What do you think about the RBC decision?

[PM7nj]

Do you think the RBC forged a fair compromise?

[rocktivity]

1. In the future, what's going to stop states from deciding it's "worth it"

to lose delegate voting strength in order to run their primaries out of turn?

And what kind of message has the DNC sent to the people who took them seriously when they were told the primaries wouldn't count?

I fear these rulings have set a very self-destructive precedent.

:headbang:
rocknation

[babylonsister]

2. BUT! Hopefully Levin and others will change the way primaries in the

future are run. The whole Democratic system needs a big overhaul, something more equitable for all states.

[quaker bill]

10. The point of this whole proceeding

was that he tried to change the system, and successfully did change it. Two new states were moved into the "early window". Of course Levin wanted Michigan to be one of them, so, they applied and lost to SC.

The rules were changed, a new process was set up, with Levin's involvement. However, when he did not get all he wanted, they went around the rules. The Michigan failure to comply was knowledgable, willful, and required the cooperation of a great many Democrats to achieve.

I think the 100 percent sanction should have stood.

[PM7nj]

4. Yep. I can't wait for some state to try to have their primary before Iowa.

You just know it will happen.

[snappyturtle]

14. I share the same concern plus what have the other states learned?

Hopefully, it isn't that they can hold their primary whenever and they will still be admitted delegates to the convention. I can't see big states doing this but a bunch of little states with fewer delegates might. I think Fl and MI have state problems within the party and the national wing should have stuck to it's guns. If procedures aren't changed, 2012 will be a mess.

[BlooInBloo]

15. FL and MI still lost the millions of $ in campaign spending, free press for their pols...

... and they looked like jackasses on national tv.

Definitely not worth it for any state to sacrifice all of that, and end up with only 1/2 of their vote.

The DNC was the second biggest winner (to Obama) - they successfully showed resolve on their punishment stick.

Now they have to show the carrot (it takes both carrots AND sticks to keep people in line), by working out a better primary schedule that everyone can live with.


EDIT: Clarified subject.

[snappyturtle]

17. I agree with you....big states won't do this but little states might

just to be early in the process....half of not many is not many...delegates that is.

[hokies4ever]

8. I share the same concern

but one has to figure that a 50% delegate penalty at minimum will serve as a strong enough deterrent.

[monomach]

3. Obama; Unfair

Shouldn't be any FL/MI delegates.

[mcctatas]

5. I realize that as a practical matter, the delegates from MI had to

be seated, but it makes me a little queasy. Unlike FL, they had no mitigating factors for moving up their primary, the results were totally bogus and the process fatally flawed, they should have gotten 0, zip, nada....

[sandnsea]

6. Obama supporter, it's practical and reasonable

but most certainly not fair.

[newmajority]

7. I'm not sure if "fair" is the right word.

The state DLC operated parties broke the rules, and really shouldn't get any votes at all.

But at least it's settled, and it really didn't do anything to alter the outcome of the primary, so I can accept it, and move on.

This primary is OVER as of Tuesday night, and there will be no question who the nominee is.

[Gore1FL]

9. I voted Obama:Fair

In reality, the rules were changed to favor Clinton, but if it means less divisiveness, then it is worth it and hence fair enough.

I am pretty amused at the Clinton Campaign and some supporters who are outraged their victory today.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Clinton received a gift with this compromise proposal.

She was entitled to 0% per DNC rules, yet she and her people still complain. Oy. Enough of this bullshit. It's over.

[RichardRay]

12. Remember the definition of 'fair':

The allocation that makes everyone equally unhappy.

As a supporter of Senator Obama I know I'm not happy and it sounds like the supporters of Senator Clinton aren't, either, so I guess I'll go along with it.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Both state parties are satisfied, those who aren't should (again) take it up with them...

http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/florida-and-michigan-democratic-parties.html

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

16. FL had to be seated, MI less certain

Florida seems to qualify for the minimum penalty: moved up only a week, didn't jump in front of many states. And the minimum penalty is what they got. The 100% reduction was overly harsh, and was reduced on this appeal. Seems that this is the best fix.

I don't get why some Clinton fans feel there should be no penalty at all. Those clowns booing today, what did you think there would be no penalty at all for violating?

I also don't get why Obama fans think this was not fair for their guy. Is is that she has name recognition early? Because think of 2004. It was Dean, Dean, Dean in the news for 6 months leading up to Iowa, then Kerry won. Then Kerry won New Hampshire and 80-90% of the states. By the 4th contest, wouldn't Dean's name recognition be higher, if that is what you are basing Clinton's win in FL on? As it turned out, Kerry won IA and NH, and the race was shaped for him. Obama won IA, lost NH, and won SC when Florida voted. Seems like the race was shaped as a 2 horse race, and Obama won 2 of 3 at that point. I don't see the disadvantage for Obama except that he is a better campaigner, but that wouldn't have turned 33-50 into a win.