home

The Magic Number And Gaining Legitimacy For The Nominee

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:52:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The magic number. That is not a phrase you hear much in reference to the Democratic nomination. We hear about pledged delegate counts and how sacrosanct they are of course. But never is that tied to the concept of a magic number. But the magic number exists. Two are possible - one with FL/MI (2214) and one without (2025). And this Chris Bowers post truly illustrates why not revoting Florida and Michigan makes getting a legitimate nominee extremely difficult:

Add this in to the above numbers, and it comes to a grand total of Obama 1,948--1,824 Clinton, with only the 255 remaining superdelegates to go. Obama would need 74.5, or just 29.3%, of the remaining superdelegates to reach the 2,022.5 magic number. At that point, he would be able to dictate what happens in Florida and Michigan.

(Emphasis supplied.) Chris assumes the non-MI/FL magic number will be considered legitimate by all. I am confident it will not be so. A solution to Florida and Michigan must, at the very least, be provided and agreed to PRIOR to the nominee being chosen. It can not be done after the fact. You can not truly claim legitimacy unless the nominee achieves the MI/FL magic number - 2214, through an agreed upon process. After the fact will not cut it. The legitimacy of the nominee depends upon it.

< Popular Vote Touted At Clinton Fundraiser | Friday Evening Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Magic Number And Gaining Legitimacy For The Nominee | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So... After Obama Wins... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    ...then he gets to decide whether we should let Michigan and Florida count.  I hope that we're not going to give McCain the choice of whether to seat California and New York's electoral delegates or not.

    Magic Numbers (none / 0) (#79)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    The Moving Magic Number is just another variant of "MI and FLA will count after the nomination is decided."  If Obama claims the nomination at 2025 -- and the DNC agrees -- then MI and FLA won't "count" just because they subsequently are allowed to sit on the convention floor. MI and FLA will still have been disenfranchised. Claiming the nomination at 2025, and then getting more superdelegates to line up behind him after that, won't legitimate the nomination either. It's meaningless to seat MI and FLA unless the number is 2214, and MI and FLA are counted in before Obama claims the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    The real question is... (none / 0) (#83)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    ...Will this create enough of a smokescreen to convince people who voted for Clinton in Michigan and Florida to support Obama in the general election? I suspect that the real answer is: "No".

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#98)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    And there's also all the other Clinton supporters nationwide who will not be hoodwinked or bamboozled or okey-doked about this. They may think we are low information voters. But they will find out in November that we got the message loud and clear.


    [ Parent ]
    Most people won't care, frankly (none / 0) (#105)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    99% of voters spend no time on blogs. Most folks outside of FL and MI will not have any opinion about it whatsoever. They won't care. Obama can take the general without Florida. He'll need to make peace with Michigan voters before the general, and he'll have plenty of time to do it. By the general, if Obama is the nominee, it won't matter.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess that is what Obama's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:50:23 PM EST
    thinks.

    [ Parent ]
    An ardent Obama fan told me today (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
    why not just split the delegates 50 50 for FL and MI.  She is not a blog reader or commenter.  

    [ Parent ]
    Most people will say (none / 0) (#115)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST
    I'm not saying blog readers are any smarter than non blog readers. So far as being better informed, that depends on what information they choose to believe. Mainly, folks on blogs like the information that feeds their preconceptions.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's what people will see (none / 0) (#142)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:10:48 PM EST
    Even if people don't care particularly about the issue itself, they will see the Democrats look like idiots. This feeds into the media's favorite 'Democrats in disarray' theme and  hurts in every state in November.

    We are going to have to look a lot more competent than this to win this election.

    [ Parent ]

    This Scenario (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by The Maven on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST
    comes across to me, for some reason, as reminiscent of the many countries around the world which claim to have "free elections", but only after the folks in power have striken certain parties off the ballot and/or rendered specific candidates ineligible.  But the election itself, when it happens, is run fairly.  Sure, whatever you say, guys.

    The Obama Discount (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:43:06 PM EST
    I propose that we label 2025 the "Obama discount" - a total derived from 48 states.  That is a number built on leaving voters out.  It is not legitimate.

    It's like winning the "Indy 400."

    It gives real meaning to "discount."

    No one should win with 2025.

    [ Parent ]

    What if the delegates from (none / 0) (#93)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    the other 48 states are given purple fingers? Wouldn't that legitimate the process?

    </snark>

    [ Parent ]

    I'm getting confused now. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:58:24 PM EST

    Does your analogy apply to Hillary Clinton when she made this comment to NPR:

    "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."  

    Does your third-world analogy also apply to Harold Ickes, a top Clinton advisor, who voted to penalize Michigan and Florida?

    [ Parent ]

    Whoops, Correction! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    Should read: "... this comment as reported by NPR:"

    Here's the NPR link.

    [ Parent ]

    What I think the Obama side (5.00 / 15) (#19)
    by frankly0 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    doesn't realize yet is that the entire question of voter disenfranchisement in FL and MI becomes all the more imperative to all involved -- most especially to the voters in FL and MI -- precisely if their votes potentially could change the nominee.

    Mostly, people don't care so much if their vote is not counted if nothing of consequence hangs on it. But if something very important does, then they absolutely care about it, and are outraged if it doesn't count.

    It's like the case of the votes in FL in 2000 - everyone cared about their votes because the Presidency depended on it. I remember Bush supporters arguing that if counting every vote were so important, why weren't Democrats concerned that not all the votes had been counted in CA (which Gore won handily). The answer, of course, was that nothing hung on those votes.

    So it will be with FL and MI if they would be the decisive factor in selecting the nominee. Far from being able to sweep the votes in MI and FL under the rug if Obama is, without them, the nominee, and otherwise not, that situation will make it simply impossible, politically or morally, for the problem to go away.

    If FL and MI are decisive, there will be no end of recrimination and ugliness if Obama cheats by refusing to consider seating them until their vote is already discounted.

    EXACTLY (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    That is why I thought Bowers' post was, unwittingly, a very compelling argument for why revotes in FL and MI were so crucial.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, this is also (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by frankly0 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    a reason that it is so specious to claim that Hillary once upon a time was not so concerned about MI and FL, so what right does she have to make a big deal about it now?

    While I don't think it's at all fair to say that Hillary was ever dismissive of the votes in FL and MI (why should she be, given her natural advantages there, among other things), it just misses the real point.

    FL and MI are critical in the current circumstance to consider precisely because they can be decisive. That is the circumstance, more than any other, in which voter suppression and disenfranchisement is morally obscene: when it can turn the ultimate decision from one choice to another.

    [ Parent ]

    One might make the same argument (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    about caucuses. I do.

    [ Parent ]
    Very well put. (none / 0) (#31)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    The Butterfly ballot ONLY mattered because it well, mattered.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it also shows... (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by outsider on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    ...something pretty shortsighted on Obama's part (worryingly politically inept actually), namely that he doesn't seem to have worked out as yet that, if he wins the nomination without FL and MI it will then be up to him and his supporters to decide whether FL and MI will subsequently be seated.  Either he doesn't seat them, and pisses them off, or he seats them in a really patronising, pat on the back kinda way (you can't change anything now, but here - sit down and soak up the atmosphere - aren't I nice to you?) and pisses them off!  It'll look terrible for him come the GE either way...

    [ Parent ]
    Um... (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by outsider on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    Who on earth is saying that?  A lot of people just seem to think: (a) you have to count MI and FL if the nominee is to be legit; (b) the popular vote is the single most important measure of who is the best candidate for the GE; (c) if HRC wins the popular vote, but loses on pledged delegates, there'd be nothing wrong with the SDs overturning Obama's delegate lead and giving her the nomination.  What's laughable there?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama needs to be the clear winner (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    A fair resolution to FL and MI would help to get clarity.  If he is not the clear winner, his chances in the GE will suffer.

    A small margin in pledged delegates won't provide a clear win.  The superdelegates moving en masse to support him won't provide a clear win.

    Winning in PA would provide a clear win.  Winning the majority of the remaining contests would provide a clear win.  Winning a FL or MI revote would provide a clear win.

    Clinton dropping out would also give him a clear win.  This is the reason why his supporters pushed so hard for it.

    [ Parent ]

    You are suspended (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:35:27 PM EST
    Why? Because you attacked the site.

    Some of you seem incapable of controlling yourselves.

    [ Parent ]

    So much for freedom of speech. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    I guess I'll be suspended too.

    [ Parent ]
    Sheesh (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:56:38 PM EST
    You should be suspended for ignorance.

    But I won't. Only if you attack the site or moderators or break other rules repeatedly.

    [ Parent ]

    Seinfeld? (none / 0) (#132)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    Your reference is Seinfeld?

    [ Parent ]
    Question (none / 0) (#26)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    Here's a hypothetical: Say Hillary drops out either before the revotes would have happened (after PR, some time in June.) FL and MI become non issues? What if she drops out before the convention?

    [ Parent ]
    that's the irony, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:25:16 PM EST
    Obama will count FL/MI if and only if, their result will not impact the Outcome.. that in essence is not counting ..

    That actually is the Dean's viewpoint, they should be seated in such a way, that they cannot change the outcome..

    I just fail to understand.. if they will not change the outcome, what do we gain by being hypocrites [by seating them]!!

    [ Parent ]

    It's insulting (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    We'll acknowledge you as long as you have no impact.

    [ Parent ]
    The "SCREAM" (none / 0) (#38)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    fortold of impending insanity!

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly TalkRight! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    Dean says FL & MI will definitely be seated, but not now!  Why not?
    btw - isn't there a Credentials meeting of some kind later this month?


    [ Parent ]
    "What if she drops out before the (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    convention?"

    Yeah, Obama's nomination would be "legitimate" in that case, which is why so many of his supporters want her to do so.  They don't want Obama to have to run the last six miles of the marathon -- so many races are lost in those last six miles.

    [ Parent ]

    Then they become a nonissue (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    for most. Do you think she will drop out if they can make the difference? See, you get to the same placed using a different route. If Obama can get 2214 without FL and Mi, then he is the legitimate nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    My opinion (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    I think that Dean, Pelosi, et al have made it very clear they don't plan to leave the race in a position where FL and MI will matter. Super delegate movements of the past month or so seem to confirm this attitude.

    [ Parent ]
    That is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    If Clinton wins PA convincingly, I think that little plan is dead on arrival.

    [ Parent ]
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#47)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    If the Supers view FL and Mi as legitimate, then it will definitely matter. If they don't, well, then, it doesn't matter, to put it bluntly.

    This is, of course, assuming they base their vote on either popular vote or delegate count.

    [ Parent ]

    I am betting (none / 0) (#95)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:52 PM EST
    he will endorse. I have always thought he would and after she committed to creating a 'poverty czar' today I am even more sure of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:27:18 PM EST
    Will Clinton consider the nomination legitimate if the SuperDelegates go for Obama to such an extent that he reaches the higher magic number before MI and FL are decided, or only if they wait to see what happens with MI and FL before deciding.

    The problem with the latter is that so many superdelegates have already endorsed (and in Clinton's favor), it's hard for her to complain about the former scenario being unfair at this point just because superdelegates would flip en masse to Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    It is not wether Clinton will consider it (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    legitimate or not.  It is wether We the Voters consider it legitimate or not.

    [ Parent ]
    See, but this is just as bad (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    it is within the rules for Super delegates to choose the nominee, but they shouldn't, in my opinion.

    I think most of the remaining SDs agree with me, otherwise they would have endorsed already.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    But they will end up deciding one way or another. Question is, HOW will they decide? Popular vote? Ok. What constitutes popular votes? DO MI and FL count as well? No influential Democrat not backing Clinton has made any indication that they view MI or FL and legitimate. And if most feel that way, then this race is de facto finished.

    [ Parent ]
    That's why we have to wait until june (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    If the supers pick the nominee AGAINST the popular vote, the nominee will not be legitimate.

    [ Parent ]
    what about the petition (none / 0) (#141)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:06:13 PM EST
    to recognize the votes of Fla/Mi? I believe 10,000 signatures are needed, they've got 10746 so far. here's the website
     http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/seatourdelegates/signatures.html

    [ Parent ]
    Yes but.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    It is unclear yet if they will be decisive. I think that there is some gambling going on that they won't be, or that there will be enough smoke in the air that it will be hard to claim that they would have been decisive.

    Gamble? Yes. But since there is very big variability in what will happen over the next 6-8 weeks that's a gamble hardened polls are willing to take.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course they are decisive. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    Without discounting them, Obama's lead evaporates, and so does his insistence that he is ahead.

    Were Hillary to receive the votes she won in Michigan and FL, not to mention the delegates, the race would be perceived more as a tie.

