I think most everyone hear would favor seating the Fla. delegation

[MonkeyFunk]

if it benefited their candidate.

The notion that large numbers of DUers are in actual favor of disenfranchising Florida voters strikes me as absurd.

They should be seated. No election has occurred there yet, all the names are on the ballot.

People are upset about this simply because it stands to benefit Clinton, based on the polling. But since nobody has an unfair advantage in Florida, you're just objecting to honoring the will of the electorate.

You think it hurts your candidate and benefits another. And how is that any different from what you're saying about Clinton? You're playing politics, too. You're trying to find an advantage for your guy and a disadvantage for the other guy.

The fake outrage over this is ridiculous.

[katmondoo]

1. I am in Florida and I say YES

[Rydz777]

2. The sanctions against both Florida and Michigan were ill

conceived. They have done nothing but irritate - maybe even alienate - voters in two states we will need in the general election.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. correct

There's no reason to alienate Democrats in two important states.

[MaineDem]

4. I disagree

I don't think any of the delegates should be seated from those states regardless of which candidate benefits.

I also believe that, ultimately, the convention will vote to seat them all.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Why should the voters be punished

for some pissing match between the state parties and the DNC?

Are DUers REALLY arguing against letting Democratic votes be counted?

Amazing.

[MaineDem]

8. The State Party had options they could have gone with

The DNC offered to help them do that financially. The Florida Party said no.

It's more than a pissing match. it's following - or not following - the rules. The Florida Democratic Party, whose leaders had a vote in the entire process, is not following the rules. I'm sorry Florida Democrats are paying the price for that but it's not fair to those states that did follow the rules if one or two states are allowed to flaunt rules and get away with it.

As I said, I still think the delegates will ultimately be seated but I see a Credentials fight at the convention.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. And in 2000

Republicans were all for "the rules" regarding Florida: There's no recount provision for the whole state! The votes have been counted and recounted!

Bleh... if "the rules" disenfranchise people, they should be revisited.

[Blarch]

11. because noone complained

till it was clear where the votes were going. Hillary sure as fuck wouldn't be fighting for those states if the votes were going to Obama.

Lets be honest now.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. I was honest in my OP

What's unfair about seating the Florida delegation? The election hasn't occurred, all candidates are on the ballot?

Why SHOULDN'T the winner want those delegates?

[Seen the light]

14. Interesting you say that

Since I assume you're all for letting Michigan stand when Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot. Are you REALLY arguing for disenfranchising Obama and Edwards voters in Michigan?

[MonkeyFunk]

17. I didn't say a word about Michigan

in my OP, did I?

They could all be uncommitted, or let the results stand. There was no requirement that Obama and Edwards take their name off the ballot - none at all. They chose to do so.

[Seen the light]

20. But then you would have a problem wouldn't you?

Why let Florida's votes count, but not Michigan's? Why are you in favor of not letting Michigan have a say?

Honestly, the only real fair way for all of this would be to have a revote sometime this summer in both states.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Florida hasn't even voted yet

why redo what hasn't happened yet?

I'd be fine doing it again in Michigan, but I doubt that will happen.

[hedgehog]

6. Given all the hoo-haw over the Obama ads that are running nationally and

as a result are running in Florida also, I'm beginning to suspect that he's picking up votes there. That said, as an Obama supporter, I'm against seating either the Michigan or Florida delegations.


For all those concerned about disenfranchising voters, consider this. The primary schedule was set up and agreed to as the best way to ensure that everyone had a fair crack at selecting the nominee. No matter how you slice it, someone is first and someone is last. I speak as a New Yorker who has seen the field winnowed down to the last one or two standing for the last 5 elections. Florida and Michigan agreed to the plan, then broke the agreement. If their delegates are allowed to vote on the nominee, what happens in 2012 and beyond?

[MonkeyFunk]

7. I would agree

if the voters of those states decided to do this. But they didn't.

They shouldn't be punished.

It's also just stupid politics - we'll need Florida in November, and it makes no sense to me to piss off Florida democrats.

[hedgehog]

29. Who elected the legislatures in Michigan and Florida? nt

[MonkeyFunk]

35. the same people who elected the legislture

in place in 2000 that tried to disenfranchise thousands of voters.

The same people who elected Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. i hear nothing but the sound of whining

but that's just me.

[rodeodance]

60. IP is right--most of "outrage" was directed at Hill--forgetting it is about the voters.

People are upset about this simply because it stands to benefit Clinton, based on the polling. But since nobody has an unfair advantage in Florida, you're just objecting to honoring the will of the electorate.

[babylonsister]

13. This post from a DUer from MI is interesting, as is the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4204265&mesg_id=4204470

[MonkeyFunk]

16. That';s not interesting

it's just a vicious rant, having little to do with the topic at hand.

[babylonsister]

18. It's a first hand account from someone who felt their vote didn't count,

and they are angry about it. That's vicious? No, that's life whether you want to believe it or not.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. The content of that

was just a rant. A typically vicious rant.

[babylonsister]

24. Well, you would know 'vicious'. Bye-again. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

26. LOL

you're funny.

Bye bye! Keep me on ignore this time, will you?

[goodhue]

15. If it makes a difference, they should not be seated

You don't get to break the rules and still play the game.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. She's not trying to break the rules

she's trying to change the rules.

That's the same argument republicans used in the 2000 recount - YOU GOTTA FOLLOW THE RULES! And they didn't care who got disenfranchised as a result.

[goodhue]

23. Florida state party broke the rules, and Hillary then expressed aghast

Now she is simply cynically playing Florida voters and media in typical Clintonian fashion. Hardly a badge of courage.

[babylonsister]

22. Or, as another DUer stated, why is Hillary choosing heads when the

coin has already landed?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4204265&mesg_id=4204938

[MonkeyFunk]

27. No coin has landed in Florida

they haven't voted yet.

Try to keep up.

[Orsino]

28. Not without a do-over with all the candidates. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

31. How is Florida a do-over

when the vote hasn't occurred yet?

[Orsino]

39. A do-over wouold require a complete re-boot...

...with no sanctions, and every candidate able to campaign before the vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. Not necessarily

It's an even playing field now.

Nobody's going to campaign in Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. etc. Candidates don't have to campaign in a state for the results to count.

[Orsino]

44. Not with sanctions having been in place.

I'd like to see Florida have a real, party-sanctioned primary, with all delegates aware long before caucusing that it's for real.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. well that would've been nice

but it's not happening. So now we have to figure out how to fix this mess.

[Orsino]

52. One way to keep *me* happy would be to have the sanctions lifted...

...and delay Florida's primary a few months to level that playing field.

But I'm not a Florida voter, so I won't try to sign away their right to be important via an early primary. As a battleground state in '00 and '04, they have developed a sense of entitlement perhaps the tiniest bit out of proportion to the number of electoral votes ultimately at stake.

[cooolandrew]

30. ....

[MonkeyFunk]

34. nope

[sandnsea]

32. Wait until the convention to decide to seat them

Because everybody goes for the winner by then anyway. How about that?? NOOOOO?????? Right. Because you want to put the delegates in Hillary's column and that's all you want.

[Colobo]

33. I'm in Florida and say LET OBEY THE RULES OF THE PARTY.

[mondo joe]

37. The rules aren't being broken. It's not against the rules to ask to revisit them.

[Orangepeel]

36. I don't think they should seat FL unless they seat MI. And I don't think they should seat MI

unless the delegates from either state don't make any difference. The DNC asked the candidates to remove their names from the ballot and the DNC should do what they said they would do.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Any link

to the DNC asking people to remove their names from the ballots? I've never seen any such evidence.

[Orangepeel]

54. Here's one.

From Michigan Daily

The Democratic National Committee asked the candidates to withdraw from Michigan’s primary after the state legislature moved it Jan. 15. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada from holding their nominating contests before Feb. 5.

http://www.uwire.com/2007/10/10/5-democrats-want-off-michigan-primary-ballot-due-to-early-date/

[CyberPieHole]

38. Does it occurr to some people here on DU, that if the delegates are not seated...

and the voters of Florida and Michigan are disenfranchised, that most of them won't vote in the GE? Why would they bother voting in the GE, if their votes are not counted in the primary? The same way that the DNC has chosen to castigate the voters, the voters will castigate the DNC. The losers will be the Party, the Democratic candidate and the American people.

:kick: and recommend

[Honeycombe8]

40. It's not our decision. The decision has been made by the Clinton supporters, and that's that. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

45. Nonsense

the "decision" was made by the DNC and the state parties in MI and FL.

Clinton wants to remedy a lousy situation.

[Nimrod2005]

43. I hear you

[robbedvoter]

46. Voting rights are popular with democrats. I don't care which candidate benefits.

[Beacool]

47. Florida will go Republican in November if the Democrats

disenfranchise their delegates. I've lived there, my mother still lives there and I was there for 3 weeks over the holidays. There are plenty of Democrats who are furious at the party. We can't afford to lose this state in November, regardless of which candidate wins the primary.

Are some of you so blind not to see the danger in disenfranchising these voters??????

[spooky3]

48. The DNC has to have a means of controlling its own primaries

States should not blow off the national party and schedule their primaries whenever they please. They need to work within the DNC to change the sequencing if they think it's somehow unfair. The blame lies squarely with the state officials in FL and MI for the consequences of their blowing off the national party's rules.

Without sanctions, the DNC has no way to control its primary process.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. There are lots of sanctions

that don't throw out voters.

[spooky3]

53. There could be, but were those agreed to in advance?

[PervezClinton]

51. I think you make a compelling point.

[rodeodance]

55. Fl AND MI---

[rodeodance]

56. Susan B. Anthony would be proud of you monkeyfunk:-)

[rodeodance]

57. and a big REC

[Vinca]

58. So who's going to get the delegates if they're seated?

Since Hillary agreed to the stupid scheme of disenfranchising Florida voters, does that mean she gets rewarded for not taking her name off the ballot? If you want a "do over" so the other candidates can place their names on the ballot and run a campaign down there, fine. Otherwise, it has the appearance of a campaign trick in which she agreed to the party's edict at the beginning (but left her name on the ballot anyway) and is now trying to claim the delegates retroactively. It smells, but isn't surprising given the campaign she's running.

[PervezClinton]

59. Everyone "here" thinks you're the bee's knees. Flawless reasoning.