Delegate Mirth ( the end has come! )

[Dave_LF]

I don't have a problem with having them seated, but they shouldn't be able to vote on the nominee regardless of whether it would affect the outcome. They were told those would be the consequences if they broke the rules, and if the party leadership wants to maintain any semblance of authority at all, they need to stick to their guns.

[axordil]

tinwë--

I agree with your assessment of your Rep's actions. There's nothing wrong, as a superdelegate, with stating: This is my criterion for supporting someone, and then following through. That applies whether the criterion is something set, like district results, or something more mutable, such as perception of strength.

[halplm]

The Democratic party seems awefully concerned with following the rules when it suits their needs, and abandoning them when it suits their needs...

There is no solution to Michigan and Florida that will result in good things for the Democrats. The fact that FLORIDA is having this problem is devistating to the Democratic party.

I cannot imagine Obama winning Florida in November at this point. People there are going to be mad at the Party, and they're not going to care about Obama, because he's never campaigned there! It's like an afterthought for him to cambaign there for the general election.

It's a mess, and I don't think they have a solution for it.

[yovargas]

Is there really that much of a sense that Florida voters are "outraged" over this? Cuz, ya know, I live in Florida. I certainly can't speak for what the masses who live hear are thinking but you'd think if there was mass outrage about it I would've at least heard someone casually mention being at least annoyed by it. I honestly don't think I've heard even one person complain about "their votes not counting" (I have heard some complain at how dumb the rules seem) so this idea that Florida Democratic voters are just going to fall apart with rage seems, um, unlikely and kinda hyperbolic to me. Unless ya'll know something I don't, which is plenty possible.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The polls don't support the notion that Democratic voters in Florida are so outraged that they are going to flock to McCain or not vote. For whatever that is worth.

[Holbytla]

I'm mad as hell at the secretaries of state in both Michigan and Florida for signing off on this. The buck has to stop somewhere and someone should be accountable for this. I don't care if it is a private party. They use public funds for a public office. Someone had the responsibility to insure the voters voices were heard.
Someone needs to be salmonized big time over this.

[axordil]

I do kind of think coming to some arrangement for seating the elected delegates from FL and MI but excluding their superdelegates would send a message to the people responsible.

[Ellienor]

Well, it was announced in advance that Florida and Michigan primaries didn't count. I didn't hear Clinton objecting then. It is only now, that the rules disproportionately affect her, that she is making such a big fuss.

Her campaign must have known before that these were states that favored her, or should have guessed, and objected THEN. I mean, I am not completely objective, since I favor Obama, but if he had failed to object to North Carolina and another state with a heavily black vote having their votes taken away, and only later--after a close race--made a big ruckus about it, I don't believe I would feel differently. I would feel that it was too bad--but in failing to anticipate the problem, he would have to live with it at this point. You know? "Too bad, so sad"?

[Cerin]

I feel completely within my rights to complain about the rules as much and as loudly as I want.

Of course we should complain about the rules if we don't like them. What I object to is complaining about people following the rules as they currently exist. In other words, our not liking something doesn't automatically change it. Air doesn't become clean because we don't like it dirty; if we don't like it dirty, then we have to change the laws that effect the cleanness of the air. If people think the idea of party activists exercising judgment contrary to a close primary result is unethical, then we need to change the superdelegate policy. What I object to is the idea that superdelegates are acting unethically by following the current rules.

For example, I would very much object to sports fans villifying a referee for upholding some rule during a game, because they don't like the rule, and I think it would be even more unsavory if the referee declined to enforce the rule because he felt intimidated by those fans.

How can you advocate changing the rules AFTER the game?

Changing the rules after the game is not the cause of my advocacy. I'm advocating for consistency. I'm deploring the practice of selectively abhorring sticking by the rules in one case and advocating sweeping them under the rug in the other, as yov and the Obama camp is doing. The Obama camp rejects the 'rules' pertaining to superdelegates, insisting that the superdelegates can only function ethically as a ratifying body. They then turn around and insist on the 'rules' with respect to the FL and MI delegations.

You can't be consistent and say 'rules be damned' in one place and not in the other.

If the primary voters in those states had "desperately wanted their votes to count" then they should have stuck with the rules.

That's silly, vison. It wasn't up to the voters, when their primary was held. It was plain stupid for the DNC leadership to come up with a punishment that punished the wrong people. It is this stupidity we are paying for now, and that those voters are paying for. But stupidity be damned, we've got to stick by that 'rule'! We can't admit that the people in power made a damaging mistake? Fine, but then advocate with equal passion for the superdelegates to vote their judgment even if it goes against the primary results.

