"Ex Ante Fairness"

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

In a comment to this post, Hilzoy writes

I think ex ante fairness is, as you say, crucial. That said, I really, really, really hope that someone in the party is working very very hard to avoid a situation in which I have to decide what to do if Clinton wins through illegitimate means.

I will vote for [Clinton] in November if she is nominated fairly. (Which means no Michigan and Florida, and also no raiding pledged delegates.) . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) This is where the "rules are rules" crowd really bothers me, they actually are not for the rules. The DNC delegate selection rules (PDF) called for a number of things (Rule 21 provided Florida a safe harbor for its delegates; Rule 20C.1.a. provided for a 50% penalty, not complete stripping of the delegates; Rule 20.C.7 called for the DNC to perform an investigation of the Florida situation, it did not; and Rule 20.C.5 provides the DNC the opportunity to approve a new process for Florida and Michigan to devise alternative means of selecting their delegates). None of these ex ante rules have been followed to date. One is being worked on, the revote primaries. But in Hilzoy's mind, seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, even after a revote, violates ex ante fairness. Please. Not to mention the fact that the ex ante rules allows for "raiding pledged delegates." Yes, rules are rules, except when they are not. More . . .

Now I am on record for strongly supporting a revote in Florida and Michigan. Not because I worry about some obscure rules that no one really cares about anyway. I am for them because we must have accepted Florida and Michigan delegations at the Democratic Convention to establish the legitimacy of our chosen nominee and strengthen our chances in the Presidential and Congressional races in those states come November.

The Democratic Party needs "legitimacy." Not only in the selection of its nominee, but for the Party itself in Florida and Michigan. And believe you me, if Obama wins BECAUSE Michigan and Florida are excluded, as Hilzoy hopes, his nomination will NOT be viewed as legitimate by many many people, especially the people of Florida and Michigan. Nor will the Party look legitimate.

What we need to do is stop pretending that these "rules are rules" arguments are anything but political posturing and start dealing with the reality that we need revotes in Florida and Michigan. And we need them for Obama the nominee as well as Clinton the nominee. But mostly we need them for the Democratic Party.

Pretending that you are standing for "the rules," even though the rules have been left by the wayside by EVERY PLAYER involved in this (the DNC, Obama and Clinton) may allow you to feel high and mighty, but besides being nonsense, it hardly solves the problem of establishing the legitimacy of our nominee nor our political problem in November in Florida and Michigan.

Let's get real. Let's revote Florida and Michigan.

< Spitzer Political Implications | ABC News: Spitzer, Not the Prostitution Ring, Was the Subject of Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    Hopefully this means, "No seating the Michigan and Florida delegates without a revote".

    Shut up, Dodd (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:09:09 PM EST
    Sen. Christopher Dodd said Monday there's a simple way to end the wrangling between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama over Florida and Michigan delegates: divide them evenly between the two Democratic presidential candidates.



    Spoken like an Obama backer (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:20:57 PM EST
    which, of course, Dodd is with his earlier endorsement.

    So read it for what it really is:

    This comes straight from Obama.

    So then the question is:

    Is this speaking like a president of a democracy?


    Shut up Dodd (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:12 PM EST
    This is the worst of it. This silly BS. Just shut up.

    I'm sure the Clinton campaign has a list. . . (none / 0) (#76)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:03:04 PM EST
    of other states in which the same policy could be applied.

    Texas! (none / 0) (#117)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    Half  to   Clinton,   half  to  Obama.  

    (Heads   expected  to  explode)


    All the Clinton camp lacks... (none / 0) (#130)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    ...is the gall to make the suggestion. Now, which candidate was the one who will do anything to win? Well, it's possible that Dodd spoke without consulting Obama, so I'll give him a break, although if a Clinton supporter made this suggestion then the word "surrogate" would be flying through the air at the speed of light.

    That's a big help. I would be absolutely (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    furious if I were a FL voter and they did that. I can't believe these people don't realize how foolish they look. And I like(d) Dodd. Is it a seat at the convention that matters or the vote of the people?

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:21:10 PM EST
    Heck,    Clinton  got   close  to   350,000  more  votes  than  Obama  in  Florida.  She  beat  all  the  guys, including   McCain  and  Romney,  with  lil  Obama  coming in  4th  place.  

    Split   them up  evenly?  I  don't  think  so.


    FL voter here (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:30 PM EST
    Yes, that is the worst idea of all - Obama has floated that as well.  Why bother? It just lets the delegates go to the convention as long as they promise not to have a voice.  Ridiculous - Dodd was actually my first choice, but he has clearly taken leave of his senses.

    Did he really suggest that? (none / 0) (#131)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:24:18 PM EST
    I suspect that is a rumor. I can't believe that Obama would be dumb enough to suggest to Florida votes that their votes should just be ignored.

    Click on the link, (none / 0) (#141)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:33:05 AM EST
    see BTD's entry above. It's true. No rumor.

    Is there a lot of media coverage in (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:47:53 PM EST
    FL about re-vote, no revote, FL Dem. delegates, etc.?

    MI Voter here (none / 0) (#140)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:24:00 AM EST
    My bet is that Dodd is fronting for Obama.  In the Carville back and forth Obama's guy, as I recall, refused to commit to a plan instead repeating that they would follow the rules (with the hope that the rules would be favorable to them). Dodd's 50-50 split is an insult to voters in both states. It, in effect, is the same as not seating the delegations. How dumb does he think we are?

    I've said from the start that the delegate counts in each state should be reduced by 25%, but the vote, the proportion, remains as is.

    A revote in Michigan would be deluged by Republicans, as happened in 1972.


    "In 1972, for instance, there were nearly 1.6 million ballots cast in Michigan's Democratic primary compared to barely 300,000 in the Republican primary, as a flood of Republicans and independents entered the Democratic primary to give George Wallace a landslide victory."

    In 1972 Nixon was the incumbent so there was no need for Republicans to vote in their own primary.  If a revote were held there would be no corresponding Republican primary as there was in January to keep Republicans from messing up the Democratic primary.

    The primary/caucus system is seriously flawed as it is, inviting Republicans to pick our candidate only worsens the situation.


    That's just so stupid (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:16:09 PM EST
    it's unbelievably against the spirit of an election.  How can people not recognize that?  To me the DNC has to find a way to make the egg plop on their faces to that the election is run in such a way that both candidates are energized, excited, and reaching out.  

    How MI/FL affects Obama depends on how he deals with the problem.  If he embraces it and acts like a frontrunner, maybe he'll stop the popular vote bleeding and be a narrow but legitimate winner come the convention.  That's fine by me.  In which case he should actively reach out to her demographic.  Being 'so over' older female voters doesn't cut it.  


    That's as wise a Solomon a solution (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    As cutting the baby in two, but advocating precision in the cut.

    A revite vua oaper ballots is a win for each candidate, for their respective supporters, for the Dems and for the democratic process.

    In a previous thread about this, someone suggested getting Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan to advise and supervise as per their expertise at overseeing elections around the world.

    Only TeamObama (via a spokesman) objected on a tissue thin premise, and looked really bad doing it, while Carville gave reason after reason for how easily, cheaply, fairly and transparently it could be redone.  


    Nail, meet head (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by OldCoastie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:38:02 PM EST
    I'm surprised by the "roolz is the roolz" talk... I think that leaves a choice of Obama with the nomination vs a Democrat in the White House...

    call me crazy, but I'd prefer the 2nd...

    Some are talking about caucus states (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    actually, at other blogs I've skimmed today.  First, they don't understand that delegates from caucus states are yet to be allocated, with more steps in the process.  Also, they don't understand -- nor do media -- that the proverbial rules in this state mean exactly that there is no allocation yet to candidates, that the numbers could change, as each step from local to county to state essentially repeats and revisits the process of caucusing.

    Most interesting is that again what is going on here is attacking Clinton for just talking about what Obama already is doing.  Reports from several caucus states, some on these very blogs to great joy, are that the Obama camp is working hard to put in its own delegates to the next step of caucusing, so as to increase the allocation of Obama delegates at the next steps.

    But that, of course, somehow is not seen as Obama "stealing pledged delegates" to the national convention from Clinton.  Every word of that phrase shows the ignorance of the process.  They are not allocated/pledged yet so can't be stolen; there aren't even national delegates yet.

    I get so weary of the lies or at least low-information level of these bloggers and their commenters.

    You have some links to back that up (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:46:02 PM EST
    About Obama "raiding pledged delegates?"

    Okay, I'll do it for the greater good -- (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:49:32 PM EST
    I'll go back to the orange madness and try to find those; that's one where I was today for a while.

    Please do (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:55:07 PM EST
    I will reward you with a hat tip in a post about it. No, no I insist!

    Bribes are effective (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    but I'd do it anyway.  

    Still looking for one on that site today but had to come up for air.  However, googling a few of the keywords got me to a 500+ comment diary from almost a month ago -- I had no idea this idiocy had been going on that long -- entitled "Clinton to Go After Obama's Pledged Delegates."

    And now I am going to try but inevitably fail in embedding the <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/19/7648/39264/141/459561">URL,</a> so you can just delete this afterward and get your daily quota of grandiosity out of the way.


    Cream City (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    Type the word you want the link to belong to in the box.

    Like Source, for example.

    Go get the URL, highlight and copy (Ctrl C).

    Highlight the word "Source" and then click on the chain icon above the box.

    When the box pops up, hit Ctrl V. Click OK.



    Thanks -- but that's (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:27:06 PM EST
    exactly the instructions I saved before and followed again.  But I used yours here again -- and with the same result; they just don't work.  Must be my new computer, new program on it, whichever.  Sorry.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:04:39 PM EST
    You broke the margins so I do have to delete it.

    Just give me the blog and some quotes next time. I'll find it.


    Here 'tis again (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:18 PM EST
    at dkos, the diary title: Updated: Clinton to Go After Obama's Pledged Delegates.  On 2/19/08.  It links its info, actually, as from Politico.  Also has missive from Obama office about this.  And the comments, all 500-plus, really get into all sorts of confusion about caucuses, processes, etc.

    And there has been no learning curve, as that's pretty much what I saw in some diary there again today, which sent me back here to the land of high-information voters.  It's just too wearying to teach 24/7.:-)


    Here's my sure-fire link method. (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    First, ignore the link/chain above the comment box.

    Copy and past the link inside the comment box.  Enclose the link in brackets:  [      ]  Just after the first bracket, put the word or phrase you want to show, highlight that word or phrase.  Preview.  If the word of phrase is in blue and the rest of the stuff in the bracket isn't visible, press post.


    Ditto (none / 0) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:22 PM EST
    There was a bit over at Politico with regards to Obama too.  I thought it was in relation to activities in Alabama.  I get annoyed and leave.  I need to keep track.

    Even explaining the delegate rules (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:20:45 PM EST
    is now seen as trying to steal delegates.  Clinton tried to enlighten a Newsweek reporter about how delegates work (I know, she has to be wondering why she bothers to talk to these people. It's like explaining the theory of relativity to my dog.) and the headline on TPM is that she is trying to steal Obama's pledged delegates.

    I laugh, I cry.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#47)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:24:07 PM EST
    And  to  think   TPM  used  to  be  the  cream of  the  crop,    with  "standards."    

    I  laugh  and  cry,  too.  


    I scream. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:38:15 PM EST
    I'm thinking of leaving the Democratic Party. . . (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:55:15 PM EST
    I did it the first time when Lieberman defeated Weicker in Connecticut.

    This time I'm not doing it over a candidate (I like Obama fine) but over my fellow Party members.  I'm not certain I want to be associated with such an incredibly stupid and nasty group of people.

    I understand (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:00:36 PM EST
    completely how you feel.  It's like I don't even recognize so many of my fellow travelers.  And I can never remember a primary that made me feel this way, ever.

    Not diminish your feelings, (none / 0) (#35)
    by corn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:15:53 PM EST
    but I don't get this sentiment.  Nor do I get the big disappointment with the blogs.  This is how it's always been.

    You must think he's talking about right-wing (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:18:47 PM EST

    No, I get the point. (none / 0) (#48)
    by corn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    But the assumption that all these left blogs transcend human nature is silly.  The details of this campaign season are unique but the overall dynamic is quite predictable and normal.

    I guess (none / 0) (#54)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    some of us expect bloggers (like human beings) to be civil.

    In prior years (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:35 PM EST
    no matter how vicious the disagreements got, I always had an easy time understanding that we're all on the same team in the end.

    Hey (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:59:45 PM EST
    It is the lesser of two evils.

    You could join Jay in the Libertarian Party though. He is nice and reasonable. And probably makes up a thrid of the membership in it so . . .


    Nah. . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    I'd just be an independent again.

    I can't really do it here in New York, of course, because it's like giving my entire vote away, but on the eave of what I hope is going to be a resounding Presidential victory I haven't been so depressed about Democrats for years.


    Me too (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:13:04 PM EST
    I have usually registered Independent in states where it was allowed, but mostly voted Dem.  I moved to FL two years ago and happily registered Dem.  The joke is on me.

    I started the primary season happy and pleased with all of the Dem choices.  Now I'm already sick of the two left. Can we re-vote in ALL the states?


    I like the candidates fine. . . (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:14:35 PM EST
    it's the voters who are pissing me off.

    True enough (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM EST
    I guess it's not fair to blame the candidates. Is there a keyboard shortcut for "and I'll support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is"?

    don't forget (none / 0) (#90)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    that you react to some of the loud voices but there are many others out there who more quietly and probably more reasonably aren't vociferous advocates for anything but fairness.

    But which is which? (none / 0) (#138)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:07:54 AM EST
    Herr Schwartzengruben here in California is a fairly moderate Republican and he is well liked (well, once he decided to stop picking on public employee unions). I'm betting that he's going to run for Feinstein's seat when she leaves it - and he will probably win (it's tough to campaign against The Terminator). Meanwhile, we have non-Democrat Democrats like Lieberman sabotaging the party at every turn. We rejected several highly qualified candidates in exchange for two interesting candidates, one of whom will probably not win, and the other of whom will probably screw things up if he wins. I need to take up drinking.

    Oh Those Libertarians (none / 0) (#142)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:44 AM EST
    And by joining the Libertarian Party you can be to the right of the Republican party on some issues and generally agree on most others.

    Basically a Libertarian is a Republican who wants to do a little dope without breaking the law.


    I almost registered Independent last week (none / 0) (#132)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    The craziness got to me. I just don't want to be associated with the kind of extremists I seem to see in the Democratic Party nowadays. I used to go to Free Republic to laugh at the monkeys in the zoo, now I go to Daily Kos. It breaks my heart that "the reality-based community" can be so totally irrational. But I didn't quit. There are a lot of Democrats I like. People who are working hard to make this a better country. I think that is why I'm fairly hostile to Obama. I used to like him, but seeing what he has "inspired" in people I used to respect has turned me completely off. I'm still trying to find a reason to like him again, though. I may forgive him for dividing my party IF he wins the general and IF he manages to not completely screw up the nation by the end of his first term.

    Hillary is actually following the rules (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:58 PM EST
    When FL and MI were suspended, or whatever the term is, it was written into the DNC rules that they could appeal to the credentials committee for reinstatement. When Hillary first addressed the subject, she said she would urge her delegates to vote for reinstatement. It's hardly flaunting the rules to say that an appeal filed under the rules should be granted.

    What's not in the rules is anything that says a candidate with fewer than 2,025 delegates gets the nom anyway if he's ahead in pledged delegates. That's more of a made-up rule.

    They're working the ref (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:39:29 PM EST
    I have to admire the Obama campaign's audacity. They have been expertly working the public and the Democratic Party leaders over this issue. They pretty much have the world convinced that whoever gets the most delegates has to win the convention.  The rules say differently, but Obama's people have the momentum and they're taking it. I now it's considered highly insulting to accuse a Democrat of being Rovian, but the best comparison I can think of is how the right-wing handled the Florida recount in 2000. They did not have the numbers on their side, but they managed to convince the public that if "X" happened then Bush had to be win, and they set the bar for where "X" was. Most people still don't know how badly they were manipulated.

    Agree that the world is buying it... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Rainsong on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:46:59 AM EST
    You are right dianem, it is being sold to the world-at-large. I was abroad during the 2004 primaries, no big news issue abroad then.
    I just spent 6 weeks in London and returned home to Oz where I have residency status, and in both countries I've been hassled with variants of "Obama-has-won-on-delegates-why-doesn't-she-do-the-right-thing" Most Americans dont understand the primary system, let alone the rest of the world, but the Hillary-Hate sure has been exported.

