MyDD :: 50 means 50, and far from over

50 means 50, and far from over

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST

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)

Permalink :: 230 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 8)

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.

What would LBJ do?

by Socks The Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:10:20 AM EST

You're right... (2.00 / 2)

...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 andrewalker08 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:20:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (2.00 / 2)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're right... (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Simple Solution (2.00 / 2)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 2)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:13:15 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 0)

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

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (2.00 / 0)

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?

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember the S&L (none / 0)

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 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:52:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

About Michigan (none / 0)

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.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About Michigan (none / 0)

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.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About Michigan (none / 0)

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.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About Michigan (none / 0)

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.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (2.00 / 1)

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.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

by jlk7e on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, Jerome... (none / 0)

...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.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:13:36 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

by toonsterwu on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:14:04 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

by inexile on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How dare she! (2.00 / 2)

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

by casperr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (2.00 / 0)

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

by Iskandar on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

hyp·o·crite ˈhɪpəkrɪt Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
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.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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?

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dare she! (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 2)

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.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:15:11 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:34:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:19:46 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 2)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:20:56 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so win without Michigan and Florida (none / 0)

good luck with that.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Following The DNC's Decision (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:24:24 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 1)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:54:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

independent thinkers (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hacks rather than analysts, this is the problem (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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

by scvmws on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:27:04 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

It won't count because Glen Smith handicapped it!

by scvmws on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

those races DO matter (none / 0)

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

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Missing the Forest for the Trees (2.00 / 1)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:27:49 AM EST

Re: Missing the Forest for the Trees (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the Forest for the Trees (none / 0)

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.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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.

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman

by Tennessean on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:28:44 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:48:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 1)

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.

the third eye does not weep. it knows.

by mijita on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

shocking and disappointing (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

depends on who did the persuading (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: depends on who did the persuading (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

AMEN (none / 0)

to this...

by wasder on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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.

The truth about John McCain.

by Jawis on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:01:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Know how I know Team Obama is in good shape? (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST

Cubs vs. Royals (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cubs vs. Royals (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50 means 50, and far from over (2.00 / 2)

Jerome,

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:32:10 AM EST

I thought this was already cleared up (2.00 / 2)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:33:00 AM EST

Re: I thought this was already cleared up (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, come on, now. (none / 0)

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.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The key word you failed to bold is... (none / 0)

..."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.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key word you failed to bold is... (none / 0)

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.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thought this was already cleared up (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sore Loser? (none / 0)

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 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:33:23 AM EST

Re: Sore Loser? (none / 0)

which big name