Hillary's Position on Counting Florida and Michigan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:20:53 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Hillary Clinton has no secret plan to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. She's been totally transparent on her efforts to seat both delegations. Here's her plan, according to her campaign on May 4:

There is no secret plan. In fact, this story misrepresents the process laid out in the DNC rules for resolving the questions surrounding the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations.

The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn’t publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated.

More...

DNC members from Michigan and Florida have filed challenges with the DNC to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. The process being followed to adjudicate these challenges is completely consistent with the DNC rules. The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) is the DNC body charged with dealing with these challenges until the 56th day before the convention, and its process is public and transparent.

The membership of the RBC does not - in large part - turn over. A former Secretary of Labor, and the grandson of FDR who is a long time party activist and has been a co-chair of the committee for several election cycles chair it. Other members include a former chair of the party, Al Gore’s Campaign Manager (who is a former co-chair of the RBC as well), and an executive board member of the NAACP. Although the RBC is comprised of people who support both candidates, these people take their roles as party activits seriously.

The DNC process will decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations. It is an open and transparent process -- unlike the backroom deals proposed by the Obama campaign that would disenfranchise the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in Florida and Michigan.

< DNC To FL And MI: Drop Dead | FBI Raids Special Counsel Bloch's Offices and Home >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary's Position on Counting Florida and Michigan | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

2209, J (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST

2209.

I want a button that says 2209 ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:27:54 PM EST

you don't already have one? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST

is that for delegates... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:10:52 PM EST

or the next year in which a Democrat will win the White House if FL and MI aren't seated to ensure that Obama is the nominee?


: Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by hookfan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:15:56 PM EST

They're being optimistic.

how do you suppose the DNC should seat them (none / 0) (#23)
by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:47:34 PM EST

as is?

an equitable split?


As is (5.00 / 5) (#37)
by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM EST

The "Uncommitted" Delegates in Michigan are free to support either candidate so Obama can make his pitch to them anytime he wants. They certainly have no problem with name recognition now. Voters who chose "uncommitted" get what they voted for - delegates who get to decide for them. They both get what the voters decided in Florida. The DNC gets to eat crow for not working this out sooner.


: Excellent Point (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by flashman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:25:29 PM EST

about the 'uncommitted'

seat them according to the rules ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:14:50 PM EST

that were in place at the time. Each delegate gets half a vote.

But also penalize the other states that broke the rule as well -- IA, NH, and NC delegates all get half a vote too.

its either that, or just seat the delegations as elected. The DNC can't have two different sets of rules that they change whenever conditions change. All states must be treated the same, and the penalty should be consistent for all states


IA and NH (none / 0) (#64)
by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM EST

Those states had a valid reason, their constitution required they go first. Fine, that is how the appeals process works. You can violate the rule and escape penalty if the state party Dems couldn't avoid the date change.

But somehow that did not apply to Florida. There wasn't a thing FL Dems could do to stop the Republicans from changing the date.

The argument that the FL state party could have held their own primary or caucus independent of the state applies to NH and IA too, so that doesn't fly.

The argument, actually put out there by a DNC RBC member, that every single Dem representative in FL did not vote against the date change means they did not make a good faith effort also applies to NH and IA. I didn't see 100% of Iowans or New Hampshirean Dems voting for constitutional amendments to change their dates.


Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST

I'm pretty sure New Hampshire's constitution didn't require them to jump from third to second place, considering they agreed to the original plan that had them in third place.


: New Hampshire law does (none / 0) (#87)
by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:20:36 PM EST

I was wrong about the constitution part, it is state law. And that sets the bar even lower. Did every Dem rep in NH propose and vote for a change in that law? When MI jumped their primary, NH claimed they were "forced" by law to jump theirs. IA's requires them to be first caucus.

Fla Dems (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by flashman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:42:32 PM EST

did make a good faith effort, no matter what the RBC says.


An equitable split is not equitable. [nt] (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by ahazydelirium on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST

then you risk getting nothing (none / 0) (#35)
by po on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:55:58 PM EST

because to get equity you must do equity


I don't think it's equitable (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by ahazydelirium on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST

to give an equal number of delegates to Hillary and Obama in Florida: she received more votes. To deny that fact, in favor of a "fair" split of the delegation, is absurd.


A 50-50 split (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST

IS nothing.


and not really equitable (none / 0) (#45)
by po on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:06:31 PM EST

but neither is i get everything because no one could vote for you (yes, yes, i know all the reasons).


: People COULD HAVE voted for him (none / 0) (#83)
by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:10:04 PM EST

had he not played politics and removed his name from the MI ballot when the DNC did not require him to do so. We all know both Hillary and Barack were on the FL ballot. Obama screwed himself in MI.

: And that is fair, but (none / 0) (#84)
by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:11:12 PM EST

there's no way Obama should get any of Hillary's votes from MI.

Yes (none / 0) (#50)
by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST

It should definitely be an equitable split. I'm glad we can agree on this.


We Need FL & MI To Be Seated To Bring (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:26:04 PM EST

legitimacy to whomever wins the nomination.

But others might say (none / 0) (#6)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM EST

that if we count MI/FL, the election won't be legitimate because of the roolz.

I thank my lucky stars that the notion of counting votes has always been to the benefit of my candidate. (FL-2000, Gregoire's election, this primary)

However, I solemnly believe that if counting votes favored another candidate, I'd still believe in doing it. I'd hate the outcome, but I'd believe in the process. And if the process is right, even if I lose in the short term, I can only benefit from its rightness in the long-term.

Freaking count the darned votes.


One thing (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:34:48 PM EST

a lot of people seem to ignore is the fact that not counting MI and FL could have repercussions beyond 2008. Are people so clueless as to think that the GOP might not use this to their benefit in 2012 and beyond? I certainly do. I can imagine a Republican in 2012 saying something like "the democratic party doesn't believe in democracy" and turning it into a huge punch line.


Or in other states? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Evie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST

Why wouldn't every GOP-controlled legislature move up their primaries in 2012? Would the DNC then disenfranchise the voters in all those states?


: because hopefully (none / 0) (#36)
by po on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:57:19 PM EST

the party has learned something from the past 6 - 9 months and will fix that which is terribly broke after this little bit of trench warfare is over. Also, one would hope that there will be fewer GOP led legislatures after this election cycle.

Well (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:40:17 PM EST

Most voters don't go out there and just punch the Democratic ticket based on ideology. We'd win a lot more elections if that was the case. Real voters aren't as easy to pigeonhole as that.


I Agree About The Repercussions....Here We (none / 0) (#41)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST

have Hillary's take on the seating of FL and MI and silence from the obama camp. It is because he fears losing. I believe it is as simple as that. And, I know it will benefit Hillary, but isn't that just part of strategy? Who in the hell would want a president that is NOT for including two states in the electoral process?


Yup (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:16:32 PM EST

playing not to lose. It's what Kerry did most of 2004, just sit on a lead. It's what Dukakis did in 1988. It's what all the ge losers have done. I'm sick of this strategy.


: I Meant Hillary's Strategy, Not obama's...To (none / 0) (#61)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:24 PM EST

me it just perpetuates the empty suit point.

You may be naive :D (none / 0) (#88)
by Step Beyond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM EST

There were polls showing some FL voters not voting for the nominee. I wasn't polled, but I am one of them.

Geller's Poll

Voters said that if the controversy is not resolved and Florida Democratic voters do not have a voice in choosing the Democratic nominee, only 63 percent will still vote with Democrats.
...
14 percent said they would send a protest vote and consider voting for a Republican, 12 percent said they were unsure, 6 percent said they wouldn't vote for the Democrat for president but would for state and local races and 5 percent said they wouldn't vote at all.

Insider Advantage Poll

A whopping 31% of Democrats polled 3/10 by InsiderAdvantage for Florida Insider say they would be "less likely" to vote for the Democratic nominee if Florida's delegates aren't seated at the national convention.

Another poll

Howard Dean and Barack Obama may insist Florida's Democratic presidential primary was meaningless, but a new poll shows Florida Democrats aren't buying it, and one in four may not back their party's nominee in November if Florida winds up with no voice in the nomination.

Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST

It's kind of hard to say you stand for freedom and democracy when you don't practice it in your own backyard. Democracy is hard and to quote my favorite West Wing character, CJ Cregg (best.Press.Secretary.Evah), said this:

"In a democracy often times other people win."


The one benefit for me (none / 0) (#21)
by Step Beyond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:44:15 PM EST

in this whole fiasco is that I never settled on a candidate. I had come to accept that Clark wasn't going to run, but I hadn't decided between the others as to who I wanted to support prior to the DNC decision last summer. I did think I would chose between Obama and Edwards with a lean towards Edwards, but I was actually pretty thrilled with all 3 of the top candidates and could have found myself supporting any of them proudly.

So thankfully this has never been about a candidate for me. It has always been about the importance of the voters even when you don't agree with them. Oh and I ended up voting for Gravel since he never signed the pledge. So even if the do seat the delegates I still get nothing. :D


the votes have been counted (none / 0) (#33)
by po on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:54:43 PM EST

counting the votes is not the problem. it's seating 2 states' delegates after the party told those states' parties that their delegates would not be seated if X occurred. X occurred and someone wasn't so inevitable, so we have what we have.

the delegates are what this game is and always has been about -- not popular votes. The popular vote is only a means to an end -- the end being the nomination and seating of delegates at the party's national convention so that the delegates, not the people of the various states, get to pick the party's presidential nominee.

I don't like the system and didn't create the system, but am finding it quite ironic that despite the undemocratic nature of the whole "process" the Democratic Party has created that in the end it might work out exactly as designed, which would be very welcome news to many who post here.


: What you're doing (none / 0) (#44)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:03:47 PM EST

is called splitting hairs.

: A feature of the system is the appeals process. (none / 0) (#58)
by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST

If the rulings on the appeals are to seat FL and MI, with either full or half voting rights, that is entirely by the rules within the system.
The real crime was the DNC, and the campaigns not wanting to alienate the DNC, pushing the public perception that the decision was final before the appeals had been ruled on. Hence the silly pledges, and the taking of names off ballots. And voters passing on voting in elections that really may mean something in the long run.
Face it, nobody will be happy with any possible outcome. Minimizing long-term damage to the party has to be the DNC goal now.

The whole number thing (5.00 / 0) (#52)
by Makarov on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST

is mental masturbation to a certain degree. We can't conclusively predict what either the RBC or Credentials Committees will do. While Obama has been pushing for 2025 since Feb 6, the only way we'll have a nominee before the convention is if either he or Clinton decide to withdraw from the race.

I'm sure Axelrod will crow "Obama is the nominee" if he passes their own magic number, and I'm sure KO and Tweety will join him. That doesn't change the fact that if Clinton wants to go to the convention, she will.

I hope she goes to Denver, because I just don't see a scenario where FL and MI don't get seated there. Maybe their superdelegates won't, maybe they'll only have a half vote, but it's just unfathomable the DNC would blatantly disenfranchise all the Democrats in two states.

I might be overly optimistic about Clinton's chances in a floor fight, but I think they're a hell of a lot better than Obama dropping out. Listening to Gore on Fresh Air right now, he's wrong about one thing - that we'll have a nominee before the convention. I'm more sure today than ever before this is going to Denver.

I'll also predict that if Obama is somehow the nominee by not seating FL and MI, and Hillary isn't #2 on the ticket, he'll lose the general. It won't be because of my vote (I'll vote for the nominee regardless), but I think that's how it will play out.

: yes, take it to the Denver caucus! (none / 0) (#67)
by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST

let the loyal Dem base of Hillary supporters bully Obamamites - payback for Obama winning undemocratic caucuses via bullying.
lol

: majic smajic (none / 0) (#79)
by flashman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST

since neither will reach 2025 in pleadged delegates, the number is irrelevant. This will be decided at the convention, no matter what number games are played.

Then.... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:18:09 PM EST

you must also agree with this:

"The DNC rules also prohibited public appearances and electronic advertising before the polls closed by candidates in states that had jumped the approved primary calendar. Barack Obama made a public appearance in Florida in September 2007, talking to reporters after a fundraiser. His campaign also bought television ads on cable news outlets that ran throughout Florida before its renegade primary.

Strictly speaking, if the DNC rules were tightly construed in this case, Hillary Rodham Clinton would receive half of the Florida delegates she won and Obama would receive none -- the penalty for violating the campaign ban."

That's interesting (none / 0) (#70)
by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST

With all the discussion we've had about MI and FL, I still had no idea that the DNC rules said anything about a prohibition on campaigning. I thought it was exclusively an artifact of the "four-state pledge" the candidates signed. Here is the relevant language from the rules:

A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

Say what you will, but Obama's national ads that aired in Florida quite clearly fall within the definition of "campaigning" provided by this rule. It's not even debatable.


His excuse at the time (none / 0) (#71)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST

was that he supposedly had "permission" from the SC Dem chair--who later endorsed him IIRC. . .


Yes (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST

It's certainly reasonable to argue that national advertising is not the same as campaigning in Florida. But the SC party chair is not empowered to grant waivers of the DNC rules.


Sen. Obama also spoke with the press (none / 0) (#85)
by lookoverthere on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM EST

in Florida after a fundraiser. That, according to Craig Crawford,violated the campaign ban. He says Sen. Obama should be stripped of all his Florida delegates because of it.


: Duh...cmugirl already got it---sorry (none / 0) (#86)
by lookoverthere on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:19:02 PM EST

: Yeah (none / 0) (#89)
by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:45:45 PM EST

That one is a tougher argument to make, in my opinion. Keep in mind the DNC has the authority to waive any of these penalties in its discretion.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when the Obama campaign decided to make that national ad buy, they considered it a bonus that they'd be getting airtime in Florida while being able to claim that they'd adhered to the rules. But I really doubt Obama was up to anything sinister when he took a few questions from reporters on the street. There's no question that the fundraiser itself was okay - and, if I were the candidate, I certainly wouldn't have thought that answering a couple questions equated to "campaigning." So I'd be shocked to see the DNC take the draconian step of stripping all his delegates based solely on that issue.

Prediction: The clock will stop tonight at 2209 (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Ellie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM EST

And I will not freak because everything in this Dem nom has hard-wired me to be THAT unflappable in the face of utter madness.

About them roolz... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST

Craig Crawford on the roolz:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/

The mandatory penalties set forth by the Democratic National Committee's delegate selection rules call for outlaw states like Florida and Michigan to only lose half of their delegates to the national convention. The DNC went beyond its own rules to add further penalties, stripping those states of all delegates.

The DNC rules also prohibited public appearances and electronic advertising before the polls closed by candidates in states that had jumped the approved primary calendar. Barack Obama made a public appearance in Florida in September 2007, talking to reporters after a fundraiser. His campaign also bought television ads on cable news outlets that ran throughout Florida before its renegade primary.

: Exactly. It couldn't be any clearer. (none / 0) (#80)
by bridget on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST

And why should Obama get any votes in MI at all. Uncommitted is not his name last time I checked.

it doesn't really matter what (2.00 / 0) (#24)
by onemanrules on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:47:43 PM EST

Hillarys position on seating the delegates is. It doesn't look like its going to happen until after the nomination is decided. The other problem for her is that since Feb 5th Obama has been killing her in superdelegate pickups. I'm glad this isn't a football game, nobody would be able to find the goalposts anymore.

Obama SD's (none / 0) (#49)
by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:14:55 PM EST

"Some superdelegate adjustments today. After Clinton picked up the support of Democrats Abroad superdelegate Theresa Morelli, now living in Milan, Italy, we are adjusting the count down for both candidates.

Superdelegates from Democrats Abroad are only counted as HALF. So, since Obama has picked up four from Dems Abroad, slice that to two, and since Clinton has now picked up three abroad, slice that in half to 1.5.

Superdelegates from the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands all have full votes."


Uh (none / 0) (#68)
by IzikLA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST

He's been catching up in Superdelegates, he has not been "killing her in superdelegate pickups". Also, just because the DNC are playing Obama's game by hoping and waiting the nomination is locked up before they have to deal with FL & MI, does make it the right thing to do, so I find that argument rather flimsy.


: Its not an argument (none / 0) (#91)
by onemanrules on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:50:26 PM EST

its pretty well known as fact as to what is going to happen with Florida and Michigan. They will be seated after a nominee is chosen. It may not be fair to punish the voters, but it is also not fair to seat the delegates per the null votes. I wish they could have had full fair elections with both canidates having a chance to campaign there. Unfortunately that didn't happen and now it's obvious as to what's going to happen. Call it what you want as to him catching/killing her in superdelegate pickups since 2/5. All I know is that on that date she had 260 and he had 170. She has nobody to blame but her campaign team, they really let her down in this election. She should have won by a landslide, but her team took that as a given and had no strategy for a long race.

Is there a current list of the RBC members? (none / 0) (#2)
by Step Beyond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM EST

Al Gore's Campaign Manager

Do they mean Donna Brazile? Because she's no longer on the RBC.

I've been looking for a current list of RBC members but haven't found one yet. If anyone has one please post a link for me. Thanks.

TIME: Al Gore sez seat MI FL (none / 0) (#5)
by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:29:37 PM EST

Not sure what he means but there it is. The Goreacle speaks.

It means (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:32:28 PM EST

he'll go down in cellar with Larry Johnson, Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Paul Krugman and an host of others that are now seen as "enemies" by the netroots.


: Gore also didn't say when (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Jeralyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM EST

they should be seated.

What's he supposed to say? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:33:01 PM EST

"Nah. . . I don't see any reason to count Florida?"


What's the DNC supposed to say? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST

: currently seem to be saying (none / 0) (#25)
by RalphB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST

I don't see any reason to count Florida.

: I imagine they're inclined to say. . . (none / 0) (#28)
by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:50:46 PM EST

you should have followed the primary calendar we laid out, now you have to pay.
I expect them to say something like that up until the point that the results in those states have a material and direct effect on the outcome, or until people in Florida and Michigan make it clear that the results of ignoring their votes will be worse than counting them.

Absolutely nothing (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:37:02 PM EST

in his statement. He's doing a nice job of maintaining his own neutrality, but "seat the delegates" can mean giving them a chair but not a vote.

So, whatever. I'm just glad he isn't endorsing -- he's doing his part for "party unity," if there is such a thing as a Democratic Party anymore.


He means (none / 0) (#7)
by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST

That MI and FL will be seated, although he didn't say how.


Listen to (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST

the whole interview. He also says that there was a unanimous agreement not to do revotes. So Gore isn't 100% right on this.


Al Gore - wimping out? (none / 0) (#78)
by bridget on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:43:31 PM EST

sounds to me he also doesn't care that MI and Fl votes should be counted before Denver. How disappointing. After the nom Who cares? Sorry, but Al Gore annoys me. Clearly, He doesn't want to make waives in this election

in fact, there is no reason for those votes not to be counted as is cause the Rules allow for it as flexible as they are

seems to me that all the Powers that be (Dean et al) decided that everything will be done to prevent Hillary from getting the nomination

had it been Obama those votes would have been put in his vote bag immediately. As is the decision to disenfranchise those voters helped to derail HC's campaign big time. She would be the nom by now.

and thats how I see it

Oh, this is my favorite (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST

John Aravosis freaks about about this, and gets the threshold WRONG.

What is (none / 0) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:41:01 PM EST

going on in Obamaland? They all seem to be freaking out.


The NC landslide is in doubt (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:42:26 PM EST

and let's face it, he was supposed to win IN easily.


please don't peddle (none / 0) (#26)
by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM EST

and let's face it, he was supposed to win IN easily.

please cite. Polls had her up more than 10 April and before...

what exactly are you referring to?


"peddle"? (none / 0) (#31)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:52:37 PM EST

I'm sure you're familiar with the spreadsheet, no?

Polls earlier this year showed Obama with a substantial lead.


: And why (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by hookfan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:58:34 PM EST

would Obama say Indiana was a tie breaker if he was so far behind? If he loses now the tie breaker idea still holds, no?

Heh (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:00:05 PM EST

what to look for in NC (none / 0) (#60)
by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:27:09 PM EST

http://obsprimary.blogspot.com/


We knew all of this (none / 0) (#65)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST

from reading SUSA! ;-)


: oops! (none / 0) (#69)
by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM EST

2209 (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:42:24 PM EST

Aravosis will lead the charge against counting the votes.

Heh.


: It would be in character (none / 0) (#22)
by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:45:05 PM EST

Majic Number Silliness (none / 0) (#20)
by flashman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST

There's been alot of discussion about changing the "majic number" from 2025 to... whatever. The whold argument is a moot point. It so-called "magic number" is completely dependent on the total number of delegates that will be counted at the convention. Changing the number arbitarily makes no difference in the race, whatsoever.

This is Dean's Mess and Dean's Legacy (none / 0) (#27)
by HeadScratcher on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:50:27 PM EST

Point fingers, yell names, and do anything you want but understand that this is Howard Dean's problem from beginning to now. He didn't have to do anything and chose to disenfranchise FL and MI. Counting the tallies from those primaries are disenfranchising for various reasons (such as the name on the ballot, people not voting because it wasn't going to count, etc...). Dean was hoping all along that this wasn't going to be a problem and it is.

There is no PERFECT solution to this mess.

As for the comment on what the Repubs will do in 2012, remember that they can either say that Dems can even be democratic or that they change the rules anytime they don't like the outcome.

Howard Dean - Could've been the president.

Actually, (none / 0) (#57)
by Buckeye on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:18:58 PM EST

The responsibility lies with those who put Dean in charge of the party. That was a trainwreck very easy to predict.


feel sorry for dean (none / 0) (#62)
by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:35 PM EST

his 50 state strategy is a good idea that has been under constant assault from Dems in DC, who don't want power devolving to the states.

He thinks he can jump start the 50 state strategy by absorbing Obama's strong grassroots personality cult in heavily Republican states into the local/state party organizations - and the Pelosies are going along with it as long as the DCCC and DSCC get copies of Obama's donor list (to make up for the money that isn't going from the DNC to House and Seaate campaigns.)

It just sucks that Dean, Pelosi, et al are more concerned with their own personal agenda/empowerment than with getting a Dem into the White House.


Oh yes (none / 0) (#77)
by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST

And I'm sure they can count on his vote on the "progressive issues" of the day. You do realize there are just democrats in name only. right?


: Ha (none / 0) (#82)
by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:57:09 PM EST

You mean like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid lol
You've been drinking too much Kool Aid. You must have missed the last 28 years of votes up there.

GE (none / 0) (#29)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:51:30 PM EST

Ironically, if Obama wins the nom, there will likely be at least one tied state in the GE! (Indianna is tied in the GE for both candidates at the moment) Then, those who have been against vote counting will suddenly be for it! Let's all make sure and save their blog diaries and comments and throw them back in their face then. I know it won't be helpful. But it sure will be fun! <kidding>

: I forgot to mention (none / 0) (#30)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:52:21 PM EST

Principle, it's all about that missing thing called principle.

Question for anyone who knows (none / 0) (#90)
by Richjo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:49:57 PM EST

Has any party ever stripped a state of all of their delegates for moving up its primary date in the past? What are comparable examples of situations like this in the past?

: Delaware did (none / 0) (#92)
by Makarov on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST

something funky in either '04 or '00, if I remember correctly. They were told by the DNC their primary result wouldn't count. They ended up holding some kind of state convention, and were seated at the national convention.
I read about this last year, when the first news of stripping MI/FL came out, so my memory may be fuzzy.