Of all the people on this forum who might argue in favour of changing the rules after the contest - IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE RESULTS

I am not arguing in order to change the results. The results would not be changed. I am arguing against the hypocrisy of holding up the rules as sacrosanct when they favor you, and sweeping them under the rug when they don't. People don't like the superdelegate 'rule', i.e., that superdelegates get to exercise their judgment independent of the primary results; they call it unethical and argue it should be disregarded, and further, that superdelegates are acting unethically if they don't disregard it. But they rise up in arms when other people, who don't like the decision the DNC made with regard to FL and MI, say they think that rule should be disregarded.

If you're open to disregarding some rules because of ethical considerations, then you should be open to other people disregarding rules they believe are unethical. Champions of the notion that superdelegates may only act ethically as a ratifying body should also champion the validity of others seeking the seating of the MI and FL delegations.


As for the specific question of MI and FL, I don't argue for the seating of those delegates because it would change the results -- it wouldn't. I argue for it because

1. It was incredibly stupid and unjust to punish the voters for something they had no control over. Would you say to one of your grandsons, 'If you eat that dessert before supper, your brother gets no dessert for the rest of the year!'? Would you then expect your husband to honor that 'rule' without ever proposing to you that you perhaps suffered a momentary lapse of judgment and the rule might be adjusted? Would you expect your second grandson to pass the year in equanimity, without feeling any resentment or lessening of regard toward you?

2. If we do not take steps to rectify the injustice simply because we are paralyzed by the idea of 'can't change the rules in the middle of the game', it will compound the stupidity of the original decision by alienating the voters of two of the most important electoral states.

3. There was political mischief involved in the two state legislatures failing to legislate revotes for those two states.

But this contest has to be run according to the rules as they are and how that makes Mr. Obama into a hypocrite I can't figure out.

He insists rules must be followed when they favor him, and agitates against them when they don't.

edit to attribute quote

[Holbytla]

Well, it was announced in advance that Florida and Michigan primaries didn't count. I didn't hear Clinton objecting then. It is only now, that the rules disproportionately affect her, that she is making such a big fuss.

Her campaign must have known before that these were states that favored her, or should have guessed, and objected THEN. I mean, I am not completely objective, since I favor Obama, but if he had failed to object to North Carolina and another state with a heavily black vote having their votes taken away, and only later--after a close race--made a big ruckus about it, I don't believe I would feel differently. I would feel that it was too bad--but in failing to anticipate the problem, he would have to live with it at this point. You know? "Too bad, so sad"?

Just for the record, I would be equally mad if Clinton's and Obama's roles were reversed in this. It is just bad business, especially for a country that travels worldwide to try and instill democracy and letting the people vote. I mean we are supposed to be an example, but we continue to have issues with our own elections.

[Primula Baggins]

But this contest has to be run according to the rules as they are and how that makes Mr. Obama into a hypocrite I can't figure out.

He insists rules must be followed when they favor him, and agitates against them when they don't.

As does Clinton, regarding Florida and Michigan. I see no difference.

[Holbytla]

But this contest has to be run according to the rules as they are and how that makes Mr. Obama into a hypocrite I can't figure out.

He insists rules must be followed when they favor him, and agitates against them when they don't.

As does Clinton, regarding Florida and Michigan. I see no difference.

I've been saying that for months.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I see a big difference. Obama has never argued that any rules should be changed. He has never argued that superdelegates should be prohibited from voting contrary to the popular vote, delegate count, etc. He has only argued that it would be wrong for them to do so, because it would damage the party. That is a perfectly reasonable argument to make. Clinton on the other hand literally is asking for the actual rules to be changed in the middle. There is no comparison between the two. Trying to compare them is a logical fallacy. You may not agree with Obama about the superdelegates voting contrary to the popular vote etc. hurting the party, but to say that it is somehow "changing the rules" is just plain incorrect.

This feels like deja vu all over again. We've been over and over and over this same ground.

[Cerin]

Well, it was announced in advance that Florida and Michigan primaries didn't count. I didn't hear Clinton objecting then. It is only now, that the rules disproportionately affect her, that she is making such a big fuss.

Clinton went to Florida on the evening of the primary, after the polls closed, and at a rally at the airport (iirc) made a speech about the importance of seating the delegations so that the voters would not be disenfranchised. So it is not only now that she is making a fuss. She has been fussing about it for months in exactly the same fashion.

What people don't seem to realize is that no one involved considered that 'ruling' to be the end of the matter. Those delegates and party activists were never going to just sit quietly by and accept the elimination of their presence at the convention. Dean's ill-considered ultimatum was made in the hope of keeping those two states from bolting, but it failed. Everyone knew that the threat of excluding those states wouldn't stand, or there would be huge trouble at the convention, which isn't in the interest of the party. So in essence, the mantra of 'can't change the rules' is naive and disingenuous. Everybody knows and knew damn well along that the 'rule' would have to change to avert disaster, because it was a disastrous 'rule'.

[Dave_LF]

For the record, I don't think MI would have favored Clinton in a legitimate primary. I don't even think it would have favored her in the illegitimate primary if Obama had, you know, been on the ballot. There is no sane reason for including those results.

