DNC brain trust will be meeting very soon in DC to slice and dice the Florida vote…reports hint that they will seat only half the delegates or divide the delegates evenly between the candidates. Neither option is acceptable or consistent with our Party principles.
It doesn’t matter who you support for president. It doesn’t matter what your gender or race happens by fate to be. As Democrats, we must speak up for a principle we claim to believe in, even when it may not advantage our favorite candidate.
(Unlike Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick) Congressmen Tierney and Markey and Congresswoman Tsongas are thus far neutral in the presidential race, free from any appearance of candidate bias in calling on our Party to uphold this basic principle. I sincerely hope that they will step up to demand in the strongest possible way that every Democratic Primary vote count.
I have listened to the “can’t change the rules”, “they broke the rules, must pay the price” arguments. But “they” are the Republican Governor and Florida state party poobahs who bucked the DNC, not the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who followed the campaign on TV, radio and newspapers like the rest of us, trudged to the polls, saw every candidates name on their ballot and cast an honest and fair vote. All the expressed reasons for punishing Florida don’t amount to one acceptable excuse for punishing its Democratic voters.
If we fail to count Democratic Primary votes in Florida, how hypocritical does the echo of our demands to count those hanging chads in 2000 sound? And, how hollow will our arguments be in November if we bang the same drum of “count every vote!” in some yet to be known close battleground state?
We are Democrats. We believe every vote counts. It goes way beyond candidate preference to our core belief as a political party. A group of Democratic women in Massachusetts should not be standing alone to insist on upholding this principle. Our leaders should stand with them, openly and loudly… we should all stand with them…or wonder why not.
Did I miss some news about Olver? Or do you have some private information?
I just did not think to add him…please forgive the Western MA oversight…
<
p>I think the whole Massachusetts delegation, all elected officials (state and fed), all State party officials and local Democratic committee members should stand together on this principle…I do not give a care which politician they favor this year, this principle will be around long after this year’s pols are gone…unless we raise the hypocites flag for the sake of expedience and stubbornness or inability to admit the DNC was wrong in the first place.
Michigan has a Democrat for a Governor, and a majority of Democrats in their House and Senate, all who backed the date change.
<
p>So is that why Florida is being reconsidered, and Michigan is cast into the outer darkenss? Because Florida has a GOP governor and legislature to blame things on?
Unlike Florida, not all candidiates were on the Michigan primary ballot so they would need to have a new vote…the Dem. Governor urged a re-do of their primary so Michigan Democrats could have their rightful say in the nimination…unfortunately, bias raised its head when the legislature met to decide on the re-do and the Obama supporters were successful in killing it in the Mich. legislature fearing the outcome in yet another big blue state.
<
p>The Florida Governor and legialature aside (I don’t blame them, I blame the DNC for bowing to NH and Iowa and raising the rucus to begin with), Florida had a primary with all candidates on the ballot, a level playing field, and 1.7 million Democrats voting…no re-do necessary to figure out what they wanted.
The Obama campaign decided to obey the rules in MI, but flout the same rules in FL. Nobody prevented Obama from being on the MI ballot but him.
<
p>They guessed bad.
<
p>Not all candidates were on the FL ballot either – so that argument doesn’t hold up either.
<
p>The pious cant about counting every vote is hypocricy if you ignore MI – it should be both or neither.
You are preaching to the choir! Michigan SHOULD BE COUNTED…but their primary was surely not an even playing field without all candidates on the ballot…that’s why they SHOULD do it over…that’s what their own Governor was urging…just as it is unfair to discount FLA, it is also unfair to discount Michigan Democratic voters…they should have a Primary and let the chips fall where they may.
<
p>If Obama should be the nominee, his nomination will be considered illegitimate if 2 states were set aside as punishment. Far better to include FLA primary results and re-do MI so that the Democratic nominee will truly carry the banner of a complete and united party….no inconsistency here…it doesn’t take piety to figure out the hypocrisy of the “compromise solutions” being currently gerry-rigged by the DNC.
The rules were simply that a candidate not campaign in Florida. He didn’t. That has nothing to do with Michigan.
FL and MI are two different issues…because two different situations need resolving. FL is easy: accept the primary results. MI is harder: re-do the primary to get accurate results with both candidates on nthe ballot.
Hard as it is to believe, back in the Mesozoic Election Era, there were more than two candidates…
in that era when Biden was on the ballot!
MR. RUSSERT: Will Michigan and Florida be seated?
<
p>DR. DEAN: Yes.
<
p>MR. RUSSERT: In some way, shape or form.
<
p>DR. DEAN: In some way. I’m determined to make that happen. I can’t–again, I can’t, I can’t speak for what the rules committee will do. They’re 30 very independent-minded people. I can’t speak for what the credentials committee at the convention will do. I believe Michigan and Florida should be seated in some way because it was their–their voters did not cause this problem. This was caused by a political problem, not the voters’ problem.
<
p>———————————————————
<
p>IMO — Correct, the voters did not cause this problem, so count their votes, particularly in an even playing field like Florida was.
From Kos
<
p>Ya HL, I think the people of FL and MI should be heard. Something will be worked out.
<
p>The best news of all is that they can send their message in November and the many elections after that. My wish is that they opt to punish those that have put them in this spot and not the entire nation.
<
p>PS. I would like to see Niki come out and take a stand. These times call for courage.
Seems to me that this is an easy ask. Niki can show some political courage that flies above campaign biases for specific candidates. That’s not what this is about.
<
p>Imagine if it were Massachusetts Democrats being told that we would “not count” because we were being punished for what party poobahs were fighting about…we would be in an uproar! So it is easy to understand why our fellow rank and file Democrats in Florida are outraged over being sliced and diced and swept to the corner by party potentates locked in a circular pissing contest.
John, you say: “The best news of all is that they can send their message in November and the many elections after that. My wish is that they opt to punish those that have put them in this spot and not the entire nation.”
<
p>November will be far too late to take a stand on this issue. If we leave rank and file Florida voters out of our nominating process by ignoring their votes cast in their primary election, the message they send in November may be written in RED ink…that’s a lot of electoral votes to hand over to McCain.
Forget FL. They aren’t worth the political capital.
<
p>The party needs to look towards IN, VA, NM and OH.
<
p>Bush beat Gore by 5 electoral votes. NH has 4. Don’t you think NH may take caving in to FL and MI hard?
Florida’s an albatross? Not worth it? You’d rather have New Hampshire than Florida. Whether in blind service to Obama or not, those statements are ignorance. Plain ignorance.
Florida needs a time out. They have been naughty!
<
p>They over played their hand, plain and simple.
<
p>Let them swing from the rope we gave them.
<
p>Sorry if that undermines your desperate cries for “fairness”. NOT!
Florida and Michigan ain’t your neighbors’ kids. They’re a substantial part of the political fulcrum of this country.
<
p>I want a Democratic president over self-righteousness.
You said:
<
p>You mean our party’s “self-interest.”
<
p>Guess Howard Dean really hates democrats, right?
John…let’s take a hard look at the facts…if Florida and Michigan didn’t matter (in that counting their votes may change the outcome) Obama’s campaign would not be wasting 5 minutes trying to make sure that they don’t.
<
p>The best and most thoughtful account of this whole brouhaha can be found here: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com…
<
p>It’s worth the 3 minutes it would take to read it.
Wow! There is actually someone more shrill for Hill then Terry McAuliffe.
<
p>Who knew?
<
p>Tom put my brain in pain.
There’s another beauty of a barely veiled misogynist comment.
Explain to me how not counting Florida’s votes, or Michigan for that matter, is a change from the politics of old? Iisn’t that what the Obama campaign is all about?) Explain to me how not counting everyone’s vote is something the Democratic Party or a Democratic candidate for president should support?
<
p>BTW, if Hillary Clinton’s campaign was saying the votes in Florida should not count, I would still be saying they should. It will not be good for the Democratic party if it ignores all the people who went out to vote in the Florida primary. It also will not be good for the Democrats nominee. Most people do not like it when voters are denied the right to have their vote count, even if it occurs in another state.
Spare me your faux indignation, TOS. You’re about as objective as I am.
<
p>The party will resolve this. Your wasting time flailing your arms in the air.
<
p>Oh MY, henny-penny. Oh, the democracy!
<
p>RALPH!
you really do not want to answer the questions I asked. But I can understand why.
Mind if I weight the opinion of Gov. Dukakis over yours?
<
p>
Hillary Clinton pledged that she would not particpate in Michigan, did so any way, said the results would not matter, and now wants the delegates. Let’s distinguish between democrac and dishonesty.
Let’s also distinguish between following some technicalities and the importance of winning an election.
Is it a technicality when a candidate for the highest office gives a pledge? If HRC says something, and then decides to ignore her own pledge, why should she be believed?
The original sin of Clintonism.
<
p>See Triangulation.
<
p>Word? Pledge? Bah!
It’s about rank and file Democrats who vote in primaries as a way of taking part in the decisionmaking process…with all due respect to Obama and Clinton and their cheering sections, this issue is far more important than their individual campaigns.
<
p>Count every vote, every vote counts is basic Democratic philosophy…I am not interested in what one candidate or another says or thinks about this, it’s not about them for once, it’s about the rank and file voters who are getting discarded on the altar of political self-interest.
The citizens of MI & FL have recourse with those that put them in this position.
<
p>My phrase is open ended, so as not to specifically blame.
<
p>I, personally, have no sympathy for MI & FL. FL screwed us all in 2000, so in a cruel way, this is payback.
<
p>Now, I am being petty, I’ll admit. Though frankly, I am done pandering to petty egos like Carl Levin.
<
p>This whole thing is “inside baseball” and you want to make it about “the people.”
<
p>Sounds disingenious coming from Hillary. I don’t know you, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
There are many ways for Florida to get their delegation seated short of just giving Hillary what she wants in a state that did not host a campaign. Obama would have lost Florida if their had been a campaign there but not by as much as he did given he never campaigned there. Split the delegates as their was no authorised campaign there.
<
p>But please let’s not make a completely transparent Clinton attempt to change the rules of the game after she misplayed the game into a self-righteous appeal to democracy. Party processes are not pure democracies – if they were we should just have a single national primary day and whoever wins the popular vote wins the nomination. The reason we don’t is because their is more to democracy and more to the Party than just voting. That is why we have people like superdelegates and why we have states choosing caususes.
<
p>I love the Clinton strategy: on the one hand its count every vote in Florida and on the other hand its let’s take this to Denver and rely on superdelegates. Just a tad inconsistent wouldn’t you say? The Clintons wouldn’t know a principle is it bit them on their collective bottoms.
<
p>I’d just rather the Clinton people just stuck to making the case for Hillary on her merits, of which there are many, instead of playing the democracy card when everyone knows it is just a self-serving appeal for the nomination.
Pahleeze…there is only one thing standing in the way of counting Florida and Michigan and that is Obama…if he did not fear the outcome, he would happily want them included.
<
p>Evidently, he is not the person he claimed to be afterall…just a pol willing to do whatever it takes to win…otherwise he would be banging his “inclusive politics” drum standing up for the right of FL and MI Democrats to be heard…
<
p>Instead Obama says he could live with just splitting the FL delegates 50/50…but that’s not what the FL voters said…
So Obama is willing to steal delegates won by Clinton…
<
p>What if he made that suggestion about Massachusetts?
We would all be screaming! But, how easy it is to watch from afar while another state’s rank and file Democrats are being discarded.
<
p>I say there is only one card we should all be playing this year: it’s the Democracy card… which is being forgotten by supporters of both campaigns in their blind ambition to win.
Point blank. Accepting the results as they came out would be wrong to do. Point blank. Only Clinton partisans think she should get her delegates regardless of the fact that there were no campaigns in either place.
<
p>I’m sure Obama would agree to seat delegates – but just not based on vote totals that were gained in non-campaigns and that favor the opposition. That is not anti-democratic. That is just right and fair. For you to argue that those votes should be counted based on elections where, in one case only one candidate was on the ballot and, in the other, neither campaigned, and thus the best known of the candidates carrying a President’s last name, won, is ridiculous and has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the fact that you just want to see Clinton have a shot at this thing.
<
p>If both candidates agreed that Michigan and Florida would not count – which they did – then why not split the delegates. Fair and simple. Count every vote where a fair and real election was held, otherwise compromise in a way that does not hurt one of the candidates.
No campaigns in FL? You must be kidding! My cousins watched the same debates aired on national broadcasts, news commentators programs and nightly newscast coverage, etc., and newspaper coverage of this campaign as you or I did…they did not get bombarded with dumb TV ads in the weeks before their primary, but that probably makes them more, not less, informed!
<
p>The only TV ads they saw were Obama ads that his campaign says aired by mistake in Florida before that primary…I will take them at their word that it wass a mistake…but, thatey didn’t change the results when the Florida rank and file Democrats went to the polls…
No candidate came there. No one talked about important Florida issues like the Everglades or Cuba or hurricane insurance. No one.
<
p>No one opened an office there or sent a mailer or organized and made calls to voters. No one. Not a campaign by any definition. You can call it a non-binding resolution but cannot determine a fair delegate split based on the vote down there. You just can’t. To say you can means you would rather win votes unfairly than to have them actually count.
<
p>The results from the vote there is not a fair representation of the views of Floridians given that the candidates never had a chance to make a pitch to them directly. Clinton would have won the state but it might have been a heck of a lot closer than it was.
<
p>I got cousins in Florida too. They voted for Obama. They’d like their vote to count but don’t think the Florida poll counts because Obama never got to run there.
<
p>Again, your position has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with giving your candidate an unfair advantage after they had already agreed to the rules.
n/t
that Florida votes should be counted as they were cast in a non-election.
<
p>If you want it to be really fair, than let’s just say that Florida doesn’t count or compromise and split em down the middle. We really don’t know if the race was properly contested what the outcome and delegate split would be now do we. I don’t think Clinton or Obama should get delegates we don’t know they would have gotten. So split em and end this charade, give Floridians a voice in choosing the nominee and be done with it.
<
p>And stop playing politics with the issue as if our Congressman and superdels here are meant to choose your side, when the argument for your side is terribly weak.
Tell that to the 1.75 MILLION Democrats who went to the polls in record numbers to vote in that primary…you would have a hard time convincing them that it was not really an election…punishing them because of the hubrus at the DNC and the self-interest of certain candidates does not serve the long term prospects of the Democratic party very well…
<
p>If you are into expedient solutions…here’s a democratic one: count all the votes that were cast in FL primary…let them stand…seat delegates as the Democratic voter results dictate…simple, easy, democratic solution (that does not kill any chance we have to win the electoral votes of FL in Nov)
A large part of Obama’s superdelegates is made up of persons going back on pledges that they made to Clinton.
Here we have equivalence:
<
p>So you’re down with Carville on this, I take it?
<
p>Richardson is “Judas?”
How many have switched from Clinton to Obama? Half a dozen? Out of how many? And what “pledge” are you talking about? So some people said they would support Clinton and changed there mind. Who cares? Do they owe Clinton some debt that they are going back on?
Super delegates do not cast their votes until they arrive at the convention in August. They can change their minds 3 times an hour between now and then…they can change their mind the hour before they cast their vote, too. That was the whole idea in creating them so that they could make the final decision as late as possible therefore being the firewall for a candidacy that did well at the beginning but became unelectable by the convention. It is the super delegates job to select the most electable candidate to represent the Democrats on the Nov. ballot.
Simple enough question.
<
p>If he does, then FL & MI are gettin’ rooked.
<
p>If not, tough nuggies!
Is that it will give a half vote to regular delegates but a full vote to superdelegates, when we all know that the many of the superdelegates were exactly the people responsible for this mess in the first place. I think it would be more fair if the delegates get a full vote and the superdelegates get excluded entirely.
even though you believe it is just a Hillary issue…unfortunately for Democrats (I was one long before I ever heard the names Clinton and Obama, and will be one after this years contest is long forgotten)…unfortunately for Democrats, this issue goes a lot deeper than candidate preferences to the core of what we profess to believe in…the consequences of ignoring this issue will hang over the party for many elections to come. How can we call any other party hypocrites?
The RNC stripped half the delegates from MI and FL, so there was some measure of punishment, but the respective primaries went on as scheduled and no one felt “disenfranchised.” That’s what we should have done.
<
p>Unfortunately, at this point, there is no solution that’s not going to alienate somebody.
I think if we were debating this issue before the results of the votes in FL and MI were known, you’d have a stronger case for the argument you are making. Since they are known, however, it is impossible to separate the procedural claim from the results.
<
p>With respect to your central assertion, I think it is easy to say that good Democrats, and good democrats, can make a principled argument for not seating the FL and MI delegations: democracy depends on collective acceptance of agreed procedures, FL and MI violated those procedures by scheduling their votes too early, thus they validly can be excluded.
<
p>Conversely, it is easy to argue that changing the rules after the votes are taken is a characteristic of undemocratic regimes.
<
p>Personally, I think the 50-50 split solution is a good one.
because they are not on one side or the other…they are free of candidate bias…they can stand for the party principle without getting accused of bias.
<
p>If there was ever a case to be made for regional primaries nationwide, no caucuses, this year’s bungling of this “used-to-be” Democratic year is it.
Niki Tsongas’ daughter and sister-in-law are for Obama. Though I have been told Niki favors Clinton.
<
p>No matter what Niki does, she will get whacked by a partisan.
<
p>Your theory is weak. Maybe and I do mean maybe, leaders like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and John Edwards could broker a deal. Even they would get hammered.
<
p>Haven’t you heard, Hillary and Gore are still at odds over Bill. Carter has all but come out for Obama. Oh this one is rich, Edwards wants to be VP.
<
p>I think you said I was ignorant before. What political planet do you come from?
John, I have NEVER called anyone on BMG “ignorant”…if you can prove otherwise, cite it. As for you, we can disagree on this, we can debate this, but name calling and insults are not part of the equation for me…and i hope they are not for you, either.
It wasn’t you.
<
p>I really am sorry. I was lazy.
<
p>
<
p>Well said, although I think the “used to be” line may be overstated. I think Democrats will rally around the nominee because the alternative is mostly four more years of Bush.
Bob, you say: “Personally, I think the 50-50 split solution is a good one.” But, that gives delegates to Obama that Hillary Clinton actually won at the polls…wow, there’s a Democratic solution for ya!
go to a state convention or caucus to select delegates to go to the natioanal convention. Thus the delegates WON by Clinton are “dead” by the state convention.
<
p>Now of coarse, this process tends to be consistently proportional, but nothing is a lock and as Hillary and Ickes have said, no delegate is pledged.
<
p>Ultimately, Clinton won what? A promise of delegates that is loose at best.
<
p>Your position sounds so plausible, but yet is heavily flawed.
<
p>Main Entry: fair
I’m not clear which state you are talking about…FL? MI?
<
p>Every state has a system (here in MA we go by the results of the primary which determines the number of delegates apportione to each candidate, then we caucus to find out who will filled those delegate slots…then of course there are add-ons and gender, race balance contortions to go through at the party level, which is designed to be as confusing as possible)…
Why are we counting delegates from Puerto Rico when two states delegates will be excluded?
<
p>How many delegates do they have and where do they fall in relation to the “50 States”?
<
p>Count the votes of citizens!
It’s interesting that boricuas can vote for a party’s nominee but can’t vote in the general election unless they live on the mainland. I don’t know if this primary involves mainland voters, but it’s still interesting.
FL and MI broke the rules, therefore their votes don’t count for purposes of the nomination. I think I explained that before. That is a very democratic position because it respects the democratic process, as I also explained. The 50-50 solution allows the delegates to participate but it doesn’t change the outcome. Thus, reasonable to me.
Most of those voters knew about the sanctions and despite the high turnout, many did not bother to participate or went over to the Republican side where they knew there vote would at least count for half. Others who did voted may have had thought of it as a kind of straw vote. In a way, those votes did count for something, since they provided at least some momentum for Clinton’s campaign. Without MI and FL to give her a boost, she might have done even more poorly on super tuesday.
<
p>I also wonder how many of those actual voters are clamoring for their votes to “count”? It seems like the only ones calling for this are Hillary supporters, and most of them not even from those states.
<
p>Unless they can figure out a fair way to revote, I will be happy with any solution that does not change the outcome of the race since that is guaranteed to be bad for the party.
<
p>
Kevin says:”I also wonder how many of those actual voters are clamoring for their votes to “count”? It seems like the only ones calling for this are Hillary supporters, and most of them not even from those states.”
<
p>EXACTLY my point! The Obama folks are willing to be quiet on the principle at stake because (contrary to the early advertising) he is willing to do what helps his own campaign first and foremost…the Clinton supporters are the only ones speaking up because she won that primary and those results help close the gap for her…SO…where are the non-candidate affiliated LEADERS who will stand for the principle over political self-interest!?
<
p>Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick were asked to, but they are tied to Obama’s interests…SO, we need Tierney, MArkey and Tsongas to grab the reins of leadership and stand up for rank-and-file Democrats in this state and every state…because if they can throw rank-and-file Democrats from Florida to the curb today, they can do it to us when the time comes that we are the inconvenient Democrats.
You admit that you are biased, and yet want “unbiased” third parties to support your position? That is kind of weak.
<
p>If I were one of them, I wouldn’t touch this issue with a 10-foot pole because whatever solution is eventually chosen is going to piss a lot of people off. There is not much of an upside to intervening on this.
But I think that political courage is a fallacy.
<
p>We only like it when they support our cause.
those people in FL and MI and that new their votes wouldn’t be counted and simply did not vote because they knew the rules. We are rewarding bad behavior.
…would be to not seat the delegates. I’m OK with giving each delegate half a vote and stripping the superdelegates entirely, which I believe was originally proposed. Michigan’s delegates elected on the uncommitted line should, IMO, vote for Obama to balance against his not being on the ballot. BTW, I disagree with the slap given in the promotion of this diary. It’s really sad that even simple fairness is now seen as just another benefit for one candidate. Our party is, or should be, better than that.
If you want simple fairness, then why ignore the results of each given proposed solution under consideration. That seems fair. How can it be reasonable to discuss process as if that is all that was at issue when in fact we all know exactly what the results of any proposed modification to the rules will be — since we know what the results of the voting was?
<
p>The comment I made in the promotion was simply in the interest of getting directly at what really is at issue here in practical terms. That’s all.
The issue for me is absolutely not who benefits. If Obama had won those contests I’d be just as adamant about seating the delegates as I am now.
Would that be your proposed solution if Obama had won the FL primary by a wide margin and Howard Dean wanted you to give Obama’s delegates to Clinton? i just have a hard time believing you would go for that…because it would not be fair to the 1.75 MILLION Florida Democrats who cast their votes and made their preferences known.
If his supporters thought their votes would count. I also think he would have won the MI primary if it had been held in a proper manner. If they had a re-vote today, I think he would beat Senator Clinton in both states. But my opinion doesn’t matter, because we have a system for making these kinds of decisions which is elections based on rules.
<
p>The point is that the only solution that is fair is to respect the rules at the time the vote was taken.
or Ghandi…or James Meredith…or Susan B. Anthony…or Samuel Adams…or Thomas Jefferson…etc….etc…
is if Seniors, Hispanics and white blue collar workers stay home…that didn’t happen in FLA or Ohio or Pensylvania, either…so how you figure he would win a revote there is curious…
Given the circumstances: I don’t think you can trust people’s votes — they didn’t think they would count. I think campaigns would have greatly affected the results. Therefore what you have is bad data which weighted any way doesn’t really help us with democracy. Agreed that getting their votes would have been nice and those that voted for not counting the results should be kicking themselves — they probably didn’t think we’d have such a hotly contested election. The only way to make this Democratic is to reschedule the elections.