Should Florida & Michigan count?

[Onceler]

Make no mistake: Hillary's campaign is going to fight tooth & nail for these delegations to be seated. I have little doubt that Obama's would, too, if it would benefit them.

This should not happen, as things stand. It was stupid of the DNC to punish both states in this way, but that's what they did, and the candidates were supposed to abide by those rules. No campaigns were run in those states, and many voters did not go to the polls because they didn't think their vote would count.

The ONLY way they should be seated is if real contests are run in those states, which is still a possibility. To seat them as is would be a crime.

 

[evince]

Agreed.

I do think its unfair to assume Obama would sugest what you think though.

 

[Onceler]

Agreed.

I do think its unfair to assume Obama would sugest what you think though.

I could be wrong. Certainly, Obama is like no other politician I have seen in my lifetime, and has run a very classy campaign for the most part.

Still, when push comes to shove in politics, it generally doesn't matter how "high road" of a person you are; most campaigns will spin it any way they have to in order to come out on top...

 

[Damocles]

Don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

[Epicurus]

To seat them would be to unfairly hand this election to Hillary, and disappoint millions of Democrats who would justifiably see the election as stolen by changing the rules.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Then only way to seat them is to hold a caucus and allow the people a voice as to who they want now. Many may not have voted in the primary because they thought it wouldn't matter given the lack of delegates. THAT and the fact that you cannot change the rules in the middle.

 

[Little-Acorn]

To seat them would be to unfairly hand this election to Hillary,

...which is exactly the reason why she will fight to make it happen. She couldn't care less about the morality or ethics of the move. Gaining power supersedes all to her.

and disappoint millions of Democrats who would justifiably see the election as stolen by changing the rules.

Haw. Clintonistas only protest "stolen elections" when they can pretend it wasn't them doing the stealing. See "Floriduh 2000".

What the Democrat party sowed by promoting the Clintons in the 90s, they are now about to reap. It looks like Hillary and Obama will be pretty close in delegate counts when they get to the convention, assuming Hillary wins Texas and Ohio by less-than-overwhelming margins. If they are close, I predict two major offensives by the Clinton Machine: (1) An all-out effort to get courts to declare the Florida and Michigan delegates seated, after Hillary's oppponents took their names off both ballots in good faith while she did not; and (2) Massive campaigns to get the "superdelegates" to vote differently from how their constituencies voted.

Both of these goals of Hillary's, will be seen universally (and correctly) as attempts to overturn the legitimate result of the various primary elections after agreeing to the original rules. It will be strikingly similar to the Clintonistas' attempts to do the same thing by changing the Floriduh legislature's established rules for certifying that state's general election in 2000 after the voting had taken place. The character (or lack thereof) of these charlatans has not changed over the years, nor will it. We elect such people at our peril.

The damage done to the Democrat party will not soon be repaired - an unintended consequence that I suppose we shoud actually thank Hillary for. But worse, will be the loss of confidence in the American election system, abused by Hillary's coming backroom machinations. It's shaky enough after the 2000 Floriduh fiasco, where it took a 7-2 verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court to slap the Democrats down and reprimand them for their attempted constitutional violation, trying to get the Florida courts to rewrite the rules after the election rather than obeying clear laws laid down by the state's legislature. What Hillary will try to do at the convention, will even more grossly violate ethical mores... not that she cares a hoot about that. Power is all, to this woman.

and disappoint millions of Democrats who would justifiably see the election as stolen by changing the rules.

Consider that these same Democrats went happily along with the Clintonistas' Floriduh-2000 travesties, as well as turning a blind eye to the Clintons' attempts to destroy their political opponents and the women Bill had sexually abused. Can you imagine what it would take to "disappoint" these Democrats? Yet we may see it happen in August in Denver.

We should have been more careful what we wished for in 2000. Now we are getting exactly the government we deserve.

 

[Onceler]

The comparison between this issue & the 2000 election is insanely stupid.

 

[Timshel]

Don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Geez, quit whining. You should involve yourself in changing the rules in the middle of the game or be quiet.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The comparison between this issue & the 2000 election is insanely stupid.

I pointd out that the tactics employed, and the goals sought, are the same... as are the perpetrators involved.

Putting those perpetrators in a position to try it twice, is what's "insanely stupid".

I guess the only consolation, is that it's only the Democrat party that will take most of the damage this time.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Make no mistake: Hillary's campaign is going to fight tooth & nail for these delegations to be seated. I have little doubt that Obama's would, too, if it would benefit them.

This should not happen, as things stand. It was stupid of the DNC to punish both states in this way, but that's what they did, and the candidates were supposed to abide by those rules. No campaigns were run in those states, and many voters did not go to the polls because they didn't think their vote would count.

