If Hillary won the primary election by disenfranchising states that voted for Obama,

[aquarius dawning]

would Obama's supporters:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. ...

:rofl:

[mohc]

2. If Clinton herself

managed to unilaterally disenfranchise states that would have given the nomination to Obama, his supporters would be rightfully outraged. Thankfully, neither candidate has that kind of power. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of seating the FL and MI delegations, its a bit hard to stretch it into Obama being the one that did the disenfranchising.

[aquarius dawning]

4. Obama and his supporters are, in fact, fighting to keep votes for Hillary from counting

any way you slice it, they are trying to win by disenfranchising states that supported Hillary.

[mohc]

6. That would be like

blaming a cop for making me late for a flight because he pulled over my taxi cab driver for speeding. The disenfranchising act was the FDP supporting the movement of the primary into January, and act which resulted in the stripping of their delegates. Advocating the ruling of the DNC be enforced is hardly tantamount to disenfranchisement. Regardless, if an until Obama is the nominee, he has no authority on this issue.

[aquarius dawning]

11. being party to disenfranchisement is the same thing as disenfranchising

regardless of the who, what, where, how, or why. This whole situation disgusts me just as bad as the 2000 Florida election. I said back then that there has never been an honest Presidential election in America. It was proved right again in 2004 and now it's about to be proved right in 2008. If these votes don't count, I'm not going to vote, I promise you that here and now; what's more,I won't just quietly drop it.

[MercutioATC]

7. Actually, it's the Party that made that decision and is standing by it.

...and rightfully. MI and FL were told beforehand what would happen if they moved their primary dates. They did it anyway.

As a result, the Party ruled that their delegates would not be seated. All of the candidates understood this.

To change that decision now, especially in MI where HRC was the only major candidate who declined to remove her name from the ballot, would be a greater injustice than enforcing the rule.

If you want to place blame, lay it at the feet of the MI and FL Dem Parties where it belongs.

[aquarius dawning]

15. IIRC, only two candidates opted to endorse the disenfranchisement of Michigan voters

John Edwards and Barack Obama. Furthermore, the DNC does not have the constitutional authority to regulate individual state elections in this manner. They have moved to disenfranchise. Barack supported them in this move and now he's trying to win an election by actively moving to keep disenfranchised voters disenfranchised. So blame whoever you want to blame but the fact remains, we all know how this would be going down if it were reversed and, I'll say it again, I'm not voting for BO if he wins this way.

[MercutioATC]

17. Actually, ALL of the candidates agreed to abide by the DNC decision.

...yes, even your precious Hill...

...of course, since she "won" them, she's now seeking to have the delegates seated....ah yes, great champion of democracy!

[aquarius dawning]

18. but only two of them went so far as to actively take their names off of the ballot

which was never part of any agreement but that's irrelevant as this poll isn't about blaming, it's simply pointing out how this would most likely have turned out if the shoe was on the other foot...so to speak. Obama's followers would be rioting like it was France in the fall of 2005 if millions of votes for Obama weren't counted and then Hillary went on to win because of this.

[MercutioATC]

22. You're admitting that HRC opted to endorse the disenfranchisement of Michigan voters, then?

HRC might not have taken her name off of the ballot, but she agreed to the restrictions imposed on MI and FL by the DNC.

If that constitutes "disenfranchisement", then HRC is just as guilty as Obama or Edwards...

...and next-day whining about a decision that she'd already agreed to (after, of course, she received more votes) speaks to her true motivations here.


Yes, hysterical Obama supporters would likely be upset if the situation was reversed...much as hysterical Clinton supporters are now. That doesn't mean that Clinton should be able to change the rules mid-game...

[JorgeTheGood]

5. Ya mean like NC ?

like people really believe a dem will take North Carolina in the general election?

Not this century.

[mohc]

8. Huh?

Who is disenfranchising NC?

[billyoc]

3. Forget about it 5 minutes later and vote Democratic.

Or be blackmailed with the usual "Think about the Supreme Court". :eyes:

[bunnies]

9. Im all for rioting. nt

[George_Bonanza]

10. If those states' primaries/caucuses were held under confusing circumstances, then YES!

You can't compare Hillary's "victories" in MI and FL to Obama's victories in, say, VA and IO.

[jsamuel]

12. IO?

Do you mean IA or ID?

[Benhurst]

13. Why there would be even more outrage than there was over

the last two stolen presidential elections.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. This is a worthless question.

Why is it a worthless question? Because there is no 'disenfranchisement'. The DNC, before the primaries in Michigan and Florida, made a clear statement regarding the sanctions that would be levied should those states persist in moving the date of their elections. Those states chose to do so anyway. The primary elections in those states were void, and everyone knew it when they happened. And more importantly, everyone AGREED. Including Clinton. I would have serious problems with seating delegations tainted by the agreed-upon illegitimacy of their respective primaries, regardless of which candidate had won.

[aquarius dawning]

16. It's only worthless to the people who stand to benefit from it

There is no entity in this country granted the power to deny the vote to Americans who are legally entitled to vote (accept for FEMA). Your argument is based on the assumption that the DNC ever had the authority to do this in the first place. I think the SCOTUS would have a different opinion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Political parties are legally allowed to set the rules for party participation in primary elections.

And this was confirmed in Federal court in the very case under discussion (Bill Nelson, Alcee Hastings, et al vs. Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee, et al; judgement in the case upheld the right of the party to set rules regarding participation in Democratic primaries).

Your argument is based on evident ignorance of very relevant facts.

[mohc]

20. Thats just your reading though

The SCOTUS has ruled on this very issue: Findlaw.

The decision is best summarized by this line: "Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules."

Basically, so long as the party provides a way for the states to vote in a constitutionally acceptable way, the states must follow those rules, and there is no constitutional violation if the party decides to ignore the results of a state's election if it violates their rules. In short, a state's method of primary being constitutional or not is completely irrelevant, it can not force the party to accept the primary unless the party's rules themselves do not provide a constitutional way for the state to participate. The only way that this could possibly be ruled in FL and MI's favor would be to contest the rule itself on constitutional grounds. If the rule itself were unconstitutional itself, then the refusal to seat the delegates would in turn be struck down, but not seating delegates in and of itself has been held as constitutional many times.

[XemaSab]

21. Obama isn't disenfranchising the states

it's Howard Dean and the DNC, who TOLD the states they'd be penalized if they moved their primaries up. :shrug: