home

Gene Lyons On The Democrats' MI/FL Problem

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:21:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via corrente, Gene Lyons on MI/FL:

As recently as 2000, Democrats were outraged that, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush vs. Gore, not all of Florida’s presidential votes counted. In 2008, advanced thinkers supporting Sen. Barack Obama have persuaded themselves that fairness dictates that none of them should count. Nor Michigan’s, either. Better that the voters of two critical swing states comprising close to 10 percent of the electorate be disenfranchised than that Obama’s inevitable nomination be delayed. Nobody’s expected to notice the main reason that Team Obama faulted every suggested revote plan: He wouldn’t stand the proverbial snowball’s chance of winning either state’s primary. Rather than face that unpleasant truth, his supporters proposed various compromises with one common denominator: that Obama be awarded delegates he hasn’t won. That this strikes them as reasonable reflects the deep unreality into which roughly half the Democratic party has fallen. Once again, with feeling: The votes belong to the voter, not the candidates.

< What Pelosi Has Sown | More On Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gene Lyons On The Democrats' MI/FL Problem | 160 comments (160 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Um, DUH. (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    Why can't the Obamans realize what weaponry we are giving the GOP by not allowing a re-vote or the seating of the delegates?

    We are NOT the party of disenfranchisement. It is NOT OKAY to ignore such a large portion of the electorate.

    Hello?

    Oh ok... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    But Hillary can negotiate with already pledged delegates and state she's willing to play the superdelegates?  It doesn't go both ways.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama took Clinton delegates (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:31:06 PM EST
    in Iowa and in other states we are proudly told by Obama supporters.

    I detest the practice myself.

    I condemned it here.

    I also condemn Obama's blocking of revotes in FL and MI.

    Can you condemn ANYTHING done by Obama? I am positive you are incapable of doing so.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is already doing that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    In Texas.

    Same standards, please.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh ok... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    So the postcard was going to magically turn the delegate?  Sending postcards = negotiating now?  Ignoring the fact that it was stated as a mistake.

    [ Parent ]
    What about Obama's call to David Paterson? (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    The new Governor of New York?

    He's a pledged superdelegate for Hillary. Obama tried to poach him. Didn't work though.

    Really, I don't understand the double standards here. The superdelegates can vote for whomever they want.

    [ Parent ]

    But he just called to congratulate (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    the Gov.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, I live in New York. (none / 0) (#56)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    He tried to poach Paterson.

    Paterson was Lt. Governor and thus a superdelegate prior to his elevation. He committed to Hillary a long time ago.

    [ Parent ]

    i know. Campaign spin. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    missed the snark. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    sorry, I'm new. :-p

    [ Parent ]
    I'm supposed to be marking it. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh ok... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    Patterson was already a superdelegate before he became governor, he wasn't accorded superdelegate status because he's the governor of NY.

    [ Parent ]
    Not quite (none / 0) (#37)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    No.  It equals that both camps are doing it.

    [ Parent ]
    Ahem (none / 0) (#59)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:04:23 PM EST
    One camp has stated they will do it without regard to the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    what does that mean? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    "without regard to the popular vote"

    Poaching someone's delegate (other than the superdelegates) cannot be done w/o regard to the popular vote, since that is roughly how delegates are determined.

    [ Parent ]

    Right, (none / 0) (#156)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    because sending a postcard = poaching.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, OK... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, which is whether or not Michigan and Florida's votes should be counted. We cannot disenfranchise them and still call ourselves Democrats.

    The superdelegates are going to decide no matter what we do and no matter which candidate wins. Obama cannot win enough delegates to get to the magic number either.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously, the point is... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:37:09 PM EST
    You can't harp on "disenfranchisement" if your willing to have the leader in the popular vote lose because of a handful of superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]
    How is Obama the leader in popular vote? (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    Why, by not counting Michigan and Florida, of course!

    The primaries are far from over. Big states have yet to weigh in.

    And once again, you miss the point. The point is that we are discounting the votes of Michigan and Florida. Not. OKAY.

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    Just curious, what was the turnout like in Florida and Michigan?

    [ Parent ]
    Florida (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    I don't know Michigan but I can give you Florida turnout:

    Florida Dem turnout: 42.30%
    Average Dem turnout in closed primary states: 40.74%
    Median Dem turnout in closed primary states: 41.75%

    [ Parent ]

    Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:38:25 PM EST
    594,398 people voted in the Democratic primary.

    HRC received 328,309
    Obama removed his name voluntarily and did not receive votes, but "Uncommitted" received 238,186

    In Florida, 1,749,920 people voted in the Democratic primary.

    HRC received 870,986
    BO received 576,214

    [ Parent ]

    Who's we? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    You attribute positions to people without at all making any attempt to evidence such position.

    [ Parent ]
    oh ok (none / 0) (#27)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    you're*

    [ Parent ]
    Disenfranchisement is a pretext (none / 0) (#71)
    by Moopsy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    Nobody cared about it when it happened in August.  Now that it hurts Clinton, everyone is a voting rights advocate.  Pure politics and hypocrisy.

    [ Parent ]
    The reason it (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    wasn't a huge issue back then was the candidates were hoping that a clear winner would have emerged, rendering the issue moot. Come on, you know this.

    [ Parent ]
    So Hillary's not allowed to change (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:48:39 PM EST
    her position based on the facts on the ground?

    We all criticized GW Bush for not changing HIS positions based on the realities of life.  

    True leaders change their positions based on the changing facts.   Nobody knew the race would be so close.  Now that it is, the races in Florida and MI need to be accounted in order to know who really won.

    Are you against recounting votes in close general elections, too?  Should the candidates in close elections state ahead of time that they won't recount votes, then be disallowed from changing their mind if the election is too close to call? I've learned in non-close races the vote counts are rather sloppy.  However in close races, the counts have to be more precise.  Fl/MI is completely analogous to that.


    [ Parent ]

    A lot of people were screaming very loudly... (none / 0) (#78)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    and many of them were from Florida and Michigan.

    They are going to be very, very angry if something isn't done.

    [ Parent ]

    Utter and total hogwash (none / 0) (#129)
    by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:43:17 PM EST
    Try using citations and links and you'll get closer to stating what actually happened.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton is not negotiating with pledged delegates (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:40:41 PM EST
    I know she made recent comments to the effect that "pledged" delegates are not actually pledged.

    This was a statement of fact.  She has never said she intends to lobby pledged delegates to break their pledges.  However, thanks to the avalanche of calls for her to drop out, she has been obliged to drop hints here and there as to the numerous ways by which things may not go as planned for Obama.  

    I think the "pledged" delegates statement was one of her more awkward ways of making that point, but I do agree that making that point in a number of ways has been necessitated by the Obama camp's withdrawal-pressure tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    Good One (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    Very small minded decision, considering....

    Better that the voters of two critical swing states comprising close to 10 percent of the electorate be disenfranchised than that Obama's inevitable nomination be delayed.

    Now that is boneheaded.


    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by david mizner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:30:32 PM EST
    This is the one substantial piece of moral high ground that Clinton can lay claim to. Sure, she's supporting revotes for political reasons, but so what?

    It's painful to see alleged champions of people-power--like Kos--not strongly supporting revotes.

    They don't acknowledge that the voters of Florida and Michigan were disenfranchised by the stupidity of their elected reps, exactly the kind of elite error that the blogosphere should try to correct.

    There is no honor (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:33:22 PM EST
    among bloggers anymore.

    TEAM is everything now for most. Obama and Clinton supporters frankly.

    Mizner and I are the last 2 pure bloggers left . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by david mizner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:44:56 PM EST
    You flatterer, you.

    Just trying to hang on to some principles and objectivity as the Obama bandwagon thunders past.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't worry, the wheels are getting wobbly (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:10:59 PM EST
    and will probably start to come off soon. The thinness of his political resume and the fact that most of the bills he claims are "his" are turning out to be other peoples' with his name attached for political purposes is starting to spread among voters here. And down here in FL, the AA community isn't happy about the primary votes being blocked. And they don't like that Obama has anything to do with it. His glow is starting to fade as the real facts come out.

    [ Parent ]
    And Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:47:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And Digby (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Lysis on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:03:49 PM EST
    Make Them Do It

    It's a slightly larger group, but not by much.  BTD is far and away the best of any community site blogger, applying actual principles when writing.

    [ Parent ]

    a couple things (3.40 / 5) (#61)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    I think it is important to make a distinction between nomination contests and general election campaigns. The standard of one person, one vote is freely ignored in nomination campaigns. Political parties are allowed to determine who gets to vote in their nomination campaigns. Even the widely touted "popular vote count" is not quite accurate, as, for example, people who showed up to caucus in Washington State are typically not counted, solely because the Washington State Democratic Party only reports state convention delegates, not number of supporters at the caucus. This doesn't mean that it is somehow illegitimate to argue for a nomination process that is more consistent with our standards for general elections. But it is extremely disingenuous to compare the MI/FL situation to the Florida 2000 situation.

    I think almost everybody in this debate thinks that nomination contests should have at least somewhat different rules than general elections. For example, many people have argued that the Democratic party shouldn't have open primaries, as why should we let people who won't associate with us help pick our nominee? So let's be careful with terms like "voter disenfranchisement," since I think we would all acknowledge that there is no fundamental right to vote in a Democratic primary. From that common ground, we can argue about how to reform the primary process to make it fairer and better, to make it serve the Democratic party better.

    That said, I agree that Obama is being very short-sighted here.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. Primaries have different rules, ... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by cymro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    ... and there is no immutable law of nature that requires a political party to use any particular method of selecting its candidates for the general election. The only purpose of the primary process is to select a ticket that will win the GE.

    Having said that, during that selection (primary) process, the party should avoid any actions that lessen the probability of victory in the GE. Such actions would of course include alienating supporters in key states, or alienating other large segments of the party's base.

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous comment (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    There is one solution to this problem: a national primay--closed.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    Two days - Saturday and Sunday.

    Instant runoff voting - winner takes the nomination.

    No Indy/Repubs allowed.

    No delegates, no superdelegates.

    Paper ballots only - maybe mail-in like Oregon?

    Power to the People, Baby! :-)

    [ Parent ]

    a national primary (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by david mizner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:27:19 PM EST
    would only work in conjunction with serious campaign finance reform, probably only public financing, otherwise it would just go to the richest/best known candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    meh (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    the nomination process should mirror the general election process (which should be by national popular vote. . .).

    [ Parent ]
    that is one solution (none / 0) (#120)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    Although obviously a closed primary "disenfranchises" voters. Not that I necessarily think that is bad -- there are arguments on both sides, completely independent from any arguments about the candidates. But making all these claims about "disenfranchisement" misses the point: the arguments should be about what process is the most fair, and the most beneficial to the Democratic party. ANY system is going to "disenfranchise" some voters, except for an national open primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    a closed primary for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION would not exclude any Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    of course it wouldn't (none / 0) (#133)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:46:46 PM EST
    and maybe when everybody gets all up in arms about "voter disenfranchisement" what they really mean is "Democratic voter disenfranchisement."

    But my whole point is that nobody has a fundamental right to vote in the nomination contest of a political party, and to imply equivalence with disenfranchisement of voters in a general election is false.

    This isn't to say that nomination processes can't be unfair. God knows this nomination contest has certainly had its share of unfairness. But high-strung claims of massive voter disenfranchisement are thrown around far too often, and with too little thought, that I wanted to quixotically push back a little. Again, I'm NOT arguing that the nomination campaign so far has been particularly fair, just to be clear. Simply that the rhetoric about "disenfranchisement" is getting overheated.

    [ Parent ]

    No it isn't (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    All Democrats should be able to vote in the Democratic nomination process. Your point is a pedantic one designed to get people to shut up about Michigan and Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    no, my point is (none / 0) (#141)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:59:59 PM EST
    a pedantic one designed to get people to tone down their rhetoric about Michigan and Florida, as I explicitly said in my previous post. If you think asking for more precise rhetoric is the same as asking people to shut up, well, frankly, I think you are part of the problem.

    It is very difficult to have a serious debate over how to create a fairer nomination system right now, because everything is so caught up in the Obama/Clinton race. But we can't avoid the debate, since in order to win in November we have to figure out a way to get a nominee that is widely seen as legitimate.

    My point -- my only point -- is that for Clinton supporters to go around shouting that the MI/FL situation is like Florida 2000 does not help. Nor does it help for Obama supporters to claim that ignoring MI and FL altogether is fair, simply because those are the rules. Of course the rules can be unfair, it is disingenuous to argue that because they are the rules they must be fair.

    I proposed in another thread that, absent a revote (which seems pretty unlikely right now), I thought a fair solution would be to split the MI delegation 50/50 and seat the FL delegation as is. I would like to hear what the Clinton supporters think a fair solution would be (again, absent a revote).

    [ Parent ]

    Clearly, the only fair solution (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    is a revote.

    [ Parent ]
    so what do we do if there isn't one? (none / 0) (#157)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
    This is a serious question. Since it looks like there probably won't be a revote, what is the way forward from here?

    Does the lack of a revote mean the nomination process is hopelessly tainted and neither candidate can ever claim to be legitimate, no matter what happens?

    [ Parent ]

    That is my fear (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    and it is why BTD is absolutely right that Obama needs to win the popular for by at least 500,000.

    [ Parent ]
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Nadai on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    Absent a revote, I don't think there is a fair solution.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they should seat both of them (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    and let the chips fall where they may. Obama took his name off the ballot in MI, too bad for him. Hillary thought the voters should have a say, even under threat of it not counting, and she stayed on the ballot. Obama took his name off because it wasn't to his advantage then to have it on. So he didn't get any votes. Too bad. He should NOT be given ANY of Hillary's votes, if he wants some votes from MI, let him settle for the undecideds. I am really mad that our primary isn't going to be counted, our primary date was set by REPUBLICANS to do exactly what has happened. So, by not seating the delegation, the Democratic party is allowing the Republican party to dictate which Democrats have votes that count in selecting candidates. Why no one in the DNC has noticed this is a mystery to me.

    [ Parent ]
    I couldn't agree more (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    with that quote. I was not planning on voting for Clinton (don't hate her though) and I knew Florida would likely go to her. But when this happened last summer I knew it was wrong. It never should have mattered which candidate benefits. Or what the rules allowed. Voting rights should be sacred.

    Even more to the point... (4.66 / 3) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    it was the Republican legislatures that moved up the primaries. Now, Howard Dean is punishing the Democrats in those states because of what the Republicans did!

    This makes no sense at all.

    [ Parent ]

    But does it matter? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    If the Florida legislature was composed entirely of Democrats and we had a Democratic Governor it still would not justify disenfranchising the voters over the actions of the state government.

    The DNC can not control what state governments do. They can control how they react. And their reaction, regardless of who was at fault, was wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Good point! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    I just think it's so ironic that the Republicans are being given so much power in our elections...even in a Democratic primary!!

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    Now that they see the chaos they caused in Florida this year, what is to stop them from doing it again next time?

    [ Parent ]
    Voting Them Out (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    GIven? (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    The republicans were given their power by voters, like it or not.

    [ Parent ]
    Forgive me.... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    but I don't have too much confidence in the Florida voting process. :-p

    But the real point is that it's a national party, and the state legislatures should not decide when their primaries are going to be.

    As I said before - a national primary would make all of this stuff irrelevant. And I completely agree with public financing for elections. I also would like to see free and equal TV time for each candidate, and the debates should be on network TV, not on cable, which many folks cannot afford. We should also have a much shorter primary season - 6 monts max. And why can't we have actual debates instead of these weird semi-scripted things where people ask what baseball team or Bible quote the candidates prefer???

    I'm a radical leftie, I tells ya! ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    frankly, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    considering the negative perception of disenfranchising voters, I think Dean/DNC should give some wiggle room on Florida since the primary stayed within the DNC rules and occurred after the first 4 states.
    But fairness and practicality now seem to be based on first accessing potential harm to Obama, since he's the Dem establishment candidate.
    Apparently the CW is for Obama to run out the clock while the media skewers Hillary, Obama becomes the nominee and FL/MI delegates are seated.

    [ Parent ]
    Who's afraid of the big bad revote? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:36:07 PM EST
    This is utterly ridiculous.  Let the people vote and let those votes count and be counted before the convention.

    Why in the world is the completely arbitrary punishment decided by the DNC taking precedence over democracy?

    Clinton said it very well last night on Greta: "Let's have the Democratic Party go on record" saying that the votes and voters of FL and MI "don't count, three months before the election.  I don't think that's going to happen."

    Nor should it.  DNC, pick up that gauntlet and do something with it.  You, too, Obama.

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    Sorry but I have real problems with that study. I posted a diary at MyDD about it.

    It drives me insane that it was posted so many places without anyone giving it a critical look. According to them we should have had a 68.89% Dem turnout in Florida.


    Why didn't the authors of the study (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    compare 2004 and 2008 primary voter turnouts?

    >>>They compared the primary voter turnouts to 2004 Presidential votes in oder to calculate the missing voters from Florida and Michigan

    [ Parent ]

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    I think they didn't because it becomes more obviously complicated.

    In 2004 the Dem nominee was decided prior to Florida's primary. You would have to go to at least 1992 to find a primary with a vote that mattered I think.

    I wish they had included their data. They have enough points on their graph to have included open primary and caucus state. I'd like to see all those numbers and how they related them.

    [ Parent ]

    I look insane (none / 0) (#62)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    This comment was in response to a comment that must have been deleted. It shouldn't be used as proof that I am insane and respond to invisible posts.

    [ Parent ]
    You are not insane (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    The link you are responding to broke the margins.

    It was to the ridiculous So callled "Wharton study" of FL/Mi turnout. An embarrassing work form so-called academics that has been thoroughly discredited.

    [ Parent ]

    You may be insane (none / 0) (#180)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    but it's not because of that. :-)


    [ Parent ]
    FL and MI voted (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by po on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:58:01 PM EST
    and the votes were counted.  By definition, there was no disenfranchisement.  Delegates were awarded (or could be if they haven't already).  Now its time for whatever states who haven't voted to get on with it and get this thing to Denver where the real fun begins.

    The problem is not the citizens of X state voting or the counting of those citizens' votes.  That has been done.  The problem is that the DNC is threatening not to seat those delegates awarded by the State Democratic parties because the parties in MI and FL (as well as others, but that's not so important at the moment) allowed the citizens of those states to vote too early in the process, which is controlled by the parties themselves.  This DNC policy was announced in advance of any voter voting in any Democratic primary / caucus in any state in the union.  The Democratic candidates at the time, including the 2 continuing to run at the moment, all agreed that not seating the delegates those 2 states awarded based on any vote occuring before X date was an acceptable punishment, this again before anyone voted in any Democratic primary or caucus anywhere in the union.  

    All was well in Whoville.  Hillary was inevitable and wouldn't need every individual's vote any way.  She was going to smoke 'em.  Didn't happen and now we hear all this talk about disenfranchisement.

    And finally, forget whether a revote is fair to obama or clinton -- what about the fairness to the voters and Democratic parties of the other 48 states, plus territories, which have voted are will vote shortly?  Allowing FL and MI to do it over to correct their sloppiness, over-reaching and bone-headed maneuvers does a disservice to all the rest of us.  FL and MI made their beds, knew what the punishment would be, had the opportunity to do something about it and decided not to, until now.  Sorry, actions have consequences, some quite unintended.

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    Sorry, actions have consequences, some quite unintended.

    I cannot imagine a more vacuous excuse for the decision not to give two states a say in the nominating process.

    Florida 2000 all over again.  Gosh, maybe those old Jewish people should have looked more closely at the ballot before they accidentally punched the hole for Pat Buchanan.  "Actions have consequences, some quite unintended."

    [ Parent ]

    And one of those (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    unintended consequences could be the loss of MI & FL to McCain in November. But hey, roolz r roolz.

    [ Parent ]
    Steve, c'mon... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:08:06 PM EST
    The fact remains that Hillary was A OK with this until the numbers did not look right, AND that comparison shouldn't even be made.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    I am tired of Obama supporters treating the estoppel argument as the be-all and end-all.  You want to ignore the fact that the voters of two states are being shut out of the process in favor of some giant Tim Russert-style game of gotcha.

    Yes, Hillary refrained from making a big production out of the MI/FL ruling for the exact same reason both candidates signed the pledge not to campaign, and the exact same reason Obama took his name off the MI ballot: to pander to the early states.  Big deal.  The idea that what Clinton said to some random radio show in New Hampshire should be dispositive of the issue just boggles my mind; no one on either side would take the argument seriously if it weren't for the echo-chamber effect.

    [ Parent ]

    Steve (none / 0) (#81)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    Here's your estoppel argument once again ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    And here I was (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:04:30 PM EST
    thinking there was some issue about whether the delegates from MI & FL would be seated at the convention in accordance with the votes of their respective states. Silly me.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not the standard anyway (none / 0) (#83)
    by po on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    Delegates are not necessarily tied to their state's popular vote under the rules as they now stand.  Supers can do whatever they want.  The disenfranchisement re popular vote argument is entirely bogus.  There is no enfranchisement for Democrats only in the Democratic Party's nominating process and disenfranchisement is just being thrown around as a cute buzzword that gets people talking like the sky is falling because their vote didn't count and its 2000 all over again.  It's not.    

    [ Parent ]
    So you support (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    the seating of the MI & FL delegations as determined by the January primaries? Because if you don't, then you are admitting your argument is crap.

    [ Parent ]
    I seem to remember that (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:09:24 PM EST
    this was the same argument used by Bush in Bush v Gore.  How can you count ALL the votes in Florida, when recounting will make my vote less powerful.  It sucked then, and it still sucks now.

    [ Parent ]
    I am not clear how the early votes (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    the MI/FL have hurt me here in California.  Can you explain how bad that is so I can understand why the punishment fits the crime.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:13:30 PM EST
    The DNC is trying to say to MI and FL something like "Bad, doggie!" while they are holding a rolled newspaper in their hand.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's like (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    the way gay marriage weakens all our straight marriages.

    [ Parent ]
    Gotta love Gene Lyons (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM EST
    He raked the MSM early in the Clinton years, and was spot on in doing so. Fools for Scandal is a great book, and a greater title.  No surprise he gets it so right on this issue.

    I've said this before (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:24:20 PM EST
    and I'll say it every time I have to.  Florida Dems, led by Sen. Bill Nelson, were protesting this long before it became a national issue - back in the early fall, when Hillary was supposed to be 'inevitable' and it did not look like these delegates would be needed to decide the nomination.  He protested it precisely because the Dem party cannot be the party that does not count votes in Florida.

    It was the FL Republicans that changed the date of the primary by attaching it as a poison pill to the vote to give the electronic voting machines a pater trail, something the Dems had put forward and had to support.

    And I've said before (none / 0) (#108)
    by Moopsy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    that the DNC tried to work it out with the Florida dems.  They were recalcitrant, presumably confident in their own importance.  Looks like they overestimated it.

    [ Parent ]
    Overestimated (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    Probably because nobody in their wildest hallucinations could ever have imagined that the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination would be unwilling to allow the votes from the most important swing state in Presidential elections to vote on who should be President.

    They must have assumed sanity.

    [ Parent ]

    Sanity or cowardice (none / 0) (#136)
    by Moopsy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:50:08 PM EST
    the Florida dem party thought they could use their status as a swing state to knuckle the DNC under.  Played chicken and lost.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama is sane (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    so I'll go with your alternative that he's a coward.

    [ Parent ]
    I am confident (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    that the vast majority of HRC supporters have believed all along that it was unacceptable not to count MI and FL.

    You want to deploy the hypocrisy argument, at least make it based on some semblance of fact.

    You are right about one HRC supporter. (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    I just love the mind-reading abilities of Obamans. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    I care (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    I was shouting about this last year (search my posts as I provided links yesterday to some of my posts last summer/fall).

    So you are obviously wrong when you say "Nobody acutally cares about the voters." Want to try again with a discussion on the merits instead of a discussion on the motivations you want to assign people you don't know?

    Good for you (none / 0) (#116)
    by Moopsy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    you are among a very small fraction of people.  Obviously "Nobody" was hyperbolic.  On the merits, there should have been a revote, but that appears to be an impossibility.

    As for assigning motivations to strangers, you're on the wrong blog if you're opposed to that.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd be more willing to vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by stillife on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    if he's the nom, if he would follow Karl Rove's advice (yes, I know! I can't believe I'm invoking Rove) and agree to seat the FL and MI delegates.  It would be a noble gesture and it would signify to this skeptical Hillary supporter that he is sincere in his expressed desire to rise above old-style politics.  

    As KKKarl said, though, it's not gonna happen.  I grew up in Chicago and I know Chicago-style politics when I see them.  This is not the politics of hope, it's the politics of hype.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:55:10 PM EST
    that doesn't make it transparent. It simply means that in a non-tight race, MI & FL wouldn't have mattered, so the Dem nominee would allow their delegates to be seated at the convention. The key is they would NOT have been disenfranchised in that case. This is what Kos kept telling me, and it's how it played out for the GOP.

    But now that we have a very tight race between two candidates, every single vote matters. There is simply no principled reason for disenfranchising MI & FL. You can point your cynicism at the motives of Clinton and Obama all you want, but on principle having the votes of FL & MI count is the correct principle regardless of who is advocating for it.

    I feel as if I have fallen into an alternate (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by countme on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    universe where the republican Florida gov is in favor of counting votes.  Since when do democrats not count votes?  This is one of the reasons why I have been seriously questioning what the democratic party stands for.

    I think there is a difference between (none / 0) (#2)
    by DodgeIND on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    a party run primary nomination and a federal mandated/ran presidential election.

    At least I see the difference.  

    I see the difference too (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:30:22 PM EST
    if I squint really hard and look directly into the sun.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure there is (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by eric on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    a difference, but that difference isn't material in a normative sense.  On a very basic, fundamental level, people who vote want their vote to count.

    [ Parent ]
    But the similarity is that (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    human voters participate in both. Or maybe not the second if you anger them with the first.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    So you think we should not count all those caucuses?

    Hillary Clinton would love you for that position.

    There is nothing funnier than an Obama supporter who has no idea that he has undermined his own candidate's position.
     

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a democrat first and foremost right now. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by DodgeIND on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    I also don't support all the divisive propaganda and  us vs. them in this party.  I also can see the difference between a General Election and a party-driven primary to find someone to actually run for president.  It has nothing to do with caucous' vs. primaries.

    Perhaps if you ran this site with less bias ism and with more objective material you could see that.  You play more into destroying the party than helping it.

    You're not alone with it.  Almost every other blog does it.  However there is a disgusting trend in your front pages that shows everything postitive for Clinton and everything slightly negative for Obama.  You can't deny it.  You also outright attack the community of dKos in another thread by calling them all idiots.

    Even if you still think Clinton is far less negative/more positive than Obama, you might as well try to live by your candidates principles.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    You said absolutely nothing in that comment.

    You simply do not know what you are talking about.

    Primaries are government run elections.

    Caucuses are not.

    You do not even know the most basic things about the process.

    You are not worht discussing this with.

    Carry on with others. No more with me.

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    You certainly didn't deny it.

    [ Parent ]
    I would prefer primaries NOT to government paid (none / 0) (#137)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    I think the actual election should be, and that we need election funding reform, but I think a lot of the problems we have in terms of party politics, and closed vs. open elections, and election schedules would be a lot easier to deal with if parties paid for the primaries themselves.

    To the best of my knowledge, parties ain't in the constitution and our founders were against them -- I think rightfully so.  So anything we can do to eliminate them, the better, and I say that as a lifelong and proud Democrat.

    If parties paid for the primary they could choose vote, caucus or bizzaro world texas caucus rules, or rock paper scissors.

    [ Parent ]

    Also: (none / 0) (#5)
    by DodgeIND on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    I don't see how Obama is at fault here?  He didn't put those two states in that situation.  Also, what if each plan given to him...

    ...first of all, has there ever been anything published as to how many plans and what those plans were that were presented to him and those that he rejected?...

    ...what if each plan given to him were unfair towards him?  Would you agree to something that is unfair and unjust?

    I wouldn't.

    A revote is unfair to Obama because? (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Unfair: (none / 0) (#41)
    by DodgeIND on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    Provide me with the detailed plans of each revote idea and I will tell you if it's unfair or not.

    Example:  Do all people have access to the revote?  Closed/Open primary?  What about the people who already voted in the the Rep. Primary?  Do they get to vote again?

    Who would pay for it?  I think it's a very dangerous road to walk down when we have private financing for it, especially when those financier's openly support one candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    This blog has provided all those answers (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    so just look up past thread and you'll find them.

    [ Parent ]
    Perfect example (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    of how quibbling over the details becomes a strategy for ensuring there are no elections at all.

    There was no concern whatsoever from Obama supporters as to whether the Texas system was fair, or whether it even made sense.  No concern about whether it made sense to have a primary in Washington if the votes weren't going to count for anything.  No concern with whether the caucus system in general is fair to voters.  Indeed, it was widely deemed to be Hillary's fault that she couldn't manage to compete according to the rules as the states decided to lay them out.

    But when MI and FL, two pro-Clinton states, decide to have a revote, suddenly it's critical that everything be done absolutely perfectly.  Beautiful.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    It's fascinating that Hillary won the primary and lost the caucuses in Texas, yet this doesn't seem to give Obama supporters any pause whatsoever.

    It seems pretty bizarre to have two different votes on the same day to me, but I heard that it developed that way over time, and no one cared before because Texas "didn't count."

    Maybe this is the year we decide to totally reform our primary system for the next election cycle. It certainly could use an overhaul.

    [ Parent ]

    this is a bit silly (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    All of the examples you mention have long established, detailed rules that have existed since well before Obama or Clinton got into the race.

    In this case, MI and FL are proposing to create entirely new rules in the middle of a contested election campaign. While I think that Obama should have agreed to a revote, a change in the rules in the middle of a contest should surely be subject to more scrutiny than long-established rules set up before the contest begins.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    A system where only white people can vote is not fair just because everyone knows about it 6 months in advance.  Nor is a system where people can't vote unless they can spare 3 hours for a caucus at a set time.  

    We heard no complaints about the basic unfairness of procedures like Texas, because they favored Obama.  But suddenly when MI wants to revote, it's an outrage beyond belief that people who voted in the Republican primary in January might not be allowed to vote a second time in the Democratic primary.

    Yes, it's not going to be perfect, but either we're going to make a good-faith effort to determine the will of the people or we're not.  

    [ Parent ]

    jeez, cool down (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    A system where only white people can vote is not fair just because everyone knows about it 6 months in advance.  Nor is a system where people can't vote unless they can spare 3 hours for a caucus at a set time.

    Jim Crow and caucuses are not, and never will be, anywhere close to morally equivalent. I understand that you were probably exaggerating to make a point, but still, come on.

    Furthermore, I'm not making an argument about fairness here. I'm saying that changing the rules midstream and operating by previously agreed upon rules are not the same thing, REGARDLESS of whether those rules are fair. Obama is perfectly justified (if, IMO, wrong), it wanting to be able to carefully scrutinize any revote proposal before agreeing to it. He did, after all, get to carefully scrutinize all the other procedures in the nomination contest before deciding to get in.

    And it would be quite possible to construct rules for a revote that favored one candidate or the other.

    [ Parent ]

    It's just a game (5.00 / 1) (