Do Mi and Fl matter?

[liberalcommontater]

Is it not true that the DNC had a range of options in punishing Mi and Fl? They did not have only one avenue? Is it not also true that Obama took his name off the Mi ballot because he saw he had no chance to win? Why not leave it on? What difference if it did not count anyway?

Why not agree to a revote unless you think that you will lose, perhaps worse than the first time?

If you have won already why not concede MI and FL just to make those states happy since you will need them in the fall?

This is a tough fight, but as someone who says he is trying to take the high road, why didn't you put your money where your mouth is? A revote was the fairest way.

liberalcommontater is a disappointed Michigan Democrat who supported Edwards, supports Clinton and will support Obama, if I can.

We need a Dem victory with coattails in November!

[FSogol]

1. If he can? You'll still get to vote in the general election

regardless of how the delegations are sat or counted.

[liberalcommontater]

43. As a Clinton supporter I am disappointed that...

Obama's momentum was not affected by the primaries in MI and FL, not the earlier primaries, but the ones that should have been held originally. I am disappointed that they may not count at all or in a diminished fashion. I am disappointed that this may have an effect on our chances in the fall. The state party made the problem, someone needs to fix it.

[Upfront]

47. With Strong Union Support

in Michigan I beleive Edwards would have won. Neither Hill or Obama, got that?

[liberalcommontater]

50. Interesting...

I was all for Edwards at the time...he would have done well. Yes.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. As a Florida Democrat who did vote in our primary.....

I'd like to say I matter.

Unfortunately, I'm at the ultimate will of the DNC right now.

[Moondog]

32. As another Florida Democrat who voted in our primary

I would like to think that I matter. But clearly I, and my vote, do not. I really, really, do not like feeling this way.

Personally, I hold a number of players responsible for this, some of whom were quite active during their non-visits to Florida to do some serious fund-raising. I also hold the national leadership responsible for this. In fact, the only people I do not hold responsible are the voters of Florida.

If Dr Dean or the ultimate Party nominee believe that I am alone in this attitude, they are sadly mistaken. If they further believe that after this protracted agony all will be forgiven come November, once again, I believe that they are sadly mistaken.

[liberalcommontater]

35. Hi Moondog...

I am from MI and I know many people who feel as you do. I can't help but feel that we have to have a Dem elected in November even if Obama were chosen by the Supreme Court as our candidate...at the same time I too want to be counted and am furious that this was not solved. As voters candidates spend millions to woo us, you would think that the party would be more careful in the beginning and come up with a solution sooner.

[riskpeace]

40. Thanks for your post.

I agree with everything that you said. The people I talk with on the FL Panhandle are upset. To think there will be no consequence in the general election is foolish. 1.75 million Democratic voters voted in the FL primary. Unfortunately, like my vote, that math does not count.

[EFerrari]

3. To answer your questions in order:

No. No. No. Because they broke the rules. Because he's a man of his word.

Because the state party couldn't get their shit together.

There is no conceding to a vote that didn't count and Dean is going to find a compromise.

Obama didn't make this call. The states couldn't come up with a plan.

[liberalcommontater]

9. Forgive me for quoting David Brooks, but...

according to him Obama's lawyers effectively blocked a revote in both states.

Why is it so difficult to get a straight story given the fact that I want the truth as well as a revote.

If it is true that Clinton wanted some other kind of caucus, why would she not want a revote? A revote that obviously would go her way. This makes no sense.

[EFerrari]

11. You're quoting David Brooks.

And, more than that, do you really believe that Obama's campaign had so much power as to make that call?

If so, we need to back him and make sure he's elected because that would make him the smartest guy in the room.

[liberalcommontater]

19. I did ask forgiveness and I have heard him say factual things before....

My understanding is that if Obama and Clinton agreed to a revote that it would happen. My understanding is that Clinton said a revote was fine. Obama said no.

Who knows the truth and can share it. I try to watch closely and as a Clinton supporter I have to be careful, but I do have my Clinton lens on. This is my understanding and I think the understanding of many people.

[EFerrari]

22. The revote would have required the agreement of the state legislature.

It wasn't forthcoming. There are a lot of actors in this thing that get totalized to just Clinton and Obama.

I trust Howard to find a way to reach an agreement even with the next to no cooperation he's gotten from all the parties involved. He's a fair man.

[liberalcommontater]

25. I've always liked him and thought he would make a fine...

President. I hope he is handling this properly. And, that it gets out how it was handled.

