The controversy awaiting Michigan and Florida...

[kentuck]

The Democratic Leadership made the decision to ask the candidates not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because they moved their primaries up. In the meantime, Hillary won both states handily. And the largest proportion of delegates.

of course, that was to be expected because she had a foundation already in place in each state. Some think it was not fair to Obama or to Edwards. But, she is proudly caliming those delegates as her own, thanks to the DNC.

The close this race becomes, the more likely this issue will come to the front. As of now, they will wait until the March 4th primaries are over to see how TX and OH go.

[stillrockin]

1. If she tries to seat those delegates, she loses me.

[kentuck]

2. She is presently counting them in her totals....?

Is she not?

[goldcanyonaz]

3. No, she is not.

[kentuck]

6. You are positive about that?

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

11. She is not counting them, please don't spread misinformation.

[kentuck]

14. Well, they do show MI and Fl in her column on the TV ....

so it must be true? But thanks for the info.

[joshcryer]

16. Which TV? What channel? Do you have a link? That's proposterous.

Please don't spread misinformation, HRC's campaign is not "counting" them toward the nomination.

[kentuck]

19. MSNBC and CNN

for starters. But thanks for correcting the record.

[LiberalFighter]

34. CNN online does not have MI or FL in Clinton's column

[kentuck]

37. It was colored in in dark blue for Hillary...

on the TV report. But thanks for the clarification.

[joshcryer]

20. The talking heads have been parroting this unlikely scenario for weeks now.

They want a fucking horse race and they *want* this to happen. Democracy be damned, whatever gets ratings. And you know a brokered convention would really bring in the ratings like crazy.

[kentuck]

22. Can either candidate get the necessary delegates without Fl or MI?

If not, what then?

[joshcryer]

27. I hope so. If not, long running primary season, and brokered convention.

And a much weakened candidate either way.

[LiberalFighter]

35. I agree... DNC needs to put their foot down and require

primaries and caucuses be conducted later and during a shorten period.

[kentuck]

36. Of course....

The DNC could decide to choose states that might favor one candidate over another and that would not be fair, if they let them run early?

[LiberalFighter]

41. Rotate each election

[joshcryer]

10. Both Obama and Hillary said they would try to seat those delegates.

The question is whether or not they'll matter. If they do, and Hillary has the majority to seat them, there's no issue. If Obama has the majority to seat them and they'll turn it out of his favor, he won't.

Then you can expect brokered convention because neither candidate will have a majority and it'll be all fucking over.

[Perky]

23. I am not aware of Obama EVER SAYING THAT...Link Please?

[joshcryer]

28. Here you go:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/29/618263.aspx

[TexasObserver]

4. they won't be seated until the nominee is picked

DNC is not going to allow the Clintons to run an end around to get a few delegates.

[joshcryer]

12. If they actually come in to play then no nominee is chosen and we have a brokered convention.

Otherwise they will be seated.

[kentuck]

18. As close as the present race...

It would appear that maybe neither would get a majority without MI and FL? Then the controversy begins...

[joshcryer]

21. Someone will have a majority (by one vote), a perfect tie is unlikely.

But I don't see it coming down that close at all.

[tekisui]

5. If it comes down to super delegates and/or FL and MI, it will be brokered, anyway.

If those are the pivotal points in deciding, they will cast more ballots, and broker a winner.

[joshcryer]

17. Exactly, brokered convention if MI or FL matter.

[TomClash]

7. If those delegates are seated before the nomination is decided . . .

. . . and Hillary wins because of it, there will be hell to pay. There would have to be caususes in each state.

[joshcryer]

13. They won't be, that's against the rules, they can only be seated by popular vote.

If Hillary has the most delegates then obviously she'll vote to seat them, if Obama has the most delegates but seating them will turn it to Hillary's favor, he won't. The only person to disenfranshise those voters would be Obama, fact.

[JorgeTheGood]

8. they will be seated ...

according to the constitution, no one can strip american citizens from the right to participate in the voting process, even in light of the FL 2000 SCOTUS thievery ...

The delegates WILL be seated and if Obama fights it and somehow becomes the nominee, count FL gone (probably is anyway), count Michigan gone and then count the dem white house gone.

