FL Dem House Delegation Is Mad

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

This is rich:

In a crowded room in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Florida's Democratic House members met late into the evening but agreed on only two things: Any do-over election is unacceptable, and they're frustrated with Dean. Asked about his leadership before the meeting, Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa joked, "Who?"

(Emphasis supplied.) The House Dems, whose plan is NO plan and who are actively working to stymie the only viable plan on the table, are mad at Dean? Let me clue them in, Florida Dems are going to be mad at THEM when they found out the real obstacle to solving this problem, the group who is doing nothing to get Florida real representation at the Democratic Convention, and giving Florida Dems their voice back is THEM, the Florida Dem House delegation.

You know the old saying "lead, follow or get out of the way?" Someone needs to remind the Florida Dem House delegation about that one.

< Dickie Scruggs Pleads Guilty to Corruption in Miss. | A Federal Judge Matter We Won't Be Mentioning Here >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I tend to side... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    ...with the FL Dems actually.  It was Dean and the DNC who took action to prevent the seating of delegates.  As a matter of principle, you break it you buy it.  

    At best this is an embarrassment for the Dem party who - as usual - can't even align its own leadership.  Say what you will about Republicans, but they seem able to pull back from the brink and fall in line when it counts (witness McCain)

    Dean did not lead (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    He abdicated his responsibility.  It was outrageous that he allowed New Hampshire and Iowa to hold back to back primaries in the first 8 days of January, but did not broker a solution on Michigan and Florida before they voted.

    To let citizens go to the polls under the circumstances in Michigan and Florida was an abomination.  But the truth is no one gave a damn until it became apparent that these delegates would matter.

    The GOP was consistent in its application of its rules: it sanctioned Florida, Michigan, Iowa and New Hampshire for violating the rules.  The DNC catered to Iowa and New Hampshire, did nothing when New Hampshire jumped ahead of Nevada and then voted to take all of Michigan and Florida's delegates away.

    Look, I have been writing about this for nearly a year. The whole thing is a complete mess, and an utter emberassment to the Democratic Party both nationally and in Florida and Michigan.


    But what to do now (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    is the question.

    Seat them (2.50 / 2) (#67)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    That's been a remedy available from the start.  Florida got the shaft from the very beginning.  It didn't have much choice in the primary date in a state run by Republicans, it got a substandard "caucus" alternative, and it got a punishment that did not fit the crime.  In all of this, Dean had the option of saying, "We must make an exception here" but he didn't.  Then he allowed three other states to break the RULZ too without any penalty at all.  Now, either there is a gross lack of consistency here or the game was being rigged to make sure that one candidate got a lot of help and presumably, that candidate would be a clear winner and would seat the delegates at the convention.  But I guess they never anticipated that there would be a virtual dead heat.  
    So, loading the dice didn't work and at this point, Dean is just pissing off Florida, and by extension, NJ, NY, CA, AZ, MA, and OH.  Pretty soon, that will spread to PA.  
    There is no way that Obama can win this argument and every day he puts off making a decision on it makes it worse for him.  His best option is to seat them and look magnanimous about it.  Maybe he can use that good will to win other states.  But right now, both Dean and Brazile should be fired and Obama should have some wise guidance about the best course of action.  
    Which would be seating them.  NOW.

    He's already won the argument (none / 0) (#73)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:12:52 PM EST
    And no amount of all-caps will change that.

    That would be a very bad attitude to keep (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    Because those of us in the pro-Clinton states are much more numerous than in Obama's states and we're not going to take this lying down.  

    It's not an attitude, it's a fact (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    sorry to say, the Jan 29th results are not going to count.  Either a revote or nothing are your options.  Stay home or vote McCain or a third party if you want, but you're not going to get those delegates seated.

    Then count us out (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    Of your movement come November.

    If Obama supporters and independents can win the election all by themselves then I think you have nothing to worry about.


    I doubt you speak for (none / 0) (#111)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    every single person who voted for Clinton.  

    I neglected to mention one possibility that would allow for the Jan. 29 delegates to be seated, and that is if the outcome is already decided without those delegates.  Would that placate you?


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST
    Lets see if Obama cen win this as it stands, and then seat them as is if he can't.

    I don't think the latter is a possibility (none / 0) (#123)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    It's just not likely that the superdelegates would let the result of primaries that are problematic to say the least be outcome-determinative.

    Who's Crying Now? (none / 0) (#143)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:22:01 PM EST
    Stop with the crybaby "I'll take my ball and go home if I don't get my way" threats already.

    You're absolutely sure of that huh? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:54:47 PM EST
    If no re-vote occurs an appeal to the credentials committee would send a vote to the floor.

    Now even if Obama goes into the convention with the most pledged delegates; remember that those people are party regulars not Obama worshippers.

    Who is to say those pledged delegates wouldn't vote to seat a Florida delegation.  Their only pledge is to vote for Obama in the first round.

    And what about superdelgates.  Do you think they might want to appear to be supporting the will of the people to make up for the sins of the DNC?

    Obama may have a total popular vote edge but I believe the popular edge among Democrats only is still Clinton's.


    I think the superdelegates (none / 0) (#126)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    will put the good of the party above the "will of (some) people" to pretend a sham election is legitimate.  They may not be Obama worshippers but nor are they Clinton worshippers.

    To seat (none / 0) (#80)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:20:10 PM EST
    delegates elected in what was little more than half an election at best makes no sense.  The good news here is that polling in Florida suggests voters understand that, and a vast majority don't want the delegate allocated based on the primary vote.

    The truth is if Obama elects to play hard ball he is going to win.  He is going to have a majority on the credentials commitee, and the Clinton campaign prior actions on this issue give them no authority on the matter(eg Clinton's statement on Michigan in October, Ickes vote to punish Florida and Michigan).


    You are misreading the polls (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:25:38 PM EST
    Voters are in favor of revoting if there is no resolution to the disposition of the present delegation.  At this point in time, there is no reason for them to want to hold another primary unless they know there is no way of seating the delegates they already have.  
    I don't think Obama would do very well in a revote scenario.  He's still going to lose and lose big.  And that means he loses Florida twice.  That's a pretty clear message that Florida doesn't want Obama now and they won't want him in November.  
    Yep, he's screwed any way you look at it.  He might as well seat them.  

    Only thing is, (none / 0) (#160)
    by chudd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:47:05 PM EST
    even if he does lose, he will close the gap, most likely considerably, as he had done in every state so far.  So no, he doesn't lose if he goes from 50-33 (14 to Edwards) to 55-45.  Rather, as you can see, he narrows the lead by half.  

    In a state that McCain is going to win in the general anyway.


    Question about poll (none / 0) (#93)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    The good news here is that polling in Florida suggests voters understand that, and a vast majority don't want the delegate allocated based on the primary vote.

    I asked downthread but in case you don't see my request there, where are you getting this polling info? I've been looking at all the polls I can find but haven't seen anything that says this so if you could link me I would appreciate it.


    Link (none / 0) (#98)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#112)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:48:32 PM EST
    I can't believe I missed that poll before.

    Wow those results are not encouraging to finding a solution that will make people happy. I guess that isn't that surprising but still how close is amazing especially when using the margin of error (4%).

    24% Jan 29th vote
    28% Vote again
    28% Either split between candidates or no delegates (I added these together since they are the same result actually)
    20% Unsure


    We/re screwed (none / 0) (#74)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    No one has any moral authority on the issue.

    The Clinton campaign has none if you take the time to look at the record.  The DNC has none.  The Florida Democratic Party has none.  

    Let's start by seeing if we can agree to some principles (in no particular order)

    1.  Florida and Michigan should be represented at the Convention.
    2.  Any election that selects delegates should be free and fair to all candidates, and full campaigns should be conducted.
    3.  Florida and Michigan should not be put in a better position than if they had not violated the rules.

    The problem is 2 and 3 are not reconcilable.  If you hold a revote their power will be INCREASED and Florida and Michigan will be in a better position than had they held their elections on Super Tuesday. Also, holding a revote will make enforcing any rules in subsequent elections  impossible.  But the previous elections were not real elections, so if you don't hold a revote, you violate 2.

    In my view the Dodd plan actually is the best: it provides the states representation at the convention, it does not attempt to allocate delegates based on a fraudulent election and it does not put the states in a better position than if they hadn't violated the rules.  But it is AN AWFUL solution.  


    Wha? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    Here is my first principle - what is best for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!

    Then, fairness as much as possible for everybody involved.

    But 1 is MUCH MORE important than 2.


    The problem (none / 0) (#94)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    is at this point it is impossible to differentiate what is best for the party from who you support for the nomination.

    Which is why I tried to some up with a list of principles that everyone could support.

    There have to be delegates from these states, on that I think everyone can agree.  Beyond that I suspect that this will be resolved by a raw exercise in power.  Obama holds the cards here: his chief aid didn't vote to punish Florida like Hillary's did, and he has the votes to seat 50-50 delegations if it gets to the credentials committee.  


    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    It is easy to separate IF you want to.

    People choose not to separate the two.

    For example, there is NO doubt that a revote is favorable to the Dem Party.

    I think it is favorable to Clinton as well. But that does not change that it is favorable to the Dem Party.


    Why (none / 0) (#152)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:43:46 PM EST
    to the rest of the country it makes us look like idiots.

    The election was a fraud (none / 0) (#95)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    because the votes don't count, not because the election was held. You have the definition of 'fraudulent election' backwards.

    A revote meets all your criteria (none / 0) (#124)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    It will not put FL and MI in a better position.  They will have to go through the effort of holding a vote twice, with no guarantee that the election will still be close by June.  For example, if Obama wins PA it's all over April 23.

    It will actually make it easier to enforce rules in the future.  It will demonstrate that breaking the rules is a complete waste of time and money.


    NO (none / 0) (#153)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:44:49 PM EST
    Because it increases the impact that their primaries  will have on the final outcome, and destroys any incentive other states will have to follow the rules next time.

    we have the same options they have. (none / 0) (#8)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    they are known as concession speeches.

    Just an analogy... (none / 0) (#13)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    ...as I tend to think Republicans go too far in sacrificing dissent for the greater good.  With that said, I really don't get why Dean can't sit down with the candidates and hammer this out.  When everyone is accountable for a solution, no-one is accountable.

    According to this. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    There is nothing to hammer out.  They won't accept anything else.  So how is this on Dean or the candidates?

    I think that... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    ...legislators are piping up in the absence of a brokered solution from Dean and the candidates.  If Clinton comes out and agrees to a revote plan who's going to stop her from going forward?

    agreed as it goes with the refugs. (none / 0) (#22)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    as it goes with the dems, the question is when to concede?  obviously those who called for clinton to step down after iowa were wrong, just as they were after wisconsin.

    but now, there is an case to be made that long shots have costs.  when the downside outweighs the up you sell.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    Obama should take the VP slot behind Clinton and they should move on to fighting McCain.

