This post is a reaction to a comment by CD here:
when you played marbles, did you change the rules midgame, when you were winning (but by not enough), or losing? prolly not.
so again, i ask: what (were) the rules? before all of this started? i know what they (were). why are we talking about changing them, “midstream?”
1. This is an election, not a game, of marbles, or otherwise. It has real life consequences.
2. This system is a much more complex system than marbles, in that:
3. There are rules to change the rules*, and:
4. Fairness and legitimacy count too, and they are not the same as the rules; see point 1. You might think of them as the “soft power” that any functioning institution ought to have, and of “the rules” as hard power.
FWIW, let me try to review the bidding. This is my take. I’m not an expert in either MI or FL, so please correct me. My perception is that the DNC, correctly in my view, wanted a stable primary calendar. (Also, I had trust in Dean at that point, and that’s what he wanted to do.) The state political establishments in FL and MI tried to jump ahead on the Calendar, and the DNC, again correctly in my view at the time, punished them by depriving them of their delegates. [On FL, I believe MBW would register a dissenting view; the Republicans combined a bill moving the Democratic primary forward with a poison pill that implemented a paper trail for voting machines. Given the givens, the FL Dems couldn’t vote against a paper trail, so they voted to move the primary up as well. However, they planned to appeal the decision, and told the voters that. The voters then proceeded to vote in record numbers.]
At this point, the famous pledge was instigated, I forget by who, and all parties pledged not to “campaign or participate” in the primaries in both states. In FL, both Obama and Hillary were on the ballot; neither campaigned, although Hillary IIRC held a fundraiser there, and Obama ran national TV ads that just happened to cover FL. In MI, Obama and others took their names off the ballot; some say, and I believe, to taint Hillary’s victory (note that the pledge — “the rules” for this case — does not say to take names off the ballot). Thus, all the [not Hillary] vote was lumped in as “Undecided.” MI is also an open primary, and partly owing to the urging of Lord Kos, some Democrats may have gamed the system by voting for whoever the weakest Republican candidate at the time was (I forget who that was).
Time passed, and the (secret ballot) elections (not caucuses) were held, and Hillary won the popular vote in both states by substantial margins. In FL, Obama came in second. In MI, “Undecided” came in second.
So, here we are. Let’s stipulate that both campaigns are motivated entirely by a desire to win.** Let’s also stipulate, more subtly, that soft power — the appearance of legitimacy — is also an important part of winning. (There’s no reason why one shouldn’t seek power while simultaneously seeking to appear, and indeed to appear so as to be indistinguishable from being, principled.***) And let’s assume that Hillary won’t quit, and that neither candidate will amass the requisite number of delegates to go over the top, even if FL and MI were to be counted.
I think of what should be as a flow-chart with a series of tie-breakers in it: (1) Does a candidate have a winning number of delegates? If so, they should be nominated. (2) Does a candidate have a significant popular majority?**** If so, they should be nominated. (3) If no winner has emerged, go to the tie-breaker: the super-delegates. The super-delegates are charged with using their best judgement, in the interests of a party, to pick the winner. Those are “the rules.” Note that I have stipulated that no winner emerges. But note also that the argument put forward by the Obama campaign, that the super-delegates should reflect the “will of the people” is tendentious, (a) because as we shall see, that’s not so easy to determine (and the Obama campaign has worked diligently to make sure it isn’t possible), and (b) if that were the case, there would be no need for super-delegates in the first place. In fact, they were put in place precisely as a check on the whole process. (And we want that check, because imagine a scenario where Spitzer had stomped through the primaries to victory, only to have the Emperor’s Club thing blow up right before the convention. Would we want the vote to prevail in that case? Clearly not, which is why we have the check installed.)
The problem I have with the current state of play is step 2, determining or discerning whether either candidate has a popular majority and, if so, how significant it is numerically. Both FL and MI are large states, and so they could substantially affect the total.***** The goal of the DNC action was — or should have been — to put a stop to gaming the primary calendar, not disenfranchise the voters! The method that the DNC used was — or should have been — to punish the political establishments, not the voters.
The DNC’s goal has been achieved, because the primary calendar was stabilized, and the political establishment was punished: The states didn’t get the money that would have flowed to them had a full primary been held; the local reporters didn’t get the stories; the politicians didn’t get to go on the teebee; and so on. The guilty have been punished. But the voters of FL and MI are innocent, and they are still being punished: They went to the polls in record numbers, and they are being disenfranchised.
Our question then should be — and in a functioning democratic system, would be — how can we make the voters of FL and MI whole?
