It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

Quote:

Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, a Democratic strategist campaigning for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, said he is almost certain the battle won't end until the convention. There are only three ways a floor fight can be avoided, Hart said.

"One is a massive swing of voters one way or the other, which I think is improbable. Second, a massive swing of superdelegates, which I think is equally improbable. Or a resolution of Michigan and Florida, which is improbable," Hart said. "So if you throw out those possibilities, you see that it is coming to the floor."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8506703

I'm sure the media is hoping Hart is right about this.

And today, Al Sharpton is in Florida collecting signatures in order to sue the DNC should they decide to seat the delegates from the earlier election.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Quote:

Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, a Democratic strategist campaigning for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, said he is almost certain the battle won't end until the convention. There are only three ways a floor fight can be avoided, Hart said.

"One is a massive swing of voters one way or the other, which I think is improbable. Second, a massive swing of superdelegates, which I think is equally improbable. Or a resolution of Michigan and Florida, which is improbable," Hart said. "So if you throw out those possibilities, you see that it is coming to the floor."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8506703

I'm sure the media is hoping Hart is right about this.

And today, Al Sharpton is in Florida collecting signatures in order to sue the DNC should they decide to seat the delegates from the earlier election.

They will most likely seat the delegates, but free them from pre-commitments to any candidate.

These 'wild card' delegates will likely go overwhelmingly for Clinton, possibly depriving 'Present' Obama of the nomination on the first vote.

Heels will be dug into the dirt rather quickly on both sides, and a compromise candidate will be brought forth no later than the 4th or 5th ballot.

They won't want a protracted , ugly fight to reveal all that the party has become.

The compromise candidate , once anointed , would receive rave reviews from the press and a landslide of positive publicity.

The liberal establishment press will heave a sigh of relief and push the candidate on thru to the general on fluff and praise.

and leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan in violation of her pledge not to participate in the election.

.... but the local parties in Michigan and Florida have no intention of knuckling under to the national party after sticking their necks out . (Why should they? ) So there'll be no do-over......

Washington, DC - The Members of Florida's Democratic Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives issued the following statement regarding the seating of Florida's delegates at the DNC National Convention this August.

"We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.

"Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind."

real life wrote:

and leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan in violation of her pledge not to participate in the election.

I agree with most of your post.....but I especially disagree with this piece. It was NOT in violation of her pledge.

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 28, 2007

WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the
Heartland, East, South and West.
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.

THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in
accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)[/u]. Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one's candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign
resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

There is no way that the party leadership is stupid enough to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida.

They cannot afford to have Dems in these states sit on their hands in Nov.

The delegates MUST be seated.

There is no way that the party leadership is stupid enough to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida.

real life wrote:

There is no way that the party leadership is stupid enough to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida.

They cannot afford to have Dems in these states sit on their hands in Nov.

The delegates MUST be seated.

I've heard this several times and it still doesn't make sense. Do you think that politically active people in these states will sit on their hands and not vote in the general election? Do you think the casual voter cares about whether delegates are seated at a convention? Republican voters in Pa. are essentially disenfranchised on the Republican side because the candidate has already been chosen. Are they going to stay home in November? Hardly. Florida and Michigan knew the rules and the risks ahead of time, rolled the dice and lost. What's the big deal? Everyone gets to play in November.

real life wrote:

There is no way that the party leadership is stupid enough to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida.

Oh yes there is. Look at the party leadership in Florida and Michigan for an example of the stupidity. They knew what they were doing, were warned against it, told the consequences and proceeded anyway.

If that isn't stupid, I don't know what is.

Anything the national party does can either pile on to the stupidity or help heal it.

It may not be large numbers of people.

But it won't take large numbers to make a difference.

Most states are won or lost by just a few percentage points.

real life wrote:

It may not be large numbers of people.

But it won't take large numbers to make a difference.

Most states are won or lost by just a few percentage points.

I can't even see numbers in the thousands caring about this. I most election years, the majority of states don't get any say in selecting the party's nominee. Why should these states who threw away their votes by their own actions get bent out of shape? Heck, PA and NC are the last two states of any size remaining and other than to get the candidates some momentum going into the convention, their votes are meaningless. When the convention starts, Obama will be ahead by 110-130 delegates no matter how they vote. It's only a big deal if Clinton can end-run the system.

I agree with engineer, and disagree that there will be big trouble if the delegates are not seated.

Those two states broke the rules. They knew what the consequence would be, and they did it anyway. And it wasn't just Republicans in Florida -- Democrats voted to move back the primary too, again knowing what the consequence would be for that decision.

Donna Brazile has argued convincingly that waffling on this will just create chaos in 2012. If MI and FL get their delegates seated after all, in 2012, states won't take the threat of sanctions seriously -- they'll just see it as a "suggestion."

If there are no real consequences, why bother to listen to the DNC at all?

And if none of the states are listening to the DNC in 2012, what will happen?

Where is it written in the constitution that the democratic party has the right to tell the states when they can have their primaries. If they want to have them on January 1st its the states business. The fact a bunch of crooked politicians can tell me when I may vote in my state makes me think our system of government is morphing from a republic to a dictatorship.

If Obama is ahead in delegates and popular vote and they give the nomination to Mrs. Bill Clinton due to Supers or a Fl/MI Scam, there will be riots in the street, the DNC will expose themselves as racists and hand the election to McCain.

I can't wait for the mess to begin!