What of the 300+ Mich/Florida delegates?

[theHawk]

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! :laugh2:



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_DELEGATES?SITE=FLTAM&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.

[Classact]

I think the Democrats are praying that Obama wins the Ohio-Texas race hands down so they won't have to worry about those states being ignored.

The Democratic and Republican primaries are both flawed. Some states never get to have an influence on the party selection. The only fair solution would be to have the candidates debate over and over and then have something similar to a real election with all states voting on the same day to select a nominee for each party. Say have a nominee election on July 4th and then a general election as it is now... plenty of time to chose sides and have debates and the entire voting population cannot be influenced by the media or early state outcomes.

[krisy]

I think the Democrats are praying that Obama wins the Ohio-Texas race hands down so they won't have to worry about those states being ignored.

The Democratic and Republican primaries are both flawed. Some states never get to have an influence on the party selection. The only fair solution would be to have the candidates debate over and over and then have something similar to a real election with all states voting on the same day to select a nominee for each party. Say have a nominee election on July 4th and then a general election as it is now... plenty of time to chose sides and have debates and the entire voting population cannot be influenced by the media or early state outcomes.

This is true. For the Republicans in Ohio,our vote won't really make a difference since McCain has the nomination sealed up. I was wondering why they don't do everything in one day. It's frustrating because I liked Huckabee and Romney,but never had the opportunity to give one of them my vote.

[krisy]

By the way,Hillary and Obama are driving us all nuts(in Ohio) with their recorded phone calls. My co worker amd mom are both registered Republicans ans are getting them everyday!! Not to mention the non stop commercials

[glockmail]

Any predictions on what the DNC will do with over 300 delegates from Michigan and Florida? ..... I hope Hillary gets these counted then tops it off with Superdelegates. The atomic implosion of the Democrat Party would be a most festive event. :coffee:

[theHawk]

By the way,Hillary and Obama are driving us all nuts(in Ohio) with their recorded phone calls. My co worker amd mom are both registered Republicans ans are getting them everyday!! Not to mention the non stop commercials

I'm in Texas and the Obama commercials are on every other minute. Sometimes played several times during the SAME commerical break.

In Obama's commercial he says "this administration has widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street" and that CEOs are making more in an hour than some people make in a year. Sounds to me like he is a flamming socialist in favor of income re-distrubution by using the worst case scenario of comparing a CEO to a low income job.

Hillary's was probably even worse. It doesn't show her talking but instead some latino guy. And he says that by voting for Hillary it would improve life FOR ALL!!!

It makes me sick that people gobble up these feel-good blanket statements as if they actually mean anything. Zero substance and all talk, that seems to be the Dems message this year.

[JohnDoe]

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! :laugh2:



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_DELEGATES?SITE=FLTAM&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.

I personally believe that the delegates in florida should not count, due to the fact that this was their choice to break the rules and run an earlier primary.

If I had been Florida, I would not have chosen to void my delegates, but these were the rules upfront and they were made aware of them from what i understand.

This sickens me, because as said, I would have never chosen to void my vote in order to vote earlier? it JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to me how any state would have chosen such because it would have defeated the purpose of wanting an earlier primary, a primary that "counted" in making a decision on who would be the Democratic nominee????

And it sickens me because without the vote of the "people" we no longer have Sovereign power..... over our gvt. :(

I do not believe that the Florida or Michigan Superdelegates were voided though, and they will have a say at the convention....?

REGARDLESS, THE RULES NEED TO BE FOLLOWED AS THEY WERE SET UP BEFORE THE GAME BEGAN.

I am not yelling there, it is just the way it is....fair is fair.

Taking that stance though, to me, means that the Superdelegates who were also set up BEFORE THE GAME BEGAN, as being able to vote for who they want to vote for and support who they believe is the right person for president, should be able to continue to do such WITHOUT the pressure I am seeing from the media and everyone else that they should vote the way the people in their state voted and crap like that, which is also bullshit and changing the rules now....

When the game began, superdelegates could be wooed, IT WAS PART OF THE RULES, however fair or unfair we may think that is....and superdelegates and the politicing with them, and their spoken sponsorships of candidates WAS ALL part of the initial game....

To CHANGE that now and insist that superdelegates vote with the people of their state is a complete turn around from the rules the game set forth with.....

YES, I believe civil unrest could set forth among Democrats, until they all get scared about McCain..... ;)

jd

[retiredman]

I think, for many superdelegates who are elected officials, it becomes a pragmatic problem. If I am a democratic congressman - superdelegate - and my district democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama, it would be foolish for me to support Clinton and not expect to see some backlash at the next election....

[glockmail]

I personally believe that the delegates in florida should not count, due to the fact that this was their choice to break the rules and run an earlier primary.... Tsk tsk. All those disenfranchised voters. :poke:

[retiredman]

Tsk tsk. All those disenfranchised voters. :poke:


they'll be able to cast their votes in the general. they'll get over it.

[JohnDoe]

I think, for many superdelegates who are elected officials, it becomes a pragmatic problem. If I am a democratic congressman - superdelegate - and my district democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama, it would be foolish for me to support Clinton and not expect to see some backlash at the next election....
Yes, it would be pragmatic for those super delegates that face a future election....

BUT, that is how the rules were set up and it defeats the purpose of instituting a plan with superdelegates in it, accounting for 17% of the total delegates, the others gotten from actual primaries and caucuses....

There would be no reason to have a system of super delegates if the party ONLY wanted the vote of the people to count as 100% of the vote?

It would be wrong to punish a superdelegate or chastise them at this point in the game if they don't vote with their district but vote with their conscious and for what they deem as best for the party...this is what they were appointed to do, when the rules of the game began, not to blindly just follow their constituants, if they have any...

that's changing the rules midstream, just as counting the florida and michigan delegates would be.

jd

[glockmail]

they'll be able to cast their votes in the general. they'll get over it. To a candidate that they did not get to choose. It doesn't seem right somehow. Where's the outrage?

[glockmail]

I think, for many superdelegates who are elected officials, it becomes a pragmatic problem. If I am a democratic congressman - superdelegate - and my district democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama, it would be foolish for me to support Clinton and not expect to see some backlash at the next election.... Whaddabout the Superdelegates that don't hold elected office, like Bill Clinton?

The Democrat Party looks less like a democracy and more like a monarchy.

[JohnDoe]

To a candidate that they did not get to choose. It doesn't seem right somehow. Where's the outrage?


no one state left on the republican side has a choice in the republican nominee at this point, where's the outrage?:slap:

:laugh2:

jd

[glockmail]

no one state left on the republican side has a choice in the republican nominee at this point, where's the outrage?:slap:

:laugh2:

jd

We're Republicans, and don't care about counting votes, remember? :slap:

[retiredman]

Whaddabout the Superdelegates that don't hold elected office, like Bill Clinton?

The Democrat Party looks less like a democracy and more like a monarchy.


what about them? Do you really think that any democrat cares how our primary process appears to you????:lol:

[retiredman]

To a candidate that they did not get to choose. It doesn't seem right somehow. Where's the outrage?

one would hope that the outrage is at their state committees for screwing their voters. I don't live in either state. If I did, my state committee chair would be hearing from me and a lot of my peers.

[Immanuel]

I think, for many superdelegates who are elected officials, it becomes a pragmatic problem. If I am a democratic congressman - superdelegate - and my district democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama, it would be foolish for me to support Clinton and not expect to see some backlash at the next election....

I agree, but are the votes of Super-delegates public record? For instance, would I be able to go online somewhere to find out which candidate Barbara Boxer and Diane Fienstein cast their super-delegate votes for or my own Senators and Congressman for that matter?


Whaddabout the Superdelegates that don't hold elected office, like Bill Clinton?



Hey! Did you hear the latest? Bill has secretly promised his vote would go to Obama. He said that being the first "Black President" he wanted to fully support the second Black President. Go figure. ;)

Immie

PS That last statement is a joke. Don't take me serious on that.

[retiredman]

I agree, but are the votes of Super-delegates public record? For instance, would I be able to go online somewhere to find out which candidate Barbara Boxer and Diane Fienstein cast their super-delegate votes for or my own Senators and Congressman for that matter?



http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project

[PostmodernProphet]

Since Hillary won both states it would no doubt put her over the top.

in Michigan "uncommitted" took nearly as many votes as Hillary and we aren't a winner take all state..... who gets to decide who casts those votes......will authority be given to Obama supporters?.....Hillary supporters?......

[manu1959]

I hope Hillary gets these counted then tops it off with Superdelegates. The atomic implosion of the Democrat Party would be a most festive event. :coffee:

make the riots in the 60's look like a tea party.....

[glockmail]

what about them? Do you really think that any democrat cares how our primary process appears to you????:lol: What a dumb post. Obviously you have too much time on your hands. Get a job.

[theHawk]

I personally believe that the delegates in florida should not count, due to the fact that this was their choice to break the rules and run an earlier primary.

If I had been Florida, I would not have chosen to void my delegates, but these were the rules upfront and they were made aware of them from what i understand.

This sickens me, because as said, I would have never chosen to void my vote in order to vote earlier? it JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to me how any state would have chosen such because it would have defeated the purpose of wanting an earlier primary, a primary that "counted" in making a decision on who would be the Democratic nominee????

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?


REGARDLESS, THE RULES NEED TO BE FOLLOWED AS THEY WERE SET UP BEFORE THE GAME BEGAN.

I am not yelling there, it is just the way it is....fair is fair.

Taking that stance though, to me, means that the Superdelegates who were also set up BEFORE THE GAME BEGAN, as being able to vote for who they want to vote for and support who they believe is the right person for president, should be able to continue to do such WITHOUT the pressure I am seeing from the media and everyone else that they should vote the way the people in their state voted and crap like that, which is also bullshit and changing the rules now....

When the game began, superdelegates could be wooed, IT WAS PART OF THE RULES, however fair or unfair we may think that is....and superdelegates and the politicing with them, and their spoken sponsorships of candidates WAS ALL part of the initial game....

To CHANGE that now and insist that superdelegates vote with the people of their state is a complete turn around from the rules the game set forth with.....


Yes, the rules should be followed. However, Obama broke those rules by campaigning in Florida via televised ads. Thus, technically speaking, I think Hillary should have the power to nullify the agreement completely, and have the delegates counted.

[retiredman]

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?


Yes, the rules should be followed. However, Obama broke those rules by campaigning in Florida via televised ads. Thus, technically speaking, I think Hillary should have the power to nullify the agreement completely, and have the delegates counted.

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.

[manu1959]

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.

the voters have bee disenfranchised...their voices should be heard and counted.....they should sue.....

[retiredman]

the voters have bee disenfranchised...their voices should be heard and counted.....they should sue.....

they should fire their party leaders and petition the DNC to let them hold a binding primary in April.

[manu1959]

they should fire their party leaders and petition the DNC to let them hold a binding primary in April.

works for me......

[glockmail]

they should fire their party leaders and petition the DNC to let them hold a binding primary in April. That would be unfair since they already voted. Also a second vote would be considered cheating, because they could potentially be in the position of the decider, after the fact. :coffee:

[manu1959]

That would be unfair since they already voted. Also a second vote would be considered cheating, because they could potentially be in the position of the decider, after the fact. :coffee:

but it will make the convention so much fun to watch.......

[glockmail]

but it will make the convention so much fun to watch....... I agree. It will make Extreme Fighting look like Romper Room. :coffee:

[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.

ImmieGood 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! :laugh2:



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_DELEGATES?SITE=FLTAM&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. :eek:

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. :laugh2:

[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. :laugh2:

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

good morning lean and mean! :D

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. :eek:

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. :laugh2:

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? :poke:

good morning lean and mean! :D

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! :D

jd

[Immanuel]

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?

Well, that would depend on the situation.

When it came to dealing with Saddam or terrorists, a heavy hand was necessary. When it comes to dealing with politics here in the country maybe a heavy hand is not so important. :laugh2:

Immie

[glockmail]

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! :D

jd They both stuck by their words. Nice attempt at avoiding the question though.

[glockmail]

Well, that would depend on the situation.

When it came to dealing with Saddam or terrorists, a heavy hand was necessary. When it comes to dealing with politics here in the country maybe a heavy hand is not so important. :laugh2:

Immie

There you go. The Democrats have demonstrated a heavy hand when dealing with their constituency, but complain about conservative's heavy hand with terrorists. :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

They both stuck by their words. Nice attempt at avoiding the question though.
NOOOOO, they both did not stick by their word, so I did not avoid it!!!:laugh2:

The Rnc said they would punish Florida if they pursued an earlier primary y cutting their delegates, but they did not follow thru, from what immie has said.

the Democrats stated the same and they did follow thru.


there's your answer glock!

jd

[glockmail]

NOOOOO, they both did not stick by their word, so I did not avoid it!!!:laugh2:

The Rnc said they would punish Florida if they pursued an earlier primary y cutting their delegates, but they did not follow thru, from what immie has said.

the Democrats stated the same and they did follow thru.


there's your answer glock!

jd

The operative word here is "would", as I believe the correct term was "may".

[JohnDoe]

The operative word here is "would", as I believe the correct term was "may".
Well, I will give you that....

if the RNC did say "may" punish them then you would be correct, and then they were both "men of their words"....

so that means now i have to rethink, and answer your question again....and i just can't!!! I can't answer you.....cuz there is no reason to my response which would still be the Democrats.....:) mainly because in "real life" i would never be making a decision on who i support politically based on this one issue and scenario that took place in florida...

jd

[Immanuel]

Well, I will give you that....

if the RNC did say "may" punish them then you would be correct, and then they were both "men of their words"....

so that means now i have to rethink, and answer your question again....and i just can't!!! I can't answer you.....cuz there is no reason to my response which would still be the Democrats.....:) mainly because in "real life" i would never be making a decision on who i support politically based on this one issue and scenario that took place in florida...

jd

I can't swear to this but I think when all of this was going down both sides said that they were considering such penalties. The news was reporting that it was possible that Florida would lose its delegates if the parties took a hardline. I don't remember for sure if either party said they would do it. Rather I think they said, that it was an option and they were considering it.

It turned out that the DNC elected to exercise the option and I think the RNC watered it down.

Honestly, I would not be surprised if the DNC backed off on the issue and allowed the delegates, but I think that would be wrong and at least for me paint a further negative light on the DNC and Hillary Clinton.

True, I am not voting for her, but then, I'm not voting for either one of the parties. I'd be as likely to vote for Hillary as I am for McCain or Obama. All three represent to me a continuation of the current establishment. I've nothing against either one of them, except that they are part of the current establishment.

Immie

[Roadrunner]

Yes, the rules should be followed. However, Obama broke those rules by campaigning in Florida via televised ads. Thus, technically speaking, I think Hillary should have the power to nullify the agreement completely, and have the delegates counted.

Why should Hillary have the power to nullify the agreement when she had her name printed on the ballot in Michigan? If Obama broke the rules, so did she.

[theHawk]

Why should Hillary have the power to nullify the agreement when she had her name printed on the ballot in Michigan? If Obama broke the rules, so did she.

The names were already going to be on the ballots, the agreement was no campaigning there. Obama aired commericals in Florida. He broke his word. Though, I realize thats not a big offense in the Democratic Party.

[Roadrunner]

The names were already going to be on the ballots, the agreement was no campaigning there.

Neither John Edwards nor Barack Obama's names were on the Democrat Party's primary ballot in Michigan - only Hillary Clinton's. She ran against "uncommitted."