Comments on: About Florida and Michigan Primary Delegations http://blog.scottnolan.org/2008/05/21/about-florida-and-michigan-primary-delegations/ ideas, thoughts, rants Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:10:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: J. Scott http://blog.scottnolan.org/2008/05/21/about-florida-and-michigan-primary-delegations/#comment-17559 J. Scott Fri, 23 May 2008 00:42:20 +0000 http://blog.scottnolan.org/?p=522#comment-17559 Scott I agree on a few points and there is no way if they determine to not seats the delegates in MIchigan and Florida that the Superdelegates should be able to have those votes or endorsements count or matter at all. To do so, simply reinforces the elitist mentality behind such a system. The whole debate centers around these rules that were set up for what reason---so the controlling powers of the Party apparatus could "control" or at the very least midigate the outcomes and effects. Why are the dates of these Primaries so critical? if a vote is a vote then why does it matter if not to make sure that one knows the map and and want to try and manipulate it. For example, say Iowa was not the first. Say New Hampshire jumped it as well as PA, OH, that would have meant that Clinton had the upper hand...the MO they refer to, but then say it was Oregon, NC, VA, MD, SC that all moved up ahead of schedule based on State determinations...Obama would have had the MO. You see the question really is "why" was there a rush to change, to move up like some lottery draft in sports? There was a reason for it and why was the DNC so opposed to allowing MI and FL on those dates? Analyzing those answers I think would provide us with the real insight as to what is making these insiders tick and frankly its scary. Regardless, they had better fix these rather elite methods of deterimantion, they call it safeguards to protect us average Joes from selecting an ill advised candidate (this to me is about as offensive a premise as anything)by 2012. As to Virginia I see the point Viv was making but we can hold out hope, at least I do that we begin to see more Moderate, okay "sane" Republicans come about. We are seeing a few on the local level here that will probably always remain at the local level becasue it is apparent they are fiscal conservatives but absolutley NOT social ones. Republicans that want blanced budgets, transportation actually funded, that are pro-choice and actually are opposed to amendments banning same sex marriages...scary as it sounds those type of Republicans are beginning to slowly emerge from this craziness that the social consevatives have begot upon the State GOP. alteroffreedom Scott I agree on a few points and there is no way if they determine to not seats the delegates in MIchigan and Florida that the Superdelegates should be able to have those votes or endorsements count or matter at all. To do so, simply reinforces the elitist mentality behind such a system.
The whole debate centers around these rules that were set up for what reason—so the controlling powers of the Party apparatus could “control” or at the very least midigate the outcomes and effects. Why are the dates of these Primaries so critical? if a vote is a vote then why does it matter if not to make sure that one knows the map and and want to try and manipulate it.
For example, say Iowa was not the first. Say New Hampshire jumped it as well as PA, OH, that would have meant that Clinton had the upper hand…the MO they refer to, but then say it was Oregon, NC, VA, MD, SC that all moved up ahead of schedule based on State determinations…Obama would have had the MO. You see the question really is “why” was there a rush to change, to move up like some lottery draft in sports? There was a reason for it and why was the DNC so opposed to allowing MI and FL on those dates? Analyzing those answers I think would provide us with the real insight as to what is making these insiders tick and frankly its scary.
Regardless, they had better fix these rather elite methods of deterimantion, they call it safeguards to protect us average Joes from selecting an ill advised candidate (this to me is about as offensive a premise as anything)by 2012.
As to Virginia I see the point Viv was making but we can hold out hope, at least I do that we begin to see more Moderate, okay “sane” Republicans come about. We are seeing a few on the local level here that will probably always remain at the local level becasue it is apparent they are fiscal conservatives but absolutley NOT social ones. Republicans that want blanced budgets, transportation actually funded, that are pro-choice and actually are opposed to amendments banning same sex marriages…scary as it sounds those type of Republicans are beginning to slowly emerge from this craziness that the social consevatives have begot upon the State GOP.
alteroffreedom

]]> By: snolan http://blog.scottnolan.org/2008/05/21/about-florida-and-michigan-primary-delegations/#comment-17541 snolan Thu, 22 May 2008 11:15:52 +0000 http://blog.scottnolan.org/?p=522#comment-17541 Good point, Vivian; but you what, like it or not (and trust me I do NOT like it) we Virginian's must live with the consequences of having a Republican house. Trust me, I do every thing I possibly can to replace at least a few of those wing-nuts; but we could be in the same boat, and if we were we'd be forced to play by the rules too... When I became a member of the Democratic party, after being fiercely independent for many years, I had to sign a statement that I was not entirely happy about, but I did it for the greater good and I have lived by those rules. We are not talking about taking away these people's votes in the election, only in the party primary. Is it fair that Democrats in Michigan don't get a vote in the party primary and clearly some number of Republican voters in Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania do? No. But it is also not fair that people in Iowa and New Hampshire get a say more often than people in Pennsylvania. The rules, while somewhat arbitrary, are the rules. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gravel - they all signed on. If they are unhappy they should bail out and run independent. We should all work to fix the problems we see now for the next election, but this one is already in progress. It is not fair to Democrats who decided not to vote in Michigan because they could not vote for the Democrat they liked best and because they knew their vote would not count anyway... now someone wants to change the rules? That is not fair to them either. Good point, Vivian; but you what, like it or not (and trust me I do NOT like it) we Virginian’s must live with the consequences of having a Republican house. Trust me, I do every thing I possibly can to replace at least a few of those wing-nuts; but we could be in the same boat, and if we were we’d be forced to play by the rules too…

When I became a member of the Democratic party, after being fiercely independent for many years, I had to sign a statement that I was not entirely happy about, but I did it for the greater good and I have lived by those rules.

We are not talking about taking away these people’s votes in the election, only in the party primary. Is it fair that Democrats in Michigan don’t get a vote in the party primary and clearly some number of Republican voters in Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania do? No.

But it is also not fair that people in Iowa and New Hampshire get a say more often than people in Pennsylvania. The rules, while somewhat arbitrary, are the rules. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gravel - they all signed on. If they are unhappy they should bail out and run independent. We should all work to fix the problems we see now for the next election, but this one is already in progress. It is not fair to Democrats who decided not to vote in Michigan because they could not vote for the Democrat they liked best and because they knew their vote would not count anyway… now someone wants to change the rules? That is not fair to them either.

]]> By: Vivian J. Paige http://blog.scottnolan.org/2008/05/21/about-florida-and-michigan-primary-delegations/#comment-17536 Vivian J. Paige Thu, 22 May 2008 02:52:39 +0000 http://blog.scottnolan.org/?p=522#comment-17536 <blockquote>Even if Republican controlled legislatures foisted this off on the Democratic parties in those states, the Democrats 1) had it coming for letting Republicans win</blockquote> Um, the Democrats let the Republicans win? How in the heck do you figure that? Republicans in FL outnumber Democrats. How do you force R's to vote for Ds? Just asking. Especially since here in VA, we haven't managed to figure out how to do that, either.

Even if Republican controlled legislatures foisted this off on the Democratic parties in those states, the Democrats 1) had it coming for letting Republicans win

Um, the Democrats let the Republicans win? How in the heck do you figure that? Republicans in FL outnumber Democrats. How do you force R’s to vote for Ds?

Just asking. Especially since here in VA, we haven’t managed to figure out how to do that, either.

]]>