home

What's Next for Florida in Primary Fight?

The issue of what will happen with Florida's Democratic primary voters has not been settled by the decision not to hold a new election.

Attempts are still underway to have Florida delegates seated in accord with the Jan. 29 primary results.

Clinton’s spokesman Singer responds: “Today’s announcement brings us no closer to counting the votes of the nearly 1.7 million people who voted in January. We hope the Obama campaign shares our belief that Florida’s voters must be counted and cannot be disenfranchised.”

On the Fox News Channel, Gov. Crist once again calls for the party to “do the right thing” and seat the delegation as-is in Denver — voted in by a record-breaking turnout.

That's the right solution. Also, on CNN an hour or so ago, before the spin doctors came on, a reporter who had spoken with Florida Democratic Party Chair and Congresswoman Karen Thurman said she told him that all options had not been exhausted -- or even explored yet-- and that efforts were ongoing to find a solution acceptable to both campaigns.

From Ms. Thurman's letter today: [More...]

This doesn’t mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

When this committee stripped us of 100% of our delegates last year, some members summed up their reasoning by saying, “The rules are the rules.” Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates.

As the late great Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “We must adjust our ideas to the facts of today… Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”

So the battle over Florida's delegates and voters continues. Hillary Clinton does not appear to be scaling back her campaign. In fact, both she and Obama have just hired "superstar" campaigners for North Carolina, whose primary is May 6.

Though Pennsylvania has the buzz as the next big Democratic primary battleground, there's another major clash looming between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in North Carolina, where both campaigns have hired competing - and formidable - California political operatives to go mano a mano in a contest for 115 crucial delegates.

Obama has the edge in North Carolina with about 1/3 of Democratic primary voters being African American.

[Obama campaigner] Schirmer says Obama has an aggressive plan in North Carolina - where as many as a third of Democratic primary voters are expected to be African American - that will involve "vigorously campaigning across the state for all voters, white, black, Hispanic, Asian and everyting in between."

But, Hillary's campaigner says they will fight for every delegate.

Averell "Ace" Smith, the tough-as-nails former opposition researcher who managed the New York Senator's winning campaigns in California and Texas, has been ordered to bring in a win for Clinton in the May 6 primary, with Tarheel State polls showing Obama ahead by 8-10 points.

"There's no question that North Carolina is an uphill battle for us, but we intend to win here," said Smith in a phone interview Monday from North Carolina. "We're looking to score an upset."

Elton John will be doing a Radio City Music Hall benefit for Hillary on April 9.

Last but not least, even Huffpo sounds nervous about rumors that John Edwards may endorse Hillary before North Carolina.

< The "Bias" Of Blogs | Obama: No Lowering of Drinking Age >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sorry, but (none / 0) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:56:07 PM EST
    Governor Crist does not exactly come across as an honest broker on this issue.


    I am convinced (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:27:36 PM EST
    that Crist has been throwing wrenches behind the scenes.  There is no reason why a revote is acceptable (at least in principal) in MI yet not in FL.  The only difference between these two states is a dem governor in one and a repub governor in the other.  And lots of people with funny accents.

    [ Parent ]
    Yah dere, make fun of der Yoopers (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    like da trolls below da bridge do. . . .:-)

    [ Parent ]
    Are there not (none / 0) (#2)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:58:34 PM EST
    rules inplace that would give the state party ground to stand on since the republicans would not allow them to pass and amendment to the bill that would have moved the primary back to Feb. 5th? Did the party not do all it could? Is there not a provision in the DNC rules that gives the DNC discretion to not punish FLorida at all or to punish it some other way?

    The problem is (none / 0) (#5)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:02:45 PM EST
    that they really made no effort to change things.

    They NEVER publicly opposed the change of the date.  So it is disingenuous for them to claim they were victims when they voted for the date change and made no effort to change it and no public protests of the date change.

    This is a power struggle for the Florida Democratic Party.  If they can get the DNC to seat them BEFORE it becomes moot, they become one of the early states and enjoy the benefits of being one.

    [ Parent ]

    My mother forwarded an email to me (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:09:05 PM EST
    that included this bit:
    Our Democratic legislators in Tallahassee tried to set the Florida primary on Feb. 5, instead of Jan. 29, but of course, their proposed amendment to House Bill 537 was greeted with laughter and derision from the Republicans who control the state government.
    with a link dated May 2007.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:21:15 PM EST
    Arrogant jerks.

    Of course they attached the paper trail amendment to
    it so that Democrats had to vote for it as they were sponsors.

    I hope the DNC is proud. Howard Dean got Roved.

    [ Parent ]

    if you read (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    this analysis by Mary Beth at Wampum, you will see how the Republicans strongholded the Dems on that vote by using a poison pill in the legislation:

       Party leaders, Chairwoman Thurman and members of Congress then lobbied Democratic members of the Legislature through a variety of means to prevent the primary from moving earlier than February 5th. ....In response to the Party's efforts, Senate Democratic Leaders Geller and Wilson and House Democratic Leaders Gelber and Cusack introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29th. These were both defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority in each house.

     The primary bill, which at this point had been rolled into a larger legislation train, went to a vote in both houses. It passed almost unanimously. The final bill contained a whole host of elections legislation, much of which Democrats did not support. However, in legislative bodies, the majority party can shove bad omnibus legislation down the minority's throats by attaching a couple of things that made the whole bill very difficult, if not impossible, to vote against. This is what the Republicans did in Florida, including a vital provision to require a paper trail for Florida elections. There was no way that any Florida Democratic Party official or Democratic legislative leader could ask our Democratic members, especially those in the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, to vote against a paper trail for our elections. It would have been embarrassing, futile, and, moreover, against Democratic principles.

    It was about paper trails, people. The Republican legislature attached a "poison pill", the requirement of paper trails for electronic voting machines, and dared the minority Dems to vote against it.



    [ Parent ]
    And how many Republican controlled states.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:28:40 PM EST
    will do the same next time? If the DNC is that easily manipulated I could see TX pulling the same crap next cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
    they did try to change it. There was an amendment to the bill for the express purpose of changing the date back to Feb. 5. It was promptly voted down.

    [ Parent ]
    Three months on this blog (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:31:19 PM EST
    Have taught me who to believe, who to trust but verify, and who to dismiss out of hand.

    Flyerhawk is in the last category. In fact it's worth it to research everything he states as fact because it's usually so easy to debunk.

    [ Parent ]

    Personal attacks (none / 0) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    are no allowed on this site.  I would hope that random drive by personal attacks even more so.

    You guys are so busying agreeing with yourselves you completely lose focus on reality.

    I am right more times than no on this site.  The difference is I'm not saying things the crowd here wants to hear.

    [ Parent ]

    can you get banned (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:42:27 PM EST
    for insulting yourself?

    [ Parent ]
    You need to look up the meaning (none / 0) (#99)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:53:53 PM EST
    of "personal attack."

    Hint: what i posted above is not an example of one.

    [ Parent ]

    You explicitly (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    referred to me and attempted to disparage my credibility.  That is the epitome of a personal attack using no evidence or data simply vague assertions.  It is an ad hominem attack AND a personal attack.  

    Name calling isn't the only form of personal attack.  

    [ Parent ]

    Timing? (none / 0) (#9)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:04:06 PM EST
    When did the FL and MI state parties begin harping for a revote or delegate count?  

    [ Parent ]
    Weak tea (none / 0) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    Karen Thurman bringing up South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire is ridiculous.  They weren't stripped of their delegates for violating the technical letter of the law.  They were stripped of their delegates for brazenly and willfully violating the spirit of the law.  

    Florida's delegates will be seated after Hillary drops out of the race.

    So you agree that those states (none / 0) (#6)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:03:02 PM EST
    violated the law? Let's skip the subjective adjectives, ok?


    [ Parent ]
    This wasn't a violation of a LAW (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:13:34 PM EST
    It was a violation of a party rule.

    The rules do have a provision for lifting any penalty for having an early primary if the Democratic Party in the state took all possible measures to change the date of the primary.

    The problem in FLA was that the bill moving up the primary also had a provision in it to require a paper trail for electronic voting that Democrats in the legislature (a minority) HAD to vote for.  The Republicans wouldn't split the bill.  So the Democrats voted for the bill that moved the primary date up, and then the Republicans wouldn't agree to move it back.

    The DNC takes the position that the Democrats didn't do everything possible to move the date back because they voted for the bill that moved the date forward -- even though the bill contained another provision they couldn't vote against.

    The DNC could have taken a different view of that series of actions, and it could still do so -- but at this point, changing their minds on that point would cause Obama supporters to cry foul.

    [ Parent ]

    They violated the law (none / 0) (#12)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM EST
    the same as the other states. They should face the same punishment. Rules are rules, isn't that what we are being told?

    [ Parent ]
    So are you arguing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:15:34 PM EST
    that the spirit of the rules are more important than the letter of the rules?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes I am (none / 0) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:22:35 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan started a chain reaction with the other 4 states.  The rules were EXPLICITLY created to allow Iowa, NH, Nevada, and South Carolina to have their primaries first.  That was the entire point of the rule.  So the fact that those 4 states moved up their primaries as a reaction to Florida and Michigan is not a willful act by those states to subvert the rules of the party.  They were trying to simply keep the previous status quo.

    To be clear, I think it is utterly ridiculous that those 4 states are given some grant to be precede all other states.  But that is the way things are and unless Michigan and Florida can convince the entire DNC to change the rules, they should abide by them.

    [ Parent ]

    It was not a willful act by the *voters* (none / 0) (#59)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:37:16 PM EST
    yet they are being punished by the letter of the rules. I understand your position, but if you are going to argue for strict interpretation of the rules, there needs to be some consistency in that position.  

    [ Parent ]
    I am not arguing (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    for strict interpretation of the rules.  I am arguing for reasonable interpretation of the rules.

    The Florida legislature chose to break into the 4 state primary party.  The RNC punished them by taking half their delegates.  The DNC went even further and stripped them of all their delegates.

    You can say that was excessive but the legislature knew full well what they were doing.

    [ Parent ]

    The spirit of Democracy (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:22:11 PM EST
    Wither that?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm always amused when ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:44:21 AM EST
    blog posters use the terms "weak tea" or "thin gruel."

    It makes me picture them sitting in wing-backed chairs with antimacassars behind their heavily pomaded heads.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Who's votes count? (none / 0) (#4)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    We can not seat the delegates as they are.  Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't many democratic residents decide not to vote since they were informed their vote would not count?  Obama did not campaign in that state because he was told by his party those delegates would not count.  How is that fair?

    What about those people?  The count as is is tainted.  The DNC had already stated the delegates would not count.  Now that the FL potentially could of taken front stage in the American Political Stage they want their voices to count.  

    I'm sorry, but you broke the rules.  You have to play by them.

    There are many people here stating Obama is a lock to lose in the GE.  Based on what?

    You are correct (none / 0) (#18)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    Florida turnout was depressed.  Seating the delegates from Jan. 29 would be a fraud.  You don't tell people their vote is for one thing and then change the stakes after the vote.

    I used to think the position that adherence to neutral pre-determined rules was "quaint" was solely a Republican one.

    [ Parent ]

    no it wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:18:59 PM EST
    the analysis you are pointing to compares Florida with other states. If you compare 2008 Florida votes to 2004 Florida Dmocratic primary votes, turnout was huge. 1.7 million vs. 750,000.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would you compare it to 2004 turnout? (none / 0) (#39)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:22:10 PM EST
    There is absolutely no basis for such a comparison.  This has been a record year for Dem turnout in every single state.  There is no principled reason whatsoever to compare it to 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by TN Dem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:18:16 PM EST
    She refers to the 2004 vote totals because it shows that about a million more people voted this time than in that last primary year.

    Incidently, what do you suppose those figures that show increased a record year of voting come from? I was under the impression they came form camparisons of 2004 vote totals for each state.

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry was the nominee as of March 4, 2004. (none / 0) (#132)
    by scoutfinch on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    The Florida primary was March 9, 2004. No surprise that turnout was low.


    [ Parent ]
    Democratic turnout was not depressed (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by xspowr on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:01:27 AM EST
    Took a look at your linked source. The author of that post uses "Republican primary voters as a percentage of Democratic primary voters" as the metric by which to measure whether Democratic turnout was depressed in Florida in the 2008 primary. The author uses 2008 Florida primary data and compares it to 2008 primary data for New Hampshire and South Carolina to reach his conclusion that Democratic turnout was depressed (allegedly due to voters being told their votes would not matter in Florida).  Specifically, he reports the following numbers: NH (82%), SC (84%), and FL (114%).

    However, this methodology is flawed. To begin with, the author fails to take into account vastly different population and demographic data in these three states, which may have affected voter turnout patterns.  Second, the author fails to account for other possible influences on turnout, such as statewide or local measures that may have affected turnout (such as the paper ballot question in Florida).  Third, the author ignores the most relevant metric, which is the historical pattern of Democratic turnout in Florida itself.

    Like the author, I also did a bit of "back of the matchbook" arithmetic to look at historical voter turnout patterns in Florida, using the same metric as the author ("Republican primary voters as a percentage of Democratic primary voters") as a determinant of depressed turnout. I looked at data from 1980 to 2008.  Data from 1984 is excluded, as Ronald Reagan was the only Republican nominee on the ballot, and Republican turnout was abnormally suppressed that year as a result.  Comparative data from 1996 and 2004 is unavailable (there was no Democratic primary in 1996, and no Republican primary in 2004).

    Accordingly, meaningful comparative data for Florida is available for 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2008. The results are as follows:

    1980 (56%)
    1988 (71%)
    1992 (82%)
    2000 (127%)
    2008 (112%)

    The pattern, as the data shows, is an increasing Republican turnout compared to Democrats from 1980 to 2000, when it peaked at 127% (i.e., in 2000 more Republicans voted than Democrats for the first time in this dataset).

    Notably, the data suggest that a higher Republican turnout in Florida is part of a longterm historical trend, and not an anomaly supporting the conclusion that Democratic turnout was depressed in 2008. More importantly, from 2000 to 2008, the relevant metric actually declined by 15%, which supports the conclusion that Democratic participation in the 2008 primary increased in comparison to the 2000 primary. Combined with the overall record turnout in the 2008 primary (approximately 1.7 million versus 754,000 in 2004 and 552,000 in 2000), the conclusion would have to be that Democratic turnout was not only not depressed in 2008, but that it actually took a substantial upward turn.


    [ Parent ]

    But that objection doesn't (none / 0) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:16:04 PM EST
    deal with the issue of a re-vote.  There are apparently logistical issues with a re-vote, even though MI seems to have been able to deal with them.  But even if you believe the original January 29 vote should not be counted, what is the principled (as opposed to logistical) argument against a re-vote.  The rules have always permitted a state to propose alternative means to seat a slate of delegates. The rules don't require permanent, irrevocable disenfranchisement no matter what else is done to select delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    True. (none / 0) (#37)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
    I agree.

    If you can promise the Democratic Party a fiscally responsible, clean, fair and untainted re-vote in the State of Florida, that also account for those IND's and REP's that have already voted in the Rep. Primary then I think Obama should agree.  

    However the waters are already dirty and Florida does not have a good track record with their voting system.  Nor would I trust them to do this well with only a few month to prepare.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama was the only one who DID campaign in Fla (none / 0) (#101)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:57:42 PM EST
    ... after the decision was made for no one to campaign.

      Obama had national TV ads that ran during the last 10 days or so before the Florida primary.  Wonderful timing, wouldn't you say?  Because he bought the bundle or package of nat'l tv ads, they showed in Florida.

      He was the only one with any kind of campaigning there!
    And yet you believe he didn't campaign there?
      They were all allowed to do fundraisers though.  After one, he walked across the street and answered questions from reporters.  When told he was, then, campaigning, he said he didn't realize that and wouldn't do that again.

      Obama tends to be unaware of all these things which can be problematical for him.

      The point is that 1.7 million voters decided they wanted to vote despite the problems party hacks were having over the date situation.  They did vote.  And now their votes should be recognized, since the Republican legislature tacked on the paper-trail rider to the first vote (which the Dems had wanted for voting confirmation for so long) and when the Dems tried to get the date moved back to Feb. 5, the Republican-dominated legislature voted them down.

      If you care about the voters who went to the trouble to vote, you will care about something FAIR being done re the votes about which so many felt so strongly.  People care more about their candidate not having to lose even a BIT of the lead.  There's little principle involved in this.

      Dean has to be incredibly rigid and DUMB to not do anything about this.  I always remember the Florida ballot situation from Yr 2000 that lost us the entire election.  This way it certainly will happen again, thanks to Dean and Pelosi and those who feel they will do ANYthing so that Obama doesn't lose officially in Florida even though he lost the vote at the time it ran, by 17 percentage points.

      The party will see many leaving it if they don't fix this.


    [ Parent ]

    An odd situation. (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:03:59 PM EST
    As the rubric for evaluating the stronger Dem candidate shifts, will Edwards be of especial value to Clinton?  If he endorses her he could help people consider more seriously her claim to the nomination.  Then again, he could just revert to being 'that guy with the $400 haircut.'

    BTD, before you post Hillary should drop out (none / 0) (#10)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:04:12 PM EST
    Aren't there 4 million primary voters in PA.  Isn't Hillary polling +20%?  Isn't that +800,000 votes, which ties Barack?  

    Opinions. (none / 0) (#14)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:07:27 PM EST
    He can post his opinion any time he wants I would think.  The PA primaries will really not have any impact on anything unless it's a complete blowout favoring Clinton.  Which is extremely unlikely to happen.

    He can make a case for his argument.

    [ Parent ]

    Wouldn't a (none / 0) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:08:36 PM EST
    20% win be considered a blow-out?

    [ Parent ]
    If 100% of Democratic voters turnout and she (none / 0) (#191)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:01:58 AM EST
    wins by 20% thenyour figures work.

    My predictions of the day.

