I really can’t think of any higher irony than Ted Olson, who helped George Bush steal the 2000 election, weighing in on the matter of whether or not to count Florida votes. But the fact that he’s choosing to stick his oar in the water highlights the potential pitfalls of the situation: at the end of the nominating process, there could be a serious question of legitimacy under certain circumstances that the Democrats should be planning for.
I spoke with someone from the DNC this weekend at length about the situation with supedelegates, and the short version is that after all the state primaries are over and the pledged delegates have been tallied, they sort of expect that the superdelegates will act as wise dons of the party and move in a block to the winner and that will be that. They acknowledge that Florida and Michigan will have to be seated in some fashion, but at this point expect delegates to be assigned in mid-June by the credentials committee. The committee is comprised of 161 members assigned proportionally by state plus 25 members assigned by Howard Dean. If everything goes smoothly like the DNC anticipates, at that point it really won’t be an issue.
But all of this assumes that Democrats don’t act like Democrats, in which case suddenly the whole thing winds up in chaos. As Bowers notes:
The only way we will be faced with a brokered convention that produces a nominee with questionable legitimacy is if no clear popular vote or pledged delegate leader emerges at the end of the primary and caucus season. Basically, I think this means that if Obama wins pledged delegates, but does so outside of Michigan and Florida by less than 100, we are in for a real mess.
We really do not want to enter another situation where these things get decided by a court. It will be bad for the eventual nominee and bad for Democrats going forward. Howard Dean has suggested caucuses in both Florida and Michigan, but those favor Obama and could also raise legitimacy questions in the end. (And while Dean’s offer to play arbiter is charming, I can understand why it was greeted with laughter on both sides.) Holding do-over elections would be expensive and time consuming but may, in the end, be the most fair — but according to Marcy Wheeler it’s not legally feasible to do another primary in the state of Michigan, because the Republicans would probably block it just to screw with the system. So the pathway out of this is anything but clear.
Whatever the ultimate decision is, it should be something that is agreed upon by both campaigns now. It’s in their interest to do so, because when it’s all over nobody is going to want a legion of their opponent’s bitter supporters unhappy that the nominating process was not legitimate, and have the Republicans using the spectacle to ride all the way to the White House. It’s to everyone’s benefit that they agree to ground rules for Florida and Michigan going forward, and pledge to abide by them.
Related posts:
- Look Out, Charlie Crist: Teabagger World Domination Plan Coming to Florida
- Florida State Senator Al Lawson, 2010 Primary Challenger to Blue Dog Alan Boyd
- Michigan Blue Cross Screws Policy Holders
- Robert Greenwald Says Thanks to John Conyers at Michigan Liberal
- Landrieu’s Ambivalence on Health Reform Costs Her Keynote at Florida Fundraiser
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Zed….
Forget them, or split 50/50.
If it can be afforded re-run the races.
I will not vote for a candidate that is elected due to Super delegates and/or FLA/MI as the margin of error for those non-campaigns is 100%.
I hope you’ll be happy with President McCain, then.
Re-run the primaries on equal terms (give each enough time to schmooze) or leave them out and split the delegates by some FAIR formula agreed to by both candidates. If they do not agree, then those delegates do not count.
I was listening to one of the super delegates on one of the air america shows and I have to say, she surely relieved my worst fears cocerning those delegates;
they are asigned to groups as well as insiders, things like women groups, indian affairs groups, veteran groups
they will in my opinion vote for the candidate that best represents their interest
they aren’t a group of “insiders” that can be levied or pressured into voting one way or another, they are going to vote based on a coupld of things, most notably, which candidate best represents their interest and second, which canidate looks like they have the best chance to win
in the beginning I thought these delegates were a part of some fraternity that would act in lockstep
this is just not true
Thanks Jane, terrific post.
WordPress missed an “o”
I like the idea of re running the respective prmimaries
Could Florida PLEASE stop gumming up elections? Sheesh.
your fears are not understandable but unfounded
the super delegates are not part of some fraternity, they all act according to their respective interest
in addition;
both candidates entered this race knowing the rules of the playing field, they BETTER not make waves if the rules they agreed to abide don’t turn the election in their behalf
they BETTER not make noise and they BETTER endorse the democratic candidate for the next president of this country
Wasn’t it tacitly “agreed upon by both campaigns” not to count the delegates when they were initially stripped? What to do about them didn’t become an issue until the Clinton campaign wanted to put them back into play.
Regardless of the feasibility of Dean’s mediation, by coming out vocally about this now and directly, Dean is helping advance the issue more rapidly and perhaps avoid a problem come Convention time.
Once again, Howard Dean is kicking much ass.
My $.02:
Seat the delegates from MI and FL but as non-voters for the President nominations on the first ballot. The states, with the connivance of various Dems in positions to say no in both states, broke the rules as stated and agreed upon by the DNC. And this agreement included representatives of FL and MI. The schedule for primaries and caucuses WAS agreed to prior to the moves by these two states outside the rules. Stick with the current numbers of requiring 2025 of 4049 delegates for the nomination recognizing that the 4049 includes the so-called super delegates.
And if folks dislike the super delegate concept, work within the local party structure to bring about the necessary changes.
No easy answer to this one. If you seat the delegates you are punishing candidates who didn’t campaign there because of the ban- if you don’t seat them you are penalizing local dem parties for something the states did that was really beyond the party’s control.
I think a mistake was made with the original announcement that the delegates would not be seated- but that’s water under the bridge now.
Whichever way the superdelegates vote, it will create a howl from the other side.
Hate to be Dean right now.
By my count, there are still over 1750 delegates up for grabs in the remaining caucuses and primaries. I think it is entirely likely that one candidate will develop and sustain the momentum needed to put them over the top with a margin greater than that of the superdelegates plus FL and MI.
However, I agree that some agreement should be made now so that one candidate does not get an unfair advantage from the agreement. Since they are essentially tied now, it does make sense to make the agreement.
I think a fair settlement would be to exclude the superdelegates, MI and FL delegates and then allow nomination on the first ballot if one candidate has at least 55% of the remaining delegates. If not, then release the excluded delegates with complete freedom to vote as they wish on the second and subsequent ballots.
How long have the super duper delegates been around?
It is my understanding that neither candidate campaigned in Florida or Michigan (Obama’s national ads that also ran in Florida being a minor exception.)
It seems to me that Florida, where both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot, can make a case that a fair election has already been held and their delegates should be counted. Michigan is more problematic because Obama wasn’t on the ballot. His supporters urged voters to vote uncommitted but that isn’t the same as being on the ballot. All in all it now looks like it was a mistake to try to punish Florida and Michigan for holding early elections. It has created a mess.
OT – please excuse. Leahy announcing that he will join Dodd in the filibuster re FISA.
Seat what delegates, whose delegates. You mean the delegates the Clintons claim to own? What kind of 2cents is this?
It seems to me that seating Michigan or Florida delegates based on what happened in their primary elections is patently unfair.
