More votes to think about

The Clintons sensing a bit of movement in Wisconsin?

The Clinton campaign has coaxed Teresa Vilmain (left), who earned high marks for running her Iowa operation, down from the wilds outside of Madison to run her suddenly-rejuvenated Wisconsin operation, we're told.

Early on, it looked like Hillary Clinton might effectively concede Wisconsin's Feb. 19 contest to Barack Obama. But her schedule released late last night shows an apparent change of heart -- she'll spend four days there starting Saturday, after trips today to Texas and tomorrow to Ohio.


Senator Levin of Michigan and Nelson of Florida are ready to play hardball:
The Illinois Senator suggested holding caucuses in the states in an interview with WJLA-TV and the Politico.

But Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) dismissed the possibility in interviews on Tuesday. Levin and Nelson said caucuses would effectively void the primaries in each of their states, and are pushing to have their delegates receive full voting power at the convention.

"You can't undo an election with a caucus, especially one where 1.75 million Florida Democrats voted," said Nelson, who filed an unsuccessful lawsuit last year seeking to overturn the national party's decision to strip Florida of its delegates.

Levin had similar thoughts. "It would not be practical or fair to hold a caucus," Levin said. "You've got 600,000 people who voted. You can't just throw out the votes of 600,000 people." Levin said the state will appeal to have its delegates restored by the party convention's credentials committee this summer.

More in the extended entry, for those of you who think there's a simple solution...

Nelson said a caucus would result in the disenfranchisement of Florida voters and a dramatic reduction in the number of people who are able to participate, which is a particularly big issue in Florida with its large population of seniors for whom going to a caucus can be an ordeal.

Levin predicted that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will ensure that the full complement of delegates from each state will be seated at the GOP convention, which will leave the Democrats in a bind.

"They're not going to punish anybody," Levin said of the GOP. "Would the Democrats punish Florida and Michigan if the Republicans don't? And what possible impact would that have on a general election where you need Florida and Michigan to win?" Levin asked.

Levin also said that the cost of additional elections is a factor. "I don't think the state's going to pony up" the millions it would take, he said.

Nelson also said that it was a nonstarter to hold a full-blown do-over of the primary, which would require the approval of Florida's Republican state Legislature.

"The last election cost the state $18 million. That's not practical," Nelson said.

Asked about the fact that Clinton appeared on the Michigan ballot and Obama did not, Levin noted that it was Obama's choice to withdraw his name.

"I was disappointed that he did," Levin said.

Nelson also noted that Florida has never had a caucus, and organizing one on ultra-short notice would be difficult at best.

"We are very serious about the right to vote and having our votes count," Nelson said, urging the national party to reconsider its ruling stripping his state of its delegates. "Obviously they need to be seated."

Nelson added that the Florida situation is different from Michigan in multiple ways. In Florida, the Republican state legislature moved up the primary date, but Democratic voters were penalized for it, Nelson said. And the main candidates were on the ballot in Florida, while major candidates other than Clinton took their names off the ballot in Michigan.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who joined Nelson in last year's lawsuit, also dismissed the possibility of holding another contest.

"In order to do a caucus, it will cost roughly $4 million," he said. "Certainly between $2 million and $4 million. Florida doesn't have the funds with which to do that," he said.

Hastings said that perhaps as many as 100,000 people would attend caucuses, a far cry from those who voted in the primary.

"What does that say to the ... people who voted? Once again my vote doesn't count."

Mark Bubriski, a spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, said the party has no intention of holding a caucus, and said holding a primary simply would not happen because the Republican state Legislature would never agree to hold one.

Hastings said he is urging the DNC and the Clinton and Obama camps to iron out a compromise.

"It is unfathomable to believe that Florida and Michigan should be marginalized or made to be irrelevant and then expect either of them to win Michigan or Florida in November," Hastings said.

"The people that messed this up are the DNC Rules Committee," Hastings said. "It's their responsibility. They need to remedy it."

Hastings said Obama would be making a mistake if he objects to seating Florida's delegates.

"In my judgment it's a mistake to further abuse the Florida delegates and the voters," Hastings said. "It's a mess. Stay tuned."

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

192 Comments

Spin away

I'll be sure to quote this liberally next Tuesday night.

by zonk 2008-02-13 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

Huh?  There's hardly any spin there by Jerome.  What is there to quote next Tuesday?  Obviously Clinton is going to give it a shot in Wisconsin but she still will probably lose it.  What's the big deal about it?  He didn't make a "prediction" this time...

by diplomatic 2008-02-13 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

Discussing what candidates plan to do is bias. In fact, if Armstrong blinks twice, but not once during a full moon that's a sign of bias. If he points out Obama is taller. Bias. If he remains completely silent. Bias.

by bruh21 2008-02-13 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

The first comment isn't about bias, it's about how the poster thinks Jerome is wrong.

Jerome IS a font of anti-Obama spin--but there's none of that in this post. While I think Levin and Nelson are acting like little babies about this, I don't think Wisconsin is going to be an easy win for Obama--I never did, not once.

by MNPundit 2008-02-13 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

I no longer care who wins the nomination other than I hope that person beats McCain. I spent weeks trying to decide which candidate to support, and I finally realize its hard to choose because really there isn't much difference.  I am pointing this out to say that many of you are over the top,a nd you can't even see how over the top you are at this point. WHether Armstrong is biased or not pesonally is irrelevant to whether this diary or any number of diaries in which any non Obama walks on water or Clinton doesn't walk on water post is met with  you are biased.

by bruh21 2008-02-13 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

Thank you Ralph Nader

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-13 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

A see you a product of the American education system. Re-read what I wrote. Then explain how your comment applies.

by bruh21 2008-02-14 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away
Thank you Bruh,
The key is to keep Democrats focused on winning the WH in Nov.  We have 2 excellent candidates; let's NOT tear ourselves apart!!
by borlov 2008-02-13 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

The MI/FL comments are even better than the candidate comments.  Dozens of people stomping their little Internet feet and proclaiming that the ONLY fair way to resolve the controversy is THEIR way, and there will be hell to pay otherwise!

by Steve M 2008-02-14 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

Yeah, I think the same thing. Now that I dont have a dog in this race its freeing me up to be objective. A lot of over the top commentary.

by bruh21 2008-02-14 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

So according to your carefully reasoned analysis, those of us who support Obama are making it all up and Jerome has shown no bias?

Look, even Jerome has admitted his bias on occasion.  His predictions last week were laughable.  This post is far less blatant, but the pro-HRC spin is definitely there.  Jerome says maybe there is movement to Hillary, most commentators have seen this as a sign that her campaign has realized that she can't afford to get blown out again.  Tack your pick, but don't insult our intelligence by pretending that Jerome does not have a dog in this race.

by upper left 2008-02-14 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

According to my analysis many o fyou write the same thing in every diary regardless of who writes it, and that can be seen on display with Ezra Klein, Paul Rosenberg and any number of other bloggers where the same "you are an Obama hater" commentary can be found. If you were selective in your ire you might be more believable. Overal when you throw this sort of roving commentary (by you I mean Obama suppoters) on every blog that pretty much says  youare not objective or in capable of it.

by bruh21 2008-02-14 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

Your response seems strangely off-point.  I was discussing the objectivity, or lack there of, of Jerome's analysis.  If you think I am wrong, develop an argument.  Saying, "you all say the same thing," does not strike me as very compelling.

by upper left 2008-02-14 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

I did develop an argument, but it requires you to not pretend that i must answer you as if what you are saying is remotely serious-- ie argue as to armstrong's objectivity- whatever that means for you. perhaps an analogy will help- if you are running around yelling the sky is falling all the time, people like me who don't have a dog inthe race will cease to listen to your claims of bias because thats all you ever do- claim bias. disagreement is per se bias to you.

by bruh21 2008-02-14 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin away

"Sensing a bit of movement".

The Clinton campaign has coaxed Teresa Vilmain (left), who earned high marks for running her Iowa operation, down from the wilds outside of Madison to run her suddenly-rejuvenated Wisconsin operation, we're told.

