home

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Members

If you are curious about who is on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that will be deciding on Florida and Michigan, here's the list with their affiliations. (Don't laugh, it lists Donna Brazile as "uncommitted")

The tally: Hillary has 13 supporters, Obama 8 and 7, in addition to the 2 co-chairs have not yet endorsed. The member from Florida is an Obama supporter. One of the co-chairs, Alexis Herman, was one of Bill Clinton's cabinet members.

Co-Chairs - no endorsement
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington , D.C. )
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts )

Members - Clinton supporters (13)

Hartina Flournay (DC)
Donald Fowler (SC)
Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC)
Alice Huffman (CA)
Ben Johnson (DC)
Elaine Kamarck (MA)
Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
Mona Pasquil (CA)
Mame Reiley (VA)
Garry Shay (CA)
Elizabeth Smith (DC)
Michael Steed (MD)
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX)

Members - Obama supporters (8) [More...]

Martha Fuller Clark (NH)
Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Janice Griffin (MD)
Thomas Hynes (IL)
Allan Katz (FL)
Sharon Stroschein (SD)
Sarah Swisher (IA)
Everett Ward (NC)

Members - no known endorsement (7)

Donna Brazille (DC)
Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
David McDonald (WA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)

One to keep your eye on: New York lawyer Ralph Dawson. It was his idea to strip the states of their delegates. He contributed $1,000 to Obama. He says he's also given to Hillary. Can he really be uncommitted at this juncture? Maybe... he says his primary goal is nominating the one that is more electable in November, rather than his personal preference.

Another "uncommitted" , David T. McDonald of Washington has already nixed Hillary's idea publicly:

McDonald said he wouldn't respond well if Clinton wanted to seat delegates based on the contests that already took place in the two states.

"If she makes the motion to allocate 'beauty contest' delegates, she will not get support from me," he said. "If she gives [the states] a chance to comply with rules, I will consider it, but they were given 30 days to comply already."

Here's an oddity: Jerome Wiley-Segovia. Although from Virginia, he was appointed by Dean to represent the Latino vote. He thinks Obama has a better chance of winning but praises Hillary's campaign for its "competency."

Homework for the willing googler: Are any of those supporting Hillary on record as being in favor of counting MI and FL as is?

Comments closed

< Late Night: I Won't Back Down | Shocked ! Shocked! To Find There Is Politics Going On >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yvonne Gates (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:18:07 AM EST
    is an Obama supporter. She has stated that she thing's it's fair to split the delegates 50-50.

    I have no idea why they claim "no known endorsement."

    proof (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:20:08 AM EST
    "It has to be a fair process for both candidates," said member Yvonne Gates, an Obama supporter from Nevada who said she wasn't sure what position she would support at the meeting. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other. In my opinion that wasn't an election when they didn't have a chance to get out and talk to the people of that community."

    source

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:22:55 AM EST
    that's ridiculous...i mean talking about fairness in an actual primary (not a caucus) where over half a million people actually went out and voted and we have exit polls that show Obama would have gotten 35%.

    Anything more than that is less fair, especially since Obama and Edwards surrogates were telling people to show up and vote uncommitted in order to make HRC look bad.

    Parent

    re: "fair to the candidates" (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by arky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:52:27 AM EST
    How about being fair to the voters? The ones who actually took the time and trouble to cast their votes??
    They cannot, CANNOT, award any delegates to Obama from either Michigan or Florida without changing the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules.
    I read the rules.
     Rule 13.A. "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference."
    Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters.
    No one in Michigan expressed a presidential preference for Obama, therefore he gets no delegates. Rule 20.C.2. addresses what happens when delegates are awarded in violation of Rule 13.
    Florida:
    Rule 20.C.1.b. of the Delegate Selection Rules:
    "A Presidential candidate who campaigns in a state in violation of the timing provisions of the rules,... may NOT receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state."

    We all know that Obama had TV ads running in Florida and that he also held a press conference there. Both of those activities violate Rule 20.C.1.b.   Conclusion: Obama gets no delegates.

    Rule 11.A. Addresses the timing of primaries/caucuses. Iowa, NH, and SC also violated the timing rules but were not penalized.
    Arbitrary and capricious application of the Rules is the last thing I would call FAIR.

    Parent

    As is Donna B. (none / 0) (#2)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:19:06 AM EST
    So that gives 11 to Obama, 13 to Hillary, 4 unknown.

    Too close for comfort - this is going to be a nail-biter.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#4)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:35 AM EST
    Jerome Segovia supports Hillary ... Weird how I know all this stuff, but the DNC doesn't.

    Parent
    McDonald & Roosevelt --> Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:17:07 AM EST
    Is McDonald the genius that said he would only consider that FL Dems had made a good faith effort to block the date change if every single Democrat in FL voted against it? I would put him in the Obama camp. Also include co-chair Roosevelt. He has said he will never allow MI and FL votes to be determinative. This was well after he knew they would benefit Hillary. So put him in the Obama camp as well.

    Parent
    split or not split (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:57 AM EST
    The numbers are the same proportionally because you are splitting based on a percentage then multiplying by .50. The percentage stays the same.

    The only reason to split the delegates is to prevent Hillary from catching up.

    It's a farce

    This is a GREAT WaPo Article (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:29 AM EST
    if not now, when (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by urduja on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:32:39 AM EST
    great argument for supporting clinton

    Parent
    Corruption & Fraud should not be rewarded (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by chopper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:33:43 AM EST
    How can you possibly not honor the voters in legitimate primaries, but you want to honor the votes/delegates from inequitable and undemocratic  caucuses that were rampant with fraud, corruption, and in some cases with threats and assaults to force the voters out without voting, or to sit down, shut up, and be ignored without voting?

    Via Real Clear Politics:

    Hillary won Florida by 294,772 votes.
    Hillary won Michigan by 328,309 votes

    Hillary won 150,000 more votes than Obama last night in Kentucky and Oregon. She won Kentucky by 249,224 votes while Obama won Oregon by 102,144 votes.

    Let's add it all up:

    Popular Vote Totals (w/FL & MI)Hillary leads by 174,047 votes (.48%.)

    Popular Vote Totals (w/FL & MI and Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA): Hillary leads by 63,825 votes (.18%)

    I would not acknowledge "votes" from corrupt, fraudulent, and un-democratic caucuses.

    Regardless of what the DNC does on May 31 with FL and MI delegates, the popular votes were certified by the states. Their numbers are real and they must be added to her popular vote total.

    Obama removed himself from the ballot by choice, not requirement. This is a consequence of his strategic decision to avoid embarrassment. He needs to accept it.


    Everyone knew the rules (4.00 / 4) (#70)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    HRC didn't complain about the caucus system and FL & MI not being able to seat their delegates until she figured out that she's losing the election.

    Parent
    Rules? (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:33:27 AM EST
    Nobody thought that this election would be as close as it is. When they stripped FL and MI of their delegates, they were simply sending back to the back of the line, where they would have been anyway - so far back in the process that their decision wouldn't matter anyway. But it didn't work that way. Now we are faced with a very close election and we've told a large segment of voter's that they can't participate. How is that fair? Rules? Please. It's our party - we make the rules, we can change the rules.

    Besides, there was never a rule agreed to. When did Clinton and Obama sign some kind of pledge saying "Whoever gets the most delegates in all states and territories other than Florida and Michigan will be our candidate"? When did they agree to not try to change the results from FL and MI? Obama has convinced a lot of people that some mythical "rules" prevent us counting these two states, because it benefits him. But it's not true, any more than his claim that the person who wins more delegates has to win the primary. That's why he's worried. Because he knows that he's built his case for a primary win on shadows. This is going to go to the convention, and he will have to make his case there. He's poisoning the well so that if he doesn't win, then Clinton can't win the GE.

    Parent

    When? (none / 0) (#125)
    by minordomo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:45:50 AM EST
    When did Clinton and Obama sign some kind of pledge saying "Whoever gets the most delegates in all states and territories other than Florida and Michigan will be our candidate"?

    When they signed the pledge not to participate in those elections. At the time, they were made aware in writing that this action was to support the DNC committee's penalty of stripping MI and FL of 100% of their delegates if they did not comply with the DNC calendar.

    It was this same committee (including these Hillary supporters) that voted to strip MI and FL of 100% of their delegates. Dean asked the candidates to support this penalty, and they complied, being fully aware of the penalty imposed (incl. Clinton).

    Parent

    They didn't sign a pledge not to participate. (none / 0) (#157)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:44:31 AM EST
    They signed a pledge not to personally campaign.  Both candidates had major campaigns in the state via surrogates.

    Parent
    Not so. They did - (none / 0) (#177)
    by minordomo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:04:21 AM EST
    - sign a pledge not to participate or campaign.

    I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus  before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.  

    You'll find this commonly abbreviated to only campaigning by Hillary supporters, but the candidates did in fact agree not to participate.


    Parent

    The Rules and Bylaws Committee (none / 0) (#202)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:49:38 AM EST
    will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

    as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

    DNC Delegate Selection Rules: (pdf)

    "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.


    Parent
    Except that of course (none / 0) (#222)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    the only real word that gets defined here is "campaign", not "participate" -- which basically means that "participate" has no real binding meaning in this context, and is essentially empty.

    Parent
    RE: When (none / 0) (#219)
    by melro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    This is a PDF from Senator Levin and MI DNC chair Debbie Dingell that explains a lot.

    http://www.michigandems.com/Levin-Dingell%20Letter.pdf

    NH should have been reprimanded in the first place by Howard Dean and none of this would have happened.

    And what pledge? The DNC did not command anyone to do anything. They can urge, recommend, and warn. 4 candidates put their names on, 4 candidates did not. Then there was Uncommitted, and Other on the ballot where you can do a write in. Every voter here in MI was advised of this.  

    MI's DNC urged voters to use the uncommitted box instead of the write in box if they wanted to vote for candidates on the ballot. Write In candidates had a Jan. 4th deadline to file as a write in. I believe the law is within 10 days before the primary. We're well aware of that write in box. It's on every ballot.

    It's not like it was just Hillary and Uncommitted. There were 6 choices. Obama and those that pulled their names could have simply filed papers just 10 days before, but failed to do that. That's 2 chances to be counted that Obama missed.

    Now he's real sorry and the last I heard was that the compromise was 69 delegates for Hillary, and 59 for Obama. He likes it. Hillary hadn't commented.

    He should get zip for missing not one but two chances to be on our ballot. A savvy political candidate wouldn't, shouldn't make that mistake. It doesn't take an Einstein to know that it would be nearly impossible in the U.S. to disregard an entire state especially after the last two elections .

    As for FL, I thought his name was on the ballot there? Any Floridians got the answer?  

    Parent

    Stupid question (1.00 / 2) (#11)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:36:55 AM EST
    I though that the delegates were what mattered here?

    Parent
    they are (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by manish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:15:34 AM EST
    The rules are the delegates are what matters.  The rules also are that MI and FL are stripped of their delegates.  The rules also are that the super-delegates have their role.  The Clinton campaign wants to change the rules mid-election.  At one time, they were defending the role that the supers play even though many saw it as undemocratic.

    Beyond the fact that popular vote isn't the metric that our nominee should be selected on is the point that even if we are counting the popular vote, you can't possibly claim that nobody in MI supported Obama.  Lest we also forget that there were lots of Democrats in both MI and FL who chose to stay home because they didn't want to bother voting in what was termed a beauty contest.

    Parent

    Stop lying (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:37 AM EST
    The rules allow for a 50% penalty. Nowhere do they account for a full on 100% abolishment of the delegation. That decision what made, encouraged, and incited by Obama supporters on the Rules & Bylaws Committee in August. Donna Brazile was apart of the charge. By all means, google it.

    Parent
    In August? (2.33 / 3) (#65)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:17 AM EST
    http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/

    Slate claims that Hillary supporters were behind the move, and I belive the rules provide for harsher penalties if they are agreed upon.

    Here is a quote:

    Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement.

    But I am open to argument as to why this article is bull.

    Parent

    Harold Ickes supported stripping all delegates (none / 0) (#72)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:54:16 AM EST
    So did Donna Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:56:49 AM EST
    Suddenly, our surrogates most definitely speak for our candidates, right?

    I'll remember that the next time Donna Brazile or Roland Martin say we don't need PA, OH, or WV--oh, or the white working class voters.

    Harold Ickes is not Hillary Clinton. HRC has made her opposition to this course of action clear. She's been making it clear for a long time.

    Parent

    Surrogates do speak for the candidate (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:35:48 AM EST
    The problem is that we've stretched the definition of "surrogate" to mean anybody who supports the candidate. That's not what it means. A surrogate is somebody authorized to speak for the candidate.

    Parent
    does anyone have a link to Obama's memo? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:40:03 AM EST
    that Hillary referenced in her Jan. 21 press release.

    >>>Just last week the Obama campaign snubbed the people of Florida in a memo that stated that Florida did not matter in the nominating process.
    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5374


    Parent

    Josey (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:48:15 AM EST
    The St. Petersburg Times has an article on the memo here.  

    Parent
    Check HillaryClintin.com and FactHub (none / 0) (#149)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:11:44 AM EST
    archives show a long list of Obama misrepresentations each month and her documentation suporting her objections.  Maybe some stuff about it there or else in HillaryHub sections where they show articles , releases and often Jeralyn's fab diaries.

    Parent
    Here is something interesting (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:45:17 AM EST
    from Salon.com on January 15th.

    Obama was the one pushing the "Michigan doesn't matter" line, because he was losing. Meanwhile, HRC had always intended to fight for those votes AND delegates from MI and FL.

    "While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

    MMMMMmmmmmMMMMMMkay?

    Can people please stop lying about HRC saying the votes "didn't count" now?

    Parent

    well - kudos to whoever finds it (none / 0) (#175)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:00:09 AM EST
    because this needs to be exposed.


    Parent
    If Ikcles is not Hillary (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:10:44 AM EST
    then Brazile must not be Obama....so let's stop acting as if they are, shall we?

    Parent
    I seem to be getting two (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:22:30 AM EST
    distinct stories here.

    I wonder which one is correct?

    Parent

    stayed home (none / 0) (#216)
    by tedsim on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:38 AM EST
    I live in north palm beach,flrida no one stayed home because it was a beauty contest,the reason it was a record turnout is because there was a proposal on the ballot to increase the homstead exemption 100% from $25,000 to 50,000 which means that it would reduce realestate tax,s considerable.

    Parent
    what matters (none / 0) (#144)
    by arky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:58:22 AM EST
    I thought it was the voters that mattered. Silly me....of the people, by the people, and for the people??

    Parent
    So you want to disenfranchise all those who... (none / 0) (#26)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:51:49 AM EST
    ...voted "Uncommitted" in Michigan by not awarding their votes to any candidates?

    Seems all those who espouse giving Obama "Zero" Michigan votes in the popular vote are, in fact, disenfranchising those voters who voted for Obama via the "Uncommitted" choice.

    Parent

    Uncommitteds may vote for any one (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:53:39 AM EST
    about 10 percent of them will probably go with Hillary because she has picked up Edwards' voters

    Parent
    Chuckie....Here is an idea...maybe they can get (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:15:52 AM EST
    a seer to touch the uncommitted ballots so they can discern which ones go to obama.... :)  

    Parent
    they don't know what uncommitted means (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:34:11 AM EST
    The only thing certain is 55 percent voted for Hillary. The uncommitted didn't even know who they prefer, hence uncommitted.

    Parent
    The max obama deserves (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:10:02 AM EST
    Is 35%, per the exit polls that asked the specific question.  And the full exit polls (not the earlies) on CNN are usually within 1% of the actual vote.

    As such, he would get about 195k (instead of the full 238).

    -----

    That doesn't resolve the delegate count, and I don't know if there are regional issues.  But the idea floated around to give him 50% of the delegates is ludicrous.  He shouldn't be rewarded for the game he chose to play (and he did play it, and according to BTD he also pushed punishing MI when he was pandering to Iowa).

    Parent

    If a precinct captain took a box of votes (none / 0) (#107)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:36:45 AM EST
    and changed them to be for somebody else, she would go to jail for election fraud, wouldn't she?  If Jerrlyn decided that all talklefters would get Starbucks lattes free, would you get out of the store without paying?  No because a higher value would be operating.  Saying peoples vote don't count when they were certified by the State Election Officials as duly and legaly cast is acting like youu can call your coffee free and walk out with it.

     It is our most basic requirement for democracy, - the number one democratic value.  It is way more than some committee or agreement.  Maybe we need party leaders who act like they know that and candidates who respect government by the people.  Or else we need to start the New Democratic Party or the Real Democratic Party with the old pre 2006 democratic values.

    Parent

    Uncomitted = For no one in particular (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:55:30 AM EST
    Obama took his name off the ballot for his own strategic considerations, so did others.  Their candidacy name wan "Uncommitted" i.e.: no one in particular.

    These candidates named themselves "Nobody in particular". By their own choice they become "Nobodies".  Obama is the only one now still running in the Nobodies category: For the Michigan election the state certified no votes foe him.

    A nobody gets no voted.

    I wish I could get a lottery win without a ticket by saying "I did not buy a ticket, but now I want the prize".  Totally absurd.

     

    Parent

    They should be seated as "uncommitted" (none / 0) (#92)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:38:18 AM EST
    They can decide who to vote for on their own. That was the plan proposed by the Obama supporter's who ran commerials in MI telling his supporter's to vote "Uncommitted" so that they could send those delegates to the convention for Obama.

    Obama never intended to give up votes in Michigan. He took his name off the ballot as part of a strategic move, then had his people (without his involvement, of course) run a campaign on his behalf.

    Parent

    Running those commercials was against (none / 0) (#95)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:54:42 AM EST
    the rules and should have caused him to have to forfit those delegates, had he won any. How does he get any delegates from Michigan or Florida after breaking the rules in both states about running ads and pres conference?  I don't understand why he doesn't have to pay for any of this? Is this some ism or guilt thing or do that many leaders think he can do that much for them now or later.  

    When we heard very early from female gov's from Kansas and Arizona and from Sen Macaskill's people that they were all being considered for Vice President I wondered if each knew about the other before endorsing.

     I saw a lot of political people express excitement about getting access to Kerry's 3 million name mailing list early and now Obama's 1.5 million name donor list to ad to it.  Richardson indicated in an interview that he would be pleased to be asked to be VP.

    Now they report tonight that the DNC only raised 4 mil last month, and the suggestion was that was why they had made a deal with Obama to join with them in fundraising for the committee.

    Parent

    I think creatives prefer chess (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM EST


    CreativeClass litmus: They want to HAVE DONE stuff (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    ... read the classics, been good at chess and conquered x-treme leisure activities in their yoots.

    Been more places, stood for a cause, dreamed the impossible dream.

    Sucked less ...

    Parent

    Dawson a "Dean loyalist" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:41:19 AM EST
    and I know what that means.  Here's more on him, on others, and on next steps after this.  It doesn't sound good. . . .

    Perhaps Dean (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:59:35 AM EST
    in his infinite wisdom, will find a way to implement "American Idol" style voting.  You know:  Three phone numbers, two hours to vote, and unlimited text voting at 99 cents per vote (which they could add to the Dem GE coffers).  

    Ryan Seacrest could host it all.  Perhaps Simon would take a bribe to insult Hillary.  

    I might be wrong but I think I did that by (none / 0) (#98)
    by andrys on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:04:56 AM EST
    accident too and I was able to go back and change it to a 5...

    Parent
    walk a mile in our shoes,org has a great idea... (none / 0) (#167)
    by suzieg on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:22:41 AM EST
    Tell the Democratic National Committee: Don't Walk Away From Our Winning Base! Walk A Mile In Our Shoes.
    Send a pair of shoes to the DNC TODAY deadline May 26th 2008
    Request that the DNC donate the shoes to women's shelters & recycle packaging.
    What You Can Do TODAY:

    1. Mail a pair of your shoes representing your walk in life to the DNC at the address below.

    2. Send Virtual Shoes, an image of a pair of shoes representing your walk in life, to the DNC. OR CLICK HERE, then Cut-n-paste full text in blue box at left, and cut-n-paste the name of your shoe from poll list at left, into the DNC email.

    3. Vote in The First Ever Poll To Let You Speak With Your Shoes! on this Web site so we can tell the media how many of us want to be heard.

    Where / Mailing Address:
    Democratic National Committee , 430 S. Capitol St. SE , Washington, DC 20003

    Talk the Walk - Help us keep count of shoes, to report to the DNC
    Include a printout of this Web page inside your package.
    All shoes must be sent to arrive delivered by no later than May 30th, 2008, Before the May 31st committee meeting. If you are using USPS Priority Mail for example, they should be mailed no later than May 26th.
    All email virtual shoes should be sent to arrive as soon as possible and by midnight May 30th, 2008.

    Email the DNC at: DNC Issues Email Page

    Parent

    Just Checking (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:04:37 AM EST
    My question is after this is all said and done Obama had a chance to do a revote and he nicked it and he himself said, when I go into a state he can own it so why didn't he do a revote. I also think that he ran an ad that beamed into Fla eveyday for 2 weeks and I ask, is that ok.

    Obama had a chance to revote (none / 0) (#42)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:07:57 AM EST
    and declined? Really?

    Parent
    It was ready and paid for. He said ,"No" (none / 0) (#68)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:40:12 AM EST
    From my research...looks like the states nixed it (3.40 / 5) (#69)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:46:22 AM EST
    From NBC's Mark Murray
    First Read has obtained a letter from Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman, in which she says there won't be a re-vote in her state. This seems to mean: 1) that Florida's delegates won't be seated; 2) that they will, via a vote from the credentials committee; or 3) that there will be some sort of compromise (like counting delegates by half).

    I am open to argument, however

    Parent

    now i see why you have accumulated (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:52:43 AM EST
    so many 1 ratings.

    Why should Florida re-vote? Hillary won overwhelmingly with all names on the ballot. Edwards even picked up his 14 percent.

    You didn't even address Michigan.

    Parent

    Try to keep up, Chuck. (3.66 / 3) (#79)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:08:51 AM EST
    The assertion was that Obama "nixed it" we weren't talking about WHY they should or should not revote.

    So, I went into google and tried to find articles about that.

    I only found articles saying a) that Obama did not think MI and FLA would go for it and b) that FLA flatly refused.

    My mind is not made up, I am trying to figure out the truth. If you have other articles that say otherwise, I will read them.

    Sorry if my open mind offends you so. Just because I haven't been following this as closely as some, does not mean I should just believe everyone's assertions without question.

    Parent

    Here is an explanation of the process (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:28:58 AM EST
    Here

    In your googling look at Michigan Legislature decides not to revote.
    The dems in the legislature who support Hillary and democracy, wanted a revote or to count the original as voted.  The Repubs wanted no revote.  First they said it would cost too much. John Corzine and James Carville and others put up the money to pay the state back. The Repubs thought they could win MI in the fall if the voters were mad at the dems.  The wanted no revote.  Added to the Obama supporting dems that was enough to vote down the revote.  The state rep finally said that they would support it if both candidated supported. Obama said he would only support a 50/50 split.  He figured Hillary would lose the nomination and once he had it and they didin't matter he would look gracious and agree to seat them.  That is one reason he is so eager to be seen as the nominee before the vote.  He has put forward several porposals for them to look like they counted but they involved everybody agreeing ahead of time that he is the nominee.  Check it out.  In Florida the Republicans controled the legislature.

     There was a bill many had fought for fo 8 years to require a paper trail on voting machines.  The repubs attached a too early primary date of Jan 29 to the bill.  Only one  member of the Fl delegation was for it.  But the Repubs hoped to make gains in Nov because people would be mad at dems.  There were 3 other states that brok the rules and did not get punished.  This is part of the problem of punishing the voters of MI and FL.  They did nothing wrong.

    Parent

    Obamm nixed it (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM EST
    Covered extensively here.

    Parent
    Obama's supporters in the states... (none / 0) (#93)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:41:11 AM EST
    ...nixed the votes. They didn't want revotes because Clinton was way ahead in the polls.

    Parent
    Obama WAS the last decider on Michigan when (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by andrys on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:07:51 AM EST
    the others decided to go ahead on a revote.

    They waited for him -- the guy who said he would go along
    with what the party wanted.  He then said No.

      It wasn't perfect enough for him.  Those who had decided to vote for Repubs in the primary couldn't be in the re-vote.

      Like his 'present' votes for things not 100% excellent, his decisions tend to be very convenient.

      Yes, this man will be a real unifier.

    Parent

    Revotes were something Obama was (none / 0) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:49:01 AM EST
    Going to approve and then something happened?

    Anyone know what happened and why Obama then decided against revotes?

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:06:00 AM EST
    He wanted to allow those supporters of his who (following Kos' advice) went and voted in the Republican primary to be able to also vote for him in the re-do Democratic primary.  You can't vote in both parties' primaries in the same year, so he nixed a revote idea.

    Parent
    The ad was a national ad buy (none / 0) (#46)
    by Get 27 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:31 AM EST
    Those ads can't be pulled in local markets. The states didn't want to pay for a revote. Obama and Clinton could have raised the money to do a revote, but why would he want to do that? Furthermore, in current polls, Obama beats Clinton in Michigan.

    Parent
    He also beamed ads from neighboring (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:03:43 AM EST
    state deep into Florida for a couple of weeks before the vote.  He later said it was unavoidable to keep the ads for neighboring primaries from entering Florida, even though they continued to run AFTER the neighboring primary had ended.  f

    In the mighty "agreement" about FL and MI, if someone ran ads they were to forfit any delegates they won to the other candidates.

    The same was to happen if they held press conferences.  They were allowed to enter the states for fund raising.  Obama went to Florida and held a press conference with reporters asking a dozen or so questions.  

    That is how many delegates he should forfit how many times?  But Hillary is not charging him, I guess because he is getting away with it again.  So much for the mighty rules.  People in the msm know this stuff but almost nobody will report it.

    Parent

    What delegates? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by minordomo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:04:53 AM EST
    In the mighty "agreement" about FL and MI, if someone ran ads they were to forfit any delegates they won to the other candidates.

    The same was to happen if they held press conferences.

    The delegates that were already stripped 100%? Those delegates?

    Parent

    Obama beats Clinton in current MI polls? (3.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:08 AM EST
    I wouldn't be surprised, I just haven't seen any MI polls. I always suspected she would not be as strong in a contested race.

    Parent
    Michigan (none / 0) (#60)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:52 AM EST
    some people think MI is like PA or OH. But Mi is more like wisconsine with much larger African American voters. In a fair election Obama can beat Hillary.

    Parent
    Cite for that poll? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    I agree... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:31:34 AM EST
    ...and I checked. Rasmussen indicated that a fair revote would be much closer back in March.  Not at all surprising, and it makes the cry to count MI as is all the more desperate.

    Parent
    He should have let them vote again! (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:09:03 AM EST
    When the legislature was ready to vote, the Obama supporting Dems combined with the Repubs in the Legislature and nixed it. How, Democrats should want to know, does a candidate get to cancel a vote because he is afraid he will lose it.

      When he took his name off the ballot he was only polling 16-19% but after the Black community started the bloc vote he could have done well.  We should be brave enough to let the people vote and count them.  Never kknow how it will go.  Wish he would do that with the superdelegates - let them vote in August.

    Parent

    THE ROOLZ!!! (none / 0) (#145)
    by arky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:03:33 AM EST
    Doesn't matter if it was a national ad. It showed in Florida and that is against the ROOLZ! Roolz is Roolz, ya know.
    And I don't buy the assertion that those ads couldn't have been blocked in Florida. Curious that they ran the week before Florida voted. Concidence? Not on your life!

    Parent
    So as per the roolz (none / 0) (#146)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:07:58 AM EST
    shouldn't Obama be penalized in some way for releasing an ad there.

    Parent
    Cite for those polls please?t (none / 0) (#189)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:30:46 AM EST
    Somehow Edwards and Clinton managed... (none / 0) (#207)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:57:31 AM EST
    to not run ads in FL, but Obama didn't.

    His excuse that 'big business forced me into it' is not very compelling, or very presidential either. Some leader.

    Parent

    "He can own it" what state has he (none / 0) (#186)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:29:09 AM EST
    owned, WV, PA, TX, OH, KY etc.

    Parent
    I have a sinking feeling that the DNC (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by michellemarie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:02:03 AM EST
    from the very beginning, was in Obama's pocket. Why were Iowa, NH, and SC allowed to have early primaries, in contravention of the laws, without suffering any penalty? (Mind you, Obama had been cultivating Iowa for months and SC had a large population of AAs). These states had a pledged delegate total of 141. Michigan and Florida, admittedly, held their primaries earlier than what was allowed by the rules. The punishment according to the DNC rules was to strip violators of automatic delegates and have the pledged delegates count for half. What did Dean and Brazille decide? Something completely unprecedented and something that cannot find justification from the rules. Michigan and Florida were completely stripped of all convention priveleges. To the innocent voter, it appeared as though Dean wanted to assert himself as a capable chairman by handing down this unusual penalty. Upon further examination, could the nullification of the MI and FL primaries be an effort to rob Clinton of an early lead in delegates and momentum?

    MI: No one knows who Obama is. State is undoubtedly going to Clinton, as she is popular here, esp. among the AAs. Obama removes his name from the ballot (though this was not required) and encourages Edwards to do the same in order to delegitimize the results (did Obama and Axelrod plan to later claim all of the uncommitted vote?). FL: Clinton is hugely popular, with the lg elderly and Hispanic population. Obama breaks the rules by running ads here, but does not take his name off the ballot. These two states had a combined pledged delegate total of 313.

    Iowa went for Obama, in line with DNC wishes. NH? Clinton pulls an upset. Obamaites get nervous-- SC is on the horizon and he needs to win to remain viable. Solution? Painting the Clintons fraudulently as racists (as evidenced by the leaked SC memo). In a normal world, these claims would not have held water, because Hillary Clinton has fought for the AA community, and Bill is loved by many AAs. However, these claims gained credibility as Donna Brazille (DNC) expressed her anger towards Bill's "fairytale" comments and James Clyburn stoked the fire. The only way Obama has his lead today stems from the fact that he had to cast Clinton as a racist to convince the AA community to vote in ungodly precentages for him, delivering his SC victory (and GA, NC, VA, MD, etc).

    I realize this is a conspiracy theory, but it does have some validity, no?
    Hillary Clinton was never supposed to win. The Dnc had annointed Obama before the primary process had even started. Dean is not scared about the fallout from not counting MI and FL, this was the plan.

    This is why MI and FL will not be counted. Because Donna Brazille sits on the rules committee.

    Does anyone else feel the same?

    It doesn't matter if they are counted now (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:06:48 AM EST
    The answer is the last sentence in your first paragraph.

    FL and MI were never going to count as long counting them meant impacting the election process.

    In short.  Stolen election.

    Obama's a fraud.


    Parent

    I don't envy people (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:30:51 AM EST
    who are trying to defend Obama's position.

    He is FOR disenfranchising Florida and Michigan's voters.

    Screaming "Teh Roolz!" as a very, very weak defense doesn't get you much traction in the real world - it only works with the die-hard True Believers in His Greatness.

    I think a lot of people will be paying attention to what comes out of these politicians' mouths on May 31st. And if all the voters' votes aren't counted because otherwise Obama can't win, well...there go another large group of electoral votes in November.

    Are we worried yet?

    Parent

    Have you looked at the figures? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    You do realize that Obama wins either way?

    FL as is plus even a minority of MI is enough to clinch the nomination.

    Check Demconwatch.

    There are several arguments to be made for Sen. Clinton, but that is not one of them.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:16 AM EST
    I don't think it's real either.

    At the onset, the feeling was that the DNC was in the Clintons' pocket and Sen. Clinton would be an unstoppable juggernaut. (And indeed she has been very impressive.)

    Speaking as an Edwards supporter, we felt somewhat victimized by the Media/DNC/Clintons (depending), and certainly Edwards' campaign never really took off, I feel, in part because of the Clintons' overwhelming early control.

    I'm not angry or anything, but I don't think there was any conspiracy; Sen. Clinton has in fact led a magnificent campaign, and if she loses, it will be by a very small percentage (no matter what metric is used).

    I hardly see her as a victim.

    Parent

    I can't tell you (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:08:03 AM EST
    how many people I've chatted with (neighbors, grocery clerks, friends from out of state, etc.) who think it's pretty ding-dang obvious something fishy is going on in the DNC.

    I really think the evidence speaks for itself. Granted, a lot is circumstantial and plausible deniability is rampant (along with triangulation and masterful yet transparent parsing) but the intent is there, big as day.

    Parent

    Yes people do feel the same (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:26:34 AM EST
    but I do not think it is real.

    Both candidates have their people involved in the rules committee, and I feel it is a mistake to underestimate the Clinton's power in the party.

    From where I sit, both candidates are trying to claim victimhood here and both are playing to get political advantage.

    Parent

    If Obama wins (none / 0) (#214)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:11:10 AM EST
    the Democratic nomination, he will give his acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.  Add that to your conspiracy theory.

    Parent
    DNC Rules (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by bmc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:20:33 AM EST
    The more I think about the Florida/Michigan issue, the more furious I get. Fact: The RBC ignored the fact that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also violated Rule 11.A. Fact: The RBC ignored Rule 20C1a which calls for a 50% sanction.

    Called on their feckess disregard of their own rules, now, the RBC want to impose a resolution--after Obama's campaign stalled and obstructed a revote--which provides delegates to Obama that he did not earn in Michigan because he CHOSE to take himself off the ballot voluntarily to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire [which also violated the rules but were not punished for doing so]. And, they want to ignore the fact that Obama violated the pledge in Florida by running ads and doing a press conference, and still give him delegates he should have "stripped" from him because of it.

    Can there be ANY DOUBT whatsoever that Howard Dean has conspired to turn the entire Democratic primary process into a fraudulent, reckless and wanton disregard for the Democratic Party and its voters? Not in my mind.

    I might have been able to, at one point, find a way to see this process as fair--but only if Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina had also been sanctioned along with Florida and Michigan; or if the RBC had sanctioned according to the rules, which stipulate a 50% punishment. Or if the party had imposed a revote ruling.

    But this entire debacle has undermined any faith I had in the Democratic Party as the party of justice, civil rights and equality.

    Moreover, to install a nominee on the basis of rules fraud and ignore the clear fact that red-state caucuses of a few thousands of voters do not represent the will of the Democratic voters, while disenfranchising the officially recorded votes of Democratic Party voters in Florida and Michigan is a breathtaking--and brazen--breach of both the spirit and the letter of the rules of the DNC.

    Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina violated the rules, but were not punished for it--and the popular vote in South Carolina and New Hampshire are counted in the official tally. This is a stunning hypocrisy.

    DNC Delegate Selection Rule 11A [PDF], states the following:

    No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

    Thus, the rules were not only broken by Florida and Michigan, but also by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Iowa held their caucus on January 3, 2008 instead of January 14. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8, 2008 instead of January 22. South Carolina held their primary on January 26, 2008 instead of January 29.

    The penalty for violating Rule 11A, according to DNC Delegate Selection Rule 20C1a [PDF], states:

    In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

    According to Rule 20C1a, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida should have had their delegates reduced by 50%. However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were not penalized at all to protect their first-in-the-nation status, while Michigan and Florida were stripped of all their delegates. Thus, the DNC is applying the rules arbitrarily.

    More Rules:

    Michigan:
    Refer to the DNC Delegate Selection Rules, specifically Rule 13.A. "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference."

    Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters.

    Obama did not reach the 15% threshhold to receive delegates in Michigan. Awarding him delegates would not reflect the legal and certified vote.

    Also see Rule 20.C.2. This addresses what happens when delegates are awarded in violation of Rule 13.

    Florida:
    Rule 20.C.1.b. of the Delegate Selection Rules.
    "A Presidential candidate who campaigns in a state in violation of the timing provisions of the rules,... may NOT receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state."

    We all know that Obama had TV ads running in Florida and that he also held a press conference there. Both of those activities violate Rule 20.C.1.b.

    In what universe does the Democratic Party think Barack Obama will have any legitimacy--not to mention the Democratic Party itself--after such blatant violations of the DNC rules, and the RBC?
    Certainly not with me; and I suspect, not with many other long-time party activists.


    What the heck... (none / 0) (#183)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    ...do you call Clinton's grandstanding about Florida the weekend before the vote?
    How was that not campaigning for votes there?

    Obama ran one national ad that happened to air in Florida, and which they requested not air there.
    One ad.  
    Clinton, if I remember correctly, attended private fundraisers in Florida.  Those fundraisers were reported in the Florida press.

    By your low bar for what constitutes "campaigning in the state", they both should be barred from receiving delegates there.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:27:34 AM EST
    held fundraisers there too. I don't think fundraisers were against the rules. He did speak to the press after one fundraiser which was a breach of the pledge.

    Parent
    Do you have a specific cite... (none / 0) (#185)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:28:49 AM EST
    ...to the DNC bylaws for that one?

    Parent
    Clinton spoke to the press... (none / 0) (#187)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:29:24 AM EST
    ...after arriving in Florida for fundraisers as well.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#196)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:40:32 AM EST
    Any cites?  I mean, if true, the press would be jumping all over this, don't you think. I'm not accusing or anything - just haven't seen this, but I have seen Craig Crawford write about Obama breaking the rules in FL.

    BTW - fundraising was specifically allowed.  All the candidates had fundraisers in both states.

    Parent

    Check news reports... (none / 0) (#203)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM EST
    ...from 1/28/08.  She made a few comments to reporters upon exiting the plane in Florida.  She made comments about wanting Florida to count before the plane left for Florida, as well.

    It's a bit of sophistry to claim she didn't campaign there.

    Parent

    The bottom line is that the punishment (none / 0) (#194)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:32:57 AM EST
    ...as stated by committee members such as Donnie Fowler who said "no one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," "... was to be that candidates would not campaign in Florida and Michigan. That punishment has happened. Time to seat the delegates!


    Parent
    One would think that everyone attending (none / 0) (#199)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:47:24 AM EST
    the meeting on 5/31 knows this stuff? Anyone think they'll adhere to these rules, as so many have been broken or ignored. "We The People" have certainly been ignored!!

    Parent
    be real (none / 0) (#212)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:04:48 AM EST
    I'm sure our host Jeralyn will explain to you that is laws, statutes, etc. were all clear cut, and required no interpretations, there would be no need for courts.

    The most likely scenario is that FL will be seated  probably as is and MI will be and if you look at the numbers, none of this makes a difference because Obama still clinches it.

    Parent

    Here is McAuliffe in 2004 when Michigan tried to (2.60 / 5) (#63)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:33:35 AM EST
    move their primary. An exchange between McAuliffe and Carl Levin from Terry's book..

    I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

    "If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

    He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

    "You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

    "Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

    We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.


    You get a 1 (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:01:46 AM EST
    Because it's the second time I've seen that red herring today and your comment history is full of chattering (and that's being polite). So this time I'm going to respond in all caps in the hopes that all the talking points people that showed up in the past week read it.

    VOTERS DONT CARE ABOUT DEM PARTY POLITICS, THEY  CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY--WHERE VOTES COUNT. STRIPPING DELEGATES OR TAKING NAMES OFF THE BALLOT TO PLAY GAMES IS BLATANTLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.

    Now please take your talking point and go away.  It's not only insulting to voters and reader intelligence, it's politically naive to not understand something as basic as a game of chicken. You think we don't know what a pol is?

    And for the record, I wouldn't call you out if it wasn't clear that you had a strong agenda both by your presentation and your chattering and your framing.  Your comment is on topic since it discusses the thinking of an ex-member, but it's poorly framed, clearly posted as a talking point from kos, and has been covered before.

    Parent

    Hypocrisy (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:21:03 AM EST
    The reason I posted Terry's comment is to show the blind hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign. The honest fact is Hillary Clinton, Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe all supported the stripping of Fl and MI delegates and now they are acting as if they are the champions of voters right.  

    Parent
    Read it again. (none / 0) (#148)
    by arky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:10:53 AM EST
    Take away HALF of the delegates. That's not what they did to Michigan and Florida. They took ALL of them away (which contradicts the Rulz).

    Parent
    the key point in your passage: (none / 0) (#136)
    by Double Standard on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:39:16 AM EST
    He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

    Half their delegates....the rules were to take away half of a state's delegates for violating the rules.

    By taking away half of the delegates apportioned to each Michigan and Florida based on the original results, that would legitimize Hillary's popular vote argument.

    In fact, McAuliffe has been saying this for a long time now.  Only half of the delegates were supposed to be stripped.

    Parent

    Jesus Christ (1.00 / 4) (#8)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:33:44 AM EST
    I would not want to be in their shoes right now.

    It's called the hot seat and no matter what....lots of people will be pissed.

    Sorry, I meant to give you a 1 for profanity (none / 0) (#94)
    by cymro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:37 AM EST
    ... but hit the wrong button. Just in case you are wondering how you could get a 5 for that comment.

    Parent
    You can correct that (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by themomcat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:16:10 AM EST
    by clicking on 1 then click on "rate all".

    Parent
    No chance they will do the right thing (none / 0) (#6)
    by Foxx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:28:28 AM EST


    make that as a child... :( (none / 0) (#10)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:43 AM EST
    Do you disagree that people will (1.00 / 2) (#13)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:38:26 AM EST
    be mad no matter what? Or is there something else that led you to give me a 1?

    Parent
    blasphemy maybe (none / 0) (#31)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:57:40 AM EST
    In tha case (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:34 AM EST
    I'll take it.

    Parent
    Coigue is a clutter troll simply loading threads (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:30:30 AM EST
    With prove this prove that irrelevance, as all of this stuff has been covered within the last 1-2 days and can easily be accessed.

    That's where my 1 came from.

    Parent

    Thanks, I'll quit trying, then and hit the hay. (none / 0) (#109)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:01 AM EST
    Can you briefly explain how the ratings work (none / 0) (#39)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:06:06 AM EST
    or direct me to where I can read about them?  I just noticed that some of my previous comments had ratings.  Some high; some low.

    What's the deal with them?  Can I rate, too?  

    Parent

    Comments (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:13:12 AM EST
    Must be on topic, unless the thread states otherwise.

    No personal insults are allowed.

    Rehashing copy-paste talking points will get you rated low.  As will straw man/red herring arguments or anything that's been discussed to death.

    You can rate each comment 1 to 5 and then click rate all...it'll update all your ratings on that page.

    Parent

    Thank you for your help. (none / 0) (#57)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:23:11 AM EST
    Just checking (none / 0) (#12)
    by Get 27 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:36:57 AM EST
    If they allow Florida as is, and give Hillary all of Michigan delegates based on the vote there, and Obama none since he wasn't on the ballot in MI, would that be o.k.?

    Hillary would net 123 pledged delegates.

    If that happened, and Hillary still had less pledged delegates in the end would everyone be satisfied?

    Because that's the math.

    I think it's important to keep in mind (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:33:13 AM EST
    That for the last three months people have been talking about the math and Obama's insurmountable lead.

    And I think a lot of us are still never going to forget how this election would have transpired differently had FL and MI counted WHEN they should have counted.

    It's a problem.

    But hey.  Obama needed some help here.

    When people say Obama wins every metric what I think about is how Obama wins every metric that DEVIATES the MOST from what anyone's goals of Democracy should be.

    Caucusses.  Limitted subset.  Not everyone gets to vote cause you have to show up at a certain time.  He's great.

    Delegates.  A system where one delegate can represent 4,000 people in Utah or one delegate can represent 200,000 people in Pennsylvania.  He seems to do great in that system.

    Roolz.  When rules are applied to a system that assigns preferential treatment to early voting states, he's great.

    Roolz.  When rules are then enforced to remove two states that Obama would have certainly lost from the process.  Well.  He's a beneficiary.

    In every way that deviates from Democracy Obama does well.

    In every way that best represents the goal of democracy, one person, one vote, everyone gets a chance to vote, Clinton seems to do better in those circumstances.

    Parent

    You may well be right... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:37 AM EST
    ...and this is an argument that not only ought to be used to change the Democratic nomination process, but that of Presidential elections as well.

    As a California voter I can't tell you how pleased I am to know that my vote counts for 1/100th (wrong figure, but you know what I mean) of a voter's in, say, AK.

    But this argument carries no practical strength. Otherwise President Gore would have been in the WH in 2000.


    Parent

    Practically Speaking (none / 0) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:32 AM EST
    Gore would have been a better president.


    Parent
    A zillion times better! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:34 AM EST
    I'm one of those who believe we should get rid of the electoral college, but I doubt it's going to happen in my lifetime.

    Parent
    With the empirical evidence we now have (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:16:34 AM EST
    That shows how these systems produce the wrong choice for America, you'd think getting these things changed would be easier.


    Parent
    If only (none / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:43:24 AM EST
    people made this argument at any time in the past 200+ years prior to this primary.  Maybe people would take it more seriously.

    Making this argument AFTER decisions have been and votes have been calculated is a petty attempt at cheating.

    Parent

    You would hope so. (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:28 AM EST
    But Obama hyperpartisans would not be happy because it might lead to a brokered convention.

    (Just a guess please don't jump all over me)

    Parent

    If the brokered convention picked Obama (none / 0) (#24)
    by Get 27 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:51 AM EST
    with more delegates both pledged and super, would that be o.k.?

    Because that would be the likely outcome.

    Parent

    Would it be OK with me? Yes. (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:56:29 AM EST
     Would it be fair? Yes. Would it heal the wounds in time for the general? I don't know. If we lost the election after this, I would NOT be Ok with that. OTOH, I also think we need to hear all sides out and come to a fair conclusion.

    Where does that leave us?

    Parent

    I guess that leaves us not knowing (none / 0) (#34)
    by Get 27 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:02:02 AM EST
    for sure how easy beating McCain will or will not be. We have significant numbers in the Clinton/Obama camps who will not commit to the other as of now.

    Parent
    Six new swing states polls out today. (none / 0) (#89)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:34:21 AM EST
    They were matched up with Clinton against McCain and with Obama against McCain.

    Obama won one with 9 Electoral votes. Colorado

    McCain won 2 with 22 electoral votes. Utah, Virginia

    Clinton won 3 with 53 electoral votes. Misouri,

                 Florida and North Carolina!

    MCCain also wins recent rolls in Georgia and New Hampshire. He beats Obama by a point in Michigan but McCain ties Hillary in Michigan.  She is within 0.3 of a point of tied with McCain in Oregon.

    She has won most of the states, delegates and votes since March 1. The national daily tracking polls don't show it but in state after state she is doing better. She beats McCain on all of the electoral vote maps I can find. Mc Cain gets to 270 against Obama but Obama dan't make 270 EVs against eith McCain or Clinton.  Hillary is over 300 on some maps.

     Now if she holds her lead in NC that is another 15 EVs to ad to her total.  Obama may bring in some low population states in the west if his numbers improve.  Some had suggested he could win Utah for Dems, but today's poll has MCcain beating Obama 62 -27,

    Parent

    Are you certain ? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:12:39 AM EST
    I did a simple google on "Obama Clinton McCain polls" and here is the first item that showed up from Reuters:

    Wed May 21, 2008 12:25pm BST

    By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

    Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head match up last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his gruelling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton.

    The Illinois senator has not yet secured the Democratic presidential nomination to run against McCain in November.

    Parent

    Are they countng (none / 0) (#103)
    by themomcat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:23:10 AM EST
    popular vote or electoral college vote? Reuters/Zogby has a history of inaccuracy.

    Parent
    I don't put much faith in polls and maps either (none / 0) (#108)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:39:36 AM EST
    I honestly don't know and besides, just like you, I have not been impressed by polls in the past.

    That said, I was responding the poster above who was forcefully claiming that he hadn't seen any evidence of a scenario where Obama led McCain, and the first thing that shows up on Goggle is precisely that.

    Stephen Colbert joked that "reality has a liberal bias" and all too often it seems that for some folks here, "reality has an Obama bias."

    Parent

    The problem with Google (none / 0) (#117)
    by themomcat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:02:07 AM EST
    is that the first link is the most popular not the most accurate. Reality bites.

    Parent
    In this case it's just today's news (none / 0) (#118)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:42 AM EST
    It's Reuters.

    Parent
    First, read the post. It is about swing states (none / 0) (#121)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:26:22 AM EST
    and electoral votes according to the combined most recent polls taken by various groups inside the particular individual swing state as gathered and reported by RCP (the is Real Clear Politics for those who don't study polls.)  The national tracking polls are not under discussion here, but I did mention that he was still showing as ahead in them if you will refer back.

    The maps are mostly based on recent political history of voting patterns and on individaul state polling accumulated and weighted by differen groups and posted on electoral vote websites like electoral-vote.com and fivethirtyeight.com and on the mast head at mydd.com.  They all have Hillary ahead of McCain state by state in the ev count.

      Each state has a set number of electoral votes in the electoral that elects our presidents.  California has 55, for instance and New Mexico 5.  It has to do with the number of people, not like our primary delegates. Obama won 13 delegates in one stae on 13000 votes while Hillary won 10 delegates more than Obama on 200,000 votes more than he got.

     Those delegates are not of equal value.  Some urban areas were awarded extra delegates so tha in Texas Black voters got delegates more than Latino voters in the south of the state by a ratio of 3 to 1.  That made Blacks' votes worth 3 times Latinos.  Clinton won Texas by 100,000  votes in the primary, but that night Obama won the caucuses by a huge margin.

     The vote was not monitored or tabulated in any regulated fashion and people did not have to prove they were register voters or even residents of Texas in many cases, but the delegates won that way ended up counting more that then delegates won when over 3 million people went through the regular voting booth process.  Obama says he won Texas and he did get the most delegates.  But Hillary won the real election that went on all that day by over 100,000 votes.

    Senator Obama won a lot of states, but Hillary won many more counties.  Some of his states he only won 3 or 4 counties while she won 100, but his had more votes.  She won some counties by almost 60 percent and he only got 40 percent but the party gave him the same number of delegates as Hillary got, unles she won over 60 or he won less than 40%.

     Does that sound like democracy to you.  She has won more congresional districts and if the superdelegates had to vote as their districts voted, she would have most of them.  Obama used to push than meme but he backed off when she moved ahead.

    So delegates don't tell us how close we are to beating John McCain.  But state polls and voting histories can.  That's what makes up the maps.  So far they agree that Hillary or McCain can win but Obama cannot, regardless of the national matchup polls which are deemed by polsters as to broad , too undersampled and too far from Nov to be helpful right now.  RCP collects and averages the most recent polls, some of which I used, but when the average included polls back too far I use the mosre recent numbers. Then ther wer the numbers released today in 8 swing states.

     People say Obama can win this one away from the Republicans or that one.  Often the state in question has few Electoral Votes and has gone Republican rather wholeheartedly and shows McCain way ahead.  One of those suggewsted was Utah.  McCain by 40 to day.

      Every body assumes Obama will bring in Oregon and Hillary could not, since he won agianst her this week by 16 or so points.  But when Hillary is matched against McCain  she is in 0.3 of a point to his number. If she had the chance to campaign hard there she could take it.  But she would not need it because she easily wins so many states with large electoral vote numbers.

     That is why popular vote has significance in thinking about November.  Obama could win 35 states and not get to 270 EVs. Hillary could win 12 or 13 of the ones she is winning and get enoughEVs to be prisident with some left over.  And now she is coming up in the states thought to be Obama's.

     The superdelegates are supposed to care very much about those maps and the Electoral vote and not care about number of states or number of states that will vote republican anyway in Nov.  Hillary can win some states that would go Repubican.  Some thought the Black vote would help Obama win southern states in Nov, but the most recent polling show McCain winning most handily and now Hillary is competitive in NC.

     It is really clear that Hillary is the best chance we have at the White House by a growing margin and Obama's statebound support is slipping.  If the party wants the White House, they will figure out how to make Hillary the nominee.  And how to explain that it was really within the rules all along to do so.

    Judging from how they did the right thing in Congress to take care of Bushco, end the war and restore the Constitution since 2006, I have lost faith that they will act with courage and honor in this. I think it wiill be personal advantage with too many who want the fundraising tools or a share in the power.

    If you are sincere,I hope this helps you start your research. If you are just a mischiefmaker challenging to see if you catch somebody, I wasted my effort thinking you were worth making it. Either way, wouldn't be the first time I was too ernest.

    Parent

    A great deal of thought (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:54:06 AM EST
    You obviously have given this matter as great deal of thought.

    I did follow a link back the other day, to an electoral map that oddly listed California as "Weak Democrat", despite the fact that in the primaries, 7 million democrats voted against 2.9 million republicans.

    That single fact made me question the entire analysis.

    I have to say that I remain unconvinced: my own feeling is that any democrat has pretty much the same chances, barring any "suprises".  

    Does your analysis show that in 2004 we could have beaten Bush with another candidate than Kerry, for example?

    Parent

    First, read the post. It is about swing states (none / 0) (#122)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:27:11 AM EST
    and electoral votes according to the combined most recent polls taken by various groups inside the particular individual swing state as gathered and reported by RCP (the is Real Clear Politics for those who don't study polls.)  The national tracking polls are not under discussion here, but I did mention that he was still showing as ahead in them if you will refer back.

    The maps are mostly based on recent political history of voting patterns and on individaul state polling accumulated and weighted by differen groups and posted on electoral vote websites like electoral-vote.com and fivethirtyeight.com and on the mast head at mydd.com.  They all have Hillary ahead of McCain state by state in the ev count.

      Each state has a set number of electoral votes in the electoral that elects our presidents.  California has 55, for instance and New Mexico 5.  It has to do with the number of people, not like our primary delegates. Obama won 13 delegates in one stae on 13000 votes while Hillary won 10 delegates more than Obama on 200,000 votes more than he got.

     Those delegates are not of equal value.  Some urban areas were awarded extra delegates so tha in Texas Black voters got delegates more than Latino voters in the south of the state by a ratio of 3 to 1.  That made Blacks' votes worth 3 times Latinos.  Clinton won Texas by 100,000  votes in the primary, but that night Obama won the caucuses by a huge margin.

     The vote was not monitored or tabulated in any regulated fashion and people did not have to prove they were register voters or even residents of Texas in many cases, but the delegates won that way ended up counting more that then delegates won when over 3 million people went through the regular voting booth process.  Obama says he won Texas and he did get the most delegates.  But Hillary won the real election that went on all that day by over 100,000 votes.

    Senator Obama won a lot of states, but Hillary won many more counties.  Some of his states he only won 3 or 4 counties while she won 100, but his had more votes.  She won some counties by almost 60 percent and he only got 40 percent but the party gave him the same number of delegates as Hillary got, unles she won over 60 or he won less than 40%.

     Does that sound like democracy to you.  She has won more congresional districts and if the superdelegates had to vote as their districts voted, she would have most of them.  Obama used to push than meme but he backed off when she moved ahead.

    So delegates don't tell us how close we are to beating John McCain.  But state polls and voting histories can.  That's what makes up the maps.  So far they agree that Hillary or McCain can win but Obama cannot, regardless of the national matchup polls which are deemed by polsters as to broad , too undersampled and too far from Nov to be helpful right now.  RCP collects and averages the most recent polls, some of which I used, but when the average included polls back too far I use the mosre recent numbers. Then ther wer the numbers released today in 8 swing states.

     People say Obama can win this one away from the Republicans or that one.  Often the state in question has few Electoral Votes and has gone Republican rather wholeheartedly and shows McCain way ahead.  One of those suggewsted was Utah.  McCain by 40 to day.

      Every body assumes Obama will bring in Oregon and Hillary could not, since he won agianst her this week by 16 or so points.  But when Hillary is matched against McCain  she is in 0.3 of a point to his number. If she had the chance to campaign hard there she could take it.  But she would not need it because she easily wins so many states with large electoral vote numbers.

     That is why popular vote has significance in thinking about November.  Obama could win 35 states and not get to 270 EVs. Hillary could win 12 or 13 of the ones she is winning and get enoughEVs to be prisident with some left over.  And now she is coming up in the states thought to be Obama's.

     The superdelegates are supposed to care very much about those maps and the Electoral vote and not care about number of states or number of states that will vote republican anyway in Nov.  Hillary can win some states that would go Repubican.  Some thought the Black vote would help Obama win southern states in Nov, but the most recent polling show McCain winning most handily and now Hillary is competitive in NC.

     It is really clear that Hillary is the best chance we have at the White House by a growing margin and Obama's statebound support is slipping.  If the party wants the White House, they will figure out how to make Hillary the nominee.  And how to explain that it was really within the rules all along to do so.

    Judging from how they did the right thing in Congress to take care of Bushco, end the war and restore the Constitution since 2006, I have lost faith that they will act with courage and honor in this. I think it wiill be personal advantage with too many who want the fundraising tools or a share in the power.

    If you are sincere,I hope this helps you start your research. If you are just a mischiefmaker challenging to see if you catch somebody, I wasted my effort thinking you were worth making it. Either way, wouldn't be the first time I was too ernest.

    Parent

    oops, guess i wasn't sure. messed up,sorry (none / 0) (#123)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:27:56 AM EST
    Please delete post button mistake. (none / 0) (#124)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:41:00 AM EST
    ta, yall! (none / 0) (#131)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:01 AM EST
    re: (none / 0) (#139)
    by Double Standard on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:42:23 AM EST
    1. That poll is by Zogby so take with a huge grain of salt.

    2. National polls don't really matter much right now (or ever since the election is decided with the electoral college).  Look at the individual state polls to see an indication of where your candidate is strongest or weakest.  He isn't doing as well in the various state polling released recently.


    Parent
    OK? (none / 0) (#150)
    by arky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:13:07 AM EST
    Sure, if you want to lose in November.

    Parent
    No... (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:53:15 AM EST
    ...because many Hilary supporters on this site claim that the only metric to go by is the Popular vote - with Michigan counting zero for Obama.

    Parent
    NO (none / 0) (#41)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:07:30 AM EST
    and so since his campaign did basically say for everyone to vote uncomminted. Give those to him and nothing else because he took his name all by himself.

    Parent
    He tried to put it back on at the last minute (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:38:04 AM EST
    but he didn't get all the paperwork in on time.

     After he led the move off the ballot till Hillary and Chris Dodd were what was left, he tried to jump back on the last day.

    Parent

    Kucinich Was On The MI Ballot n/t (none / 0) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:54:48 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:47:25 AM EST
    If it's really that easy, you have to wonder why Obama doesn't just put it on the table.

    Parent
    Agreed (2.33 / 3) (#29)
    by Get 27 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:55:22 AM EST
    But it is easier today than it was weeks ago. Also, Obama didn't create this problem, nor is he trying as hard as everyone makes him out to prevent the delegates from counting. The rules were the rules, he needn't give up an advantage just because his opponent wants him to, but he may now that it is nearly a moot issue from an overall delegate viewpoint.

    Parent
    Whatever (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:39:47 AM EST
    He made a well documented decision along with other folks who decided to label it a "beauty contest" for political reasons.

    And now, his surrogates are suggesting a 50/50 split, when his surrogates aggressively promoted an uncommitted vote and the exit polls show he deserves 35% of the vote, max.

    Obama DID create this problem by removing himself from the ballot.  If he hadn't we would easily be able to seat FL and MI fully or at 50% without any argument.  If he hadn't Hillary wouldn't be claiming the greatest dem popular vote in a primary in history.  He made a short-term political decision that was a mistake, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.


    Parent

    not obama's problem (1.00 / 6) (#78)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:05:27 AM EST
    Obama removed his name because the election were not supposed to be counted.

    Parent
    actually (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:17:03 AM EST
    You wanna play talking point and chatter, fine, then  my new talking point is that Obama says he didn't do anything!

    "Our name was taken off the ballot in Michigan"

    It was just taken off the ballot! Magically!  He didn't have to lead! He didn't have to stategerize!  It just was taken off the ballot! Presto-pandero!

    You could have read the link, ya know.  Or done some research, either way you're wrong.

    Parent

    Obama can start Practising what he Preaches (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:32:52 AM EST
    He preaches about the new way of doing politics yada yada.

    Then isn't it time he walked the talk and took the lead in finding a compatible solution to Fl & MI rather than hiding behind rulz.

    Maybe that is the problem with him. There is a big disconnect between his talks and actions.

    Parent

    He knew the decision was being appealed (none / 0) (#215)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    So he knew that there was a real possibility that they would, in the end, count.

    I have a real problem giving votes to someone who wasn't on the ballot. He has a legit argument to make to the uncommitted delegates, many of whom are open Obama supporters. But to pledge them, and even some Hillary delegates, to vote for Obama is bogus.

    Parent

    FL and MI no longer the key (none / 0) (#116)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:57:09 AM EST
    This is the kind of argument that puzzles me.

    You do realize that, even if FL is seated just as is (likely), and even if Clinton gets all her MI votes and Obama get, say, only Edwards', or just a little more, he is still ahead?

    Source: Demconwatch.

    Parent

    If she gets to 100 or less delegates behind (none / 0) (#126)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:51:28 AM EST
    him she can make the argument that she can beat McCain and he can't to enough delegates to get the votes.  If she wins the popular vote it would be hard for anybody to say she was not the choice of the people, whatever happened with the delegates.

      If the electoral map looks great for her, she can ask the supers, whatever they thought in the past, to look fresh at the new information and consider the party's needs. Kennedy was 800 delegatess behind Clinton when he took it to the convention floor, hoping to change minds.  He did not have the popular vote either. This mechanism is within the rules and is supposed to save the party from putting out a nominee that a lot of activists like but that the bulk of the party that votes in Nov can't vote for.  We have not had someone they could vote for like this except in the 90s.

    Parent

    what if (none / 0) (#129)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:59:03 AM EST
    Has anyone actually quantified how many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, and vice versa?

    I get the sense that you assume Clinton has better odds in some places based on Primary performance, but that is not the case; e.g.: she won California but Obama will also win California in the GE.

    Bottom line, no matter what, a strongly divided Democratic electorate may cost the other side votes; hence, Clinton may not be any more electable than Obama.

    That's why in the end I prefer to trust in the system. Whoever is our official nominee, for better or worse, that's the one I'll fight for.

    (Kerry was my #4 after Dean, Clark and Edwards - could you calculate if we would have had better chances to win had we picked another candidate?)

    Parent

    No, they cannot... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:31 AM EST
    ..and they won't.  

     The calculations offered are just absurd.  The maps remain the same, despite the hype.

    Parent

    CNN says exit poll yesterday said (none / 0) (#133)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:14:37 AM EST
    that the number of Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama is growing from Primary to primary.  Last nigh it read 32% for Obama, 43% for McCain and the rest stay home or skip Pres and vote down ticket for dems and progressive issues down the ballot.

    The same report shows 71% of Obama supporters say they would vote for Clinton.  Polls (no good to you) of AA voters also consisantly have reported in the 70s for Hillary if Obama is not on the ticket.  Most of Obama supported wanted Hillary on the ticket with him but most of Hillary supporters did not want her to pick him.
    Read over more of this and othe diaries of the last 34 hours and you can get more comfortable with the data turned up or get leads for your reseearch.

    Parent

    Heh... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:18:03 AM EST
    ...then no Democrat has a shot in hell.

     In a Democratic year, I doubt it.  

    Parent

    Actually Hillary has (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:40:35 AM EST
    Unlike the campaign myth of Obama bringing in new voters it is actually Hillary who is bringing in new voters and the so called Reagan Democrats.

    Even if we take a standard attrition of Obama supporters not supporting her, hich again would be mostly in the urban areas, here too I think she would still be able to beat McCain.

    Since Hillary's supporters are more widespread and in key swing states, Obama would have a tough time winning thtse states.

    Parent

    I think it is foolish... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:04 AM EST
    ...to confuse anti-Obama votes with pro-Clinton votes.  And that is what I see in her self-described "white" working class states.  I have no faith they will fall for brand Clinton in the fall.  

     You may disagree, and they were both risky candidates.  But I see more than a little racism in those votes.

    Parent

    Anti Obama votes and not Pro Clinton votes were (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:54:33 AM EST
    the undecideds or Edwards vote.

    Believe it or not America is not defined by pro Obama or Anti Obama stance only. There are quite a few people out there who actually like Hillary and vote for her because they think she is the best candidate.

    Parent

    You should see Hillary among them on (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:57:14 AM EST
    the trail.  She is a powerful positive force attracting people to her with deep responses.  They feel she shares and articulates their values and talks about their needs and describes solutions to the nation's problems that sound sensible to them.  But most of all a lot of people are admiring of her fight and her grit.  Over and over they say when asked that they feel she will stand up for them.

    How do you watch that and see racism?

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:01 AM EST
    ...I start by looking at voters who say they won't vote for (insert N word here).

     I'm sorry, racists lie through their teeth and I know there are many of them lurking within the party.  I stopped believing her "positive force for change" argument the instant it became clear the base was dividing on racial lines.  And I'm not talking about strengths among Hispanics, Asians, African Americans, etc.  I'm talking about blatant appeals to racist northerners.  For some reason "working class" has been consistently qualified with "white" in this campaign...but mostly in PA, KY, and WV for some reason.  You know, the "firewall" states.  

     I don't think the Clintons are racists, I think they and their supporters are exploiting racism for primary gains.  I think they were fumbling with how to exploit gender identity with the primary as well.  The convention threat, alas, for me is the last straw.  Equating what happened with MI and FL with the civil rights movement just does not ring true, and it speaks not to pandering, but to the most distrubing base politics I have witnessed in the primary season. And I think this despite Senator Clinton's obstacles re: gender.  

     If she can convince the superdelegates I will hold my nose and vote for her.  Beyond that, it is a stretch...she is better than McCain, but that is all I can say.  At this point, if she takes it to the convention I will lose all respect for Brand Clinton.  And NO ONE here who has insinuated they will vote for Senator McCain can have the audacity to criticize me, although I suspect they will anyway.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:39:30 AM EST
    if there are so many lurking in the Dem party then you have to believe that there are many, many more in the general electorate. You are conceding that Obama is unelectable due to his race. If you believe that you are also conceding that we aren't interested in winning in Nov.

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:50:18 AM EST
    ...I am just minimizing her "white" working class gains in WV and KY.  And her spokesmen who insist no black man can win in PA.

     That was a foolish, divisive strategy, and insulting to the reliable AA base.  "New" Democrats indeed.

     I await your "go ahead and win with eggheads and blacks meme."  I have no doubt it is a talking point encouraged by the campaign.

    Parent

    Are you (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:02:14 AM EST
    kidding? Obama and his race baiting strategy has been absolutely disgusting.

    Reports are all over the news about how Obama has huge white working class problems. It's shown in the exit polls. The fact that the Obama campaign continually calls them racists and says they don't need their vote only further drives them away.

    As far as "eggheads and AA's" yes that seems to be his coalition. It's the same one every losing Dem candidate has had. He's not expanding he's contracting. He's become so racially divisive pitting black against white that I don't see how he wins in Nov. He's set himself up perfectly for a McCain win. Hopefully the down tickets will be able to separate themselves from him enough like Childers that we won't lose more seats in the house and senate.


    Parent

    Heh... (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:16:03 AM EST
    ...well she would be the first Democratic politician since...LBJ? to win the white vote.      

     Good luck with that.  I have a feeling the Clinton brand name is done, after the call for a convention fight, disguised though it was for a plea for all votes to "count."  

     Hey, just politics right?

     

    Parent

    All votes (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:55:26 AM EST
    counting? Yes, that's a terrible thing isn't it?

    It's not about winning the white vote it's about getting enough of it. Obama can't do that apparently. I'm glad you finally admit that all this is about destroying the Clintons not about winning an election.

    Parent

    After the call for a convention fight... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:58:59 AM EST
    ...it became about both.  

    Parent
    Please tell me (none / 0) (#169)
    by wasabi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:48:05 AM EST
    Who was her spokesman who insisted "no black man can win in PA"?

    Parent
    Rendell (none / 0) (#171)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:51:56 AM EST
    Or doesn't he count?

    Parent
    Your comment is filled with falsehoods (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:52:55 AM EST
    And I won't bother to correct them because they are obvious lies to most people who have objectively watched this primary.

    I personally wouldn't argue for seating MI/FL as is because it wouldn't be fair, and I don't agree with Clinton on that.

    Regardless of that, your comments about racist voters and exploiting racism for gain by Clinton are completely baseless and despicable.

    It is amazing that people like you pretend not to get why the trajectory of this primary changed after Iowa into one that is divided along race and class lines. It is all right there for any objective observer to see and it has been shown over and over again. It was Obama's campaign that did the dividing, not Hillary's. And they did so blatantly after New Hampshire and were caught redhanded at it. If you decry the racial division that has resulted, then go talk to Jesse Jackson Jr., Michelle Obama, and David Axelrod. Until you do, your comments about racism during this campaign are laughable to me.

    Parent

    Great! If Hillary wins the nomination (none / 0) (#154)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:06 AM EST
    I will hold you onto your promise of voting for her.

    Parent
    And indeed you can count on it... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:27:06 AM EST
    ...just not on black voters.

    Parent
    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:53:42 AM EST
    You think all those people went to the polls in places like WV and Kentucky to vote against a candidate in a primary.  Utterly absurd.

    Parent
    If you study the maps you'll see the (none / 0) (#135)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:09 AM EST
    assumptions they ae based on and select a few you think seem soundly based.  Then you can follow the updates to suit your curiosity. I'm gathering that the information your questions are producing from various posters trying to be responsive to you are not actually helping you absorb the data.

     In addition to the maps you've read about here ther are also some atUSelectionatlas.org, 270towin.com.  You can construct your own maps there and use the assumptions for each swtate that please you and update them as it suits you, but I gather it won't help you with you electibility question. I think youhave it anwered and just don't see support for it.  So creating your own maps may be just the ticket.  enjoy. Also RealClearPolitics.com to learn about swing states.

    Parent

    I must be dense (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:06:24 AM EST
    I must be dense, but I just went to RCP (first time I visited the site) and the first thing I see on the sidebar is:

    General Election: McCain vs. Obama
    RCP Average
    Obama
    47.6
    McCain
    42.3
    Obama +5.3

    General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
    RCP Average
    Clinton
    46.3
    McCain
    43.6
    Clinton +2.7

    Now I know you said it's all about swing states, delegates, etc. in short: the "rules" (I'd like to see more respect for the "rules" here BTW), but still, when I look at it on a state by state basis (what RCP calls "Battlegrounds poll") it seems hard to get any solid fix.

    For example, according to their average, in Florida, McCain would beat both Clinton and Obama. On the other hand, in PA, either Obama or Clinton would beat McCain. Others are in statistical dead heat.

    And I can't escape the feeling that these polls don't mean much in terms of the general dissatisfaction of the public.

    Further, if I look at what they call the Favorable Ratings, you have:

    McCain: Fav: 48.5 ; Unfav: 38.5
    Obama:  Fav: 51.5 ; Unfav: 38.5
    Clinton:Fav: 46.6 ; Unfav: 46.0

    This strikes me as a huge argument against Clinton, who clearly has the most unfavorable / least favorable ratings of all three candidates.

    Personally, I welcome Sen. Clinton if she wins the nomination (IMHO better by the rules), and I also think both potential nominees make strong candidates.

    Beyond that you haven't really convinced me; in fact you've helped me discover she is the most "unfavorable" candidate which I didn't know before.

    Parent

    Actually you need to (none / 0) (#217)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    watch RCP over time.  I've been checking it since March and Clinton has been tied with Obama on the general or ahead, and does better against McCain.

    RCP polls are usually several days behind current popular feeling as far as I can tell.  So when Obama gets a bump from whatever, it starts to show up 2-4 or even 5 days later.  Same with Clinton.  I'd wait a few days to see how the most recent peak of FL/MI coverage affects the polling numbers.  Obama's current peak in the GE polls is from the 'we have more than half the pledged delegates' meme.  Again, as far as I can tell, correlation is not causation, of course.

    But even so, RCP GE matchups treat all votes equally, which is of limited use in November.  All that matters is the swing states, because the GE is based on the electoral college and not a nationwide franchise.  Obama is suffering in swing states.  That's all there right on RCP under the heading 'Battleground Polls.'

    Favorable/Unfavorable ratings don't matter much either (although note, Obama's have been growing as people see more and more of him, I've been watching these too).  What matters is who people say they'll vote for against McCain in swing states.  It doesn't matter if Clinton has high unfavorable ratings in say, Idaho, because neither Clinton nor Obama is going to win the GE there.

    Repeated polls have shown that in swing states, more people will go to McCain if Obama is the candidate than if Clinton is the candidate.  Sorry kids, it's true.  Obama maxed out his base back in March and has only recently realized his mistake in not reaching beyond it.  

    That, in addition to several other factors, is why I can't support him.  He's bought into his own hype and mistaken a narrow demographic with passionate feeling for widespread popularity.  Given his recent 'be nice to Clinton supporters' trial balloon, he (or his strategists) have realized their mistake but it's too late.  Even if it weren't too late I don't think he or supporters really get why people aren't falling under his spell, so their efforts to reach out are clumsy and unconvincing.

    Parent

    Donna consistently corrects people (none / 0) (#15)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:40:10 AM EST
    when they refer to her status as "Undecided". She quickly corrects them with, "Undeclared". I suppose "Uncommitted" was the closest column to represent her.


    Just wondering.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:43:46 AM EST
    Jerome Wiley Segovia

    Which one is his maiden name?  Segovia?  Why is he representing Hispanics?

    Anyone representing Hispanics should be going Hillary.  She gets their votes 2:1.  

    Since all three candidates have similar views on immigration, I can see Clinton supporters going for McCain before they go for Obama.  JMO  

    Except that (none / 0) (#21)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:45:12 AM EST
    some one has to be the "1" in the 2:1

    Parent
    segovia (none / 0) (#50)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:16:19 AM EST
    Segovia, a member of the Democratic party's powerful rules committee, which could play a key role at the convention in the event of a near-tie, is leaning towards Clinton after initially favouring the Illinois senator.

    source

    Parent

    Link question (none / 0) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:30:03 AM EST
    it goes to an article on the MI and FL rules committee. Couldn't find the information you were sharing.

    I think we're going to start seeing a steady stream of SD's changing their vote. If not outloud and in front of the cameras, at voting time during the convention.


    Parent

    the problem (none / 0) (#172)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:52:19 AM EST
    w/ multiple open windows. here, 8th para

    Parent
    Source for what? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Munibond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:45:11 AM EST
    Didn't we read a month or so (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
    ago that Donna Brazile was no longer on this committe?  Am I hallucinating, or wasn't there something about Dean not having reappointed her?

    I think Roosevelt was the strong (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:09:05 AM EST
    advocate of stripping MI and FL of all their delegates in the earlier mtg. of this group.

    This is SOOOOOO Stupid (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:14 AM EST
    Who cares who's on the DNC's supreme court?

    The DNC has already made their bed here.

    Rationale (none / 0) (#54)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:45 AM EST
    These are the same people who stripped the delegates from FL and MI.  If they decide to seat all delegates, I would like to hear their rationale for change of mind.

    Simple (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimotto on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:03:57 AM EST
    Stripping the delegates was advantageous to Clinton, the candidate with 100% name recognition and a 20 pt lead in the polls.  With no campaigning in the states, there was little chance anyone other than her would win them, and the fewer real contests before super Tuesday, the less chance an insurgent could sweep in and keep her from claiming the nomination Feb 5.  

    And it had the added advantage that if the wheels came off her campaign, she could always "fight" to have them reinstated.

    Parent

    You're forgetting to allow for compensation... (none / 0) (#58)
    by VJCMAJD on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:18 AM EST
    ...for the loss of momentum, new supporters,  voter goodwill, the suppression of fundraising, the loss of positive press, and the media conversation and dialogue in favor of whomever would have been the winner(s) in FL and MI.  Please factor that into what needs to be compensated for, as well as how those elements and quantities would have changed the race going forward.

    what? (none / 0) (#66)
    by ibextati on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:39:45 AM EST
    this is not business. All candidates knew the rules before the elections started.

    Parent
    The Rules Committee makes the rules (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by cymro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:06 AM EST
    Chariots of Fire
    Duke of Sutherland: I think that's a splendid idea. Can we allow him to change events at such short notice?
    Lord Cadogan: That's a matter for the Committee!
    Lord Birkenhead: We ARE the committee.

    People complaining about "changing the rules" seem to forget that the Rules Committee have already changed the rules twice, and appealing to the Rules Committee to get them to change their previous rulings once again is all entirely within the rules.  If it were not, there would be no appeal and no discussion.

    Parent

    Next is the Credentials Committee in July/Aug (none / 0) (#128)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:56:23 AM EST
    This looks good for Hillary (none / 0) (#74)
    by Makarov on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:00:10 AM EST
    because of the following:

    16 needed for a majority

    13 supporters +
    Mark Brewer, chair of the MI Dem party

    Alexis Herman, served in Clinton administration, eventually appointed as Sec. of Labor (the first African-American to hold that cabinet position).

    Then we have Alice Travis Germond, who was political director for California Clinton/Gore in 1992, and rose within the DNC during Clinton's administration. She has been active in several women's organizations. Bio is here:
    http://www.democrats.org/a/party/germond.html

    James Roosevelt, Jr is CEO of Tufts Health Plan in Mass.  He was the associate commissioner for Retirement Policy for the Social Security Administration under Clinton.

    I haven't been able to find much about Jerome Wiley Segovia, except he started Latinos for Dean, and was subsequently appointed to his at-large post by him.

    Still, getting 16 here certainly seems possible, assuming former Clinton appointees support Hillary.

    I think some people (none / 0) (#83)
    by Makarov on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:19:46 AM EST
    are misunderstanding the role of the RBC.  To me understanding, they will not address the composition of the delegations at all.  In other words, it's not up to them whether MI splits 50/50, 73-something, or some other way in terms of delegates supporting Clinton or Obama.  That role is left to the state party process and ultimately the Credentials Committee which will meet in July or August.

    The RBC next week will simply decide on the issue of the penalty, currently stripping both states of all their pledged and superdelegates.  They can leave the penalty as is, or lessen it, or remove it entirely.  They can decide seperately for pledged and supers from the two states.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm in error.

    Like someone noted in the previous thread, I think it would be great if Clinton represented her own campaign on the 31st.  From her speech earlier today, she has the argument down pat.

    personally (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:30:55 AM EST
    I don't like the idea of her presenting, because it's not about her campaign.  It's about the idiocy of disenfranchising voters due to party politics...and those politics were fundamentally about power and state priorities--not about obama or clinton.

    NOW, MI is about Obama's decisions and therefor about Obama/Clinton.  Florida shouldn't be about Obama/Clinton... it should be a no-brainer.

    Parent

    From the story (none / 0) (#97)
    by Makarov on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:57:57 AM EST
    about the process on Saturday May 31, the RBC will hear challenges from MI and FL (one person representing the party in each state) and hear one representative of both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

    I think it will be very interesting to hear what the Obama rep will say, assuming they show up.

    Parent

    DemConWatch (none / 0) (#96)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:55:20 AM EST
    DemConWatch (which I find to be the most unbiased and reliable source) has an updated post on the FL and MI situation, with five scenarios clearly laid out.

    The comments are interesting too.

    My completely uneducated guess is that FL will be seated as such (perhaps the supers' will be halved?) and MI with some kind of split (67 HRC-57 BHO?), with Edwards' delegates going to Obama.

    At this point in time, in any event, it looks as if Sen. Obama ends up ahead in every scenario even if FL gets everything and he gets zero out of MI.

    So the composition of the Committee seems (to me) a red herring.


    Nancy Pelosi says 50-50 (none / 0) (#151)
    by wasabi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:16:16 AM EST
    Pelosi was on The News Hour last night and she said the delegates would be split 50-50.  Chris Dodd was on CNN? on Tuesday and he also said the delegates will be split 50-50.

    Wow! can they be more (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:48 AM EST
    Insulting!

    Parent
    That would be the final straw (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by stillife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:18:31 AM EST
    If that happens, there's no way in h*ll I'm voting for Obama.  

    Parent
    Rules (none / 0) (#166)
    by LefterNutter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:19:33 AM EST
    Well, we all know what they say about "Rules" dont we? Rules are meant to be broken, thats what they are there for.

    JJ
    http://www.anondo.alturl.com

    My false post led to "Brazile" error (none / 0) (#170)
    by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:48:39 AM EST
    On an earlier thread, I posted the names of the members of the Democratic National Convention Committee "standing committee" on rules.  Those people are the Dr. Dean appointments to a group that will increase by 161 floor delegates at the convention.

    The demconwatch.blogspot.com lists the Democratic National Committee permanent committee on rules, which does include Brazile, et alii, & is the list Jeralyn references here.

    Further confusions: if either the Clinton or the Obama campaign disagrees with the ruling of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the DNC, either may take the issue(s) to the convention floor.

    At that point, there may be some dispute as to whether the "standing" Rules committee or the parallel Credentials committee will deal with the specific issue(s) in question, depending upon the exact nature of the things in doubt.

    The appropriate "standing" committee of 186 people, with 183 votes because the chairs don't vote, would then settle the dispute(s).

    This is so byzantine that it makes ancient Instanbul/Constantinople look like a model of efficiency.

    My bad for the inappropriate reference to the standing committee instead of the permanent committee.  The folks at demconwatch corrected my error in their blog comments.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#179)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:09:13 AM EST
    Demconwatch is a superb resource.

    Parent
    A little advice (none / 0) (#180)
    by Melchizedek on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:18:06 AM EST
    I wouldn't be trumpeting the name "Harold Ickes, Jr." too much if I were on your side. Here's a little fact to chew on:

    "On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)"

    Whoops.

    From what I understand... (none / 0) (#182)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:20:52 AM EST
    ...the original vote to strip FL and MI of all their delegates was 29-1.  All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee at the time voted for it.  The lone dissenter was an Obama supporter.

    (Of course, Clinton also signed the 4 state pledge, too, and made her infamous statement about "we all know Michigan isn't going to count."  But we're not supposed to mention that.)

    It may (or may not) be "the right thing to do" to support full reinstatement of FL and MI with no penalties whatsoever.  But let's not pretend that Team Clinton is pursuing this purely out of high-minded principle.

    I still think that if they made a concession on the apportionment of Michigan's uncommitted delegates, in whole or in part, to Obama, then a deal could be struck whereby Team Clinton gets everything else it wants--full reinstatement of pledged and supers for both states, her popular vote lead from Florida officially counts(for whatever that's worth), and her lead over Uncommited from Michigan counts as well.

    But then, Obama would clinch 2210 shortly after June 3, and she would lose.  She's still likely to lose anyway, but if he gets awarded any significant share of the uncommitteds, her chances to win evaporate.

    So, a good test of how principled Team Clinton's stand is would be their position on apportionment of Michigan's uncommitted delegates.

    Actually (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:29:42 AM EST
    she's probably going to jump ahead in the popular vote after Puerto Rico. So we're going to have to decide whether we want to nominate someone based on "pledged" delegates or the popular vote.

    Parent
    There's no recent polling... (none / 0) (#195)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:38:48 AM EST
    ...out of Puerto Rico, like I said yesterday.  It's not a given she'll win, or win big, there.
    Even people who live there aren't certain what will happen.

    Labor unions apparently play a big role in elections there, and both sides are going to be working their butts off.  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#206)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    but Obama has had problems with hispanics and many times labor union members won't follow the bosses on votes. Also his campaign denigrating them probably isn't playing well either.

    Parent
    The dates of statements really matter. (none / 0) (#218)
    by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    The YouTube where she says "this election they're having is not going to count for anything" is from October 2007.  Subsequently, the Clinton campaign attempted many times to set up a re-vote & they still think MI could have one in August.

    Her position since then has been AGAINST a variety of foolish attempts to use the results which she had already described as "not going to count for anything."  Get it?  Can you follow?

    I know it's tough.  The argument goes like this: if you're now going to count what you told me you would not count, then I win.  You don't get to say that it counts & then come up with a new or different method that favors my opponent.  If you don't like that, then let's have a re-count.

    See, it's not all that difficult.

    And then refer to her Press Release of Jan 25, 2008, in which she asserts that FL & MI should count in some way.

    Parent

    Obama was claiming he won Michigan (none / 0) (#200)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:47:59 AM EST
    Link

    Everyone is pointing to Clinton's comments about Michigan not counting for anything. Who cares? With 24-7 recording of everything that comes out of their mouths, candidates sometimes misspeak. As when Obama said that he won Michigan.

    Dean's 49 state strategy started this mess (none / 0) (#208)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:57:31 AM EST
    When the DNC "punished" FL, FL was the only state outside of the "blessed 4 states" trying to "leapfrog" (MI was still in compliance)

    By stripping FL of 100% of its delegates instead of the normal 50%, Dean was saying his 50 state strategy was a hoax and that  FL was lost anyway

    Fairness in FL and MI (none / 0) (#210)
    by Teo1234 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:03:41 AM EST
    I don't think that a majority of the members of the rules committee  will support the notion of assigning delegates based on the popular vote.

    I agree with Yvonne Gates. She hit the nail on the head. There was no election in these states because there was no campaign in these states. Both candidates were prevented from going to these states until after the February 5, 2008, deadline. They didn't run television ads and they didn't hold  campaign events in these states. As such, it's unreasonable to seat the delegates based on the "vote" when it was clear at the time of the vote that the vote didn't mean anything. Indeed, it's highly likely that people in FL and MI didn't vote because they were told their vote didn't matter. It's just crazy to assign delegates based on vote counting.

    As for the 50/50 split, I think this is a fair approach. I would probably favor something along those lines and I think a majority of the members of the rules committee will go along those lines. There will be some die-hard Michigan/Florida supporters, for sure. But anyone standing back from the process has to conclude that neither the candidates nor the voters had a fair shake in Florida or Michigan. The party didn't want to allow the primary to take place before Feb. 5.

    I make this final point: for months, Hillary's people have been trying to make an end-run around the process.  Instead of figuring out how to win Oregon by 17 points or figuring out how to win South Dakota or Montana (both of which she may lose) or Puerto Rico, she's focusing on Florida and Michigan delegates. The campaign is much worse than the candidate.

    Obama, again, handles this appropriately by focusing on the rules and the goalposts established at the point when this contest started.

    Hillary's Late Conversion to the "Cause" (none / 0) (#211)
    by tommie123 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:03:54 AM EST
    So, does anyone remember HRC taking such a forthright and explict position on Florida and Iowa when she was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire?  She didn't, so you won't be able to cite such.  In fact, this is simply another example of her tendency to mend, twist, or ignore issues when it seems to her advantage and to address them only when it seems to her advantage.  This has little or nothing to do with the "merits" of the case of Michigan and Florida.  It DOES reveal much about the character and priorites of HRC.

    can we elevate the debate (none / 0) (#213)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    Am I the only one to find the "Obama did this, no Hillary did that" (and vice versa) range of arguments both juvenile and ultimately worthless?

    Campaigns do and say what's opportunistic; that's what they do. No respect for reality, for rules, logic and common sense. Do we have to carry this here?

    As an Edwards supporter, none of your two factions are coming across as very appealing, right now.

    FL rep on Obama list? (none / 0) (#220)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    How can they get away with this with their fellow Dems in FL if they decide not to count votes?

    Member Jerome Wiley Segovia (none / 0) (#221)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    I'm friends with Jerome.  He and I worked together on Howard Dean's campaign in '03-'04.  He told me that he was truly undecided but was leaning towards HRC because he hadn't been approached by Obama's camp in earnest, and HRC's people were speaking to him (that was over 3 wks ago so things may have changed).

    I made my case to him regarding Clinton.  Jerome's a pretty sharp guy so dog and pony shows don't work.  I hope he goes Clinton.  I am planning on going to DC for that weekend.  Although TX is surely to go McCain either way, I still have to stand up for MI and FL...and of course, Hillary.