FL Dem Complains About DNC Unfairness

By Big Tent Democrat

Democratic FL state representative Ted Deutch (a Clinton supporter) recites the case against the DNC's handling of the FL/MI situations:

. . . It's clear that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida all violated the same rule and should be treated the same. But that's not what happened. While the rules designate a 50 percent delegate reduction, the DNC imposed the death penalty - a 100 percent reduction - on Florida and Michigan. Amazingly, the other "rule-breakers" got no penalty at all.

The DNC has chosen to waive the rules when it believes that it suits the DNC's purposes. If the DNC insists on treating Florida differently, then it should be reminded that its own rules establish a 50 percent penalty rather than the death penalty given to Florida Democrats. . . . Rather than continue this divisive debate, the DNC should simply return to the rules that it drafted.

Read the whole thing.

< SNL Opens With Hillary Skit | Why Florida and Michigan Matter >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is what has always stunned me (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    It's clear that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida all violated the same rule and should be treated the same.

    The sacred "roolz" that are being touted as being so all-fired important were not imposed on 3 of the 5 states that broke them. How come? That has never been explained to me in any way that makes sense. And it is seldom, if ever, mentioned by those who are so enamoured of following the roolz.

    Enlighten me someone, for I confess to being somewhat confused. (Actually I can't figure out what the hill is going on but was trying to keep to a high level of conversation it being Sunday and all.)

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:20:38 AM EST
    the rules were NOT followed by the DNC. They were abused. And now we are here. A travesty and a disaster for the Democratic Party.

    In one way, the fairness is less important to me than the sher incompetence. This will darken Howard Dean's Charimanship forever, especially if the Dems lose the Presidency by less than 44 electoral votes.


    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    take your pick.

    I will use that for a post (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:24:21 AM EST

    Except (none / 0) (#29)
    by herb the verb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    I think the following changes:

    McCain vs. Obama:
    McCain wins ND, NM, OH, CO, NV, WA
    Obama might win WI, MI
    McCain - 296
    Obama - 244

    McCain vs. Clinton:
    McCain wins TN, NV, NM
    Clinton wins WA, MI, NH
    Clinton - 287
    McCain - 255


    I think (none / 0) (#41)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    she has a real shot in Tennessee.

    Interesting graph (none / 0) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    Thanks. There are some close states that shouldn't even be in play for us. Lots of information at our finger tips.

    I have to say (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    that the way some Obama supporters have dismissed the original Florida contest really annoys me. It was fairer than every single caucus in this process--and probably had more participants than all of those combined.

    Before Super Tuesday, everyone believed that the FL delegates would be seated on the basis of this primary. Now that they matter, that's apparently a problem.

    And obviously for Hillary, even a 50% penalty would be just fine, because they key is to legitimize the popular vote (though I really don't think there should be any debate about that anyway).

    I think Rendell (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    today was hammering on revotes again and challenging why Obama opposes them. Bob Casey avoided the issue.

    I think Clinton needs to keep hammering on revotes. ESPECIALLY for Michigan.


    Timmeh worth watching then? (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:27:06 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    Ooh, Ed obviously doesn't like Mark Penn (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    Good morning. I really like the (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    simplicity of primary was held-votes were cast-votes must be counted.

    Here are the transgressions: (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    Iowa, permitted to go "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Jan. 14), moved its caucuses to Jan. 3 - a clear-cut violation.

    New Hampshire, granted the freedom to hold its primary "no earlier than 14 days" (Jan. 22) ahead of the pack, also broke Rule 11 by moving to January 8.

    And, of course, South Carolina, "no earlier than seven days" (Jan. 29), defied the DNC and moved to Jan. 26.

    I was previously unaware of this.  When does "roolz are roolz" apply and when are they administered higgledy piggledy?

    I believe the DNC responded to this question (none / 0) (#36)
    by Knocienz on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    They allowed those states to move forward in response to Florida and Michigan's actions.

    The original intent was to expand the 'early voter' states to include South Carolina and Nevada in addition to the usual Iowa and New Hampshire. When Michigan and Florida pushed up, the allowed the others to  move forward as they considered it in line with that original goal.

    There were some DNC quotes somewhere about this, but I don't recall where at the moment.


    So breaking the Roolz (none / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    is a-okay as long as you stay within the Spirit of the Roolz.

    Except if you are FL and MI, who did indeed let the First Four go first as the Roolz were intended to do.

    So Three of the First Four broke the letter of the roolz, but not the intent of the roolz and so they were let off the hook.

    MI and FL also broke the letter of the roolz, but not the intent - but they weren't one of the First Four so they were s__t out of luck.

    I have no sympathy left for the DNC or its leadership until they make one Rule that applies to everyone, all the time.


    The Rules Include "Requesting a Waiver" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Knocienz on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    Which, I believe SC, NH, and IA did.
    I may be in error, but I believe the order was:

    FL and MI request a waiver. It is denied by the DNC. FL and MI move their primaries forward anyways.

    In response, SC requests a waiver to remain before FL. It is granted by the DNC. NH and IA request a waiver to remain first caucus and primary and they too are granted.

    In other words, two states broke the rules, and as a result, they were penalized and three other states asked and received  a dispensation to avoid being penalized by the actions of the other two.


    You know (none / 0) (#45)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    This is an excellent argument for a strict system of rotating primaries/caucuses(ugh) or 50 state, one day/weekend primary.

    That 50 state, one shot primary will be just as fair as can be - vote on this date or any date after it or lose all delegates.

    That way there is no special treatment, no First Four, no privileges, no jumping the gun.  Sure the candidates will loathe it and it will stretch their fund raising and organizing abilities to their limits, but if you can't handle a fifty state campaign in a primary, why do you think you are qualified to be POTUS?

    Of course, the only people who will villify such a system more than the candidates are the media.  What ever will the little drama queens and kings do without months upon months of pretending trivia is significant and crucial issues are trivial?


    I'm all for rotating primaries (none / 0) (#46)
    by Knocienz on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:44:27 PM EST
    If I got to design a system from scratch. I think I saw a hierarchical plan that included 7 primary voting days  where the number of awarded delegates grew  over the season. So small states would tend to go first as their wasn't 'room' for a large state in the first few votes.

    I'm also all for caucuses AND primaries as long as you limit the number of delegates awarded in a caucus (either proportion 25% or so, or perhaps by total number (so a small state might do a caucus only) as I do think the party building has its place.

    Combine the two and you might have a California caucus early in the cycle and a California primary late in the cycle. The caucus is Democrat only and awards no more than 25% of the state delegates. The primaries are open or not as the state desires.

    Finally, you take the Super Delegates and toss them out the window. If a candidate wants to award delegate status to those folks who would otherwise be Super Delegates, then it comes off of their list of caucus or primary delegates.

    That is if I were designing it myself.


    Do you know this (none / 0) (#48)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:14:26 PM EST
    or are you guessing? Where did you get this notion of pre-approval as it is news to me? I did a quick search and here:

    Nov 21, 2007 (Reuturs)
    NH moves primary date to January 8

    New Hampshire set January 8 as the date for its primary vote in the U.S. presidential election, ending speculation on Wednesday over the timing of one of the first contests in the 2008 White House race.

    Dec 1, 2007 (press release)
    DNC doesn't punish NH

    The Rules and ByLaws sub-committee of the full Democratic National Committee voted this morning to support New Hampshire's "first-in-the-nation" status. With a vote of 28-2, the committee granted New Hampshire a waiver to hold its primary on January 8th, 2008, the date recently set by Secretary of State Bill Gardner. Though there was talk of sanctioning New Hampshire, this vote signified that the committee stands in solidarity with the Granite State. New Hampshire will travel to Denver, Colorado in the summer of 2008 with all 30 of its voting delegates and 4 alternates.

    I never heard of Florida applying for a waiver first. And obviously NH didn't. I could look for the rest, but since you have different info perhaps it would be quicker if you supplied a source for your info instead. Thanks.


    We were both a little right and a little wrong (none / 0) (#49)
    by Knocienz on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:09:32 PM EST
    But I don't think my main point was impacted much.
    Looked for some quote worthy sources.

    New Hampshire - Nov 29th

    Buckley on Saturday morning will request a waiver from the new DNC rule that set the primary for Jan. 22, two weeks later than the final date of the primary.

    So it appears that NH did request a waiver and receive one prior to the actual vote (or the rules committee granting one)

    Iowa - date unknown

    Harkin, D-Iowa, said he spoke with Gov. Chet Culver and Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan, and believes Iowa Democrats will seek a waiver from the Democratic National Committee to reschedule the Jan. 14 caucus in light of Michigan's decision to hold its primary Jan. 15. Harkin said Democrats would not reschedule without a waiver, in order to preserve its good standing with DNC leaders.

    South Carolina - Oct 16

    "The South Carolina Democratic Party will request a waiver from the DNC in order that our presidential primary election can be held on Saturday, Jan. 26, 2008, without violating DNC rules. The South Carolina Democratic Party will like to extend an invitation to South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson to join us on Jan. 26 so that both parties can hold our presidential preference primaries on the same day. South Carolina's Democrats and Republicans have an opportunity to save state taxpayer dollars if we come together and vote on the same day."

    On further search, it appear that Florida may not have ever even requested a waiver. That it was the vote change rather than a combined vote change + denied waiver that caused the others to request and receive a waiver for a schedule change.


    Waiver (none / 0) (#50)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:32:31 PM EST
    I think its the word waiver that is making it seem like prior permission. Every state submits its plan prior to the actual election for the DNC to find it in or out of compliance. That doesn't mean it actually occurs prior to the legislation that moves the primary date. Florida talked about whether the DNC would allow the date to be moved (waiver) prior to the actual DNC R&B meeting also. That doesn't equal prior permission.

    Iowa moved its date on October 28, 2007. They went before the DNC Dec 1st (from that first post it mentioned Iowa and SC got approval that same day). I've seen nothing that shows they received approval PRIOR to moving their date.

    I've searched a little but don't see the date when S.C. moved their date but I'd bet it was also before Dec. 1st.

    Nothing in your post shows they had permission prior to their acts that moved their dates. Only they were going to ask. Like Florida and Michigan asked. All after moving the dates but before the votes (as is required by the rules).

    While it is certainly in the power of the DNC to ok some states and not others, it's important imho to note that this wasn't that some states asked and received prior permission to move their dates and others asked and were denied and moved the date anyway. All the states as far as I see moved their dates THEN asked for the ok after the fact.


    Seems a stretch (none / 0) (#51)
    by Knocienz on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:41:06 PM EST
    They didn't get in trouble for scheduling their primaries, but for holding them.

    I can schedule vacation time whenever I want, I can even get plane tickets and make all my reservations without letting my work know about it.

    If they tell me that I am needed and can't take the time off, then I'll get in a lot of trouble if I actually go. But nobody cares that I made the plans before discussing it with them; they only care that I actually take the trip. If I do it during a major proposal, I'd better get a 'waiver' from the Chief Engineer or I'm in for some major problems.


    Have any proof? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    They didn't get in trouble for scheduling their primaries, but for holding them.

    Florida's delegates were removed in September 2007. The election was in January 2008. Guess which happened first.

    The facts are clear. Each state changed their election date. Then asked for an ok from the DNC. Some were allowed and others denied. Your vacation plans notwithstanding, those are the facts that are easily seen here. If you have a different FACT that shows otherwise, I'm more than willing to look at it.


    But they also told that if they rescheduled (none / 0) (#53)
    by Knocienz on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:06:57 AM EST
    They'd regain their delegates. If you don't set the penalty ahead of time, then candidates could not be pressed to avoid campaigning, but it was certainly associated with holding the contest without the waiver.

    The penalty will not take effect for 30 days, and rules committee members urged officials from the nation's fourth-most-populous state to use the time to schedule a later statewide caucus and thus regain its delegates.

    Believe me, if Florida had rescheduled their vote (or did so now) and were STILL penalized, I'd be completely with you on the injustice involved.

    In one case, it appears that the reason to request a waiver was because the state wanted to leap to the front and it was rejected. In the others, it appears that the reason to request a waiver was in response to the actions of a different state leaping to the front (i.e. in response to actions outside the control of the state requesting the waiver)

    n any case, the rules WERE followed regading NH, IA and SC. Even if you disagree with the application of those rules where discretion was provided, it is not a manifestly unfair decision to grant a waiver in the second case but not the first.


    So (none / 0) (#54)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    You have now completely changed the argument.

    I disagreed with your statement that

    FL and MI request a waiver. It is denied by the DNC. FL and MI move their primaries forward anyways.

    You then posted

    On further search, it appear that Florida may not have ever even requested a waiver.

    and this

    They didn't get in trouble for scheduling their primaries, but for holding them.

    All of which adds up to you not understanding how the system works or at least worked this time. I tried to help, but you are so set on defending whether or not the DNC is allowed to grant some waivers (a point I clearly conceded earlier) that you can't see the point I'm trying to make. You have basic facts wrong. Any other point you attempt to make within a post with basic facts clearly in error muddies your point.

    Either learn the facts of what happened or don't mention them. My attempt to help you with that is over. I won't change this discussion into whether or not the DNC is correct because that was never the point of my post.


    My mistake (none / 0) (#55)
    by Knocienz on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
    Considering that we both had several (IMO unimportant) details incorrect, I thought the discussion "Was Florida treated unfairly in comparison to those states who were not punished" remained a reasonable point of discussion (and if you look up at my original post, you'll see that was my point)

    I was unaware that you were just sanctimoniously trying "to help me" without caring about the point that I was discussing. You really could have saved us both a lot of time if you had just given me a heads up on your purpose from the start.


    A 5 for higgledy piggledy! (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    Love it.  Haven't heard that in years!

    Funny I just emailed Donna Brazile on this topic (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Saul on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    Mrs. Brazile

    Pardon the intrusion but I have always wanted to ask you these questions.

    In reference to MI and FL can you please tell me what terrible thing occurred because MI and FL went against the DNC rules not to move up their primaries?  The only negative thing that I saw that occurred was nothing more than a record number  of voters in each of those states who came out to vote.

    I understand that rules are important but don't you think it was a silly rule now that you look back at it.   Nothing wrong happened because they disobeyed the rules.  Look at all the states that vote at the same time on Supertuesday.  So two states wanted to move their primary up.  So what.

    I also understand that FL had no choice in their primary dates since the FL republican legislature and the republican Governor ordered the primary to be held in Jan.  The FL democrats wanted it in Feb.  To me it was not their fault.

    I also have heard that two other states moved up their primaries but they were not penalized.  I do not know which states exactly but the point is why the double standard. Why weren't they penalized?

    If I am not mistaken you did not ask permission of the participating candidates in MI and FL if it was ok if the DNC was not going to approve the move up of their primaries and that the DNC would punish them if they did.  My point is why do you now have to ask permission of the candidates if its ok to have a revote. One side will always tell you no and the other side yes. You can't leave this choice up to the candidates.  Just like you ruled on the rules that FL and Mi could not move up their primaries with that same authority you could say they need to have a revote and those are the rules.

    I think it is more of a pride thing with the DNC.  They could admit that it was a silly rule and reverse the ruling but the DNC has to swallow their pride  to do this.  Believe me they will be admired by the public if they did this.  It takes courage to admit mistakes and to swallow your pride I know but I done it.

    If the DNC wants to be adamant and refused to retract their ruling ,then I feel that the fairest way to include MI and FL in the nomination process is to have a revote. If no revote occurs then only other way would be to leave FL on the original vote count since all the candidates had an even playing field.  None of them campaigned in FL and all of them were on the ballot.  All the voters knew who they were.  No one had an advantage.  In Mi there were three candidates, Hilary, Dodd and Kucinich.  The other candidates took their names off the ballot.  Mi was not telling them that they had to do that they did that on their own volition.  In Mi I say let the 55% of the Hilary vote go to her and the 40% of the uncommitted go to Obama.  I think that is very generous.

    Seating of the MI and FL delegates after there is a nominee is meaningless.  Unless they played a role in the nomination process then you will have an illegitimate candidate.  

    By the way what role does MI and FL have in the general election of who can be on their ballots?  If Mi and Fl are told they cannot play a role in the  primary democratic nomination process then why can't  they tell the DNC the following:  

    Since we played no role in the primary nomination process there will be no democratic nominee on our ballots in the GE.
     Moreover could they also in turn tell the DNC this:  
    The only way a legitimate democratic nominee can be on our ballots is if and only if there is a primary revote in those states.

    Can they hold the DNC hostage to those conditions?

    Initially I  said I would vote for whoever the democratic nominee would be Obama or Hilary.  However, now I have serious reservations. I was really looking forward to voting in the GE this year but if Mi and Fl play no role in the democratic nomination process just because of this insignificant ruling by the DNC I will not vote at all in the GE.  I think I am not alone in this thinking.  I am from Texas not MI or FL

    I hope I did not offend anyone, but I just had to get this off my chest.  I have always admired you.  I just hope their will be a fair solution.  Maybe the only way to settle this will be to have both candidates on one united ticket.

    Thank you for your time


     She answered my last email let see what she says on this one.


    You can literally see Brazile's role (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    in a C-Span archived video of the August 25 rules committee meeting that punished Florida (and that set up similar punishment of Michigan).  It shows clearly that the roolz were for stripping the state of 50% of its delegates . . . and then, without explanation, that FL lost 100% of them.

    How?  Obama super-delegate Ralph Dawson of NY made an amendment at that August 25 DNC rules committee meeting noted in the story, an amendment to up the penalty to 100%.  And that amendment immediately was stridently supported at the meeting by (now-obvious) Obama backer and DNC staff Donna "Watch Me Walk Out" Brazile, so immediately that she clearly knew of it beforehand.  From my work on such committees, it was the sort of motion that would be crafted with or even by DNC staff.

    You can see all this, plus the Florida Dem party's pleas, on the C-Span archived video (search c-span site archives).  Look particularly at the last 15 minutes or so, starting with the one rules committee member who had the sense to see the mess that this means today, the only one who voted against the 100% punishment.

    That was Dean predecessor Don Fowler, former DNC chair in those awful '90s.  Fowler is from SC, as I recall -- interestingly, as that state was allowed to move ahead.  Ordinarily, on such committees, I can attest that the experience of such longtimers and at the top is heard and heeded.  He was not, and that suggests to me that the Dean-and-Brazile-picked committee already was against "experience," i.e., the Clintons.

    After Fowler in those final minutes of the hearing comes Brazile's strident speech -- quite strident for a staffer.  (But the earlier hour-and-some is useful to see for the Florida Dem party's explanations of their GOP legislature's cornering of them, their attempts at a way out, etc.)


    Thanks (none / 0) (#38)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    You mentioned this in a post yesterday so I looked and found it. I haven't finished watching it (I have to take calming breaks) but it is interesting.

    Do you have a link to that video? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    I do (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:36:00 PM EST
    Sorry, had to be away for hours (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:51:48 PM EST
    with a century-old friend, actually, who is ill -- but always healthy for me to get the long view of life again from someone who voted for FDR all four times.

    Anyway, I had the link in comments yesterday but was short of time to dig it out again today, so I'm glad andgarden got it for you.  As I said in comments, look especially at the last 15 minutes or so for Don Fowler as the sole voice of then but then for Brazile.

    The whole thing is worth a look-see sometime for the earlier Florida Dems' discussion with the committee, for all the good that it did -- them or then MI.


    As a Florida voter who voted for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by gish720 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:44:31 AM EST
    I was told by my sister, who also voted for Clinton, that our votes would count...I don't know what she'd heard except her husband is a newspaper reporter at the Daytona Beach News Journal, so I believed her at the time.  I know both she and I are very upset by the turn of events here.  The Obama people keep quoting Clinton back when this race wasn't so close. It's not her fault that this race has become so close that these votes are more important to who gets the nomination.  Still, no one here could believe that after 2000 that ANY potential democratic nominee would have the gall to deny these voters their chance to be heard. It's been my understanding that one of the reasons the Florida dems voted with the republicans for the date being moved was to get a paper trail for our elections, something they'd fought for a long time and got no cooperation when Jeb Bush was in office.

    Huh? They do, but it was not (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    the state party or legislature that levied the draconian punishment; that was the DNC.  So why would you exempt it as a target -- and at this point, it is the primary target as the only resort for appeal.  I don't get your rationale at all.

    A fair solution (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Traven on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    So here's my plan.  Award delegates in MI and FL as if Hillary had won them (as if because they weren't real primaries; no one can tell what the result would have been had they truly been contested).  Apportion the delegates by the average that HRC has defeated Obama in those states in which she has won.  The spread, I believe, is something less than 55-45.  This gives HRC her moral victory but because of proportionality, doesn't move the delegate totals much at all.  In return for Obama's magnanimity, HRC must agree to not cite the "results" of the "primaries" whenever she talks about the popular vote totals (again, because no one can know what they would have been in a true, contested primary  -- Obama's numbers always go up wherever he campaigns).  Everyone on each side agrees to support the nominee in November and to stop caterwauling about this mess.  Then we move on and let the primaries play out.

    Since we now get to (4.75 / 4) (#31)
    by badger on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    adjust the outcome of elections (based on your proposal), I think we should also adjust the delegate assignments in WA and TX based on the primary election votes and ignore the caucuses.

    My opinion before was that the outcome is what the voters decide, but since we can now have totals that reflect our opinions and are "fair to the candidates", I think we can agree that WA and TX should be adjusted as well.

    I'm sure I can think of more outcomes to adjust. Maybe all of those states where the African-American percentage of the vote was over-represented compared to the likely general election turnout should just be split 50/50 between Clinton and Obama.


    You are saying that Hillary (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    did not beat Obama by more than 55-45 in Florida and Michigan? Well, we know that is wrong.

    But the numbers are there. No need to guess.


    No, that's not what I said (none / 0) (#19)
    by Traven on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:32:33 AM EST
    No, what I said is that no one can know what the spread would have been in a REAL primary -- one that both contested by CAMPAIGNING.  HRC has always had tremendous name-recognition advantages going into a primary.  Obama has almost always had to come from behind.  In almost every case, his numbers have gone up in a state where he has campaigned.  Because there was no campaigning in MI or FLA, NO ONE CAN KNOW what the results would have been.  So, as I said, we "give" MI and FL to HRC, and use the average by which she has beaten Obama in the states in which she has won.

    Then a re-vote is the solution (none / 0) (#20)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    That is prety ridiculous (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    For MI you can argue that I suppose, but for Florida? Why do you think Obama fought tooth and nail against revotes?

    Name recognition? (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:16:13 PM EST
    What, the people of Florida were not allowed to watch MSNBC? They had no idea there was a Obama? Well, the votes show differently. In fact, Edwards was third.

    If he was allowed to campaign.......? But then, she and Edwards would have been allowed to campaign also. In fact, it was Edwards who did not get a lot of exposure. So if everyone knew Hillary's name and no one watched TV, then that is why Hillary won all those votes and won Florida. Right?


    No, because the delegates aren't (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST
    as important at this point as the vote totals.

    In addition (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    Since Obama blocked revotes, I think he has to take the hit on the popular vote issue.

    A penalty for Obama's intransigence.


    Then he had better make PA (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    really close and win Indiana, otherwise we've got trouble.

    Not a fair reading (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Traven on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:38:26 AM EST
    HRC is just as responsible for "blocking" revotes by refusing to address LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS about how revotes would be conducted.  You act as if raising these questions -- which would have included disenfranchising thousands of Democrats in MI -- is illegitimate.  It is not.  HRC could address all that if she chose to, but obviously prefers having that talking point that having no revotes is 100% Obama's fault.

    As to Iowa and NH, they have been the traditional "first primaries" for so long, that's why they got a free ride -- they were always going to be first, no matter when the rest of the states decided to go.

    Let's not forget that HRC's apparatchiks like Ickes went along with the plan to strip MI and FLA of 100% of their delegates, OK?


    A factual reading (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    is what it is. clinton, for slefish reasons, wants revotes. Obama, for selfish reasons, does not.

    I have no patience for Obama supporters who deny the obvious.


    Even if they are not (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lil on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    officially counted, would SD's really not "count" them when making their decision. Does anyone really think that excluding millions of votes is a good thing.  What a mess! We need these states to win in Nov. I could see how both sides have some legitimate arguments and their supporters will never accept a decision favoring the other guy (in their eyes). So if we lose in November, we can put more than 50% of the blame on the Democratic party itself.  I've got a few other folks I could dish some blame on too, but the biggest culprit is the terrible decisions of the DNC making the rules so stupid and unfair. I hope we survive this and am frankly quite aggravated that in a year that should have been a lock for Dems is completely a mess.

    That is false (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    And frankly, even if it were true, it makes a mockery of the rules. The DNC can not orally change its rules.

    Your comment is insulting BTW. You need to either can it or your will be suspended AGAIN.

    Last warning.

    And of course skex (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    Your comment is being deleted. Learn to write a comment that does NOT insult the site or its moderators.

    It is clear to this Obama supporter (none / 0) (#28)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    that this Ted Deutch should be shot for his message. [/figurative]