[yovargas]

But stupidity be damned, we've got to stick by that 'rule'! We can't admit that the people in power made a damaging mistake? Fine, but then advocate with equal passion for the superdelegates to vote their judgment even if it goes against the primary results.

But their is no rule for superdelegates to vote their judgment!! They can vote on any basis they wish and I happen to strongly think that basis should be the populace!

[Cerin]

He insists rules must be followed when they favor him, and agitates against them when they don't.

As does Clinton, regarding Florida and Michigan. I see no difference.

I don't see the same dichotomy with Clinton, because she isn't insisting that the superdelegates will be acting unethically if they don't act in a certain way. She doesn't in either case appear to me to be lifting 'rules' above underlying considerations.

He has never argued that superdelegates should be prohibited from voting contrary to the popular vote, delegate count, etc. He has only argued that it would be wrong for them to do so, because it would damage the party.

I don't think so. I think the Obama camp has aggressively pushed the idea that it would be wrong for the superdelegates to vote contrary to the popular vote because it is wrong, and that people would be angry because it is wrong.

Clinton on the other hand literally is asking for the actual rules to be changed in the middle.

She's asking that the party not be bound to inhabit the disastrous hole that the Chairman dug by making his misguided and ineffectual threat to the states. Frankly, if Obama thinks it's perfectly fine for the party to squat in that hole in the name of sticking to the rules, then that calls his judgement severely into question, in my view.

But their is no rule for superdelegates to vote their judgment!! They can vote on any basis they wish and I happen to strongly think that basis should be the populace!

There are those who seek to bind the superdelegates to an unwritten rule, that they cannot ethically vote except to ratify the primary result. That is what I am referring to as 'changing the rules' in this case.

I don't even think it would have favored her in the illegitimate primary if Obama had, you know, been on the ballot.

You honestly don't think that supporters of the other candidates than the three that were on the ballot, went to the polls and voted 'none of the above' in an attempt to register their preference? That's what I would have done.

[Ellienor]

Clinton went to Florida on the evening of the primary, after the polls closed

Um, that still qualifies as getting on the horn pretty late in the game. The evening of the primary?

The problem with seating the delegates now is that the results are tainted. Tainted by Obama not being on the ballot in MI, tainted in that at the time of the voting the voters did not think their votes counted, thus changing their behavior, and tainted in taht there was no official campaigning (although Mrs. Clinton made sure to show up right before for "fund raisers" in the state). The tally of delegates from this misguided voting process is not legitimate.

Anyone who bought into the myth that in America, all votes are equal, is not paying attention. It's never been that way. The whole presidential election with the Electoral College is to make sure that the States exert some power over the will of the people. I mean, come on, people! So arguing that we must seat Florida and Michigan or we are disappointing all the people all over the world to US as a shining example of democracy is somewhat misguided, in my opinon. Besides, our luster wore off quite a few years ago anyways.

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, if Obama has the rules on his side in the Michigan and Florida matter, how is it irresponsible for him to stand his ground when not doing so would benefit his opponent? There's nothing shifty or underhanded about it. He's running for president; it's his job to try his best (without doing anything unethical) to win.

And I don't understand the "disastrous hole" you refer to, unless "disaster" is defined as "anyone but Clinton getting nominated." At this point it seems very unlikely that FL and MI will affect the nomination even if Obama gets no delegates from MI. Obama is now within 8 superdelegates of overtaking Clinton's lead there (which he may get any day now), 33 delegates away from having a majority of the pledged delegates (which he will achieve on May 20), and about 180 total delegates away from being the nominee.

Yes, I understand that you believe he is unelectable. A lot of people disagree, with reason.

[halplm]

I don't think I've ever agreed with Cerin as much as I do right now

The bottom line is, the DNC has conditioned all democrats over the last two presidential elections to believe that every vote counts, and to "disinfranchise" (sp?) a voter is the ultimate sin in an election. To say the voters of these two states have no vote is the antithesis of what they've been saying for 8 years and more.

I'm curious to know what the initial motivation of Dean was to not seat them. I understand their motivations for moving their dates up, but I don't understand the objection. Seems to me like a power play at the cost of the voters. So ultimately, whatever you believe about superdelegates, whatever you believe about caucuses vs. primaries... whatever you believe about Florida and Michigan... the Party elites are picking the nominee, not the people.


And aside from all that, Clinton's point about the groups she wins, vs. the groups he wins... is a very good one. He wins among people the Democrats were never ever going to lose in. She wins everywhere else... would have been nice to see who would win in a fairly contested Florida, the biggest swing state, and one that doesn't conform to the usual groupings in other areas.

If I were Obama, I'd be pissed at the DNC more than anyone, because he was Red Hot at the time of the Florida Primary (I think, maybe I'm wrong), and if he had campaigned there, he probably would have won easily.