General Election question: How does all the Dems skipping FL and MI impact our chances. . .

. . .in those states? Previously both states have been ID'ed as important swing states because of the number of electoral vote. If the Dems truly skip those primary states and the GOP doesn't (I understand they are considering skipping as well, but who knows), how does it impact us? I'm not sure how many electoral votes there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, S.C. and Nevada.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but could this be a case of the biting off our nose to spite our face? Could skipping these states be used against the eventual Democratic nominee if the Republicans go ahead and respect the primaries in Florida and Michigan?

Literally, and figuratively.

I'm a Michigander and feeling a bit shat upon at the moment.

I'm in Vermont and our primary is in March on town meeting day. I'm certainly not going to whine about it. The time to change the primary system is not 5 months before it begins. Florida and Michigan brought this on themselves with their "me first" bullshit.

I'm a voter and active Dem and no one asked my opinion or anyone else's that I know of. I would have been happy with a Feb. 5 primary. In fact, I prefer a longer primary season because <gasp> I actually enjoy attending rallys, debates and all that fun stuff.

Put yourself in our shoes. You'd be pissed off, too, I guarantee it.

These rules, agreed to by both parties, shouldn't be violated by locals. That's what anarchy is! If you don't like being shat upon, take it to your party chairpersons or whomever and tell them to go live in Hawaii or Alaska, you don't need anarchists in your state. I understand how you feel, I used to live in a last primary state, now I live in a first primary state.....and media weigh MY vote more than yours, which is just not right!

Was there a vote on this? Were the voters considered
when the dem leaders of the state made this executive
decision? You should fight it! You guys picked Al Gore
over all the declared candidates in a recent poll. That
says a lot about the integrity of the voters. I hope this
all works out for you, because that would be in everyone's
best interests.

Four early states within the opening window that added South Carolina and Nevada to Iowa and New Hampshire. They don't get to violate the rules they voted in while other states obey the rules they voted in. And they sure as hell don't get to extort and subvert the primary process in primary season. They may be right on the larger point, but the time to reform the process is when it is being reformed or at a later time when it is being reformed. They compromised last time the process was being reformed and they should live up to their compromise.

THe DNC could have done the right thing and established a rotating system of regional primaries, a month apart from each other, with Iowa and New Hampshire as members of their respective regional group. The DNC fumbled the ball instead, and they touted their "compromise" as a victory, much as the Congressional Dems did the same when they caved in to Bush on war funding.

All that this will accomplish, in addition to smearing a lot of good people as "rogue," is to put us in the limelight when there is a big floor fight to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Denver convention. The GOP will point to the spectacle and say that those that can't govern themselves, can't govern the nation (as they did in 1968).

Dean could have handled this differently. Iowa could still have their caucus in the first week after New Year's Day. Instead, Dean decided to use the same style of management that Rumsfeld used in the Pentagon, and he turned a solvable delicate situation into a power play.

. . .its the reality of the situation. I understand where the DNC is coming from, I understand where the people of Michigan and Florida are coming from, but I also understand that if the GOP ends up supporting the primaries in these states it can come back to haunt us. We can stand on principle on this, which is great, but what is the impact to our General Election efforts in these states?

Jennifer Granholm won by a fairly narrow margin. Michigan may well go red in '08. It scares the bejesus out of me.

Do you live here green?

I thought I read Granholm's margin was much narrower than that. 52-48...something along those lines. Hmmm... I like the looks of your numbers.

ETA: Please forgive my blathering. It was my frustration and (earlier) lack of caffeine!

In Florida it was the Republicans with the Democrats deciding not to fight, but to go along, because they wanted to. In fact, under the rules, if the Florida Dems had fought the Repugs, Florida would have been exempt from this DNC judgment. In Michigan, it was the Democrats and the UAW driving the thing. Nowhere did the voters have a say. But I don't believe this will affect the GE. First, the DNC can and may well overturn its first decision and seat the delegates in the end. And the states may yet give in to the pressure from the DNC and now the candidates. I don't think we will see much of this for very long and the voters won't have any reason to remember, because this is pretty arcane insider stuff and not likely to stick all the way to the GE.

Everything that's come out of the RNC has said they're blasing states that break the rules as well.

This paranoia is just annoying. And Michigan is not a competitive state. The gov. barely won, but that's what happens when you have a horrible incumbant gov in a state that's an economic black hole - but is still loyal to one political party.

Bush wasted a ton of money in Michigan against Kerry of all people and still lost by 3%.

You do the best you can under the circumstances you have.. With a anti-tax republican legislature, with a revenue starved government inherited from a Bushbot, with a shattered economy still too dependent on a stuck in the mud auto industry... Granholm has not had a lot to work with--

I saw her riding at a parade awhile back. It was almost eerie silence except for scattered applause when she rode by. You could sense that some people wanted to boo her. It really made me think....

That's just sad. She really does what she can in these dire times.

If we dis them like this, might we find them holding a grudge during the general election? There will certainly be some number of voters , and we know that with al,l the irregularities down there, we need a decisive victory. Maybe the dnc has already conceded Florida?

. . .I assume sooner or later than will fall in line, however the independents scare the shit out of me.

I sure as hell am.

Considering the policies in that state?

Although the rhetoric is presented as pursuit of "fairness," is it more a manifestation that the people no longer feel significantly represented at a national level, and so they struggle to gain significance at a state level?

Either vote to rotating regional primaries, or, according to another suggestion: start with small states with a total of 8 electoral votes, then move to states with a total of 16 electoral votes and so on until the big ones move at the end.

This way California, for example, cannot complain that the nominee has been decided by the time its June primary arrives.

This is the only way to make our process more democratic, and less inclined to kow-tow to special interests such as the ethanol industry.

Inquiring minds want to know...

Has a better chance of being elected Pope than the DNC nominee has of carrying Florida.

The winner chooses a sig for the loser for a full year. Deal?

Heck, if the RNC decides not to sanction Florida ... I will even spot you 200,000 votes.

If Christopher Hitchens becomes pope and the Dems lose Florida, I'll put anything you want in my sig.

Sheesh! It's a sig line, not your salary. And a simple "I'll pass" would have sufficed. I only offered the wager because you sounded sure of yourself, and I hate passing on a sure thing.

I say we should have fun with this. Many of us deep down agree with Kucinich--but know he doesn't have a chance. So lets thumb our noses temporarily at Hillary and the "pledgers" and follow our hearts. If Kucinich won the Michigan primary--it might help send a message to the centrists that we are REALLY HURTING out here. Centrist "corporate approved" solutions to health care and the like ain't going to cut it. Anyhow that's my morning brainstorm.

Has Dennis made a statement on the pledge yet?

...

will have a 30-day period to reconsider. Now that the candidates have supported the party's rules, the steam may go out of this, for the course of these elections, at least. I think it will. But more to the point you raise, I think there is something critical going on here about democracy and opportunity. There is no question the nominating process has to change somehow, but it's up to Florida and Michigan to do the right thing here under the rules established over the process. Pushing ahead, pushing ahead, pushing ahead, jamming the calendar until we have a de facto national primary out of an already front loaded primary, without proper preparation, is not a rational approach to the problem. It's simply chaotic and it's dangerous.

I wrote this post just a few minutes ago, which I will copy here, since I have out of town guest coming in and little time. This was in response to someone wanting a one-day primary for all states but it expresses my concerns about big states moving on up.

As tempting as it is, and I've certainly been tempted, to have them all in one day, the practical result would to be to bar any but the most wealth-driven candidates from the process. If we want to preserve even the smallest opportunity for "Mr. or Ms. Smith" to go to Washington, we need to resist the urge for one primary date for all states without first laying the groundwork. We would need mandatory public campaign financing for all parties. We would need regulated and free and equal coverage for every single candidate. We would need the custom of buying local endorsements through campaign contracts stopped. We would need, in other words, to take the profit out of politics. Because the only thing that allows a second or third tier candidate to move anywhere near the realm of possibility - the only thing - is having small states first where up close, retail politics can take place and the public goes through a visible vetting process on the candidates.

What you would see in a one-day primary is total concentration by all candidates in the large states where the return is greater and where media markets are extremely costly media markets. Candidates would not have the time or the money or the stamina or the self-interest to bother running around the country meeting voters when they can get a larger return on TV. The lesser funded candidates, if they even wanted to tilt at windmills and entered the primary race at all, could not survive such a scenario. These elections are already too dominated by fat cats, but at least the candidates have to work for it, and there is always a possibility of an opening for movement, such as Richardson is squiggling through inch by inch. No chance for voters to think over or rethink their choices, also, which takes time between primaries for information and exposure to settle in.

Kerry in 2003, for example, didn't have the money he needed to go on. He mortgaged his house and laid it all on Iowa and he won and moved on from there. If he had to mortgage his house and bank it all on California or New York, he might have dropped out first, because he could have lost every cent without making the impact he needed or even much of a dent. I use Kerry as an example, I understand he is well off and his wife is very wealthy, but imagine if it were Joe Everyman or Josie Everywoman, what happens? They look at what it will take and see that there is no way in hell to get out there and have an affect on the race. No more Dennis Kucinich to influence the debate. Would we ever again have a Paul Wellstone? We sacrifice one of the last bastions of democracy, in fact, where citizens have some influence over the country's politics beyond individual votes.

The small states are a kind of insurance for democracy and now with South Carolina and Nevada, there is more diversity. It's not a perfect thing, but until we can work out the perfect thing, I hope we can resist this impulse. As I said, it's very tempting, but by next time? I doubt it. I hope not, unless we can get it done right in time.

Spot on analysis

Everyone getting an equal chance to determine the nominee is "kind of insurance for democracy".

Nothing steams me worse than the assertion that minorities choosing for the majority is in any way shape or form "democratic". The DNC is about as "democratic" as red China, Cuba & Iran.

:P

...and Democratic candidates will not be here to do rallies and campaigning with voters until, say, next spring when the general candidate is determined...

...and Republican candidates (who have conspicuously NOT been urged by their party to stay out of Florida) will be spreading the gospel non-stop from now til Nov 2008...

...yes, you'd better draw an electoral map that has a big red crayon for Florida.

I'm pissed off, but would not sit out the general election because of it.

I think a lot of Democratic voters would. (Dumb strategy, but then, so is tossing away the entire state, as is happening now.)

Independents certainly would be swayed more by the many many many Republican rallies that will happen from now til next spring, with no comparable Democratic activiities. Some would be turned off to the Dems by this entire thing -- whether you blame the legislature or the party, the result of this really makes the party look bad.

Oh, and if there's a fix -- such as a caucus -- someone tell me how you get the four million voters all to go through the caucus procedure. When that hasn't happened in this state before, so it would have to be organized from scratch in a state this size to be worked out in February. Please, I want to hear about this solution.

If you can't tell me how all Democratic voters are counted in that process, then here's what happens: one candidate comes out on top, and the other candidates will complain (rightfully so) that whoever they thought their voting bloc was turned out to be disproportionately not represented in the caucus process. So next February the Florida headlines are the Dems don't want to count votes, and also want to disenfranchise whoever is underrepresented in the caucus process (fill in name of group here). Bad press, and everyone who didn't get a vote will be inclined to skip the whole thing.

(As an added local bonus, depressed turnout for Dems will mean less votes for statewide initiatives. If I were a Fl Republican operative, I'd be trying to get something on the ballot if it's still possible.)

If the plan is to ignore Florida's votes now, seriously, make a general election plan that ignores Florida's votes entirely. I'm not saying that out of anger, it's just a highly predictable political reality.

Yeah, this is a real, real good plan.

to spite one's face

Will Democrats in Florida and in Michigan not vote on election day for the Democratic nominee because their delegates were refused voting during the convention?

But the DNC won't get my vote.

However, according to this article at least, it is happening in both parties:

<snip>

Trying to bring order to chaos, the national Democratic and Republican parties are undertaking efforts to strip delegates from Florida, Michigan and any other state that votes outside a prescribed window. That would greatly diminish those states' clout because the nominating fight is all about winning delegates to the parties' national conventions. Take away the delegates and there's less incentive for candidates to invest time and resources.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-calendar2sep02,1,5564038.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Giuliani

Does that answer your question?

I don't wan to sacrifice any states but we don't need Florida to win if it comes down to that. As for Michigan, the Republicans will try to win there and inevitably fail like they usually do.

There's a lot of spare change in Florida and Michigan now ... Ohio might be a good place to spend some of it.

I will say little about Michigan other than expressing surprise over Granholm going along with it. And even more surprise that Mark Brewer caved.

But I have kept a running dialogue about the way Florida used it as propaganda against Dean and the DNC...and now it is becoming more personally directed against Dean himself. If you don't want to read it, just read the titles.

Florida used lies to pretend the DNC attacked them and took the votes.

These are in chronological order earliest first.

Enough of this. Florida Democrats now threaten Dean and the DNC with a "voting rights probe".
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1453

The "appropriate legal official" to "investigate" Dean and the DNC...is...Gonzales.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1452

Nelson: "I will lead the delegates to Denver whether or not the DNC plans to let them in."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1455

Two summaries of the DNC committee ruling about Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1456

Florida sowed the seeds of a propaganda war against the DNC.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1458

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance." From March.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1459

The latest Florida propaganda tactic here about attacking the DNC...local email.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1460

Florida's Geller joked about his amendment: "sarcasm and audible laughter in chamber"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1461

One Florida county is saying there will be further bloodshed. Much argument here today.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1462

Florida Democratic Party website building anger toward the DNC
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1465

Democratic activist sues over loss of Florida delegates
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1466

"Dean was conciliatory and offered DNC help for the state"..hour long phone call
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1467

Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1468

"Primary bully Florida ought to be ashamed"...four articles catch on to Florida's primary ploy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1469

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You may want to disclose the fact that you actually work for Dean when you are shilling for him.

Unless your objective is (as I suspect) to deceive.

I don't care if MadFloridian is Dean's mother. He/she is right and you never offer any arguments to say otherwise, just sarcastic noise. Step it up friend.

That is so funny.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Would be of any use to you.

If I was on someone's staff, I would behave above board and disclose it. Paid activist passing themselves off as voters is pretty low.

The way you asked that reminded me of Jack Bauer on "24":

"Who do you work for!!!???"

That says all I need to know about you.

It's obvious that some here were full of it while screaming that every vote needed to be counted.

The nerve of Florida and Michigan! If this isn't nipped in the bud ... next thing you know women will want the vote. :eyes:

State politicians knew it when they decided to ignore their agreements and obligations, and those state politicians are the ones that are putting their voters in this terrible position.

Both FL & MI have more EVs than the first four, and play a much larger role later in the GE.

The bullying is ignoring the rules they agreed to abide by and trying to blackmail the national party into giving them primacy in the primary, too.

They want it all, don't they? They want the power in the primary and the power in the general election. To Hell with the rules. To Hell with the candidates and their schedules, their funding, and their time. And to Hell with the rest of the country that's playing by the rules and trying to work together to build an equitable system, right?

Unlike Florida and Michigan. See ... we get screwed there too. So you may want to come up with a different argument.

Do you mean because of the small state/large state per-voter inequity? Yes, that should change.

You think I don't know that we have real problems with our elections? I live in WASHINGTON. They cancelled the primary here in 2004. This round, we'll hold a primary for no apparent reason because the Dems ignore the statewide vote and use the results of their caucuses instead. I understand being disenfranchised by my party.

This isn't the way to do it. FL & MI are thumbing their noses at the rest of the country, not just IA and NH, and they're putting their own desires above the rights of their own voters and the results of both the primary and the GE.

Just because you choose to be? I don't think so.

Grow a spine instead of whining about those who choose to fight for their rights.

You honestly don't care about living up to your agreements. You don't care about the party, so go ahead and vote for Giuliani. You obviously don't care about the outcome of the GE. You'd rather the special interests in FL have their say and ignore a diversity of interests. And the candidates? Pfft, screw them, too.

As long as Florida gets its way, then to hell with the rest of the country.

Great.

But it's anything but "the South". We don't DO southern charm.

And I didn't agree to anything.

-----
You don't care about the party ...

No I don't give a crap about the Democratic Party. The party is there to serve the voters ... not the other way around. I vote on issues and issue #1 is that my vote be respected. If issue #1 isn't taken care of, then the rest of it doesn't matter a lick.

-----
You obviously don't care about the outcome of the GE.

If my rights are going to be violated by both parties ... why should I care? I can speculate about what Giuliani will do to violate my rights ... but I know what the DNC did.

-----
You'd rather the special interests in FL have their say and ignore a diversity of interests.

The "special interest" in Florida I give a crap about are my mom and my dad ... and my grandmother ... and my siblings ... and the rest of my family and friends.

And yeah, they do matter more to me than everyone else put together.

Geez, what was I thinking?

Bye.

That has got to be some kind of violation of the rules. :eyes:

I answered you in another thread. You are following me around.

. . .and before you go attacking me for asking the question I HAVE NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT!

At some point we have to evaluate the impact of our actions. We can talk about principle all we want, but if our actions cost us the electoral votes in these states principle is irrelevant.

OBVIOUSLY if the Republicans follow our lead it cancels out our actions, but if they don't might be a liability.

We can argue the issue of who is right and wrong on the merits of when to hold primaries, but I care about winning.

This is an honest question. Can this cost us general election/electoral votes.

Isn't that what this is all about anyway?

I notice few seem concerned that a state with 210 delegates attacked the DNC with propaganda.

That little thing seems not to matter anymore.

Hillary will win, she will take over the party, and she will restore the delegates and all will be well.

Or will it?

You know how we won last November? Well, looks like we are going to let Bush have his war with Iran and lots and lots more money for Iraq.

I don't call that winning.

. . .to work in state. Again, maybe my concern will be irrelevant if the GOP does the same thing.

FL & MI clearly have the rest of the country over a barrel, and they seem untroubled by the possible outcomes of their selfishness.

So, now what? Does the rest of the country just let FL & MI bully their way through, thus making the party look like fools and penalize them later? (Historic last-in-the-nation status?) Or do we put the GE at risk?

I'm really worried about this.

As we all know from elementary school each state's electoral votes are determined by the winner of the popular vote in that particular state. Florida and Michigan have an awful lot of electoral votes and hopefully both states will be in play. I'm confident we can get the Democratic votes in that state, but I'm concerned about the independents.

Regardless what the DLC types around say, I personally think Dean is the best thing to happen to this party after the DLC clintonistas ran it into the ground.

they would agree.

Thanks.

There will, no doubt, be some voters in those states who will feel the snub, and resent it.

It won't be a huge impact, but it may make a difference if there is a close election in any of the states involved.

They could have kept the delegates chosen by Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida, and just deny the credentials of the superdelegates--the elected officials that get a convention seat no matter what, but instead Dean decided to treat this as a challenge to HIM.

Dean could have also let Florida and Michigan move their primaries ahead, do nothing, and allow Iowa to move their caucus to shortly after New Year's.

For 2012, let's get rid of IA and NH first, and put a rotating regional primary system in place.

They might not like that idea.

There needs to be some kind of face-saving middle ground. I don't know which side will ease off first, but once one side does, the other side will back off, too.

I doubt the current situation will stand (it will be a shame if nothing changes on this.)

if this situation is allowed to go on to the convention floor in Denver, the media will have a field day portraying Democrats as the party that disenfranchised voters in Florida, Michigan, and perhaps Arizona by then.

Going to the bunker is not a good way to resolve conflicts, and Chairman Dean has fallen short in the leadership scale.

... it's not Dean's decision to make. He is the Chairman of the DNC, not the Dictator of the DNC. He has to follow the rules just like everyone else.

Those states will not be affected by a lack of delegation at the national level.

Those states who changed their primaries and are feeling the heat for it will tell you that they might swing the other way, but its just a empty threat. Honestly, after Bozo 43 won by a slim margin twice, does anyone honestly think that the democratic voter is not going to show up and vote and instead sit in his room with his thumb in his mouth pouting 'cause he didn't feel any love?

Those two states will swing blue in 2008 no matter what. To hear otherwise is just nonsense.

No Change, I heard this in 2003...that Florida would be blue no matter what in 2004. Check the results for me, I don't think it happened. And if the Democratic party is pissing in the face of their own voters, while the candidates take a six month break from campaigning here, and independents are inundated with news about the undeniable clusterfuck this is...does that help us in the general election? There's no guarantee of Florida going blue on a good day (we haven't won a statewide election in a long time except for....what, Nelson and Sink?), and this wouldn't be a good day.

Madfloridian has posted and reposted a few dozen times about how Florida state legislators were sarcastic...sarcastic, mind you!...when pressed by Dean to try to amend the legislature vote so that the Florida primary would happen later.

Oh my God! They were sarcastic! In that case, let's scrub the entire state of Florida off the map!

(I won't repost what I've said elsewhere....that if we now strike Florida's Dem primary votes, they won't be too inclined to show up in force for the general election. It seems kind of obvious.)

The twin tablets of the DNC taken down from the mountain by Moses apparently said that if a Repub legislature forced the issue, there would be no sanction against the Democratic voters.

Yep, Democratic legislators voted for this. BOO, Democratic legislators! Bad on you!

But it would have passed if EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT said no.

The existence of the exception in this rule is a bow to "reality" and "strategy" that seems to elude some people on this forum.

In this case, the DNC has now kicked the ball back to Florida Dems, who are utterly powerless.

They can't force a new bill to move the primary election date up, because the Republicans love this (and you'll note their candidates aren't working under the same kind of embargo) and would block it.

The Dems, at best, can disenfranchise voters in a different way by offering to have a caucus to pick the candidate. I would like to hear how that works in a state of this size, having never been tried, by February. Someone tell me how the caucus will work without excluding some -- or many -- voters. And how it will include every type of voter (minority, women, rich, poor, whatever demographic brand you want) proportionately. And if it can't do that, how will the results of the "caucus" be different from a Republican engineered vote caging operation or the now famous (though not famous enough) "felon exclusions" of 2000.

So given that there is some flexibility in the holy tablets of the DNC....doesn't it make sense that there should be a different way for them to handle the Florida situation? Regardless of whether a Democratic legislator introduced his amendment with sarcasm or sincerity, the goddamn thing wouldn't have flown any higher than the Spruce Goose.

All of you in the rest of the country better believe this. This, if not fixed and fixed fast, will sink Florida as a blue state in 2008. If you think you can win without Florida, not knowing who either candidate is today, you better be goddamn sure you can throw this state away if you stand by this, because that's what's going to happen. Gore won in 2000 and it was stolen, but it was a narrow margin. I like the odds of any of our top candidates in 2008 versus their top tier, but if turnout and interest is depressed (do I really need to spell this out for you?), we'll wind up with the same thing (or worse, a "decisive" win for Rudy, Mitt or Fred).

If you guys think Florida is a washout anyway due to corruption, swell, but plan ahead for an electoral map without us. Seriously. I'll track it and see where I should make campaign calls in another state where votes are quaintly counted next summer -- instead of knocking on doors in my own area.

Anyone got a 271 plan without Florida that's bulletproof? Not a challenge, I'm hoping that one exists, because that appears to be the DNC strategy at this hour.

that you NEED Florida to win. You don't. Sure, it helps, but you can win with out it.

That's what is at play in here!

The DNC is so full of hubris, as the Pentagon was in 2002, that they have ignored the law of unintended consequences.

I remind you that the DNC is using the "rogue" slur to paint not just the political officeholders of Florida and Michigan, but the Democratic rank-and-file in those states who had nothing to do about this.

Mass punishment is what totalitarian regimes always resort to, and sadly, the DNC has chosen to punish the wrong people, the innocent people.

There will inevitably be some bad blood considering people will basically not have their primary votes count for anything.

Here in MI, this could especially hurt among labor and African Americans, two vital segments of the party. Likewise in Florida it could hurt among wealthy retired Jews, who contribute a considerable amount to Democrats.

There's no doubt that this will hurt. Michigan overwhelmingly re-elected Granholm and Stabenaw, so it's been trending blue, but Kerry won this state by a small margin. We can't count on the same anti-republican sentiment as we did last November...As for Florida, it's an uphill climb as it is. Some Democrats, could sit the next election out of spite, in turn giving us Aaaarrrgggg! a President Romney or Giuliani!

I think the penalty is heavy-handed and draconian. I understand there needed to be a penalty imposed, but this is going way overboard. This entire situation was poorly handled by all involved.

Also it really depends on how effective republicans handle this. Will they impose similar punitive measures or be less stringent or more flexible and forgiving? The idea of a "no campaign pledge" was incredibly spiteful, petty, and counterproductive on the part of our party. It wasn't necessary. Will republicans do something similar? And will these issues be resolved in time for the conventions?

Instead of using conflict resolution techniques, even if that required bringing in a third party (Bill Clinton would have been perfect!). Instead, Dean and the DNC decided to embark on a path of "shock and awe" hoping to frighten a lot of people, instead they suceeded in pissing off a lot of people.

One thing being overlooked in this thread is the amazing short attention span the general public has.

Probably by convention time, most people in FL and MI will have totally forgotten about this debacle.

:sarcasm:

People forget stuff that doesn't affect them directly. Everyone I know can quote you chapter and verse of every single time they have ever been (or felt) screwed over by someone going back decades.

and they blame him for everything and more.

I won't even post it, but not hard to find. Not very nice, Michigan.

...

Some might call it sort of following me around...but of course you would not do that.

Michigan could very much go Republican, especially if the Dems run a free-trade DLC type candidate.

And their delegates are not allowed to participate in the convention. For example, suppose that the following happens:

1.) Florida and Michigan do not move their primaries
2.) Candidate A wins 20 delegates in the Florida primary
3.) Candidate A wins 15 delegates in the Michigan primary
4.) The DNC stands firm and the Florida and Michigan delegates are not allowed.
4.) Candidate B wins the majority of delegates (excluding the delegates from Florida and Michigan). Candidate A comes in second - - by 25 delegates.

How would that play out? Would the party and the nation except Candidate B as the legitimate choice of the Democratic Party? Would Candidate A stage a floor battle to get the nomination? If Candidate A won the floor fight, would they be accepted as the legitimate nominee?

It could be very ugly...