Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split from Michigan

Just in via email, the Clinton campaign responds to the Obama campaign floating the possibility of seating all of the delegates out of Michigan, but with a 50/50 split. Here's campaign spokesman Phil Singer:

When it comes to counting votes, the Obama campaign seems content to only count the ones that it got.  Senator Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot and wants a backroom deal that ignores the nearly 600,000 Americans who voted in Michigan.  Instead of distorting Senator Clinton's words, the Obama campaign ought to honor the votes in Michigan and Florida, respect the bedrock principles of our democracy and stop giving the Republicans an issue to use against Democrats in the fall.

This response from the Clinton campaign isn't terribly surprising. By accepting a 50/50 split of pledged delegates out of Michigan and Florida, Hillary Clinton could have actually netted an overall increase of delegates to the convention, as superdelegates would have likely been seated along with the pledged delegates (and more Michigan superdelegates support Clinton than Barack Obama). However, such a move by the Clinton campaign might have been viewed as a crass departure from the campaign's calls to have the state's delegates reflect the sentiments of the voters in the state (whether from the January primary or another subsequent contest). As a result, there was little likelihood that the campaign was going to accept the proposal floated by the Obama campaign even if they had had some interest in doing so (and it's not clear to me at all that they had such an interest in the first place).

So the situation still seems to be very much up in the air. I'm assuming that some sort of solution is going to occur -- though such an assumption might be like those that held that the nomination process was going to wrap itself up a month or two ago. As such, it remains to be seen just what's going to happen.



Display:


Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

told ya....


When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line
by lori on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:32:12 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

?
What the heck does that even mean?
by gil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is Obama afraid of in a revote? (none / 0)

If he is ahead, he will probably win...


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

I am so increasingly disappointed with Singer's analysis. Nowhere in this post did he mention that MAYYYYBE, just MAYBE Clinton denied the proposal because it would effectively allow Obama to STEAL votes that weren't his.

Uncommitted, even if you can count ALL of them for Obama is still not 50% of the count.

Gee Singer, when did you become an obamaphile?


by apolitik on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

I hate to rag on the front-pagers, but I don't think he gets the Clinton campaign.  There was not the slightest chance in hell she was going to accept this proposal.

It very likely wouldn't even get her the benefit he says it would get her, because she is probably getting the Florida and Michigan delegates anyway, when the Ausman Challenge is heard by the Rules Committee, probably this month.  Superdelegates are appointed by the DNC Charter, which has a relationship to the DNC Rules like the U.S. Constitution has to U.S. statutes.  The Rules Committee can only make rules, not amend the Charter, so I don't think they actually had the power to strip Florida and Michigan of their superdelegates.  They most likely did have the power to strip them of their delegates, just not their superdelegates.


by Trickster on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Credentials Committee... (2.00 / 1)

There is some interesting discussion about the possibility that Clinton may end up with control of the Credentials Committee.

Perhaps, Obama's getting afraid that unless he does something soon, MI and FL will end up being seated as they were voted.

That would certainly change the MATH.

Maybe he is starting to regret that he blocked the revotes.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:36:39 PM EST

"Control" of the Cred Commit doesn't (none / 0)

matter.

Basically any faction within the Committee can raise a minority opinion to a floor vote.  There is no way Clinton can control the floor vote.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Control" of the Cred Commit doesn't (none / 0)

I understand. See my comment below. That means that he will need to hold together his delegates to vote NOT to seat the delegations of MI and FL. That will be quite a vote.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Credentials Committee... (1.00 / 1)

"Maybe he is starting to regret that he blocked the revotes."

Agian.  The Clinton folks keep saying untruths until they acutally believe them.

Sad.


by gil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, he certainly did! (2.00 / 3)

A top Michigan Democrat expressed frustration Wednesday with Obama for not embracing the state's proposal.

"The Obama people are blocking it in the Legislature," said the Democratic source, who has not backed either candidate.

The source also said negotiators repeatedly and unsuccessfully have reached out to the campaign for input and cooperation.

The source said that Obama's campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton camp to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence.

Michigan revote plan goes down to the wire

...and the people of Michigan know it very well.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, he certainly did! (none / 0)

In the article, two unnamed sources contridict eachother, one says its Obama, one says its "both sides"
Further the article does not mention how the republiicans have been blocking revotes.

The clinton's link with the GOP grows and grows

Sadder still


by gil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong... (2.00 / 2)

That's not true at all.

For those of us who watched this for weeks (look at my diaries) it was abundently clear who was playing the obstruction game. I'm sure you know that your candidate was behind blocking the revotes.

If Obama had be in favor of revotes, there would have been revotes. That's a fact. He decided to play the game this way. That was his decision. So, this is how it is going to go down.

He blocked the revotes. He has to now deal with the consequences.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean the consequences where he (none / 0)

wins the election,

and Clinton loses a floor vote... which means absolutely nothing.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Paralysis... (2.00 / 2)

He's like a deer in the headlights who doesn't know whether to go forward or back.

I saw a deer killed that way, its not wise.

Thats why a good moral compass is important. People with a solid moral compass just know what to do.

It happens instantaneously. You don't disenfranchise voters. If you are ahead or behind, IT DOESN'T MATTER... you do whats right.

Obama folks, go ahead, flame me.


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Obama does nothing he will win by (none / 0)

default.

He has no reason to do anything different.

To do so would be against his best interest.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama does nothing he will win by (2.00 / 3)

that's right. he doesn't see losing the general election as a consideration. it's get the nomination at all costs, even if the techniques necessary to do so make it worthless.


by campskunk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Two things in life are certain. Death and Taxes (none / 0)

Winning or losing Fla is not certain by any means, particularly months out before the GE campaign has started.

Also.. who says Dems have to win Fla to win the GE?  

Certainly hasn't gone so well of late.


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two things in life are certain. Death and Tax (none / 0)

well, it would have helped in 2000. and 2004. but you're right- florida doesn't count.


by campskunk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Flame you? (none / 0)

 rofl, Hell, I want to thank you, I haven't had a laugh like that in days...whew...lemme quote it, so we get to see it in print twice

"Thats why a good moral compass is important. People with a solid moral compass just know what to do."  

That was beautiful, architek. Kudos.

Obama 08


by Kordo on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:04:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

50/50 is 0/0 (2.00 / 3)

He's blocked all revote efforts.

That is the truth as in it is a fact.  It will not be forgotten.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

If there are two competing solutions brought by minority CC vote to the full delegation, and seating as-is is defeated (which I imagine it would be:  the delegates are the hardcore of the die-hards,) unless at that point, Obama will win regardless of the original FL/MI delegation and another vote is brought to seat a 50-50 split (which if its supported by Obama, WILL pass,) then ultimately there is "A solution" to the issue.

Clinton can, and will argue this, but ultimately, if the votes are not there, its meaningless... an imperfect solution will move forward, and so will the electoral process.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:36:46 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (2.00 / 1)

This will require that almost ALL the delegates of one candidate of the Democratic Party vote to disenfranchise two critical electoral states on the floor of the convention. It would be quite a spectical.

The electoral process may go forward, but the illegitimacy of the process will be laid bare.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (1.50 / 2)

The issue will have been discussed and rediscussed, and the vote-in-full proposal will be seen for the Politically motivated "solution" that it is, just as a 50-50 split is Politically motivated.

By the way.. before you start throwing around the "disenfranchisement" word... you might want to consider what allowing a large media market to go first does... it is massively beneficial to either the establishment or individually wealthy candidates.

Florida going first disenfranchises 280 million people.

Dean's DNC was right to sanction them.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

Spot on.


McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future
by KathyM on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

Well said.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (1.00 / 2)

That might be true if an uncontested election is perfectly legitime..

But alas its not

and the clinton folks just make up rules as they go along.
Perhaps that is how they can amass such wealth...
 


by gil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (2.00 / 1)

Why do you keep lying?  Do you think you're changing anyone's mind?


by bellarose on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe she should just accept this for MI (2.00 / 1)

but certainly not for FL


DEMOCRATIC 08!
by rigsoHC on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM EST

Re: Maybe she should just accept this for MI (none / 0)

Hillary is really rolling the dice here. Clinton would rather put all of the delegates at risk and risk disenfranchising Michigan Democrats entirely, than accept a neutral solution.
The original vote is too flawed to play any part in reaching a solution to the Michigan delegate conundrum.

Hillary just said no to Michigan's best shot at having their delegates seated at the convention. The people of Michigan won't be happy with Hillary's stubborn refusal.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hogwash (2.00 / 2)

She even arranged for financing for whatever fair primary vote the Michigan legislature would pass.  And now you accuse her of refusing to accept a "neutral solution" because she rejects the 50-50 split that is a deadly insult to Michigan voters?


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hogwash (2.00 / 1)

And HOW is it a neutral solution to split 50/50 when she WON? If the shoe were on the other foot, Obama wouldn't take this deal either. If he wants to EARN those votes, why not agree to a revote?


by allimom99 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:42:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A revote is fine in practice but noone (none / 0)

can agree to pay for it.

What if Hillary footed the bill for Michigan and Florida since she gets the tacit benefit.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:47:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote is fine in practice but noone (none / 0)

That's not true. The money is available and has been offered.


by LakersFan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote is fine in practice but noone (none / 0)

Bullshit.  The disenfranchisement of the voters will be a revote, what people dont realize.  Everything else is politics ....


'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:40:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote is fine in practice but noone (none / 0)

I don't know what you're talking about (or why you're so angry). I was only talking about the money for a revote, which has been offered.


by LakersFan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The funds were offered too late. Money had (none / 0)

to be in place in Jan to have a decent shot at holding primaries.

Caucuses quicker... but Hillary isn't a fan of those.

It seems that Clinton supporters think timing is irrelevant to anything... when you vote, when you pay for stuff.


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The funds were offered too late. Money had (none / 0)

You make no sense. How could money be offered in January when the elections and controversy hadn't happened yet.


by LakersFan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It wasn't a secret in Jan that FLA/MI get 0 (none / 0)

delegates.

Back then funding could have done something in a timely manner.


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It wasn't a secret in Jan that FLA/MI get 0 (none / 0)

They were holding elections in January, not trying to figure out how to fund another election. You're making no sense at all.


by LakersFan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton/Dean/Obama ALL KNEW FLA and Michigan (none / 0)

were beauty contests in January.

The Committee ruling was made months before.

If it was such a huge issue for Clinton that Floridas votes result in delegates, then the time to actually get something done was actually in January.

Yes... when they were voting.  There is a 2/3 month lead time in a new Primary.

Thats when funding would have made a meaningful difference.

Of course... IA/NH might have had something to say about it then.. but thats the hypocrisy of complaining about this now.

Clinton didn't want the downside of fighting for the Fla/Mi delegates until AFTER IA and NH get delegates assigned.

As is, there was movement in the state delegation assignments after the fact, likely as a result of disapproval of Clintons new position on the Fla/Michigan delegation seating.


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Dean/Obama ALL KNEW FLA and Michigan (none / 0)

You're seriously grasping at straws. Your original false assertion was that there wasn't any money. Now you're saying they should have been planning a re-vote before they even voted. The DNC does not have the power to tell a state that they can't hold their election.


by LakersFan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Dean/Obama ALL KNEW FLA and Michigan (none / 0)

Not grasping at anything.

First...  WHEN the money is available is critical.  Providing the money late has exactly the same result as not providing any at all.

Secondly, while you're correct that states can choose when to vote, you'd be incorrect to assume that if the vote is outside their committee rulings that that vote means anything.

Yes, Florida could have held a vote in July of 2007, if thats how they voted.  That doesn't mean their delegates get seated in the convention, in regular order.  In fact, as we know it means precisely the opposite.


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Dean/Obama ALL KNEW FLA and Michigan (2.00 / 1)

I think that splitting the delegates 50/50, effectively not counting any vote, is not only a "beauty contest" but the Champion of beauty contests.

I wouldn't swing that moniker around so freely when basically Obama wants to neuter Michigan into "vanity state" status.


by novayahavoc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh and... I'm not even a little "angry" (none / 0)

for what its worth


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh and... I'm not even a little angry (none / 0)

Then you should be able to express yourself without profanity.


by LakersFan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh and... I'm not even a little angry (none / 0)

I just looked again and the "angry" wasn't in response to you. It was someone else who jumped in on the thread with profanity.


by LakersFan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hogwash (none / 0)

The ONLY reason Hillary won is because the more ethical candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hogwash (2.00 / 1)

It's not.  50/50 is 0/0.

This is the Obama campaign with it's win at any cost mentality.  


by bellarose on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hypocrisy- coming from a supporter of (none / 0)

the kitchen sink campaign.

Both campaigns are trying to win at almost any (not any.. but almost) cost.

 


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You should ask the people of Michigan (2.00 / 2)

What Obama wants to do is nullify their votes.

Its quite possible he won't get 50%, but he also might get more.

Why can't they simply have another vote?


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Start a collection for a vote and (none / 0)

we'll figure it out.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe she should just accept this for MI (2.00 / 1)

I love the "concern" for Michigan voters such as myself!  It's all Clinton!  Obama's just being neutral!

Being seated doesn't reflect the hundreds of thousands of us who voted... and more of us voted Hillary.

And all I hear from the Obama crowd online is "Michigan shouldn't matter!" but now I get the vatic word from above that "Oh, we matter, if it's divided evenly!"  Why, that's the only way!

No.  This isn't Clinton's fault.  No, 50/50 is not a fair compromise.

My vote may not matter to any of you now, but it sure will come November.


by novayahavoc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:40:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This seemed very staged by BO today - (2.00 / 1)

I mean he is basically just blocking the vote there.  But what it indicates is that HRC's strategy is working, she has turned this into a cause celebre - he now feels he has to say something about the situation.  Once he starts talking this could turn into a slide of double talk for him.....


by Molee on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:44:00 PM EST

Re: This seemed very staged by BO today - (none / 0)

Please give some examples to as how he is blocking a vote


by gil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This seemed very staged by BO today - (2.00 / 1)

His lawyers have been in MI blocking every move they've made towards a revote.

Everyone wanted a revote there, except your candidate.  Democracy is of little importance to him.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This seemed very staged by BO today - (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. Now that he has weighed in on the subject he can't ignore it any more--but his proposal doesn't pass the laugh test.

Now he's locked in to negotiating a fair solution.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Smell test.. it doesn't pass the smell test.. (none / 0)

it doesn't smell right..


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton just rejected a fair solution. (none / 0)

She rolled the dice.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

Dear Candidates:

Just support the Stupak plan and shaddup already!

Sincerely,
The nation


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:44:57 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (none / 0)

Good, FL and MI should lose their votes.  Can any democrat not capitulate?  Seriously?

I am so sick of us as a party getting all weak kneed everytime someone breaks the rules then whines about it.  Just like with Bush and FISA and Bush and everything else, we will cave, cause we don't have the guts to stand up for it.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:48:07 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Rejects 50/50 Delegate Split (2.00 / 1)

that is the centrists way of doing things

It leaves with horrid policies such as Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Iraq war.


by gil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe Obama (2.00 / 2)

should accept the consequences of his political decisions.


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:50:38 PM EST

You mean like treating caucuses seriously (none / 0)

That consequences thing works both ways.

Clinton's team screwed the pooch, and now is clawing desperately to somehow flip "automatic delegates" (her teams original term, not mine.)


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FL/MI is the topic (none / 0)

...you know, where the actual voters cast a ballot.


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FL/MI is only an issue NOW.. because (none / 0)

Clinton needs them in the primary.

Before, notsomuch.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL/MI is only an issue NOW.. because (2.00 / 1)

Yes, she needs votes from voters who voted for her.

That's called democracy.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She didn't need them before she saw (none / 0)

the writing on the wall.

Its not about Hillary caring for Florida... its all about Hillary caring about winning.  I don't blame her, but then I don't blame Obama for playing the same game in reverse.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the problem with that thinking (2.00 / 1)

Do you want this thing to be about motives?  Because you can never really know what somebody's motives are, and in fact what's most likely is that, as you say, both candidates have similar motives.

Or do you want it to be about right and wrong?

If the latter--and really, it must be the latter, judging this thing on guesswork about motives is nonsensical--then yes, there is value in the principle of sticking up for the Rules Committee's authority, and there is value in the principle of maintaining an orderly primary process . . . but government by the consent of the governed is the bedrock value upon which this nation was founded.  It's why they dumped all that lovely tea into Boston Harbor, and it's exactly what the words of the Declaration of Independence are about, and it's the first three words of the Constitution, the words that give the rest of the Constitution its validity: We The People.

p.s. And just as a kicker, there is also the old electoral suicide angle.  Remember that angle could persist for elections to come if Democrats piss off two of the most important swing states in the country by refusing to count their vote in the closest and most exciting Democratic primary contest ever.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Originally there were no Political Parties (none / 0)

and the framers thought they were A Bad Idea (TM)

however... we've decided in our later wisdom to form parties, and eventually we've settled on a primary system.

A system must have some order.  The system is set up the way it is, and if "we" don't like it then "we" can suggest changes next go around.

To change the system mid-stream is fundamentally inappropriate.

Timing is important, and makes all the difference to what a voter knows.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:43:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also.. I can tell you the motives of both (none / 0)

candidates without hearing them speak during an election.

They want to win.  Anything else is setting up wanting to win.

Winning is the only motivation, by definition.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't go that far (none / 0)

I'm cynical, but not so cynical that I think that every candidate is willing to do literally anything--e.g., take the capital by force and set up a police state--in order to win.  This particular principle, the principle of giving votes to the states, might be considered a pretty important by a candidate whose soul is tied to democracy--and the principal of not pissing off two mega-important swing states might be considered pretty important by a candidate whose soul is tied to the Democratic Party.

Now, having said that, I do agree that winning is a presumptive motive and the most likely motive for any decision by either candidate.

That still doesn't make motive a good way to judge this thing.  It's a terrible way.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doesn't matter if motive is "right" to (none / 0)

judge something with.

The fact is that these are politically motivated viewpoints.

The fact is these candidates will fight basically til bloodied to win.

Finding a "fair" solution is impossible when basically everyone picks partisan sides in what is an important contest.

This is not a Little League game.  There are no impartial referees and there is (sadly) no Mercy Rule.

See elsewhere for my thoughts on Florida and my opposition to pandering to them for their EV.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you people really Democrats? (2.00 / 1)

How could you say that?

All states are important. There are no exceptions. The people of Florida and Michigan have been through hell, lets not make it any worse for them.


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The People of Florida != Fla Dem legislature (none / 0)

Its important to note and repeat again ad infinitum, that if you have a large media market out front then non-establishment, non-wealthy candidates get immense benefit and thus 280 Million Americans get disenfranchised.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ugh... too much comment juggling.. (none / 0)

meant to say Establishment and Wealthy... but you get the point


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But, It didn't have to be this way... (2.00 / 1)

If Obama had had the courage to permit revotes, then it would have been solved. He likely would have won, or done well enough, and the issue would have been defused. By blocking the revotes he created a catastrophe. That's where we are.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It didn't have to be this way... agreed (none / 0)

There could have been revotes... but thats also naive because you need to settle on impartial (DNC maybe?) rules and implement them independently of the state legislatures.

Ultimately the GOP could veto any revote.

The system itself is broken.  I agree with you.  There is no solution in this electoral cycle.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem with that thinking (none / 0)

Why didn't HRC stand up to this so-called disenfranchisement before Michigan voted and before she knew she needed the delegates?

Changing the rules in the middle of the game to try to win a nomination contest on the basis of two states where Obama was not permitted by the party to campaign and where, in one state, his name wasn't on the ballot in respect of the party's rules is not a result that Clinton is seeking out of pure principle.  

The risk in the general election that FL and MI will be swayed on this issue has a lot more to do with HRC's overheated rhetoric on this point, and cries of "disenfranchisement" than with anything Obama has done.  


by OaktownDad on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:56:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why should she have? (2.00 / 1)

Was there some kind of time factor involved?

Or maybe she was hoping that the DNC threat would lead FL or MI to re-schedule their primaries.  Ever think of that?

What was Obama's opinion at the time?  Did he have one?

How 'bout Edwards?  What was he saying about it?

The short answer is that everybody was waiting to see what happened, and nobody wanted to commit themselves.  None of those people were in the campaign to lose the primary, and for damn sure they weren't there to piss off Florida and Michigan and lose the general.  Each of them imagined that she or he would be the one leading in those states, and, when the time was right, i.e., just before the primary when people in the state have started listening and it's the perfect time for you to curry favor in that state for a short-run boost right before the primary, you come out in favor of seating the delegates.

Delivering that message during the heat of the Iowa/New Hampshire season just doesn't make sense.  Once I heard about the delegate strip, I assumed all along that the leader would call for them to be seated just before the respective primaries, and that the leader would almost certainly ultimately get his or her way--just because it's suicidal for the party to disenfranchise those two states. That's really a non-starter of an idea; those states could hold a grudge against the Party for decades to come after getting brutalized like that.

The other reason it always seemed apparent that those delegations would evetually be seated is simply that denying the vote to these two states as a penalty for some political maneuver their legislatures carried out would be totally at odds with numerous positions that the Party has taken over the last couple of decades.  Democrats have stood time and time again for enfrachisement, for making voting easier and for counting all the votes.  Are we suddenly to stand against it?


by Trickster on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes there is some kind of time factor involved (none / 0)

(in primaries especially)

Talking heads on TV estimated at least a couple of months if not 3.  You have to organize polling places, print/organize ballots or voting machines, reschedule the school days and hire and train election workers.  Plus you have to check that each step meets with state and federal guidelines.

You simply can't turn an election around on a dime, particularly in a place like Florida... which is frankly the larger of the issues from an organizational viewpoint.

It seems that if you raise the issue in May, you're more likely to have a Fla revote at or around the convention, than when it seriously mattered.

If electoral disenfranchisement was such an issue for Hillary she should have started raising her voice in Jan.. but ultimately that would have gotten her killed in NH.


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe Obama (none / 0)

Both candidates are experiencing the "consequences" of the DNC's decision.


by rfahey22 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (2.00 / 1)

What a disappointment the DNC leadership has been.


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

That is probably the one aspect of this mess that everybody agrees with.


by rfahey22 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:00:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

Yes.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Me too. I don't understand their logic.. (none / 0)

To impose that asinine rule on Michigan and Florida at the beginning made absolutely no sense.


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:47:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Me too. I don't understand their logic.. (none / 0)

The DNC imposed their ruling back in August 2007, to give the state legislatures a chance to re-schedule their primaries.  Fl & MI legislators (both GOP & Dem) thought they were bluffing and actually laughed at them.  Now they are forced to live with their decision.


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:04:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe Obama (none / 0)

We're all experiencing the consequences of Michigan's and Florida's decisions.  If they had just scheduled their primaries for February or March, they would have been critical battlegrounds.  If they had scheduled them for March or April, the attention paid to those two states would have been massive.

Instead, they had two low turnout elections, most of the candidates weren't on the Michigan ballot, everyone assumed the elections wouldn't count for anything, and newspapers ignored the results in favor of publicizing the GOP results.


by Skaje on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:06:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida (2.00 / 1)

had a record turnout.

All of the candidates played on a level field.


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Technically, Hillary had a lot more name (none / 0)

recognition at that point.

Timing is everything.   I severely doubt that Fla and Michigan would have voted in the same way on May 5th.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Recognition works both ways (none / 0)

If it had been reported that Hillary had WON Florida and Michigan, perhaps she would have had the momentum going forward to future contests.

It's all conjecture now.


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right- which is why its a bad idea to (none / 0)

rewrite electoral history.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

Glad you agree that the counts for FL/MI are valid.


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope.. I don't agree. I think the delegates (none / 0)

should stand as assigned...

0


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So no FL/MI delegates? (none / 0)

Not even 50/50?


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it were me, 0, yes (see below) but the (none / 0)

politically appropriate answer for the candidates lies between 50-50 and as-is.

However, Clinton has no leverage.  What can she offer Obama?


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Offer Obama? (none / 0)

How about a Democrat winning the GE; or is Obama that confident?


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has a path not including Fl (none / 0)

Frankly Fla is rough... it trends Red.. I doubt even Clinton can win there, and why SHOULD the election be decided in Fla anyway?

Obama clearly has a different map, and one that can add up to more than 270 EV if he's even remotely competent, which he appears very much so.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't agree (none / 0)

but then again, I don't see Obama as being electable in any circumstance.

So we disagree.


by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look regardless of what anyone thinks they want (none / 0)

They need to get to vote and have it count... if the first vote is really under a cloud, then we need to do whatever it takes so they can vote again.

What is the current status, is Obama okay with that? (a revote) in either stste?


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Short answer... (none / 0)

NO


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has a path not including Fl (none / 0)

Very clearly a different map, that does not include MI of FL. They hate him for disenfranchising them from the nominating process.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Other states EVs are just the same in (none / 0)

essence as every other.

Also... I'm not convinced that Fla won't vote for Obama because of this.  Voters in large numbers have very short attention spans.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other states EVs are just the same in (none / 0)

You'd better hope so...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Relying on Florida for a sane government (none / 0)

hasn't worked out well for us in the last couple of cycles.

Thats the reason why I'm not keen to rely on Fla.

Having said that... voters have very sheep like behavior and base their voting decisions on the most simplistic and short term factors.

Very few voters will ultimately vote against Obama because he "disenfranchised" them.  They'll vote for McCain because "He'll protect the Jews" or something retarded.


by Priest Valon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technically, Hillary had a lot more name (none / 0)

I believe the normal date for the Florida primary was March...I doubt it would have been much different if it had been held on Feb 5k, or the normal date in March (except of course there would be far fewer votes for Edwards and the also-rans). Does "May 5" refer to a theoretical re-vote? If so, it's really hard to see how that would be anything but a fiasco, no matter who "won"...turnout would have been far lower, confusion would reign. It's one thing to have a re-vote in a small state where it's not much of a challenge to contact every voter, but in a big state like Florida, especially with the "snowbirds" who are mostly up north by May, it would have been a disaster.


by Alice in Florida on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:57:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brain fart.. sorry.. Feb 5th. (none / 0)

May 5th is stepdaughters b/d.

And Obama gained a huge degree of electoral credibility by Feb5... or we'd have already have a presumptive candidate.

To argue that somehow Obama didn't gain immense name recognition and electoral viability between Florida and Feb 5 is a fairy tale.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But (none / 0)

There are 50 states, lots of 'em are screwed up politically, lots of 'em have GOP legislatures, etc. etc.  If you expect all 50 states to fall in line like sheep, your expectations are going to be cruelly disappointed time after time, especially as this idea of constantly playing 2nd fiddle to IA & NH becomes increasingly more unpopular (and rightfully so).

The DNC has to deal with that some way--I don't know how, but some way--without creating this sort of train wreck.  And really, you only need about a 3rd-grade education in politics to know that playing chicken with Florida and Michigan is absolute suicide.  Principles are nice, but geerally they don't trump drawing breath and metabolizing and stuff like that.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wrote about this on the Evil Orange site (none / 0)

The solution is to either recognize federally that we have political parties, and legislate them some power to set dates of primaries/caucuses for states or use a carrot and stick approach...

Fund raise within the DNC/RNC for alternate caucuses if local parties somehow cannot hold elections due to local legislatures.

Seat delegates of states that work within the national framework first.  States parties that vote to hold elections outside of the absolute dates that the national party sets would be seated after all other states seat (and with cumulative 50% penalties for each week before the "first")


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seat Michigan and Florida as Is! (2.00 / 5)

Good for her! A 50-50 split is meaningless. It means the voters of Michigan don't count. Screw that. Fight it on the Committee. Fight it on the floor if need be. Obama should have supported a re-vote. He didn't. Now he should get nothing, or nearly so, from Michigan. He took his name off the ballot. He did it to make Hillary look bad. And, despite all the smoke that has been blown, nobody told him to. Now, Hillary should get all her delegates, and the State party should find some way of apportioning the uncommitted delegates.

And, now, can we finally put to bed the childish and facile Obama-supporter argument that the "rules" somehow require that the delegations from Michigan and Florida not be seated. There is no such "rule," as that word is normally understood. There was a provisional decision by the DNC that everyone who mattered understood from the beginning was open to reconsideration by the Committee and/or the full Convention.

Take it to the floor if need be, and let Obama and his "new kind of politics" delegates openly vote to exclude two of the biggest states in the country from the Democratic nominating process and render the votes of millions of Democrats meaningless. At that point, there will be no phony "rule" to hide behind, no Hillary hating Howard "48 State Stategy" Dean or Donna "I'm impartial" Brazille to take the heat off Obama.


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:53:39 PM EST

Re: Seat Michigan and Florida as Is! (none / 0)

You know all this "take it to the floor" dialogue is disturbing.  I will vote for either nominee, but if it is "taken to the floor" and she some how overturns the rules that each candidate agreed to regarding MI & FL mass chaos will ensue and their is no way she wins in the GE...No way.  It will tear the party apart.  Is that what you want?


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:58:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seat Michigan and Florida as Is! (2.00 / 1)

Read my post. There is no such "rule." Just repeating that there is won't make it so. As for tearing up the party, don't you think leaving two of the biggest states, both of which we have a chance of winning but neither of which is in the bag, is going to do that more than a floor fight? Right, leave MI and FL out it in the cold, that will help us a lot in the GE!


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seat Michigan and Florida as Is! (none / 0)

Ok...you wanna talk about disenfranchisement?  You have your so-called Obama argument....Let me throw this out to you.  

Clinton has stated many times that pledged delegates are not pledged delegates and they have the right to vote for whichever candidate they wish.  Now being those pledged delegates were assigned to each candidate based on the people's vote of that state, if they choose (or are given permission to change their minds via Hillary's comments) to switch candidates are they not disenfranchising the hundred of thousands that voted in that state.


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seat Michigan and Florida as Is! (2.00 / 2)

No, I don't want to talk about disinfranchisement. Try reading my posts before you respond to them.

There is no disinfrachisement, there is no "rule" that says the MI and FL delegations can't be seated. The real rule says it up to the Committee and the Convention. I say fight it out there and let Obama make the argument that these states shouldn't count.


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seat Michigan and Florida as Is! (none / 0)

It's going to be a hard sell since she signed this:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS,  Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I Hillary R. Clinton, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus  before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.  

-NYTimes


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? (2.00 / 1)

She honored that pledge.  It's done with now.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the seating of the delegations.  Never did.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you've gotta be kidding me? (none / 0)

  Is that the new line coming out of the Rabbit Hole? It's a solemn pledge, until it's inconvienient? wow....maybe you really should