Now... can you spot the logical fallacy in this statement?

Please... she's bringing back the ground game that garnered her the only 3rd place finish seen by either of the two campaigns?

Yeah... rejuvenated... bit of movement... I get it.

by zonk 2008-02-14 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Hopefully they'll be an easy solution to Florida and Michigan. By all accounts it looks like Obama will have a large enough pledged delegate lead to seat them without a problem at the DNC without throwing his nomination into question.

If it's closer than that, though, there will have to be a compromise. The results from the January elections are imperfect but they're all we have. The end result may be something similar to what the Republicans have done: Half Florida and Michigan's delegates and give the "uncommitted" to Obama.

by Kal 2008-02-13 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I doubt that happens in Michigan for one simple fact - that Edwards still would've garnered a decent amount of votes, particularly at that point in time.

While I am a HRC supporter, the easiest solution for Florida is to halve the total delegates and split it proportionally based on the vote.  This saves the DNC while not disenfranchising folks.  That's something the DNC should get on now - rather than making themselves a bigger mess down the line.

I have no idea about Michigan.  There's no easy way to do things.  Simply saying uncommitted to Obama would be unfair due to Edwards standing at the time.  I think the most likely scenario that would save the DNC is to simply halve the delegates and grant them to HRC.  That way, she doesn't have the bulk of the delegates, so it's impact is minimized.  There's no simple solution about it.  You can't simply overlook the dynamics of the situation at the time (the 3-way race).

I think those two scenarios are probably the best way for the DNC to save face without giving McCain a strong point to attack on.  The issue of disenfranchisement can often play bigger than any policy thrown out there.

by toonsterwu 2008-02-13 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

What sort of incentive does that setup for states next time? Will each state want to go first? Will we have a national primary on the January 1 2012 because each state will want to be first?

Also, if Hillary gets delegates in MI but Obama gets none, what's the incentive next time to follow DNC rules? Basically, the message is: follow the rules at you peril because they can be changed at any time.

by poserM 2008-02-13 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I would think losing half your delegates is a bit of a disincentive.  Besides, our primary process needs some changing, and I'm glad there are states like Florida and Michigan that are willing to step up and try to make a change.

--sam

by samizdat 2008-02-13 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Florida is going to get 100% of their delegates seated or the next president will be a war veteran.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-13 07:47PM | 0 recs
The GOP

seated only half of the Florida delegates, so I think you are wrong about this.

by fladem 2008-02-14 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Iowa, NH and SC broke the rules as well...

by seattlegonz 2008-02-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

To anwser your question, No, we won't have a national primary on the January 1 2012 because most states will be content to wait their turn that time around. Certainly if we have a different state iowa first.

This cycles huge run to the front was fueled by Kerry's win with only two real contests early in the year.

The fact that that hasn't happend this cycle isn't just because our candidates are stronger, but also because the new proportional allocation of delegates have made a momentum fueled victory an impossibility.

With the vast majority of the country actually having their votes count this time and the likelyhood of their votes counting next time hugely improved as well there simply isn't as much incentive to race to the front as there was now based on the fear of another Kerry style nomination process.

No matter what the commitee will decide on whatever grounds, fear for a disorderly primary season in 2012 shouldn't factor into it.

by Ernst 2008-02-14 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Read somewhere that the Michigan legislature is threatening that any political party that does not accept the full results of their primary will not be allowed on the ballot in MI this fall. Think about that. No Conyers, no Dingle, no Levin. Great results DNC.

All this was done to protect IA's and NH's places as 'first in the nation'. Why is that something worth anyone's time, let alone the DNC?

by DaleA 2008-02-13 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

You are goddamn right about that!  In many ways, this may be the best possible outcome.  Ultimately the crisis will be defused before ripping the party apart, because one of the candidates will bow out (or shoved by the superdelegates).

At the same time, this is indeed a crisis, and it guarantees some kind of action will be taken before the 2012 primary. Our incumbent president will mean token opposition, the perfect time for the DNC to take a bolt gun to the heads of the Iowa and NH parties.

Maybe this insanity will finally come to an end.

by alvernon 2008-02-13 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

So the MI state legislators would also be taken off the ballot?  I don't think it's a winning strategy for MI to try to blackmail the DNC - that's what got us into this mess (NH, IA).  Michigan's best shot of getting its delegates seated is to play up the unfairness angle, not resort to extortion.  Besides, there has to be SOME control by the party over the primary schedule, otherwise each state will act in its perceived best interest and it will be a total mess the next time around.  Granted, the schedule now is not the optimum one, and NH and IA will have to be dealt with at some point, but that doesn't change the fact that coordination is necessary.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Never happen, so why bother discussing it?

You think Levin and Conyers and Dingle are just going to let that happen, so that Hillary can get her way?

Please

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Thats a very good angle

Ultimately Florida and Michigan have the Party by the balls.

I think its clear that we need a new schedule with all this talk about lets not let all the states vote  Hillary quit now.

Honestly did the party make the schedule expecting the last states to get no say in an already decided election???

We a better schedule maybe make everyone vote on super tuesday with some small states earlier than that to shrink the crowd.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-13 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

So, states that violate the instructions of the national party and hold their primaries early in non-contested primaries have the party "by the balls"?  

Eff their recalcitrant asses.  

Oh, I forgot that the rule du jour in Washington is to do whatever the hell you want and then threaten further misbehavior if anybody thinks of punishing you.  Hey, it works for Verizon!

by RickD 2008-02-13 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I read this and decided to donate more money to Obama.

by tom32182 2008-02-13 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Me to Clinton...

by Opandora 2008-02-13 05:46PM | 0 recs
You'r eGrasping for straws

Have you seen the movement in the national polls?

Your corporate owned candidate is finished.

Stick a fork in her.

by descrates 2008-02-13 05:45PM | 0 recs
"Stick a fork in her"

That's probably been said about her hundreds of times.  Her detractors should learn by now not to celebrate until the results are final.

by diplomatic 2008-02-13 06:02PM | 0 recs
Please

She cried her way to a win on NH.  Since then its been virtually completely down hill.  Today Obama took the lead in the RPC average for the first time--and that's after most of the country's democrats already having voted in a primary.  Obama is in control of the race.  The only way she wins is through some sort of desparate backroom deal making.

by descrates 2008-02-13 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: "Stick a fork in her"

Agreed! (this from an Obama fan)

However, she really only has one "comeback" to her credit, and that's NH...  

She has no choice to fight every state now... a strategy she should have been doing in the beginning... Her adherence to the Kerry plan of big states only + 1 instead of the 50 state plan will be her undoing...

Even if you hate Obama and his candidacy, he is helping grow the party in places that it has never grown before... That's what the 50 state plan is all about...  

Maybe she'll listen to Howard Dean, now instead of fighting him tooth and nail...  The DLC way.. the Kerry 2004 way is a sure loser, whether it be in the general election or the primary.

by LordMike 2008-02-13 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: "Stick a fork in her"

Gee taking the major states on Super Tuesday. Yeah, she really took a fall after NH.

by cath 2008-02-13 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: "Stick a fork in her"

She didn't "take" them by enough...  

That's the failure of the 14 state strategy...

by LordMike 2008-02-13 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: "Stick a fork in her"

taking the "minor" states might win him a primary.

by alex100 2008-02-13 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: "Stick a fork in her"

She took some big ones... and the two biggest that were offered that day... BUT one of those she was ALWAYS going to take as it was her home state.  She loses NY and she would be toast.  

Obama has won more big states, using many of the Clinton supporters standard of Big states being Missouri or Higher.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: You'r eGrasping for straws

When Obama was a politician in Illinois he took campaign contributions directly from corporations.  

by steveinohio 2008-02-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: You'r eGrasping for straws

And now he doesn't.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Jerome, you've been right a lot before this year so I hate to mock you, but didn't you say she could compete in WA, and then in VA (maybe not in VA)?

Also, do you se ethe irony of opposing the first democrat in a while who could what's the phrase I'm looking for "change the map"?

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Uh, no on either.

He changes the caucus math for the most part, except where there are highwater marks of AA voters, I'll give you that much.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

We'll see, I think he could be Reagan to Mccains Mondale (more like 40 states than 49, but in the smae genreal vicinity).

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

And he wins Colorado over McCain by 7 (while Hillary loses by 15). And he wins NH by 15 (while she wins by 2). And in NH Hillary won the primary! Buyer's remorse?

I don't know what you're thinking but it's obvious that Obama matches up better against McCain than Clinton. You asked for evidence of this the other day and polling out today from NH and CO confirms it. A lot can change, of course, but for now Obama is in position to win convincingly.

by elrod 2008-02-13 06:28PM | 0 recs
Really?

You didn't predict that she would win in Washington State?

Oh, I see that you went back on that prediction, but said it'll be 'closer then the 60-40 that Obama's camp predicts.'

And there was a prediction about Maine thrown in there as well too, it seems...

http://jerome-armstrong.mydd.com/story/2 008/2/9/14926/38364

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Really?

Clinton backers keep deluding themselves with their arrogant sense of entitlement.

That is how they can keep making these zany predictions over and over.

Go Big O!

by gil 2008-02-14 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Florida will be lost either way i imagine and Michigan will be won either way.

More Pro-Clinton bias from Jerome.  Can i even say what a shock anymore?

by Socks The Cat 2008-02-13 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

How is that Bias? You must be drinking KOS cool-aid. He is just reporting the news that you will never hear on most any other left blogs.

by Opandora 2008-02-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

>> reads something doesn't like = bias.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Dude, the frozen delegate counter is more convincing than any of the supposedly biased analysis. How much longer is it going to be before you update that thing?

by scvmws 2008-02-13 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

my prediction is that the FL/MI delegate issue will be a non-issue by the time of the Convention. Either Hillary will have enough votes to make it so, or Obama will.

by poserM 2008-02-13 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

They should be seated.

Florida was disenfranchised once in 2000.  Now OUR OWN PARTY is disenfranchising them again.

The delegates must be seated.

It's Obama's own fault that he removed his name from the ballot.  A stupid move that will cost him.

GO HILLARY!

by kydem 2008-02-13 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

It was stupid for Hillary not to put her name on the ballot in Newfoundland. What's that you say? She was told that Newfoundland wouldn't be given any delegates to the convention? What a stupid, stupid person she is! That's going to cost her.

by alvernon 2008-02-13 05:53PM | 0 recs
Too late for that argument

She thought it was terrible for Florida and Micghigan to jump the gun when she was pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire. But now that she needs those delegates - obtained by virtue of both candidates refusing to campaign there - she thinks it's some grave violation to follow the DNC rules and sanctions.

Every time a Hillary supporter brings up Florida and Michigan I know we are closer to an Obama nomination. Say, whatever happened to the importance of superdelegats? Or as that talking point no longer operable now that Obama has taken the lead in spite of Clinton's superdelegate edge.

by elrod 2008-02-13 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

their own state disenfranchised the voters. State leaders knew what the ramifications were and they ignored them.

unfortunately. for. everyone.

and we've already learned the invaluable lesson from others like you. following rules makes you stupid.

by alex100 2008-02-13 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Universal, you and the Clintonista would be better arguing for 1/2 delegations, because that's realistic there is no way other than Hillary forcing there seating due to a delegate lead, that they can be sat as is, it would basically break the party (not in terms of voter unity but in terms of a national organization-- there would be no reason to listen to the DNC at all, because hey they can't enforce the rules).

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

This is true.  MI and FL would actually end up having the most influence of any state, when the opposite was intended.  It would mean the effective death of the DNC and absolute primary hell the next time around.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Florida could have decided the last 2 elections for us.

They DESERVE a MASSIVE say in who we run.

The party is going to have to eat crow on this.

Imagine if Florida kicked the democratic candidate off the ballot...

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-13 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

"Imagine if Florida kicked the democratic candidate off the ballot"

Imagine if they ran an election where the Democratic candidates votes were systematically undercounted!  Oh wait, we don't have to imagine that, we can remember it.  

Seriously, pandering to rules-breakers?  Yet another opportunity for the Democratic party to look weak.  Yay!

by RickD 2008-02-13 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Yes, lets punish the Democratic voters of Florida for the actions of the Republicans.

Great idea. Lets kick the biggest victims of 2000 some more, because we can't be bothered to actually thing beyond the word "Florida"

Yes, Lets disenfranchise them some more, because the first time their votes didn't get to count wasn't bad enough for them.

...

My God... some people...

by Ernst 2008-02-14 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I'm sorry, I guess I missed where the Dems filibustered in the FL legislature and the vote came down to party lines... OH WAIT I DIDN'T BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-14 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

And apparently missed the part where I was talking about the legislators instead of the actual voters

Ever since Biden dropped out I don't care that much who wins the nomination. I certainly don't care about the Florida legislators. But somehow I do care about a shitload of voters not getting their votes counted yet again. I held this position way back in 2000, I held this position when the FL decision was first made and It's my position now.

So yes please continue to show mock outrage about how wrong it is to argue that voters should have their votes count. It'll make you so much more persuasive. You have my rapt attention. Please, do go on...

Explain to me why it's right that more then a million voters who had shit all to do with the decision either way should be punished so you can get back at a hundred legislators or so?

by Ernst 2008-02-14 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

No state deserves to hold the party hostage.  Florida does not have the right to assume New Hampshire's dictatorship over the primaries.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

That is exactly the long term problem if Michigan and Florida circumvent the DNC's sanction of their primaries.

All the talk about restructuring the primaries next time, whether that is changing which states go first, when it starts, primaries vs. caucuses, the role of superdelegates, etc., requires that the party have the power to enforce whatever agreement is reached.  If the candidates and states don't have to follow the rules set by the DNC, what good will it do to change the rules for the 2012 nomination?

by pampango 2008-02-14 03:08AM | 0 recs
No problem

Obama will eventually seat them when he is the nominee. But Hillary supporters looking to blame Obama or the DNC for this mess are off base.

The spin here by Hastings and co. is not very credible and it won't fly.

by Clipper 2008-02-13 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I think Clinton needs Wisconsin and Rhode Island to secure the margin of victory she'll need in Ohio and Texas.  I think Wisconsin is especially important to break the narrative that only Obama plays in the Midwest.

by ejintx 2008-02-13 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Even Pat Buchanan said that she had to campaign personally in Wisconsin, rather than leave it to her various surrogates.  Her campaign is just coming around to the obvious.

Cut the delegates in half, award a proportional share of Michigan to Obama.  I could live with that.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
Cut them in half?

Sounds painful.

by vj 2008-02-13 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Cut them in half?

Democracy is a bloody process. :)

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about
So, about these delegates. Who decides if the get seated?
can Obama and Hillary just agree to seat them? Or are there rule to be followed here? Or perhaps we don't need rules.
by poserM 2008-02-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
The FL and MI delegations will be seated

This primary is likely to be over on March 5, once the superdelegates start breaking heavily for Obama. Clinton will withdraw from the race, and then both delegations can be seated because they don't matter anymore.

Don't expect any movement on this until after the March 4 contests. Nobody wants to start a big fight over an issue that won't matter once Obama finishes this race.

If it's not over by March 5, then we can expect an all out civil war within the party, and it won't matter if FL and MI are seated or not, because the nomination will be worthless at that point anyway.

by alvernon 2008-02-13 05:51PM | 0 recs
There's a simple solution

Hillary will drop out March 6th after losing one or both (Ohio/Texas0.

And then we'll all look back at your attempts to pad Hillary's delegate totals with fraudulent elections with fond amusement.

by mcdave 2008-02-13 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: There's a simple solution

not march 6th, thats my birthday

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-13 06:09PM | 0 recs
Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

In hindsight, Obama will claim that taking his name off the Michigan ballot was the single-biggest tactical mistake he made. He would have carried Detroit by at least 60%, amounting to at least 200,000 votes. And the upper middle-class liberal whites of Oakland county, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would have backed him. Clinton would have won the Reagan Democrats of Macomb county and probably also carried the north country and the UP. So, in a nutshell, it would have been close, with either Obama or Clinton winning in a squeaker (which would have looked bad for Clinton).

But, instead, the Obama campaign panicked when Michigan moved up the primary so close to the Iowa vote out of fear of a compressed calender, and that's when happen you panic on the national stage, you lose.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Obama will probably control the credentialling committee.  I think he will seat them, but it will not happen unless he controls the uncommitteds.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Obama's going to withdraw when he loses Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. The pressure will be intense. He's already faltered once with taking his name off the Michigan ballot, he'll cave again.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

That's a good point (esp. re: the kicking and screaming), but the pressure will be so intense to let Hillary get on with things, that he would be honorable enough to step aside.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

The two of you can't be this naive and ignorant.  Hillary would need to win 70-30 in PA, TX and OH to knock Obama out.  And that isn't going to happen.  If she wins by 10-20, we go back to where we were on 2-6-08, a tie.  If its in single digits or Obama wins, she is in serious trouble.  But anything other than a 40 point blow out will not knock Obama from the race.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Um why would he drop out then when just two weeks after PA is the state that could be his "firewall" NC? (seriously more delegates thatn MA or NJ, more African American than VA and the same demographics among white voters).

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Even if Obama loses Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, he will likely lose by small margins and the delegate balance won't change much.  Hillary's problem is she has lost 15 states by 20% margins.  This is not the electoral college and you don't get extra credit for winning big states.

The idea that Obama should bow out after even small margin losses in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is ridiculous.

by snaktime 2008-02-13 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

You do get more points for winning congressional districts, and the DeLay Texas redistricting scheme is going to play to Clinton's strengths, though--she's going to win the hispanic supermajority districts pretty handily, while the educated white democrats in Austin are split into large rural districts.  I could see the final texas delegate count coming out pretty skewed in Clinton's favor.

by Valatan 2008-02-13 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Hee hee hee.

Please save this post - clip it to your fridge.

I'll get back to you on March 5.  

by TL 2008-02-14 02:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Well he holds the lead right now on the Credentially committee so we will see.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Not so sure about your analysis.  The African-American vote hadn't swung so clearly to Obama at the time of the Michigan primary, which was prior to South Carolina.  

Also, I don't know if you've ever been to Ypsilanti, but your description of it isn't apt in terms of income levels, although it is a college town.

The Obama campaign was well organized in Michigan to drive votes toward "Uncommitted" which also included Edwards voters.  

by steveinohio 2008-02-13 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

I'm from Detroit, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Yet you don't.  Its kind of funny it worked out that way.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

Totally disagree. there was going to be no contest, so the decision he made was not an electoral one, but a political one: to send a signal to Iowa that he respected their position. Anyone can disagree with the propriety of that, but I maintain that it actually helped him in the eyes of Iowans, and contributed to his win. At the very least, it avoided a big point of contention, which could have hurt him badly there. And as has been well documented, winning Iowa was the linchpin of Obama's credibility. Edwards did the same thing, because he also HAD to win Iowa. Clinton didn't really care all that much about Iowa, focusing instead on the big states of Feb. 5.

by along 2008-02-13 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot

It's going to be hilarious if Hill loses this and ever tries to run in NH, NV, IA, or SC again-- heck she might just get stripped of her delegates from those four states (at least IA and NV are unbound so far).

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Jerome,

How is it that dispatching someone who organized a third-place finish in Iowa to Wisconsin, WEEKS after Obama devoted resources to the state, good news?!?!

BTW:  The superdelegate total is trending Obama.  That will continue unless she loses Wisconsin by less than double digits (which in normal circumstances is not good news, btw).

by ChrisR 2008-02-13 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

More to the point,

The Clintons have been in politics like forever.  They find an Iowa operative to run a fledgling campaign in Wisconsin?  Isn't there someone from the state of Wisconsin available in their rolodex?

by ChrisR 2008-02-13 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

You clearly have no idea about Wisconsin politics.  And Teresa is one of the more well-respected organizers in the entire party.  

Teresa lives just outside of Madison - she's a legendary Iowa organizer because she grew up in politics there.  Teresa has run coordinateds in WI before and everyone knows that she's about the best strategist and organizer in the state (with one or two potential exceptions...one of one or two also being for Clinton).  

by Peter from WI 2008-02-13 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

How'd she do in Iowa?

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Don't be facile.

She's won more big elections than any strategist in Wisconsin and the Midwest.

Remember when Bush was supposed to win Wisconsin and Kerry did instead?  

by Peter from WI 2008-02-14 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Even so, how much can one person do over four days?

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Clinton and Obama have both had things going on the ground here for a few weeks.  More importantly, where were they over the last year?  I don't know.  Edwards was the only one with an organized presence (disclosure: I led it).  This is, sadly, largely going to be a mass campaign; as in mass media, mass events.  It's not about field organizing particularly at this point - nobody bought the voter file access, and none of them have real field operations readily built or available.

by Peter from WI 2008-02-13 06:49PM | 0 recs
Maybe

they should hold a special election asking The People if they want the way they voted and the delgates that go with their vote to count?

by kevin22262 2008-02-13 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe

Wow that's a complete waste of time :-)

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 06:09PM | 0 recs
It was

a little serious but mostly tongue in cheek.

by kevin22262 2008-02-13 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: It was

I know.  My comment was pure snark.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-14 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Sensing "a shift in Wisconsin"? I think the donors are outraged that Hillary basically left the playing field in WI to Obama after being trounced in 8 consecutive primaries and said either you get in there and play or we're getting out.

So who did they send in - the person who did so well in Iowa for them. That's really stepping up with a winning strategy.

by CB Todd 2008-02-13 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

For to have a shot you are right she has to compete.    But she will lose... she just wants to make it closer.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I want to see Jerome Armstrong with a pro-Obama post. PLEASE! PLEASE! Just humor me.

by tom32182 2008-02-13 06:02PM | 0 recs
Post one yourself

it's that easy.  Is this some kind of MYDD fetish to constantly be picking on Jerome?

by diplomatic 2008-02-13 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

And whither "uncommitted"'s vote?  Would you disenfranchise those voters, when it was clear that they voted for someone other than Clinton?

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Fair enough.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 06:15PM | 0 recs
Another tidbit

AFSCME has sent out an 11 page booklet outlining various policy positions of Hillary's and is urging their union members here in Wisconsin to vote for her. It's very professional--it even has a Table of Contents.

by Tove 2008-02-13 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Let's start a Gupta chant!! How much for the donor list?? High big please!!

Obama is going to get his pimp on and beat Hillary by close to 20 points in Wisconsin. Hillary doesn't stand a chance in the Madison or Milwaukee regions of the state.

by Djneedle83 2008-02-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Unfortunately for Obama, Madison and Milwaukee aren't the only places with Democrats.  Fortunately for Obama, I think he's got enough energy everywhere to win here.

by Peter from WI 2008-02-13 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

    I hope that if Obama does control the credentials committee, he seats the MI and FL delegates on the condition that he gets all the uncommited and Edwards delegates.  I think this deal is within the power of the credentials committee.  Is that a fair deal?  If Clinton is going to do an about-face on the importance of Michigan, Obama should give her a taste of her own medicine.  Cutthroat and by the rules.  

by cilerder86 2008-02-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I think its fair.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Teresa Vilmain won high marks for running Hillary's Iowa campaign? This is exactly what has been wrong with the Democratic Party lately.

Hillary Clinton LOST Iowa. Not just lost, but came in third.

We need to stop praising and rehiring losers.

by b1oody8romance7 2008-02-13 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

And blew out all her cash with it!  I understand the Hillary is very loyal, but sometimes loyalty doesn't make good sense!!!

by LordMike 2008-02-13 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Seriously, at this point I expect to announce the hiring of Bob Shrum.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Well, she came in second in the number of delegates... and she was only 1 delegate behind Obama overall.  I would say that's pretty good.