The ONLY way they should be seated is if real contests are run in those states, which is still a possibility. To seat them as is would be a crime.

No.

 

[Damocles]

Geez, quit whining. You should involve yourself in changing the rules in the middle of the game or be quiet.

It is not a whine to suggest no action, it is in fact a solution and an action. You are disingenuous.

 

[Onceler]

I pointd out that the tactics employed, and the goals sought, are the same... as are the perpetrators involved.

Putting those perpetrators in a position to try it twice, is what's "insanely stupid".

I guess the only consolation, is that it's only the Democrat party that will take most of the damage this time.

The Democrat Party, along with most Americans, took most of the damage last time, as well.

The situations are not at all comparable. In this situation, the rules were established that FL & MI would not count. The rules in 2000 were that Florida was within the margin allowable for calling for a recount. Gore's mistake, which I will not defend, was not calling for a full, statewide recount under FL law.

Trying to compare the situations is just desperate partisanship, however....

 

[blackascoal]

They will not be seated without another election or caucus.

Changing the rules at this late stage of the game would peril the Democratic Party, give McCain an explosion off an issue to campaign on, and quite possibly, lose democratic seats in the House and Senate.

The Democratic Party is stupid .. but not that stupid.

 

[Timshel]

It is not a whine to suggest no action, it is in fact a solution and an action. You are disingenuous.

Hey, if you are not willing to participate in changing the rules in the middle of the game then you have no reason to complain. "Participating is evil" arguments are just silly.

 

[Socrtease]

It's like an umpire saying in the 5th inning that now you have to throw four strikes to get someone out and only 3 balls will be a walk. The rules were made to make it clear to the state delegations that they can hold the election anytime they like BUT if they do it contrary to the NATIONAL party's rules then they don't get to be seated and their delegates don't count. I admit freely I am pulling for Obama but if the shoe was on the other foot I would still say Florida and Michigan should not count, and so would Hillary.

 

[Battleborne]

What you people fail to see.............

unlike Huckabee...is that our system was set up to go to 'Convention' when any one party candidate failed to meet the required electortate votes needed...this shortcut philosophy is... once again meeting head on... the process that should be left to make the final decision, as it should be...enough said eh?

 

[Bonestorm]

The Democrat Party, along with most Americans, took most of the damage last time, as well.

The situations are not at all comparable. In this situation, the rules were established that FL & MI would not count. The rules in 2000 were that Florida was within the margin allowable for calling for a recount. Gore's mistake, which I will not defend, was not calling for a full, statewide recount under FL law.

Trying to compare the situations is just desperate partisanship, however....

The funny thing is that Bush ran into court first to stop the recount form happening.

 

[Damocles]

Hey, if you are not willing to participate in changing the rules in the middle of the game then you have no reason to complain. "Participating is evil" arguments are just silly.

If I am willing to take action to stop others from changing the rules in the middle of the game I am taking action.

You again are disingenuous. And the "Participating in evil" crap was yours, dorkboy. I pointed out how dumb that argument was in "whining is enough because others will do something" argument.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Democrat Party, along with most Americans, took most of the damage last time, as well.

True. You'd think they'd have learned better by now. However, I predict we will find they have not, when this years' Democrat convention rolls around.

The situations are not at all comparable.

In fact, they are closely analagous, in intent, setup and in execution.

In this situation, the rules were established that FL & MI would not count.

Correct. A rule I predict Hillary will now move heaven and earth to change after the fact.

The rules in 2000 were that Florida was within the margin allowable for calling for a recount.

It's not wise to try to make a point by carefully ignoring half the rules. In fact, it's rapidly becoming a Hillary-esque tactic.

The operative rule, as laid down by the Floriduh legislature long before the election, was that the state would certify the results of the election one week after voting was finished. The U.S. Constitution requires that elections in each state be run according to rules laid down by that state's legislature. Gore's mistake (aside from trying to overturn the results at all) was in trying to get the Floriduh COURTS to come up with new election rules, and doing it after the voting had already taken place. That was what the 7-2 margin of the USSC slapped him down for.

Here, I predict that Hillary will employ exactly the same tactics: trying to get the courts to overturn rules on the Michigan and Florida elections after the voting has taken place. The Constitution makes no rules about primary party elections such as these. But the Clintons' constant attempts to change the rules of elections after they are over, after agreeing to those rules up until election day, is a theme we will see repeated any time the Clintons think they can gain some advantage, as long as they do not actually wind up in jail due to their attempts.

Trying to compare the situations is just desperate partisanship, however....

Trying to ignore the obvious similarities is desperate partisanship. It's not as if we couldn't predict what Clinton-administration people will do when they are desperate, after decades of scurrilous and distasteful evidence they have freely given us.