The DNC told these states that if they screwed with the calendar, they would be punished. They were. It is absurd to think that those delegates can now be seated in any manner that works to the advantage of one candidate or another.
Anyone who says otherwise is looking to game the system. Seat the delegates, but do so in a manner that is proportional to the overall delegate split. That way the states have a say but cannot be used to decide a contested election.
My head hurts from this scenario.
I’m with dakine01.
If there is no sanction against FL and MI for breaking the rules about scheduling their delegate selection events, then all hell will break loose in 3 years as we go through this again.
I’d rather have an honest debate and election at this year’s convention — whether it takes one or twenty-one ballots, than a “fix” for FL and MI that paves the way for chaos in the next election cycle.
They came into being IIRC, after Carter and as a reaction to Carter and McGovern running insurgency type campaigns. During those election seasons, there were a number of DC and state level elected officials who were not named as delegates to the convention as they backed a losing candidate in their respective states. Super delegates came about under the premise that elected officials in DC and statewide and DNC members and such should be automatic delegates.
The DNC screwed this up from the beginning with their stupid ruling. The best solution is to re-run the primaries with enough time allowed for some campaigning by the candidates.
Not allowing Florida and Michigan representation at the convention is unthinkable. Those who think the candidates will agree to some kind of ‘equitable’ division of the delegates is probably not going to happen.
As an independent, the sight of these kind of internal food fights that are caused by the Parties themselves are just more reason for getting rid of the Parties altogether.
I’m sure the Democratic State Party committees for both FL and MI can come up with a team of delegates to come to the convention, knowing they have no vote for the first ballot of the Presidential baloloting but would be allowed to vote on the platform report as well as VP and any other business of the convention.
On the other hand this would all be resolved by an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. The only thing standing in the way of party unity and the common good of the nation?
Ego.
About freaking time.
Of course Hill has been working hard to hijack Michigan and Florida…
Hiya Jane…
I hope you’ll be happy with President McCain, then.
—–
I am happy with fair elections. I have never voted for a candidate when there is only one on the ballot (since they either have to be very good so I can rubber stamp them – or it is not a democracy).
Perhaps my logic is wrong, but if the delegate can’t be split 50/50 then 4 – 5 million for an election (paid for by Clinton/Obama) is another option I listed.
As for Super Delegates they can take a flying leap off the pier.
So what exactly does that mean? Leahy will take up part of the 4 hours given to Dodd or debate will be extended? Where’s Marcy when you need her?
Tim—you out there? You know what’s happening?
I could see making an argument for seating the Florida delegates, but not Michigan’s. Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot.
Exactly.
I thought we got superdelegates simply because at the 72 Miami Demeocratic conventions the party honchos were exlcuded from state delegations like New Jersey and California and the honchos wanted seats on the floor. I remember the New Jersey delegation was led by Jim Bouton, a McGovern delegate. It was absurd and the party hacks were beside themselves.
The mistake with the the superdelegate concept is that they should not be entitled to vote on the first ballot or any ballot until like a fourth or fifth ballot when the Convention would be looking for alternative candidates. If Governors need their egos messaged by being on the floor of the convention, so be it but they should not be able to vote against their delegations at least not on the first or second ballot.
Cool!
For residents of FLA and MI – I am sorry, but you should have petitioned your State party to make sure the delegates were counted.
The bull that Iowa and NH pick the President is a pile of swill that MSM & elites would love people to eat up as well. If the primaries were left in place on the schedule they would actually have had far more impact.
There is no rule that says the present should not occur and the pundits view of the future must be followed. Disclaimer: The entire process and money and media influence is MESSED UP.
Don’t know the answer. Just got an e-mail from Leahy.
I suspect you know full well that the Clintons intend to control the Rules Committee. So I guess your proposal fits in right there, right?
in the beginning I thought these delegates were a part of some fraternity that would act in lockstep
—-
I imagine they have to follow the rules of the convention (not sure when these rules need to be locked down). Could there be a rule that makes the super delegates “vote” symbolic for instance.
I believe that is what I was saying – that elected officials were upset that they were not selected as delegates since the candidate they supported had lost in their state thus creating the concept of super delegate to assure that they were always delegates to the convention. My memory also included Carter as well as McGovern being a driving factor.
I think that it’s time for somebody to bring up the California (or American) Plan for primary scheduling. It’s a variant on the Delaware Plan that was going to be brought up by the Republicans in 2000 at their convention but was stuffed by Karl Rove.
your fears are not understandable but unfounded
the super delegates are not part of some fraternity, they all act according to their respective interest
——
That is my point nor do I have any fear. Why should some super delegate (lets say Al Gore) get a vote that counts as 10,000 votes? The D’s do not want people to even really know about this, I am sure they are kicking themselves that this recently added anti-democratic process is now exposed.
I, unlike you, do not see a Clinton conspiracy behind every tree. Yes, I assume that both Senator Clinton AND Senator Obama desire to control the Rules committee and the Platform committee as well. Just like the competition to control those committees in every other election year.
both candidates entered this race knowing the rules of the playing field, they BETTER
—–
They may have known about it, but the people sure as hell did (do) not.
However you look at this the Democrats are going to mess up. Once again Florida is an isssue. 1.6m voted there. Don’t they count? And Michigan! The caucus system surpises me: is it really fair? If someone cannot get time off work and can’t go to the caucus at the appointed time how does that make for an equitable system. And Iowa: the biggest rip off of the lot. The least representative caucus, and in practice people are left out. Then the Super delegates!!! Only Democrats can screw up like this. Don’t be surprised if McCain wins. We are in 2008 not 1808? This kind of democracy in action I don’t need. The system is bound to produce pissed of voters in both the Obama and Clinton camps.
Jane- I was thinking a bit about this issue last night. Ultimately I came up with this sceanario for some (not all) of the Superdelegates. Lets talk about Congressional Representatives, since they are the bulk of these Super-reps (at least in terms of classification).
Those in seats that are “in contention” this Fall will be under a great deal of pressure to support whichever candidate is likely to energize young voters, independents, and “fallen or discouraged Democrats” to come out in numbers. The reason for this is obvious…the more Democrats voting the more likely there will be a down-ticket effect. So supporting the biggest vote-puller in their District is likely to help them in their own election. It’s quite simply a matter of survival.
This may also be true to some degree in politicians who are in safe seats abutting a gerry-mandered district where a non-Superdelegate is running. The Superdelegate would benefit by supporting the bigger “broadener” in that other district because a) more democrats winning in contended districts means more clout for the delegation in Congress, and b) more Democrats at the State legislature can influence the security of the district when reapportionment occurs. Since those gains are best met in districts that are under contention that Superdelegate would be better off supporting the Democratic candidates there by supporting a Presidential nominee that would draw a lot of votes there.
