MyDD :: A Simpler and Fairer Solution

A Simpler and Fairer Solution

by clawed, Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM EST

Seat the delegations AS ALREADY ELECTED in MI and FL.

100%. The uncommitteds already elected as delegates remain. They vote for whoever they want.

Disqualify all superdelegates from MI and FL.

All primary voters are 100% "enfranchised".

Superdelegates are politicians, politicians are the ones who screwed up, let them take the punishment.

(Obama still wins easily.)

Tags: MI, FL (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

More than 100%. (none / 0)

Under that scenario, a single vote in Michigan would carry more than four times as much weight as a single vote in Indiana. Four times.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?

by Elsinora on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:10:17 AM EST

Primaries Don't Work That Way (none / 0)

The number of delegates each state gets is apportioned by the state's population, not by primary turnout.

by TooFolkGR on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Simpler and Fairer Solution (2.00 / 1)

Hell no. My state followed the rules of the party and waited our turn. Why should Michigan and Florida get rewarded for cutting in line???

Why do you want to disenfranchise me for following the rules?

by neonplaque on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:16:59 AM EST

Not looking to fight (1.00 / 0)

just asking a question: how would seating FL and MICH "disenfranchise me for following the rules"?

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:20:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not looking to fight (2.00 / 2)

Because it would dilute/skew the vote of those who followed the rules by including the tainted election results from FL and MI.

by neonplaque on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, valid point - - (1.00 / 0)

but - - again, not looking to fight, just civilly discuss - - if diluting your vote helped us get the electoral votes of Florida in November, would it be worth it? 'cause right now, Obama IS hurting in Florida due to this dispute.

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, valid point - - (none / 0)

Oh, they should be seated... just not at 100%. There must be respect for the rules, regardless of how silly they may seem.

As for Obama in Florida, we're still 5.5 months out from the election. He's polling well in Ohio and PA, which he only needs 2 of the 3 critical swing states. Plus he's put other states in play not traditionally blue.

We'll be fine.

by neonplaque on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I get nervous - - (1.00 / 0)

we're democrats - we always manage to blow it!

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:01:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's face it (none / 0)

No matter what Sen. Clinton's supporters are saying this is not a battle over enfranchisement.

It's a battle of who wins and who loses.

Sen. Clinton would not win under my scenario, therefore her people will reject it. Even though I gave the voters who voted 100% enfranchisement, she could not win without expanding the superdelegate pool substantially. Note that Lanny Davis' "fair" proposal tells the uncommitteds who to vote for, rather than leave it up to the already selected delegations. That's another way she could win, I suppose, by disenfranchising those who voted for "uncommitted".

Obama would win, therefore anyone who voted for him is not cheated.

by clawed on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:29:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

An Obama/Clinton ticket (1.00 / 0)

and then all this BS is over.
We can then ALL work TOGETHER to take over the White House, increase our margins in Congress, and take back the supreme court over the next 4 years!

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:18:55 AM EST

Re: An Obama/Clinton ticket (none / 0)

I don't think Obama and Clinton lend themselves to each other the best under either circumstance. If the roles were reversed, I wouldn't be advocating for Obama as Veep, because I think Clinton would need to pick someone strategically, just as I believe Obama should. I'd expect Obama to endorse Clinton and get his supporters on board and campaign for her, though, but Clinton would've needed to pick someone like Obama does- Jim Webb, for instance, to shore up the independent and moderate voters and possibly pull VA into the running.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know . . . (1.00 / 0)

1:2 tickets have a history of working - - JFK/LBJ in '60, RR/GHWB in '80 . . .
Clinton and Obama really have been appealing to different "markets", with little over lap. It's not the typical primary race where they're each getting a certain percent of all demographics. He gets 85% of this group, she gets 75% of another, etc etc. If their supporters folowed them onto the ticket, we'd get 100% of democrats, and we are the majority in states with a majority of electoral votes (we win when we don't lose our own people in the general) . . . Just a thought.

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know . . . (none / 0)

Ehh, you make a good argument. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. I personally don't think Senator Clinton will be on the ticket, but I'm certain it won't be a disservice or slight to her- again, I'd expect her to do the same with Senator Obama roles reversed- but I do expect she'll be our new bulldog in the Senate, which would certainly suit her more than Veep. Heck, she's got more power as Senate Majority Leader than Veep.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But I think psychologically, she wants (1.00 / 0)

to be a trail blazer - - I think she really wants to make history for women, which she would do as "first female vice president". Just as I think it's a similar primary motivation for Obama. They'd both work their butts off / take no prisoners. Imagine Axelrod and Wolfson attacking McCain in tandem - LOL.

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But I think psychologically, she wants (none / 0)

She's already shown that a woman can certainly be President or Vice President. I'm 100% convinced if she hadn't surrounded herself with the likes of Mark Penn and gotten arrogant, figuring her name would win her over, she'd have had this thing wrapped up long ago, and she would've won in the fall, too, just like Obama's going to. Not being Veep won't change that one bit, and as I've said before, with the workout Clinton gave Obama, I don't see the Republicans have a chance- she was his professor in the school of hard knocks, so to speak, he's gonna run right over the Republicans come November.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We agree as to Penn - (1.00 / 0)

she should sue for malpractice !!!

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:02:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We agree as to Penn - (none / 0)

Hell, the majority of the debt she has is owed directly to him, and the idiot didn't even know how delegates are awarded. Seriously, how dumb can you get?

Anyway, again, I'm glad she didn't drop out, though, when she got behind. Look where we are now- four million more Democrats registered, fundraising records shattered, and Hillary used all the best lines the Republicans might have used on Obama, so this fall, people are going to say "Pfft, whatever. If Clinton couldn't make it stick, we sure as hell ain't gonna believe you." When Obama wins, it'll be largely as a result of Senator Clinton.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:06:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Depending on what the supers do this week (2.00 / 1)

the meeting DNC rules committee meeting could be moot.

If Michigan and Florida are added as is then Obama picks up 79 more delegates leaving Obama 144 delegates from victory at the 2208 mark. If you allow for 36 more delegates from the remaining primaries, 20 more add-ins, 20 of the 55 "uncommitted pledged delegates" from Michigan, then Obama would only be 68 super delegates away from clinching this.

We shall overcome. Yes we can.

by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:05:49 AM EST

Re: Depending on what the supers do this week (none / 0)

I'm almost at the point where I would accept the delegations seated as they currently exist in FL and MI, with no reallocations. Even with supers.

I'm not quite ready to offer that. I only like to bet on sure things ;)

It's tempting, though.

by clawed on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.