50 means 50, and far from over

I'd like to take my friend Markos at his word, that Obama is running a 50-state strategy. As a fellow 50-state propagandist, I would expect that he shares the opinion that it applies not just to a presidential campaign, but also to the presidential nomination. With that in mind, lets look into this bit of mess that the DNC has gotten us into, and then look at the state of the delegate race.

Rapid supporters may claim that I am saying Florida and Michigan should be counted because I'm a paid shill for Clinton, but besides getting handed a one-way ticket out of here, you'd also be wrong. Go back here and find when the DNC first said something about Michigan's delegates not counting, and you'll find I wrote an out-spoken post against the decision. It has nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with the principle. In fact, if Obama hadn't taken his name off the Michigan ballot, he probably would have won the state, as could have Edwards. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee made a bad move, so did the Obama campaign, but Michigan held their primary. That it wound up in Clinton's favor is beside the point.

Speaking as someone who sent Howard Dean to the DNC to decentralize the power of that committee to the states, it was a terrible leadership for him to have allowed the Rules & Bylaws Committee to tangle the presidential nominating selection process by selectively attempting to strip two states of their delegates, while continuing to ignore the fact that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina broke those same rules.

What's that? Yes, read the rules. I've posted about this before, and andrewalker08 has a must-read follow-up:

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all.

And what about Florida & Michigan?

Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

That sort of ruling, my friends, is why it'd be worth whatever it takes to get Donna Brazile to remove herself from being in a position of authority within the Democratic Party.

Now, as I understand it, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has not taken up the move by IA, SC, and NH in the their meetings; that the way it played out was, those states waited until after the DNC meetings on the matter, where they ruled against FL & MI, to make their move. The best case you could make, in their defense, is that it is still pending. But it seems pretty obvious, from looking at the reporting at the time, that their moves were just as self-interested and non-conforming.

Given the Obama supporters like him have stated that MI and FL shouldn't count ("they broke the rules"), I hope they'll be leading the charge to demand that the DNC apply their rules fairly-- or does the 48 state Obama strategy to get nominated turn into a 45 state strategy?

No. The DNC has over-stepped their authority in the first place. Just as NH, IA an SC are not punished, so also will go FL & MI.

Here's the state of the race that includes all 50 states:

Clinton leads Obama, 1127 to 1119, in pledged delegates.    

Clinton leads Obama, 240 to 140, in super-delegates.

There are 393 remaining super-delegates.

There are 1301 remaining pledged delegates.

There are another 94 remaining delegates among the uncommitted, and John Edwards delegates.

Now, these numbers might shift one way or the other if you subscribe to one or another's of the MSM outlet's projection. I go with GreenPapers and DemConWatch, for the delegate and superdelegate counts, because they are more credible in their documentation and transparency.

It's not clear how this gets resolved. Obama can win this outright, but to do so through a tactical maneuver would be an illegitimate nomination. If he goes onto win Ohio, Texas, and other states, he will exceed the number of delegates to put the matter to rest via inclusion. Clinton's campaign is in need of something that changes the current dynamic, but as the numbers above show, she can still win. One thing is clear: this is far from over.

Tags: 2008 election, Donna Brazile (all tags)



Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Regardless of what you say, FL and MI do not count and should not count.  IA, NH and SC were all allowed to have their primaries before Feb. 5th, the other two were not, no matter what some byline rule says.

The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is played.  Plain and simple.  If you want to make a case to strip IA, NH and SC, fine go ahead, but there is no way the other two states should count, barring a new primary/caucus.

by Socks The Cat 2008-02-13 04:10AM | 0 recs
You're right...

...Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were all permitted to have their contests before the first Tuesday in February, but they too were also given specific dates.

As I stated in the diary I wrote on this subject...

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as ,"no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).

Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd.  That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February.  New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th.  That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February.  And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th.  That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

The fact is that, using your words, "the rules of the game" were changed to continue to give Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina preferential treatment in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination process.  Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina,  all violated Rule 11.A., but only Florida and Michigan were punished for it.

If you're going to enforce the rules, then the rules need to be applied equally and fairly.  They weren't, and as far as I'm concerned, the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

by Andre Walker 2008-02-13 04:20AM | 0 recs
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life

And in moving their primaries up a few days each, to avoid the primaries that weren't supposed to be before Feb. 5 at all, it's hard to say that Iowa, NH, NV, and SC were violating the spirit or purpose of the rules.

FL and MI, though, unquestionably were violating the raison d'etre of the rules.

So you can nitpick this whole business to death, or you can remember what this was all about: having a way of keeping everyone from trying to be first, and giving all parts of the country a chance at having a say, in an orderly fashion, in the selection of the nominee.

Your choice, Jerome and Andrew.

by RT 2008-02-13 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right...

I think it's important to consider the timing of the DNC's decision.  The rules regarding how IA, SC, MI, NH and Fl were to be treated were set before the primaries / caucuses were held. Regardless of what the DNC's initial decision was (and it appears to have been operating within its discretion when it decided to treat some states differently than others) you cannot change the rules after the primaries / caucuses.  The time to challenge the DNC's decision was before the results were known.

Challenging the rules after the fact is sort of like agreeing to a set of arbitrary and silly rules in a card game, and then trying to change the rules after you've had a peek at the cards.  

by ruskin 2008-02-13 05:43AM | 0 recs
Simple Solution

Michigan and Florida should buck up and agree to hold a party sanctioned nomination contest (primary or caucus prior to June 4th.  That way both candidates can compete on a level playing field for the delegates to Denver.  Lacking that solution the Credentials Committee should seat the delegations based on a 50-50 split between the two candidates.

by dnichols 2008-02-13 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Everyone should be concerned about the will of the people of FL and MI. The DNC should finance primaries (not caucuses) in April or May. Nations call elections and hold them in 4 weeks so this could be done if there is the will to do it.

Let the candidates campaign, let the people know their vote will be counted and then we shall see what the will of the people in these states really is. That's if you really want all the voters voices heard. I guarantee that the results will be different when everyone knows their vote will be counted and the candidates get to make their case.

I am tired of the phony sudden candidates 'concerns' over FL and MI when they are just trying to game the rules to their advantage and could give a crap about the voters. Let's get FL and MI into the process with the same sort of participation everyone else had. The cost will be a lot less then the potential costs of not doing the right thing.

by hankg 2008-02-13 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I agree.  And the six-week gap between Mississippi on March 11 and Pennsylvania on April 22 would be perfect for this.

Hold the FL caucus on March 25, and the MI caucus on April 8.  They get to play a key role in selecting the nominee (which is why they jumped to the front in the first place, so that should satisfy them), the candidates would have an equal chance to campaign, and the Democrats of both states would get the opportunity to fully participate.  Win-win-win.

The reason I say 'caucus', btw, is that the word has come to mean any nominee-selection process run by the party rather than by the state, whether it's done primary-style (i.e. show up, cast secret ballot, leave) or traditional caucus-style (show up, debate, openly take sides, etc).  (E.g. New Mexico had a 'caucus' several days ago, but it was really just a party-run primary.)

I'd hope the FL and MI Democratic parties would choose to run their caucuses primary-style.  But they should have 'em, one way or another.

by RT 2008-02-13 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

There will be no caucus. That plan has been nixed. MI and FL are going to have to be dealt with as they stand.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-13 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Well, that means they aren't going to be counted... Obama can make a great case for not counting both states, and he's going to control the committee by the time the convention rolls around.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Like I said, Obama's playing to lose the general election.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-13 05:50AM | 0 recs

But that's an assertion unsupported by fact or logic.  There's no reason to believe that Dems are simply going to sit on their hands in Nov., because a certain amount of them are petulant about their candidates losing the primaries.

You won't either.  The vast majority of people here who have been displaying poor behavior will not either.  You will come out and vote for whatever Dem is up there - because the stakes are too high not to, and you know it!

I gave the same advice to fellow Obama supporters who wrote that they would not vote for Hillary, btw.  It's a heady time right now; but you'll get on board with the eventual winner.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

Well, the AP poll had Obama losing 1 in 5 dems in the g.e.

My main point is that he's handing the GOP a club to beat himself with over the head:

John McCain:
I believe that the voters of MI and FL matter. Sen. Obama ran away and hid when it came to your votes. I'll stand up for you guys while Obama will cut and run.

You get the picture? Why not vote for the guy who'll stand up for you against the guy who wimps out and whines when the going gets tough?

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-13 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

Because that candidate is WRONG on almost every major issue which faces us.

Get real!  Democrats are not going to vote for someone who calls for more war in Iraq and war against Iran, who calls for more tax cuts for the rich.  You seem to think that the issues don't matter at all, and that's ridiculous.

Besides - FL and MI WILL be recognized.  But not until it's too late to matter one way or the other.  There's no chance that a decision is going to be made by the DNC before June, and I think you know as well as I do that this race is going to be over long before then.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

I will not vote for McCain or any Republican, but I am not nearly as sanguine as you are about his chances. If the general election is about Iraq I think McCain is the likely winner, since he was a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policy from the beginning and he has the most credibility on managing the conflict militarily.

Against Obama I think the general becomes a personality contest, issues will have little salience since Obama has not made them central to his campaign. McCain has a record as a (reformed) anti-corruption government reformer and independent thinker. McCain's humble approach will appeal to people who are turned off by Obama's revivalist rhetoric. I can see that contest scrambling the red-blue map of the states, but not  in ways that would help Obama win.

by souvarine 2008-02-13 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

The election is far more likely to be about the economy then it is Iraq; and even so, he's a supporter of continued and unending war there!  This is a deeply unpopular position, yet you seem to think that people are going to flock to him?

The differences in the level of excitement for Obama vs. McCain are stark.  Obama will continue to draw massive crowds and work his ground and volunteer game strongly.  McCain on the other hand is facing a mini-revolt within his own party.  It's very difficult for me to see him winning in the fall.

Obama hasn't made 'issues' the main focus of his campaign, in part b/c there is so little difference between Hillary and him on the issues.  There's no good contrast to be drawn.  With McCain, it's a whole other matter.  Obama will be able to draw very clear contrasts on the war issue, on taxation (which McCain has badly flip-flopped on) and on right to life issues.  

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

McCain faces a real problem uniting his party, but after yesterday's contest, where I thought McCain could lose VA to Huckabee, I don't think we can count on that being debilitating for him. Of the Republican candidates McCain did best with anti-war voters in their primaries, so I don't think his Iraq rhetoric hurts him.

I also believe that the economy, and specifically the foreclosure crisis, will be what the general election is about. Obama's position has been tax relief tilted to the lower end of the scale, McCain has been a little more populist than Obama, vowing to go after mortgage industry 'speculators'. On choice I think McCain has the stronger general election position, Obama is likely to soften his choice position so that he can get some independents from McCain. McCain can trap Obama between Democrats and independents using choice.

Obama can beat McCain, but I don't think it will be easy.

by souvarine 2008-02-13 07:33AM | 0 recs
Remember the S&L

McCain has a bit of a history with unregulated bankers screwing the economy.  If the mortgage crisis is as big in Michigan as you claim it is (and I have no reason to doubt you), I think it hurts McCain in the gen.  On top of his past complicity with the same type of unscrupulous bankers that caused the current crisis, he claims he isn't an economy guy.  He is toast if the election is decided on domestic issues.  His only prayer is if national security is the overwhelming factor in voting, a possibility I only see happening if there is (Heaven forbid) another terrorist attack.

by Tom In Texas 2008-02-13 11:52PM | 0 recs
About Michigan

McCain's not as dumb as he looks.  He campaigned heavily in Michigan leading into the primary, more than even Mittens.  He was very visible and out there on the economy which really only entered the larger dialogue after the Michigan primary.

Michigan voters aren't going to forget that too soon.  We've been treading water up here for a year with no one interested in looking at the economy.  Michigan sneezes and the country get pneumonia a year later.  It's still true.

There simply is no other issue in Michigan but the economy.  Half the houses in my neighborhood are up for sale in the dead of winter.

If the Democratic Party blows off Michigan and says our votes and campaigning to us don't matter because of some dumb ass rule and some dumb ass stunt by Granholm and Debby Dingell Michigan will go McCain, all else being equal.

You think we are going to be charmed to see our state missing on the floor in september?  That kind of snub of inarguably the state worst blugeoned by Bush Co will not go unanswered by Michigan voters.

Put another way, we are what's wrong with this country, all of it hits here and hits hardest, even border security.  Ignoring the will of Michigan because of some inexplicable series of stupid stunts will bite the party hard in the ass next fall.  

That big blue mitten you all take for granted?  Imagine it turning red.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-13 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: About Michigan

I think that in all the arguments about rules and disenfranchisement that the important and legitimate reason Michigan feels it needs attention was lost.

A while ago, someone posted on Fark a link to a real estate site where you could look for properties below 5k. Most places, including my area, didn't have any but Detroit had so many it was heartbreaking. There was also a list the other day about least livable cities and Detroit was 1st and Flint was 3rd. While it is a terrible shame about the how New Orleans has been and continues to be handled, it is equally shameful about the lack of attention that Michigan has received.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: About Michigan

I become very frustrated by those who are didactic from the "rules are rules" position on Michigan. for me it's not a matter of fair or unfair, it's a matter of very stupid politics.

