Can someone explain to me why Obama doesn't just agree to seat FL & MI???

[Fire_brand]

It's my understanding that Hillary can't win even with those delegates anyway. And it's not like the superdelegates are going to buy a popular vote argument based on those states (especially Michigan).

Yeah, Hillary is trying to change the rules at the end of the game, but it still seems to me that the best thing to do is to agree to seat them as is so he can put this all behind him.

[nomorewhopper]

1. i dont think obama is holding up this process

hillary makes it seem like the evil obama won't seat florida and michigan

[indimuse]

18. he and his Harvard Atty's have been FOR MONTHS!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mcctatas]

33. Harvard isn't a dirty word on this board...

just sayin' :puke:

[Debi]

97. It is to the Yale attorneys -

Like President and Senator Clinton. :crazy:

[gal]

39. The last one to say no was Hillary....

[mac2]

Neither have a right to stop/not count the voters of any state.

[Changenow]

83. The Democratic Party

is not part of the government. It can, and did, set the rules. Hillary agreed.

Now she changed her mind. Oh well, the world should cater to her whims, it's only fair.

[NJmaverick]

2. If you give the spoiled child what she wants

you set in motion a very bad thing. You are showing the states and future candidates the rules don't matter.

[mac2]

17. This post is not worthy of you.

[NJmaverick]

23. Thank you, I will take that into consideration

Unfortunately the spoiled child analogy is becoming more and more appropriate. That isn't my fault or the fault of the Obama supporters. It's 100% the fault of Hillary Clinton.

As for my second point, what would be the motive for canidates or states to follow the rules, if in the end, they would know it would be more benificial to break them?

[Nite Owl]

3. It sets a precedent.

Will anyone listen to the rules in the future if they know that if they whine enough there won't be any consequence?

[demmiblue]

4. It isn't up to Obama.

[lisa58]

5. He will...

...his argument is that he's played by the rules and won (if/when he wins). The delegates will be seated when that point has been made.

[Dawgs]

6. It's not his decison - never has been.

It's a lie from Hillary that Obama doesn't want to seat Florida or Michigan. He has never said such thing, and it's not up to him anyways.

[Webster Green]

7. That's a right wing (Hillary) talking point..

Obama has always said he would follow the party rules. He isn't involved in the decision.

FAIL! :thumbsdown:

[gristy]

8. What do you think?

Many arguments for not seating have been presented and debated here at DU and elsewhere. What do you think of the merits of those arguments?

[Fire_brand]

19. I think the fair thing to do is to not seat them,

but the politically expedient thing to do is to seat them

[mac2]

44. Yes...and then change the rules to a primary all on the same

day so this will never happen agains.

Crap with Iowa, N. Hampshire, and S. Carolina (all small Conservative states) picking the candidate for the rest of us. The media makes it seem that way too. If a candidate can't win the few states in the beginning of the primary then they are out or we just abandon them for the rest of the voters.

[hfojvt]

93. South Carolina is small? New Hampshire is conservative?

There are 25 states smaller than South Carolina. There are 30 more conservative than New Hampshire. Large states are always gonna have the clout that comes with their size. They don't have to jump on the bandwagon. They are big enough to tip the bandwagon over.

[madfloridian]

9. He has agreed to seat them many times.

He thinks 50% would be fair.

[mac2]

49. Seat only his delegates or his approved number is not

agreeing to seat ALL the delegates.

[mcctatas]

10. He has agreed to whatever the committee decides...

Hillary on the other hand now wants ALL the delegates seated as is with the undeclared voters in MI going to no one. Ickes will take nothing less supposedly;)

[rainy]

11. It's not Obama's call but it would make Hillary's big lie about having the

popular vote seem more real if she really could count all those votes she got where she was the only name on the ticket.

[shraby]

12. He did agree on the proposal of 69/59 in MI

favoring Hillary and she flatly turned it down..it's not him that's holding things up..its her. She wants it all or no deal.

[rucky]

13. This is a power struggle between the DNC and the states.

Obama and Hillary have influence, but it's not really up to either of them.

[mac2]

22. Has anyone in the party who made this mess explained to

the rest of us why this happened in the first place?

The states do control/power over elections not the national DNC. Yes...they have a say but the states set the rules and guidelines. Like Florida in 2000 the state has the final say (or if the Bush court steals it). I'm saying the Democrats of that state do have a say as to their own election.

If the struggle is over the small Conservative states picking the candidates every time then it should be changed to give the larger Liberal states a say. Right now it stinks.

Seat everyone now since you can't violate their right to have their vote counted and change the rules.

What is fair? The primary for our party Presidential candidate should happen all on the same day so everyone gets their say and pick.

[gal]

87. If you seat them now as is then you violate the voters that did not vote .

They may not have voted for the presidential issue as they were told it would not count.
You also can not violate the rights of the voters in the other 48 states that played by the approved rules.

[gal]

45. Actually all 3 have to agree..

They all have input, the DNC has to accept the proposal and both candidates have to agree to it.
Hillary turned down the last offer, she wants it her way or no way.

[mac2]

54. Seat them all low post number for Obama.

[rucky]

86. Then "no way" it will be.

[MadBadger]

14. Obama accepted the 69-59 solution out of Michigan, she rejected it

[kennetha]

15. Here's Why!

You might think that since Obama now has his much vaunted "majority of elected delegates" and probably would still have the majority at the end of the primaries even if Florida and Michigan are seated as voted, that it's time for him to be gracious and conciliatory. But I don't think it's going to happen. Here's why. Seating Florida and Michigan and recognizing the legitimacy of the votes there would seriously undercut his narrative of the campaign and would considerably strengthen Clinton's narrative of the campaign.

To tell the story he's trying to tell, Obama needs to pretend that Florida and Michigan aren't there. He needs to delegitimize those votes. He needs that so that he can discounts the votes actually cast for Clinton in Florida. He needs to keep up the pretense that his own name just magically "failed to appear" on the Michigan ballot. Of course, we all know that he intentionally had his name removed from the ballot as some sort of strategic ploy. But you will never hear him or his supporters own up to that fact. But the bottom line is that his deliberate strategic ploy has nothing to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of counting the Michigan votes in the total popular vote. If he agrees to count those votes, he has to give up the pretense. He won't do that.

Why does it matter, though, if he would still have the majority of elected delegates after the seating of Florida and Michigan. It's because of the popular vote meme would gain some legitimacy. That's deeply important to Clinton at this point because it undercuts Obama's claim that the elected delegate count somehow uniquely represents the "will of the people." Doesn't the total popular vote have as much of a claim to bea measure of the will of the people?

Moreover, the pledge delegates are chosen in all sorts of ways that are not terribly representative. I'm thinking of course of the completely undemocratic and unrepresentative caucuses from which most of Obama's delegate lead comes.

Obama has to keep the focus of the supers on the question whether he doesn't "deserve" the nomination, because of his lead in elected delegates. He can't let the focus of the supers be shifted to the question of who is best positioned to win the election. Pretending that Florida and MI didn't really happen, that they aren't really a test of his electability, is crucial to that. That's why he's doing nothing to help them get seated and being passive aggressive in seeing to it that they don't get seated.

Plus he probably knows that he couldn't really count on teh Florida and Michigan delegations actually staying loyal to a candidate who did everything he could to block them from being seated in the first place.

If this gets divisive and combative enough, I can easily see Florida and Michigan delegations deciding, once seated, to either abstain on the first ballot or deciding to vote in a bloc for Hillary in order to reward her for her efforts to enfranchise the voters of Florida and in order to punish Obama for working to disenfranchise them.


Wouldn't that make for an entertaining summer?

[Schema Thing]

26. not imo...

why on earth anyone believes that the *people* of MI and FL are somehow just fine with the primary process they were exposed to, and therefor are happy to pretend it was a normal legitimate process now, is beyond me.


they KNOW they were screwn by their own state parties, and on the whole, they have no intention of punishing Obama for the failings of the state democrats.

[Fire_brand]

35. Interesting points

It seems to me that the elections held there have already been delegitimized, especially in MI. Like I said, I don't think the SD's would get behind a "popular vote" argument based on those results (not to mention the caucus states that didn't report raw numbers).

Removing his name in MI may have been a stragegic ploy, but you would have to agree that Hillary Clinton also made a stragtegic decision, choosing to leave her name on the ballot, while publicly proclaiming "this election they're having isn't going to count for anything."

[mac2]

50. Low post number from party headquarters. Ignore.

[Romulox]

66. I think you nailed it. Add Obama's weakness on trade and the economy,

and he'd rather Mi, In, Pa, Oh were not allowed to vote in the GE, period.

[anigbrowl]

90. "you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

[mac2]

16. I agree.

They just have us all in a frenzy dividing us and trying to distract from what is going on in DC, etc.

The low post number are either from someone's headquarters or supporters or from Rove dis-information headquarters. Whoever they are I ignore them.

[nebenaube]

20. he played by the rules and withdrew his name from those states..

She didn't. It wasn't strategic.

[mac2]

25. You mean he agreed to those insane rules by the party?

He should not have done that since he knew their vote was being negated. He should have stuck up for those voters regardless of their corrupt party leaders.

It is a fight by the large states for their influence. It was a rebellion of sorts I think.

Sorry I'm with Hillary in this regards...it stinks.

[mcctatas]

38. ummm...

Hillary agreed to those rules as well. Ickes helped draft the rules, of course that was before she needed those states....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Repeat as necessary...

[gal]

53. It stinks yes BUT..

He was also sticking up for the other 48 states that happen to belong in this country as well.

[mac2]

32. It was stupid.

[Skip Intro]

34. The rules DID NOT require any candidate to remove his/her name. Dodd didn't remove his either.

The rules only required they not campaign in those states.

Facts.

[mac2]

55. Right.

I liked Dodd too. The RULES stink. We need all those voters from FL and MI and not mad at the party to win the GE. What are they thinking?

They want to lose yet another Presidential election? Seems to be this is exactly what is going on for the DNC and DLC of our party.

[Skip Intro]

75. Well a child could see that if we as a party tell FL and MI Dems their votes are worthless,

they won't show up to support the party a few months later. Why should they?

Their voices have to be heard, and have to count. Anything else, and we can kiss those states, and the White House goodbye.

[anigbrowl]

92. They pledged to not campaign or participate. .nt

[Fire_brand]

37. I get that, but looking at where we are now

It seems to me like the best thing to do is to put it behind him, especially if it has the potential to drag to the convention.

[mac2]

58. I am and I'm seeing a lot of low post numbers who support

Obama. It's an attack on our web site by the headquarters maybe.

Low post number posts won't get any attention from me.

[Fire_brand]

72. then shut up and stop replying to people with low post numbers

problem solved

[DontBlameMe]

76. Hey, slick! I have a low post count. Got a problem with that?

I've also been here about 2 years longer than you.

Bite me.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. Did you have a problem with....

the numerious low post count Clinton supporters who showed up around January to spam the board?

It happens every election here, with every candidate -- being a high count poster, you should know that. :eyes: Nice hidden profile, btw.

[Romulox]

68. Which rule?

:popcorn:

[Schema Thing]

21. Well, there's that little thing of principles

[mac2]

27. A principle of count all the votes?

Am I an American or what?

[Schema Thing]

29. no, you're unprincipled

You don't "count all the votes" that were cast in illegitimate, flawed processes that disenfranchised and excluded huge numbers of the very voters you are claiming (falsely) to be concerned about.

[mac2]

36. Falsely concerned about it?

Hey...I'm not happy about either candidate.

I don't want this punishing a whole state of their vote by any political leaders in our party. It's not principles and it's not about the rules....its plain vote stealing of two large LIBERAL states who have a lot of delegates and power.

