So you are arguing that one DNC rule was more valid than the other? The way I see it is, if you're going to play party politics and want to hold a primary, you need to follow the rules. In that way, Michigan and Florida share responsibility, as does Clinton. However, the DNC basically traded one rule-breaking for another. After all the hubbub about seating the delegates and the final ruling, they decided to break it because they want Michigan and Florida to feel included so that those Democratic voters won't feel pissed off and refuse to show up in November. They're just doing what they think is in their best interests. But then again so was Clinton. Then again, so were Michigan and Florida. It boils down to the fact that all three groups share the blame.
It's all politics, I think we both agree on that.
The DNC said from the get go it was
possible that some, most or all of the delegates would be left on the table if any state broke ranks. "Possible" is the key word there. They were going to seat 50% from each state, at the behest of Obama they decided to seat 100% and it's pretty clear why.
Blame Florida and Michigan for breaking the rules that THEY voted on, blame Hillary for trying to work around the rules SHE agreed to and blame the DNC for trying to patch it up after the fact.
3 wrongs don't make a right but I think it is easy to see which of these "offences" are more egregious. The DNC is only looking for a way out after they were painted into a corner by Florida, Michigan and Hillary. Fixing it up now pales in comparison to the frustration Florida and Michigan caused and the damage to the party brought by Hillary.
Furthermore, the GOP stripped half of their states delegates for doing exactly what Florida and Michigan did, and the GOP will probably reinstate all delegates as well.
As I said, it's politics. Everything is a balancing act. I don't agree with anyone on the planet 100% of the time so I have to pick people to vote for based on issues I most agree with knowing I am never going to completely agree with them on all issues all the time.
But now the DNC is changing their own rulings yet again. What they've shown is that their rules really don't matter and can and will be changed for political expediency.
Again, it was possible any state that moved their primary could lose their delegates. At that point,
according to Dean…
First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee
They looked at the second action here, the committee took the advice of Obama and eventually seated all the delegates. It was never a lock that a specific action had to be taken according to the Dem party rules so I don't believe any rules were broken. If they were both parties are guilty because the GOP rules are worded pretty much the same way.
It's still not a vote. More than simple outcomes matter. If you're going to cry, "if only two more of my supporters had shown up!" you may as well cry, "if only I had run unopposed!"
Sorry, lost me there.
If your people show up and mine don't you win. By not showing up my people helped you to get elected. They took an action, in this case they stayed away from the polling booth. Every action has a consequence and in this example you win the election.
I know there is a need by some people in the political world to make things complicated but this is a pretty cut and dried business. Get your people's butts into voting booths then try to persuade undecided folks to either vote for you or, if all else fails, not vote for the other guy / gal.