    I was stunned by Obama approaching overseas countries too, eg Canada re NAFTAGate, and the BBC interview with Samantha Power basically laying down the Grand Plan, audacity, indeed.

    "They have been expertly working the public and the Democratic Party leaders over this issue.

    Working the public is one thing, but the behaviour of the Party leaders is the one that has me most puzzled, (or even paranoid). Basically collapsing like a corporate merger or right-wing takeover, especially taking out FL and MI.  I'm surprised Hillary has done as well as she has!


    What I would like to know is (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:34 PM EST
    why we are allowing the Obama campaign to define legitimacy so that it always ends up anointing him as the nominee?  Because I really think that's what I'm hearing and reading.  They have an argument for every combination of votes and delegates and states won that always, always allows him to say, "I am The One!"

    And I'm getting kind of sick of it.  I know this is all about selling the candidate, but I am getting the same kind of feeling I get when I see an infomercial for something I know - I know - is never, ever going to be what it purports to be, even if - but wait! - there's more - is part of the package.

    I saw a clip of him speaking somewhere today, and he was going through the list:  I've won more states than she has, I've got more popular vote than she has, I've got more delegates than she has..." - and all of that was either just before or just after he gave the Malcolm X-don't-let-them-bamboozle-you section of his speech.

    I hear a lot of accusations that it is Hillary who feels entitled to the nomination, that she somehow thinks it is owed to her, but when I listen to Obama and to his surrogates and to the (somewhat) specious arguments they make about "the will of the people," I begin to think it is Obama who believes that having gotten this far, it is he who deserves the nod.  How can I not when there seems to be an inordinate amount of time being spent telling me what "the will of the people" means?

    Here's what I want, if anyone cares: I want the matter settled yesterday.  I want the voters of Florida and Michigan to participate in the process.  I want the DNC to (1) get its collective head out of its collective ass and (2) for Democratic Party members to make a concerted effort to boot Donna Brazile as far from Democratic Party decisions and "rules" as it is possible to do.  If Obama wants to be president, I want to see some leadership, not this namby-pamby, me-too thing he's got going on.

    Okay, I will shut up now.  Sorry for the rant.

    Please. Keep going. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:56:24 PM EST
    Did  you see  the  video  of  Obama  doing  the  ole  Malcolm  X   "okey-doke"  "bamboozle"  speech  for    his   mostly   Black  Mississippi  audience  today? (Just like  he did in South  Carolina).

    Gettin  a little  tired  of  that  nonsense ,  too.    

    Can't  have  it  both   ways,  Obama.  

    Pull  yourself  above   that  crap   or  admit  up  front  that you  USE  that  crap  for   certain  audiences.    


    I saw the same clip (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM EST
    and thought, "huhn?"  It reminded me of Bush saying, "I won!" when actually, he hadn't.  It's a good technique, though, because Bush said it enough that people thought he won, and once people thought he won, then he won.

    But, I don't think Obama has the kind of brass ones you need to make such a statement at this point.  We may be getting close, though, and then it'll really get interesting.


    It's called the "pre=emptive claim" (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:06:55 PM EST
    sort of, in advertising.  It really is rather scary how much of politics can be understood these days through the lens of advertising, marketing, and pr theories.  That says it all.

    If there is one thing Obama has... (none / 0) (#134)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:41:17 PM EST
    it's "brass".  

    From a Democrat Abroad.. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Rainsong on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:45:43 PM EST

    I'm going to sit it out this year too. My understanding was the whole superdels thing was set up to act as a firewall in case the Party nomination process went pear-shaped. Most years it doesn't, so is a non-issue.

    The delegate math has too many biases which can be exploited, and I have to agree with realclearpolitics that the Party has become increasingly irrelevant over time:

    Delegate math

    It has become the candidates basically dictating how the Party should behave, eg dictating how the superdels should vote, how the rules should be interpreted and twisting rules (that most Americans dont understand anyway) to get their way.

    Party voters should just fall in line, whoever it is, and this year, Obama is winning the arguments. I may be just one Party voter, but I will not vote for the guy, for a whole host of reasons, including his lack of experience, but his lack of Party positioning is the final straw. I won't be bullied into accepting a Party nominee who ignores the Party policies and core principles, and its Party rules, then campaigns like a Republican, and supports Republican policies, all in the name of 'unity'. Not this year anyway.

    Well said. (none / 0) (#118)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:07:15 PM EST
    On The Mark (none / 0) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:44:07 AM EST
    What's really stunning is that Obama supporters can't seem to see it.

    His Milton Friedman Memorial Economics team of Cutler, Goolsbee and Liebman are, to me, an indication that his attacks from the right and his reconciliation blather aren't just schtick.

    And that scares the sh*t out of me.


    good points BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:37:19 PM EST

    Sigh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:52:32 PM EST
    Even Hilzoy, one of the consistently wisest voices in the blogosphere, has become sadly unreadable on the topic of Hillary Clinton.  What a sad affair this primary is.

    Heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    She still loves Jeralyn though. Me? Not so much. Then again, J. does not call her out on her nonsense like I do.

    You think that has something to do with it?


    Many people appreciate being called out. . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:56:12 PM EST
    on their nonsense.

    That is, no doubt, the root of your great affection for me.


    No one believes me (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    but I enjoy learning something new. Rarely happens in the blogs these days.

    something new? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    panda bears have an enlarged wrist bone that works sort of like a human thumb.

    And here I was thinking that only humans had opposable thumbs.  Might explain some of the recent blogs lately...


    I knew that . . . (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    Did you know this? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:48:50 PM EST
    Thank you; I can be more forgiving (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:55:41 PM EST
    now that I can tell myself, whenever I see stupid comments or diaries or entire orange blogs, that this is not really the work of American citizens.  That gets me so depressed about this democracy.

    Instead, I will envision that it is all the work of the Fighting Panda Keyboardists, imported from China and fed fresh bamboo shoots to keep them tapping idiocies with those opposable thumbs.

    It actually may be the best explanation of what we have witnessed recently.  I mean, who has proof that these blogs are the works of humans?  If so, let's see the evidence.  Link?


    Peas are members of the family Fabaceae (none / 0) (#136)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:50:45 PM EST
    Formerly "Leguminosae", but changed because of new rules requiring that the name include a member of the family (i.e. the "Faba Bean". The original name "leguminosae" gave rise to the common term "legume". for peas and beans. Alfalpha is also a legume, as iare clover and vetch (cover crops). They are used to feed livestock and protect fallow ground since they produce nitogen in nodules on the roots, fertilzing the soil as they grow. Peas, beans, peanuts, lentils... all Legumes. As are clovers (Roll me over in the Clover!!!).  Perfect in time for St. Patricks day. Also Acacia and Lotus (which is a bit weedy, actually, so don't grow it).

    If you already know this, I can do something on Orchids. I'm good at orchids.  


    That's why! (none / 0) (#149)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:10:20 AM EST
    I never understood how "Fabian" could mean "bean farmer".  Now it makes sense!

    (BTW - I'm a non-degreed hort person.)


    I especially enjoyed this reply to (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:43 PM EST
    one of your comments this weekend:

    You could plausibly argue it
    but it was billed AT THE TIME as "an addiitonal commitment" by Obama and Edwards, so your argument would not be very convincing.

    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:59:25 PM EST
    you are much peskier than Jeralyn.

    The defining characteristic of CDS is that when Hillary Clinton does the exact same thing every other pol does, it somehow becomes a crime against humanity.  I cannot explain why people react this way to her.

    Here is today's example from the blogosphere.  If you look down to the 10th paragraph - the one about 9/11 and the Patriot Act - I trust you will agree that it is a classic of the genre.


    I did not get down that far (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:03:00 PM EST
    I was arrested here:

    "We are thrilled with this near split in delegates and are grateful to the people of Wyoming for their support."

    Williams is implying one of two things here.

    The first could be that she is stating it really was a close call, that a 61% - 38% victory for Barack Obama is a near miss on Clinton's part.  That's a tough sell.  A 23% difference isn't really that close.

    The only alternative is that Williams is implying that even though the overall vote totals were lopsided in Obama's favor, the delegates broke in a much more even way.

    Implying? Alternatives> She SAID she was thrilled with the near split in delegates. The delegates split 7-5. Does anyone speak English anymore? Or do they speak "whut" (Pulp Fiction reference) in Obama land?



    Trust me (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    you really, really need to keep reading!

    Somehow an incredibly unremarkable example of political spin becomes a horror straight from the mind of Joseph Goebbels, when the Clinton campaign does it.

    Obama can proclaim himself the winner of Texas, but if Clinton says she got a near split in delegates in Wyoming, release the hounds!


    Eh (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:08:46 PM EST
    Reads like a 9/11 conspiracist to me. Who is this blogger?

    Heck if I know (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:51 PM EST
    Who is any blogger?

    Hilzoy's anguish over the issue of whether she can possibly support Hillary reminds me of yesterday's installment from teacherken, frankly.  But that's who he is.  She is better than that.


    Looks like Williams (none / 0) (#144)
    by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:11:56 AM EST
    is also responsible for $4/gallon gas, the soaring national debt, the Iraq War and Bin-Laden. Amazing what a positive comment about a 7-5 delegate split can cause.

    I'm beginning to believe that future sociologists will have a field day with this election. And I've also come to the conclusion that Clinton has become TO SOME the National Scapegoat. They have pent up anger at the present US situation which by rights should be released at Bush but neither he nor Cheney is running this year, so there is no real public forum to speak that anger. Plus, since the electorate put Bush in office twice(yeah, I know, once with a big assist from the SC), anger could just as rightly be directed at the electorate in general(and even in some cases, at themselves individually), but that's too close to home as an entity to safely direct anger there, and too threatening to the ideal of democracy.

     Decades of Hillary bashing have made venting one's anger at Hillary safe and socially sanctioned. Thus one can redirect one's anger in a socially and politically approved direction by venting at Clinton. I think this is also one of the reasons for the continually re-manufactured outrage about utterly mundane things that Clinton says or does. Clinton is the Scapegoat that must be driven into the wilderness.  


    DO THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT? (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    The scene is on YouTube.


    makes me (none / 0) (#150)
    by OldCoastie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:13:41 AM EST
    kinda dizzy when I read stuff like that... and slightly naseous too...

    Well, in fairness to hilzoy (none / 0) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    she did respond to a comment I made on her blog that she would support seating the FL and MI delegates in the event of a re-do.

    No word yet, though, on whether she thought on principled grounds that a re-do should be implemented (roughly equivalent to another question I asked her).

    Hint. . . (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:02:46 PM EST
    people who want the re-do to be in the form of a midnight caucus at Starbucks are probably not acting in a disinterested way.

    I did not see that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:46 PM EST
    In a different thread?

    same thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:07:25 PM EST
    just a few minutes ago, so near the bottom if not at the bottom

    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:10:07 PM EST
    Why didn;t she say so in the first place? IS she NOT aware that the Clinton camp is working hard for revotes while the Obama camp is trying its darndest to avoid them?

    Ask her the moral implications of that?


    BTD (none / 0) (#37)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    Didn't   Daschle  say  the  campaign  would   support    re-votes    on  MTP?

    Accept them (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:41 PM EST
    is what he said.

    Kerry was much more slippery.


    I saw that (none / 0) (#68)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    Kerry  was  indeed    slippery.   I  would  call it   "mushy."   But that's  who  he is, isn't  it?  

    How  come  so many of  Obama's  significant  supporters  (Daschle,  Kerry)   voted  FOR  the  war  just  like   Clinton   did?    

    Daschle  practically    kissed  Bush/Cheney  butt  during  that  time.  


    And the other side of the coin (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:08:38 PM EST
    Clark, who didn't support the war, is for Clinton.

    Go figure!

    I think it would redefine the narrative on that vote, but alas that narrative has now been pushed out the collectice buttocks of the blogosphere and the main stream media in the form of a bright shiny diamond!


    LOL (none / 0) (#120)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:02 PM EST
    Hey: (none / 0) (#112)
    by hilzoy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:55:37 PM EST
    you're the one who decided to make an issue of your interpretation of the words "no Florida and Michigan" in one comment. You could have asked what I meant.

    Since the discussion has been about revotes (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:03 PM EST
    now for the past 5 days, I assumed you meant revotes.

    We keep a close eye on the revote issue here. The chances of the existing delegation being seated have been zero for some time now.


    more to the post (none / 0) (#127)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST
    There's a whole argument besides that comment.

    Obsidian wings? (none / 0) (#18)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:02:00 PM EST
    More like "Obama's Ding-a-lings".
    Yeah, I know, I thought of that one all by myself.

    Let's dis with distinction (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    no more of that please.

    Let us be masters of the language. Use Wolcott as your compass.


    Does this mean (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    we  can call  them   crybabies   and  drama  queens?   Wolcott    pretty much  did  that.

    Well, what you think can be slightly different (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    from what you say.

    Fair enough :) (none / 0) (#69)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    Melancholy babies is o.k. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:20 PM EST
    Fwiw (none / 0) (#44)
    by hilzoy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    It was an offhand comment. By "no Michigan and Florida", I meant: not without a redo, not: no Michigan and Florida evan after a redo. I wrote a comment clarifying that, after someone asked.

    Will You Refuse To Vote For Obama (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    if he  raids Clinton's pledged delegates?

    As I have said all along, (none / 0) (#114)
    by hilzoy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:09 PM EST
    I will vote for whichever is the nominee.

    I said in the very comment BTD is quoting that I would vote for Clinton if she raided Obama's pledged delegates, but that I hoped it wouldn't get to that.


    Actually you wrote the opposite (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    I will vote for [Clinton] in November if she is nominated fairly. (Which means no Michigan and Florida, and also no raiding pledged delegates.)

    Emphasis mine.


    Whole para: (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by hilzoy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    "I will vote for her in November if she is nominated fairly. (Which means no Michigan and Florida, and also no raiding pledged delegates.) I very, very much want to avoid having to decide what to do if she is nominated unfairly. I suspect I will close my eyes and think of the Supreme Court. In fact, I know I will. To my mind, Clinton's various problems absolutely pale in comparison to those of the Republican party."

    (Emphasis added.)

    And a bit later, same comment, I say that under certain circumstances I will be angry, but:

    "I will not express this anger by staying home on election day."


    So you're saying. . . (none / 0) (#49)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:24:26 PM EST
    you want a do-over on your comment?

    It could be a trend (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:45:52 PM EST
    we're seeing here.  Let's lead the way by "redoing Michigan and Florida."  Heck, if we can redo entire states -- the phrase does bring to mind possibilities that are wonderful; I can think of several states that ought to start over with where they drew initial boundaries, reversed river flows for canals, put roads through paradises, and that's just topography; there are some state constitutions that could use a serious redo -- why not comments?

    Let's just change everything.  Admit it, we screwed up not just since 1776 but at least since 1607.  We haven't just screwed up the last few months; we've been making a mess of things for more than 400 years.  

    Actually, I want a redo of everything since 1492, using Dodd's plan.  Which half of the country do you newcomers want?  


    Even more so. . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:04:33 PM EST
    I like this idea of just inventing results so it's fair to everyone.  50/50?  Sure!  No doubt the Clinton campaign can propose some additional states in which to use the same system!

    We can revert to the original (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:12:23 PM EST
    plan by Thomas Jefferson for the Northwest Territory and have 12 more states!  I mean, who's gonna mess with Thomas Jefferson?  He beats Donna Brazile, hands-down, any day.

    I even have a copy of his map and the names of the states all ready.  Of course, it would mean reverting back to Jefferson's state lines, and that would put Chicago back in Wisconsin, although it's not called Wisconsin, but . . . we can make it work.

    Nah.  Dodd would just say skip the primaries and just give each candidate six of the 12 new states. And Thomas Jefferson would weep.


    It is worth everything frankly (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:38:45 PM EST
    If you are for a revote, then say so.

    I am.


    Let me expand (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:41:47 PM EST
    At this point, the only way Florida and MI seat their delegation as is is if Obama insists upon it to avoid a Revote.

    Dean has said no to it and the Clinton camp is arguing for revotes.

    The reticent ones are the Obama camp.

    What does Hilzoy think of that?


    Actually. . . (none / 0) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM EST
    Dean has invited FL and MI to take their chances with the credentials committee.

    He has also welcomed (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:12:01 PM EST

    Yes, but he has NOT. . . (none / 0) (#92)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    ruled out seating the existing delegations, as you stated.

    He pretty much did (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:22:20 PM EST
    Read his quotes. He did.

    All for it. (none / 0) (#108)
    by hilzoy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:38 PM EST
    I'm fine with revotes. Always have been.

    Acceptable are they? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
    That's nice.

    I have said so consistently. (none / 0) (#116)
    by hilzoy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:55 PM EST
    So it shouldn't be a surprise.

    You did not say so in that comment (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:32:15 PM EST
    By Definition . . . (none / 0) (#45)
    by Doc Rock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:22:11 PM EST
    . . . Hilzoy defines a Clinton nomination such that it must be 'illegitimate.'  This has been the thrust of Obamaites for quite awhile--"if we don't get our way, we may not play."

    Take (none / 0) (#50)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:26:36 PM EST
    their  little  red  ball  and  go home.   Throw  themselves on  the  floor    and  kick  and  scream.   Hope  someone   gives  a   damm.  

    Where? (none / 0) (#107)
    by hilzoy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    I do no such thing.

    And I have consistently argued against people who threaten not to vote Democratic if their candidate doesn't win.


    hilzoy.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Rainsong on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:18:12 AM EST
    ..up until a few weeks ago, I would have agreed with you, a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat etc -- better than a Republican no matter how bad. Been that way since I was first old enough to vote in 1980.

    But not this year. Obama has crossed my personal line. Usually I'm quite comfortable to vote for a Democratic Party nominee, even if not my preference, but in my personal view, this particular one, is not a Democrat.

    At best, he represents a faction of the Party that is well on its way to dominating the Party, a faction I strongly disagree with on almost everything, (and scares the sh*t out of me), and therefore, its no longer the Democratic Party I  want to vote for.

    But don't worry, being a math geek I'm probably just an errant statistical outlier, and most everybody else will just fall under the bell curve.


    You keep making this argument (none / 0) (#70)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:55:17 PM EST
    But it's a bad one.  There is a fundamental difference between changing the rules before the competition, and changing them after.

    It's the difference between the strike zone being changed before the game, and being changed after the pitch has already been thrown.

    I agree with you that Michigan and Florida should revote, but counting their previous votes would absolutely be unfair.  

    The rules haven't been followed during the (none / 0) (#75)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    entire process.  We are not talking about changing the rules for the sake of changing the rules.  I'd like it if they had followed the rules from the beginning.  But we are beyond that point and sane heads need to prevail and try to mend this screwup.  

    The rules have been followed (none / 0) (#78)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:03:44 PM EST
    since the first elections were held.  

    But I agree, sane heads need to prevail to mend the screw-up.  In doing so, they need to understand that counting the previous FL or MI votes without Obama's consent is a non-starter.

    Luckily, I believe they do realize that.  


    But not before (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:22 PM EST
    At least you admit that. Thank you.

    No they haven't. And having to have another (none / 0) (#86)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:52 PM EST
    election in MI because BO and JE took their names off the ballots is wrong.  They did this voluntarily and should suffer the consequences.  

    You must keep missing the rule (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:04:07 PM EST
    that says the rules can be changed.  Really.  There is a rules committee.  Also can be the task of the credentials committee.  And the delegates themselves can do so at the convention.  Dems are so democratic.

    It's really very all-American, one of the things I just love about us -- that our founders had the humilitas to put right into our Constitution that it can be amended.  Voila, no coup d'etats for more than 200 years.

    Well, except for the attempted coup d'etat in the Dem party.  


    You must be missing the concept (none / 0) (#89)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:12:29 PM EST
    of "ex ante fairness."

    It's not a rule, it's a principle.  

    Stripping FL and MI of their delegates may or may not have been against the rules, but it was not unfair to the candidates because it took place before the campaign began and anyone knew who would benefit.  

    Retroactively counting votes that weren't supposed to count may or may not be against the rules, but it would be unfair to the losing candidate.

    Luckily, as we've discussed many times on this blog, this isn't going to happen. The only way to seat FL and MI (if doing so would throw the election from Obama to Clinton) is for the non-FL and MI delegates to vote to do it.  But if Clinton has the votes to do that, she wins anyway.


    Can you POSSIBLY think (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:21:29 PM EST
    about fairness to CITIZENS and not the precious candidates?

    This is freaking unbelievable.

    Florida AND Michigan took their actions under the existing rules. The FLORIDA DEMS had every right to rely on Rule 21.

    They got screwed. They received NO ex ante fairness.

    Stop this. Please stop.


    No, he can't (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:29:42 PM EST
    because it isn't about the voters, it's about Obama.

    I like apples AND oranges (none / 0) (#102)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:21 PM EST
    So I want fairness to the citizens AND the candidates.  Which is why I favor a revote.

    Fairness to the candidates is paramount, though, because after all, this is a competition between candidates, not states.


    seems to me... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    that the guy who proclaims to be transcendent of politics as usual needs to find a way to include the voters in MI and FL.

    He has 2 ways to do that.

    • He can allow the delegates per the voting
    • He can insist that there be a re-vote

    But failing to do either demonstrates that his interest in transcendent politics goes only as far as it benefits his election which exposes his limitations.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by xspowr on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:48 PM EST
    The Obama supporters' meme vis-a-vis MI and FL appears to be shifting from "rules are rules" to a more general concept of "fairness" in support of not counting the original votes.  Closely related concepts, to be sure, but nevertheless distinct.  Apparently a reaction to the "rules" meme losing much of its traction the last few days.  Both arguments, of course, ignore the practical and political consequences for the GE of not counting MI and FL votes, in favor of a candidate-centric point of view focused solely on the nomination.

