The super delegate situation (more accurately, the need to reform this mess) was mentioned in the comments in another thread, so here is how I would handle the situation. Some off the top of my head thoughts, which, no doubt, will have flaws
First, the seating of Michigan and Florida. It seems to me that since these were not to count and many feel completely not seating the delegation is too draconian, the fairest thing to do is to punish them by halving the total number of delegates (pledged) from the states. Then, the appropriate way to apportion them would be to take the pledged delegate lead from the other 48 states and assorted territories and the like (DC, Guam, Puerto Rico), and apportion the Michigan/Florida delegates according to the percentage that both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have from those states. For example- If Obama has 52% of the pledged delegates from those 48 states+, he would get 52% of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. I have no idea what to do with the supers, but I am inclined to tell them to pound sand.
This would accomplish several things. First, it would stop the “seat the FL and MI delegates” nonsense. Second, it would be a strict punishment. Third, since there really was no election, it would fairly distribute the delegates according to the way they were determined in the rest of the country. Fourth, it would not impact the outcome of the election (and it wouldn’t if Hillary were in the lead of delegates, either). Finally, it would ensure that the DNC is still respected by the state delegations, and crap like this would not happen again in the future.
Second, solving this mess from the future. Unlike many, I like the proportional representation. It allows for campaigns to last longer, it really allows non-institutional candidates a shot, and I think it is a good thing. Keep it. I would also get rid of the sense of entitlement that Iowa and NH have, and make the primary system run on a regional basis, rotating every election. Break the states into appropriate and manageable regional blocs, set a start date for primaries, and every two weeks a different bloc votes. Depending on how long you want the primary season to last, you could tailor the size of the blocs and the start date for the election. States would be free to determine whether they want to be a primary or caucus or hybrid.
One last thing. I would create a sort of political quasi-holiday for all Democratic candidates running nationally prior to the start of voting in which they the rules of the contest, the metrics that will be used to determined the outcome and the nominee, and all that stuff are read, agreed to, and then have the candidates sign a statement agreeing to them. Publicly. Turn it into a celebration, make it a big deal so everyone knows it happens. Get all the party heads there, take a time to remember past party giants who may have died in the past few years, present awards to people who have done great things for the party. Have fund-raisers, do meet and greets, introduce rising stars in the party, etc. Call it “Signing Day” or something. But make it big, known, and public. The bullshit goalpost moving a certain campaign has done the past few months is unacceptable.
Just some random thoughts. What would the flaws in this be?
Krista
No matter what is decided re: Florida and Michigan, there are definitely going to be some people who will NOT be happy.
Nellcote
Hillary’s on the tube from Florida right now insisting that the votes in Fl & MI were fair and should count in full. Also pushing hard on comparison to 2000.
NR
I still think the most important primary reform is getting rid of superdelegates.
The fact is that the proportional nature of the Democratic primaries means that whenever there’s a close race, it’s always going to come down to the supers to pick the nominee. And the supporters of the losing candidate are going to feel screwed over when a bunch of politicians and unelected party functionaries give the nomination to their candidate’s opponent.
And then there’s this:
As long as the supers can swing the election either way, you’re going to see stuff like this. And it’s not good for the party. I’m quite sure that, without the superdelegates as the last court of appeal, Hillary would have dropped out after the Wisconsin primary when the delegate math became insurmountable, and we’d be heading into the GE with a unified party right now. Far preferable to the current clusterfuck.
skyler
I would try to get the remaining non FL and MI supers to for Obama, cementing his victory, and then seat FL and MI as is. Obama would remain ahead, FL,MI, and Hilary would have nothing to complain about, and the outcome would remain the same.
Bobzim
Telling Fl and MI how they’re going to vote is not much better than not seating them at all, so I’m not sure that’s the way to go. Fl gets seated since both candidates were on the ballot and it was the Republicans playing games there. MI can go stand in the corner of Ted Nugent’s tree-stand.
But I agree with the regional primaries, if not all on one day.
gbbalto
John –
Sounds good! I’d support not seating the MI and FL supers.
One detail – I believe that Iowa and NH both have state laws requiring them to hold the first caucus and primary respectively. Might be hard to get either party in those state leges to repeal them.
Gebghis
I think both states will be needed to win the election, so it makes no sense not to seat them – find a formula that is acceptable to the candidates and the states and move on. I’d suggest extracting an apology and / or a pledge to abide by party rules in the future. Perhaps the state officials who broke party rules could get a slap on the wrist.
Isn’t it just a bit ironic that the early states didn’t decide the primaries? Get ready for the rush to move state primaries later!
Dreggas
Somewhat OT but this is funny. Stupid rat fucker.
Ripley
I’ve wondered about the idea of Primaries by time zone, rotating for each election. They could be held on per month, which would give candidates time to pound the pavement in those states. The Mountain states might be slightly out of the norm, from a population standpoint, but it’s still a pretty fair system.
The “me first” scheduling is just stupid. I live in Iowa – we have TVs, radios and some lovely toobz. We can learn a candidate’s position even if they don’t put on their best overalls and tell us how they’ve always admired our downhome work ethic and bacon.
Fwiffo
I’d seat the Michigan and Florida delegations as selected in their primaries, excepting that the uncommitted delegates from Michigan would go to Obama. Each of the Michigan and Florida delegates would only count for half, like those from Guam or wherever. Both states would be stripped of their superdelegates.
For the primary in the future, I would do the regional break-up like you suggest, but to avoid the possibility that one candidate is really strong in one region ending the thing early (e.g. Hillary in Appalachia), every two weeks one state from each region would vote. Each region would have to have the same number of states, obviously. All states would have primaries following the same rules, proportionally allocated with each congressional district across the country having an equal number of delegates and a number of state at-large delegates in proportion to the state’s population (or number of congressional districts).
zzyzx
John, where I disagreed with your post from a few days ago is that I think if the nomination gets flipped due to MI suddenly counting as is, then there WILL be riots. Hell, I’d be tempted to join in myself
John Cole
Remember the past eight years when the Republican mantra was “The Democrats are worse!”
They were not talking about the Democrats, they were talking about the Clintons, and they were right. Nothing they can say right now will surprise me. Nothing.
Dennis - SGMM
Considering that the Clinton campaign rejected the Michigan Democratic party’s own compromise plan, the one to seat the delegation by awarding 69 delegates to Hillary and 59 to Obama, nothing short of surrender on the issue will make Clinton happy. Nothing short of a coronation will make Clinton happy.
Fwiffo
Their state laws can’t force the party to seat their delegates at the convention. They can just say “play on our schedule or you can GTFO.” Of course, if the convention proves itself toothless with Florida and Michigan this time around, there’s every reason to believe they won’t be able to enforce a reformed primary schedule the next time around.
Wilfred
So what makes everyone so sure that Clinton isn’t planning a third party run?
Clinton – women, old people, po’ whites, Catholics.
Obama – African-Americans, educated whites, upper class libs.
McCain – Cheetoeaters, VFW, Jesus jumpers.
What are the relative percentages and why the fuck not?
cleek
i’d like it if states simplified their election methods; caucuses are baffling to outsiders, and things like TX’s hybrid are just crazy.
i’ve always been a fan of the rotating regional primary idea.
also, compress the cycle and put the convention right at the end of it. six months is too long and that dead spot between the last primary and the convention is pointless.
also, F’ NH and Iowa. things change. deal with it.
NR
Also, I’m not so sure that proportional allocation of delegates is the best idea. I don’t think that someone who gets beat 60-40 in a state primary deserves 40% of the delegates. That’s proportional allocation’s weakness.
But winner-take-all isn’t that great either, because it leads to situations like we saw in the Republican primary this year where McCain got 33% of the vote in Missouri and 100% of the delegates. That’s not even remotely fair.
I think winner-take-all works when there are only two candidates in the race, but with more than that, it’s problematic. Maybe there’s a middle ground somewhere?
Dennis - SGMM
First, it’s too late. Second, that’s a short-cut to being the first female Joe Lieberman.
Genine
A friend of mine is an Alternative Delegate for Clinton here in Colorado. She was at a luncheon where Howard Dean was speaking and he was asked the question about MI and FL delegates.
According to my friend, he said that, in a case like this, the delegates would be seated but they would be halved. Then those halves would be split up appropriately. (Whatever that means. She wasn’t sure.)
But I agree with making the signing public though. That’s one of the things that’s driving me the most crazy, people buying the line that Clinton actually cares about MI and FL voters beyond the point of just using them to win. **sigh**
Dreggas
Once this is said and done I’d seat florida as is (Edwards would give his delegates to Obama) and in MI give the votes that went to “no preference” or whatever it was to Obama. Then take that number on each side and split it in half as punishment for breaking the rules.
However the reality is if any of those delegates are seated it breaks the rules the party set down. It sets a bad example because we are supposed to be a nation of laws and rules, something we have bitched about given the Bush admin’s flagrant violation of rules and laws.
IMO Clinton’s campaign reflects the republicans with regard to their tactics and desire to change the rules mid-game more than the dem party enforcing the rules does.
r€nato
as stated above, no ‘fair’ apportionment of FL and MI delegates which does not give Hillary W. Clinton all the delegates, will be rejected by her campaign and her supporters.
They’re not interested in “fair”; they’re interested in winning by hook or by crook.
zzyzx
“Also, I’m not so sure that proportional allocation of delegates is the best idea. I don’t think that someone who gets beat 60-40 in a state primary deserves 40% of the delegates. That’s proportional allocation’s weakness.”
The advantage of proportional allocation is that it measures the degree to which a state cares. If, say, Kerry beat Edwards 50.001 to 49.999 in California but then Edwards beat Kerry 75-25 in Ohio, that shows that probably either candidate would win CA but Edwards would have a much better chance of winning in OH. In a winner take all system, Kerry would be ahead of Edwards. That doesn’t make sense in a contest that’s supposed to produce someone who will win the general.
Nazgul35
Why not just the popular vote?
Delegates to the convention would be bound to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote under party rules.
Keep the rotating regional primaries…eliminate caucuses (as they are undemocratic).
It would preserve the extended state by state race that has done so well energizing Democrats while eliminating the need to go first. If anything, it makes going last the best thing (in a contested primary).
Now you don’t have to worry about Supers or pledged delegates…as everyone going is bound to vote for the winner of the popular vote. Then the Convention can be about getting everyone on the same page for the General…oh yeah, beer and hookers too…
null pointer exception
In short, hold a convention?
Joey Maloney
I think timezones are too arbitrary. I think it’d make more sense to divide up by commonality of interest (something like the divisions in Joel Garreau’s book from the ’80s The Nine Nations Of North America), perhaps modified to respect state boundaries and major media markets.
Dreggas
The Land of Bluegrass, Bourbon and Kool-Aid
That has got to hurt…
zzyzx
“Why not just the popular vote?”
Because that could give NY and CA way too much power.
ResumeMan
Also, I’m not so sure that proportional allocation of delegates is the best idea. I don’t think that someone who gets beat 60-40 in a state primary deserves 40% of the delegates.
Why not? The candidate appealed to 40% of the state’s voters enough to get their votes. Why shouldn’t those voters be represented by state delegates?
I like the fact that there’s a difference between being edged out 51-49 and being blown out by 40 points. It encourages the candidates to actively campaign in all states, since boosting your margin by 10 points or so can make a real difference — this is a critical feature of the primary system that Clinton failed to realize, giving up on a lot of states she couldn’t “win” and thereby getting blown out by a lot more than she needed to.
The allocation system itself is fairly absurd. The way it works is that odd-numbered congressional districts have WAY more say in the results than even-numbered ones, since you need to have a huge win to get more delegates when it’s an even split. OTOH, it’s kind of cool that they apportion the delegates to district by Dem turnout in recent elections. While some people have said it’s unfair, it’s really not. Rather than “one person one vote” this is an admittedly imperfect effort at having one DEMOCRAT, one vote.
I think that getting rid of the supers altogether could be a mistake. Sure, this year they are nothing but trouble, but what if in a future election cycle there were two fairly closely matched candidates, but also a third candidate who trailed badly (and therefore was clearly not the party’s choice), but who was able to scoop up a sizeable number of delegates along the way (say, 10-20%). Now you’d have a situation where neither front runner could possibly have a majority, and with no external control of the system, you would DEFINITELY go all the way to the convention, ensuring chaos, and making the nominee basically hinge on what the losingest candidate decided to do. Now, rather than having 900 or so free agents, you would have ONE candidate, with little popular support, wield huge power.
Not that the current system is satisfactory either. But I don’t think scrapping the supers entirely is the best way to go.
Maybe make it so that the supers would be chosen as they are now, but they can’t vote on the first ballot? That would allow them to have a presence, and also to make their preference known in advance.
Mary
Dump the supers from both states, halve FL and MI pledged delegates (since this was an option under the existing rules AND McAuliffe is on record for threatening states with exactly this punishment the last time round) but don’t re-apportion them according to final national delegate count. Give Obama all the uncommitted MI delegates. Not only will some voters in MI and FL resent getting their preferences massaged into something meaningless to them, but a potentially risky chunk of voters outside those states may think it’s unfair. Keep the indicated preference, but minimize it by halving the numbers. That’s a suitable punishment.
For 2012, get rid of all supers and try some sensible regional clusters of primaries that would wrap up just a few weeks before the convention, which would run no later than July 31.
And yes, make everyone agree in writing to the process and schedule beforehand.
Original Lee
John, I can see the appeal of regional blocs, but the downside is that a candidate can get knocked out pretty early or elevated unduly early if the candidate isn’t a great match for the region. What would the primary have looked like if Appalachia or the Southeast had voted first? And what if a state doesn’t like the regional bloc it’s in and wants to be in a different one? Anything that gives the 2 major parties an opportunity to squabble should be eliminated, IMO.
I’m more in favor of states being randomly assigned to a group that votes together, maybe 5 states at a time, each group voting maybe every 2-3 weeks. We could have a Lotto-style drawing, nationally televised, maybe the August or early September before the primary season starts.
I also like keeping Iowa and N.H. as the first states to vote in separate contests. We complain about these 2 states every 4 years, but especially now with the kind of media coverage we get via the Internet, I think we can and do find out some very interesting things about the candidates in these 2 contests.
I really like your Signing Day idea. Fun and educational and a good media story, all in one!
wasabi gasp
50/50 split – seated with no reward. Next time, follow the fucking rules.
Phoenix Woman
What we also need to do is to remind people that this is at least the third time in a row Michigan’s Democratic Party leaders have tried to pull this crap.
Back in 2000, when they held an illegal primary in January, Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, and the MI Dem leaders scrambled to hold a caucus in March so they didn’t get shut out of the convention.
Back in 2004, Carl Levin flat-out told then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe that Michigan was going to do it, and Terry Mac told him that he could then kiss the convention goodbye. Levin backed down. (Of course, now that Terry Mac works for Hillary, he’s all in favor of not punishing Carl Levin for being an asshole.)
The way to avoid all of this crap: Adopt the California (or American) Plan for primary scheduling. It lets the small states go first, then the middle states, then the biggies, in three cohorts where the order within the cohort varies with each election cycle (that way you don’t have one state always being the first or second state and setting the agenda for every other state).
Ninerdave
I too like the proportional system, as it does allow for candidates other than the front runner to compete. It also blunts the weight that IA and NH have if it were winner take all.
Supers, I’d probably do away with, or at the very least make it extremely public who they are and what their current leaning is. This whole hide behind anonymity and hope the thing resolves itself bullshit, is just that. In fact by doing hiding like a lot currently are, they are defeating the whole purpose of having them in the first place. They are appointed to make a decision.
“Signing day”? Why? Even if you had a “signing day” campaigns would still be moving goal posts. In fact the current systems has a goal post, it’s called delegates. Didn’t stop Clinton from running all over the field with them.
Lastly, FL and MI, fuck ’em don’t seat them. The rules and punishment were known well in advance.
NR
First, because it would disenfranchise the caucus states. I agree that caucuses aren’t the best way to hold an election, but the reason that some states use them is because they don’t have the money for a primary. This is why they’re common in smaller states.
And second, even if every state holds a primary, there’s still the issue of closed vs. semi-open vs. open primaries. Texas and New York are very close in population, but over 1.5 times as many people voted in the Texas Democratic primary as did in the New York Democratic primary. Why? Because Texas had an open primary and New York’s was closed.
If we go by popular vote, any state that holds a closed primary will be ignored in favor of states with open ones, because the vote potential in the latter is so much greater. Delegates account for that disparity.
Jeff
John-
I mentioned something similar on another board somewhere… While most rational and reasonable people could argue that the “pledge” they signed, along with the statements from the DNC as well as statements from all the candidates regarding whether MI and FL “counted” or not would easily conclude that MI and FL shouldn’t count (or should at the very least be penalized), clearly the actual “pledge” that was signed was not nearly strong enough as to deter certain candidates from raising a ruckus about whether DNC-unsanctioned contests should impact the election or not. Talk to Clinton supporters about this issue and they will throw the pledge in your face, insisting that it does not say anywhere that the “contests won’t count” but rather just says that they won’t campaign or “participate” (using the vaguest definition possible) in the contests. No, nothing to do with whether they’d count or not… they just weren’t going to campaign there. Clearly, whatever is signed needs to be far more explicit about what it is the candidates are agreeing to, and should probably say something to the effect of “You cannot use the results of the unsanctioned contests as an argument for your election.”
With that being said, I think getting rid of Super Delegates, or at least drastically reducing them, would get rid of a lot of problems. Also, I wonder whether the winner should be determined just by plurality rather than majority. This would basically mean that a 3-way race is possible, and that it wouldn’t automatically broker the convention. I suppose, in a way, that’s what the convention is there for, but I think it’s generally just regarded as a celebration of the candidate now.
nightjar
Six month episode on Survivor Island, winner take all.
Get voted off — must swim to mainland wearing steel toed boots.
More Americans watched than would vote and high TV ratings. WIN-WIN for the Republic.
Genine
They did that already and look where we are. But I suppose signing a pledge is not the same as signing a legal agreement.
Phoenix Woman
2000? When Bradley and Gore, rather than cater to Carl Levin’s delusions of grandeur, pulled their names from the illegal Michigan primary of January 2000, thus forcing Levin to scramble to set up a March caucus?
Sure, Hillary, talk about 2000. The 2000 primary history just shows how selfish and self-serving you were for NOT taking your name off the Michigan ballot the way Obama and Edwards did.
TR
I saw that too. Unfuckingbelievable.
Leaving aside how odious it is for her to put her Democratic opponent in the role of Bush-Cheney 2000, there’s the simple fact that — despite her ridiculous claims — she does not have the popular vote lead.
Jesus H. Christ, someone needs to call her on this bullshit.
TCG
If you are going to Change the Rules expost facto, you must do it in a manner that benefits Hillary. Otherwise it would not be fair.
Hillary’s tried the “count the electoral votes” of each state method and it has been rejected. Ditto the Big State-Small State argument and Blue State – Red State argument.
So how about just counting the States that start with the word “New”?. This has to be fair, right?
Phoenix Woman
More on The American Plan from FairVote.org — and I apologize for getting the cohorts wrong in my earlier comment:
cleek
maybe they could add penalties:
-5 delegates for whining
-10 for talking-up the GOP candidate
etc
cleek
errr… putting two dashes in a sentence = strikeout ?
that’s nutty
Tlaloc
“the fairest thing to do is to punish them by halving the total number of delegates (pledged) from the states.”
Agreed.
“Then, the appropriate way to apportion them would be to take the pledged delegate lead from the other 48 states and assorted territories and the like (DC, Guam, Puerto Rico), and apportion the Michigan/Florida delegates according to the percentage that both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have from those states.”
Why would MI and FL go for that when it is effectively no different from not seating them? In either case they have no impact on the result at all.
“Third, since there really was no election, it would fairly distribute the delegates according to the way they were determined in the rest of the country.”
There was no election? How’s that? People voted. Votes were counted. You can see the tallies on CNN right now if you like.
Obama wasn’t on the ballot in MI, true, but that was his own choice. Not an action by the DNC or the state or even Hillary.
MI and FL had votes. Real, honest to god votes. Now they chose to hold those votes at a time that violated party rules. They should be punished for that. Halving their normal number of delegates is a good choice both because it’s serious and on par with what the RNC did, but still allows the states to have a voice. But you can’t say there wasn’t an election there because there quite definitely was.
El Doh
Strip the MI and FL Supers, since they’re at least partially responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.
Make each MI/FL delegate worth half a delegate. Give the MI uncomitted to Obama. Seat as-is.
Listen to Team Clinton people whine that Obama stole the election, because it seems that from some of her supporters, he will have “stolen” it unless Clinton wins.
For next time… I dunno. Oh, I do know. We’re Democrats. So that means we must make it as convoluted as possible, to ensure a good shot at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.
So… here goes. Popular vote with instant run-off voting, so that once a candidate cannot possibly win, the totals have to be recalculated with “next choices”. Keep the supers, because that will just mess with people’s head more. Add Super-Duper-Extra-Special Delegates who are worth double a normal delegate, too, lest people think it’s to democratic.
More seriously… hate the “national primary” day. That would likely ensure the candidate with the best name recognition won — had everyone voted on “Super Tuesday” of this year, we’d have Clinton as our candidate now. Great if you’re a Clinton supporter, but if you take the longer term view, not so good. It also means we’ll likely only see Senators running.
That should about screw it up enough, I think.
Tax Analyst
Not bad, John – it makes sense. I particularly like the rotating Regional Primaries concept. It makes way too much sense so I’m going to predict that it will NEVER happen.
I think the “Signing Day” is also a good idea, but pretty soon you’re going to be pushing radical shit like “Integrity”, “Honesty”, and other theories that are inimical to American Politics as We Know It.
And it’s too bad that you’re going to be hated in Iowa and New Hampshire for the rest of your life and probably several years past that.
John S.
It doesn’t give Hillary the nomination.
SA2SQ
Krista
Oh, and John…you DO run the asylum.
At least, that’s how I affectionately refer to this place…
Jason Fliegel
In all honesty, I’m not too worried about punishing Michigan and Florida. They got no attention from the campaigns or the media while their elections were going on and they’ve been a national laughing stock ever since. Even if their delegations are seated in Denver as-is, they still wound up as losers by moving their primaries. States will think long and hard before jumping the rules next time.
What I am concerned about is seating them in a way that is fair — a way that does not punish Senator Obama for taking his name off the ballot in Michigan and for not campaigning in Florida where he suffered a significant name-recognition deficit back in January. I am also concerned about fairness to the many Florida and Michigan voters who elected not to vote in the primary because they were told it would not count.
Accordingly, I would favor a solution similar to the one skyler proposed: seat Florida and Michigan as is, but twist enough superdelegate arms so that Florida and Michigan have a net zero effect on the delegate math. If Senator Obama’s magic number without Michigan and Florida is 67 — he needs 67 more delegates to secure the nomination — then make sure that his magic number remains 67.
El Doh
There was no DNC-sanctioned election. Same thing.
Everyone, including Hillary — and I’ve seen her say just that on video — said those elections would not count. Many people took her at her word on that and didn’t bother to vote in elections that “would not count” (why would you?)
To say they count now is, at best, highly suspect.
The only reason I say half them and seat them, giving uncomitted to Obama is it might help heal some rifts. If it wasn’t for that, I’d be perfectly happy to have the DNC just refuse them point-blank, quite frankly.
This is nothing to do with which way the vote went, and everything to do with adherence to rules agreed before the elections started. Without that, you have chaos.
Right now, we have chaos because Hillary isn’t adhering to the rules. That should never, ever be rewarded.
I haven’t even touched on the lack of a legitimacy of an election with no campaigning.
Hillary, Obama, Edwards and some of the others all signed a pledge not to “participate or campaign” in those elections.
I consider having your name on the ballot to be participation. I do not believe Hillary should be rewarded for this.
Obama also tried to take his name off the FL ballot, but couldn’t.
The Other Steve
I’m ok with a regional primary.
As long as long as no state in Appalachia is first. Talk about fucked up.
John Cole
Gee. Actions have consequences.
I am really sick and tired of listening to democrats bitch and moan about the rule of law and the Bush administration then turn around and pretend that rules, laws, and agreements don’t matter when it applies to Democrats, or more accurately, the Clintons.
Why should I suspect Hillary Clinton will abide by international agreements and the rule of law when she can not even follow her party’s established procedure for getting nominated? And when she will willingly lie about the Michigan and Florida election when it fits her needs.
GTFO her with this Clintonian bullshit. The rules apply to everyone, equally. Florida and Michigan broke the god damned rules, the elections shouldn’t count. And they wouldn;t have if Hillary had won on Super Tuesday- only now do they “matter” because Hillary needs them to matter. And even then, she does not want the elections to matter, she just wants all the delegates.
Have fun excusing her crap. I think it says a lot about people and their own personal integrity that they can not stand up to them and their obvious deceit.
TR
Democrats in both states were told their votes would absolutely not count, that they were meaningless, and that they shouldn’t even bother to show up. In Michigan, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden weren’t on the ballot, and many Democrats decided to cross over to vote for Romney in the Republican primary in an effort to keep that race going instead. In Florida, the candidates didn’t campaign and agreed not to air any ads.
People voted in those elections, sure. But to claim the results are an accurate depiction of the will of the Democratic voters in those two states is absolutely ludicrous.
Nellcote
Whenever Hillary starts on the more popular votes bs, I want someone to ask her to explain to the caucus states why their votes don’t count.
zzyzx
“MI and FL had votes. Real, honest to god votes. Now they chose to hold those votes at a time that violated party rules. They should be punished for that. Halving their normal number of delegates is a good choice both because it’s serious and on par with what the RNC did, but still allows the states to have a voice. But you can’t say there wasn’t an election there because there quite definitely was.”
Votes yes, elections no. When you tell people ahead of time that the election will not count, it changes people’s behavior. Some stayed home. Some voted in the Republican primary since that election meant something. The penalty was uber stupid but completely reversing it after the fact isn’t smart.
Krista
Question: any possibility of just having a re-vote? It wouldn’t serve to necessarily punish anybody, but I really see it as the only option that has a chance of being accepted as fair by most everybody.
kwAwk
John Cole said:
What you don’t seem to understand is that the rules of the Democratic Party do not say that the winner of the pledged delegates or that the winner of the popular vote becomes the nominee. The goalposts have always been set at the winner of the majority of the combined pledged delegate vote and unpledged delegate vote.
All of the maneuvering about popular vote vs pledged delegates majority is simply a political play to convince the unpledged delegates to vote a certain way. A play to reach the goalposts not an attempt to move the goal posts.
One could make an arguement that including Florida and Michigan is an attempt to move the goal posts but I would argue that the plan existed all along to seat the delegates of Florida and Michigan but the length of the primary caught all parties off guard so Clinton advocated having the re-votes in FL & MI and Obama opposed this because he was afraid of the results.
Had the nomination fight been settled months ago we would have seen the rules committee seat the delegations from these states and nobody would have batted an eye.
The Other Steve
They were told at the time their punishment would be that their delegates would not be seated. They(MI/FL) considered that acceptable at the time and choose to make no changes.
Allowing the MI/FL votes to stand as is would disenfranchise millions of voters in the state who didn’t bother to vote because they knew it didn’t count.
Is that what you are demanding? That we disenfranchise millions of voters?
Zifnab
Regardless of what Democrats settle on, expect large amounts of Republican bitching, moaning, and obstructionism. Someone told someone that a long, drawn out primary is devastating to the Democratic Candidate in all cases, so the status quo is good for the Republicans.
So they’ll stomp their feet and drag their heels to preserve some ephemeral possibly-non-existent advantage.
Just say’n.
El Doh
El Doh
Gah. screwed up my quoting. Sorry about that.
CT
Agree with above proposals to halve the MI/FL delegates, strip the supers, seat according to elections.
I’m actually OK with Iowa and NH going first. Small states with cheap media make a more level playing field for lesser known candidates. Following those states, we can have a rotation system set up where other states, or regions, get slotted in.
And every time I think my tank of irritation at the Clintons gamesmanship has run dry, they pipe up with an new offensive plea on behalf of the downtrodden voters in MI and FL, and I find a reserve tank of pissedoffedness that I didn’t know existed. Almost makes me want to move to NY just to have the pleasure of voting against her again.
Zifnab
That argument makes no sense. The Floridian non-voters are no less disenfranchised under either system. As it stands, the states have been effectively disenfrachised by being left out of the delegate math. Hillary is the only person who counted on Florida or Michigan for support – and even then she only started caring after Super Tuesday, when it looked like she might lose. As it stands, Obama will be the “winner” of the race with or without Michigan and Florida. Their seating at the convention is therefore trivial.
I’m a big fan of just splitting the delegations 50/50 and letting them show up. Their votes will be counted, egos will be assuaged, and we can get on with the general election. At a certain point, you have to give the whiny-ass-titty-baby his bottle. But you don’t have to fill it with his favorite flavor of juice. Woo, metaphors that fail.
El Doh
Dennis - SGMM
I hear that chronic inability to properly blockquote is the first sign of Alzheimer’s.
El Doh
Of Alheimer’s what?
Tlaloc
“What I am concerned about is seating them in a way that is fair—a way that does not punish Senator Obama for taking his name off the ballot in Michigan and for not campaigning in Florida where he suffered a significant name-recognition deficit back in January. ”
I have trouble seeing how that in anyway qualifies as fair. Obama made a boneheaded move with regards to Michigan, absolving him of it at the expense of his rivals hardly seems fair. Similarly why shouldn’t his lack of name recognition count against him in Florida?
Tax Analyst
OK…NOW, with all due respect…
…may I propose the person who can figure out and EXPLAIN how this would benefit the Party and produce the best viable candidate in REAL LIFE and not get laughed out of the building will be declared the winner…and this wonderfully convoluted attempt at total equity and fairness can be safely relegated to it’s much deserved place in the already overflowing trash-bin of lame-brained political reform proposals.
My other qualm here is that absolutely no thought whatsoever is given to whether such a system might produce a candidate who might win the GENERAL ELECTION, because as fair as this plan might appear, I have absolutely no fucking use for it if it’s infinite reasonable fairness somehow results in the Party nominating someone who is not demonstrably the best candidate we can put forward in November. After all, we are not talking about some theoretical academic exercise here, we are talking about nominating someone to competently represent our fundamental priorities against an opponent who is going vigorously oppose and probably smear and misrepresent what our nominee stands for. We’re not trying to convince the voters about the utter and uncontestable logic and fairness of our nominating process. The last thing we need to do is to paint our vetting process as some unfathomable abstract. In the end we want our nominating procedure to spotlight the person best able to generate energy and enthusiasm, hopefully someone honest and with sufficient intellect to responsibly make critical decisions that serve us well…and to demonstrate they have the rather intangible ability to connect to non-aligned voters – while still motivating the base to get out and cast that ballot.
Because when I look at the above plan I see the very distinct possibility that it might somehow crown a Very Acceptable Loser to run in November, and unless I missed something, I don’t think that’s what we want to do.
Dennis - SGMM
What a bonehead, he played by the rules. The Clintons know that rules are for suckers, chumps and marks.
flavortext
Phoenix Woman, if I’m reading this correctly that would mean that a lion’s share of delegates would still be up for grabs in June. Under that system, Obama wouldn’t be able to claim a majority of pledged delegates for another month. Isn’t the current primary long enough?
NR
Obama followed the fucking rules. Only in Clintonland is that a “boneheaded move.”
thefncrow
The problem with taking the results as is and applying a 50% penalty is three-fold.
1) The states knew that was the minimum penalty going in, that the 50% reduction would happen the moment that they moved their primary, and it didn’t faze them one bit.
Consider if you’re a parent, and you’ve got a teenager who keeps sneaking out at night. You tell your kid “The next time you sneak out at night, you’re going to be grounded for a month.” Later that week, you catch your kid coming home after having snuck out, and the kid says “So, you’re gonna ground me for a month? TOTALLY WORTH IT!” Is the appropriate punishment still just to ground him for a month? Or is it perhaps better to adjust the punishment to something that they feel was not worth the reward of sneaking out?
2) The only reason Florida and Michigan didn’t exert undue influence on this election in the early stages was because of the agreement that they had all their delegates removed. From that, there was no reason for the candidates to campaign there, and there was no reason for the news media to cover those elections, because they ultimately didn’t matter. If they just apply a 50% penalty, then we’ll have a new can of worms in 2012.
What if Florida and Michigan jump the line again? This time, everyone will know that the states will ultimately count, and so you won’t be able to get the candidates to agree to not campaigning there. The news media will know that these votes will ultimately count, so the states will get their all important news coverage of the campaigning. Even under a threat to take away all the delegates, no one will buy into the threat, and the states will gain the importance that they thought was worth sacrificing their delegates for.
3) This decision will be precedential, and so no compromise can be made that recognizes the illegitimate primary results.
Lets say that the DNC really lets FL and MI have it, and they take away 90% of each state’s delegates. I’m not saying this will happen, but let’s go with it. Here’s your stiff punishment that tells FL and MI that they can’t pull this again, but that we’ll recognize your election.
Now it’s 2011, and the 2012 primaries are being scheduled, and boy, don’t you know it, California’s feeling neglected, and they decide that they’re going to go first. Thanks to the FL/MI standard, we’ve decided what the punishment is, a loss of 90% of their delegates. However, of course, California will be gaining all the media attention that FL and MI were looking for this year, if not more.
Currently, California has 370 pledged delegates. Removing 90% of those leaves them with 37 pledged delegates. This gives them more pledged delegates than
AlaskaArkansasDelawareHawaiiIdahoKansasMaineMississippiMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew MexicoNorth DakotaRhode IslandSouth DakotaUtahVermontWest VirginiaWyoming
as well as the non-states of:American SamoaDemocrats AbroadGuamVirgin IslandsWashington DC
10% of California is still worth more delegates than 20 other states, and 25 nominating contests. Add that to it’s stature nationwide and the media attention they’ll get, and you’ve got the situation where California could be positioned as being the arbiter of the whole nomination, and even the “harsh” sanctions the DNC would impose couldn’t stop it from happening. Imagine how bad this is if they actually got 195 delegates, which would be a 50% penalty. Half of California would trump every single state other than New York.
If Florida and Michigan want to send delegates, they’re going to have to send 50/50 splits. Those early contests cannot be recognized, or else reforming the primary schedule will never work, as everyone tries to jump to the front of the line, even as the contest this year has proved that it can be useful to hang back.
We need to change the primary system, but the only way to get the reform to work is to first get everyone to abide by the party rules. Without that, any new system you come up with will be rendered ineffective when Michigan decides, “oh, poor me, my position in the primary schedule doesn’t make me as important as I think I am, I’ll just skip the line so everyone will recognize me”, and we’re right back where we started.
Tlaloc
“There was no DNC-sanctioned election. Same thing.”
Alright. The problem with that, though, is it is the DNC that is going to decide to seat them anyway.
“Right now, we have chaos because Hillary isn’t adhering to the rules. That should never, ever be rewarded.”
No, we have chaos because the DNC chose stupid rules that they themselves will never adhere to. The question is how we resolve this mess. MI and FL will get seated quite simply because the DNC cannopt afford to offend two critical states in a major election year. They simply don’t have that kind of courage. Any bluster to the contrary is just that- bluster.
So they are going to get seated, the question is just how.
Genine
I think its really sad that honoring the letter and the spirit of an agreement is a “Bone-headed” move. There is no appreciation for honor anymore.
Which probably makes me really naive. But, oh well.
With that kind of attitude, no wonder Bush and Co. flourished and bullshit is still holding steady power in the Democratic party.
The Other Steve
It’s interesting that you think Obama should take responsibility for removing his name off the ballot.
But you don’t think Michigan should take responsibility for changing the date of their vote.
Do you wonder why people don’t take your arguments seriously?
Tlaloc
“Gee. Actions have consequences.”
Yes they do, but there are appropriate consequences, and inappropriate consequences.
More to the point there are consequences the DNC can live with, and ones they can’t. Significantly offending the people of MI and FL has its own consequences, ones the DNC cannot stomach.
“GTFO her with this Clintonian bullshit. The rules apply to everyone, equally. Florida and Michigan broke the god damned rules, the elections shouldn’t count. And they wouldn;t have if Hillary had won on Super Tuesday- only now do they “matter” because Hillary needs them to matter. And even then, she does not want the elections to matter, she just wants all the delegates.”
Of course Hillary cares because she needs the delegates. Oh look a politician is doing something self serving! How unexpected. SImilarly Obama’s side doesn’t want them seated because it helps their guy. Duh.
But that’s beside the point. The point is that politics is a function of realism. The reality is MI and FL will be seated so as to give the dems a fair shot of winning them in Nov. Now how do we go about that in the best way?
thefncrow
Argh. Sorry about those state lists. I wrote those out as unordered lists, and I guess the commenting function doesn’t like that.
The readable list of states is:
Alaska
Arkansas
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
t jasper parnell
Personal proportional primaries voters rank candidates. Three month campaign with all elections held on the same day.
Tlaloc
“Question: any possibility of just having a re-vote? It wouldn’t serve to necessarily punish anybody, but I really see it as the only option that has a chance of being accepted as fair by most everybody.”
A re-vote would be ideal (again coupled with halving the delegates) but it doesn’t seem to be in the cards.
flavortext
I’m with those who don’t want to seat FL or MI. Follow the rules – they’re there for a reason. After years of seeing nearly everyone involved in government openly flaunt and violate the laws of this country, not seating those states would send a strong message from Democrats:
Don’t break the fucking rules. Don’t break the fucking laws. And if you do, there will be consequences.
How’s that for a general election image?
Tlaloc
“Obama followed the fucking rules. Only in Clintonland is that a “boneheaded move.” ”
The rules didn’t require him to remove his name from MI. He didn’t remove his name from FL (which by your logic should mean he broke the rules).
Removing his name from the ballot in MI was entirely and only a choice on his part. A dumb one because anyone with the tiniest bit of foresight knew that MI and FL would be seated eventually, and that the DNC stripping them of delegates was entirely for show beause the DNC would of course cave in.
So, yes, Obama was boneheaded for removing his name in MI. Politicians make mistakes, that was one for him. Hillary’s made plenty this campaign too. Try not to take it personally.
thefncrow
Actually, he would have taken his name off in Florida too, except the only way to have your name removed from the Florida ballot would have resulted in perjury charges for Obama.
In Florida, past a certain deadline, you may only remove your name from the ballot if you certify that you are no longer a candidate for the office. Obama was not quitting the race, so he could not certify any such thing to the Secretary of State without committing perjury, and thus he could not remove his name from the ballot.
David Hunt
I don’t have a suggestion on how to make the F’ed up situation right, but I do have a prediction. The DNC will announce that Michigan and Florida are being seated in some (reduced) fashion…three days after Hillary Clinton drops out of the race.
