home

When Is "Disenfranchisement" Not "Disenfranchisement?"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:32:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via John Cole, Steve Benen makes a sound point but then avoids an obvious one. First the sound point:

[F]or the Clinton campaign to argue that Obama wants to “disenfranchise voters” in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Indiana is pretty ridiculous. Obama wants the nomination fight to end, Clinton doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean he wants to “disenfranchise” voters in the remaining states. That’s just how things go for states at the end of the nominating calendar. Indeed, the states know that, and have a choice about moving their contests up.
(Emphasis supplied.) Steve's last line is extremely ironic since it was Florida and Michigan's initial attempt to "move their contests up" which has led to their being disenfranchised - first by the DNC's unequal and improper application of its rules and later because Obama deliberately stymied revotes in Florida and Michigan.

Thus, when Steve writes:

How [disenfranchisement] applies to Florida and Michigan is open to plenty of debate

Steve is ignoring the obvious. Indeed, Steve provides this definition of "disenfranchisement:"

“Disenfranchisement or disfranchisement is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people, or rendering a person’s vote less effective, or ineffective, through processes such as gerrymandering.”

This is exactly what has happened to Florida and Michigan and Obama has been the culprit when it comes to revotes. Steve knows this and chooses to ignore it. That has been the pattern of pro-Obama bloggers. I think that is wrong of them.

It is especially wrong from those bloggers who were outraged by what they termed Hillary Clinton's attempts to disenfranchise Nevada voters because Clinton argued that the design of the cacuuses in Nevada diluted the votes of some Nevada caucus voters. Those bloggers were being less than honest at the time and we can see that now as they have stood mute about the REAL disenfranchisement happening to Florida and Michigan when it is clear that Barack Obama is the force making sure these two states remain disenfranchised.

< Easter Sunday Open Thread | VT. Supeme Ct to Hear Arguments in Prison Food Case >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When Is "Disenfranchisement" Not "Disenfranchisement?" | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Question on DNC rules (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:47:21 PM EST
    If Obama says he will follow the DNC rules on whatever they decide on FL and MI, what if the DNC says we are going to lift the penalty on FL and go by the initial count and on MI we will give the percent Hilary got to her and the percent of uncomitted to Obama will Obama comply?   Question? Does the DNC have to ask approval of their decision from each candidate before they can make any decision?

    Does the DNC have to clear decision w/candididates (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:09:38 PM EST
    I do not think the rules stipulate that they have to, but Dean has said that he will.

    Parent
    Candidate Permission (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    And another blunder by Dean.  He knew full well that Obama would kill the deal.

    I've written some comments about this subject.  It makes no sense to me that a candidate would have anything to say about such a matter.

    Parent

    don't forget... (none / 0) (#59)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    that Dean is a politician and politicians love to deflect blame to others...political cover, plausible deniability...

    There is a DNC Rules and ByLaws Committee and they will be charged with the decision - We just had a blog covering this.

    Parent

    DNC makes the rules... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:19:26 PM EST
    if they give the candidates power to veto, then they have relinquished responsibility.

    Some leadership.

    OTL

    Parent

    Bush v. Gore (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:03:58 PM EST
    The whole thing reminds me of the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bush v. Gore - that Bush's civil rights were being violated, and that because of that  the recount should be stopped. In this instance, by giving the campaigns the right to reject any revote plans, Dean has framed the MI and FL primaries as events organized for the benefit of the candidates rather than the voters in those states and the state parties. And because the plans are not to Obama's liking, he gets to say no to them.

    Parent
    Marvelous comment -- thank you (nt) (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:17:12 AM EST


    Parent
    frankly the candidates don't have a (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    say in these votes. it is the say of the voters that matter and not hillary's or obama's campaigns.

    Parent
    that is the point (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    I don't blame Obama. He's being a politician and doing what he can to get elected.

    But I thought he was Once-In-A-Generation kind of politician.  

    Did you blame Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    for the lawsuit in Nevada? Most Obama bloggers did.

    Clearly my post probably does not apply to you.

    Win the battle, lose the war (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    Ever studied electoral maps carefully, like, for example, the 2004 electoral map?

    All of this lead up to the likelihood (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    that we will not have a legitimate nominee.

    We'll see (3.66 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    Let's hope Obama can win the popular vote by more than 500,000.

    Parent
    Hillary's pop vote margin (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    from the January contests? Sounds about right to me.

    I'll tell you something: the way the rest of these contests look like they're going to turn out, I wouldn't count on it.

    Parent

    A month is a lifetime... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    ...who knows if anyone will still be standing by the time PA rolls around...?

    Parent
    Are you predicting (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    an asteroid hit?

    (Might actually be the best solution.)

    Parent

    Now that you mention it....! (none / 0) (#48)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:24:44 PM EST


    Parent
    No This Cuts Too Deep (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by cdalygo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:51:37 PM EST
    Harken back to 2000 and the relentless pressure placed on Gore to leave the race. (Let's not revisit his and Brazil's disastrous choice not to count all the votes. Though I suppose it applies given her role in this one.)

    Remember how everyone told us to "get over it"? How the Supreme Court intervened to actually stop the count? How all of us swore we we would never let that happen again?

    Now think about what would have happened if we ALL stood up and said hell no. If instead of just Washington Republican staffers throwing a fake riot, we had flooded the streets.

    The possibilities are endless. Would those 4000 dead kids (soldiers) in Iraq be alive? Would those millions of Iraqis killed and displaced now be living under a Saddam free state? Would we fly over NYC and not see an aching hole?

    Any democratic candidate who stands by and lets this happen as a boost to their candidacy doesn't deserve it. That would go for the Clintons as well.

    That's why I applaud BTD - despite his "misguided" support for BO ;> - for continuing to make this an issue.

    "healing" (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    I have heard them now start to say:  "Let's start the healing", this is another expression that gets on my nerves.  I don't want any more scabs thank you.  