I know it's all the rage to hate on Clinton right now, but let's not distort the past while we're at it.  While there is no doubt that Obama won in Iowa, Clinton didn't do poorly either.

--sam

by samizdat 2008-02-13 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Fuck you for calling Teresa Vilmain a loser.  It is exactly this kind of know-it-all-ism within the netroots where people can't think for themselves and draw distinctions that keeps some of the established power bases from taking us seriously unless we have dramatic successes.

Teresa's a hell of an organizer, and part of the solution, not part of the problem.

by Peter from WI 2008-02-13 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Maybe so, but she DID get beaten in Iowa and the Iowa expenditures (and who knows if that is her fault) left Hillary in a precarious financial situation.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

1.  You should cite this little conspiracy theory of yours.

2.  If I remember correctly, Clinton herself said words to the effect that MI's votes "don't count" during the campaign.  Of course, this was before it suddenly became clear she may need them (and FL's).

3.  Your second point is just a laughable accusation.  I'm sure that a couple of stray ads, on a cable network, no less, swayed a grand total of 5 votes.  You are simply trying to divorce a technical violation from its actual impact (which was next to nothing).

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 06:13PM | 0 recs
Clinton Supporters

Aren't all three of the Congressmen mentioned in the diary Clinton supporters?  This seems like a last gasp effort to change the playing field. I can understand FL being seated but MI should never affect the outcome of this race. Even Clinton said in NH that MI was not relevant to this race. I, and many other Obama supporters, will leave the Democratic Party if Clinton wins the nomination based on FL/MI.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-13 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Supporters

Lawdawg, I hope that won't be the case. FL/MI will be the proverbial icing on the cake.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 06:21PM | 0 recs
No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point....

NYT THURSDAY: "Clinton's advisers acknowledged it would be difficult to catch up in race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning 3 states on which she is most pinning her hopes: Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April. Dem party's rules would be decided obstacle in efforts to catch up to Obama before voting phase of nominating process ends later in spring"

The deal is this, the PLEDGED delegate total will force HRC out of the race, or else she risks remaining viable over time, and hurting the Clinton Brand entirely.  Bill's works around the world are too important...we must forget about race and gender unite as a party around Obama.

The DNC will not seat MI/FL in their current configurations... to suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

I think it will be best if all make nice and accept the race is almost over.  Unless she wins HI and WI, the HRC campaign ought to give up.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-13 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Disagree. Clinton would have won the most votes in states that typically vote Democratic (i.e. that her husband won) for a Democrat to become president.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

This special counting of certain states' votes is really, really weird.  The nomination is by delegates apportioned proportionally.  Big states have more delegates.  But a candidate who dominates in small states can make up for small margin losses in big states.  It is really not that hard, and the rules were there for all candidates to adapt to before the race began.  

by snaktime 2008-02-13 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

I'm stating the argument that will be made to superdelegates, who will ultimately side en masse with Clinton.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Your "big states are what counts the most" line of logic will not sway many superdelegates.  Although big states take up a lot of those pretty maps, those wily superdelegates can count total pledged delegates, total votes, and total states won too.  

by snaktime 2008-02-13 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

It will if they are stuck in the '90's, from which Clinton's campaign strategy apparently came.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Except while Hillary has won the Biggest States, Obama has won the more big states as defined by Clinton Supporters (Missouri or Bigger).  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

It's demeaning for you to imply that Dems outside of traditional Dem states just don't matter.

This is what KEEPS red states red, attitudes like that.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

I'm not demeaning anything, I'm being realistic. When it's time for superdelegates to "delegate," they will delegate for Clinton because she would have Democratic states. It will be controversial, but it will be reality.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-13 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Assertion unsupported by fact or logic.

The Super-delegates are far more likely to go behind the person who has the overall lead in pledged delegates.  It will only be fair, though it will knock your candidate out; I think we both know that Hillary's chances of making up the pledged delegate deficit are quite small.

You don't seem to realize that either Clinton OR Obama could win any of those states in the general.  That's why they are called DEMOCRATIC states, b/c they reliably vote Dem no matter who the nominee is.  Far better to nominate someone who will win those states, and also has the chance to win other states.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-13 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

If you're saying the superdelegates will care about electability I'd think they would look to swing states, not democratic states.  I can't think of any basis for the superdelegates giving extra credit to voters in the bluest states.  In any case, it is simply beyond doubt that by far the most important criterion for the superdelegates will be who is the winner of the actual vote, i.e. the pledged delegate total.  

There is effectively no chance that the superdelegates will substantially buck the pledged delegate total.  If the pledged delegate total is really close - within the margin created by the Florida and Michigan clusterfucks - then maybe the superdelegates could be persuaded to go against the popular vote/pledged delegate total.  Otherwise, no way.

by snaktime 2008-02-13 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Except she doesn't.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Shouldn't that work against her, I mean the corpse of Adalai Stevenson could carry NY.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 07:14PM | 0 recs
Wrong.

I'd check my math.  To date, Obama has won more Kerry states than Clinton.

Kerry States won by Clinton
Cali
MA
NH
NJ
NY

Kerry States won by Obama
CT
Del
DC
IL
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Washington

Its an 8-5 margin counting DC or 7-5 without it.  And with the possible exception of NH who voted for Bush in 2000 but has trended blue, all the ones she won will go Blue regardless of the nominee.

If we throw in states Gore won but Kerry didn't
Iowa - Obama
NM - Clinton (although a recount is going on)
Its the same margin.

So nice try but your talking point has been busted.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Wrong.

I'd check my math.  To date, Obama has won more Kerry states than Clinton.

Kerry States won by Clinton
Cali
MA
NH
NJ
NY

Kerry States won by Obama
CT
Del
DC
IL
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Washington

Its an 8-5 margin counting DC or 7-5 without it.  And with the possible exception of NH who voted for Bush in 2000 but has trended blue, all the ones she won will go Blue regardless of the nominee.

If we throw in states Gore won but Kerry didn't
Iowa - Obama
NM - Clinton (although a recount is going on)
Its the same margin.

So nice try but your talking point has been busted.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong.

Since you mentioned NH, which was a big Clinton win, I thought I'd throw in today's head-to-head for everyone to think about:

NH (Rasmussen, 2/12)
Obama 49
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

Shaheen 49
Sununu 41

So, we have the option of making NH a battleground, or focusing our resources elsewhere.

by Nissl 2008-02-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong.

I would fully expect Clinton to take NH in NOV.  The polls are reflecting the perception that Obama will be the nominee right now, but I'm betting McCain support is softer than Bush's economic policies.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-14 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Disenfranchisement is not spin. Nor do you have a very good memory of 2000 in Florida or subsequent elections in Miami. It reaches beyond the state of Florida to all democrats.

If Obama is so confident of his appeal across all 50 states then he should not resist the seating. But much like the rest of his campaign, which focused on caucus states, he knows he wins best when vote counts are kept low.

Nor do I have any doubt that if positions were reversed he would not fight to seat them. Much as I fear that Hillary would resist it.

But in that case, I would fight her as well because it's wrong.

By the way, this race is not over.  

by cath 2008-02-13 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

That's not entirely true.  While I voted Clinton, I have no qualms at all in saying that Obama has won several non-caucus contests where the turnout was the best it's ever been.

As I noted to an Obama supporter above, let's not distort the facts here.

--sam

by samizdat 2008-02-13 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: No Amount of Spin can Bargain Away this point.

Yet he holds the lead in the Popular Vote for all states regardless if Florida and Michigan are counted.  But thanks for playing.  

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jse ssionid=83612D4DA9527D0E901234499906EC92 ?diaryId=3894

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Quit ripping Dean, he engineered the first real turnover in Congress in our favor since 1984, if some DLC flack gets back in were screwed.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-13 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Speaking of bs . . . how about Obama's decision to campaign for "uncommitted" in Michigan to embarrass Hillary.

He made a stupid choice and he will pay the price for it.

Everyone knew who he was when Florida held it's primary. He lost there as well.

Both sets of delegates will be seated.

by cath 2008-02-13 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Can someone just answer this one question: is there any chance that the candidate who goes into the convention with the most delegates will not control the Credentials Committee? Is there any chance that the delegates will be seated without an action by said Credentials Committee? Unless there is some way that the candidate with the minority of delegates going into the Convention can seat the delegates, I just don't see what the issue is. No candidate would directly their supporters to vote to deny themselves the nomination. They will be seated just fine AFTER the nominee is chosen.

by dmc2 2008-02-13 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

As to the second question: that is up in the air. There's a lot of pressure now on the DNC to make a ruling on MI/FL way before the primaries are over. I doubt they will, but anything's possible.

On your first question: Yes, I think that could happen. Based on info in andrewalker08's great diary, here:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/27/1650 22/889

There are 25 appointed members of the Credentials Committee, who in theory won't be controlled by either candidate. Then there are 161 additional members allocated to the states who are actually elected based on equations that take into account the popular vote in each primary state (and territory), not the delegate allocations. (The caucus state members are elected based on that state's equation for At-Large delegates.) The current allocation can be seen here: http://www.openleft.com/quickHits.do#422
Obama is ahead, but it's possible that Clinton could end up with control of the committee: with solid wins in OH, TX, PA, KY, WV, and PR, it is entirely possible that Clinton will still be behind in delegates but end up with a large number of committee members per primary state, adding up to more members on the Credentials Committee than Obama. Whether she will have enough to control a majority--93 of 186, would be an open question.

If she did have a majority, then at the convention the Committee would vote to seat the FL and MI delegations, and send a report to the floor of the convention to be voted on by all delegates and superdelegates (except FL and MI). If they accept it, FL and MI are seated, and Clinton gets about 57 delegates closer to Obama. They would probably only be about 20-30 apart at this point. She then attempts to flip a number of superdelegates--or even regular delegates--to put her over the top.

But the convention can also reject the report. If it does, the Credentials Committee must issue a new report within hours, and send it back to the floor. This can happen as many times as each side deems necessary, to protect their interests.

In the end, either a handful of folks on the committee or on the convention floor change their votes, and Clinton wins;

No one changes their vote, and Obama wins;

or someone like Al Gore brokers a compromise: Obama and Clinton run together on the same ticket.

by along 2008-02-13 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Sounds like no matter what it comes back to who has more delegates coming into the convention not counting Florida and Michigan.

by dmc2 2008-02-13 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

well, a floor vote would be very interesting, and difficult to predict. Most Clinton and Obama supporters will stay faithful. There may be a significant number of superdelegates, especially from IA, NH and somd DNC folks, who vote against seating FL and MI, even if they support Clinton.

by along 2008-02-13 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re:

The REPUBLICAN state legislature and Governor moved up the Florida primary, Florida Democrats had nothing to do with it, why are they being penalized???

by rossinatl 2008-02-13 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re:

THANK YOU!!!!

by borlov 2008-02-13 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re:

"The REPUBLICAN state legislature and Governor moved up the Florida primary, Florida Democrats had nothing to do with it, why are they being penalized???"

It's not true that Florida Democrats had nothing to do with it: at least one Democrat sponsored the bill, and Democrats in the legislature supported the bill because it also included provisions for replacing touch screen voting machines with optical scan and ballot-on-demand machines, so there would be a paper trail of votes cast in the next election.

The Florida Democratic party had the option to hold some form of primary contest at a later date, but decided to hold their primary on the same date dictated by the new state law, mainly because:

  1. There was a state constitutional amendment on the ballot which would reduce property taxes, and they wanted to hold the presidential primary on the same day so they'd have a high voter turnout, so Democrats would vote on the amendment (and any other ballot measures having to do with taxes);
  2. Any other feasible methods that they came up with for voting for a Democratic presidential nominee - such as holding a caucus in March - left a large number of Florida Democratic voters out of the process;
  3. They didn't think it was important to be seated at the convention, since the nominee would be decided before March anyway;
  4. They figured that Florida would still have strong national influence by holding their elections early, even if delegates weren't seated, because of the national attention that would be focused on Florida.

After they declared that they would hold the primary in January, the DNC gave them 30 days to change their minds, or be stripped of delegates... The Florida Democratic party stuck by their decision (roughly 75% in favor, 25% opposed), for the above reasons, and because they thought the DNC might be bluffing and probably wouldn't follow through.  The main reason that I keep seeing, in the August-September 2007 newspaper articles posted at fladems.com, is that they wanted to make sure that Democratic voter turnout was big for the vote on the constitutional amendment.

by PatriotActor 2008-02-13 11:20PM | 0 recs
no solution needed because there is no problem

The leader in pledged delegates on June 8 will be the nominee.  There are other arguments but they are not winning arguments and everyone, including the Clinton campaign, knows it.

There is only one reality as of today and the rest is noise.  That reality is this: Obama +136 in pledged delegates.  If this number falls below +56 by June 8, then there is a problem.  But until that happens, it's all mental masturbation.

Clinton lost Wisconsin on Tuesday when she flew to El Paso instead of Milwaukee.

by mboehm 2008-02-13 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: no solution needed because there is no problem

That is correct.

Although had I been in charge, it would have been a flight to Madison followed by a circular tour through Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Fond du Lac, Green Bay, the Fox Valley (multiple stops), Central WI (Wisc Rapids, Marshfield, Stevens Point), Eau Claire, La Crosse, and then back to Madison with a finish of the week in Milwaukee on Saturday for Founders Day (DPW Jefferson-Jackson event), and then another hit back up to the Valley and Green Bay before Tuesday.

She could have won here.  I don't think so now.

But the surrogates are out in force.  I'll meet no less than 5 high-level surrogates for HRC by the end of the week, no problem.

by Peter from WI 2008-02-13 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: no solution needed because there is no problem

She's going up there this weekend. But it's obvious that that wasn't her original intention. Meanwhile, Obama has been able to make headway with GM workers in Janesville and speak to blue collar crowds in Waukesha and Green Bay.  If competes in those Hillary strongholds, he'll win easily.

Add to that same day registration and Independents and Hillary has little chance.

by elrod 2008-02-14 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: no solution needed because there is no problem

Yeah, but your plan was an intelligent one.  So of COURSE it couldn't be used.  ;-)

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-14 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

can't wait 'til Tuesday night

by poserM 2008-02-13 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I was going to write a long, angry message about how MI and FL don't count.  How Clinton herself acknowledged that about MI before the vote there, etc.

You know what?  This is an incredibly dividing argument.  Let's focus on supporting our respective candidates and trust the process to sort itself out.  Clinton's own supporters, her own campaign, have said that she must win OH and TX to stay in the race.  She's hit the reset button on her campaign and come out swinging.  Let's see how she does.

If she loses either OH or TX, the supers will come down on Obama's side like a ton of bricks and MI and FL won't matter.

Likewise, if Obama can't stand up to this new offensive and cracks, and Clinton comes back to win OH, TX, and PA big along with a couple of other states, the supers will come down on her side like a ton of bricks and MI and FL, again, won't matter.

I can say, though, that as an Obama supporter this line of argumentation is making me angry enough to not want to vote for her in the general.  I'm sure I will suck it up on election day and remember the vast chasm between the parties.  But still, this is not what I should be feeling.

by Nissl 2008-02-13 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

I would rather everyone transfer their rage into tearing down McCain.  We'll eventually have a nominee with which most will be happy, we might as well start paving the way to the White House for that candidate.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

This thread is getting really nasty.  Can I make a suggestion about MI and FL?  I think it is fair to say that a state like FL, where no one really campaigned, is going to tilt towards Clinton.  For Clinton supporters to assert that she would have won FL 50% to 33% if her name wasn't, well, Clinton, is pretty dishonest.  In MI, it's just not fair to say all the uncommitted should go to Obama.  That election was weird... Kucinich got 4% for Christ's sake!

So, rather than an evil caucus, or an expensive primary, or the worst case scenario of the Clinton Camp's "No takebacks!!, Indian-Giver" strategy...  Why not just do some polls in FL and MI?  The DNC can pick a polling agency that the candidates can agree on, do some polling, and average out the results from the polling, with the results from the primaries.  in MI, say 15% Edwards, 25% Obama, and compare that to polling done right before the convention.

It doesn't seem that complicated to me.  Once you take the idea the "my" candidate deserves to win, it gets a lot clearer.

by enozinho 2008-02-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
And another thing

I do find it funny that the Clinton boosters only seem to care about disenfranchising voters when it is to their candidate's benefit.  Why no tears shed for early voters in CA who voted for Edwards, Richardson, etc?  And if you're spreading the idea that the problems in FL and MI are a kin to 2000, when Republicans stole the election, you really should consider switching parties.

by enozinho 2008-02-13 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

how handy for Hillary that you see things this way. I for one hope that MI and FL have partial representation but not for the reasons listed by Hillary supporters.

following the rules renders you stupid according to you.

and "him getting his ass handed to him in FLA" is quite the story. that would only register as Obama's 18th largest margin of victory, not including u.s. territories or overseas people.

by alex100 2008-02-13 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Assuming that the clip were true (hard to say, it is Chuck Todd talking and not a campaign operative), it's not that they were concerned about losing Michigan so much as a concern about IA and NH.  Michigan already had its delegates stripped, and so there would be no point in having their names on the ballot and facing potential defeat/negative press.  I don't see how that makes either Obama or Edwards bad guys - they were told that MI wouldn't count and made tactical decisions accordingly.  They played by the rules, now the rules might be changed and Obama would be harmed by that rule change.

The only option that is substantially fair to all parties is to seat MI and FL but award half delegates, as well as a proportional share of MI's uncommitted vote to Obama.    

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Seriously, are you in high school?  The arrogance and subpar debating skills and lack of logic seem to peg you at that age... If you are older, I'd probably go back to school for a refresher course... you need it.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Please ... do you really think MI is gonna vote for 4 more years of Bush(McCain) just because of this? ..  if so .. you are certifably nuts

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-02-13 07:45PM | 0 recs
Through Partisan Eyes...

This seems to be an issue that looks very different depending on who you are supporting. IMO, it's just plain f*ed. If FL and MI are seated, what happens in 2012? Won't everyone move up their primaries? The DNC would have no power. As a commenter noted above, it was FL Reps who moved up the date, not Dems, but they are punished as well.

However, I don't believe FL and MI Dems are going to vote republican in the fall and to continue the war, wreckless spending, and incompetent government because their state leaders couldn't work out a compromise with the DNC. If they do, and take the petty bureaucratic infighting personally, they will damage the party far more than Howard Dean ever could.

Lastly, I don't think you can make a winning case that states are being disenfranchised when you run a 14 state campaign.

For what it is worth, I think most superdelegates will rally behind whoever takes 2 of the big 3 - Ohio, Texas, and Penn - and that will decide the nomination for all intents and purposes.

by Benstrader 2008-02-13 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Through Partisan Eyes...

I don't know, doing the math I think Clinton really needs to take all 3 to avoid severely damaging herself for the general election.  She certainly must win OH and PA.  Those are big states that we have to win in the general while TX we obviously won't win.  But she is going to have to win TX too to get close enough in the delegate count for MI/FL to stand a chance of putting her over the top.  Obama has several more small states coming up that look pretty demographically similar to the states from this past week.  VT, MS, WY, anyone?  Maybe Clinton can win or get much closer in those since she's supposedly catching up on the ground game now.  But she won't if she doesn't reverse the momentum on Mar. 4, and that will require more than a split decision.

What I'm trying to say is that when Carville and several anonymous Clinton superdelegates are saying she has to take all 3, she really needs to take all 3.  I have yet to see any pro-Clinton politicians/consultants say otherwise.  

by Nissl 2008-02-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Chuck todd said it.  Source the actual candidates.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news-- the pressure is mounting

Spare me ... the Rethuglicans were going to strip half the delegates ... it's moot because McCain has won ..  if people leave the party over this .. they are dumb ... things will be worked out in the end

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-02-13 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

You're arguing with a idiot.  Don't waste your time.  Its someone with the brain capacity of W and the Ego to match.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-13 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Nice.

by Denny Crane 2008-02-14 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Maybe not... buts its true.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-14 05:27AM | 0 recs
Hillary supporters are intellectually dishonest

How OFFENSIVE.

How COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

We Dems need to pull together to beat McCain.  This kind of personal attack (on somewhere near HALF the party's voters) is NOT acceptable behavior.

by borlov 2008-02-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

What will prevent Clinton from coming back is her campaign's inability to understand WHY they are losing.  Her national finance chair says:

"We basically ceded every one of these small red states that he has racked up victories in. And the reason that he has racked up victories at this level isn't because he was so much more well received, or because his message was any better; it was because we didn't put any resources in there.

http://www.observer.com/2008/why-clinton -s-back-against-wall-nobody-prepared?pag e=0%2C0

So, Obama's message is not better, and he's not liked more in those (insignificant) states.  To Team Clinton, it was only because of a tactical error in not putting money into these states.

This kind of dismissiveness is disastrous for any campaign.  A major Clinton donor:

"Anyone who really knows politics knows the difference between what has happened in these small caucuses versus when lots of people vote and vote directly."

So why is Obama leading in the popular vote overall?  Once again, complete dismissiveness and understanding of why one's candidate is losing.  I think this type of mentality starts from the top.  It's consistent with Clinton's thinking, and her refusal to apologize about her Iraq vote.

The Comeback Kid sequel ain't happening, people.

by stuckinsf 2008-02-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Agreed, and indeed this argument is bolstered by head-to-heads in a couple of critical swing states.

Colorado (Rasmussen, today)

Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

Iowa (SUSA, post-caucus)
Obama 55
McCain 38

"Not enough resources," yeah right.  People in the midwest and mountain west simply do not like Clinton and really like Obama.

by Nissl 2008-02-13 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Just to add, looking at the 2004 map, IA+CO+NM = $$.  VA, MO, OH, FL... I believe we can take some of these too.  But we will probably take NM either way, and Obama has some nice looking leads in states that have already seen him up close.

by Nissl 2008-02-13 08:54PM | 0 recs
Howard Dean

Howard Dean needs to step forward and show some strong leadership right now.  He doesn't have to impose his own solution on the FL/MI delegate issue, he simply has to say that whatever solution the Party arrives at, neither candidate will enjoy an unfair benefit from this rules snafu.  That would clear the air, and nobody could argue with it.

by global yokel 2008-02-13 07:58PM | 0 recs
Wisconsin

The notion that Hillary is somehow enjoying a rejuvenation in Wisconsin is pure Clinton campaign spin. Those tired DLC consultants of hers finally yanked their heads out of their asses and realized that you don't win national elections by concentrating all your resources in a few big swing states.  So now they are trying to be competitive in the smaller states as well.  Howard Dean figured this out years ago.

The Clinton campaign is going to be the subject of study in political science programs around the country for years to come.  It's a textbook example of how to mis-play a winning hand.

by global yokel 2008-02-13 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Wisconsin

The key will be the exit polling in WI. It will be somewhat instructive if they follow the trends coming out of VA, MD & DC.

If those continue, this race will effectively be over on March 5th.

By flying to Texas, she threw a big fat hanger over the plate for Obama.  She even tried to taunt him today about coming down to Texas.  She is now in trouble of Obama running away with that state (Wisconsin).

But according Penn, perhaps Wisconsin isn't significant enough to properly contest.

by swarty 2008-02-13 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Wisconsin

It was definitely a misplay.  Neither spending the whole week in WI as Obama is nor starting off in TX like Clinton did was the right thing to do.  Spend the first night and day in WI, jet to OH and TX for 1.5 days each to close out the week, then back to WI on Sat. or Sun. Perhaps a half-day in HI over the weekend for Obama if you want some good press images and to make a point about the 50-state strategy.  That's what I would have done.

by Nissl 2008-02-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Wisconsin

That would have been an awfully long flight.  I would use surrogates in HI.

by rfahey22 2008-02-13 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Wisconsin

Yeah, that was my thinking too.  Obama's got his half-Asian sister campaigning for him.  Clinton's got Inouye.  Between the way the campaigns are treating Hawaii, and the several reports we've gotten from the ground, it sounds relatively favorable to Obama.

by Nissl 2008-02-13 09:12PM | 0 recs
Hawaii Is Quite Doable

You have a breakfast event in Milwaukee, Racine, or Kenosha -- maybe even two of them -- then catch the 10:24 a.m. scheduled flight to Honolulu from O'Hare, arrive 3:40 p.m., do an event next to the airport at about 4, then hop on the 5:45 p.m. redeye back to O'Hare to start the next (full) day in Wisconsin. That way the candidate never misses a day to appear in Wisconsin.

For a little more predictability in the transit time you could put the candidate on a Metra or Amtrak train for most of the ground leg to O'Hare, and that might make a good meet-and-greet/issue focus platform anyway. There are plenty of airline lounges at the Honolulu Airport so you can get the candidate freshened up without wasting time dealing with a hotel.

by BBCWatcher 2008-02-13 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Your numbers include the supers who are free to change their minds. So those numbers are soft on both sides. Including them is nice, but not a true number.

Any way you slice it, the only way Hillary gets to the nomination is through a complete reversal of the current trends of this race, which get dimmer by each primary and caucus. The polling yesterday is shocking.  He beat her in 3 primaries, not caucuses and he did it in every single demographic group.  Those states don't exist in some sort of perfect Obama vacuum.  If the polling in WI is close to what we saw Tuesday, it will only get closer in both Ohio & Texas.

Losing two more races next week will not exactly reverse those trends.

I'm not saying she can't win, but even you have to see that her road to be our nominee is a hell of a lot more difficult than his is as of today.  

So I would suugest your homework tonight is to read the exit polling from yesterday and find a glimmer of hope.

by swarty 2008-02-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Still, people are still arguing over this non-issue?

They broke the freaking rules.  If you want to seat them, then split the delegates between the two candidates evenly.

End.of.story.

by RussTC3 2008-02-13 09:32PM | 0 recs
Penalty for Michigan and Florida

How about assigning Levin and Nelson to the Motel 6 in Pueblo, Colorado?

A clean, comfortable convention room at the lowest price of any national chain. They'll leave the light on for them.

by BBCWatcher 2008-02-13 10:13PM | 0 recs
The ad

argument has been so debunked it is a wonder that people still keep bringing it up...

by fladem 2008-02-14 04:21AM | 0 recs
BREAKING: Clinton to finish close third in WI

because that was "success" in Iowa

by aretino 2008-02-14 04:31AM | 0 recs
Rasmussen Backs Up Strategic Vision

Wisconsin Democratic Primary

Barack Obama
 47%

Hillary Clinton
 43%

Not Sure
 10%

----

Of course Rasmussen had Obama up 1 point in California too...

Who knows what will happen, but recall that Wisconsin is another "Obama" primary (open primary). Those Independents and "Obamacans" could come out in full force.

by NJPolitico84 2008-02-14 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

RASMUSSEN National Poll at 11 AM: Obama Takes Double Digit Lead: Obama 49% to Clinton 37%; Obama leads among women 46% to 41%

by mecarr 2008-02-14 05:04AM | 0 recs
Jerome: all this has been answered

And long ago.  What's with the crap lately?

Nelson said a caucus would result in the disenfranchisement of Florida voters and a dramatic reduction in the number of people who are able to participate, which is a particularly big issue in Florida with its large population of seniors for whom going to a caucus can be an ordeal.

Then run it the way you would a primary.  Zzzzzz.

Levin also said that the cost of additional elections is a factor. "I don't think the state's going to pony up" the millions it would take, he said.

Other state parties run primary-style (stop in, cast secret ballot, leave) caucuses without going broke.  Ask NM or WA or the Iowa GOP how they do theirs.  Yaaaaawwwnnnn.

Nelson also noted that Florida has never had a caucus, and organizing one on ultra-short notice would be difficult at best.

Maybe you shoulda developed a contingency plan months ago?

Anyhow, here's how you do it:

  1. Get county parties to tell you how many polling places they think they can staff for the day.  Let them take charge of that, and have them notify you of changes.
  2. Identify, contact, reserve polling places: fire stations, schools, libraries, churches, whatever.
2a) If a closed primary, get lists of registered Dems from local governments.  Otherwise, just get list of registered voters.
  1. List polling places and which geographical areas they'll serve on your website.  Distribute that info to TV, radio, newspapers, and local governments.
  2. Print ballots.  (Keep it simple: Obama, Clinton, other___ .)
  3. Distribute ballots to polling places.
  4. Open doors.  Check people off, let them vote.  
  5. Collect ballots.  Count 'em.
  6. Report results to media, DNC.

Sure, there's more.  But there's time enough to do all this between now and, say, April 8.

In Florida, the Republican state legislature moved up the primary date, but Democratic voters were penalized for it, Nelson said.

I'd have some sympathy if the FL Dems hadn't taken the side of the legislature, rather than that of the DNC.  If they'd at least been pro forma against the FL primary, but had had it inflicted on them anyway, then they'd at least have an argument.

I'm getting tired of having to say this same old shit, over and over again, to people who should know better.

by RT 2008-02-14 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

If you think that Team Billary can pull off this coup d'etat without tearing apart the party you are a fool.  If this is how she has to win it, then it will not be worth having.

Donna Brazile is not the only one who will abandon the Dems.  Millions of Obama supporters will feel completely ripped off.  Many will vote for McCain or Nader, more will stay home.  This approach will destroy the party. It will be 1968, all over again.

by upper left 2008-02-14 06:51AM | 0 recs
This is all pretty simple.

FL/MI both knowingly broke the rules, knowing full well what the penalty would be.  The DNC cannot be held hostage, or they have no power at all.

The contests on FL/MI are wholly, entirely, invalid.  The citizens of those states were told that their votes wouldn't count, which OF COURSE is going to skew the results.  Counting them is an injustice to every other state.

Rules are rules.  Obama can easily address the FL/MI issue by stating just that.  He can regret it, he can apologize to the MI/FL voters, he can sympathize with their plight.  But NEITHER candidate can in good conscience support those votes.  The fact that Clinton's doing so is political opportunism at its worst, and it makes me sick.

I went into this Primary season supporting Clinton, but her wanting to change the rules after-the-fact in FL/MI, and her not removing her name from the MI ballot along with the other candidates, has completely soured me on her.  If she ends up winning the nomination either through superdelegates overriding pledged delegates or through the seating of these OBVIOUSLY INVALID states, the Democratic party's going to lose my vote in November.

by EvilCornbread 2008-02-14 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

States are not individual autonomous entities, they contain people.  To invalidate over 2 million votes for the sake of procedure is absurd.  There are a lot of reasons to believe that this is democratically inconsistent.  But bottom line: We should maximize the amount of people making this decision.  It's why caucuses are terrible, it's why this system is flawed, but just yelling about the rules is not a response to the problem and is counter to the whole message Obama purports.

More on this: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.co m/2008/02/why-michigan-and-florida-shoul d.html

by jmarcus1789 2008-02-14 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: More votes to think about

Why is it that if someone on a blog posts something neutral or even nice about Hillary, they are charged with bias?  Isn't this called working the ref?

Isn't that what the Republicans did with the mainstream media, whenever the media said something neutral or nice about Democrats, they charged them with bias, then the media bent over backwards so far to not offend as to not tell the truth?

The truth is, there ARE nice things to say about Hillary - and despite the disparity of support in the blogosphere (due to demographics), she's got the support of half the Democrats who participated in the primary process.

I think it's fine and even proper to show her some respect.  

by Larissa 2008-02-16 04:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads