Quote:
Originally Posted by SummerChild
TonyB,
I think that the solution is really very straightforward - don't change the rules of the game midstream. Also, I think that splitting the delegates may be giving one candidate more than the candidate deserves.
If Michigan and Florida agreed to operate in this manner, then I think that is that really. I think that the elected officials of Michigan and Florida should pay for their decision-making in November and that the rule that none of the delegates should count should stand. It is a shame to disenfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida in this way. This is a matter for their state legislatures to answer for, I think. I do not agree to change the rules midstream b/c the election turned out to be such an interesting and still unsettled matter. Now, they want a do-over?
The people of Michigan and Florida need to take it up with the people that made those decisions in their states. Those people postured and acted childish and now they are living to regret their decision. It is no different to me than a child that postures and throws a temper tantrum and then seeks to undo the act.
It would not set a good precedent for future elections. Why wouldn't any other state simply posture and then later decide that they want to do something else and all should be forgotten? What's going to happen with the next presidential election if we allow a do-over this time?
I think that they should just vote in November with everyone else at this point.
SC
|
IMO, there is very little that is "straightforward" about politics at this level. Perception always plays a role.
As I recall Obama, Clinton and Edwards all pledged to not campaign or appear on the ballots of Mich/Fla because they "jumped ahead." at the last minute HRC put her name on either the FLa or Mich ballot ....so you might wonder why this hasn't been hit on as a campaign issue by the Obama campaign.
Secondly, these were state party decisions, supported by the legislatures, I think, and HRC's albeit "self-serving" argument is that the people, separate from the party, are being disenfranchised. Of course, it's postering, but there is a deeper point in all of this. National CNN Columnist (and Bruh) Roland Martin suggests both states be set aside and voters of those states take it out on their elected officials who made this decision.
at the end of the day some political solution is going to be reached, becuase those are heavily populated states and the DNC doesn't want "dissafection" to carry over into the fall campaign.
I'd guess Obama would like the situation to remain static, but I don't think that'll be a viable posistion to hold once an idea emerges that gains momentum.
Threaded Mode