    Parent
    Weak ending, as my freshman (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    English teaching fellow sd.:

    Christopher Beam added, "So if Clinton had sealed the deal on Super Tuesday, that would have disenfranchised half the nation? Also, the idea that Obama wants to "stop voting" in North Carolina -- a place where he's all but guaranteed to win -- is just ... I'm not sure there's a word for it."

    I don't know, "dumb" keeps coming to mind.

     

    Major difference: Obama hasn't sealed the deal (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by KevinInNYC on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:41:05 PM EST
    We wouldn't be having this conversation if he had closed the deal in New Hampshire, or on Super Tuesday,  or on March 4.  

    The race continues because voters haven't reached a consensus, so yes, it would be ridiculous to not hear from the final few states.  It's also ridiculous for only 48 states to have a say, when the other two have already voted and could conceivably re-vote if necessary.  

    Parent

    Everyone should get to vote (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    That's just how things go for states at the end of the nominating calendar. Indeed, the states know that, and have a choice about moving their contests up.

    If the primary is never going to be allowed to go that long, why allow the acceptable primary calender go that long? If people want to insist that the primary should be over in March or April then the dates for acceptable primaries should be over in March or April.  

    No one is going to get to the winning number of delegates, so I don't see a point in calling for anyone to quit. This is the system that the Dems have set up, and now we get to experience it in all its glory. Sit back and prepare to be glorified people! :D

    One of the underlying (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:27:46 PM EST
    arguments that we've heard over the last year is that Obama is "something special".

    That he has proven himself, in this situation, to be nothing more or less than a self-interested politician, is noteworthy.

    Better themselves? (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST
    What has he gotten them to do to better themselves?  Put on Obama T-Shirts and march in the streets chanting Bob The Builder slogans? (Yes...I saw this happen here in Austin.)  Did he get these folks to feed the babies who don't have enough to eat, shoe the children with no shoes on their feet, and house the people living in the street?  I didn't see that happen.

    The only think Barack Obama has ever used his impressive motivational and speaking powers for seems to be to motivate people to vote for him.

    Parent

    What else have they learned? (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by hookfan on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:05:38 PM EST
     I really wonder if they also are learning that it is alright to supress and discount the voters, as long as it gets the results you want. Caucuses clearly are a poor representation of the actual will of the voters. Is that the type of influence we want more of? I doubt the democratic base does. I doubt we need or benefit in the long run from Republican like tactics of voter suppression.
       If these young voters really cared about the will of the voters they would be yelling their bloody heads off to have the votes in Michigan and Florida counted in the fairest way possible--no matter who it benefits. They wouldn't be supporting a way of voting or counting votes, or allowing votes that favor only Obama.

    Parent
    I hope you are right (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    But it doesn't look that way.  Here in Texas we got lots of new voters who voted for Obama and left the rest of the ticket blank.  There seems to be this vague notion that together we will do great things and we will be empowered, but there is no sense of what we will be doing together or what we will be empowered to do.  There doesn't seem to be a great fervor for the democratic process by which a candidate would be chosen, only a single-minded drive to weave Obama through the labrynth and secure his rightful place.

    Perhaps I have too much experience with Latin American politics, but the cult of personality is frighteningly familiar.  I have not seen this with an American politiician--the closest comparable thing is the rosy hindsight view of Reagan that republicans hold.

    Parent

    Define (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    Better themselves.

    Parent
    Disenfranchisement... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    I've been thinking about this ad nauseam.

    Parties get to control their selection processes but not entirely...not if they want a primary.  Then, they need the cooperation of their state's legislature and governor to codify and fund a presidental primary...or an initiative that passes (as happened in our state).  Parties pay for caucuses...states for primaries - $10M+ for WA.

    Now...an additional complication.  The Supremes have OK'd a 'top-two' primary for state offices...and it appears Oregon and California may be lining up to join the parade.

    Good grief.  The public think that is reform so they can vote across party lines - back and forth - on one primary ballot.

    Voter enfranchisement!

    Sigh....

    Too late! It's the law... (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:59:31 PM EST
    I think Louisiana has had a 'top-two' primary for some time.

    The less that voters care about parties, the more they think it's fair for them to choose a party's candidates.  

    Top-two can result in two candidates from the same party moving into the general election!  Just a few years ago we had 2 Democrats each/both rack up more votes than the wacky Republican in the governor's race.

    Parent

    Repubs don't allow Indies (none / 0) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    In CA.  The Repubs decided not to allow Indies to vote in their primary.  You get a Dem ballot or a Repub ballot.  I could see how it could be done on one ballot and a candidate below a certain threshold would drop out and the next candidate selection would go in to effect (like taking multiple caucus votes and flipping a coin to determine a split), but I don't see how one could vote across party lines on one ballot?

    Parent
    Yes...in WA in a (none / 0) (#93)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
    presidential primary anyone can get either ballot.  We don't register by party, so all you need to do is ask for the party ballot you want...or, if the auditor sends out 2 ballots - one for each party - just send back the one you want to vote it.  Every country runs its own elections and there's a wide range of ballot designs! (No butterfly ballots yet, but who knows?)

    However, the top-two primary doesn't apply to the presidential preference race...only to the state primary races which are yet to be held.  Sorry if I didn't make that crystal clear.

    Parent

    this democracy stuff is so messy (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:52:31 PM EST
    if everyone would just get fired up and ready to go, we could save the time and money and just annoint our president. change you can believe in.

    i blame obama. he has a choice just (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM EST
    like other choices in his past which are coming up now. he has choices and when he makes the wrongs ones i say hold him accountable.

    Forcing oppositon off ballots not new for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:27:57 PM EST
    In Illinois Obama used his position to get rid of opponents.  He is now trying to do the same with HRC.  From the Chicago Tribune:

    "The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

    There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot."
    More...
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

    So what your saying is that if (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:40:12 PM EST
    you get bad signatures to be on the ballot as admitted partially by the candidates then you are not eligable for the election.  Seems reasonalbe to me.  On top of that the most important part is Alice Palmer still believes he is a fit leader.  All I need to know~

    Parent
    If Obama have any deeply held (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:28:11 PM EST
    moral, legal or political principles besides doing or saying anything to win I have yet to see them.

    I can't recall any Obama supporter disagreeing with anything that helps Obama to win.  Disenfranchising two states, playing the race card, his association with Rev. Wright, not a peep of protest or objection.

    But screams and howls at everything Hillary does, or fails to do (like quitting.)

    Who's disenfranchising? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Black Mare on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:32:22 AM EST
    I cannot wait until HRC stops blaming Obama for the garbage that the state parties of FL and MI have stuck their constituents with.

    As far as playing the race card, that would be the MSM you're talking about.  Obama was staying away from race until the chattering classes couldn't stop their stupidity and all but demanded his address of last week.  That's one of the reasons I leaned towards him after Edwards bowed out.  He seemed to be more of an individual than a demographic.  As a white woman who chose to support candidates without regard to color or gender, I've been chastised for not praying to HRC.

    I'm howling, yes - at HRC's 'experience' evading sniper fire.  Seems Chelsea's good at dodging bullets, too.  I wish my mom had tought me such a valuable skill.

    I do have an objection or two with Obama; sorry to bring down your beliefs.  One, I shudder when he kisses Israeli ass.  We've learned some of our worst sins from Israel, and Democrats don't act much different from Republicans on that issue.  Second, I cannot find anything I disagree with Wright on.  It really helps to listen to the statements in context, but even on their own, and not even when given as the quotes some were, Wright is right in the clips, short or full-length sermons, stuck in tape loops last week.  At least the ones I saw a zillion times, which I believe were all the 'inflammatory' ones.  My ears didn't even burn much less burst into flames.

    I'm kind of peeved, then, that Obama does not agree with Wright; it means I do not agree with Obama regarding his former preacher.

    Parent

    Answer me this.. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by beenthere2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    Did not the duly elected state legislatures of FL and MI change state law to hold primaries on the new dates?

    Would not states rights/other legalities prohibit a private group (DNC) "bylaws/whatever" from superseding or otherwise working to the detriment of the citizens subject to the state law?

    The DNC rule invalidating the delegates should be held null/without effect and the votes as cast held valid, right?

    Just curious for your thoughts...

    Hmm ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    I really like you're thinking on this, but I'm afraid the parties can decide how to award or allocate convention delegates (or not) based on the results of the election.

    Wonder what BTD thinks?

    Parent

    sure (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    but it's all left to interpretation by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee...(Section 20/C/7)
    7. In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C.
    of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee,
    after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party
    and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all
    provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to
    bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules
    and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders
    and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in
    attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to
    2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws
    Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state's delegation shall not
    be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and
    convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and
    elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to
    achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the
    pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic
    party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in
    good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state
    law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.


    Parent
    So DNC rules trump state law? (none / 0) (#62)
    by beenthere2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:27:03 PM EST
    IF a DNC rule represented something illegal under state or federal law would it also be the last word?

    Parent
    IMH (and not lawyerly) O (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:48:19 PM EST
    In Florida the 2 parties get their primary paid for by the state. In addition, they also get a special spot on the ballot (party of governor 1st position and other party 2nd position).

    I read a court ruling (what little I could understand) about another state where the party was found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act because they were charging people to attend a convention to determine their nominee. The court said that they didn't have an inherit right to be on the general ballot outside of the right the state law had given them (or something like that it was confusing and I am no lawyer). Thus, even though they were a private political party they were still subject to the same voting laws as the state.

    It just seems weird to me that the voting would be under Section 5 preclearance rules but the treatment of the results would not be. But since Nelson's lawsuit was thrown out I am probably misreading all of this.

    Parent

    seems to me (none / 0) (#70)
    by beenthere2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:44:36 PM EST
    state shoud have autonomy in the administration of how their citizens participate in making their presidential preferences heard and political parties should follow that. Th dog should wag the tail.

    Parent
    Private v. gov't (none / 0) (#112)
    by Black Mare on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:37:07 AM EST
    DNC and RNC are not government agencies.  Nice try.

    Parent
    And private with special circumstances (none / 0) (#116)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:56:56 AM EST
    And churches are not government agencies. And yet, because they accept special treatment by the government (tax exemption) they become subject to special rules by the government (no political speech).

    The 2 major political parties are often granted special treatment by state governments - paid for primaries, the lack of the same qualifying procedures of third party candidates and even a special place on the ballot.

    So being a private group, in and of itself, is not enough to say that it isn't subject to the laws and regulations of government.

    Parent

    and so it will remain... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    when the subject of seating the delegates selected by the votes in FL and MI, Obama is either going to support their being seated or blocking them.

    All indications are that he will block them.

    The 'Politics of Hope' and the 'Politics of the Possible' became 'too complicated' in MI and will be the 'Politics of Disenfranchised voters'

    Of course Obamamanians are marching lockstep with the campaign themes of 'they broke the rules' and 'his name wasn't on the ballot' and 'he didn't campaign there' and ...

    The politics of the possible, except when it isn't convenient or politically expedient.

    The most likely scenario is (none / 0) (#105)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:41:57 PM EST
    that the delegates will all be seated.  The DNC will give each candidate an equal representation.  I don't think its fair but I believe this will happen.

    Parent
    It must be the kool-aid (none / 0) (#125)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    that causes you to accept notions that disregard the actual will of voters for some calculation that suits your vision of how things should be.

    That you cannot see the idiocy of your logic is disappointing but it is that very notion, that the will of the voters count only when and where we want it to count that has given us the current administration.

    Parent

    we should all just agree and accept (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:54:40 PM EST
    that everything is OK if you are named Obama.  This continual disapproval of Obama doublespeak and hypocrisy is not doing the country any good.  Can't you all see?  If we just jump on board and walk hand in hand then everything will be groovy.  Hillary hasn't earned nearly half the delegates and voter approval...she's been lucky that half the voters hold severe racial bias.  Obama raises more money, gives better speeches (historic ones really), and his 97% liberal Senate record is going to pull in independents and Republican voters by the dozens.  Come on people Obama is inevitable.  The sooner you realize this the sooner McCain and CO can be called racists and establishment and negative...why continue to see a fellow Dem be called such things when we can smear Republicans instead?  

    Quite simple really.  The math may be fuzzy but fuzzy is vaguely comforting.

    Ew (none / 0) (#113)
    by Black Mare on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:53:44 AM EST
    You clearly love your candidate.  Blindly and unconditionally.  Damn scary.

    So you think all rules should simply be dropped for Hillary because she's Hillary?

    Parent

    I gather you don't live in FL or MI? (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:01:17 PM EST


    Mel Brooks says (4.75 / 4) (#10)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    that satire only works when people have been laughing at the real thing for a while. Some of my former favorite bloggers, like Matt, just can't see that I guess.

    Hey (2.25 / 4) (#3)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    All Hillary would have had to do was agree to caucuses, but she said no. Then it would have been game on. What's the matter, Hillary? Don't want to enfranchise the voters of MI? Heh.

    Michigan and Florida did not offer cacuses (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:50:08 PM EST
    They offered primaries. Obama made sure they would not happen.

    But your "hey, look over there!" comment is duly noted and appreciated. Why?

    Because it allows me to again point out the caucuses are by definition disenfranchising. No one who cares about voters and voter enfranchisement would ever champion them.

    Parent

    A caucus was one of the (3.50 / 2) (#13)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    proposals floated along with a mail-in ballot. Hillary said a flat "no way".

    Caucuses may be all that now. They did once serve a purpose but are more a historical relic now, not suited to the larger populations involved and greater public involvement.

    Parent

    No it was not floated (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:58:17 PM EST
    What was floated was a firehouse primary and Clinton did not say no to that.

    She did object to a caucus in Florida but that was never seriously considered anyway as Florida has never had a caucus ever.

    Sorry, Obama is the bad guy here, you just have to accept it and rationalize it away somehow.

    Parent

    A Michigan Caucus was Always on the Table (3.00 / 5) (#43)
    by jsj20002 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    I am an officer in the Leelanau County Democratic Party.  We were advised by the Michigan Democratic Party in late 2007 to prepare for a caucus on February 9, 2008, because it was uncertain whether the primary legislation would survive litigation. Our deputy chair was trained by the MDP, along with officers from all other  county parties, in how to conduct the caucus.  Our county party protested the January 15 primary because (a) it violated the rules of the national party per se, (b) the primary itself would cause the disenfranchisement of our voters, and (c) four major candidates had withdrawn to support those rules rendering meaningless any tabulation of the votes.  We supported going forward with the Michigan caucus on February 9. After the January 15 debacle, the Leelanau County Democratic Party conducted its own caucus on February 9 according to the rules that had been set by the state party leadership before they decided to proceed with the hopelessly flawed primary election. Any other county Democratic Party could have easily followed our lead. As I have previously posted, Barack Obama received 82% of the votes in our caucus.  I cannot for the life of me understand the logic that Barack has disenfranchised the Michigan Democrats. They were disenfranchised because Carl Levin, Debbie Dingell, Mark Brewer, and Jennifer Granholm wanted an early primary and were willing to risk Michigan's having no participation in Denver this summer. They lost the bet. Since Hillary Clinton does not win many caucuses, it is not without reason to suspect that her supporters -- Levin, Dingell, Brewer and Granholm -- did not back down because they knew she would lose a fair Michigan caucus by a very wide margin.  Perhaps thats the real reason Hillary has consistently opposed using a caucus -- one that we are already trained to conduct -- to overcome the disenfranchisement of Michigan voters.    

    Parent
    So are you suggesting that (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    Obama would have won statewide caucuses with 82% of the vote. Or is the result of your caucus perhaps indicative of the fact that it wasn't a real rteflection of the voters' preferences? Since this seems to have been an unofficial caucus, I have trouble believing that it was conducted fairly. Were all candidates fairly represented?

    Parent
    No, I'm not saying he would have won 82% statewide (none / 0) (#119)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    I have no idea what percentage he would have won statewide, but his message was heard by our predominately white, well-educated, membership.  Our caucus was conducted according to the rules, but of course it was unofficial. The names on the ballot were Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Barack Obama, and that perrenial Michigan native son "uncommitted". Final votes were Obama 82%, Clinton 16% and "uncommittted" 2%. (Gravel's rather unique message was somehow lost up here.) The voter turnout in bad weather was twice as high as attendance at our regular general membership meetings. The caucus was announced in the local press and covered by our ABC TV affiliate in Traverse City.

    Parent
    Just another indication of how (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:29:58 AM EST
    undemocratic caucuses are...

    You might have had twice the turn out of your regular general meeting, but the turnout for the caucus you mention was a whopping 89 people!

    According to this
    in the Jan 15th primary, Leelanau democratic results included 1315 voters. So the total number of voters in the caucus was 7% of the number that voted in the primary!! (Clinton won the county with 48%, to 42% "uncommitted")

    Parent

    So they even have people like you on the inside? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:46:14 PM EST
    How can they possibly Lose?

     The voice of the people. That's how!!!!!!!! The people's voices will be heard. If not in the Primaries then in the GE.  They will either not vote in it or they will throw their hands in the air and vote the other way to show this party we are fed up and not going to take it anymore.

    When they lose sight of what they are supposed to represent and they embody exactly what most of us stand against then they do not under any circumstances deserve our participation.  Certainly not on their behalf.

     They need to remember that this is our party and not a corporation with leadership that has nobody to answer to.  They will answer to all of us when they lose the GE and are all sent packing with their dirty tails between their legs. Nancy, Howard, Donna?  Any of you guys ever want another job again?


    Parent

    Caucuses Huh (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    Well, I'm an officer in the Eaton County Democratic party and NO ONE in our county (suburban Lansing) was trained to run a caucus. So when you say " ...officers from all other  county parties" I have to call you on that one. Like the party has so much money to burn that it could be squandered on something that might not happen.

    I'm also curious about this: "Any other county Democratic Party could have easily followed our lead."

    Leelanau county is a very beautiful place but I doubt that the total year around population exceeds 25,000.  You have no incorporated cities or villages in the entire county so how can you say that any other county could have followed "our lead?"

    I have to ask; did your mock caucus take place at a county party meeting? You do realize that in the primary Hillary Clinton carried your county as she did every other county except Washtenaw (U of Mich.) and Emmet (another beautiful lightly populated vacation area to your northeast). I also have to ask just how many people attend your monthly party meetings?

    I mean no offense in pointing out your very small population, etc., but when you suggest that it would be duck soup for every other county to follow "our lead" you're quite frankly talking out of a lower orifice.

    The citizens of your state were disenfranchised by an imbecilic ruling of the DNC and a DNC approved solution was blocked by your candidate's supporters in the state senate.

    And by the way Mark Brewer (a great guy) had NOTHING to do with this situation and I'm past sick hearing Obama supporters make that baseless claim.

    Michigan gets kicked in the teeth enough as it is and we certainly don't need our own people contributing shoes.

    Parent

    I like Mark Brewer too. (none / 0) (#120)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    And I campaigned for Jennifer Granholm and I will campaign for Carl Levin.  Yes, Leelanau County is small. And, yes I understand that Hillary "won" Leelanau County, but IMO she would have "lost" badly if Obama and Edwards had been on the ballot. The LCDP has about 300 dues paying members and slightly less than 100 turned out in bad weather for the caucus.  It was held on Saturday February 9, which I believe was the earliest date Michigan could have complied with the NDP rules.  The caucus was not part of a regular meeting which are held in the evenings.  I do not understand why your county party was not asked to send anyone to the MDP caucus training program; perhaps they had someone already trained.  I certainly agree that conducting a caucus in a much larger county would entail much more work than ours did.  

    Parent
    As I posted above, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    89 people turned out for the caucus. 1315 turned out for the primary. Do you really want to insist that the caucus was a more democratic alternative?

    Parent
    Your facts are unpopular here (none / 0) (#115)
    by Black Mare on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:30:53 AM EST
    I've never seen a blog like this where the ratings have nothing to do with contribution to one's understanding of the issue at hand but rather indicate how much your facts shine favorably, or not so, on the official candidate of the blog.

    As someone who had Obama in mid-pack of the original group and Clinton somewhere nearby, I gave you a 5 for offering something other than a nasty comment based entirely on opinion.  Thank you for relaying your experiences in Michigan.  It is pretty much the same as a friend in Lansing has reported to me.

    I don't ever expect to be popular here.  I back all the wrong candidates, and that's all that counts.

    Parent

    funny... (none / 0) (#127)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:47:16 AM EST
    the ratings system seems to work the same way at DK or just about every other blog that I have seen.

    On the contrary though, from what little I have seen, I think you will be quite popular here as you seem to express your thoughts clearly and fairly.

    Parent

    You haven't been to DK in a while, then (none / 0) (#135)
    by Black Mare on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:10:33 AM EST
    Troll-rating someone who simply disagrees with you is not permitted on DK and has not been for a couple years or longer.  The new troll-rate is actually a 'hide comment' box, but that's pretty recent.

    The 1-2-3-4-5 system was done away with years ago.  I remember someone getting terribly upset when I gave her a 3 or something.  It was a pretty useless post, so I never understood the grave injury I caused her....

    I only lurked here for about a year; I finally registered after figuring I'd like to be able to comment on actual legislative issues and causes that get covered here more than in general blogs.  Innocence Project, ACLU cases, SCOTUS etc.

    Of course, since then I haven't had anything to say on the legal issues. ;-]

    Parent

    No, she did flatly reject a proposal for a caucus (2.66 / 3) (#20)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    I'll have to look it up. Gotta go cook right now though, so later. Happy Easter!

    Parent
    She did IN FLORIDA (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    ut it was never considered because, as I repeat my comments in toto, Florida has NEVER EVER held a caucus.

    Parent
    No, it was MI (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    But I'll have to get you a link later.

    Parent
    It was not Michigan (4.80 / 5) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:12:11 PM EST
    IT was Florida. And BTW, this is irrelevant - Michigan CHOSE a primary. Obama said not to the primary.

    If Michigan had offered a caucus then we can talk.  

    "Look over there" is tired now AA. DSeal with it - Obama is for disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan.

    Tell me why you love Obama for that.

    Parent

    Here you go - (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:06:13 PM EST
    US News & World Report disagrees with you - Clinton Says `No' to a Caucus Do-Over in Michigan

    If you were actually interested in doing anything but bashing Obama you'd acknowledge Clinton is just as responsible for the impasse. Certain forms of voting advantage her, other forms advantage him.

    The situation is hopelessly compromised so that the actual will of the voters can't be heard, because the large number of indies who vote in MI's open primaries have been essentially tricked into disqualifying themselves from a contest that will count.

    So all that's left is political maneuvering between the candidates for their own advantage. And if that's all that's left happening here, I'm sure as heck going to support whatever maneuvers support Obama over maneuvers that support Clinton. I'm honest enough to admit that though, and not hiding behind "disenfranchisement" as an opportunity to engage in endless moralistic finger-waving and partisan bashing of my non-favored candidate.

    Parent

    That article (4.33 / 3) (#81)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:08:03 PM EST
    does not specifically refer to a caucus held in MI, nor any specific plan outlining one.  Whereas Obama did not support SPECIFIC, fleshed-out legislation for a revote in MI or FL.  Show me the proposed legislation for a caucus in MI.

    Parent
    It clearly refers to MI (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:02:10 PM EST
    That was when she was still adamantly opposed to a FL revote of any sort and was insisting the FL delegation be seated as is. She's quoted right in the article saying "I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida." (That was before she realized she did need a do-over after all to have something to convince the super-delegates to please please please vote for her, and so reversed herself at the 11th hour.)

    So when she said "I would not accept a caucus," clearly she was talking about MI, which she hadn't yet peremptorily ruled out the idea of a do-over for. Maybe even she was a little embarrassed at declaring herself winner of a Soviet-style election without an actual opponent, especially since she'd only pulled off such a small win. Almost as embarrassing as Ashcroft getting beaten by a dead guy.

    Obviously she nixed the MI caucus plan. As the DNC said, all parties had to agree before operational plans could go forward. She killed the caucus plan, he killed the mail-in plan. They're both equally responsible. But there was no way anyway that any form of revote could have actually been fair to the voters of MI. What was needed was to be able to go back and work from a level playing field, as if the previous primary hadn't been held. And the state election roolz killed that.

    Parent

    Her stance, at that point, about Florida (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:26:27 PM EST
    is clear in that article.  But I disagree with you that what she said about caucuses was referring only to Michigan.  

    Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified--but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."

    2 million people didn't turn out to vote in MI or FL alone - almost 600,000 turned out in MI, and almost 1,700,000 in FL.  She's clearly talking about both states.  She is anti-caucus revote for both.  I think you can make a pretty good argument about that being a fair position, since the original elections seeking to be replayed were primaries, not caucuses.  And as far as I know, no piece of legislature was put forward to hold a caucus in either FL or MI.  That is not the case when it comes to (mail-in) primaries.

    I don't think you can equate the approach the Obama campaign has been taking to revotes with Clinton's opposition to revotes in a caucus format.  She admittedly has not been a perfect crusader for voting rights, but Obama has been writhing in his own hypocrisy with this issue.  Caucuses were dismissed early on in this revote debate.  The possibility of new primaries advanced much, much further - til they were stamped out, with Obama on the side of the stampers.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#91)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:39:42 PM EST
    My initial assertion in this thread was that HRC killed a plan for a revote in MI using caucuses. I think I've proven that assertion. If you want to now move the goalposts to discuss Obama and his hypocrisy, you can carry that on with your fellow Clinton cultists. The both of them are hypocrites - they're pols fer crissakes.

    Parent
    Dance of the goalposts (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:03:47 PM EST
    Caucus propositions were dimissed BEFORE they developed into concrete plans, which was NOT the case with the primary-based solutions in either MI or FL.  Her initial terms were no caucuses.  Clinton came out in support of the Michigan primary PLAN.  In support of a Florida PLAN.  I admit she precluded caucuses.  

    But Obama, whose stance was we'll go with what the DNC approves, did not come out in favor of any of these plans, even as they were being debated in the state legislatures, and allowed them to be derailed.

    If your initial assertion is just that she didn't want the revotes to be in caucus form, then okay, you proved that.  But if you think voter disenfranchisement is equally her fault, which your initial post implies, then I would say that a lot remains to be proven on your part.


    Parent

    So you want to give her a pass (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    on her initial conditions, when Obama likely would have agreed to a caucus, and a revote would have proceeded. But you think he's an awful hypocrite for having conditions of his own. Okaaaay. And the DNC didn't approve the plan, they said it meets their technical specifications for a revote. They didn't approve the plan because Obama had his own conditions, and all parties had to agree for the plan to gain DNC approval.

    I know we have to operate by The Clinton Rules here, but really, this is too obvious...

    Parent

    No, Obama's initial conditions (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    were that MI and FL "have an opportunity to participate in the convention," and that they would "simply follow the DNC here."  You don't think the DNC saying the MI plan meets their specifications constitutes the DNC approving the plan?  It was sanctioned by the DNC!

    Parent
    I think you are (none / 0) (#82)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM EST
    wrong in your assertion that BTD is only interested in bashing Obama.  I have read multiple posts where he was also critical of Clinton for not doing more to see that re-votes were approved in Florida and Michigan.  

    Clinton has done better Obama in most primaries.  But a firehouse primary or mail-in primary would really be the method to enfranchise the most voters in Michigan.  Too many people who voted in the Feb 5 primary might not be able to participate in a caucus.  It hardly seems fair to penalize those votes in a redo where the form would benefit Obama.  It's nice of you to admit that you prefer your candidate to win at any cost but you might want to think beyond the primaries to how this could hurt him in the general elections.  

    Parent

    He may have a few other (none / 0) (#87)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    issues on his agenda as well, but that's been a central one. To argue otherwise is laughable.

    Parent
    Now (none / 0) (#88)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
    you are using innuendo - he has an agenda?    

    I am not arguing anything.  I stated my belief that you are not correct and stated a fact that can be backed up with prior posts.  

    Parent

    Of course he does (none / 0) (#89)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:21:57 PM EST
    Promotion and defense of Hillary. To his "tepid support" for Obama I say LMAO.

    Parent
    re: firehouse primary or mail-in primary (none / 0) (#96)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    Both would have involved working from a party-held list of 1.1 million MI voters who'd previously asked for Dem ballots - before Obama began to energize people beyond the old hard-core Dem base, and excluding the large numbers of indies who voted in the R primary instead because they were told the D one wouldn't count. So that's inherently disenfranchising to Obama supporters and helpful to Clinton supporters.

    Holding a party-sponsored revote using lists like that is de facto changing MI's vote from open to closed primary. Closed primaries may be better for the party (not to mention better for Hillary), but the fact remains that MI has open primaries, and so doing that would be changing the roolz.

    Parent

    That was the day after (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:24:02 PM EST
    this was announced -

    A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

    "They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."

    Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.



    Parent
    And the military men and women (4.50 / 2) (#74)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    of Michigan, you know, the ones currently risking their lives for freedom will NOT count.  Mail in ballots do not count in caucuses.  Thanks again for another wonderful solution.  If they can't vote why should any of us be able to.

    Face it.  She won because he took his name off the ballot like a spoiled child who didn't want to play. Caucuses are retarded and disenfranchise working people, older people, soldiers, mail in voters, and anybody else who can't take a day off from work to do the dirty work for Howard Dean and Donna Brazile.

    Parent

    Michigan D's Know How to do Caucuses. (none / 0) (#121)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:19:34 AM EST
    As I posted above, we actually did one.  

    Parent
    And only 89 people showed up, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    as opposed to 1315 for the primary. Your caucus is NOT a good argument for caucus votes. In fact its a perfect example of how undemocratic they are.

    Parent
    So now (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:29:42 PM EST
    you all will rescind your 1 ratings and your huffy denials, and will instead troll rate BTD for providing incorrect information, right? hehe

    Parent
    The Clinton campaing is truley the one (2.33 / 3) (#107)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:53:16 PM EST
    trying to disenfranchise voters.  The ONLY WAY she can win barring a miracle is Super Delegates.  Talk about undemocratic, she will lose pledge delegates and POPULAR VOTE.  If you are so strong in your belief regarding the Obama conspiracy theory that he is responsible for the votes in Florida and Michigan not counting then you haft to acknowledge that the Clinton campaign is trying to disenfranchise votes from all 50 states not just 2.

    Parent
    Different type of caucus (none / 0) (#114)
    by Black Mare on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:14:18 AM EST
    Not the kind we think of where people try to talk others into joining their groups.

    The caucus in Delaware I think...2000 was it?  This was done in response to the state stepping out of order.  It was not a Iowa-style caucus but rather a Texas-style caucus in which voters signed their candidate's sheet and went home.

    Parent

    Why (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    should she agree to caucuses when we've now seen the dirty tricks being done in caucuses to throw them to Obama?  And why should Obama get to call the type of re-vote.  Those states were primaries in the first place.  Why should they be changed now to give Obama a distinct advantage.  Oh, I forgot.  Everything is supposed to benefit Obama.

    Parent
    caucuses are not that "democratic". (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    they are held at times when a number of people can't make it. furthermore, is NO ONE'S BUSINESS how someone else votes. and the ways caucuses in a number of states were run further reduces any possibility of real democratic voting.

    Parent
    Caucuses are not democratic (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    at all.

    No having absentee voting disenfranches people living out-of-state (including members of the armed forces stationed elsewhere - people who have earned the right to participate in the nominating process, wouldn't you think?).

    No having absentee voting also disenfranchises invalids who can't manage to get to the caucus and spend two hours there; certain older people for the same reason; and parents who can't afford a babysitter for the hours taken up by going to, participating in, and returning from the caucus.

    Not having a secret ballot is antithetical to the principles of the U.S. and makes caucuses subject to serious abuses.

    Another thing the DNC needs to fix is the supposedly "proportional" way they allocate delegates to candidates. The number of delegates each state has up for grabs should be a fixed multiple of the number of electoral college votes it will cast in the GE, or else some states' votes will count more than others. Also, the number of delegates a candidate wins in a primary should be proportionate to her/his percentage of the popular vote, with extra fractions going to the winner.

    [/rant]

    Parent

    there are so many more opportunities (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    to intimidate others and force your agenda.  in no way is it fair. voters should have the right to vote in secret. it is not my neighbor's business who i vote for in elections. older people, sick, and the infirm cannot come. my mother was so ill and couldn't get out to vote but she took great pride in casting her vote early. she couldn't stand in line or go to a caucus with all the goings on there.

    Parent
    Further Info (none / 0) (#123)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:30:44 AM EST
    The ballots used in our Leelanau County Democratic Party Presidential Preference Caucus were secret.  To obtain one you needed to sign a statement that you support the Democratic party and that you either are a registered voter or will be one by the date of the November election.  The single polling place was the public library meeting room in Leland, the county seat. So, of course, our caucus was "closed" to both Republicans and Independents whereas the draft legislation for the mulligan MDP primary would have allowed some R's and I's to vote, but only if they had not taken the R ballot in January.  

    Parent
    Zero delegates for Puerto Rico? (none / 0) (#84)
    by leonid on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    Puerto Rico and the other territories included in the Democratic primaries don't have electoral college votes. I'm not saying you're wrong, just the details need a little work.

    Parent
    Caucuses are disenfranchising (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by leonid on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    The whole idea behind caucuses is that the local political elite should decide rather than the voters. The nature, including the scheduling, of caucuses naturally discourages, even prevents, the more widespread voter involvement of primaries.


    Parent
    Assuming what you say is true, (4.25 / 4) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    and it isn't, are you saying that Obama would only allow a little bit of enfranchisement? That's the inevitable product of a caucus, you know.

    Parent
    It was one way to set up a do-over (3.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    that didn't have an inherent disadvantage to him built in.

    As for disenfranchisement, he says that the MI and FL delegations will be seated at the convention. How's that disenfranchisement?

    Parent

    If they're going to be seated (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:58:35 PM EST
    they have to be seated in a way that represents the will of voters in the two states. How does he now propose to achieve that, after the way he's tried to discredit the existing contests?

    A 50:50 split is complete disenfranchisement and a nonstarter.

    Parent

    Isn't the way to rationalize a 50/50 (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    split in delegates between Obama and Clinton to point to the Republican decision to seat half the delegates from MI and FL?  Not that it makes any sense on close examination, but still . . . .

    Parent
    I haven't heard that one (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    but it sounds more like blather than a rationalization to me.

    Parent
    An inherent disadvantage? (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    Yes the contest which favors the voters participating is bad for Obama. Heck of an argument there.

    Parent
    Yes, the contest that disqualifies (4.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:05:01 PM EST
    indie voters in an open primary is bad for democracy.

    Parent
    when someone registers as an (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:09:33 PM EST
    independent that is the chance they run. so be it. i don't like whining from independents. i am a registered independent and if i can't vote in a primary due to that, then the fault lies with me. so little time and so many faux victims.

    Parent
    Michigan Does Not Have Party Registration. (none / 0) (#126)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    In past primary's you could vote for either the R's or the D's, but not both and no one made you state which party you supported.  In the January 15 Michigan "primary" for the very first time you had to tell the election clerk which ballot you wanted to use. That requirement offended many voters. So there is now an incomplete list of people who actually voted D in January that has been made available to the MDP. That list is far smaller than the number of people who vote D in the general election. Frankly, the proposed legislation for the Michigan mulligan had many more flaws than reverting to the caucus system that had been plan B all along.  

    Parent
    Yes, that wonderful (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    caucus system that in your own county only drew out 7% of the number of voters that the primary did! What a plan!

    Parent
    Then he should run as an Indie. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    This is a Democratic Primary. Us lifelong Democrats should have a voice in our party.
    If he is so desperate to be the Independant voter candidate then he should run that way.

    Maybe Hillary will when they steal the nomination from her.  I hope so.

    Parent

    Independent voters would not (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:07:03 AM EST
    have been disqualified.  Those that did not already use their vote in the Republican primary would be allowed to vote.

    You seem to be missing the one man one vote idea.

    You don't want to play unless a select group of  people, who'd support your candidate, are granted the highly irregular privilege of two votes.

    Parent

    That is the DNC rule (4.66 / 6) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    you do not get to vote in both the GOP and Dem primaries in the same year.

    You want the rules changed do you?

    But your "concern" for those poor GOP voters is duly noted.

    What happened to the whole Limbaugh for Hillary nonsense?  

    Parent

    Of course the truth is (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:12:59 PM EST
    that indies have been far more beneficial to Obama in most contests.

    The DNC rule is a good one, and in this case it ensures an almost-closed primary, which is always preferable.

    Parent

    BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    Hehehe.  You are "on" today.
    Sorry I came to the show late.

    Parent
    Actually, isn't it (also) state law (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    in Michigan, I read?  Y'know, the basic you-can-only-vote-once-in-any-election law, and that includes only once in a primary, even if one part of it has to be redone.  This underscores the idiocy of the Obamans, suggesting that there oughta be a law that they get to break the law.

    Parent
    Thom Hartmann covered Rush plan (none / 0) (#117)
    by Black Mare on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:23:32 AM EST
    Thom Hartmann appeared on Fox/Friends the day after Texas and Ohio.  While he waited in the green room with Michael Reagan, his adversary for the segment, the Fox-bots talked about the Rush order for Republicans in OH and TX to vote for HRC and asked for people to email in if they did that.  Hartmann reported that within the next 15 minutes or so before they went on the air, some 1200 people emailed in, many telling of how uncomfortable they were asking for a 'Democrat' ballot and others angry that they were not able to vote for their local Republicans - duh!  Yes, these people said they'd followed their leader's orders.  Voting tabulation in normally Republican districts, mostly rural, showed highly disproportionate Democratic ballots, especially those with no other votes besides Dem/president.

    I don't know how long Hartmann keeps his stuff up, but this story can be Googled easily enough.  I caught the actual radio show, but there are, of course, podcasts available.  Hartmann did a more detailed show a couple days after the Fox appearance with more external info.

    Michael Reagan did NOT want to talk about the Rethug votes for HRC.  Would not go there.  Fox people sounded giddy in the clips; Reagan sounded nervous or embarrassed or ???

    Parent

    And Dick Morris and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by bodhcatha on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    himself have been encouraging R's to crossover and vote for Obama for months.  But Nobama's acolytes and the msm only noticed it when it became Rush for Hillary.  The hypocrisy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I am so furious, I will never vote for that arrogant lightweight if he manages to pull off this bamboozle.

    Parent
    Different Motive (none / 0) (#134)
    by Black Mare on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:39:50 PM EST
    There is a number of disgruntled Republicans who, after voting most of Reagan-Bush-Bush-Dole-Bush-Bush, are unhappy with the R party and are with Obama in voting and even as an entity in themselves, ''Republicans for Obama.''  They tried to sign me up to vote in NW Pennsylvania and were genuinely happy when I told them I'm already a Dem.  We have to declare party affiliation 30 days before an election.  These guys were clearly new Democrats and were even familiar with the PA-03 anti-English candidates.

    I didn't think they were real either, but a lot of them are relatives of friends of mine.  When a long-time friend is finally getting her mother and brother to vote D after decades of family rancor, I'm not going to belittle the harmony.  And no, McCain's candidacy has not changed this particular trend that I know of.  They will vote Obama in the general if he's the nominee.  They will not vote for Hillary.

    Limbaugh wanted Rethugs to vote for Hillary in the primary only.  That would stop the Obama momentum and, he hoped, get Hillary the nomination and McCain the general.  Quite different reasons for every move.

    Parent

    Are you suggesting (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:57:43 PM EST
    that the general election will have an inherent disadvantage to Obama built in to it since it is run just like a primary?

    Parent
    The General Election will be Fairer. (none / 0) (#130)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    than the Michigan mulligan.  You will be able to vote for either the R or the D candidate who are both on the ballot. You will not have to state that you did not take the R ballot in January.  If the Michigan mulligan had come to pass there would have been a number of Limbaugh dittoheads able to vote for Hillary -- those that did not participate in the January primary because they hated both McCain and Romney for different reasons. Full disclosure here.  I supported Edwards in 2004 nomination battle, went to Ohio to work for John Kerry in the general election, and supported Edwards fervently this time around up until he dropped out. I am now supporting Obama. My wife was strongly supporting Hillary until her husband began trash talking Barack.  We both love Chelsea.

    Parent
    endless war (1.00 / 3) (#55)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:00:52 PM EST
    If you Democrats want to have an endless war over the nomination soaking up money and leading to each candidate weakening the other, be my guest.

    Anything new? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:03:28 PM EST
    No.

    This is interesting. Evan Bayh (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:05:12 AM EST
    suggests counting the number of electoral votes in the state each candidate has won to date:

    NYT

    YES - isn't this what it will actually come (none / 0) (#132)
    by allimom99 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    down to? I've seen numbers on that - I believe it's a pretty strong argument for Hillary vs. McCain. I don't see most of the stated Obama won actually turning blue in November!

    Parent
    Jeralyn links to this article. BTD (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    isn't addressing this theory yet.

    Parent
    When Is "Disenfranchisement" Not "Disenfranchisement?" | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment