Democrats May Drag Out Fight; Decision Time on Florida, Michigan Votes
Reader Comments
The nightmare in the making...
If you're like me you didn't pay attention to the DNC's decisions to revise the calendar in 2006. Here's one Washington Post story that highlights the criticism it received back then: The Democrats' Dysfunctional Calendar By David S. Broder (Thursday, August 31, 2006; Page A25). This whole thing was a nightmare waiting to happen and neither Obama or Hillary are the cause of where we are today!!
DNC -- Florida, Michigan
I am getting the impression as I click around the blogosphere that there is an orangized attempt to monopolize the conversation on this issue by bloggers long in the jaw but weak in the particulars.
1. The rules for the contest were established prior to the beginning of the contest and all contestants agreed.
2. All contestants agreed that neither Michigan nor Florida would count
3. The issue of who has the most votes is bogus and spurious as the process is not designed to capture the number in dispute
a. caucus states do not have general elections
b. Neither Florida nor Michigan reflect a meaningful outcome with respect to numbers of voters prefering either standind candidate
4. Changing rules in mid contest is purely and simply a political expediency which bears no relationship to higher principles
5. Any outcome from the DNC which suggests a pandering or bowing to the arm twisting and bald political manipulation of a single candidate will represent the demise of the Democratic party.
6. The people are waiting for a political organization to galvanize a constituency around the issue which sorely afflict the nation.
a. the war, itself a metaphor for the profound confusion and misguided hubris of American foreign engagement
b. the profound misapplication of our wealth in the profound neglect of our social capital -- ie. education of our children, health care for our population, responsible husbandry of our envirnoment, responsbible regulation of our economy, intelligent and collaborative engagement with other nations and so on
7. If the Democrats miss golden opportunity to repair the damage of the last 8 if not 16 years, then citizens of good will may begin to feel that the organization itself if dysfunctional, and perhaps, it will be a time for a new construct to emerge in which citizens from various political affiliations begin to construct something new.
8. Hillary would never be a part of that new construct, nor McCain who continues to see the world in an antagonist and unconstructive antagonistic manner. Obama however might be, or a Bloomberg, or a Schwartzeneger. Indeed the issues facing the nation are so consequential, that allowing for the political reality of the moment, solutions, real solutions need to be found and hard truths faced squarely.
A measure of sacrifice will be needed, and not just from the poor, but from those who have enjoyed the exceptional fruits of the mismanaged last two decades.
Obama's true stature in relationship to McCain will not be apparent until he is freed from the fetters of this interminable campaign. And in this, in my view, is not anywhere near the league of Obama. His frat boy tendencies will become apparent, his limited grasp of social and political contingencies and possibilities will also be up for all to see, his flip flopping will as well, provided of course if the free pass the press has given him becomes a thing of the past.
DNC finds a way to lose as always
This Party is such a joke. For the first time in a long time, the Republican Brand Name is in the toilet and the Republicans know it, and the DNC finds a way to implode and fall on it's own sword, again.
Democrats just don't know how to campaign and Republicans don't know how to govern.
Consistently hearing that Obama isn't going to beat McCain in the fall from Clinton and her clan, now in June, is not promising or healthy or uniting...
It's turned so ugly that the general election will pail in comparison in terms of vitriol.
How can the Clintons and her supporters change their tune and promote Obama when he is the official nominee? They can't.....
Independent minded Americans need to rise up and come out in droves this election, because the Yellow Dog Dems and the Bushies probably won't this time round.
A wounded Barrack Obama going into the General Election season is going to be a very dissapointing prospect, as will a 72 year old running for his first term in office.
The Rules Are On Hillary's Side, just like the majority of the people
If The DNC Is Going To Strictly Apply The Rules . . .
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/164638/636
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:46:38 PM EST
And if the DNC Memo (which states that any violation of DNC Rule 11 on primary timing requires at least a 50% stripping of delegates without exception) expresses the views of the Rules and Bylaws Committee then the following action should occur on May 31:
Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina must be stripped of at least 50% of their delegates. As Florida Representative Ted Deutch states:
Rule 11 clearly prohibits primaries or caucuses from being held prior to the first Tuesday in February, except in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, each of which is assigned very specific limits on when they may hold their contests. Florida Democrats were penalized for violating Rule 11 when our state moved the primary seven days too early. Michigan Democrats, whose state moved 21 days early, were penalized, too. Oddly, Democrats in three other states [the three states were Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina] that violated the rules were not.
More . . .
In addition, the Florida delegation must be reinstated in full as it qualifies for the safe harbor exception provided in Rule 21 of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provides:
21. STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
A. Subject to Rule 18.C. of these Rules, wherever any part of any section contained in these rules conflicts with existing state laws, the state party shall take provable positive steps to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the provisions of these rules.
B. Provable positive steps shall be taken in a timely fashion and shall include: the drafting of corrective legislation; public endorsement by the state party of such legislation; efforts to educate the public on the need for such legislation; active support for the legislation by the state party lobbying state legislators, other public officials, Party officials and Party members; and encouraging consideration of the legislation by the appropriate legislative committees and bodies.
C. A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt and implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any provable positive steps the state may have taken.
The Florida Democratic Party complied with sections A and B of Rule 21. The DNC did NOT invoke Rule 21C and thus, Florida is entitled to the safe harbor provided by Rule 21. Its entire delegation should be seated.
However, should the DNC not accept the safe harbor argument, then Rule 20c.1.b comes into play. Rule 20c.1.b provides:
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.
. . . “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; . . . The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.
