home
You may call my position whatever you like (none / 0) (#15)
by Angel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
but I'm with Jeralyn on this.  We will not vote for a candidate who has been declared the winner by essentially stealing the election.  

Parent
How was the election stolen? (none / 0) (#20)
by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
Clinton agreed to this rules ahead of time.  How is it cheating to not change them?

Parent
Well... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
...hiding behind the "rules" generally isn't making a good case for a fair election.

If I recall the 2000 election was "won" by Bush under the pretense of honoring the "rule of law"

Parent

Huh? (none / 0) (#46)
by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM EST
The 2000 election was "won" by voter mistakes and a huge miscalculation by Al Gore.  Newspapers did the recounts after the fact and it turns out that he would have lost the recount that he asked for but if he would have asked for a (fairer sounding) state wide recount, he both probably would have received it and would have ended up with more votes.

Then again, I'm not one that thought the 2000 election was stolen.  I think it was lost due to an uninspiring campaign, the Nader voters (remember that if 1% of the Nader voters went for Gore instead , he would have had a wider lead than Bush ended up with), and a mistaken belief among the electorate that Bush would be a copy of his father, a moderate Republican that would have a mediocre one term presidency.  

Parent

But (none / 0) (#54)
by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST
The Supreme Court, who ultimately decided the outcome, invented previously-unknown principles of Equal Protection jurisdprudence to justify its decision.

The analogy doesn't really work, however, because in this case the rules were clear and agreed to beforehand.

Parent

Oh I think the SC's argument was lame... (none / 0) (#67)
by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST
...don't get me wrong.  I just don't think that the election was stolen because even if Gore got the recount he was asking for, he would have lost.  

As for this election (bringing things back around), it's not Obama supporters who are bringing up new measurements as the correct rule for deciding an election.  The most I've seen from the Obama camp is lobbying Superdelegates, which both groups are doing.

Parent

My only point is that... (none / 0) (#103)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
...the "rule of law" or "play by the rules" generally becomes a rallying cry only when confronting a set of circumstances which calls into question the prudence of said rules...

Parent
Huh back at you... (none / 0) (#106)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:16:25 AM EST
"...if he would have asked for a (fairer sounding) state wide recount, he both probably would have received it and would have ended up with more votes."

In other words, the ground rules of the election were a determining factor in the outcome and not the actual result of the vote.

Parent

Wow. Are you a Republican? (none / 0) (#156)
by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
Hilarious, isn't it? (none / 0) (#22)
by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST
How could she not agree? (none / 0) (#59)
by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST
If she doesn't, she can't run at all. It would be an unenforceable contract if it were not the DNC.

Parent
Her argument would have more moral force... (none / 0) (#75)
by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
...if it had been raised before the election happened and she suddenly realized that she needed the votes.  This decision was made in August 2007.  Clinton had months before the election to make her objections known.  Can anyone find a quote from 2007 where she did so?

Parent
Do you have a point? (none / 0) (#113)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST
Why would her argument have any more or less merit 6 months ago?

The principles today are exactly the same as they were then.

Parent

It would have had more merit (none / 0) (#121)
by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
because in 2007 she had nothing to GAIN by arguing for FL/MI to be seated. Now, she has something to gain. It is extremely simple.

Parent
Seriously? (none / 0) (#136)
by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
What do you want her to say: "Well, in Oct 07, I said that FL shouldn't be seated, and even though now, seating them would help me win the nomination, because the situation on the ground has changed so much since Oct 07 when I was polling 30% ahead, I am going to stick by that Oct 07 statement."

If this is what you want, will you please ask Obama about the statement he made two years ago saying he was not qualified and did not have enough experience to be POTUS?  Do you really want to hold him to that statement?

They are politicians.  They do crap like this all the time.

Parent

It's a difference without distinction... (none / 0) (#168)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:10:39 AM EST
...are you really claiming that one's argument is inherently weaker because the outcome may benefit them?  They may be biased in their view, but it doesn't reflect on the validity of their argument to the electorate.

It's just political gamesmanship to dismiss every rational argument for counting FL and claim it's invalid simply because it benefits Clinton.

Parent

Well, so did Obama, but that didn't (none / 0) (#146)
by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:50:57 AM EST
stop him from running ads in Florida, when none of the other candidates did. Nor does it stop him from demanding that the Superdelegates vote for him, even though the rules say that they are independent and can vote for whom they please.  I guess Obama is really right with the rules only when they benefit him, but not when they don't.  When they don't, we get threats of lawsuits and of creating uproar among his rabid followers.

Besides, this isn't about Obama and what he wants (WOW as they refer to it over at Riverdaughter), it's about disenfranchising 2.5 million voters. But I suppose that pales in comparison with counting  the votes  of the 3000 +/- people that voted for him in the Wyoming caucus, a state that will vote Republican in November, as will many of the states he has won.

Parent

And you think... (none / 0) (#87)
by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
That there aren't plenty of Obama supporters who will not feel the same way?

If Clinton wins the nomination, and the margin is the seated delegates (and popular vote) from the MI and FL contests, you better believe that many will see this as a blatant end-run around the primary rules designed only to deny their candidate the nomination.

Parent

Meaning (none / 0) (#93)
by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:07:32 AM EST
seating the delegates from the Jan. 29 contests. Edit is my friend.

Parent
yes, this is Obama's strategy unfortunately (none / 0) (#105)
by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
A full and fair re-vote in both states is potentially damaging to them because it makes those votes legitimate. Running down the clock means that something will have to be done about the delegates at the convention, and this allows them to cry foul and de-legitimize everything.

Parent
Obama will probalby win a MI revote... (none / 0) (#124)
by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
...and he will probably do better than 33% in a FL revote.  Your idea that a re-vote is damaging to him is just not true.  

Parent
Well, then, why is he fighting it? (none / 0) (#161)
by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST
A re-vote gives Clinton a reason to... (none / 0) (#173)
by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
...stay in the race until June.  It is more important to get her out of the race than it is to win in MI and improve on his 33% in FL.  The delegates up for grabs in those states wont' be decisive because they are proportional and Obama has a give enough cushion to absorb any loses.

I am sure you have heard this before but it is highly unlikely that Clinton can win a majority of the pledged delegates or the popular vote.  The only way she can win is to bloody Obama up so badly that the supers decide he can't win in November and give the nod to Clinton.  

As a result, Obama's best move right now is to get rid of Clinton as soon as possible.  Allowing a revote in June in two big states doesn't allow that.  

Parent

Spoken like... (none / 0) (#178)
by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
...an Obama follower.

As though she doesn't have a reason to stay in the race today?  Even Joe Trippi thinks this one goes to the convention.b

Parent

Yes. He can" get rid of her" by (none / 0) (#179)
by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST
"bloodying" her up so much that either of them will lose in the general election.  Believe me, if Hillary's supporters don't think the primary is fair, they are not going to support Obama in the general. Dream on. It's to his benefit to make sure that this is perceived as fair, which is why he says one thing and does another with regard to this issue.

Parent
Don't support him then (none / 0) (#181)
by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
If you care more about two primary states that broke the rules than you do about the GE then I don't think anything will make you happy.

Parent
It wasn't the people of the states who broke the (none / 0) (#187)
by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST
rules and, yes, I do care more about them than I do about Obama.  Much more.

Parent
I see (none / 0) (#188)
by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
Thanks - I think your analysis is correct. Still don't like it because voters should get to vote and be counted, but I hear you.

Parent
Possibly strategy (none / 0) (#142)
by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:43:03 AM EST
Possibly not. Unless you're inside his head, it's very hard to say for sure.

Certainly, it's unfair to accuse him of being the only one to play games with this. If Clinton felt that having FL and MI stripped of their delegates was unfair, the correct time to do something about it was before the two primaries. Coming out after she's apparently won them to argue they should count doesn't look good.

Parent

I actually agree (none / 0) (#132)
by spit on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:37:10 AM EST
if you're talking about the margins from January, and that's why it's so $(%)! important to have a revote. The nominee is going to be cast as illegitimate by a big chunk either way, otherwise.

Which is why Dean and the DNC and the two candidates are so maddening IMO right now -- we need them all to get proactive and really work for a solution. Instead, they're each mostly tacitly sitting around waiting for the other parties to deal with it.

Parent

Maddening, but understandable (none / 0) (#149)
by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
The real problem is that the whole system is very convoluted, and ad hoc. The folks with the nominal authority over this (the DNC) aren't in a position to actually make things happen on the ground. The folks who can make it happen have reasons for not wanting it to (at least in Florida). The campaigns have no credibility on the issue, because both are obviously be concerned in getting the outcome most favorable to them.

Suppose the DNC tells Florida to hold the vote, and the Florida party refuses, on the grounds that the Jan. 29 vote was perfectly fine, thank-you-very-much. It's not like the DNC can go and knock heads together. The only credible threat they have is not seating the delegates. We've all seen how well that worked.

If both campaigns came out strongly for the same plan, it might be a different story. But again for obvious reasons, that's unlikely. If the Florida party demanded the re-vote, then the DNC and the campaigns might budge, but again this seems unlikely.

In the mean time, the kabuki dance continues.

Parent

That's right. If the people of the states of (none / 0) (#160)
by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02:17 AM EST
Florida and Michigan are allowed to have their votes count that would be cheating in the first degree.  On the other hand, not letting them count would no doubt be "fair".  Fair to whom?  Obama, of course. He's the only person in the country who counts.

Parent

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft