ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I guess my not-so-kind paraphrasing of John Kerry's opening remarks at the Democratic Convention were "filtered". :o)

SantaCruzer | 05/14/08

I am from Michigan and I have a problem with theyoungdems argument. The people of Michigan and Florida didn't decide to have their primary early. The Democratic party did. The votes in these states obviously mean something, and we should have our votes counted. Even if the party did break the rules, they had a good reason to. Why should 2 states like Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which are very small and not very diverse, have such a large impact? Michigan and Florida are both large, demographically diverse states that paint a better picture of how voters think than Iowa and New Hampshire.

TheChocolateBearFactory | 05/14/08

I agree Chocalate. Have you written those responsible who rendered your vote silent? I think a rotation ought to be established with regard to the order in which the primaries will take place. Having said that, the leaders of the Michigan and Florida knew the consequences of their actions. They chose the wrong forum to voice their concerns. It is your job to make them aware of their errors in their next elections.

smalltownPA | 05/14/08

DonkeyDude proposes that we don't vote before the 6 arguments have been heard. I support him and would like everyone to join us. This will make sure that people complete their debates and not avoid finishing their debates when they are trailing in votes.

POST | 05/14/08

Chocolate. The states did not have a better argument than other states for moving up the calender against the instruction of the national committees of both parties, they could have moved to Feb 5th along with several other states (and both would have garnered significant attention) but the legislators chose not to. The consequence of their decisions were clear and so they should accept responsibility. To count an election that was declared void is simply nonsense, since the number of voters who did not partake in the vote because they were bluntly told the election didn't count cannot be estimated. Both states actually buck the trend across the rest of the nation, where democrat turnout has been far greater than republican. The only other states where republican turnout was greater were Arizona, Alaska, Alabama and Utah. The mistakes of the DNC and the state legislators is obvious with hindsight, but given nobody from the Clinton campaign was complaining about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan until they started losing to Obama her current stance is posturing to attempt to save a lost campaign.

Tickers | 05/14/08

Well said, Tickers.

newlyinterested | 05/14/08

Chocolate, you are suggesting that the party allow people to break the rules without consequences. This, as any good parent knows, will only incentivize future rule-breaking and is a terrible idea. However, you are right about the undue influence of certain states; but that is best left to the DNC Rules Committee's ability to re-design the rules in the wake of this mess - which they will do in response to public demand.

DonkeyDude | 05/14/08

Youngdem, you have gotten worlds better at this. If you really are 17, I am thoroughly impressed.

DonkeyDude | 05/14/08

Thanks donkeydude, means alot, I am 17 haha, you'll see when you accept my friend request that I'm yet to graduate from high school, which is in two weeks actually.

theyoungdem | 05/14/08

I was a young dem back then, too.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/14/08

Does it really matter what the date of the primaries was, the 2004 election was rigged by bush anyway and there wasn't exactly a revloution then so I would suggest that an argument over the dates of primaries is fairly trivial.

Top Hat | 05/16/08

Sorry It was the 2000 election that was riged Bush won 2004 fair n square (probably)

Top Hat | 05/16/08

Clinton is a tough contender against McCain, even if I have to say so myself, I'm happy she lost the Primaries. Now McCain will have an easy victory against Hussein Obama, it's going to be a walk over. ****!! the Florida and Michigan delegates, all the better for Republicans. It's still going to be a while before we have a black or woman President in this country. McCain 08'

dirtythoughts | 05/16/08

McCain is going to be a challenge for the dems to beat. including FL and MI (is that Michigan or Mississippi, i forget) without aknowlegding the rule-breaking elections would seem smart, for example a second primary for the states, costly yes, but it might pay off in Nov.

MorgMcA | 05/17/08

I am surprised that no one is commenting about the way the Republicans completed their primary including the disputes of FL and MI by halving their delegate count. Seems fair and smart choices to me. If the democrats cant even come up with decent ideas for their primaries without offending large sections of the society (their own), how can we expect them to come up with any decent idea for the country. What would be wrong if I assume their policies for the country would be as half baked and not well thought out as their primaries????

ame | 05/18/08

The republican method is really only wise because they did not have a close contest. If one *assumed* that Florida and Michigan were penalised by having the delegate representatives (and then we assume the same voter turnout and preference and give Obama the uncommitted votes from Michigan) then Clinton would pick up 88 delegates and Obama 62 delegates. Surely at this point Clinton would be arguing that the delegates should be seated in full in order to pick up another 26 delegates.

Tickers | 05/19/08

FL and MI are going to cost them big time. Good for Reps. If that rules committee doesn't solve this problem, they are toast. Tickers, if this affected any other candidate I'd say your idea of sitting MI and FL delegates would work, but you have a bigger problem here, you are dealing with Clinton. If your idea is endorsed, she'll argue that the Superdelegates who pledged their support to Obama based their support on the fact that he was ahead and had you recognised the MI and FL she would have been ahead giving her the support of Superdelegates. F*ck your arrogance (Dems) caused all this chaos, and you cant solve it without offending someone.

dirtythoughts | 05/20/08

I wasn't suggesting any process, but pointing out that penalising the states in the same manner as the republicans did would still likely have led to a similar argument once it became clear that the stripped delegates could be pivotal in changing the result.

Tickers | 05/21/08

Actually CNN polls showed that no democrats in Florida or Michigan said they won't vote in the general election because of this rule breaking and not seating of delegates. So you're argument is basically saying that Hillary should have more undeserved delegates. Makes sense...not really.

theyoungdem | 05/31/08

I don't have much of an opinion on this, me being a republican from New Jersey and all, but I do have a problem with Santa Cruz's argument. How can you say all "uncommited votes" were votes for Obama? Could they not be for Edwards? Or perhaps a dem who simply doesn't like Hillary?

strongleader | 05/31/08