Sorry, I missed this.
There’s nothing I base this on except my fear, worry and nervousness that somehow the Democrats won’t take back the White House. Besides the fact that Obama working with Hillary (and vice versa) just ups the level of party unity, I want as many ducks lined up in a row as there can possibly be.
Intellectually, I see what you’re saying. Emotionally, I don’t want my heart broken (in two ways) again.
It is the right move but you know people will say it is easy for him to do that when he knows it doesn’t matter.
Personally I will not be comfortable till he officially has the nomination. I do not really think at this point HRC would try to pull a sneak attack at the convention but given how she has behaved to this point I cannot be sure.
On the upside I think Obama has moved ahead with a surety and command that would make it almost impossible to be undone at the convention (such as moving the DNC to Chicago).
I disagree. Now in 2012 there is no incentive for the states not to race each other again and disregard any rules that the DNC (or for that matter the RNC) sets down.
I’m sure there will be people who say that. We just need to remind them that it was never Obama’s call to make in the first place. That fell to the State Legislatures and the DNC Rules Committee. And even though they all recommended, and voted, to reinstate the delegates at only half value, Obama is magnanimously having them seated in full, now that he does actually have any sway.
I disagree. I don’t think there’ll be a State Legislature who will dare put their state’s delegates at risk again, hoping to have another magnanimous nominee. Not only that, their whole reason for doing so, was to have more of an influence over the results. The fact that they’re being seated only after-the-fact, defeats that goal entirely.
I agree if it is left as vague as it is now.
If the DNC is smart they should lay down definitive rules for breaking their policies. That way there is no “well New Hampshire moved their’s so why not us?”
Make the penalties set in stone and considerable. If some state undoes that they cannot claim losing their votes is anyone’s fault but their own as the rules were understood and agreed to well beforehand.
This isn’t the way politics works. If Obama actually does this (and how does he have the power to do it, anyway?) they’ll be racing like greyhounds. Once the precedent is set any future attempt to stop it will be fruitless.
Probably.
Unless the DNC nips this in the bud and sets definitive rules. Then no one can claim “unfair”.
Frankly the whole primary system needs a revamp IMO. Although I think part of the problem is the Republicans and the Democrats work together to have same-day primaries (makes sense) so a solution would need both parties getting on board and that is hard to imagine.
The real fix would be a Constitutional Amendment that set how/when primaries occur but pigs will fly before that happens I think.
This is not a Constitutional issue. It’s not even an “election” in the strictest sense of the word, it’s a party’s nominating process. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the parties can do it however they please.
And I know how politics works. Florida and Michigan had ZERO effect on the outcome, even seated with a full delegation. With the outrage expressed by the constituents, no legislature would risk the kind of backlash they’d set themselves up for if they tried to put their voters in this position again. Will. Never. Happen.