The rules also say Michigan and Florida could not hold their primaries before February 5th, yet they did.
Yea, and it will take a Rules Committee to decide what to do with them too...
Rules, Math, too bad there's not Language or Writing skills involved as well.
Jerome, I find your position partisan and mendacious.
You admonish Obama supporters for essentially lobbying superdelegates to use a standard that suits Obama for making the case superdelegates should vote for Obama. As far as I know, there's nothing against the rules for lobbying superdelegates. And certainly the HRC campaign is lobbying superdelegates for seeing things to the benefit of their campaign.
So, you seem to be arguing the Obama campaign is disrespecting the rules by merely making the case superdelegates vote for Obama.
In the same discussion you are implying that if the rules committee changes the rules vis-a-vis Florida and Michigan at the convention this is OK b/c that's what the rules committee is empowered to do.
I suppose the rules committee also has the power to not seat any HRC delegates if Obama partisans gain control of the rules committee. Would you consider this changing the rules after the contest began? Or would it merely be a fair exercise of legitimate power?
based on mobilizing more volunteers and contributors and his relative strength is the South and West. Obama also makes a play for expanding the Dem base by attracting independents and Republicans.
I am not certain he will be a great POTUS. I think he may be. I'm pretty certain HRC will be a mediocre POTUS.
Uh, no. The most current polls in already-voted states at SUSA show that after the Wright fiasco, the Independents and Reagan Dems have moved to McCain.
Obama is also losing the now disillusioned youth vote and the white male vote.
Superdelegates have every right to acknowledge that and consider same in making choices.
You don't win in November with delegates. You win with electoral votes.
There's a "dissillusioned youth" vote?
How do pollsters factor that in? "If Tinkerbell were dying, would you: a) Clap to save her? b) Walk off an listen to more Panic! At the Disco?
Have any Obama supporters on MyDD stopped supporting Obama b/c of Rev. Wright?
It seems that you want there to be a big backlash against Obama to justify what you wanted before the Rev. Wright tapes surfaced.
Obama has weathered the Wright tapes. And his volunteers are still volunteering. And his contributors are still contributing.
Well I guess we are extremely lucky to have the SD's here to think for all us common folk...
...does not mean you're 'threatening' the east with the sun.
If people observe that the democrat party will be torn apart when the nominee with the greatest numbers of votes/states/delegates loses to the one with less, then that's hardly a threat. It's just information. And common sense. Spinning it back on the sayer is spanish inquisition tactics
That depends on whether a large group of the popular vote felt bamboozled and regret that vote after seeing the Wright videos, which changes the equation.
If current state polls show a large change in same , superdelegates have every right to take that into consideration.
Every single time I see this mentioned I ask then why even have a primary in the first place? Shouldn't we just allow party leaders to determine the nominee? Isn't that what you advocate when saying that?
I'm not going to talk math, although I'm a math teacher.
The super delegates certainly can vote for whoever the hell they want, so until someone has the magic number, the race is not over.
However, I have to disagree with you about FL and MI. Here is my analogy as a math professor:
If I catch a 2 students breaking the rules on an exam, the grades they otherwise would have received are replaced with zeroes. These rules are well known in advance as published in my syllabus.
Sometime when they are caught, the students ask for a redo, but I don't do that as that would reward cheaters and would be unfair to the other 48 students in my class who followed the rules.
If these students don't like the rules or feel they were treated unfairly, they can always appeal to the Dean! (no pun intended)
the pun may not intended, but it is quite funny! kudos :)
I would say your analogy falls a little short, at least on Florida.
The Florida legislature (both houses) and the Governorship are in the control of the Republicans. The moving of the primary date to its early position was the result of Republicans putting it in as an amendment to popular legislation on voting reform to create a paper trail for elections. It was a political no-win for the Florida Democrats. If they opposed the legislation, it would still pass with a party-line vote and provide ripe political fodder against them in their next election.
Michigan, on the other hand, moved up their primary after Florida had already been admonished by the DNC. I'm unclear whether it was the Michigan Party or the legislature that moved the date, but the Democrats are in control of at least the Michigan House of Representatives, so, either way, the moving of their primary can clearly be seen as a more egregious violation of DNC rulings.
The final decision will lie with the Credential Committee, but the tendency to lump both FL and MI together, I think, misses the huge differences in the situations.
Personally, I'd say the DNC was right in initially chastising FL, if only to serve as a disincentive for other states to try and move up their primaries. However, considering the circumstances, their delegation should be recognized as decided by the primary. MI, on the other hand, I think should be possibly allowed to attend the convention, but not stand to vote until a candidate is definitively decided upon.
Then the DNC can spend the next 4 years(or hopefully 8, assuming we have an incumbent to defend in 2012) figuring out a better way to handle these primaries and to get rid of these ridiculous, antiquated caucuses.
Why do we have such silly rules? Did anyone expect that the DNC rules would control what state assemblies choose to do?
Why do we have the silly rule that NH and Iowa must go first? Did we all decide that? If so, why? Couldn't it be argued that other states, like Florida and Michigan, are more important than Iowan and New Hampshire? Who would we rather alienate? New Hampshire or Florida?
Our rules are just silly. They make no sense. We'll be fighting about this foolishness from now until August, if not November. It's just not helpful to our chances of winning in November. When will we learn to keep our eyes on the prize and not these silly rules?!
A FL Dem co-sponsored the bill to move up the primary date. The FL Dems were willing accomplices to this debacle.
FL votes should not count unless a re-vote can be done and the re-vote is done fairly and credibily.
Re, breaking the rules and receiving zeros.
The Clinton camp should have immediatly insisted that Obama forfeit the Florida delegates when ran TV ads in Florida. He broke the rules, and his pledge.
Yes indeed. And his illegal press conference after the fund raiser, during which he told Floridian voters that he would support their reinstatement at the convention, was also against the rules.
And yet now, he refuses to help those same Floridian voters he told that he supported them.
If Obama gets the nomination by manipulating these rules, he won't win Florida or Michigan.
And without those 2 states, he can't win for our party in November.
The RULES say superdelegates get to consider all of those issues, and as Tom Daschle said, "I'm a superdelegate. I can do whatever I want. "
what other states won't Obama win?
Gee, that's witty. Too bad the Clinton Campaign doesn't have some sort of a "Reality Threshold" huh...
Sure, MI/FL may end up in the rules committee. The point is that you are complaining about Obama adherents trying to change the rules (by spinning the superdelegate issue to try exert pressure to have them simply ratify the primary/caucus results) but ignore the more egregious Clinton attempt to seat the results of the MI/FL primaries. This is not an Obama-style attempt to persuade superdelegates to vote their way - which is perfectly within the rules - but an actual attempt to override the rules (about when to hold those primaries.)
Your partisan slip is showing.
They sure did, and what happened when their punishment was meted out? Bloodcurdling screams all around about their disenfranchisement.
I agree with the diarist. Everyone agreed to the rules beforehand, so they should apply, no matter who it helps. If in hindsight we have decided we don't like the rules, then change them for next time, but it's too late to do it now...
The list of delegates who are being sent to the Convention by the state parties is officially known as the "Temporary Roll," and the final decision as to which delegations will be seated will be determined by a floor vote at the Convention. So, even not taking into account the fact that there is still time for FL & MI to schedule re-votes, it's definitely not "too late" to do anything.
The actual RULES do not allow for denying 100% of the delegates; they only allow for denying 50%.
Donna Brazille, however, pushed through 100% instead, which was BREAKING THE RULES.
And we ALL know who she's supporting.
Pushing for the maximum penalty rather than the mandated one is hardly BREAKING THE RULES. Claims to the contrary are misleading and disingenuous.
Besides, since we ALL know who you're supporting, everything you say can be disregarded, per your own logic.
The rules say no such thing. They say if you hold a primary before Feb 5, only half the delegates will be counted.
