The Real DNC Rules about the FL/MI debacle are posted, and it gets very quiet.

[Tyler Durden]

I've posted portions of "The Rules" several times, and every time I do, people stop posting. I'm assuming this is because they've read them, and notice that I've made an important point they can't refute.

Since then, I've let my anger with both campaigns be well known, and a whole new crop of "They violated The Rules!" ranters have stopped by to chat. So here it is, a "liberal" education in "The Rules."

Now if you want to rant, start your own thread. This is an education for those constantly saying "Michigan and Florida broke THE RULES." It's also an education for those constantly saying "Hillary Signed!" as there is nothing in the Rules about signing Anything. The only thing the Clinton Campaign signed was the Michigan redo plan that the Obama Campaign torpedoed 2 days before a deadline set by the Republican controlled Michigan Senate for consideration of the primary redo.

First off, The oft cited, and immortal DNC DELEGATE SELECTION RULES (their caps, not mine).

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

Now let's jump right to the meat of the issue, Rules 11 and 20.

First, the big one:

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.


Hey, seems a lot of states broke this rule. And where is the "waiver clause" allowing deviation? You guessed it: there isn't one. So all five states have broken the letter of this rule, and the actual result of their machinations actually changed nothing: IA, NH and SC all got their "ME FIRST!" ego trip as usual.


Now the payoff:

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.


If you're having a problem wading through this, the gist is that a state violating Rule 11 is subject to having its delegates reduced by 50%. NOT 100%. There is even a formula for resolving fractional portions of a delegate. Note that there is No Exception in this clause for Any State violating Rule 11, which means that IA, NH, and SC SHOULD have the same penalty as MI and FL. The absurdity of the 100% punishment is shown in the next paragraph:


b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in
violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is
set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these
rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.
Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus
that violates these rules. “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes,
but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that
reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring
campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news
conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than
fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using
paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or
establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic
voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic
organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The
Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are
covered by this section.

So any candidate who performs any of the following:

"purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that
reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring
campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news
conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than
fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using
paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or
establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic
voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic
organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The
Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are
covered by this section."

in FLORIDA has violated the Punishment Clause. But wait...why is there any mention of this at all? ALL the delegates have been disallowed. But that's not what clause a. says, and if that's true then why are IA, NH and SC absolved? What's this WAIVER shit? None of that in the "Rules."

So you see, any blaming of FL, MI or their Legislators is moot, because if you hold them accountable, then IA, NH and SC are accountable, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PRIMARIES NEVER CHANGED.

So lay off with the "HILLARY SIGNED THIS OR THAT." Read the rules, show me where this unequal and unfair treatment of Michigan is allowed.

But you know something? All of THAT is moot. The two campaigns could have Solved this: the agreement was there on the table in Michigan. Team Clinton signed. The Party Signed. Team Obama Rescinded their agreement made on the previous Sunday on Tuesday with a Thursday deadline. So no new primary.

Now if you say "Well they broke the rules," you're right, but if you support the penalty, then you're wrong.

[tekisui]

1. The hearing starts May 31st.

It's in the hands of the Credentials Committee, the same ones who penalized in the first place.

[MaineDem]

7. Actually, I think the hearing is with the Rules & Bylaws Committee

Credentials Committee hasn't been seated yet. They don't have authority until July 1.

Edited for typos.

[guyanakoolaid]

2. Aren't you defeating your own point? Hillary campaigned in Florida.

Oh well, play again next time. The next match begins in 2016.

[boston bean]

3. hey koolaid, she did not campaign in florida, however barack did and ran tv ads. nt

[guyanakoolaid]

5. Actually, both of those statements are factually incorrect

She did campaign in Florida, talking to reporters and having a photo op in front of paml trees in Sarasota and two private fundraisers, along with talking to more reporters and citizens outside the fundraisers.

Simply by having a photo op and talking with reporters she was campaigning. By having fundraisers, she was campaigning. She may have been campaigning behind closed doors, but she was campaigning.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/28/politics/main3760117.shtml

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080128/NEWS/801280404


Also, this is always a good read... amazing they haven't made it vanish from the pages of time: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134



Also, Obama had one national ad that happened to run a bit in Florida, no time was bought on any local affiliates or anything like that. Besides, I'm not arguing Obama's vote should count, I'm arguing neither's should. Read this again: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134

[Maribelle]

18. And your link to Obama doing a fundraiser Nov of 2007 in Sarasota is where?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071106/NEWS/711060410


And pretending Obama could not have eliminated Florida from his campaign advertising, which reached over 6 million Floridian households on multiple occasions is dishonesty at its finest.

Obama did not have to buy national packages.

Obama could have purchases multiple regional packages that would have easily not reached deep into Florida as his national packaged reached the entire state from Key West to the Alabama boarder.

Obama merely further insults the intelligence of millions of Floridians when he makes that deceptive claim.

[MaineDem]

20. Fundraising isn't against the rules

There are specific criteria for what campaigning is. Fundraising was never part of that. They both did that, actually.

[Maribelle]

I was responding to the Obama follower that said Hillary broke the rules by fund-raising.

And I gave proof that Obama did it as well.

You're merely preaching to the choir when you attempt to tell me fund-raising was never part of the equation of 'campaigning'.

[MaineDem]

32. Oh I'm sorry, I was agreeing with you.

[Tyler Durden]

30. I beg to differ, and refer you to Rule 20, clause c:

"“Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes,
but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that
reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring
campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news
conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than
fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using
paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or
establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic
voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic
organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state."

Fundraising is definitely included.

[MaineDem]

34. I know for a fact that fundraising was not considered a campaign activity

Maybe the final sentence in Section 20.C.1.b covers it:

The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are
covered by this section.

I believe they ruled fundraising was allowed.

[Tyler Durden]

38. And this waiver of the rules is documented where?

AND if that waiver is granted, it still is stupid to hold MI and FL to a higher standard not covered by the rules.

[MaineDem]

42. I don't have that information

I'm sorry. Take my word or don't. That's entirely up to you.

I can't prove it here.

But it wasn't a waiver. It was a clarification.

[Tyler Durden]

47. Google is your friend, or call the party.

The locals have been very helpful to me in clarification of issues.

I'm really quite patient, MD, and I don't want either the election of McCain or the eventual dissolution of the Party. Neither is constructive. But we have a problem here: the Primary is very close to 50/50, and the schism is starting to open. We don't need this right now.

[MaineDem]

48. I did find this, from the letter they signed

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

[Tyler Durden]

57. Then anyone who signed it is in violation of the rules, aren't they?

[guyanakoolaid]

178. However, her photo-op in sarasota and talking to reporters and public supporters outside WAS

campaigning. Hillary could have gone straight to her fundraiser but decided to skirt the rules instead. And since following the rules closely is what you Clinton supporters are bitching about... she broke the rules by campaigning outside the fundraiser.

Did she not? Was it "only for a little while"? Is there a time limit on what constitutes campaigning?

[DrDan]

4. as did Obama by running ads on CNN

no - I am not a Hillary supporter - don't even go there

[stillcool]

169. That was a national ad buy...

and the Campaign cleared it through the DNC before the ads aired.

[rodeodance]

108. Where is your proof that she campaigned in FL??

[PoliticalAmazon]

174. What about this part? Where does the 50% rule apply here? ....

"A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in
violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is
set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these
rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state."

[PoliticalAmazon]

175. What about this part? Where does the 50% rule apply here? ....

"A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in
violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is
set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these
rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state."

[DrDan]

6. thanks for posting these rules

I live in Florida - and am tired of being bashed by "you broke the rules - you broke the rules".

In my view - there rules, and more specifically the "punishment", completely go against the charter of the Democratic Party to begin with. The charter clearly states all party members will be equally treated in terms of selecting a candidate. That right was taken away by these DNC rules.

[Tyler Durden]

8. Just the latest song and dance from "DNC DEAN AND THE DLC"

I can't tell you how much I hate that guy. HALF of the issues we have with this election would have disappeared in December if that man had just fallen down a manhole.

[DrDan]

14. I agree - but it has become sacrilege to say that on this site

He has lost control of the primaries. This is our election to lose, and we are well underway of doing so.

[Romulox]

107. IMO, Dean and Brazille are both Obama partisans, which is why they are treated like saints here

[chimpymustgo]

179. Dean has mishandled this badly so far. And I was a BIG fan of his. Do people tend to lose their

good judgement before or after they go in the tank for Obama?

This party shouldn't even be CONSIDERING disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan.

[bvar22]

176. All states WERE treated equally.

Each and every state had the same equal opportunity to violate the scheduling rules of the DNC, and suffer the exact same penality as each states who chose to violate the rules.

It would be a violation of "equal treatment" to seat Florida and Michigan without penalty.
Seating Fla and Mi would penalize the 48 states who followed the rules.

Charles Manson could use your reasoning to argue that he has not been given equal protection because he is in jail, and you are not.

[Tyler Durden]

9. SEE? I've just proved my own point.

The Rules are there for anyone to read, but the "HILLARY SIGNED THEM!!!!!" and "MI AND FL BROKE THE RULES!!!!" crowds are completely absent.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. More ignorant nonsense;

The four states that moved forward did so with DNC approval to maintain the existing early primary calendar.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Dear Democratic Presidential Candidate:
Throughout 2005 and 2006, the Democratic National Committee worked diligently to establish a presidential nominating calendar that would ensure victory for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee, preserve the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process and to include the socioeconomic and ethnic diversity that makes this Party great.
In 2006, through a fair and open process conducted by the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina were selected for the "pre-window." The calendar was approved by the full DNC over a year ago. We are in agreement that the states chosen by our party reflect the energy and diversity of our great country and our party.
Recent actions by a few states could dismantle this thoughtful and deliberate effort by the DNC. Presidential campaigns, county chairs, elected officials, activists and the media have reached out and asked for our help in bringing this uncertainty (and potential chaos) to an end. Campaigns need to make major spending decisions. County Chairs need to find precinct locations and precinct chairs. Elected officials need to finalize election logistics. As a party we owe it to these organizations and individuals to conduct a sensible and timely nominating process.
For the good of our party and our candidates, it is our desire to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar. We ask you to accept the attached four state pledge, steeped in established DNC rules, by signing and sending the pledge form by Thursday, September 6, 2007, via email to South Carolina Chairwoman Carol Fowler at [e-mail]. Please also mail a hard copy to Chairwoman Fowler at SCDP, PO Box 5965, Columbia, SC 29250.
We appreciate your consideration of this pledge which brings order to the presidential nominating calendar. We look forward to focusing on electing a President, rather than selecting dates. If you or your staff has any questions, please contact any of the four State Party Chairs or Executive Directors.

Thank you,
Senator Tom Harkin
Governor Chet Culver
Chair Scott Brennan, Iowa Dem. Party
Senator Harry Reid
Chair Jill Derby, Nevada State Democratic Party
Chair Ray Buckley, New Hampshire Dem. Party
Congressman Jim Clyburn
Chair Carol Fowler, South Carolina Dem. Party


Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.


_____________________________ __________
Democratic Candidate for President DATE

[mmonk]

13. Thanks.

I was just going to mention this.

[Tyler Durden]

21. I view SJ's post using "printer friendly" as I have him on IGNORE.

Your cryptic answer made me curious.

As usual, he introduces an issue that has nothing to do with either the waivers or the excessive penalties; rather, a document signed by IA, NH, SC and NV, which seems to have nothing to do with anything other than a candidate not campaigning in a state.

So, by the definitions of 20.c: Obama gets nothing from Florida anyway. How this affects anything else is beyond me.

And I will not be reading any more of SJ's posts now that I'm aware of what was going on.

[PassingFair]

23. Keep putting the facts on ignore.

Why should you let reality bother you?

Michigan and Florida are FUBAR.

They are no longer part of the equation.

Those states PLAYED with the votes of their
citizens and LOST.

[Tyler Durden]

28. Your post and "the facts" have nothing in common.

"The Rules" you and yours worship as holy writ are very specific, they were violated by five states, 3 got waivers (NOT allowed for in the rules) and the other 2 got a punishment far and beyond "The Rules."

THOSE are the facts. Ignore them at your and the Party's peril. Of such are unhealable schisms made, and it has happened in the past many times.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

29. My answer is not cryptic. The rules and bylaws committee

determines how elections proceed in an election cycle. It's then put through a vote.

And this time:

In 2006, through a fair and open process conducted by the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina were selected for the "pre-window." The calendar was approved by the full DNC over a year ago. We are in agreement that the states chosen by our party reflect the energy and diversity of our great country and our party.


It's not right to leave out this information if one wants an overall objective view of the situation.

[PassingFair]

33. He's not interested in an "objective view".

He has is OWN view. Good to know we have someone
who will sow the seeds of malice and anger against
our own party in November.

Great!

[Tyler Durden]

45. I sow nothing. I report what I see and hear.

The schism has already opened.

If you wish to bury your head, well, when the fire comes through, your ass will still be toast.

This has nothing to do with MY view. If I had my way, BOTH campaigns would be disbanded and BOTH candidates put in stocks for a vegetable throw. I'm a Parliamentary Democratic Socialist by view.

Either read the rules and refute by line and item, or concede the debate. This has nothing to do with "Views."

[PassingFair]

49. There is no "schism" where I am....

Looks like you're agitating for one, though.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee acted in good faith
and in accordance with their powers.

GET. OVER. IT.

We will all get a chance to vote in November.

No one is being "disenfranchised".

In fact, we could STILL hold a caucus!

[Tyler Durden]

56. Keep it up. Let that bridge smolder.

You don't live in the Manufacturing Belt, do you?

I have nothing to "GET.OVER" and you need a copy of "How to Make Friends and Influence People." You aren't any good at it, and you're bordering on rude, which is my "don't step over" line.

[PassingFair]

63. I've been watching you lose it, bit by bit.

Your opinion is NOT the only one that matters.

And RUDENESS seems to be YOUR stock and trade.

Go burn your bridges somewhere else.

[Tyler Durden]

87. You just don't get it.

It's not ME. I read and hear things from all over the state. I have friends on the Keweenaw Peninsula. EVERYONE here is pissed off about this, except the Republicans who are laughing their asses off.

And I haven't been rude to YOU, but you're getting close. Now post something based on an actual rule or observation, or let us agree to disagree, and then stop wasting your time here.

[PassingFair]

93. I read and hear things as well. I have friends too.

They are angry at our state party.

If Michigan voted for Granholm, with her
track record, over DeVos....

we will come out for the Democratic nominee.

Stop fanning the flames.

[Tyler Durden]

99. I fan NOTHING.

As I have been told so many times, I'm just one guy. And the idiots who want us to piss all over our state leaders for the DNC's over reaction are stupid. Levin has lead the fight against the war in the senate. Both he and Stabenow are mostly the GOOD GUYS. Grantholm has handled herself EXCEPTIONALLY given that the house and senate were both until recently REACTIONARY REPUBLICANS.

Don't you remember any of this?

What has Michigan DONE to be treated this way?

[PassingFair]

103. Um... they broke party rules deliberately?

And Stabenow can take her DLC voting record and SHOVE IT.

I give her props for voting against the IWR, but
beyond that.... nope.

I want more from my representatives than
being

"mostly the good guys".


Maybe now we will get better governance and
less arrogance.

[Tyler Durden]

109. You may now debate with yourself.

You are not debating in good faith. The issue is solve the problem, not assign blame. I'm not ignoring you because you're rude, I'm not responding because I'm old and we waste time going in circles.

Do have a good day, though.

[Tyler Durden]

36. The "desicion" is a side issue.

The Rules, on the other hand, are specific, and do not allow for your "side issue"

Read them. All of them. Sure they're long and boring, but you have to do that if you want to discuss this legitimately.

[mmonk]

54. Side issue?

Rules are voted on by the whole body ahead of time. This is true for the DNC and true on every democratic party organization at the state level. If they aren't supposed to stand, why do they do it?

[Tyler Durden]

59. Does your "desision" have anything to do with the Delegate sanction under Rule 20?

[Samantha]

182. And it was Carol Fowler who the Obama campaign checked with

for pre-approval on the national ad campaign (prior to the purchase). She okayed it. A written agreement can be modified by a verbal agreement. She was, as your thread shows, Chairman of the DNC acting for the State of South Carolina. By the time the pre-approval was solicited, all the primaries in the pre-window had been conducted, with the exception of Florida. At that time, Florida asked to be released from that pledge. No the Obama camp acted in good faith by contacting the DNC before the purchase, citing reasons of cost. I do not see that as a violation of the pledge Obama signed when an agent of DNC checked the facts and okayed the purchase. That's just my two cents.

If the voters in Florida want someone held responsible, they need to look to their State politicians, NOT the DNC. It appears some of those are simply covering their own political flanks and others are simply trying to gain an edge for Hillary.

There's so much political hocus-pocus in play here, it's difficult to perceive the reality of the situation.

[Mother Of Four]

11. Thank you for posting this...it's a first read for me.

In this case, the most likely scenario would be to seat half delegates from Florida.

MI, not so sure. Again perhaps half delegates, allowing the uncommitted to support whichever candidate.


Before any other Obama supporters get upset, I support Obama as well- and this really won't eat into his lead enough for Clinton to catch up so I really don't see the issue.

If you don't believe me, use the slider at http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/ and play around with it. (From what I can see, the slider projects 100 percent seating for MI and FL when included- so keep that in mind)

These are the numbers I used-

Guam Clinton 55

Indiana Clinton (higher poll used) 59

North Carolina Obama 55

West Virginia Clinton 55

Kentucky Clinton 55

Oregon Obama 55

Puerto Rico Clinton 55

Montana Clinton 55

South Dakota Clinton 55

Florida Clinton 55 (Gave her 5 more percentage points because of Edwards delegates being parceled out)
Michigan Clinton 55 (Gave her 5 more percentage points due to "Uncommitted")


As you can see I was generous to Clinton, and it still has Obama up 1831 to 1717


So ...uhm...why is everyone frothing at the mouth over this? Counted or not counted, in the end Obama is still going to be the Nominee. It would actually hurt HRC's campaign worse to seat them, because it would destroy the myth that if they were seated it would change the race.

I just don't see the fuss over the whole thing, especially after reading up on the rules.


Again, thank you for posting the OP ;)


(Edited for PS: I used 55 because in PA where she was running very strong she won with 55. Even increasing all Clinton sliders to 60, reducing all Obama sliders to 50, Obama still edges her out in Delegates 1796 to 1753)

[Tyler Durden]

12. The issue is...most Obama supporters don't think he'll win a redo.

And Michigan/Florida voters won't stand for "back of the bus" treatment when IA, NH, and SC got a limo.

And the reaction usually is: "It's over. DEAL WITH IT." I seem to remember that phrase coming out of the mouths of the "Brooks Brothers Rioters" in 2000.

[Mother Of Four]

15. Read my edit please?

Even playing with the sliders to that extent (The 60's for HRC)

He would still edge her out, and this is using +5 percentage points over PA.


I just don't see why this is such a hot button issue, either seat them at 50% or as is it really doesn't make that much difference. In a redo, I don't think HRC would get more than 60 percent of the vote- So again :shrug:

You know what I mean? I admire the tenacity and loyalty of HRC's supporters (Exceopt for the 2-3 that can be truly mean) Why tick them off? If everything is on the up and up, Obama will still get more pledged and those voters I'm sure will turn that passion to supporting him in the GE.


So long as they don't feel like they are being bamboozled.

[Tyler Durden]

22. Oh I do not disagree...

But I also do not see why this is up to the Obama Campaign to approve or deny.

Dean made the problem: let him fix it.

[Mother Of Four]

37. I agree with you-

I don't think either campaign should be involved in "choosing"

This is a DNC thing, it needs to be handled by the ones who created the mess. But it still needs to be handled, it's not going to throw a wrench in the works as far as delegates go and will open the door to the deeply needed changes in our primary process.



I don't see what's so hard about it, Seat them at 50 if you must do something to penalize them...but seat them all the same.

[gal]

83. Have you followed this at all?

They have already said they would be seated. The question right now is HOW.

[gal]

82. It's up to BOTH camps to approve or deny.

[Tyler Durden]

88. OR it's up to the DNC to fix what they broke in the first place.

That would be fastest and simplest.

[mmonk]

16. What is the desire of the Michigan and Florida state parties?

[Tyler Durden]

25. To have a primary where our votes are counted. Period.

It's that simple.

Don't do what the SCOTUS did to the country in 2000. You won't like what happens.

[PassingFair]

35. We could have had a caucus at ANY TIME.

Party officials said they were not interested.

[Tyler Durden]

50. We don't do that here.

So you suggest Michigan breaks THEIR party rules, correct?

This is so simple. Just count the damned votes, Give Obama all the uncommitted (that's the way he told his HONEST people to vote anyway; his DISHONEST people said they were Republicans to "game" the system, which is LYING in my book.)

He'll likely win anyway, and the situation is disarmed.

[PassingFair]

53. We had one in '04.

What do you mean "we don't do that here"?

[Tyler Durden]

61. That's why we don't do it anymore.

I would say counting votes in an election was a little more egalitarian than a 1-5% sampling. It's not even statistically significant.

[PassingFair]

65. "We don't DO IT anymore"

Just because we didn't "do it" this year?

[Tyler Durden]

71. Questions:

Did the current Michigan Democratic party have a primary? Yes.
Did the current Michigan Democratic party have a caucus? No.
Did the current Michigan Democratic party rank and file support a caucus? No.

Then if you're playing "rules," why should Michigan break theirs?

Texas would be an excellent example of "Caucus Gone Wild." I'd rather count real votes. Sounds more like DEMOCRACY to me, but I'm just crazy I guess.

[PassingFair]

75. The rank and file in Macomb County made a MOTION to hold a

caucus. The "rank and file" were NOT GIVEN A VOTE.

The PARTY (with pressure from our Governor, our
Congressional delegations and our legislature)
decided that we would go first REGARDLESS of the
penalty.

Not ONE person in our District Meeting wanted to
go against the rules.

NOT. ONE.

We should have held a caucus, but the powers-that-be
wanted to FRONT-LOAD the primaries for Clinton.
Otherwise, the PEOPLE might have seen that she was
not INEVITABLE.

Whoops. Guess it didn't work out that well for her.

Guess she must SMEAR her way into the White House now.

[Tyler Durden]

101. You people in Macomb coundn't even keep my dear friend Dave Bonior in office.

You're all alone on this as far as the state goes, you know that? This is the reason for the schism: you can't stand to see ONE VOTE not go to Obama, so you MUST have your "Caucus," the worst form of political high-handedness ever devised.

I said NOTHING about Clinton, but I fault her too.

[PassingFair]

105. "You people"....

nice!

You are derailed.



Please show links proving that Macomb County was
"all alone as far as the state goes" in opposing
BREAKING PARTY RULES.

[Tyler Durden]

110. I apologise for the "you people" because Dave was a personal friend....

And Macomb overwhelmingly went for Miller.

But I'm not going around with you anymore. I'm too old, and this wastes time. Fix the problem, don't debate blame.

via con dios.

[PassingFair]

118. Most people are NOT angry.

My compromise would be to seat the Michigan delegates
50/50, and seat the Clinton votes in Florida for Clinton
and let Obama have the rest.

But I do not get to make the
decisions. Neither do you.

We CAN'T FIX the problem.
Michigan and Florida broke the
rules in full knowledge of the
penalties. I'm not "debating blame".
We will have to abide by the
committee's ruling.

[Tyler Durden]

120. So seat the Clinton votes in Michigan and let Obama have the uncomitteds.

Why is Michigan different on this than Florida?

50/50 says "You didn't vote, we're just divvying up your delegates."

Why is being truly fair on this not in your lexicon?

[PassingFair]

124. As I stated before, neither you nor I will get to solve this problem.

"Why is being truly fair on this not in your lexicon?"

Just as you are blind to your own rudeness, your
sense of "fairness" may be different than mine.

Clinton should not get her votes here because the
other candidates were not on the ballot.

It is totally INVALID.

[Tyler Durden]

126. THAT is not anyone's problem but the people who pulled their names...

Which is NOT in the rules. Give him the Uncommitteds. It's how he told his supporters to vote anyway.

And I have tried very hard to be polite here, but I'm willing to compromise. others are not.

[PassingFair]

130. I agreed with the other candidates that pulling their names was...

consistent with "not participating".

You feel differently.

WE will not get to decide.

Period.

[spooky3]

165. Some of those uncommitteds were Edwards supporters who do not necessarily

support Obama.

[gal]

84. You do know that republicans are voting for HRC in other primaries right?

I agree it it LYING..but Clinton is getting most of those votes.

[gal]

80. Oh Obama will support a redo..

If it's fair to ALL voters, that includes the ones who already voted for either party.
That is only fair as they may have voted in a way they would not have if they were not told the Democratic votes would not be counted.

[Chalco]

17. Too much reality, Tyler, I'm going to put my head in the sand.

ps. Thanks :toast:

[Tyler Durden]

31. Sometimes, you just have to post reality.

Hard as that may be for some to accept.

[Buzz Clik]

43. Why would Hillary openly and formally accept changes to these rules?

She endorsed and embraced them, and signed her name.

Are you now saying that the agreements afterwards are null and void?

[GoldieAZ49]

19. Good, count the votes as they stand!!!

I could see a redo for MI, but Obama would not allow it, he took his name off the ballot.

So it to should count as it stands.

[Tyler Durden]

27. So, give him ALL the uncommitted's.

There aren't any other candidates left. Who would care?

[GoldieAZ49]

60. I thought I read here that Hillary had been able to

petition and get some of those uncommitted last weekend.

I don't care either way, just seat them.

[gal]

86. How would you handle the people that may have voted republican?

How do you allow the people that may have voted republican to revote for Obama or Clinton now?

[Romulox]

111. Their votes have already been counted. In the Republican primary.

Michigan has an open primary system. If you allow all the "Democrats" who voted in the Republican primary to vote in any Democratic re-do, you'd have to let every Michigan resident vote again.

[Tyler Durden]

112. Republicans don't vote in Democratic Primaries.

Democrats who said they were Republicans to "game" the system are liars.

You don't condone lying, do you? I don't. And "gaming" the system is a rePuke trick worthy only of people without honor.

I don't have to rat you out to your kids and tell them you said "lying is OK as long as it's to fool the system" do I?

[Maribelle]

26. And the sheer irony - - RNC rules stated the same 50%, they kept it at 50% and punished more states.

And on the evening of January 29th after the polls had closed, all Democrats were given the privilege of watching the joyous Republican celebration on every major network while the same networks stated over and over again Democrats votes don't count in Florida. Why some stations only showed Republican returns, never even mentioning the Democrats or Hillary's record shattering win, all the will The State of Florida was busily counting the Democratic votes and entering them into the record books.

No major news outlet indicated even once that the DNC could only dictate regarding delegates, and not the popular vote of Floridians.


1.7 million Democrats voted in the primary, which usually has a much smaller turnout than the general election. Over 4 million Democrats, however, have been seriously damaged politically by this colossal DNC blunder. Yet the DNC has the audacity to continue to call all across Florida for donations, and to send out mailers to Floridians begging for donations. I would bet, however, that are quite a few Floridian Obama supporters who don't realize how Obama has betrayed them - - worse than Obama throwing his blogcult under the bus.

[Buzz Clik]

39. Seat FL and MI -- split the delegates 50/50. Or re-vote. Nothing else is acceptable.

[DrDan]

116. uh . . . you replacing Dean?

[WeDidIt]

40. I noticed you left out a big portion of the rules

Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions,
including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C.,
against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to
the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including,
without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process
which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which
shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential
preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is
practicable under the circumstances.

In other words, the R&BC was 100% wihtin their rights to completely strip ALL delegates.

[Buzz Clik]

44. I'm waiting for Durden's response to this. I'm guessing he'll be drowned out by the crickets.

[PassingFair]

46. Especially after Florida politicians ....

declared it was more important to go first
than it was to have delegates.

[dcindian]

51. Well that is pretty straight forward if you ask me.

The sad fact is the State leaders were told before they even voted on it what the punishment would be, and yet they chose to disenfranchise their entire democratic voting population.

Makes you wonder who they really work for doesn't it.

[Tyler Durden]

58. And extremely STUPID to do so.

And did the "DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee" impose those sanctions? I'd be curious. And why no sanctions at ALL against the first 3?

[mckeown1128]

69. No sanctions against the first three because it was the

strategy of the DNC to have the first three go FIRST...


They wanted to keep the order...duh.

[Tyler Durden]

73. Closer and closer to the "rude line."

And go first they did. So tell me again: how does this decision make any sense?

[WeDidIt]

79. The decision was made before any primaries were held

Ergo, altering that decision now while the race is still ongoing could alter the outcome of the race.

It cannot be done so long as the primaries continue. Until there is a definite nominee, the delegates from MI and FL cannot be seated.

If you seat them now, then Super Tuesday for 2012 will be held in July of 2010.

[Tyler Durden]

113. blame blame blame blame.

FIX the damned thing.

[WeDidIt]

117. Blame your state officials

They broke the rules when they knew the consequences.

Tell them to fix it.

You can have no say when you break the rules.

[mckeown1128]

81. Simple...

The DNC wants certain states to go FIRST. It is part of the DNC strategy for nomination process. They wanted small easily campaignable states in 4 different regions to get the first(most influential) choice.

FL and MI being allowed would of started an avalanch of other states skipping ahead of each other to become "the first states" to vote. They enforced the rules for the same reason the rules exist... to keep order.

[Tyler Durden]

119. And they screwed up on the penalties.

And on fair enforcement of the rules. Nothing agreed on said IA, NH and SC could move up, just that they were going first to protect their little egos.

Frankly I'm sick and tired of little states with odd attitudes hogging the primaries for two freaking months. It's about time that stopped. PERMANENTLY.

[WeDidIt]

166. Tehn you should have gotten active on the issue

in 2006 when the issue was alterable.

Don't like it now? Then you should lobby the delegates so it gets changed before 2012.

[Tyler Durden]

171. I don't think the party as we know it now will exist in 2012.

Schisms open fast and wide. We are witnessing something beyond the usual "cat rodeo." I don't think it bodes well.

[WeDidIt]

172. Only if the SD *Select* Hillary

instead of allowing the man who won the most contests, votes, and pledged delegates take his place as the nominee.

[Tyler Durden]

173. And what if it rolls the other way?

Personally, in my book they both should never have made it. We had gold and now we have lead.

[DrDan]

123. this argument always reminds me of the repubs argument against

same-sex marriage. It would open the doors to folks marrying the dogs.

Just fear-mongering. The DNC was worried they would lose control. It has been nothing more than a power-play by both the DNC and the state officials.

[WeDidIt]

70. I am not arguing the wisdom

One thing is clear, though. The only thing that could possibly be stupider than stripping 100% of the deleegates would be to restore any based upon the elections that were held.

[Tyler Durden]

72. You know, he's going to win ANYWAY.

Why don't you ALL just try and mend some wounds? It would do wonders for Party Unity in the fall.

[WeDidIt]

77. Not until Hillary Clinton drops out

Once Hillary Clinton drops out, the point becomes moot and the delegates will be seated. Until that point, there is a possiblity seating them could alter the outcome.

The person standing in the way of these states having a seated delegation is Hillary Clinton, nobody else.

[Tyler Durden]

95. So let's see here:

After the decision is made on who is the candidate, THEN we get a voice.

Doesn't this sound a little ODD?

[WeDidIt]

115. Not at all, the states must be punished

florida and Michigan klnew the consequences when they broke the rules.

They acannot and will not effect the outcome of the race.

If you reward them by allowing them a say in the outcome, super Tuesday will happen in July of 2010.

[Tyler Durden]

146. Aren't you repeating yourself?

Personally, I give the party as we know it less that 50/50 chance of existing in 2012.

[WeDidIt]

161. And Hillary clinton is to blame for that

Nobody else.

Her ego and ambitions count more than the party in her estimation.

[Tyler Durden]

164. This is pointless. I won't respond to you anymore. You are not listening.

You haven't been rude yet, so I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not responding anymore.

[mckeown1128]

62. Wow... got quiet in here. NT

[Tyler Durden]

66. 2 minutes is quiet?

I don't want hard boiled eggs at your house. You have the patience of a hyena.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

141. It got quiet on your initial argument.

Initial assertion: THE DNC RULES.

Confronted with THE RULES that you left out...

Ex post facto assertion: "It's stupid!"

:thumbsdown:

[Tyler Durden]

147. You're missing the point here.

It's not that they couldn't DO it, it's that they were IDIOTS to do it.

If you feel differently, fine; man a different barricade.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

150. All parties involved agreed.

No advantage has been gained.
Crying about it now is false outrage.

It's pretty simple.

[Tyler Durden]

154. Is there any point in talking about this further, you and I?

You are starting to get insulting, and I'm taking deep breaths.

As I have suggested, we should go our separate ways. I hope all works out well in the end, but all signs I've seen say not.


Via con dios.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

159. It'll be great.

You'll love President Obama.

Farewell.

[Tyler Durden]

162. I don't deal in "Faith." I'm an atheist.

I doubt it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

168. So am I.

Let us contemplate an eternity of nothingness together.

[dkf]

129. Wow, you just deep sixed the OPs argument.

I wonder if he didn't read it or if he was deliberately being misleading.

[Tyler Durden]

134. No, I read it, and responded.

You really should read the whole DNC document. Link's at the top.

[dkf]

140. Harold Ickes voted to strip all delegates from MI and FL

Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clinton-campa-1.html

[Tyler Durden]

157. Michigan does not care about Harold Ickes....

Perhaps we too should agree to disagree as we are getting nowhere. I hope for the best, but I doubt it will happen that way.

Via con dios.

[berni_mccoy]

143. EVERYONE SHOULD READ RESPONSE #40!!! EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!! AND ONE MORE THING

Welcome to DU IWantAnyDem. Good work shutting down this half-truther.

[mckeown1128]

41. Well since Hillary had made several "public appearances"

in FL including Rally's (designated fundraisers since people at to donate a single dollar) and town hall meetings...


I guess the rules are pretty clear that she shouldn't get any delegates from FL.

[spooky3]

52. others addressed these mistaken impressions upthread.

[mckeown1128]

68. They aren't mistaken impressions...

town hall meetings ARE campaigning...
Holding fundraisers ARE listed in the rules as disqualifiers...

The rules list that the DNC can impose further sanctions (like taking away 100% of the delegates)



None of what I have said has been debunked.


Neither candidate should get ANY delegates....

The spirit of fair elections is also against FL and MI seating their delegates. (Voters in both states were told by EVERYONE involved that their votes weren't going to count for anything.....you can't change what the voting is for AFTER people vote...you can't say it isn't going to count, then say SUPRISE it really did count)

[Tyler Durden]

74. None of that is really our problem in MI and FL, is it?

The DNC behaves like world class idiots, and we get to eat shit?

Somehow, that just doesn't "work" for me.

[mckeown1128]

76. You should be at your state Dem party...

they were the ones to f*ck up you primaries... not the DNC. It wasn't like the DNC suprised them with their punishment. They were warned in advance. You state parties aren't even that concerned with fixing it. They are only trying to get their superdelegate statis reinstated. (they want their votes and are doing nothing to give FL and MI voters a vote of their own)

What exactly has the DNC done wrong? Really?

[Tyler Durden]

85. Keep it up.

You are like some guy who instead of using the phone in a trapped elevator to call for help, calls the state to find out "Who's the idiot who certified this damned thing?"

One is productive, one isn't. Do you WANT to lose in November? Do you think it isn't THAT CLOSE? Well, it is, and we need all the votes we can muster. If you piss off enough people (and the ramifications of this extend beyond the borders of MI and FL) then I guess you have more faith than I do. I am after all an atheist.

[mckeown1128]

96. blind threats...

Fl and MI can't bully their way over the rules. This "let Hillary steal the delegates or we won't vote for the Democratic nominee" crap doesn't work. And she IS trying to steal delegates.

Example: since polling shows that majority of the Dem voters in MI support Obama...it would be completely unfair to give Hillary the planned 75% of the delegates. (Exit polling shows the large portions of Hillary voters would have voted for Obama, Edwards, etc if their names were on the ballot. Clearly showing that the elections results did NOT represent the will of the people.)

The only way you can claim that the vote in MI was accurate is to make the claim that Obama wouldn't have gotten ANY of the votes in MI had voters been told ahead of time that their votes counted.

If FL and MI want to have a say in the election then they do what the other states do. They fund a primary or caucus and hold it between the 1st tuesday of Feb and the 2nd tuesday of June. Then the DNC won't be able to block their delegates.


You know... follow the rules.

[Tyler Durden]

131. Then you may have to do without Michigan.

It's all over the papers west and north in the state. And somehow, I don't see how "gaming" the election by voting other than your commitment makes you a good voter.

It's okay though. Schisms happen. Look at the "Bullmoose" party, or the Antifederalists, or the Whigs. Nothing is immortal, even political parties.

[mckeown1128]

155. Well, polling looks good for both candidates for MI.

So, no I doubt the Democratic party will give Hillary MI delegates (which are proportioned against the will of the voters) just because a few Hillary supporter in the state think they have a good enough excuse to not vote for Obama in the GE.



I mean seriously you guys are ridiculous.

[Tyler Durden]

158. And YOU are rude.

[mckeown1128]

163. I am rude because I don't like it when

a candidate and her supporters try steal an election.

Hillary has NO claim to the delegates from FL and MI. Voters were told BY Hillary, Obama, and the DNC not to bother voting, that the election wasn't going to count for anything. And now Hillary has the nerve to claim victory and have her supporters in the state party allocate delegates that she didn't earn. What an insult to the voters of FL and MI. She has NO right to tell the Democratic voters of FL and MI who they are supporting for president. Only the voters should have the right to decide who they are supporting.


The only thing worse then FL and MI not getting a say in the nomination is some politician claiming victory without an open and fair election.

[PassingFair]

90. Keep it up!

Our state party DELIBERATELY *ucked up our primary
because our Senators wanted to go first.

The others piled on because it looked like a good
way to create a juggernaut for Clinton.

The OP will burn his bridges as he may....

[mckeown1128]

98. It just blows my mind that the FL and MI state party leaders...

are making NO effort to get an "in the rules primary." They are only trying to get their super delegate status reinstated. They don't care about the peoples vote but they sure as hell want their own.

[PassingFair]

100. That much was evident from the start. n/t

[mckeown1128]

102. Do you think FL or MI voters will take it out on their state party

leaders? I mean what's going on with the voters there?

[PassingFair]

106. Two types of people here in Michigan (3 if you count the OP)...

Regular voters have their heads in the sand, they
don't know or CARE about the primary in any measurable
way.

Party members are split 20 - 80 percent, Clinton - Obama
here in the Macomb/Oakland District.

Most thought the posturing was "fun", but that it
was taken too far, and Michigan should NOT have
followed Florida into the muck.

I can only speak for the people I hear from.

NO ONE I know will vote for McCain just because they
didn't get delegates in Colorado.

[mckeown1128]

114. Thanks...

and I am sorry you got guys/gals got (to put it delicately) screwed.

[Tyler Durden]

125. And thank you too.

We did get screwed. I just wish all were as passive or forgiving as most of you believe: they aren't.

There's a powder keg out here in the lower middle to lower classes, and this isn't helping any.

[mckeown1128]

135. Look I would be angry too....

but you have to make sure you are angry at the right people... the DNC is not problem... the FL and MI state parties are the problem. The DNC is just doing it's job by trying to maintain the calender.

[Tyler Durden]

122. As I said, you don't live here.

And you know nothing of Lansing, Flint, Pontiac or the myriad of dying small towns between.

That's ok. As usual, thanks to the All Knowing, All Seeing DNC, this is once again our election to lose.

[PassingFair]

127. My work takes me to Pontiac, and Garden City, and Romeo and .....

I DO live here. As much as YOU do.

And if anyone is making a claim to being
"All knowing" it is you, not the DNC.

This election is/was going to be tough
regardless of who the nominee is.

[Tyler Durden]

144. You need to stop in a couple of bars....

There's one in Lennon off I-69. Stop in and run that by the regulars.

Steve's in Owosso is upscale, but you'll get the local Republicans thanking you for the DNC's stupidity.

I can suggest a couple in Flint and Lansing, but the neighborhoods are a little rough. St. Johns is WAY to one side of the scale: they hate everyone.

Try going to the Shiawasee County Democratic Party meeting. They have a pig roast, I think it's in May.

This would be a rather large eye opener. Don't take my word for it.

[spooky3]

151. yes, they are

Tyler has pointed out why, and here's more evidence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5730339&mesg_id=5730989

[barb162]

55. K&R ... outstanding post, Tyler

[Tyler Durden]

67. And 11 lousy recs.

I don't care where my byline ends up. I don't even send stuff to my journal anymore. I just want someone to accept REALITY once in a while.

[WeDidIt]

91. And reality is, the R&BC did what it needed to do

in order to maintain order.

Bottom line, Florida and Michigan broke the rules when they knew the consequences.

[barb162]

97. Some of us here do accept the reality of what you're writing.

I find your posts highly informative. You make a brilliant case that the Rules are not being applied in a rational fashion. Some people don't want to deal with the actual Rules at all if it affects their candidate negatively.

[dbmk]

104. Except Tyler haven't read all the rules

Or left out the stuff that contradicts him. You pick.

[Tyler Durden]

149. No contradictions.

The did not have to do what they did: it was short sighted, stupid, and not a fair application across the board.

That cannot be disputed.

[dkf]

133. Post #40 destroyed your argument.

I thought you might have a point until I read the further penalties clause.

McAuliffe threatened to strip all of Michigan's delegates when he was DNC chair. I'm guessing he planned to use the same sort or clause.

[Tyler Durden]

148. And McAuliffe was as big an idiot as Dean.

THAT is the argument. Not that they couldn't do it, that they were stupid to do it.

[berni_mccoy]

156. The only idiot here is You. You've been exposed with your little half-truth lie. Good bye.

[smiley_glad_hands]

64. Michigan can never count. Florida can have half its delegation.

She still can't win.

[dbmk]

78. WROOOM!! LOOK! There goes your argument!

Sorry, dude, but you provoked me into reading the rules again (to find some stuff I was pretty sure was in there)

"Note that there is No Exception in this clause for Any State violating Rule 11,""
...Nooo - but if you are going to run the rules game - you should read them all. And for the sake of giving you the benefit of doubt, I assume you did miss and didn't leave it out on purpose.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf - page 21

Shall we call them the REAL REAL rules?:
----

20. CHALLENGES
C.
4. Upon a determination of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that a state is in
violation as set forth in subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule, the
reductions required under those subsections shall become effective automatically
and immediately and without further action of the DNC Rules and Bylaws
Committee, the Executive Committee of the DNC, the DNC or the Credentials
Committee of the Democratic National Convention.
5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions,
including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C.,
against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to
the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including,
without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process
which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which
shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential
preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is
practicable under the circumstances.
6. Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from
imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state
which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules,
where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2)
or (3) of this section C. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to:
reduction of the state’s delegation; pursuant to Rule 21.C., recommending the
establishment of a committee to propose and implement a process which will
result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be
broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference
and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable
under the circumstances; reducing, in part or in whole, the number of the state’s
temporary and permanent members to the Standing Committees; reducing, in part
or in whole, the number of guests, VIP and other passes/tickets to the National
Convention and related functions; assignment of location of the state’s delegates
and alternates in the Convention hall; and assignment of the state’s housing and
other convention related facilities.
-------------

[Tyler Durden]

138. You still aren't paying attention.

No one says they CAN'T do what they did, the argument is they are IDIOTS for doing what they did.

"A" "B" and "C" knock over a liquor store. The court gives them probation because the court likes the town they come from.

"D" and "E" knock over a liquor store. The court gives them 20 years to "set an example."


Nowhere did I say they did not use their "Rules" I said they ARBITRARILY enforced them, and when they did, they exceeded their own guidelines as a form of domination.

[dbmk]

177. You specifically said, several times, that there was no cover in the rules for arbitration

"What's this WAIVER shit? None of that in the "Rules." "

Just one of the factual errors in your OP.

And its not exactly _arbitrary_ to recognise that two of the states moved to get ahead and the others defensively and as a response moved to preserve their spot in the order.
A move that was correctly recognised as being in self defense, provoked by the other states breaking the rules, and therefore not punished.

Thats not arbitrary.

[flvegan]

89. As you've seen, Tyler, speaking out against His Holiness Howard Dean

is unpopular.

Living in Florida and being bombarded from both sides about the issue has made me just fail to give a shit about it any more. My Florida dem leadership tossed me under the bus, the DNC has done the same and brought about the two absolute WORST candidates we could ask for.

Until the big league players grow up, I'm stuck working on a local level.

[WeDidIt]

92. Howard Dean does not sit on the R&BC

nor does he control the R&BC.

The R&BC made the decision. Howard Dean is bound to enforce the decisions of the R&BC.

Blaming Howard Dean for this is akin to blaming the sheriff for enforcing an eviction notice.

[PassingFair]

94. How did the DNC "bring about" these candidates?

Huh?

[Tyler Durden]

152. 'S Ok. You're welcome at my barricaide anytime.

I'll save you some "heat."

This is going to end very badly I'm afraid. We might have to wait until next summer for the pot to boil over, but boil it will.

I just hope I can nail some property up north before the fecal matter impacts the rotary air motion transformer.

[berni_mccoy]

121. Hi, I'm Tyler. I only post the rules that make Clinton look good

Tyler thinks people are stupid and won't look up and read ALL of the rules. Nice half-truthing. If ANY part of this were remotely true, the MSM would have handed Dean's head on a platter over to FL and MI.

What a tool.

[dbmk]

128. Tyler was right though

When the real rules gets posted it gets kinda quiet.

[PassingFair]

132. Right.....cause this thread is ....

just dropping like a stone.

Take out your earplugs.

[dbmk]

136. PF - you might want to read my other posts here. :)

[PassingFair]

137. Sorry....

he's got me all "het-up".

:)

[berni_mccoy]

142. It's easy to fool people with half-truths that require work and structured argument to disprove.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

139. the "rules and bylaws committee" of the DNC televised on CSPAN

just incase people want to hear the televised discussion of the meeting of the rules and bylaws committee re Florida Primary 08 probably as good a place as any to put it?

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=200652-1

The committee considered the proposed plans for selecting 2008 state delegates. The committee also voted to sanction Florida for moving its primary election to January 29 in violation of party rules against holding a primary before February 5, 2008. They took away Florida’s national convention delegates unless Florida agrees to move its primary to a later date.

[madfloridian]

145. Here you go. More rules you did not quote. Florida's "good faith" failure.

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...."

More:

"Under the DNC delegate selection rules, if a state party’s plan violates the rule with respect to timing, the number of its pledged delegates—those delegates awarded proportionally to candidates based on the primary or caucus results—is automatically reduced 50%(without any action by the RBC or DNC); no member of the DNC can attend the Convention as a delegate; no Member of Congress can attend the Convention as a delegate; and if applicable, the state’s Democratic governor can not attend the Convention as a delegate. In addition, any presidential candidate who campaigns in the state for the event in violation of the rules cannot receive any pledged delegates from that state. In addition to these automatic sanctions, the DNC
RBC has authority under the rules to impose additional sanctions, including further reductions in the state’s delegation.

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

[mmonk]

153. Over 150 posts now. Real quiet.

[Tyler Durden]

160. Don't be rude.

I've added enough people to IGNORE for today.

Via con dios.

[gal]

167. How about we post the pledge she signed?

http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/THREE_pledge_versions.pdf
The important part:
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.


But let's post the whole thing

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 28, 2007
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the Heartland, East, South and West.
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.


THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
___________________________ __________
John/Jane Doe, Doe for President DATE

[stillcool]

170. 447 members of The Democratic National Committee...

agreed to and passed the rules in August of 2006. Florida and Michigan decided they did not like the rules. As a result of their pushing up their Primary dates, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were forced to do so as well. The Democratic National Committee voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates, and the two rogue states knew what the consequences would be before August of 2007. If Florida and Michigan do not like the rules of the Democratic National Party, that they agreed to, perhaps they should start their own party.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her. “I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5. The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.
"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15.
"We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.
State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.
The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.
Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the
Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.
The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.
Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates
National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."
The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's
historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot. The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates
By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.
The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.
The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[FlyingSquirrel]

180. Did you have a numerical point?

If I'm getting you right, you're proposing that IA, NH, SC, FL and MI should each be penalized half their delegates, and superdelegates should not be allowed in those five states.

Obama would go from being ahead of Clinton in those five states (including supers who have endorsed) by 16, to being behind Clinton in those five states (with supers stripped) by 26.

That'd be a net gain of 42 delegates for Hillary.

The above scenario assumes you give Obama the Uncommitted vote in MI.

------

By all means, let's do it and end this charade. Obama still wins by a very large margin.

[TheDoorbellRang]

181. Read it again. IA, NH, NV, and SC aren't part of the first determining stage

Here is the very first sentence, which excludes the above mentioned states from "first determining stage" status:

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.

That is why the rules go on to note when those four states are to proceed. Since MI broke the rule FIRST and set its primary date on January 15th, Iowa and New Hampshire were allowed by the DNC rules committee to move their dates up to circumvent MI's cute little maneuver.

You might also note that Michigan played the same game back in 2004, and Terry McAuliffe threatened then not to seat them at the convention.

Michiganders and Floridians who are so pissed at Howard Dean need to redirect their anger to their state parties, where it belongs. If 48 other states can play by the rules, they should, too.

[McCamy Taylor]

183. Obama 1825, Clinton 1770 his lead narrows to 55 with the original "rules" Eeeks!

No wonder no one wants to make everyone who went early halve their delegates. It cuts Obama's delegates from Iowa and South Carolina and gives Clinton more from Michigan and Florida.

This interpretation of the "rules" is designed to favor Obama by increasing a 55 point lead to over 150.

Notice that I am never quiet.

:headbang:

[crimsonblue]

184. Good luck with this...

it's too bad you don't have SCOTUS precedent on your side, but whatever you need to do to keep the irrational hopes alive....