Clinton wins TX, OH - Page 4

citanon · 03-06-2008, 14:52 PM

Quote:

Dean urges do-over voting in Fla., Mich.

1 hour, 10 minutes ago

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.

"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.

The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.

"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said.

Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.

The Michigan governor, top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, and Florida's state party chair all are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from the previous insistence from officials in both states that the primaries they held in January should determine how their delegates are allocated.

Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson said in a conference call with reporters Thursday that it's hard to envision a scenario where the Florida and Michigan delegations are not seated at the conventions.

That would send a "very unsettling signal to the people of those states," Wolfson said.

Asked whether the campaign favored a caucus over a primary if the states had a do-over, he said it would be premature to comment on any particular one at this point.

Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

"We believe that vote ought to count," Wolfson said.

The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates � including Clinton and rival Barack Obama � agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.

Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.

But no one predicted the race would still be very close at this point in the year.

"The rules were set a year and a half ago," Dean said. "Florida and Michigan voted for them, then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. Well, when you are in a contest you do need to abide by the rules. Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states."

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

An interesting development. Could the closeness of the race for the Democratic nomination finally break NH and Iowa's stranglehold on the early primary season? If the race is still undecided by June and the two states do not hold do-over primaries, would the Democratics:

A. Seat them, and thereby send the NH, Iowa early primary tradition to the grave.

B. Not seat them and risk a backlash if the nominee was Obama instead of Clinton?

gunnut · 03-06-2008, 15:05 PM

I just thought it's funny that CA moved our primary from June to Feb. 5th to play a part in the process. Now it seems like the late comers have all the focus. CA could have been a very important part of the process had we stuck to our June schedule. I'm laughing right now.

FullTank · 03-06-2008, 15:19 PM

OTOH, if California had stuck to the June schedule, Clinton wouldnt have had all those numbers already under the kitty and would have given up the fight long back due to the huge Obama lead that would have occured. Then California would have had no say which is much worse than current.

A Texas or a Ohio earlier in the race would have had got Clinton more delegates than at this stage. Clinton has benefitted totally by a early California primary.

dalem · 03-06-2008, 20:01 PM

a) No serious contender would drop out before having a go at California.

b) I am laughing too, but at the fact the none of this seemed like much of a problem to the DNC back when they allowed all these changes. So eff 'em.

-dale

gunnut · 03-06-2008, 21:19 PM

Also those "super delegates" created in the 1990s for the party's elite members were meant to lend more legitimacy to the nominee. Now these elite members of the party of the people generate nothing but contraversy. This is truly good popcorn material.

ndzesop · 03-07-2008, 00:23 AM

As an observer, I think the media had an enormous impact in favor of Hill Clinton. Now, the lessons are learn and the competition goes forward. Clinton's campain has been destructive on Obama, but I think the super-delegates understand that Clinton cannot stand McCain and will probably swing in favor of Obama. But Obama needs to prove his worth and show that he can build a strong team of experts once in office (to fill-up his lack of experience in foreign policy). Precisely because of foreign policy, super-delegates might choose Obama, given that if he wins the final elections, American image and place in the world will be restored.

ndzesop · 03-07-2008, 00:29 AM

If Florida is reconsidered, Hill might face another problem. I do not see any difference CA would have made if it came earlier or later. Large states seem to vote for Clinton and smaller ones for Obama

FullTank · 03-07-2008, 00:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Also those "super delegates" created in the 1990s for the party's elite members were meant to lend more legitimacy to the nominee. Now these elite members of the party of the people generate nothing but contraversy.

Agree with you here.

The DNC would serve the democratic voter better by

1. Scrapping the "super delegates" asap - Help Obama

2. Holding a do-over in Michigan and Florida. - Help Clinton

Thus evening things out and also being a better representative of the people.

One without the other will clearly tilt things in one candidates favour. Avoiding them will lead to issues posted earlier.

03-06-2008, 15:05 PM	#47 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 10,274 Country:	I just thought it's funny that CA moved our primary from June to Feb. 5th to play a part in the process. Now it seems like the late comers have all the focus. CA could have been a very important part of the process had we stuck to our June schedule. I'm laughing right now. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Clinton and Iraq war	Major_Armstrong	Political Discussions	11	09-26-2008 04:46 AM
Obama Bribes Superdelegates	Ironduke	2008 US Presidential Election	12	02-19-2008 02:12 AM
Top Dems tell Bill Clinton to back off Obama	troung	2008 US Presidential Election	27	01-27-2008 14:07 PM
Clinton Library Got Funds From Saudis	Kansas Bear	Current Affairs	11	12-17-2007 01:46 AM
Clinton vs. McCain	Julie	Political Discussions	30	03-15-2006 18:11 PM

03-06-2008, 15:19 PM	#48 (permalink)
FullTank Patron Join Date: 07-11-07 Location: West Des Moines, Iowa Posts: 259	OTOH, if California had stuck to the June schedule, Clinton wouldnt have had all those numbers already under the kitty and would have given up the fight long back due to the huge Obama lead that would have occured. Then California would have had no say which is much worse than current. A Texas or a Ohio earlier in the race would have had got Clinton more delegates than at this stage. Clinton has benefitted totally by a early California primary.

03-06-2008, 20:01 PM	#49 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,767 Country:	a) No serious contender would drop out before having a go at California. b) I am laughing too, but at the fact the none of this seemed like much of a problem to the DNC back when they allowed all these changes. So eff 'em. -dale

03-06-2008, 21:19 PM	#50 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 10,274 Country:	Also those "super delegates" created in the 1990s for the party's elite members were meant to lend more legitimacy to the nominee. Now these elite members of the party of the people generate nothing but contraversy. This is truly good popcorn material.

03-07-2008, 00:23 AM	#51 (permalink)
ndzesop New Member Join Date: 11-17-05 Posts: 5	As an observer, I think the media had an enormous impact in favor of Hill Clinton. Now, the lessons are learn and the competition goes forward. Clinton's campain has been destructive on Obama, but I think the super-delegates understand that Clinton cannot stand McCain and will probably swing in favor of Obama. But Obama needs to prove his worth and show that he can build a strong team of experts once in office (to fill-up his lack of experience in foreign policy). Precisely because of foreign policy, super-delegates might choose Obama, given that if he wins the final elections, American image and place in the world will be restored.

03-07-2008, 00:29 AM	#52 (permalink)
ndzesop New Member Join Date: 11-17-05 Posts: 5	If Florida is reconsidered, Hill might face another problem. I do not see any difference CA would have made if it came earlier or later. Large states seem to vote for Clinton and smaller ones for Obama

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)