For anyone, especially the very astute political junkies like here on DU, to think that a few dozen old, white-male republicans in the Florida legislature are going to suppress the voting rights of their state, is unfathomable.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Constitution does not apply to presidential preference primaries

But you are probably right that if Florida and especially Michigan does not get seated the voters that might have voted for either candidate might not come out in mass in November resulting in us losing the election.

[joshcryer]

15. This is why it's paramount that either candidate have a majority going into the DNC.

If there's no majority there will be a brokered convention.

[JorgeTheGood]

32. I will disagree about the constitution ...

I hear what you say and what many others also say and no one (YET) has shown me where the constitution explictly states legislative rulings can deprive american citizens from participating in the voting process, whether it is a primary, a caucus or a general election.

Show me and I will concede the point.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Presidential Primaries are by party rules.

They can dictate whether a voter must be a registered Democrat or Republican. Whether independents are allowed to vote in primaries. If required to registered with a party and they refuse they can only vote for non-partisan issues or candidates if other races are on the ballot besides President.

[JorgeTheGood]

39. Agree they make the rules ...

but where does it say they can take away the right to participate ???

Stay on topic.

[LiberalFighter]

42. Then why aren't all primaries open primaries?

[stillrockin]

43. THEY set the rules in MI and FL: move up primary, delagates don't count.

[pampango]

24. Why can't Michigan and Florida run new primaries in the late spring or early summer?

South Carolina (and I think a few other states) run two primaries - usually one for us and one for the Republicans.

If they can't or won't (Florida is run by Repubs, so they may not want to pay for another primary), the state parties should conduct caucuses.

These aren't great solutions, but neither is assigning delegates based on the results of uncontested primaries in which everyone agreed there would be no delegates at stake and no campaigning allowed. While conducting new primaries (or causcuses) is a hassle, the alternatives seem to be either seating delegates based on uncontested primaries or hoping that seating delegates from those states won't matter since the nomination will have already been decided (that's appearing less and less likely).

[Pathwalker]

25. And just who will pay for it? Michigan is broke.

And broken. We can't even fix our roads. Fuck us, again and again. We're nothing to anyone.

[pampango]

26. I assume primaries are pretty expensive (thought I don't know why SC conducts

separate ones), so that may be impractical. I believe that caucuses are always paid for my the respective political parties. If that is true, and our national party values having Michigan voters express their views, that would be a possibility.

That would mean spending money that they might want to have saved for an another purpose, but it seems like it might be the "least bad" alternative to dealing with this.

[LiberalFighter]

44. Another primary would require Michigan and Florida legislators to enact law for it to happen.

Caucuses don't require legislative action.

[joshcryer]

29. They shouldn't have to, they broke the rules, they deserve the punishment.

They are not players in this election season, but so many ridiculous numbers of Obama supporters here want them to actually be players. It's incredibly assinine.

[pampango]

31. My impression is that it is Hillary's supporters who want them to be players, since

she polled much better in those states.

I am not proposing seating delegates based on primaries that every candidate agreed had no delegates at stake and in which they could not campaign. If they held new primaries, these would not be in violation of agreements that the state parties had agreed to with respect to the early timing of their primaries. The new ones would be contested with full campaigning as any other primary. I don't see how that would not be fair as far as insuring that the people of those states have their voices heard without condoning breaking of the rules.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

40. "Punishment"? I hope the delegates don't get seated...

because they weren't selected in a "real" primary.

But if there's any "punishment" here, it'll be both states going red in the GE.

Good thing they're small states with few electors.

[Tatiana]

30. If the delegates from FL or MI in any way decide the nomination, I will quit the Democratic party.

Because obviously we would be hyprocrites and only in favor of the rule of law when it makes us winners.

[Meshuga]

38. It's going to be bullshit

There is no way to make Michigan and Florida fair without redoing the primaries. If they count it is going to be shitty.

[eleny]

45. They can't change the original decision - It will appear corrupt

It would be a huge mistake if they do. Not only will many Dems rebel, the Republicans will make a huge deal out of it. They'll twist it and spin it to their favor. One can only begin to imagine how they'll use it.

Do we really want to prove Ralph Nader right in terms of how he views the two parties as each being corrupt. This is not something we need when we're on the verge of taking back the Executive Branch and perhaps achieving a super majority in Congress.