I think all democrats should change their party affiliation and send a copy of the form to the DNC and Obama campaign as a show of solidarity with the citizens of Florida and Michigan .
Posted by Tang at March 20, 2008 04:15 PMI'm not convinced that Obama actually blocked the re-votes, but I can see why he might because there's no point in it. Clinton can't catch up with him in delegates or votes unless she gets 70% or so of all the remaining contests. The money that might be spent in Florida and Michigan should be directed toward framing McCain.
Posted by Chango at March 20, 2008 04:36 PMchango,
you're wrong- she can catch him in the popular vote. with room to spare.
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 04:48 PMI think there are some trends now, that might indicate that Obama is in the process of "jumping the shark"....
Please read this article about the primary in PA, and the responses from voters in Philadelphia...
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CB593185-3048-5C12-00F9EE6880399149
Submitted for your reading.
I agree with Turkana. A re-vote should be taking place in both Michigan and in Florida.
But, Obama is behaving like a Republican.
Posted by Troubled American at March 20, 2008 04:56 PMI'm sorry if I'm being obtuse but I don't see what this question:
"Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away those states' electoral votes, in November? "
Has to do with this question:
"Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away the concept of abiding by the will of the people?"
I'm an Obama supporter and have never hid that. That out of the way the second question, to me, is much more relevant than the first. Because I may be unclear on things, I want to see if I can get a straight answer on this question:
Is the idea that because the party will not currently seat Florida and Michigan that, come November, the people who vote Democratic won't be able to? That is to say, does not being seated at the convention translate to not having a vote in November?
I concede the absolutly political reasons for Obama wanting to forgo the revotes (as noted, the demographics favor Clinton) and I'm sympathetic to the idea that he should let the people vote. I just want to know if the first question really informs the second question or if they're actually two distinctly different things.
Thanks.
Posted by Mike P at March 20, 2008 05:05 PMExcellent post Turkana! This is demoralizing to say the least.
I and many others have worked our tails off to push for fair elections and voter enfranchisement since the 2000 election. And what does the Democratic party allow to happen this year? Democrats effectively disenfranchising Democrats. The 50 state solution has been reduced to the 48 state solution and while the DNC thumbed their noses at two of the battleground states in the general election. And where in the hell was the leadership when it came down to making sure the voters had a vote? They stood in silence while the politics of old was in full force.
I don't think the Democrats need my help this year. I'll vote for and donate to the individual candidates I choose but not one dime will go to the DNC, DSCC or DCCC and not one minute will be spent helping to get out their vote.
Posted by standingup at March 20, 2008 05:07 PMAccording to Governor Granholm's statement (published on TPM) the DNC was on-board with the proposed Michigan re-vote. What failed is that the Michigan Senate adjourned without voting on the proposed re-vote. Now Senator Obama may have had objections to the form of the proposed re-vote, particularly about barring from voting those Democrats who voted in the Republican primary when the Democratic primary was meaningless. But those objections did not stop the DNC from approving the proposed re-vote. Once the DNC approved the re-vote, it was up to the Michigan Legislature -- not Senator Obama -- to pass or not pass the needed legislation. The Michigan Senate -- not Senator Obama -- failed to do so.
Is there any evidence that the Obama campaign lobbied hard to stop the Michigan Senate from passing legislation authorizing the re-vote? If so, I'd like to see it.
Raising concerns about the format of the proposed re-vote is one thing. Actively trying to block it once the DNC approved it is quite another.
Posted by kaleidescope at March 20, 2008 05:08 PMAs ever, Dem ineptitude carries the day.
Posted by onar at March 20, 2008 05:13 PMmike,
they're distinct. but obama's proposal to merely split the delegates- which would favor him, in two states he would probably lose- is not only political gamesmanship, but it says that the will of the voters in those states don't matter. clearly, the votes in those states would not result in delegate ties.
as to november, it's the natural reaction of those who feel their votes were not counted to decide to punish the party. the poll indicates that 1/4 of the florida voters will. i assume a good number of michigan voters will feel the same.