    It's always been about fairness (none / 0) (#104)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:44:23 PM EST
    A lot of people have just been missing that point.

    The consequences of not counting MI and FL are real and need to be taken into account.  They are not being ignored, at least by this Obama supporter.

    The argument has NEVER been that MI and FL should not be seated and everyone should be happy about that.

    The argument has been that seating them would be unfair to Obama if that made the difference in the primar.  And not incidentally, taking nomination away from Obama unfairly would not be helpful for the general election either.

    Therefore, the argument has been, we should all pray that FL and MI are not decisive.  Now that that didn't work out, there is simply no good solution other than revotes or Obama's consent to seating the previous delegates.


    And not seating them would be unfair to Hillary. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    Give me a break, kid.  This is supposed to be a democracy; you know, one person-one vote concept.  And "taking the nomination away from Obama unfairly"?  He hasn't won the nomination.  The magic number, in case you haven't been paying attention, is 2025 delegates.  

    No it wouldn't (none / 0) (#111)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM EST
    Be unfair to Hillary because it would be following the rules that were established at the beginning of the primary seasons.

    I didn't say Obama already won the nomination, I said that if at the end of the primaries he would win without FL and MI but lose with them, then it would be taking away the nomination.

    For reasons stated may times on this blog , this is extremely unlikely to happen. But I don't see why people keep denying it would be unfair if it did happen.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#129)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:09:42 PM EST
    the rules that were established at the beginning of the primary season called for a penalty of half the delegates.

    the rules also called for states like NH to be penalized if they went out of turn and jumped the agreed-upon schedule, which never happened.

    rules are rules, except when they are not.


    And it went out the window when (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:28 PM EST
    the DNC didn't follow its own rules.

    That's why the DNC itself lacks legitimacy in resolving this.


    this argument is kool-aid (none / 0) (#139)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:59 AM EST
    I know, because it's the same argumen that the Supreme court used to stop Florida's recount in 2000.  They argued that if the recount showed Gore ahead, then Bush (the rightful winner) would end up having his standing as President diminished to the detriment of the nation. So they stopped recount and declared Bush President. I don't know what was in the courtroom kool-aid pitcher that day, but it was potent stuffl

    Scalia anyone? (none / 0) (#145)
    by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:22:07 AM EST
    Retroactively counting votes that weren't supposed to count may or may not be against the rules, but it would be unfair to the losing candidate.

    Sounds like the reasoning in Bush v. Gore


    You should get your hearing checked (none / 0) (#151)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    If that's what it sounds like to you.

    Um (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:10:47 PM EST
    Hello? I have been arguing for a revote for month now. WTF are you talking about?

    Your (none / 0) (#91)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:15:27 PM EST
    "rules are rules except when they're not" argument is specious; it's based on an apples and oranges comparison between pre-competition and post-competition rule changes that misses the fundamental distinction with respect to fairness.

    Your conclusion that there should be revotes is correct, but for other reasons -- most of which you have also stated.  I am only objecting to this particular argument.


    Specious (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST
    So the rule matter only AFTER Iowa, not before?

    And what of this change in the selected delegates rule that NOW say you cannot try and poach them when the rules clearly DO ALLOW that?

    You are specious on this. Utterly.


    Fairness to the candidates (none / 0) (#101)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:17 PM EST
    I am not talking about rules, I am talking about fairness to the candidates.  Seating the FL and MI delegations based on the earlier vote would not technically violate the rules, because if the votes are there to seat them, that is within the rules.  Same thing with pledged delegates.  

    But it would still be unfair to the losing candidate, because changing the rules after the competition has begun is unfair to the competitors -- even if there is a provision  in the rules that allow them to be changed.

    Stripping the FL and MI delegates was not unfair to the candidates.  It may have been unfair to the citizens of those states, but not to the candidates.  So it's apples and oranges.


    Why would a revote not be fair? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:52:15 PM EST
    It would be fair (none / 0) (#113)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:55:43 PM EST
    I'm in favor of it.

    So what the heck are we (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    arguing about?

    I'm totally in favor of a revote (none / 0) (#146)
    by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:30:20 AM EST
    if that gives the FL and MI voters a say.

    But this line that seating the current delegates would be "Unfair" to the loser is just ridiculous. Its Bush v. Gore ridiculous. If both candidates competed for votes under the same rules then it was not an unfair vote. And while seating the delegation would be disadvantageous to the loser, "disadvantageous" and "unfair" are not the same things.


    James Carville was just awesome on (none / 0) (#77)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:03:13 PM EST
    Larry King. I am in the minority, I know, but I love to listen to him. I'm going to a dinner for him in May and I hope the race is still alive at that point.

    Wildly misleading post (none / 0) (#152)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    Rule 21 doesn't provide a safe harbor.  It just requires the state party to take steps to remedy its rule-breaking.  It doesn't obligate the DNC to do anything.

    Rule 20 C.1 does provide for a 50% penalty, but 20 C.6 provides for additional sanction.  Rules followed.

    Rule 20 C.7 simply states what the DNC can do if it performs an investigation.  Nowhere does it suggest that the DNC is obligated to perform such an investigation.

    Rule 20 C.5 provides a means for the DNC to fix the problem.  It doesn't obligate it to do so.  And at least in the case of Florida, the state party rejected the DNC's offer.

    So, no rulebreaking by the DNC.  Even if tu quoque wasn't a fallacy, you wouldn't get anywhere with this because your premise - that the DNC has broken the rules - is incorrect.