Unfortunately, that’s not so easy. In FL, even though the candidates and the results are clear, can an election with no campaigning really be called legitimate? I’d argue no. (The counter, that an election with no campaigning is like a controlled experiment to determine candidate appeal, is cute, but I just don’t buy it.) In MI, the situation is horrible: How do you allocate the Undecided votes, and what do you do with the Dems who gamed the system by voting Republican? The answer is that you can’t, because in a functioning democratic system, voters own their votes, not parties or committees. There’s a name for taking a voter’s vote from one candidate and giving it to another: It’s called theft.
Therefore, since (step 2, supra) the popular vote in MI and FL is not readily discernible, the best way to make them whole would have been to hold a revote in both states. Wipe the slate clean; start over. The Rulez in marbles probably don’t cover the case when a bird (in this case, the DNC) craps on the ring when a player is in the act of shooting, but fairness demands a do-over.
I believe that the do-over would have been a win for all parties. The Democratic party could have demonstrated a rock solid commitment to counting every vote, and both Obama and Clinton could have shared in that reflected glory. The Obama campaign, if what they say about their candidate — that he always gains when voters get to know him — is true, would have cut Hillary’s margin in those states, and picked up delegates and popular votes. And Hillary, even if her margin was cut, would have gotten some large states enfranchised, and I’m betting the super-delegates would like that. [See stipulations above.] And needless to say, all this would be great for the general.
But the do-over didn’t happen. And so the voters of MI and FL have not been made whole. Why? Here, I will turn explicitly tendentious:
0. I don’t buy any argument that the do-overs could not have been done. There are no doubt plenty of Inside Baseball reasons why not, because there’s always a reason to say No, but doesn’t the whole question really come down to money and political will? Carville put $15 million on the table, so that brings us to political will….
1. Surely one answer is that no active leadership has come from Dean and the DNC — though I can’t say I’m even clear that it would be appropriate for them to do so. Regardless, the DNC has been entirely passive. If they had said “Do the do-over,” I’m betting that the pressures on the campaigns and the state political establishments would have been such that it would have happened.
2. But Obama must bear the primary responsibility. It’s Alice Palmer all over again except, for good or ill, the country is not a Chicago ward. All we got from Obama was obstruction. (See above comment on money, and political will). The concern was never, never, never discerning the will of the voters, but always “the rules” — the rules which other states broke without penalty. In FL, Obama resisted a mail-in solution by threatening to bring in the Bush Justice Department, and in MI, Obama evaded responsibility and took no leadership role by laying the whole thing off on the DNC, and by raising numerous petty and transparently obfuscatory procedural objections like “A redo vote would be very complicated”.
Yeah.
And?
Sometimes doing the right thing is complicated. Even for a candidate who’s famous for his eloquence, his negotiation skills, his ability to work with all parties, and his ability to bring change and transformation. Oh well.
And so, the voters of FL and MI are disenfranchised, as of now. Perhaps there will be a 50/50 “compromise,” which, as I wrote above, takes a voter’s vote from one candidate and gives it to another, and so is theft. That’s not fair. Or perhaps there will be a credentials fight at the Convention, over a situation that the DNC and Obama’s intransigence created. That may end up being fair, but I have my doubts. Or perhaps the delegates from FL and MI will be seated, after the outcome is decided without their input. That’s not fair. So far as I can tell, there is now no way for the voters of FL and MI to be made whole. That means that the popular vote total in this primary isn’t legitimate, because if the totals are at all close, there’ll be no way to come to a total based on numbers that all sides can accept. That, in turn, makes it very difficult for the judgment of the super-delegates to appear grounded, because they’re operating from bad data (and data made bad, I say again, through the strange passivity of the DNC, and the intransigence of one campaign.) I note in passing that if the Obama campaign were as dominant as it wishes to appear, it would take on Hillary in both states, and win. Instead, they lawyered up. Not a good sign.
I don’t see a lot of good outcomes from this situation, unless the selection of Obama as the nominee through a manifestly unfair process that disenfranchises the voters of two large states be considered a good outcome. Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6.
Perhaps others are more optimistic. Perhaps I got it wrong. Readers?
NOTE * Wikipedia entry on marbles:
As with many children’s games, new rules are devised all the time, and each group is likely to have its own version, often customized to the environment.
State legislatures can change the rules; the DNC can do whatever the fuck it wants; and there’s a credentials committee. Please, let’s not make a fetish of the rules, or privilege them over fairness and common decency.
NOTE ** As should be. Just as a salesman who is not motivated by money is not the kind of salesman you want, ditto with a politician and power.
NOTE *** This is called ethos.
NOTE **** It would be nice, perhaps, if this were step 1. But those are “the rules,” and that one I wouldn’t want to change in “mid-stream”.
NOTE ***** This is not the argument that says, “Hey, how about we not disenfranchise the voters in FL and MI, because a 48 state strategy carries unacceptable risks,” although I believe that argument to be true as well. I am arguing here for fairness, not pragmatism.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Front page
twisted
peter
That’s a lot of stuff. The Michigan re-vote would be a problem for those Democrats voting in the other primary. I don’t see how you could take that one back. If you try to just do a do over…start from scratch and allow people to vote with any designation of party on their voting card, wouldn’t you open the process to many Republicans trying to influence the race again…giving them the possibility of voting on both sides. No, you would have to say no to every Republican stamped voter card. I think some of the DNC’s problems with a re-vote are monetary, they do not have very much cash on hand, that may shock some people with all the funds the two candidates leading have raised. As to Florida, the Dems there did have some input and were supportive of the change in dates. And wasn’t either Iowa or NH allowed to advance their date against the rules? Look it up…
Yeah, the Republicans...
So, it would have to be a closed primary. Surely that’s do-able? And better, more fair, than nothing?
As for the money, if the campaigns blessed it, and the DNC blessed it, I bet the money would be there. Carville threw down $15 million, and his campaign isn’t awash in money, like Obama’s.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
What happened with shifting primary dates & penalties
After Michigan and Florida moved their dates up, the DNC demanded they reconsider and change back to something later in line with party rules. Both states refused, and the DNC stripped them of all delegates; under party rules, the DNC could have taken 50%, but had the option of more and they chose to do that, citing the defiance. Make no mistake about the state party people being victims, they took a hard line; if they’d shown remorse they’d have gotten off with the 50% penalty up front, allowed to have the elections and then had the rest of the delegates seated right about now. Pity.
When MI & FL wouldn’t change, Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina all petitioned the DNC for waivers, like good rule-abiding states, and got them. No violation, no penalty.
This all happened back in October, when Clinton was polling nationally in the 40s while Obama was still in the 20s.
Deciding in October that stripping FL & MI of delegates would tip the primary to Obama shows a prescience that I’m unwilling to grant existing in the DNC, or anyone else. Nobody was gaming the system at the DNC in favor of one candidate or another.
It was the Iowa state Dems who asked for a pledge to take names of the Michigan ballot, to show support for the wonderfulness that is Iowa. Obama did, Clinton did not, and who did well in Iowa? Obama did it because he wanted to kiss up to Iowans, and because he knew he’d lose to Clinton in MI and hoped Michigan’s vote wouldn’t be counted in poart becasue he wasn’t on the ballot.
Money
There’s a limited pool of money available. The DNC would rather have the $30Mil for the general rather than a revote. Right now I can’t find a link but if it matters I’ll track it down; the DNC has like $35Mil cash on hand while the RNCC has about $5Mil. Local polls are showing a solid chance of 20 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate, but with the increasing number of GOP resignations and low quality GOP candidates for those open seats there’s a chance at many more.
If I’m Howard Dean, do I want to spend $30Mil for elections that will settle nothing or put that money to House and Senate races and work out the presidential nomination some other way?
Prediction on seating of MI & FL delegates
Because what are we talking about? A Party.
Pronounced Pahr-TAY’.
These are people who have been getting together every four years for forever to drink and eat and fuck each other on somebody else’s dime, and a lot of them are from Michigan and Florida. Nobody wants to leave them out. Nobody wants to piss off their friends, or miss out on the buddy sex they’ve been thinking about for four years. Something will get worked out.
Worst case, the Rules Committee will seat half the elected delegates and all of the superdelegates from both states. With a promise from the state Dem party to behave next time, they could get all of their elected delegates accepted. That will be settled well in advance of the Convention, nobody wants to have it hanging, so it will never get to Credentials. Everyone keeps the delegates they have (or 50% of them) and the uncommitted from MI are seated just that way. They can vote as they please on the floor.
Pelosi says she wants all this wrapped up before the Convention, and as soon as possible after the last primary. She has enough superdelegates under her control to keep anyone from doing anything precipitous, and right now she’s telling her bunch to stay quiet and see how things go over the next couple of months. She’ll swing them to whoever she decides has the best chance to be the winner in November.
Better start saying nice things to Nancy, to sway her in whatever direction you think she should go. Pucker up, kiss-kiss.
Various claims I don't make, and the central point
1. I don’t claim that the party establishments ought not to be punished for being “defiant,” or that they are “victims.” I argue that they have been punished, rightfully, and that now the voters are being punished for the sins of the party establishments, and after having turned out in record numbers, too. That’s not fair.
2. I don’t claim that the DNC plotted the outcome; but I have lost faith in Howard Dean, because I think that disenfranchising voters is a serious matter from the standpoint of fairness, let alone effects on the general.
3. You could be right on the waivers and MBW wrong; got a link?
4. As far as the money, if Dean wants to delegitimize the Democratic nominee in the eyes of a large percentage of voters no matter which nominee is chosen then he is proceeding in exactly the right way. Personally, I think avoiding that outcome would have been worth throwing some money at, and if all the campaigns bought in, the money would be raised. Let’s remember that Carville put $15 million on the table; if that was a bluff, Obama would have called it.
5. As far as working out nomination “some other way,” I’m all ears for what that “other way” might be for a solution that seems fair; I outlined the difficulties with the ones on offer. The best people could come up with over at Avedon’s place was the idea that FL and MI be seated, but uncommitted. Well, that’s better than 50/50, I suppose.
My central point remains:
Right now, nothing.
And it’s Obama’s intransigence that’s at the root of the problem.
UPDATE Our comments crossed. I like the picture of the Dems in their various motels; it strikes me as more sophisticated from of “the super-delagates will decide” as BTD keeps saying. I’m not sure I like the process here at all, for reasons stated.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Yes!
That is it. In two sentences. Absolutely, I could not agree more. (Did I say yet that you are dead-nuts on there Lambert?)
I might have gone a little further in that a “win” that is seen as not legitimate really would not be a win at all. It may win the nomination, but would likely lose the general election. Robert Dahl argued that without legitimacy, one cannot lead. Seems pretty obvious…
Two things weigh on this Obama vs. Clinton issue for me (today).
1. Tenacity. The very lack of spine that has confounded and angered me regarding the now “Democratic” Congress makes it all the more important that we have a president with the tenacity, grit, whatever you want to call it, that Senator Clinton is showing us all right now.
2. Richardson. I am a big fan of Governor Richardson. He would make a fine president. However, today he angered me. NOT because he endorsed Senator Obama. That is great - I (please don’t kill me for saying this) like Obama. However, the combination of endorsing while in the same speech saying “it’s time for Democrats to stop fighting among ourselves” could be interpreted as nothing other than a statement to Senator Clinton to end her campaign. That’s simply unfair, uncalled for and upsetting. Why on earth would she do so? Has Senator Obama won and I didn’t realize it?
There are the underlying arguments about the “rules” as Lambert points out with great clarity.
It’s not about the rules. The arguments by either side regarding interpretations of the “rules” are predictable.
The key is legitimacy. And if Senator Clinton dropped out, would that half of the Democratic Party that supports her consider Senator Obama legitimate? I doubt it.
I will proudly vote for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama for president - no matter which gets the nomination.
…So long as that nomination is legitimate.
The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority… . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb
It is a big-ass mess with no clear good solution
And Howard has a shitty job with lots of people trying to undermine him again this time so he’s got politics internal as well as external to deal with, and nobody is looking out for the voters in MI and FL and there’s a shocker, but this is a party process not a general democratic election. All the pretentions to fair are just that. If there was a clear favorite, great, but there isn’t and so the Poo-Bahs will decide same as always. Why is this suddenly offensive? More offensive? Just the same-old same-old, not a betrayal.
I’d sooner see new elections, with inclusion of those who are registered dems but who were very silly and voted R the last time; make ’em jump up and down three times while saying Sorry, Sorry, Sorry! or something. But, one intransigence and another, not looking likely and time to gear up is getting very short.
Lambert, no offense intended, that first comment on the primary timing and penalties was one I submitted a few days ago on another thread, [apparently unread by anyone because the same misconceptions and errors keep being repeated] and I did not rewrite it entirely. You’re not the only one arguing here and some of the points I touched on have been raised by others. If they don’t apply to you, they weren’t directed at you. Consider them prophylactics.
Links on timing, penalties and waiver requests were imbedded in the related comment, two of them, and they show up on my screen and seem to work. If they don’t work for you I’ll put them up stand-alone. (I don’t know who/what MBW is.)
i am pouting. how dare you
take my late night poor marble-rolling example and make it into a post? sticky even…dadburnit, none of my good stuff ever stays with anyone, i’m always being reduced to the playground bully. i don’t know why i bother, some days.
;-)
ex poste facto rule changes
At the time the decisions in each state regarding when to hold their primaries was made, the rules were clear — and six states broke those rules.
When the Rules and Bylaws committee met in Dec 2007, they gave a complete pass to IA, NH, NV, and SC for breaking the rules, and meted out the untimate punishment to MI and FL.
IMHO, this decision showed that the DNC was not serious about actually not seating delegates from either MI or FL — rather, they wanted to ensure that the purpose of the schedule it had established was achieved —
1) keep IA and NH up front, because they’d get pissy if they didn’t get their way
2) Add two states with large minority populations to the “first voting” states (NV, with its large hispanic population, and SC with its large AA population) giving minorities a voice they didn’t have in IA and NH.
(NV I can understand — its at least kind of purple… but SC was a horrible choice — its deep red. NC would have made a much better choice, but I think that Jim Clymer wanted HIS state to get the attention.)
The purpose of the punishment of FL and MI was to prevent those states in having a role in the “winnowing” process that occurs in the early states. That purpose was achieved. The assumption was that someone would come out of Super-Tuesday as the obvious eventual winner (like what happened with the GOP), and that in the name of party unity the delegates from MI and FL would be seated.
Well, the best laid plans, as they say.
So now were stuck with a problem.
Here is my solution —
1) In Michigan, award delegates based on percentages from the exit polls where people were asked who they would vote for if everyone was on the ballot (IIRC, it was Clinton 46%, Obama 35%, Edwards 15%).
2) In Florida, award delegates based on the existing delegate distribution model there.
3) Determine what kind of delegate advantage Clinton gets from these two states.
4) Take half that number, and get that number of Clinton super-delegates to agree to vote for Obama on the first ballot.
Any “first ballot” advantage that Clinton would have if MI and FL are seated under this formula disappers. It also allows some of the pressure being put on Clinton’s AA supporters to be taken off of them if they say they’ll vote for Obama on the first ballot in the name of party unity. (They can even talk about how not seating MI and FL disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of minority voters!)
Its simple, elegant, and puts the whole problem behind us.
Nice try, Bringiton...
but the waivers weren’t given until December — well over a month after IA, SC, NH, and NV decided to break the rules.
Hell, your own link from October says nothing about the DNC granting waivers — only that IA and SC would be requesting them.
Those states broke the rules, and got permission to do so ex poste facto. FL and MI broke the rules, and got punished for it.
Some states are just more equal than others I guess.
motivated to win
Let’s stipulate that both campaigns are motivated entirely by a desire to win.
I think there is a difference here, tho.
Both are motivated to win the nomination — but Hillary is motivated by a desire to win in November as well. Its obvious that Obama places a far lower priority on winning in November, because the harder he works to keep these delegates from being seated (not to mention the effort he’s making to tell people in PA, NC, WV, KY and other states that their votes don’t matter) the worse his chances will be in November.
That’s why I think that Clinton is on the right track here — Obama has the lead in delegates, and all that seating FL and MI does is reduce that lead — it doesn’t cripple his campaign, or hand the nomination to Clinton — all it does is make his “I’m inevitable” argument a little weaker.
IMHO, what Obama is doing is a sign of desperation — he’ll need to win MI, and he’ll need FL to at least be competitive. His willingness to disenfranchise MI is turning it into a “swing” state for him, and putting Florida almost out of reach. And his ’screw all the later voting states — except for Oregon, which I think I can get a big win out of’ attitude is going to make it more difficult to win in places like PA, and be competitive in places like NC.
Clinton has her eye on the BIG prize, Obama doesn’t. Clinton recognizes that taking the campaign to the later states gives the Dems the chance to make their case to voters in those states without interference — it gives both candidates a chance to (re)define themselves to voters in key states. By treating the late states as non-entities, Obama is blowing his best chance to ensure that he has support in those states come november.
"Nice try" locution...
Normally, I don’t give two shits about Civility
, but this mess is so unholy I’m going to try to suspend tendentiousness tendencies; the history, the issues, and the right and wrong are so fucked it’s easy to put a foot wrong. So — and it’s good for this one time only — I’m willing to classify things I’d normally classify as “nice try” under the heading of “honest mistake.” Well, let’s not go too far. “Mistake.”
Bringiton: I love what you say about how it’s probably going to play out, as a sort of hideous conventioneer’s version of pillow talk…
Paul: Excellent data, as usual. Got links? [Via mail, MBW says “Paul was correct that
the waivers were ex post facto of IA, NH, SC and NV
moving their primaries.”]
CD: Fuck
,
enough with the pouting, you know it makes me crazy!you asked a great question! And, about an hour into trying to answer it, I thought, Gee, maybe there’s a post here…. And also, I think that many do regard this as a game….[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
I Truly Like That Solution...
…Paul. It seems fair, it would most accurately reflect the electorate of MI and FL.
And, almost as important - can anyone honestly say (no matter which Democratic candidate you support) that the outcomes in MI and FL re-vote would vary significantly from result in Paul’s solution?
The real effect would be spending $30, $40, $50 million just to fit the “rules.” If that is the only way to ensure the enfranchisement of MI and FL voters, then it must be done.
However, Paul’s solution avoids that expense - Democratic money that just might come in handy in the general election.
The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority… . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb
No Money
Find the links, I think you’ve got your numbers backwards. The Dems have very little cash on hand located in the DNC. For Chrm. Dean it is a money issue. That’s why he’s been so silent lately, not progressive.
Nobody said it had to be DNC money
What I’m saying is that if the political will were there, the money would be there.
The reason the political will isn’t there is because Obama’s in full Alice Palmer mode, intransigent.
And that, in turn, is a sign of weakness on his part, not of strenght. A confident campaign would be saying, “Yeah, bring it on!” [sorry] Instead, when Carville throws down $15 million, all we get from the Obama camp is *** mumble *** followed by a orchestrated media circlejerk on why Hillary should get out.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Agreed
Did y’all see that seven minute segment on CNN the other day with Carville and Daschle discussing this matter. James ate Tom’s lunch. What a throw down, what a weak response.
There does seem to be a lot of money flowing this cycle. I thought things were tough out there…the economy in tatters. Yet, Democrats, these Democrats seem to have an ATM at their disposal all the time. One outrageous number after another being released. I wonder if there’s any bookkeeping tricks going on, or the economy isn’t so bad after all. Democrats always say the Republican Party is the party of the rich. This year, it doesn’t seem so.
Complete Lack of Leadership
This issue is the one thing that could truly split the party and hurt its chances in November. The rest about the primary going on is all bullshit, but this issue, as you indicate lambert, goes to legitimacy and the one thing that will lead to folks having problems with the nominee is a lack of legitimacy and nothing screams a lack of legitimacy like voter disenfranchisement (to make matters worse it now looks like there’s a good chance the MI and FL Super Delegates, the ones whose great decision-making helped lead us to this clusterfuck will be seated because it’s required by the DNC charter).
The DNC had two choices to try to force a resolution through some sort of do-over now or to cross their fingers and pray it all works out either at or before the convention, which door do you think the Democrats chose? Once again, a complete lack of leadership, IMO. And, to help matters out and make it even worse, along the way we’ve had Donna Brazile, one of the power players at the DNC* out fairly openly shilling for Obama on national television, even going to far as to threaten to quit the party if SD don’t vote for the reasons she thinks they should**.
So, we have a crisis of legitimacy made worse by at least one DNC official (Dean’s public statement’s have been much better than Brazile).
In the last few weeks, we’ve been presented with a potential way out of it - a re-vote in MI and FL. Sure, the most obsessive Obama partisans insisted the only thing in compliance with the rules*** was to keep MI and FL from counting, as if the voters in those states had committed some sin greater than having their leaders schedule their primaries too early. But I think most democrats and most people think voters’ votes should count and so there while there may be risk in the Kos community, I think there was little risk that delegates seated due to a re-vote in MI and FL would be seen as generally illegitimate by voters, especially after Obama campaigned in both states (and he would’ve). Indeed, having clean re-votes was probably the only way to dampen down illegitimacy claims absent a collapse or concession by one of the candidates.
Now, I understand why Obama didn’t immediately embrace re-votes even if I don’t like it and think it’s myopic if him. What I don’t understand is why DNC officials didn’t step in and force an agreement between the campaigns and states on a re-vote plan. This issue is bigger than Clinton or Obama, all you have to do is play with an electoral college map to see that. This goes to the democratic candidate’s legitimacy and his or her ability to win. The DNC could’ve forced a compromise by rallying enough SDs to agree that the party is more important than the candidate and then used those SDs to pressure both campaigns to come up with a re-vote plan they could live with.
But, of course, that would require Democrats to have backbone and lead, something they have chosen rarely to do in eight years.
* Brazile apparently has been rewarded for helping Dems lose in 2000 by being given the opportunity to help them lose in 2008
** Don’t let the door hit you in the ass, Donna, and what kind of “leader” when faced with concerns over the party splitting, threatens to split the party?
*** The Obama Rules, which declares that whichever DNC rules give him the win must be given absolute fealty, while those that could enable Hillary to win undermine the will of the people
Funny thing about the pledge...
It doesn’t make the candidates do anything that the DNC rules didn’t already require them to do. The same rule — 20 — that was used to punish Florida and Michigan for violating the timing rule also provides penalties for any candidate who campaigned in a state that violated the timing rules. The only real difference is the “participate” part of the pledge, but that term (unlike “campaigning”) isn’t defined in the pledge. Oh, and the pledge contains a whole lot of “whereas” clauses about how wonderful and special and important the four early states are, but whereas clauses aren’t binding in the least.
IOW, the “pledge” is a bullshit campaign stunt, and doesn’t bind the candidates to anything they weren’t already bound to. But for some people, it’s like the Magna Carta or something.
In FL, even though the candidates and the results are clear, can an election with no campaigning really be called legitimate?
Ask the folks in Alaska and Hawaii. I don’t think anyone *ever* campaigns there, yet their primaries are considered legitimate.
Let's reframe the argument
If everything else was the same but the automatic delegates were the pledged delegates from the last state or group of states, should the voters those delegates represent cast their votes for:
1. The candidate who is the current delegate leader?
2. The candidate they like best?
Why do you want to reframe?
Not arguing against the frame, just wondering if the analyis could be fleshed out some, myiq2xu.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
I say reframe it
because I’m tired of hearing about how the automatic delegates are obligated to vote for a particular candidate, and that if they don’t vote for Obama then Hillary will have stolen the nomination.
If the outcome of the final group of primaries was going to decide the nomination, would people be making the same arguments?
Would Obama supporters be asserting that if PA votes for Hillary (giving her a come-from-behind victory) that it would be “stealing” the nomination?
This sounds like a question for Paul Lukasiak....
I confess I’m not 100% certain of how “automatic” the delegates are. No stick shift?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Dean's failure
I can’t put into words how disappointed I am in Dean. Winning in Nov is the big thing and there is no way we can disenfranchise MI and FL and win in Nov. and I cannot believe the myopia of the Obama people in this matter. You can spin as much as you want about rules, but that won’t cut it in Nov.
I have never been more discouraged in an election.
the $$ thing is tainted, ppl say--if either campaign donates for
a revote, many think that would just be buying the process, but i don’t think that.
No, not if they both do
How could the money have been tainted if both candidates agreed to throw something in the pot?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
If Dem Candidate Loses in November
then there should be massive resignations among the Democratic leadership, particularly if the candidate loses because of Florida and/or Michigan. While I believe Clinton is more electable, there is no reason either of these candidates has to lose to McCain. If either of them do, it will partly be their fault for whatever campaign they’ve run, but it will also be a failure of the party as a whole. And Dean, Brazile, and company should be held accountable. The problem isn’t the long, drawn out primary (e.g. don’t blame Clinton, Obama or the voters), the problem is the fucked up nature of the selection process and the bungling of MI and FL. Sure, they hoped Feb. 5th would make it a non-issue, but hope is not a plan and the fact is they had no back up plan. Having such a plan isn’t Clinton or Obama’s job, it’s the party leaders’ jobs.
Stuck Pigs Squeal
Jerome Armstrong shows why so many Obama backers are calling for Clinton’s withdrawal (hint: it isn’t because it looks like Obama is going to sweep the upcoming states) and why we should all calm down and let the democratic process continue because this thing isn’t over and probably won’t be for awhile. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, think of all those excited and newly registered Democratic voters in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc. Not to mention those new small donors and the databases being developed that identifies them.
And if you want to have some fun, read Jonathan Singer and Jerome Armstrong posts at mydd.com back to back. I congratulate that site on being able and willing to have folks posting on its front page who see the primary election so very differently. Bravo, guys.
Why are some Democrats
so scared of democracy?
Let’s finish the damn primaries, have a convention, pick a nominee and unite behind whoever it is.
People are getting to emotional over stuff that hasn’t even happened yet.
Between now and August things might work themselves out. Or not, but why borrow trouble?
they both didn't do that--it was only Hillary's
people who were willing to pay for it.
I think even if both would have equally funded (a dream), it would have made it about them and their funders instead of about us voters, and it would really not be as legitimate—it would smell—a revote is weird to begin with, and the same people who ran the first one wouldn’t be running the second one i think.
It’s like privatizing the vote in a way too.
neither will have won by Denver--
it’s all spin to get superdelegates and affect the press coverage.
As I said in my post here a few minutes ago...
if something isn’t done about including Florida and Michigan and Obama becomes the nominee, he will lose those states. And, honestly folks, I don’t see how a Democrat wins without one or both of those states in their column.
Here’s a link to my post if you want to read it.
automatic
“automatic” delegates are people who will be credentialled as delegates by virtue of their position — everyone on the DNC is “automatically” a delegate, as is every Democratic congresscritter, Senator, and Governor, and Distinguished Party Leaders. Then there are the “add-on”…one or two people chosen by the state party in each state who doesn’t fit into any of the other categories, and wasn’t elected as a pledged delegate from their state.
There is nothing “super” about them
wikipedia has more information than you’ll ever want to know about the subject…
Click Here
moral high ground
If something isn’t done about including Florida and Michigan and Obama becomes the nominee, he will lose those states. And, honestly folks, I don’t see how a Democrat wins without one or both of those states in their column.
Not only that, but in a recount situation we won’t have a leg to stand on.
Well said, DCB
And people wonder I’m angry…
Paul, could you use an A tag for that WikiPedia link? I think the parens are throwing off the hamster that recognizes URLs.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Paul Lukasik: Ohio voter affiliation info
can be found here at Pew.
Read a comment somewhere earlier in which you said you didn’t have any such Ohio info, can’t find that comment now so I’ll put this here in hopes you’ll notice.
Maybe this is a help, came across it looking for other things. Not perfect, not completely up-to-date but it is something.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I also supported Donnie Fowler as DNC chair way back when. Hate
to say I told you so, but…
Obama’s thwarting of revotes will go down in infamy. He had the chance to clear all this up and chose not to. Regardless of what Dean and company did before to screw this up, Obama could have rectified this but wanted to do an “Alice Parker” on the whole country and actively prevent revotes. It’s harder to justify Obama’s behavior than seating the FL and MI delegations as is.
thanks bring...
and while that’s really interesting stuff, I’m looking not for “polling” data, but the official stuff.
The SUSA data was based on approx 30000 registered voters nationally — and each state had an average MOE of about 4%. The Pew studies were done using a smaller sample…sometimes only half as big — so while the pew data is doubtless a pretty good picture of overall trends, its percentages at any given point in time cannot be considered exact.
And I need EXACT dammit :-), if I’m going to talk about how in some states, the gender distribution is at odds with voter registration stats — and since the sample was registered voters, it really should reflect the actual data whenever possible.
Campaign funds clarification
Way upthread I dropped a comment on campaign funds, while saying I didn’t have the link at hand.
Properly, Commenter Peter challenged me to provide links and disputed what I’d written. Additionally, Lambert wrote “Nobody said it had to be DNC money.”
Lambert, you’re right, nobody said that; at least, you and I have not said that. What I did say was that there is a limited amount of money available between now and November for the Democrats to tap, from all sources and for all purposes. Whether it is better to spend some of that money on a revote or try and keep it available for other purposes is at least arguable. It isn’t straightforward, because of course it is possible that less money will be donated if FL and MI revotes are not held; it is also possible that once the delegates are seated – and they will be – all the current anger over voting in FL and MI will diminish and money will flow as though the dust-up never happened. Agreement isn’t required on that issue to accept that there are differing points of view on the wisdom of spending money on a revote. That’s all I’m saying. My wish would be to spend the money and revote, but this is not my year to be in charge.
Peter, in my haste I made a mistake, meant to write DCCC, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and NRCC, National Republican Campaign Committee; surely if I had bothered to track down the link I’d have caught those errors. Here for the record are the major party financial balances as of the end of February 2008, rounded off to the nearest million:
DCCC, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – $37MM
NRCC, National Republican Campaign Committee – $3MM
DSCC, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – $33MM
NRSC, National Republican Senatorial Committee – $15MM
DNC, Democrat National Committee – $4.5MM
RNC, Republican National Committee – $25MM
Between typos and unexplained – although appropriate – conflation of congressional campaign finances and Howard Dean’s concerns for a “50 state” strategy, the entire comment was inept, inapt and as a result incorrect. My apologies, I will strive to do better. These mistakes were, I wish to make clear, honest mistakes; it happens.
Funds Update
Wow, no problem from me. Honest mistakes happens, I just wanted you to look again…the big reply, although nice and unexpected, wasn’t required. Confusing the alphabet soup of committees is easy to do. As to my comment, the DNC wouldn’t be able to fund much right now.
Did anyone see this new poll from the InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion?
First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama’s pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama’s speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”
Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)
The poll was conducted March 19 among 1,051 Americans. After filtering out those not aware of Rev. Wright and Obama’s speech about him, the sample is 807, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. The data have been weighted for age, race, gender and partisan affiliation.
from the state of hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads
in no particular order:
- i live in the very religious, very socially conservative part of the state, where a number of my racist, sexist, republican acquaintances have vowed to vote for anybody but mccain, because he’s too liberal, even if that somebody else is black or female. go figure.
- the republican-controlled state legislature is looking into keeping the dem nominee off the ballot entirely in november if the delegates aren’t seated at the convention. apparently the rules are such that they really can do this.
- florida democrats [voters, at least] are angry about more than just the loss of their votes in the primary. the republicans also engineered it so that we’d be voting on a [state] constitutional amendment on primary day, an amendment that further drains the already too-near-empty state and local coffers. this is the ’minor tax issue’ that you occasionally hear non-floridians pooh-poohing. we can get an amendment repealed, but it ain’t easy and it won’t happen before some real damage is done to some local governments. would enough democrats have turned to defeat this amendment if they hadn’t been told their primary votes were useless? no way to know for sure of course, but between the dismal national economy and the dismal state economy, ordinary floridians are in for a rough ride. we’re not happy.
- edwards might offer to be a compromise candidate at the convention? way cool. that would make this whole kerfuffle a lot more bearable.