Posts: 15,842
Threads: 95
Joined: May 2025
So it seems to be coming out now, that supporters for Hilary Clinton on the DNC rules committee voted to keep Michigan and Florida from seating delegates when they chose early primary dates. But now some are flip-flopping on that position since it will benefit their candidate. In addition, her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, threatened to do the same in 2004 as DNC head to the state of Michigan. So it can not be said her campaign had no say in the rules they now want to change. There is an article about this here,
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...mpa-1.html. I guess I am not all that surprised, the Clinton campaign has been in a "win at all costs" mode for the last couple months anyways. Just had not seen examples of how far the supporters will go like this one.
Posts: 57,787
Threads: 5,857
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
4
I guess what I find so incredibly entertaining about all this is that the Democratic Party, the party that's been screaming about 'stolen elections' and 'disenfranchising voters' has succeeded in disenfranchising two whole states full of their OWN voters. I mean come on- a political party giving the finger to two whole states ? It's amazingly great ! Just drop 'em right into the Republican party's laps.
Posts: 26,012
Threads: 2,901
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
1
Every vote counts.
Or it doesn't.
Take your pick... Politics as usual...
Posts: 4,343
Threads: 408
Joined: Jan 2017
Not only are they disenfranchising voters in two states, but their insistence to use Super Delegates does the same thing to ALL in their party. Why should an elite group of Democrats from within the party have 20% (and increasing yearly) of the say of who gets nominated?
Posts: 37,101
Threads: 2,599
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
>>Why should an elite group of Democrats from within the party have 20% (and increasing yearly) of the say of who gets nominated?
Because voters can still vote for whomever they choose?
Posts: 57,787
Threads: 5,857
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
4
makk-
Not at all. If the voters wish to choose between Obama and Clinton in the general election, one of them is gonna have to go the independent route. Which would hand the presidency back to the Republican party on a gold plated platter. So that ain't happening.
When I registered as an Independent in Pittsburgh back in the 80's, I discovered that I had in effect totally disenfranchised myself from most local elections. The locale was so Democratic, that the Republican party usually didn't even try to run candidates for most offices. So the only choice was between one Democrat or the other. And, as an Independent, I wasn't allowed to vote in their primary. So I had NO say whatsoever. It sucked. I *almost* registered as a Democrat to resolve the problem.
Posts: 37,101
Threads: 2,599
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
>>Not at all.
No, you're wrong.
This is about establishing who the party is going to support. Not who people can vote for. There is nothing stopping a candidate from continuing to campaign after the party has selected another as candidate. Candidates running uncontested in local elections is an entirely different matter.
>>I had NO say whatsoever.
Same here, registered as an independent in NY.
Arguing that the Dems shouldn't hold a strong line on this issue is also arguing that states should be able to independently select their primary dates. I don't think anyone wants that chaos. The Dems said to those states "don't do it" and they did it and now they can suffer the consequences. Very simple. Not to mention that they weren't taken seriously by the candidates because they had broken party rules.
If this is truly the wrong action for the Dems to take, then let them run their party into the ground and sit back and laugh. However, that doesn't seem to be happening.
Posts: 2,181
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2018
[quote karsen]Not only are they disenfranchising voters in two states, but their insistence to use Super Delegates does the same thing to ALL in their party. Why should an elite group of Democrats from within the party have 20% (and increasing yearly) of the say of who gets nominated?
It follows the model of a democratic republic. That's why Gore got more votes and Bush won the election.
Posts: 7,301
Threads: 463
Joined: Jan 2022
Reputation:
0
That's an oversimplified answer for why Gore got (slightly more) votes and Bush won the election I've seen in a while, but I've seen worse. It was Gore who took it to the courts and lost. A questionable decision in retrospect. And not the first mangled Presidential election. Or the last.
The Nixon Kennedy contest should probably have resulted in a Nixon victory, but Nixon, while privately bitter about it, refused to challenge the outcome, fearing it would damage the party, diminish the Office, and hurt his credibility in a potential future Presidential race. There was far less media scrutiny back then, the private lives of public figures were better concealed. Insiders knew how crooked the game was, but regular folks wouldn't find out until years later.
One interesting thing about this contest, the inner workings of the party machine is more exposed to public view than it normally is. In the old days, party bosses made deals and ran the process with less interest or involvement from the public. These days, more voters are participating in primaries and caucuses, but our understanding of the party mechanics, and the rules and regulations isn't any clearer, we're just as confused as ever.
I saw Howard Dean on Russert Sunday, still as arrogant and dishonest as ever, as partisan and myopic as any Party Chief from the old days. He's probably the perfect guy to crack the whip, or run the party into the ground, or both.
