Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is there any compromise that can be reached on MI and FL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:31 PM
Original message
Is there any compromise that can be reached on MI and FL
To prevent this Nuclear Option from coming to fruition?

Hillary supporters are threatning to blow up the party if they aren't seated.

Obama supporters are threatning to blow up the party if they are.

Any options that would be acceptable to both sides?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. yeah, declare my candidate the winner
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Follow the rules and the agreements made by all the candidates
and don't seat anyone from Florida or Michigan.

Then, whoever reached the majority of delegates (super and pledged) is our nominee.

If the voters in those states wish to sit on their hands this fall and not vote for our candidate, remind them who is to blame for this mess (not us, the candidates or the DNC)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. There's no problem. Let Clinton spew the last of her spite. And then lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. New primaries in both states. Same rules/procedures as before.
Bill the cost to the respective state parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. The time for compromise was before....
...the primaries were held early. Florida and Michigan refused to compromise and held the primaries early anyway. All the candidates agreed that if they held the primaries early that the results shouldn't and wouldn't count.

There should be no compromise just because Clinton changed her mind and is now throwing a temper tantrum because not seating them means her losing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. No vote on the first ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. That's going somewhere
and their supers don't get a vote for screwing this up in the first place on any ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Agreed. If this thing isn't settled on the first ballot, all bets are off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDoorbellRang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. As an Obama supporter, I think this would be fair:
1) Seat the pledged delegates from both states with each vote counting 1/2. This was the minimum penalty in the rules.

2) Give the uncommitted delegates in MI to Obama. This would be fair because the ceiling of support for Clinton there is expressed in the votes she received.

3) The super delegates in BOTH states should receive no vote. They were the reason for the whole fiasco. By doing it this way, the DNC could point out to all the talking heads that they were honoring the votes of the people in both states, while punishing the people who caused the disruption in the first place -- the MI and FL SD's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aloha Spirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Not that a "fair" solution exists... but this is pretty close IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. No compromise. Count every vote.
Give Clinton the delegates she has earned and not one less. If Obama refuses that and he steals the nomination then he will have to live with the consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You take that position
we take ours than.

You win we stay home.

We win you stay home.

John McCain wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Obama followed the rules and wasn't on the Michigan ballot..
You think those votes should be counted? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Clinton wasn't the one who took his name off of the ballot.
Edited on Mon May-05-08 08:36 PM by bamalib
Obama did that. That was a bad judgment on his part. There was no rule saying the candidates should have their name off the ballot. Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel all had their names on the ballot and Kucinich actively campaigned there (all of the candidates should have followed his example). Count every vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aloha Spirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. This is tangential, but.. one solution to prevent this in 2012 already exists, I just read about it-
And the Democrats already have a provision promising states that agree to vote later in 2012 more delegates, proportionally, than states that vote early.

http://hprsite.squarespace.com/curing-the-primary-chao-042008/

PS I found this article because once a week, I google Prof. Kamarck to see what she's said. She's a local superdelegate who's on the R&BC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. They shouldn't be seated; they defied the rules.
Dean was right at the very beginning. Rules that are forced upon people are one thing, and disobeying them if they're imposed by force is an acceptable act in my view, but rules of an organization of which one is a willing member are to be obeyed.

It will forever taint whatever outcome results, but not for me. Childish selfishness like Michigan's and Florida's cannot be tolerated if any sort of civilized system is to be had.

People of those states have my sympathy, but their leaders were assholes of the first order and should suffer for their pigheadedness.

Hopefully this won't happen again, but if anything short of strict enforcement of the rules comes to pass, we seriously increase the possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC