home
Greta Interviews Hillary | 161 comments (161 topical)
They aren't going to seat MI delegates (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:28:46 PM EST
from a primary where only one of the two candidates still in the running was on the ballot.  Not going to happen, no way, no how.  You can debate about whether they should, but it just isn't going to happen.

They will be split 50/50.  

FL may be different, since at least both names were on the ballot.  But I doubt it.

Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by americanincanada on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:36:37 PM EST
Obama chose to remove his name. He did not have to, there was no requirement. He wanted it this way and now he can deal with it. there will be no 50/50 split in delegates. His best bet would be to get behind a revote and fast.

As a Florida voter I think Florida has a good case given their republican leadership did what they did,  can almost bet Florida gets seated as is.

[ Parent ]

The MI Legislature is out of session; (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:42:29 PM EST
there will be no revote.  There will be a 50/50 split, or they will not be seated for nomination purposes.  For the Dems, the former is far superior, and that is what will happen.  But if you want to continue to believe that some miracle will change that, more power to you.

[ Parent ]
To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:55:56 PM EST
No matter what Michigan or Florida did they would still need to get a approval vote from the credentials committee.   If they had a re-vote that would still need approval from the Committee.  This is the reason why both candidates had to sign off on the re-vote otherwise they could potentially scuttle in August which would have been very ugly.

I doubt the delegates will be 50/50.  They will be 100/0 in favor of whomever is already the presumptive nominee going into the Convention.

[ Parent ]

I think you don't know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:59:48 PM EST
Michiganders, especially Yoopers, and how angry they are.  Tip: Steer clear of the UP with that talk. :-)

[ Parent ]
They very well may be (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST
incensed by all this.  But the truth is that they have no one to blame but themselves.  The Michigan legislature didn't act in a vacuum.  They moved the date up because it was a politically popular thing to do.

I don't feel a great deal of pity for them.   My state moved up it's primary this year.  But they follow the rules as set forth by the DNC.  Thus, for the first time in decades, NJ voters had a say in the nomination process.  

Why should Michigan and/or Florida get GREATER influence on the nomination for violating the rules?

And, as I said, this ignores the fact that procedurally there really is no way for their votes to matter in a meaningful way.  Either Obama will retain his lead, which case he will control the Convention floor or Hillary will wipe out that lead and, with the aid of the SDs, she will have control of the floor and win the nomination regardless of Fl and Mi.

At this point the entire FL and MI issue is moot.  Nothing can be done about it until August.  It is no longer a factor in the primary elections.

[ Parent ]

Oh, I think you're very wrong that (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:21:54 PM EST
nothing can be done about this until August.

But let's leave it at that, to save you saying the same things yet again.  We'll both wait and see.

[ Parent ]

Well the easiest way (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34:52 PM EST
to prove how wrong I am is to explain HOW I am wrong.

What is the mechanism that seats the MI and FL delegates before the convention without the approval of both candidates?  

[ Parent ]

So many ways . . . (none / 0) (#68)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41:18 PM EST
DNC changes decision again, based on needing funds for the Denver convention -- see story today on big donors/Clinton backers coming down on Dean, et al. -- and/or super-delegates commit in sufficient numbers, and/or Harry Reid does whatever he says will be done to resolve this in backrooms by then, etc.

[ Parent ]
It can't do that (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST
the DNC can't change their minds.  Here are the rules

Section 20 Part D

Unresolved Challenges and Report to the Credentials Committee. The DNC Rules and Bylaws
Committee shall report its activities, together with all challenges and complaints, to the
Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention. In cases involving unresolved
challenges which are appealed to the Credentials Committee, the burden of proof shall rest with
the party presenting the challenge.

There is no mechanism for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, the guys who issued the punishment, to reverse it. So unless you are suggesting that the DNC will flagrantly ignore their own rules and simply decree that the state delegations be seated, there is no way it can be done.

The possibility of that happening is vanishingly small.  And if they were to try they would get sued in about 5 seconds.  

[ Parent ]

A total disregard (none / 0) (#61)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:35:42 PM EST

Even if Michaganers agreed it was their own fault, and not all of them are going to agree on that, they're still going to believe the punishment -- not counting in the most historic Democratic Primary of our lives -- did not fit the crime.

[ Parent ]
That may be so (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:39:29 PM EST
But there isn't much that can be done about it at this point.  The die has been cast.  

[ Parent ]
Actually they do have (none / 0) (#80)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM EST
Obama's obstructionism is an easy target,no?

[ Parent ]
you are forgetting the (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:51:30 PM EST
rules and bylaws committee which may decide the matter first and they have a lot of leeway. They are meeting in April.

[ Parent ]
I don't see (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:12:27 AM EST
anything in the rules that allows for the Rules and Bylaws to hear any appeal at this time.  

Section 20.C.1.A states that violation of timing incurs a 50% penalty. Section 20.C.5 states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee may impose harsher penalties if it so chooses.

The Committee may certify, certify non-compliance, or require corrective action to be made to be certified.  

There is no mechanism in the document for recertification after the delegates have been selected other than an appeal to the Credentials Committee.  I linked to the relevant portion of the rules in a response to CC upthread.

[ Parent ]

No 50/50 split (none / 0) (#18)
by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:45:54 PM EST
except in your fevered dreams.  By the way, your clairvoyance is not impressive.


[ Parent ]
No fevered dreams, just hard cold logic (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM EST
As for clairvoyance, you have me confused with Nancy Reagan

[ Parent ]
why is a 50/50 split far superior? n/t (none / 0) (#20)
by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:48:25 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Because nothing else will work (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST
And it will make it easier to seat FL as is

[ Parent ]
Both MI and FL (5.00 / 3) (#81)
by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:10 AM EST
have said that their election laws do not allow for such a split.  That is why the DUMB 50/50 option suggested by Obama surrogates was immediately dismissed as a viable option by both states.

As to fair?  50/50 is fair?  50/50 is speaking for the voting populace of a state?  If nothing else will work, if nothing else is fair then I this country should stop claiming to be a democracy.

[ Parent ]

But it's not the will of the people (none / 0) (#31)
by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:56:34 PM EST
or has that line been dropped now?

Of course, if the delegates get to vote, they at least aren't bound, so they may feel free to flip their vote . . .

[ Parent ]

The will of the people argument (none / 0) (#32)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST
is a lot harder to make in MI, Hillary vs. a Dem to be named later?

[ Parent ]
Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:23:27 PM EST
all the people who thought the DNC meant what it said and said what it meant, so they crossed over and voted (however, whether operation chaos style or honestly, in the GOP) who would not vote now.  No doubt, that would be a majority non-Clinton voters, since other major candidates were not listed.  This puts Obama at a re-vote disadvantage from the beginning.  The only honest thing to do is to stick with the August decision.  It was a dumb decision back then, but over turning it now is just not fair.

[ Parent ]
This is correct (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51:45 PM EST
All the hand wringing on the blogs doesn't change how things work.

As it stands Obama will have the majority of delegates at the convention.  That means that it will be VERY hard to get Florida and Michigan seated because you will need the Obama delegates to vote in favor of it, which they likely won't do.

But that issue is moot.  At the very latest, we will know who the nominee is by the middle of June.  After all of the remaining states have voted the DNC leaders will go to the person that is perceived to be losing and tell them to bow out.  If they don't they will get the majority of Superdelegates to publicly support the presumptive nominee.  

There is simply no way the DNC will allow a floor fight.  It is the one thing that can assure a Republican victory in November.  They will put TREMENDOUS pressure on the superdelegates to publicly support the presumptive nominee.

Florida and Michigan are not going to save Hillary because, as it stands right now, the only way they can be seated is by waiting for the credentials committee to vote on it in August and the DNC won't let that happen.

As it stands it appears that Obama will be the nominee.  That could change but it will require Hillary to win most, if not all, of the remaining states.

I know a lot of you don't want to hear that but it is the simple truth.  

[ Parent ]

I agree that the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by shoephone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:04:51 PM EST
does not want a floor fight and will engineer a nomination victory for Obama.

But I firmly believe that if MI and FL are not seated and allowed to vote it will create another fight. A large chunk of the 2 million people who voted in those states have already promised that if shut out they will retaliate against the Dem nominee in November. I believe them.

As I've said before, I think this is the perfect example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Shortsightedness at its best. And so very typical of the Democratic Party.

[ Parent ]

I wholeheartedly agree. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by halstoon on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:16:33 PM EST
Either Clinton or Obama will be the nominee going into Denver, and they will then seat those FL & MI delegations, but no way do they play a part in choosing who that nominee is.

If Clinton sweeps the last 10 states, or if Obama just completely implodes, she'll be the nominee. Barring either of those extremes, Obama will get the support of Gore, Pelosi, and the rest of the major SDs in June if he continues to lead in pledged delegates and popular vote. If Clinton manages to win the popular vote, Gov. Bredesen's idea of an informal caucus among SDs will happen--either in person or by massive phone relay--and they will decide which candidate to back.

Either way, Democrats will begin the task of reconciling their base by July 1 in order to avoid a certain loss in November.

[ Parent ]

Clinton doesn't need to sweep (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:20:11 PM EST
Winning Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Puerto Rico by big enough margins might be enough, depending on how the "feel of things" plays out.

We can sit here making predictions and speculating until the cows come home but too many things can happen.  Just think back to some of the past contests and how the spin looked before the voting took place and how the race felt the day after.


[ Parent ]

Well sure (none / 0) (#69)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43:46 PM EST
if she wins PA by 25 points and Indiana by 25 points she probably doesn't need to sweep.  But that doesn't seem very likely.  

As it stands right now it would appear that NC and PA are going to be very close to a push.   WV only has 28 delegates so even a big win there isn't going to get her much.  Maybe 4 or 5 delegates?  Indiana has 72 so they could have an impact but still it is unlikely to be more than 10 delegates or so.

So mathematically it is unlikely for Hillary to catch Obama.  So she needs a strong narrative to carry the day.  If she and Obama split the remaining states, more or less, then she won't have that.

Puerto Rico is valuable because of it's delegates but it won't help the narrative since they don't actually vote in the general election.

[ Parent ]

If they don't play a part (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
Then Obama's victory is built on a foundation of disenfranchisement.

And once you arrive at that point, blame doesn't matter anymore.

It is what it is.  That's all anyone ever remembers is the guy who won cause states were left out of the process.

[ Parent ]

Good luck (5.00 / 3) (#128)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:39:37 AM EST
with reconciling the base. The Democratic Party has done it's utmost to anger a good part of their base and a great many "reliable" voters. They are convinced that no matter what happens all the little pointy-headed libs will come home in November and thus they must work hardest at wooing the Independents and and stray Republicans incensed at their own party and looking for a "stick-in-the-eye" vote.

IMO the Dems are so split at this time that even a unity ticket will enrage half the voters. i.e. Clinton/Obama enrages Obama supporters and Obama/Clinton enrages Clinton supporters. Plus I don't see either one of them being willing to take a back seat to the other.

Reconcile? As I said, good luck with that. Dean, Pelosi, Reid really copulated the pooch on this one.

[ Parent ]

Full court press (5.00 / 4) (#148)
by mm on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM EST
This full court press that's going on right now, the incessant, continual repetition of the "concern" of Democratic party leaders that Sen. Clinton has no chance to win is designed for one single purpose and that is to demoralize the Clinton supporters in PA to the point that they just give up and won't show up.

I have voted for every Democratic candidate since George McGovern, but I have to say that this heavy handed, thumb-on-the-scales, behavior of the Democratic party establishment to force me to accept this clearly unqualified, inexperienced (he spent a grand total of 1 year in the Senate before deciding to start running for president) candidate down my throat - has pushed me and my family over the edge.  

[ Parent ]

Exactly. It's attempting vote suppression (5.00 / 2) (#154)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:25:43 AM EST
in psychological ways.  From afar, I'm quite angry that this is being done to Pennsylvanians, in particular, and hope they fight back but good.  (I know West Virginians and know they're tough, and they tell me they're much like western Pennsylvanians that way.  As for eastern Pennsylvanians, the Cradle of Liberty likes to go to the polls and demonstrate democracy, I would bet.)

[ Parent ]
I hope (none / 0) (#163)
by mm on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM EST
I hope you're right and they're able to see through this, but it's very hard when you're being inundated constantly 24 hours a day with the message that you're irrelevant and the race is over no matter what you do.  You don't count.

I have alot of friends and family in NJ and they all feel the same way.  JW's latest insult of the Italians didn't help either.  If they succeed in carrying Obama across the finish line, I would bet that NJ will be in play in the GE.

[ Parent ]

i am one (none / 0) (#43)
by sancho on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:16:50 PM EST
of the florida dems who will not vote unless fla. is seated--and not as some symbolic after the fact seating. had fla. not been taken off the board, the nom. race would have gone very differently. obama and the dnc dont seem to care about my vote. why should i give it away--twice?

[ Parent ]
What you don't realize (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:04 PM EST
is that at this time there is no way for your vote to count prior to the convention.  There are 2 ways for the Florida delegates will be seated.  Well technically there is only one way but for the purposes of this discussion we can call it two.

  1. Florida comes up with some distribution of delegates in which both candidates find it acceptable.  This seems exceedingly unlikely.*

  2. Florida has to wait until the credentials committee votes on their delegates. And the credentials committee will seat them, but the race will already be over.   The DNC simply CANNOT let the race go to the convention.  

* - technically option 1 also requires the delegates to be approved by the credentials committee but since both candidates would have approved of the delegate count that wouldn't be a problem.

Can you provide a scenario in which the Florida delegates get seated that follows procedures and doesn't require the fight to be carried to the convention floor?  

[ Parent ]

Silly Florida and Michigan Voters (5.00 / 3) (#147)
by herb the verb on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
Don't you know that you don't matter? I'll let you have a chance to vote for me in November. If you ask me very nicely.

Signed,

Barak Obama

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#85)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:13:07 AM EST
There is win, lose, and draw. The only way to get a win (and presumptive nominee crown) is by making the magic number of delegates. No one is there, nor likely will be. No one knows what the Superdelegates will determine their votes on, they stay a wild card. Behind and close doesn't mean lost. Just like chess, it means drawn. If Obama's chances looks bad for the GE, I doubt very much the Superdelegates will fall on their sword for your "math". Besides, if the "math" was the primary and determinative factor then it would make no sense to have such a huge percentage of Superdelegates, nor such a byzantine delegation process that waters down actual voter results.

[ Parent ]
Actually (none / 0) (#86)
by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:19:52 AM EST
that isn't really accurate.

Currently Obama has 1629 delegates, pledged and SDs combined.  He needs 2025.  So that means he needs 396.

There are 566 pledged delegates delegates.  Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, a split of the remaining delegates.  That's 283 more delegates for Obama.  That means he would need 113 of the remaining superdelegates or 35% of the remaining delegates to reach the magic number.

If Obama's campaign competely collapses Hillary will be the nominee certainly.  But so far that hasn't happened.  

And that ignores the reality that the DNC will pressure all the remaining SDs to end the race immediately after the elections are over.

[ Parent ]

See? It will be well before August (nt) (none / 0) (#88)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:23:15 AM EST


[ Parent ]
I don't understand your point (none / 0) (#89)
by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:24:09 AM EST
What will be well before August?  

Are you referring to FL and MI?  They aren't relevant to this post.

[ Parent ]

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions (none / 0) (#122)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:08:04 AM EST
in your "math". For one it assumes no erosion in delegates for any contestant. That is clearly not the case, else why is Obama's campaign jawboning Hillary's delegates in Texas? Second, Superdelegates are free to vote their conscience, and there is no guarantee they won't flip. They do not follow the popular vote, for example consider Richardson. Hillary won New Mexico.
   The reality is no one knows what the final delegate count will be, nor can they. All this math is smoke and mirrors, IMO, as there are too many unknowns to determine a solid prediction. Nor does anyone know what is the determinative reasons for the Superdelegates final choices. You may believe they should be based on "the math", but that doesn't make it so. Even so "the math" is unreliable, and what you are assuming is too simplistic.

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#125)
by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:31:11 AM EST
The math is the math.  

The only way there will be significant defections of delegates from one candidate to another would be if one of the candidates became the presumptive nominee or one of the candidates became completely unviable.

I don't get into mind reading.  I don't much care what reasons the superdelegates use to choose the nominee.  I don't care if SDs vote because of their state results, the national popular votes, or the national pledge delegates or because they like the way the candidates name sounds.

What I DO know is how politics work.  

[ Parent ]

If you do know how politics work (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
then you know politicians decisions are based on many things other than faulty math. Loyalties, stubborness, settling old scores, money, their perceptions of GE elections outcome in both the short and long term, etc., and etc. Face it-- your predictions are based on faulty assumptions due to lack of consideration of all the unknown factors.
  Besides didn't you also predict the Wright episode would be gone by now? Your crystal ball seems to suffer from need for repair.

[ Parent ]
no 50/50 (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:06:27 PM EST
The uncommitted were only 40% and other candidates, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, got 5%. Hillary got 45%. No way does Obama deserve 50%.

[ Parent ]
Typo Above-- Hillary got 55% in MI -NT- (none / 0) (#62)
by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:36:04 PM EST


[ Parent ]
They will be split 50/50 (5.00 / 3) (#92)
by echinopsia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:31:02 AM EST
over the loss of hundreds of thousands of party members.

We are Democrats. We may not be organized, but we do not award votes and delegates to people who did not earn them.

And if we ever do, that is the day I stop being a Democrat.

[ Parent ]

But if Obama wins (none / 0) (#11)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:33:59 PM EST
And leaving out MI appears to contribute to that win, if that can be perceived as establishing the margin of victory, there will always be an asterisk next to his victory.

I you're thinking short term here.  Winning the nomination is all that matters.

[ Parent ]

He will take an asterisk (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:44:58 PM EST
just like Bill did in 1992 when he won with 43% of the vote.

I do concede that Hillary is thinking longer term, to 2012.

[ Parent ]

I don't think she is. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51:29 PM EST
Not her style and if he loses or tanks as Pres, both will be blamed on her. Not good for running in 2012. I think she would be working this differently  for 2012.

[ Parent ]
Base on your previous comments (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by standingup on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:28:27 PM EST
I am not sure how that can be considered a concession?

[ Parent ]
Slightly OT but (none / 0) (#19)
by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM EST
if Hillary wins North Carolina, he'll take a loss.

[ Parent ]
I agree with you on NC (none / 0) (#23)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51:38 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Were any states left out (none / 0) (#27)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
In 1992?


[ Parent ]
In the end, there wont be any states (none / 0) (#30)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
left out this year other.  Just a matter of how they will be counted.

[ Parent ]
Split 50-50? (none / 0) (#109)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:13:36 AM EST
I hope you realize that's the same as not seating them at all.

...just making sure.

[ Parent ]

Obama 'campaigned' for "Uncommitted" (none / 0) (#119)
by andrys on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:35:01 AM EST
Since Obama, himself, and his staff were quite active in Michigan pleading with voters to vote for no one rather than vote for Clinton -- asking them to show their interest in not-Clinton that way, he campaigned for that.

Give the guy then ALL the 'uncommitted' delegates.  How hard is that?

  Since he chose to take his name off and neither one campaigned otherwise there, he needs to take some responsibility and use some common sense instead of pretending to be a Uniter (what a joke) and Leader and being merely a passive obstructionist (his pattern for years).

  Florida and Michigan Dem parties should be fined $1 million each.  That ought to satisfy the blood lust for knuckling under to some arbitrary rules.  But Dean and the DNC and the now-clueless Pelosi need to remember that it's the VOTE of all citizens who bother to go do that -- that's the important principle here, though they'd love to forget that.  And too many Obama supporters seem to love and depend on the idea of no-revote if the vote might not go their way.

[ Parent ]

It fits in with Obama's Unity Scheme (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by blogtopus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:26:37 AM EST
To appeal to Republicans, he is doing some of his own vote-tainting. That way they know he is on their side.

Give Obama all the Uncommitted. That's better than he'd have gotten had he not taken his ball and stomped off.

[ Parent ]

Greta Interviews Hillary | 161 comments (161 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft