• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Party seats Florida, Michigan delegations

A

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal

I am satisfied with this outcome. I'm sorry Hillary isn't. :roll:
 

I think if she were to illegitimately get the nomination you would see racial outrage that we haven't seen in 40 years.

If she takes this to convention and Obama loses, she will end her political career with the dem party. She would have to become a republican or join Lieberman in limbo.
 
aps said:
I am satisfied with this outcome. I'm sorry Hillary isn't. :roll:
Click to expand...


I am not sure how I felt about the Michigan delegates, but I definitely felt the FL delegates should have been seated in full. It was not the fault of the democrat voters of FL that they couldn't vote in a later primary (Republicans control the legislature and the legislature set the primary date).

If the Michigan democratic party controls its legislature and thereby the democrats set the primary date, then NONE of Michigan's delegates should have been seated, by rights. However a lucky leniency might have been afforded in order to win the state for the dems in the fall. This is what happened, IMO. Obama wasn't even on the ballot, due to this state's intransigence!!

However, Obama himself should have wanted to seat FL. I liked President Bush less for not wanting to count all Florida's votes in 2000, and to be consistent I have to like Obama less. He has lost some of my respect due to his inconsistent defense of democracy's principles.
 

Yes, but it wasn't a free and fair primary in Florida. Obama couldn't campaign there. It was a name recognition contest. I can't blame Obama for being ambivilent about it. That on top of voters being told that the election wouldn't count had to have an effect on the outcome.
 
Shocker: Black Man Agrees to Three/Sixths Compromise
 
OMG. That is funny. :rofl
 

Sorry, this doesn't cut it for me. Someone always has an advantage, some way. The most important thing in FL, above all other considerations, is that voters voted in good faith. The same voters had no control over when they got to vote.

Obama's instinct and conclusion should have been to count the vote there. I like him, I will vote for him in November, but he was wrong on this.
 
As compromises go, this was about as good as it was going to get. It did not effect the outcome of the nomination process, but does give evidence to Fla and MI voters that their votes at least got counted for what they where. Now, personally, I would have had all Fla and MI delegates vote in absentia, and seated no superdelegates from either state as a punishment for helping to create all this drama, but that would have required far more backbone than the DNC actually has.

If I understood what Carl Levin was saying(I had this on TV as I did some housework), he plans to keep fighting if all the delegates where not restored fully. Now, he had certain good arguments, some of which I did not know(there was supposed to be a state or 2 moved up between Iowa and NH, but NH moved it's day up in violation of rules if what levin said was accurate), but it still strikes me as less than a good idea to do this. Will be interesting to see if he carries through on this threat.

Lastly, this whole thing shows a real need for a complete re-examination of the primary process. Let's solve some of the problems, so that this crap does not come up again.
 
Dezaad said:
Obama's instinct and conclusion should have been to count the vote there. I like him, I will vote for him in November, but he was wrong on this.
Click to expand...

Obama followed the rules. To fault him for adhering to the rules and keeping the game fair is a bit of a cheap shot.
 
Hatuey said:
Obama followed the rules. To fault him for adhering to the rules and keeping the game fair is a bit of a cheap shot.
Click to expand...

So did Hillary. Why's she getting the short end of the stick?
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
So did Hillary. Why's she getting the short end of the stick?
Click to expand...

Why should she get any part of the stick? The states broke the rules. If they don't like it then it's too bad.
 
Hatuey said:
Why should she get any part of the stick? The states broke the rules. If they don't like it then it's too bad.
Click to expand...

So faulting Obama because he followed the rules is bad, but faulting Hillary because she followed the rules is okay? Hipocrisy at its finest.

The states broke the rules, they should be punished. Fine the top democrats in each state. Denounce them publicly. Force them to have later primary dates in later years. Don't affect the outcome of this CLOSE race because it's close. Now, don't quote me on this- but from what I've been told- Florida's date was set by Republicans. How is that Hillary's fault?
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
So faulting Obama because he followed the rules is bad, but faulting Hillary because she followed the rules is okay? Hipocrisy at its finest.
Click to expand...

Let's see here. If Hillary was indeed following the rules then she would agree that the states shouldn't have their votes counted. But she's advocated breaking the rules from the start. In other words she's supported the states who broke the rules. No hypocrisy. Thanks for trying.


Spoken like a Hillary supporter. Follow the rules until you're losing.
 