If 2000 and 2004 were stolen elections, there would have been no doubt about the winner had Michigan gone red.  We are sixth in electoral votes with 17 -- if New Mexico matters surely Michigan should matter over 3 times as much.  More than Missouri and only three votes less important than Ohio.

Come November, Michigan voters  can blame Granholm but so what -- she's a Democrat and it will frustrate them with the party up and down the ticket.  With McCain first pushing the economy back into the national spotlight while in Michigan, and with Democrats seeming not to give a damn before that, and with a Democratic governor to place all the blame on for the economy and the primary, I truly worry for the fall.

"the Democrats don't give a damn about you but John McCain does" I can see it already, and our elections are generally closer than more people think.

The Dems would have to pick up three third tier states just to ofset the loss of Michigan.  I'm sure this is something the DNC already knows, I'm just not too sure anyone in the Democratic "rules are rules" blogosphere gets it.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-13 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: About Michigan

I think there are some in the blogosphere that get it, but you're right the "rules are rules" people don't. I think others are biased by whether or not their candidate benefits from these actions. I like to think, were I not in Florida, that I would still stand up for what is right.

Our state Repub party started some advertising last year. They had fliers denouncing the Dems candidates for raising money here but not talking to people. They also had some milk carton ad with pics of the missing Dem candidates. They also have an ad but I'm not sure if it aired as I didn't see it myself. It's on YouTube here. I'm sure the general election will bring much more.  

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

First of all, Obama will lose GA by about 30 points so my vote really won't matter that much.  Secondly, I can't get very excited about a candidate who uses right wing talking points hence legitimizing what the GOP has to say. He doesn't understand that the GOP has be destroyed before you can work with them. Obama implies that being a democrat is a bad thing and that's not what we need right now. We do have an opportunity but he seems to totally miss the point. He's not comvincing people that Dems are better only that HE'S better. It's all about him nothing more, nothing less.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-13 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

Do you know what a sure path to losing the same states every single election is?

CONSTANTLY crowing about how we CAN'T win them!!!  

We CAN win some of the states that Obama has won.  We WILL win some of them.  I don't think negativity such as yours is productive to the cause of electing a democratic party president.

Obama implies that being a Democrat is a bad thing?  What the hell are you smoking?  He has done nothing of the sort.

You state that:

"He doesn't understand that the GOP has be destroyed before you can work with them."

You have the same mindset the GOP has, do you know that?  You are part of the problem if this is what you really believe.  

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

i think you've been way off base in much of what you're saying.

Back when I was supporting Edwards, it was him whom was the only one standing up against right wing talking points. it definitely wasn't Hillary. and it was Obama doing the attacks on mcCain (something that Hillary doesn't do forcefully).

it has never been shown to be true that Obama even implies that being a democrat is a bad thing.

and your last assertion is bullshit. he states he's a democrat throughout debates. He states that democrats as a whole will clean up the mess in Washington (whether it be him or someone else).

by alex100 2008-02-13 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Of course they'll be counted.  Obama's going to have a majority without them.

by jlk7e 2008-02-13 06:31AM | 0 recs
Well, Jerome...

...you were right about New Hampshire, so maybe she can pull it off again, but Wisconsin is the last, best shot Clinton has to stop Obama's momentum. Wisconsin has an open primary with same-day registration, a major urban area, and lots of colleges. If she can make it there, she can make it anywhere ... but I don't think she will.

by MeanBoneII 2008-02-13 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

hey ... i'm not really into the nitty gritty, and i am curious what donna brazile has done.

by toonsterwu 2008-02-13 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

She said if super delegates take the nomination away from the primary winner she would quit the party.

by inexile 2008-02-13 04:43AM | 0 recs
How dare she!

Is she proposing that the voters decide? Get the hell out of the party, Donna! ;)

by casperr 2008-02-13 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

Rules are rules..if the rules allow for superdelegates to vote how they wish, how dare she ??  

by Iskandar 2008-02-13 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

This sort of thinking is premised on the false idea that one can't do the wrong thing if one doesn't break the rules; but as Bowers at Open Left has convincingly argued, this is not a question about rules at all (since all sides will play within the rules), but about the values that guide how we operate within a given system of rules.

by seand 2008-02-13 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

Exactly. She's been adamant about how FL and MI broke the rules and shouldn't get delegates per the rules. Now she's complaining about the rules that allow superdelegates to vote as they please.

And there's a hypocrisy there that is hard to overlook. You can disenfranchise some people because the rules allow it. But don't disenfranchise others because the rules allow it.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

This is ridiculous.  She's not saying it would be against the rules for the superdelegates to give the nomination to a candidate who didn't win the pledged delegates.

She's saying it would be wrong for them to do so, and a terrible idea.  Obviously, the superdelegates can vote for whoever they like.

They could all decide to vote for Mike Gravel, and thus throw the contest into multiple ballots.  The basic issue is that if Obama is winning the pledged delegate count by any reasonable amount, it would be political suicide for the party if the superdelegates gave the nod to Clinton.

by jlk7e 2008-02-13 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

I didn't say that she said it was against the rules. In fact I said "But don't disenfranchise others because the rules allow it." THE RULES ALLOW IT.

Don't change what I said and then call it ridiculous.

I agree she is saying it would be wrong. And that is the hypocrisy. You don't get to disenfranchise one group and justify it by saying you allowed per the rules and then complain about rules which allow the disenfranchisement of others.

I have no problem with someone arguing the superdelegates overriding the voters is wrong. I actually agree. But once you've disenfranchised a group of people and justified it because it's in the rules, you lose credibility in complaining that other rules shouldn't be allowed because they disenfranchise people.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

The Michigan and Florida democratic parties have disenfranchised those people, by refusing to hold contests which would allow them to send delegates to the convention.

The fact that quasi-elections were held in those states is irrelevant - they weren't real elections, and they were voted in by people who assumed their vote wouldn't count.  The insult to democracy is to go, after the fact, and treat those results as though they're real election results.

by jlk7e 2008-02-15 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

She's not being a hypocrite, she's saying that her conscience will not allow her to stay if that occurs. As someone from CT, where the speaker of the State House kept his role in the party while supporting Joe Lieberman after the primary, I appreciate when someone feels they can't do what their conscience dictates and stay in the party.

If you had DNC members threatening to resign if FL or MI weren't seated, then they'd be in the same position. Funny how none of them feel that strongly about it.

by scvmws 2008-02-13 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

Yes she is being a hypocrite. You ignored how that conflicts with her opinion that disenfranchising FL and MI voters is ok because it is allowed and part of the rules. That's the part that makes her a hypocrite.

USA Today

Donna Brazile, who ran former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000 and is a member of the rules panel, said she hopes the vote will "send a message to everybody in Florida that we are going to follow the rules."

Washington Post

Despite claims to the contrary, the DNC is on firm legal ground. The question was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981, when it ruled that the national parties, not the states, determine the rules governing their respective presidential nominating processes. Failure to apply the rules would have been an affront to the states that adhered to them -- and an invitation for more states to break them.

The rules allowed the DNC to take away all the delegates. It didn't matter that it disenfranchised millions of loyal dems who hadn't had a part in changing the schedule. It was allowed so disenfranchising voters was ok.

The rules allow the superdelegates to vote however they want. Doesn't matter that it would disenfranchise millions of loyal dems who didn't create that rule. It is allowed.

You should worry about everyone having the right to vote and that vote being counted not just the ones who vote how you wish.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

No, she's not -- she just isn't doing what you want.

I don't think the word "hypocrite" means what you think it does. I've found that a lot of the more hyperventilating types use it as a smart-people synonym for "asshole." Which is fine -- you might think Donna Brazile is an asshole. But a hypocrite she is not.

by scvmws 2008-02-13 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

hyp·o·crite      ˈhɪpəkrɪt Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
1.    a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Tell me how this doesn't apply.

Situation 1 - Rules are more important than people's vote.

Situation 2 - People's votes are more important than the rules.

She has taken both positions. In the first she voted to remove the votes over breaking the rules. In the second, she says she'll quit the party if the rules override people's votes. How is that not hypocritical?

I don't think she's an asshole. And I'm not hyperventilating.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

She accepts the rules in both cases, she just doesn't want to associate herself with the party if the superdelegates reject the party rank and file's choice. Keep in mind that there are enough states left that Clinton could take the popular vote, and Brazile is arguing for her position and not for a candidate.

You're reducing the issue to such Orwellian abstractions that you're simply not conveying anything observable or meaningful apart from your dislike for Brazile's preferences.

by scvmws 2008-02-13 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

She accepts the rules in both cases, she just doesn't want to associate herself with the party if the superdelegates reject the party rank and file's choice.

Which is allowed according to the party rules. The party rules which she had no problem with before. Show me her ever complaining about the superdelegates. She's not only a superdelegate, she's in a position of power within the DNC to change these things and yet has she?

She disagrees with the rule. You can't parse it to be she's ok with the rule as long as it is never applied. If the rule is wrong because it can override the voters, which is a fact she is well aware of, why is she only NOW saying it is wrong? She's not like a regular voter who may not have known. She would have at least known the rules when she ran Gore's campaign.

Observable or meaningful? I gave you quotes of her justifying the disenfranchisement of voters because it is allowed under the rules. You know how she voted in the R&B committee. You can see her opinion on superdelegates. Which part isn't observable or meaningful for you?

Orwellian abstractions? I guess if you don't have any facts you just keep resorting to name calling.

Fact - she voted to disenfranchise FL voters
Fact - she justified it by stating it was within the rules
Fact - she doesn't want other voters disenfranchised even though it is within the rules
Fact - she's a hypocrite (see previous definition)

Where are your facts? How do you even post that she is ok with a rule, but if it's used will leave the party? How in the world do you think that translates into her being ok with the rule?

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: How dare she!

I wrote to her at Georgetown ... EVERYBODY needs to write to her. she told me it didn't have anything to do with Obama .... yeah right. Then I quoted her:

Oh please...

Over 45% of our delegates will be chosen on that day and if you don't think that we have political power, just wait until February 5th, 2008, we can determine the next nominee of the Democratic Party. We can also expand the number of African Americans who are holding political power. We can also build upon the success of Barack Obama. ... We have enormous political power and its time that we leverage it, and we build upon it, and we expand it...

Honestly, Obama is not the reason. It's people like you that matters most

You are dishonest ...

Why change the rules NOW ?

CNN is being contacted.
Media Matters is being contacted

by IndyRobin 2008-02-13 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Since it appears no one can answer your question, She was Gore's campaign manager.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

All the candidates were equally complicit in the DNC decision when they signed the 4-state pledge.  Had even one of them rejected it, they likely all would have and there could have been real campaigns in those states.  Clinton and Obama played by the rules that were set, and now Clinton wants to back out of her pledge when she needs the delegates to be viable.

One interesting proposal I've seen has this going to the credentials committee, which will be split 50/50 Clinton/Obama.  They will likely agree to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan at a 50/50 ratio between the candidates.  That way those states get seated, AND they don't affect the outcome of the nomination.

by Vox Populi 2008-02-13 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

The credentials committee does not automatically split. There are 25 members elected by the DNC, and 144 elected by the state delegations. The campaigns are awarded members by teir share of the results in each state.

by PantherDem 2008-02-13 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I'm assuming the pro-Clinton and pro-Obama forces will each be about 50%.  Sorry I didn't make that clear.

by Vox Populi 2008-02-13 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

My understanding is that the candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. No more, no less. People keep referring to this mysterious "pledge," and claiming that it included all sorts of promises by the candidates. I'd be interested to see if anyone can come up with an actual text that says the candidates pledged not to support the seating of the delegations.

by ChrisO 2008-02-13 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I think Obama should propose to Clinton that the 2 campaigns agree to finance new DNC sanctioned primaries in May in FL and MI. Florida is very important in the general and a campaign in May will be money well spent. Then we shall see how much Hillary really cares about the voters voice in these states.

by hankg 2008-02-13 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Excellent idea. If we're going to count those states, we clearly need some way to have a do-over. No campaign = no informed vote.

Going forward, I wish the DNC would just go to regional primaries. Break the country up into 5 (or however many) regions, and rotate the order that they vote every 4 years.

by PhilFR 2008-02-13 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I don't thinks he can afford it.

He needs to cut a deal where he gets all the unaffiliated in Michigan (and Florida if he can swing it) and limits the impact ofthe two states on his lead.  Simple, easy and leaves it to just the SDs.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

what difference would that make?  you're still disenfranchising those voters no matter how "fairly" you apportion their votes.

the only way to fix this is to ASK THEM.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-13 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

The reason Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada were selected to go first was because they emphasized retail politics and were regionally representative. They are not punished the same because their moving their dates did not violate the Democratic Party's intent by having them  go first - allow fresh blood into the party that is representational of the smaller states.

MI and FL are big states that require big money and name recognition to win. That is why they were NOT allowed to go first and why ALL their delegates were removed. Because their moves violated the very intent of restrictions in the first place.

