If you have "no place to go," come here!

What Mary Beth said on 50/50 split for FL and MI votes


You can’t take people’s votes and give them to someone else and maintain any level of integrity.

Well, that's hard to argue with.

Though people will try!

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

Great work from Mary Beth via Avedon:

Democrats should be leading the Florida delegation to Denver with a parade; they risked the ire of the Howard Dean in order to protect the integrity of the ballot. At this point, I don't care if they voted for Mickey Mouse in the primary, just so their vote counts.

(A paper ballot provision was the poison pill on the bill the Republicans moved to screw up the Democratic primary by moving the date forward.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

I believe nothing the Florida Democratic Party has to say about anything. This was not done by Republicans over protesting Democratic legislators. The Democratic legislators voted in five separate committees and in two floor actions for the bill.

Some have attempted to state that Democrats only voted for the bill because of the requirement to have voting machines with paper ballots. That is not an accurate and true statement.

When the DNC adopted its new primary schedule in 2006, all the states were told--and Florida voted for this--that no one else got to hold a delegate-selecting primary before February 5. Except Florida's legislature wasn't hearing that, and a bipartisan vote led to their attempts to claim a January 29 primary.

Chris Bowers said at the time

It is also almost certainly an attempt to stick it to Howard Dean of the DNC, whose new primary calendar finally allows minorities such as Latinos, African-Americans and union members to have a say in determining the next president, which is an anathema to Florida's elites who have done everything in their power over the past decade to make sure that those groups are not even allowed to vote.

From instigator to victim. It was a Dem who introduced the early primary bill in Florida.

How it began last Florida Democrats began their propaganda war

The worst part is that this very day FL Dems still shift blame....

The Florida Democratic Party cannot be trusted:

When Karen Thurman surrounded herself with Broward County Democrats last Sunday to tout the Jan. 29 primary: state Sen. Jeremy Ring. No one invited the Broward state Senator who sponsored the original bill moving Florida’s primary from March to January and undercut the Democrats’ argument that the early primary was all the Republicans’ fault.

...It would be inconvenient to acknowledge Ring’s role in a process where the Florida Democratic Party has morphed into the Defiant Victim — victimized by the Republican-dominated legislature, victimized by its own national party and victimized by the prez candidates, yet standing up on its hind legs and saying “Go to hell” to its victimizers. The reminder that Ring ran on the notion of moving up the primary date, was elected on it and followed through on his campaign promise is an inconvenient truth that the FlaDems simply must ignore.

The FDP has no credibility to claim that it did nothing wrong.

MBW's picture
Submitted by MBW on

However, I did find a really depressing quote just minute ago in the Tampa paper (yes, I have Google News on auto-refresh for this subject):

Another finding, which pollster Jim Kitchens called "stunning," was that a quarter of the respondents - all Democrats who voted in the Jan. 29 primary - said they were upset enough over the issue to consider not voting or voting Republican in November's presidential race.

Kiss Florida's 29 electoral votes goodbye if this isn't fixed. I did the math for that as well yesterday.

Submitted by lambert on

Let's hope it propagates. And more people need to know about that poll....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

OK, the Democratic establishments--who are in the minority in FL--got whipped (see Corrinne above for detail but Mary Beth for important mitigation, yes? no?) which was the object. Yes, the calendar is important for the party.

That said and now that the whipping is accomplished, isn't it time to make sure that every vote counts in FL and MI? Millions came out, in larger numbers than ever before (and IIRC, FL voters were told the ruling was under appeal).

50/50, Kos's brain dead but--surprise!--Obama-friendly proposal, should be off the table.

Counting the existing votes as is would be better than that.

A revote at least as the merit of making all the votes count.

But Barry lawyering up, especially when there's $15 million on the table from Carville to make the voters whole, just sucks. It looks bad because it is bad. And it reminds me a lot of how Barry knocked off progressive icon Alice Palmer, back in Chicago:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.

"I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Except, although the legal onslaught tactic is the same, here we don't have a district in Chicago in a state race; we have two critical states for the general that Obama is seeking to disenfranchise, and the whole country is watching. The rules are going to end up being set by the Credentials committee, and in any case, the DNC rules have rules for changing the rules. So, while in the Palmer case, the Rulez may be real, in FL and MI, it's all rhetoric. And Hillary is running an effective campaign, which takes out Obama's claim that Palmer's inneffectiveness in the election will make her a bad representative. All that's the same is the the legal onslaught. And the raw will to power, of course.

Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."

And there you go. It's always all about Barry, isn't it?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

MBW's picture
Submitted by MBW on

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I just read through all those links, and every thing they linked to, and there's a lot of cherrypicking of information and some pretty strong pro-Obama/Dean bias going on. I have no problem doing more research myself, and reporting back, but I want to see the actual sources, not someone's interpretation of those sources.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

some pretty strong pro-Obama/Dean bias going on.

I've heard countless variations on

"Howard wants Hillary to get the nomination"

"Howard wants Obama to get the nomination because Clinton hates him"

"Does anyone else wonder if dean is in cahoots with Obama? do you suppose he's trying to screw MI and FL because it benefits the "chosen one"?"

"It is very possible that Dean and his DNC is totally against Clinton, and has no intention whatsoever of agreeing to anything which could help her. When Kos and his buddies helped push Dean for DNC chairman over Clinton's choice of Vilsack, the die was cast."

Nobody, nobody has ever provided one scrap of information to support any of these tin foil theories. Find me a statement, a comment, some verifiably independent information that the DNC chairman has a bias toward a particular candidate. Anything other than your gut instinct and maybe then we'll have something to discuss.

I want to see the actual sources, not someone’s interpretation of those sources.

I would have been here all day providing original source links. There are lots of links back to original sources within the DU posts. Search the Florida papers if you must. But the last thing you should do is rely on the Florida Democratic Party because everything they say is biased to make them look innocent.

Look, I have no problem holding someone accountable when it's justified and that includes Howard Dean. But nothing burns my ass more than this absolute bullshit story that accomplishes nothing for the Democratic Party.

MBW's picture
Submitted by MBW on

I actually meant that the author you cited showed some pretty strong Obama and Dean bias, each of which separately has an impact on the credibility of his/her arguments. It's both FDP v. Dean, and Obama v. Clinton, and wading through those biases is complicating.

As I said, I did read all the links within the linked articles, and still felt they came up short. But I'm currently Googling my way through the story, including press from the time.

Submitted by lambert on

I really haven't mastered either the Inside Baseball on the Rulez or the timeline of which D did what to whom when.

What I remember is that the purpose of the ban was to slap the states who were trying to leapfrog the primary Calendar, which really did have to be stopped. And I remember being cynical about the Florida Democrats, and wondering whether they could have put up more of a fight against the Republicans ("they made us do it!"). And because I trust Dean more than many, I supported what he wants to do (and I haven't seen any credible impeachment of his motives. What I do see is snark, and the idea that because what he does hurts one or the other candidate, that was his intent. Not enough.)

But all my memories and perceptions could be completely wrong, and it would be good to have the record set straight. "Going forward, the outcomes don't necessarily depend on blame....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

MBW's picture
Submitted by MBW on

When I made the decision to support fighting disenfranchisement, I didn't know about the paper trail bill, or even the ballot measure - I just came to the conclusion that I was wrong supporting the disenfranchisement of the voters (I supported the Dean/DNC decision) and we need to count every vote. I agree strongly with your priority post, too. However we do it, we should.