Florida and Michigan will vote in the GE

[OzarkDem]

and their electoral votes are essential wins for Dems.

For the Dem Party to continue to pretend they don't exist or that their votes don't count is political suicide.

[anonymous171]

1. Should've told that to Hillary when she agreed to their disenfranchisment.

[sueragingroz]

11. She had nothing to do with their disenfranchisement

In Florida - it was the decision of the REPUBLICAN state gov't.

In Michigan it was the decision of the state party.

All Hillary (and the other candidates) agreed to was not to campaign. That was an agreement that they made among one another that had nothing to do with the disenfranchisement decision.

She has been arguing to have them sat for ages. Don't say that she participated in their disenfranchisement because that is simply incorrect.

[anonymous171]

12. She only started arguing for them after they both went to her.

Don't kid yourself. She doesn't fight for anyone's right unless she has something to gain from it.

[joesmo2008]

35. Not true. She argued for Florida pre-primary....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008#Delegate_controversy

[AJH032]

23. what are you talking about?

Hillary did not "agree" to their disenfranchisement. Are you insane?

[anonymous171]

27. She signed the pledge. She agreed not to campaign there.

[AJH032]

30. As did your candidate

At least Hillary did not block Michigan voters from even having the choice of voting for her.

[anonymous171]

31. Nice spin nice spin.

[AJH032]

33. It's not spin actually

By your definition, both of them disenfranchised Michigan. You are the one spinning by only blaming Clinton and not your candidate of choice.

[anonymous171]

34. The states disenfranchised themselves. No candidate did.

Hillary's spin is ridiculous.

[AJH032]

37. Is that a serious response?

"Should've told that to Hillary when she agreed to their disenfranchisment."

-anonymous171

"The states disenfranchised themselves. No candidate did. "

-anonymous171

[anonymous171]

38. She "agreed" to their disenfranchisment. I did not say she disenfranchised them herself.

[Joe the Revelator]

2. They knew the rules and choose to ignore them

Democrats will still vote for democrats in the GE

[DrDan]

14. that is true . . . I am a democrat and will

vote for a democrat .. .

however - it will probably not be one selected or endorsed by the Democratic party . . . .

[ProSense]

3. Should have told that to the lousy former DNC chair, now working for Hillary

Terry McAwful.

[OzarkDem]

26. More hot air?

or have you got some thing to back that up with?

[ProSense]

44. Hot air?

The timing of presidential primaries and caucuses has been debated within the Democratic Party for nearly thirty years. The full history of this debate is set out in the report of the Price-Herman Commission, which we submit together with this testimony.

The developments giving rise to the 2008 rules on timing began in the 2000 election cycle. The DNC’s rules for 2000—as for 1992 and 1996—provided that no state could hold any primary or caucus prior to the first Tuesday in March (March 7, 2000), except that Iowa could hold its caucuses on February 21, 2000 and New Hampshire could hold its primary on February 29, 2000.

The RNC established its own rule on timing, for the first time, for the 2000 cycle. The RNC rules provided that no state could hold a primary or caucus before the first Tuesday of February (February 1, 2000). No exception was made for Iowa, New Hampshire or any other state.

As a result of the Republican rule, five states (Arizona, Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Washington) scheduled state-run primaries or party-run caucuses in February. The Democratic Parties in those states asked the DNC for permission to hold their events on the same date as their state Republican counterparts. That permission was denied, and as a result, during the five week period from the New Hampshire primary until the opening of the DNC window on March 7,2000, there were primaries and caucuses on the Republican side in those states with no corresponding Democratic event. This put the Democratic state parties at a disadvantage, not only because media attention focused solely on the Republican events but also because the state Democratic parties had to pay for and run separate events held on or after March 7, 2000 whereas their state Republican counterparts could participate in taxpayer funded primaries in February 2000. Additionally, voter turnout was reduced as voters were confused by the separate events held on different dates.

To address that problem, in 2001, then-DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe asked the DNC to adopt rules that would move the beginning of the DNC “window” to the same date as that fixed by the RNC, that is, the first Tuesday in February. The DNC adopted that position and the DNC’s rules for 2004 provided that all states could hold their events on or after the first Tuesday in February (February 3, 2004), with the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire.

After the DNC Delegate Selection Rules for 2004 had been adopted, party leaders from Michigan objected to the exceptions for Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Michigan State Party threatened to submit a delegate selection plan scheduling Michigan’s presidential preference event for the same day as the New Hampshire primary. Ultimately, following discussions DNC Written between the DNC and Michigan party leaders and elected officials, the Michigan Democratic Party agreed to hold its 2004 contest inside the “window,” and the DNC agreed to form a commission to review the rules and make recommendations with respect to the 2008 calendar. Then DNC-Chair McAuliffe, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Michigan DNC member Debbie Dingell co-sponsored a resolution adopted by the 2004 Democratic National Convention establishing this Commission.

Chairman McAuliffe selected members of the Commission and appointed as its co-chairs, Secretary Herman and Congressman Price.

PDF

[youknowmenotdlc]

4. I believe that you are talking about

a whole other new campaign.

One that Obama will approach as vigorously as this one.

Just remember to vote Democratic during this time.

[MADem]

5. Yeah--for McCain, if the Democratic Party tells them to go fuck themselves.

The idea that the ill-advised acts of a few hundred politicians can fuck over millions of voters is the OPPOSITE of democracy.

[yourguide]

6. and for the FL state leaders

to vote for their own fate is also political suicide.


hopefully the voters in FL will take care of that come next election.

[wileedog]

7. Guess we can blame FL again

for being completely retarded at this whole 'election' thing.

Seriously, I know Florida might, but would Dems in Michigan REALLY vote for homicidal nut job Republican to take over the White House and extend the war another century just to "stick it" to Howard Dean of all people?

*edit* I'm being facetious floridians, before anyone tears my head off :)

[DrDan]

15. no . . . but a vote for a democrat does not necessarily mean a vote

for the party nominee . . .

[JimGinPA]

8. MI Will Vote For Obama And FL Will Vote McSame

:shrug:

[OzarkDem]

28. in that scenario Dems lose the GE

Dems have to win both states to win the GE.

[JimGinPA]

39. Only If HRC Were the Nominee (Which She Won't) And She Couldn't Win Fl Either

Which is exacly why she shouldn't be the nominee. Obama can win many states that HRC can't.

[Chasing Dreams]

9. Florida will vote for McCain, Michigan for the Democratic Nominee

FL goes McCain because half the voters are over age 70, and because it continues to trend Republican. MI will be Democratic regardless, as it has been since 1992.

And CA, NY, PA, NJ will also go Dem. OH goes either way.

In order to win this election the Democrats have to run a credible campaign in all 50 states. We need to take advantage of our money advantage and compete everywhere. Which candidate will do that?

[AJH032]

29. MI was only Dem by 3% in 2004

how can you be so certain of the 2008 outcome there?

[Hippo_Tron]

10. The alternative was basically letting every single primary move up to August 2007 if they wanted

If Florida and Michigan wanted to complain about Iowa and New Hampshire's early status, they should've done so in 2005. If they could've gotten other states to go along with it, Iowa and New Hampshire likely would not have had early status.

Instead, they waited until the 11th hour to screw the DNC. Madfloridian has a compelling case that Democrats in Florida were just as culpable as the Republicans were. But either way in Michigan, the Democrats are in charge and this cannot be blamed on the GOP.

[Window]

13. Absolutely. I've been following MadFloridian's excellent posts on this.

[Hepburn]

16. Agree...and good summary. n/t

[OzarkDem]

18. So that justifies losing them in the GE?

Because that is what will happen if Dem candidates are not allowed to campaign there.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. I think allowing a re-vote is the best solution

Seating them as is means that the DNC has no credibility and yes that might be worse than the hit we will take in the GE. BTW, I don't think this will be a huge factor in the GE. Michigan will still go blue and Florida might be more likely to go red than it would have been. But 2006 is a pretty good indicator that Florida is an uphill climb for any Democrat.

[kid a]

17. thus - no disenfranchisement.

[OzarkDem]

21. But a possible Dem loss in the GE

Are you saying you hope the Dems lose MI and FL in the GE? Why would that be a good thing?

[tekisui]

19. They are nearing a resolution.

Dean said the states need to offer a plan and then they will negotiate with the campaigns.

A re-vote looks likely in MI, probably by mail. That seems fair.

FL may re-vote, but they may try to seat the delegates, as is. Either way, they must resolve it before the Convention, or they will not be seated.

[OzarkDem]

22. and Dems will lose those states and the GE

[tekisui]

41. We MAY lose MI, probably will lose FL, and can still win the GE.

[OzarkDem]

42. No thanks

Why take the risk when we have a candidate who can win those states?

[cali]

20. Florida is NOT a state any dem can depend on regardless of

the whole primary fuck up. Michigan will go dem for obvious reasons. And no, anyone who knows anything at all about it, knows that FL is not essential. We can win without it. And of course, no one is pretending those states don't exist. You really should try and educate yourself re the electoral map.

[madfloridian]

24. Bill Nelson threatened Dean that FL would not vote Democratic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4942257

You sound like him.

[stop the bleeding]

25. Florida is tainted

FL voter here 2000, 04, 06 and 08 - our votes don't count for any big elections.

[Johnny__Motown]

36. Michigan will go Dem in GE and Florida is so screwed up we can't count on it anyways

[Birthmark]

40. Succinct and correct.

If the DNC is too stupid to realize that and act accordingly, then the Democratic nominee will pay the price in November.

[Dr. Strange]

43. Can somebody please make sure that they vote the first Tuesday in November?

That's going to be November 4, 2008. Tell the politicians down there not to fuck around with the calendar this time!

[TahitiNut]

45. They can't un-ring that bell. It was a FUBAR and there's no un-doing it.

I live in Michigan. The Democrats probably lost about 5% of the General Election vote and they WON'T get it back!

This state could use the money they'd spend campaigning. We won't get it.
This state could use a New Deal progressive economic policy. We won't get it.

The Democratic party insiders (state AND national) FUCKED OVER the voters of this state ... the state with the HIGHEST uemployment in the nation and getting WORSE.

Mark my words ... they won't go out and vote for Hillary. They'll vote for McCain instead or stay home. (Gas is expensive for people without jobs ... or getting by in a lower paid job.)