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

[manifold]

Good morning Care...


I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....

The Clintonista are mired in desperation and denial. In such circumstance, facts necessarily take a back seat.

 

[Care4all]

All true, but all that I meant is that in a party primary system, one doesn't have the legal right to vote, although the vote cannot be denied on some specific criteria such as race, gender, et.

I am sure that lots of voters did vote for precisely the reasons that you state. However, we will never know how many voters did not vote who otherwise would have, and we don't know who they would have voted for, and we don't know that the results wouldn't have been different had the candidates campaigned.

Absolutely right, HOWEVER that was FAIR AND SQUARE....

no Candidate, (other than Obama) campaigned there....how do you know if Hillary had broken the rules and run her national campaign ads there prior to the election as Obama DID DO, that she would have not gotten even more votes than she did?

soooooo, it was fair and square, other than obama's act of running ads there, no one had the opportunity to campaign there and 1.7 million people came out to vote in that primary, where 1.2 million was the largest primary in their history before this...

The Democratic party had a very long explanation on their site PRIOR to the election, every paper in florida covered it, over and over again...THEY WERE TOLD to go out and vote, they were assured that their votes and voices would be heard....

there was absolutely NO REASON for the voter to not go out and vote, NONE.

No one in florida thought it was a Beauty Contest, no one.

If Hillary was allowed to campaign there, she would have whooped Obama's and edwards butt even moreso..... it was her state to win, always....

 

[Ravi]

That is right. Disenfranchisement technically assumes a right to vote that existed in the first place. Illegal aliens are not disenfranchised because they have no right to vote in the first place. Legally, people have no right to vote on the nominee of any particular political party. Thus, states can be stripped of their opportunity to vote for a nominee, and yet they haven't been disenfranchised.

I don't see it that way. If they had no right to vote then there would have been no election.

 

[ReillyT]

Absolutely right, HOWEVER that was FAIR AND SQUARE....

no Candidate, (other than Obama) campaigned there....how do you know if Hillary had broken the rules and run her national campaign ads there prior to the election as Obama DID DO, that she would have not gotten even more votes than she did?

soooooo, it was fair and square, other than obama's act of running ads there, no one had the opportunity to campaign there and 1.7 million people came out to vote in that primary, where 1.2 million was the largest primary in their history before this...

The Democratic party had a very long explanation on their site PRIOR to the election, every paper in florida covered it, over and over again...THEY WERE TOLD to go out and vote, they were assured that their votes and voices would be heard....

there was absolutely NO REASON for the voter to not go out and vote, NONE.

No one in florida thought it was a Beauty Contest, no one.

If Hillary was allowed to campaign there, she would has whooped Obama's and edwards butt even moreso..... it was her state to win, always....

Perhaps if there had been campaigning, Clinton would have won by even more. Who knows?

I contest that the fact that no campaigning by any candidate makes a primary fair and square.

Do you think it would be a fair primary system that allowed no campaigning in any state? If that had been the rule, Clinton probably would have gone 50 for 50. However, campaigning matters and it has a strong effect on the outcome, as we have seen. It allows candidates with less name recognition (e.g., Obama) to make themselves familiar to the voters and to explain their positions.

I do not view a primary without campaiging to be fair and square.

 

[Ravi]

Good morning Care...


I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....

Explain, please. Which facts?

 

[ReillyT]

I don't see it that way. If they had no right to vote then there would have been no election.

One can hold an election whose results don't matter. It is a waste of time and money, but it can be done. See Michigan.

From a strictly legal point of view, these voters were not disenfranchised.

 

[manifold]

Perhaps if there had been campaigning, Clinton would have won by even more. Who knows?

I contest that the fact no campaigning by any candidate makes a primary fair and square.

Do you think it would be a fair primary system that allowed no campaigning in any state? If that had been the rule, Clinton probably would have gone 50 for 50. However, campaigning matters and it has a strong effect on the outcome, as we have seen. It allows candidates with less name recognition (e.g., Obama) to make themselves familiar to the voters and to explain their positions.

