If The DNC Is Going To Strictly Apply The Rules . . .

And if the DNC Memo (which states that any violation of DNC Rule 11 on primary timing requires at least a 50% stripping of delegates without exception) expresses the views of the Rules and Bylaws Committee then the following action should occur on May 31:

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina must be stripped of at least 50% of their delegates. As Florida Representative Ted Deutch states:

Rule 11 clearly prohibits primaries or caucuses from being held prior to the first Tuesday in February, except in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, each of which is assigned very specific limits on when they may hold their contests. Florida Democrats were penalized for violating Rule 11 when our state moved the primary seven days too early. Michigan Democrats, whose state moved 21 days early, were penalized, too. Oddly, Democrats in three other states [the three states were Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina] that violated the rules were not.

More . . .

In addition, the Florida delegation must be reinstated in full as it qualifies for the safe harbor exception provided in Rule 21 of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provides:


A. Subject to Rule 18.C. of these Rules, wherever any part of any section contained in these rules conflicts with existing state laws, the state party shall take provable positive steps to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the provisions of these rules.

B. Provable positive steps shall be taken in a timely fashion and shall include: the drafting of corrective legislation; public endorsement by the state party of such legislation; efforts to educate the public on the need for such legislation; active support for the legislation by the state party lobbying state legislators, other public officials, Party officials and Party members; and encouraging consideration of the legislation by the appropriate legislative committees and bodies.

C. A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt and implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any provable positive steps the state may have taken.

The Florida Democratic Party complied with sections A and B of Rule 21. The DNC did NOT invoke Rule 21C and thus, Florida is entitled to the safe harbor provided by Rule 21. Its entire delegation should be seated.

However, should the DNC not accept the safe harbor argument, then Rule 20c.1.b comes into play. Rule 20c.1.b provides:

A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.

. . . “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; . . . The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

It appears that Senator Barack Obama inadvertently violated this rule by running cable advertising that "reache[d] a significant amount of the voters" and by making a "public appearance" before the primary date. Accordingly, he must lose all of his delegates from Florida, should the DNC rule that Florida does not fall within the safe harbor.

To recapitulate, a strict interpretation of the DNC Rules that follows the reasoning of the DNC Memo circulated today would require the following results:

A. The stripping of 50% of the delegates of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan.

B. The full seating of the Florida delegation.

C. Should the DNC RBC reject the safe harbor provision for Florida, then Florida would have 50% of its delegations stripped, but Barack Obama would be entitled to no delegates from Florida due to his violation of Rule 20c.1.b.

The upshot of strictly applying the rules as described above would be:

A. In Iowa, Obama, Clinton and Edwards would lose one half of their delegates. My understanding is that this would result in a net loss for Obama of 6 in his pledged delegate margin over Clinton.

B. In New Hampshire, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with no net change in the delegate margin between Clinton and Obama.

C. In South Carolina, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with a net loss in Obama's delegate margin of 9.

D. In Michigan, Clinton would gain 37 delegates. In addition there would be 28 uncommitted delegates. A net gain of 37 delegates for Clinton.

E.In Florida, if the entire delegation is seated, Clinton gains 93 delegates Obama 55, and Edwards 13. A net gain of 38 delegates for Clinton.

If instead the safe harbor provision is deemed not to apply, then Clinton gains 47 delegates, Obama 0 (due to his violation of Rule 20) and Edwards 7. A net gain of 47 for Clinton over Obama.

By my math, a strict interpretation of the DNC rules would result in a net gain of 80 or 89 pledged delegates for Clinton. I am unsure of what the result would be regarding super delegates. For example, if the Florida and Michigan Super Delegates are stripped or halved, then the same result would apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I am unsure of what the result of such an action would be.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< New Puerto Rico Poll: Clinton By 13, 19 Among LVs | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD to the DNC: (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:51:17 PM EST
    "I got your roolz right here!"

    Great Post... (none / 0) (#174)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    Great Response but help.." "His name is Paul Revere," but what come next it's driving me crazy?

    But but but (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    follow the Rules and not the ROOLZ? Thank you for that quick and clear summary. Love to see those petards brought out.

    OMG! (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    This is a mind-blowing post. Thank you for laying out so clearly what the results of screaming "teh ROOLZ!" would actually be.

    More than ever, I hope HRC is reading TalkLeft and taking notes.

    and...this is going in my Favorites. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:54:31 PM EST
    This Means That We Can Start Shouting (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    "The ROOLZ" in all of our comments and link to this post.

    And yes, BTD is understand your position, but after months of  3,999 shouts of "The Roolz." I couldn't resist making this comment.


    So...this could bite obama in the behind big (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    time?  Imagine him not getting any delegates/votes from Florida because he "inadvertently" broke the roolz about advertising during the primary....I like it!

    How "inadvertent" is it when you ask a (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    DNC member from SC (who supports you?) if it's ok to run a national ad?

    No matter how many times this guy feigns surprised innocence, I ain't buyin' it. Especially when he uses $$$ as an excuse. Sheesh.


    He was hoping we would all be bamboozled (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    by his okie doke....His ticket on the FREE PASS EXPRESS has been revoked!!!

    Aas peopel should know (4.33 / 6) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:54:44 PM EST
    I complete disfavor this approach.

    I am just presenting what the logical conclusion of the reasoning of the DNC Memo today must lead to.


    Of course you do... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    that is understood, at least by me.

    You are showing, however, that the Obamans should be careful what they wish for.


    The kool aid drinkers don't know how. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:57:19 PM EST
    They instead  flail about like maniacs.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:03:28 PM EST
    You crack me up. :-)

    excellent, BTD (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    And you're absolutely right: if the DNC is going to adhere to its rules, it must adhere to its rules--not apply them selectively.

    This post needs to be spread around. I don't post elsewhere (just lurk a lot), but folks with access to Taylor Marsh should definitely give her a heads up about this.


    You aren't the one who opened (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    the can o' "Follow the Rules" worms:
    "I'm going to send a message to everybody in Florida that we're going to follow the rules," committee member Donna Brazile said.  

    One thing is for certain the (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM EST
    DNC won't be consistent in their ruling.  And Brazile is now speaking on CNN as an undeclared SD

    and I am an undeclared Clinton supporter (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM EST
    and Casanova was an undeclared (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:04:34 PM EST

    This resulted in a ... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    real LOL from me.



    Anytime! We all need (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:18:43 PM EST
    all the LOL's we can get these days. :-)

    Donna Brazile is undeclared? I think she is (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    the only one that thinks that...

    Excellent Post ! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    Now if only the party leaders care about the Rules!!

    I hope the automatic delegates at least understand the rules are being twisted NOT to make them fair BUT to hurt Senator Clinton, in the most brazen fashion.

    Everyone, who cares about democracy or Party Rules, must voice against this injustice.

    the key passage (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by eric on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    is this one:

    Iowa, permitted to go "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Jan. 14), moved its caucuses to Jan. 3 - a clear-cut violation. New Hampshire, granted the freedom to hold its primary "no earlier than 14 days" (Jan. 22) ahead of the pack, also broke Rule 11 by moving to January 8. And, of course, South Carolina, "no earlier than seven days" (Jan. 29), defied the DNC and moved to Jan. 26.

    If the rule cited really does say this, then there can be no question that rules were broken.  Why are only FL and MI ever mentioned?  And why are we just now hearing about this?  (Apologies if it was just me who found this information suprising.)

    this has been discussed at tlength here (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:01:37 PM EST
    But my own focus has never been rules based. I have been voters based. I have been what is best for the Dems in November based.

    To get to November (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    things have to get out of the current wrangling. I see a certain psychological advantage, in the situation, to adding "Rules" to the voter argument. The pre-existing rules are distanced from the candidates, which is face-saving to both sides, like a neutral third party. There is no way both sides will be completely happy, but at least they can settle the issue rationally. That would also precipitate whatever reaction is going to happen in MI or FL--some people might not want to face that now, but it's inevitable. Poor as the delegate system may be, it's what's there right now and sticking to the Rules of the DNC is most true to the system as agreed on before the primaries started. Too bad if someone was trying to game it and it backfired.

    I have no idea what you think (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:52:23 PM EST
    you are arguing for here. I know I have no idea what you are arguing for.

    I'm saying (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:39:35 PM EST
    people who scream "follow the rules" ought to do so, even if it works against them. There have been many other attempts to work this out. And while in general I think the real measure of candidate worth and success and so on is the votes, this FL-MI situation is a stalemate and the two parties in the argument can benefit by a third party (the rules, in this case). It saves face because then whichever side is disappointed can blame the third party (rules). So I say, go for the rules to resolve this.

    I think befuddled was trying to say (none / 0) (#210)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST
    that it would be best if we followed the rules and take whatever fallout that causes. The reason is that neither campaign can be truly independent in this matter. Following a strict interpretation of the rules, according to befuddled, provides clear cover to whichever campaign then emerges victorious.

    To Big Tent Democrat, I know you have been an advocate for popular vote due to your perception that this provides the greatest fairness to everyone. and to a certain point I believe that too, but that isn't the process that was agreed upon. Delegates is the name of the game.

    I am willing to let the chips fall where they may if the rules are followed to the letter. I would be much more willing to back Clinton if she emerged with the nomination as a result of that. Claiming some arbitrary popular vote advantage that doesn't take into account several cuacus states as a means to overrule the majority of pledged delegates just doesn't sit well with me or a lot of other rationable people.

    I'm not big on sports analogy because inevitably someone cries "this is not a game, it's the party nomination for POTUS", but I'm going to use a sports analogy anyway ;-)

    Imagine a Super Bowl. Any one...doesn't matter. Team A scores 3, 6, 7, 14 in each quarter for a total of 30 points. Team B scores 7, 14, 7, 3 for a total of 31 points. Team B wins, right? Not so fast says Team A. We earned more first downs, more total yards of offense, controlled the ball for more minutes, scored more points in the fourth quarter and more of our fans were in the stadium, so we rightfully won the game.

    Silly right? But this is how many people view the Clinton campaign's arguement. The truth is, it has always been about the delegates and the rules by which those delegates are counted. Again, let the chips fall where they may by following the rules, but don't game the system and expect me to cheer.


    IA, SC, and NH... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:04:36 PM EST
    all got waivers from the DNC that allowed them to move up, after FL and MI broke the rules.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    New Hampshire and South Carolina announced their intention to move up at a joint press conference on August 9, 2007.

    I challenge you to show me any one of the following:

    1. Evidence that NH and SC got "waivers from the DNC" prior to August 9, 2007.

    2. Evidence that MI broke the rules prior to August 9, 2007.

    3. The Easter Bunny.

    I respectfully submit that you are more likely to find evidence of #3 than the other two items.

    Challenge accepted (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    Why did the waivers have to be granted before August?  Announcing an intention to move up (in response to other states' efforts to jump ahead) is not the same as doing it.

    New Hampshire got its waiver before the primary was held.

    I can't find a link to show that Iowa got the waiver, but they did say they wouldn't move up without one.

    @BTD: I've run out of time to go through the whole memo, but I'm guessing the DNC lawyers determined the committee didn't have the authority to grant waivers to FL and MI.  Because, it's in the rules that IA, NH (and I think NV and SC) have to go first.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    The DNC Memo today states that the DNC did not have the power to issue waivers - this is why they can not do more than seat 50% of the FL and MI delegates.

    you problem is with the DNC now.


    Math (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Punchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    is fun!

    oh boy (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:02:37 PM EST
    The DNC -- if they decide to selectively follow those Rules that help Obama instead of just doing what would be wise and fair -- is setting a dangerous and frustratingly complicated precedent for future Primaries.

    It's so mind-bogglingly clear what the Rules are that to not follow them ... well, boggles my mind.  And that's not a good thing.

    Hillary definitely has a case here and should fight for the Voters with every fiber of her being and cracker-jack legal argument her brilliant brain can muster.


    This completely reminds me of (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    the 2000 Supreme Court Ruling in Bush v. Gore, which basically said that even though precedent shows that the recounts should continue, we decide against it and so Bush wins. Anyone else who comes to us with the exact same problem at any future time will receive the opposite treatment.

    No snark; that's how it sounds here. "If it were anybody other than our snooky-booboo Obama wubbkins pulling these schenanigans, they'd be toast! But we WUVS our booboos soo MUCH (don't we, yes we doo!).


    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#100)
    by LoisInCo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    We all know the rules mean nothing (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    the fix is in (for Obama) and has been for a long time. The DNC will twist themselves into knots to make sure Obama wins the nom. Why they are so damn determined to lose the general I am still trying to figure out. Is their Clinton hatred so strong that they would subject our nation to 4 more years of repub rule? Looks that way.

    Except that the convention trumps the DNC (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by cymro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    That's why they want to push Clinton out before the convention, because a floor challenge to their decisions would involve discussing all BTD's points, in detail. So it would come down to blanket enforcement of rules for all states, or blanket exceptions for all states.

    The fact is that the DNC has screwed up so badly that there is now no way for them to extricate themselves without looking stupid and incompetent. Which seems only fair, on reflection.


    You just convinced me that Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    should go to the convention then.

    Agreed -- for more than one reason (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by cymro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:31:19 PM EST
    Obama is continuing to struggle in the GE polls vs. McCain, while Clinton is increasing her lead. After three more months of this, how will a majority of superdelegates be able to nominate Obama in spite of all the polls?

    Dang, roolz look like fun (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    when you put it that way BTD. Why do we sense a grin on your face?

    Nicely done.

    The untold story (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    is that FL and MI really do have good arguments for why they should not be penalized.

    People assume there's some kind of rationality to the draconian penalty imposed on FL and MI.  There really isn't.

    I am not sure about Michigan (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:07:25 PM EST
    But I think Florida has an airtight case.

    Isn't there a fairly secure argument (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    that the nuclear option (no delegates) is not acceptable?

    Michigan (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    has an argument that is more equitable than rule-based, but the important thing to understand is that they were perfectly willing to abide by the agreed-upon schedule until New Hampshire was permitted to jump the queue with no penalty.  After fighting so hard to end the IA/NH hegemony, they just found that intolerable.

    And if this issue were ever to end up in a floor fight at the convention, which I doubt of course, I have a funny feeling a lot of states who also resent NH's absurdly privileged position would sympathize with Michigan's position.

    Here is the best summary of Michigan's case.


    Ah fairness (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    I thought you meant rule based.

    Florida clearly has the better rule based argument.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:20:07 PM EST
    Michigan still has the 50/100% argument though.

    As those who follow this blog for its stated purpose surely know, "selective enforcement" is generally not that strong a legal argument despite its visceral appeal.


    Precisely (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    The RBC will have to explain why Michigan gets punished while NH, Iowa and SC do  not.

    I heard this morning that FL (none / 0) (#46)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:09:42 PM EST
    has not even put a proposal before the rules Committee yet?  Is that true, or are they just saying seat them as is, nothing else will do?

    We want to believe (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    that the fix is not in. I'm sure that it is.

    What I'm hoping for is that HRC can fix the fix. :-)


    I think the best argument for FL (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:09:02 PM EST
    was the lawsuit the dems filed immediately after the date was moved forward by the repub controlled legislature.

    They have been fighting this all along.  I'm not sure what machinations were involved in kicking them in the teeth, but I'm fairly certain it was for some long-held political grudge between a handful of people who either hate FL or were trying to rig the election one way or another.

    There's always a reason for everything--even if it's a dumb reason.


    In addition (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    the Democrats in the legislature proposed an amendment to get rid of the early primary, but the Republicans voted it down.

    But Donna Brazile said! (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    From what I remember being said (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    is that when Obama took that advertising bloc and it was going to be shown in the package deal in FL, he got permission of the DNC to run the ad. Given that, he did not "inadvertently" run the ad. He knew he was in violation. If the DNC gave him permission, they both broke the rules.

    From what I recall (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    For an odd reason, he got permission from the  head of the South Carolina Democratic Party (someone please correct me if I am remembering incorrectly).

    Which begs the question - why would the SC Dems have any say over what the DNC ruled?


    Not so (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    The only person he got "permission" from was Carol Fowler, the SC party chair who is now an Obama superdelegate.  Even assuming she had the moral authority to grant dispensations from the four-state pledge, she surely had no right to excuse violations of the written DNC rules.

    Incidentally, while I generally give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I have never believed the story that airing ads in Florida was some sort of "unintended consequence" of Obama's national ad buy.  I think the Florida airtime was a significant part of their decision to place a national ad at that particular time.


    Thanks to both of you for (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    bringing this up because I thought it was bogus of the OBama campaign to claim, at the time, that SC gave them permission.  AND SURPRISE, no one in the press called them on this stupid stupid excuse they gave that SC gave Obama permission to break the DNC ROOLZ!!!????

    Based on the rules laid out above, (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    then Obama did break the rules. It specifically talked about that sort of advertising. So, therefore, why shouldn't he be penalized for that, and the DNC for not enforcing that ban.

    the DNc did not give him permission (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    Carol Fowler, an Obama supporter, and Chairman of the SC Dem Party, is NOT the DNC.

    Unbelievably clear post, thanks BTD (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by barryluda on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:15:27 PM EST
    I think someone needs to talk some sense into Obama and he should come out NOW saying: it's clear the DNC is on a track to irrationally apply rules to disenfranchise voters.  Consequently, I support seating both FL and MI as voted (with MI undecided going to the convention as undecided).

    Now that would be leadership.

    I think that would give him the best chance both now and in the GE since the Super Delegates are only seeing Clinton provide leadership on this issue.

    To dream the impossible dream (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    Obama is not going to do that because Obama is not a leader. Further, he has never won an election "fair and square" in his life, so he will not start now.

    Unfortunately, you're probably right (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by barryluda on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    It is amazing that Obama and his advisors are still so afraid of losing to Clinton that he's willing to put the GE this much at risk.

    The media (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by glennmcgahee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:18:40 PM EST
    is not gonna tell anybody about them rules. Its only the rules that penalize Clinton that matters to them. Yes, we've been up on these rules a long time now. I remember when the DNC stated that the other states that voted early would be penalized, but at a later date. Would that date be May 31? I doubt it. But wouldn't South Carolina be shocked to get a taste of what we Floridians have been feeling all this time. The point is that the narrative about the race would have been different if our votes and delegates were being recognized throughout the primary season. Again, how can they possibly ignore almost 2 million voters down here but give delegates to Caucus states that can't even give us a vote count (they can't even tell us how many people participated). Watch out because the General Election is 1 person/1 vote, and then there's the Electoral College. Me thinks the Obama kids may need a civics lesson.

    FL and MI were punished (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    For the entire primary season their votes weren't considered legitimate, and thus any influence they may have had on the nominating contest was severally (if not entirely) blunted.

    Isn't that a punishment?

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    This is a point very, very few people seem to grasp, so kudos to you sir.

    A contested primary generally means all sort of media attention, candidate appearances, revenue for your state, etc.  MI and FL got none of that.

    And even if the delegates are reinstated 100%, MI and FL will not be getting any of those things back.

    The idea that we need to penalize MI and FL, or else states will be lining up to repeat the same experience in 2012, is just absurd.  Yet you see it on the blogs all the time.


    And the bad actor in this (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    NH, gets away scot free.

    Best argument ever (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    This commenter at MyDD actually argues that the only way we can ever "break the deadlock IA/NH have over the process" is... if we punish FL/MI this year but don't punish IA/NH!  Seriously, it is an argument you never would have thought possible to make.  We can only deter NH by refusing to punish NH.

    Um what? (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    I'm telling you (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    the argument is majestic in its absurdity.  I cannot recall a more preposterous argument since this one:

    In this amazing brief, Haynes argued that bombing a nesting site for migratory birds would benefit birdwatchers, since "bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." Moreover, he added, the birds would benefit as well, since using their nests as a bombing range would minimize "human intrusion". The judge's comment on this novel line of argument: "there is absolutely no support in the law for the view that environmentalists should get enjoyment out of the destruction of natural resources because that destruction makes the remaining resources more scarce and therefore more valuable. The Court hopes that the federal government will refrain from making or adopting such frivolous arguments in the future.

    Steve M ... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    is on a roll today.

    Well done Sir! (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by DJ on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    More please.  This is fun.

    it's not about the dnc rules (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Turkana on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    it's about the clinton rules and the obama rules.

    The real magic number (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by outsider on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
    I am starting to think that the real magic number is not 2025 or 2210 or whatever, but 100.  In the sense that, if HRC manages to get Obama's  delegate lead under 100 then anything could happen.  A delegate lead of over 100 is very important psychologically, IMO.  I really think that the Obama campaign (and supporters more generally) are very worried about what would become of the nomination if his lead slipped below this number.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    Yep, that's why they've been pushing her out (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by goldberry on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    It's possible that if the delegate lead is small enough and it looks like Hillary would be more successful in the GE, the superdelegates would have sufficient cover to switch.  That's why they've been trying to suppress the voters in the remaining states.  That's why he became the presumptuous nominee.  The delegate difference is already almost insignificant.  To get it under 100 would be very risky for Obama.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:29:49 PM EST
    Thanks for that assessment, BTD. Sadly, I am pretty sure that despite the RULES and the ROOLZ, somehow Some Nominees Are More Equal Than Others and somehow Obama will wind up coming out with everything he wants/needs whereas Clinton will have the book thrown at her.

    However, should things actually work out in some sane rational matter, I think we all need to remind all the people who have been braying about Teh ROOLZ for the past however many months that what comes around goes around. And yes, if you live by the rules, you dies by 'em too.

    Karma, she is a b!tch.

    An idea (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    Credit to Marc Rubin, guest posting at Taylor Marsh

    "If the DNC wants to punish anyone let them punish the party leaders and ban them from the convention not delegates representing the 2.7 million who voted."

    Did anybody put this up in Orange yet? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    I'm willing to forgo my embargo to do so.

    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by outsider on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    Forgive me if I'm wrong.  But 20c.1.b, as you quote it, states:

    A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.

    You suggest that strict enforcement of this rule would lead to Obama receiving zero delegates from FL (out of the 50% up for grabs, if the committee are hellbent on imposing that penalty).

    But does it not also mean that since (a) Iowa, NH and SC were in violation of the timing provisions as well, and (b) all the candidates campaigned in those states, that nobody gets any delegates from Iowa, NH or SC?

    Just curious...

    Great point (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:56:33 PM EST
    I believe you are right.

    I think Obama suffers even more from that.

    the distinction I would make is that the DNc declared FL off limits and thus his violation was knowing if indvertent.


    What do you mean it was inadvertent? (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:59:29 PM EST
    I would say that since the Obama campaign asked an Obama-supporting SD from SC to approve their running of TV ads in FL, they were deliberately violating the rules.

    I had always thought that conclusion was (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:19:01 PM EST
    obvious. I can't tell you how many people have told me I was wrong, lol!~

    Right.. it's who they asked for the waiver (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    that gives the game away.

    Worth a post update? (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by gmo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    With the updated numbers, excluding all those delegates as well?

    Ah, OK, interesting... (none / 0) (#182)
    by outsider on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:17:01 PM EST
    Do you not consider these, as it were, strict liability offences?  Can we expect the committee to be forgiving of "unknowing" violations?

    I suppose that, if I wanted to really hammer home the interpretation I gave I would say that, given that the rules have been written down and easily consultable by all parties since day one, there is a sense in which all of the violations I mentioned were "knowing if inadvertent".  The fact that the DNC itself got the rules wrong, and gave out false advice, might not matter in that respect...


    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:54:56 PM EST
    This is not my brief in reply to the DNC Memo.

    this is assuming arguendo it is the rule applied.

    Will you make a brief? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Faust on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:56:33 PM EST
    Not asn official one (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    Just publish it here.

    This is invaluable--serves as a guide for watching (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    the Rules Committee on Saturday.

    BTD is right: if they aren't going to apply the rules SELECTIVELY, then this is what would happen.

    If they ARE going to apply the rules SELECTIVELY to favor Obama, then an argument can be made that they're guilty of rigging the nomination--or at least putting their thumbs on the scale in a close race.

    BTD's post really needs to be broadcast around the net. LOTS of people need to read it and consider what a genuine adherence to the rules would result in.

    Then we should spread it around... (none / 0) (#167)
    by gmo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:04:59 PM EST
    ...on our LJ, Facebook, MySpace, Blogs, email to friends, etc.  Make it viral!

    The Actual DNC Caucus/Primary Schedule in Question (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by melro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    This is directly from a letter from Senator Levin (D-MI) and Debbie Dingell of MI's DNC to Howard Dean:

    On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:

    • at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
    • at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
    • at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
    • at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

    The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to select their delegates after the opening of the "window" on February 5,

    Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four "pre-window" states, announced we would abide by the
    DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.

    On August 9, New Hampshire's Secretary of State, with the support of the state's Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the
    New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules.

    This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.

    One of New Hampshire's purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC's rule had scheduled for January 19.

    New Hampshire's transparent action reflected
    its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.

    Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently...

    Read the rest at: http://www.michigandems.com/Levin-Dingell%20Letter.pdf.

    Yep (none / 0) (#200)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    Look, I think Hillary is the better (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by sarissa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    candidate, but aren't we sorta grasping at straws here at this point?

    Hmmmm Iowa and So. Carolina....don't think (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    the obamaholics would like that...

    But they can't dispute the all-powerful DNC Roolz! (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:03:03 PM EST
    They said so themselves ad nauseum, daily, for months now.

    Check the tone of the post (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    Um (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    Are you even paying attention?

    If you can not even treat me with the most minimum respect of reading my post, why should I not just ignore you and delete your comment?


    How would you like your baby (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    Mr Swift?

    Well done! n/t (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    Howard Dean carries the Koolaid (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    responding to lawsuit thrown out against the DNC....

    "This is nuts. This is not right. How can they remove Florida after all the things that Florida has suffered through- hanging chads, through Bush v Gore, and they're sticking it to us again," DiMaio said before the hearing.

    Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean says the situations are not comparable.

    "You cannot violate the rules of the process and then expect to get forgiven for it," he said.



    Okay. I'll never forgive Dean. (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:21:28 PM EST
    Did someone (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    drop him on his head in the past 2 years.

    Wrong answer, Howard! AUGH!


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:36:18 PM EST
    Unless you are New Hampshire!

    Fair enough, a closer reading reveals you (1.00 / 7) (#44)
    by sarissa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    were being somewhat flippant about the matter.

    Still, I don't think delegitimizing Obama's victory at this juncture is worth the time or the effort.


    So why is he fighting (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    seating all of the delegates from FL and MI?

    The roolz!!!!


    um, he's the one delegitimizing it (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    BTD and Jeralyn are clearly not. If the DNC with Obama's help or silence, goes down this road, his victory will always be up for questioning. Why do that. Why are they so scared.

    Flippant? (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:14:10 PM EST
    Do you know what the word means? This was the opposite of flippant. I went through a detailed argument applying the rules as the DNC says they must be strictly applied.

    Look, trolls have never fared well with me. I have been quite effective in leaving them as sliced up little pieces.

    You need to try this act at another web site.


    Shame this is TL (none / 0) (#199)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    cause I'd really like to say, "Damn, bring it BTD!"

    He has no victory (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Nadai on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:14:10 PM EST
    and if MI and FL are not fairly dealt with, no one will have a legitimate victory, except, perhaps, John McCain in November.  Really, this isn't that hard.

    Interpretting the rules (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by eric on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    isn't grasping.  It's what the May 31 meeting is all about.  The point that BTD is making here is, I think, that if you want to use the rules to "punish" FL and MI, then you have to use ALL of the rules.  It appears, from this analysis, the there were some other rule breakers, as well.

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    The trolls always think they are so clever when they pretend to be Hillary fans.

    Check out some previous comments by this prize-winning poster.


    Oh I was not fooled (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    I just wanted the substance of my post addressed.

    TL needs it's own Flying Fickle Finger of Fate (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    award for these types of posters. Esp. in memory of Dick Martin who died the other day. It could be fun.

    or an ignore button for when BTD and (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    Jeralyn are not around... :)

    A troll doesn't have to be clever (1.00 / 2) (#64)
    by sarissa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:15:59 PM EST
    to be effective :)

    true, but only the really clever ones (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    will get the award. So keep working at it. :-)

    Lol, I should have known (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sarissa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    to tread softer with a first post.

    Oh well, this meta crap is tiresome.  Another day, another handle/ip.


    So many things (none / 0) (#129)
    by Nadai on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    are tiresome these days.

    Well, so far I haven't seen any effectiveness (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:18:03 PM EST
    or any cleverness.  

    As we can see (none / 0) (#92)
    by cymro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    You got the not clever part down, the effective part? Eh.

    Sounds like a great argument (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    Either seat the delegates as-is or penalize a bunch more states for reacting to what Florida and Michigan did?  

    I certainly hope the Clinton campaign isn't going to  argue, in any way shape or form, that NC, SC, IA, and NV should have their delegates cut in half?  Ignoring the implications of a candidate asking to reduce the voice of ANY Americans, how exactly does it further her argument that the will of the people must be heard?

    This isn't an unreasonable argument but it is much too late.  This argument should have been made back in September of 2007, not May of 2008.  Arguing that you need to seat FL and MI as-is or make an even bigger mess isn't going to win a lot of supporters at the DNC.

    Did you read the post? (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    Either seat the delegates as-is or penalize a bunch more states for reacting to what Florida and Michigan did?

    What??  You got that backwards - FL and MI reacted to what the other states did.


    This whole mess (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:22:44 PM EST
    is essentially New Hampshire's fault. Fix them, and we won't have a real problem anymore.

    Of course he didn't read the post (4.00 / 4) (#88)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    does he ever? He is seriously already condemning Clinton for arguing for Iowa, SC, NH to loose 1/2 their delegates despite the fact that she hasn't made that argument and despite the fact that Obama has been arguing since the beginning of this primary that FL & MI should loose ALL of theirs because of the ROOLZ.

    No (1.00 / 2) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    The DNC made a determination that they wanted a more representative group of states in the early primary season.  They selected those 4 states as representative of certain demographic groups.

    MI and FL wanted to get in on this to gain prominence.  

    So NV, NH, IA, and SC operated with the blessing of the DNC, which is why they were explicitly mentioned in the rules.  

    FL and MI operated against the wishes of the DNC which is why they got punished.

    This isn't some grand conspiracy by the DNC.

    And, FTR, I have no problem with seating the delegates as-is.  


    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:36:37 PM EST
    You really have no idea what you are talking about.

    The DNC placed New Hampshire 3rd. NH did not like it  and VIOLATED the DNC sanctioned calendar.

    They jumped Nevada.

    When you get a clue about the facts of this situation then you should start posting again. It is clear that you know nothing about what you are talking about.


    Always with the insults (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    Perhaps I will try from a difference angle.

    Why do you think that the DNC punished MI and FL but no other state?


    Always with the nonsequitors (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM EST
    I think if you do not know what you are talking about, as you do not on this subject, there is no need for you to let us all know you do not.

    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    Funny how I'm the only one you accuse of not knowing what's going on.  Of course the fact that you are arguing a tangential point and avoid answering any questions I ask, certainly makes things easier for you.

    Funny how you are the one person (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    who does NOt know what is going on.

    Admit it, you had no idea about the NH issue. Steve M. completely humiliated you.

    And now you are too embarrassed to admit you really know nothing about this issue because you mouthed off so much.


    Ooooh burn (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    Oh my gosh.  My online personality is so shattered about this.

    I have no problem admitting that I did not realize that NH started the ruckus.  I fail to see how it matters one bit now.  But congrats on being a jerk about it.


    Then (none / 0) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    leave the site. you have been embarrassing yourself in this thread and if you do not like being called on your ignorance then you should not post at this site.

    Amusingly (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    this requires knoqwing something (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    about what you are talking about - like Harold Meyerson, Flyerhawk spouts from ignorance:

    Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.

    "Someone has to take on New Hampshire's transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position. Hopefully the DNC will, and you will, promptly urge our candidates to stop campaigning in New Hampshire because of the New Hampshire's expressed intent to violate the DNC rules," the two write.

    Wonderful Comment Steve M, Thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by barryluda on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:32:35 PM EST
    You really do not know the facts do you? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:28:18 PM EST
    New Hampshire triggered this fiasco.

    Typical of you lately, spouting opinions from a position of total ignorance.

    BTW, Florida affected NO ONE at all.


    BTD, New Hampshire's position of (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    prominence has been unchanged since the 1800's, didn't you know?

    Snarkage ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    par excellance.

    And of course (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    you choose to argue about a point I specifically conceded.  Whether NH or FL or MI or Romania triggered this fiasco is almost entirely irrelevant.

    It's already done.  So trying to retroactively set the punishments isn't fixing the problem.  


    Now it is irrelevant? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    before you were whining about state being punished because of what MI and FL did.

    Here is your problem, you simply do not know what you are talking about on this subject.

    I do.

    Stop making a fool of yourself.


    I really don't get (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    why you think saying I'm ignorant over and over again somehow bolsters your argument.  

    But you have always believed that ad hominem is an effective debate style.

    It is very simple.  The DNC approved of the actions of NH, IA, and SC.  They did not approve of MI and FL.  that much seems clear.  So either you put on your tin foil act and scream "CONSPIRACY!" or you look for the reasons WHY they did what they did.  

    Instead you want to make some argument about how we should be punishing more states as a way to convince the DNC  that they should not punish MI and FL whatsoever.  Good luck with that argument.


    Well... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    If they are selectively enforcing their own rules, is that not a conspiracy?  It is either a conspiracy against HRC or it is a conspiracy to keep two of the most irrelevant states (electorally and culturally) in a prime spot against all notions of logic and common sense.

    Our point is that you can't scream about rules being inviolate, so inviolate that we must not count 2.7 million votes and disenfranchise two states, but then turn around and say the DNC can just waive the rules whenever they want.  Maybe they can, but they morally shouldn't, and for PR purposes it is pure poison what they are doing.

    You want to help your candidate, then go to cheeto-ville and talk about how HRC eats live puppies and ritually sacrifices little AA children so that her racist supporters, like me, can get off.  (Just in case you don't realize it, this last paragraph is snark.)



    Excuse me the DNC Memo (none / 0) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    today said that in fact the RBC can not levy anything less than a 50% strip of states that violate Rule 11. It is indisputable that Iowa, NH and SC violated Rule 11.

    Ergo, the RBC must strip them of half of their delegates.


    My argument is in my post (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:10:18 PM EST
    Stating that you are ignorant of the facts is to try and get you to actually go and LEARN about the facts.

    It is curiosu to me that you do not actually deal with the facts presented to you, particularly regarding NH's egregious behavior.


    I deal with political reality (none / 0) (#208)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:48:08 PM EST
    Political reality tells me that the DNC is not going  to entertain arguments that further muddy the waters.  They aren't going to entertain arguments that make them appear even more incompetent than they already have.  It's the same political reality that tells me that the superdelegates are not going to thwart the pledge delegate leader without really really compelling reasons.

    Make the argument as an absurdity (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by davnee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    "I certainly hope the Clinton campaign isn't going to  argue, in any way shape or form, that NC, SC, IA, and NV should have their delegates cut in half? "

    She should make that argument and then follow it with the immediate caveat that she'd never ask for the rule to actually be enforced because enforcement of the rule would be absurd as a point of honoring voters.  Just like punishing FL and MI has been equally absurd.  Except that it is even more absurd because they were selectively punished, while other states were given a free pass on the rules.  The disenfranchisement of MI and FL is thus both morally wrong and technically inappropriate and unfair.  If we can look the other way on the rules to honor the voters in these other states, why can't we extend the same democratic courtesy to Florida and Michigan?  An explanation from the DNC on why other states who broke the rules escaped punishment must be forwarded by the DNC.  They owe that much to the voters of FL and MI.  

    If I were Clinton I'd make that argument.


    And then I'd love to see Dean and Brazile (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by davnee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    explain to everyone that NV got to break the rules because they have lots of brown people and that SC got to break the rules because they have lots of black people.  That's the way to win voters in MI and FL, not to mention disgruntled working class whites, women and seniors nationwide, back for the GE!

    Especially when (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    there are quite a number of black and brown people in FL who had their votes not counted in 2000 and 2004 as well. But they don't count because there arent as many of them as in SC apparently.

    Maybe Donna Brazile was traumatized by something at Walt Disney World and that's why she hates the state?


    I am hysterically laughing (none / 0) (#195)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    good one!

    It is hard not to laugh at the (none / 0) (#163)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:02:04 PM EST
    irony of this, an Affirmative action argument for why some voters will be punished and others will not...because it is the voters being punished.

    Not a bad argument (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    The big difference, of course, is that those elections have already occurred.  So while it may be unfair it would be unfair to Obama voters in those states to say that those primaries actually do count, particularly Michigan.

    This argument is silly imo (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by davnee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    Sure in a perfect world the MI and FL elections would have been vigorously contested, but we don't get to have a perfect world.  We only get to choose from an assortment of imperfect solutions to the mess the DNC made.  

    So, as I understand you, your preferred imperfect solution is to stiff-arm MI in order to maximize the interests of the hypothetical MI Obama voter, who got screwed out of voting by his or her own preferred candidate's strategic decision to pander to Iowa by removing his name from the ballot.  Vindicating this hypothetical MI Obama voter is more important than vindicating the actual MI Clinton voter who took the time to get out and vote for his or her preferred candidate who chose to forego pandering to Iowa and remain on the MI ballot.  Keep in mind that the hypothetical MI Obama voter can still be modestly vindicated by seating uncommitted delegates who can make Obama their pick if MI is let off the hook.

    As for Florida, the imperfect solution you prefer is to screw all the actual voters there, Clinton or Obama, just to make doubly sure to vindicate the hypothetical MI Obama voter, and of course the hypothetical extra FL Obama voters who would have inevitably swooned at the sight of him had he set foot in the state to campaign.

    These are the imperfect solutions that you think provide the best justice?


    Actually no (none / 0) (#191)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:24:18 PM EST
    I'm fine with seating both MI and FL.  I think they will ultimately cut both state's delegates in half.   Obama has already received(31) over half of the 55 uncommitted delegates in MI and he will likely get the the vast majority of the remaining 19 uncommitted delegates.

    Obama will accept the ruling.  But he will have managed to avoid admitting that those elections were legitimate.  


    And if Obama does not admit it (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by Evie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:39:16 PM EST
    it must not be true?

    Since when does the legitimacy of elections depend on Obama's participation or non-participation?


    Throw him a parade! (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by davnee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    He'll have cast doubt on the legitimacy of the votes of over 2 million Americans to get himself a step closer to the nomination.  Of course, if you believe the nomination is already a lock, then he is really just crapping on these voters out of spite (and probably as an a$$-ki$$ing favor to protect his water-carriers at the DNC) .

    Look, Obama is on the wrong side here.  Period.  End of story.  He is actively choosing to promote the disenfranchisement of American voters.  If the situation was reversed, I'm sure Clinton would also be a jerk about this.  They are after all both nothing more than ambitious and self-interest pols.  But the situations aren't reversed.  It is what it is.  In this case, Clinton's self-interest happens to dovetail with the morally right course of action. Not to mention the electorally savvy course of action if one cares about the GE and the local races of two large states.  Deal with it.


    You are writing gibbberish (4.20 / 5) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    What? (2.00 / 1) (#116)
    by eric on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:36:39 PM EST
    All of the elections have happened.  What are you talking about?

    He would still (none / 0) (#15)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    have an +80 pledged delegate lead under this  best case scenario. Add his +37 Superdelegate lead and you can begin to see why the "media" has declared this over.

    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    So what do you suggest we do? My suggestion is just seat the delegations as is.

    Especially since (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    Obama supposedly has several dozen SDs who will declare for him after the last primary.  Why not seat the delegations according to the vote then?

    the obvious smart thing to do (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    I just can't fathom why they don't jump on this and seat them all and make the win legitimate. Still scratching my head on that one.

    And like my post below, why give such an opening for resentment, nuclear options, etc. What is wrong with those people. What are Dean and Brazile smoking too.


    The obvious reason is he has NOT sealed the deal (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    with the super delegates.. The media, and Obama wants to declare him self the winner, just so that they can pressure Hillary to quit.

    Not gonna happen until their is actually a winner. Not the media winner.


    yea, I've been thinking (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:16:25 PM EST
    about why they're so scared, what's going on that they don't just close the deal. And perhaps as you say, they can't. Perhaps after talking to lots of SD's, they're actually quite nervous. Just possibly, a lot of SD's are saying we'll wait until there is a winner. And if there isn't, we'll go into august that way. Which would be telling. Or perhaps there is more resistance than they would like to admit.

    Personally I don't think the SD's have the backbone to do the right thing here and go with the one that can win in November. But like I've said before, we'll remember which SD's went for Obama if McCain wins in November. Just saying...


    Why doesn't Obama favor seating them? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    Yes yes I know you've asked this too.

    But Obama could wrap the nomination up so easily. Yet he (or his campaign) is now urging his supporters to:

    Call or write a polite, succinct message to key DNC members encouraging them to do the right thing regarding the Michigan and Florida Delegate Debacle at the May 31 DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, which may include postponing the meeting for a few weeks to let the process play out.

    I don't get it.


    I think it's obvious. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    If he falls under 100 pledged delegates, it's possible SDs will support Hillary, despite that BTD thinks it isn't so.  So they want to claim the nomination before anything changes.  Then, my guess, seat the delegations in a 50/50 manor.

    manner. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:10:45 PM EST
    You had it right the first time (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by hlr on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    seat the delegations in a 50/50 manor.

    I think team BO would like the FL/MI delegations far away somewhere in rural America -- just not in Denver.


    Remember, they can't "claim" (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:16:17 PM EST
    anything, they can only presumpt until August, however, that would, of course, not be the perception.

    Postpone??? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    Well, sh!t, folks, this gives us our answer: it's not looking good for Obama committee-wise.  They want Clinton to bake under the media lights some more and see if they can force her out after PR.

    He must think he has a chance at the popular vote.


    Postpone the meeting? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:32:44 PM EST
    Interesting. He's also telling his supporters not to protest (or that's what they are saying at the Orange Blog), which I think is a bad move for Nov.

    Run out the clock (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    It's what he did with the re-vote issue for FL/MI.  He's doing it again to torpedo Clinton's poll argument.  Pollsters will stop polling for Clinton eventually, especially as the media will dry hump his leg and trumpet him as the presumptive nom. and if there are no polls showing she is still favored, there goes her argument.

    Rassmussen resumed Clinton polling (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    I swear they announced a few weeks ago they would stop polling for HRC's numbers as Obama was so obviously the presumptive nominee.

    Yet today on the top of Google News was a Rass report she was ahead of McCain where Oby was a hair behind.


    Your link is broken (none / 0) (#134)
    by cymro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    Here's the link (none / 0) (#164)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    andrew sullivan?! oy. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    Jeez. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by gmo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    You know you have problems when ANDREW SULLIVAN has to come to your rescue.

    I don't want to see Nov. primaries (none / 0) (#41)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    Half Florida as certified, half Michigan as certified (let 'em fight for undecideds).

    Here's a thought....the media doesn't get to (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    declare it is over!

    legal options for Clinton? (none / 0) (#20)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    Given this assessment, which looks reasonable to these non legal eyes, what are Clinton's options if the rules committee does the stupid thing we think it will do? Not so much legal as in the federal laws, but legal as in the party laws. Then again, perhaps federal laws too. Just wondering what her options are.

    Of course political issues are there as well, and Clinton is I'm sure well aware of any longer term adverse effect of pushing things too far. Then again, I'm not sure if she has that much to loose since her senate seat is pretty safe.

    Here's an idea for her (or at least a threatening position she can float), since the Dean/Brazile wing of the part is basically reforming the party into the NDP and that new party excludes blue collar workers, latinos, women, and others, the Clinton wing of the party can just go and form it's own new party. I don't know how many people she could bring over, but it would be interesting. And with that new party, she could of course run as president. That is, pull a Leiberman. I don't think she'd ever do it, but it would be interesting to get a feel for how many people would join her.

    None (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    No legal options at all.

    Well poop. Can I say that? (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:04:55 PM EST
    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by AlladinsLamp on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    she could take it to the convention floor.

    But options in the DNC rules (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    for appeal exist, as just explained on the toob by a DNC co-chair Susan somebody.  This is the end of it with the rules and bylaws committee, but its ruling is advisory and can be appealed to the convention credentials committee -- which can meet anytime on it between now and the convention, or wait until just before the convention.

    And, of course, even that committee, like all committees, is only advisory, it seems -- all committee recommendations are only that and have to be accepted by the delegates on the convention floor.


    When someone first floated this (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:03:20 PM EST
    idea awhile back I thought it was insane.  After listening to the fake uproar over the RFK comments, I don't think this idea is so insane any more.

    I can't say (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    I favor HRC pulling a Lieberman. I thought that was a hideous thing to do and totally unfair.

    But perhaps if Obama is selected and loses to McCain, she and Bill will leave the Party and form their own.


    I wish SOMEONE would form a party (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:09:49 PM EST
    that really does address the concerns of the working class rather than merely giving them patronizing lip service. We need a populist party. If the DNC is cleaning house and disinviting working class people from the party, now would be a good time to start a third party.

    I doubt the Clintons would do it because they seem to be pretty committed to the Democratic party, though why after this I don't know. But it's a wonderful thing to dream about. They have the money, the connections, the following and the charisma to get a third, more populist party off the ground. That would be a helluva legacy. :)


    BTD, I love this diary (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    I think it should be turned into a spoken word recording.

    Perhaps read by one of those fancy British actors with a Sir before his name.

    I've actually read it three times.  Very good work.

    Part Jonathan Swift, part Joseph Heller.

    First performance in front of the RBC (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    on Sat, broadcast live on C-Span. That could be a good chuckle  ;)

    Heh. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    think democracy (none / 0) (#124)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:40:05 PM EST
    In other words, oh sweet lovely roolz committee members, either move to what we used to call democracy and count all the votes or look like total idiotic hypocrites. Count the votes, or forever earn the Republican moniker "the Democrat Party" because you won't deserve to use the term "Democratic" as a name that represents who you are and what you do.

    Rule 11 (none / 0) (#133)
    by dmk47 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    IA, NH, and SC all held primaries/caucuses at least several days earlier than Rule 11A says they're allowed to. Wouldn't the DNC have had to rule on that at some point, e.g., at the same point they stripped FL and MI of delegates? Is there a record of what went down? Wouldn't the DNC have had to approve of the moves?

    In any event, it's looking like the ruling will be  seating the FL delegates according the primary results divided by 2, and divvying up Michigan 69-59 or giving the uncommitteds to Obama and then dividing the delegation by 2. I can't imagine any circumstances under which the Clinton campaign would try to force a floor fight over that ruling, so this should all be over soon.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    The rules would require amendment and as you can see they were NOT amended. There is no informal dispensation process.

    Or at least, that is what the DNC Memo said today when it declared the RBC can not reinstate the full FL and MI slates.

    That is the basis of this post.


    Amazing! (none / 0) (#137)
    by vicsan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    You are absolutely amazing, BTD! Rules are ROOLZ! We either follow them or we don't.

    is this the message we want to send (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    to people? I am the first one to complain that there are too many laws on the books, selective enforcement and ridiculous sentencing. However, rules are rules and every violator should have the same consequence in this matter. This is about our voters, democrats, and the integrity of the party. If it were the other way around Hillary would be fighting it just as hard. Which is what makes me loathe politicians. Win at any cost, great lesson for our children. I am sorely disappointed in Obama's leadership here but it doesn't make a difference. I wish Nader were running again, I would feel good about that vote.

    Plenty of room.... (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    on the #3 train J:)

    I kinda see a microcosm of a big problem with our society that you touched upon...too many laws, too many rules and regulations.

    Liberty is choking on 'em all.  She is suffocating.  In this instance, the way to give her some air is to throw the stupid rules out the window and count the damn votes the best you can nationwide and whoever has more wins.

    Or flip a coin.  Even cruel fate is preferable to a cold, mindless adherence to the f*ckin' rules.


    Ah, but Nadar is running again. (none / 0) (#146)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    This election, the fate of this country is to important to just throw parts away. These candidates are essentially tied, not tied, but essentially tied. Fairness, to both sides, should be afforded at all costs. We always boast about America, let's really set the example for the world.

    it is really embarassing (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:57:27 PM EST
    and we have no leadership in the DNC. I used to love Dean and now i am hopelessly frustrated. I want Obama to win but not this way...

    um, Nader is running (n/t) (none / 0) (#148)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:56:08 PM EST
    Nader is running afaik. (none / 0) (#150)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    i think ralph has my vote then (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM EST
    I have not been watching Ralph but I should have been

    Nader laughing (none / 0) (#162)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    I saw one interview where they asked him had he thought about being a Democrat and running for lower offices first. He just broke out laughing. And then said have you seen the Democratic party lately. I thought he was being rude then. Now I see he was right.

    He's been right for a long time... (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:25:30 PM EST
    If only Al Gore and John Kerry hadn't stolen all his damn votes oh what might have been.

    mmm good post (none / 0) (#147)
    by Faust on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    Interesting analysis, thank you.

    popular vote not the true metric of the people (none / 0) (#170)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    according to some DNC representative just now on TV. Didn't catch the name though. I'll try to find it. Pretty much the same thing others of the O surrogates have said. Nice to have the theme of your organization be anti democratic. Perhaps Obama really is running for King or Messiah or something like that.

    From CNN (none / 0) (#187)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:20:33 PM EST
    "The Democratic Party is likely to meet rule-breaking Florida and Michigan halfway when it comes to seating their delegates at the national convention, two members of the rules committee said Wednesday.

    "Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is pushing for a plan to seat as many Florida and Michigan delegates as possible.

    Such a move may help Sen. Hillary Clinton close the delegate gap with front-runner Sen. Barack Obama but not overtake him, said sources familiar with party deliberations.

    The sources did not want to be identified because the full committee has not discussed the problem or ruled on it."


    BTD .....May I (none / 0) (#196)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    Please post this post at DK. I will credit you, this site, what ever.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:34:15 PM EST
    But you would be wasting your tine.

    Do you mean (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:40:18 PM EST
    they would tell him to fork off?

    why not excludeNevada too? (none / 0) (#209)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST
    Their caucus was in January also.