Despite what many will think, this warning is not about any candidate.

[Jackpine Radical]

I don't mean to pick on anybody. I'm developing a slight leaning toward one of the two candidates still standing, but I can teeter away from that person several times a day as one or another perspective floats into my awareness.

What this post is really about, though, is (on the one hand) that the looming possibility that the will of the Democratic Primary voters might be subverted, and (on the other) that rulebreaking will be tolerated, even rewarded, in the party. The two things that could be immensely damaging to the party are, first, if MI & FL are rewarded for their defiance of the DNC, and if the cadre of party-hack Superdelegates takes the choice of the rule-following, honest rank-and-file electorate way from them.

If anyone wins the nomination either in ddfiance of the rules or of the will of the electorate, that person will turn off the electorate to the point that they will undoubtedly lose the General Election. Guaranteed.

Seat MI & FL, let the Superdelegates override the choice of the electorate, and say Hello to President McCain. Guaranteed.

(Maybe the thing that scares me most about this is the fact that I find myself in agreement with Pelosi. THAT is truly frightening.)

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. I will vote for the Dem candidate, regardless of who wins

but ONLY if they win without resorting to breaking rules or subverting the will of the voters. I will not vote for a candidate who was not fairly and democratically nominated.

[nonconformist]

3. Yeah, just subverting the will of MI and FL voters is fair. nt

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

5. They need to talk to their state party about that

I agree it's not fair, but the state parties willfully broke the rules that were established and agreed to by everyone long before they moved their primary dates.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. So maybe they'll decide to have their next primaries

in April 2010 just to make sure their voices count.

[Yael]

2. I share those concerns

Maybe we will have a decisive victory (one way or the other) on March 4th.

I would like my state (PA) to count, but not at this expense.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. and a lot of people won't vote

if two large states are disenfranchised at the convention. That's why this stuff needs to be resolved sooner, rather than later.

[bunnies]

10. so... two large states trump 20 or 30 smaller ones?

Interesting logic.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. They're not trumping anything

It's making sure all votes are counted and all votes count.

[Ravy]

6. Interesting that you argue both for strict adherance to the rules (MI,FL),

and against it in the same post (Super Delegates).

The DNC set up a set of rules to begin with.. which included sanctions against moving a primary too early AND that there would be Super Delegates who have a vote. Clinton supporters argue against one rule, Obama supporters argue against the other. That leaves both sides lacking if they attempt to argue that the other side wants to be "rewarded for their defiance of the DNC".

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Ralph Waldo Emerson said it first:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[tnlefty]

7. Well, I missed it, so could you clue me in about what Pelosi said?

Clueless here.

[RamboLiberal]

12. Pelosi said Michigan and Florida shouldn't count

Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Delegates from the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries shouldn't decide who wins the party's presidential nomination, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the chair of the Democratic National Convention.

``I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is,'' Pelosi said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to be aired today.

Pelosi's stand is a setback for Hillary Clinton, who won those states' uncontested primary elections after the party stripped the states of their delegates. Clinton is pushing to allow the delegates to vote at the Democratic convention in Denver, Colorado, on Aug. 25-28.

Democrats in Florida and Michigan have been told that the delegates can't participate in the nomination process because they held their primaries before the sanctioned date of Feb. 5. Both states are pushing to reverse that decision.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afMu2IHmjtdo&refer=home

[RamboLiberal]

11. Hear, Hear Jackpine Radical - completely agree

I'm so amazed that so many here cannot see that their candidate may win only a pyrrhic victory. If their candidate is nominated under these circumstances they'll be watching John McCain with his hand on the bible taking the oath January 20th, 2009!

[davsand]

13. While I worry about the fate of the Dem party, I wonder about a third party emerging.

Frankly, this entire scenario is really starting to make me wonder how far this nation REALLY is away from a viable third party. Whenever you have a titled few who can subvert the will of the many it should worry us.

In Florida and Michigan the party leadership made the decision to break ranks with the DNC and they deprived their states' voters of a voice in the party process. Then you have the scenario of the "super delegates" possibly over riding the will of the voters of the rest of the nation, and that is, again, a smaller group making decisions that impact on the many.

I can easily see how the voters from EITHER situation could feel it a better choice to abandon the Dem party as a whole.

I hope not to see it happen.



Laura

[WHAT]

15. you speak for me...

I've had it with cheating. It's not a democracy without consent through consensus. Hell, I don't even think it's a party.