I do not view a primary without campaiging to be fair and square.

Especially when one candidate enjoyed the benefit of 16 years worth of branding and name recognition.

 

[Ravi]

One can hold an election whose results don't matter. It is a waste of time and money, but it can be done. See Michigan.

From a strictly legal point of view, these voters were not disenfranchised.

Perhaps. But not including them gives Obama an unfair advantage because not counting them is the same result as awarding them to Obama.

 

[ReillyT]

Perhaps. But not including them gives Obama an unfair advantage because not counting them is the same result as awarding them to Obama.

How is not counting them giving the delegates to Obama? No one gets those delegates, which is what was decided in August 2007. Why is following through with what was decided 7 months before the primaries in those states unfair to Clinton? It is only unfair because she ended up doing well in those states, where there was no campaigning and it was understood the votes wouldn't count.

 

[Care4all]

Good morning Care...


I am just wondering how can you say this when the fact show otherwise....

what facts jeepers, I know for a fact that she was always going to win florida, now michigan i could be mistaken but Florida, that early on in the process, she absolutely was going to blow the other candidates away...?

and good morning to you also!

Why isn't obama being punished for breaking the campaign rule of running ads there before the Primary in these states?

It IS IN THE RULES....will he be stripped of all of his delegates as the rules stated is my concern...after all, we gotta ALL follow the rules.....?

care

here is the rule in case you did not see it: I don't even see the option for the DNC to strip them of all of their delegates, which was probably in violation of the DNC rules in the first place....

C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.


b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

 

[Ravi]

How is not counting them giving the delegates to Obama? No one gets those delegates, which is what was decided in August 2007. Why is following through with what was decided 7 months before the primaries in those states unfair to Clinton? It is only unfair because she ended up doing well in those states, where there was no campaigning and it was understood the votes wouldn't count.

It's unfair because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.

 

[manifold]

It's unfair because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.

Yes, it's unfair not to seat the delegates because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.

 

[ReillyT]

Why isn't obama being punished for breaking the campaign rule of running ads there before the Primary in these states?

It IS IN THE RULES....will he be stripped of all of his delegates as the rules stated is my concern...after all, we gotta ALL follow the rules.....?

1. It is debatable whether he broke the rules
2. It is arguable that even if he did, it was a violation that didn't matter.
3. It is up to the DNC to sanction him if they wish.
4. Since all the delegates were stripped, it is irrelevant. She would get 100%of zero.


The DNC felt it was within their power to strip all the delegates. They voted overwhelmingly to this effect. However, it appears that they will reverse themselves and award 50% anyway, so they appear to be within the rule under even the strictest interpretation.

 

[ReillyT]

It's unfair because the popular vote in Florida clearly went to Clinton.

Why does that make it unfair? The delegates were stripped prior to the Florida and Michigan primaries. Somebody was going to win them. That doesn't mean that it was unfair to the winner, whoever that may be, merely because they won. These were the rules going in.

I would argue that it is perfectly fair, just unfortunate for Clinton.

 

[Ravi]

Why does that make it unfair? The delegates were stripped prior to the Florida and Michigan primaries. Somebody was going to win them. That doesn't mean that it was unfair to the winner, whoever that may be, merely because they won. These were the rules going in.

I would argue that it is perfectly fair, just unfortunate for Clinton.

I would argue that it would be equally unfair to Obama if the situation was reversed.

 

[ReillyT]

I would argue that it would be equally unfair to Obama if the situation was reversed.

I don't see how it would be unfair to either one of them. If you say that a primary isn't going to count, and the candidates essentially rely on this (and hence don't compete for votes in those states), then it just doesn't count. Someone will surely win the vote, but so what? Someone has to win. The primary still doesn't count.

 

[Care4all]

Obama said that he got permission from Sc DEM PARTY, who he signed a pledge with, to run the ads in Florida before their primary....

Obama is the ONLY candidate to break his pledge and run his national ads before the florida and michigan primaries.

Obama did NOT go to the DNC for permission when the RULES clearly state that this would be breaking their rules...

Looks like Obama cheated, or tried to sweet talk his way thru the rules, doesn't it? I am not imagining this am I?

NO OTHER CANDIDATE, put their national campaign ads in the schedule before the rules allowed for florida and michigan, other than Obama...

Also, his team was counting on our ignorance on saying his national ads had to run in all states, which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE, he could have made a state by state buy with cnn and msnbc, I have done it many a time...yes, it takes a little more work to set it up that way, but not enough extra work that would have prohibited them to do it this way...

Clinton camp: Obama's Florida ads bust pledge

By Jeremy Wallace

Published Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last updated Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008 at 1:41 a.m.

Hillary Clinton's campaign said Tuesday it will not break a pledge to campaign in Florida, even as Clinton is accusing Barack Obama of doing just that.

Her comments come two days after Obama's campaign launched national television advertisements on CNN and MSNBC that are shown in Florida -- a "blatant" violation of a pledge signed by all of the top Democratic candidates to not campaign in the state, Clinton's campaign says.

Clinton's supporters in Florida are putting new pressure on her to scrap the pledge, arguing Obama's ads make it almost irrelevant.

"It's time to take the gloves off," said Ana Cruz, a Democratic activist from Tampa who is helping lead Clinton's Florida campaign unofficially.

Cruz said it is important for Clinton to get back to Florida and rally support to assure she wins the state on Tuesday.

But Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton disputes the pledge was broken. He said the campaign asked CNN and MSNBC to pull Florida from the ad buy, but the networks said they could not.

In August, major Democratic candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida as part of the state's punishment for moving up its primary election to Jan. 29 -- a week before national rules allowed.

The Democratic National Committee stripped the state of its delegates. Then Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina followed by pushing the pledge that bans the candidates from campaigning in the state, including running television commercials or hosting rallies.

The only exception in the ban is for fundraising.

Experts are surprised the pledge has held this long. Because three of the early states have already voted, Daniel A. Smith, a University of Florida political scientist, said he expected the campaigns to be heading to Florida by now.

"If they break the pledge now, who is it going to offend?" Smith said. "I don't see how it would offend anyone in South Carolina enough to tip the presidential election."

Yet South Carolina has become the gatekeeper for the pledge. Burton said Obama's campaign consulted with Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, before the ad ran, and she "told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states," Burton said.

At this point, said Smith, neither Obama nor Clinton have incentive to campaign in Florida. Because he continues to trail Clinton in the polls here, Obama should focus instead on Feb. 5, when 22 states hold primary elections, Smith said.

Clinton would not benefit either, Smith said. Breaking the pledge would be seen as a sign that her campaign sees support waning in the state.

The only candidate that would benefit at this point would be John Edwards, who "has nothing to lose" by breaking the pledge. If he set up a rally in Florida, he could give himself a shot at winning over the state's Democrats who are desperate to see a real candidate.

"I don't see how it would hurt him in the slightest," Smith said.


Jeremy Wallace can be reached at 361-4966 or jeremy.wallace@ heraldtribune.com.

 

[manifold]

I would argue that it would be equally unfair to Obama if the situation was reversed.

You lying sack of you know what!

 

[Care4all]

WHAT RULE in the DNC Primary rules allowed the rules and bylaws committee to strip Florida and michigan of all of their delegates???

I have read the whole rule book and there is nothing that i have seen that allowed this committee to do such....the only rule that i have seen is the rule that says these states SHALL have their delegates cut in half....

Did the bylaws committee actually break their OWN RULES?

Man oh man, this thing is so messed up....

Howard Dean really needs to be fired, he showed NO LEADERSHIP in this situation and has HURT the democratic party more than he helped it, with what is going on in this fiasco....imo!

care

 

[Ravi]

I don't see how it would be unfair to either one of them. If you say that a primary isn't going to count, and the candidates essentially rely on this (and hence don't compete for votes in those states), then it just doesn't count. Someone will surely win the vote, but so what? Someone has to win. The primary still doesn't count.

Sorry, I actually meant to the voters that voted for either Hillary or Obama.