You don't get mulligans in politics! (MI primary fallout)

Message

Kazoo65 · #1 Post by **Kazoo65** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:28 am

Remember back in January when Michigan had its' primary? As I reported then, the Democrats were told by the DNC that if the primary got moved from its' original date of Super Tuesday 1 in February, the delegates wouldn't be seeded at the convention-they even went as far as to cancel all the delegates' hotel reservations.

Well, we had the primary and Hillary took 55% of the vote-there wasn't much competition there. She was the only leading candidate on the ballot-no Oboma, no Edwards.

Now there is talk of actually RE-DOING the primary. Governor Granholm says she's not having the texpayers pay for it, the DNC says they won't pay for it, and the campaigns won't pay for it either. What they are talking about is something called a "firehouse primary", which is a primary where some of the voting takes place online and some takes in actual polling places.

The governor of Florida is also complaining because THEY had an early primary and also got punished by the DNC. Stay tuned.

ne1410s · #2 Post by **ne1410s** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:52 am

The governor of Florida is also complaining because THEY had an early primary and also got punished by the DNC.

Both states Democratic parties were warned not to move up their primaries or their delegates would not be seated at the convention in Denver. They did so anyway.

My guess is that HRC and BHO will end up splitting the votes equally.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #3 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:54 am

ne1410s wrote:
The governor of Florida is also complaining because THEY had an early primary and also got punished by the DNC.
Both states Democratic parties were warned not to move up their primaries or their delegates would not be seated at the convention in Denver. They did so anyway.

My guess is that HRC and BHO will end up splitting the votes equally.

It's not fair in Florida, the playing field was level. All of the Democrats were on the ballot in Florida, nobody did any campaigning and Hillary won.

Appa23 · #4 Post by **Appa23** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:58 am

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
ne1410s wrote:
The governor of Florida is also complaining because THEY had an early primary and also got punished by the DNC.
Both states Democratic parties were warned not to move up their primaries or their delegates would not be seated at the convention in Denver. They did so anyway.

My guess is that HRC and BHO will end up splitting the votes equally.
It's not fair in Florida, the playing field was level. All of the Democrats were on the ballot in Florida, nobody did any campaigning and Hillary won.

Except that Clinton did campaign in Florida, going against all of the candidates' pledges to not campaign in the state.

gsabc · #5 Post by **gsabc** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:06 pm

IMO neither state should have to pay for a rework (to use the vernacular of my own business). The state committees should pay for any new election, since it was their decision to go against the DNC rules and move up their primaries. If there is no new election, the DNC should stick to their guns and keep the delegates out of the convention, or at least not accept their votes in the final tally. Remove their counts from the overall total, and reduce the number of delegates to win the nomination accordingly.

None of this will happen. Howard Dean and the other PTB will cave and allow the current delegates to vote. The Obama camp, justifiably pissed, will raise a stink that will end up raising mudslinging to an art form. The public, also justifiably pissed, will stay away from the polls in record numbers come November.

In what could possibly have been their most locked-in election victory in recent memory, the Democrats have still managed to f**k it up. Will Rogers was right: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

MarleysGh0st · #6 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:29 pm

ne1410s wrote:
The governor of Florida is also complaining because THEY had an early primary and also got punished by the DNC.
Both states Democratic parties were warned not to move up their primaries or their delegates would not be seated at the convention in Denver. They did so anyway.

Did the state parties change the date of these primaries or did the state legislatures? According to Andrew Tobias (who, aside from being a financial writer is treasurer of the DNC) the Florida legislature passed a bill to do so, signed by the governor. Both the governor and the majority of the legislature are Republicans.

http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/080117.html

nitrah55 · #7 Post by **nitrah55** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:30 pm

Unless...someone comes up with a cheap compromise.

How about this: the candidates agree that after the last scheduled primary, the Florida/Michigan delegates be alloted to each candidate based upon the percentage of elected delegates they've already received.

It's entirely possible- perhaps likely- that even with this boost, neither candidate will have enough delegates to go over the top, without superdelegates.

It's also clear to me that this deal could only be made soon (before Pennsylvania) so each candidate might believe they have a shot at having the majority in June.

#8 Post by **eyégor** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:44 pm

Maybe this will end the mindless rush to frontload primaries so the one in your state matters. (What precipitated the FL/MI problem)

Is it right to disenfranchise party members in 2 of the more populous states because of some grand plan of 'EEE-yah' Dean? Makes you wonder - do you really trust these bozos to run the country?

There should be a less draconian punishment.
1) No revote. What's done is done. No one will pay for it anyway.
2) No caucuses. Short lead time caucuses aren't any better than smoke filled rooms where fairness is concerned.
3) No reapportionment of the delegates. The VOTERS in FL made their preference known. In MI, they chose from the choices they were given.

Here is my solution. Reinstate the superdelegates. They are NATIONAL committee members & national figures (yes, governors are national figures). Doesn't matter if you like SDs, they have been around since Ted Kennedy demanded them to end his challenge to Carter in 1980.

Then, seat the delegates from MI & FL, but reduce their votes to 1/2 a vote each, the way the Democrats Abroad delegates are counted. Leave the now 271/2 uncommitted delegates from MI stay that way.

Move on. Rethink the composition of the convention for 2012

Kazoo65 · #9 Post by **Kazoo65** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:19 pm

This whole episode started late last year. Michigan was (and still is) in the middle of a budget crisis. The legislators got bored with trying to balance the budget, so they decided to tinker with the primary schedule to make our state more "relevant."

The Governor signed the bill into law, but then several groups tried to stop the primary from moving up. They went to court. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled the day before Thanksgiving that the January 15th date would stand. This gave the election clerks a little over 6 weeks to get the ballots printed. I got my absentee ballot in mid-December.

Isn't politics fun?

Jeemie · #10 Post by **Jeemie** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:49 pm

Dems backed themselves into a corner with this one.

After all the stink they made in 2000 and 2004 about "making sure every vote counted", they'll look mighty hypocritical if they stick to their guns and not count Florida and Michigan.

But everyone was counting on Hillary to cruise to the nomination, and so they never thought they'd need those delegates.

Oh well.

And indeed as someone pointed out...Hillary broke the Dems' pledge not to campaign in Florida, AND she is now breaking her word that she'd abide by the DNC's move to not seat Michigan and Florida delegates.

Amazing what not being handed what you want on a silver platter can do to you when you think you're owed the nomination!

ne1410s · #11 Post by **ne1410s** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:17 am

Jon Stewart:

You mean the nomination could come down to a lawsuit over votes in Florida???? How precedented. How heard of.

MarleysGh0st · #12 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:59 am

Today the news stories are saying that neither Obama nor Clinton can lock up the nomination, even if one or the other sweeps the remaining primaries and caucuses, so the superdelegates will have the deciding votes.

Do they still use smoke-filled rooms for that?

Rexer25 · #13 Post by **Rexer25** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:11 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:Today the news stories are saying that neither Obama nor Clinton can lock up the nomination, even if one or the other sweeps the remaining primaries and caucuses, so the superdelegates will have the deciding votes.

Do they still use smoke-filled rooms for that?

I think they still have the rooms, but Bill Clinton will provide"special" cigars to fill them with smoke.

NellyLunatic1980 · #14 Post by **NellyLunatic1980** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:23 am

Is it any wonder that I've been calling this election a clusterf**k?

MarleysGh0st · #15 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:33 am

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Is it any wonder that I've been calling this election a clusterf**k?

Well, that was the purpose of having superdelgates in the first place, so that they might overrule the will of the voters. Why else give them special privileges if they're going to echo the result of the elections?

Loco Rovo's Interpreter · #16 Post by **Loco Rovo's Interpreter** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:36 am

Rexer25 wrote:
MarleysGh0st wrote:Today the news stories are saying that neither Obama nor Clinton can lock up the nomination, even if one or the other sweeps the remaining primaries and caucuses, so the superdelegates will have the deciding votes.

Do they still use smoke-filled rooms for that?
I think they still have the rooms, but Bill Clinton will provide"special" cigars to fill them with smoke.

Can I be a superdelagate? I love smoke filled rooms and fine ceegars.

So long as we don't hold the meeting on March 22nd. I have other plans...

silverscreenselect · #17 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:27 am

ne1410s wrote:
The governor of Florida is also complaining because THEY had an early primary and also got punished by the DNC.
Both states Democratic parties were warned not to move up their primaries or their delegates would not be seated at the convention in Denver. They did so anyway.

The parties don't move up or set primary dates. The state legislatures do because a primary is an officially state sanctioned election.

In FL, which is heavily controlled by the Republicans, the Democrats really had little say in what primary date was set.

The edict that the DNC issued about not moving up primary dates was just that, an edict, not a rule that is part of the written rules covering delegate selection procedures.

As a practical matter, both Hillary and Obama need a revote in these states, as does the party. Refusing to allow FL and MI to participate in the Democratic nominating process will make it tough for a Democratic candidate to carry either state in the fall, especially if Obama is seen to have finagled the nomination by excluding them.

So far, Obama has still not won a major state other than IL, and his poll numbers are slipping nationally. There could be some major buyer's remorse a month from now if Hillary cleans his clock in PA, which could well happen. A strong showing in either MI or FL would erase those doubts.

Unless Obama somehow wins PA (and effectively ends the campaign), look for a revote in FL and MI in late May or early June.

#18 Post by **eyégor** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:56 am

I did a quick guesstimate at how the delegate selection would proceed, given the perceived strengths of each candidates (Obama taking the West & South, Clinton the rust belt & Puerto Rico). I then split the remaining SDs as I thought they would go, and factored in a revote in both FL & MI.

When I added up the results, I found that neither would have the number now needed to nominate (2207), and would be less than 10 votes apart. The kingmaker? John Edwards & his 24 delegates.

This, not superdelegates, is what smoke filled rooms are meant for...

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #19 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:57 am

eyégor wrote:I did a quick guesstimate at how the delegate selection would proceed, given the perceived strengths of each candidates (Obama taking the West & South, Clinton the rust belt & Puerto Rico). I then split the remaining SDs as I thought they would go, and factored in a revote in both FL & MI.

When I added up the results, I found that neither would have the number now needed to nominate (2207), and would be less than 10 votes apart. The kingmaker? John Edwards & his 24 delegates.

This, not superdelegates, is what smoke filled rooms are meant for...

Edwards would never give his delegates to Hillary.

silverscreenselect · #20 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:18 pm

eyégor wrote: When I added up the results, I found that neither would have the number now needed to nominate (2207), and would be less than 10 votes apart. The kingmaker? John Edwards & his 24 delegates.

This, not superdelegates, is what smoke filled rooms are meant for...

The 24 delegates that Edwards has or will have, if he doesn't release them, are not 24 diehard Edwards supporters. Delegates are often chosen weeks or months after the primary in a series of local, county and state conventions and are subject to sexual quotas (a state's total delegation must be exactly 50/50 M/F if it has an even number of delegates and 50+1/50-1 if it has an odd number) and racial "goals" (which vary from state to state depending on its demographics. A lot of the time they wind up being people who have the time to go through the series of conventions, are able to schmooze a few people into voting for them along the way, and are willing to foot the bill for a week stay in Denver.

So the people who will be in the seats in Denver have no loyalty to Edwards and no obligation to vote for whomever he directs. Ironically, the same is true for Hillary and Obama delegates, because there is no procedure under the Democratic rules which would require a delegate to vote the way he or she is pledged.