Popular Vote Touted At Clinton Fundraiser

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via Todd Beeton, I think the Clinton camp is getting it on the popular vote issue:

Both Rob Reiner in his intro and Hillary Clinton in her remarks framed the issue as the disenfranchisement of millions of voters, which really got the crowd exercised I have to say, especially when Clinton phrased it in these terms:

I thought it was Democrats who wanted to count every vote. If we had counted every vote in 2000 Al Gore would be finishing his second term

. . . Rob Reiner hinted at what's really going on here in his introductory remarks[:]

We're Democrats, we let everyone vote. If at the end of the process, there's a candidate who has more votes...When all the dust settles and Puerto Rico has voted, you're going to see that more people voted for Hillary Clinton.

This is the smart political play AND the right thing to do for the Clinton campaign. Kudos to them.

< One Reporter Finally Notices Obama Is A Pol, Not a Saint | The Magic Number And Gaining Legitimacy For The Nominee >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Those were the big applause lines (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    On Jay Leno last night too.

    Hillary Should Say (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    "In America, it's not just the right to vote - it's the right to be counted."

    She said something like that on Leno (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    and pointed out that if that happened, Al Gore would be president. Good line.

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    No one has the right to vote in a Democratic primary.

    Then why go to the trouble of (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    having them? The DNC could just pick somebody.

    Hmmm...... (none / 0) (#115)
    by michitucky on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    Me thinks that's what Howie and Donna are attempting to put over on us!

    The nominee doesn't have any right (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by badger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    to people's votes in the general election either.

    So, which of the 23 ways of determining (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    popular vote is she endorsing?

    "There is no valid Popular vote" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:12:40 PM EST
    Is bad ..... PR.

    But there is a valid point here... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by thinkingfella on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    and one I think is going to be critical if HRC wants to win the nomination: it needs to be a clear victory that satisfies most if not all of the different ways of counting the popular vote. And yes this means coming up with some way to fairly count the caucuses and all, because it's going to look pretty weird saying we should count every vote except for the ones we won't.

    And I think, even if she manages this feat, we are still looking at something less then a 50% shot here at the nomination, largely because the nomination process is based on delegates, not the popular vote. So we are arguing the rather inelegant argument that the process that was agreed upon at the start needs to change.

    So, it looks like a a bit of a long shot no matter how you slice it, but we shall see.


    popular vote (none / 0) (#99)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    1. Do you "not count" the popular vote in a caucus state, theu "disenfranchising" people?
    2.  Puerto Ricans do not pay full taxes and do not have the obligations of statehood-thus the commonwealth.  Puerto Rico has no electoral votes.  Why should it's popular votes count for anything?

    Because (none / 0) (#120)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:49:05 PM EST
    both political parties operate in Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans can vote in the general election if they are currently residing inside the US. Puerto Rico also sends a non-voting delegate to Congress.

    Simple answers to simple questions (none / 0) (#121)
    by badger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    1. The eligibility requirements for caucuses are essentially the same as for primaries - you can't call low turnout "disenfranchisement" (well you can, but it's nonsense).

    2. Because the Democratic Party decided to include the voters of PR in the nominating process.

    What bugs you (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    is that you see it as strategy. But even if you take it as strategy, it is a decent principle to campaign on.

    If Obama had been able to finish this election, he would have done so, and she wouldn't be able to point out the election is close, and she may indeed end up with the popular vote.

    And BTW: I like to use Jay Cost's spreadsheet and he shows 14 different ways to count the popular. You have another 8? Plz share.


    But confusion benefits Hillary, right? (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    I knew this would be (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    what Hillary would say. Good for her. She knows Americans hate it when their votes don't count for ANY REASON, and the situation in FL and MI is unacceptable.

    She's also looking beyond the primary nomination to the GE. She wants to be able to say, if she is the one running against McCain, "I stood up for your right to vote." Really it's too obvious to even mention, but Obama doesn't seem to get it.

    What's he going to say if he's the nominee? "I didn't think your votes were important because you didn't vote for me the first time. I totally deserve your vote now, though!"

    Obama was an idiot to block re-voting. BTD was right on the money there.

    The only salve if--IF--O gets the nom (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    is going to be watching his many, many missteps as he tries to woo Clinton's female supporters.

    "Face it...We're older and we have more insurance!"


    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    (although I'm actually younger than Barack, but I am in that horrifying "old enough to actually REMEMBER the 1990's" category)

    He'll be offering to trade kisses for votes? (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    As he said to the Hillary female backer in PA recently?

    Made my skin crawl.


    My skin is still crawling! (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    God, men like that just ook me out...so certain of their charm, and so clueless that they are the only ones who see it.

    (yes, yes, I know he's universally adored.  I speak in generalities.  Praise be to O)


    Skin crawled bcz of the sense of entitlement to (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    invade this woman's privacy and private space.

    I recall feeling so taken aback when BushBoy during his first campaign would just drape his arm around some poor woman working on an assembly line--or just place his hands on a woman's shoulders.

    Such a sense of superiority and entitlement.

    And, yes, this is not a completely ration reaction--it's from the gut. Do not touch me without my invitation and permission, dood!


    And if Bill did that (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:34:49 PM EST

    Oh God (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    that was ridiculous.

    Imagine if HRC offered to kiss an Obama supporter to win him over!!!!!



    it might work if (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    she THREATENED to kiss them if they dont vote for her.

    Yep. A great line. (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:40:40 PM EST
    Two young girls steal a middle-aged, menopausal woman's parking spot.

    Evelyn Couch: Hey! I was waiting for that spot!
    Girl #1: Face it, lady, we're younger and faster!
    [Evelyn rear-ends the other car six times]
    Girl #1: What are you doing?
    Girl #2: Are you crazy?
    Evelyn Couch: Face it, girls, I'm older and I have more insurance

    (sorry if this is considerd "banter)


    others have said it before me! (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    But it's so true.  There is no way O can do enough damage control to win back Women of a Certain Age.  It simply will not happen.

    The fear is not that they will then vote for McCain, but that they will stay home.  What is the statistic now of folks who refuse to vote for Obama--20%?  About the same amount Kerry needed to win, I believe.

    Women have been the most reliable voting bloc since they got the right to vote.  The fact that they have been so disregarded (when they weren't being taken for granted) will have a long-term effect on the dem party.  Should Clinton win the nom, it will go toward healing this wound, but only just.


    Love that line! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    Well seeing (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:41:09 PM EST
    as how John McCain doesn't think rape victims deserve EC and has a zero rating from PP where as Both Clinton and Obama perfect scores, any woman who would vote McCain over Obama is willing to sacrifice, control of her body for revenge in the game of identity politics.  

    Call it revenge if you want but (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    it's only likely to happen if Obama is seen as getting the nomination unfairly. You can't slap people and then say you love them and it'll never happen again. Sorry, not happening this time. People will likely vote for Dems downticket to keep McCain from running amok.

    If Obama wins fair and square, however, I think Clinton supporters will vote for him.


    Well yes but (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:00:25 PM EST
    i have seen lots of versions of what is considered fair and square.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#109)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    We agree on that much at least!

    Whats your definition (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    I think to make the case of popular vote being more important then pledged delegates  she would need a significant popular vote margin, between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Most of these Clinton surrogates are now pushing some electoral college, or big states idea.  

    I don't agree with the big state idea. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    It shows the support of a particular part of the base, but it doesn't really do it for me. I like popular vote and something based on the electoral college map. The latter has some overlap with the big state idea, but goes more directly to electability.

    But popular vote is the key one for me. I think that's the most democratic way to decide this. A bigger popular vote lead would give her more legitimacy. Likewise, given the ridiculous way delegates are assigned in the different states, a small delegate lead makes Obama not seem quite legitimate either. I'm not sure how big either lead would have to be to be totally convincing.


    Perhaps.... (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    Losing the women vote this time will make the DNC and Dem leaders take women's concerns more seriously for the next 20 year?  Being the good kid isn't really getting us anywhere right now when any "liberal" media pundit and strategist can spout gender-based attacks with no response from our supposed leaders.  

    This is exactly why (none / 0) (#113)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    Obama and his surrogates should never have gone down this road in the first place.

    He will lose him the election if he becomes the nominee. I firmly believe that.

    This is a totally wild idea, but maybe Hillary should run as an Independent. The Party leaders are doing everything they can to stab her in the back. After decades of service, does she really deserve this type of treatment? What loyalty does she owe to them at this point?


    It's something to consider (none / 0) (#118)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:41:08 PM EST
    when you think about what the parties have done, and not done in recent times. And that would really be change, in a big way. Maybe it is time!

    it's very simple (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:12:16 PM EST
    without the popular vote, she has no valid claim to the nomination. with it, i think she does. either way, she might win and she might lose. because the rules are that there are no rules.

    The popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by PaulDem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    Is only one argument among many to woo the superdelegates.  It might make a compelling argument and it might not.

    Good for the nation! as well as good for the Party (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    and good for Clinton politically.

    Plus, I don't think it's good PR to tell Democrats they have to no right to vote in their party's primaries.

    Oh my.

    WOW (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Tmo78759 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    Richard Nixon could not have said it better.  NO, NO, NO the ends DO NOT justify the means no matter how good the ends.  

    denying a revote for the 2 states (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    will hang over Obama if he's the nominee.

    He can't justify it anyway he tries to spin it, since the situation changed. Obama people don't want to go beyond that. Given the nature of the close race, an adjustment had to be made. Obama didn't agree with a revote even after saying he would abide by a DNC decision.  The SDs are going to keep that in the back of their minds at the convention or before,IMO.                                          
    And given all the problems reported at the caucuses,considering his organized and well oiled campaign could also weigh in. They seem to want the win using tactics reminiscent of Bush 2000, aggressive, and eager to do pound on the opponent just for the W.

    She did not sign a pledge not to participate in (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:54:18 PM EST

    By contrast, Obama removed his own name by choice.

    Get it?

    In FL, there is some question as to whether Obama campaigned or not and broke "the rules." HRC did not. They both pledged not to campaign in FL. They were both on the ballot there, as were all the candidates.

    Get it?

    This is revisionist history (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by indy33 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:55:15 PM EST
    I cant count how many times Sen. Clinton said that this race would be over on Feb. 5th. Now that she absolutley needs every state to vote for her to win, she is all for every state being contested. I just cant beilive how many people buy into her "standing up for the will of the people" when its all she has left to win. It would be like in the NFL, when a team is about to kick the game winning field goal in overtime. Clinton would be the coach calling a time out to freeze the kicker. Then complaining about how the rules arent fair and they should get a chance with the ball too. They may be right about the rule but I am not going to give them the moral high ground when they started complaining right before they are about to lose. If they are out there saying BEFORE the game that this isnt right then i would respect them alot more. Every one votes in primaries no matter what. Some might not be CONTESTED because its already over but everyone still gets to vote dont they?  

    Buying into it (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    because the principle is strong.

    It has nothing to do with Clinton. It is past time to for Obama supporters to deal with that.


    Even if she thought she would have the (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    nomination by February 5th, I don't think you can point to any instance where she suggested that voters in the remaining states should not get to vote.

    You are equating winning the nomination with cancelling the remaining contests, something Clinton has never suggested.


    If men are from Mars, (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    and women are from Venus, where do you suppose Barack Obama and his most fervent supporters are from - because I increasingly have the feeling that none of them have any idea what "let the votes be counted" means; if we could just put our hands on an English-to-Obama dictionary, we might be able to communicate.  I sure wish I could speak "Transcendent Idol" but, alas, I took French.

    I think, at bottom, we are finding out how remarkably clueless Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and the rest of the decision-makers at the DNC are for ever coming up with a punishment that nullified people's votes; you would have thought that the memories of 2000 and 2004 were fresh enough in people's minds, not to mention the testimony we all heard from the likes of DOJ officials hell-bent on suppressing the vote and caging voters which a lot of Democrats - Patrick Leahy shouting from the committee table comes to mind - took great offense to.  What happens to that credibility if votes of over 2 million voters are just trashed?

    There is no downside to championing the counting of the votes (maybe it's just been a long and tiring week, and I am getting punchy, but I keep hearing Jeff Probst from "Survivor" intoning, `I'll go tally the votes'...), no price to be paid for working to make sure every vote counts.  Anything less than agreeing to a full re-vote in Michigan will get Obama on the right side of this issue - "offering" to split the Michigan delegates 50-50 is equivalent to him "offering" to split what I have in my wallet 50-50: I don't think so, sorry.

    So, HRC supporters want to ... (1.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    ... reward Hillary Clinton for breaking her pledge and "participating" in the Michigan Primary?

    Can someone please tell me how you can count votes for a candidate who did not "participate" in a primary?

    By keeping her name on the ballot, something Obama and Edwards managed NOT TO DO, she participated in that election contrary to her pledge.

    Now, she wants to "participate" in that election by supporting the counting of the non-votes.

    Thankfully, this is probably the last big story about the Michigan Primary re-vote issue.  

    You cannot possibly imagine (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    the collectively widening of our jaws as we yawn over this talking point.

    ... reward Hillary Clinton for breaking her pledge and "participating" in the Michigan Primary?

    Clearly the solution... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    is to award Hillary all the delegates from Michigan.

    Barack removed his own name from the ballot, so technically no one voted for him. Do we really want to reward him for refusing to participate in the primary?


    (I do support a re-vote, but couldn't resist the snarkage.)


    If he didn't insist on all of them (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    instead of his portion, the issue would be resolved for the convention.

    I hear the MI Dem party is going to turn it down.


    Oh, I hope you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    I heard the weather in MI was horrific that day...but still hundreds of thousands came out to vote.

    They do NOT want to tell their constituents that their votes didn't count.


    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    The weather was bad.

    Also, before this year it was caucus, not primary.  So, 2004 caucus about 160,000.  2008 primary, about 600,000, even with bad weather.


    I actually favored a re-vote (none / 0) (#57)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    just to eliminate the ambiguity.

    Now, I'm in favor of cutting our losses and moving ahead and working with what we have.

    The people of MI and FL opposed a revote on principle, and Obama opposed anything that wasn't a caucus. Hillary, well she talked about getting the votes counted at first, but then came out for a re-vote.

    Lots of interests at cross ends. They should just take the delegate penalty and move on.

    Unless we want to lose "must win" MI, and cede "battleground" FL at the outset, we have to have them seated.

    No point in either using this as an issue to defeat the other at the convention if we lose these states in November.

    Yeah, I'm a Hillary suppporter, but she's not the first candidate I've ever supported. You gotta be practical.


    Comment no further on this issue (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    BTW, you are wrong in your assertions.

    Gawd that post (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    word per word and indent per indent, I have seen it here about 20 times.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:17:28 PM EST
    Hee hee (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    This broken record again :)

    So fair (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    elections don't' have the name of your opponent?

    Funny that you are thankful (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:17:15 PM EST
    about there not being a revote in Michigan and Florida. I think it is a disaster.

    "Why does Barack Obama Hate Democracy?" (none / 0) (#22)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    He's making it way too easy for the Republicans to say this.

    Have fun trying to win those states (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:23:04 PM EST
    with Obama in Nov if he's in the GE.

    It's okay. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    He'll get Utah, Wyoming and Kansas. An Obama landslide!



    You keep repeating (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:34:46 PM EST
    what is not entirely true.  Non of the candidates were required to take their name off the ballot in Michigan.  Obama and Edwards chose to.  Kucinich, Clinton, Dodd, they let their names stand.  SHE DID NOT BREAK ANY rules.

    In Florida, Obama and she were on the ballot.  He advertised in Florida, Hillary did not.  Obama broke the rule about not campaigning in Florida.

    The votes are supposed to determine the pledged delegates and the eventual nomination.  No pledged delegates without the votes. I do not understand why this is so difficult for the Obama supporters to see.  


    non issue (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    Non issue anyway. She pledged not to participate in either primary. She can't get votes from contests in which she did not participate.

    She can't get delegates (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    The issue isn't whether Obama is going to surpass her in delegates. He is. The question now is whether Clinton can reasonably argue that a majority of voters voted for her, which gives the superdelegates a good reason to vote for her (to enforce the will of the people). This requires some math, but then so does calculating delegate allocations using the astronomically weird methodology of the state Democratic Parties.

    so... (none / 0) (#54)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    Serious question: Do you REALLY believe that the super delegates will take Florida and Michigan's votes into consideration? I doubt it. And those are the only people who decide this thing.

    I think they have to (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:22:49 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida are big, purple states. They could swing either way in the general and the delegates have to do whatever they can to convince them to lean toward our side. The bigger questions are:

    1. Can Clinton can get a majority, even counting the Florida vote and allocating Michigan fairly? (based on how many people voted "uncommitted", as was suggested by Obama supporters who wanted to seat the delegates)
    2. Can Clinton get close enough in the delegate count to even convince superdelegates to consider the vote count.
    3. Will there be enough bad press on Obama before the convention to convince superdelegates that he is unelectable? The Republican Party is starting to take the gloves off, but gently. They seem to have decided that Obama is the likely candidate, so they are attacking, but they aren't being too hard on him. That will come later, after they know that Democrats are committed and before he has a chance to gain momentum as the official Democratic nominee.

    They will if they want a strong candidate. [nt] (none / 0) (#84)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    MI is a "must win" Dem state (none / 0) (#91)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:12:47 PM EST
    so, yes, I think some of them will.

    Just on that grounds. And.... shocking as it may seem, some politicians and activists do honor popular will.


    This is something people can reasonably (none / 0) (#60)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:54:30 PM EST
    differ on, but the candidates did agree not to "participate" in the race. It's at least a reasonable interpretation that not participating would mean removing one's name from the ballot if one could. Certainly, it's not something Obama's campaign should be punished for.

    When it became public that Hillary was still going to be on the ballot, it surprised a few people. She was even asked about it in an interview, and justified partly by saying it was clear the election they were having wasn't going to count for anything.


    No more comments omn this subject (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    you are wrong of course as removal from the ballot was termed BY OBAMA as an "additional commitment" beyond the pledge.

    So you are simply wrong. But you do not get to comment further on this issue. Further comment will be deleted.


    Thank you for the clarification (none / 0) (#74)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    If counting votes is a punishment (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    for the Obama campaign, they are on the wrong career path.

    We will have to agree to disagree. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    You can describe the word "participate" as it applies to an election any way you want. That's your right. I will stick to what I think is a common sense definition: If you keep your name on a ballot when you could have removed it, you are participating in that election.

    All of the Democratic candidates signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in Michigan.

    Besides participating (as I define the word) in the election itself, HRC is now participating in an attempt to legitimize and count the ballots from an election she pledged not to participate in.

    You can also ignore the Michigan state legislature's and Michigan Governor's hand in this mess. The DNC required that they make a "good faith" attempt to not move up the Michigan Primary past a date certain.

    The Michigan Governor, a Hillary Clinton supporter, SIGNED A BILL to get the Michigan Primary moved up contrary to the DNC policy. How is that a "good faith" attempt not to move up the Michigan primary date?

    As for Obama campaigning in Florida, that charge, in my estimation, is very weak sauce. It is my understanding that he ran some national ads, and the DNC allowed him to do it.

    On the other hand, it is also my understanding that HRC actually landed in Florida and held fundraisers there at a time when she wasn't supposed to be campaigning in that state.

    The rationalizations on this issue are intriguing to me: HRC supporters want to blame Obama for the mess in FL/MI and say he is blocking votes; yet, they want to count the votes from an election in which Obama wasn't even ON THE BALLOT.    


    Dude.... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    fundraising was allowed. It was the only thing that was allowed. Both raised funds.

    Campaigning through proxy, well that's a time-honored tradition in politics (otherwise we wouldn't have 527s).

    Both campaigned through proxy. Obama spent more.


    Fundraising is not campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    per DNC. Also, why does your definition of participate override that of the DNC? Have you ever heard any member of the DNC say that she broke the pledge by not removing her name from the ballot? Was she punished or penalized?

    So Obama is the bad guy (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Tmo78759 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    for asking the party to agree to the rules that were set out before the beginning of the Primary?  I'm kind of a newbie, but isn't that kind of silly.  All of the Dem campaigns agreed that Michigan wouldn't count, didn't they.  Wasn't Harold Ickes on the committee that set forth these rules.  I've admired Senator Clinton for along time, but the viciousness of her supporters, as I've seen from reading this site the last two days is just down-right discouraging to me.  Are we not ALL Democrats?  Do we not ALL want a Democrat to be the next president.  Do we not ALL want to have a Democratic Congress?  Maybe I'm just politically naive, but why are the Clinton supporters here so Rovian in their attacks on anyone who dares disagree?  I've seen some nasty stuff on other sites, but I've never seen anything like I've seen here the last two days.    it makes me very sad.

    OK (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    I'll give this a try.  Insofar as people could not have foreseen the primary being this close, folks may have been inclined to abide by the rules for the sake of order, what I mean is that there was some good reasons behind the rules.

    We really can't have states jumping each other in the process or every primary is going to one day be held two years before the General Election.

    Everyone wants to be first of course.  And lets be clear about that.  That's a money issue.  Iowa and New Hampshire run micro-economies on the election process, that's a lot of money and they will not give up their preferred status easily.  

    But it will happen eventually.

    Ok.  So.  We had a set of rules that everyone agreed on insofar as the reasoning behind the rules made sense within that context.

    Now we have a different context.  A close election.

    The situation is exacerbated by the simple fact that for the first time votes in MI and FL do matter.  So the first time that they matter happens to be the first time their votes are taken away.

    The rules are being trumped by a larger and more sacred set of values here.


    Ok, I think I understand (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Tmo78759 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM EST
    There are rules.  Everyone agreed to the rules.  We're in a close election where rules matter even more than in blowouts, therefore, we must disregard the rules?  So say in the Final Four this weekend, there is a rule that you get 5 fouls before being ejected from the game.  BUT, by this logic, if it's a close game, then the NCAA should let everyone have 6 or 7 or 8 fouls?  Doesn't the Senator speak a lot about people who work hard and Play by the rules?  

    Comment no further on this issue (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    This has been discussed to the minutest detail and you simply are wrong on the rules. We do not allow further spreading of disinformation.

    your further comments ON THIS ISSUE will be deleted.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    You didn't get it.

    I was trying to say OK there was some good reasons behind the rules, but those reasons become less important when you're in a close election the punishment becomes "Ok.  No vote for you!"

    Hey.   I hear in some states they're thinking about giving incarcerated criminals the right to vote.


    They agreed not to campaign (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
    None of the Dem candidate agreed to never try to get the states involved in the primary process. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say that Clinton supporters here are "vicious", but I'm sensing a bit of bias. The moderators on this site do not tolerate attacks on other members of the community or on candidates (Obama or Clinton). Criticisms area allowed. Of course, there was a troll here yesterday, but she was attacking Clinton supporters, not Obama. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you wandered into a troll thread before it was cleaned. I really don't see how you could interpret this site as "vicious", otherwise. Read more, and I think you'll see that this is a leaning-Clinton community that will welcome respond intelligently to opposing views that are presented in a non-insulting manner.

    The response is the same (none / 0) (#97)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:28:48 PM EST
    to you as when you posted this itme...

    Your response to stealing is ... more stealing? (3.40 / 5) (#11)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:00:31 AM EST

    Barack Obama's campaign managed to get his name off the Michigan ballot so that he would be in compliance with the pledge not to "campaign" or "participate" in the Michigan primary. To me, keeping one's name on the ballot equates to "participating" in that primary. So, the solution is to reward Hillary Clinton for violating the pledge and to penalize Obama for complying with it?

    "'That was his choice,' [Hillary Clinton] says in an interview.... 'There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted.'" (emphasis added)
    Here was the response to your post....

    they didn't promise not to be in the primary (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:35 AM EST

    or to remove their names. Chris Dodd signed the pledge and he kept his name on. They promised not to campaign, period.

    That exchange was what? three week ago.  Let it go.


    Let it go? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:03 PM EST
    Well, you let go first?  ; )

    I have been consistent. But, do you now support what Hillary Clinton said back in October 2007:

    "It's clear: This election they're having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."  

    Here's the NPR link.

    Again, I have tried to be consistent, but as for Clinton Advisor Harold Ickes' consistency -- not so good:

    "Ickes voted last year to penalize Michigan and Florida -- who moved their primary votes up in violation of party instructions -- to seat their delegation at the party's nominating convention this summer. On Saturday, he said both states' delegations should be seated, and the results of those contests should stand. Hillary Clinton won the primaries in Florida and in Michigan, where she was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the ballot."

    Here's the CNN Link.


    consistent, how about just (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:42:18 PM EST
    plain boringly repetitive?

    Yep... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    popular vote and taking away the notion that somehow a SD vote is not a legitimate delegate.  She made that point yesterday in SF.  

    She sent me another (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    special email today about that very thing!

    I think it's an excellent plan, and I also think it's a valid argument that the popular vote should count more than some crazy mixed up delegate math.

    (I knew I loved Meathead for a reason!)


    I was in TN on Election Night in 2000 (none / 0) (#6)
    by Lysis on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    I remember the confusion, standing in the rain in downtown Nashville.

    I remember thinking that I couldn't believe Americans of any party could discount the right for voters to have their votes count, even if it didn't favor their chances of winning.

    Now, I can't believe it's my party.   Well, former party, if Michigan and Florida aren't given legitimate say in this process.    If the Democrats can't stand up for democracy either, I'll just become an independent.  No more DNC donations, just checks to those Dems who stood up for what's right during this process.  

    Short list.

    I will never forget the day the Supreme Five gave (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    the presidency to Bush.

    I wanted to destroy something, but held back.

    Then, Scalia poured salt in the wound by saying something to the effect that there is no Constitutional to have your vote counted for the presidency. I wrote my Congress Critters asking for one.



    I was in California (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    some friends from Arkansas had come out to watch election returns with me.  I had visited them for the previous two elections (wanted to be on home ground when Bill won).
    it was awful.  I finally went to bed about 2.
    they were still up when I woke up the next morning.
    they left the next day.  none of us hardly spoke.  just mumbled some goodbyes.
    it was absolutely awful.
    I did not watch cable news for a year.

    I went to a demonstration (none / 0) (#110)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:07:26 PM EST
    in NYC, in support of a recount in Florida.  Sadly, only 100 or so of us turned out.  

    I was devastated when the SCOTUS appointed Bush President, and disgusted at the media coverage, which in fact reminds me of the media coverage right now.  Gore was being such a bad sport by challenging the results!  How dare he?  Let's all be good sports, stop worrying and drink the Kool-Aid.


    Not true (none / 0) (#40)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    this is America.

    As for math, have some fun and go wild and wonky!!

    The projection shows she starts to win the popular if FL or MI are counted (and he allows several ways to count MI), but it is by no means a sure thing.

    Information is a dangerous thing:


    Only suceeded in MI? (none / 0) (#46)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    that must be why the Obama ended up spending $1.3 campaigning in Florida, because he didn't succeed in  signing that petition to remove his name from the ballot. (source: Center for Responsive Politics).

    BTW: It's not that hard.

    He didnt spend (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:46:22 PM EST
    1.3 million campaigning in Florida.

    Why do I (none / 0) (#52)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    as, a caucus state resident*, think that there will be some disagreement about what exactly constitutes the popular vote?

    I'm sure that the details (e.g. cuacus v. primary, or contest v. sans-contest) of this disagreement will be missed by some citizens who are too busy to follow the details.  However, I bet that the SDs will have a more comprehensive understanding of the issue, I also suspect that the SDs will not completely abandon the pledged delegate count (which doesn't retroactively dilute the influence of states who chose a caucus) as a data point.

    But, time will tell.  We could be in for quite a battle.

    *For the record, I don't like caucuses.  The D Party in my state insists on them, even when we have an already paid for no-effect (mostly mail-in) primary  after our caucus.  At my caucus I even talked to others about getting rid of the caucus.  But, I didn't vote for BO in our primary because it didn't count and BO had already won the caucus, where I did vote.  I also know a lot of people who didn't vote in the caucus (because it was incompatible with their schedule) or the primary (because it didn't count), but they would have supported BO (some even have bumper stickers: they are solid supporters) if the primary or the total number of votes cast in our primary/caucus mattered to the nomination process.  It is unfair to retroactively decide that the total number of votes cast in my primary/caucus should be influential or supersede the importance of delegates.   If someone can come up with an extrapolation of what turnout would have been if we had a meaningful primary, then I'm open to that.  I want my state to get some sort of redress (as imperfect as it may be) if the crazy (self inflicted) processes in FL and MI are going to be considered in way that minimizes the voice of my state.  

    Changing rules midstream isn't a fair election, it's a banana republic.

    Exactly which rule (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    are you saying is being disregarded or changed?

    Because the superdelegates will obviously decide the nominee, and according to the rules, they can vote for whomever they like.  They can decide based on where their cat poos in the litterbox if they so desire.  It doesn't even have to be based on electability, though one hopes, of course, that it is.

    So, again, what rule is being changed here?


    No rule (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    that commenter writes the same false comment every day.

    To be sure (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    if seating FL and MI delegates is finally dead, then no rule is under consideration for a change.  However, I'm under the impression that the debate about reinstating delegates to these states is ongoing.  I support finding a compromise that is as fair as possible to all citizens in these states.  And, this compromise should not be a justification for retroactively legitimizing non-contest elections for the purpose of popular vote totals because the results of a non-contest will never represent the voice of the public.

    The bulk of my comment notes that combining popular vote counts from caucuses (if counts are known at all) and primaries must use an extrapolation for caucus states so that SDs don't underestimate our size.  Since others want to have a popular vote discussion that includes the non-contests of FL and MI, I want to make sure that the concerns of caucus states are also heard, especially since we followed the rules.  

    I don't mean any harm by the term non-contest, I'm only using a short hand to note that campaigning was banned and the delegates were stripped, I appreciate that a couple million people voted.


    On the other hand (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    if there is no rule about superdelegate voting, there there is no rule about waiting until later to decide, either.....It would be legitimate for them to put Obama over the top now--forget Penn.

    If the accepted moral guideline is popular vote, then the superdelegates should wait....But under such a guideline, abstract issues such as electability would not be relevant.

    I am not sure that Hillary really wants to say that the Superdelegates have the moral right to do whatever they want....


    Indeed it is (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:28:40 PM EST
    But what would Nancy Pelosi say?

    I think she is right (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    Then you are against (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    the Superdelegates deciding now.

    I would wait (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    until the lead in pledged delegates is even clearer than it is now, i.e., that it is even more difficult for her to catch up.

    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    So what is an election where you remove two large states from the vote?

    Enough of this (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    this has been hashed out at this blog to the most minute detail.

    We will not discuss the same old same old here.

    I will not permit anymore from supports of either candidate. Further comments from ANYONE on this issue will be deleted.

    You also are suspended (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    Comment no further.

    I visit here twice, aske sincere (none / 0) (#78)
    by Tmo78759 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    questions and I'm suspended.  Is this third grade.  I'm not a partisan of any kind.  My state voted over a month ago.  I was actually asking questions because I wanted the answer.  I guess that's not allowed.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    You called this a Republican site.

    We have a firm rule here abpove all others. Do not attack the site or the moderators. Why? Because we do not get to attack you.

    You blatantly violated that rule. You are suspended and can not comment further today. Come back tomorrow and see if you can manage to not insult the site and the moderators of this site. If you can not, go to another site to insult us.


    Next time see if you can control (3.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    yourself and NOT write this:

    "BethanyAnn, thought I had stumbled onto a Republican discussion site."

    Your whine is ridiculous.


    I had heard early on (none / 0) (#68)
    by zfran on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    that Sen. Obama voted "Present" on the issue of Florida being penalized. I guess he couldn't make up his mind in the Illinois Senate, nor in the U.S. Senate. He seems to play it safe. I believe everyone should vote for whom they want or believe in, however, many, not all, but many are voting for "their American Idol-type" as in a popularity contest, not who is best qualified. Others, really do believe in one candidate or another.

    leave MI out of it (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dr Zoidbergg on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    As a resident of Michigan I say strip the delegates!
    The State Democratic committee felt the need to make the state more relevant in the electoral process.  The national committee warned them what would happen if they did move it forward, Well our egocentric state democratic reps did it anyway.  What happened?  Last August the National Democratic committee stripped Mi of its delegates. At this point in time each and EVERY candidate agreed to this consequence.
    Now that its has become a close race Hillary wants the votes to count?  Where was she last August?  The time to object was last August.  Sure her name was on the ballot but she didn't hold even one rally in this state. Now all of a sudden we're important?  I'm not saying Obama is right in his stance, I'm not saying Hillary is... What I am saying is that this issue was decided last August.
    Hillary's "change of heart" smacks of hypocracy

    It was a political football from the get go (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    Obama got a two fer.

    1.  Pander to Iowans.

    2.  Take out a state unfavorable to him.

    I see this is your first (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
    post.  There are many items posted on this.  This topic has been exhausted.

    If this topic (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Dr Zoidbergg on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    is exhausted why then is there so much whining about Obama blocking the re-vote? I too say its a dead issue - it was dealt with last August.