    Obama is doing everything he can to prevent this realization from taking hold.

    [ Parent ]

    Right. They would be more decisive NOW. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    But they aren't accepted broadly now. Not even BTD accepts them, that's why he wants re-votes so that those two states can have broad legitimacy, not legitimacy just to one side (assuming I understand his position correctly).

    My point is that this is the bet that is being made, by preventing them from being counted until they become (possibly) irrelevant, it is quite possible (though by no means certain), that a sufficient momentum will be obtained to make them well and TRULY irrelevant.

    Let's say for example that Obama was able to win PA. Or hold PA to single digits and then slam dunk NC and win Indianna. etc.

    It's a short term tactical move and it may well pay off.

    I'm not denying it's cynical or even risky long term, but its certainly not an OBVIOUSLY stupid play from a cynical perspective.

    [ Parent ]

    Dead On (none / 0) (#140)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:50:32 PM EST
    If FL and MI are decisive, there will be no end of recrimination and ugliness if Obama cheats by refusing to consider seating them until their vote is already discounted.

    This is the question I have been asking myself since it was clear it was going to be a close nomination fight - how in the world can either one of them accept the nomination by not counting certain delegates?

    Please, don't explain the rules to me one more time, I understand the punishment, etc.  That does not make it right.

    And, as you say so well, counting them with a sigh of relief because they don't matter is just a patronizing sham. I'm sure they will wear their funny convention hats and go along with it for the sake of party unity, but the rest of us watching will know exactly what is going on.

    I'll repeat what I have said more than once - Obama needs to man up and agree right now to seat them as-is.  I firmly believe this is not only fair and right, but to his advantage. He'd get 100 superdelegates coming out for him tomorrow, and Hillary would have to get every vote in Penn to win this thing.

    Why is someone supposedly so smart so obtuse?

    [ Parent ]

    Meanwhile, the Super Ds get to select (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    their add on Super Ds:

    AP

    what is interesting and sorta ironic also (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:50:34 PM EST
    is the fact that the superdelegates will probably have to show some courage if they are to vote for whomever is the most likely to win this election, and this from politicians that haven't really shown any courage in the face of the Bush administration.....

    not all supers are politicians (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    or at least elected ones.
    many are party activists who see pretty clearly and dont have to worry about a primary challenge.

    [ Parent ]
    SDs will be considered brave and courageous (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    to select Hillary and be accused of being racists.
    Obama's use of the Race Card has been a very successful weapon.

    [ Parent ]
    I cannot imagine (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:33:31 PM EST
    a candidate needing white voters to win playing the race card. Obama has assiduously avoided race. Prior to Wright, Hillary had been more outspoken on black issues than Obama. This is why Obama avoided the Travis Smiley event. It would not hurt Hillary to attend, so she did. Obama, however, recognized the danger to his candidacy of being identified as the black candidate. He wants to win, not simply make a statement like Jackson and Sharpton.

    It would be refreshing if people would drop this canard.


    [ Parent ]

    Please lets not be naive. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    His surrogates and the press took care of playing the Race card.  Remember the SC primaries and the accusing of Bill Clinton of being racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton brought it on himself (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:48:35 PM EST
    and there is circumstantial evidence to suggested that Hillary's campaign pursued a strategy of racial polarization. This is not to say that they themselves are racists. Obama presents a unique challenge because of his background. I'm convinced that many whites who ordinarily wouldn't vote for a black candidate vote for Obama because of his mother. On the other hand, Obama also enjoys overwhelming black support. What is an opposing candidate to do? Well, I think Hillary opted to play the race card order to deny Obama the white and Hispanic votes. This was 100% strategic. Hillary is not a racist in any shape or form. Clinton campaign insiders even admitted that their strategy was to brand Obama "the black candidate." In fact, one strategist said so after SC in light of the seeming polarization there along racial lines.

    [ Parent ]
    Doubtful (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    Sounds like a diary on the wreck list at dailykos.

    Of course a Clinton surrogate can't even order a black coffee now without a Obama supporter asking what he means by that.  Ane then Keith going "Yes, what did he mean by 'black coffee'?".

    And then a wink through the camera at the knowing electorate.

    [ Parent ]

    And the fact that they allowed the press (none / 0) (#118)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    access to his surrogate grandmother in Kenya but not to his grandmother in Hawaii played to whom?

    [ Parent ]
    I think the press found (none / 0) (#135)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    his Kenyan grandmother. I don't know about "hiding" his maternal grandmother. I read somewhere that she values her privacy. In any event, I think strategically Obama has gone out of his way to remind people that he is, indeed, half white. Given the history of this country and the one-drop rule he was able to maintain his bonafide as a black man while simultaneously appealing to the white side of his heritage. It has worked brilliantly for the most part. That is not to say that there aren't still white people who won't vote for him solely on the basis of race.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly! well said (none / 0) (#143)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    iirc - (none / 0) (#139)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
    Michelle Obama and Oprah first identified Obama as the "black candidate" by telling AAs to vote for THE ONE - the AA one - it's our time, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    PLEOS (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    In case anyone mentioned it, here is a Washington Monthly article on The Law of Rules.

    Thanks for link (none / 0) (#119)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    Interesting article.

    I thought the number of delegates was based on the votes for the last Dem candidate running for President, but apparently they don't even do that without fiddling with the numbers.

    16,984 Florida votes for Kerry-Edwards for 1 delegate
    3,932 Wyoming votes for Kerry-Edwards for 1 delegate

    By any chance did the person who designed this system also write the tax code?

    [ Parent ]

    I Want What Their Smoking (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    The idea that we'll just wait and crown the nominee and then decide what to do on Michigan and Florida is divisive and will kill Democrats in November. Because it's essentially letting the other 48 states decide the nominee, knowing that that disadvantages one of the candidates.  If Howard Dean thinks he doesn't need to show any leadership, that the campaigns will simply resolve it and we'll be one big happy family, then I want what he's smoking.  Because this issue will not be resolved without pressure from the party.  

    Have re-votes, figure out a fair allocation of Michigan delegates, I don't particularly care how it's resolved, but it has to be resolved before the nominee is chosen.  Otherwise, whether Dean realizes it or not, unless Clinton is the nominee, which is possible but unlikely without MI & FL, the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida taints Obama's nomination.  He can say that he's not doing that by not making a decision - but sometimes not making a decision, is making a decision!  And Clinton supporters, activists, and donors are smart enough to figure that out.  

    This is a huge crisis.  It's the one thing that could destroy the party and the leaders march blindly on, hoping it will all work out.  What do we have a national party for if not for this?  

    D'Oh, It's They're Not Their (none / 0) (#72)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:04:46 PM EST
    I'm so frustrated and angry, it's huring my spelling.  

    [ Parent ]
    What's a national party for? (none / 0) (#82)
    by workingclass artist on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    What is truly ironic is that the GOP will use this issue if dis- enfranchisement ( A Rovian specialty ) to woo Hispanics as the new aggrieved  minority, as Good guy McCain rescues them from deportation by the extremists of his own party. March on to victory of double speak and the world turns topsy turvy.

    [ Parent ]
    And Dean's Defense (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    That he can't work to resolve this because any change in the rules would be seen as helping one candidate over the other is ridiculous.  Not resolving this issue is seen as helping one candidate over the other, Howard.  

    Seriously, if Dean or the DNC were any kind of leaders, they'd get Obama and Clinton in a room and hammer out an agreement on what to do about Florida and Michigan (with the threat being a SD bolt to the candidate who is unnecessarily obstructionist).  Then they'd all emerge from the room, pronounce themselves happy and the decision fair and in the interests of the party.  Neither side could credibly claim favoritism if both sides agreed to the deal and both candidates said it was fair and the deal was by and large, fair.  THAT'S WHAT IS NEEDED.  So, yes, the candidates do need to agree, but the party needs to pressure them to do so.  Not cross its fingers and hope everything works out.

    No wonder we are constantly getting our butts kicked by Republicans.  We are very often led by the weak and stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    But Obama seems to only consider (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:44:51 PM EST
    a deal fair if it doesn't give Clinton the opportunity to narrow the gap. At least, he has so far. And yet Dean keeps just saying, "You kids just work it out, let me know how it comes out."

    Howard Dean is indeed smoking something waaaayyyy better than anything that was available in the 70s, and there was some pretty good s*** available in the 70s.

    [ Parent ]

    Like Hillary and every other politician, Obama (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM EST
    will take the nomination any way he can get it. Even with just one more delegate or just one more vote. Even without FL and MI taking part in determining the outcome. He would be a complete moron were he to behave in any other way. Let me repeat, Hillary would do the same. The fact is the number of each candidate's supporters who will be embittered by this is infinitesimal. The blogs tend to wildly exaggerate the animus.

    Obama Has To Decide If He Wants to Be President (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    or if he's happy just being the nominee.  If he's happy just being the nominee, then he can ignore Florida and Michigan.  If, however, he's serious about being president, he needs to resolve this issue in a way that enfranchises Florida and Michigan voters. It will lessen his chances that he's the nominee (although it doesn't prevent him from becoming the nominee), but it will enhance his chances of actually becoming president if he is the nominee.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (none / 0) (#131)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    And I don't agree with those who think they have a crystal ball into how Hillary would act. That is typical mindreading by people that think they know her. They don't.

    The fact is that the situation exists and he has to think of the future. He cannot let the Republicans use this against him, and he can't afford to piss off FL and MI.

    Gotta go. Have a great weekend, everyone!

    [ Parent ]

    I think you are wrong about that (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    Back when I still went to that Other Place, every day would see the proud announcements of Obama supporters that they would never ever vote for Clinton if she were the nominee. A diary with that title was virtually guaranteed to go straight to the rec list.  I couldn't understand this, particularly since, at the time, I thought myself perfectly happy to vote for Obama in the GE, despite my strong support for Clinton.  And the ever-dwindling cadre of Clinton supporters on that Other Place overwhelmingly said the same thing.

    In the last few months, however, I've seen more and more Clinton supporters say that if Obama gets the nomination, they won't vote for him. Not very many say they'll vote for McCain, but others say they will write in Clinton or not vote for president. I think it is partly a reaction to the unfairness of the press to Clinton, the fact that Obama has been given a pass on so much of the negative campaigning he's done, and the constant drumbeat for Clinton to drop out. And the dismissiveness with which Obama supporters treat both Clinton, and her supporters. Not to mention the occasional dismissiveness of Obama himself.

    Will people like me not vote for him in the fall? Why would you even risk our votes in an election with the potential to be very close?  Why would you respond to complaints about the disenfranchisement of FLA and MI with boasts that you have a path to victory in the GE that does not require FLA and MI?  

    In the end, I myself will probably break down and vote for Obama, because I was trained practically from birth to always vote (my dad grew up in Puerto Rico, and though he was a U.S. citizen by birth, he had an immigrant's awe of the glorious system of American democracy.) But I fear that for every one of me, there are many alienated Democrats who won't vote at all, won't contribute money, won't do GOTV, etc.  Because it's hard to believe that someone embodies The New Politics  if he wins the nomination on the backs of millions of disenfranchised voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Polls were done about this. (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:35:04 PM EST
    The animus is real, and it will increase exponentially if Obama is nominated without MI and FL.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a certain (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:38:50 PM EST
    percentage of Americans who will answer "yes" to any pollster's question. For example, 10% still believe Obama is a Muslim. I bet a similar percentage would believe that Hillary is a Muslim.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure. (none / 0) (#106)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    If Hillary's middle name were Hussein, and she were a person of color, and there were a viral email saying she was a Muslim, and her church honored Louis Farrakhan, then yes, they probably would.

    Sorry, but your response makes no sense.

    The number was 22% wanting Obama to drop out now and 28% saying they would never vote for him, by the way.

    It's real. Deal with it.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama, Hillary and McCain (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:56:08 PM EST
    each have a solid base of at least 40%. That will never change. Obama will not win or lose in November based on any acrimony over FL and MI. As stated, reverse their positions and Hillary would take the nomination and run. She, rightly, would not risk losing in order to be "fair" in the primaries. You have to get out of the primaries if you want to have a chance of being president. Besides, Obama has law and process on his side. Hillary signed off on FL and MI not counting and even reaffirmed it verbally.

    [ Parent ]
    so you are saying don't worry about (none / 0) (#114)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:59:20 PM EST
    Fl and MI we are going to win without them?

    [ Parent ]
    No. I'm saying every canditate, unless (none / 0) (#117)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    he/she is very stupid, would take the nomination first, with a view towards crossing the FL and MI bridges later. When you are the nominee only you and one other person on the planet have a chance of being POTUS. Hillary would move heaven and earth to get there. She wouldn't care about "offending" FL and MI.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but if in the process you manage (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:09:13 PM EST
    to piss off a whole bunch of the voters you are running the chance of loosing the GE.  A smart politician would have taken his chances or a re-vote or made a suggestion of having 50% of the delegates seated as the rules stated.  That would be seen as uniting effort and would have worked in his favor in the long run.

    [ Parent ]
    My point is (none / 0) (#125)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    no politician within sight of the nomination would risk it. Do you deny that Clinton, if the positions were reversed, would take the nom and worry about your state later? Please answer honestly.

    [ Parent ]
    I think honestly that she would have gone (none / 0) (#128)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    the 50% route.  That is my opinion because to me she has shown to be throughout the years a smart politician looking beyond the immediate goal.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't believe that for a moment (none / 0) (#129)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:20:54 PM EST
    sorry

    [ Parent ]
    it's ok that is your opinion (none / 0) (#136)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:49:45 PM EST
    and your entitled to it.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for providing (none / 0) (#137)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:18:31 PM EST
    us all with one of the reasons democrats lose elections when they should win.  your "vision" is appalling.

    [ Parent ]
    The polls do not support this conclusion (none / 0) (#99)
    by xspowr on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:40:51 PM EST
    The fact is the number of each candidate's supporters who will be embittered by this is infinitesimal. The blogs tend to wildly exaggerate the animus.

    While the vitriol may be overstated on the blogs, the fact is that polling has consistently shown a hardening of attitudes on both sides over the previous few months, particularly among HRC supporters, with respect to whether they would support the other candidate in the general. And this is without voters yet taking into account the legitimacy of the ultimate nominee; I suspect that the vast majority of HRC supporters, whether on the blogs are not, will be "embittered" if Obama "wins" the nomination without FL and MI being properly accounted for.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (none / 0) (#127)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:15:49 PM EST
    I talked to several people and their passions ride very hid on this issue.  If you ask an Obama supporter if Hilary is nominated will you vote for her.  The answer is not just no it's HELL NO and vice versa.  Do not underestimate this passion especially if the nominee is not decided until August.  There will be very little time until the GE and very little time for heads to cool and heal.  I honestly feel many will just not vote.  It's almost like my team lost so why should I go to their victory party. Moreover, would you vote if MI and FL play no role in this nomination process.  Obama is the main obstacle to a re vote.  Last time I saw their were 50 states not 48.  Obama said he wanted to be president of the UNITED States.  Words Mr. Obama Just Words?

    [ Parent ]
    Her campaign is far more (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    short sighted than his. This is because she is in trouble and she is doing whatever she can to get the nom. Would a dem focused on the GE alienate African American voters? Would a dem focused on the GE essentially endorse John McCain? Don't forget, there are a lot of Obama supporters too. She and her supporters often have made them angry. The problem with Hillary's campaign is precisely its short-sightedness. Given the type of campaign she has run she would have a very, very hard time as the nominee in Nov. But she doesn't care; she just wants to get there. Everything else be damned. This is my point.

    [ Parent ]
    And you insist she is responsible (none / 0) (#133)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:33:24 PM EST
    for things that Hillary supporters blame on Obama.

    Don't expect people who support Hillary to agree that she is short-sighted and ran a racially offensive campaign. This is what we think about Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    For those who think this is just (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:55:53 PM EST
    a political blog thing.  My wife and daughter do not do political blogs, and both of them have told me that if Obama is the nominee they won't be voting.  Now mind you, that I am telling them the have to and hoping by Nov. I can convince them and they do. But how many pissed off Florida Democratic Voters have someone in the family urging them to vote no matter who wins the nomination.

    I'm not worried. (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    I agree that nominee (whoever it is) will need to hit 2214 in order to be legitimate, but I'm pretty sure that the Supers will move en masse to make sure that the eventual winner achieves it.

    I expect to see very little movement among pledged delegates, but Supers are another matter. I expect to see a lot of movement from them. If Hillary beats Obama in NC, his Supers will abandon him in droves. (the reverse is true for Hillary in PA) And even if they continue to stalemate through June, I think we'll see mounting pressure on the Supers to just pick one of them already, and once that decision is made I expect the winner will emerge with a very decent margin.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#11)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:08:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Getting a majority of superdelegates (none / 0) (#44)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:33:34 PM EST
    to get to the magic number is not the same as getting legitimacy (e.g. Bush v. Gore 2000).  Unlike Bush v. Gore, the lack of legitimacy will hurt the nominee in the general election.


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#48)
    by sweetthings on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    But there's absolutely no way either candidate is even going to get to 2025 without Superdelegates, much less 2214. So by that criteria, we're screwed no matter what happens.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    This is what I think as well.

    [ Parent ]
    WHich is why the Obama camp (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    is committed to the math as it is, and not how it could be with FL and MI included.

    You are right (none / 0) (#2)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    and kudos to you.

    Is it possible that with pressure on SD to come (none / 0) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    forth with their choice, Hillary can achieve the MI/FL magic number - 2214 [based on FL/MI's primary  results], and if that is possible, that would be big victory for her.

    even if Obama calls FL/MI does not count (none / 0) (#8)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    IF Hillary can show that she can get close to 2214 number by providing the list of all the Super's that would preempt any move by Obama to exclude FL/MI

    [ Parent ]
    2214 (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    I suspect.

    If more blogs start talking about this number (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    then indeed this WILL be the magic number!!

    [ Parent ]
    I would If I were her (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    But I am not her.

    [ Parent ]
    But if you were you? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    I dunno...somehow I just don't picture you gracefully bowing out...unless Jeralyn is running the show, of course!

    [ Parent ]
    Not revoting FL and MI (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    And both compaigns staying on the path we are on will mean a brokered convention with a Rock'em Sock'em Robots feel.  Will you be going ;)?

    If it happens like that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:08:51 PM EST
    Yes. I do not believe for a minute that will happen. Buut, that does not mean that I expect a legitimate nominee to emerge.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you mean legit in the eyes of public (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    and/or legit in the eyes of the party members and voters?  And that leading to a weak rallying around the nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    The half of the Party (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:13:32 PM EST
    that supports Hillary Clinton. this scenario is unlike any we have ever faced.

    I am shocked at the stupidity many are demonstrating here.

    Obama is still acting as if he does not need to pick Hillary as his VP. He is a fool too.

    [ Parent ]

    I suspect (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    many Hillary supporters (I would be one) would think she was wasted as a VP and would prefer she remain in the senate.
    VP is a ceremonial job.

    [ Parent ]
    Not so much anymore (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM EST
    Gore was great, very active, and did a lot of good.

    Cheney is running things.

    So VPs are not just ceremonial anymore.

    So my reasoning is different.

    If the Obama Administration turns out being what I think it will be, I don't want Clinton associated with that in any way shape or form.

    That's my official statement on the Dream Ticket stuff.


    [ Parent ]

    at the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM EST
    discretion of the president.  somehow I doubt he would give Hillary Gore/Cheney like powers.
    I want her fighting in the senate.  and not just breaking tie votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    the VP slot would be window dressing again.

    A step back if you ask me.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm leaning that way. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    Unless Obama starts showing more smarts and savvy politically, not campaigning - then I'm not hoping for much from an Obama administration.

    In that case, better to be safely in the Senate than linked to an administration with performance issues.  (There's a Viagra joke in there somewhere...)

    [ Parent ]

    Even though I think that Obama (none / 0) (#87)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    needs a VP with some gravitas, I don't think Clinton is that person.  I think Obama believes (incorrectly) he has doesn't have anything to learn from Clinton, and won't really give her significant authority or treat her as an important advisor. If that's the case, then the vice-presidency really would be a waste of Clinton's talents.  Harry Reid needs replacing -- I'd rather see her in his job.

    I've thought for some time that the ideal VP candidate for Obama would be Wes Clark. He's someone with ties to the Clintons, and is currently supporting Hillary, so she would be able to say that she's recommended him and that she's thrilled with the choice.  He has military and diplomatic experience and credibility, and yet he has been anti-war from the beginning. He wasn't a great campaigner in 2004, but I think he's learned a lot since then, and besides, Obama doesn't really need another great speechifier.

    [ Parent ]

    Wes Clark (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM EST
    would be a great VP choice for Hillary.

    I'm not so sure he'd do it for Obama. He's a pretty strong Clintonite. But we'll see what happens, I guess.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm hearing it from people (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    who have never voted for a Republican and never would.

    [ Parent ]