Seriously, she’s the reason that nobody’s been able to come up with some sort of compromise. If everyone knew what the result of the Convention was going to be, they’d work out some sort of deal allowed some reduced number of delegates to be seated at the Convention and allow everyone to keep their dignities. But as long as the result of the nomination process is in doubt, no one dares to even consider letting them participate.
David Hunt
Ouch. I did not know that. I had wondered why he had only taken his name off in Michigan. There’s my something new for today.
Thanx for the info.
Xenos
The rules didn’t require him to remove his name from MI. He didn’t remove his name from FL (which by your logic should mean he broke the rules).
Bullshit — you sound like a law student angling for a job with Ted Olson. So Obama followed the rules, which were unfair because everybody knew the rules would not count, because the ‘DNC of course would cave’, so following both the spirit and the letter of rules is unfair. Obama, by not cheating, is the one who is really cheating.
Well done — you can pick up your Federalist Society decoder ring on your way out.
Meanwhile, I can’t wait for May 31. Dean is going to have McAuliffe tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, if there is any justice in the world. And the faux-democratic Clintard ratfuckers can go screw.
El Doh
Most of them, including the “big three” of Obama, Clinton and Edwards signed a pledge not to participate or campaign.
Being on the ballot is participation. Hillary violated that pledge. When questioned on it, she said the election wouldn’t count anyway, so what did it matter?
Obama kept his word.
Hillary repeatedly lied.
In the World O’ Clinton, honesty is “boneheaded”.
As discussed above, Obama also tried to remove his name from the Florida ballot but could not for legal reasons.
Tlaloc
“Seriously, she’s the reason that nobody’s been able to come up with some sort of compromise. If everyone knew what the result of the Convention was going to be, they’d work out some sort of deal allowed some reduced number of delegates to be seated at the Convention and allow everyone to keep their dignities. But as long as the result of the nomination process is in doubt, no one dares to even consider letting them participate.”
Notice the progression here:
1) The mess only exists because the nomination is in doubt
2) the nomination is in doubt because we have two very evenly matched nominees, far more so than any other time in recent history
3) ???
4) It’s all Hillary’s fault.
Last time I checked both Hillary and Obama are in the race. It’s only all hillary’s fault if your #3 reads “Obama should win no matter what”, or something to that effect. Otherwise you might have to, you know, share the blame. Or maybe regard it not as something to assign blame over so much as a quirky and probably once in a lifetime primary.
Dennis - SGMM
Tlaloc, Clinton rejected the Michigan Democratic Party’s own compromise plan for seating its delegates. So, yes, this one is her fault. although she goes on about the voters of Michigan she really means as long as the outcome goes her way.
John Cole
The elections did not count. The elections did not count. The elections did not count.
I will write that over and over and fucking over again until it sinks in.
Allowing unsanctioned elections to determine the nomination would be criminal.
nightjar
A re-vote in Michigan was always in the cards, except Clinton only wanted to use her own deck. She insisted on a state run primary election and when the state of Michigan refused to pay for it– She then used the phony canard that Obama refused a privately funded state run election, knowing for legal reasons this was impossible. Then there is the Caucus route that can be funded privately, and she flat refused it when Obama agreed to a caucus.
Just Some Fuckhead
No seating of delegations for MI and FL. None. If you give in and reward them for breaking the rulez, you’ll lose all control over the process from here on out.
However, the delegations from Florida should be allowed – no required – to come to the convention in Denver. There, they should spend the majority of their time watching the proceedings through small windows while standing outside in the rain. Near the end of the convention, they should be brought in to be publicly humilated in front of the entire convention, up to and including tarring and feathering. Remember, the goal is to make sure no more states break the rulez in the future.
Finally, neither Michigan or Florida’s votes should count in the general election ever again. Florida, for so thoroughly fubarring the country in 2000 and then making a big stinky mess in the middle of this primary and Michigan because it’s tried for three straight presidential election cycles to break the rulez.
Chuck Butcher
Not a single comment of mine has made it today, counting multiple attempts about 6 of them, at least I don’t give a shit if this one makes it or not.
Jim
One thing that hasn’t really been discussed is how the Republican use of so many winner take all primaries resulting in the Republicans getting a nominee that makes a substantial portion of the party grumpy, so their way of doing things is flawed as well. After all, McCain ended up winning all of the delegates in some states while winning close to or less than a third of the vote.
Being a compromising type of guys, my ideal solution is for half of the delegates to be awarded to the winner of the popular vote and the other half proportionately as is the case now. I think that provides the benefits of both systems and mitigates the problems.
As for Michigan and Florida, the fact is it will be settled once Obama has enough pledged and super delegates to have a majority even if Clinton utterly stupid desired choice is accepted. At that point, they will probably cut the votes in half, base Florida on the actual vote and give Obama the uncommitted delegates in Michigan, with Clinton getting her elected share.
Tlaloc
“So Obama followed the rules, which were unfair because everybody knew the rules would not count, because the ‘DNC of course would cave’, so following both the spirit and the letter of rules is unfair. Obama, by not cheating, is the one who is really cheating.”
What the hell are you going on about? I’ve never accuse Obama of cheating.
“Meanwhile, I can’t wait for May 31. Dean is going to have McAuliffe tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, if there is any justice in the world. And the faux-democratic Clintard ratfuckers can go screw.”
Ah, so you’re just spouting off on your internal fantasies. I wish you’d let me know up front you had no intent for your post to resemble reality.
PaulW
1) Having the states determine primary to caucus to hybrid = inconsistency in how the votes will be tallied and the delegates apportioned. That’s a flaw. All states should follow the same voting system (primary) and with the same rules of apportioning delegates.
2) Dividing up the states into quarters and having the regions vote in rotating order is still unfair to the later states that will miss out on any candidates that can drop out from the first primary round on. What right does Iowa have to go before California, and what right does California have to go before Texas, and what right does Texas have to go before Montana? All states, all at the same time, one day primary. We live in an age where a candidate can speak from Ohio and have Hawaii watch it within seconds. We don’t need a prolonged months-long Grand Tour from state to state anymore.
3) Gregg Easterbrook suggested this on ESPN’s TMQ: force the candidates to Resign-to-Run. That is, a sitting official has to resign his/her job in order to run for another political office. It keeps the roll call of candidates from getting filled up by ego-monsters who sign on just to get their names in print (cough Kucinich cough Tancredo), and it forces them to focus on their own campaigns, and it keeps their absences from being a distraction from the ongoing daily duties that our current candidates are most likely missing out on.
4) No more lying. Stricter enforcement of all advertising to prevent false statements and unfounded claims to muddy up the waters. If companies are barred from making exuberant claims about their products or defamatory claims about rival products, then candidates should be barred from making exuberant claims about their policies and defamatory claims about their rivals too.
