Just in case you don't REALLY know DNC rule 11A:

[Tyler Durden]

...Then I'll post it here.

This is the infamous "...but, but, but Michigan and Florida broke the RULES..." rule. I think if you read carefully, you'll see that Michigan, Florida, NEW HAMPSHIRE, IOWA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA ALL BROKE THE RULES.

"Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule."

This is a post from "DEMOCRACY FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE, http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465 and it puts the entire process in perspective, and quotes the EXACT instances of the rules and how they should have worked.

(QUOTE STARTS)

Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally & fairly
by Andre Walker (andrewalker08, firedoglake)

As a prelude to this diary, I am serving notice to anyone who may feel the need to opine about how the Florida & Michigan delegations should not have their voting rights restored at the Democratic National Convention; and how it is breaking the rules by seeking to have those two states' delegations votes count in Denver; notice is hereby given that before you hit that "submit" button to post your comments, you better make damn sure that what you're saying is consistent with the Charter & Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, the Call to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention, and the Regulations of the Rules & Bylaws Committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this whole mess surrounding the state delegations from Florida and Michigan is a result of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee not strictly adhering to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention by applying the rules equally and fairly to all states.

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all.
And what about Florida & Michigan?
Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.) Read the damn rules first!
-and-
2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.
(QUOTE ENDS)

As anyone can clearly see, there are a few items here that cannot be disputed:

ONE
Rule 11.A was broken by five states: Michigan, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.

TWO
The 50% penalties stipulated under Rule 20.C.1.a were voided for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.

THREE
The 50% penalties under Rule 20.C.1.a were arbitrarily EXCEEDED without reason given for Michigan and Florida.

I stipulate no FAULT for this, as many could and probably SHOULD. I merely state that the rules WERE NOT EQUALLY ENFORCED, Two states were given extra penalties at the whim of the DNC/DLC, and Three states were not given a penalty at all as they should have under Rule 20.C.1.a.

[izzybeans]

1. The process of how those primaries got moved is all that matters when it comes to

interpreting those rules.

The DNC made this clear from day one. You can find those statements if your memory is failing you.

[Tyler Durden]

3. And I quoted the RULES.

Violations are violations. 11.A has no "out" for a fudge factor. Rule 20.C.1.a DOES allow penalties the DNC would consider "appropriate" but doesn't let NH, IA, and SC off the hook. They still broke Rule 11.A.

That cannot be disputed.

[izzybeans]

6. Ånd pray tell, why did those states change their dates?

[Tyler Durden]

8. I run a red light, the cop seldom askes me why I did it.

Penalize Michigan and Florida, penalize all five. EQUALLY.

We are talking about violation of the RULES, a reason, frequently stated by the Obama Camp as to WHY the Michigan and Florida voters should be denied seating at the convention, counting of their votes, or a redo of their primaries.

You want to talk RULES, then talk RULES. REASONS have little meaning in this conversation.

[izzybeans]

9. You must know that running a red light and following state law and tradition are not

legal equivalents.

[Tyler Durden]

10. Again, we are talking RULES, not TRADITIONS.

Traditions have no place in the equal enforcement of DNC Primary Rules. South Carolina had a tradition of SLAVERY a long time ago.

[izzybeans]

11. Again, why did Iowa change their date? If we are talking laws, that is.

[Tyler Durden]

14. They wanted to be FIRST....

...and FIRST by a long shot. Period.

And why should Michigan respect that, or be penalized beyond THE RULES? And why should Iowa not be held to THE RULES also?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

95. when FL and MI moved up without permission, states supposed to be first had to move up again

Florida and Michigan did not have permission to move up.

These states, smaller ones were to be first to give candidates like John Edwards a chance.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

96. DNC has small states go first to give candidates like John Edwards a chance

front loading the primary helps candidates like Hillary Clinton, who has national name recognition.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

98. FL and MI have Clinton party chairs who wanted to "front load" the primaries for Hillary

which is why the DNC including Clinton advisor Ickes voted to sanction any the states who
violated the rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

100. Clinton advisor Ickes, a DNC member - voted for the sanctions on MI and FL

look it up, this has been explained many times before.

[Tyler Durden]

104. Excuse me. All of the above are irrelevant.

Read the rule. Then let's talk. Don't for get the Sanction section under 20.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

108. Ickes voted for the Sanctions, Hillary said Michigan wouldn't count anyway..... n/t

[Tyler Durden]

106. And for you to be arguing votes not be counted?

I would have laughed out loud were the whole thing not so goddamned tragic.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Hillary Natl CO Chair Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) opposed a revote

Here it is, straight from CNN, Clinton News Network on March 18:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After weeks of negotiations, the Florida Democratic Party said Monday it will not hold a second primary in the state.

"We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida," said state party chairwoman Karen Thurman in an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon.


"I'm glad that the party has reached the same conclusion that was reached by the congressional delegation a week ago," said U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida.

A supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, Wasserman Schultz had staunchly opposed a re-vote.


She said she would consider a proposal that would allow the full delegation to weigh in at the convention, but she wants each delegate to have only half a vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/

[Tyler Durden]

112. Meaningless.

I'm in Michigan. And it still has nothing to do with Rule 11.A.

[pathansen]

143. Exactly. And it was the Fla & MI GOP legislature that got bill for early primaries passed.

Democrats voted against it.

[Tyler Durden]

149. Thank you too.

I appreciate it.

[joshcryer]

156. Dems in FL 'voted for it' but it was on a paper ballot initiative, too. Then they voted to move...

...the date back to Feb 5th. The most outspkoen poster here will quote the FLGOP and use lies and innuendo to imply that the FL dems did not "really" mean to have a good faith effort to change the date back to Feb 5th.

QUOTING THE FUCKING FLGOP FOR CHRIST SAKE!

[Tyler Durden]

12. Also this:

Comparing New Hampshire/Iowa/South Carolina State Law and the DNC Primary Rules which are to apply to ALL STATES EQUALLY is comparing apples and hand grenades. Both are round, but there is little similarity beyond that, and much danger in assuming any.

[izzybeans]

13. So you would ask the party to violate states rights?

There had to be a balance here. Republicans pushed this shit because they knew what the consequences will be. And if you want to know the answer to why MI and FL that is it. Which goes back to my original question?

Another question: Do you want Republicans dictating how you nominate your candidates?

[Tyler Durden]

15. Then Michigan has a RIGHT to do what they want as well.

You really can't have this both ways, you know.

It's either hands off then Michigan and Florida get seated or re-done, or IA/NH/SC get their delegates unseated. There really isn't a third choice.

[izzybeans]

57. Which is why this has been a Republican catch 22 from the start.

[Tyler Durden]

64. Following our own rules TO THE LETTER is the issue.

No waivers, no "gimmes." Fuck Michigan and Florida with The Rules, fuck HN, IA, and SC with The Rules.

We Will Remember.

[izzybeans]

68. Backing down to Republican dirty tricks because they

exploited our rules is also AN ISSUE

Your candidate has selective amnesia now that she is losing. She agreed to this from the start. Now that she is losing she opportunistically believes it is somehow unfair.

This was a brokered problem from the beginning, now she is undoing those agreements. Because everyone knew what was happening there in MI and FL. Everyone.

[Tyler Durden]

71. Rules are Rules. Follow them or TRASH THEM.

Breaking them for some and not others? If that's your answer, I say what I said to someone else: If your candidate feels they have legitimate claim to the nomination without Michigan and Florida, I hope they can win the ELECTION without Michigan and Florida because they just might HAVE TO.

[izzybeans]

73. I see

stuck in rut.

[Tyler Durden]

78. No, stuck in the right.

As in correct.

Throw out your state's primary, then talk to me about it.

I have listened to the tripe on this board about how Michigan broke "The Rules." Well, there are the rules. Follow them, or your campaign has no legitimacy.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

121. you should have elected more honest lawmakers in Florida n/t

[Tyler Durden]

124. I'm from Michigan.

And if we got penalized, so should IA, NH, and SC, or the rules are meaningless.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

102. which Florida and Michigan democrats were part of

and there was no republican conspiracy in Michigan at all.

In florida, a lawmaker introduced an amendment, but laughed it off the floor.

[Tyler Durden]

107. And this impacts rule 11.A. how?

[gal]

204. Actually there is a third choice...

The party can stand by Deans ruling that the delegates won't be seated.

[Tyler Durden]

207. And then maybe the party can win without Michigan in November.

Who died and made Dean Jesus?

[gal]

224. Maybe they can...

Guess it doesn't pay to be greedy.
Dean is in charge isn't he? Like it or not someone has to be.

All I know is if Michigan and Florida get to do it over, every other state should have the option if they want to as well. I don't like the fact that Clinton lied ...I want a do over to.

[Tyler Durden]

237. If NH, IA and SC get frozen out too, then I have no complaint.

All 5 broke the letter of Rule 11.A.

But the danger in singling out Michigan and Florida should be evident to everyone.

[stahbrett]

18. Fine, penalize them equally - Obama still has a delegate lead

And after Hillary concedes the nomination, Obama and the DNC will work out a sensible way to seat delegates from all of the states, possibly via the 50% delegate penalty.

[Tyler Durden]

20. Oh, THAT works.

And still denies Michigan and Florida any voice in the process.

We may be broke but we aren't STUPID you know. This is dangerous for the party, and I'd suggest some people do some soul searching: what does it profit you if you get the nomination and destroy the party in the process?

[stahbrett]

26. If they're penalized 50%, they'll still have a voice - just half as large as it would have been

Thanks to the stupidity of their elected leaders...

[Tyler Durden]

27. No, thanks to the illegal breaking of the RULES.

There are FIVE states that should be halved, not TWO.

Do that, then there's no argument. Promise.

[sellitman]

34. Hillary signed on to this at the beginning.

This argument is BS.

She can't change the rules in the middle of the game to suit her.

[Tyler Durden]

I don't care fuck-all what Clinton signed.

I want my voice HEARD, and if you tell me I can't because of the RULES, then ENFORCE THEM EQUALLY.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

118. primares are functions of private political entities, not government

sorry

[Tyler Durden]

132. Then don't be shocked when we decide not to join your Private Party in November.

We have a long memory in Michigan. And I'm still shocked someone with "WillYourVoteBCounted" for a handle doesn't want my vote counted.

Very strange.

[snooper2]

198. Well Why don't you just go fucking vote for Nader in November..

and STFU

These one man look at ME threads crack me up....

[Tyler Durden]

200. and you and your candidate can go on ignore.

It's people like you that turn other democrats off to your candidate. If he loses, blame YOURSELVES.

[snooper2]

205. Keep posting...

a whole 7 or 800 people are watching you :rofl:

[Hepburn]

134. Hello....

...care to site the law in regard to primaries which states you have a RIGHT to have your vioce heard?

<Hint: There is no such law.>

What you want and what you have a right to are often very different things. IMO: Learn the difference and stop looking foolish, OK?

[sellitman]

233. Get mad at your party leaders in Michigan.

They are the ones who desided your vote would not matter. Getting mad at Obama and his supporters is just a waste of time.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

103. yep, she said Michigan votes wouldn't matter. that needs to be a commercial played over and over.

n/t

[Tyler Durden]

109. I repeat, I could give two shits what Hillary Clinton says.

I.want.my.god.damned.vote.counted.

SURELY you of all people can see THAT?

[last1standing]

87. Strawman argument alert!

If you had been stopped at that red light but some idiot came up behind you and pushed you through the light then you would not be held responsible, the idiot behind you in the hurry would be. Iowa and New Hampshire did not "run a red light", they were pushed into moving forward and it was sanctioned before hand by the DNC (the police in your analogy). That means Michigan and Florida are doubly guilty. Great argument, there. LOL

[Tyler Durden]

90. Utterly and completely WRONG.

If you can't take the time to read and absorb DNC RULE 11.A., then you shouldn't be posting.

Plus you have no idea what a strawman is. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I misrepresented nothing, I presented an allegory.

[last1standing]

113. Of course you're right. How could I have doubted it?

Since that's what you want to hear and you obviously have no interest in understanding what I wrote, you just go on with your narrow viewpoints. :eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

126. What? That you twisted my allegory, then claimed fallacy that wasn't there?

I read what you wrote, and it didn't fit the example. If you don't want to hear from Michigan or Florida yet IA HN and SC should count, just say so and show IN THE RULES why you're right.

I'll listen.

[last1standing]

What I said was that Iowa and New Hampshire were pushed into moving their dates.

That is where your allegory failed, it didn't account for external factors. When I pointed that out you went on the attack so I just gave up. If you disagree and want to discuss it, then I'm all for it, but just claiming that I'm "WRONG" and stating that I didn't read your post was uncalled for.

The red light analogy was a strawman argument because it was set up with a false premise (that Iowa and New Hampshire acted without provocation). That gave the fallacy to your analogy. I was not replying to your original post but to that.

[Tyler Durden]

152. You were wrong it calling it a straw man.

And the allegory merely stated that if I broke the law, then I get a penalty.

No one had a gun to IA and HN's head. They could have gone to the DNC, and they didn't. AND the DNC said they were wrong TOO, they just didn't get punished.

Here's a better one for you. I stick up a liquor store so I can bet more money than you in a card game. You go out and do the same thing because you think you have a better hand and will win. We both get arrested and convicted, I get sent to jail, but the judge gives you get probation because I was bluffing with a pair and you were holding a full house, so you NEEDED the money at the time.

Better?

[last1standing]

165. Not really, no.

You're not accounting for the fact that unlike MI and FL, IA and NH had the consent of the DNC because the order of contests had already been decided and agreed upon by all the state parties. Therefore making an analogy comparing IA and NH to criminals is not accurate. The problem is you're pulling one rule out and forgetting others. It's much like saying that it's illegal to kill someone, which is true, but forgetting to account for self defense which would mitigate, if not nullify, the original crime.

[Tyler Durden]

189. Like, if the Liquor store owner said "stick me up! I'll use my insurance!"

Still wrong. Rule 11.A. says nothing about waivers.

[last1standing]

202. Now you're insinuating that IA and NH wanted MI and FL to move their dates up.

Seriously, I don't like our vote not being counted any more than you do but it was our state politicians trying to pull a fast one for Clinton that caused this mess, not the DNC and not Dean. They were told the rules and they ignored them thinking that the DNC would cave in the face of opposition - they didn't. Then the state party couldn't reach a compromise that would allow ALL Dems to vote in a caucus or primary so once again they struck out. Now Bart Stupak is suggesting a split in delegates that just may work, we'll just have to see. Personally, I'm for it but I'm not in the leadership of any of the responsible parties so I'll just have to see what happens. Either way, I'm not going to withhold my vote from the Democratic nominee and I'm not going to try to demoralize Michigan voters.

As for rules, when MI and FL broke them, new rules were needed to compensate. The DNC rightly adapted so that the process could move forward. I give kudos to Dean and the DNC for standing up for principles rather than caving to a group of politicians who sought to hold the party hostage.

[Tyler Durden]

206. Don't go with the "Clinton" bullshit.

There wasn't even a single primary at the time all this happened.

And you have it BACKWARDS. Dean and the DNC caved in to IA and NH. They didn't have to invoke the death penalty...the fact that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan made it very obvious as to why they didn't stick with the 50% rule.

Dean and Obama made this a partisan candidate issue, not Michigan.

[last1standing]

211. The facts just don't back up your allegation.

ALL the state parties agreed to a schedule of contests. The MI and FL state partied then reneged on their agreements and with the collusion of state repubs voted to move their primary dates up. This is why the RNC is reducing the value of delegates in MI and FL and not in IA or NH. The only reason this has become such a hot issue for Dems is that there are certain groups pushing it in order to help a particular candidate. Sorry but it's true.

On another note, what do you think of Stupak's proposal?

[Tyler Durden]

213. Stupak is an idiot.

And his proposal a clusterfuck.

The smartest thing the Obama Campaign could have done was agree to the redo.

They won't know how badly they fucked up until November. Not that I look forward to McCain being president...I just see that if they keep screwing the pooch, Team Obama will make it inevitable.

[last1standing]

214. To be fair it was a redo that was stacked against him.

The proposal, on Clinton's terms of course, would have only allowed those who voted Dem in the first primary to vote in the second. That would have negated the vote of all the Dems who voted in the repub primary in an attempt to keep McCain from cinching the nomination too early. I remember listening to Bill Press that morning as he was advocating that and taking calls from MI Dems who were doing it. Why should those voices be silenced? If we are truly interested in not disenfranchising voters we need to let ALL Dems vote, not just a subsection.

As for Stupak's proposal, I haven't seen anything better that is likely to fly so I'm for it. Remember, it gives Clinton the edge so it helps her campaign.

[SwampG8r]

21. wellsome of the rules anyways

the rules also recognize that state legislatures may move election dates. it includes the proviso that if the party acts "in good faith" to stop this, the delegates can and will be seated
im a floridian and we did not act in good faith
our dems went laughing to the vote
yes laughing
to help the gop do this
the vote was 112-1 i seem to remember or thereabouts
they went into the chamber knowing that all they had to do was muster the vote and vote NO
and laughed as they voted with the gop
as i said im a floridian and ive been active here since before george wallace walked away with 42% of the dem vote in 72
and i say dont seat them
or give the prescribed punishment of the loss of 1/2 of the delegates and dont seat the SDs at all,to punish those people who knew BETTER than to violate the already agreed upon rules

[Tyler Durden]

23. Fine, but do it for ALL 5 States.

The ALL broke the Rules. Enforce them EVENLY then there's no argument.

I'm from Michigan, and we are sick and tired of being the whipping boy for the rest of the country.

[SwampG8r]

28. he admits that he selectivly quoted the rules nm

[SwampG8r]

29. dupe

[stahbrett]

30. I know others from Michigan

And they are mad at their state elected leaders who got them into this mess to begin with. If they had simply left their election date alone, this whole mess would not have happened. But here's a secret... it is REALLY UNUSUAL for every single state to play a critical role each and every nomination.

[Tyler Durden]

33. You may know OBAMA supporters who are mad at their leaders....

I know county party workers who hint at third parties, and these are lifelong Democrats.

Look, you'll likely win anyway, but you have a choice here: do you want to win and have it look LEGAL, or do you just want to WIN?

[barb162]

122. Thanks for posting, Tyler; I never looked at the rules before

and it's an eye opener.

[Tyler Durden]

130. It should be an eye-opener to most here.

I've always been big on equal treatment: the 14th amendment; one of the best in my book.

I just can't see why anyone is on the other side of this here. Doesn't make sense to me.

[Hepburn]

138. Care to lay out the application of the 14th Amendment to...

...a state primary?

:eyes:

[Vinca]

2. The DNC allowed some of the states to go early.

They had to make a case and get a judgement. I'll try to locate the exact pages.

[Tyler Durden]

4. Good luck.

Rule 11.A. has no exceptions built into it. The letter of the rule was broken by all 5 states. Unless the rule is equally enforced, then the rule and the DNC/DLC and their "primary system" is a lie and a sham.

[barb162]

142. What if the two largest states ,CA and NY, had decided to go early

I wonder what Dean would be doing about his rules in that case.

[Tyler Durden]

148. Damned right.

And I'm sick of this shit.

We Will Remember.

[barb162]

157. I'm with you.

I'm sick of it too.

[UALRBSofL]

5. That is because the DNC changed the rules

By doing this. Why is the DNC allowed to change what the rules state?

[Tyler Durden]

7. They didn't change them, they just broke them THEMSELVES.

One must ask who breaking the rules benefited. Marcus Aureleus said always ask of a thing what is its NATURE? WHY were the rules broken? Rules are broken for advantage or gain: WHO GAINED or was ADVANTAGED?

[MaineDem]

16. They didn't break the rule

They got approval before scheduling their new dates - because of FL and MI.

All perfectly legal.

[Tyler Durden]

19. That is the worst, silly thing I've heard YET.

Break the rules for one, hang the other.

You really don't know how badly Michigan is pissed off, do you? This is the sort of thing that spawns new Political Parties. I thought this was a time for UNITY, not "screw your neighbor" because you "wanna go FIRST!!!"

Now the party can do what it WANTS, but this is not exactly a monolithic party, and factions almost KILLED the party in the 1860's. The sad thing is that the only thing that held the the party together was the "Solid South" and segregation. We have NOTHING positive or negative to hold the party together this time. I wouldn't suggest a repeat of that debacle. Registration as "INDEPENDENT" is WAY up in Michigan: the flight has started.

But hey, do what you want.

[MaineDem]

24. However, true

Four states were allowed to go before the window opened for other states. Iowa was the first caucus state and New Hampshire was the first primary state.

Michigan and Florida submitted plans for them to go within the window as all other states (except for the early four) were required to do.

Florida and Michigan then changed their minds.

You know what, never mind. I'm tired of trying to explain this. I've tried to be nice and polite about it. But I'm done. Have it your way. Think what you want. Enjoy yourself.

[Tyler Durden]

25. Keep it up. We know who screwed us.

The Rules are why we got screwed.
The Rules are why you say we don't count.
The Rules have no area for waiver.

You want your candidate SO BADLY that you are willing to break rules for it.

So be it. We will REMEMBER, and We will REMIND YOU. Don't worry, we'll think of a way. Or maybe you SHOULD worry.

[berni_mccoy]

17. Self delete.

My bad.

[Tyler Durden]

22. You know what? Just let Michigan and Florida rot.

314 delegates in a contest where the current totals are separated by 158.

WE know why we're being penalized and it has NOTHING to do with RULES.

WE will remember. And believe me, WE will REMIND ALL OF YOU.

We'll think of a way. Don't worry. Or maybe you should worry.

[goldcanyonaz]

32. Michigan is looking like it might go red because of this. Piss off the voters, and they piss on you

[Tyler Durden]

35. They just don't see this, do they?

They might win one way or the other, but if the country keeps pissing on Michigan, they might get an awful surprise in November.

[goldcanyonaz]

38. They don't care either. They're so entrenched that reality isn't something on the horizon.

[Tyler Durden]

41. We Will Remember.

We have a long memory in this state: we're FAMOUS for it.

We'll remember who our friends are, and if the Obama Supporters in this state were doing anything other than following the National, they would know who THEIR friends are.

November is coming, kids. Obama did not poll well here, and he did worse after Sen. Hudson torpedoed the redo.

[sellitman]

234. If they go red they just screw themselves.

Cut off your nose to spite your face.

Smart move!

[dogday]

180. Votes, we don't need no stinkin votes

For the party of count them all comes a new idea.. Just count some... Hope it works out for our party, I really do....

[Tyler Durden]

192. Don't "count" on it!

Nothing is forever: not people, not nations, and certainly not political parties.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. Old news, duplicate thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4629995

Three of the four previously designated "early" states (IA, NH, SC) requested waivers and were granted them. FL & MI were denied waivers.

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5128

Under a timeline approved by the Democratic National Committee, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina had been allowed to hold contests before Feb. 5. Michigan and Florida then moved their primaries into January to be among the first states in the selection process, forcing New Hampshire and the other three states to move their contests even earlier than had been allowed.

Meeting in Vienna, Va., yesterday, the DNC's Rules and ByLaws Subcommittee voted 28-2 to strip Michigan of its delegates, while granting New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina a waiver by the same 28-2 vote.

Nevada does not need a waiver because it is holding its caucus on the day set in the Democratic schedule, Jan. 19.

[UALRBSofL]

36. BumRush It would seem to me

If they voted to change the rules in the rule book, then, they could vote to allow a new vote.

[Tyler Durden]

37. Forget it. They want it THEIR way.

We Will Remember.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. They most certainly could...

But that same committee that granted the waivers for 3 of the states denied waivers for both FL & MI. It seems that the committee's primary focus was to preserve those 4 states that were agreed upon to be "early", come hell or high water, and anyone else who tried to break into that "pre-window", they penalized.

I am hoping that the lessons learned from this election season will force some sort of national primary the next time around - or perhaps they could have multiple "regional" Super Tuesdays... They need to do something because I always feel disenfranchised by having little or no choice (unless I do a write-in if that is permitted) by the time my state votes (PA, which is a late state).

[Tyler Durden]

47. You should be on Michigan and Florida's side here....

No matter WHO you support. Fair is Fair, and the Rules are the RULES.

[BumRushDaShow]

52. I am on their side in terms of the spirit of what they were trying to do...

I wished my state had done the same. But as I note in another post, as long as I am a "card-carrying member" of the Democratic Party, that requires me to go along with what the Party deems necessary, whether it may be B.S. or not. Otherwise, time to tear up the card and go independent. And certainly many people have done that. The fact that they tried to think in "diverse" terms was certainly a step in the right direction, but they certainly need to do more.

[Tyler Durden]

55. When they broke their own rules, and went beyond them when they DID enforce them...

...they crossed MY line. They should have crossed YOURS. That's how things get CHANGED, by people standing up and screaming "HEY THAT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!"

We Will Remember.

[BumRushDaShow]

193. Well I think

The "little" Party member really has no say other getting directly involved in the party machinations (including going to Party conventions and becoming part of the committees, etc) or dropping out of the Party altogether. As I noted elsewhere, this stark reality was oddly driven home to me this election season after what happened with MI & FL, and after taking my membership for granted all these years.

It made me finally see my Party as basically an exclusive club with open membership, but with a specific set of rules and conditions that I would have little or no control over unless I was directly involved in the committees making the rules. In this case, a 30-member committee made the decision of how to execute or waive the rules.

[Tyler Durden]

208. Another good reason for a REAL 3rd Party.

If I find one, I'll let you know.

[Nine]

43. Ha ha! A thread from February?

Heaven forbid anyone should post the text of a DNC rule twice in a three month period.

Besides that, the reasoning is circular. DNC defenders are saying that NH-IA-SC are not in violation of the rules because they were given a waiver. And that the DNC is not applying a double standard. But what difference does it make whether the preferential treatment was applied before the fact, with a waiver, or after the fact? You can't give someone a get-out-of-jail-free card and then claim that they aren't getting preferential treatment by not being punished because they were in possession of said card that you yourself gave them.

[Tyler Durden]

46. Yeah. I thought Obama Supporters HATED the DNC/DLC?

I guess it depends on what they SAY since words aren't important.....

Wait now...wasn't that words ARE important?

I'm getting dizzy.

[BumRushDaShow]

49. It's called beating a dead horse.

The whole system is flawed. I vote April 22 and the candidates were chosen for me by other states. You preach to the choir but I have accepted the fact that by being a "card-carrying member" of the Democratic Party, I have to go along with whatever rules (and how they interpret them) they make or tear up the card. After 28 years of voting, this year, the "clubbiness" of a "Party" was driven home to me.

[Tyler Durden]

54. So much for "Change and Hope" right?

When you play that card, you make anything you support silly and tawdry. Stand up and support the equal enforcement of the rules, and then you get respect for playing fair.

[BumRushDaShow]

195. Your diatribe won't get you any sympathy

Again, as I posted elsewhere, this year was like a lightning bolt moment to me in understanding the true meaning behind the concept of "Party" and the powerlessness of the Party member. The sooner you "get it" the better.

[Tyler Durden]

212. I want no sympathy.

I just want these fools to know who to BLAME if they blow it.

THEMSELVES.

[BumRushDaShow]

215. And again

this is why you have people who angrily had enough and left the Party and joined another Party or became independent. The 2 (major)-party system is really an ironic oddity here in the U.S. given that this country encourages the rest of the world to have many many parties - which of course then forces minor parties to form coalitions. But in the case of the Dems and Repukes, there are "hidden" coalitions that go on between the various interests within each Party and trying to get them all to agree is just as difficult as those other countries trying to maintain a "majority of minorities" with their coalitions.

[BlueIdaho]

39. Looks like

The smartest girl in the classroom has the firm backing of the party hall monitors.

[Tyler Durden]

40. Not sure what you mean by that....

Except to say, I've had "YOU BROKE THE RULES!!!!" waved in my face so many times, I wondered if anyone had really read them.

We Will Remember.

[oasis]

42. Howard Dean's got some "splainin" to do.

:grr:

[goldcanyonaz]

45. Looks like Howard Dean's master plan included Obama as the nominee.

Cuz, he wins all 50 states!!

:woohoo:

[Tyler Durden]

48. You mean 48, don't you?

Can't win what you don't count.

I don't forgive Pelosi either, and neither should anyone else.

Aren't the rest of you TIRED of the Country's Elite CHOOSING who you get to vote for?

People don't realize, I'd be screaming just as loud if the Clinton Campaign had screwed Michigan out of the vote.

[goldcanyonaz]

50. I thought we were the party that wanted all votes counted...except FL and MI.

[GarbagemanLB]

51. and Hillary wants the Superdelegates to overturn the Pledged delegate winner. So much for 'will of

the voter'

[Tyler Durden]

53. When the votes are ALL COUNTED...

...and ALL of the rules enforced, then if you want to make that claim, it's legit.

Not before, and not if the votes aren't counted, because then YOUR candidate has gamed the system as well.

You can't have both, and We Will Remember.

[madfloridian]

67. Hillary's co chair, Wasserman Schultz, opposed the FL revote.

Someone's lying about it.

[Tyler Durden]

72. Again, that's not Michigan.

If Florida doesn't care, then I feel sorry for them.

Oh yes: I don't think I'd quote Wasserman-Schultz these days. Not in good odor I recall.

[Little Star]

230. This primary has been nothing but a coup from the beginning.

A coup thought up by Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, etc. They shoved this down our throats and they don't give a shit about counting votes! I could throw up at what I've seen this primary. Sure has been an eye opener in more ways than one. FL & MI should go red this year after how they have been treated!

How would you like to have Dean as a parent? He hands out punishment not fit for the crime, like a gestapo!

[goldcanyonaz]

236. It's been a real eye opener for me as well.

:thumbsup: to your post.

[Tyler Durden]

56. You know you've struck a nerve when you're the last poster on every thread...

...and no one shows up to refute you.

[Bake]

59. Thanks, TD, for this thread.

I've seen "rules are rules!" thrown up so many times by Obama supporters (they sound like Pukes screaming "rule of law" during the Clinton years), it's nice to actually SEE THE RULES.

Most people only want the rules enforced if it benefits them. Your thread pointed that out clearly.

Bake

[Tyler Durden]

61. I just got fed up with their misrepresentations.

Michigan has supported the Union with treasure and blood since we were a territory, and I have had it with the "oh, we don't need this and that industry..." and "...Michigan has nothing the country needs..."

I even heard suggestions we go to Canada. GUESS WHAT? We would if we COULD.

MICHIGAN, THE 14TH CANADIAN PROVINCE!!!! Let's start telling Canada that 13 is an unlucky number!!

[mbperrin]

83. I hear you in west Texas!

For many years, the Texas primary has been irrelevant because it came so late, but this year it amounted to something. MI and FL have been unfairly penalized. In fact, the VOTERS there have been penalized due to the actions of OFFICIALS in those states.

Last time I checked, collective punishment of a population for actions of their leaders is a violation of the Geneva Convention. In an occupied country, this type of action couldn't be done, but I'm supposed to be happy it's being done here and now?

Thank you for actually posting these RULES, and I feel you are 100% right in your analysis and your call to action!

For what it's worth, you're right!

[Tyler Durden]

86. Thank you.

Seems like the other side has forgotten something:

"It doesn't matter whether you win or lose; it's how you PLAY THE GAME."

Banana Republics win elections by disenfranchising voters. Not something I'd like to emulate.

[kwenu]

232. The only thing I think has been forgotten is that the game HAS RULES!!!

[kwenu]

231. Could it be?

That we ELECT officials to make decisions both stupid and sensible that bind us all. And that's why we get to vote to get rid of them if the do a terrible job. The Geneva Convention is completely irrelevant to a democratic primary election so the fact that you're even citing it shows you're in trouble. As for the rules, they have been selectively quoted out of context. Those provisions can be waived if approved by the DNC in advance. That's in the rules too and THAT'S THE ISSUE that is relevant here!!!!

[madfloridian]

58. The first four were ALREADY before Feb. 5.....they were given reasons

Here is a post about that meeting. They all knew why it happened.

The four state in the pre-window had permission from the DNC.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1957

It is time for the spin to end.

[madfloridian]

62. Getting a post ready to debunk this.

I can not believe how this is being spun.

[dchill]

77. Thank you. This OP is a waste of space.

[Debi]

63. mad, it will never end - not as long as someone is gullible enough to listen to the argument

You should have heard Ed Rendell this morning on Morning Joe - nobody questioned him as he talked about how the republicans forced the poor Democrats in Florida and Michigan into the early primary dates.

The DNC rules and by-laws committee are allowed to use ALL the rules AND their discretion when applying the rules, not just the rules certain campaigns want them to use.

:crazy:

[madfloridian]

65. Hillary's campaign chair...Wasserman Schultz opposed the revote...

Hillary blames Obama. They are all telling lies.

[Tyler Durden]

84. Again, none of this means anything.

Has nothing to do with DNC rules.

And if they don't apply, then when's the redo?

[Tyler Durden]

91. I give two shits for ANY of their rhetoric.

Discretion is allowed when stated in the rules. NO discretion is stated in DNC Rule 11.A. Read it.

[joshcryer]

139. Ever since I noticed 'mad' posting lies and innuendo about FL dems and how they didn't 'really'...

...mean to contest the primary move up by voting to move the primary to Feb 5th, quoting FLGOP in fact, I have determined that they really are the biggest liars on this forum.

Shame on them!

[Tyler Durden]

209. Iowa. It figures.

Hope Iowa can carry Obama in the fall. They may have to with help from one less state.

We Will Remember.

[Tyler Durden]

69. No spin. just RULES.

Or NO RULES.

PERIOD. And I don't need your permission for my indignation about my VOTES being counted. Your man would likely win anyway, it would just be LEGITIMATE.

If he wins the nomination without us, I hope he can WIN THE ELECTION without us. He may have to.

[madfloridian]

70. The first four states got DNC permission. I guess lies are acceptable here now.

It is sad.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1957

[Tyler Durden]

74. I bring your attention to the RULES.

SHOW ME where Michigan gave any assent to waivers for 2 states from rule and penalty.

Are you such an Obama Partisan that you simply cannot see this isn't fair? If not, I see no reason to discuss with you. Waivers DO NOT CHANGE RULES, any more than negating ALL of the delegates follows the 50% rule on penalties.

You want to talk about 50% or accommodations? Fine.

[dchill]

80. "Waivers DO NOT CHANGE RULES,"

That is EXACTLY what waivers do.

[redqueen]

88. Precisely.

[madfloridian]

105. You are just not telling the truth at all,

[Tyler Durden]

123. You know, I never called you a liar.

Have you no shame? If you irrevocably disagree with me, so be it, but I do not lie.

[joshcryer]

133. She *is* a bold face liar, she uses innuendo to "imply" that FL dems did not make a good faith...

...effort to fight the GOP in FL. Reality check, they couldn't fight the GOP in FL. But what she does is quote GOP sources to imply, with innuendo and lies, that FL dems rejected the DNC outright when in fact they made every effort as allowed to them by the process to change the primary date to Feb 5th.

Quoting the FLGOP to 'prove' that the FL dems did not make an effort shows their outright lies.

[MaineDem]

75. I've given up

Good luck to you. I don't have the stamina to keep trying to explain things.

[Tyler Durden]

79. You explain NOTHING.

What you do is EXCUSE. There is no excuse for unbalanced enforcement of the rules.

And if you excuse this, then your candidate has no legitimacy.

[MaineDem]

81. What do you mean "my candidate"?

I don't know where that is coming from.

This all happened back in 2007.

Oh man, why did I even respond.

[Tyler Durden]

89. You support Obama. This is no secret.

You misinterpret my wish to HAVE MY DAMNED VOTE COUNTED as support for Hillary Clinton.

I wish to have the rules followed. That's ALL. And I am deeply insulted that you, coming from a state that was part of one of the first states, should want to deny me MY RIGHTS.

[MaineDem]

93. I was undecided for a long long time. My support is irrelevant.

And if you think I view how states should be treated based on my support or non-support for any candidate you haven't been paying attention. Frankly, I resent the implication. I have been very very fair in this regard.

You're way off base with this one.

[Tyler Durden]

101. And I find your inability to see that the rules are equally enforced disappointing.

Before all of this, you were very egalitarian. This has disappeared in regard to equal treatment of the states under DNC rules. I can only assume that you feel that Obama would lose in Michigan and Florida, and therefore you do not wish them to speak.

Fair enough. Then, under Rule 11.A., NH, IA and SC should get the same punishment as Michigan and Florida. For them to be "waived" in their violation of the same rule is perverted.

[MaineDem]

111. I truly give up now.

Promise.

[Tyler Durden]

115. Good. It was depressing watching you defend this travesty.

You probably even mean well. Too bad so many like you won't understand when the schism in the party births a 3rd party. A lot of us have been sick of this treatment for way too long.

[madfloridian]

120. You are not telling the truth, you are hurting all of us

and you think it is so funny and cute.

[Tyler Durden]

137. I find nothing funny about partisans censoring fellow party members.

I find it utterly tragic. Shit your man will likely win anyway, so why is it so wrong the rules be enforced? I've been having this thrown in my face since the primary, that we broke the rules.

Well, ENFORCE THE RULES. Let our primary count, or negate IA, NH, and SC.

There's nothing funny about any of this.

[joshcryer]

161. The primaries will count at the end of the day. They can't afford to disenfranchise FL and MI.

Hell, many Hillary supporters are already claiming they will defect to McCain if she loses, they can't have it become a complete pilgrimage.

[knixphan]

60. even with those 5 states nixed

wouldn't Barack still be in the lead?

Just curious

[Tyler Durden]

76. Then it won't matter if you give us our vote, will it?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

92. What vote is that?

The initial vote was flawed, only one "major" candidate on the ballot.

I don't think Clinton and Obama could agree on a format for a re-do before the June deadline, so a re-do probably won't happen.

So if MI delegates were at the convention, what would they do there? Pretend there was a primary?

I would hope we can "get over it" by November and vote DEM.

:hi:

[Tyler Durden]

119. Whatever you say, boss.

We Will Remember.

[Freedom Train]

66. What will the delegate math be if NH, IA & SC

are also not seated, along with FL and MI?

[Tyler Durden]

82. Obama will likely still be ahead.

This isn't about the COUNT. It's about equal and fair treatment.

I seem to remember the Constitution says something about that. I'd like it if my PARTY was governed along those lines.

Ah, the dreams of our youth.

[mkultra]

85. sorry, your ill informed

iowa and new hampshire have been allowed this status for years as part of the convention. Long standing rules state they are allowed to go first. As has always been the case( and sanctioned by the DNC) iowa state law requires that the caucus be held at least 8 days before any other contest. Since FL and MI tried to force a move to first, the DNC rules that they can go fuck themselves and that IOWA can go first.


This is why ALL candidate signed a pledge by the DNC to not participate in the FL and MI contest.


FL and MI tried to bully their way in and failed. gg thanks for playing.

[Tyler Durden]

94. Another Obama Partisan heard from.

This isn't about your man.

This is about equal treatment. Following the RULES. They also violated the rules, but were given no sanction. They were told OUTRIGHT that their state law did not exempt them from following the rules.

[mkultra]

97. sorry, your wrong again

They got permission before hand to move it up and thus are withing the stated rules of the DNC. FL and MI didnt, thus outside the rules. Your argument has a leak.

[Tyler Durden]

140. They got a waiver. They told us we would not get one.

SHOW ME where DNC Rule 11.A. has a waiver provision. There isn't one.

There's a "...discression..." clause in the penalty rule, but nothing about negating primaries.

We got screwed. WE WILL REMEMBER.

[Nickster]

153. You do know that you can't just pull out one section of the rule book right? You do know that you

have to read the entire rules because like any legal type document, the rules build upon each other. So just because the section you're citing doesn't have a specific waiver clause, doesn't mean that their isn't another clause that states any or certain sections of the rules may be over ridden by a waiver granted by the proper authority, etc, etc. You have to read the rules in their entirety, not just one section.

[joshcryer]

154. The rules allow rules to be drafted arbitrarily, which is why MI and FL were arbitrarily, unfairly..

...disenfranchised.

[Nickster]

162. Yeah, that rules committee must be a mirage then.

[mkultra]

167. Blame yourself

Your democratic party tried to break the rules and got the shaft.


Confucius say:
Sour grapes make for bad whine.

[joshcryer]

171. Actually, they complied with the DNC in all ways asked except for the demand to caucus and...

...disenfranchise 9/10ths of their fucking voters. Barret covers the situation nicely.

[mkultra]

197. oh, and the "not having your primary early" one

That one too.

[joshcryer]

223. Yeah, but as the OP notes, a lot of states broke that one.

:hi:

[mkultra]

229. Actually , they didnt..

The rules of the DNC state that they can review and approve all scheduling.


FL and MI where a part of the early request to be included in the new early voting window. Not before Iowa and MI which has been a standard principle of the scheduling committee for years.

MI and Florida did not get pre-approval while Nevada and South Carolina did. After being rejected, they decided to push forward anyway. They where warned by the DNC that they wouldn't be seated, but the did it anyway.


So essentially, agreements made with the scheduling committee are allowed within the rules thus are part of the rules.


Both states knew what they where doing, now they are screwed.


in addition, conflicts withing the rules are settled by the credentialing committee. FL and MI can bring their case before the credentialing committee, of which, nearly a quarter are hand picked by the chairman.


Your only way out now is a self paid, fully open primary redo.

[mkultra]

169. maybe you will remember to FOLLOW THE RULES!

That might help in the future.

[Tyler Durden]

183. So, ax NH, IA, and SC. I'll be happy.

If MI and FL deserve the ax, so do they.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

By the way, if you don't want to count my vote, you may not want to count on it, if you catch my drift.

We Will Remember.

[mkultra]

196. i suggest that you break away and form your own party

Maybe even your own country. you can make Hillary your grand countessa.

You could stand on such policies as elimination of the electoral college and debunking the moon landings.
You could spend the rest of your time trying to get texas to break away and join your new better nation.
Protection for people named chad in defense of everyone trying to hang him.


The name i suggest is "The Altered State of Drugachussetts"





I knew there was a reason Florida has its own tag on fark.

[Tyler Durden]

201. CONGRATULATIONS!

Another Gracious Obama Supporter heard from.

And no longer heard from.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

222. Sounds great.

you can file me right under logic and reason on your ignore list.

[gal]

217. What makes you so sure that I will vote Democratic if you get your way?

Your not the only one with a voice in this. Do you not think there are other states out that that will have very PISSED off voters if you get your way AFTER breaking rules, yes breaking rules. There are 48 states that followed the rules, ALL THE RULES not just one. Your state signed a pledge not to vote early then broke it. TUFF deal with it, don't vote for us later that is the beauty of this country, you get to make up your own mind.
Throwing tantrums won't get you any sympathy here. Don't forget your candidate was willing to throw you under the bus when she didn't need you as well.

[dchill]

158. Hillary shill.

mkultra's post is not Obama Partisan, it's truth partisan, and you are outed.

[riskpeace]

99. Thanks for the post.

I agree with you.

My proposal is that every Democratic voter in FL and MI who is being screwed out of their vote just has to agree that the DNC and Howard Dean are strategic geniuses and that our state Democratic leaders have been very, very bad. If we all do this, I think we should get out vote to count.

[mkultra]

116. i think FL and MI should be counted fairly

this means not first because they want to.
Not the primary that took place as it was not participated in.
Not split down the middle.



The only fair answer is a real full on primary. The only way thats going to happen is if the states dem party pays for it.

[Tyler Durden]

210. Oh THANK YOU!

First good laugh I've had all day!

After seeing the fucking MESS Howard Dean has made from an election we couldn't lose to one we might not win, I long for Terry MacAuliffe.

[madfloridian]

110. Debunking this lie in part. More later.

"In addition to these automatic sanctions, the DNC the RBC has authority under the rules to impose additional sanctions, including further reductions in the state’s delegation.

At its meeting on August 25, 2007, the DNC RBC found Florida’s plan in noncompliance with the DNC rules, and voted to increase the sanctions against Florida by reducing the state’s delegation by 100% unless the state party, within the 30-day period allowed by the
Committee’s regulations, submitted a plan for an alternative, state party-run process on or after February 5 that would be used to allocate delegate positions."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1932

More later...pdf version.

http://spa.american.edu/ccps/getpdf.php?table=publications&ID=67

[madfloridian]

128. But who cares about truth.

I am surprised these posts are allowed to stand.

[joshcryer]

141. You clearly don't as you haven't responded to my *facts* in weeks.

I am on your ignore for a reason, you know that I am speaking the truth to your outright lies.

[riskpeace]

221. Your post is just slightly less ironic than the fact that

a registered Republican voter in a state with an open primary could have a voice in the Democratic primary while this registered Democratic voter and contributor sadly has none.

[joshcryer]

129. "Alternate state run process" that would have been a caucus which represented 1/10th of the voters!

A "fair and honest" solution my ass!

1/10th the voters does not represent the will of the people.

[Iceburg]

114. Thanks for the clarification TD; Kick & Recommend to Rule Breakers

[JVS]

117. I'm sorry, but the time for your complaints was BEFORE the voting took place.

Everyone knew what was going to happen in advance. Nobody had a problem with it. There was plenty of time for MI and FL to make the argument that IA, NH, and SC should be similarly penalized. It's too late. Get over it.

[barb162]

125. k&r n/t

[joshcryer]

127. But... but... but the FL dems didn't make a good faith effort! So says FLGOP!

FLGOP which is quoted here as if they are the words of Christ or something!

[kwenu]

131. Under the rules you can move the date IF YOU HAVE PERMISSION. Florida and Michigan didn't.

The committee has that discretion UNDER THE RULES!!!!! The committee WARNED Florida and Michigan of the punishment that would be meted out for defiance of the committee's determination. Florida and Michigan proceeded in defiance of the committee. Florida and Michigan were punished accordingly. End of story.

Now hitting the button to submit.

[joshcryer]

136. FL and MI had no option or choice in the matter.

And in fact it was Obama partisens who stood by the resolutions to move the date forward.

The fact remains that the FL dems complied with the desires of the DNC, but the DNC wanted them to have a caucus which could only represent 1/10th the voting population there.

I'd reject such democratic fallacies my damn self!

[kwenu]

218. An absolute lie. Florida and Michigan were warned well in advance of the consequences.

The head of the Florida democratic party as well as the democratic co-sponsors of the bill to move the Florida primary have already admitted this. If somehow you conveniently think we're going to forget history and how all this mess came about, you're sadly mistaken buddy.

[joshcryer]

226. You're wrong, they didn't know they would be completely stripped and had 30 days to remedy it.

The 'remedy' that the DNC chose was to hold fire house caucuses where 1/10th of the voters would get a chance to have their voice heard. This is when the FL dems just gave up because their primary was already going to be held and would have ten times the turnout.

And that it did.

So please spare me the lies, the FL dems did nothing inherently bad, most of which was out of their control. I would tell the DNC to fuck off, too, if they thought they could dictate that my primaries were worthless and that caucuses that they set up would be "more representitive."

[kwenu]

228. Okay. Respectfully, I have to say you're wasting time with this. Your own response implies that you

know that the Florida Democratic Party was aware that it was going to be punished for breaking the rules. So now you want to haggle over the fact that they were stripped completely as opposed to a lesser punishment?

Let me put it in perspective for you from the rest of the country: Florida and Michigan tried to jump in front of the other states in order to have a stronger effect on the race. You didn't care what the consequences were because you ASSumed that it would be a normal race and even if your votes didn't count you could give one or more of the candidates momentum. SURPRISE!!!!!! It didn't turn out that way and you ASSumed wrong!!! The states with later primaries ended up being far more important in deciding the outcome of the primary race.

So NOW, Florida and Michigan wants to beg, bitch and moan to get a chance to vote...TWICE!!!!! Not only do you want to vote twice you want to vote later than the other states so you can...HAVE A STRONGER EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE! The same selfish purpose that got you into this mess to begin with. You want the cake, the ice cream and a second cake too!!!!

Sincerely, from the rest of the country...WE ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNIMPRESSED!!!!

:nopity:

[LiberalAndProud]

135. Question about the penalties.

THREE
The 50% penalties under Rule 20.C.1.a were arbitrarily EXCEEDED without reason given for Michigan and Florida.


Do I have my timeline wrong? When the Dean and the rest of the DNC were trying to get this resolved before the two disputed primaries took place, while there was still time to fix this before it became unfixable, didn't they warn the two states what the consequences would be if they didn't find a way to bring the timeline within the rules?

If so, was there not time, before the threatened sanctioned was imposed, to bring the scheduled primary date within the rules? (If I'm wrong on that, stop reading here.) A GOOD FAITH EFFORT was not made, and that's where your argument, as well stated as it is, falls apart. Legislators in Florida and Michigan gave Dean a big eff-you. They don't like him and they are not sad that he has been placed in the middle of one big cluster fuck. That's the only way I can read it. I thought it stunk then and I think it stinks now. I don't give a fig whether this fist fight benefits Hillary or Barack. I love Dean. I love what he's done for our party and I'm not likely to have any sympathy for you or your candidate on this.

Sen. Clinton didn't make an issue of this until she saw a benefit for her. That's politics, but politics stink. It's unfortunate for her that she must depend on a credentials decision in this case, because Dean is not likely to have much sympathy for the argument either.

[madfloridian]

145. This will explain a lot.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1935

[Tyler Durden]

147. Where did they have the right to WAIVE HN and IA?

SHOW ME IN DNC RULE 11.A., the rule THEY used to negate our primary.

Frankly, to me Dean has shown his colors. He's an appartchik and a bureaucrat, and nowhere did they have to fuck Michigan and Florida.

Well, if Michigan goes RED, Old Howard will have no one to blame but himself.

[joshcryer]

151. Mind you Obama surrogates were behind both MI and FL.

Why not disenfranchise two early primary states which don't have your demographics? :shrug: Obama's plan was caucuses and black demographics from the getgo.

[madfloridian]

155. That is a lie. The DNC gave permission for the first four states.

I am shocked you are getting away with posting this stuff.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

185. re:

They will definitely lose Florida if we are not seated. I've spent enough time arguing as to why Florida should be seated and quite frankly I'm tired. If the DNC does not change its tune soon, I will definitely be mad enough to vote against the Democratic candidate come November (Most likely down ticket as well) and may even be enraged enough to do something childish like kick down Obama signs in the middle of the night. I'm for unseating the remaining states of the 5 if it will act as a wake up call to the rest of the country. Seat our delegates in full as they were cast earlier this year.

[joshcryer]

150. Pay no attention to the above poster, they're lying that FL dems did not act in good faith.

They will post to you a video where the FLGOP claims that FL dems are "mocking the DNC" when in fact they were mocking the absurdity of the situation since they were powerless to change the outcome.

FL GOP votes to move up the primary, along side a vote to make the state use paper ballots. FL dems vote overwhelmingly for the balloting initiative. FL dems then vote to change the date back to Feb 5th. GOP laughs at them because they have no power in the manner. DNC ignores this effort to change the date back and then revokes their delegates.

Because fucking Donna Brazille wanted to pull a power move over FL.

[LiberalAndProud]

164. Again, link please.

Or it's true because you say it's true? madfloridian has been talking about this issue for a long time, well before we were aware of how important every primary would be. She's backed up her viewpoint with more than a link to a video.

If you think this is about Clinton and Obama, I think you don't see the real machinations behind all this.

[joshcryer]

170. Yes, the video and the "we didn't fight" letter are her "evidence" that they didn't act in good...

...faith. That's all she has. But the reality is that the FL dems voted to have the primary date moved, and it went on deaf ears. Why? Because they were fucking outnumbered and fighting it on any level would have resulted in the balloting initiative being revoked and the fucking primary date moved anyway.

Then what fucking happens? They lose half their goddamn delegations, *and* don't have paper ballots come Nov.

The FL dems what was best for their fucking state and the DNC fucking railroaded them. It's dispicible that anyone would defend the DNCs move here. And mad's only defense is in lies and innuendo. I have also been covering this issue for as long, but not as vocally, but I'm tired of this shit.

[madfloridian]

144. Dem for NH was wrong. Here is more debunking. Truth still matters.

FL could have kept their delegates if they acted in good faith. They instead went along and voted for it 115 to 1

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1935

"In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes...."

FL did not act in good faith...you are not telling the truth.

[joshcryer]

146. More lies, FL dems voted to move the date to Feb 5th as per the good faith requirement.

The fact remains that they were outnumberd and had no choice in the matter, and that voting for paper ballots was a much bigger concern for them.

[LiberalAndProud]

160. link please. /nt

[joshcryer]

163. Why don't you ask the lying poster for the YouTube video?

Oh here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHuQi17EaE

FLGOP quote: Watch as Florida Senate Democrat Leader Steve Geller presents a sarcastic amendment during the 2007 Legislative Session in an effort to "prove" to the Democrat National Committee that Florida Democrats are faithfully trying to abide by the national party's rules. What a joke! (though DNC Chairman Howard Dean probably didn't find Geller's sarcastic remarks very funny...)

---

OR MAYBE THEY KNEW THE ABSURDITY OF IT SINCE THEY WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO DO SHIT BECAUSE THEY'RE OUTNUMBERED 3 TO 1 IN THE FL SENATE.

I'd fucking laugh too. The DNC put me in a no win situation I'd just laugh, propose the vote, vote on it, and go the fuck home.

[Tyler Durden]

174. I'm from Michigan, and that is the last time I'll tolerate you calling me a liar.

Especially when you offer your JOURNAL as evidence.

[joshcryer]

177. It's mostly innuendo. Implications, suggestions, not outright facts.

Look at their evidence. They say because the FL dems, for example, admit to not "fighting" that it means they didn't make a good faith effort (even though they voted unanimously to move the date to Feb 5th), they even quote the FLGOP YouTube video claiming that the FL dems didn't make a "good faith effort" because they laughed at the senate vote because it was a no-win scenario (even though they voted unanimously to move the date to Feb 5th).

It's not facts, it's lies.

[madfloridian]

216. Is that a threat to me? I offered DNC rules with links.

I don't like being threatened.

[grantcart]

227. hmmmmm

Time for ALL Democratic Party candidates to sign on to THIS one.
Posted by Tyler Durden in Latest Breaking News
Mon Mar 26th 2007, 06:55 AM
Everyone has their Deal maker or Deal breaker that will cause them to support or not support a candidate: This one is my Deal Maker.

When I hear "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE" fall from the lips of another Democratic Party Candidate, THEN I will listen to the rest of their message.

I just became a Hillary Clinton supporter.

[madfloridian]

159. FL legislator tells Dean they did NOT fight the GOP. Did not act in good faith.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1468

[joshcryer]

166. They made the vote. They acted in good faith. Just because they didn't "fight" is meaningless.

What are they going to "fight" for? A completely losing scenario? Having the GOP *revoke* the balloting initiative? That's what *you'd* have.

But the letter to Dean is well written and illustrates the situation perfectly. The DNC gave them a no-win situation and they went with their constituants.

But they didn't do anything other states didn't do.

[joshcryer]

168. I will not let lies about this situation continue anymore. Period.

The lies that this poster has made about the situation is astounding. The spin, the innuendo, the outright rejection of democracy burns that the core of my being. I won't let this shit stand.

[BlooInBloo]

172. Much like 60% of the voters and 2/3 of the states, Rules don't matter to Clinton.

[joshcryer]

173. Clinton didn't break any rules nor does she propose breaking any rules.

Fact.

[BlooInBloo]

176. Phew! Good thing I didn't say she that did! That was CLOSE!

EDIT: Clarified subject.

[Tyler Durden]

178. Again, this has NOTHING to do with Clinton....

It has to do with getting MY VOTE to count in the Democratic Primary. If it's any of your business, I voted UNDECIDED because I wanted Edwards.

If you people don't WANT my vote in the primary, maybe you can do without it in the General Election as well. I'm not very happy with your candidate as it is.

[joshcryer]

181. They want to give your vote to Obama even though Edwards got more than 15% in exit polls.

Now that's something that would piss me off.

[BlooInBloo]

182. WAH! I might not vote for the eventual Democratic nominee...

... because I don't like what someone on the internet said! WAHHHHHHH!!!

Gotta love DUers.

[Tyler Durden]

184. Sorry to ignore a fellow union supporter....

...but this has nothing to do with most of the a**holes I see on this board, and everything to do with Dean, Brazille, Reid and Pelosi.

[BlooInBloo]

191. (shrug) Ignore away. Ignore the whole country if you don't get your way.

[gal]

219. Aren't you suppose to vote your conscious?

Go ahead and vote for whatever makes you comfortable. That is what your supposed to do, I don't vote just for party. I vote for who I believe in. More power to you.

[grasswire]

175. I'll stand with you.

Consistent application of the law is a bedrock principle of our democracy. A lot of people have been beaten and derided in our history for demanding that protection.

I hope this will go to court. It's an important thing to settle.

[joshcryer]

179. It won't go to court because they know they fucked up.

Even Obama's campaign is softening on the matter, because they know if they reject two very important states in the GE they will be lost, completely.

[Tyler Durden]

187. Yeah, they can keep insisting on their "caucus" ....

...see how FAR it gets them. Too many of us in Michigan are PISSED OFF that we now only get to vote for one or the other of two we all didn't want to vote for in the first place.

IF they DNC/DLC gets smart enough to move Heaven and Earth and pull of the Michigan redo.

[joshcryer]

190. Best case scenario for a caucus, mail in and internet vote in MI gives you 1/5th the votes.

That's just how dispicible these people are. They think "solutions" are *less people voting*.

[Tyler Durden]

186. Why should they care about the law?

Their candidate has no respect for the 14th Amendment guaranteeing Equal Treatment Under The Law, one of the most IMPORTANT issues to be settled by the Civil War.

I'm getting more and more committed to a third party movement. I'm just too old to start one myself.

[grasswire]

188. I was too polite to raise that issue

I'm surprised that those who have suffered under discriminatory application of the law can fight against the seating of all delegates. It is an issue of equality.

[joshcryer]

194. The original half delegate penality will probably be the compromise.

Though frankly after the treatment they have recieved from the DNC I think they should get fully seated.

[Tyler Durden]

199. Never happen.

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

You'll be able to hear the screams in PARIS. THEY won't stand for anything but another one of their "Free-for-all Caucuses."

See, the MAIN reason the Obama Camp torpedoed the AGREED ON Michigan redo was that we would only allow DEMOCRATS to vote. THEY wanted EVERYONE, including any fucktard Republicans that cared to piss on our primary, simply because the Obama Campaign had told their supporters to vote in the REPUBLICAN primary in Michigan and "game" the system.

Personally, I'm not a liar, so I would not ever walk into a polling place and tell them I'm something that I am not.

[gal]

220. So you mean no democrats crossed over and voted republican?

So you think no democrats crossed over and voted republican when they were told their vote wouldn't count?

[GarbagemanLB]

225. I wonder how many Rush-republicans voted for Hillary in Texas....

[Melinda]

235. Dispensation was granted in 2006, FL & MI moved dates up in 07...

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada were given special dispensation to do so in August 2006. Florida changed its date, without getting dispensation, in the spring of 2007. Michigan, likewise, changed their date in the fall of 2007. Florida and Michigan waited more than a year after they would have needed to ask the DNC for permission, and the dispensation rules were set by that time.

And so, again in violation of DNC Rule 11a, FL and MI decided to hold their primaries anyway and even earlier than NH and Iowa in a bold attempt designed to slap the DNC and those traditionally early primary/caucuses states in the face. It was ugly politics. MI even went so far as to file suit in MI which went all the way up top the MI SC which held MI could move its primary to 1/15. At that point, the previously mentioned states that had received dispensations (made solely for the purpose of deciding which state would hold its primary/caucuses first) moved their dates even earlier, with the tacit albeit unspoken, approval of the DNC's rules committee.

Some background:

The state of New Hampshire will hold its primary vote on January 8 for the 2008 US presidential race, officials said on Wednesday, seeking to ensure the state retains its early and influential position in the electoral calendar.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner and other officials made the announcement at a press conference after months of uncertainty about the timing of contests that help determine each party's nominee for the presidential election on November 4, 2008.

The January 8 date, the earliest ever for New Hampshire, means voters in the northeastern state will go to the polls five days after presidential caucuses in the Midwestern state of Iowa and seven days before any other state primary votes.

"Just five days after Iowa is not preferable, but what Iowa voters decide to do with their caucuses on January 3 will be looked at by New Hampshire voters," said Jim Splaine, a state lawmaker.


-snip-

Gardner announced the date shortly after Michigan's Supreme Court confirmed that state's primary could be held on January 15, 2008.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_Hampshire_moves_up_US_presidential_primary_vote_999.html

NH has been the first state in more than half a century to hold the first presidential primary, and both MI and FL attempted to usurp NH's position well after the dispensations had been granted, some 6 months later in the case of FL, and a full year later in the case of MI.

ANd both MI and Fl attempts to do so were blatantly calculated slaps in the face of the DNC and in those 4 other states.

Every four years, both parties establish rules under which the upcoming presidential race will be fought. For this election cycle, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), headed by Howard Dean, established a Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), chaired by former Clinton secretary of labor Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt Jr., grandson of Franklin Roosevelt, to formulate the rules under which states were to select their delegates. The committee presented rules that, in August 2006, were adopted by the DNC; various sections dealt with matters such as compliance with affirmative-action requirements. But the most important had to do with the calendar.

The RBC was the obscure forum in which the much-publicized battle over which states would join Iowa and New Hampshire in early voting—the "pre-window period," in the argot—was fought. The RBC added South Carolina and Nevada and ruled that no other state could hold its primary or caucus before February 5. (This is how February 5 came to be "Super-Duper" Tuesday, as more than a dozen states pushed forward their primaries to the first legally permissible day.)

Other states were unhappy with this decision, notably Florida and Michigan, which have long sought to increase their influence over the nomination. On May 3, 2007, Florida voted to defy the RBC and hold its primary on January 29. In mid-August, Michigan followed suit, moving its primary to January 15.

Leaders in both states were warned repeatedly that continued defiance of the DNC could result in at least 50 percent or even 100 percent of any delegates awarded from a primary held in violation of the calendar being "stripped," i.e., excluded from voting at the convention. Not quite believing that the DNC would follow through, neither budged. Then, on August 25, 2007, the RBC found Florida in noncompliance of its rules. The state was given thirty days to amend its decision, but again did nothing. Since other states were at the time angling to get in on the early voting—you may recall that Iowa and New Hampshire threatened to move theirs to December 2007 in order to remain first—the RBC decided to make an example of Florida. It ruled that all its elected delegates would be voided. The vote of the thirty-member committee had only one dissent.<3> Florida could go ahead with a primary if it wished, but its voting would constitute a mere "beauty contest"; as far as the DNC was concerned, it would be as if the Florida primary didn't exist. Florida sued in a federal court and lost. The same process ensued later with respect to Michigan.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21130

Bottom line: The calendar was specifically set to allow those 4 states early primaries. It was the actions, and failure to timely act of both FL and MI that led to the individual states moving their primary dates up in answer to the threats of MI and FL. The DNC could have chosen to punish those 4 states, but why would they? Those 4 states had played, and continue to play, by the rules.

[SanchoPanza]

238. You're reading it wrong, and leaving something out

No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention.

The exceptions list describes the makeup of that determining stage. The rules go on to say that the state laws shall trump the rules governing delegate selection if said laws exist, which they do in New Hampshire and Iowa. They have specific laws regarding their timeframe for delegate selection as it pertains to other states. Not sure about South Carolina. The bottom line is that if these laws exist, or there is some other extenuating circumstance causing the primary to be pushed up, the state parties have to take "all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules".

The Rules and Bylaws Committee investigated the matter in NH, Iowa, and SC and found such measures were taken. Not the case in FL and MI. Take it up with them if you have a disagreement.