What of the 300+ Mich/Florida delegates?

[theHawk]

1. They KNEW what the penaty would be if they held their primary early.

2. The "agreement" did not include or involve candidates. It was between the DNC and the Florida Democratic Party. period.

But there was an agreement between the candidates to not campaign there. Obama broke that agreement. What should the penalty be then? Or do democrats not care if a President keeps his word or not?

[Immanuel]

I don't think the regular folks got a chance to make any of these decisions. It was done by the Florida Democratic party leaders. And I don't think they knew the penalty would be so severe. The penalty came after they moved it up right?

I don't think this is accurate. Living in Florida they were talking about the penalty for several months before the primary. They knew what the DNC was threatening. However, like most all politicians they figured they were above the rules.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

I don't think this is accurate. Living in Florida they were talking about the penalty for several months before the primary. They knew what the DNC was threatening. However, like most all politicians they figured they were above the rules.

Immie

Good Morning Immie,
Can you tell us what went on there that we might not have gotten in National News? I mean, did your State Congress have anything at all to do with this decision? Did they have to okay it, or was it all up to the DNC and the florida Democratic Party...?

jd

[retiredman]

But there was an agreement between the candidates to not campaign there. Obama broke that agreement. What should the penalty be then? Or do democrats not care if a President keeps his word or not?

again...the agreement was between Florida Democrats and the DNC. What candidates did or did not do is irrelevant to the question of what to do with Florida/Michigan delegates.

[JohnDoe]

Good Morning Immie,
Can you tell us what went on there that we might not have gotten in National News? I mean, did your State Congress have anything at all to do with this decision? Did they have to okay it, or was it all up to the DNC and the florida Democratic Party...?

jd

immie? did u see this?

jd

[nevadamedic]

Any predictions on what the DNC will do with over 300 delegates from Michigan and Florida? Since Hillary won both states it would no doubt put her over the top. The Dems seem split on this, Pelosi says that states that broke the rules shouldn't decide the nominee. Others say that the millions of voters should not be ignored. Obama of course says that all the candidates made a deal to ignore the two states, however he broke the agreement by advertising in Florida. Hmm, what a predicament the Dems are in!



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...M&SECTION=HOME



If Barack comes out the winner in the March 4th primaries, and Clinton manages to get these 300 plus delegates to put her over Obama, I would think the Obama backers will be furious. I highly doubt that they'd keep their current enthusiasm if Hillary "steals" the nomination from Obama.

Obama being a hipocrite again, who would have thought..............

[Immanuel]

Good morning JD,

immie? did u see this?

jd

No, sorry, I missed it.

Good Morning Immie,
Can you tell us what went on there that we might not have gotten in National News? I mean, did your State Congress have anything at all to do with this decision? Did they have to okay it, or was it all up to the DNC and the florida Democratic Party...?

jd

As far as I can tell it was a legislative decision. There was no vote on the issue among the people that I can recall. Someone in the state government decided that "we" were tired of not having our primaries mean anything and that we were going to move our primaries up to the end of January. I'm sure there was debate in the legislature about it as it is not the decision of the parties themselves as far as I can tell, about when the primaries are to be held, but the state reps ARE the parties so they made the decision FOR US!

As far as I am concerned, they thumbed "our" noses at the rest of the country with their arrogance. Go figure... politicians being arrogant.

As for being up to the DNC, don't forget that this decision was also made by the Republicans in Florida and the RNC has slapped our wrist as well.

again...the agreement was between Florida Democrats and the DNC. What candidates did or did not do is irrelevant to the question of what to do with Florida/Michigan delegates.

I have not tried to follow your entire conversation about this, but I am not sure what you mean here. We were told that the DNC would strip the delegates from Florida (and Michigan). If I am not mistaken, the issue around here was not that candidates could not campaign here, but that they would not for the primaries because Florida would have no say in the conventions. In other words, why bother with Florida until the General Campaign.

The candidates may have had a "gentleman's agreement" not too campaign here, but I don't believe there was a binding agreement and to be honest with you... it was quite nice not getting 48 calls a day from Hillary's camp, 47 a day from Obama's, 50 from McCain's, 40 from Huckabees etc. etc. etc. Come to think of it... maybe some good did come out of this after all!!!

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Good morning JD,




No, sorry, I missed it.



As far as I can tell it was a legislative decision. There was no vote on the issue among the people that I can recall. Someone in the state government decided that "we" were tired of not having our primaries mean anything and that we were going to move our primaries up to the end of January. I'm sure there was debate in the legislature about it as it is not the decision of the parties themselves as far as I can tell, about when the primaries are to be held, but the state reps ARE the parties so they made the decision FOR US!

As far as I am concerned, they thumbed "our" noses at the rest of the country with their arrogance. Go figure... politicians being arrogant.

As for being up to the DNC, don't forget that this decision was also made by the Republicans in Florida and the RNC has slapped our wrist as well.



I have not tried to follow your entire conversation about this, but I am not sure what you mean here. We were told that the DNC would strip the delegates from Florida (and Michigan). If I am not mistaken, the issue around here was not that candidates could not campaign here, but that they would not for the primaries because Florida would have no say in the conventions. In other words, why bother with Florida until the General Campaign.

The candidates may have had a "gentleman's agreement" not too campaign here, but I don't believe there was a binding agreement and to be honest with you... it was quite nice not getting 48 calls a day from Hillary's camp, 47 a day from Obama's, 50 from McCain's, 40 from Huckabees etc. etc. etc. Come to think of it... maybe some good did come out of this after all!!!

Immie

I guess i still don't understand it? The Republican Majority and ruling Congress in Florida MOVED florida's primaries up, including the Democratic Party's primary, which disenfranchised them? Did they know when they legislated the Primary move upwards that it would disenfranchise the democratic citizens of their state?

I don't understand why the legislature of Florida would see moving their primary up..... would actually give the people in florida MORE of a voice when it gave them NO VOICE?

jd

[Immanuel]

I guess i still don't understand it? The Republican Majority and ruling Congress in Florida MOVED florida's primaries up, including the Democratic Party's primary, which disenfranchised them? Did they know when they legislated the Primary move upwards that it would disenfranchise the democratic citizens of their state?

I don't understand why the legislature of Florida would see moving their primary up..... would actually give the people in florida MORE of a voice when it gave them NO VOICE?

jd

What you might be missing is that it disenfranchised both Democrat and Republican. Initially both National Committees threatened to invalidate the Florida and Michigan delegates, then AFTER the Democrats came out and made it official, the RNC came out and said, they were only going to cut in half the number of delegates for Florida. They may have even further reneged on that and changed their minds completely... which is still a possibility for the DNC too if Hillary gets her way.

This wasn't a move by the Republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters unless of course they knew the DNC would tell Floridians that there votes wouldn't count and then conspired to back down as Republicans on the threat from the RNC. Which I wouldn't put passed them, if they were certain the DNC would follow through.

In effect, it WAS the national committees that disenfranchised the voters, not the state. The state said we're doing it in January like it or not. The NC's said, "we don't like it. Go ahead and hold your primaries. We simply won't count your delegates at the National Convention." So technically it was the NC's that disenfranchised voters not the state.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

What you might be missing is that it disenfranchised both Democrat and Republican. Initially both National Committees threatened to invalidate the Florida and Michigan delegates, then AFTER the Democrats came out and made it official, the RNC came out and said, they were only going to cut in half the number of delegates for Florida. They may have even further reneged on that and changed their minds completely... which is still a possibility for the DNC too if Hillary gets her way.

This wasn't a move by the Republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters unless of course they knew the DNC would tell Floridians that there votes wouldn't count and then conspired to back down as Republicans on the threat from the RNC. Which I wouldn't put passed them, if they were certain the DNC would follow through.

In effect, it WAS the national committees that disenfranchised the voters, not the state. The state said we're doing it in January like it or not. The NC's said, "we don't like it. Go ahead and hold your primaries. We simply won't count your delegates at the National Convention." So technically it was the NC's that disenfranchised voters not the state.

Immie

so the rnc reneged and now the florida republican votes count, but the DNC has not reneged or changed what they said as the republicans did and the democratic citizens votes in your state don't count?

Do you really think this is all about Hillary getting her way or what is fair? it could be "all" about hillary, but it sure seems like the DNC was duped by the RNC and by your legislature.

jd

[glockmail]

so the rnc reneged and now the florida republican votes count, but the DNC has not reneged or changed what they said as the republicans did and the democratic citizens votes in your state don't count?

....

As I recall the RNC merely threatened, and the DNC mandated. It sheds a lot of light about the differences in philosophy between the two parties, the Democrats being autocrats and elitist.

[JohnDoe]

As I recall the RNC merely threatened, and the DNC mandated. It sheds a lot of light about the differences in philosophy between the two parties, the Democrats being autocrats and elitist.

YOu think leaders threatening to do something but then reneging is a quality trait that is good to possess?

good morning lean and mean!

jd

[Immanuel]

so the rnc reneged and now the florida republican votes count, but the DNC has not reneged or changed what they said as the republicans did and the democratic citizens votes in your state don't count?

Do you really think this is all about Hillary getting her way or what is fair? it could be "all" about hillary, but it sure seems like the DNC was duped by the RNC and by your legislature.

jd

So, let me ask you, what difference does it make here between the two parties? Really none at all. Nothing says that the two parties have to play by the same rules regarding delegates to their own conventions. In fact, some states have caucuses for one party and primary elections for the other is what I understand.

The Democratic National Convention disenfranchised Florida voters. The RNC threatened to do so.

I further understand that there is not even a requirement to allow the voters to pick who will run in the General Election. It is the choice of the parties to do this not a requirement. They could, in fact, legally go with a system that only allowed super-delegates to choose who would run and then the voters would decide the General Election.

As I recall the RNC merely threatened, and the DNC mandated. It sheds a lot of light about the differences in philosophy between the two parties, the Democrats being autocrats and elitist.

From my understanding this is what happened although I do think the RNC was trying to make themselves appear "better" than the DNC by hinting they would invalidate Florida delegates and then backing down.

Immie

[glockmail]

YOu think leaders threatening to do something but then reneging is a quality trait that is good to possess?

good morning lean and mean!

jd

Threats are part of negotiations, sweet and petite! Neither you or I were privy to those negotiations to discuss the details, but nevertheless they were still negotiations. Compare that with the heavy-handed mandate of the DNC.

Based on that, which party would you want running the country?

[JohnDoe]

Threats are part of negotiations, sweet and petite! Neither you or I were privy to those negotiations to discuss the details, but nevertheless they were still negotiations. Compare that with the heavy-handed mandate of the DNC.

Based on that, which party would you want running the country?

The one who stuck by their word. Though i may not agree with their decision and its heavy handedness, character and someones word means quite a bit, verses someone who is all talk and no action!

jd