Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 1 of 2 (16 items)   1 2 Next >
True or False
by NowOnlyNow
-1 Reply

Facts needed, not emotional outbursts.

True or False?

1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state's delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state's pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state's pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is "changing the rules."

FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.

4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state's primary in compliance with DNC Rules.

FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state's Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.

Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.

5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference.

6) Hillary violated the DNC Rules by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Nowhere in the DNC's Delegate Selection Plans is there any suggestion or command that any candidate remove his or her name from a ballot in a state that is in violation of timing rules. This is why Obama and Edwards were on the Florida ballot, in spite of its primary also being before February 5.

7) Hillary manipulated the process by being the only candidate who kept her name on the Michigan ballot.

FALSE: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel also kept their names on the Michigan ballot. In fact the decision of some candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot was a tactical move designed to curry favor with Democratic Party officials in Iowa who were concerned that the significance of their first-in-the-nation status was being diminished. The risk paid off handsomely for Obama.

8) Because Edwards and Obama were not on the Michigan ballot, that election cannot be considered a legitimate expression of voter preference of a presidential candidate.

FALSE: According to the Delegate Selection Rules & Bylaws, "Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters..." The Michigan ballot included an option for "uncommitted" to ensure that voters could express a presidential preference or uncommitted status consistent with this rule. Nothing in the Rules requires a state to allocate delegates to candidates who voluntarily remove their names from the ballot as John Edwards and Barack Obama did.

9) The primaries in Florida and Michigan are invalid because voters were under informed due to the lack of active campaigning.

FALSE: Voters in Florida and Michigan were very well informed. They had ample access to newspapers, television, books, radio, and the Internet. They could have availed themselves of over a year of coverage of the 2008 election. They could watch every campaign commercial on YouTube. They had the same opportunity as the rest of America to watch 17 televised debates.

Moreover, nowhere in the DNC rules does it specify that candidates must campaign directly in a state to make its primary a legitimate expression of voter candidate preference. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii never get visited by the candidates.

10) All the candidates signed a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in the states violating primary timing.

FALSE: The candidates signed no such pledge to the DNC.

11) Hillary violated the rules against campaigning in Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: Jurisdiction over determinations of whether a candidate shall be considered in violation of the relevant rule (Rule 20 C.1.b.) lies with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Because the Committee has not ruled against either candidate, it is false to assert that either candidate is in violation.

12) Hillary signed a pledge that she violated by remaining on the ballot in Florida and Michigan?

FALSE: The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

13) Hillary's activities in Florida and Michigan look suspicious, between fundraising and holding a victory rally in Florida.

FALSE: Hillary acted well within the letter and spirit of the rules. The rules stipulate that candidates can fundraise in states violating the timing rules and that fundraising activity is not considered impermissible campaigning. Further, the prohibition on campaigning in any state ends as soon as the primary in violation concludes. Hillary's victory party was within the rules because she did not appear at a campaign event in Florida until after the polls closed.

14) Barack Obama would likely win more delegates if there were a new contest.

FALSE: The rules provide that a candidate who campaigns or holds press conferences in a state in violation of timing may not receive any of the pledged or unpledged delegates from that state. Because Barack Obama campaigned in Florida when, on Sunday September 30, 2007, he held an impromptu public news conference in Florida, when he bought television advertising time on stations in markets which included much of Florida, and when he ran a campaign in Michigan to encourage voters to vote "uncommitted," Barack Obama may not be entitled to receive any delegates from Florida or Michigan.

15) Reinstating any of the delegates from either Florida or Michigan would be a travesty against democracy and fair elections. It would be cheating.

FALSE: There are many good and valid reasons for the DNC to have rules regarding delegate selection timing, but none of these reasons relate to ensuring that primaries accurately reflect voter preference. None of these involve the preservation of democracy.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has the power to reinstate the delegates unless they already have won 50% plus 1 of the total delegates. Therefore neither has the power to cheat. This matter lies in the hands of the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee which is neutral.

Were Obama to gain control of the Credentials Committee at the DNC, he would have the power to exclude the delegates from Michigan and Florida. That would be a biased effort to disenfranchise two large states. That would be a travesty and one the Republicans could easily exploit in November.

16) Hillary has changed her position on Florida and Michigan now that she may not receive 50% + 1 of the total delegates need to win before the pledged delegate primaries conclude.

FALSE: From the beginning of the Florida controversy, Hillary has consistently stated that if she wins, meaning securing 50% + 1 of the total delegates, she will reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegation at the convention if the DNC fails to resolve the problem on their own before such time.

Obama has changed his position now that seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would put Hillary in the lead. In August of last year he said that resolving the delegate issue was not his job ("I'm like a player on the field. I shouldn't be setting up the rules" ) and in September he suggested to Florida donors that if he were the nominee whether he would seat in the state's excluded delegates, declaring that he would "Do right by Florida voters."

Currently the race for pledged delegates is so split that neither candidate will receive the 50% plus 1 delegates they need to seal their nomination before the Convention. Obama now wants to set the rules and insists that the DNC must refuse to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates, even though DNC Rules clearly provide remedies to include them. His arguments are not based in the rules and are not in the interest of democracy or the Democratic Party, but only in the fact that those delegates reflect a greater nationwide preference for Hillary Clinton. .

17) A new primary or caucus would settle the issue in a fair way that would maintain party unity.

FALSE: A new primary or caucus that complies with timing rules would have been fair if the date had been set before people started voting in Iowa. Once people started voting, each subsequent primary or caucus was affected. The campaigns have campaigned and spent money in reliance on this calendar. The candidates, campaigns, and electorates are not the same today as they were before voting began. Any new contest would be on an unlevel playing field. It is unnecessary, an insult to the voters who already voted, and unacceptable.

2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention (hereinafter "DNC Rules"), Rules 19-20, Sections C. 4-9, Section D.
DNC Rules, Rule 20, Section C.1.a.
DNC Rules, Rule 20.C.5-7 provide several remedies including empowering the Rules & Bylaws committee to implement processes to seat the delegates from an offending state
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.7.
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.6-7
DNC Rules, Rule 13 A.
DNC Rules, Rule 19 B., Rule 20.
<link> tent/article/2007/08/25/AR2007­082500275. html?hpid=topnews
<link> obama-vows-do-whats-right/?new­s-breaking



Re: True or False
by Pherdnut

Michigan and Florida voters were fully aware of the circumstances. It could not have possibly been an accurate accounting of what the states' voters really wanted if they knew their votes wouldn't count.

It is most definitely true that Hillary didn't start making a big stink about it until it was clear her campaign was no longer a sure thing.

I agree that they should get a second shot at it and that disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters is stupid but Hillary doesn't get to have all the cards stacked in her favor just because the democratic leadership in Michigan decided to play games with the process and the Florida GOP was allowed to disenfranchise it's democrats.

Re: True or False
by NowOnlyNow
Wanna bet....? If you want to play by the rules.....play by the rules.
Re: True or False
by Wasabe
I believe that is how the DNC views Michigan and Florida.
Re: True or False
by NowOnlyNow
Wasabe....Are you another one who believes or who has facts?
Re: True or False
by Wasabe
The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.
If you want to play by the rules.....play by the rules.
Re: True or False
by NowOnlyNow

And what does your posting add? Nothing! ..It reiterates exactly what I said.
The rules are the rules and lets play by the rules.

Once again you've added nothing of substance to this blog.

Please keep trying though.

Re: True or False
by Wasabe

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that adding nothing to the conversation was your exclusive territory.

Re: True or False
by NowOnlyNow

Your idiocy is only trumped by your ignorance.

Re: True or False
by dsimon

No one argues that the Michigan and Florida delegations cannot be seated. Of course the credentials committee has the final say. But just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it should happen (or shouldn't, for that matter).

There was good reason for the DNC not to revise the rules to accommodate Michigan and Florida, even though the could do so. If their delegations are seated as is, there will be no ability to stop the leapfrogging we saw this time around; it will only get worse, and will make this primary season look like a pleasure cruise. So yes, the DNC could still seat them, but only at a huge loss to the party's ability to exercise to impose some kind of order on the process.

My understanding is that the reason candidates left their names on the ballot in Florida is that it was too late under Florida law to remove them. The DNC asked candidates to do so in Michigan, where it was still legally possible. (Kucinich tried to get his name off, but it was too late.)

As for the validity of the Michigan vote, there is a serious problem with the fact that it was an open primary. Democrats and independents were under the impression that the Democratic primary wasn't going to mean anything (as Clinton also stated at the time, <link> so somewhere between 42,000 and 72,000 Democrats voted in the Republican primary, along with on the order of 200,000 independents, <link> some of whom would have voted in the Democratic primary if they thought it would have mattered. Plus we have no idea how many Democrats just stayed home.

So given the totality of the circumstances, I think it's a very tough argument to say the Michigan vote was an adequate reflection of those eligible to vote. There's a better argument for counting, in some way, the Florida vote.

In any case, we might get to the end of the primaries in a situation where seating the Florida and Michigan delegations as is won't change the outcome, so the credentials committee could do so and everyone can have a group hug. We'll see.

Re: True or False
by Bubba Hussein O'Reilly

You must STOP making sense! You may single handedly be the cause of hysterical bowel syndrome among the latte liberals who have devoted their entire lives to proving the extent of their white guilt.

NEXT UP: "I lied about daddy" Read the truth about BO's alchoholic wife beating polygamist drunk driving daddy. That is if you can "handle the truth".

<>_<>

RezkoRama

Re: True or False
by tiger cat
what a lot of nothing who cares the dem.party is a loser forget it they are so screwed up nothing can help them vote for mc cain
Re: True or False
by dsimon

the dem.party is a loser forget it they are so screwed up nothing can help them vote for mc cain

Wow, that added so much to the debate!

Re: True or False
by mjshep

Wow!

You really know the rules!

However, none of this means anything as Hillary will still lose and Obama will be the candidate, with or without MI and FL. Lets say you give HRC the 55% or so of MI delegates (or even half of them because of the penalty) and then all the rest of "unpledged" to Obama and give HRC the 50% she won in FLA. and the rest to Obama or even split between Obama and Edwards, Obama still wins, big. Hil's only hope, and even it ain't much, is that Obama gets NO delegates from Michigan because he took his name off the ballot and he loses every contest left by huge 60-40 margins. That's not going to happen and everyone knows it.


If Hillary makes this all about hairplitting the rules, not only will she lose but she will end up embarrassed and discredited. It would be one of the stupidest moves ever. But then again, these are the Clintons.....

Re: True or False
by NowOnlyNow

You are wrong!

By the rules...Senator Obama can get no pledged delegates from Michigan since he removed his name from the ballot. He did this to curry favor in Iowa so as not to disenfranchise Iowa's claim to their First Place Status in Nomination Voting. His campaign F....'d up royally in Michigan.

He also can get no pledged delegates in Florida since technically he violated DNC rules by campaigning (purchasing TV time that covered counties in Florida). The rules prohibit campaigning within states that violate DNC rules.

Page 1 of 2 (16 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML