MI and FL caucuses ?

[Blarch]

Whats the problem ? Lets announce they will hold caucuses in two months and allow the candidates to campaign there.

I really don't see a problem, why are the Dem's sweating this ? What am I missing ?

[LiberalFighter]

1. The state party or parties are refusing

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. It's very expensive to do, and nobody wants to pay for it

[spotbird]

5. The DNC needs to cough up

the money, it will cost them way more if they don't.

[MzShellG]

14. The MI and FL dem parties should cough it up.

They are the ones who broke the rules. This should be the fine they have to pay for that.

[spotbird]

16. Then split the difference,

it's still the voters who are screwed if things are left as they are.

[rodeodance]

23. Heard on the news today DNC is considering paying for any RE-do

[cooolandrew]

33. Glad to hear I am much more happy now.

[spotbird]

6. The DNC needs to cough up

the money, it will cost them way more if they don't.

[kdmorris]

12. The DNC already offered to pay for it

The Florida State Party refused both the caucus and the money to have the caucus. (don't know what is going on with Michigan, but assume their state party also refused)

[spotbird]

18. Why did they refuse?

Or can I guess, they like things the way they are?

[kdmorris]

36. I assume they probably like things the way they are

but their official reason is that it wasn't fair because everyone would have to show up on the 29th to vote on the Property Tax Amendment and then show up again to vote in the caucus.

[MichiganVote]

32. Assume nothing in Michigan.

[kdmorris]

11. That is not true

The DNC has already offered to pay for it and the Florida State Democratic Party (not sure about Michigan) has refused to accept the money or the caucus.

[THUNDER HANDS]

34. a primary is more expensive than a caucus, isn't it?

a caucus you just need a room and some counters.

[thunder rising]

3. Who is paying for the events. If you haven't donated to the DNC take a seat.

[spotbird]

4. There is only one truly fair

solution, a real campaign with a vote.

There is also a bad outcome, that's to seat the Hillary delegates without a fair election.

It's fairly simple, Hillary very well could win with a real election, the outcome is in no way certain.

[liberal N proud]

7. That brings all new meaning to the phrase vote early and vote often

What about Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe they should get do-overs as well.

[spotbird]

8. Would you please elaborate?

Are you saying Iowa and New Hampshire are the same as Florida and Michigan?

[Blarch]

9. What a stupid statement.

[liberal N proud]

13. It virtually allows people in those states a second vote.

You can't argue any different.

[spotbird]

20. Huh.

Did the major candidates enter into an agreement based on trust?

[mckeown1128]

21. The candidates agreed before hand that the election didn't

count for anything.

[spotbird]

22. If you ignore that they

didn't have a first vote, you're absolutely right.

[kennetha]

10. No way to caucuses!

No way to a caucus in either Florida or Michigan. About 1.6 million Democrats voted in the Florida Primary. You'd be lucky to get a couple hundred thousand showing up for a suddenly announced Caucus. In Michigan, 700,000 people voted in the Democratic Primary. How many would show up for a caucus? 50-100K? The main consideration should be fairness to the 2.3 million democrats who voted in these primaries, not the tactics and strategies of of the candidates

[Blarch]

17. Oh Please.

If it was announced for a few months down the road, there would be no problem.

[kennetha]

24. What are you talking about?

Do you know the difference between Caucuses and Primaries? At their best, caucuses draw a couple hundred thousand. I think it Washington State yesterday, out of 3 million registered voters, something like 200K participated. And that was regarded as a HIGH turn-out.

Caucuses are not mass plebiscites.

[indimuse]

15. I would agree to that..Only IF..

The MSM releases ALL info on Obama and Rezko/Rezmar AND Sinclare Limo romp! It is something that could and WOULD damage our party for a long time. 2 clips on you tube today and I am shocked have not heard of this before..and why is everyone on DU so silent!!! this Sinclare guy appears to be viable and unafraid... Does someone hear know more about this?

[Blarch]

19. *yawn*

[indimuse]

27. I give it another 2 weeks...

what do ya think? AND Let's not forget Rezko trial begins Feb 25th...Nite Nite...:)

[Blarch]

30. Dude.

you are gonna be very disappointed when you find out the 'Rezcko trial' doesn't involve Obama.

Nite Nite.

[indimuse]

31. hahahhaha.......

thanks for the laugh!! ps...not a dude! wink wink :)

[rufus dog]

25. They could simply hold an election

The cost issue is bullshit, figure it out! They wanted their vote early so they could be an impact, moved their votes ahead of what was agreed. Now can have a legitimate vote and have an impact. And FL is saying no! FUCKING STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN. Give them until Feb 28 to come up with a date for a vote, they do it or lose all rights, no vote, no seating of Delegates.

[GoldieAZ49]

26. the cost, the time

Meet the press

talking about seating both states and dividing the delegates between the two candidates so they don't affect the outcome of the race but they have a seat at the table.

This sounds good and means the candidate still has to have the most elected delegates.

[Little Star]

28. Why CAUCUSES when...

FL is a closed primary and MI is a open primary? Caucuses make no sense.

[aquarius dawning]

29. My thoughts exactly. nt

[THUNDER HANDS]

35. it's easier to set up, and less expensive.