It appears that Senator Barack Obama inadvertently violated this rule by running cable advertising that “reache[d] a significant amount of the voters” and by making a “public appearance” before the primary date. Accordingly, he must lose all of his delegates from Florida, should the DNC rule that Florida does not fall within the safe harbor.
To recapitulate, a strict interpretation of the DNC Rules that follows the reasoning of the DNC Memo circulated today would require the following results:
A. The stripping of 50% of the delegates of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan.
B. The full seating of the Florida delegation.
C. Should the DNC RBC reject the safe harbor provision for Florida, then Florida would have 50% of its delegations stripped, but Barack Obama would be entitled to no delegates from Florida due to his violation of Rule 20c.1.b.
The upshot of strictly applying the rules as described above would be:
A. In Iowa, Obama, Clinton and Edwards would lose one half of their delegates. My understanding is that this would result in a net loss for Obama of 6 in his pledged delegate margin over Clinton.
B. In New Hampshire, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with no net change in the delegate margin between Clinton and Obama.
C. In South Carolina, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with a net loss in Obama’s delegate margin of 9.
D. In Michigan, Clinton would gain 37 delegates. In addition there would be 28 uncommitted delegates. A net gain of 37 delegates for Clinton.
E.In Florida, if the entire delegation is seated, Clinton gains 93 delegates Obama 55, and Edwards 13. A net gain of 38 delegates for Clinton.
If instead the safe harbor provision is deemed not to apply, then Clinton gains 47 delegates, Obama 0 (due to his violation of Rule 20) and Edwards 7. A net gain of 47 for Clinton over Obama.
By my math, a strict interpretation of the DNC rules would result in a net gain of 80 or 89 pledged delegates for Clinton. I am unsure of what the result would be regarding super delegates. For example, if the Florida and Michigan Super Delegates are stripped or halved, then the same result would apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I am unsure of what the result of such an action would be.
Tanya Harding
If you can't win fairly take out their kneecap.Hillary has given up on winning and wants to make sure McCain is elected,that way she has a chance in 4 years.I hope Howard Dean was better at medicine than he is running this because his inaction is killing the patient.It is obvious Hillary has seen "Million Dollar Baby"and is just waiting for Obama to look away so she can paralyse him.
Florida and Michigan
Hello to all Obama supporters! Please stop arguing with Clinton supporters! I know fully recognizing all 50 States does not benefit your candidate at the present time but he also blocked revote attempts, so surprise, we now we have a giant problem that should have been resolved a long time ago.
I am in one of the two disenfranchised states and nobody but us voters seems to get that this isn't even about candidates. It's about having your votes taken away. Please don't even start with the "our states broke the rules and we deserve" stuff. It is a line of crap in my State, Florida because it was our Republican government who moved our primary up by five days. Our state spent 20 million dollars and 1.75 million democrats voted, and now we are supposed to sit here and watch the candidate we heavily voted for not even get our delegates?
Voters in my State followed the rules. We knew all of the candidates from tv and internet even tho they didn't campaign here (Actually Obama ran national ads that cable companies didn't block in Florida, but I'm letting him slide on this).
The point is, Instead of arguing, you should be supporting disenfranchised voters. This could be YOU and we are witnessing our democracy as it is breaking.
I am sad to see this behavior is just typical
This puzzles me to no end.
I am a Barack supporter however if Hillary won via normal means, I would have been willing to support her, but not after this.
I believe in fighting to the very end, but the argument has to be one that holds water. Florida and Michigan knew what was happening when they decided to change the primary dates. And I don't think this just happened.
Hillary campaigned in FL but Barack did not.
HIllary's name was on the ballot in MI, Barack's was not.
If it turns out that Hillary somehow wins the DNC nomination via this MI and FL voting issue, I will run to the poll and vote for McCain. I will not pass go, nor will I collect $200 and will urge every Obamacan to stay at home or vote McCain.
BTW, as far as I see it, for anyone who is listening the black vote is up for grabs. As an African American, I never saw the value in blacks being a voting block. When the Dems know they have a lock on your vote they don't care about your issues, and since Repubs know Dems have a lock on your vote, they certainly don't care about your issues. Let this be a lesson to my Latino brothers and sisters who are also considered a voting block.
IMO if Hillary wins via this MI and FL thing, along with her race baiting remarks she has made during the campaign, she will break the lock that the Dems feel they have on the black vote. Repubs should hammer this into the ground should she win in August.
75% response, not even close.
For the record, virtually NO STATE had 75% voter turnout. What is even more ironic about "Don't steal Michigan" is that Barack Obama stole the vote in virtually all the caucus state votes.
You can see mathematical proof of that on my http://www.CaucusCheating.com blog.
Florida and Michigan
I don't want to cut and paste my very fine editorial on Florida and Michigan.
please check it out at http://www.Florida-Michigan.com
Don't Steal Michigan
I'm another Michigan Democrat. While almost every other state has had turnout above 75% in the Democratic primary, Florida and Michigan had much lower turnout - 26% in Michigan. We started being disenfranchised by being told the election wasn't going to count. We were disenfranchised because no one campaigned in the state. Many Michigan Dems crossed over to vote against McCain. Many wrote in "Obama" and had their write-in votes thrown out. 40% voted "uncommitted" rather than vote for Clinton, and now she claims that she deserves most of those votes.
If the delegates are assigned based on the Michigan primary, most of the Democrats in the state will have been disenfranchised and the election will have been stolen. And who was responsible? The "superdelegates" who support Clinton were the ones that broke the rules and moved the election to create this mess.