[EFerrari]

31. Howard doesn't blow his own horn much.

We're in good hands, imho. There will be fair representation from FL and MI and it will be because Dean was able to cut through the bs and just do the right thing. Watch. :)

[Occam Bandage]

27. I'm not one to completely torpedo a source because of his ideology.

I have no doubt that some of what Brooks said is accurate. However, that doesn't mean Brooks is telling the entire story, either. It's true that if O and C both agreed to something, they could probably push it through. But we simply don't know the terms and conditions of the revote that the Obama camp nixed, nor do we know which conditions they were ready to accept, or do we know whether the Clinton camp rejected or accepted any proposals. All we know--taking Brooks at his word--is that at some point during the process, Clinton proposed a certain revote package that Obama shot down.

This might indeed mean that Obama was being a jackass and trying to keep MI from being represented. It might also mean that Clinton was overplaying her hand, and trying to secure concessions that had nothing to do with the revote, or that she wanted restrictions on the revote that the Obama camp disagreed with, or that the two camps couldn't come to an agreement on the funding for the vote.

[EFerrari]

33. I'll never forget that this idiot called the Iraq war

"Bush's epic gamble" -- as if there were no consequences to bodies, peoples or to the world.

He's an idiot and would better serve this country by picking his teeth.

[liberalcommontater]

46. Oops, somehow posted this on the wrong comment...

It may suprise you, but...

I listen to Limbaugh most days on the way home from work...about 30 minutes. My wife always wonders why I like to get my nerves filed when I come through the door with 1, 2 or 6 outrages that he is perpetrating. I would put Brooks in a different league. Limbaugh is nothing but a self-promoter and a meme reinforcer. He is trying to hold the conservative message together for his legions.

Interesting to hear such propaganda through my liberal lens. Have to keep up on what the enemy is saying.

[Occam Bandage]

12. "A revote that obviously would go her way.'

This is a major problem with your argument. Obama runs strongly in MI. We have no idea what the proposals were, and who shot down what.

[liberalcommontater]

23. Obama running strong is fine with me...

I prefer Clinton, but I think the process is more important than getting my candidate (Edwards, then Clinton, then Obama). If he were predicted to win huge in Mi I would still want a revote to satisfy Mi voters and to give our candidate even more legitimacy.

Not counting Mi and Fl in some fashion reduces his candidacy and chances in these states in Nov if people believe he blocked a revote.

We need the strongest dem in November, but a dem regardless.

[Occam Bandage]

29. Regardless of who wins or loses, I wouldn't mind a revote either. That said,

I think at this point the best solution is to wait until the nomination is a complete and total lock, and then have Obama make a public show of ordering MI/FL seated as elected, with the uncommitteds going to him.

[liberalcommontater]

44. Oops

[damntexdem]

17. It's especially difficult to get a straight story from David Brooks.

[WeDidIt]

4. The DLC had nothing to do with it

The DNC is the party organization.

DLC is completely extra-party.

[liberalcommontater]

7. Yes of course. Typo.

[Mags]

5. No, especially Fla. look what happened in 2000, for sure they don't matter.

[Occam Bandage]

10. If FL had moved up its vote to September 28th, and

if neither Gore nor Bush had campaigned there, and if both had agreed (and if the voters had been told) that the election would not count for anything, and if the courts had ruled that the Electoral College could reject FL electors as a result of FL's malfeasance, then your analogy would be fair.

[Mags]

36. BO folk always have excuses , go ahead , don't worry about Fla or Mich. in the GE>

[Occam Bandage]

52. Translation: "Yeah, I admit my position is logically untenable."

[Boz]

6. RE TI DO?

Do not believe propaganda.

Most of what you said is not true and literally misinformation about the facts.

Obama is not fighting against MI FL

They will be seated with the proscribed punishment, half their delegate clout, which is the same punishment for years and is not new.

Obama was willing for a flat primary party funded revote, that never came to the table, instead privately funded(Hillary Clintons fundraisers) Firehouse caucuses were brought to the table.

Firehouse caucuses are neither caucuses nor vote protected primaries.

The options never came up for Obama to fight against revotes.

IT was propaganda, review the truth.

And look forward to being a strong democrat in the fall

[Occam Bandage]

8. Let me go through your questions, one by one.

1. Is it not true that the DLC had a range of options in punishing Mi and Fl?

First, it was the DNC, not the DLC. Secondly, not really, no. They voted on and unanimously agreed to the punishment before MI/FL tried to bully their way into an early vote.

2. They did not have only one avenue?

See above.

3. Is it not also true that Obama took his name off the Mi ballot because he saw he had no chance to win?

No. Opinion polling showed him competitive with Clinton, and that was before he had a chance to campaign there and drive his numbers up. That was back when he was introducing himself to the nation, and making up 20-point deficits left and right.

4. Why not leave it on?

Because he, as well as Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich (though he screwed up the paperwork), and Richardson believed that the pledge they signed to "not participate" in rulebreaking primaries meant they should remove their names from the ballot. Only Clinton believed she could keep hers on.

5. What difference if it did not count anyway?

Because he respects the Democratic party, its rules, and his word.

6. Why not agree to a revote unless you think that you will lose, perhaps worse than the first time?

We don't know anything about a revote at this moment. MI/FL certainly never proposed a full revote. FL, in fact, laughed at the idea.

7. If you have won already why not concede MI and FL just to make those states happy since you will need them in the fall?

What is there to concede? Neither held legitimate primaries.

8. This is a tough fight, but as someone who says he is trying to take the high road, why didn't you put your money where your mouth is?

See above.

9. A revote was the fairest way.

Agreed, but the state parties refused to a revote beforehand, and we really don't know what happened afterwards, since the negotiations were closed-door.

[liberalcommontater]

16. Thanks for your reply...

Why would the state parties refuse? They did wrong, here is the fairest way to rectify the situation. This makes no sense to me.

[Occam Bandage]

21. I see two reasons.

First and foremost is cost. States foot the bills for primaries, and those aren't cheap propositions. The state governments wouldn't have paid for a second go-around, and the state parties couldn't realistically afford a second ballot. The DNC offered to pay for re-caucuses (as those are cheaper, needing only a few hundred venues instead of a few thousand) in FL (not sure about MI), but the FL party rejected it as unwieldy and unlikely to be able to accommodate the number of voters that would show. That likely wasn't the only reason, though...

The second reason is pride. These were rather big media events, and MI and FL put a lot on the line to buck the national parties. If they "win," then they've made their states much more important. If they "lose," they humiliate themselves, disenfranchise their citizens, and provide their enemies with attack-ad fodder. To back down would be a humongous embarrassment to those parties. It's fair to say that many people have their political lives on the line here, on both ends of this argument.

[liberalcommontater]

30. Now this makes sense...

but look at the damage. I've always thought I would do what was in the interest of the greatest number and/or the right thing if I were in this kind of situation. It always irks me when folks put their own personal fortunes ahead of the common good.

I hope Obama, if/when he is the nominee, is more interested in the common good than his own fortune. I think he will be a great leader if he is seen as putting the common good ahead of his political interests and ambitions.

[TahitiNut]

37. There was a greater complicating factor as well.

Let's FIRST make note of the fact that DNC rules eschew Open Primaries. That's a fact. It's also a fact that some states have laws that preclude requiring any voter from declaring a party affiliation as a requirement for voting. Some see it as a violation of the secrecy of the ballot. Thus, the DNC has no choice but to accept Open Primaries where such states opt for a primary in lieu of a caucus system.

Michigan is one such state. The special legislation that was passed (and subsequently ruled unconstitutional) required a 'special one-time registration' to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Along with the massive PR effort to get people to vote "Uncommitted" in the Democratic Primary, there was also a movement encouraging folks to vote for a down-ticket Mitt Romney on the GOP Primary. Romney WON!

So, along comes the proposal for a "revote" ... but WHO would get to "revote"??? People whose votes had already been COUNTED in the GOP Primary??? (Some, of course, were "good Democrats" ... or at least people whose votes the Democrats wanted.) How about Republicans??? Hell... EVERYONE?!?! Just how much of a TOTAL FUBAR PART II did anyone want to create?

The "proposal" for a "revote" was deceitful, obscene, hypocritical kabuki ... and it was NEVER a sincere attempt to enfranchise the people of Michigan. NEVER!

[liberalcommontater]

39. Complicated indeed...good point...I'll have to mull this one over a bit. Thanks.

[last1standing]

41. I can help explain the MI part of this.

In 2004 Michigan tried to do exactly what the state legislature finally did in 2008, move up our primary date to increase the importance of the state, and by extension the politicians who run it. The DNC chair at the time, Terry McCauliffe, threatened them with the punishment of losing ALL of their delegates and removal from the convention if they did. The state Dems backed down but did not forget their desire.

So in 2007, after the DNC reiterated the exact same threat, Michigan's state legislature, egged on by Debbie Dingell, voted to move the primary up by about a month. The DNC was left without options other than to follow through with the proposed punishment or fold and create a precedent for chaos come 2012.

As part of the process in carrying out the punishment, the DNC asked each candidate to sign a pledge not to campaign in any state that did not follow DNC rules. All candidates signed. One of the requests was also to remove one's name from the ballot, which every major candidate but Hillary Clinton did. Because of her refusal to remove her name from the MI ballot none of the candidates applied to have their names removed from Florida's ballot.

This worked very well at the time for Clinton because she was expected to do very well in the early caucuses and primaries. She also had the backing of nearly every power broker in the state such as Carl Levin, Jennifer Granholm, Debbie Stabenow, John and Debbie Dingell, and most of the Dem state congress so if things turned out poorly she could rely on them to work in her favor.

And the local Dem politicians did work in her favor. I would receive at least a couple of emails each day from some Dem suggesting that I vote for Clinton or pushing the meme that the other candidates had abandoned Michigan. It was also spread around that even a vote for "uncommitted" could end up counting for Clinton as it would be a ballot of "no preference". That left it up to the people who were working for Clinton's nomination to choose the delegates (they later tried to do that very thing). So many of us either voted for Romney to influence the republican nomination or didn't vote at all.

After the primary Michigan's state Dems expected that Dean would back down and applied pressure on the DNC. When that didn't happen and the state party realized that things were not going the way they wanted, they began proposing "solutions" that would ensure the vote turned out the way they wanted, for Clinton. The idea was to hold a re-vote, but only allow those Democrats who had voted in the illegal primary to cast ballots. Obviously, in only letting the same people vote again, they would get about the same result. The DNC and Obama camps rejected the proposal and the MI legislature began to claim it had no funds for another vote so the old one would have to stay.

Eventually, realizing they were beaten and that the state was looking foolish, they did vote to partition the delegates 69-59 in Clinton's favor. The DNC and Obama campaign agreed to this split but the Clinton camp rejected it maintaining that only the original vote that provided absolutely no delegates to Obama should count.

And this is where the matter stands today.

[TahitiNut]

45. You have most of it right (imho) EXCEPT ...

... the "Four State Pledge" was imposed by the state Democratic parties of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada and NOT the DNC. It was coercion, pure and simple. They coveted their privileged status.

The privileged status of states that are not demographically representiative of either the Democratic Party or of the nation as a whole has been an inequity that's been long-challenged. It didn't start in 2007 or even 2003. It's been a bone of contention for decades.

[last1standing]

49. True, but the DNC did have to enforce their own rules that precluded moving the date up.

I would like to see the primaries moves around for more balance but the way Michigan decided to do it was nothing short of advocating chaos and the destruction of the DNC.

[QC]

13. Only to those who need our votes. n/t

[Hutzpa]

14. Ask hillary, she'll tell you they matter

this is after she said they break the rules.

What a flip flopper she is.

[liberalcommontater]

18. Does punishing FL and Mi have to mean...

the same thing as punishing the voters? Punishing voters seems stupid.

[Hutzpa]

28. I didn't say it, she did.... go after her

and demand you want an answer.

[liberalcommontater]

38. The state parties broke the rules...

and the voters are getting punished. A solution that punishes the state party and allows the voters to vote and be counted only seems fair and two separate issues.

[damntexdem]

15. Yes, they do. And the DNC action was stupid -- punishing voters for the sins of party officials.

But the action was taken, and the candidates, including Hillary, agreed to it.

Obama obeyed the rules: took his name off in MI and didn't campaign in FL. Hillary flouted the rules. Now she wants to count the results from the tainted elections. But she has to be careful, because some of the people who made the rulings about FL and MI are the same SDs that she wants to switch to support her. So her campaign attacks Obama, who's an innocent bystander in the MI/FL fiasco.

[TahitiNut]

20. A FUBAR cannot be "fixed." Period. It's a bell that cannot be unrung.

Where were all the "champions" of enfranchisement before? It was the state Democratic parties of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada that coerced the candidates to promise not to campaign or participate (seen by most to force removal of names for the ballot) in the Michigan primary unde the threat of being removed from the ballots in those states. The DNC rules were violated by several other states without penalty. The DNC rules call for a 50% delegation, not a 0% delegation.

This is not the first time (or even the second, third, or fourth time) that the privilege of states that are not demographically consistent with the Democratic Party base has been challenged as unfair and inequitable. It won't be the last time!

No Democratic candidates faced the voters in Michigan, voters with the highest unemployment rate in the nation.
No Democratic candidates spent campaign money in the nation's worst economy with the highest foreclosure rate.
But all the Democratic candidates were happy to collect campaign funds from the people of Michigan.

Fuck 'em as they now attempt to exploit a FUBAR they helped create!

Many months ago I predicted that the Democrats would find a way to lose the election, even with a generic advantage of 15% ... obsessed with narrow partisan power and the hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.

The Obscene Kabuki of recent weeks has completely ignored the people of Michigan, and has been focused solely on narrow factional advantage. There can be no "delegation" where the people themselves are not directly involved, where there is no campaign, where there is nothing but disrespect and disregard for their concerns. None.

[barack the house]

24. The DNC encouraged them to take their names off. It is not permitted in FL.

[TahitiNut]

42. Wrong. It was the "Four State Pledge" that the state Dems of IA, NH, SC, and NV coerced.

The state Democratic parites of THOSE states invented their own "rules" above and beyond the "rules" of the DNC in order to protect their PRIVILEGED status. The majority of the candidates interpreted the pledge not to "participate" as requiring that they remove their names from the ballot as was permitted in Michigan but not Florida. The Clinton campaign, in its typically arrogant fashion, essentially "DARED" them to prohibit HER from their ballots and conveniently opted to leave her name on the ballot. Cute. ("Everyone knows it doesn't count," right??)

There a huge amount of gross misinformation and hyper-simplification on DU regarding this FUBAR.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Their state democratic leaders screwed them: Seat the Delegates equally as an olive branch.

:-)

[Texas Hill Country]

34. yes

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. Hmm...

Is it not true that the DNC had a range of options in punishing Mi and Fl?

Yes. Not that it matters. The DNC used their equivalent of the nuclear option and FL and MI did whatever they wanted to do anyway.

Is it not also true that Obama took his name off the Mi ballot because he saw he had no chance to win?

Of course that's not true. Think about it for more than a microsecond. If he left his name on the ballot and lost, and MI ended up counting, he'd at least end up with some delegates. If he lost and it ended up not counting, well... you'd have the current situation. His entire campaign appears to be based on making it close in the delegate count. Nobody takes their name off the ballot because they're going to lose a primary. Find me a precedent for that, please.


Why not agree to a revote unless you think that you will lose, perhaps worse than the first time?

Because it's not his responsibility to deal with the fact that the Democratic leadership of FL and MI are retards and he certainly shouldn't have to do something that might be politically detrimental to himself because the Democratic leadership of FL and MI are retards.


If you have won already why not concede MI and FL just to make those states happy since you will need them in the fall?

I expect their delegates will be seated once Hillary drops out.


This is a tough fight, but as someone who says he is trying to take the high road, why didn't you put your money where your mouth is? A revote was the fairest way.

No, holding their primaries in accordance with DNC rules, like every single one of the other forty-eight states would have been fairest. And sanest.

[kwenu]

51. They had a range and it appears MI and FL dem leaders were hellbent on defiance.

They earned their stripping and were warned well in advance of the consequences. As for Obama taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, if he did that in reliance on the DNC's decision it really doesn't matter why.

Frankly, I don't believe for a second that the fact that FL and MI were stripped will have an affect on the GE.

[Hamlette]

53. I'd like you to join us but I'm getting the feeling I'm being blackmailed

Your local politicians broke the rules.

If the party had no rules it would be a bigger mess than it is now.

We'd be holding the primary for the 2016 election right now if every state tried to get in first.

This has happened before. Remember 1972? California broke the rules and got seated so they could vote for McGovern.

How did that work out?

Play by the rules or change them.

[liberalcommontater]

55. Agreed

[Buzz Clik]

54. "...Obama took his name off the Mi ballot because he saw he had no chance to win?" Nope.

But it sounds nice saying it.

[liberalcommontater]

56. Actually, conjecture on my part...

I certainly don't know. But, I do have to ask myself, why take it off?

[JNelson6563]

57. MI & FLA will count and it won't save Clinton

What is "if I can"? If you can??? What will stop you? A band of thugs holding you captive?

Dems cannot win without at least one of these states in our column. I, as a Michigander, have no problem with the fact Obama followed the rules and didn't participate in our primary.

Does it not say something to you that 40% voted uncommitted? 40% vote NOT Clinton.

Another thing to think about, I don't know where you are in MI, I am in the north of the mitten. You should've heard our phone ring off the hook at Dem HQ after Obama's Iowa win and each subsequent big win after that. People calling who wanted to join the party, donate, volunteer. Guess how many calls we got after each Clinton win? Zero.

In my world Obama excites the people, Clinton doesn't. Clinton as our candidate will be like Granhom in 2006. It will suck every resource out of the cycle as possible to win that race, leaving practically nothing for anyone else.

No Thanks.

Julie

[liberalcommontater]

58. Hi, Thanks for the info...

I'm glad Obama is picking up support in Mi as he will need it come the fall.

Win in November!