PDA

View Full Version : DNC chief will seat Fla. delegates, but details up to rivals



Midnight Mike
04-03-2008, 06:26 PM
Thursday, April 03, 2008

WASHINGTON A pledge from Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to seat Florida convention delegates sets a new tone for how the state will be treated and puts pressure on the presidential candidates to find a compromise, party leaders said Wednesday.

Dean's pledge put the onus for a solution for Florida's delegates on Obama and Clinton. Delegates formally nominate their party's presidential candidate at the national convention. Most delegates pledge their vote based on results from their home state's primary election.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/cont ... _0402.html (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2008/04/03/m1a_dems_0402.html)

T-Bird76
04-03-2008, 08:39 PM
Great move Dean....set rules and then just break them.....The Dems are on their way to destroying their party. You can rest assured that if Clinton gets the nom the dems will split and every black vote will go to McCain and he'll win. Obama and Clinton better come up with a solution the two of them can come out together on or neither one will see the White house.

Midnight Mike
04-03-2008, 09:15 PM
Great move Dean....set rules and then just break them.....The Dems are on their way to destroying their party. You can rest assured that if Clinton gets the nom the dems will split and every black vote will go to McCain and he'll win. Obama and Clinton better come up with a solution the two of them can come out together on or neither one will see the White house.

Dean has no choice, because of all the attention that Florida & Michigan have received, Dean has to find a move to seat the delegates. If not, this will be a potential headline in the local papers from Michigan & Florida.

DNC tells the Democratic voters of Florida & Michigan, "Screw You"

Also, can you imagine going to the convention with empty chairs, no, as much as I Dean, he is being forced into this.

moose135
04-03-2008, 09:36 PM
Great move Dean....set rules and then just break them.....
Part of the problem is that after the DNC decided on dates for the primaries, the Republican-majority Florida legislature, with the backing of the Republic governor, moved the primary date. To avoid a bigger mess, alienating party members, they need to find a way to get them into the convention.


You can rest assured that if Clinton gets the nom the dems will split and every black vote will go to McCain and he'll win.
I doubt McCain will get a large number of black voters if Clinton is the Democratic candidate. The bigger worry is if they stay home on election day. Just like McCain has to do something to appease the Conservative Christian wing of the Republican Party - they won't vote for a Democrat, but they may not vote for McCain either.

Midnight Mike
04-03-2008, 09:42 PM
Part of the problem is that after the DNC decided on dates for the primaries, the Republican-majority Florida legislature, with the backing of the Republic governor, moved the primary date. To avoid a bigger mess, alienating party members, they need to find a way to get them into the convention.

The RNC in Florida lost half of their of delegates, so, they were spanked as well. The Democrats did not have to follow the Republicans.

And yes Moose, I agree with you, they need to find a way to seat the delegates from Michigan & Florida, it would be embarrassing for the Democrats if only 48 States are representing the Democratic nominee.

Can you imagine the headlines & campaign ads?

moose135
04-03-2008, 09:45 PM
The RNC in Florida lost half of their of delegates, so, they were spanked as well. The Democrats did not have to follow the Republicans.
Didn't McCain have a pretty big lead by the primary? I don't think it had as much of an impact. And I think if the Dems wanted to have a primary on a different date, they would have had to come up with the money for it - I doubt the state would pay for two separate elections, not to mention the all but certain confusion that two dates would cause.

Midnight Mike
04-03-2008, 09:55 PM
And I think if the Dems wanted to have a primary on a different date, they would have had to come up with the money for it - I doubt the state would pay for two separate elections, not to mention the all but certain confusion that two dates would cause.

Why not? Other states did, besides, in Florida, it does not take much for them to be confused :wink:

Matt Molnar
04-04-2008, 12:31 AM
It was foolish for either party to disqualify delegates in the first place. The parties should not even have the power to decide some state's delegates don't count.

This election is well on its way towards becoming another disaster like 2000.

T-Bird76
04-04-2008, 07:58 AM
It was foolish for either party to disqualify delegates in the first place. The parties should not even have the power to decide some state's delegates don't count.

This election is well on its way towards becoming another disaster like 2000.

Well on its way Matt....its there already! I'm telling you the DNC is going to make a UFC fight look tame.

Tom_Turner
04-06-2008, 08:17 PM
The excerpt in the story only mentions Florida; why not Michigan?

How important is it that Florida and Michigan have their delegates seated in any meaningful way anyway - and their voters?

The reason I write that, is that typically the "late" voting States have no bearing on who gets the nomination and not a whole lot of folks seem to have a problem with that...although I think they should.

Probably wouldn't be this big problem except that Hillary needs to steal the nomination at this point...most probably by going against the popular vote.

Tom

adam613
04-06-2008, 11:00 PM
Well, a big part of the problem here is that Florida and Michigan didn't get nearly the kind of voter turnout that they would have gotten if everyone thought they would be seating the delegates. So we don't really know what the will of the voters was in either state...

Tom_Turner
04-07-2008, 06:53 AM
Well, a big part of the problem here is that Florida and Michigan didn't get nearly the kind of voter turnout that they would have gotten if everyone thought they would be seating the delegates. So we don't really know what the will of the voters was in either state...

Exactly. Obama didn't campaign in one of those states. They weren't supposed to count.

Maybe if Senator Clinton agreed to not campaign in whatever remaining States equal the delegate numbers in Florida something could be worked out... haha... :)

Midnight Mike
04-07-2008, 09:03 AM
Well, a big part of the problem here is that Florida and Michigan didn't get nearly the kind of voter turnout that they would have gotten if everyone thought they would be seating the delegates. So we don't really know what the will of the voters was in either state...

Exactly. Obama didn't campaign in one of those states. They weren't supposed to count.

Maybe if Senator Clinton agreed to not campaign in whatever remaining States equal the delegate numbers in Florida something could be worked out... haha... :)

No Democratic nominee campaigned in either Michigan or Florida.

Tom_Turner
04-07-2008, 07:10 PM
Well, as we know, Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. One hardly needs to campaign if your opponent is not on the ballot.

Hillary now says that was his decision, but Michigan was not supposed to count, or obviously his name would've been on the ballot.

So all those voters who would've wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan, (and for that matter many in Florida) stayed home.

Where is Hillary's concern for those "disenfranchised" voters? She allowed the DNC to make those rules and was a party to them.

As for campaigning, we can call it what we like, but she did in fact hold multiple fund raisers in Florida on that very election night/day.

After the Bush Dubya election, Senator Hillary talked of passing a law that the General Presidential election would have to be won (in the future) only by the popular vote - an astonishing position to take being that it undermines our entire framework of representation. One counts on ignorance to get behind that one.

But yet, it appears for a primary, her new found (opportunistic) "principles" on that issue are out the window as she hides behind the "Super Delegates" strategy.

Tom