Collect em all!
Paint them pink!
Trade em with your friends!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Possibilities:
-
Nothing. Let them cast no votes at the convention, just as the DNC decided in the first place when both states’ legislatures moved up their primary dates in defiance of party rules.
-
Seat them, as proposed by HRC, who won both states’ we-know-this-doesn’t-count primaries.
-
Split the baby: Let Clinton and Obama divvy up the delegates 50-50, an idea discussed in this editorial.
-
Have a do-over primary or caucus in each state. Another idea discussed in the above editorial. This seems to me the fairest solution, but it raises the question of who would pay for it; not the state, you can be sure.
[/QUOTE]
Aren’t 1 and 3 exactly the same thing, in effect?
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Aren’t 1 and 3 exactly the same thing, in effect?
[/QUOTE]
With 3, the delegates get to pretend they’re participating in the process.
Normally, I say that those two states should live by the consequences. The rules were clear. They were told their delegates wouldn’t be counted and therefore they shouldn’t be counted.
However, in the unusual circumstances we have of two candidates that are still running close this late in the campaign, I’d be willing to accept do-over primaries (assuming it could be run in an impartial manner agreeable to both candidates). The state parties should pay for it; it was their mistake and they’re the ones that want to be counted. If they don’t want to pay for another primary, then we go back to the original plan and don’t count them.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Normally, I say that those two states should live by the consequences. The rules were clear. They were told their delegates wouldn’t be counted and therefore they shouldn’t be counted.
However, in the unusual circumstances we have of two candidates that are still running close this late in the campaign, I’d be willing to accept do-over primaries (assuming it could be run in an impartial manner agreeable to both candidates). The state parties should pay for it; it was their mistake and they’re the ones that want to be counted. If they don’t want to pay for another primary, then we go back to the original plan and don’t count them.
[/QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly.
The reality is that they will be seated and as is since this will not get a chance to go to the convention floor. Outside is soon after the last primary the supers will decide which way to go, the loser will concede, and the winner will ask that the delegations be seated as is. Faces saved all round.
Deciding in a way that influences the outcome of the nominating process without real primaries or caucuses that both candidates fairly competed in? Not going to happen.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The question is how to best shut Hillary up. 
I’m for the following:
- Penalizing each state 50% of its voting strength. Then, subject to that:
- Seating the FL delegation as voted on, and
- Seating a MI delegation evenly divided between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards supporters.
Why Edwards? Because Edwards was still an active candidate when the MI primary was held, and he figured to do pretty well there. No sense in penalizing his MI performance for events that happened subsequent to the MI primary.
[/QUOTE]
Screw that. I believe MI and FL were told what would happen if they went early, correct? They knew the consequence, they did it anyway.
My daughter is a year and a half old, and she’s starting to learn the idea of consequences - it’s about time organizations, businesses, and political parties start learning it as well.
-Joe
Here’s a Hail Mary plan for Hillary- after the June 3 primaries, concede to Obama. Obama magnaminously offers to seat the delegations of FL and MI. After their seating is made official, Hillary says “wait I minute, I retract my concession” and uses her newly-seated delegates to put her over the top.
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Screw that. I believe MI and FL were told what would happen if they went early, correct? They knew the consequence, they did it anyway.
My daughter is a year and a half old, and she’s starting to learn the idea of consequences - it’s about time organizations, businesses, and political parties start learning it as well.
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
Not only did they know the consequences, they mocked them on the Senate floor!
Watch Florida Senate Minority Leader Steven Geller thumb his nose at Howard Dean, pretending he was trying to block the primary move: here.
This makes me so angry I could spit. They’ve been lying to everyone for months, claiming they were the put-upon underdogs who were railroaded by the big ol’ mean Republicans. Now they dare to point the finger at Barack Obama, working their constituents up into a froth against him, making it much harder for him to win that state in the Fall. I wish every Florida voter could see this video. :mad:
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Screw that. I believe MI and FL were told what would happen if they went early, correct? They knew the consequence, they did it anyway.
My daughter is a year and a half old, and she’s starting to learn the idea of consequences - it’s about time organizations, businesses, and political parties start learning it as well.
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
Precisely. If this were someone’s child, friend, or employee we were talking about, most people on the SDMB would say, “Look you told him what the consequences of his actions would be. If you go back on that know, he’ll learn that actions don’t have consequences and he can do whatever he likes.” Florida and Michigan were told their primaries wouldn’t count, and the candidates were fully aware of that. I admit that some politicians in both parties appear to think the rules don’t apply to them, but I see no reason why we should add to that opinion by giving in to them.
[QUOTE=Siege]
Precisely. If this were someone’s child, friend, or employee we were talking about, most people on the SDMB would say, “Look you told him what the consequences of his actions would be. If you go back on that know, he’ll learn that actions don’t have consequences and he can do whatever he likes.” Florida and Michigan were told their primaries wouldn’t count, and the candidates were fully aware of that. I admit that some politicians in both parties appear to think the rules don’t apply to them, but I see no reason why we should add to that opinion by giving in to them.
[/QUOTE]
For me, it’s a question of what’s important.
Is defending the 100% sanction on FL and MI the most important thing, or is removing it as an excuse for Hillary to keep the party in turmoil more important? I go with the latter. And cutting the FL/MI representation by 50% is certainly a real sanction, so it’s not like that aspect’s being neglected.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I’m for the following:
-
Penalizing each state 50% of its voting strength. Then, subject to that:
-
Seating the FL delegation as voted on, and
-
Seating a MI delegation evenly divided between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards supporters.
[/QUOTE]
Let me modify #1: -
Penalizing each state 50% of its pledged delegate voting strength**, and giving no votes to their superdelegates**.
Can’t say that denying their superdelegates somehow stifles the will of the people.
ETA: It would also limit Hillary’s total gain from the FL/MI resolution to 19 delegates, which pretty much shuts the door on her.
I like the cut the pledged in half, no super delegate scheme. Florida delegates should be apportioned by the vote that took place, Michigan’s should go 1/2 to each remaining candidate.
For those that have trouble seeing Hillary’s logic regarding the Michigan vote, this video explains it quite well.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
For me, it’s a question of what’s important.
Is defending the 100% sanction on FL and MI the most important thing, or is removing it as an excuse for Hillary to keep the party in turmoil more important? I go with the latter. And cutting the FL/MI representation by 50% is certainly a real sanction, so it’s not like that aspect’s being neglected.
[/QUOTE]
That’s idiotic. Cutting them by 50% would be a real sanction - but not near what they were told the penalty would be.
They were told they wouldn’t be seated before they acted. The knew the consequences. They did it any way. Why is this so difficult?
Want to shut Hillary up? Maybe Dean could try the phrase, “Look sister, it ain’t happening. Period. No negotiation, no deals, no halfsies. You can whine and bitch until the Convention, and if Obama loses in November it will turn you into 2008’s Nader. And if you think that albatross around your neck will help you in 2012 you’re fucking dreaming.”
-Joe
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
For those that have trouble seeing Hillary’s logic regarding the Michigan vote, this video explains it quite well.
[/QUOTE]
OMG, I love this one!
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
That’s idiotic. Cutting them by 50% would be a real sanction - but not near what they were told the penalty would be.
They were told they wouldn’t be seated before they acted. The knew the consequences. They did it any way. Why is this so difficult?
Want to shut Hillary up? Maybe Dean could try the phrase, “Look sister, it ain’t happening. Period. No negotiation, no deals, no halfsies. You can whine and bitch until the Convention, and if Obama loses in November it will turn you into 2008’s Nader. And if you think that albatross around your neck will help you in 2012 you’re fucking dreaming.”
[/QUOTE]
Preach it, brother! Bravo!!!
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Want to shut Hillary up? Maybe Dean could try the phrase, “Look sister, it ain’t happening. Period. No negotiation, no deals, no halfsies. You can whine and bitch until the Convention, and if Obama loses in November it will turn you into 2008’s Nader. And if you think that albatross around your neck will help you in 2012 you’re fucking dreaming.”
[/QUOTE]
I agree with the sentiment, but any reason to believe it would actually shut her up on the issue?
Because that really is what I’d like to have happen.
As I’ve said here and elsewhere, I don’t think the Florida and Michigan delegates should be counted. Even though seating those delegates would help Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which I support. Why? Because I think that having whoever the nominee is win within the rules is more important than having “my” nominee win. I rather see Clinton lose honestly than slide in with a questionable victory.
And here’s the kicker; I feel the same way about Barack Obama. If he’s going to win (and he probably is) he needs to do it by the rules. And the rules are clear - you need 2024 delegates to be the nominee. Barack Obama doesn’t have that and neither does Hillary Clinton. Nobody has won the nomination yet and nobody should be told they have to quit and hand the nomination to their opponent.
Howard Dean threatening Clinton into quitting would be just as wrong as his deciding to seat her delegates from Florida and Michigan. Dean’s job is to establish a fair set of rules, make sure both candidates play by the rules, and then wait for the results. He’s not supposed to decide who he wants to win and then hand them the nomination.
I’m an Obama supporter, but agree completely with Little Nemo. Florida and Michigan knew the rules when they decided to jump the gun. They gambled that there would be a winner before the convention, and they bet wrong. Tough luck folks.
I think it’s more important to keep the primaries from moving even more forward than they are.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Howard Dean threatening Clinton into quitting would be just as wrong as his deciding to seat her delegates from Florida and Michigan. Dean’s job is to establish a fair set of rules, make sure both candidates play by the rules, and then wait for the results. He’s not supposed to decide who he wants to win and then hand them the nomination.
[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that? All I said was that the rules are the rules, and since, within those rules, Hillary is pretty much sunk, she needs to just accept it, and Dean is one of those who might actually be able to get through to her.
-Joe
Really? Suppose Dean decided that Clinton was more “electable” and she was a better candidate. Suppose he then pulled Obama aside and told him he should withdraw for the good of the party and that if he didn’t the party would sabotage his campaign and any future campaigns he ran. Would you be as calmly accepting of Dean’s intervention then?
It seems a lot of Obama supporters don’t want to admit that while Obama is winning he hasn’t won. Obviously they realize this; they wouldn’t be so anxious to have Clinton quit if she didn’t still have at least a small chance of being nominated. Nobody in the McCain camp is putting this kind of pressure on Ron Paul. The irony is that the same people who are accusing Clinton of being desperate to win and not playing by the rules are themselves trying to play around the rules in their desperation to win. To his credit, Barack Obama himself hasn’t been playing this game.