Obama is going back to the Conservative, small state of Iowa to thank them for his win. So this shows it is true. Large Liberal states should be upset.

I am from one of those large states whose vote was stolen by manipulation prior the Super Tuesday. I'm not at all happy about all the manipulation for a win by any candidate.

[Yotun]

43. The popular vote is a meaningless metric. It does NOT judge popular support. So there's nothing

there for her in any case.

[mac2]

52. Low post number you are lying.

Popular vote is neaningless?

[Yotun]

61. Of course it is high post count

In an election with both primaries and caucuses it is, unlike in 2000.

Consider this scenario:

2 states, with equal populations. One has a caucus, the other has a primary. The state with the primary is won by one candidate with a 55-45 margin. The caucus state is won by the other with an 80-20 margin. But because of the nature of primaries and caucuses, the candidate who won the primary nets a hunrded thousand popular votes, and the person who won the caucus nets ten thousand, even though both states have equal populations. The caucus winner is CLEARLY the most popular but he lost the popular vote count. Logic 101.

What you need is a system which allocates support according to the population of states and the margin of victory in either a priamry or caucus- something like... pledged delegates!!! The reason Obama should win because he has the majority of the pledged delegates is not because of technicalities, or because that's what the rules say. Its because the pledged delegate count is the only metric that correctly measures popular support in a contest with both caucuses and primaries. The difference with the 2000 election is that in the GE you have no caucuses, and the elections in each state are similar, so the popular vote CAN be used as a measure of popularity. Not so in the primary.

[mac2]

69. I see your post numbers changed.

[Yotun]

71. Huh? Emm, I post? Explain your accusation now please!

Are you somehow accusing me of tampering with the forum in some way? I'm on the verge of alerting you for insinuating my tampering with the forum.

I see you fail to explain why the popular vote has any meaning, or answer ANY of my argument, and merely resort to childish post-count related responses. Grow up.

[Schema Thing]

63. It's only vote stealing if you pretend that there were actual, real, votes

There were not democratic primaries in MI and FL. Full stop.


There were MOCK primaries, but not real primaries.


A process in which huge numbers of people believed that just-staying-home was as legitimately part of the process as going to the voting booth, is not a democratic election process.

A process in which the leadership of the two states are told that their primaries will not count if they break certain rules, and they go ahead and break those rules, is not a legitimate part of the democratic selection process.

Sure, it sucks, but there is no way to somehow magically make those processes legitimate after the fact.

[Yotun]

67. Even if they were, the popular vote is MEANINGLESS. See above. It doesn't matter!

[mac2]

70. Then it was voting steal and illegal.

[Yotun]

24. Because Hillary will make it about the flawed popular vote metric if seated as is. And because it is

immoral to fold up and appease your opponent, when both agreed before that the votes wouldn;t count, and none campaigned there. The American people need a president who is a hard negotiator.

Plus the republicans WOULD use it as an example of Obama appeasment and inability to negotiate. Especially if Clinton is on the ticket. 'He couln't even have his way when he won, and when his opponent was using faulty logic- is that the president you want negotiating nuclear weapons with Iran without preconditions?'

Question: Why is it tha Pat Buchanan, all the Republican strategists and Fox agree with Hillary and feel she won the right to be on the ticket and that her math is sound?

[mac2]

30. Negotiator 19 posts?

Whoever you are negotiation and compromise behind closed doors is the reason this democracy is in trouble. You are blowing out your hole for political gain.

[Yotun]

41. I'm sorry- I don't understand what you're trying to say...

...honestly, I'm not being ironic... :/

[mac2]

60. 96 posts only.

Your low post number makes me suspicious of any real investment in this campaign except you might be from Obama headquarters or causing division for a political gain.

[Yotun]

65. Oooh, excuse me mister I- have- more- posts- elitist- poster. Internet post-count bragging rights

what is this a forum for 15-yeard-olds?

[dionysus]

28. i don't think he makes the call on that...