Thus someone who might ideologically or socially be affiliated with Hillary could switch to Obama if it meant more turnout for them, or associated Congressional seats. Of course, the same could also occur in reverse. I think that the fact that Obamas “machine” brought out massive amounts of supporters in places like Washington, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc. will play heavily on the minds of many Superdelegates. Those in Red State south will have to weigh very carefully if they want to cool the emotion of the large groups that came out in places like South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, etc. by voting against Obama as a Super-Delegate. Such a vote could not only lose a close election – it might mean political oblivion.
Exactly.
Those who would say “But you’re ignoring the will of the voters!” ignores that the voters in those states didn’t have a full slate to choose from at the time. In addition, if you voted early for Edwards but would now like that vote back and given to someone still in the race, your voice is being ignored by anything other than a full do-over — which as Emptywheel notes the Republicans in Michigan will block.
but in the end they will vote to defeat the Republicans. McCain won’t win.
Last thing we need is to annoint a Presidential candidate for the general based on some promises to two Iowa corn lobby rep, a FLA aerospace rep, and Ted Kennedy at the convention.
both candidates entered this race knowing the rules of the playing field, they BETTER not make waves if the rules they agreed to abide don’t turnthe election in their behalf
—-
Anyway as an aside I don’t care who wins out of Clinton and Obama currently.
Please realize that the two parties, although the basis of our political system, are also quasi-private organizations, able to set up their own rules. The DNC sets broad rules on proportionality and such (including affirmative action rules mandating that the mix of m/f and racial make-up has to reflect the state as a whole) and that the individual state parties then implement. Some states say an open primary or caucus is OK, others want only those folks registered as Dems as of a specific date. Some states allow a party declaration on the day of the priamry or caucus, others require it to be some period of time beforehand.
If you do not like the rules for the Dem party in your state, become active and fight to change them.
I posted this thought yesterday: why not subtract the 366 (MI+FL) delegates from the total delegates in order to maintain a viable and achievable threshold that reflects the will of the people?
In other words, the more states’ delegates you don’t seat, the higher the percentage of the vote any campaigner will have to win to reach it. So clearly as it stands now, with the original threshold in place, it hurts the chances of both Clinton and Obama to reach the original percentage of delegates deemed sufficient to win the nomination.
.
Wasn’t it tacitly “agreed upon by both campaigns” not to count the delegates when they were initially stripped? What to do about them didn’t become an issue until the Clinton campaign wanted to put them back into play.
—-
Also a good point. Both camps started to play the delagate game a few weeks ago and try to bend things to the way they think is a benefit (or know in the case where un-contested primaries are over).
As for Super Delegates I am not convinced that is a done deal for either candidate (that what they will get will give them a win).
All I know is that it sure as hell seems like a big f’in waste of time to run elections all over the country (and world) and then have 100 people at a convention decide who is the candidate for President.
There are at least four different ways to divine the popular will of Democratic voters to this point; Bowers calculates four and finds that two “popular vote” schemes favor Clinton, two favor Obama. There’s no reason to think the situation will be substantially different in May, if by May a delegate winner has not been chosen. So we’d be reduced to arguing statistical points about extrapolations and corrections if we wanted to discuss the “popular vote”.
The delegate vote is not dramatically more clear cut–we could easily end up in a situation were Obama has more delegates w/o MI or FL, Clinton has more if you add them in willy-nilly, and the outcome is in doubt depending on the details of how you handle MI.
In short, if things are really still this close in May, there will likely be six to eight indicators of the “Democratic party will”, about half indicating Clinton, half Obama.
At that point, I’m really OK with the superdelegates deciding it. It’s kind of how I feel about soccer shootouts. It’s random and estethically displeasing, but the two opponents are even, so it seems acceptable for one to be chosen randomly.
The only fair approach is to do-over the primaries in MI and FL and apportion delegates accordingly. The DNC ought to pay for this because they, and the local state party, messed this up in the first place. Perhaps the voters in these two states could be asked for a donation as they voted to help defray costs?
As for the super delegates, this is not something that was dropped in out-of-the blue on the party this year. These are committed long-time democrats who can switch their votes in keeping with the party’s interests. I trust their judgment any day over that of independents and cross-over republicans and the new-new crowd who would desert the party in a blink at the appearance of the next avatar. If Obama maintains his momentum and captures some big populous blue states, then I wouldn’t be offended if the super delegates swing towards him and help him clinch the nomination.
The 4049 total and the 2025 needed for the nomination do NOT include delegate counts for FL and MI is my understanding.
“Leahy announcing that he will join Dodd in the filibuster re FISA.”
YES!!! Woo-Hoo!!!
Bob in HI
Think most of this came out of the mess that was 1968—primaries were made more decisive to eliminate the backroom effect- but they still needed to find a way to get office holders etc. in regardless of which candidate they supported.
I really like this site. But I do not understand the tolerance exhibted towards the Clintons. It is like the 8 years of that debacle from 92-00 never happened and the greater Bush debacle, the lowering of the bar even more, can excuse the first Clinton debacle. We now have a 66% dependence on foreign oil which grew 18% under the first Clinton reign with no attempt to avoid otherwise. The Clintons are boring power freaks and they are dangerous, period.
We don’t really know what that means. Wish we did.
MSNBC delegate count has Obama up 48 delegates. Obama’s site has him up almost 90 delegates. Notice MSNBC doesn’t even count super delegates at this point, let alone add them into a supposed delegate total:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914
CNN and some others have been adding in super delegates all along, which results in some reporting saying, “Clinton is still in the lead, but Obama gaining.” I find inclusion of super delegates at this point in time very misleading. I even heard Stephanie Miller this morning reporting it this way as if Clinton is still leading. Super delegate commitments are very fluid at this point and not binding. Many can change their minds let’s say if Obama starts winning virtually every state the rest of the way, so it’s rather pointless to add them right now with actual delegates won through voting.
Especially after this weekend with Obama’s complete domination in the voting, I’m not worried much about problems at the Convention now. Obama’s already won 19 states to Clinton’s 9. I don’t count Mich and FL, since whenever Obama campaigns head-to-head with Clinton, he either wins or narrows the gap considerably and I would expect that happen had he campaigned in these states. I think Obama’s going to win the majority of the remaining states, and perhaps a very large majority, so he’ll end up with a large win in pledged delegates and in states won. Super delegates will have a hard time defending a choice of Clinton at that point.
Clinton has already received her delegate-rich states (NY and CA). Even if she does win TX, OH, Penn, I don’t think it’ll be by much, so the delegate counts won’t be much different, and it won’t be enough to overcome Obama’s lead from all the other state wins he’s likely to get. Hopefully, he’ll do well on March 4th, and he might wrap it up then so we won’t have worry about the Convention. Of course, Hillary could surprise us!
Because many of us do not share your views of the Clintons. They are obviously the root of all evil in your eyes. I don’t happen to see it that way. Reasonable people can have differing views.
OT, sorry if this has already been posted, but just got this email from Leahy, which reads in part;:
I like this. Works for me.
Bob in HI
As others more eloquent have noted, the super-delegates didn’t parachute in from the sky. They were chosen under a series of Democratic Party rules–rules, by the way, that nobody has challenged. Until, of course, now–when there’s a fear that the super-delegates might determine the candidate and that candidate might not be Senator Obama.
Here’s a prediction:
If Senator Clinton is ahead in the pledged-delegate count by the time Denver rolls around, Obama and his supporters will suddenly discover the true, glorious, democratic value of super-delegates.
Bank on it.
We still don’t know what that means and whether or not they can come up with 41 votes to stop cloture.
I definitely disagree with the idea of seating these delegations AS IS with the premise of allowing them to vote on subsequent ballots. Quite simply that would be the same as letting them vote on the first ballot. If the vote is under contention after the first ballot why allow a delegation under dispute to decide the result?
I also disagree that subdividing the delegations based on some national formula also doesn’t make sense, since that really wouldn’t be a Florida or Michigan delegation.
The only resolution I can see is to demand that there be a subsequent Primary or Caucus where both Obama and Clinton have a fair chance to campaign. If Florida or Michigan wants to use the earlier election for some delegates let them divvy up the votes of their Super-Delegates in that proportionate fashion. But most of the delegation should be based upon the election during a fair campaign. In Michigan Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot, and in Florida Hillary and Bill did some covert campaigning (by fundraising there).
If that is in fact the case, then the situation doesn’t seem nearly as screwed up. We proceed as if including MI and FL resulted in the same difference as with them. Given the alternatives, going to a brokered convention is something I could live with. Ultimately, I think super delegates do what the majority of voters demonstrate – at least they sure as hell better! Let it play out.
Let’s just name Al Gore the nominee and get on with it.
OT – Don’t know if people have already seen this.
Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former Democrat of Connecticut who endorsed the Republican presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain, is moving closer to attending the Republican National Convention in September.
Predictable
A really good source for delegate numbers is DemConWatch ; they break down their totals into pledged and superdelegates, state by state, so you can see exactly what they’ve done. With SD they have Clinton over Obama 1118-1097; with pledged only Obama over Clinton 968-895.
I like that idea. A lot.
So supporting the biggest vote-puller in their District is likely to help them in their own election. It’s quite simply a matter of survival.
—-
But where does that amount to a hill of beans for voters…. I mean to have Congress people sitting around wondering how to casts their “Super delegate vote” to increase their own chances of congressional vitory – this is just a wacky thing. Not that helping their party is a bad thing – but is tying this into the nomination process through super votes a good way to approach this?
I think the answer is no, what this is showing is that there is going to be blowback. Blowback on FLA and Michigan as well.
Pledged delegates are only required to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. After the first ballot, it is all open season as to who can collect the most votes. My suggestion accounts for the first ballot. who knows, if there is no candidate after the first ballot vote, maybe someone could cince Al Gore or John Edwards or Howard Dean to throw their names back into the hopper.
Can’t we just boot him over the fence and have done with it? The committee chairs won’t change and we can move on without the albatross around our necks.
1,754 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Let’s remember how we got in this mess. After the 2004 debacle (which I believe was thrown with the assistance of the Clinton machine) Terry Mcauliffe set up the nomination process and primary structure to insure Mrs. Clinton’s nomination. When Howard Dean actually succeeded in ORGANIZING state Democrats and took over the national party apparatus, he had to be heard over the terrible caterwallin’ and howlin’ from the Clintonistas and the corporatist media…first was the committment to party development in every state and then, of course, was the effort to stop the telescoping of early primaries and caucuses into one great Tuesday money launderin’ which would of course insure Mrs. Clinton’s nomination.
I don’t think this is gunna be a problem, however, unless the Clintons and their corporate bosses make it a problem. By June Barak O’Lieberman is gunna have a good solid majority (over 100 delegates in my opinion) and will in the polls be the odds on favorite to beat McCrazy in the general election. This thing is gettin’ settled by the shear force of the late primaries and caucuses…if the Clintons try and get this to the courts, they will be exposed as the corporate Republicrats that they are…in fact, the only thing that can threaten the election of a Democrat this fall is the Clinton effort to kill the party.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, NOT ALL FASCISTS ARE MALE AND CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS!!
estethically displeasing, but the two opponents are even, so it seems acceptable for one to be chosen randomly.
—
It won’t be random, it will be based on deals (smoke filled room) – and we can perpetuate this sickness a while longer.
Joey turnin gooper- guess it’s about time. Doubt if he can get re-elected as a gooper- maybe he wants to start an aero-space company.
I just skimmed the comments, but didn’t union organizers already offer to pay for Michigan to have another primary?
I guess Harry Reid could lose control of the senate agenda if Lieberman was booted but on the other hand hasn’t Reid effectively already lost control of the agenda?
Guess if the state parties decided to ignore the early result and vote again- everyone would be happy- or at least a little happy.
Here is a prediction, if it was the Republicans with the Super Delegate rules people would be falling over themselves to condem it as an elitist mechanism of party control in the hands of the few.
No. We’re stuck with Hapless Harry. The organizing rules of the 110th cong. named the senate committee chairs and leaders. Harry wasn’t about to make the same mistake the pigs did in 2001. It’s the only thing he has done right since taking over IMHO.
Running a primary in 2 states is not expensive compared to what these campaigns spend on advertising or can raise in a week or two.
Let them pay for the 2 re do primaries.
Too many super delegates in proportion to the other delegates. That was a bone headed idea.
Hopefully they are not lobbied by the candidates – that should be off limits.
Democrats make a mess of democracy.
Not on his website yet.
FWIW, the super delegate concept has been part of the Dem mix for thirty years; it just became pertinent this year and got folks attention since the primaries and caucuses may not determine a winner without their votes. I can understand why it came into being even if I may not wholly like the implemntation
As we discuss this I think it is important to remember that 1.6 million Florida Democrats went to the polls and voted.
They played very little, if any, role in this screw-up. We need to take some note of their effort and sacrifice in voting as we discuss the equitable resolution of this matter.
How about they agree to the rules that that ALREADY agreed to. FL and MI shouldn’t count. If they want to seat FL then that will probably not have an effect because Barack will be much more then the 20 delegate difference ahead. But if they seat MI that would be criminal.
I’m live in MI. I don’t see a chance of a do over happening as you said because, first of all, the Repubs would block it since they control half the legislature and we’re already in a fiscal crisis as is. There’s no way they’d approve a 3 or 4 million dollar gift to the dem party because Michigan was stubborn and didn’t want to go on Feb 5th. Also, Granholm, our gov, is a Hillary supporter so I don’t think she’d want caucuses which as you said favor Obama.
Nice to see there’s such a consensus on what to do.
No forseeable problem here.
With regard to superdelegates:
Superdelegate
“in Florida Hillary and Bill did some covert campaigning (by fundraising there)”
Oh, come on! And Obama didn’t do any fundraising in FL? He even had ads running in FL as part of a national advertising deal. Let’s be fair to both candidates.
I don’t think it’s a wacky thing at all. Let’s say you are a Diane Watson in LA. You supported Hillary in the Primary, but your district voted overwhelmingly for Obama and in large numbers. If I were Diane, facing a Republican contender nipping on my heels, I’d damn well announce that my Super-Delegate vote would reflect “the will of my district, not my personal preference”. In a contentious district to vote any other way would be suicidal; in one that might be safe, it might be likely to raise a Primary Challenge the next time around.
Anbd those who want a big Democratic majority would not only want to win their election, but also more seats that are in contention.
I don’t think they will be considering whether they won’t be invited to Hillary and Bills dinner party.
Consensus? In this crowd? We’re Democrats for the most part so it’s Contentious rather than Consensus…
1,754 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
No dear, democracy is messy and the best thing for a messy democratic process is MORE DEMOCRACY!!
This isn’t a problem of democracy or Democrats…this is a problem of the abuse of democracy by corporatists like the Clintons.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…WE’VE SEEN THE ENEMY AND SHE AIN’T US!!
Why does everyone just accept these silly rules as they are laid out? We have the power to change the rules, and we should because elections have become something of a game. It’s no longer about electing the best leader, but about who can win the popularity contest. National politics has become a middle school student council election, and we happily allow this. Where’s the vigilance?
There is an argument for superdelegates.
1) Governors, senators, congresscritters, state legislators, should be at the convention. If they ran as committed delegates- their attendance would be coningent on their candidate winning.
2) It’s good to have a little slack in the system in case of the unexpected (candidate at the last minute indicted or whatever).
It’s not a totally bad idea.
You could allow office holders to attend but deny them a vote- but that doesn’t quite seem right to me either. They are major stakeholders with more knowledge than other delegates.
cause we are people not sheeple.
What’s equally predictable is that he’ll do a “Zell Miller” there. Wonder if he will challenge Tweety to a duel? Two birds with one stone…
But more likely would be a certain group of delegates holding firm with the outlook of Michigan and Florida giving them the votes needed to put their candidate over the top.
Your scenario seems only something that might be likely on much later rounds. And bringing in these two States THEN with individuals that were selected because they supported Clinton would STILL be more likely to draw the final selection THAT direction.
Obama had ads, as did Clinton, but I don’t think he went to Florida in the days just prior to the Florida election as Hillary and Bill quite prominently did.
Too much to hope for.
And as I stated earlier, the way to make those changes is to become active in your local Democratic Party or work to establish your own party. If you become active in your local D party, you can start to affect the changes you desire.
Haha… Yeah.. That would turn out well. We’re on the verge of nominating the first African American or first Women and we come out of it with another white male. That’s one for the cynics.
1,754 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen SueN and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
It’s very clear what should happen here if the rest of the primaries and caucuses reflect what has been goin’ on up to now…if Barak O’Lieberman has more than a 100 delegate lead, Mrs. Clinton should announce that she will hold her delegates thru the first ballot and then throw them to Barak on the second ballot. This is what a statesperson, an ethical democrat (with a small “d”) and a good party Democrat would do.
Wanna bet what Mrs. Clinton will do??
KEEP THE FAITH AND WATCH WHO MAKES THIS THING A PROBLEM!!
Thought Hillary went to Florida ONLY after the polls closed. Seems that she was very careful about that- even delaying the plane’s departure.
You did notice my comment where I suggested the delegation be put together by the respective State Party Committees and not be beholden to either candidate specifically?
Don’t forget, as things now stand, John Edwards’ name will also be palced in nomination along with Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Who knows? A second ballot could start a stampede to Edwards?
Or do you have a special magic 8 ball helping you to predict the future?
Bowers is setting the bar too high.
He says: “Basically, I think this means that if Obama wins pledged delegates, but does so outside of Michigan and Florida by less than 100, we are in for a real mess.”
If Florida and Michigan were to count, and the Michigan “uncommitted” delegates assigned to Obama (only fair because to vote “uncommitted” in Michigan was to vote against Hillary Clinton), Clinton would not pick up 100 delegates more than Obama would pick up.
Florida was originally going to get 210 delegates including supers, or about 173 pledged delegates (going by NY’s ratio). But Obama would get many of these delegates, and Edwards would get some too (he was 14% state-wide but over 15% in many counties).
In Michigan, Hillary got 55% of the vote, to 40% for uncommitted. You can’t give an uncommitted delegate from Michigan to Hillary, because the voter had the chance to vote for her and chose not to, preferring “none of the above”. There would be about 128 pledged delegates from Michigan.
I think that the best Hillary would do if these 301 delegates were seated would be to get 60% of them, so she’d get 180 to Obama’s 120. To me, that means that the number needed to raise a stink would be around 60. If Obama wins by more than that, even giving Hillary the pledged delegates she “won”, with no penalty at all, won’t suffice.
If they WANTED to- the campaigns could probably agree within a few delegates of the likely result of another election in Florida and Michigan….but making em want to is another issue.
The entire situation is completely effed up all the way to hell and back, Jane.
I just got an email that the Michigan Democratic Party has already allocated delegates to Clinton and Uncommitted by congressional district, and Clinton naturally has the lion’s share right now since she was the only one of the top three on the ballot.
Yet there is at least one lawsuit out there (I know the ACLU filed one) over the primary due to disenfranchisement of voters; what happens if the court agrees that primary was a clusterfuck, as Marcy so aptly puts it?
There’s also an initiative underway in some parts of Michigan to hold a caucus, run by the local parties, that will in turn provide the results of the caucus to the DNC (and not the state party as I understand it). They are NOT happy with suggestions of a “do-over” since the choice has already been narrowed down to two candidates (and many folks like me would have voted for Edwards).
I don’t think there’s going to be a rational way out of this.
And I lay the blame at the door of the suck-ups in the Michigan leadership who wanted Clinton to win; this is what they wanted, it’s all theirs. Can hardly wait to see what they’ll do with rest of our democracy…
Rules are often challenged and modified at Conventions. The Superdelegates were created to allow two groups to participate…small issue-oriented groups that were generally excluded through the normal delegation process because they had too few supporters (usually under 15%) to win an actual delegate. The other groups were the elected and formerly-elected officials (Congressmen, Senators) and party officials.
Personally, I suspect that 95% of these could submit their names as delegates “for” someone and win the position THAT way. But many don’t want to go on record as endorsing someone so early in a campaign. To do so actually would play a role that they don’t want at such an early stage. It would be like giving an imprimatur to an “appointed choice”. But they do want a small vote, as well.
I think it will be irrelevant. As Obama stretches his win streak from 7 to 9 to 13 contests in a row, the eventual nominee is all but certain. Resistance is futile, and the begging for mercy is pathetic.
I’ll admit that I’m a bit over the top at the moment, but every time I watch the returns come in Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture, complete with cannons, starts playing in my head. McCain’s fate in the November elections will be even worse.
Believe me. Our state government (MI) is incredibly inept. Both Repubs and Dems. It’s a freakn mess here and Dems are taking it on the chin because a Dem is our Governor (who supports Hillary btw).
Leahy to join filibuster with Dodd!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..130/454463
She went to two large fund-raisers on Sunday, just two days before the Florida Primary
Clinton Fundraisers in Florida before Primary Vote
Don’t recall having seen you here before.
Welcome.
This place is kind of an idea factory – good, bad, or in-between. Good to see you here – but here’s a hint – jumping in immediately to trash someone else’s thought might not just be the best way to say hello… (especially the regulars – folks who have called, faxed, worked the front-lines for that in which they believe, etc…)
’nuff said?
Oh, you’re preaching to the choir. I know all about it.
Only my brain, and unlikely Huckabee I don’t believe in miracles. And often when you try to frame a situation where one might occur, you get disaster instead.
I really don’t think that the Party Hacks in Florida are likely to either be Edwards OR Obama supporters. They will not appoint representative delegations. If anything it would be even MORE UNDEMOCRATIC.
Not quite the entire back story. I thought it was already the case that all Dem candidates agreed to back away from the Michigan and Florida primaries. The problem is the Clinton campaign which essentially renegged on the arrangement.
That’s different than “gosh, if only we could all agree and then it would be fine.”
There WAS agreement until one campaign went back on their work.
Just my 2 cents, but being a Florida voter. One of 1.7 million Democratic voters that went to vote in our primary after being told by our Congressional Representatives that “don’t worry,your votes will be counted”, I’ll be pretty pissed off at the DNC and everybody else that wants to disenfranchise us again.
…on their word.
new thread on FISA over at Marcy’s place if anyone cares. No Marcy, but the conversation continues.
If they make it so that Clinton gets the delegates anyway, no one will ever think that it is fair
{{{{Snarkassandra!}}}}
hi mr ron D!!!!!!!!!
How’s El Paso?
Forgive my ignorance, but how it is the Republicans can stop it in court? Aren’t the primaries run by parties? What would give them standing? If anyone has a link to how this could happen, please pass it along.
Well the DNC said that if you do that your votes would NOT BE COUNTED. They said that you had to have your election at a time when it was stipulated by the National Parties. Hell why not have California and New York vote first and be done with the other States!
BTW The delegations were told LONG BEFOREHAND that they would not be seated. All the candidates agreed with that punishment. After any vote the would get no delegates.
Now your National Party is considering offering you a re-do, either by a second Primary or a Caucus. I’d suggest that you start lobbying your Congressional Reps and Party Committees, who screwed up the first time in the intent to make Florida have more say. Complain to them. NOT the national party.
not bad, but never ever ever move to a new school 3 wks before valentine’s day. ick!
1,754 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Firepup Freedom Fighters:
I, for one, am damned glad that we are in this mess and that Democrats everywhere are gunna be in the conversation about what to do about it…this is a problem brought on by the corporatist forces that have been incubating a new Republican Party inside the Democratic Party since 1994-95. This problem began in 2004-05 as Terry Mcauliffe’s last little kiss on the cheek to us real Democrats…Howard Dean made a valiant effort to open the primary and nomination process and make the Clintons start on the same line as everyone else by stoppin’ the move to consolidate the nomination into one Tuesday in February. (Think about it Firepups, the Clintons have been settin’ this up since 2004, indeed since 2001…who do ya think bankrolled the political assassination of Howard Dean from inside the party and who within the Democratic Party worked to make sure that Ohio and Florida got taken for the fascists?!!)
This is simple…assign Florida and Michigan delegates by a formula that reflects the votes there with O’Lieberman gettin’ the non-Clinton votes in Michigan. If O’Lieberman comes into the convention with more’n a 100 vote majority then let the process play out with Edwards and the superdelegates makin’ the choice.
But let’s remember that Mrs. Clinton could clean this whole thing up by doin the right thing and lettin’ the process play out in public all the way to the convention…she won’t, of course, because she doesn’t give two shits for the Democratic Party or democracy or stoppin’ the consolidation of corporate fascism in America.
KEEP THE FAITH, SOMETIMES THE BASTARDS MAKE THINGS EASY FOR US!!
Lots of new Valentines?
What the hell was Michigan and Florida thinking knowing ahead of time if they moved their primaries up the delegates would not be counted. They and the DNC had to know nothing good would come of that. And guess what nothing good has come of it because it has become such a close election those delegates now matter significantly.
O/T wondering, but I am wondering about the timing of the 6 “confessed conspirators to 9/11″ and the Chinese spy news on MSN. *always* have Naomi Klein on the brain these days.
De-lurking here briefly. As much as I tried to resist the pull of the comments, I couldn’t.
Some perspective from a Floridian in regards to this. We (the Democratic Party) have been punked by the Goopers again. When our repub lege decided to consider moving up the primary to ” give Florida a more prominent role” in the nominating process the DNC started rumbling about stripping delegates. At that point, since the goopers didn’t give a whit about when their primary was and now the DNC is talking about not seating delegates to the convention what did they have to lose by moving up the primary.
Add in the fact that 1.6 million or so Florida Democrats voted in the primary, the DNC has successfully given the goopers a fig leaf for disenfranchisement(thin tho it may be). Because they can now point to the Michigan and Florida delegations and say ‘look they do it too’.
The goopers are also hoping that the ensuing mess may also have a turnout lowering effect by having folks in Michigan and Florida, by fomenting upset with DNC, sit home. This could have an effect in November of lowering turnout and taking both Florida and Michigan out of play. I don’t know about Michigan, but Florida is still a fairly red state so any lowering of Democratic turnout would result in the sure loss of it’s electoral votes.
Sorry for the long winded de-lurk.
Let’s have a quick decision to rerun Fla. and Michigan. Republicans have little if anything to say about the democratic primaries. A quick decision gives Obama time to campaign and take advantage of the Obama surge, as opposed to the Clinton Iraq surge that she supported.
Does Hill have anything but bright yellow pant suits? The yellow says “I’m chicken and I’m afraid to compete for delegates like anyone else.”
Kudos to all the former Dems who have been parading to the Senate floor to sing the praises of Telcom/Comcom immunity. Cheney loves ya.
???? Hardt, a youngish ‘activist’ and superdelegate just on MSNBC that I’ve neither heard nor seen – just provided a clue of what’s going to happen.
When asked who he would support his ‘uncommitted’ answer went like this:
“While I like Obama because he attracts young voters, I also like Hillary because of everything Bill and Hillary have done for the party.
Wow, that’s a surprise…
My camos are out and at the ready – and I’m FIRED UP!
As to the “its expensive and time consuming” argument, the Florida and Michigan debacles were brought about by egotistical selfish people like Debbie Dingle, and if they’re expensive and time consuming, maybe the Democrats will act with a little sense from now on and get Congress to pass holding Regional primaries that rotate which states are first.
Florida and Michigan’s organizers brought this problem on themselves, and they need to hold primaries that allow the candidates to campaign equally and announce them yesterday.
The DNC also shares the blame, because Dr. Dean and his posse knew this pending disaster had a high probability of rearing it’s head. Fair is fair; the people who vote from all the states should dictate who the candidate is–not the Super Delegates.
Your remark about Hillary wearing only yellow pantsuits and being chicken sounds a little sexist to me sir. I have observed her wearing a wide variety of colors. Can Obama wear anything besides a dark dress suit? No because he is a man.
This resembles MI as I recall. (I’m bi-residential and vote elsewhere, but keep an ear to MI politics; I also agree with the commenter above on the fecklessness of both MI parties and state govt in recent years.) I suspect a deliberate ploy, and some day would like to know the history of this cycle’s sudden mad dash to be first.
I have only seen her wearing yellow and I know people are thirsty thirsty thirsty to try to sling the misogyny arrows in defense of their precious Hill but I’m just making a normal color observation. I never see her in dresses. I see dresses every day but no on Hill. I only see her in yellow suits with black trim. They don’t look good to me. It’s a fashion comment not a gender comment.
If you think Obama makes a bad appearance, by all means speak up. I’m sorry you don’t like predominantly blue suits. We need to accessorize Obama. Would that be better? What would you like him to wear?
I’d be the first to say that women’s fashions are considerably more vibrant and interesting and demanding for women then men’s fashions. If you check out the major print media, articles on women’s fashions domoninate those on men’s about 1000 to one for whichever reason.
Meanwhile, when can we expect that LHP vetting headline post on Hillary Clinton? I’ve already submitted a dozen quesitons to help LHP. We got several on Obama/Rezko. I haven’t seen any on all the Clinton questions lately at all. Whether there is one a FDL or not, there will sure be vetting of the questions I raised in the media and by the McBush research teams.
1,754 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen marshen and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Don’t feed the trolls…don’t respond to ‘em…don’t call ‘em out and don’t speak their names…this one will stand on the bridge pissin’ in his own shoes if ya jest ignore ‘im.
KEEP THE FAITH AND YOU SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR ARGUMENTS!!!
According to this HuffPost article, it was Obama who “broke” the pledge and started fund raising in FL. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..81700.html
Less than a day after the campaigns agreed not to campaign in Florida, Obama hosted an impromptu press conference following a fundraiser in Florida’s Hyde Park. Under the Democratic Party rules, “holding news conferences” violated the pledge, a stipulation which Obama said he did not know.
“I was just doing you guys a favor,” the Illinois Democrat declared. “If that’s the case, then we won’t do it again.”
I don’t know about specific fund raiser dates in FL, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was there not that long before Hillary’s final fund raiser before that “primary”.
Many general counsels of state Democratic parties don’t think litigations is going to do much to settle the attempted Super Delegate raid that Maggfie Williams and her old boss are planning as they see loss after loss mount up.
There are 796 delegates who are not pledged aka Super Delegates that most Americans probably believe are somehow connected to the Super Bowl. There are 3523 delegates that people are supposed to have the opportunity to vote on, after campaigning has been done in their states. That’s the way the Democratic party set it up. People like the pride of General Motors Debbie Dingbat Dingell through a monkey wrench into the works. Now the DNC needs to have the backbone that the Senators who paraded to the podium today to roll over for Bush on FISA lack and give all the people the chance to elect their nominee.
Considering the long list of organizations Debbie Dingell is attached to, it’s sad she screwed the pooch so badly in Michigan purely because of her arrogance. It’s time to unscrew those pooches. Michigan and Florida need to vote over, announce it now, and allow the two candidates to compete for votes from the people who are losing jobs, and getting crushed in the ecomomy, and can’t get adequate health care.
The folks in Florida and Michigan knew their votes wouldn’t be counted…they tried ta crack the DNC leadership anywayz to insure that the Clintons would get first ups…this is all on the corporatist Clintons. It’s a chiffon elephant…it won’t mean anythin’ unless Mrs. Clinton wants to kill the Democratic Party in the process
Obama honored the pledge to the nanomolecule. It was Clinton who showed up and looked ridiculous claiming victory when there was no campaigning or signficant organization set up in Florida. Huff Post gets it wrong all the time, and they have here.
Why are the Clintonistas so affraid of redoing Florida and Michigan and allowing the campaigns to compete on an equal basis–well if you call the secret Clinton library donations and the secret money from Ron Burkle that Hill is “donating to herself” like Romney equal because people won’t donate to her near as much now.
Funny what Google uncovers when you look:
Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he’s the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he’ll seat a Florida delegation at the party’s national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/20…..s-breaking
Thanks for your take as one on the scene. IMO it would be both undemocratic and politically stupid to disenfranchise the Dems in FL.
Please don’t forget that the RNC is punishing FL, MI, SC, and NH half of their delegates for breaking the Republican party rules for voting schedule.
Pete – leave it (women’s fashions) alone – it is a no win from the git-go.
OK, but the Rs are providing at least some representation to the voters in those states…
Google can turn up hits on just about anything–what you’ve posted doesn’t have anything to do with Obama and reality. Obama isn’t about to buck the DNC, and he can’t “seat a Florida delegation against the wishes of the DNC” and he won’t. It’s the responsibility of the DNC and both candidates to work out the screwup that was Michigan and Florida that never should have been allowed to see the light of day.
You’ll have to do better for us than a September 2007 article from the Tampa Tribune about their extrapolation of what Obama hints. An impromptu walk across the street to answer reporters’ questions one time after a fund raiser hardly rises to the level of violating the pledge proferred by the DNC. Both candidates were in Florida fund raising, and it wouldn’t be hard to find an instance where Clinton answered reporters questions and she held plenty of press conferences and was the only one of the two to parade into Florida the second the ridiculous fake primary was held. Talk about wasting time and money–*g* holding fake primaries in Michigan and Florida were big wastes of time and money.
Trying to use corporate money which are most of Clinton’s contributions to steal Super Delegates and having your daughter phone Super Delegates to try to sweet takk their vote (to me that was a terrible strategy) and refusing to relese contributors to the librtary and tell people where the $5 million self-contribution came from that she kicked into her campaign are in the ballpark of trying to get the election when you can’t win it via primaries and caucuses.
I was hoping for a feature job from WWD, Conde Nast, possibly a chance to be Anna Wintour’s #1 assistamt ala Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wear’s Prada, or possibly to become feature fashion writer for Vanity Fair, and I’m trying to bolster my credentials and high qualifications for these jobs.
Someone got Hill into blue today.
Anne Hathaway’s boyfriend was sued by Bill Clinton’s home boy who is funneling money into Hill’s campaing, Ron Burkle.
From Today’s NYT article CMaine to Obama; Clinton Replaces Campaign Leader Maggie Williams was quoted in the print edition from 1999:
“The biggest mistake of the American press is thinking they know her. You know, people think she’s such a big lib. I think she’s extremely conservative. I think she has more in common with people in upstate New York, than New York City in a lot of ways.”
Maybe, Maggie, she can be McCain McBush’s running mate.
listen, the DNC will do nothing because that is what they are good for. lots of Dems will feel cheated and angry about this fake process. really, would you expect anything else?
Well, think that maybe we should see how the Great Compromiser works and he should just quietly conceed and let Hillary be President. Doesn’t sound like he enjoys the kumbayah moments when he might not win!
Still don’t see how he’s going to take the nomination if he’s winning the Red States. When push comes to shove they’ll not be turning Blue!
I hope it runs right to the Puerto Rico caucus!
And they will seat both delegations but in what capacity I can only guess. No do-overs. Too expensive and extend the campaign … don’t change the goal posts once the game is being played.
Just because Obama showed poor judgement by not being on the ballot in MI, let’s not tip the lifeboat in his favor.
Candidates use their kids all the time. McCain’s daughter, Cheney’s daughter, Romney’s “boys” (will they enlist now that their patriotic duty campaigning for Dad has ended?) The problem is that not only was it a mother that had her daughter campaigning – seems to be perfectly acceptable for fathers – but a Clinton as well.
Super delegates are approached by the campaigns all the time if you have not committed.
You know that all the anti-Hillary vitrol just fuels her supporters and makes them even more determined?
The bootstraps problem
Yes, a committee of the DNC will vote on what to do about the FL and MI delegations, just as other committees will hold hearings and hammer out a platform, etc. But, correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t the convention, when it meets, have to vote to accept or reject the committe findings, with the alternative of minority reports to choose from? What’s the likelihood, if the FL and MI votes could make the difference about who wins, that no matter what the committee decides, there won’t be a minority report that goes 180deg opposite? If that’s the case, which delegates get to vote on these committee reports? If not the FL and MI delegates, then whoever is ahead without FL and MI instructs his/her delegates to vote for the report that leaves his/her lead undisturbed, and that person wins.
It goes downhill from there. The side that sees itself losing to this effect will simply have to challenge enough delegates from the other side that it won’t be behind on these votes to seat delegates. The other side will be forced to respond in kind. Before it’s over, there won’t be any unchallenged delegates availalbe to vote on seating any delegates, so they’ll just call the whole thing off.
Jane, they can seat them all they want to. Their delegates cannot be counted. That was already agreed to and the candidates had no fair chance to campaign. Its an illigitimate vote in both those states. I think all the candidates agreed not to be on the ballot in MI and Hillary was the only candidate.
No, they can’t get a do over. The states chose this, not the DNC. Those states essentially selected to not participate in the primary and the governor signed off. The DNC is legally able to tell them when to have their primary and they chose not to so that’s that.
So whatever the seating arrangement, fine. They still cannot be counted.
Has anyone yet seriously broached the possibility of MI and FL conducting vote-by-mail contests? I think it could be significantly cheaper than securing and staffing thousands of caucus sites. Oregon and Washington (partially) have fantastic records of good turnout and few problems. And their methods are probably well documented and easily transferrable. Since it’s not a standard primary, where the state is responsible for the venues and staffing, I don’t think it would run afoul state law. Something to look into in any case.
There was a level playing field in Fla., so just award delegates proportionate to popular vote. In Michigan do same, with Obama getting all the non-Hillary vote.
Thank you, dakine01. Not everyone views the years ‘92-’00 as a disaster. In fact, some of us view it as the “good old days.”
-MS
Norske,
Biased much on this one?
-MS
Resorting to ad-hominem attacks will not cause anyone to view your intelligence on a more favorable basis…
-MS
You know, here we are urging other states to just forget all about their votes, just choose a candidate right now and forget the rest of the states in the interest of “party unity”. We punished Florida and Michigan for trying to have their primary early enough so that their votes would not be irrelevant. For some reason there is this notion that large, mostly Democratic states should take a backseat in the primay race to rural, mostly red states. I think that is kind of backwards. And I am from a rural, semi-red state.
I say, count their votes. They went out and voted. I am sick of hearing how New Hamshire and Iowa know more about Democratic politics than Michigan and Florida. Maybe if we gave some true blue states some choice in the candidate,we would win an election. Obama ran campaign ads in Florida, so he’s got no reason to gripe about Hillary.
I am for a national primary day, with consistent rules for voting in those primaries. I resent the fact that my 18 year old daughter, a registered Democrat could not vote in Colorado because she registered late (in January), while in many states we have REPUBLICANS, “Independents” and “one-day Democrats” choosing our Democratic candidate.
Pete, you sure comment a lot for someone who doesn’t have much to say. Someone posts a link to a news article, and your response is “you can find anything on Google.” The article says Obama talked to reporters in violation of the pledge, and you say “I’m sure Hillary did it too.” Well, it’s my understanding that Hillary didn’t do it. If you can find anything on Google, go ahead and prove me wrong. According to you it should be easy.
I’m curious as to exactly what the “pledge” everyone keeps talking about actually says. I heard an interview with a woman from the Michigan Dems who said the pledge was strictly that the candidates wouldn’t campaign in FL or MI. It said nothing about them supporting or resisting efforts to seat the delegations. It seems clear that Obama did more to violate the pledge, both by talking to reporters in FL and running ads that appeared in the state. I know it’s impossible to think of the Obama campaign doing anything for reasons other than purity of heart, but has anyone questioned why they needed to run a 50 state ad right before the Florida primary? The fact that they sought permission indicates that they were well aware that the ads would run in FL. On Super Tuesday, his campaign did regional buys. He was under no obligation to run national ads, and considering how many people are accusing Hillary of violating the spirit of the pledge, I think it’s fair to raise these points.
I also don’t think it’s coincidence that Obama somehow decided that South Carolina was the only state he had to consult about the ads. Iowa, NH and Nevada were also part of the deal, but I think it’s fair to surmise that he was most wired in with the South Carolina Dems. He knew exactly what he was doing.
And by the way, fundraisers were allowed under the pledge, so neither candidate was in violation for attending them. Hillary made it a point to not arrive in Florida until the polls were closed, so she clearly was making every effort to honor the pledge.
It was widely assumed that both delegations would be seated at some point, because it’s nuts to go into the general having dissed the voters in two major swing states. It was generally assumed that there would be a presumptive nominee, who would ask that the delegations be seated. If Obama has it wrapped up going into the convention, I fully expect him to make such a request. It’s just smart politics. Will any of the Obama supporters huffing and puffing about this today have any objection then? Will your focus be on “punishing” the lawbreakers? I doubt it.
And the idea of giving the uncommitted MI delegates to Obama is just ridiculous. Why not give them to Edwards? It’s interesting how people can go on about respecting the process, then turn around and advocate for changing “uncommitted” to “Obama” just because it helps their candidate.
And finally, the fact that Obama wasn’t on the Michigan ballot is no one’s fault but his own. The pledge said nothing about removing names from ballots. Obama’s beef is with whoever advised him to do that. I don’t see why Hillary should be punished because Obama made a bonehead move. I think any actions taken by the candidates on their own should have no impact on the decision. Hillary decided not to campaign in North Dakota. Is it “unfair” that Obama gets those delegates?