Half Votes For Florida?

by Todd Beeton, Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:08:34 PM EST

In a possible preview of things to come on Saturday, The St. Petersburg Times is reporting that Florida DNC member Jon Ausman has revealed that the DNC is leaning toward giving Florida's delegates half votes at the convention (h/t TPM):

"I think we're moving toward half votes for everybody," DNC member Jon Ausman said of his appeal to be heard Saturday by the DNC's rules and bylaws committee. That would mean superdelegates would have the same vote as pledged delegates.

In other words, Florida Democrats would have the same say in the presidential nominee as Democrats in Guam, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands.

Ausman, you may recall, is the author of one of the appeals being heard on Saturday. This is how Ben Smith described it in April:

Ausman's two-pronged appeal asked to reinstate all of Florida's 23 superdelegates, and to give Florida at least half of its pledged delegates back -- his reading of the rules dictates that stripping the superdelegates and reducing the number of pledged delegates by more than fifty percent is prohibited.

Many people have felt that this should have been the sanction levied against MI & FL from the beginning and Terry McCauliffe admitted on Hardball recently that if the DNC had merely stripped MI & FL of half of their delegates from the beginning, "we wouldn't be sitting here talking about Michigan and Florida today." But to the extent that it differs from the Clinton campaign's stated goal of a full seating of both delegations, one does wonder, assuming this is the best remedy Clinton can hope for out of the RBC meeting on Saturday, which I think it is, what her reaction to it will be. The upside for Hillary is that it would serve as an official ratification of January's primaries by the DNC, which by definition puts those popular votes in play. The downside is that it's, well, far short of what she's asked for, which from a practical standpoint means the delegate threshold Barack would need to cross to win the nomination is lower than the 2209 the Clinton campaign regularly touts, and hence more readily reachable.

Update [2008-5-28 3:47:58 by Todd Beeton]:Tommy Flanagan brings us news from The AP that we should not expect full restoration of the Michigan and Florida delegations out of Saturday's meeting. Ya don't say.

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to restore delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully seat the two states at the convention as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to a party analysis.

Party rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, Democratic National Committee lawyers wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday to consider the fate of convention delegates from the two states. The party is considering plans to restore at least some of the delegates to make sure the two important general election battlegrounds will be included at the nominating convention in August.




Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, florida primary, michigan primary, rbc meeting (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 166 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Thanks Todd!  Good to know.


by Deadalus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:10:49 PM EST

Ideal solution = zero delegates. (2.00 / 2)

The next best solution, AFAIC, would be to split the delegates between both candidates (whether half of them, one tenth of them, whatever). The state should not be given the ability to sway the nomination process in either direction. That privilege should be reserved for states that didn't play chicken with the DNC.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:12:11 PM EST

Re: Ideal solution = zero delegates. (2.00 / 1)

I did the math in a diary earlier. If you give half delegates and treat the MI undelcared vote as a "Not Hillary" vote (which it basically was), you end up with a +30 delegate advantage for Hillary, which isn't particularly significant.


by TCQuad on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ideal solution = zero delegates. (2.00 / 1)

Firewall is taking a principled stand.  It has nothing to do with a calculation of who may benefit, by how much, and it's larger significance.  


by Lystrosaurus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ideal solution = zero delegates. (none / 0)

they really shouldn't be counted at this point.

i was all for a recount, regardless if it sunk Obama or not but at this point, these states should live by the original punishment threatened by the DNC.

so no splitting the delegates or anything. Zero is good.


!
by alex100 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:58:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ideal solution = zero delegates. (none / 0)

I disagree on the revote idea.  It would have rewarded FL and MI with tie-breaker status after they broke the rules.  If the revote idea went through in March, why shouldn't PA, NC, IN, and all those other DNC rule-abiding jurisdictions that patiently waited their turn not be allowed to move their primary date to some time after the FL/MI revote in order to be elevated to tie-breaker status?  The whole process collapses again.


by Brad G on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:54:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ideal solution = zero delegates. (none / 0)

But it was not Florida's fault... at least it was not the fault of the Dems.


by weltec2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:37:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Try again... (none / 0)

There were Democrats in the State legislature and they overwhelmingly voted for moving the date up...if I remember correctly, only one Dem voted not to do it.  While I concur the Dems did not have the majority in the state legislature, the were complicit to the problem.


by netgui68 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ideal solution = zero delegates. (none / 0)

Does no one get snark?


by Lystrosaurus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:21:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ideal solution = zero delegates. (2.00 / 2)

Ironic day to ask THAT question....


