home
The Michigan Proposal is Unfair to Hilllary | 252 comments (252 topical)
the logical solution (5.00 / 12) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:00:03 PM EST
is to give Hillary her delegates and let the rest go to the convention in Denver as uncommitted.

I agree completely. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:00:48 PM EST
Don't give Obama anything he didn't earn.

[ Parent ]
But Mark, You Don't Understand, obama (5.00 / 2) (#134)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:46:51 PM EST
gets many things he doesn't deserve.

[ Parent ]
How is that? (1.00 / 1) (#220)
by AgreeToDisagree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:29:28 PM EST
Why punish Obama when it was the DNC Rules Panel that voted to strip Michigan of its delegates.  Clinton supporters were involved.

Now, the game is over, and HRC has lost, so you cry about the rules.  

[ Parent ]

Didn't Michigan already assign delegates? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by honora on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:04:02 PM EST
I thought that Obama got most, but unions won some.  That makes sense, Obama got most and the rest go basically unaffiliated.

[ Parent ]
Of course. But this has never been about logic. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:10:35 PM EST
It has always been about how can we get Obama the nomination.  He deserves zero pledged delegates, Hillary deserves 73 pledged delegates and the 55 uncommitted.

[ Parent ]
Yup. (none / 0) (#43)
by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:15:39 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Exactamente (5.00 / 9) (#77)
by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM EST
I didn't realize this afternoon that the latest proposal stole delegates from Clinton.  I thought it just awarded Obama all the uncommitteds -- unfair, but under the circumstances tolerable.

Under what delusional set of circumstances does the Obama campaign justify stealing some of Hillary's delegates?  Because if the Precious had been on the ballot, surely fewer people would hav voted for her?  

So now we are rewarding Obama for not actually being on the ballot?

Screw'em. Let Obama reap the whirlwind. In the last 24 hours, Obama and his followers have turned me from "come together" Democrat to a "screw'em" Democrat.

[ Parent ]

How can you steal delegates when (none / 0) (#137)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:48:00 PM EST
they are imaginary anyway?

Please understand: currently Clinton has ZERO delegates from Michigan. Michigan currently has ZERO delegates to be seated at the convention. These are imaginary delegates. If I have a pretend DeLorean and you say you've stolen it, are you guilty of grand theft auto?

You cannot steal something from somebody if they don't have it.

McCain
[ Parent ]

If all of the delegates (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:00:25 PM EST
are imaginary, then how can anyone argue that Obama won?

[ Parent ]
The Michigan delegates are (none / 0) (#192)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:04:28 PM EST
imaginary. The DNC stripped all of Michigan's delegates last summer. As a result the January vote had zero effect in apportioning Michigan delegates for the convention in Denver. That is what makes Michigan's (and Florida's) delegates imaginary.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Then why do Obama's supporters (5.00 / 2) (#244)
by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:30:15 PM EST
keep talking about how Hillary is trying to "steal the nomination" from him.

He doesn't have it yet. So how can she steal it?

[ Parent ]

2.8 million voters are imaginary? (5.00 / 1) (#253)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:51:50 PM EST
This is the INCLUSION your candidate proposes? Those "imaginary" voters, will be very REAL when November comes around and Florida and Michigan go RED!

[ Parent ]
The problem with this: (5.00 / 1) (#178)
by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:57:43 PM EST
give Hillary her delegates and let the rest go to the convention in Denver as uncommitted.

(imminently logical as it is) is the statement made earlier this week by an unnamed SD who plainly said that Clinton needs two things for the SDs to migrate her way: the popular vote argument and to be within 100 pledged delegates of Obama.

With FL and MI seated, basically in any fair way, she closes that 100 gap.  That's the magic number here.  That's why she's pushing into WVA, KY and PR, because she knows if she hits that number, she'll have this wrapped up.

And that's why, despite his cries of Mission Accomplished, Obama is still campaigning hard.  If he's already won, why doesn't he take a two week vacation?

[ Parent ]

So your position is that Michigan should pay (1.00 / 2) (#88)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST
no price whatsoever for defying the DNC's schedule? You think that any state in the future should be free to ignore the DNC's primary schedule, allowing the process to fall into complete chaos? When you practice law, do you believe that you get to pick and choose from the court rules you follow?

Your position is ridiculous, Jeralyn. The fairest position of all is that no delegates whatsoever be counted from Michigan, because the Michigan defied the DNC's schedule and that was the penalty the DNC established.

But since that seems to bother Michigan voters so much, everybody is looking for a compromise that will assuage the sentiments of Michigan voters and not tip the scales unfairly in either direction.

Your proposed solution is the least fair of any.

McCain
[ Parent ]

MI defied the DNC rules! Off with their heads! (5.00 / 3) (#100)
by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:36:28 PM EST
good god, man, get a control of yourself -- they didn't defy the constitution, they defied the DNC rules which called for a 50% reduction in delegates for "defying the rules" and the DNC then decided apropos of nothing to "overrule" those rules to give them NO delegates. So, if the DNC can "overrule" the rules on a whim, those rules aren't exactly set in stone.

[ Parent ]
Brilliant! (none / 0) (#123)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:42:48 PM EST
Except there's no DNC rule that limits the penalty imposed to a 50% reduction in delegates. So unfortunately your argument fails.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Teh DNC blew it (5.00 / 2) (#136)
by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:47:52 PM EST
withthe overall architecture of the primary season and the PR aspect of the rules.

The result that is being manufactured does not look very democratic. It does not look very inspiring and does not advertise Dems as good reformers and rule makers.  It makes us look foolish and pedantic.

[ Parent ]

oh yes there is (none / 0) (#131)
by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:46:07 PM EST
and if I knew how to do links on here, I would link you to it. That is exactly what the "ROOLZ" say. I know it is you first day here, but try do a little research instead of just making things up.

[ Parent ]
sorry, it isn't your first day here (none / 0) (#139)
by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:48:14 PM EST
I wish I could edit -- but the rest of my response to you is true -- a 50% loss of delegates is exactly what the rules called for, and the DNC decided to "overrule" those rules, in the words of Donna Brazile "to send a message to FL & MI." I even saw the tape of the meeting.

[ Parent ]
you know digdugboy is just here to rile people (4.00 / 1) (#146)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:49:46 PM EST
up.  you would do well to ignore.

[ Parent ]
Not true (5.00 / 2) (#170)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST
I've stated more times than I should have to that I'd be perfectly happy with either candidate as the democratic nominee.

Each candidate knew Michigan was not going to count at the outset. After both acknowledged this, Obama took his name off the ballot.

Jeralyn's proposed solution requires that no significance whatsoever attach to these two critical facts. The only reason anybody could possibly ignore these facts is if his or her partisanship for Clinton was so overwhelming as to disable any sense of reason and fairness. That's what I object to.

McCain
[ Parent ]

The story on Obama's removal of his name (5.00 / 2) (#243)
by andrys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:29:43 PM EST
The Iowa Independent told of the political moves by young "New Politics" Obama to remove his name when he was 20 points down in the polls and the rules said NOTHING about removing one's name.  "Participating in the campaign" does not include leaving one's name on for the voting day which the DNC planned would not count but the rules are subject to modification within those rules.  But read the Iowa Independent story for the description of Obama's maneuvering at that time.

 Don't forget that he TOLD the Michigan people to vote for UNCOMMITTED.  Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel's names were of course also still on, and so there were 4 names there PLUS "uncommitted choice" which Obama recommended.  His staff and surrogates reminded Michiganer's of this choice.

  So, unlike Jeralyn in this case, I do favor giving Obama the Uncommitted number to actually "compromise"  EVEN if Edwards would have received about 15-20% of those.  Hillary would keep hers, as she didn't, unlike Obama, tell the Michiganers to do or not do anything nor did she in any way campaign.

  The votes, if he wants to get elected in November, HAVE TO COUNT toward the nominee or it is an INVALID nominee by the eyes of many voters, including me.  

  If the ONLY way he can get the nomination is to IGNORE the actual votes of voters, then his campaign for the presidency is doomed.  It is dishonest and fearful of voters as usual (always trying to either remove opponents or get them to withdraw via pressure).

  For the best informal writeup I've seen of this situation, as it stands now especially (if Obama wants to be at all competitive in Michigan and Florida, which will be crucial), see Tom of Paine's article on this subject, from yesterday.

- Andrys


[ Parent ]

digdugboy (none / 0) (#254)
by cal1942 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:00 PM EST
You've accepted the G rated version of Obama's withdrawal from the Michigan ballot.

His withdrawal was far more cynical. The withdrawal was done to taint a sure Clinton victory.

Your "critical facts" are without merit.

[ Parent ]

And the DNC was perfectly entitled, within its (none / 0) (#142)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:49:22 PM EST
rules, to impose greater punishment.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Bothers me. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:37:47 PM EST
I'm a Michigan voter.

If the delegates are not seated, and not seated and assigned prior to the convention as is, I WILL not vote Obama.

I would accept a 50% reduction per the calendar rules.  That's where I disagree with Jeralyn.  50% is what it should have been out of the gate and I'm fine with that.

DNC tried to make 100% stick.  It backfired, and now they want to backpedal.  First 50/50, and now committed Obama delegates AT ALL?

Delegation is seated as the voters voted and as allocated.  If it's docked a percentage, fine by me.  Nothing greater than a 50% reduction.


[ Parent ]

I think the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:43:34 PM EST
are guilty of overdoing it with Michigan.

Complete stripping was cruel and unusual.

btw iit's not like the rules in other states are either

Conducive to Democratic results: See Nevada

or Proportionally weighted:

See Alaska's 4,000 caucus goers  cancel out much larger states that had 200,000 strong majorities.

The entire architecture of the Primary system failed catastophically.

The GOP would be well advised to block any Democratic Party electoral reforms that are proposed after watching this fiasco.

[ Parent ]

I won't even accept that now. (5.00 / 3) (#145)
by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:49:37 PM EST
As pointed out by Steve, MI has already been punished in the most historic election by not being able to have the candidates campaign, no advertising and particularly, no money.  I what to reiterate Steve's excellent points - MI and FL have already been punished and as he also pointed out, I also highly doubt that there will be any states that will try to "break the rules" and risk that type of retaliation.

[ Parent ]
Agreed IN PART. (none / 0) (#194)
by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:06:53 PM EST
I think Michigan should have been docked 50% out of the gate.  If so, this wouldn't have been a question, and would have been a better political angle for both the DNC and Obama, not that I would want that.  But...

"Michigan ALWAYS counted.  Just per the rules it was docked 50%.  The superdelegates still count, as does every citizen's vote.  Just not pledged delegates.  But it CAN be revewed at the convention."

Is much better than...

"Michigan does not count.  The popular vote is irrelevant because the ballot was not honest.  Soviet election!  Forget Michigan superdelegates, and no re-vote!  Onward to South Dakota!"

Now I'm irate.  But I would have accepted 50% then.  Now both the DNC and Obama have a lot to make up for.  They should just buy some homes in the state and just set up permanent shop at this point.  It might help with the housing statistics.

And don't forget to drink lots of Vernors, drive a GM car, and eat many pasties and Grand Traverse cherries!

[ Parent ]

Okay, then don't vote Obama (none / 0) (#150)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:50:26 PM EST
nobody's going to beg you to change your mind. So long as you're happy with McCain as your president, that's what really matters, I guess.

McCain
[ Parent ]
I'm Catholic, sweetie. (5.00 / 2) (#168)
by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:54:42 PM EST
I have a strong shield against that tired ol' heavy hand of guilt.

[ Parent ]
Glad to hear it, sugarbuns. (none / 0) (#175)
by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:56:30 PM EST


McCain
[ Parent ]
Why haven't the other prominent (none / 0) (#166)
by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM EST
elected MI Dems. signed the letter?  Where are the Gov. and Conyers, for instance?

[ Parent ]
Granholm. (none / 0) (#188)
by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:01:27 PM EST
  1. She's an out and proud Clinton advocate.  It would be poor PR.  She was talking to the press pumping Hillary as recently as pre-Ohio (whereas AZ Gov. Napolitano was attacking for Obama).  Obama supporters would SCREAAAAM if Granholm signed anything.

  2. She's term limited, and won her re-election without any help from Rahm, Dean, or the other DNC members who were more than happy to pander to the Mountain West without investing more than a lick to the State in '06.

So she really doesn't owe much to the DNC, and more important she'd be seen as a "Clinton Surrogate."  She worked for a re-vote, but that was gunned down by you-know-who.

Granholm will keep low in this, aside from a very politically ambiguous "Michigan should count," like she advocated pre-Ohio.

[ Parent ]

Here's the problem. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:39:38 PM EST
McCain does quite well in Michigan. If he were to pick Romney as VP--he'd prolly win Michigan.

A dispute over a bylaw (in a fatally flawed architecture of stupid rules) should be followed if it gives the GOp an inch of room in November.

Stripping Michigan completely was draconian stupidity.  

 

[ Parent ]

Romney probably gains MI (5.00 / 2) (#163)
by RalphB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:52:49 PM EST
for McCain.  As an added little bonus, he would almost guarantee McCain Colorado.  He also gives him some cover on the economy.  Romney would be a good VP pick for Sen McCain.

I'm starting to be concerned about the GOP ticket because I fully expect McCain to be elected in November, if he runs against Obama.


[ Parent ]

I bet they are crunching (none / 0) (#181)
by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:59:21 PM EST
The Mormon factor in Tempe HQ.

All that tithe cash, all those foot soldiers, all the residents, right smack in the middle of Obama's Western Strategy (added Bonus Michigan and extra padding numbers in New England.)  It must be tempting McCain.  I don't know if Romney is respected in Mass but he did win there in some capacity before.

The only problem would be a Catholic counter attack at the pulpit.

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (none / 0) (#209)
by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
Michigan went 3 -- 3! -- points to Kerry in '04.  This was coming off of George W. Bush.  

Michigan is hemhorraging young professionals -- aka Obama's supposed "expansion."

Labor and the economy dominate Michigan.

And never forget how much the Detroit suburbs -- and much of the State -- despise "Black Detroit."

The MI GOP will have a field day exploiting this.  Remember that this is the State that in the same election voted in a Democratic Governor who was under a lot of reelection heat by 14 points, but then also voted FOR an Affirmative Action ban by 16 even though she campaigned against it.

Add ammunition on this whole "not counting" bull, and boy o boy is it tragic.

[ Parent ]

Uh (5.00 / 4) (#112)
by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:40:09 PM EST
Michigan got nothing for defying the DNC's schedule.  They got no media attention for their primary, they got no dollars for the economy from a campaign in their state, they got no benefit whatsoever.

If the most important thing to Michigan were making sure they get a delegation at the convention, they could have ensured themselves of that just by keeping a normal date.  Giving them a delegation hardly means "they got away with it."  They will have gained absolutely nothing by it.

But yeah, I guess all the states in 2012 will realize "gee, if we don't mind having no media attention, no candidate visits, and no dollars for the economy, we can get away with holding our primary whenever we like!"

[ Parent ]

dollars for the economy can't be that great (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:55:40 PM EST
I can see a small state like NH or IA wanting 12 months of campaign spending from 20 campaigns. That adds up. But what is the effect on later states, especially big states?

I think the bigger danger is that next time every Republican controlled state like FL will jump the rules to cause chaos amongst the Dems. Worked great this year. They get the weaker candidate to run against.

[ Parent ]

It makes a huge difference (none / 0) (#185)
by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:01:03 PM EST
Sen. Levin hasn't been fighting for an early primary all these years because he likes seeing his name in the paper.

It means a tremendous amount in terms of both dollars and clout within the party.  MI and FL got none of that.

[ Parent ]

Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#202)
by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:13:22 PM EST
  1. Michigan has a challenged economy.  The Governor here has been hitting on this for YEARS.  It's ripe for Economic Policy Talk.

  2. Michigan is expanding in life sciences, advanced manufacturing, alternative energies, and national security -- all GREAT Democratic talking points thanks to a Democratic State Executive.

  3. Labor Unions.  Vociferously democratic.

  4. Hunting, foresting, tourism.  Many states are turning to tourism for dollars.

  5. State pride.

  6. Small towns ravaged by loss of manufacturing.  They could do well with some tourism dollars and state pride thanks to a Presidential Primary.

  7. Detroit.  America's "Black City," and ravaged by poverty, illiteracy, and crime.  It's also America's only urban center to go UNDER 1,000,000 in population.  No appeal there whatsoever?

Michigan is a big state, but it's also a DEBTOR state.  It's a challenged state.  And it's heavily Republican outside of labor and the cities of Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint, and Kalamazoo.

Need I go on?  

[ Parent ]

I get all that (none / 0) (#228)
by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:39:12 PM EST
And you probably have one of the best public universities in the country. As a Wisconsin alum I say that grudgingly. But can you give me a number for the economic stimulus of a primary campaign once every 4 years?  I bet the NCAA regional basketball tournament in Detroit this year did far more. Even one Detroit Tigers game probably does more. If they make the playoffs again you will probably get a couple decades of political primary spending equivalents.

I can see the benefit of a national spotlight for a week discussing MI and getting the candidates to promise to help but I don't get the campaign dollars having lasting effect.

[ Parent ]

I appreciate (none / 0) (#248)
by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:36:59 PM EST
the compliment to my alma mater, Michigan State.

In exchange, I will mention that the Wisconsin Ultimate Frisbee team threw us a hell of a party in Madison once upon a time.

[ Parent ]

Short term v. Long term. (none / 0) (#265)
by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:29:26 PM EST
Fans for a day, re: bi-partisan national sporting event coverage?

Or fans for a while, re: Democratic Presidential coverage?

Difference.

[ Parent ]

What was turnout like in MI (none / 0) (#176)
by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:57:29 PM EST
for the primary?  (You are the Steve from Mich, right?)  I mean in every other primary state (and even caucus states) turnout was off the charts.  It broke records. What about new voter registration.  Again,every other state had oodles of new voters - Dem voters.

I think that too many people did not participate because they thought their vote wouldn't count. Just counting the votes that were cast still disenfranchises voters because the entire process was tainted.

Yes, I want to seat MI and FL.  But the compromise has to seem fair - and outside of the pro-Hillary sites nobody thinks counting an election where one candidates name wasn't on the ballot is fair.  

[ Parent ]

It was (5.00 / 4) (#196)
by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:08:34 PM EST
strong turnout, as I recall, but not nearly to the level that we've seen in other states.

Here's the thing.  Obama figured there was no way he would win MI.  And so part of the strategic reason behind taking his name off the ballot was to decrease the chances that somehow, that election would end up counting.

To some extent, that worked, because yes it would be unfair to give him 0 votes at this point.  But once you realize the strategic thinking that went into the decision, you come to understand that there's not a whole lot of justice in any result.

Reality is that, talking points notwithstanding, everyone knew there was a chance those elections would end up counting at some point.  In Florida, the major newspapers all urged Democrats to get out and vote, citing a substantial likelihood that the results would end up getting counted in some fashion.  Obama took steps to make sure that would be less likely in MI, and what he did was probably a smart political move.  But this notion of an innocent, trusting Obama, blithely removing his name from the ballot because all the grownups had promised him the election wouldn't count, is really quite silly and I get tired of the people who push it.

As a MI native, it really burns me up to think that the state might somehow end up in McCain's column.  It would kill me.  I will accept any resolution of this situation whatsoever, if it means we won't have to watch McCain win Michigan.

[ Parent ]

Yawn. (5.00 / 4) (#114)
by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM EST
You guys are so boring.

Do you ever, ever tell the truth about anything?

You could not care LESS about the rules. In fact, you don't even know what they are. Newsflash, the remedy in the RULES was the 50% solution. The Republicans did it and they're doing fine.

All you want is for Obama to beat HRC. We know it and you know it.

Please stop the intellectual dishonesty. It's pathetic.

[ Parent ]

digdugboy your comments (none / 0) (#252)
by cal1942 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:44:51 PM EST
are ridiculous.

Two things you've chosen to ignore:

The penalty under the RULES was for a 50% loss of delegates.

Before handing down a ruling the DNC is supposed to hold a hearing according to the RULES.

The DNC chose instead to break the RULES.

You wouldn't know fair if it bit you in the fanny.

[ Parent ]

digdugboy (none / 0) (#255)
by cal1942 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:02:20 PM EST
You are mindlessly suggesting that the voters in the 8th largest state in the union be ignored.

A re-vote was approved by the DNC and Obama refused.

That being the case, the only fair solution is that the January 15 vote be used as is.

Including the 8th largest state in the process and doing it according to the only indication of the decision of Michigan voters is the only fair and equitable course.

You have no moral or ethical leg to stand on and your GE calculus is foolish.

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised they decided (none / 0) (#23)
by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:10:13 PM EST
to remove some of what she earned.

I think the uncommitted may as well be his.

But a 10 del spread is not really reflective of the vote that occurred.

Are the extra 8 Obama dels designed to be a final FU?

[ Parent ]

And that's (none / 0) (#238)
by cal1942 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:16:31 PM EST
the only legitimate solution.  

Since Obama refused a re-vote his position is that either the state's voters be ignored altogether, deligitimizing a possible nomination or he should be forced to accept the only legitimate indication of the decision of Michigan's voters and that's the LEGAL election held on January 15.

The election was called by statute under Michigan law and administered as a public election by the state of Michigan.

[ Parent ]

That's (none / 0) (#245)
by cal1942 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:30:37 PM EST
the only legitimate solution.  

Since Obama refused a re-vote his position is that either the state's voters be ignored altogether, deligitimizing a possible nomination or he should be forced to accept the only legitimate indication of the decision of Michigan's voters and that's the LEGAL election held on January 15.

The election was called by statute under Michigan law and administered as a public election by the state of Michigan.

[ Parent ]

The Michigan Proposal is Unfair to Hilllary | 252 comments (252 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft