Why The FL Delegation Must Be Seated

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At some point, one hopes, Barack Obama and his supporters will start thinking about winning in November. It needs to start with seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. There are many arguments that those worried about the future Democratic primary schedule can raise about this and that and the integrity of the RULZ. I think they do not have much merit, but I am not writing here to rehash that. Why? Because a normal functioning Democratic Party would not be wasting time thinking about the 2012 primary schedule and instead would be thinking about making the 2012 primaries moot - by winning the Presidency in 2008. No one will remember or care about Donna Brazile and her silly RULZ fixations in 2016, if we win the White House in 2008.

Which brings me to Florida. Adam Smith argues it SHOULD be in play this Fall:

Florida is turning bluer by the day. . . . In a state that decided the 2000 election by 537 votes, you bet it matters that today Democrats have more registered voters in a bellwether like Pinellas County, where Republicans in 2000 had a nearly 28,000-voter advantage. Or that in the mega battleground of Miami-Dade County, Democrats have had a net registration gain of nearly 59,000 since 2000.

"What we're seeing is the beginnings of a major sea change,'' said Mark Bubriski, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party. "When you add up all of the major factors that go into the analysis of an election, everything is going the Democratic Party's way."Well, maybe not everything. There's that delegate debacle and primary boycott. You've got a lot of work to do introducing yourself in Florida and soothing the simmering resentment among many Democrats who claim they might not vote for you. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) It is time to forget the silly Donna Brazile and the other silly people in the DNC whose own inflated sense of importance have put us in this mess. Senator Obama, it is time to join Senator Clinton and urge that the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated. The time is now. Not in August.

Join Senator Clinton and the Democrats of Florida and Michigan, and urge the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations on May 31. For your own sake and the sake of Democrats everywhere.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Skimping on Inmate Meals Profits AL Sheriffs | The Lack Of Integrity Of The Pledged Delegate System >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- 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.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Why The FL Delegation Must Be Seated | 156 comments (156 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:54:10 PM EST

I think Democrats should seat the delegations of Florida and Michigan because if they do lose the GE this year, the primaries in 2012 will be moot.

If they cant win this year when can they win.

flORIDA & MICHIGAN (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by tedsim on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:53:36 PM EST

HILLARY HAS A LINKED E-MAIL TO DNC ON HER SITE GO GIVE A MESSAGE AND DONATION, THIS IS NOT OVER YET AND SHE IS NOT GIVING UP LIKE THE PUNDIT'S SAY.

Parent

: I Signed That Letter About Seating FL and MI (none / 0) (#69)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST

and already got a thank you from the Clinton camp.
FLA may be turning blue judging by new voters signed on, but I would bet many of them are wondering why they bothered to sign up at all given this debacle. When you hear that they aren't going to count your votes or seat your delegates, the dem party loses it's luster.

Parent

That's a very, very (none / 0) (#16)
by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST

good point.

Parent

Don't Make Me Say...When Hell Freezes Over :) (none / 0) (#70)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:18:45 PM EST

Parent

Seat how? (none / 0) (#97)
by Geri on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:27:02 PM EST

I certainly agree that the delegations of FLA and MI should be seated -- and at full strength and apportioned fairly, according to how the votes were actually cast, not according to various proposals put forth that would give Obama delegates that, IMO, he didn't earn.

Parent

give obama (none / 0) (#116)
by isaac on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:35:10 PM EST

all the uncommitted in michigan as an enticement, votes he did not really earn by taking his name off the ballot but, wth, and seat fla as is

Parent

: I agree (none / 0) (#120)
by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST

This always seemed to be the best solution, I never even thought this was that difficult to figure out. There will always be arguments for and against this but the imperfect primary votes are all we have to go on and we can't just kiss these two states goodbye in November. The states have been punished enough, I highly doubt we need to worry about this issue again.

Parent

He has to do something (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:55:30 PM EST

Are they polling there and hearing something different than what seems obvious? Doesn't make sense to me from a GE strategy position. I think we can win seating it in August but it makes it a hell of a lot more difficult. The sd's have been swinging his way of late and I cannot imagine anyone "running" because he seats it and makes the vote count closer. He still has my vote but it is highly frustrating to see what i believe is a lack of leadership.....

You have (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:13:45 PM EST

to realize that the Obama party has no general election strategy.

Parent

sure they do (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST

and it involves the Clintons campaigning vigorously for Obama in states he did not and will not win.

Parent

I've thought this all along... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:54:02 PM EST

Obama and his campaign had a spectacular strategy for the primaries but no realistic strategy for the GE.

Conversely, Clinton and her campaign messed up all sorts of things during the primaries, but I believe they knew exactly what to do for the GE.

Of course, that makes this all the more depressing...

Parent

: I don't know that they don't (none / 0) (#125)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:37:38 PM EST

have a strategy for the GE i think they have run a solid campaign and I have supported him all along. Florida and Michigan should be counted. the bigger issue to me is that if Hillary closes like she is projected, the pop vote will be within 100k votes and with a 600k win in Illinois and he doesn't "win" the pop vote without the victory at home. The SD's remaining need to take that into consideration and hold those votes until every state is counted. I have not seen one msm outlet talk about that and it seems a very real issue to me.

Parent

Doesn't need them (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by MichaelGale on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:28:36 PM EST

is what they are thinking. They believe it will be a Democratic sweep (maybe?), and they will not need FL. Although Obama is very busy in FL next week with fund raisers and appearances. Positive coverage could boost their thinking.

Unfortunately, for HIllary, there is little public display of Count our Votes. People should be every appearance of Obama asking him to count the votes.

Parent

Oh, so he'll take their money (5.00 / 5) (#37)
by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:29:42 PM EST

but not their votes. Nice.

Parent

Anyone in FL who gives $ to him (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:37:43 PM EST

is a sucker, imo, so they get what they deserve. pfft.

Parent

: and I would reply (none / 0) (#128)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST

that anyone who gives money to someone worth 100 million is a sucker as well

Parent

the implication is they have written FL off (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:56:16 PM EST

Parent

: If true, they are running a Banana Republic (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:09:50 PM EST

Campaign I won't be part of. Loose they should.

Parent
: along with WV and KY? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by aquarian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST

Seriously? What happened to the 50 state plan? Senator Obama is tone deaf if he believes that the people of WV, KY and FLA aren't offended by his lack of effort to win their vote.
C'mon. It's not as if Senator Obama is going to win in November in a land slide. The last three elections have been closely fought. Any campaign willing to write off any state that has even a chance of voting blue, well. Suicidal.

Parent

No worries (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by cmugirl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:55:45 PM EST

Fla and MI will be seated - as a magnanimous gesture when they don't mean anything.

That's not good enough for me (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST

Not seating FL & MI in a meaningful way is still gaming the system. The DNC is counting on the country being so sick of the GOP that they can act completely against every principle of democracy and still win the WH. If they want to do that, they can do it without my support (and besides, they don't need it anyway).

Parent

: Wasn't That The Plan In 2004....gwb Was/IS (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST

such a bad president, doing a lousy job...no way he can win re-election...you can see how that worked out. It is very likely the dems will lose the election for the WH in Nov.

Parent

and Obama will expect Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:03:01 PM EST

and Bill to pull him through in the general in FL, OH, PA, TX, WV, KY...

Parent

That's (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST

another bridge that Obama has burned. Bill and Hillary can't help him.

Parent

No...people will not want to vote for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#34)
by madamab on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:26:32 PM EST

no matter what HRC and Bill do.

Parent

It's true, madamab (5.00 / 12) (#36)
by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:29:04 PM EST

And, what's more, it would kill me to see her out there stumping for him when she is clearly the more experienced candidate. They have made it clear that they don't want to Clintons in the democratic party. The same people who were so concerned about Bill's legacy back in NC now contend he never even had one.

But, let's keep in mind that she is still in this to win, and still has a chance. I am back to phone banking tomorrow and on into Tuesday, then I'll set my sites on other states.

Rise, Hillary, Rise!

Parent

You rock, Kathy! (5.00 / 10) (#42)
by madamab on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:36:13 PM EST

Thank goodness you're on HRC's side and not McCain's!

I have not given up hope either. I think she is so strong that she could actually pull off a victory, especially when you think of how incredibly tone-deaf and divisive Obama is being. Declaring "victory" on May 20th is another unbelievably stupid move that will show he doesn't care at all about HRC's voters.

Is that really what the Democratic Party thinks they should be saying to more than half their voters?

Parent

Declaring TL A Doom & Gloom Free Zone (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:24:48 PM EST

Hillary isn't out yet....let's not forget that.

Parent

Obama planning to declare victory May 20 ... (5.00 / 4) (#91)
by Geri on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:12:12 PM EST

Hi, first post here from a longtime reader.

I think Obama's plan to declare victory on May 20 is a way for him to try to stop the voting process, persuade HRC supporters that it's all over, and suppress voter turnout. It seems clear to me that he wants to do this to try to prevent HRC from winning the popular vote or at least weaken her arguments along those lines. Personally, I think his plan will backfire. After May 20 come the primaries for Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. Voters want their say, and they want the nominating process to play out. Declaring victory before every state and Puerto Rico has had their say is, to me, incredibly disrespectful, not only to HRC but also to the voters.

Parent

According to the TIME magazine cover (5.00 / 3) (#102)
by cawaltz on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM EST

I saw today. He is ALREADY the winner. Pretty tacky IMO to allow a magazine cover like that to be printed when the process isn't over.

Parent

Any such announcement would be the height of (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:07:28 PM EST

arrogance, and would further diminish the authenticity of his campaign mantra of unity. For me, he has already lost all credibility in that area. I hope that he is not aiming for Bush-like status in the effort to be a "uniter not a divider."

Also, his liberal and reckless use of the appellation, presumptive nominee, could have counterproductive consequences. It's very presumptuous, and it carries risks.

When his campaign called me to solicit money today and used that term, presumptive nominee, it pushed the wrong button, and I probably talked for one solid minute without taking a breath to refute that claim. I don't think they'll be calling me back.

I recognized that his campaign was about divisive politics when they began calling the Clintons and their supporters racists. Watching his campaign has provided a ringside seat for the study of Projection, in the psychological sense.

BTW, it's nice to see you here. :-)

Parent

Not quite true (none / 0) (#105)
by Alien Abductee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:52:36 PM EST

Apparently there's no victory lap planned for the 20th:

Obama was a little more reluctant than Daschle to anticipate victory this week. Asked if he would declare victory when he won a majority of pledged delegates, he responded drily: "We will declare we have a majority of pledged delegates."

Parent

Excellent Argument (none / 0) (#137)
by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:51:39 AM EST

The thing about this extended primary season that has heartened me the most is that states which often count for nothing because their primaries are so late are now important for a change. Voters who have had virtually no say for years finally count for something.

We need to count them all.

Parent

: The problem is that both the MSM and (none / 0) (#144)
by Florida Resident on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST

the DNC do not want your votes to count just the chosen few. A small Northeastern state, a southern state, and one midwest state. My question has always been why? Since when was the last time the Democrats won SC or Iowa?

Parent

You can't run a primary.... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by lambert on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:07:28 PM EST

... that tries to drive the Clintons from public life with baseless charges of racism, and then turn around and ask them to campaign in the general. Leave aside BTD's "we're all adults (ultimately)" argument -- their brand is damaged. And to ask them to campaign would damage Obama's brand -- why would he want racists to campaign for him?

Parent

: apparently, (5.00 / 3) (#114)
by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:27:08 PM EST

despite them being racists, it will be OK for them to campaign for him in CrackerLand (as they call Appalachia now at the Obama Blogs) where no one will worry about them being racists.

Parent

personally i don't think the clintons can (5.00 / 3) (#84)
by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM EST

really help obama no matter how hard they may try. once a group has turned away from a candidate, they typically don't go back. don't look for any big swings toward obama in the states where he hasn't fared well and the two states he helped disenfranchise. after that what campaign do we have? oh yeah, that's right, the aa community and creative class. good luck with that.

Parent

: and don't forget the kidZ! (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:27:06 PM EST

who were living with their parents during the 90s and enjoying "peace and prosperity."
Oh wait - the Clintons are eeeeevil!

Parent

and Florida will know... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:24:40 PM EST

that it won't really mean anything.

That's why it needs to be dealt with while it still means something.

Parent

cmugirl (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by cal1942 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST

I believe you're probably right.

But people will see right through that and be even more furious.

Parent

I think they should be thinking of (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST

the 2012 GENERAL election as well as the 2008 GENERAL election. Is it really good to peeve Florida? You won't always have a candidate who can win Colorado.

I am flying to DC with other Floridians (5.00 / 19) (#8)
by MichaelGale on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:07:00 PM EST

on May 29 to protest at the DNC on May 30 and 31.

I know it does not sound like much but almost everything has been tried and I need to do something.

Actually (5.00 / 11) (#15)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:12:31 PM EST

It sounds like a lot. Thank you for doing that.

Parent

On the contrary (5.00 / 11) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST

I think it means a great deal and I sincerely hope many Floridians, Michiganders and Democrats join you there.

Parent

When You Have All The Details, You Might (5.00 / 6) (#28)
by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:22:36 PM EST

want to post time and place for a meet up here and at other Hillary friendly blogs. That might allow others who live in the vicinity and are concerned about this issue to join in your protest.

Parent

Details for Count Our Votes (5.00 / 5) (#46)
by MichaelGale on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:38:54 PM EST

Thanks MoBlue.

Count Our Votes

Click through the tabs for more info. Please pass this around to other sites you support.

Thanks again for reminding me post here and other sites.

Parent

I will join you! (none / 0) (#115)
by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:28:14 PM EST

I live in Chicago but have been commuting half-time to work at a new job in DC. I'll be there!

Parent

: Thank you (none / 0) (#145)
by MichaelGale on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:18:47 PM EST

I will be in touch to at least say hi. :-)

Parent

I live in the area (5.00 / 0) (#52)
by camellia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:45:07 PM EST

and second this idea -- please let us know details when you can, and I will try to join you.

Parent

: I will, thanks n/t (none / 0) (#146)
by MichaelGale on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST

Parent

Please blog it and post how people can help (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:30:08 PM EST

I want to see Florida seated FIRST and counted FIRST as repayment for being wronged by Dems in the past.

From the link and editorial BTD cited in the top post.

Memo to: Sen. Barack Obama
Re: Blowing off 27 electoral votes
Thanks for coming by next week for a three-day campaign swing, Senator.
There has been lots of chatter about you ceding Florida to Sen. John McCain, given the way you've ignored the state for eight months and dismissed the 1.75-million Democrats who voted in our disputed Democratic primary.

OUCH. Obama is Box Office Poison.

Parent

Thank you thank you thank you (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by LHinSeattle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:34:05 PM EST

Parent

Thank you... (none / 0) (#88)
by lambert on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:08:44 PM EST

Keep us posted. Make YouTubes.

Parent

FL (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by D Cupples on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST

BTD,

I heard you on the Clinton conference call and agreed with what you said. (Nice voice, btw)

Being a Floridian, I especially agree that my state's vote should count. Well said!

I'm discussing FL with an Obama (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:09:58 PM EST

supporter. He is empathic, it's the FL Democrats fault. He can't get past that. It's their fault and so they shouldn't be seated.
The impact of not seating FL prior to the selection of a nominee is lost on him. I hope his Rulz comfort him if we lose FL and the GE by 24 electoral votes.

So he'll be blaming them (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:12:03 PM EST

when we lose FL in November.

I can not stand stupid people.

Tell your friend not to comment here please if he/she is so inclined.

Parent

It's so ironic. (5.00 / 9) (#20)
by D Cupples on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:14:00 PM EST

DNC leaders (e.g., Brazile) have been successful (with the media's help) in advancing the argument that Florida DEMS were at fault for moving the primary (instead of the R-controlled legislature).

Being a Floridian who has watched a couple of state House floor debates, I can attest to the fact that the Rs really do control the lege.

And as our statutes indicate, the lege controls when elections are held.

And yet, so many Obama supporters keep parroting the line about Florida's Dems having broken rules. Baffling.

Parent

That is so true (5.00 / 9) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:15:12 PM EST

The DNC is pointing the finger a Florida Dems.

How stupid is THAt for winning elections?

I really detest Donna Brazile.

Parent

: I loved seeing the Brazile smackdown the other day (5.00 / 0) (#48)
by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST

I don't use the same lockers and gym that the the inside baseball crew use so I'm not up on the inner gears, personalities and gossip (nor do I want to be. Had my fill from the little I saw working in NGOs, the thankless GOTV:STFU detail, and support on individual campaigns.)
Apart from that, whatever made a NC-victory night Brazile go from wearing the expression of Obama's proud personal life coach and wartime consigliere to that of an outraged random smelt was worth rubber-necking a week's worth of crappy prime time news. Jack that smack was clean.

Parent
: The 2008 equivalent of the butterfly ballot (none / 0) (#81)
by Marvin42 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST

Another democrat making sure democrats lose FL and the general election...I can see a pattern now.

Parent

Oh yes`` (5.00 / 7) (#22)
by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:16:59 PM EST

Lets start the blame-game.

Its Hillary's fault, its Bill's fault, now its FL and MI Dems fault.

If Obama is the nominee he is supposed to take whatever he has and turn it into an Electoral victory. Otherwise it is his fault and his failure.

Parent

Fix the problem, not the blame (5.00 / 6) (#31)
by myiq2xu on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:24:41 PM EST

The entire Democratic nominating system is FUBAR

Parent

Coffee is for closers! (none / 0) (#62)
by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:57:47 PM EST

Should I buy a knife set for Obama?

Parent

: Oh, snap! (none / 0) (#90)
by lambert on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:10:58 PM EST

That's a great riff, I'll have to run it.

Parent

Remind him of HB537 (5.00 / 5) (#38)
by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST

the legislation that was connected to the primary date thing. It funded the effort to "provides almost all voters paper ballots in time for the 2008 Presidential election, and bans paperless DREs outright by 2012."

Parent

I did (none / 0) (#78)
by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:28:27 PM EST

He still thinks the Democrats folded. I really believe he doesn't understand how real politics is played.

Parent

: Then I agree with BTD (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:50:33 PM EST

on his not posting here.
Because what he doesn't realise is that the paper ballot initiative was incredibly important in order to try and ensure that something like the 2000 SCOTUS debacle doesn't happen again.
And if the Dems had voted against their own interests in getting that paper ballot thing through, it would've hung around their heads like a giant albatross.

Parent

Not sure if is endemic (5.00 / 4) (#60)
by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM EST

in Obama supporters, but I view Obama himself as a short term planner. It's always eyes on the prize, but I never see evidence of planning for what comes after.

If Obama gets the nomination, he's set himself up for a brutal GE because he didn't connect with a huge chunk of the demographic when he had the chance. It's not like he needed to ration his cash!

He had the chance. The press was following him around because it was a hotly contested primary. These were states whose primaries hadn't seen national coverage in ages! He could have used that.

He didn't. Passed on WV. It's not just about states, it's about demographics. That was a demo that he was far from maxed out in.

Parent

: There was no point (none / 0) (#126)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:42:15 PM EST

in going after WV, Hillary had resounding support and spending a ton of money and campaigning there would have only been used against him by Hillary and co. Lose the battle win the war.

Parent
: I'd Agree With You (none / 0) (#138)
by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:08:34 AM EST

on the "short-term planner diagnosis", given Obama's record, but then I look at the campaign.
Obama's been campaigning for President of the United States since July 27, 2004. Everything he has said, everything he has done has been triangulated against how it would affect this run.
Even his stunning lack of a record works in his favor. It's hard to criticize him for anything because the record's a blank slate.
Reminds me of my grampa's advice: "The man who never made any mistakes never did anything."

Parent

On the other hand, (5.00 / 9) (#12)
by D Cupples on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:10:51 PM EST

I don't think that we should forget Brazile and what she and other DNC "leaders" did during this campaign.

Personally, I'll need to see some major house cleaning in the DNC to feel reassured that our party "leadership" hasn't morphed into top-down, control-oriented players who don't care a fig about us ordinary voters.

And if (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by cal1942 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:06:34 PM EST

Obama gets the nomination expect the same "leadership" faction to stay put.

If he is nominated and loses the election there will be a bloody brawl.

Parent

the aftermath (none / 0) (#89)
by christinep on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:10:40 PM EST

Yes, a loss will lead to the classic reprisals and all-around purge.

Parent

And that's a big reason (none / 0) (#129)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:13:25 PM EST

why he shouldn't win.

Parent

: Purge (none / 0) (#139)
by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:09:54 AM EST

Personally, I would welcome a purge. Can we get rid of Pelosi and Reid while we're at it?

Parent

the decision on May 31 (none / 0) (#100)
by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:32:19 PM EST

won't be any different if the meeting had been held 2 months ago.
They've just run out the clock for Barack.

Parent

The party (5.00 / 10) (#13)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST

formerly known as the democratic party no longer exists. It is now the Obama party. The Obama party doens't care about disenfranchised voters. The Obama party really doesn't even want these voters. They are building a new party. MI and FL are not of that plan. When is everyone going to start understanding the obvious? Obama will never seat those delegations until Hillary is out of the race or never. The Obama party is about hating the Clintons. The Obama party doesn't care about winning.

BTD, in order to understand all this you have to realize the above to be true.

HRC still has a chance (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by madamab on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:21:08 PM EST

to save the Democratic Party from idiots like Donna Brazile and those determined to oust the Clintons at all costs.

Let's hope with all we're doing, we can make them see reason.

Parent

I agree (5.00 / 5) (#95)
by lambert on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:19:25 PM EST

It's exactly like not believing the Conservatives are serious when they say stuff. We've got a Department of No! They Would Never Do That! exactly to cover these cases -- because Yes, they always end up doing exactly that.

In a thousand small ways -- the latest Donna Brazile and slamming antiwar Boomers -- the Obama Faction is saying "We don't want your vote!" The creative class nonsense reinforces it, and they're our next Broders. So why don't we think the unthinkable, and believe them?

The Obama Movement is a big money flow. For the Obama faction, controlling that flow and seizing the party machinery is a have-to-have. The election is a nice-to-have. And you know who's going to take the blame when they lose...

Parent

We'll see (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:13:22 PM EST

Parent

I guess (5.00 / 14) (#26)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST

you are holding out hope that he'll do something. He's playing the same game Kerry played in 2004, trying to run the clock out it seems to me.

We deserve to lose in Nov. simply because of the poor leadership that the DNC has had this entire last year. Who would want a president who can't even stand up for the voters of MI and FL? Who caves into the DNC? Don't you think that narrative is going to take hold if Obama is the nominee? McCain: How can we believe that Obama will stand up for our country when he couldn't even stand up to the DNC? Now, he can yammer on about the roolz againt McCain but he'll look even wimpier.

Parent

I just want to ask again: (5.00 / 14) (#33)
by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:25:04 PM EST

what has Obama done, what gesture has he made, to make you think that he will seat these delegates unless it directly benefits him? It's the same with the Unity Ticket idea. There is what's logical, and then there is what's reality. There are many lawyers here who have lost cases even when the law was on their side because of an arrogant judge who is completely certain that he is correct.

I am not being coy here: I really think they are operating in a bubble. I have worked on too many campaigns not to know how easy it is to lose touch with reality, especially when the media doesn't do its job. There are no dissenting opinions, there is no one telling them they messed up or that they are wrong. He is surrounded by yes men and women.

Thank God Clinton is still in the race.

Parent

: You are so dead on right (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Marvin42 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:51:24 PM EST

It also shows in all the moves they are making. It appears like they have won, yet they are making stupid moves to irritate the half they need, when all they have to do is sit back and wait.
Its probably a combination of bubble and tunnel vision. Always a winning combination...

Parent
: the answer obama hasn't done anything (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:04:40 PM EST

to fix the negativiy or dienfranchisment that has gone on in the primaries. the short answer is he isn't going to do so in the general election. obama has to do some dog whistles to keep his core in line i think. that won't look good. he'll attack mccain for being older. sure he will! and that will finish the job of turning off the boomer vote. he can't win women back the core group of hillary voters who are out the door. florida, wv, michigan, penn are all gone.
i also don't think obama has the politcal skills to heal this. it isn't there. the mindset that he has closeted but revealed by rev wright and michelle's comments would preclude an effective reaching out to the we are all appalachia voters. sure he can give a good speech here and there with a teleprompeter. that won't win the ge. he is not happy in heated debates. he can whistle all the dog whistles he wants, and that won't win the ge. he can run negative with axelrod and sure he will. what good will that do? he has already shot his negative guns. no one is really going to believe he is the great healer now or the answer to racial division. what's left? the answer is everyone doesn't like bush. but they also don't like congress. don't forget that though the dem leadership seems to have done exactly that. they are counting that we'll all come meekly home for one more kick. don't plan on it.

Parent

It is (none / 0) (#51)
by OldCoastie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:43:58 PM EST

not yet the Obama party... time will tell.

Parent

I see a lot of magical thinking going on (5.00 / 9) (#23)
by lorelynn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:18:50 PM EST

If, if, if, if we can just get through the primary, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I know Obama has tremendous in his charm to work miracles, but I think that he pretty much has everyone in his camp that's going to go there.

What I resent about his campaign, is his willingness to do anything now to win against Clinton despite the impact of that choice or action on the November election. He acccused Clinton of race baiting in North Carolina. Now it was a preposterous charge and everyone knew it. But Clinton went and apologized in North Carolina for the words that she was told were offensive. The point being that those are Democratic voters who won't have any hesitation about supporting her should she be the nominee. I have tremendous hesitation about supporting Obama because he hasn't backed away from Rhodes' remarks.

I just see Obama being willing to burn any bridge necessary to win even the primary even at the expense of the general election. I don't think he is respectful of what the Democrats need to accomplish or I don't think he'd behave the way he is behaving.

I can't even believe we are still wrestling (5.00 / 10) (#24)
by Anne on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM EST

with this issue. Do they want to win Florida or not? Do they think having those electoral votes might come in handy in November? Do they want to have any credibility with the voters?

It's like they have a massive case of stupid, the antidote is right in front of them, but they are too far gone to see it, or use it. And those of us who seem to be immune to stupid-itis do not have the power to cure them.

Every day, I have to remind myself that the people with their heads on backwards are people who call themselves Democrats. And I used to think how awful it would be to be Republican and feel like one had to apologize for it - now I no longer have to imagine how it would feel, because the longer this political insanity goes on, the more I feel that way about Democrats.

Ugh. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST

This reminds me too much of Bush in 2000.

But, unlike the republicans, enough dems will notbe there to vote him in. Unless he plans to steal it, too, that is...

: Re: Stealing It (none / 0) (#140)
by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:19:42 AM EST

Good point. 2000 proved that you don't actually have to win. You just have to get close enough to steal it.

Parent

the old rift (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by christinep on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:37:33 PM EST

Why are our party leaders acting the way they are? The "magical thinking" mentioned above? The denial? The "running out the clock" also alluded to earlier? It may just come down to the old 1972 schism/rift/factions. It may be that type of power struggle for control of the party that facts get in the way. That kind of power struggle can really make the proponents more than blind. Look at some of the unusually harsh, personal language emanating from some top Dems who are superdelegates. A significant number of the Obama superdelegates are the same ones that pushed the rift in 1972 (only then, I was one of the "young turks.") When I look at the goal of winning the WH, the Dean et al posturing of recent months makes little sense in terms of electoral votes; in fact, it is an alienating position from the very voters we will seek. If we look at the goal as winning the classic Dem party power struggle --we all know the demographic splits-- then it is easier to see the "damn the consequences" attitude of the "the letter not the spirit of the rulz" people. Its harsh, risky, and probably doomed to failure in the general. And, another type of battle will ensue.

The real shame (5.00 / 7) (#49)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:42:52 PM EST

is that for the DNC to consider this a problem at all it has to be because it may threaten them in the general election. Had we been talking about California and Mississippi or any other non-purple state then it wouldn't even occur to them that disenfranchising voters is never the solution.

You never disenfranchise voters over the actions of politicians. Not in any state. Not for any price.

Crowning himself before resolution of (5.00 / 8) (#50)
by davnee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:42:53 PM EST

FL and MI, is incontrovertible proof in my mind that he is terrified of losing. The greatest proof to me that this race is not over is that he is unwilling to embrace FL and MI in full (or at least at the predetermined 50% penalty a la the Republicans) right now. His refusal to play the statesman (and by the way improve his own GE chances) means he's scared. That or he really is both stupid and selfishly undemocratic. So what is it Obama - scared, stupid or selfish?

All 3 IMO (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:46:45 PM EST

scared, stupid & selfish.

Parent

That 5/20 event is big... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by lambert on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST

My picture is that his rationale for announcing victory will be to start the healing process -- which is a mindf*ck of cosmic proportions because it's exactly the legitimacy of his "victory" that's in play.

Obama never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I predict more division after the speech, not less. Almost as if that was the plan...

Parent

The Clinton campaign needs to schedule a ... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by dwmorris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:14:40 PM EST

major event in FL on 5/20 to coincide with Obama's mission accomplished speech. Agenda - discussion of voter disenfranchisement and media/gender bias in this campaign cycle.

Parent

: Wow (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST

Now that is a fantastic idea!!

Parent
: Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#130)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:16:10 PM EST

her event won't get coverage. Only his will.

Parent

He is so All Things Evah, he is his own antidote (none / 0) (#104)
by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM EST

He's the Hair of the Dog that Bit You, and it will cost you coming and going.

Good hucksters don't come cheap, as Obama has shown without even being out of the primary season decisively yet.

I really don't see how he can ever pull in money to fill party coffers, since he seems to personally burn whatever's at hand plus unleash locusts on any nearby funds not directly alotted to his personal mission. (ie, his call to stop funding "issues" groups and run all the cash through HIM. No. F*cking. Way.)

And how many pockets in his Boss's Cotillion are lined up and hungry for the filling?

Nunh unhhh, I didn't sign on to this kind of party and I'm glad I'm an Indy.

Parent

Has anyone ever seen (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by txpolitico67 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:46:40 PM EST

"Primary Colors"? Seems like all things that can make or break a candidate is Florida driven. I hope, like in the movie, that the Clintons can go to the super-delegates and show them something so damaging that the R's would use against BHO that they would HAVE to give the nod to HRC.

I am seeing more and more about Michelle Obama's rant against whites by her using a certain term. If that's true, that will be political dynamite for his campaign to be destroyed.

I see no way of him winning the GE with all the angry HRC supporters out there. If Hillary and Bill AND Chelsea came up to me and asked me to vote for Obama I would kindly tell them no.

After what his campaign and the DNC have done to not only the people of FL, but to MI and women, Obama deserves whatever happens to him after the primary season is over.

The DNC let this fester too long (5.00 / 4) (#64)
by aquarian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM EST

The DNC should have decided this question a long time ago. They believed that Senator Obama would be unstoppable and everyone could look magnanimous at the end by seating the delegates of those states -- because it wouldn't matter.

As it turns out, it does matter because, predictably, FLA and MI are (1) important states for November and (2) its voters are seriously ticked off if their votes don't count in choosing the nominee. The DNC (Dean and Brazile) who had their thumbs on the scale all along, bet the bank. Reckless, and ultimately self-defeating. Psych 101 -- people's positions harden over time.
Frankly ANY decision would have been better than none.

: OMG Yes (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:44:17 PM EST

I am so sick of arguing about this, explaining the ROOLZ, and especially weeping over that video of the last rules committee meeting.
It has been clear since the FL primary that Obama could not be considered a legitimate nominee without these two states figuring in. Anything else looks like exactly what it is - suppressing them to keep him in the lead. No amount of talk about the ROOLZ can change that.
The DNC had it in their power to fix this a longtime ago. Dean will be remembered for this. Hope he is happy.

Parent

The GOP legistlature majority in FLA (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by Finneganistan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:37:27 PM EST

passed the resolution to move up their primary date, right? So it seems to me that the sour grapes, stay-at-home set are playing right into their hands.

: Bingo - and so is the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#119)
by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:41:32 PM EST

playing right into their hands. Think the Republicans won't do it again next time? The punishment is not effective as a deterrent if the wrong people get penalized. Stupid, stupid DNC.

Parent
: And your Obama (5.00 / 4) (#131)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST

played right into their hands by refusing to seat Florida.
He's the one who is going to lose. And so are the Democrats. The voters are only reacting to what they've been given.
Never really thought in my entire life that Democrats would be against counting votes because of DA-RULZ.

Parent

That's supposed to say (none / 0) (#25)
by lorelynn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM EST

"tremendous faith in the ability his charm to work miracles". Duh.

Not to worry (none / 0) (#40)
by Laureola on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST

Florida delegates will be seated, and Florida will be in play. There was really never any doubt about it - just a distraction.

Foolish foolish person (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:46:41 PM EST

Parent

If the decision to seat (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST

includes doing something 'fair,' like dividing the delegates equally, I am out of this election and this party. Sorry, Hillary--I can't do it, and I wish you and Bill would come too.

Parent

: Exactly, it's unfair to seat as is (none / 0) (#71)
by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST

because Hillary won. What a joke.

Parent

Just a distraction? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
by miriam on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:37 PM EST

Ah, NO! It denied Hillary Clinton the momentum she would have gained by these two states. It allowed the media to refuse to cover her win because, it gleefully said, the votes would not be counted. It denied her the count she needed to keep the Obama-is-inevitable theme from becoming the media's repetitive chorus. It was a deliberate and egregiously undemocratic maneuver worthy only of the Chicago machine. It has done great damage which cannot be undone now even if the DNC finally comes out of its mindbogglingly moronic stupor. And ultimately it may well bring the demise of the Democratic party because too many of us will refuse to be members of such a stupidly self-defeating organization. And maybe that's a good thing.

Parent

What does... (none / 0) (#47)
by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST

"Inevitability" in your bio mean?

Parent

Hertzberg in the New Yorker (none / 0) (#57)
by rilkefan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:51:33 PM EST

here. Don't know if it's been discussed at TL - wonder if it makes others' blood boil as much as mine. I guess I'll have to consign him to the category of hack.

: Stupid column (none / 0) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:58:24 PM EST

Not worth discussing.

Parent

The RBC doesn't meet... (none / 0) (#58)
by mike in dc on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:51:41 PM EST

...until May 31st. Kentucky and Oregon vote on May 20th. That's 10 days in between.
As it stands now, if seated as voted, Clinton would pick up 178 pledged delegates to Obama's 69(per DCW), and 15 supers to Obama's 10, with the disposition of 11 Edwards delegates, 55 uncommitted delegates, and 30 uncommitted supers to be determined.

A majority of pledged delegates, including all contests, would be 1784. Obama has 1679.5 under this scenario, according to DCW, with 20 Edwards delegates, 55 uncommitteds, and 189 pledged delegates to be assigned by the remaining 5 contests. Clinton would have 1622.5. Obama has to get another 104 delegates out of the 264 on the table, and Clinton has to get 161.

Which brings us to 5/20. 103 total pledged delegates at stake, Obama up big in Oregon, Clinton up bigger in Kentucky. Spot him a 4 delegate margin in OR(28-24), and her a 33-18 win in KY, and the new totals are 1725.5 Obama, 1679.5 Clinton. He needs less than 60 at that point, to clinch a majority of pledged delegates(assuming FL/MI are fully seated), which means he could do so by either picking up the remaining Edwards delegates and getting 40 delegates out of the last 3 contests, or by getting the uncommitteds(or a share of them) assigned to him at the RBC meeting, and then basically just showing up for the last 3 contests. Clinton needs 104. She can't get the uncommitted pledged delegates assigned to her(that would constitute outright theft, in my opinion), and she's unlikely to get more than 50 delegates out of the last 3 contests, so even if all the remaining Edwards delegates jumped to Clinton(which seems highly unlikely), she couldn't claim a pledged delegate majority(or catch up with Obama, for that matter) any earlier than the convention.

Counting all 50 states and other contests, and estimating where specific figures are unavailable, the popular vote count is likely to be a statistical tie and therefore non-dispositive.

The "Clinton wins in June" scenario still involves her winning around 190+ additional superdelegate endorsements between now and then. Even with FL and MI fully seated and their supers re-credentialed, the uncommitted SD pool is still no larger than 259.
Obama needs no more than about 140 out of 259. If he feels he has enough SDs in his pocket to "clinch" 2025 next week, that would mean he's already lined up around 75-80, and would only need another 60 in order to "clinch" 2210 after June 3rd, assuming there's an "oh gosh, we take it all back...here, have all your delegates and
SDs seated, FL and MI" outcome. If Obama has enough SDs already lined up to get him to 2024 after May 20th, then Clinton simply can't win, even if she gets everything she wants out of Florida and Michigan.

So, what does it all mean? Well, in terms of optics, I think it means we should look for an Obama "pivot" on FL/MI sometime next week, probably no later than next weekend. He will say he's "open to whatever the Committee decides" and supports seating the FL and MI delegations at the convention, with the details to be worked out by the members of the RBC. He's pretty much come close to saying this already, or at least his people have.
Once the RBC issues its ruling, Puerto Rico will hold its vote, and Clinton will get her last major victory speech to give. Obama is likely to win the last two contests, and we're likely to see a Clinton concession and endorsement in mid-June. Then, on to the convention and the general election campaign.

NOT REALLY (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by tedsim on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:06:56 PM EST

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BLUE STATES HILLARY WON WITHOUT A MAJORITY OF BLACK VOTES THAT HAVE TO BE WON IN GE,I GUESS THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

Parent

: Winning a state in the primary... (none / 0) (#147)
by minordomo on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:22:05 PM EST

... is not the same as winning it in the GE.

Parent

Scarlet says (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:10:44 PM EST

'fiddle-de-de.' This primary race goes till August.

Parent

So why not pivot before crowning himself? (none / 0) (#77)
by davnee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:25:27 PM EST

If the math is so assured why isn't he counting their votes prior to the coronation? Unless of course he doesn't want them to really count. There is not one good reason for him to continue to stiff arm FL & MI, other than that he fears counting them. He has everything to gain by showing the voters in those states respect. That is, of course, unless he believes he has something big to lose.

Parent

: 5/20: He's "creating his own reality" (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by lambert on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:29:26 PM EST

And he wouldn't need to do that if, in fact, his reality were secure. Just another mindf*ck, like the late count in Gary.

Parent

If FLA and MI are seated (none / 0) (#72)
by Finneganistan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:20:24 PM EST

and HRC is still behind in all metrics, would you then support Obama?

Are you asking me? (5.00 / 0) (#80)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:37:20 PM EST

I weakly support Obama now. that is why I am suggesting actions to help him win in November.

I do not believe blnd cult like following is helpful.

Parent

: Formerly tepid now weakly? (none / 0) (#127)
by katiebird on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:42:36 PM EST

Are you moving just a degree or two away from him? Or is that toward him?

Parent

please... (none / 0) (#76)
by CanadianDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST

It's not about the metrics....errrr, wait 'til next week and it'll be about something else...I can't remember what the current goal is right now.

Parent

I thought (none / 0) (#74)
by CanadianDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM EST

Michigan proposed a plan approved by both national and state democrats? What happened to that?

No, that plan wasn't "approved by" (5.00 / 3) (#79)
by eleanora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:30:00 PM EST

anyone but Obama supporters. They altered the delegate count to not only give Obama the entire uncommitted portion of delegates, but also five of Clinton's delegates as well. Ignoring the actual voters this way is just as bad as not seating delegates at all. No sale.

Parent

This Makes Me SO Angry (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:33:57 AM EST

We are in this mess to begin with because Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot. He knew when he did that it would throw the result in the garbage can. Now the DNC is kissing his tush to get him to accept delegates that are not rightfully his.

Talk about calculating!

Parent

Rewriting history, aren't we? (none / 0) (#148)
by minordomo on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:32:21 PM EST

The results were already in the garbage can, and not as a result of Obama taking his name off the ballot (he wasn't the only one to do so, btw): Clinton, Obama and all the other candidates agreed not to participate in the election, and the voters were told this election would not count.

Obama did not create this mess - the DNC did.

Parent

You're rewriting history, not us. (none / 0) (#152)
by eleanora on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST

LOL, the Obama supporters have fully adopted the Atwater technique of loudly accusing the opposition of whatever slimy tactics they hope not to get caught using themselves.

Obama and Edwards plus two others took their names off in MI because they were sucking up to IA and NH, not for any noble reason and nothing to do with the pledge. Obama et al created that mess and and earned no MI votes and no MI delegates as their negative consequence.

The DNC created the rest of the mess by changing the rules to remove 100% of the delegates from only two states instead of the original penalty of 50% of all six states that defied the deadline. Their second error was leaving the final allocation up in the air for six months, seriously angering two states we need to win in the GE.

Dean & Brazile's goal was keeping everyone from noticing the fact that Clinton triumphed in four of the first six contests. The DNC's negative consequences have yet to be fully realized, but I'm afraid we're all going to pay for this short-sightedness in November.

Parent

This is where you're rewriting history... (none / 0) (#156)
by minordomo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:44:30 AM EST

From reading your post, it sounds like the following occurred:

Obama and Edwards plus two others took their names off in MI because they were sucking up to IA and NH. (BTW, could you explain this reasoning?)
Only then did the DNC create "the rest of the mess" by "changing the rules".

I'm not a big fan of the DNC's actions in all of this, but it has to be noted that the DNC put the penalty in place before the election, and all candidates (including Clinton) agreed to the penalty as well as agreed not to participate in the election. So when you say "Obama et al [...] earned no MI votes and no MI delegates as their negative consequence", this was in an election that didn't count, as agreed by all candidates.

Parent

Just suppose (none / 0) (#86)
by Finneganistan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST

that both campaigns agree to some seating of these delegates, and at the end of the day, HRC is still behind in delegate count, states won, and popular vote.

My question is, Would you then say, yes I'll support the winner of the primary in the GE? Or, would you want to encourage the remaining sd's to back HRC?

Honest answer, no spin (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by Marvin42 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:15:12 PM EST

States won is a completely pointless metric made up by the Obama campaign. IMHO there are only three metrics that matter (in order of priority):

Popular vote of everyone who voted (don't care what the DNC or campaign said before or say now)
Electability
Pledged delegate total.

So if 1) and 2) are a close then I'd support Sen Obama based on 3). Problem is, 1) and 2) are not close.

Parent

More made up metrics (none / 0) (#149)
by minordomo on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:43:09 PM EST

1. There is only one metric that matters: who has the most delegates.

Everything else is wishful thinking.

2. I keep hearing the HRC campaign and supporters mention that she's allegedly 50,000 votes ahead in the popular vote. Does this count (a) include caucus states, and (b) include MI and FL?

And does it happen to count Clinton voters in MI, but pretend there are no Obama voters there?

Because stuff like that may make Clinton supporters all warm and fuzzy that it's possible to fudge the numbers to give her some kind of lead by some metric, but I doubt any superdelegate who's seriously on the fence will be convinced by such a dishonest argument.

3. As far as electability goes, how do you figure this isn't even close? I've seen electoral college line-ups that are fairly close between them, with different advantages and disadvantages in different regions. And should Clinton win the nomination even though Obama has a lead in pledged delegates, Clinton's chances of winning the GE will be drastically reduced, since she'll most likely have to make do without the AA vote.

Parent

It seems like HRC would like to change the rules (none / 0) (#153)
by NvlAv8r on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST

The nomination process is pretty clear...it is a race for delegates. Right now, Obama is leading in both Pledged and Super delegates so he is winning.

All the rest of the arguments are smoke and mirrors...their is no popular vote threshold, but their is a delegate threshold (it was agreed upon to be 2025 when the race started so that is what we will use).

No amount of goal post changing will change it.

Parent

Actually your metric is also made up (none / 0) (#154)
by Marvin42 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:39:01 PM EST

No one cares who is ahead in pledged delegates, there is no such metric. Only one that matters is who crosses the magic number at the convention.

If you were honest enough and read my post you would realize the metrics I proposed are the same one SDs will use to decide because no one will be able to win by the pledged delegate rule.

And as for 3) all unbiased EV projections show Sen Obama in serious deficit. If you support him (as your post seems to imply) and he does indeed become the nominee get very comfortable with that fact. Right now you are in a fudged warm and fuzzy land yourself if you think he has enough states to win the presidency.

Parent

How is my metric (delegates) made up? (none / 0) (#155)
by minordomo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:38:03 AM EST

After all, that is what will count at the convention: delegates.

Perhaps you read my comment without due care; when I say "delegates", for some reason you insert the word "pledged".

"If you were honest enough and read my post you would realize the metrics I proposed are the same one SDs will use to decide because no one will be able to win by the pledged delegate rule."

There is no "pledged delegate rule", only a "delegate rule", consisting of pledged delegates and superdelegates. Obama's lead in pledged delegates as of tomorrow is no longer virtually insurmountable, but actually insurmountable. Obama also leads in superdelegates, and the trend here is strongly in his favor, with superdelegates breaking in his direction at a ratio of about 4-1 since NC and IN. As of May 20, I expect that ratio to increase even further.

As for the metrics you proposed being the same one SDs will use, sure they're interesting factors (self-serving as they are on your part), but apparently they're not the ones SDs are using, since SDs have been strongly breaking in Obama's direction. Actually, SDs have trended to Obama ever since the voters started making their voices heard in January.

As for the GE, Obama puts more states in play than Hillary, and I am confident that Obama's numbers will improve across the board the more the contrast between him and McCain is shown to the general public. I also think that since Obama has lower negatives, he will be able to help downstream tickets in the GE.

Parent

: So true...it has always been about delegates (none / 0) (#157)
by NvlAv8r on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:52:25 AM EST

All of this hokum about "If this was the Republican primary, Hillary would have won it..." is silly. This isn't the Republican primary, so why bring it up? Both candidates knew that they had to reach 2025 (without FL & MI, obviously), and obtain as many pledged delegates as possible.
Yet Sen Obama has led in pledged delegates for quite some time. And the SD's have been moving his way and will put him over by June. I think they see how many states he can put into play, how his negatives are lower, how many more young people are involved because of him (the future of the party), and the way the common person contributes to his campaign. Sen Clinton is deeply in the red, and she will have to loan her campaign money in order to finish out the remaining races...not the strongest position for the GE.

Parent

I'm not voting for Barack Obama for President (none / 0) (#107)
by samanthasmom on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:03:11 PM EST

Doesn't matter who's ahead in what, whether Hillary is the VP or not, or any other metric you can think of. EOM

Parent

Eh... I don't think anyone in MI or Fl cares (none / 0) (#92)
by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:12:40 PM EST

that much about it that they would sit home in November or vote for McCain.

Right right no one cares that they are ignored (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by Marvin42 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:17:05 PM EST

In fact they will come out in larger numbers to support the democratic party BECAUSE they are ignored and told they don't matter. Its kind of like grade school, you bully and put down the ones you like and it works out great...

Oh wait.

Parent

: I don't know... (none / 0) (#110)
by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:16:09 PM EST

I'm a Clinton supporter and want FL and MI counted, I just don't think the general election argument is that persuasive. We're talking about Democratic primary voters here. If my vote wasn't counted, I wouldn't stay home or vote for McCain out of spite in the general. I'm often wrong, though, and would be interested in any polling showing that people are going to take out their anger in the general.

Parent

Wrong, especially among undecideds and (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST

Independents. A big reason why they are undecided or Independent is that they see Dems as a screwed up party. This is certainly confirming that suspicion.

Parent

But they wouldn't take that out on the (none / 0) (#111)
by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:17:33 PM EST

candidates. I can't imagine saying to myseld "Hmmm... boy, those Dem's rules and bylaws committee is sure screwed up... I thin I'd better vote GOP!"

Parent

Right, that's not what they say to themselves (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:38:16 PM EST

They are not that specific. What they say is 'Democrats are a mess, as usual. I'm voting for the other guy.'

If they didn't already tend to believe that, they would be Dems and not Republicans or Independents.

Parent

: "Democrats Are a Mess" (none / 0) (#142)
by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:37:36 AM EST

You know, I'm about to that point here in Iowa. "Independent" is looking better every day.

Parent

They will not vote. (none / 0) (#134)
by miriam on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:49:56 PM EST

Parent

Based on what? (none / 0) (#108)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:12:17 PM EST

How did you reach that conclusion?

It certainly wasn't the polls that clearly show people are going to either sit home or vote for McCain. And it certainly isn't from Florida voters who post online who have been talking about sitting home or voting for McCain.

Is it just that you want it to be true so much that you've ignored every piece of evidence contrary to your opinion?

Well you may want to ignore this....I'm a Floridian and have voted for every Dem nominee for president since I turned 18. I WILL NOT vote for the Dem nominee in the fall.

Parent

I get that its a margins issue... (none / 0) (#112)
by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST

and that the handful of voters that may care enough to sit at home or vote for McCain in the general should be considered in a close election. I get that -- especially in Florida. I just have trouble grasping that there are really that many people out there that feel the way you do, but I'm usually wrong about such things; )

Parent

Not a margins issues (5.00 / 3) (#124)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:00:45 PM EST

It isn't a "margins issue". As a Floridian, I'm used to voting for the lesser of two evils. It doesn't matter where the Dem Presidential nominee stands on issues as usually they're the best Dem I get to vote for during those 4 years. So I usually get to vote for candidates who don't feel the same way I do on a whole lot of issues. I'm used to that. I've accepted that it is a necessary evil to further the Dem party.

This is the Dem party selling me out for nothing. They didn't have to. They didn't gain anything for it. They weren't fighting a public perception to make it necessary. It wasn't their only choice.

They sold me out because it was easy. Because they believed it wouldn't cost them anything. And it never even occurred to them that it was the wrong thing to do. How out of touch does that make them? If they'll sell me out now when it wasn't necessary, who and what won't they sell out when faced with a difficult choice?

Anytime a party stops remembering it represents the people, it must be reminded. It is a core issue.

By the 3 separate polls that were done, it is 25% to 30% of the Dems in Florida saying they won't vote for the nominee if the primary votes are not counted (notice it isn't seated but counted). You can expect it to drop a little, but in a close state how many do you need to have sit out to lose?

Parent

: Wow. I did not realize (none / 0) (#132)
by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:42:16 PM EST

that the number was so high. Thanks for telling me! You've convinced me!

Parent

And if - (none / 0) (#150)
by minordomo on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:45:56 PM EST

And if the MI and FL delegates were seated, would you change your mind and vote for the Democratic nominee?

Parent

IGNORE - OB paid s disturber (none / 0) (#113)
by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST

Parent

If I recall correctly (none / 0) (#106)
by Alien Abductee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST

back before Super Tuesday the expectation was that the primary would be over that day, Hillary would win, and then the FL and MI delegations would be seated at the behest of the winner, without having had a deciding effect one way or the other on the outcome. Nothing essential has changed about that expectation between then and now. Except for one thing - let me think, what could it be?

: Yeah, funny how that works (none / 0) (#151)
by NvlAv8r on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:16:03 PM EST

Michigan and Florida don't matter until you need 'em. Heck, the DNC can decide to punish them and no candidate cares until months later and the votes are needed. Then the agreed upon rules are then thrown out when you can't win under those rules.
Funny how folks are heaping the blame on anyone but the state legislatures who caused it. And the idea that these two states shouldn't be punished is crazy...if they aren't punished what will happen next voting season?

Parent

Don't seat Florida and/or Michigan (none / 0) (#135)
by This from a broad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:01:55 AM EST

If the delegates are seated nothing will have been accomplished. The incompetence and ineptitude of the DNC will be swept under the rug. The voters of both states will have been ignored. The unfairness of the primary system, as it is, will be left to fester until the next election. If the delegates are absent, this will shine a light on our problems and perhaps they can be fixed -- assuming we get rid of Dean and Brazile.

Fla delgation (none / 0) (#143)
by treerat on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:32:18 AM EST

Instead of seating them, why not have a new primary in MI and Fl? They each went out of line and knew what was going to happen...

Why reward the anarchic behavior of the two state delegations? Let each candidate campaign in the two states equally and fairly, and re-vote.

Or, we can just devote all our energies and monies to the bigger issue, defeating Bomber McCain in November.

Why The FL Delegation Must Be Seated | 156 comments (156 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment