<p>You beat me to it interesteddad and mercymom; </p>
<p>My point exactly. I think it’s great about follow the rules or suffer the consequences. But, when the consequences say you lose 50% of seated delegates; but Dean realizes Clinton will win those 2 states overwhelmingly and therefor punishes the 2 states by eliminating 100% of their delegates; Florida and Michigan have every right to complain,.</p>
<p>Forget the rules and the DNC shenanigans. There are certain key states that the Democratic Party must win to put together an Electoral College win of 270 or more votes.</p>
<p>You can’t do it with South Carolina or Wyoming, because South Carolina and Wyoming vote overwhelmingly Republican in Presidential elections. A Democratic Party wiin can only be built by holding the large bedrock states (Mass, NY, NJ, CA) without having to defend turf and then sweeping the large rust belt states (PA, Michigan, etc.) and then flipping OH and/or FL to the Dems.</p>
<p>A winning strategy for the Dems (not that they historically pay any attention to that) must focus on nominating a candidate with proven appeal in THESE electoral college states.</p>
<p>To turn around and kick two of these states in the teeth (FL and MI) is literally insane for the DNC (not that sanity has ever been a DNC hallmark).</p>
<p>Addendum: there is one more emerging trend in electoral college math – the growing role of Latino/a voters. If the Democratic Party were forward looking (not a trait often seen in Democratic strategists), a long-term plan to cultivate Latino/a voters by nominating candidates with strong ties to these communities would make sense. Not so much for this year’s electoral map (NM, Ariz would be nice gets, but unlikely to determine the next President) but for down the road when the Latino/a population growth in states like Texas puts them into play. But, of course, the DNC is rigging the nomination to kick the Latino/a voters in teeth right alongside MI and FL voters.</p>
<p>IDad, re: Hispanic vote, don’t you think there is a possiblity that need, to increase involvement of Hispanic voters, underlies the change of allegiance of Bill Richardson? Richardson brings a number of other things to the table for Obama as well, but I have just assumed he has been promised a very plum job in the Obama admin.</p>
<p>I’m sure Richardson has been bought and paid for. (Of course, he was appointed to the cabinet by Bill Clinton). But, he doesn’t carry much weight with the Latino/a community. Obama lost New Mexico to Clinton. The heat on Richardson in NM is so strong after his endorsement that he has not made a single appearance at a Democratic Party function in his state since.</p>
<p>Clinton has very strong ties to the Latino/a political community as evidenced by her overwhelming win in Nevada, even beating Obama in the union-held casino caucus sites.</p>
<p>A lot of casual political observers don’t know that Hillary’s first campaign job was registering Latino voters in the Rio Grande valley of Texas for George McGovern. She has spent more than 30 years building those ties.</p>
<p>…And she also claims to keep her health by eating chili peppers.</p>
<p>
But there’s no way not to kick the voters of those states “in the teeth.” That ship has sailed. Anyone who didn’t vote because they believed that Clinton and Obama and the DNC were telling them the truth about their vote not counting will be sorely peeved if they’re now told that the votes cast by people who ignored that warning now do count. My opinion is that the worst damage being done to the democratic party’s prospects for taking those states is being done by those who are fanning the flames of this “insult” If everyone joined hands and said “That’s a shame, but the rules are the rules, and your delegates will be seated after the nomination” I suspect the response would be a big shrug, and that a lot less damage would be done to the party’s electoral prospects than will occur as a result of all this hand-wringing and caterwauling. </p>
<p>This is all just self-interested (if perhaps suicidal) controvery generated by those who feel that their personal prospects might be improved by making an big deal out of this.</p>
<p>And as for “changing the rules” - rules are changed all the time. Just not after the fact. And the rule was in place before the primaries were held. Whether the state “leadership” thought that they’d only get slapped with a 50% loss of delegates (and is that a 50% “kick in the teeth?”) initially or not, they knew the rules when they held the primaries anyway.</p>
<p>Morons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both states had record turnout, by a huge margin. Democratic Party turnout in both states dwarfed the Republican turnout.</p>
<p>In Michigan, Obama not only told his voters they would count, but organized a campaign thru the black churches to vote “uncommitted”.</p>
<p>In Florida, Clinton told the voters before the primary that she would do everything in her power to have the Florida delegation seated and Florida’s voters counted.</p>
<p>Nobody “stayed home” in either of these states. The Democratic Party in both states was energized to unprecedented levels.</p>
<p>“Nobody?” You sure of that?</p>
<p>Kluge, as you know, the Clinton campaign offered to pay for new primaries in both states. Obama’s campaign shot down the idea. Why?</p>
<p>where were they going to get the money? They were broke.</p>
<p>Corzine and Rendall were going to raise it…It was outside the campaign so the $2,400 limitation would not have applied.</p>
<p>…And since they weren’t technically part of the Clinton campaign they could solicit funds from any special interest groups they wanted with no limitations?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. Kind of like Saint Obama soliciting funds from political fixer Anton Rezko to purchase the driveway and yard attached to the house he was buying in Hyde Park did not fall under the campaign contributions limit.</p>
<p>I’dad, Why haven’t the Clintons released the financial information on funding for the Clinton <em>foundation</em> …???</p>
<p>They have a lot more financial issues than that. They just refuse to answer the tough questions.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that private charities, such as the William J. Clinton Foundation, are required to publicly disclose their donors, are they? I know that many colleges accept “anonymous” gifts.</p>
<p>I take it you have some interest in “getting to the bottom” of who is donating to help President Clinton provide low-cost AIDS medicine around the world?</p>
<p>
The Michigan democratic party urged voters in MI to vote “uncommitted,” but that has no bearing on the awarding of delegates except to award a delegates to “uncommitted”. You can read about it in the MI democratic party’s primary rules.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, according to a study reported about in the WSJ, both states had a proportionally lower “high turnout” than presidential primaries in other states. The study suggests that counting the two states’ results would disenfranchise almost as many people who probably would have voted in a party-approved primary, but didn’t go to the polls because they figured their ballots wouldn’t be counted. </p>
<p>I am one of them and I wasn’t home alone, so please don’t try to tell me “nobody stayed home.”</p>
<p>[Washington</a> Wire - WSJ.com : Disenfranchising Non-Voters in Florida and Michigan?](<a href=“http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/19/disenfranchising-non-voters-in-florida-and-michigan/?mod=googlenews_wsj]Washington”>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/19/disenfranchising-non-voters-in-florida-and-michigan/?mod=googlenews_wsj)</p>
<p>And, BTW, could you please post a link to the part of the DNC rules that says HOW states that held primaries outside the approved Feb.-June window would be sanctioned? You and others keep referring to a 50% reduction in delegates, but I can find no documentation beyond speculation in the media to support that.</p>
<p>Baaawaaahaaa. The study cited by the WSJ is by Glenn Hurowitz, who runs a pro-Obama blog and has made anti-Clinton YouTube ads in several primary states. Nice source.</p>
<p>Do your own research on the DNC. As I’ve told you, the August DNC rules committee hearing that stripped Florida of its delegates is availabe at C-SPAN’s streaming video site. I watched it last August, the day it happened.</p>
<p>I’ve moved on. I already know the DNC is going to rig the nomination. I’ve already changed my registration to Republican. I’m not doing your research for you.</p>
<p>These are the rules if people are interested:</p>
<p><a href=“http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf[/url]”>http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf</a></p>
<p>Dean is enforcing one part of the rules and ignoring other parts.</p>
<p>[Where</a> the Dem Rules Really Lead - Craig Crawford’s Trail Mix](<a href=“http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html]Where”>http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html)</p>
<p>I’Dad, I really don’t understand the source of your bitterness. You may believe that Obama’s had a halo around him, but in fact the press, or factions among the press, have focused in on many trivialities about him, rather than issues & competency. It is they who have focused on image, for example. Further, look at the whole National Press Club incident debacle, which btw was conveniently orchestrated by a huge Hillary supporter, & which appears to have had the desired affect against Obama, and pro-Hillary. Even when Wright wasn’t making a you-know-what of himself, the press would not let the issue die: soundbites broadcast repeatedly, easily 40 times a day, of the Angry Pastor. Yet many of Hillary’s goofs & gaffes have not been beaten into the ground with this kind of passion. Not talking Right Wing talk show hosts now, or Faux News, just “mainstream” media appealing as they usually do to the Lowest common Denominator & to what they believe is an appetite for scandal, “excitement,” and wars (both political & military). It is not my perception that Obama’s had a free ride. Hillary has had much going for her, in the DNC, in the power structure, in the political establishment, as a veteran insider in the various roles she’s played. </p>
<p>I will be disappointed if she gets the nomination, but I will support the Democratic nominee & not re-register for 100 more years in Iraq.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, I learned back in the days of the Duke “rape” case not to try to change your mind with stuff like, you know - “facts” - but my assessment of these things is: if you watched the NDC stripping Florida of its delegates last August then there was plenty of time for the Florida state committee to decide to follow the rules after all. And it’s also true that there has been record high voter turnout in every state where there’s been a primary, (not to mention the fact that other issues on the ballot can affect turnout as well.) So I’m not going to conclude that “nobody” stayed home, especially in the face of people here on CC saying that they did exactly that.</p>
<p>As to the “do-over”, I seem to recall that the Michigan state legislature had to approve the mechanism, and failed to do so. [BBC</a> NEWS | Americas | Michigan primary plan collapses](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7308086.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Americas | Michigan primary plan collapses) Obama’s fault? Same story in Florida:
[No</a> new primary for Florida Democrats - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/index.html]No”>No new primary for Florida Democrats - CNN.com)
So you’ve changed your registration to 'publican, eh? Well congratulations on your newly forged allegiance with the party of debt, fear, and socio-economic stratification. Sure you don’t want to step back, take a deep breath, and reconsider?</p>
<p>Personally, I’m a blue dog/yellow dog Democrat, and don’t see any likelihood of changing. My guy was Edwards, but I’ll vote for Clinton, Obama, Gore, Richardson, or anyone else who won’t dig us any deeper into the Reagan/Bush/Bush hole were sinking in.</p>