    1.  Turnout will be high,  but not 100% high.

    2.  Hillary will not win by 20%.


    [ Parent ]
    Find me an Obama supporter who says (none / 0) (#11)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:04:27 PM EST
    It would be a travesty to seat the FL delegation, and who doesn't mention that Hillary gets delegates out of said actions, and I'll show you an honest Obama supporter.
    The only principle involved is to strip Hillary of delegates by any technical means possible, regardless of how the spirit of the rules was intended.

    No, the principle is not lying to people (none / 0) (#20)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:11:45 PM EST
    and following the rules you agreed to before you knew who would benefit them.

    [ Parent ]
    And by the way (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    I favor revotes, which would also give Hillary delegates, because I believe in democracy and the rule of law AND enfranchising voters.  Many Obama supporters feel the same way.

    [ Parent ]
    Inaccurate (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:20:29 PM EST
    No one lied, and as has been said ad naeusum the rules ALLOW the seating of delegates. So please either show us where it says that is breaking the rules, or please stop repeating the same false assertion.

    Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    The rules allow (none / 0) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:25:43 PM EST
    for Florida to send delegates to the convention based on hair color if they so choose.

    So what?

    [ Parent ]

    I think its pretty clear so what (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    That it is inaccurate to keep claiming rules have been broken IF the FL delegates are seated, because the rules ALLOW for the FL delegates to be seated.

    [ Parent ]
    that is true (none / 0) (#54)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:33:57 PM EST
    the convention delegates can vote to overrule the Rules committee, and I believe the rules committee can overrule itself.  No rules would be broken, just as the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore didn't break any rules.

    [ Parent ]
    See what you did there? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:36:22 PM EST
    You were being all nice and factual, then you threw in an incendiary comment. I think its specially amusing as you point to a ruling saying "votes don't matter" as a parallel to a scenario in which votes should matter.

    So its bad to seat delegates and have peoples votes count? Specially if its done by the rules? Why, because it doesn't favor your candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    no, I'm simply pointing out that (none / 0) (#73)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:43:55 PM EST
    the fact that the controlling legal authority can overrule a previous decision is not the sole criterion of democratic legitimacy.  I assumed the Bush v. Gore example might have some resonance with you because I assumed you thought that decision was problematic.

    Of course it's not "bad to seat delegates and have people's votes count".  That is a straw man.  But those votes should mean the same thing when they are cast as when they have their ultimate effect.

    It certainly wouldn't violate the rules to seat the delegates under your scenario.  It would violate principles of democracy and the rule of law, however.

    [ Parent ]

    I respect (none / 0) (#80)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:46:02 PM EST
    That is your opinion. I don't agree. I was just objecting to the statements that say rules are broken if they are seated by the rules as a factual statement. I think you position is very clear.

    [ Parent ]
    For me it is quite simple: (none / 0) (#172)
    by felizarte on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:28:24 PM EST
    Although a registered democrat, I refuse to vote for the party's nominee if it is Obama because of the way the party has been so blatantly biased in its decisions against Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    That's like saying (none / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:41:17 PM EST
    that if you get convicted of a crime but the judge doesn't punish you that means you didn't actually commit a crime.

    The rules were broken.  They were punished.  The DNC may choose to revoke the punishment but that doesn't change the fact that the rules were broken.

    [ Parent ]

    By that argument (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:44:44 PM EST
    All the other states where the dates were moved but they were not punished should have all their delegates revoked. By your own statement rules were broken, but they were not punished. So those states are criminals that are not yet caught.

    I am sorry, but that is a very weak argument.

    [ Parent ]

    and for your argument to work (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:46:51 PM EST
    your whole family would have to be thrown into jail for your crime.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:49:13 PM EST
    This is not a public election.  It is a Party nomination that is set up by the Democratic Parties, both state and national.  

    It sucks for the voters of Florida that their state politicians screwed them and I hope they punish them severely.  But we live in a Republic.  You don't get to pick and choose when your elected officials represent you and when they don't.

    [ Parent ]

    Well you can try (none / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:47:27 PM EST
    and go to the DNC and get them to nullify NH and Iowa if you like but I somehow doubt it's going to happen.

    The rules are in place specifically to protect NH and Iowa.  Punishing them because they reacted to Florida and Michigan would be fairly silly and Ms. Thurman, I'm quite sure, knows that.

    [ Parent ]

    So we shouldn't penalize NH and Iowa, (none / 0) (#110)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:00:40 PM EST
    but it is acceptable to penalize the voters of Florida and Michigan? Either the rules are the rules, are they aren't.

    [ Parent ]
    telling people they are not voting for delegates (none / 0) (#51)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:32:23 PM EST
    and then, after they have voted, making the votes count for delegates, makes the first statement a lie.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see (none / 0) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    how any democrat could disenfranchise their fellow democrats just because it's better for their guy.

    Isn't it better to count all the votes and have a chance at these states in November than to tell the voters to p*ss off?

    And I ask that as a Florida absentee voter who had no say in what the republican legislature did.

    Explain this: (none / 0) (#15)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:08:34 PM EST
    What about all the voters that did not vote since they were informed their vote would not count?

    [ Parent ]
    The turn out (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:10:59 PM EST
    was the highest in Florida history. That is a fact.

    In addition, voting in a primary is not a right and it is a priviledge that many people routinely sit out for various reasons, one of which is that many voters feel their votes never count.

    So in my opinion, those voters chose to sit home for whatever rason. it does not negate that I chose to vote along with millions of other Floridians.

    [ Parent ]

    the turnout was depressed (none / 0) (#21)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:12:49 PM EST
    that is also a fact.  

    [ Parent ]
    And now you want to depress it to ZERO (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:05:29 PM EST
    That makes so much sense.

    The point is 1.7 million people voted despite obstacles being put in their place.  MORE important to what their ludicrous party officials were planning to do to show who had control, when and where (depended on a state's political clout), the PEOPLE did go and vote.  Those who weren't as motivated stayed home.  That happens with primaries and elections.

    Your proposed action and your mindset is very similar to that of the Republicans who did not want to see the Florida ballot situation corrected in 2004.  It doesn't favor your candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    I want a fair election (none / 0) (#128)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:14:01 PM EST
    where everyone knows the rules going in and doesn't change them afterward because doing so favors their candidate.  I'll see your Republican comparison and argue that your willingness to discard the rules when it suits you is redolent of John Yoo.

    [ Parent ]
    You imagine my 'willingness' to discard rules (none / 0) (#194)
    by andrys on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    What we've asked for is, sure, to abide by the rules by not recognizing the votes but, if the chairman makes such idiotic rules for voters to punish THEM for Republican legislature actions in Florida or for Mich Dem party rebelliousness, then adjust for these by holding REVOTES if they're paid for, since the FIRST rule of elections and primaries is to VOTE.

      Even if my candidate might lose by a revote, I'd be for the revote, since the Dem party will be buried in the GE if they ignore this basic principle of voting.

      Also I'd be ashamed to thwart the entire basic idea of voting JUST to avoid my candidate narrowing his/her margin.
      Others will search for all kinds of reasons not to hold a re-vote though or to allow others' votes to come into play if it might affect negatively their candidates' lead.  But, just look at all the polling results for electoral votes.  We can't afford to encourage two states not to go to the polls in Nov.  It doesn't help the party or our common goal to do that.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Re: turnout being depressed (none / 0) (#62)
    by cloudy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:38:22 PM EST
    That is not a fact.  That is an assumption.  


    [ Parent ]
    I say it's a fact. (none / 0) (#65)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:40:28 PM EST
    Many experts agree.  Give me a link to someone in the know that agrees that it wasn't depressed.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to harp on this (none / 0) (#98)
    by cloudy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    but just because you and others agree, doesn't make it a fact.  I respect what you're trying to say here but it's still a theory at best.  One of my peeves about this Primary season has been the quickness with which people are willing to state opinions as fact.  

    In 2004 Dem voter turnout was ~19%.  In 2008 it was ~42%.  That is a fact.  Look at the historical Democratic Primary numbers for Florida.  2008 had record turnout.  Could it have been higher?  Possibly.  I guess we'll never know.

    [ Parent ]

    I cited evidence (none / 0) (#77)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    to support my conclusion.  If you can argue against it, feel free.

    [ Parent ]
    Dude you cited another blogger's (none / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    opinion.  That's squat for evidence.

    [ Parent ]
    Garbage. (none / 0) (#27)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    They weren't ideally thinking at home, "Gee my vote will not count.  So I won't bother!"  They were sitting at home watching the news or reading and email stating, from the DNC itself, that the delegates would not be counted.  They were reading that the Florida Primary is now bunk.  This was staight from the mouth of the Democratic Party.  

    It wasn't a lazy or idealistic "non-vote". It was a non-vote based on a fact and firm facts from the party running the primary that their vote is void.

    Now again tell me, how is that fair to those people?

    [ Parent ]

    Because it is (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:48:39 PM EST
    bull.

    The FLorida party told people to vote anyway. they told people they would probably be sat. And if you are a voter who wants their voice heard...you vote...

    In a primary, tobe fair, all that is required is that you have the fair opportunity to vote. They did and chose not to.

    Are we now going to do over every state because some people stayed home fearing their vote would not count?

    Slippery slope.

    [ Parent ]

    Actual turnout numbers (none / 0) (#103)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:58:11 PM EST
    Suggest otherwise.  I will take a simple and compelling statistical analysis over speculation about what people might have done based because of what "The Florida party told" them to do.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention the lack of campaigning. (none / 0) (#143)
    by scoutfinch on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:30:41 PM EST
    The candidates weren't here.

    I'm sure many voters researched their choices -- I know I spent considerable time doing so. I'm not discounting the power of 1.7 million votes.

    But I don't know how people can disregard the fact that the outcome of the "primary" is an outcome that resulted only from independent research. The candidates didn't have rallies, didn't appear on local media outlets, and didn't have personal events here.

    Voters expressed preferences. But neither candidate had much of an opportunity to influence those preferences here on the ground.

    If we're trying to find the candidate who's best able to win Florida in November, it makes more sense to gauge the preferences of voters after the candidates have made an effort to woo those voters directly.

    [ Parent ]

    Please stop posting that link (none / 0) (#149)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:36:22 PM EST
    the the opinion of some blogger.  It's not evidence.

    [ Parent ]
    I was aware (none / 0) (#142)
    by TN Dem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:29:59 PM EST
    Of the fact that by DNC rules there was an opportunity to petition the DNC to seat the delegates based on the votes prior to the primary date...do you think the residents of FL were not as aware as this Tennessean about that possibility?

    BTW, this knowledge came before I became a regular blog reader. In fact I heard it while watching cable news(Likely the same channels that many FL residents were watching when they saw some national adds for Senator Obama's campaign).

    [ Parent ]

    There were other ballot initiatives, not just (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:14:18 PM EST
    the presidential nomination contest.  Get real.

    [ Parent ]
    who are they? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:20:33 PM EST
    1.7 million voted and the party told everyone to vote regardless of the DNC's intended penalty. It was everywhere. In 2004, only 750,000 Dems turned out to vote in Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah and I guess (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    we should just ignore that Florida had their primary after the race was already settled?

    And I guess we'll ignore the fact that in 2004 Texas and Florida had almost the exact same number of voters in the D primary but that Texas had over a million more voters this year than Florida DESPITE Florida being the 5th primary to be held?  

    You're rationalizing, Jeralyn.

    [ Parent ]

    More people in TX ace (none / 0) (#146)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:33:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They were also assured (none / 0) (#67)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:42:08 PM EST
    that the Florida votes WOULD count and that the delegation WOULD be seated. I remember reading this at the time.

    So they had conflicting messages. It's not accurate to say the only thing they were told was that their votes would not count.

    [ Parent ]

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:43:39 PM EST
    even Obama gave them a wink to let them know that they would be seated.

    Man, can you imagine what would have happened if MI and FL had counted in the order they were won?  Clinton would be gearing up against McCain right now.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, it is a travesty. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:47:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    she would also be gearing up for McCain (none / 0) (#133)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:21:37 PM EST
    if she had won 11 primaries in a row as Obama did.  Can you imagine if any other candidate had put together such a terrible performance in February?  This would be long over.

    [ Parent ]
    Can you imagine? (none / 0) (#136)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:23:53 PM EST
    What if MI and FL actually didn't break the rules and didn't try to butt into the early campaign news?  

    Then we wouldn't be where we are dealing with two illegitimate primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    Source? (none / 0) (#71)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:43:32 PM EST
    Source?  They were told by the DNC that their delegates would not be seated because the state violated primary rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Source? (none / 0) (#90)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    Any local Florida paper at the time. And local FLorida broadcast.

    [ Parent ]
    If every paper and TV station was saying that (none / 0) (#131)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:19:33 PM EST
    It shouldn't be too difficult to find one.

    [ Parent ]
    You want one, look it up (none / 0) (#150)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:37:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Respectful of Free Speech (none / 0) (#23)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    But Jeremiah Wright is a game changer.

    Totally agree about Jeremiah Wright!!!! (none / 0) (#31)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:17:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right Now. (none / 0) (#32)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:18:05 PM EST
    Barring Obama's speech tomorrow, I think this issue dies in a week.  America is fickle with a short attention span.  This story will blow over after a month.  It will be added to a short list of Obama's mistakes.  Clinton also has a list.

    This also means nothing in the GE if Obama were to get the nomination.  For every Wright there is a Falwell.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm. Five weeks til another primary so (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    maybe this issue will not die anytime soon.  And with the speech tomorrow that will give the MSM another reason to keep talking about it.  This is a serious issue for BO.  I just read something that he said in a PBS interview (with Gwen Ifill, I believe), and he said that he hadn't distanced himself from Wright and Rezko because "he hadn't been in Washington long enough."  Some answer, huh?  

    [ Parent ]
    Check this out (none / 0) (#92)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:49:59 PM EST
    It will hurt more in the GE than the primary, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    unfortunately.

    [ Parent ]
    Really sound like (none / 0) (#41)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST
    Whistling past the grave yard. Do you think Republicans and certain media outlets will EVER let this story go? And what happens IF proof is found of Sen Obama being at one of these sermons (not saying there will be, just if).

    I don't think this is blowing over anytime soon, but its too soon to tell what the real damage is. What I hope (and believe) is that either it will be so damaging that he won't get the nomination, or if he does get it then it should be manageable in the GE. But don't fool yourself, it will hurt in the GE, it will come up again and again.

    [ Parent ]

    Comparison with Falwell and Robertson (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    shows that you are dead wrong.
    You find the offensive, and so do I, but are they ballot booth poison? Definitely not---they are (were in Falwell's case) assets to any Republican seeking office.
    How about Wright? I think his approval rating must be right up there with David Duke.
    He's poison to Obama, who is sinking like a rock on both Gallup and Rasmussen.
    If Obama hasn't dropped another 5-10 pts in a week, I'll believe that Wright MIGHT not make Obama unelectable.

    [ Parent ]
    They polled Wright and he (none / 0) (#151)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    got a whopping 8% approval.  Really popular guy.

    [ Parent ]
    What's the margin of error? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:03:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This seems like wishful thinking (none / 0) (#107)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:59:47 PM EST
    Nobody knows how this will play out.  Confident assertions that it's the death of the Obama campaign are just speculative, as are confident assertions that it will blow over.

    [ Parent ]
    Nice post!! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:17:47 PM EST
    Thank you for the update and clarifications.

    I don't understand why some are so afraid of letting the process play out itself (including the decision of SD).

    I find it pretty infantile to think that anything that can be discussed or asked in the Dem primaries
    will be a revelation to the Rep. As is they were sitting on their hands not doing any research...

    have Clinton split the difference (none / 0) (#44)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:25:57 PM EST
    my suggestion:

    1. figure out what Clinton's delegate advantage would be if they were seated

    2. Have Clinton contact half that number of her superdelegates, and ask them to pledge to vote for Obama on the first ballot if the Florida delegation is seated.

    This solutionwould show that Clinton isn't just trying to get florida seated for her own benefit, but for the party's.  And, if she gets her african-american supporters who are under pressure to switch to Obama to be the ones to take the pledge, she helps them out --- and can have them make it clear that if the DNC and the Obama doesn't take the offer, they will raise holy hell about Obama and his white supporters on the DNC deliberately disenfranchising the 340,000 african americans who voted in the Florida democratic primary!

    Riddle me this, Obamacans: (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    How do you know that Obama would have done BETTER if he had campaigned in Florida?
    The entire absurd basis for excluding the votes from Florida is that it hurt Obama, because he could not campaign. Where is the proof that Obama was hurt?
    In fact he DID campaign in FL, and he ran ads.
    Likewise, his campaign worked to get the votes out against Hillary in MI.
    Both contests were more than fair to Obama, and he lost. Because of a technicality, you want to exclude them---basing the argument in part on the unfairnesss to Obama.
    How does Obama poll in FL now? Not so well, right?
    Hmmm... something smells here.

    If Obama's internals (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:33:44 PM EST
    showed him doing well in FL, he would be all over the news demanding the votes be counted.  Actually, I think he could get away with it more than Clinton could.

    Sure, it's a political ploy, and they are both politicians, but if people are worried about the "will of the people" then that should include the people of FL.

    [ Parent ]

    indeed (none / 0) (#60)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    the "proof" is a reasonable inference based on the fact that he's closed the initial polling gap everywhere he's been able to campaign.

    If you're asserting that some spillover from a national ad buy and a "press conference" constitute campaigning, you may not be persuadable on this.  But if campaigns have no effect on the outcome, you should be calling for Obama and Hillary to stop wasting all this money and effort.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary would be a big favorite in FL, no (none / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:48:16 PM EST
    matter how much he campaigned. It was her state to lose, and she did not.

    [ Parent ]
    Then she should have (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:51:24 PM EST
    fought for Florida BEFORE the primaries began.  Of course she wasn't going to do that because she didn't want to piss off New Hampshire and Iowa.  

    [ Parent ]