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (2.00 / 1)

They'll also get half vote in the fall.  What sadness.  Seat all the delegates (from FL that is).  Obama supporters should not complain.  He's ahead anyway even if you seat all the delegates from FL right?  Half votes.... Please forgive me but it sounds so petty.  


by nzubechukwu on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:14:22 PM EST

Without a penalty...the 2012 primary might be... (2.00 / 8)

utter chaos.  We could see states moving into 2011.  States need to know that they will suffer some consequences if they break the rules.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DNC absolutely MUST reform (2.00 / 2)

the primary system before any further national elections!
We cannot continue to function as a party with such an arcane, convoluted and anti-democratic system as the one we have today.

In 2012 there will have to be a simplified and fair method of holding the primaries.  

The debacle we are experiencing today must not be repeated.


by Radiowalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DNC absolutely MUST reform (2.00 / 1)

Agreed..


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:03:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DNC absolutely MUST reform (2.00 / 5)

Well.

The overwhelming favorite, who began her campaign with more money, more connections, more delegates, more name recognition, and all the prestige and political capital of both a former First Lady and a sitting Senator from New York, and whose campaign manager was responsible for setting up an early, strongly front-loaded primary calendar that favored incumbents, was defeated by a relatively unknown upstart who, when the process began, had little money, almost no party connections, and wasn't even halfway into his first Senate term.

What he did have was strong and effective grassroots organization, which showed itself in the end to be more powerful than the traditional top-down organizational hierarchy that the Clinton campaign abandoned far too late to save themselves.

That sounds like democracy (little-d) in action to me.

Our process is arcane, certainly, and we ought to straighten it out.  But we must recognize that certain aspects of the process--mixing caucuses and primaries; the long, sparse calendar--were designed intentionally to blunt the advantage of incumbency.

If we do away with those, then we must put some other safeguard in place to assure a grassroots-organized upstart can still have a chance to win against the prohibitive party favorite.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

None of your points (none / 0)

makes the  case for preserving the byzantine, undemocratic system that is in place today.

As for the grass-roots upstart winning, well, that would be up to the voters, wouldn't it?  A grass-roots candidate has no right to expect that the scales would be tipped in his or her favor just because he or she is a newcomer.  

Let's get back to basic, democratic principles:  one-person, one vote and the privacy of the ballot.


by Radiowalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: None of your points (2.00 / 2)

It's less the scales being "tipped in his or her favor" and more "less tipped in favor of the incumbent."

Obviously the scales will always be tipped toward the incumbent, and we can never give a completely level playing field, but we can at least narrow the gap a little bit.

In the case of caucuses, that's done by using a contest that emphasizes organizational discipline, GOTV, a broad volunteer support base, and passionate supporters.  These are things that any candidate can (and should) do well--but none of them confers any particular advantage to the incumbent over the upstart.  An upstart who runs a tight ship can still beat a messy and disorganized incumbent opponent.

In the case of the stretched-out calendar, it allows a candidate to gather name recognition and momentum in earlier contests that can then be used to level the playing field in later contests.  Again, that doesn't confer any particular disadvantage on the incumbent candidate--they're perfectly able to use momentum too, and the upstart still has to win those early contests for this to work.

The point is, if we went to a one-person-one-vote, nationwide, closed-ballot primary, then the party favorite will always win.  That's not healthy to our democracy.

So let's make the process less arcane, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  There is some method behind its madness.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:23:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: None of your points (2.00 / 1)

That's why I REALLY like caucuses!  It gives the underdog a fighting chance.  And for the Clinton supporters, if it weren't for caucuses, Bill Clinton would NEVER have been president!  


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: None of your points (none / 0)

It was my understanding that Bill didn't perform well in caucus states, especially the momentum-awarding Iowa.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS09/7111 4028/0/NEWS
by devoted1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton Did Poor in Iowa Caucuses 1992 ... (2.00 / 1)

... because, since Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was running for President, Governor Clinton (and most other Democratic candidates not named Tm Harkin) never bothered to campaign in Iowa, knowing that the favorite son would win in a landslide regardless.

So, yeah, Bill Clinton didn't do well in Iowa.


by Collideascope on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:12:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: None of your points (none / 0)

I agree that do not want a Nationwide Primary Day, for a number of reasons.

But I could be swayed that going to all primaries would be a good thing.

The reason I am against a nationwide primary is that, especially in years like this, there were sooo many candidates. We need to spread the primaries out to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

That being said, I think the system does need a serious overhaul (I might actually write a diary today about what I think would work- not that anyone here would read it...)


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:37:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DNC absolutely MUST reform (2.00 / 1)

there are reforms to be made, but limits on what's feasible. We'll probably have to learn to live with the following shortcomings:

-caucuses will continue to exist, because there are states where (1) caucuses are held in very high regard (Iowa) and/or (2) nobody's going to pay for a primary (small western states).

-disparate open/closed primary rules.

-because of the above two imperfections, combined vote totals will continue to be irrelevant in the nominating process.

The following are feasible reforms:

-eliminate superdelegates

-allocate all pledged delegates on the state level in direct proportion to state-wide popular vote totals.

-have some states implement IRV (instant runoff voting), with a retroactive feature allowing votes for dropped-out candidates to be counted towards other candidates as appropriate.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:40:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without a penalty...the 2012 primary might be. (none / 0)

We could see states moving into 2011.

Why is this such a doomsday scenario?

We can say pretty definitively that in the next UK general election, which must take place not later than June 2010, the Labour and Tory party leaders will be Gordon Brown and David Cameron, respectively.  We know this many years in advance.

Why would it be so terrible to similarly know the Democratic and Republican standard-bearers a year in advance?  

I suppose you might say that it would make the outgoing president a lame-duck; but I find that argument unconvincing, since under the present system we know that the president will be leaving in any event; we just don't know who the parties' leaders will be.

Knowing the leaders a year in advance would even carry some benefits.  We could fully vet the candidates and have a longer period from which to judge their instincts from a distance, as opposed to judging them on the basis of a couple of weeks between Labor Day and the November general election.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without a penalty...the 2012 primary might be. (2.00 / 1)

Its not a problem per se, but it does lead to chaos with states constantly trying to jump over one another. I think all primaries/caucuses need to take place between The end of January and the end of May. It is plenty of time to pick a nominee.

As to how they should be ordered, I think it should be done NBA lottery style, we could even televise it... "and the first primary goes to.... North Dakota!"

And then the camera finds the representative from North Dakota sitting their with a huge grin on his face while the reps from Iowa and New Hampshire are seething.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without a penalty...the 2012 primary might be. (none / 0)

Two things.  First, in the British system, you do not vote for PM, you vote for your local MP.  Some people vote based on the expected party leader and some don't, but it simply is far different than our basic system.

Second, I have no problem with the process taking place earlier.  That doesn't affect one bit the problem we have - that whatever the process is, all the states have to abide by it.  The problem is not that a vote takes place in 2011, it's that we do not have a fair system.  It was not fair for Iowa and NH to get to go first, nor was it fair for FL and MI to jump ahead of the other 40+ states who followed the rules.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There has to be some punitive action taken (2.00 / 6)

or else there would be no disincentive for states to jump in line and screw up the nominating process in the future.


by sidwood on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not about Obama (2.00 / 5)

It's not about Clinton either.

It's about making sure the nominating calendar doesn't turn into a circus.


by zonk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about Obama (2.00 / 3)

Flash forward - June, 2015...

Today, on Mega Super Duper Tuesday, we're holding the 2016 California Primary, as well as the 2020 New Hampshire Primary and the 2024 Iowa caucuses.


by TCQuad on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about Obama (none / 0)

How about creating a nominating calendar that allows  for a common sensical approach that doesn't allow any one camp to "game the system" and allows us to WIN against the TRUE "other side". As a New Yorker, I am offended that my vote means significantly less than an Iowan. Sorry, its how I feel.


by devoted1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about Obama (2.00 / 1)

Hey -

I absolutely agree.

But you're absolutely, positively, never, ever going to achieve that by letting states freelance with the calendar... NH and IA will simply move their contests up, just as they did this year.

If you want to end the NH/IA monopoly - it has to be done by the DNC at the national level.

Vigilantism won't get it done.


by zonk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:55:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about Obama (2.00 / 1)

If the goal is to win, a New Yorker's vote should mean less than one from Iowa.  Why?  Because New York is going to go blue no matter what.  Iowa could go either way.  Due to the electoral college, it's not like New York gets any candidate attention outside of fund raisers anyway...


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You call it petty..we call it Principles (2.00 / 1)

I am not going to argue with you, however, rules are created for reasons..they are guidelines to keep things in order, they also describe consequences when someone or some entity fails to follow the guidelines.

I am sorry that you hate rules so much, however, if we did not have some, people would be driving 175 MPH on the interstate, your children would never appreciate right from wrong because there would be no consequences...in essence our country and people would live in a state or anarchy. No thank you..I want some structure and consistency in the world I live in.


by netgui68 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Serious Question (2.00 / 1)

No snarky comments, I want to know the real answer.

If clinton campaign says they reject the 1/2 votes and will only recognize a full vote - their option is what? (to the creditials committee?) what date would that be?

If, in the meantime, Obama "wins" the delegates based on the NEW number of the 1/2 votes - can Hillary Clinton "reject" this as not being the "right" number and stay in the race until the creditials committee?

Then, if the cred. committee (or whoever) still doesn't seat them in full - can Clinton camp bring it for a vote to the floor?


by nikkid on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:14:30 PM EST

Re: Serious Question (2.00 / 1)

I don't believe it could come to a floor vote. The R&B committee is charged with making the decision. I think her only option is to file a lawsuit, though I have no idea how that would work.


democracy!
by BlueGAinDC on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (2.00 / 4)

as far as I know, she can appeal any decision by the committee.  The appeal would not be taken up until the convention.  I said last week that she could potentially use this as a justification for continuing through the summer.  As an Obama supporter this obviously does not make me happy, but you wanted an honest answer.


by Xris on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (2.00 / 3)

"f clinton campaign says they reject the 1/2 votes and will only recognize a full vote - their option is what? "

To be sore losers.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A revote would make sense.. (none / 0)

Even at this late date, it sounds like the best way to ensure that everyone thinks the outcome is legitimate.

They could do it by mail.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:35:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote would make sense.. (2.00 / 1)

A revote works just fine, so long as everyone is allowed to participate--not just those who happened to vote in the previous contest.  Untold thousands sat at home rather than voting because they understood the contests would be meaningless.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:38:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote would make sense.. (2.00 / 2)

It also poses this slight problem of turning Michigan and Florida into "tie-breakers."

(They won't actually break the 'tie,' because Obama has this thing pretty much wrapped up regardless -- full elections with him on the ballot and actively campaigning will result in less of a net gain for Clinton than a brokered deal seating all delegates).

Point being:  it might be unwise to "reward" Michigan and Florida with meaningful elections after they broke the rules.


"I am like a Rorschach test...even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something." -Barack Obama
by tastycakes on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:01:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote would make sense.. (2.00 / 1)

Holding elections isn't as easy as armchair candidates make it out to be. They need to be sanctioned and paid for by governments rather than private entities. Hillary's operatives in MI and FL have been the ones all along blocking anything that could give Obama a chance to cut into her self-styled "wins" in those states.

And Hillary would block a revote now too because her only forlorn hope is to keep the monkey wrench in the gears and sow  bitterness.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:43:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote would make sense.. (2.00 / 1)

Caucuses aren't actually sanctioned or run by the state government. That is what makes them caucuses. You are right that that still doesn't make them trivial to set up or run.


by letterc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote would make sense.. (2.00 / 1)

I don't think anyone has ever tried to run a vote by mail caucus. Trying to create one from scratch in the middle of the current mess would be an absolute disaster. No one would have the least faith that it was being run legitimately, the fight over the mailing list would be epic and senseless and unresovable, the process of certifying the vote would be a mess.

And running a new primary would be impossible, since the legislature adjourned without creating one.


by letterc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:01:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote would make sense.. (none / 0)

Ask the Oregon democratic party to help out. They have a mail in election down.


by devoted1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revote would make sense.. (2.00 / 1)

No, the office of the Secretary of State of Oregon, part of the state government, has vote by mail down, not the party. The party isn't involved. We hold primaries, run by the state government, not caucuses.

Also, it didn't take them a few weeks or a month to figure out how to do it and to teach voters how to do it, and they didn't do it in the middle of a hotly contested race, where each planning decision would be fought over by two teams of lawyers and politicians, scrutinizing everything for any possible advantage or disadvantage. They spent several years planning and implementing vote by mail.

Also, the Michigan legislature is not in session currently, so it can't pass any enabling legislation for a vote by mail primary.

Both Michigan and Florida already rejected vote by mail as un-doable under these conditions. Not Clinton or Obama, but the state parties and the state governments.

Find a new preferred solution, because this one is impossible.


by letterc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:32:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They already are sore losers (none / 0)

This nomination was over after Wisconsin.  Really.


Election fraud is treason, nothing less.
by NM Ward Chair on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:14:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They already are sore losers (none / 0)

I don't blame them for not giving up. But I do blame them for the harmful things they've done.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (2.00 / 1)

Well, she can stay in the race until the Convention.  However, that would be a death sentence for the Party.  So basically, the real issue is "How final does she need it to be until she drops out?"


by auronrenouille on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

Well, she can stay in the race until the Convention.  However, that would be a death sentence for the Party.  So basically, the real issue is "How final does she need it to be until she drops out?"


by auronrenouille on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:19:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (2.00 / 1)

I honestly believe this will be over on June 4th.  I refuse to believe that she will fight this all summer.  She has done awesome and this will go down in the history books as one of the most intense and competitive primaries of all time.  With that said, I have to believe that she is a Democrat first and will bow out and begin helping Obama beat down McRusty.  


by Xris on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (2.00 / 1)

I agree. She is not going to take it beyond next week.


by wasder on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

She is not going to take it beyond next week.
...but not because she won't want to.  She won't take it beyond next week because the superdelegates will make her efforts moot by endorsing Obama.


Election fraud is treason, nothing less.
by NM Ward Chair on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (2.00 / 1)

I think so too, to be honest - the theoretical scenarios go all summer, but I don't see a scenario that goes past June 10 or so, not unless the RBC gives her FL and MI and refuses to seat the uncommitted or something equally crazy.


by auronrenouille on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

She has yet to prove it to me...  She's in it until the convention.  She hasn't had a chance of winning since the end of February, yet she stayed in and tried like hell to take Obama down... if she was wiling to do that then, why wouldn't she continue to stay in until August and beyond?


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

Isn't that political suicide?  I mean doesn't she risk losing some of her constituency in NY, not to mention fellow congressmen/women?  I think after June 3, if Obama reaches the new majority and HRC still vows on taking it to the convention I could see some of her SD's dropping support of her and backing Obama...I do not think she wants to go out like that..


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

I don't think she cares... she's all in at this point... married to the pot, in poker terms... even though the odds are so against her, it's ridiculous to keep playing, she needs those winnings so badly, she's willing to lose it all even for the minuscule chance at winning the prize.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You guys are ignoring the questions about Obama.. (none / 0)

in particular, the fact that he has not managed to consolidate trust the way that he needs to. One would expect him to have done much more to help America decide this contest. For example, have at least two or three more debates as Hillary has requested. But he hasn't.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys are ignoring the questions about Obam (none / 0)

The contest was decided after Wisconsin... the lead was insurmountable at that point...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, exactly. (none / 0)

If she decides to fight this to the convention even after FL and MI are seated and Obama has the majority, a huge block of her SDs will break for Obama and the party in general will mobilize to shut this down.  It would put her next Senate bid at risk.  She is not that stupid.  If this goes to the convention, it is bad for the Dems and worse for her.


by protothad on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:59:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She's not that stupid, but (none / 0)

she may be that arrogant.  /snark


Election fraud is treason, nothing less.
by NM Ward Chair on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:09:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious Question (none / 0)

Seriously? It would destroy her political legacy and nobody'd want to be affiliated with her, especially if Obama lost the election. In fifty years, the history books would have her footnote be as the spoiler in the 2008 election, and nothing more.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:09:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You guys are pretending that Obama has more (none / 0)

of a buy in than he has. He's not some kind of messiah. He's not even the presumptive nominee as you keep insisting. He is ahead, thats all. And not by very much.

So, get a clue...


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:41:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys are pretending that Obama has more (none / 0)

He's ahead by enough... more than enough... so much that he's winning even if he gets zero delegates from Michigan.

That's a pretty sizable lead.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:48:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys are pretending that Obama has more (none / 0)

This guy's a troll, just ignore him. He spams threads with crap like that, but he can't stand it when people ignore him.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:58:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys are pretending that Obama has more (none / 0)

There has been pretty substantial noise from Clinton SDs (e.g. Cardoza) and undecided SDs that Clinton should not fight the decision of the Rules committee, and that she should not push a convention floor fight. It wouldn't take very large numbers of SDs flipping to Obama at all to ensure that if Clinton could somehow magically award all of Michigan's delegates to herself, that she still wouldn't win.

The SDs don't care about your concerns about Obama, they are concerned with uniting behind a candidate so that we can win in the Fall.


by letterc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Halving the delegates is the first step, and a probably a necessary penalty to Florida for the violation (in the committee's eyes).

But the allocation of those half delegates should not be done solely based on the results. Obama would have done much better than he did. So while 50/50 would be unfair to Clinton, seating them according to the vote is equally unfair, it should be somewhere in the middle.

As for the popular vote, it doesnt matter if they are seated or not. The popular vote is meaningless, except possibly to the superdelegates, who are going to make up their own mind whether to include FL/MI in the popular vote. What happens on May 31st is irrelevant to the popular vote argument.


democracy!
by BlueGAinDC on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM EST

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Halve the delegates and give the Edwards votes to Obama. That makes it 53-38, or a 15 delegate advantage for Clinton. Hardly enough to matter when you raise the new magic number.


by elrod on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (2.00 / 1)

I like Bill Nelson's compromise idea. Seat half the Florida delegation according to the results of the 1/29 contest (52 Clinton - 34 Obama), and half according to the combined results of all the primaries (which would be something like 46 Obama - 44 Clinton). That seems like the fairest solution proposed thus far.


by Angry White Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Unfortunately, just like the compromise offered by Michigan, it's unlikely Senator Clinton will accept that.  Florida and Michigan are her trump cards.  She needs to play them perfectly or keep them in her hand.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Unfortunately, I have to agree. I think Rachel Maddow is right - Hillary Clinton does not want a compromise on Florida and Michigan. Rather, she wants to keep the issue unresolved and use it to whip her supporters into a lather and force an ugly convention fight.

I hope I'm wrong, but Rachel Maddow is the ONLY pundit who's been right about everything regarding the Clinton campaign thus far.


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Why risk your whole political career now?  I mean if she honestly believes Obama will lose the GE or will not be an effective POTUS, why go all in now?  Why not wait until 2012 when you know the nomination is yours?  I think it's a bad play...


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

She doesn't care about her legacy, or her appearance... or anything...  this is really her only chance at the presidency... that's all she wants... even if she has to destroy herself to get it!


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:27:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

If all the votes get counted in Florida, then it's actually to her detriment, so, you're 100% right.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:20:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Don't forget .. plenty of people didn't even vote in MI or FL .. since their votes "didn't count"


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Doesn't seating any of those delegations validate the popular vote (who voted FOR Hillary) in either state regardless of how many delegates are actually seated?

You can't say you recognize ANY part of the delegations and say you don't recognize the enfranchisement of the millions who came out and voted regardless of what they were told beforehand.


by devoted1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:31:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What difference does it make? (none / 0)

The popular vote argument isn't a legal or a rules based one.  It's a philosophical case being made to Superdelegates.  The rules committee decision doesn't really affect the merits of the case one way or another.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

"The upside for Hillary is that it would serve as an official ratification of January's primaries by the DNC, which by definition puts those popular votes in play."

I don't see why that is...

There's nothing "official" about the popular vote, that argument is a moral one to super delegates.  

If SDs weren't compelled to factor in the voting that occurred in MI and FL before, I don't see why they would be now that the DNC has seated MI and L delegates.  The context of the vote (contests not sanctioned, Obama not on MI ballot) remains the same either way.


by davisb on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM EST

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

I think this is a reasonable compromise - Michigan is the truly difficult problem.


can't rec or rate
by quimby10 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:15:36 PM EST

Half popular votes too? (none / 0)

Since we're slicing and dicing the popular vote metric however we wish, shouldn't we halve the popular vote metric from FL if we're going to halve the delegates? Considering the bizarre nature of the Florida primary - with no campaigning - it seems obscene to include the full popular vote as a legitimate metric of popular support in the state. There is, of course, no way to measure that popular support without a standard-issue primary and full GOTV and campaigning. In most states 75% of Kerry votes came out to vote; in Florida it was about 24%. So why should we even look at the popular vote in Florida? And if we are, why shouldn't we just lop off half of it as we did for the delegate count?


by elrod on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:15:38 PM EST

Re: Half popular votes too? (none / 0)

Looks like roughly half the Kerry voters in Florida.  I'm not sure where you get 24% from, that would be less than a million people.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half popular votes too? (none / 0)

Except of course he did campaing there, a press conference and TV ads


by trytobereal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent post... (2.00 / 1)

You're last graf is my big fear.  I don't know if she's going to accept it and try to move on to the credentials comm. and the convention.  Both are worse forums for her, because while she has a nearly a majority support of the RBC commitee, Obama will have the advantage in the credentials comm and convention.  But I don't know whether she sees some advantage in going on.  I do hope that we can resolve this nomination soon, but ultimately its up to Hillary Clinton, I guess.  I don't think she's going to gain or keep a lot of friends if she tries to take this to the floor (and I don't see much chance for success for her in that option).


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:17:28 PM EST

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (2.00 / 1)

What do you mean "which by definition puts those popular votes in play"?  By "definition", they nor any other such tabulation is in play.  I'd love to see a valid definition which says otherwise.


by Piuma on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:18:26 PM EST

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

There's an important procedural point here.  Because this is the Rules Committee, Ausman's appeal asks it to focus strictly on a couple of rules-based arguments for why the penalty should be reduced or eliminated (and, for what it's worth, if this were a court his arguments would be considered quite strong), but that doesn't make this the end of the process.

As I understand it, the Rules Committee will only be adjudicating those issues that pertain strictly to the rules.  No matter what they do, it doesn't foreclose FL and MI from going to the Credentials Committee or the convention delegates themselves with additional arguments.  For example, the argument that it's unfair to let NH run roughshod over the process with no penalty while simultaneously giving MI and FL a draconian penalty is, I think, not solely for the Rules Committee to pass upon.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:20:12 PM EST

It's the "Great Delusion." (2.00 / 1)

"What do you mean "which by definition puts those popular votes in play"? "

I think the Clintons are just trying to set up a sympathy case for a 2012 redo. "We wuz robbed by the vast left wing conspiracy!"


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST

Re: It's the "Great Delusion." (none / 0)

She can try again in 2016.


"I am like a Rorschach test...even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something." -Barack Obama
by tastycakes on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:04:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the "Great Delusion." (none / 0)

By then she will be SO herstory. Her only shot is to damage Obama enough to hope he loses and then play the victim card  in 2012. But why would the majority who don't want her now want her then?


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:30:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the "Great Delusion." (none / 0)

Prove that this is her strategy.

Complete BS.

You were biased before you made your "assessment".


by devoted1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the "Great Delusion." (none / 0)

Of course it is my opinion of what the Clintons are doing based on their behavior.

Please make my day and tell me that you aren't biased.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

I think they are simply gunning for the popular vote.

What the fate of Clinton campaign will be will hinge on how Puerto Rico turns out. I doubt it will really boost her up too much, but in case it does, and she has the popular vote by some acceptable count(which is any count that does not include Michigan) she will have a powerful argument to make.

Although it seems like no matter what happens, the super delegates have made up their minds.


by ajain on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:32:17 PM EST

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Except the popular vote doesn't include Iowa .. Nevada ... and two other caucus states .. who don't release vote totals(for what ever reason)


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Are caucuses good measure of a "popular" vote total in any state? Just askin..


by devoted1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

There is no such thing as a popular vote total in the primaries. It doesn't exist because it can't be measured in all states. But it sure does sound good to claim you have it.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

I didn't say they were a good measure .. I am just saying that is part of the reason that the popular vote thing is a canard


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

What will be interesting to see is what happens if the rules committees rules in a way acceptable to Florida and Michigan, but not to Hillary.  I think some assume that the interests are aligned, but they're not.  FL and MI wants to get their delegates seated, and I'm sure they'd be happy with their delegates getting a half-vote.  That's better then getting no votes at all.

Hillary, on the other hand, has said she wouldn't be happy with the 1/2 delegate solution.  What does she do then, when MI and FL accept the resolution and end their fight?  Does she continue on?  And how will she be able to justify continuing to fight for full representation when the state dem parties themselves are satisfied with the DNC ruling?
 


by ProfessorReo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:35:17 PM EST

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

I don't think MI would be happy with half-votes, it legitimizes the idea that they did something wrong.  I really don't know how FL feels one way or the other.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MI did do something wrong! (none / 0)

The Rethugs screwed us in FL, but the MI Democratic Party screwed the voters.

Here's my proposal: Strip all the MI and FL superdelegates.  Seat the FL delegation.  Seat a 100% uncommitted MI delegation, and let the party regulars duke it out for delegate positions at their state convention.


Election fraud is treason, nothing less.
by NM Ward Chair on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:02:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI did do something wrong! (none / 0)

Well, that's your opinion.  From MI's perspective, what they did was a principled reaction to the outrage of NH breaking the agreed-upon compromise schedule and receiving no punishment whatsoever from the DNC.  Regardless of whether you agree with this or not, it is my belief that MI is not looking to accept a lesser punishment and retire meekly to a corner.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI did do something wrong! (none / 0)

Then why is the party floating proposals like the 69-59 one they suggested a couple weeks ago in an attempt to resolve it before the Rules Committee meeting?

Principled stands are fine, but you have to be know you will receive the punishment that goes with them if they violate the rules.  Certainly if Michigan believes that they need to take this all the way to the credentials committee and then an appeal to the full convention, that would be consistent with a principled stand.  But I highly doubt that a majority of Michigan democrats are going to get up in arms if their delegations get half votes and party leaders decide to accept it rather than fight at the convention.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

Halving the delegation's vote defeats the whole point of the sanction in the first place. If they are seated as voted on in the unsanctioned contests in January then the DNC isn't really serious about moving the nomination process beyond the IA/NH deathgrip.

Hillary supporters, MI and FL won't be seated in a way that will make a difference in whether Obama wins or not so we should all make common cause in making the states the vast majority of us live in actually COUNT and MAKE A DIFFERENCE for once.

Clinton has talked about disenfranchisement in the primary process in regards to FL and MI, but for many of us the nomination process is done before we even get to cast our ballots(this year was unique). If Clinton means what she says the sanction will be fully applied so that all of our voices count later.  


by wengler on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:37:36 PM EST

Re: Half Votes For Florida? (none / 0)

What a strange comment.  The sanction serves to reaffirm the deathgrip IA and NH have over the process, not to help end it.  MI's entire argument is that NH was allowed to break the agreed-upon schedule with zero consequences, at which point MI did the same thing and got a draconian penalty.  Affirming that penalty sends the message that yes, NH can do whatever it wants, and the later states just have to suck it up.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have it backwards (none / 0)

If there's no punishment for Florida and Michigan now, there's never going to be any chance of breaking the deadlock that Iowa and New Hampshire have on the first primaries. The reason is that, if the DNC tries to have other states hold their contests first, Iowa and New Hampshire will break the rules and move their contests ahead of the other states, and the candidates, knowing full well that the IA and NH elections will count in the end, will have to campaign there.

The only chance of changing the primary calendar is if there are real and enforceable consequences for breaking it.


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:29:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have it backwards (none / 0)

If the DNC wanted to send the message that they are willing to enforce their rules even against Iowa and New Hampshire, a great way to send that message would have been to enforce the rules against Iowa and New Hampshire.  I truly cannot comprehend your logic.

New Hampshire agreed to a compromise schedule where they were going to be third, after Nevada, thus finally breaking the hold of IA and NH over the top two slots.  Then NH broke that agreement and moved ahead of NV, in violation of the written deadlines, and the DNC chose not to punish them in any way whatsoever.  How that sequence of events doesn't embolden NH for future elections, I have no idea.

I see nothing in this year's primary to counter the notion that the DNC will allow IA and NH to continue doing whatever they damn well please, from now until the end of time.  If the lesson is supposed to be "we let you off with no punishment this time, but next time, you're really gonna get it!" then I'm not sure who they think they're kidding.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

IA, NH, NV, and SC (none / 0)

were given waivers in advance.  Ergo, they did not break the rules.


Election fraud is treason, nothing less.
by NM Ward Chair on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IA, NH, NV, and SC (none / 0)

If they didn't break the rules, then what did they need to get a waiver for?  Really, the talking points are beyond mindless at this point.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:20:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IA, NH, NV, and SC (none / 0)

If you're saying it was UNFAIR to grant the waivers to them, you re exactly right.  If you are saying that they broke the rules, well no, the rules allow for the waiver.  Michigan will most assuredly not win with that argument.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Half votes? (none / 0)

Why not 5/8 votes?

What a half-assed idea!   Either count the votes or don't count them, but don't pretend that the voters who came out in droves to vote in the Florida primary are only half worthy of recognition.


by Radiowalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:45:09 PM EST

Re: Half votes? (none / 0)

Yeah. And just screw all the voters who stayed home because they were told by everyone, including Hillary Clinton, that their primary wasn't going to count for anything.


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:29 AM EST
[