Credentials Fight (FL MI)

[TahoeHorn]

Do you believe that Florida and Michigan should be fully represented at the Democratic Convention?

RCP

In reply to:

---

---

 

[SomeMildLanguage]

Technically, a few other states also broke the same rules Florida and Michigan broke. The DNC just chose to selectively punish Florida and Michigan.

 

[HoosierHorn]

nope. the convention has rules. those rules have nothing to do with the constitutional right to vote.

i think they shouldn't have been smacked down in the first place, but thems the rules.

 

[washparkhorn]

So it is all on the same thread - this is where Clinton is going with it. "if the rules apply to Florida and Michigan, they should apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - which all were in violation of the rules." (my summary in quotes).

The sticky problem is that Michigan and Florida weren't the only states to violate Democratic Party Rules. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina's primaries also violated the rules on timing of the primaries, yet their delegates will have a voice according to Clinton backers. It is a recipe for ugliness:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[KingBobo81]

Are they really arguing for Michigan...where she beat "uncommitted"

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn6721]

wash
yes they are arguing that Mich and Fl voters should be counted BUT they are not asking for another primary in either state.
They just want to count the votes that benefit them

what does this remind of of? ummmm

 

[HornsInTheHouse]

The constitutional right to vote was upheld in Florida and Michigan. People voted. Their votes were recorded. It's up to the parties to assign the number of delegates those votes get. It can be anywhere from 0 to the thousands. The DNC chose 0.

 

[HoosierHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TexasCrush]

this ******** is laughable. Obama wasnt even on the ******* ballot in Mich so Hillary should just get all those votes because she wants it? Everyone knew WELL in advance those states would not count.

 

[sak]

DNC would be real stupid to do that. If the first viable black candidate was denied candidacy due to institutional shenanigans, democrats can kiss the black support goodbye, atleast it this election. Hillary is not going to win the general election without overwhelming black support.

Whatever Mark Penn says now, I do not think this will happen. I do not even think Hillary will fight that hard for it. I know many here thinks she is the devil. But I do not think she will destroy the democratic party, just so she could run for president (and not win).

 

[kevwun]

I hope they keep harping on this. It's just going to make her look worse.

 

[TahoeHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HornsInTheHouse]

She wouldn't destroy the party because the party is united on this issue--Michigan and Florida don't count this year. If tries to push it she loses the whole nomination and a lot of goodwill, instantly.

 

[bozo_casanova]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TahoeHorn]

If she has a shot after the primaries I'll bet she goes to court.

 

[groverat]

Clinton is desperate and Penn is a terrible campaign manager. That is all this is.

 

[Sii]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

Clinton would argue (and she did at the time) that Obama was not required to withdraw his name from the Michigan ballot. She and Dodd argued at the time that remaining on the ballot, but not campaigning, respected the rules and respected the voters of Michigan.

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[sak]

I am not saying that she is not going to make a case. It would be stupid for her not to do that. But my point is that no way she is going to win. And that she is not going to go to extremes for it. If there is nice enough way she could accomplish that, she will take it. But she will not have a bitter fight or it, thus destroying her and democratic party's chances in this election (and maybe even beyond).

 

[softlynow]

There are constitutional rights at play in primary elections, see Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927). Stop repeating that there aren't.

However, that is not the issue here. It was said above that the party can assign any number of delegates to a state as it sees fit.

The issue here isn't constitutional, it's purely internal party politics. Any half-cocked criticisms, like 67's above, are out of place. In the end, IMO, it is the superd's that will decide this nomination.

 

[TahoeHorn]

softly likes the legal stuff.

 

[softlynow]

I took election law last semester. I still remember a thing or two I had to cram for the exam. For instance, an inordinate amount of the rights we have vis a vis elections come from the racist systems set up in Texas. We read as many Texas cases as from the rest of the states of secession combined.

BTW, the Republican state senator who taught the class, who was in Florida in 2k and who has been an active election lawyer for some time thought that Gore, if he had had enough election attorneys in Florida, and had a better strategy, would have won in 2k. Just food for thought. And I'm not here to argue his thoughts.

He thinks Bush v. Gore is one of the more bizarre cases SCOTUS has ever handed down.