    But. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    As Obama pointed out, why would the person who's won more votes and more states take second place?

    More states - (none / 0) (#135)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:08:15 PM EST
    Yeah, like Vermont, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Iowa.

    Including MI and FL Clinton has won 6 of the 8 largest states that have voted so far.  If Clinton carries PA she will have won 7 of the 9 most populous states.  Those 9 states are more than 50% of the nation's population.


    You would think... (none / 0) (#138)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:11:49 PM EST
    ...the concept of proportional representation has sunk in by now.

    are you keeping up with current affairs? (none / 0) (#37)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    he is not qualified and he is unelectable.

    Do you really think Hillary will win PA big... (none / 0) (#166)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:54:44 AM EST
    ... when Hillary is more disliked in Pennsylvania than Rick Santorum?

    Obama is setting the expectations today at ten points.  Given his come-from-behind history when he actually campaigns in a state, that's certainly more realistic than the 75-25 split Hillary would need to even begin to gain on Obama's delegate and popular vote lead.


    Nah, he doesn't pass (none / 0) (#38)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:38:18 PM EST
    The CinC threshold.  How can we allow such an inexperienced naif to be one heartbeat from the Presidency?

    that would be change, (none / 0) (#41)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:40:38 PM EST

    Dan Quayle (n/t) (none / 0) (#79)
    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    My kneejerk response to ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    almost everyone these days is:

    "You realize you're all quite mad."

    The collective madness afoot in the country these days is palpable.

    This weeks FL Dems join in.

    Disappointing, but not surprising.

    Ah well ...

    Obama's losses (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:19:13 PM EST
    Obama's losses in Pennsylvania are due to Clinton's negative campaign.  McCain is not equipped to run such a campaign (that's why he lost to Bush in 2000) and has already said he wouldn't run one against Hillary.  Hillary wants Obama to lose in 2008 so she can run again in 2012, pure and simple.

    please! enough! obama wins or loses (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:08:16 PM EST
    on his own merit and not because of big bad clinto. i am so sick of hearing that.

    Yes they are mad, (none / 0) (#1)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    mad, I tell you.

    But seriously, what is their reason for this? Are they trying to force the DNC to go with the Jan 29 results?

    They can't force that (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    It won't happen and holding your breath until you turn purple is not going to help.

    So I can just sit back, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    relax, and be entertained by them? OK.

    LOL (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    It works for Obama supporters!

    I thought you supported Clinton (none / 0) (#17)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    I'm not a typical Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    I'm like the only one that behaves like Obama supporters.

    I dunno about that (none / 0) (#90)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:27:23 PM EST
    They are certainly starting to point the finger at the right individual.  It won't be long though until Obama feels the backlash as well.  

    I think that is what they are doing (none / 0) (#18)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    I suspect the Clinton campaign may not be overly displeased with their antics.  They may be wrong to think that it will work, but I think that's what they are doing.

    Wasserman Schultz (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    can say she stood up for the original vote--without ever compromising, I guess.

    All of the Florida Democratic House members oppose a re-vote?  


    If you want to talk about fake Dems (none / 0) (#60)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    Wasserman Schultz should top your list.  Kos has been beating on her, and rightly so, for refusing to endorse the three democrats challenging U.S. House incumbents from Florida.  Totally inexcusable.

    She used to be (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    One of the three Dems who would keep the floor open all night to ask difficult questions about Iraq.

    She, Ryan, and another guy from FL I believe.


    She gave one of the most (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    compelling arguments on the House floor against the Schiavo legislation....

    I think she may be aiming higher....Florida Governor one day, or Nelson's seat in the Senate, could give her a platform for even higher office.....

    But she'll have to first figure out how to handle some of these "procedural" issues...


    She's holding firm on her position (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    Just the way she did on those other issues.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    And that may be the reason.....

    Nelson is more likely to get the delegation seated, or at least some of them....


    Some = None (none / 0) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM EST
    End of story.

    Is it better to look good losing (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:01:49 PM EST
    or accomplish a positive albeit less than ideal result?.....  The Hillary v. Obama style in a nutshell....

    I don't think Obama would look very good (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:17:11 PM EST

    What do you think?


    W-S. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    Is not exactly endearing herself to the DCCC.  Maybe she doesn't care, but her refusal to help other Dems get elected against a staunch Bush supporter is not going to help others support her in bids for higher office.

    You Got To Wonder What These Reps Are (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    hearing from their constituents. If their phones are not ringing off the hook protesting against a revote, then what they are doing can not be explained rationally. Even so, they would probably do better trying to convince their constituents.

    Maybe they have heard (none / 0) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:56:16 PM EST
    And that's why they're doing what they're doing.

    this is a case where you are right (none / 0) (#4)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    and so are they.  two of those usually end in a wrong.

    mad like a fox, or just stoopid (none / 0) (#6)
    by chudd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    The only other possibility is that one or the other candidate doesn't want the re-vote.  So far it's hard to tell which, since both sides have at times appeared to stand in its way.  Hillary may think she benefits from uncertainty; Obama may be trying to run out the clock.

    My bet, however, is that you're right, and that they're trying to cram Jan. 29 down the DNC's throat.  Not very bright.

    I guess Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#7)
    by NJDem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    must have shared her stupid juice with them.  I don't get it--do the Dems want to loose in November?

    Even though I personally think the Jan 29 was fair (especially as BO did have those tv commercials), it can't "look" like HRC stole it.  A re-vote is the only option.  

    Assuming MI settles their re-vote, do you think that will force FL to resolve theirs?  What excuse will they have?

