hatred. It's not logical, and it's not a line of reasoning that would be followed were it being applied to a Republican issue. In short, it's complete ********. There are plenty of valid criticisms of her. This one is just pathetic.

 

[Pure Energy]

I think you are missing the whole point of the primary season. These primaries and caucuses are creatures of their respective parties. They set the rules - period.

Maybe you are upset at that idea. If so, make it clear. Because both sides have some weird, undemocratic rules in place. Just look at how delegates in Louisiana are allocated by the Republican Party - not real democratic. But its a party issue, and under party control.

I am in total agreement, the Parties are free to set up whatever rules they want. I was addressing the inconsistencies in Pelosi's comments.

 

[Shawn]

I am in total agreement, the Parties are free to set up whatever rules they want. I was addressing the inconsistencies in Pelosi's comments.

It was clear what you were attempting to address. The point is that it's not inconsistent, just a veiled but transparent partisan attack.The GOP wants nothing more than to see Hillary nominated, and consequently, they want those delegates seated.

 

[JimEverett]

I am in total agreement, the Parties are free to set up whatever rules they want. I was addressing the inconsistencies in Pelosi's comments.

I don;t see any inconsistency. But I operate from the principle of charity when interpreting people's comments, i.e an interpretation that seems to make the speaker make the most sense.
She might be saying Super Delegates should vote the way their particular consistutents voted in the primary/caucus (congressional district for a House member, state for a Sentaor or governor, etc). Or she may be saying vote the way the pledge delegates vote, or vote the way the popular vote went.
I fail to see any inconsistency in the above with saying that the rules laid out before the Michigan and Florida primaries should be followed.

 

[Pure Energy]

I don;t see any inconsistency. But I operate from the principle of charity when interpreting people's comments, i.e an interpretation that seems to make the speaker make the most sense.
She might be saying Super Delegates should vote the way their particular consistutents voted in the primary/caucus (congressional district for a House member, state for a Sentaor or governor, etc). Or she may be saying vote the way the pledge delegates vote, or vote the way the popular vote went.
I fail to see any inconsistency in the above with saying that the rules laid out before the Michigan and Florida primaries should be followed.

Then we agree to disagree. I don't see how this process can be considered Democratic when 2.3 million voters (through no fault of their own) votes don't count (my understanding is the Super Delegates from those states won't get a vote either). If the RNC had totally discounted my vote, I would be livid.