Now, you want to reinstate them before a candidate is determined - thus negating the entire strategy of the party to allow new voices to get a foothold before name recognition of establishment candidates comes into play.

So much for party rules and desires. If it is allowed to happen - it will split the party.

by CB Todd 2008-02-13 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

The potential of superdelegates to swing the race one way or another doesn't bother me in the slightest. That was a known quantity, and none of the candidates objected to it. If Clinton wins in this fashion, after a week or two of grumbling, I'll cheerfully vote for her in November.

Rewarding bad behavior by the Florida and Michigan state parties might be a deal breaker for me. I wouldn't vote for McCain, but I might very well skip the Presidential vote.

Then again, I live in Indiana, so neither Democratic candidate is likely to get those electoral votes in any case. On the other hand, living in Indiana ---with a May primary-- might explain why I'm not overly sympathetic to Michigan or Florida voters with an unrealistic sense of entitlement as to how much of a voice they should have in the Presidential primary.  

by mhojo 2008-02-13 09:40AM | 0 recs
so win without Michigan and Florida

good luck with that.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-13 10:39AM | 0 recs
Following The DNC's Decision

You think that's a tactical maneuver? Damn.

I haven't for the life of me been able to figure out how a former Dean guy could turn so dramatically toward Hillary Clinton in this election. But I think this week I finally understood something about your psychology Jerome: you're pathologically unable to support a winner.

by HatchInBrooklyn 2008-02-13 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Jerome, no you are not a paid shill for Clinton, but you are the ONLY person on the web still trying to pretend that Clinton is winning.

by wasder 2008-02-13 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I have no dog in this fight, but your comment is bizzare. A little exercise- cut and paste where he says what you wrote from his diary above. If you can't do that, question your own biases and realize them for what they are.

by bruh21 2008-02-13 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Not trying to be overly negative and sorry if it came off that way but every time I come to this site after an evening of Obama wins there is a post that seems to be siding with Clinton, always putting the results in the best possible light for Clinton. Jerome is a very intelligent person with great analytic skills and with his "whistling past the graveyard" he looks as out of touch as Hillary did last night in her speech in El PAso. Specifically about this post I am referring to this section:

Here's the state of the race that includes all 50 states:

Clinton leads Obama, 1127 to 1119, in pledged delegates.    

Clinton leads Obama, 240 to 140, in super-delegates.

Jerome is the only pundit or writer who I have read this morning, and I have read many, who had this kind of response to Obama's blow out last night.

by wasder 2008-02-13 05:50AM | 0 recs
independent thinkers

There was a time when blogs were a place where people challenged the conventional wisdom. Now we are down to a handful of sites like MyDD where people think for themselves instead of parroting what is on the TV shows.

by souvarine 2008-02-13 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Its all about sources.  Jeromes are more conservative in their counts.  Its fine.  Chill the fuck out.  Please.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

How about Armando over at Talkleft?  I'd say he's actually worse than Jerome.

Clinton's done.  Put a fork in her. Etc. etc.  People in Ohio and Texas want to vote for the nominee, not vote to drag this thing out until August.  

Michigan and Florida are going to be irrelevant.

by jlk7e 2008-02-13 06:36AM | 0 recs
Hacks rather than analysts, this is the problem

It's fine to support a candidate, quite another to have trouble acknowledging reality.  I don't come here to have Hugh Hewitt style rants in favor of Hilary OR Obama.

by jc 2008-02-13 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I assumed this post was the precursor to dumping the non-MI/FL counter from the sidebar.

by scvmws 2008-02-13 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I'm so sorry.
But where are you getting your numbers Jerome?
CNN says Obama is leading after, after super delegates. After.

HRC had lot of supers because she was the "inevitable winner." The heir presumptive. But she has lost. Lost the primary.
Supers have allowed they will not vote for her to take the nomination away from the earned delegate winner.
Obama now has 1059 in elected and caucused delegates, HRC has 956. Thats CNN, and they have Obama leading 1215 to 1190 after 'superdelegates' are added.

Thats 25 votes into the Florida and Michigan "delegates". I know Maryland and Virginia are old deeply blue states, and they don't have any lunch-box democrats, and they are mostly AA. So these races dont matter. Where will it turn around? Never.

Glen Smith who just started posting about Texas for mydd.com, uses these words about a snowball's chances in Texas:

Clinton's delegate comeback won't start here. She'd be trying to end a drought with a tear.

This is just a "stay in the race, don't jump ship" article for campaign workers, but really let the candidate do that on their own site. Not here.

by inexile 2008-02-13 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Well, now that Glen Smith has called the contest, I guess there's no reason to even campaign there. Why is it people continue to think the fact that they live in a state gives them some special wisdom to say what the outcome of the vote will be? I recall a lot of Californians posting all over the web,"I don't know anyone who's voting for Hillary," as if that's somehow definitive.

This isn't to say that someone can't provide insight into the workings of their particular state, but calling the outcome is a bit much.

by ChrisO 2008-02-13 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

It won't count because Glen Smith handicapped it!

by scvmws 2008-02-13 07:11AM | 0 recs
those races DO matter

to the voters in Florida and Michigan.  Good luck winning in November without them.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-13 10:41AM | 0 recs
Missing the Forest for the Trees

I can't decipher he arcane DNC rules any better than anybody else. But I can testify to what the candidates believed and pledged themselves to do back in the fall. Regardless of the rules, which stripped MI and FL but not IA, NH and SC, all the candidates vowed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. The point at the time was to emphasize the illegitimacy of the FL and MI primaries. Obama AND Clinton agreed to that principle, largely because neither wanted to piss off Iowa or New Hampshire. As a result, nobody campaigned in either state and voters knew that their primary amounted to little more than a beauty contest.

Under those conditions, there is simply no way that one can accept the FL and MI delegates as they were chosen. It was not a real contest, despite the national media narrative. There were no rallies, no local TV ad buys, no GOTV operation, no phone banking, nothing.

There are only two fair options right now. 1) Hold a re-vote under DNC mandate in May. Or 2) Enforce the rules as they are now and keep MI and FL out until it is certain that they do not tip the balance of the race in EITHER direction.

by elrod 2008-02-13 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Forest for the Trees

More than that--Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan, a state that he surely would have carried had the rules not been set up the way they were.

Obama has won seven out of seven contested Midwestern primaries and caucuses. He has dominated the farmbelt, and he would have swamped Clinton in Detroit, too. Instead, Clinton got the state--her only midwestern victory so far--by default. And NOW Jerome wants to count those delegates? Talk about unfair to Obama! There would be rioting in the streets if Hillary got the nomination that way, followed by a massive stand-down among African-Americans in November.

I thought the rule stripping the FL and MI delegates was stupid, too. It should not have been done. However, once they did it over our objection, and the candidates acted based on that decision, it became too late to do a "just kidding" on it.

by admiralnaismith 2008-02-13 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Forest for the Trees

how familiar are you with Michigan?  Because you're argument doesn't sound right to me.  WHEN Detroit turns out they can effect an election in Michigan, but they don't control them.  Registration is abysmal, transportation is horrific.

Michigan is not Kansas fer cripes sake.  It's not a midwestern state by any means.  It's a rust belt state getting it's ass kicked economically.  It's an anomoly this election year without straight comparisons anywhere else.  

I wouldn't assume for one minute Obama would have carried Michigan.  I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't assume it.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-13 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Very good case, Jerome. Julian Bond's letter to the DNC gives me hope that the DNC will reverse this perverse decision on MI and FL. The point has been raised that in Florida, the legislature--Republican majority--established the date for the primary.

For all the screaming from Obama shill Josh Marshall at TPM about "the rules," it's shocking and disappointing to see progressives trying to make the case that Democrats in 2 states shouldn't have their votes counted toward the Democratic Party nominee. If the Democratic Party nomination rests on disenfranchisement of Democrats' votes in those states, you can count on handing those two states to Republicans in November.

by Tennessean 2008-02-13 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

If you're going to look at civil rights leaders, consider Al Sharpton. Last night he made a civil rights case AGAINST seating MI and FL. Regardless of the merits of his or Bond's case, it's unlikely that the DNC will see seating the MI and FL delegates as a civil rights issue.

by elrod 2008-02-13 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I've been arguing from the beginning that we need to give the voters a valid election in FL and MI.  Voters in the state were told not just by the DNC but also by the national and local media that this wasn't a valid primary election.  Because of that, some people didn't bother voting.

To now say it really was a valid vote is suddenly making a poll or straw poll an election.

I've lived in the UK and watched a national election called and held in 17 working days.  There's no reason we can't have a vote for FL and MI in May.  I suggest we pressure the state Democratic parties and DNC to do this.  

by mijita 2008-02-13 04:48AM | 0 recs
shocking and disappointing

What's shocking and disappointing is that people see nothing wrong with persuading all but one candidate to stay off the ballot based on the assurance that the contest will not count--and then crowning the establishment candidate based on that vote.

The DNC shot themselves in one foot already. To "change their minds" after the fact in order to take the nomination away from the popularly-supported candidate--who would surely have WON Michigan if he had been on the ballot and campaigned there--would be to shoot themselves in the other foot. Probably fatally.

by admiralnaismith 2008-02-13 06:07AM | 0 recs
depends on who did the persuading

Since reports say it was Obama, I don't have much sympathy about Michigan. He made a tactical error there, just as Hillary made a tactical error not contesting many of the smaller caucus states.

by souvarine 2008-02-13 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: depends on who did the persuading

You are correct.  Mark Brewer, head of the Michigan Democractic Party also confirmed this on "The Thom Hartmann Show" the other day.  All the candidates' names were on the ballot until the very last day, when they made an affirmative decision to remove them, so as not to upset the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. The state party was told the delegates would be seated at the convention (inplying this was all for show).  Obama and Edwards and their supporters actively encouraged and advterised for their supporters to vote "uncommitted" so when they were seated at the convention, these delegates could (hopefully) vote for one of them instead of Sen Clinton.

And as someone who just moved from Michigan, I will be extremely PISSED if they have a re-do.  You can't go back in time to have the same information available to the same voter pool.  And if they do a caucus, which a) hasn't been done in Michigan before, so imagine all the screw-ups and potential problems (and potential challenges to the outcome by either party), b)and which have been proven to be inherently unfair to many voters (which is why some states like Washington changed from a caucus to a primary format), then there will be outrage.

I say the fair thing to do, even though it rewards Obama for a tactical decision that did not go his way, is to spilt Michigan 50/50, and seat the Florida delegates as is (since his name was on the ballot and he did campaign there).

by cmugirl90 2008-02-13 08:59AM | 0 recs

to this...

What's shocking and disappointing is that people see nothing wrong with persuading all but one candidate to stay off the ballot based on the assurance that the contest will not count--and then crowning the establishment candidate based on that vote.

by wasder 2008-02-13 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

halve the total delegates michigan and florida get, and give all the uncommitted to obama, and i'll be fine with it.
 or at least i won't be furious.

the uncommitted should be awarded to obama of course, because they're essentially the "anyone but hillary vote"

and obama is not hillary.

by Lazeriath 2008-02-13 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I think this is the best answer. It's cheap, it helps Clinton, but not enough to really make a difference, which is kind of the point.

by Jawis 2008-02-13 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Even just seat half as they are.  Clinton needs to start winning some of the states.  She has to at least stop losing by such large margins.  I mean, regardless of the Florida/Michigan thing, she is going to have a string of losses since Super Tuesday that all have margins over 15%.  This is painful.  On the other side, I think Obama has only 3 states in all that have Clinton winning by a margin of 15%.  Obama has a ton that he has won with a margin of over 20%.

by Tantris 2008-02-13 06:01AM | 0 recs
Know how I know Team Obama is in good shape?

Because the Clinton camp increasingly sounds like a bunch of Cubs fans (and I say this as a Diehard Cubs fan myself).

Every summer since the early 80s - I've spent August and September -- and even October, on occasion - pining for the miracle 30 game winning streak to leapfrog 3 other teams, that endless string of of two-out hits in the bottom of the 9th...

Sure - it isn't over... However - we're well past the halfway mark.   Team Clinton has exactly one truly good looking state left (PA), another decent looking state (OH), and they're banking on another that's looking tough to read (TX).

It's definitely not over.  There's work to be done.  

But "FAR" from over?  I don't think so.  We've rounded the bend.  We're more than halfway done.

by zonk 2008-02-13 04:32AM | 0 recs
Cubs vs. Royals

For what its worth, I'm a Royals fan and have tried to spin eight game or ten game losing streaks.

It doesn't work.

by ChrisR 2008-02-13 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Cubs vs. Royals

I'm a Cardinal fan who still remembers 1987.  Let's remember that the streak started in Missouri!  I think Obama can win Missouri in November but we will have to squeze every vote out of St. Louis & St. Louis County.

by howardpark 2008-02-13 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over


IMHO, we won't get to that point.  Hillary will drop out shortly before Ohio and Texas.  If she loses one.

She won't have enough $ to proceed (we still don't know how much of the $10M is allocated for the primary contest, or whether that $10M or merely self-reporting).

Obama starts picking up super delegates at a brisk pace starting today and for the next 10 days.