Okay. Punish the voters because the higher-ups moved the dates? Did the voters vote to move the dates? Spoken like a true Obama supporter. Screw the voters because Obama might not get theit votes.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Okay. Punish the voters because the higher-ups moved the dates?
Click to expand...

If the voters don't like it they can take it up with the 'higher-ups'. Let them explain to them why their votes don't count.

Did the voters vote to move the dates? Spoken like a true Obama supporter. Screw the voters because Obama might not get theit votes.
Click to expand...

So then you concede that Hillary is advocating breaking party rules?
 

Not neccessarily. Not counting the votes was the DNC shooting themselves in the foot, and hurting the democratic party. Telling the people of two states whose votes you need, or at least strongly want in November that they they are disenfranchised untill then is not a good thing to do. Even with the solution arrived at today, some harm was done, and the fundamental issue of primary timing was totally unresolved. Both candidates tried to get situations out of this to best serve themselves, and both followed the rules. Since it dragged out, and in the end will not effect the outcome, a compromise was actually pretty easy to reach.
 
Hatuey said:
If the voters don't like it they can take it up with the 'higher-ups'. Let them explain to them why their votes don't count.



So then you concede that Hillary is advocating breaking party rules?
Click to expand...

The second point first. As I understand it, the rules where to not move up primaries outside of certain windows. At least 3 states did so, and the rules commitee decided to punish 2 by stripping all of their votes(from what I can gather, it was originally suggested that they would lose half, the rules committe decided on full). The rules don't say 'no delegates', so therefore, Clinton did not advocate breaking party rules, she disagreed with the punishment for breaking the rules.

On your first point: This is actually something I am struggling with. Carl Levin has served our state, and for the most part well, since I was a kid. I have a tremendous respect for him. Should I vote against him because he ****ed up this one thing? Would some one else do as well as him on most things? If I was voting on just this one thing, you better believe I would vote against anyone involved in this fiasco. Unfortunatly, I have to weigh this against the other things done by these people.
 

It's not, but you're missing the point.

This isn't about punishing Hillary. It's not even about punishing Florida and Michigan. This was a compromise between Obama, Clinton and the DNC to seat both states and count their votes in some way that wouldn't destroy the party. Whether or not you agree with the original punishment, it was levied. Primaries were held in violation of the rules that resulted in most of the candidates not campaigning in either state and, at least in Michigan, most of the candidates removing their name from the ballot. These were not valid primaries. The outcomes WOULD HAVE been different, at least in terms of delegates, if voters had met the candidates, seen the advertising, heard about their issues, and, most importantly, GONE TO THE POLLS.

Even Clinton's surrogate from FL at the meeting, State Sen. Joyner, acknowledged that Florida's turnout of 1.75 mil would've been closer to 3 mil if the candidates had campaigned in the state and had voters known their vote would count. Michigan didn't even have the names of most of the top tier candidates on the ballot, which obviously effected turnout.

Whether or not the punishment was fair, whether or not you agreed with it, it effected the results of the primaries. It was a mess. Without what we saw today, a compromise, there was no way the mess was going to be cleaned up without tearing the party apart. If you don't count the votes and seat the delegates in some way, people in MI and FL would be upset- maybe enough to lose Dems the election. Clinton and supporters would be upset because they want to win and changing the rules helps them. If you count the votes as cast and seat all the delegates, Obama and supporters would be upset because he feels like he followed the rules and they're being changed after the fact. If awarding Hillary all those extra delegates had the effect of swinging the election for Hillary, Obama voters would stay home.

Seating half the delegates was the reasonable compromise and it's the only decision that could've been made that didn't risk losing the general election.
 
Curious George said:
Seating half the delegates was the reasonable compromise and it's the only decision that could've been made that didn't risk losing the general election.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Seating half the delegates seems like a reasonable/logical compromise, but doing so disenfranchises Hillary Clinton and her supporters. With a compromise, you want to do something that gives neither side an advantage- but with all of the last primaries, even a tie is a win for Obama. So seating half the delegates is advantageous to Obama. To be honest, I see no way for the Democratic party to recover from this. It's not like Clinton only has 10% of the Democratic vote. It's not like Obama has a squeaky clean history. It's not like Obama is the most honest candidate in the entire world. It'll be hard to unite behind Obama ESPECIALLY with this controversy. I'm not saying all is lost, but much is. Clinton supporters feel spurned and they may take their actions out during the GE by not voting.

Of course, I don't think the Republicans have it better with John McCain angering a lot of different republican groups. However, I do still believe that Hillary Clinton is a more electable candidate than Obama.
 

No, it doesn't. Understand, I am a Clinton support, and will have to hold my nose while I vote for Obama, but even I cannot reasonably think this disenfranchized us Clinton supporters. In Florida especially, where all the candidates where on the ballot(by the way, can some one explain why Obama took himself off the ballot in MI but not FLA?), they where all on an equal footing, and half votes works. In MI, it's harder, but since Obama getting no votes(which he probably did deserve for making a politically foolish move in removing himself from the ballot) was a no go, giving him roughly the number of delegates as he would probably have gotten is a working solution. The votes of the the people in each state ended up mattering, even if not mattering much. At this point in time, that is the best we can hope for.

Now don't get me wrong here. What happened, the process to get to this point, was messed up in such a huge way as to be unreal, and the state officials in MI(and to a lesser extent FLA), along with the DNC and the rules committee, should all be slapped around till they get a whole lot more sense. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen, and we have to play the hand we are dealt. Obama is going to win the nomination, fair and square. he did not cheat to win, the DNC did not cheat for him.
 
Hatuey said:
Obama followed the rules. To fault him for adhering to the rules and keeping the game fair is a bit of a cheap shot.
Click to expand...

As I've said, I like Obama and will vote for him in November. I have no desire to lower his stature. I will be contributing monetarily to his campaign when he has the nomination. I did not take a cheap shot.

But, all candidates should know that is not really about them. It is about the voters will. If they believe in democracy and plan to be servants to their constituents, then that will always be utmost in their minds. With that truly in mind, they will want to have the will of the voters carried out.

Both Hillary and Obama played by the rules. So did the Democratic voters of Florida, in so far as it was up to them. The voters of Florida were disenfranchised within the Democratic Party by a combination of Republican legislators, Democratic Party Rules, and Democratic Party Politics and not by anything they did. You're saying that Obama's having played by the rules trumps the voters will. I am saying it is the other way around, and that he should have recognized that.

Yes, I fault him for not saying "The will of the Florida voters was expressed in good faith by the people of that state. We should seat their delegates."

Oh, and don't think for a minute that I believe Hillary wanted their votes counted because she is a true believer. If the shoe were on the other foot, she'd be just as opposed as Obama, and he'd be playing the part of the defender of democracy.

I will let pass without comment many, many things Democrats and Republicans do to play the political game. But, not about their attitude toward Democracy. On that point I am ridid, even though I know I will nearly always be disappointed.
 

That's not necessarily true. With a compromise, you seek a win-win result. In this situation, since there are 4 parties, you're seeking a win-win-win-win result. The first party, the states, feel disenfranchised and want their votes to be recognized. The second party, the DNC, needs the support of the states in the general election while, at the same time, needs to send a loud and clear message that breaking party rules in the future will not be tolerated. The third party, Obama, needs the support of the states in the general election, needs the support of Clinton voters, but also needs to win the nomination. The fourth party, Clinton, wants to win and needs these primaries, which were terribly flawed and illegal, the results of which were absolutely in her favor due to a number of factors, to be counted so that she can imrove her argument to stay in this race.

There was no other way to satisfy all of the parties. Any other solution would have satisfied some but not all, and thus led to chaos. This is the best possible outcome for the party. I should also point out that it's the best outcome Hillary could've hoped to receive since, under DNC rules, the committee that met today did not even have the power to restore 100% of the delegate votes, as Hillary Clinton, and only Hillary Clinton, wanted (both states' appeals called for 50% votes, which they received).

Smoke[MaxX] said:
To be honest, I see no way for the Democratic party to recover from this.
Click to expand...

Actually, I disagree. I think the issue is resolved in the eyes of most Democrats. There are a small number of die hard Hillary people, the people who are never going to vote for Obama anyway, who will advocate taking this to the convention. If Hillary does that and manages to somehow win the nomination (never gonna happen), she'll lose the general. It won't even be close. If she goes to the convention and doesn't win, it's a 50/50 bet whether or not she has any kind of future in Democratic politics. If Obama loses, it'll be blamed on her and she won't get get a shot in 2012.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…