Obama willing to go "more than half-way" on Florida and Michigan

[Ravi]

Sure, the 0 delegates from Florida? Done.

And I was asking for a realistic solution to the broken primary system, not for FL and MI.

No, according to the article posted somewhere on this thread, violating a rule automatically gave all the delegates to the other candidates.

 

[Larkinn]

no, the Dnc said that they wouldn't count, but they still were negotiating with the states...she was answering a question where she was hounded on why others took their names off the ballot and she didn't...

Hounded? You mean asked. And regardless of whether she was "hounded" or not, she said that MI didn't count for anything if she KNEW they would count? How can you reconcile those two positions?

You are being soooo disingenuous it is pathethic. HILLARY WAS THE FRONT RUNNER in both Michigan and florida....SHE HAD NO REASON to NOT WANT these votes to count....only a brain dead or brain washed individual can not recognize THIS.

And you know nothing about primary politics. How about the reason that South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa would feel fucked if those votes did count? Gee, I wonder if those 3 states are just a teensy weensy bit important in primary politics, and Hillary didn't want to make them feel like they were getting screwed.

ALSO, Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties spent an incredible amount of time advertising and getting out the message that EVERY VOTE COUNTED, regardless of WHAT THE DNC was saying....they campaigned on getting out to vote for their presidential candidate and were TOLD that being an earlier state, their voices would be HEARD on who they wanted as President.

Thats nice. Also irrelevant.

Those votes in Michigan and in Florida were votes for WHO THESE DEMS WANTED as President, and in Michigan they were told how to handle the candidates that did not leave their name on the ballot....(which was TOTALLY FOOLISH of Obama to take his name off the ballot when he was still in the race, he spat in the voters faces and as the Candidate of Change, of breaking away from the bureacracy of Wahington DC, he stuck with the DC'ers and with the INSIDERS and pulled his name off...choosing bureacracy OVER THE PEOPLE.)

Really? So tell me how its "for the people" to have the primary usually decided before 75% of the states vote? Because that is the system you are perpetuating with your nonsense about bureaucracy and washington politics. Just because it was made in Washington DC (which it wasn't, by the way, thats a stupid claim since we aren't talking about the federal gov, we are talking about the DNC), doesn't mean its actually bad.

How many times does this have to be said? Are you that dense? What's up with you?

The Candidates signed a pledge with the 4 early states to not campaign there as punishment....

They did not sign a pledge with the DNC, They did not every agree with the DNC that these delegates would not be seated....not be counted.

Statement by the Clinton campaign:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

Except after they've voted, shes willing to throw them under the bus.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

What does this mean to you:

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

So is she against finality, predictability and common sense? Or did she flip flop when it was politically expedient, and think those things are no longer true?

What the heck are you talking about? The PLEDGE WAS WITH THE 4 EARLY STATES to NOT campaign there.....?

And Hillary DID NOT CAMPAIGN THERE, but Obama DID with his National ads...

It was also recognizing the finality and common sense of excluding MI and FL.

For the last time, YOUR CANDIDATE is the one who BROKE HIS PLEDGE with the Early states...

NOT Hillary, but Obama....now swallow THAT!

You are being obtuse and overly semantical. Tell me, Care, what was the purpose of the pledge?

When you have every media outlet, supporting one candidate over another, and hounding one candidate to quit, when the race was not even won yet, it makes it a tad difficult to get the money one needs to run a solid race....

And this was happening in January and February? Thats a load of bullshit.

The rules have always allowed for this DNC meeting on May 31, to make the final decision on whether to seat Florida and Michigan...

No, the rules have always allowed for the rules to be changed later on. Thats not a "final decision", thats a change of the rules.

Clinton did not make up this rule, Clinton did not organize the May 31st meeting, clinton just KNEW the rules BETTER than oBAMA and knew that this meeting on May 31 has always been part of the rules and she has always counted on the seats of the floridians and Michiganites being seated....Politically, she has always known it would be the right thing for the DNC to do...

Well, cheers. Your candidate did the "politically" right thing to do. Mine did the morally right thing to do. Congratulations on that.

WHY DID OBAMA run a National Ad in Florida/Michigan if Florida/Michigan Democratic voters were not going to count?

Can you explain that....hmmmmm?

Its called a National Ad. One that runs nation-wide.