Here's my larger point:  you've given us an argument that Hillary is alive.  What's one in which she wins and has any kind of legitimacy?  Wins Ohio and Texas 60-40%, a margin that seems wildly unrealistic once Obama's bump is factored in?  Win Wisconsin, which she is absent?  

You're left with superdelegates, who won't do it alone.  You're left with Michigan and Florida, who won't be seated unless they are irrelevant b/c of the makeup of the Credentials Committee.

by ChrisR 2008-02-13 04:32AM | 0 recs
I thought this was already cleared up

If you go to http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/11/1442 34/675

you will see a post that explains why the other states mentioned by Jerome above were not in violation of the Rules.

Essentially it said that the states aren't in violation if there was a state law that dictated when primaries/caucuses must be held.  

"In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law,..  

the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee MAY determine that all or a portion of the state's delegation SHALL NOT be reduced. "

by highgrade 2008-02-13 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought this was already cleared up

And Florida Democrats went along with Florida Republicans in supporting the January primary. They voted almost unanimously for the early primary and made no effort to stop it.

by elrod 2008-02-13 04:50AM | 0 recs
Oh, come on, now.

According to the rules laid out by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, South Carolina's primary was supposed to be held before Feb. 5. Florida and Michigan were NOT supposed to be held before Feb. 5. South Carolina was supposed to be the fourth contest. It ended up going fifth, because Michigan said to hell with the rules and jumped ahead of it.

That particular race is exactly as invalid as FL or MI.

Utterly preposterous.

by MeanBoneII 2008-02-13 05:23AM | 0 recs
The key word you failed to bold is...

..."provided." Read ALL of section A, not just part of one sentence. Section A in its entirety clearly means that no other state may schedule ahead of Feb. 5, PROVIDED that Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina schedule their contests no earlier than X days before Feb. 5.

Michigan and Florida then proceeded to flagrantly violate the clearly stated rules by moving ahead of Feb. 5. That resulted in the other states adjusting their dates in reaction to the violations by Michigan and Florida. Florida even scheduled its primary on what was supposed to be South Carolina's date.

Once the rules were broken by Michigan and Florida, it's ridiculous to blame the states that were supposed to go before Feb. 5 for making minor adjustments in reaction to the violations by Michigan and Florida.

by MeanBoneII 2008-02-13 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The key word you failed to bold is...

It would be like prosecuting a law-abiding driver whose car was rear-ended by a reckless driver, causing it to bump the car in front of it. It makes no sense, so it doesn't happen. The reckless driver is the one who gets fined.

by MeanBoneII 2008-02-13 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought this was already cleared up

Michigan's primary date was fixed by state law and upheld by the state Supreme Court, so according to your analysis, either Iowa and NH get stripped  or Michigan should count.

by cmugirl90 2008-02-13 09:10AM | 0 recs
Sore Loser?

I agree, this race is far from over...but we are on the final lap. If the exit polls next Tuesday show Obama continuing to win Clinton's base, then the writing is on the wall.

Jerome, I respect your opinions. And like you, I had hoped for Governor Warner and/or Al Gore to enter this race. I respect this website. My politics professor used this site as reference daily for the 2004 Presidential Election.

However, this site has become the last bastion of unrealistic Clinton support on the internet. Perhaps Hillary can somehow maneuver her to the nomination. And if she is the nominee, I will support her.

But the writing is on the wall Jerome. Don't be like Senator Clinton and pretend like nothing has happened since Super Tuesday. Congratulate Senator Obama, get ready to rally behind the nominee, and let us beat the Bush-McCain Republicans.

by NJPolitico84 2008-02-13 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Sore Loser?

which big name political managers are available?

by lilly15 2008-02-13 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: But what do we do?

Yikes !!!

How can we force a floor fight? ohhh myyy gotterdammerung  

If you want supers to jump ship en mass, try that. See all 796 of them announce for Obama at once.
Thats just bat shit crazy.

by inexile 2008-02-13 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: But what do we do?

Ha ha ha!!! A floor fight? A FLOOR FIGHT?

Give me a break. Hillary drops out March 6th. Then you guys can have your own floor fight or pillow fight or whatever.

by pastor john 2008-02-13 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: But what do we do?

Go away.

Do not visit his site he's ewww, ewww a republican.

by inexile 2008-02-13 04:55AM | 0 recs
I announce it here first!!

The republicans are going to announce they are responsible for Obama. And then use that to make him lose teh race.


Republicans, lol ha ha ha.

Obama won more votes than all republican candidates combined BTW, In every state last night.
Didnt Virginia used to be republican?

From exit polling

According to CNN exit polling, 3 percent of people who voted in Democratic primaries on Super Tuesday described themselves as Republicans -- most of them backing Obama. That same percentage of Maryland voters in Tuesday's Democratic contest identified themselves with the GOP.

by inexile 2008-02-13 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: But what do we do?

Work damn hard for Obama. Get people onside now. Obama wins enough, it looks to be happening, no matter what Jerome says, that It doesnt matter what happens with Florida or Michigan. We are getting very close to that.

Look Obama won over-sixty-white voters last night, won blue collar workers, won women. Where is HRC's base? Who does she appeal to?

And young voters flocked to the Obama campaign, the polls suggest. Seventy-five percent of poll respondents under 30 and 67 percent of those under 45 voted for him in Virginia. Those numbers were 68 percent and 71 percent in Maryland.

However, Obama also edged Clinton -- 52-47 -- among voters over 60 in Virginia and 50 percent of those voters in Maryland, compared with 46 percent for Clinton.

And he split white votes about 50-50 with Clinton in both states -- edging her 50-49 in Virginia and trailing 51-46 in Maryland. That's a big change from previous contests in which Clinton held a big lead over Obama among white Democrats.

Look Dean stood up months ago, the Democratic Party, said directly and publicly and loudly "If you do that, youe delegates will not be seated." The Florida party said so what.

Seating the 'delegates' will not win the nomination for Clinton. There is no solution to that problem.

If a caucus can be held, thats fine, Delaware was forced to redo, in much the same manner, in 2000.

I support a landslide in the remaining states for Obama, which seems quite possible, and making the problem irrelevant. I support HRC resigning from the race in time to heal the wounds these 'irregularities' have caused.

HRC fighting in the Senate is a solution.

BTW Obama made it to the Senate yesterday to vote against telecom wiretapping immunity, the only Presidential candidate who did.

by inexile 2008-02-13 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: But what do we do?

I support HRC resigning from the race in time to heal the wounds these 'irregularities' have caused.

I said this wrong, my bad. There are no wounds. nothing to heal. Here's what I should have said.

I support HRC accepting the will of her party, in time to prevent the wounds these 'irregularities' would have caused.

Again my apologies to HRC and all others. This is none of her doing.

by inexile 2008-02-13 05:37AM | 0 recs
Huckaby announces the race is far from over.

Plans to stay for all 50 states.

Note: There are some big name campaign managers available now. If anyone is hiring

by inexile 2008-02-13 04:37AM | 0 recs
Don't worry, Jerome!

Michigan and Florida will be seated! Dean will probably split their delegate counts  50/50 between Obama/HRC.

by pastor john 2008-02-13 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't worry, Jerome!

It's not Dean's decision. The convention decides.

by PantherDem 2008-02-13 04:43AM | 0 recs

All of this gets decided well before the convention. Do any of you people really think Obama and Hillary are going to just hang out and chill for two months after June 4th?

by pastor john 2008-02-13 04:51AM | 0 recs

Any deal that's struck has to be approved by a majority of delegates.

by PantherDem 2008-02-13 04:57AM | 0 recs

The majority of pledged delegates...not including MI and FL.  Which means Obama will probably control the credentials committee.  

by telephasic 2008-02-13 05:14AM | 0 recs

It's the majority of delegates, period, not including Michigan and Florida.

by PantherDem 2008-02-13 05:20AM | 0 recs

Which means that unless he is so way far ahead in delegate count, he has the choice (or his "people" will have the choice) to a) seat the delegates and have their candidate lose, or b) tell almost 2 million voters in Michigan and Florida that they are not welcome. Sounds like a lose-lose situation.

by cmugirl90 2008-02-13 09:13AM | 0 recs
he has intermediate solutions...

Including seating both states but counting undeclared for himself, and halving the number of delegates.  

by telephasic 2008-02-13 11:36AM | 0 recs
Hold new primaries or caucuses in FL+MI

That's the right way to make them count (despite the fact they selfishly jumped ahead of other states).

DNC can easily fund the cost of such elections by holding an offline/online fund-raiser.

BTW, since Obama wasn't on the ballot, one can look at how MI would have voted had he been on the ballot (i.e. been on the ballot but still w/o campaigning). The result was: C:46%, O:35%, E:12%, which gives only a 13 delegate edges among pledged delegates, even if you want to use the current non-contest MI "primary" results.

In the FL beauty contest, HRC gets an edge of 31 delegates.

That's a total of 44 edge for Clinton in the beauty contest FL, non-contest MI combined:

Obama leads by 125 in all the real contests so far (i.e. not counting FL and MI):

RCP Pledged Delegates

Obama: 1104
Clinton: 979

i.e. even after counting in beauty contest FL, non-contest MI, Obama still has 125-44 = 81 pledged delegate edge for Obama.

But, as I said, the right approach is to re-vote in FL and MI.

ps: I knew that FL+MI would be the Clintonite spin after getting butt-kicked royally all over the place in the last 8 contests.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-02-13 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

THe thing is rules are rules.
If I am the DNC, I would allow FL half the delegates, and run a caucus in MI and swallow the extra cost involved. Make both campaigns volunteer some of their funds to run a reelection in MI. Sure it will be expensive, but won't it be a drop in the bucket in the expenses involved in this year long process and won't it be worth removing the headaches the bad PR not granting the delegates to MI will get?

I say accept FL as is since Obama and Hillary both ran, and run a reelection or caucus in MI.

As a Deaniac, I am very disappointed in this massive boneheaded move by Dean to let things go this way. I was behind him all the way in 2006. But he needs to be accountable for this move.

What confuses me is why did all the other Democratic Party bigwigs just stand idly by while this was going on? Why didn't they show more urgency in convincing the DNC that this will result in such bad PR that they need to work doubly hard to work out a compromise well in advance?

by Pravin 2008-02-13 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over
You're ignoring the fact that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina moved their caucuses/primaries forward because of, i.e., in response to the rule violations of Michigan and Florida.

You're ignoring the fact that the same rules you point to specifically provide for Iowa's, New Hampshire's, and South Carolina's respective privileged positions in the nominating calendar, barring rule violation on the part of other states.

You're ignoring the fact that at the time Michigan and Florida held their respective nominating contests, they did so with the full knowledge that their delegates would not be counted, according to the DNC's decision-- and that this doubtlessly affected voter turnout.

You're likewise ignoring the fact that at the time Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina held their respective contests, they did so with the full knowledge that the DNC had enacted upon them no such penalties-- those voters were as sure their votes would count when they cast them as were Michiganders and Floridians sure that their votes would not.

by satyr9us 2008-02-13 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

"And Florida Democrats went along with Florida Republicans in supporting the January primary. They voted almost unanimously for the early primary and made no effort to stop it."

Could someone address why the Democratic Primary had to be held at the same time as the Republican Primary? And why the DNC did NOT think that was a good enough excuse to allow them to go forward without penalty.

by CB Todd 2008-02-13 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Because the state of Florida foots the bill.  That's the way it works in Florida.  The state pays for the elections... not the parties.


by samizdat 2008-02-13 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

just to add to that...  if the DNC wants to start paying for it... they can force the issue a bit more, but I don't see that happening.

by samizdat 2008-02-13 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

As an Obama supporter I could not agree more with Jerome that the people of Florida & Michigan need to be represented.  They should have a fair delegate selection proceedure and there is plenty of time for that.  There will be peace in Denver!

by howardpark 2008-02-13 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

MI and FL HAVE been represented..the problem is that their representatives .... by moving up the contests, eliminated the process of candidates to compete in the state.

Seating them now after a vote in which only one candidate was on the ballot (MI) and only one candidate visited the state (FL) does not represent anything at all.  

Any amount of delegates in Fl or MI...should the party choose to seat them at the convention, must be required to follow the will of the rest of the nation, and submit their count for whomever has the most primary delegates.  

That is the only way to seat them at this time.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-13 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Both Clinton and Obama went to Florida to hold fund raisers which was allowed under the rules they all agreed to. Only one actually held a press conference afterwards which wasn't allowed.  

by gomer 2008-02-13 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Thank you.  I have been concerned about Howard Dean from the get go.  Love the permalink feature.

Nice work.

by darlamc 2008-02-13 05:12AM | 0 recs
Holy Crap, A Breath of Sanity
Thank You Jerome. This is one of the best posts on the campaign by a lefty political junky in weeks. kos, bowers, stoller, marshall, and others have become unreadable because of their rapid Obama boostereering. Thank goodness Atrios and Digby have had the good sense to stay away from the crap. Quite frankly, the others sound mostly like the wingnuts they so often rail against.
by gak 2008-02-13 05:14AM | 0 recs
Be Reasonable Everybody

MI and FL cannot be counted AS IS; the party, even Hillary HERSELF said that those states would not matter.  Any argument to the contrary, smacks of desperation, and is ill-becoming of anyone who holds logic in high regard over pie-eyed loyalty.

I like and respect Hillary, but her problems are self-made.

1) She supported Deans FL/MI action WHOLEHEARTEDLY..until the sheen of inevitibility was torn from her.

2) Her OVER-USE of "battle-tested" is killing her. It's hard to argue that you can demolish John McCain when you can't decisively defeat an opponent who came from nowhere, with no national name recognition, in your own party's primary.

3) Her campaign has been far too traditional. She spent freakin' MILLIONS on a a Hallmark town hall meeting that only 250,000 people watched.  more than 1 million people a day see the Will.I.am. video, and Barack Obama did not spend a penny on it.

She should drop out BEFORE TX and OH, if she can't win WI by more than 8 points.  Really.  There is no way she can win by the same sort of majorities she  will need to in order to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates.  To stay in longer, is to show petulance.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-13 05:16AM | 0 recs
What really burns me up
isn't that FL or MI "broke any rules," it's that ALL candidates, HLC included, signed that pledge to respect the first four states, and abide by the DNCs decision on this (however right or wrong it was), and now that she's won them, HLC is all for seating them. To me, it's indicative of the Clinton's penchant for doing what's politically expedient for them and them alone.
by pholkhero 2008-02-13 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: What really burns me up

You can make an argument to say that in fact she didn't "win" anything at all...given the fact that no one was on the ballot in MI except her, and that no one ...other than Hillary made an appearence in FL.  

It does demonstrate a regrettable lack of substance on her campaign's part.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-13 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: What really burns me up

And if Obama had won, you guys would have left the votes on the table and just followed the rules?   RIGHT!!!!

by Iskandar 2008-02-13 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: What really burns me up

Yes, because I would bet he'd do well enough that HE wouldn't need them.  And I would be correct.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: What really burns me up

As has been stated many times, the argument that no one else was on the ballot is a non-starter. Obama willingly took his name off the ballot. It was his decision, it wasn't required by the pledge, and he has to live with it.

And saying no one other than Hillary made an appearance in Florida is an outright falsehood. Although I don't think it's significant enough to raise a stink about, the fact is that Obama went much further than Clinton in violating the pledge, and the evidence points to the fact that he knew exactly what he was doing.

And as I've stated elsewhere, I think people are making a lot of assumptions about the pledge that are unsupported by any facts. Where does it say the candidates pledged to abide by any decision the DNC made about seating delegates? My understanding is that the pledge was strictly that the candidates wouldn't campaign in the two states, and Obama vilolated that pledge more than Hillary.

And by the way, it's also my understanding that the pledge was made not to the DNC, but to the four early primary states. Which is how Obama can make his laughable assertion that the South Carolina Dems gave him their permission to run ads in Florida.

by ChrisO 2008-02-13 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: What really burns me up

You can state all you want... you are wrong.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: What really burns me up

Indeed.  There weren't any complaints from the Clinton campaign when this procedure was agreed upon.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 05:27AM | 0 recs
Adios Dems

If MI & FL are seated as is, without new primaries or caucuses, and swing the election to Clinton that's the end of the Democratic party. It's a lot easier to again explain to the voters of FL & MI that their state party screwed up and that's who they should blame, than it is to the rest of the country, a majority of whom at this point have voted for Obama.  Lose a few % of the voters nationslly and the dems are done.

Shortsighted for the win I guess.

by illlaw1 2008-02-13 05:17AM | 0 recs
Why the DNC messed up

They made the decision thinking that thinks would go as they always did.  Super Tuesday would give us a clear winner and FL and MI would not matter.  Well, folks that is not how you make policy.  You make a policy based on the worst possible outcome.  Frankly, to me this looks like that lame Bush administration management style.  Inept.  They should all be sacked.  

The only good thing about Donna Brazille's idea, I want to see Ted Kennedy, Patrick and Kerry have to vote for Clinton, if they have to vote the way of their state.  Ahhh, that would be worth it.  

by Iskandar 2008-02-13 05:30AM | 0 recs
A 50 state stategy means

you CAMPAIGN in all 50 states.  Not just hold elections.  I'm pretty sure that they've always held elections in all 50 states.  The Dean/Obama 50 state strategy means that you actually try to compete in all 50 states.  If you can't compete because you're not allowed to campaign then that's not really up to Obama is it?

by recusancy 2008-02-13 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

You can scream and yell all you want about "what" the Party should do, but you're missing the point if you do not focus on "how" the decision will be made. I would actually consider it a neat summary of the fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama from the start, but I digress.

Unless I'm missing something here, the status quo is that the primaries did not produce any valid delegates. In order for that to be changed, an action of the "credentials committee" will be required. The makeup of the credentials committee will reflect the makeup of the pledged delegates elected in the 48 states that will have held valid primaries and caucuses. At this point there is a 90+% chance that Obama will end up with a substantial margin of pledged delegates. Obama's pledged delegates are not going to vote in a manner that would in effect throw the nomination to Hillary. Therefore, they will not be seated until after the first ballot.

by dmc2 2008-02-13 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

What bothers Obama supporters is that Clinton and her supporters waited until the primaries were upon us to raise objections to something they agreed to 10 months ago (the rules everyone is walking about).

I am hopeful that Obama can open up a wide enough lead so that we can seat these illegal delegates regardless, in the name of unity.

by washingtoncritic 2008-02-13 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

What bothers Obama supporters is that Clinton and her supporters waited until the primaries were upon us to raise objections to something they agreed to 10 months ago (the rules everyone is walking about).

I understand that, but I have a pretty long history on this subject, all the way from the beginning, regardless of who would win in either state.

I was in Chicago at the DNC 2006 summer meetings and still have notes there from talking with others (this is when Warner was still in it), that we were headed for exactly this sort of clusterfuck.

I don't really care whether Clinton campaigned in the states or not, or what she said on the matter. I want the states to be able to determine their own process, and this is as good of a vehicle as any to make that happen going forward.  We set the precedent here, and it's finished.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

You do have a long history and I applaud that.  She does not.  My feeling is that if the DNC caves, their rules will never be followed.  They need to hang tough on this stupid decision.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Yeah... but what if it's a stupid rule.  Since when did we Dems sit around and uphold stupidity?


by samizdat 2008-02-13 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Here is what bothers me as an Obama supporter: the desire on the part of some vocal Clinton supporters to make the contest all about the rules with regard to superdelegates (they are free to vote for whomever they want), but all about moral case for seating the FL and MI delegates.

Obama supporters are not free of this, when they argue that the superdelegates should have to vote for the pledged delegate winner, but that the MI and FL delegates shouldn't be seated because they broke the rules.

Here is what I would like to see as far as delegate counts: either play it strictly by the rules, and count super delegates and pledged delegates, but not MI and FL delegates. Or play it by the "let the voters decide" logic, and include MI and FL but not the superdelegates.

by TimSackton 2008-02-13 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

i would not be in opposition to 50% of MI and FL delegates being counted. although I do not think it is fair.

With that being said let's not look back at bad decisions made by the DNC to strip said states while others were untouched as a reason why Hillary should get those pledged delegates. That's bull.

when it comes down to it, the decision made by the DNC is the decision that Obama and Edwards abided by. You want to penalize them for following the rules set forth by them? i hope not.

You want to call Obama's campaign a 48 state strategy? let's get real. if anyone buys into that line, then you must buy into the line that Hillary ran a sub 40 state - 2(fl, mi) primary. Since she herself of went by the rules of the committee by not advertising or campaigning in these states. yet now she says they must be counted. that double standard is shameful.

at this point, it's not that I don't like Hillary but I can not stand the double standards that come out of her campaign.

by alex100 2008-02-13 05:36AM | 0 recs
Since Obama won his first

state senate seat by a tactical move, he is certainly going to try it again this time.

by Montague 2008-02-13 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Since Obama won his first

Um no.  he won by election.  He kept someone off the ballot who lost a US house race and decided she wanted her state seat back after giving Obama her blessing.  She then tried to get on and failed to meet the requirements.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 05:50AM | 0 recs
He could simply have allowed the

voters to have more choice by allowing more candidates on the ballot.  Sorry, your pure-as-the-driven-snow guy is down in the gutter on this one.

Hillary never did anything even remotely resembling that to another Democrat, much less to someone who served as her mentor.

by Montague 2008-02-14 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I would be in favor of a do-over, but whatever happens, I don't see the whole delegations being seated.  The best I could see would be for both delegations to get half of their delegates seated(ie, the original punishment from the DNC rules).

In that case(even assuming Michigan uncommitted as uncommitted):
Clinton gets 52.5(105/2).
Obama gets 33.5(67/2).

Clinton gets 36.5(73/2).

So...in what I would consider the best case scenario for Clinton, she gains 55.5 delegates.  Obama is ahead by over 100.

I can't imagine seating 100% of the delegations.  There would probably be some deal struck with the uncommitted number in Michigan.  This doesn't change the race, unless Clinton gains a lot in the coming elections.  I don't see that happening.

by Tantris 2008-02-13 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

So why didn't Clinton champion their cause before she was desperate for their votes?

by Drummond 2008-02-13 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

That's irrelevant.  This is about a larger issue than whether Clinton benefits or not.  The fact that you don't understand that or aren't willing to saddens me, and anyone else that wants to change the Democratic party.


by samizdat 2008-02-13 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Well, it's not irrelevant.  The DNC had to do something or everybody would keep moving their primaries forward into January.  Then December.  Eventually 4 years minus 4 days before the election.

The DNC had to make a stand and the candidates were right to support the DNC.  That Clinton changed her mind later and wants to benefit from the fact that the other candidates all kept their word is most certainly part of the issue.

by Drummond 2008-02-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Wait, did the Obama push the DNC to revoke the delagates from MI and FL? I don't think they ever did. The Obama campaign's position is that the DNC revoked their delagates, and not the delagates from the other states. You can argue that was a bad decision by the DNC, but I don't see what that has to do with the Obama campaign. Are you seriously arguing that they should push the DNC to revoke more delagates? That is just ridiculous. The DNC made the rules, including the stripping of delagates, and the Obama campaign is just arguing that we should follow the current rules, which currently do not punish the other early states.

I won't call you a Clinton shill for this, but I don't think you're being anywhere near rational.

by Jawis 2008-02-13 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I want to be a paid shill... what a kick ass job!!!  ;-)  Hell I could shill for someone else if the pay is right, I'd just secretly vote for Obama!

As for what Jerome wrote...

Technically Obama can win outright, but it would require 70-30 margins for all remaining states.  I just don't see that happening.  

Its looking like at the end, even with FL and MI seated in the most advantageous way for Hillary (and I think Obama should cut a deal to keep this from happening) he could still end with a 50-150 delegate lead.  At that point SDs decide this... I think we all feel that is going to happen.  If Obama has the popular vote lead (and as of now with MI and Florida he does), and a 50-150 delegate lead after the primaries, would you STILL support Hillary doing backroom maneuvering to line up enough SDs to over turn the Pop vote and delegate totals?  You wrote about Obama cutting out Fl and Mi through legal maneuvering and its a valid point, although just as some have said Hillary has the right to ride SDs to the nom, Legally if Obama controls the credentials committee he has the right to bar Florida and Mich...  as Bowers points out.  If you are against Obama doing this to secure the nom, then do you also take issue with Hillary's campaign saying that she will try and ride SDs to the nom, even if Obama has a pop vote lead and delegate lead.  Bowers has said he will leave the party at that point.  What are your thoughts?

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I'm not going anywhere, and as I said above, this isn't about Clinton to me.

The popular vote and their state's vote, doesn't it seem like either candidate though would just push for what favors them?

I certainly support drastically lowering the power of the SD, and of the caucus system, but those are other fights.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I'm not saying its about Clinton but it would royally piss me off to see the SDs overturn the rank and file on our nominee.  I wouldn't support Obama either if She had a delegate lead of 100 or more and he won on SDs.  I think its just wrong and it will hurt us as it did in 1984.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:27AM | 0 recs
Not mentioned

I am scratching my head that nobody has mentioned the one reason, why FL and MI delegates cant be seated as is, that requires to take a step back and look at the big picture.

I am talking precedents!

As we cant allow GWB to get away with serial lawbreaking, we cant allow members in our own party to break the rules without any punishment.

It would set a precedent and just imagine what state parties will think and do in 4 years! They will look back at 2008 and put their primary as early as possible, because they feel that they wont get punished for it.

Florida and even more Michigan, where there isnt really any excuse for breaking the party rules, have to pay a price for their stubbornness.

MI delegates cant be seated AS IS. Hell, Barack Obamas name wasnt even on the ballot. They have to revote or they shouldnt be seated at all!!! If they revote, they will have to pay for it as punishment!!! What signal would it send for the national party to even reward such behavior by paying for their second primary or caucus? A very bad one!

Florida is somewhat different. Maybe seat only half the delegation? Still, people didnt think/know, that this is more than a beauty contest. They should hold another primary or caucus too - on their own cost!

What I dont understand is: Why dont FL and MI party officials enthusiastically jump on that DNC proposal to have another election? It would greatly enhance their say in this primary, quite possibly make them the kingmakers they tried to be from the beginning.

If I were a FL or MI party chair, I would be thrilled at that prospect. But maybe they are simply too lazy to organize another election there. Maybe they are not so fired up or ready to vote.

Probably they are simply childish and stubborn. And not man enough to admit they made a mistake.

by MarcTGFG 2008-02-13 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Not mentioned

I am talking precedents!

Yea, me too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Not mentioned

So if applying the rules dispassionately means also nullifying SC, IA, and NH, would you agree to not count or seat those delegates in Denver?

I agree with Jerome (and I'm pro-Obama).

(1) Seat MI and FL and find a way to allocate the delegates fairly;


(2) re-do the primaries in each state (paid for by DNC/candidates).

But we can't deny them if we're going to seat NH, IA, and SC.

by wolff109 2008-02-13 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Not mentioned

I'd be in favor of a redo... I think Obama takes 4 of 5 if it were done tommorrow.  And Florida is a HELL of a lot closer, and Iowa is a bigger blowout.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Not mentioned

What reason are you going to give the 1.7 million Dems who voted in January for having another primary?

If you want to nullify the results of an election then you better have a good reason. And I'm talking a good reason that people who took the time out of their day to go to the polls would accept.

The candidates chose not to campaign. Now they want a do-over and I should have to go vote again because of this? And what about absentee voters? And people who have registered since then? And what if I made it to the polls the first time, but can't make it this time?

It can't be done fairly. No matter how good your intentions.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 06:24AM | 0 recs
it's not difficult to understand

This is about allegiance to the Clinton name over the Democratic Party. Your point about precedent is spot on. These early primaries/caucuses are financial windfalls to the states - no self respecting Sec'y of State or state legislature is going to sit idly by and allow their state to be so far along the calendar that their votes don't figure in selecting the nominee. Who knows how early some of these states will decide to hold the primary!

by highgrade 2008-02-13 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Rapid supporters may claim that I am saying Florida and Michigan should be counted because I'm a paid shill for Clinton, but besides getting handed a one-way ticket out of here, you'd also be wrong.

Let's assume you meant rabid.  Just because you're not a *paid* shill, doesn't mean you're not performing the same function.  Your commentary is clearly biased in favor of Hillary.  Repeating "I am not a shill" over and over doesn't make it true.

Forget handing me a one way ticket out of here, your site isn't worth the effort anyway.  I wouldn't stay if you paid me.  Incidentally, threatening readers with being banned for expressing an opinion seems like the type of leadership your hero Hillary would be proud of.

Obama can win this outright, but to do so through a tactical maneuver would be an illegitimate nomination.

Bullshit.  Seriously.  Bullshit.

The only shady tactical attempt being made to gain this nomination is by the Clintons.  If you don't realize that, you're further gone than you realize.

You can make whatever accusations you want against the DNC about the stupidity of their actions, that's fine.  But to say that when Obama follows their rules, his nomination is somehow illegitimate is asinine.  

Regardless of your opinion, the elections held in Florida and Michigan were not shining examples of the democratic process.  If you care about fairness and making sure the voters in those states aren't disenfranchised, start pushing to have the contests done over.

by Darwinator 2008-02-13 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

If you can't see that Obama has used his own share of shady tactics to win this primary you have not been paying attention. If you have an argument in here I can't make it out for all the name calling and willful blindness.

by souvarine 2008-02-13 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over
Obama just needs to keep winning. Wisconsin looks like Clinton country so that will be a tough grind for Obama. HRC has institutional support in Hawaii with Inouyne's endorsement so he has to devote some resources there also.
Ohio and Texas are HRC's to lose.
Obama has to overperform in the next 6 contests to get a leg up.
Michigan should do schedule  caucus after march 4. Florida..should split it proportionately based on popular vote or delegate count.
by hawkjt 2008-02-13 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

don't be surprised to see obama win WI by 10-15 points.

the rural areas should be kind to Clinton but Milwaukee and Madison should break heavily for Obama. Making up that difference may be too difficult.

by alex100 2008-02-13 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Um Obama already has a leg up in case you missed the totals.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:43AM | 0 recs
What ever happened to simple fairness?

This is beyond aggravating.  Look, nitpick the rules all you want, but the candidates agreed not to campaign in MI and FL.  Hillary won these beauty contests because of name recognition.  In MI Obama was not even on the ballot.  MI and FL were not legitimate contests, period, end of discussion.  If you want to talk about a new primary or some other solution, fine, but just handing all those delegates to Hillary would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

Would it be worth it to you Clinton supporters to win this way?  Hillary would be unbelievably damaged goods in the general election.  Get over your pettiness and hurt feelings.  She has to win this fair and square or she's doomed in the GE.  Stealing the nomination isn't going to work for anybody.  

by JK47 2008-02-13 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

If you haven't been reading Jay cost's analysis you should. It backs up Jerome's argument, based on a study of demographics, exit polls. Interesting stuff:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/02/the_democratic_race_movin g_for.html

by Tennessean 2008-02-13 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Of course, his analysis only holds if, as he assumes, Obama doesn't cut into Clinton's demographics. Last night demonstrated conclusively that Obama is cutting into Clinton's demographics in a serious way.

If that trend holds, all these demographic analyses are moot.

by TimSackton 2008-02-13 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

The way I see it, the pressure to seat FL and MI will be too great at the convention. These states CANNOT be put in jeopardy in the November election.

Also....Hillary, if she picks herself up and wins what she needs to win from here on out, may end up as the popular vote winner going into the convention.

This, in addition to MI and FL, would probably tip the balance to Clinton.....on the condition of a unity ticket with Obama.

by Scan 2008-02-13 06:12AM | 0 recs
Thanks Jerome

Thanks. This persuaded me.

Perhaps the cleanest solution for now is to simply include the Michigan and Florida results, if it is not possible to re-do the primaries in those states to everyone's satisfaction.

I had not considered that Iowa, New Hamsphire and South Carolina broke the rules. However, tradition of NH and IA going first means no one would seriuosly consider punishing them as they might FL and MI.

That the incentive for MI and FL to openly flout DNC rules only reminds us of the greater problem. The DNC's nominating process does not fairly allocate what every state wants, namely, impact on the nominating process. Guess we'll have to deal with that one in 2012.

by wolff109 2008-02-13 06:14AM | 0 recs
Delegate Numbers


I don't understand why your numbers are so different than everyone else's.  Given that they are such outliers, if they're right then there must be something seriously wrong with the way everyone else is counting delegates. It seems to me that, since you're pushing unusual numbers, it's incumbent on you to tell us what that might be; until you do, some of will continue to suspect that you're motivation here is, though surely no 'paid shilling', some kind of wishful thinking.

by seand 2008-02-13 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate Numbers

So The Green Papers and DWW are also now in question?  My goodness.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate Numbers

I'm not questioning them, per se: I just wonder why they're so different from MSM and other blogospheric counts. Maybe you don't see it as your responsibility to say why you're using these rather than others ( here's a guess: is it because these sites  have some long-standing credibility that relative (ca 2005) blog-newbies like  me aren't aware of?).

So I'll address the question to the commentariat at large: why are greenpapers numbers different than the one's I'm seeing at OpenLeft, TPM, and other progressive web sites? Which should we believe?

by seand 2008-02-13 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate Numbers

GreenPapers has been around a long time, since before I've been blogging. They are unscrupulous in their delegate count, if Obama is leading, they will show it, and they don't jump the gun with a guess (which is what most MSM's are doing to be first).

DCW is totally transparent in its superdelegate counting, go and look, the best by far.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 06:44AM | 0 recs
you mean scrupulous

as in with scruples, or conscience.

by souvarine 2008-02-13 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate Numbers

I don't know about green papers... DCW though, as Jerome says, is a very good site and offers a very conservative count on SDs... a model I think is smartest given the flighty nature of SDs.  They ONLY count an SD with a verifiable public declaration of support.  Newspaper articles, press releases, etc.  They do a good job.

Now that being said, DEMCONWATCH has either NOT updated from yesterday or ONLY is counting delegates when it is Official.  CNN and the others are not doing this but instead or posting PROJECTED totals once all the votes are counted and everything worked out... some states for whatever reason take a long time to figure out the breakdown... There were 2-5 states still counting nearly a week after 2-5 and that doesn't just include NM.  

So Jerome is using a conservative count for his totals while the news channels are using a more loose count with their totals as they are posting projections and adjusting as is.  Neither is right nor wrong, but I prefer Jerome's approach for the record as it is probably the most ACCURATE at the current moment.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate Numbers

Most of the TV projections also assume delegate allocation out of state conventions will reflect the counts Obama has claimed. There is no guarantee that this is the case.

by souvarine 2008-02-13 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate Numbers

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own math...

by jim in austin 2008-02-13 06:53AM | 0 recs
This is a powerful post


This is a powerful post because it puts the race back into a fair, clean perspective. Clinton has a chance. Wisconsin will not go bad for her. I hear the Hawaiian Democratic establishment backs her. And she's leading in OH by over 15 points.

The worst is behind her. And if she has to put the nose of this rarefied committee to the burner to get MI and FL counted, I say so be it.

Down with arbitrary, strong-armed committees!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: This is a powerfully flawed post

Look Z, I totally admire your desire to dance a waltz with lady optimism, but I am afraid the tux has come with a pair of rose-colored glasses.

I respect & admire Hillary, but theis MI/FL tactic has absolutely no merit on its face given the candidate's OWN words and worse, actually makes her campaign look terrbily, TERRIBLY desperate.

These numbers that jermoe posts are incredible outliers...I can't find anything close anywhere else.  heck...Penn probably doesn't have these numbers on his desk!  Moreover, this tactic plays into one of HRC's worst liabilities:  the notion that she changes the rules when things are going bad, or acts petulantly when beaten.  

The ONLY way..and I'd have said this if Edwards or Obama were in Hillary's cold shoes right now too... for MI and FL to seat their delegates is to have the delegates follow the national Primary delegate lead.  Anything else in a logical and rationla world, will harm the party and November. Be honest with yourself man!

I live in WI.  She seems to be ceding WI to obama, and may be smrt to do so.  This is a very progressive state, and one that favors Obama.  

As for HI...I wouldn't be shocked if HRC wins it, but lord...try and build a "comeback" story on HI.  Really.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-13 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Does anyone think if Obama had won FL he or his supporters wouldn't be demanding they be counted? So can we put away the self-righteousness and hypocrisy-this isn't about principles, it's about politics.

by tdraicer 2008-02-13 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Sure, some Obama supporters would have demanded that MI and FL be seated.  I'm an Obama voter, but I'll admit that some of BO's supporters are a little, um... overenthusiastic.

But Obama is not the one who's behind and looking to steal some delegates by counting some bogus uncontested primaries.  Hillary is in that position, and it is her followers trying to make a case that is indefensible.

by JK47 2008-02-13 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

No way. If Obama had won FL and MI by 20 points I would still say they shouldn't be counted. I might wish they were, but I like to play by the rules.

by MNPundit 2008-02-13 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I would have insisted that they shouldn't be counted either.  I'm sure there would have been a few random loonies out there suggesting it.

Either way, it's a moot point.  We know who IS suggesting that these votes count.  It's very sad for the Hillary campaign to have to resort to this.

by JK47 2008-02-13 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Congratulations Jerome, I must say, this is one of the most convoluted pieces of spin I have seen from you yet.

Let's see if I follow your logic:  

1) MI and FL clearly tried to break both the letter and the spirit of the rules;

2) These actions forced IA, NH, NV, and SC to break the letter of the rules in order to maintain the intent and spirit of the rules;

3) MI and FL were punished for their actions.  All of the Dem candidates agreed to the punishment and agreed to not campaign in the offending states;

4) You now believe that the four early states should be punished equally for their efforts to maintain the spirit of the original rules;

5) You further assert that MI and FL should now be seated because they are important states in the GE.  You ignore the fact that this would undermine any future sanctions against any states that wanted to jump the calendar;

6) You suggest that the delegates should be seated, as voted, in spite of the fact that the candidates did not campaign and in spite of the fact that Obama's and Edward's names were not on the ballot in MI.  In effect, you are arguing that Obama should be punished for following the rules of the agreement he signed.

Your position is logically absurd, grossly unfair, and at a practical level, it would tear the Democratic Party apart and likely hand the GE to the Republicans.  You purport to be some one who cares deeply about building the Democratic Party.  How do you justify a course of action that is almost certain to create a civil war within our party?  

Following your approach will do incalculable damage.  IMHO, you are descending to the same kind of insider, "hackery" that you set out to challenge.  Is this what you meant by "Crashing the Gates?"  This sounds more like manning the barricades against the insurgents.

It appears to me that your hyper-partisan blinders have caused you to miss the emergence of a political movement and a political candidate capable of achieving the very change you originally sought.  The fact that it is coming in a slightly different form than you originally anticipated makes it no less significant.

To you and all the other hyper-partisans out there, this is what building the base looks like:  bringing record numbers of young people to the polls; increasing turnout among the most reliable part of the Dem base, the AA community;  reaching out to Indies and and disaffected Repubs by packaging progressive values in frames that are understandable and accessible. I do not understand why this seems so hard for you and others to recognize.

It is intensely ironic that so many progressives have actively opposed the most progressive candidate to have a real chance to win the Presidency since FDR. Take off your blinders and look around, you might like the view.

by upper left 2008-02-13 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I signed up specifically to agree with your post.  I've been a reader of this blog for years and simply don't understand the blind Hillary love these days.  To say "I support Hillary" is very different than pretending not to have a horse and then posting entry after entry suggesting otherwise.  Seating Florida and Michigan as voted makes no sense at this point.  Dean's leadership on the issue is the big problem and a huge mistake.  He's failed!  This should've never become the mess it has.  But at this point the party can't backtrack when all of the candidates agreed the elections being held were non-binding.  They didn't have the same agreement on the other four states mentioned.  Period.

Further, the momentum is building for an Obama victory.  The latest poll results in Wisconsin suggest it'll go the route of 60/40 much like the rest of the country has been going (despite the polling suggested in yet another pro-Hillary "it ain't over" post on this blog above.)  

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/poli ticalintelligence/2008/02/obama_mccain_l e.html

I expect Republicans to live in denial, not Progressive Democrats.  I'd never suggest someone was bought or was a paid shill unless I had proof.  I do want you to know, however, that there are lots of your readers who support Obama and would like things to be a little more honest, if not even, around here.

by crackerdog 2008-02-13 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.  It never ceases to amaze me to see so many progressives inability to see what is in front of their eyes.

by upper left 2008-02-13 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Now Jerome has resorted to fuzzy math by claiming Clinton still has the delegate lead.  Sad.

Here are the latest delegate counts from the television networks and the Associated Press:

NBC: Obama 1,078, Clinton 969
CBS: Obama 1,242, Clinton 1,175
ABC: Obama 1,232, Clinton 1,205
CNN: Obama 1,215, Clinton 1,190
AP: Obama 1,223, Clinton 1,198

by stuckinsf 2008-02-13 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Btw, that's how you'll known Obama has a lock on the nomination, when Jerome shows him leading in delegates.

by MNPundit 2008-02-13 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Jerome is using more conservative totals.  Plus I don't thing Demconwatch has updated yet, which explains some of the numbers as well.  There is nothing wrong with it, since none of the numbers show Obama clinched the nom.  So stop worrying about that and FIGHT to give him the nom.  Call your reps and senators to get them to support him.  campaign, phone bank, donate cash.  WORK to win it and make the case he is the true nom.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I don't think you've taken a dime from the Clinton campaign.

Not a paid shill at all.

by MNPundit 2008-02-13 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

HE DID take money from the Warner exploratory campaign... so I guess TECHNICALLY with WARNER... ;-)

Ones mans Shill is anothers consultant...

and yes thats a joke... I know the difference... a shill doesn't admit to being paid by the campaign, a consultant is actively supporting and working for the campaign.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Emphasis on the word paid in my original post.

by MNPundit 2008-02-13 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over
So I'm reading the news stories and blog stories this morning, and I notice that most of them say "Obama leads the overall delegate count by almost any standard". And I'm thinking, by WHAT standard does he not have a delegate lead?!?

Then it hits me and I remember the MyDDDLC Delegate count....
by John in Chicago 2008-02-13 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

You wouldn't be considered a shill if your argument also addressed:

1. The voters who did not vote because they were told the vote was meaningless.  If you are to address disenfranchisement, then you must even-handedly discuss these voters.  They had the reasonable expectation to think the election had been cancelled.

2. Make a case why your intra-Party Leadership argument should be applied to the candidates and this election.  Your argument is a good reason why Dean should be removed as Party chair and why the issue of the order of Primaries must be settled way before the next election.  But there is nothing in your case which is the least persuasive why candidates should be impacted by the DNC's screw-up when they simply tailored their campaigns according to the conditions established by the Party.  

by Piuma 2008-02-13 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I can't speak about Michigan, but in Florida there was plenty of talk about votes counting. Florida politicians made a point of repeatedly saying they would count.

There's even a PSA from Senators Nelson (D) and Martinez (R) saying how they'll count.  It's on YouTube if you feel strong enough to watch them. :D

It's hard to argue that 1.7 million Dems came out and voted and yet people didn't think the vote would count.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

What you have in that ad is a Republican speaking to Republicans to not confuse themselves over the Democrat issue, and then a Democrat who endorsed Clinton giving his opinion.  But there were countless instances of people saying the vote will not count on the Dem side, including the National Party chairman, so much so that it became a problem for Republicans.  This ad only goes to prove that there was a pervasive feeling in the electorate that the vote was meaningless, as well as why the results are partisan.  What is Sen. Nelson doing speaking out in direct contradiction to the decision of the Party.  Is there an instance of someone who had endorsed Obama directly telling voters the Vote will count?

by Piuma 2008-02-13 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Give me a break. The freaking DNC had said the Florida primary was a beauty contest. That's the organization that runs the primary process. It really doesn't matter what Nelson, Martinez, or Mickey Mouse might have said - this was established well ahead of the election. Florida (and Michigan) were told ahead of time this would happen if they went ahead with their primaries, and they chose to go ahead with them anyway.

And there was more than the primary on the ballot anyway. There were important property tax relief ballot initiatives that lots of people down the state were voting for. But why do you think Florida was the only state so far this primary season where Republican turnout exceeded Democratic turnout?

If Obama and Edwards had been allowed to campaign there, his terrific campaign organizers would have had a chance to put their efforts into the state. Candidates would have come down to take about local issues that mattered to Floridians. Obama would have held some of those rallies that overflow stadiums and get tons of local press. But instead, Clinton got to win on name recognition. Anyone who says this was fair to all candidates is on another planet.

by dwbh 2008-02-13 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Dean had said it would be up to the nominee about seating the delegates. The states run their own primaries and the FDP was saying the votes would count. Pelosi even talked about seating the delegates. So give me a break. You think most people really are so politically consumed that they are on these blogs learning how their votes may or may not count? The press here was that they would.

Yes there was a tax amendment. It received 466,095 more votes than any candidate. There are 2,240,318 registered voter who are neither Repub or Dem. So if we assume that every one of those votes that didn't go to a candidate was an independent/no party/etc voter we get a turnout of 20.8% who came out just for that amendment.

BTW, I've searched for an actual number of independent/no party/etc voters but haven't found where it exists. So I'm assuming that some Dems/Repubs didn't vote on the amendment (the language was confusing) but since you insist some Dems weren't bothering to vote for the Dem then those numbers would possible be a wash. But if you can find the actual ind/no party/etc voter numbers that would be much better.

Compare that 20.8% to 42.30% of Dems and 50.96% of Repubs. Yes the Dems were down, but there is no evidence it was because they thought their vote didn't count. Some were angry with the candidates (I think the dropping donation levels in the last quarter help demonstrate this) and some just angry at the Dems party.

Obama chose not to campaign. So any blame for that should be placed on his shoulders. If he thought that it wasn't fair to not campaign, he shouldn't have signed the pledge and gone ahead and campaigned.

BTW, Obama did campaign here prior to the boycott. I think they all did (at least the 3 major ones). Just a little tidbit that if you didn't live here, you may not know.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules are Rules and Other Such Nonsense!

All the shrill "rules is rules is rules" arguments from candidate Barack Obama (and his supporters) are hypocrisy. Why? Because if Obama wins enough delegates to win the nomination, he will seat those delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Will you then object? Because, after all, rules are rules, right?

But, let's follow your vacuous, hypocritical arguments here about "rules" to its logical conclusion:

Let's say Barack Obama refuses to support counting the delegates from Michigan or Florida at the Convention in Denver!

Now, how are you feeling about his scenario? Good? Feeling a little bit of discomfort about it? Suddenly feeling a little guilty, a little queasy, about your "rules is rules is rules" arguments? Maybe it wasn't so "fair" after all?

Thought so.

If he wins the nomination without them; HE WILL SEAT THEM, or otherwise he will be handing Michigan and Florida to Republicans.

And, you'll all be very happy for him to do so. You won't shed a tear over "rules" that the DNC has arbitrarily and selectively, and oddly enough, wrongly imposed on only TWO out of FIVE states which violated the "rules."

Julian Bond is right. The DNC can't disenfranchise Democrats in MI and FL. They're going to count. The party will be fractured if they don't count. It's not "stealing" for Clinton to argue that they should count; it's simply a fact. They should count.

All the shrill arguments about the rules suddenly evaporate into thin air when Iowa, NH, and SC are included in those rules. That's a clear sign that the selective enforcement of the rules was a big mistake by the DNC, and they're going to have to reverse it to unify the party for November.

And, if Barack Obama is the nominee, he'll be leading the effort to have those delegates counted, or he's the dumbest man on earth.

by Tennessean 2008-02-13 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules are Rules and Other Such Nonsense!

The DNC did not "arbitrarily and selectively" decide to punish MI and FL.  I don't think you understand how this whole thing happened.  Either that or you're being incredibly dishonest.

IA, NH and SC have always been the traditional early primaries, and they were selected for a reason.  FL and MI greedily tried to move their primaries ahead in the calendar in an effort to play kingmaker, were warned not to do so at the risk of losing their delegates, and did so anyway.  As someone mentioned upthread, IA, NH and SC had to violate the letter of the law to uphold the spirit of the law.

FL and MI are not the same as IA, NH and SC.  Don't act like they are.  Both candidates campaigned fair and square in IA, NH and SC.  Hillary Clinton's opponents in MI were Dennis Kucinich and "Uncommitted."  And "Uncommitted" didn't do too badly.  

Now tell me again why MI and FL are exactly the same as IA, NH and SC?  Selective enforcement of the rules, my Irish ass.

by JK47 2008-02-13 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules are Rules and Other Such Nonsense!

As someone mentioned upthread, IA, NH and SC had to violate the letter of the law to uphold the spirit of the law.


"We had to destroy the village to save it!"

If you don't get the meaning of that, then maybe you'll get the meaning of this:

Get your irish head out of your Irish ass.

The DNC rule was also violated by Iowa, NH and SC. The DNC will have to deal with sanctions for those three states. If the DNC doesn't count the FL and MI votes, the Democratic Party will lose those states in the general. And, if the GOP wins those states in the general, John McCain will be your next president.

by Tennessean 2008-02-15 03:19AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Rapid supporters may claim that I am saying Florida and Michigan should be counted because I'm a paid shill for Clinton, but besides getting handed a one-way ticket out of here, you'd also be wrong. Go back here and find when the DNC first said something about Michigan's delegates not counting, and you'll find I wrote an out-spoken post against the decision.

This outspoken post? It was the only post in 2007 from you on the subject of MI and FL that I could find.

Doesn't seem that outspoken -- and I'd be interested in seeing each candidate's "on the record" support for seating the delegates, frankly.

by scvmws 2008-02-13 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

No, much earlier than that one. I didn't have time to call it up, will do later.

As for your question, Obama and Clinton both have said they supported seating them, on the record. Obama flipped his position about a month ago.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

One assumption that I have trouble going along with is the notion that an election can't count if no one campaigned there. Putting aside for a minute that fact that there were local campaign efforts for both candidates, just not coordinated with the national campaign (at least in theory) why is my vote not legitimate unless the candidates campaign? I don't think there was any lack of coverage on the news, and there were 15 or so debates broadcast nationally. I did an admittedly quick Google search, and I can't find any mention of Obama campaigning in Alaska. Should that vote not count, since the Alaska voters were clearly uninformed?

by ChrisO 2008-02-13 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

In MI, the only names on the ballot were Clinton and Kucinich.  You don't think that's an unfair advantage, being on the ballot when your main opponent isn't?

by JK47 2008-02-13 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Don't get me wrong here...  I would much prefer another primary in Michigan.  However, it's Obama's own fault for not being on the ballot.


by samizdat 2008-02-13 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Donna Brazile said she would quit the DNC if superdelegates decide the nomination. But she was on the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of all their delegates. She was one of the most outspoken advocate of "swift and harsh" punishment of Michigan and Florida. They changed the rules and now are complaining that their changes are causing uncertainty.

by gomer 2008-02-13 07:24AM | 0 recs

MI & FL Democratic Party WILLFULLY broke the rules.  The DNC has no choice but to enforce them.  Don't blame the DNC.  Blame Democrats in FL & MI.  It's really TRULY their own damn fault (the leaders, not the voters).

by Doug in Virginia 2008-02-13 07:57AM | 0 recs
If I were a FL or MI Democrat.....

....I would be leading the call to replace the entire state party leadership.

by Doug in Virginia 2008-02-13 07:57AM | 0 recs

I agree they should enforce the rules, but they had a lot of leeway on how to enforce those rules. Instead of punishing those who could control the situation, they decided to give the harshest punishment possible to the voters. And imho that is where the DNC went wrong.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-13 09:19AM | 0 recs

Actually, we CAN blame the DNC. Michigan has formally been asking the DNC for at least 7 years to change the system so IA and NH aren't first, with Sen Levin leading the charge.  Michigan doesn't want to be first necessarily, but pushing for something like rotating regional primaries.  The DNC has blown them off every time, even when they said they'd look into it.

by cmugirl90 2008-02-13 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean

You used to support Howard Dean, now he is a party lackey.
You used to support John Edwards..and he agrees with Howard Dean so now he is no longer acceptable, I presume.
You used to not embrace HRC's DLC-based politics, now you embrace HRC and the DLC.

It is a relief to hear that you are not biased in any way toward HRC and are not being paid by her to slam Obama..thanks for your full disclosure.
Time to go phone bank for Obama and throw a little more cash to the underdog. He is clearly on the ropes and needs everyone's support.
C'mon Obama supporters, we must overcome the odds and earn another Obama win in Wisconsin and beyond. This is so motivating ..thanks Jerome.

by hawkjt 2008-02-13 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Yay!  Democratic civil war!  I was wondering how Democrats would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time around.

Is asking for a charismatic candidate once more asking too much?

by Poochie 2008-02-13 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over


by bluedavid 2008-02-13 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Obama is ahead by 135 pledged delegates.

Even if Florida and Michigan are seated as Clinton wants them, and even if Obama does not get a single delegate from Michigan, he would still lead Clinton by 24 pledged delegates.

Obama is the big favorite in this race. It's nearly impossible for Clinton to win the upcoming states by margins large enough to catch Obama's delegate lead.

Jerome has become a parody of himself. I wonder if he will continue his deluded crusade against Obama after Clinton drops out.

by Kal 2008-02-13 07:48AM | 0 recs
Thank you

For posting reality, clearly Jerome has lost his grasp on it, and as a long time reader, I'm really disappointed.

On to other readership I guess....

by Doug in Virginia 2008-02-13 07:54AM | 0 recs
So let me get this straight....

You an Hillary are TRYING to start a civil war in the Democratic Party and cost us the Presidency and the majorities in the House and Senate.

Because, I promise you that's where this is going if Hillary, Inc. decides to keep pushing this without new caucuses.

WTF were MI & FL Democrats thinking?  They did not have to conform to legislatures and as parties BOUND BY THE DNC RULES, both could and should have remained within them, holding firehouse primaries or caucuses within the rules that ALL AGREED TO RESPECT.

Go ahead, start a civil war and destroy the impending wave because you're too stupid to do what's best for all of us.  How typically Clintonian.

by Doug in Virginia 2008-02-13 07:52AM | 0 recs
What civil war

All this talk of civil war is amazing. I think we as a party are much more concerned with winning, which with Hillary is a certainty and with Obama is a roll of the dice. Listen, I'm 28 years old. After 12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 more years of Bush, I need a WINNER! No more losses in the GE. The stakes are too high, the liberal wing of the SCOTUS is on a knife's edge, and the economy favors rich people.

How do you say it in Internet speak? Clinton. Will. Change. That.

Here's a good article from Real Clear Politics about that fact that the latest states are not necessarily about momentum for Obama but simply part of his demographic:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/02/the_democratic_race_movin g_for.html

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: What civil war

I'm 29 years old and I want a Democratic winner too!  But since our lifetimes, the most charismatic president has won the election.

Reagan v. Carter - Reagan wins charisma contest, ergo Reagan wins election.
Reagan v. Mondale - Reagan wins charisma contest, ergo Reagan wins election.
Bush I v. Dukakis - I call evens on charisma (or lack thereof) here, but with Reagan's help, Bush I wins election.
Clinton v. Bush I - Bill HUGELY wins charisma, Bill wins election.
Clinton v. Dole - Bill still HUGE on charisma, Bill wins election.
Gore v. Bush II - Gotta admit that Bush II beat out Gore for charisma during the 2000 campaign (Gore has regained the lead now), so Bush II won the election.
Bush II v. Kerry - Kerry had the charisma of a dead toenail, so Bush II wins the election even though people hate him.

Applied here, compared to McCain, Obama trumps in charisma over Hillary.

And now, we have the opportunity to nominate the most charismatic candidate in our lifetimes!  What are we waiting for?  

I know Jon Stewart mocked a CNN host for saying this, but it's obvious:  people vote for who they like.  Why is the Democratic party considering voting for someone "people" don't like???

by Poochie 2008-02-13 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: What civil war

And look how the country turned out for most of those elections built on electing charismatic characters.... (Bill being the exception as he was charismatic AND smart)

by cmugirl90 2008-02-13 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What civil war

I agree with you whole-heartedly... charisma has NO bearing on whether a president is good or bad - but it has has a HUGE bearing on whether a candidate can WIN the general election!  

The point here is that we want our Democrats to WIN.  WIN first, then change the world.  Our past Democratic candidates MAY have been all great presidents, but we'll never know, since they don't win first.  

Republicans have horrible policies and have been unsatisfactory presidents, but darn it, I have to admit that all of their winning candidates are more charismatic than our losing candidates, at least in my lifetime.

So the famous "have a beer" test may be a HORRIBLE indicator on the QUALITY of president, but the bottom line is that the "have a beer" test is a good predictor on WINNING elections.  

Let's take it one step at a time!  We can do this!

by Poochie 2008-02-13 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: What civil war

Hillary has tons of charisma.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What civil war

I agree with you that Hillary has charisma.  I've seen her in person before and I like her a lot.  However, her charisma just doesn't translate to television well, except to hard-core supporters.  

On the other hand, Obama has so much charisma that seems to rocket out of the screen!  His charisma is so strong that it makes Hillary's and other speakers pale in comparison.

This makes me remember a good line from Oliver Stone's Nixon:

It's a scene where Nixon is looking at JFK's portrait in the White House when he's about to leave in disgrace:

"When Americans look at you, they see who they want to be.  When Americans look at me, they see who they are."  

For some reason, that line makes me picture Hillary staring at Obama on TV.  

by Poochie 2008-02-13 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: But what do we do?
We should remove Howard Dean and Sodomize him and lynch Donna Brazile and Kill all the Left Wing Progressive who hide behind the rule of law to gain their advantage. These bastards should be physically tortured and beaten to death- Those Arrogant Bastards.
I am a strong supporter of States Rights- States should decide when they should have a Primary or Caucus not the Douchbags from the DNC like Howard"I like FAGS getting Hitched" Dean.
Trent Lott was exactly right when he said- Had Strom Thurmond been President- We would would not be having these Problems like we are having right now.
Hillary should leave the Democratic Party- which consists of Arrogant Sodomites and Runs as an Independent.
by nkpolitics 2008-02-13 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Why am I having uneasy thoughts of Chicago 1968 and Florida 2000.

Why is this harder than count the delgates (not supers), find a way to re-vote in the two disputed states, have the superdelegates vote with the majority?  I'm probably naive but that seems like the only way any of us can maintain pride in this party.  Any manipulation of this and you will get what you got after 1968, many, many years of GOP rule, and understandably, as frustrated and disilllusioned people put their heads in their hands and stay home.

by mady 2008-02-13 08:34AM | 0 recs
IA caucus, NH primary schedule for November 4th

I guess that IA and NH will just have to go ahead and schedule their cacuses and primary on November 4th then.  November 4th 2008 that is.

Which in turn will lead to a national primary for the 2012 election, also held on November 4th 2008.


Or maybe Hillary should start running for the 2012 nomination now?

by sphealey 2008-02-13 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Rapid supporters may claim that I am saying Florida and Michigan should be counted because I'm a paid shill for Clinton, but besides getting handed a one-way ticket out of here, you'd also be wrong.

Really?...   Really Jerome?...  Is that what's it's come to?  Don't call me on my spin or I'll censor  and ban you?

So very democratic of you Jerome.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-13 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

"Obama can win this outright, but to do so through a tactical maneuver would be an illegitimate nomination."

A tactical maneuver?

This statement is entirely intellectually dishonest.  To suggest that the exclusion of MI and FL was somehow a tactical maneuver on Obama's part simply insane.

The DNC laid down the law, and as your post suggests, they may have indeed done so unfairly.  But they laid down their punishments LONG BEFORE the primaries in FL and MI (where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot!).  Attempting to include the delegate counts from these states after Clinton won them both yet failing to have make the fairness argument before the primaries lays plain the motives of anyone making such a specious argument.

This post appears to be taking its place in the long line of excuses that Clinton supporters drag out every time she gets trounced by Obama in another primary.

- After Super Tuesday, where Obama won more delegates: "We're ahead in delegates!" (if you include committed supers...)

- After WA/NE/LA: "We're ahead in the popular vote!" (if you count FL and MI...)

- After Potomac Primary: "We're still ahead in delegates!" (if you count the committed supers and the delegates from MI and FL...)

Give me a break.

by chinapaulo 2008-02-13 10:35AM | 0 recs
It's about the voters, stupid.

It's not about rules.  It's not about what's fair to one candidate over the other.  

It's about the voters in November. Go ahead --  Send the message that these states don't get a say because the DNC and their governors screwed up and the opinions of the voters in them don't, can't, shouldn't matter.

Then win in November without Florida and Michigan.  Good luck with that.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-13 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: It's about the voters, stupid.

I don't think many disagree.  We all think something needs to be done about FLA and MI.  However, just counting the current delegates isn't the answer.  The primaries there were ruled improper and all candidates bought it before the results were known.  Now Hillary wants to change that and have them seated as is.  This type of thing, unfortunately, makes folks like me feel like staying home if Hillary wins.  Cheat to win isn't an appropriate slogan for a change candidate.  That's just old dirty politics.

No, the way this needs to be resolved is with legitimate primaries in both states whereby the candidates can both show up.  And if Dean has a brain in his head, he better line that up soon.  Perhaps Obama signs on for additional debates as a "concession" to make it easier for Clinton to swallow.

by crackerdog 2008-02-13 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It's about the voters, stupid.


by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-14 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I find it sadly ironic that, on a site named "My DIRECT DEMOCRACY" that you are championing the un-Democratic process of subverting the popular vote through the process of superdelegates.

Obama leads pledged delegates by a count of 1139 to 1003. A differential of 136.

Even if Florida and Michigan were seated at 55% for Clinton and 33% for Obama, that would make the totals:

Obama: 1260
Clinton: 1204

There's still a 54 delegate differential.

In Obama's campaigns projections, they expect to take 232 delegates to Clinton's 192 in the remaining states that the Obama camp expects to win, for totals of:

Obama: 1492
Clinton: 1396

So, Clinton would have to make up a differential of almost 100 delegates in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. There are 647 delegates at stake in these primaries, Clinton would have to win 100 more than Obama out of those 647 to pull ahead in actual elected delegates. She would have to win 374 of those 647 delegates, which amounts to around 58% of all the delegates in all of those states.

EVEN if Florida and Michigan were seated 55% for Clinton, and 33% for Obama.

Clinton winning those states at those margins is virtually impossible. She didn't even manage to pull 60% in her HOME state of New York.

The likelihood is all but assured that she will end up with fewer ELECTED delegates.

I just ask that, if you are advocating the superdelegates override the voice of the people, that you change the name of your site from "My DIRECT Democracy" to "My DICTATED Democracy."

by dearmurray 2008-02-13 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

Leaving aside the question of Florida and Michigan, how is Clinton running a 50-state strategy? She's written off states like Kansas, Nebraska, basically any state where Obama wins that isn't majority-black, as unwinnably Red?

Seems one candidate is running a 48-state strategy (because of the rules the DNC put in place) while the other is running a 20-state strategy.

How is the latter good for the Democratic party?

by Loreg 2008-02-13 12:18PM | 0 recs
far from over


I don't know the ins and outs of this electoral stuff very well, but does it make any sense to seat FL and MI delegates in direct proportion to the way the vote goes in the other 48 states?  That way their delegates wouldn't be marginalized, but they also wouldn't be determinative of the outcome.

by global yokel 2008-02-13 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over

I have some reservations about both the Democratic candidates, but would gladly pick either over any Republican.  While I consider myself a Obama supporter at this point, I would certainly vote for Clinton.  However, if Clinton gets the nomination based off delegate totals from a state where the other candidate did not even appear on the ballot, I will write someone in.  I understand the dilemma, but I think the solution is to hold a legitimate primary this time.  Obama was attempting to play by the (admittedly stupid) rules, and should not be penalized now for it.  I hope Clinton will attempt to win going forward, not by grabbing delegates where her opponent did not compete.  If she does, she will have my support.  If not, she wont.

by Beermonster 2008-02-13 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: 50 means 50, and far from over
Jerome, The Party created a pre-window period and allowed 4 states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina -- to hold their events in that period in an effort to broaden participation. The DNC granted waivers for 3 of these states to go on different dates (this was done on December 1st of last year) because of actions by other states to violate the rule on timing which caused a leap frogging effect. The DNC was committed to ensuring its goals of regional diversity, racial and ethnic diversity and economic diversity be highlighted in the pre-window period. Disclosure: I work for the Democratic Party
by Kombiz Lavasany 2008-02-14 06:44AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads