Story Comments
Posted by: Raiderwall 1 year, 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
-
Neutral
annoDomini1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But if the rules did somehow include "draconian punishment", why did ALL the states agree to them before the primaries? I think your assessment is incorrect. The problem here is not that the punishment isn't fitting, the problem is that MI and FL wanted their primaries to be "more important" by being earlier and they might have thought the punishment would not be inflicted because early in the campaign Sen. Clinton was the party favorite and they figured she would just graciously welcome the delegations from MI and FL at the convention and they could all be one big, happy family. Now that it looks like that might not happen, the violaters are trying to blame the DNC.
Reply-
Neutral
Raiderwall1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My point is that the GOP had the same problem and came up with a sane solution. Not seating an entire state's delegation at the convention is insane.
Dean thought the states would blink, and back down. They didn't and here we are. For a party talking about change, ending bickering, and making sure every vote counts this is unacceptable.
Even Obama thinks the delegations should have their voices heard, "I'll leave it up to the Democratic National Committee to make a decision about how to resolve it," Mr. Obama told ABC News on Thursday night. "But I certainly want to make sure that we've got Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention in some fashion."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/politics/0...
Reply-
Neutral
annoDomini1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are correct that Dean thought the states would abide by the rules. I think that MI and FL thought the DNC would blink and back down once they went forward. They didn't and here we are.
I think it is interesting that the DNC says they can't pay for the primary because they need the $ for the Pres. election. But both Sens. Clinton and Obama have raised such huge amounts of $, the paltry $ that the DNC has probably won't make much of a difference. Perhaps Sens. Clinton and Obama should advise the DNC that they won't need the DNC's $, so the DNC can pay for proper primaries in MI and FL. While that could work, I suspect other state parties might feel it isn't fair to those states that followed the rules.
Reply-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't forget that the Obama and Clinton funds would be used for the presidential campaign only. The national parties do help support senate and house candidates from their funds and that would dry up on only one side if the national party had to fund the revoting of states that violated the rules. Truly should be paid by those who made the bad decisions on date which is the state party in Michigan and the State Government in Florida.
There is no what the national party can take the funds left from the losing candidate as well since those funds are then saved to pay future campaigns or given to other candidates for future campaigns, but never turned over to the national party and that is for both democrats and republicans.
Reply-
Neutral
annoDomini1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, that's true that the DNC would then not have the $ for other national races and it is not okay for the candidates to turn over their $ to the national party. Later in this thread, I've made an alternative suggestion that perhaps Sens. Clinton and Obama could split the cost of holding valid primaries in MI and FL. I'm not sure if there are any legal restrictions on that. I think maybe individual campaigns sometimes pay for recounts, but that isn't exactly the same.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
AnnoDomini said:
"The problem here is not that the punishment isn't fitting,"
Uhm Anno, the "punishment" was imposed by the DNC
"the problem is that MI and FL wanted their primaries to be "more important" by being earlier"
Who doesn't? The current primary system needs to be changed, rearranged. A randomly picked schedule for each presidential election.
Currently neither the DNC or the RNC want to change the primary order (That alone should be reason enough to change the primary system)
Reply-
Neutral
annoDomini1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, the punishment was imposed by the DNC, but some commentors have stated that the punishment was not appropriate. If the FL and MI state Dem parties thought the punishment was inappropriate, they should have objected when the DNC established the rules BEFORE the primary season started. Instead, they decided to violate the National party rules because they wanted their states to be more important. When you state "Who doesn't?", it may be accurate, but NO OTHER states broke the rules, even though they presumably would like to be more important too.
While an alternative primary system may be desirable (several have been proposed that sound better than what we have now), IF states choose to violate the current rules, they have to abide by the consequences, whatever they are. If the FL and MI Dems can make a convincing enough case that they are right, perhaps the other states will agree they can be seated. It doesn't appear likely right now...
Reply
-
-
-
loading ...
dBergeron
mcarpentry
pc25
ETproductions
cosmogenium
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.