Doesn't make any sense to me, coming from the Marketing and Advertising arena, that was a whole bunch of WASTED MONEY running ads in states that would SUPPOSEDLY NOT COUNT?

A lot of things don't seem to make sense to you. Like how the primary system works.

don't fool yourself...your guy Obama is a POLITICIAN, as with the rest of the candidates and is NO CANDIDATE of Change....don't want you to be let down in the future on that....pay attention now and get that notion out of your head. They are all Politicians and they all bastardize themselves....

You are an idiot. Do try in the future to avoid taking a generalized view of "obama-ites" and assuming I share those views. I've always said he is a politician. No shit he's a politician, what incredibly obvious fact would you like to share with me next? That being said, hes better than Hillary, and while he is a politician, I don't think he would sell his soul to win.

 

[Larkinn]

No, according to the article posted somewhere on this thread, violating a rule automatically gave all the delegates to the other candidates.

All the delegates? In the race? Thats absurd.

 

[Ravi]

All the delegates? In the race? Thats absurd.

In the state.

 

[Larkinn]

In the state.

Which was reduced to 0, since FL and MI broke the rules.

By the way...since Care is saying the pledge is NOT to the DNC, then how is Obama breaking the pledge breaking the "rules of the DNC"?

 

[Ravi]

Which was reduced to 0, since FL and MI broke the rules.

By the way...since Care is saying the pledge is NOT to the DNC, then how is Obama breaking the pledge breaking the "rules of the DNC"?

No, if a rule was broken it meant the delegates in the state would go to the remaining candidates. That's how the DNC was able to enforce them not campaigning. None of them wanted to lose Florida.

I don't know the answer to your question, but if you are so bent on enforcing the rules you should enforce them all.

 

[Larkinn]

No, if a rule was broken it meant the delegates in the state would go to the remaining candidates. That's how the DNC was able to enforce them not campaigning. None of them wanted to lose Florida.

The pledge was NOT a DNC rule.

I don't know the answer to your question, but if you are so bent on enforcing the rules you should enforce them all.

Ok, like the rule that FL and MI delegates don't count?

Done.

 

[Ravi]

The pledge was NOT a DNC rule.



Ok, like the rule that FL and MI delegates don't count?

Done.

According to the article posted, it was a DNC rule.

As things stand, any Democratic candidate who campaigns in Florida, will have his or her delegates divided among candidates who refrain from venturing into the forbidden territory.

Thus the candidates are forced to choose whether they must ignore a motherlode of delegates that could win them the presidential nomination.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

 

[Larkinn]

According to the article posted, it was a DNC rule.


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

No, the PLEDGE was not a DNC rule. Obama and Clinton signed the pledge to appease the voters in the first 4 primary/caucuses. Then Clinton went back on her word and tried to let FL and MI have early primaries.

As I said...if you want to enforce the rules, I'm happy to enforce the rule that FL and MI don't count.

 

[Ravi]

So who made up that rule that I posted above? The State of Florida? Not bloody likely.

 

[Larkinn]

So who made up that rule that I posted above? The State of Florida? Not bloody likely.

According to the article it seems to have been a DNC rule at the time. Has it changed since then? Why is it there? Is it even relevant since there are ZERO delegates being given in Florida?

Tell me why you are willing to break the rule of zero delegates being given in Florida, but not willing to break the rule of Obama campaigning? Tell me why you are so insistent on punishing Obama, but want to let Florida off the hook?

 

[Care4all]

No, the PLEDGE was not a DNC rule. Obama and Clinton signed the pledge to appease the voters in the first 4 primary/caucuses. Then Clinton went back on her word and tried to let FL and MI have early primaries.

As I said...if you want to enforce the rules, I'm happy to enforce the rule that FL and MI don't count.

they took a pledge with the 4 early states....

the DNC, also had its own rules regarding it of which they did not have to sign a pledge with, but is a rule none the less...

here is a tidbit about it, and a link to the pdf on DNC rules and byaws:

Presidential Candidate Sanctions on the Window
There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on.

Currently, the only punishment for states that violate the window was on State Parties. This new enforcement provision recognizes that presidential candidates must also bear a responsibility in enforcing the window or face sanctions.

http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/


http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

so, just maybe you need to become a tad more informed on this Larkin....?

care

 

[Ravi]

According to the article it seems to have been a DNC rule at the time. Has it changed since then? Why is it there? Is it even relevant since there are ZERO delegates being given in Florida?

Tell me why you are willing to break the rule of zero delegates being given in Florida, but not willing to break the rule of Obama campaigning? Tell me why you are so insistent on punishing Obama, but want to let Florida off the hook?

It wouldn't be zero delegates if one of them broke the rule.

Why do I want to let Florida off the hook? I don't want to let the state, the DNC or the candidates off the hook. I want to let the voters off the hook. They are the only ones that matter, imo. And they are the only ones that weren't guilty of anything.

 

[Larkinn]

they took a pledge with the 4 early states....

the DNC, also had its own rules regarding it of which they did not have to sign a pledge with, but is a rule none the less...

here is a tidbit about it, and a link to the pdf on DNC rules and byaws:

Presidential Candidate Sanctions on the Window
There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on.

Currently, the only punishment for states that violate the window was on State Parties. This new enforcement provision recognizes that presidential candidates must also bear a responsibility in enforcing the window or face sanctions.

http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/


http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

so, just maybe you need to become a tad more informed on this Larkin....?

care

will "face sanctions". What are those sanctions, Care?

And considering the massive fact-related blunders you've made, don't talk to me about becoming more informed.

 

[Larkinn]

It wouldn't be zero delegates if one of them broke the rule.

According to who, exactly?

Why do I want to let Florida off the hook? I don't want to let the state, the DNC or the candidates off the hook. I want to let the voters off the hook. They are the only ones that matter, imo. And they are the only ones that weren't guilty of anything.

The voters decided who their state government would be. They must abide by the state governments decisions, and fuckups.

 

[Care4all]

will "face sanctions". What are those sanctions, Care?

And considering the massive fact-related blunders you've made, don't talk to me about becoming more informed.

i had ONE misunderstanding, of which i immediately fessed up to....larkin, otherswise, all that i have said is true, to the tee, and contrary to what you may believe, or try to twist.

care

ps. read the pdf rules and find the sanctions yourself....it is not my problem that the dnc did not spell it out on the cover letter regarding the rules and bylaws.....?

 

[Care4all]

According to who, exactly?



The voters decided who their state government would be. They must abide by the state governments decisions, and fuckups.

That's just plain silly Larkin.

Do you want the states with a republican majority to be able to move up any democratic primary to where it is Braking the Dnc rules, so that the citizens in these states that are Dems not get represented, and since it was their congress, you want to hold thenm, the citizen, responsible?

What is to prevent Republicans in all states where they have the m,ajority, to do what Florida did aND purposely disenfranchise the Dems by breaking the DNC rules?

 

[Larkinn]

i had ONE misunderstanding, of which i immediately fessed up to....larkin, otherswise, all that i have said is true, to the tee, and contrary to what you may believe, or try to twist.

Actually its been several. Oh, and you were stupid enough to imply I was sexist. Tell me, Care, was I sexist when I voted for Hillary in 2006?

ps. read the pdf rules and find the sanctions yourself....it is not my problem that the dnc did not spell it out on the cover letter regarding the rules and bylaws.....?

Considering I spoon fed you information multiple times which had already been posted on the thread, which you were unable to read, its really the least you can do.

 

[Yurt]

why do you care? just wondering, since you want them both to lose.

do you want to stifle my free speech? do you want to stifle my questions? what is it to you if i care?

 

[Larkinn]

That's just plain silly Larkin.

Not really.

Do you want the states with a republican majority to be able to move up any democratic primary to where it is Braking the Dnc rules, so that the citizens in these states that are Dems not get represented, and since it was their congress, you want to hold thenm, the citizen, responsible?

Yes. The citizens have to deal with the people they vote in, and the results of that. Thats how it works.

What is to prevent Republicans in all states where they have the m,ajority, to do what Florida did aND purposely disenfranchise the Dems by breaking the DNC rules?

Nothing. But if you think the Republicans would purposely disenfranchise large numbers of the electorate in a primary, just to disenfranchise them your an idiot. You have any idea of the political fallout? Its barely politically viable to claim that FL and MI shouldn't be counted, and any reasonable person who wants a primary system thats not completely fucked, would agree not to count them. But if Republicans disenfranchised voters on purpose?