Tlaloc
“The elections did not count. The elections did not count. The elections did not count.
I will write that over and over and fucking over again until it sinks in.”
The problem with that argument, Cole, is that it is the DNC who decides what elections count in the dem primary. If they decide that “MI and FL count afterall” (and they absolutely will sooner or later) then yes, those elections do count. You are treating something that is highly fluid as if it were concrete. Hence the mistaken conclusion you reach.
Tlaloc
“Tlaloc, Clinton rejected the Michigan Democratic Party’s own compromise plan for seating its delegates. So, yes, this one is her fault. although she goes on about the voters of Michigan she really means as long as the outcome goes her way.”
The compromise was the worst of all worlds. It wasn’t apportioned by the vote, nor was it apportioned in an even split. Instead it was apportioned by some seeming arbitrary attempt to split the difference.
nightjar
It’s not a question of whether they’ll “count” or be “seated”. Of course they will. The question is whether they will be allowed to influence the outcome of the primary. And the answer to that is a resounding no. Any ruling by any committee to the contrary will be utterly corrupt and would destroy the democratic party.
KRK
No, no, no.
Throughout February and most of March, Clinton oppposed a revote in FL and danced around the issue for MI, insisting that the delegations should be seated as they were because the votes were “fair.”
Party leaders in MI and FL weren’t on board with her and actually started negotiating with the DNC about their options. Obama consistently said he would go along with what the DNC decided.
Clinton vetoed any use of a caucus, even though MI has a tradition of caucuses that are run like primaries — show up, vote, leave. (Similar to what Guam and (I think) NM did.) And a caucus would have taken the state elections machine out of the picture, which would have meant no Republican input and no federal oversight (see below).
If it’s not a caucus, it has to be a state-run primary. The states didn’t want to pay and there was lots of wrangling about that. Nor was there a lot of time (see above re Clinton stonewalling early in the process). The possibility of a mail-in primary was floated but, in addition to general doubts about whether FL could competently manage a mail-in vote on such short notice when it had never done one before, such a primary in either MI or FL would have required federal review under the Voting Rights Act, and the timetable for that review would put the votes past the DNC’s June deadline. So no go.
Clinton (and her fans) like to go on about “Obama blocked the revotes because he was AFRAID,” but the truth is — surprise, surprise — something different.
Tlaloc
“Any ruling by any committee to the contrary will be utterly corrupt and would destroy the democratic party.”
hogwash. There’s no threat that seating MI and FL will ”
destroy the party.” None at all. It takes a great deal of effort to destroy an entrenched american party and the slogan “they actually counted people’s votes” isn’t all that effective.
There is a significant risk that not seating them will harm the dems in November, but again no threat to ddestroy the party. You are exaggerating tremendously.
And with that I’m headed home for a well deserved weekend. Goodnight all.
John Cole
Is there a reason you absolutely refuse to blockquote things, TLALOC?
Seriously. Click on the little button above the comment window, and start using it.
KRK
Speaking of exaggerating tremendously, I’d love to see the data backing up claims that Michigan voters really are preparing to abandon the Democratic party if Clinton’s position on the Michigan primary isn’t adopted by the DNC R&B committee.
Just Some Fuckhead
Typical Clintard, trying to change the rules on when the weekend starts and then running away.
KRK
Regarding the proposal for how to deal with MI & FL, given that Obama is going to be the nominee, I would put a priority on eliminating Clinton’s ground for grievance and troublemaking. (Not that she won’t continue to complain, but hit at even the appearance of “unfairness”).
So, seat the MI and FL delegations with half-votes based on the unsanctioned primaries, giving Obama all of the uncommitted and Edwards delegates (I assume Edwards would have to agree, but I also assume that he would). Strip both states of their superdelegate votes since the superdelegates are the ones who tried to game the rules.
Clinton’s surrogates have been saying (recently, it’s hard to keep track) that they wouldn’t even be making a fuss if the DNC had only penalized the states by taking half the votes. (Even though the full-vote sanction was known last August.) So give them half votes and tell Clinton to STFU.
There’s no worry of precedent because the punishment gets at what the DNC wanted: no primary campaign attention, media coverage, or revenue (and those states did feel the hit) and no ability to affect the outcome of the race.
It has been known all along that the issue would be resolved prior to the convention with some compromise that put FL and MI people in seats at the convention. It was just a matter of waiting to the end of the process so they couldn’t tip the scales one way or the other. Clinton’s haranguing now about “OMG disenfranchisement!” belies her own acknowledgments earlier in the process that it was just going take time to get to the point in the process where it could be addressed and resolved.
nightjar
Well, that’s chickenshit. Counted votes in a disqualified election. Take note Mugabe, You have your admirers right here in the good ole USA.
Sasha
Wasn’t the original reason given for Clinton’s name remaining on the ballot in MI that she had intended to remove her name from the ballot, but her campaign somehow wasn’t able to submit the necessary paperwork on time?
Is the spin now that it was a conscious campaign strategy?
KRK
No, they always said it was their choice. They just expressed confusion about what the big deal was since she wasn’t going to campaign.
It was Kucinich who screwed up the paperwork and couldn’t get off the ballot.
Darkrose
Mmm…bacon…
GoMS
Sorry, too tired to read everything on here, but why not just have everything on the same damn day? Seems to me that candidates just use results from other areas to try to influence voters.
electroglodyte
Considering that the Clinton campaign rejected the Michigan Democratic party’s own compromise plan, the one to seat the delegation by awarding 69 delegates to Hillary and 59 to Obama, nothing short of surrender on the issue will make Clinton happy.
I’ve wondered about this… it’s not really up to the Clinton or the Obama campaign to “approve” this, is it? Far as I understand it, the committee meets, and four presentations are given: one by the state Democratic party, one by Clinton’s campaign, and one by Obama’s campaign. I forget what the fourth one is, maybe the DNC?
And then, having heard the arguments, the committee discusses the matter in private and I guess takes it to a vote. I’m not sure what kind of majority they need or whatever, but there is no veto by either campaign in this scenario.
What I think is likely to happen (and most fair) is what someone else already suggested above: to give the uncommitted share in MI to Obama and to punish both states by halving their delegates. I can’t see how the committee would come up with a solution in which Obama gets zero delegates out of Michigan.
electroglodyte
Oh, it’s much worse than that. If you want to get a good idea of what the rampant-denial-and-rage faction of Clinton supporters is like, head over to http://www.talkleft.com – the spin there is that Obama cynically removed his name from the ballot, and that since he chose not to campaign in MI, he deserves zero delegates there. After all, he didn’t have to take his name of the ballot. (Pointing out that all candidates agreed not to participate in that election falls on )