Can Obama secure the nomination WITHOUT settling FL.& MI.?

[cleveramerican]

Sure its huge opportunity for him to lead and come up with the magic solution that will please everyone.
Its also huge opportunity for Hillary Clinton to do the same.
But what if the rules committee arrives at a solution less than favorable to him?
Could he simply ignore the rules committee finding, and still get the nomination?


Do any brave souls care to predict how the issue of MI and FL will turn out?
And does it even matter?

[sellitman]

1. It was settled when they started out.

Remember?

BOTH candidates agreed.

Hillary and her minions like cheating to win.

[book_worm]

2. It will be settled--and Obama will be the nominee.

[gristy]

3. They are settled.

Clinton and her minions are trying to distort the issue to her advantage, but that's just (her) politics.

[cleveramerican]

4. Do you think the DNC rules committee is her "minions"?

[sandnsea]

5. some are, some aren't n/t

[gristy]

6. you first

Why do you ask?

[cleveramerican]

9. She will damge herself irrevockably if she is seen as.....

trying to steal the nomination, through the rules committee.

perhaps that ship has already sailed.

Perhaps she's staying true to form,
"win first apologize later"

[lisa58]

7. It's going to be settled...

...the Rules Committee will settle this, as is their responsibility (not the candidates) and the delegates will be seated.

[gristy]

10. wanna bet?

[lisa58]

12. If it's not settled at the meeting...

...the superdelegates will come out for Obama after the June 3rd primaries and Hillary will not have the support she needs to continue (money or otherwise) and the MI and FL delegates will be seated the way the rules committee wants.

[rock]

8. Yes

In fact he stands the better chance if FL and MI are not counted.

[DemGa]

11. Hillary should get her MI votes - BO should get none there

because he took his name off the ballot. Fla. should be seated as is.

There also could be overall some sanction on the percentage of delegates allocated in both states.

[jaxx]

14. The rules established before the first Iowa vote should not be changed

to accomodate Hillary Clinton's ego. This is madness to rewrite the rules now and only shows a complete disdain for the rest of us, who's states went along with the rules.

I live in Illinois. If MI and FL can change the rules, I want double the amount of delegates we were supposed to have back in January.

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

Apply that to any change of rules in mid-progress.

[DemGa]

16. There are possible sanctions for breaking the rules,

as I've read it. Are the votes to count for nothing? Where is this rule?

[jaxx]

Go read the original sanctions.

Nothing has changed since then except the Clinton camp can't accept that she has lost. All the rest is bs based on whine.

If HRC really had any problem with MI and FL back then, she should have opened her mouth when it counted. She chose not to. Nuff said.

[DemGa]

25. I have read them

And it's not important whether or not Clinton "had any problem" with it, or opinions of her views - it's about the voters.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/sanctions.html

[jaxx]

26. Today it is to HRC. Yesterday it wasn't.

I call that speaking with a forked tongue.

[gristy]

20. doh!

How could he have been so stoooopid to have taken his name off the ballot in MI?
:sarcasm:

[DemGa]

23. It was a calculated move - not a requirement

[gristy]

29. Ah, yes. Calculated to show he understood established rules & procedure

and how to follow them for the benefit of the party. What calculation are you referring to?

[DemGa]

38. What "established rules & procedure" are you speaking about?

Maybe I have missed this rule, please elaborate.

[gristy]

40. The one that said only IA, NH, NV, and SC Dem primaries could be held prior to Feb 5.

Surprised you missed it, or perhaps you are simply being disingenuous. The penalty placed on MI and FL is part of that rule.

[DemGa]

44. Then perhaps you know: How is the penalty determined?

Where is the rule that states this penalty? What is the wording?

I'm trying to determine the method by which the level of sanctions are applied.

[gristy]

46. Here's an article on when and why the FL penalty was made

Way back in Aug 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews

DNC Strips Florida Of 2008 Delegates
No Convention Slots Unless Later Primary Is Set

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 26, 2007; Page A01

The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling nominating process yesterday, rejecting pleas from state party leaders and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary.

The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted yesterday morning to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal.

The penalty will not take effect for 30 days, and rules committee members urged officials from the nation's fourth-most-populous state to use the time to schedule a later statewide caucus and thus regain its delegates.

Found some rule highlights on the DNC web site: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php

And I found the DNC's delegate selection rules, in all their glory: www.democrats.org/page/-/dem_convention/rules.pdf
Page 12 gives the rule and page 20 the penalty for violation.

[DemVet]

21. I agree.

[lisa58]

27. Neither MI nor FL were fair elections

[skipos]

52. This MI voters says DONT YOU & HILLARY TRY TO TRICK ME!

MI was told that our vote would not go towards delegates. Even flip flopping Hillary said our election wouldn't "count for anything." Many of us stayed home instead of wasting our time on this faux vote.

So now you and Hillary want to say "Surprise! We fooled you! These votes are going to count for delegates!"

You and Hillary disgust me.

[suston96]

13. It's not up to the candidates or the DNC or anyone else......

It's up to the Democratic Party Charter:

All members of the Democratic Party are guaranteed full and equal participation in the nominating process.

Charter dogma is not the plaything of either candidates or the DNC or of the state party hacks.

[gristy]

28. That is not correct. Not by a long shot.

The charter states that the the Democratic Party will "Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates, ... and further, to promote fair campaign practices and the fair adjudication of disputes." (Charter, Article I, Section 4)

[suston96]

31. Sorry, but what you posted is exactly what the Charter says and means.....

...and what the US Constitution says about equal treatment under the law and what this republic means when it must include ALL citizens without exception in the process of their own self-governance.

Equality in the election process cannot be undermined by special election rules that eliminate entire states - over 5 million voters (inluding Republicans) from that process.

I would expect these voting rights abridgment and denial crap from the Republican Party but not from the Democrats.

Shame!

[gristy]

32. You are mixing the rules governing the GE, for which the constitution plays a part,

with those governing how the Democratic Party selects their candidate for the GE, for which the constitution plays no part.

And yes, I agree with you that I did post what the Charter says. You did not.

[suston96]

33. I am not mixing anything. Courts have intervened in primaries because they deal with equal voting..

....rights for all.

There was a Texas White Primary that was trashed by the courts when Texas tried to keep blacks from voting in the primaries.

Another case where courts intervened in Texas also tried to make the primary election candidate filing fees so high so that only wealthy people could participate.

Primary elections for the constitutional offices of President, Vice-President, and the US Congress are subject to ALL election dogma whether that dogma is resident in the national party charters or in the federal and state constitutions and their respective laws.

The right to vote in any election is universally protected. It must be or this republic will die.

[gristy]

36. This subthread started with your incorrect interpretation of the Democratic Party Charter,

and then without resolution you moved on to the incorrect invocation of the constitution as protecting Democratic primary voters in MI and FL after their state party hacks broke party rules, and after candidates agreed to not campaign in those states, allow their names on the ballot in MI (Clinton and Gravel excepted), and recognized and agreed to the party's established rules that their delegates would not count, and now you have moved on to race-based voter suppression and economic-status candidate suppression in Texas primaries.

I'm gettin' dizzy!

[suston96]

39. Your dizziness is surely due to your defending the trashing of the voting rights ......

....of over 5 million Michigan and Florida voters.

Primary elections are under the protection of all constitutional and voting rights codes.

The party "established rules" that violate the Party Charters are illegal and thus also violative of that constitutional protection.

[gristy]

41. Please provide us with the constitutional clause and clarifying court case

I particularly look forward to seeing you try to argue that the 14th amendment applies in this case.

[suston96]

43. Presidential election primaries have to provide equal access for all voters and in every state.

For example, could the DNC rule that to simplify matters, 36 states would be chosen by lot and only those 36 states would select the nominee?

Or could the DNC decide that only candidates with college degrees in political science could be candidates for President, Vice President, and Congress.

None of that stuff is in the Constitution but I doubt the DNC can do those things.

I already posted about the Texas White Primary and the court decision on that.

The Fourteenth Amendment has a wide enough penumbra so that the matter of all states equally including all their citizens in all primary elections as mandated by the Democratic Party Charter would certainly be protected thereby.

[gristy]

48. comments below

For example, could the DNC rule that to simplify matters, 36 states would be chosen by lot and only those 36 states would select the nominee?
I suspect they could if they wanted. In the last couple days we learned that in 1968 only 14 states held primaries. Was there a court case that forced the party to expand it to 50 states? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Or could the DNC decide that only candidates with college degrees in political science could be candidates for President, Vice President, and Congress.
If they wanted to they could. But I'm sure they understand that it would not be in their best interest to do so.

None of that stuff is in the Constitution but I doubt the DNC can do those things.
It certainly wouldn't be against the law, but again, it would not be in their best interest.

I already posted about the Texas White Primary and the court decision on that.
OK

The Fourteenth Amendment has a wide enough penumbra so that the matter of all states equally including all their citizens in all primary elections as mandated by the Democratic Party Charter would certainly be protected thereby.
Many states don't allow Republicans (they are citizens too! :)) to vote in the Dem primary. Should we argue that those voters are being disenfranchised? Of course not. I'm certainly no legal eagle, but I just don't see a "state" or all the voters in a state being a protected class under the 14 amendment.

[suston96]

49. The Fourteenth Amendment happens to be first time the phrase "right to vote".....

....is used in the Constitution. Matter of fact, read Sec. 2 of the Fourteenth.

Section 2

....... But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged....

Get that? "...at ANY election..." and "...in ANY WAY abridged...."

Voters must and ought to be the most "protected class" ever.

The very foundation of the republic rests on the unabridged and undeniable right of the citizens to exercise their elections - any and all elections and especially those elections having to do with constitutional offices.

[gristy]

50. A primary is not an election for the choice of electors for any of those offices.

It is an election whereby a party collectively chooses their representative to run for that office.

[suston96]

53. "A primary is not an election ....." Yes it is...it is the beginning of the process.

Can a state say that only white people can vote in the primary? No, it cannot. Texas tried and the courts stepped in. That's called precedent. There are more.

When a political party decides that its members - ALL its members - will individually vote to select the party's nominee then the election mechanisms - all of them, including all voting rights protections - become integral parts of the election process.

[gristy]

54. Your apparent belief that the Democratic Party's goal of inclusive participation

overrides all other goals is mistaken. The rules make this clear.

Regarding the Texas primary issues that you've brought up for a 2nd time, I agree that non-whites are a protected class under the 14th amendment. This fact does not mean that a given state's voters are also a protected class. I understand that you wish it does, but it doesn't.

[suston96]

56. The basic Democratic Party Charter IS ALL inclusive. The DNC "rules" violate that total inclusion.

Voters are and ought to be the most protected class in the nation. Check the voting rights amendments in the federal and state constitutions and in all the federal and state codes.

It has taken years to solidify that protection so the prevailing dismissive attitudes regarding voter protection just don't fly.

[Skip Intro]

15. If they aren't seated, this will go to the convention. If they still aren't seated, we have lost the

GE.

[jaxx]

17. I'm sick of being threatened.

If If If.

[Skip Intro]

19. Sheesh. No threat, jaxx. Chill. This is a political reality.

Hillary will take it to the convention if Florida and Michigan aren't seated.

If they are not seated, the party is clearly telling Democratic voters in both states, who come out in record numbers to vote, that their voices and their votes are worthless, basically telling them to get lost. Why the hell would they show up in November to support a party that kicked them in the teeth a few monhts prior? We tell those voters their votes don't count now, they won't show up for us in November, and I wouldn't blame them.

Not threats, reality.

[jaxx]

22. Hillary isn't doing this for MI and FL

she's doing it for herself. Why is agreeing to rules and then deciding she doesn't want to so acceptable?

[DemVet]

24. Sick of being "threatened?" How are you "threatened?"

Give me a f*****g break.

[MichiganVote]

18. The Mi. and Fl. delegates will get the cheap seats?

[OzarkDem]

30. The question is - can Dems win the GE without MI & FL

the answer is NO.

And Obama's "shut up and vote" message won't resonate well with these voters, either.

[gristy]

37. When did Obama say "shut up and vote"?

I must have missed that. Oh, and I'm wondering who is your preferred candidate for the dem nomination? And who is your preferred candidate for the GE, just in case it's different...

This big deal about supposedly protecting voters' rights wouldn't have something to do with gaining unfair advantage for your candidate, now would it? What are you proposing be done for the voters in the other 48 states, should the delegate totals somehow be unfairly and inaccurately added to by MI and FL?

[Gore1FL]

34. He'd secure it at thsi point with or without them

Short of Giving Hillary all of MI, he would still maintain a massive delegate lead.

[reflection]

35. Yes. n/t

[Vinca]

42. Yes and she needs to stop with the popular vote meme.

If you can't accurately count the popular vote in caucus states, there is no way in hell she can win it, even after throwing in all of Florida and Michigan.

[On the Road]

45. He Can WIn the Nomination, Obviously

the bigger question is whether it affects his chances of winning in November. For this reason, I think Obama should be as magnanimous as possible toward both states.

[VotesForWomen]

47. maybe, but he sure as heck won't win the GE. O-ists don't care about that, though.

[DogPoundPup]

51. Nothing reveals the Clintons' lack of principle so clearly

Nothing reveals more clearly how utterly unprincipled the Clintons are than their assertion that rules set by the Democratic Party's Rules Committee, and endorsed by all Clinton representatives on this Committee, now should be abandoned. Nothing reveals more clearly that the only rules the Clintons follow are rules which favor them. Nothing reveals how exaggerated their claims are than Hillary's recent comparison of the votes in Michigan and Florida to the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe and the 2000 election in Florida.

The outlines of this story are simple and straight-forward: Two states, Michigan and Florida, sought to advance their Democratic primary elections ahead of other states in order to increase their influence in the primary process. If they had been allowed to do so, Democratic parties in other states could have done the same, it would have become a frantic, disorganized race to be the first, or among the first, state primaries, and the primary season could have been extended substantially. The Democratic Rules Committee reviewed this, understood that chaos would ensue if every state party could advance their presidential primaries unilaterally, and ruled that if Michigan and Florida advanced their primaries, the votes would not count in the delegate race.

Hillary Clinton had 15 representatives on the 30-member Rules Committee and every single one of Clinton's representatives supported this Rules Committee decision, which passed unanimously; Democratic parties in 48 states followed the rule, but Michigan and Florida chose not to.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/86359

See how THE FACTS are printed ALL OVER the web. Facts beat phony baloney every time.

[Johnny__Motown]

55. I think both compromise solutions suggested by each state are accepted, and the outcome is the same

That way we can say that we gave MI and FL exactly what they asked for. Even with these solutions Sen. Obama's lead is insurmountable

[cleveramerican]

57. it could be an opportunity for a show of unity among democrats.

I do wish Hillary and Obama will publicly embrace whatever solution is worked out.
It could be such a healing moment.
If handled well.