    Time is running out (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:28:39 PM EST
    According to DNC rules, and because of some very practical mechanical issues, next Friday is apparently the deadline on any new plan.....

    end it now (none / 0) (#144)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    Maybe if Hillary no longer has the delusion of seating the Florida delegates elected in the non-election then she will DROP OUT now rather than this summer so that a Democrat can actually win this election.

    They Are Defending (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    Their votes for moving up the primary. Nose thumbing at the expense of their constituents. I hope they all get voted out of office for being so idiotic.

    Wrong House for vote (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    These are U.S. House members. The vote for moving the primary was the Florida state House and Senate.

    But I don't disagree with you about the idiocy or the hope they don't get reelected. :D


    Thanks For The (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    Correction. I would vote the entire lot out, were I a FL voter. What could they be thinking? A re-vote saves face for all the pols and puts the voters back in the drivers seat.

    But the assumption here is (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    That their constituents don't agree with them about defending that original vote.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    We have that Geller poll which showed 59% choosing option 2.

    1.) they thought state leaders should maintain their position of insisting that the votes cast should count or 2.) hold a new Democratic primary election at no cost to taxpayers through the use of pre-paid mail in ballots sent to all registered Democrats.

    That was a poll only of those voting in the Jan 29th primary. I think that is a practical rather than ideal position. People voted not to take the chance of whether Jan 29th would count and go with what would be more of a sure thing (even though it doesn't now appear to be a sure thing). I disagree with that choice but I can see why some would chose it.

    I think it comes down to that if in the end, any vote from Florida voters isn't counted who will the voters hold responsible? Could be the Dem nominee and Dean (which seems to be how it is now) or spread to other Dems as well. Whether or not they personally are held responsible I think it tarnishes the Dem brand as a whole.

    I wish there was a poll with the options 1) seat them per 1/29 vote or 2) revote. I'd like to see the response on that.


    Pretty much (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    The premise here is that Floridians would rebel against and blame their congress critters cause their congress critters stood firm on what Floridians figured was a good idea in the first place.

    What that means is when and if it comes down to blaming someone for Florida being disenfranchised in Denver, they're not going to blame the people they worked hard to get elected at the local level.

    They're going to blame Dean.


    Yes they'll blame Dean (none / 0) (#69)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    Oh I have no doubt they will blame Dean. He is and will continue to be the biggest object of their anger. And I think whoever ends up being the nominee will get to share in that anger.

    I don't think any of the congress critters from Florida will lose office over this. And I can't say that people will even associate them with this mess. But anytime you hurt a party, you hurt those associated with that party.  We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.


    And they don't want the (none / 0) (#56)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    vote defended.

    On 24% want the delegates elected on February 29th seated.  The poll cited above is very strange - it only polls those who voted on the 29th.  


    What I want to see (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    Is this poll:

    Of the following options:

    1.  Seating the delegates per Jan. 29 primary.

    2.  Revote.

    Which would you prefer?

    While You Are At It (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:10:33 PM EST
    How about revising Bush/Gore.  

    Question (none / 0) (#76)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    On 24% want the delegates elected on February 29th seated.    

    Where did you get that 24% statistic from?


    Nope (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    They'll be mad at Dean.

    And then they won't vote in November.

    You are badly misjudging this.

    edgar, i have difficulty with both (none / 0) (#16)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:23:51 PM EST
    sides claiming who will vote and will not vote.  there is nothing in this world more important than changing the direction of this country.  that is ultimately on all of us no matter how messy this is.

    once this is over.  everyone will just have to get over it and into it.  whether you win or lose the nomination is irrelevant.  the stakes are too high to cry come november.

    fortunately for me, i like them both.  i just wish they would keep it civil.


    If the delegates aren't seated (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    Florida is lost.

    If it's a game of Chicken between the DNC and Florida, Florida is in a Win/Lose situation.

    Dean/Obama is in a Lose/Lose situation.


    Some damage is done already (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    I agree that not seating the delegates loses Florida.

    I also think it isn't just seating those delegates, it is seating those delegates via the will of the voters. Negotiated math formulas won't cut it. The more press this gets, the more aware people become. And with that awareness comes anger.

    And I by no means think you are saying that its just seating the delegate, I'm just trying to be clear to others reading.


    Not exactly (none / 0) (#21)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    Some of us think Obama would be just as bad as McCain. You can't force people to vote for a party when they absolutely reject the candidate.

    this is a reflection of your political efficacy, (none / 0) (#27)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    not those loyal to the democratic party.  i respect your choice, but democrats hopefully put party before candidate.

    Just one problem (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    I don't really think Obama is a Democrat and I think he is totally unqualified.

    some feel the same way about Clinton (none / 0) (#29)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    not much we can do to persuade such people, it would appear.

    Probably Not (none / 0) (#31)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    there is a solution (none / 0) (#33)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST

    And... (none / 0) (#50)
    by obscure on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    the earth is flat, Jebus hid fake dinosaur bones all over the place to confuse us, and the sun revolves around the earth.

    Fortunately (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    You and your BHO equivalents are a teensy weensy minority, minimized even more given a "dream ticket". The grownups will decide this one.

    Do not put in the same category (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    as "BHO equivalents". I didn't just change from a republican to a democrat and start a blog. I've been a solid dem vote my entire life. I have voted for many dems I haven't been thrilled with. Not this year.  I don't trust BHO, I don't like him, I don't like his policies and I don't think he is experienced enough for the job.

    This isn't my way or the highway. Campaigns are brutal. I've done many of them. That isn't the issue. I don't think he is fit for the office right now.


    OK (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    Dissenters on the other side make the same argument.  Fortunately for the rest of us voting against McBush, that group is a trivial number.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#52)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    But I think you are going to find out you are wrong when the add up the electoral votes in Nov.

    Well Then (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    We will know who shares the blame when we go to war with Iran. Everyone it entitled to their opinion and vote or non-vote, but with the stakes high as they are voting on emotion seems very bad to me.

    And I say emotion because the policy differences between HRC and BHO are minor while the policy differences between either of them and McBush are a bottomless chasm.


    Iran (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    You are dreaming. Here is a tip for you. I have been closer to war than you most probably. I have actually been to Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran won't happen for the following reasons:

    1. Congress won't approve it.
    2. We don't have enough troops. The Army is broken.
    3. The equipment we have is need of lots of repair.
    4. We don't even have enough bullets or weapons
    5. It takes money and it won't be authorized

    And if we go to war, the last person I want in the Oval Office is Barack Obama. I am not some emotional person. I happen to look at things carefully. Their policy differences aren't actually small when you get past the propaganda. I just don't happen to agree with you and that isn't my problem, it is Barack Obama's problem.

    Please (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    Tell me then what are the big policy differences that will matter?
    Their voting records are almost identical. Both are solid Democrats.

    It isn't voting differences (none / 0) (#77)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    It is where do they stand on things like taxes, social security, how well they understand foreign policy, etc.

    Here is a question for you and if you can answer it with something that sounds rational I will take another look at Obama. Let's start with Afghanistan. Precisely what is he going to do if he is president?

    I know what Clinton wants to do. She has a broad plan. I take issue with a few small things but otherwise it is clear she gets what needs to be done. As far as I can tell, Obama has no policy. He has sweeping statements that sound like George Bush.  I doubt he even understands the Taliban controls towns 20 miles outside of Kabul. The noose is tightening. A few more troops won't fix it. What is his plan? And trust me, making public statements about bombing Pakistan is destabilizing. That already is our policy. Smart people don't announce it.


    To make my point (none / 0) (#97)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    I wanted to make sure that Obama didn't have something out there on Afghanistan that I didn't know about. I just went to his website. He has all kinds of issues listed.

    Under Foreign policy he has Iraq, Iran, etc. There is nothing for Afghanistan.

    That is my point. We are in a friggin war there. People are dying. Our tax dollars are being used and we are on the verge of losing. He is about to get the nomination for the presidency and he has no policy. None.

    Unqualified. Inexperienced. Simplistic.

    In my world. That gets people killed.


    Afghanistan (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    Has been a thorn in the side of the west for over a century. HRC's plan sounds great, but I do not see how she will possibly implement it.

    Not sure that either HRC or BHO will make much of a difference. Both need to address the Palestinian Israeli conflict first, imo.

    Obama does not sound like Bush. That is hyperventilating nonsense.  Bush is a moron. If your vote is going to be based on what the candidates are telling you, you are voting on emotion. It hardly the rule that campaign promises turn out to be fulfilled. The only way to predict what they will actually do is to look at how they have voted, and what legislation they have fought for. Both are miles away from BushCo and quite similar.

    They do differ in style, that is a given. Both are commanding leaders as their near equal swarms of supporters attest. To get into a contest about who would be a better CIC you first have to determine what makes a good CIC. None of the arguments regarding HRC's senate experience make any sense to me. That is not criteria for running a war. Both would be a welcome improvement over what we have, and both would surround themselves with reasonable advisors, imo.

    I really hope that you come to your senses if HRC is not the nominee or on the ticket. Her voice as Senator, and contribution to America will be much stronger if the Dems win the GE.


    If this wasn't so sad (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    I would laugh.

    What Clinton will do? (none / 0) (#146)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    Exactly when will she actually pull troops out of Iraq as opposed to "studying" it?  My bet is that she'd keep them there until 2016 with token cuts at best, and there's no Shermanesque statement from her otherwise.

    The topic is Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:41:23 PM EST
    And she has a plan that might actually work. As for the other blogger who said we should solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem first....

    We have soldiers and civilian aid workers in Afghanistan right now getting shot at!

    This what I love about Obama supporters. When Obama doesn't have a  plan, they like to change the equation. Style over substance doesn't cut it when people are trying to kill you.

    Do you guys seriously think you are getting the military vote?


    Your Topic Is Afghanistan (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    Presumably a response to my question:

    Tell me then what are the big policy differences that will matter?
    Their voting records are almost identical. Both are solid Democrats.

    If that is all you care about well fine. You are voting on hope not on difference.  I can guarantee you that HRC is not going to change the country nor is Obama. Frankly I do not even understand why we are over there at this point. Oh right the oil pipeline, I forgot.


    No that isn't all I care about (none / 0) (#163)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:51:53 PM EST
    Educate yourself. Policy is in the details not the propaganda. READ>

    As for voting records...the man rarely shows up for his US Senate job. He doesn't exactly have a long track record either.

    As for Afghanistan, there is a difference. She has a full policy plan. Obama has no plan at all. He has speeches. An therein lies the difference. And his advisers frankly scare the hell out of me. They are amateurs on every level.


    OK (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
    Nothing but the same old talking points.

    What date (none / 0) (#156)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    has Obama set for withdrawal?

    You can go to war without ground troops. (none / 0) (#167)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:04:48 AM EST
    The Air Force is full of evangelicals just itching to rain fire on those evil Mooslims in Iran, and they feel left out of the glory in the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    With McCain, they'd have a soul brother who relished doing the same thing in Vietnam before he intercepted that missile, and who would be open to the argument for such an aerial crusade.

    Then all the branches of our armed forces could be broken at once!


    You are in a small (none / 0) (#61)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    minority of Democrats, most of who like both candidates (as opposed to their respective partisans in blogsphere)

    I am in the other minority (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    who does not care much for either one.

    I am a member of the even (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:01:04 PM EST
    smaller minority who thought the entire field was weak.

    Actually (none / 0) (#72)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:11:44 PM EST
    I'm in that small minority too.

    May not be a minority by November. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    It's not that small (none / 0) (#84)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    There are lots of Democrats who aren't too enthusiastic about the choices. There are even more would-be Democrats who've given up on the system at large.

    Really? (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    The primary turnout numbers do not reflect that.

    Seating Jan 29 FL at 50% (none / 0) (#25)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    is not an unreasonable compromise.

    For the DNC, it gets them off the hook.  For Clinton 19 vs 38 delegates isn't going to make or break her SD argument and she gets to count the popular vote plus she gets a shot at the FL superdelegates.  For Obama, this is better than a revote he might lose by a larger margin and denies Clinton the opportunity to get momentum.

    Everyone saves time and money they can use elsewhere.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:32:42 PM EST
    If there's no real impact, then just sit the whole darn thing.

    If Obama still wins, he still has a chance at Florida.


    Not Gonna Happen (none / 0) (#39)
    by chudd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:38:36 PM EST
    If only because seating them as-is would represent a total capitulation by the party to the state legislature with no penalty for the nose thumbing.  This won't help.
    More info is needed on this before judgments can be made.

    Without Capitulation (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    I'd use a different word, but short of that Florida is lost in November.

    Apparently. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:41:54 PM EST
    As Republicans have total, absolute, and dominant control of the state house and senate, with no possible dissention, I'd say there's a good chance it's already lost anyway.

    Well then (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    So be it.

    So much for the 50-state project.

    If people want to give up on Florida and count the DNC's agenda more important than Florida, then all this is over.

    Just don't seat the delegates.

    Florida and Clinton supporters will just have to get over it.


    I'm not saying that it shouldn't be campaigned in. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    I'm just saying, I've heard a lot of rhetoric about how the Florida Dems are completely at the mercy of the Republicans who control everything and wield every ounce of power in the state.

    I absolutely think it should be fought for, particularly to try to elect more Dems to the houses of Congress.

    But the narrative I've heard on this site is that Hillary wins Florida if she's the nominee.


    True (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    But if you're interested in having the best chance.

    If Obama is interested in having the best chance.

    Seat the delegates as is, have your revote in Michigan which you'll probably win cause the Clintons are now perceived as racists.

    Keep the SDs coming, and he'll be fine.


    A question. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    Yes, other states broke the rules, and yes, Florida and Michigan were unfairly punished.  

    However, Michigan residents and legislators are working hard for a revote.  Polling indicates Florida residents want a revote.  Yet, the state party refuses.


    Being mature and responsible and leading your people isn't about digging in your heels and not giving way if you don't get your way.  


    Because that's not the Polling (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    You are misinterpretting the Poll.

    It asks, "the delegates won't be seated without a revote, do you want a revote?"

    Ask this question:  "What would you prefer, seating the delegates per Jan. 29 or a revote?"


    Reality. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    The reality is that I can't take that poll, and neither can you.  

    So trying to use the non-existent results of a fictitious poll isn't an accurate representation either.

    All I can go by is the data there is.


    So we agree then (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    We have no data on it.

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    All we have is a mystery on why the FLA democratic party is absolutely refusing to give in, budge, compromise, or do anything but denounce the DNC, while Michigan is doing what it needs to get its delegation seated.

    No, Dems in Florida won't agree and will attempt to kill Dean with focused hatred, but that's the reality of the situation?


    No mystery there (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:37:04 PM EST
    They're upholding the wishes of their constituents.

    But. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    Their constituents also say that if the delegation won't be seated as is, they want a revote.

    Reality is: the delegation won't be seated as is.

    So, unless my train of logic has derailed, they want a revote, because their delegation won't be seated as is.



    That's not the reality (none / 0) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:47:29 PM EST
    The reality is that if they are not seated as is, Floridians will still support their congress critters and blame Dean and then stay home in November.

    Edgar08 (none / 0) (#128)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    Do you live in Florida? Please explain to me your insight into how the Florida voters think and will act come November.
    I live in Florida and will be voting in November for whichever Democrat secures the nomination. I will not let all these other noises distract me from what is really important, and my friends feel the same way.
    Please stop speaking for Florida voters unless you have some way to substantiate you know what you are speaking of.

    Human Nature (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:25:48 PM EST
    If someone Polls Floridians and presents to them ALL the options, and they choose a revote then I woudl stand down from my position on this.

    But until then, the best I can do is I put myself in their shoes, and I call upon my experiences with people of all walks of life and how they deal with these types of issues.  It's all I have to go on.  I  ask "What would be their first option, voting again?, or counting the vote they cast back on Jan. 29?  A vote with unprecedented turnout."

    And I feel safe in drawing some conclusions there.

    But if a poll.  With ALL options laid out were to be conducted, and I was proved wrong, I would have to respect that.


    All options were laid out (none / 0) (#148)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    After 2/5 seating them as is has never, and will never be an option.

    Nope (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:35:34 PM EST
    Then all options aren't laid out.

    I assure you Floridians consider that a valid optoion even if you don't.

    So at least I know that much about Floridians.

    More than you do at any rate.


    Edgar (none / 0) (#169)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:15:54 AM EST
    I don't know why you refuse to understand this (and I really don't even know why I care) but I am a Floridian. I have lived here over 30 years. I have many, many contacts, acquaintances, and friends in the Tampa Bay area. I have a decent idea of what the group of people I associate with think about this situation. I do not try to state as fact what all Floridians feel, even though I live here and could argue I know better than you what FL thinks. I would not presume to speak for every Floridian, because, frankly, I am not that arrogant.

    Yes, let Florida go.. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:46:25 AM EST

    The punishment did not fit the crime in the first place.  If the DNC was so harsh, then they had decided they didn't want Florida in the first place. They were going to seat the delegates  - but only when they didn't matter anymore - so FL had a primary that didn't matter, for delegates that wouldn't matter.

    There was never any intention for a re-vote, there was never any intention for a truly "valid" primary in FL at any time in the primary season.

    Once the nominee was announced, then quietly, the "invalid" Florida delegates who didn't count, would have been welcomed for seating at the convention.

    Hence, therefore, ergo, FL didn't matter in the first place.  FL was to be disenfranchised.

    but now whatever deal was originally made has backfired - they want to make it look like its all Florida's fault.  

    Swing-states usually get double or triple the campaign crap that safe states get anyway.

    Look on the bright side, might be real nice, for a real "change you can believe in", to have a low-profile, quiet, laid-back, election campaign in a safe state.

    And if McCain doesn't have to put resources into FL, which state do you think he can then concentrate on? My guess is California.


    I don't think I buy that (none / 0) (#44)
    by chudd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:43:05 PM EST
    For one thing, McCain's likely to take Florida anyway, and for the other, I just can't see real Democrats switching out of spite, especially since many will likely, rightly, blame the reps who broke the rules and won't negotiate a re-vote.

    Which brings us back to why they refuse to get this done.


    Ok Then (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    I really thought all of this discussion was based on the premise that FL was in play for November.

    I guess I was mistaken about that.


    It would reward, not penalize, the state leg (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:29:05 PM EST
    The FL legislature is Republican. They are laughing their asses off at the havoc they have wreaked upon the Dems. The DNC is rewarding them.

    Seeing its effects, I'll be surprised if every solid Republican state doesn't pull the same crap next cycle.


    The Republicans did this (none / 0) (#71)
    by rafaelh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:11:35 PM EST
    They cut the Florida delegation in half for moving the primaries ahead of schedule. Nobody is arguing that this means the republicans have lost Florida. Why does that argument qualify for the democratic party?

    I don't think this will be the end of the world. Cutting the delegation in half is what they should have done from the beginning, stripping them of delegates was a dumb move.


    Because (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:23:17 PM EST
    Florida isn't proving to be the margin of victory in their Primary.

    But Florida (none / 0) (#147)
    by rafaelh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:27:28 PM EST
    will probably not be the margin of victory for us either. There are other states where Obama can blunt the hit and balance out the delegates he will lose. Obama can lose Florida 60-40 to Clinton and that still will not get her to match him unless delegates break disproportionately in her favor. The 100,000 advantage in Mississippi give him a lot of leeway on the popular vote too.  

    Since things have been so close up to now, the only scenario where that would happen is a Spitzer like situation. I guess anything can happen, but as a strategy, it's a bit on the weak side.


    Because (none / 0) (#101)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    McCain has clinched the nomination and can easily allow the FL & MI delegations to be seated without penalty. And even if he doesn't do that, he's still clinched the nomination, rendering the entire issue pretty much moot.

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#62)
    by fladem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    for Clinton this is a big loss, because the only way she can get the nomination is to win the popular vote (she has no chance of catching Obama among Pledged Delegates).

    No re-vote means no ability to string together a series of wins which would convince SD's to over-ride the pledged delegate result.

    I am amazed at the Clinton position on Florida, and actually think they should have been pushing for a revote since they failed to put it away on Super Tuesday.


    Why? (none / 0) (#89)
    by TN Dem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    I thought that with FL and MI wins Clinton can not only catch him, but she can obertake him.
    Where are you getting your figures?
    Has anybody come up with a delegate calculator that works??? I'd love to play around with it for a while!

    That's just silly (none / 0) (#105)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    If you think for one minute that the SDs are going to look at the states that both candidates won and casually ignore the voters of NY, NJ, MA, CA, AZ, and OH, you are living in la-la land.  Nah. Gah. Happen.  And she's going to win PA too.  Then, when the voters sit back and reassess, they're going to vote for her in Indiana and Oregon and West Virginia and Kentucky.  Obama will probably get NC, if he can stir up enough racial tension.  
    The Math means nothing at this point.  It is all about general election strategy and Obama didn't win any of the crucial states that would give him that edge.  
    I wish you guys would stop sniffing.  Giddiness is not a good state for logical reasoning.  

    All states are equal. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    But some states are more equal than others.

    A pointless observation (none / 0) (#116)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    since all states are clearly NOT equal in population.

    When you're president. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    You don't get to write off states as unimportant, regardless of whether they voted for you or not.

    What does that (none / 0) (#134)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    have to do with goldberry's point? Nothing.

    Where are the SD from? (none / 0) (#150)
    by rafaelh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:38:37 PM EST
    Because I think they might give some importance to the candidate who won their district. Your argument proposes that superdelegates from many of the states that Obama won will just disregard that and say: well, he won MY state, but she won the big ones, I have to vote for Clinton.

    I really doubt this will be their reasoning. It's unrealistic. If we look at this whole process as a big, long poll taken over the course of several months, its results have consistently kept the competition close. The superdelegates are human just like all the primary and caucus voters. Why do you think they will suddenly break in a completely different way to the rest of the contest? And just as important, why do you see this as unfair when the rules where the same for all candidates and Clinton was perfectly happy with the way things were on December 2007.


    Manuel, we *like* Clinton to be ahead (none / 0) (#100)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    That's what this is all about.  Floridians want their votes to stand and they want them to go to Clinton.  And all of the other Clinton states want that too.  It's fair to Florida and it's fair to the candidates.  Obama did not win aas many delegates in Florida as Clinton did.  That might be "unfair" to the Obama people but sometimes, "life is not fair".  He can't win Florida,  He can only succeed at pissing Floridians off at this point.  He ought to take the hit for the good of the party and move on.  It doesn't put Clinton that far in front of him and he'll more than make up for it in good will from the remaining states.  
    Holding out like this speaks very poorly on his judgment.  

    Clever (none / 0) (#121)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:55:38 PM EST
    goldberry: "Floridians want their votes to stand and they want them to go to Clinton."

    Well, back in Jan. half of them didn't want their votes to go to Clinton. Only god knows what they now.

    As to Obama pissing off Floridians, I've got news for you: he's going to piss of a lot of other folks if he starts pushing for those delegates to be counted. So I'd call it a wash.

    And why should fairness be the criteria? Rules said states that voted early would be stripped of their delegates. That's what's happening. It's perfectly fair. It's just really dumb politically.

    Finally regardless of what world you live in, counting the Jan. 29 Florida result does not give Clinton a lead. It simply means she's losing by less. At the very best she nets 64 delegates.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:04:53 PM EST
    "And why should fairness be the criteria?"

    My god.


    Who is he going to piss off... (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:13:48 PM EST
    ...if he supports counting the FL delegates?  His own supporters?  Who will do what?  Vote for Clinton in protest?

    The difference between 19 or 38 isn't significant (none / 0) (#155)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    for Clinton's SD argument.  It doesn't matter if Obama is +100 or +119 in August.  Given the process by which delegates are selected she can reasonably claim it is still a tie.

    She is very unlikely to lead in pledged delegates by the convention.  In the meantime, she can get the Florida SDs and she can point to the Florida popular vote which will be legitimized.
    She also gets to add to her big battleground state story and she gets to save her resources for MI.


    between getting something (none / 0) (#104)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    or getting nothing you'd think they'd line up behind something...then again I'm no politician so I guess I still don't get political strategery.

    again.  The Florida Congressional Representatives have to be re-elected this November.  They are against a re-vote because they feel that their constituents are against it too.  They are nearer and more aware of their constituents than we are.  My neighbors, my wife and all my friends who are Democrats voted on Jan 29, they are also against a re-vote.  At this moment if there is a re-vote a lot of them including my wife say they will not vote.  A lot of them also are saying that if this continues as is they will stay home in November or not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee.  Personally I worry.

    I am in florida too (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:52:22 PM EST
    and I think they are grossly miscalculating.

    What are you basing that on (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    Besides a poll that presents to Floridians a choice that already rules out they're first option.

    They're going to suddenly blame their local politicians who fought for their first option?

    Lets see.  Blame the people who took my first option away?

    Or blame the people who fought for my first option to the detriment of my second option?

    Interesting questions.

    I do think you mis-read human nature in this.

    But if it all blows up in Denver and Floridians are blaming their local politicians and not Dean, then I'll bow to your infinite wisdom.


    BTD I think that's their take (none / 0) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    and they have their people on the ground.

    Didn't the Rep. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:58:26 PM EST
    Legislature imposed the change on them? So why
    wouldn't they be mad the results of the Jan. election are not being honored?

    I still don't understand what was the rationale for letting SC and NV change their primary dates earlier
    and not FL ?

    Anyone knows what was the distinguishing criteria?

    It was reported today that there is a deal for a re-do in MI.

    In Fl I think that if there were a revote Clinton would pick up more seats still. The polls give her a now wider margin.


    South Carolina and Nevada (none / 0) (#162)
    by chudd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:29:42 PM EST
    were authorized by the party to conduct primaries before February 5th because the party, while recognizing that more states wanted to move up the calendar, wanted to maintain a slower schedule with smaller states so that a "money" candidate couldn't overwhelm the others in bigger states (like Florida and Michigan) that require huge amounts of cash just to compete.  Nevada was chosen to represent the West (and I'm sure it's pure coincidence that Harry Reid is from there) and S. Carolina was chosen to represent the South.

    Thanks Chudd! (none / 0) (#165)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:16 PM EST
    I have been wondering about this for a while and could find the
    complete answer.

    Thanks again.


    Great strategy (none / 0) (#158)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST
    The FL Congressional Delegation is playing the stall. The problem is they are losing. You stall when you are ahead, not when you are behind.
    C'est la vie. Florida should be a Democratic state and two thirds of the legislature is Repub, as is their governor. I'm not impressed with their congressional delegation, or the state party.

    Is it something in the water? (none / 0) (#161)
    by chudd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:55:23 PM EST
    Does everybody around there walk around with semi-permanent case of heat stroke?  Or is it the proximity to all the demented ancients that kind of lowers the average level of discourse ever so slightly and over a long period of time that it kinda rubs off, leading to this stuck-ification.  Could be the whole Disney thing.  Which brings us back to whatever is in the water. Oh, well.

    You want the vote, Florida?  You can't handle the vote!