How disingenuous. It's the fact that Clinton wants these delegates seated based on the result of an unfair electoral process that has people questioning her sanity. That she feels it reasonable she should collect more delegates because she had 100% name recognition in a state where her opponent had no opportunity to introduce himself. That she feels an "uncommitted" vote in a state where her opponent was not on the ballot adequately reflects the total vote he would get were he allowed to campaign there. That she feels the vote totals wouldn't be at all skewed by the fact that voters themselves were told their vote wouldn't count, often causing them to either not participate or, in Michigan, vote for the Republican candidate.
You see her as some sort of champion for voter's rights. I see her as someone opportunistically scrambling for every illegitimate vote out there because her plan A was laughably executed.
Posted by Bailey at May 29, 2008 07:16 AMBailey, so your argument, in a nutshell, is, Clinton is bad, so FL and MI should not be counted, correct? And what about the sacred rules? The rules make no mention of consideration of any candidates motivations, or didn't you bother to read the rules?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
The MI/FL situation is ugly, to be sure. The problem is that last August the DNC committee -- including all 12 Clinton supporters on that committee -- agreed that IA, NH, SC, and NV should be given special treatment, and that if FL and MI persisted in having earlier primaries that the results would be ignored.
Furthermore, in October all the candidates agreed to not participate in those primaries, and 4 of the candidates took their name off the ballot in MI. (That wasn't an option in FL, due to a state law that says candidates in a general election had to appear on a primary ballot.) At the time Clinton, who was the only "major" candidate to keep her name on the MI ballot, said that she was doing that in an effort to keep a Democratic presence in MI in anticipation of her being the party nominee -- but she also acknowledged that the results would not count for anything.
So, now people are asking to seat delegates from MI and FL -- and it's hard to disagree with the idea that these states should be represented at the convention. (Especially given that a place like Puerto Rico, which has zero input to the national election, has more delegates to the convention than most states -- but that's yet another problem with the whole nomination process.)
The problem is: how do you choose delegates? In FL the situation isn't so difficult, since all candidates were on the ballot. You could simply honor the results of that primary -- although there are fairness problems with that. Since the election was known at the time to not be valid there is a certainty that some voters chose not to vote, and others may have crossed over to vote in the Republican primary, which did matter. We can't know if the final result was skewed in Clinton or Obama's direction as a result of voters being told the primary didn't count -- but likely it skewed towards Clinton based 1) on the voting patterns we've seen in other states, and 2) a statewide initiative that was on that ballot that was more likely to draw out voters from Clinton's demographic. However, these kind of distortions are common throughout the whole primary process -- with the different voting rules from state to state -- so probably seating FL as the vote occurred is a reasonable solution.
For MI there simply is no good answer. Some Clinton supporters have gone so far as to suggest that Obama be penalized for his decision to not be on the ballot and that Clinton get the delegates she would have won plus a percentage of the uncommitteds. Any Clinton supporter who takes this position automatically gives up any pretense to a "count every vote" principle -- this is simply trying to give Clinton every advantage possible. OTOH, some Obama supporters have suggested an even split between the two. We can't know what the final vote would have been, but it's highly likely, based on voting patterns in other states, that Clinton would have won the state by 5-10% or so.
Some Clinton supporters have tried to argue for a pro-Clinton MI delegate count on the grounds that Obama blocked a revote. There was a lot of activity around the revote proposals, but in the end it was a state judge who killed it based on state law. The local Democratic committee wanted to restrict the revote to those who participated in the first, meaningless, Democratic primary, but in order to to that the needed the names of those who participated in other party's primaries on that day, and the judge said that wasn't allowable. (For the record, restricting a revote to those who participated in the first Democratic primary would certainly have helped Clinton, as Obama supporters were more likely to have stayed home with his name not on the ballot, or even to have participated in the simultaneous Republican primary.)
In the end, a statistical analysis would suggest that Clinton would have beaten Obama, with no other candidates getting enough vote to qualify for delegates. In a "for-real, all-candidates-in" primary in Februrary in Michigan, Clinton would have probably gotten 45-50% of the vote, Obama about 5-10% less, and the rest split among the others. According to the delegate rules set up at the time, the allocation would have been roughly 69-59 for Clinton, which is what the state committe has recommended.
So, a fair solution would be to seat both states full delegations according to the splits described above. Unfortunately, that would not satisfy some of Clinton's supporters as it would not give her enough delegates to overcome Obama's lead. This is why some Clinton supporters will argue that Obama should be stripped of delegates in FL because he advertised on TV in cities adjacent to Florida, and on national TV (similar charges have been levied at Clinton, for the record), and that the MI split should be 100% for Clinton because Obama was not on the ballot. Those proposals are just absurd, and the product of a win-at-all-costs mentality.
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 07:35 AM1. Hillary said that FL/MI do not count. She told this to a caller in NH
2. The caller question Clinton's sincerity, was this politics as usual? Hillary said, "no, everybody knows that the fl/mi votes do not count...". Hillary made a bold faced lie.
3. The Republicans stripped FL/MI of half their delegates, so I don't want to hear that the DNC doing the same would disenfranchise voters and cause some to vote republican.
4. The republican method did not work, florida and michigan still received the attention they broke the rules seeking.
5. That Hillary is basing the entire justification of her continuing to run on a bold faced lie is disgusting.
6. That others defend her on this is equally disgusting.
7. That harold ickes, who voted to strip the delegates in the fall, is now saying they should all be seated, is even more disgusting.
8. Clinton name brand is being irreparably damaged by this disgusting tactic.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 07:36 AMeriposte, nice article; however, I predict that the Obama supporters will in no way address the rules, themselves, in their rebuttals. Their arguments will all be forms of Clinton is bad, therefor FL and MI should not count.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
More on the question of MI and candidate names on the ballots. The pledge that the candidates signed included the following wording:
I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest...
Note the key words "or participate in". Like anything else, this is subject to interpretation. However, a reasonable interpretation is to take one's name off of the ballot. Since "participate" is defined as something distinct from "campaigning", there really is no good interpretation other than "have my name on the ballot". And there are precedents for this. MI has tried to have an early primary many times before, and in each case all major candidates removed their names from the ballot in response.
I am not a fan of being hyper-technical in deciding these kind of issues, so I wouldn't argue that Clinton (or the lesser candidates like Kucinich) should be penalized for leaving their names on the ballot -- the best solution is, like the rest of the DNC rules, to revise the rule so it is clear and consistent. However, to argue that somehow Obama should be penalized is just ludicruous. Obama's position in removing his name from the ballot is much more defensible than Clinton's in leaving the name on.
(Again: this was not an option in FL due to FL's state laws mandating that a general election candidate have appeared previously on a primary election ballot. An odd law to be sure -- and for those dreaming of Gore somehow emerging as the candidate in a brokered convention, it means Gore could not appear on the FL ballot as the Democratic nominee.)
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 07:49 AMRadix, what rules?
The rules set out before the primaries started were 2025 delegates needed, and fl/mi don't count. Those are the rules created by the clinton team (howard ickes), agreed to by the clinton team, and the rules hillary said she was playing by (until she realized she lost by these rules, so now she wants to change them).
What rules are Obama supporters ignoring? Sc, nv, iowa and nh had waivers for early primaries. The stripping of 100% of the delegates was allowed in the rules (the rules state a min penalty of 50%, but go on to allow further, go read rule 20(c)(6)).
What rules are you crying about?
Hillary is trying to vreate an impression that this nomination is being stolen from her. But she is the one trying to change the rules.
I can never trust Hillary again. I now see why republicans hate the Clintons so much.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 07:50 AMSorry to flood the comments board, but regarding eriposte's comparing MI and FL to IA, NH, NV and SC -- well, the argument can be made that the special treatment of the first 4 states is unfair, but the time to make that argument is past.
Here is the full pledge that the Democratic candidates signed:
I _______________, 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.
For better or for worse, those were the rules agreed to before voting began.
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 07:52 AMSame Old, did you bother to read the links provided by eriposte? Of course not, that would have explained the sacred rules to you, of which I wrote.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Radix, the rules were simple:
- first to 2025 delegates win (no popular vote outrage). "We all know this is a delegate race" - Hillary in Jan
- "florida and michigan do not count" - hillary in oct
- "pledge not to participate in fl or mi" - signed by hillary
- nh, nv, sc and iowa received waivers on their early contests.
Please tell me, specifically, what I am ignoring.
And please tell me with a straight face how you can support Hillary after her lies.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 07:58 AMAgian, Same Old, the DNC rules make no mention of Hilary's statements, as to the question of FL and MI. So, why not go read the actual rules?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Anybody who questions why there is such Clinton hate in this country need look no further than this florida/michigan lying.
This is why Hillary is villified in the media. Not sexism, but rather because she is disengenious. She lied to the voters in NH, and she is lying down in Florida right now as she campaigns for McCain.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:03 AMRadix, I have the rules in front of me, please state which rule I am ignoring.
Here is the link:
dnc delegate selection rules
Instead of saying "some blogger is lying to support hillary", please tell me what I am ignoring.
The rules set before the election, agreed by the parties, are what currently stands. Clintons are lying cheats and want the rules changed.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:07 AMThe argument is not about Hillary or Barack being "evil," the argument is about how Hillary's campaign is demonizing Obama as if he is to blame for this situation. Now if the positions were reversed Hillary would not care one bit about seating the delegates and Obama (most likely) would be pushing to seat them and (possibly) demonizing Clinton for not wanting to. The difference would be that I would be as unhappy with Obama as I am now with Clinton. In addition two major Clinton supporters are voting members of the RBC - and by major I mean directly involved in and paid by her campaign - yet they seem to feel they can be objective. How can they have voted to strip FL and MI and now say that their position, which amazingly favors their candidate, has changed 180 degrees? The most amazing thing I keep seeing is that Clinton supporters would be howling mad if Obama was doing this, and make no mistake they are just as bad as the rabid Obama supporters.
Posted by Chris at May 29, 2008 08:13 AMI'm agnostic on Florida although the results were probably based mostly on name recognition.
But to seat Michigan's delegates is fair only in the Soviet sense.
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 29, 2008 08:15 AMAnybody who questions why there is such Clinton hate in this country need look no further than this florida/michigan lying.
Sorry, not buying. Irrational Clinton hatred goes back to 1992 -- find old copies of American Spectator from that year, or listen to tapes (if they exist) of right wing radio that year. Long before Monica, Vince Foster, Travelgate -- long before Paula Jones was a household name -- long before Waco and Don't Ask/Don't Tell -- even before "I'm not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette" -- people in the right wing loathed the Clintons with a passion that even now those of us who dislike Bush's *policies* don't come close to approaching.
Even living among the far right as I do, I still don't fully understand the depth of their loathing. My best guess is that Bill and Hillary represent something scary to the far right. Long hair, drugs, free sex, racial and gender equality. Something like that. They've been trying to work up the same degree of hatred for Obama -- hence the chain email smears about him being a Radical Left Muslim Anti-Christ Baby Eater -- but they just can get the same passionate hatred for him that they have for the Clintons.
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 08:16 AMAnonny,
Gennifer Flowers was the first time a Clinton lied to the entire nation, that was December 1991. That is when people who appreciate honesty began hating the Clintons.
This Florida/Michigan stance by Hillary is the same as when Bill lied to the people of NH about Flowers.
The Clintons are not trusted, that is where the hate comes from. And the FL/MI mess just goes to show them as lying cheats, something many people already knew.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:22 AMAh the Gennifer Flowers meme, the good old days.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Same Old,
I disagree. The loathing goes beyond that.
Many politicians have had affairs and lied about them. People's reaction varies from forgiveness (Henry Hyde) to disdain (Gary Hart), but rarely loathing. This is because the act of cheating on a spouse and lying about it is, unfortunately, a common failing.
No -- Bill and Hillary were hated for far, far more than that. To the mind of those on the far right they are the embodiment evil, and have been since his campaign started in 1991.
Radix, unfortunately, you are correct. 15 years of lying to the american public, from Gennifer Flowers to the MI/FL mess. That is what the Clintons have done, that is why people hate them.
I really do not understand how people can back Hillary in yet another Clinton lie. Why do some continue to enable the Clintons to lie and cheat?
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:34 AMAnonny,
Do you agree that the lying and cheating of the Clintons, from Flowers to Paula Jones to Monica, up through Hillary's recent pro-McCain campaigning and the FL/MI lies, are at least part of the Clinton hate?
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:36 AMBecause, Flowers and Jones were the ones proven to be liars, not Bill, at least if we're choosing to use hard evidence as a standard for ascertaining truth from fiction. As for holding Hilary responsible for Bill's shenanigans, that's just non-sense.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Obviously, because Hillary is a saint, we know that she didn't come to the revelation that MI/FL delegations had to be seated because she found herself lagging in the delegate count. Has she told us yet what caused this profound shift in perspective?
Posted by dj moonbat at May 29, 2008 08:45 AMRadix,
My question was more to how you can support Hillary's current lies about fl and mi, not about clinton's past lies.
But I think I have my answer: you refuse to accept reality.
When were Flowers and Jones proven to be liars? When Bill paid Jones millions to be quiet? I don't remember any proof that Flowers lied. And if anything Monika validated that Clinton was lying.
The Clintons lie. Hillary is running her campaign on a lie to the people of nh and iowa right now. Open your eyes.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:47 AMHowever, is she Evil just because she is fighting to seat FL/MI today and positioning this as a voting rights issue? The answer is no.
As Bailey indicated, Senator Clinton is not advocating for voting rights. She is advocating for more delegates for herself. She is a politician, after all, and she is doing what she feels she must to try to win the nomination. Let's not pretend for one moment that there is the least bit high minded purpose to her actions. If there were, she would have spoken out before seating delegates from patently unfair elections was her only path to the nomination. She would also be calling for Obama to receive delegates from Michigan if it was about representing the people's will.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 29, 2008 08:48 AMWow, the Obamabots are out in full force. They've got the "rules are the rules" meme down pat. They sound just like Scalia in Bush vs. Gore. Yeah, the rules are the rules. Except, of course, when they disfavor Obama. Great, let's follow the rules and strip Obama of any and all candidates in Florida. I'm all for it. Let's take out half the delegates from IA, NH, SC, and NV. Hey, let's go over every primary and every caucus in every state to see if any of these sacred rules were broken anywhere.
The "rules" also say that FL and MI have recourse. Let's let the Obamabots in the DNC preach to the nation how the votes in FL and MI must not be counted. Yeah, Democrats and Independents are going to love that tune. There's democracy at work for ya'.
You know what? It doesn't matter what Clinton said about the primaries. It doesn't matter what Obama said. Democracy and the Democratic Party belong to the people. Maybe the Children of Obama are happy to do what daddy says regarding their democracy but millions of the rest of us aren't. We will make our voices heard.
Posted by Johnny at May 29, 2008 08:49 AMCA Pol, Hilary spoke out on Jan 15, 2008, for their seating, is that early enough?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Johnny,
1. You think the rules should be changed so Clinton can win?
2. Why would nh, iowa, nv and sc have their delegates stripped? Rule 11 states that there are special provisions for these 4 states. They received a waiver for their early primaries/caucuses. Why would they be stripped? (This is another great example of Clinton lying. Strawman, false issues, blatant lies).
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:54 AMRadix,
So what you are saying is immediately after the iowa, nh, sc and neveda contests, after Hillary told them the fl/mi did not count, she magically changed her mind?
Why did she magically change her mind?
Oh yeah, she was LYING to the voters in the 4 early states.
Hillary hatred is justified because of her lying.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 08:57 AMDo you agree that the lying and cheating of the Clintons, from Flowers to Paula Jones to Monica, up through Hillary's recent pro-McCain campaigning and the FL/MI lies, are at least part of the Clinton hate?
No. Again, the intense irrational hated preceded everything except the Gennifer Flowers scandal -- and as I've noted that sort of scandal is common and does not often result in the politician (and his wife) being intensely hated -- in fact, the Clinton case is the only example I can think of.
Personally I will support, work for, and vote for Hillary Clinton if she somehow wins the nomination. I am disappointed in her performance in this campaign -- while I like her policy positions and experience better than Obama's, her statements and campaign management decisions have been to say the least problematic -- and provide solid grounds for concern of how she'd run a general campaign or how she'd run the White House.
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 08:58 AMI hear that, anonny.
She ran a terrible campaign, how would she be fit for to be President? Her strategy was that caucuses don't count, the month of Feb doesn't count, she should base her campaign on lies to the american people (as she is doing now with fl and mi), she has run her campaign into the ground financially while running up tens of millions in debt, and she has spent the last 12 weeks campaigning in favor of John McCain.
How can people support her for President? Besides being married to Bill and thus being in the white house for 8 yrs, and running an uncontested ny senate campaign, what has she done?
Some people are glutons for Clinton lies. People like Radix who still think Lewinski was lying.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 09:04 AMWow, the Obamabots are out in full force. They've got the "rules are the rules" meme down pat. They sound just like Scalia in Bush vs. Gore. Yeah, the rules are the rules. Except, of course, when they disfavor Obama.
Oh stop it. First, by using the derogative "Obamabot" you put yourself in the same category -- someone who sees things through a prism of bias for your own candidate.
Second, Scalia didn't do "rules are rules" -- he clearly used an interpretation of the 14th amendment that no one else had ever used, and which was 180 degrees opposite of all his previous rulings -- in order to somehow, someway, find window dressing for his decision to give the election to Bush. His insistence that the decision had no precedent value, in a judicial system based on precedent, was the dead give away.
Third, for those of us who do NOT have a strong preference between Clinton and Obama, but who DO have a strong preference for a Democrat over McCain, this primary has to be settled somehow, and ideally in the fairest possible manner given that the nomination system is deeply flawed, deeply unfair, yet nearly complete. The ideal solution would be a nationwide revote using consistent voting methodology, but the legal complications would be an impossible hurdle.
So, therefore, some system has to be found. Rabid fans of Clinton or Obama can be counted on to find solutions that always favor their candidates. A Neutral method for deciding, based on established, known written rules and agreements is best. Where the rules are unclear, the Neutral method should apply the general principles of universal proportional representation (to the degree possible, given that the agreed-upon rules don't always adhere to those principles).
Using those principles Obama will get the majority of delegates, but not the super majority needed to secure a nomination without super delegates. The popular vote will probably favor Obama slightly -- MI votes simply cannot be counted in any fair scenario, and there are tons of problems with either using or omitting the caucus votes and the FL votes.
It will be impossible for either candidate to argue that he/she represents a majority of Democrats. The different counting systems, the exclusion of Michigan, the baffling inclusion of Guam and Puerto Rico, the mixture of open and closed primaries (meaning that some Republican and Independent votes are included in the mix, in disproportionate ways), plus the caucuses, all mean that when the difference between two candidates is under 1%, as it will be this year, no one can know who really "won" the popular vote.
Ultimately, the super delegates have to decide, and the onus is on the candidate who has the lower delegate total to make the case for the super delegates to overturn his lead.
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 09:13 AMputting aside for the moment the fact that all candidates agreed to the DNC's actions regarding MI and FL, why was it that those two states were so determined to have early primaries, to the point that they knew the results were going to be invalidated and did it anyway? What was the factor that drove them? Anybody know? There must be a political reason. I'm curious.
Posted by T2 at May 29, 2008 09:22 AMWhat was the factor that drove them? Anybody know? There must be a political reason. I'm curious.
Well, Florida is on crack. I don't know what Michigan's on.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 29, 2008 09:25 AMT2, florida and michigan wanted increased attention. They got it in the republican race, because stripping the states of half the delegates didn't cause the candidates not to participate.
Why did they keep the dates that violated the rules? They were calling the dnc's bluff. They were hoping that the dnc would cave, and then in 2012 they will try to go first.
This is why it was important for Hillary to lie to the people of nh and iowa, but change her mind afterward when she knew she couldn't win without fl and mi.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 09:25 AMWell, Florida is on crack.
Or perhaps just to much Geritol?
Posted by snark at May 29, 2008 09:46 AMThis one's for you coyote! ;)
Posted by snark at May 29, 2008 09:53 AMI find the calls the punish the four early states interesting, especially in light of the fact that neither Wayne Barrett nor BTD brushed up on NH election law.
NH SoS Bill Gardner alone has the discretion under NH law to set its primary date. (emphasis mine)
653:9 Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose.
This is by design so NH protects its first primary in the nation status.
Jeanne Shaheen, a former Democratic governor, told of summoning Mr. Gardner to her office after he surprised New Hampshire leaders by announcing that the 2000 primary would be a week earlier than everyone had assumed. This was no small matter; Iowa had already arranged its caucuses, typically eight days before the New Hampshire primary, based on this misreading of Mr. Gardner.Mr. Gardner explained that he made his decision because Delaware had voted to put its primary too close to New Hampshire’s. The law is the law, Mr. Gardner said, unflinching during a series of intense encounters with Ms. Shaheen’s office and Iowa officials who flew in, mystified that a state bureaucrat could have so much authority.
As of last fall, Gardner was publicly musing about a December primary date and every one practically hyperventilating over that scenario's potential impact on fundraising.
I don't think you're going to see NH punished for violating Rule 11. Or any of the other 3 states for that matter.
Posted by Blue State Girl at May 29, 2008 10:00 AMI think it's bizarre that the DNC coddles Iowa and New Hampshire this way.
Furthermore, both caucuses and superdelegates add further un/antidemocratic features to an electoral system that already has far too many.
But in medias res is not the time for rule changes. That's where we get colorful terms like "Calvinball" and "moving the goal posts."
I think the DNC should stop affording NH and IA their monopoly on stupidly early primaries/caucuses. I think the democratic parties of the caucus states should stop caucusing. I think the national DNC's rules should not be implemented in future in a fashion where the only remedies are to discount votes or to unfairly privilege candidates who refuse to participate fully in the DNC's implementation of its remedy for state violations of the rules.
But we can't do those things in a manner even remotely resembling fairness now.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 29, 2008 10:18 AMIs eri, or Big Top Democrat for that matter, saying that back in 2007 when the DNC decided that, for ex, New Hampshire and South Carolina could go early, but Florida and Michigan couldn't, that they were somehow planning this to hurt Clinton's candidacy? No, they can't.
And it would be interesting to see if either eri or Big Top made any grand protests back then, but I suspect not. So arguing that it's unfair for NH and SC to get waivers and not give waivers to FL and MI raises the question that was troubling the DNC and all good Democrats: Where do you draw the line?
Would it be fair for all states to push their primaries before Super Tuesday? Why not?
Because the eventual nominee would always be whichever candidate with the most name recognition. None of the other candidates would get a chance to introduce themselve to the party members. Is that the best policy for the Democratic Party? No. But it is the best policy for the candidate with the most name recognition, which in this case would be H. Clinton.
The problem with these little essays that eri generates is that they are a mile wide and utterly transparent. Someone who is against caucuses might have noticed the problems before Clinton lost those primaries. Someone might have even examined the histories of primaries in various states, why some states do and some states don't, and the practicality of having all states run primaries. You know, if you wanted to at least pretend to be fair.
Someone who cares about the popular will of the people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the people in the caucus states when tallying up what counts or doesn't count. And if someone forthrighly announces that it's about electoral votes or all the states, why would he or she hang her hat on Puerto Rico, which gives neither popular nor electoral votes in the general election?
If it's a problem that Republicans and independents crossed over to vote for Obama because they like him, why isn't it a bigger problem that there was an organized campaign run to flood people to vote for H. Clinton? You know, to "bloody" Obama for the fall? No, then the argument is that it didn't happen or it doesn't count or somehow doesn't diminish the purity of the party when it goes in H. Clinton's favor.
In fact, at some point eri and his pals might want to address the issue of fairness when it comes to changing rules after-the-fact. Why bring up the morality of fairness when you keep on wanting to change the rules?
Eventually it becomes apparent that the only fairness that counts is the one that gives H. Clinton the nomination, which isn't fairness at all.
eri, you have no moral standing. You are just throwing up more reasons for why your candidate is winning when, in fact, she has lost.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 29, 2008 10:19 AMI like that NH and Iowa go early. Not because I care about either of those states, but. Think it is important to have a "home base" or central location for early campaigning/debating. And I prefer they be small states where less is at stake in case a mistake is made (like the mistake made in nh, voting for clinton).
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 10:23 AMI heard someone propose a system of rotating primaries so that in each primary cycle different categories of states: a large state, a small state, an urban, a rural state, etc., would take turns. For ex, maybe in 2012 New York State goes early, in 2016 Florida goes early, in 2020 California goes early.
The problem is that any DNC plan will bump into state parties and state laws. There are no easy answers.
By the way, the same would apply to any national party going so far as to dictate primary over caucus. The power of the DNC is strongest when it doesn't conflict with state parties, and vice versa.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 29, 2008 10:31 AMMy question:
Do any of those advocating for Hillary's lies think that any objective observer is buying her act that the rules should changed since she has lost by the rules she agreed to before the contests started?
Just how deep in dellusion are some of these Hillary apologists?
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 10:35 AMWhy isn't Hillary fighting for all of the voters in MI & FL who did not vote because they were told, before the primaries, that their votes would not count?
Isn't demanding that the delegates be seated based on the votes as is, disenfranchising all of those voters?
Just asking.
Posted by Anjha at May 29, 2008 10:44 AMTo oSama Old
How deep in delusion are Obama supporters to not 'see' his mistakes about American history, religious, foreign policy, legislative experience,
association with radicals and crooks
sexism
race-baiting
lies about oil money contributions
No time to list all his short-comings 'sweetie'.
Please---Go ---- Yourself!!
To Fred,
Nice list, but you do know that you can simply swap the name from Obama to Clinton; don't you? And add a ton more to boot! Well, you might want to delete the "sweetie" part. Neither of the candidates are perfect, but none more so than Clinton.
Throw in another wrinkle in the Popular Vote Argument (PVA):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/29/21457/9858/148/524626
I really do hope this sucker winds down next week.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 29, 2008 12:42 PM"It stinks - and I always thought it stinks - and unless you've not been paying attention, it is giving Republicans a very powerful argument against the Democrats - an opportunity to portray themselves as defenders of voting rights!"
What stinks is a two-party system based on plurality voting.
With fewer and fewer citizens actually in favor of democratic rule--fewer on the right than on the left, admittedly--how can we get excited about one of the party's "rules?"
How does a party with winner-take-all rules argue against proportional representation?
Choose the lesser of your two evils and get a life.
Posted by wilson rivers at May 29, 2008 12:48 PMAnnony: I can assure you that Clinton supporters are not advocating taking away any votes from Obama that he won fairly. At least nont that I know about. All we want is for the Florida primary result to be respected as is. For Michigan, we could be satisfied with Clinton getting the delegates she has earned and that Obama get delegates according the the most reliable polls of Michigan from around the time of the primary. It is a bit disingenuous for him to claim he deserves more than this. He has recently claimed that he never asked to be put on the ballot at all in Michigan, it was done without his permission and he had to deman that they take him off. For someone so determined to stay out of the primary, it's a little odd for him to be asking for a share of the delegates, much less some of Clinton's. If I were being foolishly consistent, I would say he shouldn't get any of the uncommitted delegates and that these delegates should remain uncommitted until the convention or until the candidates have an equal chance to get their crack at lobbying them. But, Ok, whatever, give him half of the uncommitted and let the rest decide as they will. That seems fair without taking anything away from Clinton.
As for pulling ahead of Obama, we know that isn't possible. What we want is to be so close percentage wise that the superdelegates will have sufficient cover to switch to her. This is precisely what Obama fears which is why he has been fighting tooth and nail to only seat them partially or after the they don't count. This man is not a confident or selfless presumptive nominee and we all know it.
Once the the candidates agreed not to participate or campaign in the unsanctioned primaries, no good solution was possible. Conducting an election without campaigning is giving an advantage to the campaign with the higher name recognition. If Clinton or anyone had protested before the primaries took place, that would have been one thing. But publicly supporting the DNC's decision, signing a pledge not to participate, and then after the primaries are over turning around and attempting to take advantage of a favorable result, especially when one's opponent wasn't even on the ballot in one state, is disingenuous to say the least.
Posted by Rick Taylor at May 29, 2008 04:25 PMAll we want is for the Florida primary result to be respected as is. For Michigan, we could be satisfied with Clinton getting the delegates she has earned and that Obama get delegates according the the most reliable polls of Michigan from around the time of the primary.
I think we agree that in FL the best option, out of a bunch of bad options, is to go with the vote as it was recorded. "Fair"? No -- we know some people sat out that primary because they were told it would not count in the final tally, and others chose to vote in the Republican primary (because it counted, and because FL law allows that). However, the candidates were all on the ballot, the state should be represented, and while this decision is imperfect and favors Clinton, is is better than any other choice available.
But your proposal for MI is -- well, I have trouble finding an adjective that is not overly provacative. Here's the situation: the DNC says the race doesn't count, the major candidates except Clinton withdraw their names. Apparently this has happened before multiple times when MI has tried for an early primary, and Clinton is the first major candidate to leave her name on the ballot. NOW, in retrospect, you want to say that the vote counts and give Clinton all the delegates she would have won, then split the uncommitted according to polls at the time? Please, try to imagine the situation were reversed and your candidate were not on the ballot and the other candidate was, and the election was deemed in advance to be meaningless. Would you accept this plan? Not at all.
The test of objectivity is whether, given that the participants roles were reversed, your opinion as to the right course of action is unchanged. That proposal is clearly not representative of the likely vote at the time and is overly biased toward one candidate.
As for pulling ahead of Obama, we know that isn't possible. What we want is to be so close percentage wise that the superdelegates will have sufficient cover to switch to her. This is precisely what Obama fears which is why he has been fighting tooth and nail to only seat them partially or after the they don't count. This man is not a confident or selfless presumptive nominee and we all know it.
Well, we can certainly agree with your first two sentences in the above quote. That is her strategy. And I'll repeat: If she succeeds, I will support her, work for her, contribute to her campaign and do whatever I can to help her win. No reservations. I am sad to see it come down to superdelegates, as it creates chaos and fractures the party at a time when unity is needed. But the system has created this situation, and Clinton's goal is to get the delegate counts close enough that a) the superdelegates feel that they can legitimately give her the nod and b) that she can use other arguments (electability, popular vote) to persuade them.
But your last two sentences in the quote above are purely your projection. IMHO, both Obama and Clinton are, at the core, politicians who are advancing their own ambitions. Obama, in action and in deed, has shown himself to be a bit cooler, less emotional, and calculating -- and that calmness is something that many voters find appealing. It contrasts to GWB, McCain, and Clinton. Clinton, in particular, has allowed emotion to enter the mix. On occasion this has helped her -- lately it has hurt her.
And, the point of my last paragraph is this: while Clinton's latest actions may be helping her cause in terms of narrowing the delegate margin (this is yet to be seen), it is hurting her in terms of the case she needs to make to the superdelegates that she is the strongest candidate for the general election.
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 05:16 PManonny;
It looks like the fl/mi delegates will be seated at least in part. So what? What is the end game? Hillary will not match the number of delegates to win the nomination. Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party throw out the delegate race; which was accepted by all prior to the start of the race, and go to The Clinton's latest metric? THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN. SHE HAS LOST. All she can do from this point is hurt our candidate more than she already has. (REF KO's comments on the Obama assignation comments MSNBC)
This is not about the votes in fl/mi; its about the Clinton's. It is disingenuous for her to raise this uproar when she said on several occasions that the vote in those states would not count. It is only now is her desperation to STEAL the nomination that she gives a shit about fl/mi.
Angryman: Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party throw out the delegate race; which was accepted by all prior to the start of the race, and go to The Clinton's latest metric? THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN. SHE HAS LOST
Have you read my posts? My position is as clear as day:
1) I'll support whomever wins the Democratic nomination.
2) Based on the rules established at the outset, Obama has a clear majority (but not a super majority) of the delegates.
3) The concept of "popular vote" is meaningless -- and impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy in a race as close as this.
4) Therefore, the fair, objective, and practical thing to do at this point is to award the nomination to Obama and focus on the general election.
I just gave a pile of money to the DNC tonight (the "money where your mouth is" concept). I told the caller that I have no interest in the DLC philosophy, and when he mentioned the 50 state strategy and the fight against Diebold I agreed to pony up.
Some fights are worth fighting.
Posted by Anonny at May 29, 2008 09:04 PMAnonny responding to riverdaughter"...But your proposal for MI is -- well, I have trouble finding an adjective that is not overly provacative....."
the word that came to mind was "soviet"
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 30, 2008 10:37 AMYou think the rules should be changed so Clinton can win?
Which rule would need to be changed? You've got the link there. Please cite the rule that would need to be changed.
Also -- anybody who's waving the pledge around is deluding themselves. It's not binding on the DNC, because the DNC wasn't a party to it -- and the DNC certifies the delegates. And it does not require anyone to "agree" that the results of any primary "don't count"; it merely has the candidates promise that they won't campaign (which has a specific definition) or "participate," (which is undefined, and thus, no one can argue that it was "clearly" required to remove names from the ballot) in any state's primary that is held prior to Feb. 5 other than the four early-contest states. That's it.
As for why Clinton didn't come out forcefully for Florida and Michigan until January: because that would have been political suicide. The whole reason this mess happened in the first place is the insane and unwarranted importance the party places on New Hampshire and Iowa going first. Because campaigns often are make-or-break in these two contests, other states want to be first, and no candidate can afford to piss them off.
If Clinton had come out forcefully in favor of seating Florida and Michigan in the fall of 2007, I guarantee you we wouldn't be having this conversation today, because she would have been slaughtered.
She did, however, begin to advocate for seating the delegates as soon as those two thin-skinned states had their precious first primaries out of the way.
Posted by zuzu at May 30, 2008 02:46 PMThere are a number of fundamental errors in this article.
"it was completely unacceptable to strip FL/MI of all their delegates - which is contrary to the traditional 'punishment'"
Actually, 'advisory primaries' that don't determine actual delegates are fairly routine. See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html for the definition and examples (e.g. Arizona and Michigan in 1996, DC in 2004, etc.). Losing delegates is, in fact, a traditional way to punish states that break the rules. The delegate count is used to affect states' primary behavior routinely, ranging from awarding extra delegates to states later in the process, and fewer delegates to states earlier in the process to stripping all delegates from states that break the rules. In fact, in 2004 Michigan tried the same thing, and was threatened with the same punishment, though luckily that time they backed down and played by the rules. Amusingly, it was Terry McAuliffe, who is now fighting to get Michigan's delegates seated, who used the threat of stripping Michigan's delegates.
"She could have been more vocal about the travesty back then" is a complete misrepresentation of what was going on. It isn't a "travesty" and Clinton was completely supportive of stripping the delegates from Florida and Michigan.
Here's what actually happened. The Democratic parties in Florida and Michigan made a politicial calculation, that they were more influential having an early primary that didn't affect the delegate count, rather than playing by the rules. They assumed, as did many others, that the primary would be over by Super Tuesday, making later primaries (and the delegate count at the convention) meaningless. Given that, they saw the options as having an early "beauty contest" or be so late in the process that they were irrelevant. So there was no "voting rights issue" - the people involved made an informed political decision to give up their delegates in favor of better positioning in the primary schedule.
In fact, Clinton's people dominated the DNC, wrote the rules under which the primaries were conducted, and unanimously voted to strip all delegates from the two states that broke the rules. Clinton herself signed a pledge that she would not participate in those primaries, and (along with all of the other candidates) made speeches (and issued press releases) supporting the punishment. Everyone involved (including the voters) knew that the votes in Florida and Michigan didn't count, and accepted it.
The only thing that makes this year different from all of the other times that states have had their delegates stripped is that this year the final elected delegate count is close enough that the stripped delegates could theoretically matter, which hasn't happened before.
"Many of us thought FL/MI would get seated eventually" that's possible (I'm not psychic) but in the public record, Clinton and the DNC, as well as the state democratic parties, were quite clear that those primaries didn't count, and there was no objection to that being the case. The arguments that the delegates should be seated didn't start until much later.
"there was and is absolutely no justification to strip FL/MI of *all* their delegates"
Stripping delegates is a standard punishment for any state that breaks the rules and refuses all attempts at negotiation. Michigan, in particular, has repeatedly violated the rules, and been punished, in several elections in a row, and the DLC spent month trying to negotiate a settlement, so the states can hardly argue that they didn't know that they were breaking the rules or what the punishment was. If anything, failing to punish the two states that broke the rules is highly unfair to the 48 states (plus territories, etc.) that followed the rules.
To be clear, the attempt to overturn the DNC's decision to punish Florida and Michigan isn't an argument over principle or voter's rights, because in principle nothing has changed from back when everyone agreed to the punishment, or in 2004, 2000 or 1996 (all elections with 'advisory primaries'). The only thing that has changed is that Clinton lost the elected delegate count, and has seized on this tactic in an attempt to change the outcome of the election.