[Fire_brand]

46. surely his will has a ton of influence right now

[BklnDem75]

89. That's quite an assumption.

Can you back it up with actual proof?

[stillcool]

31. How does a Democratic Candidate..

usurp Democratic Party rules? Once the state parties go before the rules committee, the decision will be made. Then it is up to the candidates to accept or reject the solution the committee proposes.

[mac2]

47. How does a party member have a right to determine who

their primary candidate will be? The party rules stink.

[stillcool]

85. As a Democrat, I voted..

for the candidate of my choice...but then my state was one of the 48 that participated according to the Democratic Party Rules.

[Bensthename]

40. Because little ones shouldnt always get their way by whining..

That is what I tell mine.. Seems to fit here too.

[slinkerwink]

42. He's always said he'd seat the delegations--the issue is the vote they hold

[ShortnFiery]

48. Because those states democratic leaders BROKE THE DNC RULES and the committee will

weigh the evidence - and if FAIR, they'll be generous and seat the delegates 50:50. If HRC and her surrogates don't like it ... well, we all know what she intends to do.

I know as a mother, you don't give into the TANTRUMS of petulant children.

[crankychatter]

56. I have no idea what's between Obama's ears... I'm just glad their HIS ears and not MINE

All the candidates signed off on the rules

The Democrats of Michigan and Florida need to vote their leadership out of office and profer some goddamn solutions themselves

rules are rules... why the fuck should Clinton get to change them?

there is NO RIGHTEOUSNESS in her claims.... none whatsoever

ZERO, ZIP, NADA

What part of that do those advocating this concession NOT GET?

[Fire_brand]

64. I want him to be able to put this behind him

my concern is that in politics, whichever side has the better rehtoric usually wins, regardless of the facts. I think Hillary's "count all the votes" rehtoric is stronger than Barack's "they broke the rules" rhetoric. I just want this issue off the table so he can move forward.

[JVS]

57. I would be concerned about giving an inch to someone who want to take a mile

[yardwork]

59. It's not his decision, and why should Obama agree to ignoring the rules?

My understanding is that Florida and Michigan were told that their primaries would not count if they held them before the start date. Florida and Michigan went ahead and held their primaries early anyway, in defiance of the Democratic Party rules. As a result, Obama and others took their names off the ballot in Michigan and agreed not to campaign in Florida.

Many people in Michigan and Florida knew that their votes would not count so they didn't even bother to vote in the unauthorized primaries held in those states. Those who voted anyway in Michigan didn't even have the option to choose Obama, as he wasn't even on the ballot.

How anyone can remotely think that it's reasonable to now count the Florida and Michigan primaries as an accurate reflection of voters' opinions in those states is incomprehensible to me.

[mac2]

62. They made a mess and should live with it.

All delegates should be counted. If anyone is to become leader in this country they should stick up for all the party members and voters not just a few corrupt party leaders and their insane rule (to divide and cause mayhem).

[yardwork]

79. Who is "they?" Who made a mess? Certainly not Obama.

If you say that the Democratic Party's primary rules are badly out of date and need to be improved, I will agree with you.
If you say that the Michigan and Florida primaries were mishandled from the beginning, I will agree with you.

But if you veer into saying that this is somehow Obama's fault, and that the early mishandling now somehow translates into those deeply flawed primaries needing to be counted as just as legitimate as all the others, then I can't agree.

How can it be fair to seat delegates from a contest where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot?

[gal]

88. They also need to stick up for the other 48 states not just 2.

Those other 48 states followed the rules and I'm sorry but I don't think you let 2 states do whatever they please. What does that tell the other 48?

[Romulox]

73. Because he wants to be the President of the USA?

Obama has badly misplayed his hand in Mi and Fla. If, as Obama supporters claim, it makes no mathematical difference to Obama's chances at the nomination for Mi and Fla to be seated, allowing this situation to go on into November is absolutely political idiocy.

[yardwork]

80. The decision is not up to Obama.

[Romulox]

81. Not entirely. But he has the power to support a common sense solution; playing out the clock

is not strong leadership, one way or another.

If Obama says, "let Mi and Fla be seated as is, and let's unify!" this all goes away tomorrow.

He hasn't said this, either because a) he's afraid that his math doesn't add up as neatly as he claims; b) he's getting campaign advice from some very inexperienced people.

[mystieus]

74. By seating FL & MI, Hillary will claim Obama is not legitimate because she has the popular vote lead

[Fire_brand]

95. right, but who's going to buy that?

especially with Michigan

[zulchzulu]

77. Should we reward cheaters and those who break the rules?

Both Florida and Michigan Democratic leaders KNEW they were going to invalidate their primary dates if they tried to go against the Democratic Party rules. Additionally, all the major candidates AGREED with the DNC when they agreed with the Four State Pledge (having Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as first four states).

Do we reward people who break the rules? Should someone who is running the Boston Marathon be allowed to start a mile ahead of everyone else and still get the chance to win? Should people who show up at a restaurant just seat themselves ahead of those who made reservations? There are plenty of analogies to show that people need to follow rules, or as Terry McAulliffe said, "there would be chaos" if states just changed primary dates in 2004.

[stevenleser]

78. I agree and I think that is what will happen. The other possibility is that the rules committee wont

let him. They may feel that there has to be some punishment given the two states attitudes. The point that you are absolutely right about is that Hillary doesnt win this thing regardless.

[hokies4ever]

82. FL and MI will be seated

Obama's official position is for Hillary to stay in the race. Yet he has effectively forced her to constantly defend why she should stay in this race. Not exactly a winning argument. Winners don't try to convince you that they should stay in a race. She's been unable to successfully pivot off of this. Obama gives the media just enough morsels to continue this line of political punditry and Hillary's camp has done it's fair share of taking the bait.

Brilliant strategy by the Obama campaign. Hillary Clinton launched a kitchen sink strategy of attacks on Obama a couple of months ago. Some personal, some political, and some policy. Obama has silently launched a kitchen sink strategy of distraction for Hillary. For example, everybody knows that FL and MI will be seated on 5/31, probably heavily in favor of Hillary also. Yet it's part of her stump speech when she campaigns in OR. You think undecideds are basing their decision on who to vote for based on why we should love FL and MI voters so much? Hillary's camp is like a pitbull that is tearing up your sofa cushions. Obama was happy to throw her the FL and MI bone to chew on to stop the attacks. Every second spent lobbying for FL and MI is another second not attacking Obama.

The Obama supporters are happy to continue feeding these morsels to the Hillary supporters here, hoping that they continue to spread.

[Fire_brand]

94. hmmm

So you're saying he'll let her talk about this, giving him the opportunity to ignore her and start running a GE campaign?

That could be

[hokies4ever]

96. Think about it

She was picking up a lot of momentum with her populist message (even if it was pandering, like the gas tax holiday) and driving up Obama's negatives with her divisive personal attacks. Then his campaign went on a kitchen sink strategy of distractions. Her campaign's conference calls were no longer attacking Obama personally, but were addressing little issues like Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos to issues like FL and MI. This is why she got creamed in Oregon. Undecideds in Oregon could care less if some big shot delegates in Florida are seated at the convention. That doesn't help them with gas prices, the economy, or the Iraq War. She really got off message and she ended up paying for it big time.

Can you imagine if the Puerto Rico Primary was before the Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting? I'd love to see her stump speech in Puerto Rico begging to have the FL and MI delegates seated. It would make for some good comedy. :rofl:

She's also digging herself a hole with the supers, and Obama knows this. Some of her superdelegate supporters have publicly disagreed with her, and one today even switched away from her. Let her keep complaining about FL and MI. There's no evidence that it's helping her win over the superdelegates, and the reverse appears to be true.

[Renew Deal]

91. Because it's not Obama's decision.

It's the rules committee who decides. Also, can someone explain to me why Hillary can't follow the rules?