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

[JimEverett]

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.

I don't see where she ever said the process was democratic. Even if she did, democracies have to have rules.

Nothing is inconsistent between the following:

1. Unpledged delegates should somehow mirror pledged delegates.

2. Rules set in place before voting began should be followed till the end of the process.

 

[ArmoredNOSaint]

Now Al Gore is taking part in discussions with party leaders to find ways to avoid a brokered convention:

Democrats Look for Way to Avoid Convention Rift

Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

 

[Pure Energy]

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.

Just to be very clear, if these comments were from an RNC official I would have the same (or sharper) criticism. Simply because you conclude her statements are entirely consistent, that doesn't mean others cannot analyze her statements and conclude otherwise.

I'll go on the record and predict that for the 2012 election, the DNC will revise their policy that eliminates the voice of the voters in States that move up their primary date.

 

[Shawn]

Just to be very clear, if these comments were from an RNC official I would have the same (or sharper) criticism. Simply because you conclude her statements are entirely consistent, that doesn't mean others cannot analyze her statements and conclude otherwise.

I'll go on the record and predict that for the 2012 election, the DNC will revise their policy that eliminates the voice of the voters in States that move up their primary date.

They might very well do that, but then that changes everything.

But when it is announced beforehand that the results of the "elections" won't result in any seated delegates, you know going in that it will affect the turnout. I wouldn't even bother voting if I knew my state would not be allowed to seat delegates. That doesn't even address the fact that the candidates didn't campaign or stump there.

There were some votes gathered, but it's pretty much akin to putting a poll up on Drudge Report, where anyone can vote, but the context is that it means nothing and the vote is limited to those who saw or knew about it. They are completely meaningless numbers, and as such, there is nothing there at all to suggest that "the will of the people" is being ignored.

It's not logical at all, and I it seems to me you are just dancing around that fact.

 

[Pure Energy]

They might very well do that, but then that changes everything.

But when it is announced beforehand that the results of the "elections" won't result in any seated delegates, you know going in that it will affect the turnout. I wouldn't even bother voting if I knew my state would not be allowed to seat delegates. That doesn't even address the fact that the candidates didn't campaign or stump there.

There were some votes gathered, but it's pretty much akin to putting a poll up on Drudge Report, where anyone can vote, but the context is that it means nothing and the vote is limited to those who saw or knew about it. They are completely meaningless numbers, and as such, there is nothing there at all to suggest that "the will of the people" is being ignored.

It's not logical at all, and I it seems to me you are just dancing around that fact.

You and JE do a adequate job of speaking to the facts and the issues on the surface. I have no disagreement on any points of fact. However, I haven't noticed either of you speak to whether or not there could be political fallout in a close race and what that fallout might be.

To compare an election that takes place in a polling precinct, the largest turnout in State nomination history, identification of 1.7 million registered voters, and placement of voting machines with an internet web poll is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Does anyone care to broach my previous question of whether the Dems should have allowed voters to cast their ballots in FL and MI?:dunno:

One final thought...I cannot fathom Pelosi would make the same comments if instead of FL it was 9 million voters (441 delegates) from her state of CA voters who were disenfranchised.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

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.

Or, we can join the 20th century and have all our state primaries on the same day.

 

[Shawn]

You and JE do a adequate job of speaking to the facts and the issues on the surface. I have no disagreement on any points of fact. However, I haven't noticed either of you speak to whether or not there could be political fallout in a close race and what that fallout might be.

Because that's a different subject than the one I addressed, and completely off topic from your attempts to use this event to mock Pelosi.

To compare an election that takes place in a polling precinct, the largest turnout in State nomination history, identification of 1.7 million registered voters, and placement of voting machines with an internet web poll is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. .

It's an analogy. An analogy would of course be an attempt to draw parallels to something easier to understand. Either it went over your head--which I don't believe--or you're being disingenuous. The point is that by virtue of the election being held early--against the agreed upon rules of the DNC--the election methodology was compromised.

The election was still held for the sake of the GOP, as their situation was different, and their voters had no reason to stay home.

Does anyone care to broach my previous question of whether the Dems should have allowed voters to cast their ballots in FL and MI?:dunno:..

Deflection from the issue I've been addressing all along. I'm not entirely clear what your initial intent was, since you started off claiming that the DNC had screwed up and perhaps heads should roll. Anyway, that's not the subject I'm addressing

One final thought...I cannot fathom Pelosi would make the same comments if instead of FL it was 9 million voters (441 delegates) from her state of CA voters who were disenfranchised.

You can only guess, based upon your preconceptions and biases. But states were warned long before primary season not to move up their dates, or risk losing their delegates. The rules were on the table. The question here deserves to be directed at the state of Florida, not at Pelosi or the DNC.

I'll say it again, and you can avoid it again, by continuing to assert the same nonsense about disenfranchisement. It's no secret that the GOP is rooting like mad for Hillary to win this nomination. That's why they're turning their guns on Obama, and that's why this kind of nonsense is popping up this week. The GOP wants those state delegates seated, because it's looking like it might be the only way, or the best way for her to get the nod.

Really, you've never had any interest in what the Democratic party has done, so why the interest now? Or haven't I already explained it?

 

[JimEverett]

You and JE do a adequate job of speaking to the facts and the issues on the surface. I have no disagreement on any points of fact. However, I haven't noticed either of you speak to whether or not there could be political fallout in a close race and what that fallout might be.

Political fallout when?

It won't have any effect come November. This is an inner-party process. People who vote in Democratic primaries are not going to turn around in droves and stay at home on election day, and certainly are not going to vote Republican.
Its already having some effect on the nomination process. Who knows what will happen come summer and at the convention.

One final thought...I cannot fathom Pelosi would make the same comments if instead of FL it was 9 million voters (441 delegates) from her state of CA voters who were disenfranchised.

To throw out a term like "disenfranchised" leads me to believe that you do not understand the primary system. There is a whole lot that can be said on that topic. I think its enough to say that there are a whole host of rules in a primary election that go way beyond the residency and registering to vote requirements in general elections.

 

[Pure Energy]

It's no secret that the GOP is rooting like mad for Hillary to win this nomination. That's why they're turning their guns on Obama, and that's why this kind of nonsense is popping up this week. The GOP wants those state delegates seated, because it's looking like it might be the only way, or the best way for her to get the nod.

Really, you've never had any interest in what the Democratic party has done, so why the interest now? Or haven't I already explained it?

I believe I've addressed the other points in your post so no need to beat a dead horse. These two, I haven't addressed.

1. I don't agree the GOP is rooting for either Hillary or Obama but rather a horse race and political tumult. I think most polls show McCain with almost the same margin against Obama or Clinton, although my personal take is McCain will fare better against Obama than Clinton in the General Election.
2. My interest is that I've been following the situation for a while and predicted that there could be fallout from the FL and MI situation prior to Super Tuesday. The interest in this potential debacle is two-fold: a) it's interesting to see what the political implications will be for the disenfranchisement of FL and MI and b) how the Party Leadership attempts to mop up the mess. Oh, what a political spectacle a brokered convention would be?!?!

Again, there's less theater if one of the candidates pulls away with a substantial lead and that would be a downer for those of us interested in a show.

To address your statement that my comment about disenfranchisement is nonsense (I don't understand how not having a right to be represented in a Democratic [voting] process isn't disenfranchisement) here's a website that just popped up related to this situation asking for support not only from FL Democrats but from Dems in other states as well (and before you ask, it's not my website and I had no hand in its creation).

Seat Florida Democratic Delegates

From their site:

As a Democrat, do I really need to have Republicans tell me that all votes do matter and be counted? And the Democratic 'leaders' to tell me and show me, through their actions, that they are meaningless. When discussing the importance of voting, Howard Dean, DNC Chair, has often said "You have the power to change the Democratic Party, the presidency and America." I guess he meant this for everyone except democratic Floridians!

 

[JimEverett]

I am at a complete loss as to what point you are trying to make, or if you are even attempting to make a point.
If it is simply that Florida and Michigan might rear their heads this summer then that is no doubt true. But I thought it was about some inconsistency in Pelosi - whch makes no sense whatsoever, or some idea that primaries are vehicles of the state and the people as opposed to the respective political parties - which is flat out wrong.

 

[Pure Energy]

To throw out a term like "disenfranchised" leads me to believe that you do not understand the primary system. There is a whole lot that can be said on that topic. I think its enough to say that there are a whole host of rules in a primary election that go way beyond the residency and registering to vote requirements in general elections.

Just so I'm clear...are you of the opinion the voters from the states of FL and MI were not disenfranchised from the Democratic nominating process? I'm of the opinion they were disenfranchised.

Let me explain why I believe these voters were disenfranchised. Although the term disenfranchise is thrown around very loosely nowadays to mean anyone separated from the decision making process or whose voice is not heard, here we have classic disenfranchisement because the States are not allowed to be represented (vote) in the Democratic nominating process. One could argue these cases (FL and MI) are egregious examples of disenfranchisement since the voters were allowed to cast their votes, the votes were tallied but not counted.

When I threw out that term, I meant it as fact not as opinion. However, I'm open to other interpretations.

 

[rob021275]

Just so I understand this correctly, how can the party that claims to be the voice of those who are frequently "disenfranchised" disenfranchise them?

/sarcasm off

 

[JimEverett]

I hate to sound like a broken record but some people seem incapable of understanding - a primary system is an inter-party process. It is not a process of the State, even in those states that help administer the process. You cannot be disenfranchised from something you never had a right in the first place. That is why you have caucuses, why you have selective rules about who can vote, why you have situations like in the Louisiana Republican Party which results in making the results of the primary election meaningless for the most part.

To say that Democratic primary voters in Florida were disenfranchised is like saying a banned member on SR had his free speech rights violated.

 

[Severum]

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.

The NJ GOP has totally discounted your vote unless you vote for the winner every primary. Republicans have thrown out millions of votes this year thanks to their WTA primaries.

 

[Pure Energy]

The NJ GOP has totally discounted your vote unless you vote for the winner every primary. Republicans have thrown out millions of votes this year thanks to their WTA primaries.

Couldn't that argument be extended to any vote in any election cast for a losing candidate or issue?