Michigan Re-Vote Plan Meeting Resistance in Legislature

The Michigan re-vote plan appears still possible, but is meeting resistance in the state legislature which must approve it, according to one legislator who was at a closed-door meeting today.

Barack Obama's campaign still hasn't endorsed it even though they have had a copy since yesterday. Hillary's campaign supports it.

"A re-vote is the only way Michigan can be assured its delegation will be seated, and vote in Denver' at the party's national convention this summer, Clinton campaign aide Harold Ickes said Monday. "If the Obama campaign thwarts a fair election process for the people of Michigan, it will jeopardize the Democratic nominee's ability to carry the state in the general election.''

< Final Thread: Obama's Speech | Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on DC Handgun Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is a biggie (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    If the Obama campaign thwarts a fair election process...

    Maybe I'm off the mark here, but this is a much bigger deal than the Rev. Wright issue. Can you imagine if Barack wins the nomination in a scenario where Michigan and Flordia's votes don't count? This will be 2000 all over again. We could very likely lose the election. I think this will become a much bigger issue for the Obama campaign if they continue to thwart these states rights to be counted. Even if he doesn't want a revote, he shouldn't admit it. It's a politically dangerous area that's about to become more dire.

    yes i can imagine barack winning the (none / 0) (#6)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    nomination without elections in michigan and florida.  when the dnc decided to penalize the two states, it became a forgone conclusion for all the candidates.

    the more pertinent question is:  are you going to continue to support a candidate who is gathering around the back door whispering, winking and spreading myths about paths to victory?

    the legacy of this race is more likely to be senator clinton losing her senate seat in four years.


    That was then. This is now. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    The contest that is going on now was never to be predicted. If the DNC had any idea that it would go all the way to convention,they never would have completely stripped the states of their delegates. For being as stupid as they were, they've made their bed and are being forced to lie in it without having a back up plan.

    Please remember that half of Democrats want Barack, the other half want Hillary. If he wins the nomination by a minor majority without Fla and Michigan, all heck will break loose. It does not matter what the DNC ruled, there will be millions of voters voices that have not been heard.

    These two states are not Wyoming and Rhode Island. They're big and extremely important for the Democratic nominee. If you say to them your vote doesn't count, you're headed for trouble.

    And by the way, after this election, if Hillary doesn't win the nomination, she'll be offered anything she wants. What doesn't kill her will make her stronger.


    i agree with your take. however, the confusion (none / 0) (#12)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    with michigan and florida was compounded by the clinton campaign.  every time she claimed victories in those states in her speeches, the canard grew into what you see now.

    Regardless... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:51:27 PM EST
    Clinton obviously needed a boost or some momentum to show that she could win big states. She tried. It didn't help her.

    Barack aired commercials in Florida (eventhough no campaigning was allowed). If he had won, he would have touted a "win" in Florida even though the votes didn't matter. We'd have heard a different story than we're hearing now. The nomination probably would have been over by now.


    but its not (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST

    Huh? (none / 0) (#20)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    Clinton obviously needed a boost or some momentum to show that she could win big states.



    if you apply the rules of the dnc, (none / 0) (#22)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    and those the candidates agreed to at the outset, then the nomination is over mathematically speaking.

    clinton's campaign acknowledges that they will lose the pledged delegates.  they cannot win more contests at this point.  there is a slim chance she might tighten or take over the popular vote.

    the decision to pursue this narrow path does not benefit the party, it benefits the personal ambitions of the clintons.  i say this as a long time supporter of the clintons.

    winning at any cost pales in comparison to losing with dignity.


    And you don't think... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    Obama is trying to win at all costs?  Puh-leeze - this is the big leagues!

    I think what is really frightening for some (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    of Obamas supporters is that suddenly, if the blood in the water news cycles continue, Hillary now has a chance to win the race by the rules they laid out.
    on delegates.
    what was it? 65% of the delegates left she needs? or something like that.
    I havent been keeping up.  but suddenly that doesnt seem that far fetched.

    so, you concede she needs sixty five percent (none / 0) (#35)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    of the delegates.  are you prepared to concede the race if she fails to achieve this percentage of pledged delegates?  if so, this race ends in north carolina.

    this is most likely going to the convention (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    get used to that too.

    all hail maccain. (none / 0) (#38)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    we will all lose in denver.

    thats your opinion (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    not mine

    btw I am not concedeing anything (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:33:30 PM EST
    I dont even know if that is the correct number.
    this is what I know:
    the Clintons know as much about politics as anyone on the planet.  if she did think she could still take it, she would be out.
    she is a politician. see, I can admit that too.

    i voted for clinton. (none / 0) (#41)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    i do not support this approach to victory.  i prefer a strong party and challenge to maccain.

    supporting a candidate till the end is admirable.  following one off the cliff is .....


    I agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    at this point I think the cliff is in front of Obama.
    wont be following.

    We do not (none / 0) (#83)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM EST
    concede... only the candidate can concede from the race.

    are you prepared to concede the race if she fails to achieve this percentage of pledged delegates?

    I hope that whe waits until all the unknowns are played out before she concedes.

    This primary race has taken so many twists and turns that predicting out comes are very difficult.


    only one thing is certain (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    its not over

    obama is winning. (none / 0) (#34)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    obama has been winning since long before texas and ohio.  obama has won almost three times the contests.  he leads in pledged delegates.  he leads in the popular vote.

    the only argument the clintons can make is:  "there is still time left on the clock."  true enough, but, when you are down by so many points, there are not enough three pointers and four pointers are non-existent.


    I guess (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    we'll see.  wont we?

    Ahhh (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    basketball analogies...my favorite!

    So...time left on the clock but 'not enough 3-pointers' you say?

    Guess you never saw Freddie Brown in his heyday with the Sonics...

    Let's try football...ever see the leading quarterback fumble on the 10-yard line, losing the ball to the opposing team?

    How about baseball...let me caution you not to head for the parking lot to beat the traffic at the 7th-inning stretch with Ichiro coming up to bat in the 8th.

    Oh ye of little faith...or experience!  Many a fan (and many a wager) have come up with egg on their face from betting the farm on their own surety, forgetting that the odds are always with the house.

    When the fat lady sings, it's over.  And 'not until...'


    Mathematically speaking we have a tie, actually (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by cymro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:25:23 PM EST
    the nomination is over mathematically speaking

    If this were a football game, we would be headed for overtime, because even though one team has gained a lot more yards, neither has been able to win during regulation time.

    In this game, you must have a plurality of delegates to score enough to actually win, and neither candidate does. So unless one candidate withdraws from the race, "overtime" will begin at the Democratic convention, when all the delegates -- including the superdelegates, who each have one vote just like every elected delegate -- cast their votes in the first ballot.

    And whoever wins, wins. That is not "winning at all costs". Both teams are playing by the rules.


    I believe I have heard many times (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    that she needs to start winning by huge margins.
    what if she does just that?

    what if mccain comes out of the closet? (none / 0) (#27)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    the path to victory for clinton travels through the back door and back rooms of denver.  no reasonable person denies this.

    this approach is as narrow minded as it is literally.  the damage being inflicted everyday on the party is due to clinton's choice to stay in the race without a conventional possible outcome.

    whether you support obama or clinton is irrelevant to me.  as democrats, we would be best served preparing for november.


    if Obama cant win in November (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    and I think he can not, that should be part of the "planning"
    Hillary is not going to walk away in the current state of the race.  nor should she.
    get used to it.

    they'll move the goal posts again (none / 0) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    like, duh

    eventually those goal posts (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    will reach the end of the playing field and stadium.

    Speaking only for me (none / 0) (#99)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    When I voted in Florida, and when she won, she did not have to remind me.  

    BTW, I know some Floridians missed all the craziness and drama of a primary with candidates, non stop television ads and mail boxes bursting with candidate mail, no candidate reps at polling places,  but it was the greatest thing! And a record turnout.

    It was very democratic, well organized, well staffed and extremely serene. Best election I have ever attended.


    Doubtful (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    It's an insufficiently supported thesis.

    "Obama's campaign" (none / 0) (#100)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:35:35 PM EST
    What happens in Michigan is the responsibility of the Michigan legislators.  Barack Obama's campaign does not enact the law for the state of Michigan.

    Related: Daschle's proposal for Florida (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    I just heard Tom Daschle on Ed Shultz float the idea that the Florida delegates should be seated proportionally according to each candidates' percentage of nationwide elected delegates at the time of the convention.  He has been a surrogate for Obama before, but he did not say if this is an 'official' proposal from the Obama campaign.  I suspect it is a trial balloon.

    I didn't expect them to propose anything more insulting than the 50-50 split, but here it is.  If the total elected delegate split is 55%-45% in favor of Obama, he would get 55% of the FL delegates.  This would totally reverse the results of that primary.   It was radio, so I could not see if Daschle had a straight face when he proposed this.

    I've lost respect for quite a lot of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by liminal on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    surrogates on these issues.  I really have.  I'm sure that if the situation were reversed Hillary Clinton and her surrogates would be stonewalling and advocating the most harebrained "solutions" to the Michigan and Flordia problem that we have ever heard, much like Obama supporters and surrogates are now.  The tables aren't turned, however, and Clinton surrogates like Ed Rendell have the great luxury of saying: "Count the votes!"  

    I support counting the $&%*($@%@@@@%%@# votes of the people in Florida and Michigan regardless of whom it benefits.  I find the posturing and proposals for "compromises" that ignore the actual votes cast by actual people by attempting to assign delegates at 50/50 or based on the national split really insulting.  You can be sure that Tom Daschle won't get any of my money, not even peripherally, for whatever book he is promoting, for whatever foundation he signs on to.  

    How can they make these stupid proposals with a straight face?  "Let's oppose and stonewall revotes and then totally oppose any sort of solution (like seating the delegations at 50% or seating the pledged delegates but not the superdelegates) that actually nods toward the will of the people who took time out from their normal days to show and at their polling place and vote."  

    Best options: 1. Revote; 2. Bite the bullet - seat the full delegations sans superdelegates; 3. Seat 50% delegations.  

    I would be about 5000% happier with the leadership of the Democratic party if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Howard Dean held a press conference tomorrow jointly announcing that the Democratic party believes in small "d" democracy, absolutely, and that we will have new contests in Michigan and Florida if the candidates themselves have to walk through every neighborhood and knock on every registered Democrat's door and hand them a piece of paper with two names, two checkboxes, and a secure, pre-stamped envelope.  


    I'm sure it's just a prelude (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    to their eventually proposing that Obama get all the delegates...



    This isn't new (none / 0) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    Not a new proposal, one that has been hanging out there for a while.

    I had only heard the 50-50 split up until today (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:24:02 PM EST
    and that was bad enough. I guess this might be a negotiation tactic to get Clinton to agree to the 50-50 after all.

    I'm Sure This Idea Will Play Well With FL (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    voters. Well Obama did get something right. The Dems are the stupid party.

    Maybe I should proportionally split my vote between Democratic and Republican based on some existing formula in November. Makes about as much sense.


    We could just hold the general election (none / 0) (#24)
    by liminal on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:06:24 PM EST
     - in, say, California and Tennessee, then "apportion" the rest of the vote based on the results therein!   Then, to be "fair," we could just rotate the two states every four years, so that every hundred or so years, every state will have had the chance to vote!

    Think of all the campaign $ we will save.  


    Why CA and TN? (none / 0) (#29)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    If all that is important is the ability to win the big states, let's just hold them in those states.  Sorry, TN, you're out.

    Clearly (none / 0) (#46)
    by liminal on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    you did not read my plan.  We'll rotate every four years.  In 2052, Alaska and <s>San Marino</s>, er... Wyoming will be the Chosen States.  Small states count too!  Every 100 years, like everyone else.

    Should Say (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    split my votes between Democratic and Republican  candidates.

    Why do the candidates have any say? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    This is between the Democratic Party and the voter's and the state. The candidates should not be party to this. Is this normal in legal matters? Do judges routinely make rulings and say that they won't enforce them unless both the prosecutor and the defense agree with them?

    I agree. (none / 0) (#53)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    by giving candidates a veto they are just trying to prove that they don't want to be seen as unfair to Obama.... even though that may be unfair to Clinton. We have got to a point that being fair to Obama is more important that being fair to Clinton (because she cannot cry  of racism)

    I don't think it's that simple (none / 0) (#64)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    I think that the party is in a difficult position. Most high level partisans initially supported Clinton, because she is clearly more qualified. But Obama is very, very popular among two groups that the Democrats really need: young people and African Americans. If Obama wins the primary, then he may very well lose the election, but his voter's will be angry at the nation and the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. If he loses the primary, then it will be portrayed as "dirty tricks" by the Democratic Party and we will lose many of those lovely new voters.

    They can't actually take sides and support Obama over Clinton, but they don't have to actually help Clinton win, even if it would be wiser and more fair for them to do so. Politics is not fair. And heck - there is always the chace that Obama's charisma will carry him throught to inaugeration day, and there is every liklihood that Clinton will draw enough right-wing opposition to kill not only her chance of winninghte Presidency but also drag down downticket candidates. Obama's voters will almost certainly bring up downticket candidates.

    It's win-win for the Democratic Party, politically speaking. If they lose the Presidency but win more power in Congress, then they win. If they win the Presidency and gain a lot of new Democratic voter's, then they win. The women who are annoyed because of Clinton't treatment won't abandon the party for long. What are we going to do - vote for the Republican Party? Stay home? No. I've been a Democratic voter for a long time, and even if I sit this election out, I'll come back eventually.

    Politics isn't about the "best man" winning. It's about ... well, Politics. It's a game. I can understand the reality of it all, even though the cynicism breaks the heart of even a born cycnic like me.


    I'm sorry, but (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    I happen to think it makes a difference who becomes president, and I also think that if Barack Obama gets the nomination as a result of superdelegates being strongarmed to set their judgment aside, and loses to someone who is, in no way, shape or form the "best" person to lead the country for the next four years, there are going to be a lot of extraordinarily angry people to contend with - and I will be one of them.  Early reports suggest that Obama supporters are not voting downticket, so it reinforces for me that all that energy and enthusiasm is not for the party, but for one person - and that not only does not help the party, but it doesn't help the Congress, either.

    As for depending on the power of a Democratic Congress to keep a President McCain in check - it will have to be a majority that is large enough to overcome the tendency of the Blue Dogs to vote with the Republicans, and it will have to be with majority leaders other than Pelosi and Reid - and I'm not sure anyone today can guarantee that safety net.  As near as I can tell, the last 2 years of a Democratic majority - albeit a slim one - have not done much to check the power of George Bush, or accomplish some of the things we elected that majority to do, and I do not expect that even if we get it, a majority in Congress will do much to console us for the loss of the WH.  And the Supreme Court.  And all the agencies and departments.  If we have to deal with VP Lindsey Graham and SecDef Joe Lieberman, buy pharmaceutical stocks now, because we are all going to need heavy-duty meds, in large quantities.

    I am tired of this talk about "win-win" when analyzing the potential loss of the WH.  At some point, we run into the law of diminishing returns when a party that is as energized as Democrats have been, who have turned out in record numbers, who have donated a gazillion dollars to Democrats, still cannot manage to actually win the WH.  At some point, people get tired, and retreat back to a position of "why bother - it doesn't make any difference," and that is an attitude that is hard to overcome.

    I have had enough of "moral victory," and I am not alone.  

    And for the record, in case you couldn't tell, I am more than annoyed, I am angry.


    I'm angry too (none / 0) (#89)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    I want this election to be about who is best qualified to run this nation, not who is the best public speaker. I want this election to be a referendum on failed Republican policies, not on racial or gender injustices in America.

    you mean we should ditch the real democrats just (none / 0) (#72)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:57:28 PM EST
    to appease the Lord Obama and his fanatic supporters!

    Calm, please (none / 0) (#92)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    Take a deep breath. This is a polite blog. They enforce it. It's quite nice, actually, given the current state of affairs in the blogosphere. It's okay to be angry, but I don't think phrases like "Lord Obama" and "fanatic supporters" really are necessary. I'm sure that the administrators will delete your comment (along with this one in response) if they find it necessary, but, meanwhile, let's help them along by not saying nasty things.

    What are we going to do? (none / 0) (#79)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    Too soon to tell.  It will become clearer as we see this contest play out to August.

    I can say this, tho...there will be a variety of reactions by 'the women who are annoyed' by the Dem Party's treatment of Clinton...but NONE of them will be good for the party.  None.

    Some think the biggest loss will be the votes of stay-at-homes.  

    I think the biggest loss will be our time, our energy, our money and our organizational experience, previously devoted -- year after year -- to the party.  There is no evidence that the Obama enthusiasts could ever make up for that loss...not in the past and not now, so good luck with faith in the future.

    What else will 'we' do?  We will help Emily's List and female candidates deserving of our support in local, state and national elections.


    Emily's list! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    I forgot about that. I've been donating through blogs and the DNC so long that I forgot about Emily's list.  Thanks for the reminder. I'm not going to stay home, though. I may sit out the Presidential race, but there is a local Dem who stands a pretty good chance at winning a seat long held by Republicans. I'm going to proudly vote for Charlie Brown, regardless of who wins the Democratic Primary.

    I gather that Charlie Brown (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    is not running against Peppermint Patty, as he has your vote? :-)

    And yes, EMILY's List (not yelling; it is an acronym) has been a fave of mine for years.  Without it, my state might never have finally moved out of the Hall of Shame and sent a woman to Congress . . . but not until the eve of this millennium.  


    He was running against Doolittle. (none / 0) (#98)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    or "Do-Nothing" as he was known in these parts. Now, he is running against "Republican-to-be-determined".  It's a heavily Republican district in N. California, and he is still a bit of a longshot, but he almost won against Doolittle last time, and he's running again. It would be lovely if he could pull it off.

    Is there any polling (none / 0) (#1)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    to support the claim that voters will abandon the Democrats in Michigan and Florida? Or is that just a supposition?

    Some polling of FL was (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    mentioned a Talk Left within the last week.  Not as much of a firestorm, per the poll, as predicted by some bloggers.

    not scientific, but AOL has a poll (none / 0) (#5)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    It's a map of all the states and the corresponding support for each candidate.  The latest poll was showing 69% for Clinton in Florida on that map.  It's interesting to see the trends at the very least and compare the support in each state...

    If I find the link I'll post it in a bit.

    Nothing is going to matter for another month.  All this back and forth may be irrelevant until Pennsylvania.  A win there for Obama would be big.


    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#9)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    Moved Michigan last week from the "Leans Democratic" to "Toss Up" category for the fall. Of course, this could be a combination of many things, but it was on the heels of the flare-up over this issue.

    Ras. had McCain winning Michigan by (none / 0) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    6 points against both Clinton and Obama.

    Florida (none / 0) (#50)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    There are 2 Florida polls regarding that.

    Geller's poll was just of Dems who voted in the 1/29 primary:

    Voters said that if the controversy is not resolved and Florida Democratic voters do not have a voice in choosing the Democratic nominee, only 63 percent will still vote with Democrats.
    Among the other voters: 14 percent said they would send a protest vote and consider voting for a Republican, 12 percent said they were unsure, 6 percent said they wouldn't vote for the Democrat for president but would for state and local races and 5 percent said they wouldn't vote at all.

    The other poll

    A whopping 31% of Democrats polled 3/10 by  InsiderAdvantage for Florida Insider say they would be "less likely" to vote for the Democratic nominee if Florida's delegates aren't seated at the national convention.

    Both of these polls were prior to the mail-in plan being dropped.


    Please don't continue to hold up the statements (none / 0) (#11)
    by along on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    of Harold Ickes as anything that should be given credence. As a member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, Ickes himself voted to strip both Michigan and Florida of their entire delegations. He has no standing to challenge or question any other party on their stance on the matter.

    sounds a little like a talking point (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    Harold would probably disagree.

    Jeralyn, were there campaign conference (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    calls today?  If so, what were the issues pushed and raised?  Thanks.

    no re-votes... (none / 0) (#23)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    ...is incredibly problematic for Clinton.  She knows the delegations won't be seated as-is, and that the best she can hope for is to gain some minor edge when the credentials committee is through.  But if they don't count as-is, then her share of the popular vote there probably doesn't count either in the eyes of the superdelegates.  That narrows things down to the remaining contests.  Most likely she'll win PA, KY, WV, Guam and PR.  Obama will probably win NC, OR, MT and SD.  There's really only one state that's really up for grabs--Indiana on May 6.  If she wins Indiana, she's got a decent argument to make to the superdelegates that she should be the nominee.  If she loses there, the MSM narrative will likely be that she's been mathematically eliminated from any possibility of being the nominee.

    Whoever has the most pledged delegates is likely to control the credentials committee which will decide MI and FL.  So, basically, Clinton has to win 4 states and PR in order to stay in this thing.  Obviously, losing PA would knock her out immediately.

    hate to nitpick but (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    "She knows the delegations won't be seated as-is"

    That is actually pure speculation.  We don't know what she knows for starters, but even if we are  guess, she may not be in a position to know whether it will happen or not either.

    Just because some bloggers have strong opinions that such a scenario won't play out, doesn't make it a fact.  Does not make it so.  I could just as easily declare that she "knows" they will be seated if this goes all the way to the convention (and I wouldn't be the first to say that)

    But I prefer not to presume I am an authority on what will or will not definitely happen.  It is a nasty habit that far too many on the blogosphere seem to practice.


    Let me just say... (none / 0) (#47)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    ...that for her to assume they will is probably not a practical approach.

    Nope, it may hurt Obama more (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    I think, because now he can't show that he can win one of these big states.  He's got Illinois, but Clinton would win that, too.  Now polls show Michigan moving from Obama to McCain -- and at the national level, Obama is dropping, dropping. . . .

    If I'm a super-delegate, I don't see this as good for Obama, either.


    He's won more of the "swing" states... (none / 0) (#48)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:52:01 PM EST
    ...that were in play in 2004, than Clinton has.  There's no question we'll win California and New York in the fall.  Missouri and Virginia, on the other hand, would be major pick ups for us, and Obama puts both of them in play.

    Don't count on Missouri at all (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    -- not with how close it was, not with his demographics, and definitely not now with his minister.  (Virginia, I don't know as well.)

    And too many others of his states were caucus states.  They just don't tell anything useful for fall for super-delegates to consider.  Another downfall of Axelrod's caucus-exploitation strategy, as he thought it wouldn't matter past Super Tuesday.


    Clinton polls better in Missouri then (none / 0) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    Obama does. Neither win it though.

    And Clinton won Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida (I know, I know) and will win West Virginia and Penn. I think that comes to more swing states.


    Doubt MO Will Be In Play For Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:05:15 PM EST
    Fairly conservative state except for the few Democratic strongholds. Even many of our Democratic voters tend to be more on the conservative side. Don't think Rev. Wright,  even after Obama's speech, will play well here in MO.

    Yep, my Missouri relatives (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    who had been hammering away with everything pro-Obama they could find and forward have suddenly gone silent in the last few days.  

    Btw, MO Blue, I know you will understand this, too:  They worked hard for McCaskill but also seem to have a hard time finding good things to say about her lately, either.:-)


    my experience living (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:24:50 PM EST
    one mile from MO is similar except the ones I know never had much good to say about Obama to start with.
    they certainly agree about McCaskill.

    Campaigned And Contributed To (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    McCaskill. Knew she wouldn't be great but not as bad on issues I care about as she has proven to be. Wish I could be like that big donor in FL and get a refund.

    At one time I thought the Dems had a chance for a sqeaker win here, but now I don't think either Obama or Clinton could win the state.


    What does Senator Tupac Hunter mean??? (none / 0) (#55)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    State Senator Tupac Hunter:
    An overwhelming number of members had concerns and unreadiness to go this route.

    What a lame excuse??? ... move that @ss.. get to work. we need to count the votes.

    Situations reversed (none / 0) (#56)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    If the situations were reversed, and Obama were behind in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised and every other reasonable measure I'd say pull the plug on his race.

    Clinton wants to turn over the will of the Democratic electorate even while she is bleeding super delegates. She has no reasonable chance of victory. She couldn't delay the Texas caucuses, couldn't pull off a Florida revote and now the Michagan legislature has been dragged into it. She lost 10 Iowa delegates over the weekend. Enuf???

    i abandoned the clinton campaign (none / 0) (#60)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    after texas.  she had to win big in texas to keep the door open.  if she did as well in texas as ohio, then her case would be stronger.

    you are spot on as it goes with the shoe on the other foot.

    clinton's remaining supporters are caught up in a myth of wise old super delegates coming to the rescue.  if obama made the same case, he would be mocked like hukabee.

    the clintons are taking advantage of a power vacuum in the party and the stature of the former president.


    So ... you supported Gore ceding... (none / 0) (#67)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    ...in 2000? I didn't. I want to see my candidates fight as long as there is a chance of them winning. Clinton is probably not going to win, but I would be very disappointed in her if she dropped out. Millions of people have voted for her, campaigned for her, donated to her. She owes them this. The "will" fo the Democratic electorate will be determined at the convention, not before.

    Please stop inaulting everybody who voted for Clinton by telling us that our votes should just not count because she is now a longshot.


    obama is winning (none / 0) (#68)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    and will win, unless the super delegates overturn the results.  

    i also voted for clinton, but i will not support a fight to the death.

    it makes no sense.

    if you would like to participate in an all out delegate fight, i respect your choice as much as i disagree.  gore is a leader of a higher caliber, one who knows how to lose gracefully.  clinton would serve her political future well by following his example.


    I don't want to lose gracefully (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:03:47 PM EST
    Democrats have been losing gracefully for way too long. I want winners. If Obama wants the nomination, he can fight for it. Preferably honestly. This isn't about Clinton's politial future. It's simply right v. wrong. You don't abandon your supporters and quit when you are within reach of winning. I'll grant that the odds are against Clinton, but that isn't an excuse for quitting. If it were, then Obama should really have pulled out long ago, when the numbers were against him.

    And, while I'm at it, please drop the "fight to the death" metaphors. As far as I know, this election isn't going to be decided by a duel on the convention floor, muskets at 20 paces.


    i have supported the clintons for decades, (none / 0) (#80)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    through thick and thin.  however, i place the party before personal loyalty.  if you recognize the odds as they are, then weighing the costs is appropriate whoever you support.

    the damage of this process is not worth a long shot at best, personal ambition at worst.  if this is the latter, you better believe there will be political consequences.


    Then perhaps Obama should drop out (none / 0) (#85)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    If it's simply a matter of reducing the damage to the party, then wouldn't it be best if Obama just decides to be Clinton's VP and drops out of the race? His supporter's would support that, and the Democratic Party would have a decent chance of winning in the fall. Why should his "personal ambition" get in the way of a Democratic success in the fall?

    Actually, I don't expect that and would never seriously suggest it. This isn't personal. It isn't about who I support. There is a process in place to select a candidate. We are in the middle of this process. It's insulting to the candidates and their supporters to suggest that they should just drop out in the middle of a race.


    john edwards did. (none / 0) (#87)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    joe biden did.
    chris dodd did.

    Edwards has zero chance (none / 0) (#91)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    He might have, but it was clear early in the game that he was not going to get any media coverage. Most people didn't even know he was running. He did the right thing. Dodd and Biden never had a chance, period. Clinton actually could win an upset victory at this point. She owes it to her voter's to stay in. And if the general election comes down to a fight, I expect the Democratic nominee to fight just as hard for the Presidency as they did for the nomination. The "good of the nation" is served best when people's votes are all counted.

    Edwards had as much chance as (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:03:50 PM EST
    any of the candidates when this started, and I would love to know what would have happened had the media been in his corner instead of Obama's.

    No sense wondering, I guess, but I can't help but feel like the whole procress is so manipulated that we might as well be voting for the next American Idol.  Text your vote to...

    If Clinton wins, it will be among the greatest comeback victories ever, and the sweetest one will be over the media, which must have held strategy meetings to think up new ways to throw obstacles in her path.


    I agree moslty (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:40:48 PM EST
    except that I think the sweetest victory will be over left blogistan.

    priceless comment by kos (none / 0) (#57)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    So regardless the fact that Michigan's and Florida's contests will end up being non-determinative to the nomination, their sacrifices will ultimately help create a system that gives more Americans a voice in the process.

    via dkos


    These guys crack me up.

    Sacrifice (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    I wouldn't mind being sacrificed for a good cause. However I would never have chosen state primary order as my cause so I wish someone would have consulted me first.

    He wants the delegates split (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:55:12 PM EST
    He doesn't just want them not seated. He wants them seated, but he wants them seated in a way that violates the will of the voter's in Florida and Michigan. I can understand the logic of not seating them, even if I don't agree with it. I cannot understand the logic of simply taking delegates away from Clinton and giving them to Obama. This is pretty brazen, even for Markos.

    clinton does not have a delegate to take (none / 0) (#74)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    away in florida or michigan.  until a agreement is reached, there are no delegates to be seated.

    She won the election (none / 0) (#78)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    Can we please stop pretending that there was no election. Millions of people went to the polls and voted. That is an election. They made a choice. We can seat the delegates selected in that election or we can not seat them. The delegates exist. This isn't an excercise in particle physics where the election may or may not exist depending on how the DNC decides. It exists. The debate is over whether it counts or not.

    if your point of view is fact, (none / 0) (#81)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:21:27 PM EST
    then why is this discussion occurring?  why are the states being told by the dnc their delegates will not be seated as is?  why is the delegate count needed to win 2025 instead of 2208?



    Politics (none / 0) (#86)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    But politics cannot undo the fact that millions of people went to the polls and selected a candidate. The debate is over whether these people's votes count, not whether they happened.

    michigan and florida broke party rules. (none / 0) (#88)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    the dnc made that it clear what the consequences would be.  that has nothing to do with either candidate or the voters.

    i agree it sucks, but changing those rules mid stream is out of the question.  withstanding an agreement, the delegate count needed to win is 2025.


    This isn't about rules (none / 0) (#90)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:47:38 PM EST
    It's about votes. People went to the polls and voted. They didn't have any choice in the matter. I don't like to see votes not get counted. I guess 2000 is still fresh in my mind. This is the last I'll say, since I don't think I'm going to change your mind and I know you aren't goint to change mine. Happy last word, and I enjoyed the debate.

    And Dean is a great leader (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    and it's all about the roolz -- so much for crashing gates, huh?  Thanks for the link; this is classic Koskrap.  

    Stop puting kos links here (none / 0) (#63)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:26:56 PM EST

    Lord Kos Melts Down (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:28:00 PM EST
    I love the Orange-ade diary (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:50:45 PM EST
    excerpt there, copied (I checked it, too) from That Other Site -- how to flak the speech even before Obama gave it, because "we know it will be wonderful."  Much rec'd, more than 500 comments from the fighting keyboardists:

    "I suggest everyone who supports Obama and/or the Democratic party do these three things as the speech is ending (and again, unless something goes horribly wrong we know it will be wonderful):

    "1. Send an email to everyone in your address book and tell them that you saw/read/listened to the speech (whatever is correct) and that it is wonderful (as long as you believe it was so) and that they should watch it on their own WITHOUT listening to the spin artists out there.

    "2. When you get hold of the Youtube piece do the same.

    "3. Step away from Kos and go to the comment and message boards on the national, local papers online and tell them that you liked the speech, are proud of Obama and that together -- one million strong -- we are going to change this country. Send out an LTE as well but first act online.

    "And perhaps as a 4th -- donate to Obama after the speech -- this is the right time to create another spike in the donations (but this is less important than the first 3)

    "If you doubt the third point is important look at the comments on sites such as Politico, Chicago Tribune etc.  The right wing Rush bots are all over them.  BUT REMEMBER -- there are more of us -- get out there and push back EVERYWHERE.  EVERY POLL, ON EVERY SITE saying -- this speech is good enough....if you believe it is (and I am sure it will be) ACT -- SUPPORT OUR MAN -- FIGHT."


    Oh, dear Lord... (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    Seriously, that DK excerpt triggered my gag reflex.

    The population of the U.S.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    ...is over 300 million. It's going to take more than a million to get Obama elected, no matter how loud they shout.

    Times poll: Dems want primary results to count (none / 0) (#95)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    Times poll: Dems want primary results to count


    "If there's one thing that this survey says is you have to acknowledge the Jan. 29 primary on some level," said pollster Tom Eldon. "You really can't say the Florida primary was a non-event to voters. It was a non-event to Howard Dean according to the rules of the DNC."