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 05:14 PMkaleidoscope,
obama was offering no help in resolving his supposed objections. all he was doing was throwing up objections, while also signaling he wants a 50/50 delegate split. his intent is clear.
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 05:15 PMClinton's lawyers are working on a little disenfranchising of their own in Texas; they are trying to block, or delay, the delegate convention and cut away Obama's advantage in delegates from the caucus portion of the primary contest here.
Their motives of course are as pure as the driven snow.
Posted by Copeland at March 20, 2008 05:17 PMcopeland,
clinton reported some 2000 complaints of election shenanigans. asking for those complaints to be checked out is not disenfranchisement.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5627315.html
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 05:21 PMOne could ask the Atticus Finch way, Mike, and walk a mile in a Florida or Michigan voter's shoes.
If no one gave a shit about my vote for party nominee why would I vote for them or their party not only in November, but ever again?
My vote was obviated in 2000 by the USSC, and here in 2008 my vote means nothing for the the nominee and thus the election.
I could see that line of thinking, easily. That's how the scenario is relevant.
For Christ's sake, the litmus is 2200 delegates. Neither one made it, there was duality in systems and two huge states got left out! The proclamations of total win by the Obama people make me want to puke.
If this is a win y'all can celebrate all you want. It's all an incredible mess, I'll always know it, and I have no idea who captured the will of the people.
One day it will be over and then the real duty begins.
Posted by paradox at March 20, 2008 05:25 PMTurkana,
I don't believe that many of the 2000 complaints actually reflect "shenanigins". The typical caucus, like the one I attended, had close split between Obama and Clinton supporters. I just hope the legal process is not going to be too obnoxious. I can understand a fair-minded process to verify the validity of signatures, since there was a little chaos in some of the less prepared precincts. Cheating was most likely minimal; and I will be very disappointed if Clinton's legal people make an effort to de-legitimize the caucus block as a whole.
Posted by Copeland at March 20, 2008 05:50 PMChango, if Hillary can't win, why would Obama block Florida and Michigan voters?
It doesn't make sense.
Posted by Moon at March 20, 2008 05:50 PMI wish that the Obama campaign showed leadership by calling for revotes, but I can understand the practical and political reasons why they would not. I dispute the notion that Michigan would demographically favor Clinton. It has a relatively high African-American population and the U.P. would likely be friendly to Obama as well.
It would be quite the nightmare to have a re-do vote and have it be meaningful. Since Michigan does not have registration by party, the re-do would likely be flooded with Republicans. The math of the primary process would make it likely not to matter anyway.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 20, 2008 06:01 PMI live in Florida. I knew when I went to the polls that the primary would not count. My friends and co-workers knew that the vote would not count for the primary on the democratic side. Everyday people don’t give two shits about this topic. The only individuals who care are those delegates who would really love to go to the convention in Denver. I don't see the problem.
The Clintons and Clintonites are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game because they are loosing. All of the Democratic candidates knew before the primaries started that Fl and MI would not be seated and the votes would not count. Again, what is the problem?
If you can't beat a candidate fair and square, change the rules or destroy the party if necessary. This is scorched earth politics folks and the way things are going we should just skip the general and elect MCCAIN and go to war with IRAN! He is already making overtures.
angryman,
actually, the dnc already changed the rules. clinton merely wants fair revotes. you may be fine with not having your vote count, but some 25% of your fellow florida dems may stay home in november. if you want to hand fl to mccain, so be it.
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 06:15 PMcopeland,
s i understand it, the request was denied, so it's moot. i've seen nothing to indicate clinton will try to legally block seating of the delegates. there were rumors beforehand that she'd try to block the caucuses, and those turned out to be false.
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 06:17 PMTang,
I am SO with you. Please, someone set up a site where we can sign a petition and withdraw en masse from this party in protest. I have had it.
Posted by Anon at March 20, 2008 06:17 PMTurkana,
What is your reference? Based on an interview on MSNBC Howard Dean he said that the DNC has already made their ruling which is to say that those delegates don't count. He is leaving it to Obama and Clinton to sort it out. What am I missing? How does that change the rules?
Posted by angryman at March 20, 2008 06:52 PMangryman,
originally, the offending states were to be docked half their delegates. only later did the dnc decide to dock them all their delegates. they also gave free passes to other states that moved their primaries. it was calvinball.
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 06:56 PMThat doesn’t even make sense to you. What agreement did the democratic candidates agree to?
Why don't we just tell Obama to just go home because it is Hillary’s turn? Then tell all of his supporters who have worked so hard and played by the rules to just go home and give the nomination to Hillary. It doesn’t matter that he is the current frontrunner, or that he has won more states and more delegates or more popular votes. He and his supports should just give up and go away.
Posted by angryman at March 20, 2008 07:07 PMum. okay, angryman, don't respond to what i wrote, just hyperventilate into something that has nothing to do with what i wrote. i get it.
Posted by Turkana at March 20, 2008 07:13 PMThat's ridiculous posturing. No one is telling Obama to "just go home because it is Hillary's turn." That is just a lie. Stop lying. Maybe you wouldn't be so angry if you started telling the truth for a change.
MI and Fl voters have a right to have their votes heard. Period. Has nothing to do with Clinton OR Obama. Has to do with voter's rights.
Jeezus, democrats standing for blocking the will of the people. What a day.
Posted by Anon at March 20, 2008 07:16 PMAngryman
It seems to be the other way around. You Obama-ites are telling Hillary to go home, even though Obama can't win the nomination outright and may not even have the popular vote. (Because of the caucuses, where 10 people = 10,000 people or worse, he will probably lead in delegates).
Posted by Moon at March 20, 2008 07:17 PMThe REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FL. STATE LAWMAKERS VOTED TO MOVE THE ELECTION !!! The dems. had little voice and the bill also included doing away with touchscreens. The repugs and Howard Dean have joined in cheating the FL. voters. P.S. It is really better to hold the vote early due to snowbirds (people who come down for the winter). Thanks for listening!
Posted by Jayne Blasser at March 20, 2008 07:17 PMTurkana:
Sure Obama objected to what was proposed. But he was in no position to stop the re-vote. He didn't stop the DNC from approving the proposal and it was up to the Michigan Legislature, not Obama, to pass the legislation. It didn't, and as far as I can see, the fact that Obama objected to the proposed form of the re-vote was not what prevented it from happening.
So, so what if Obama objected? Some of the points he made were legitimate, including concerns about compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Which of Obama's criticisms do you think were bogus? What material effect did Obama's objections have? His objections would have provided the basis for spinning the unfairness of an election if one had happened. But they did not stop the re-vote from happening.
Republicans have a four vote majority in the Michigan Senate. So how can you try to blame Obama for a failure by the Republican dominated Michigan Senate to pass legislation that would've helped Michigan's Democratic governor?
Granholm, an HRC supporter, signed the goddamned bill that moved the Michigan Primary up to a day that violated DNC rules. Is that Obama's fault too?
Posted by kaleidescope at March 20, 2008 07:24 PMToday Barack disenfranchised my vote. 'Nuff said.
Posted by Sharon at March 20, 2008 07:35 PMthis michigan-florida matter has had me really annoyed for some weeks
and puzzled.
as a clinton supporter, i understand she might,
might,
benefit from a revote.
but then again she might not.
but is this risk not an obligatory risk for both obama and clinton to accept?
the STATE PARTY LEADERS screwed up royally in trying to force their state's primary forward in time.
hoping, i would guess, that they could face down howard dean in the end.
didn't work.
what the media has not given me is any insight into what surely must have been a lot of internal political fol-de-rol in both states
that has kept each of the two states from doing the obvious:
a simple,
complete,
every-person-who-wants-to-can
vote primary contest.
is this objective really so hard to achieve?
somewhere in the bowels of the florida democratic party
and the michigan democratic party
are a bunch of bungling politicians.
what i suspect is that all these bunglers, having tried and failed to force their state forward in the primaries,
hoped they could pass the problem off to howard dean and blame him for their own egregious failures of leadership.
dean wasn't having any of that - more reason why i think he is, hands down, the most competent of all the democratic politicians still in politics today.
so why can't the voters of michigan and of florida have an unencumbered,
anybody-who-is-qualified-can-vote
primary sometime between now and june 10th?
what is so complicated about allowing that?
paying for it is another matter. but money flows like water in american politics these days, so i doubt that could be cited as a true limiting factor.
"let dems vote their choice"
how complicated is that?
Posted by orionATL at March 20, 2008 07:45 PM>
He didn't. Michigan made no specific proposal that he could block. Clinton tried to create a perception that she was more in favor of a re=vote by storming into Michigan, and the effect was to close the issue because she politicized it.
Posted by Chango at March 20, 2008 07:49 PMThe above was directed to Moon, who asked me why Obama blocked the re-vote if Hillary could not catch him.
Posted by Chango at March 20, 2008 07:52 PMThere is no excuse for him to block revotes. It is shortsighted and it is not Democratic. And yes, if he's given the nomination because he blocked Florida and Michigan I will not only not vote for him, I will leave the party, too.
Posted by hal blaine at March 20, 2008 07:56 PMKaleidoscope,
You said it very well.
The failure of this process is one of the political leadership, not the candidates. In Florida, we can blame the Republicans and secondarily, the Democrats. I believe that the Floridians are understandably humiliated by 'hanging chads' and could not guarantee a recurrence for several reasons.
In Michigan, this is a failure of the Dems political leadership including Granholm.
Three comments for Turkana:
(1) What would we have the DNC or RNC do when states violate rules?
(2) Why did Mrs. Clinton say during the NH primary that she understood that the votes wouldn't count in MI?
(3) Would you have Obama do something that would unilaterally do anything to advantage the opposition?
I think there would be some obvious legal issues with an election that was funded by supporters of one of the candidates. It wouldn't survive a court challenge. I can see it now, "Dear Michigan Democrats, we invite you to come on down and cast your vote in the primary brought to you by the friends of Hillary Clinton." That isn't going to fly.
IMHO, the snafu with these Michigan delegates is going to end up in the history books as another monumental screw-up by Clinton and her strategic team. If she had started advocating early on for a full and fair primary, there might have been enough time and resources available to make it happen. And she would have gained the respect of all of us in the Democratic Party. But instead she took the low road, arguing over the past few months that the delegates from the flawed and bogus delegates from MI and FL should be seated, to her advantage. You don't need a Phd in ethics to understand that the DNC and the Obama campaign would have major objections to such an outcome.
Does anyone believe that HRC would be out there pushing for the seating of MI and FL if Obama had come out ahead in those two primaries?
Posted by global yokel at March 20, 2008 08:23 PMtfitznc -
re you question #3:
you are looking thru the wrong end of the telescope.
the critical question is not the one you asked of turkana,
but the one that YOU need to answer, to whit,
would you,
in order ot insure your candidate's "victory" in in the the democratic primary,
act to prevent democratic voters in florida and in michigan,
an opportunity to vote
for one of the two individuals who will be the democratic party representative on the ballot in nov, 2008?
are you certain at this point in the election cycle
that squelching revotes in florida and michigan
will NOT allow four or eight more years of right-wing republican domination of the presidency and the supreme court?
or is it the case that your political concerns for this nation go no further than whether or not your candidate can manufacture a primary win?
Posted by orionATL at March 20, 2008 08:42 PMUntil reading kaleidescope's excellent reply, this Floridian was prepared to post a far poorer facsimile.
Now I look forward to considering Turkana's answers.
Florida is a perfect example of how the rebuli-cons continue to screw the Democratic voter and party. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama. The repuli-con strategy in FL is on par with their gerrymandering efforts (among others).
I cannot comprehend how a Democrat (or voter period) in the State of Florida doesn't see that the republi-con state congress introduced the bill (sponsered by 2 repuli-cons, FL H.B. 347, if I'm correct) to move up the primary date... passed the bill with its huge majority... and was signed into law by a republi-con governor. This whole scheme worked great for the republi-cons and totally fucked the Democrats.
A fair state congress would have said, "Hey, the Democrats have certain rules we have to abide with, we will only move up the republi-con voting date but the Dems have to have their vote after Super Tues."
I argued with my neo-con sister in Tampa and she said, "The current strategy has worked to perfection so far."
As for MI... Hillary wouldn't give a shit about the revote if she was leading... she would be doing the same thing as Obama... which is a simple holding mode... waiting for this to play out.
The MI state congress went on vacation... the people of MI only have their state reps to blame.
But wait... I see a pattern developing... as with FL... it's all Obama's fault.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 20, 2008 10:27 PMAt the moment, it's a little unclear what happened here in Michigan, the reports don't make much sense. That story:
A couple neutral people, allegedly, and some Clinton supporters draft a compromise to get a re-vote. Obama doesn't like it because he claimed MI would disenfranchise some of the younger voters due to some voter registration law issues, which is true but we all know he didn't want to fight another election he wasn't guaranteed to win. And it all likely would have faced court challenges due to 14th Amendment issues. But then Obama supporters blocked it in the legislature? But that's ridiculous because Clinton has a lot more super-delegates from Michigan and the Michigan Democratic party in her pocket in general than Obama, so how could he have stopped it? I'm thinking the Republicans might be having a bit of fun with us Michiganders, but it'll be a couple days before the whole story shakes out, I bet, unless Obama has more supporters in the Michigan legislature than was previously known. Still, Obama's a punk for not supporting a re-vote in Michigan.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 20, 2008 10:29 PMBTW Turkana, I hope you're feeling better. I read your post the other day at Docudharma and I was worried that you were developing bronchitis. About 10 years ago, I had the same exact symptoms, the cough didn't go away and only got worse, it turned out to be bronchitis. Some potent anitbiotics and I was good as gold in a few days.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 20, 2008 10:49 PMStill, Obama's a punk for not supporting a re-vote in Michigan.
It's simple strategy Brian. Delay... besides, didn't you know... Hillary already won the state election! You know, how I know... Hillary bragged about it!
One of the political blogs on USA Today's site is reporting about the breakdown of the proposed re-vote in Michigan, and they have a supposed quote from a Detroit Free Press article. Please note the bold is my emphasis:
"Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, a Republican, said he saw no point in taking up the primary legislation since Democrats loyal to candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama disagreed on whether to go forward...."
I can't find the source of that quote on the Detroit Free Press site. However, our legislature in Michigan is controlled by the Republicans. Ask yourself, before blaming Obama's reticence on the issue, who has the most to lose if the Democrats get it together and have a good vote in Michigan? The Republicans lose, that is who loses. Like I said, this story about Obama objects and so the re-vote fails smells fishy. I smell some right-wing trickery at work in a swing state. Dean and the rest of the Dems walked right into it, too.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 20, 2008 11:04 PMas i've heard it, obama wants everyone who voted before to be able to do so again. the voters, knowing that it wouldn't count, voted for repubs, per tom daschle. he wants provisions to ensure these people can vote again...
per carville, hilary is against that little provision, stating: "only registered dems," should vote. i asked previously if mi and fl were open primaries. and how is wanting everyone to vote obstructionism? lastly, how would it look to have a primary funded privately, it would open up so many precidents that is not good for the party.
Posted by anthony at March 21, 2008 12:39 AMHillary Clinton plays the role of this desperate kid trying to fit in.She did in her vote for the war,and way she acts on her campagne trail.And most recently with this Florida Michigan vote.She agreeded as Obama did to not count these seats.And now once again she is changing her view!
Posted by Linda White at March 21, 2008 03:22 AMLinda,
You of course you realize yours is the minority view on this blog. I think that all this back and forth is turning off a lot of voters, which plays to the Republican's game plan. As someone said of their sister in Tampa above, the plan is "working perfectly."
Posted by angryman at March 21, 2008 04:07 AMI would like to see Turkana or anyone of the TLC bloggers to post the Obama objections to the Michigan vote process that were raised by kaleidescope above.
It seems to me these are valid points. The revote, as proposed, would ban first time voters and ban voters who had participated in the Republican primary. At first blush this may seem reasonable, but then consider:
* Obama was not on the ballot in the original primary.
* A lot of Obama's votes have come from people who previously didn't participate in the process. Those people would likely not have participated in the first primary, so they are being blocked from the second.
* A lot of Obama's votes come from the muddled middle -- people who are independents and who likely voted in the Michigan Republican primary due to the lack of a full candidate slate in the Democratic primary. Those voters would be blocked.
* On the other hand, some of Clinton's recent voters have been Limbaugh Republicans who want to stop Obama. Opening up a Michigan revote would likely give her their votes.
Given the above, it seems a revote (which should happen) would have to be open to all.
Posted by ren at March 21, 2008 05:18 AMOnce again it saddens me to see Clinton or Obama fans threaten to not vote for the other in the general election.
We are coming off eight years of the worst administration in the history of this republic. If the religous right and the neocons cont. in power I frankly fear for our future and do not want to live any longer in such a country.
DO NOT forget what is at stake in November. I support Obama for many reasons I have given in the past and cont. to do so. If Mrs. Clinton gets the nod in Nov. I will give money, work, and vote for her and so should all Obama supporters. The stakes are always high but after the last eight years I think this election is a battle for the countrys very soul.
Don't you nimrods screw this up because of spite or sour grapes DON'T YOU DARE!
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at March 21, 2008 08:33 AMEric is correct. 4 years of McBush means 2 or 3 more Scalias on the Supreme Court. No Habeas Corpus, no right to vote, civil rights for corporations but not individuals, etc. Pure authoritarianism.
(But somehow they won't ban abortion -- gotta keep the right wing religious loonies motivated about going to the polls.)
Posted by ren at March 21, 2008 12:03 PMI question the claim that Obama tried to thwart the revotes. There were a zillion legal issues to be addressed in both states.
BTW can anyone recall the last time an election was redone? Seriously, I'm curious about this.
Finally, is there actually some reason why this issue should not heard by the credentials folks at the Denver convention?
Posted by joeldanwalls at March 21, 2008 02:54 PMInteresting blog. Barrack Obama using or attempting to use legal means to get what he wants as far as the ballot process goes, would not be surprising given that he used the legal process to get all of his opponents names taken off the ballot so that he ran unopposed in the Democratic race for state senate (see Chicago Sun Times, April 2, 2007). That is his MO. He is now and HAS ALWAYS BEEN a Chicago politician who engages in Chicago style politics. That will NEVER change. It's who he is. Does that make him a bad politician? NO, it makes him a smart one, because he will do ANYTHING to win, while deftly pretending to be "a new kind of politician."
Any Democrat who thinks that Hillary Clinton is trying to "steal" an election or that we should just ignore Michigan and Florida is deluding themselves. Both candidates knew that IN THE END, we would need to seat Michigan and Florida, otherwise they WOULDN'T have fundraised in those states. Barrack Obama wouldn't have urged his supporters to vote for "uncommitted" IF IT DIDN'T MATTER. Barrack Obama wouldn't have gone to Florida to raise money, IF IT DIDN'T MATTER. Barrack Obama wouldn't have had TV ads running before the primary in Florida, IF IT DIDN'T MATTER. They BOTH ALWAY KNEW that these states matter. A democrat CAN NOT win the general election without them. That's a REALITY.
Long before the primaries, my family listened to my complaints about the idiocy of the DNC for not coming up with a compromise. The PEOPLE of these states aren't the Democratic Leadership. We already KNOW especially in Florida that EVERY VOTE COUNTS. To pretend like this debacle won't affect the general election is as intellectually sound as believing in the tooth fairy.
Posted by kacey at March 21, 2008 03:30 PMsorry kacey, but that meme was debugged... obama was asked to run by his predecessor... look it up.
saying he'll do anything to win without using that brush to paint hilary naive to the extreme...
Posted by anthony at March 21, 2008 04:19 PMY'know, Howard Dean was the one who said that both campaigns would have to agree to the method of re-do. Barack would not agree and thus threw his surrogates into blockade mode. End of story.
Thank him for everything.
Posted by Re at March 21, 2008 07:50 PMno anthony you are wrong sorry. you need to look it up.
here's the article from the chicago tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
Posted by kacey at March 21, 2008 07:52 PM