Live thread at the RBC

I got a seat up in the front row of the balcony. On the way in, I chatted with Chuck Todd, who predicted that Florida will get seated with half the delegates, based on the primary results, and that Michigan gets seated 50-50, not counting the primary results. He's got an article online that does a 'simulation' of the FL and MI results, finding Florida to Clinton by a margin of about six points (53-47), netting her nine delegates (97-88), and Michigan to Clinton, 51-49, which would have netted her approximately 4 delegates (66-62). So, if Clinton comes out with a net of 10 delegates, she'd meet the simulation.

Howard Dean is doing the intro, his guidelines, first "to respect the voters in FL & MI" and second to "respect the candidates" and third, to "respect the other 48 states". Regarding MI, it seems there's a incompatibility at play her. "In less than 90 days, we meet in Denver."

I'm expecting that, no matter what the resolution today, that it gets overturned by the time of the convention, with the full seating of the delegation occurring with a nominee, but this does bring to closure, or have the potential to bring, the issue of the math-- the number of delegates needed to become the presumptive nominee.

Update [2008-5-31 10:23:11 by Jerome Armstrong]: The background by the DNC. Long rambles by Herman and Roosevelt about "the context" of when the RBC over-stepped their own rules to make a 100% delegate reduction for FL & MI. In listening to their reasoning, it strikes me that what they 'thought' would occur -- other states might jump forward or that FL & MI would re-vote outside the window-- were just plain old wrong. They made the wrong choice, and are now in CYA mode.

Update [2008-5-31 11:26:40 by Jerome Armstrong]: Ausman is making the pitch for Florida. Their appeal is straightforward, wanting 23 superdelegates (full), 185 pledged-delegates (50%), and 3 unpledged delegates not included in the appeal. the gist being that the superdelegates are not chosen as other delegates, they are not chosen in the year of the convetion, they are not in the window of the timing rule, and not subject to the rules, "they shall be delegates". Nevermind for a moment that he's right, about the reading of the rules, it just goes to show that the process that gives so much institutional power to a group of voting delegates that have no role whatsoever in the actual nominating period needs to be reformed. But, as far as this committee taking away the superdelegates voting powers, I don't see how the rules can be interpreted any other way. The reduction of 50% of the pledged-delegates for FL is also according to the rules. Ausman makes a point to the RBC: "You don't get to cherry-pick your 'shalls' in the rules based upon who you prefer as President", good line. He makes the point that the specific penalty is a greater authority of the general rule, the specific penalty being a 50% reduction.

Update [2008-5-31 11:26:40 by Jerome Armstrong]: Fowler says Ausman is "totally incorrect" in his reading of the rules, based upon what was the intention of the formation of the superdelegates. Fowler, no doubt. He's making more of a 'historical intention' point, but not debating the actual rules. Basically, then, they screwed up in writing the rules if thats the case.

Update [2008-5-31 11:26:40 by Jerome Armstrong]: Ausman pulls out some charts to make a point, based upon polling, saying there's broad public support for the 50% penalty, to a question asking what the split should be based upon. Kleinfeld asks about the 'equity' of giving the SD's a full vote and the PD's a half vote. Ausman replies that "you have the discretion of granting all 185 delegates", given this is basically another Republican move to disenfranchise Democrats in Florida, hearkening back to the historical 1876 & 2000 elections, and once again (big applause).

Update [2008-5-31 11:26:40 by Jerome Armstrong]: Senator Nelson follows up, making the presentation for Florida. He recognizes all the supporters who have come up from Florida. I've got a bunch of photos from the signs and people outside the hotel, and will post those later. "In Florida, we're pretty sensitive about not having our votes counted." btw, if you are watching Nelson on the TV, that's the back of RBC member Mike Steed's silver head in the bottom of the screen. McDonald asks an "adversarial" question, asking why Democrats favored the move in their voting, and Nelson points out that, in a bill that was like a 'motherhood bill" to have a paper trail for voting, the Republicans inserted the language to change the date of the primary. So basically, McDonald, and those who claim that Democrats voted for the move, are taking it out of context of the election reform vote.

Update [2008-5-31 12:1:48 by Jerome Armstrong]: Brazile, getting a mixture of hisses and cheers from the crowd in attendance, asks about the diversity of the delegation in Florida, to state Senator Joyner of FL (who gave a rousing speech advocating for full seating). Joyner replies that yes, it is in compliance.

Update [2008-5-31 12:1:48 by Jerome Armstrong]: Rep. Wexler, on behalf of the Obama campaign, is here to argue the case that favors Obama. It seems unfavorable for the future of Wexler in Florida, statewide at least, that he becomes the spokesperson arguing against the best interests of Florida. We get a shout-out from the crowd, when Wexler states that Obama never campaigned in FL, about the TV ads that he ran there. Wexler agrees with the Ausman petition. Wexler isn't doing Obama any favors here, pretending like Obama is taking the highroad, pounding the table, he sounds like he's losing, not winning. More hisses around the SD's allocation (Wexler/Obama say 1/2 a vote), and more gavel pounding. Its unbelievable that Wexler would come in here and be so personally confrontational.

Update [2008-5-31 12:58:56 by Jerome Armstrong]: Germond asks Wexler about turnout, but that doesn't really address the problem. The only sticking point is going to be around the allocation of the superdelegate votes. My guess is that the RBC does not grant the SD's a full vote if they are taking the PD's down to a half-vote. Flourmoy asks whether Wexler would opposes full representation, and Wexler waffles, Wexler/Obama would only want reinstatement according to the rules. Again Flournoy asks the question. Wexler won't answer directly, and the crowd laughs when he says "we have already answered", with crowd shout-outs of "yes or no", and gavel pounding. Ickes thanks him for his "passionate presentation", asking why refers to the Ausman proposal as a "concession" and then why is it a "concession" if its according to the rules, what was the concession? The "effort" of the "concession" by Obama/Wexler is to support the rules. "Fair reflection", isn't a concept that Wexler knows about, and Ickes refuses to "educated" Wexler. A question by Dawson, about reslating-- Obama/Wexler want a total review of the delegate slate.

Huffman asks about how "no penalty" is "disunity rather than unity"? Wexler says, "I wish you would have answered that question last year." Wexler makes the point that he asked that FL not be penalized to begin with, but now is arguing that they shouldn't? Huffman on the follow-up, asks the question again, asking why shouldn't they now have their full vote. "No one in the state of Florida has championed voting rights more than me". No sign of humility in Wexler.

Update [2008-5-31 12:58:56 by Jerome Armstrong]: Onto Michigan. Brewer asks for 69-59 split among the pledged delegates, and full seating of the super delegates.

RBC Members present Brazile Brewer Clark Dawson Dyer Flourmoy D. Fowler C. Fowler Gates Germond Griffen Herman Huffman Hykes Ickes Johnson Karmack Katz Kleinfeld McDonald McFadden McNamara Pasquil Reiley Roosevelt Sandler Segovia Shay Smith Steed Stroschein Taylor Ward

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

275 Comments

Re: Live thead at the RBC
makes sense to me.
can has rec/rate?
by really not a troll 2008-05-31 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

48 states--he's already given away his biases

by desert dawg 2008-05-31 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Oh please. He wants respect for the other 48 states that actually followed the rules. Giving FL/MI some importance when they broke the rules is a total lack of respect for the 48 that didn't.

by Thadd Selden 2008-05-31 06:28AM | 0 recs
expect the reality is

it will be hard for Obama to get to 270 electoral votes without Michigan (Florida is a lost cause for him).

If following the rules costs the Democrats Michigan in the general, we are screwed.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-31 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: expect the reality is

Except that Michigan a) favors Obama now anyway, and b) doesn't care voter wise because they blame Granholm, not Obama. We Michiganders knew what happened, as it was well reported on the news before the primaries and we blame our state leadership, not the DNC.

by pacopoolio 2008-05-31 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: expect the reality is

As another Michigander, I agree, we know that it was the Governor and her minions that caused the screw up. I don't blame anybody but them.

by GeeMan 2008-05-31 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: expect the reality is

And Carl Levin... has been pulling this shit for years .. just go back and look at the history

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-31 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: expect the reality is

They will split Michigan 50-50. This really is the fault of the MI DNC members who got us into this mess.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-31 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: expect the reality is

Why would losing your primary delegates cause voters not to vote in the general election? States have delegates stripped fairly often (2008, 2000, 1996, etc.) for breaking the rules, and that's never affected their votes in the general election.

This year, back when the primaries took place, the voters didn't seem to be angry over losing their primary delegates. Even Clinton was fine with this punishment - it was her people that set up the rules, and voted unanimously to enforce the rules. Normally primary delegates don't matter, so it's not something people get worked up about.

Once Clinton realized that she'd lost the nomination, she's been attempting to make the voters angry over this non-issue as a tactic to scare the DNC into giving her more delegates. But this cynical tactic (telling Democrats in Florida and Michigan that they're being treated unfairly and shouldn't vote in the general election) is profoundly short-sighted.

by laird 2008-05-31 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: expect the reality is

Maybe... But take away Michigan AND Ohio from the EV map on the MyDD front page and Obama still has 280.  Granted that includes Virginia... It is harder, but its doable.  Plus, despite ALL the BS that has gone on, McCain's lead over either Dem is small.  Given the amount of time he has had to consolidate, that is NOT a good sign for him.  I think too many people are taking a SKy is Falling POV on Florida and Michigan in regards to this.  Once GE campaigning starts you will see a change... Saying a state is a lost cause in May is a little ridiculous.  That's why we play the game, or have the election or deal the cards or whatever euphimism you want to use.

However, I am starting to think that your guy Edwards would be a heck of a VP pick for Obama.  Its a reinforcing pick that also shores up several of his weaknesses.  I don't think he'd take it or wants it, but it would be nice to think about.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:12AM | 0 recs
Alexis Herman

a Hillary Clinton supporter also talked about fidelity to the rules. The bias here seems between those that think rules are important and should be respected and those that want to change the rules for their own profit.

By the way, even Jon Ausman who is representing Florida's challenge doesn't expect anything more than 50% seating as called for in the rules originally.

by batgirl71 2008-05-31 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

It's interesting how biases and cognitive dissonance weaken basic reading skills.

by deminva 2008-05-31 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

About time SOMEONE is making the case for the rules.  Too bad it had to happen by the committee itself.  This shows that they're not going to overturn everything.

by thezzyzx 2008-05-31 06:15AM | 0 recs
Thanks Jerome

So far, this is sounding like one long political ad about them, and how right they were to handle things the way they did despite the mess that's ensued. Some things never change.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-31 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re:

"They made the wrong choice, and are now in CYA mode."

I wrote my comment before I read your update. I hear you.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-31 06:31AM | 0 recs
Michigan will not be seated

as currently constituted.  Florida will get 50%.

As a Floridian, I am most interested in ensuring that the morons in the State Democratic Party do NOT get seated.  

by fladem 2008-05-31 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will not be seated

Besides .. I know it is verboten around here .. but a month or two ago .. Kos posted a video from the Florida legislature .. when the voting took place for that voting bill Jerome mentions .. the Florida House minority leader(a Dem) .. was mocking Howard Dean .. and making all sorts of nasty comments(this was almost a year ago mind you .. before any of this current stuff happened) ... the point being .. there were some bad faith Democrats in the Florida legislature

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-31 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will not be seated

Shhhh!  Don't make anyone angry by undercutting Senator Nelsona and Jerome about the mean Republicans trying to undercut the virtuous Florida Democratic leadership.  

sotto voce I've seen that video, too.  It's obvious that the Democratic leadership in the Florida leadership were overtly mocking the DNC and their "so-called" rules.

by deminva 2008-05-31 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will not be seated

Lets admit though that the RBAC fucked this whole thing up along with Florida and Michigan.  I still find the irony that they would have had a MAJOR MAJOR role in this election had they STAYED PUT rather funny.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will not be seated

Of the two states, I actually feel like FL is getting a bad rap.  Your reps are taking it on the chin after ensuring that there is a paper trail for elections.  They took the hit knowing full well what would happen to them.  I give them credit for that...

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-31 07:50AM | 0 recs
MI & FL made the wrong choice. nt

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

MI and FL cheated do not seat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-31 06:25AM | 0 recs
How many Clinton, Huckabee & McCain protestors

showed up? I saw a pic that showed not too many.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:29AM | 0 recs
I'm hearing about 300...

... you know what they say about rumors though.

by kraant 2008-05-31 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm hearing about 300...

The pics I saw on Americablog show that many at most I'd say.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:34AM | 0 recs
To what end?

Are they there for the Cameras or just for the hell of it? Why didn't the Clintons show some respect for the party and call these silly protesters off and don't dare try to tell me they had no involvement in this farce.

by eddieb 2008-05-31 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: To what end?

A show of force I guess. Popular will and all of that. But if you claim 10000 will be there and 300 show up you showed the exact opposite.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:42AM | 0 recs
Obama made the right move...

..tell his supporters not to protest.  Now the tiny protest by the HRC supporters will be the story and the supers will take note.  

Its amazing how many times the HRC campaign can shoot itself in the foot.

by xenontab 2008-05-31 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama made the right move...

I'm not sure this was coordinated with the HRC campaign but if it was it's sad. If it wasn't they should have put a stop to it.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama made the right move...

The HRC campaign has said they were not involved in any protest organization.

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama made the right move...

Would have been a good move to try to put a stop to it then.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama made the right move...

Excuse me? I may be OLD party Democrat but OLD party democrats believed it was their DUTY to protest against what they believed were unfair conditions or protest FOR causes. Guess the NEW party of Democrats is against the peoples right to protest.

I guess I already knew that because the Peace Rallies (anti-war protests) I attend every 3rd Sunday of the month are all median age 60-65. All the veterans advocacy protests I attend are all median age 60-65, etc. etc. etc.

by Justwords 2008-05-31 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama made the right move...

Did you guys protest against Senator Clinton when she voted to authorize what most peacenik Democrats view as an illegal war?

by Obamaphile 2008-05-31 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama made the right move...

"against the peoples RIGHT to protest?"  Whoa there, buddy, I can haz crazy talk?

I guess I'm a new party Democrat or something.  I believe in organizing strategically i.e. focusing our energies so we can make a real impact rather than just do the same old thing and hope for different results.  I'm fully in favor of people's right to protest, but I think that MY people ought to use that right when its going to help affect the balance of power.

I guess I'd say all campaigns ought to follow three principles: 1. make real, concrete improvements in people's lives, 2. change the balance of power, and 3. give people a sense of their own power.  300 people standing outside the RBC is lame and doesn't accomplish any of that.

And in case you didn't get the reference, those principles ain't new.  They come from this guy named Saul Alinsky and his proteges from the Midwest Academy.  Guess the difference isn't between "old" and "new" so much as "savvy" and not-so-much.  Sheesh.

by sierradave 2008-05-31 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: To what end?

Yep, you can bet that this was organized from within their campaign headquarters. I'm guessing they have a special squad that is reponsible for nothing else but these types of operations. After all it's the Clintons, would you expect anything less?

by GeeMan 2008-05-31 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

This is really sad. An unnessary Kabuki dance to placate the Hillary camp. How many Supers do you think are getting really pissed off over this. She could have settled this entire affair graciously. I feel really depressed over the Clintons childish rantings.

by eddieb 2008-05-31 06:38AM | 0 recs
Go Florida

Jon Ausman, thank you for giving this Florida voter a voice!

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

My uncle stayed home because he was told his vote wouldn't count. Hundreds of thousands of others did the same. He blames the FL legislature.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:44AM | 0 recs
And 1.7 million voters did

and there are the votes to prove it. I'm sorry that some people stayed home.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

You're sorry that they stayed home? So much for the "will of the voters" argument.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

And what about people who couldn't make it to a caucus? Is there voice heard? Nope.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

How is that comparable?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:06AM | 0 recs
It's not

It's a dishonest argument, and totally bogus.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-31 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

So much for the "will of the voters" argument.

I was responding to this part of your comment.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

So you admit you're not worried about the will of the voters?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

<crickets>

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-31 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

Those people had an opportunity to go to an election that would count, even if it may have required some sacrifice on their part.  The voters in FL/MI did not know there was a binding election in which they could participate until after it happened.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-31 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

What about the fact that one of HRC's most vocal supporters, Congresswoman Joyner, agreed that had the Florida Primary been a normal primary in which there would have been no penalty up front, that close to 3MM Florida Democrats would have come out to vote in January?

by Obamaphile 2008-05-31 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: And 1.7 million voters did

I think what matters, really, is whether the knowledge that the vote wouldn't count disproportionately affected one candidate's supporters versus the other's.  If not, then no harm is done--the proportion who voted is representative of the total electorate.  Now, if one candidate's supporters were more likely to stay home, that's a different matter, but given that neither campaigned there, I can't see a good argument for believing that.

by slynch 2008-05-31 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida
Are you saying your uncle isn't a landowner, because there was a pretty important homesteading bill being voted on by FL residents, one reason for the large turnout.
Let's go for what the rules originally stated- 50% delegates, strip the superdelegates and let's finish this thing.
by skohayes 2008-05-31 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

I have no idea if he's a landowner.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

So you had to be a landowner to want to vote? My sister and her husband didn't go because they thought it was worthless. They don't own land. So I guess they had no vested interest.

by applejackking 2008-05-31 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

So you are saying that all the Obama supporters stayed home? That those who chose not to vote weren't proportional to the candidates standing in the polls at the time of the primary?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Who cares who they supported?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

The way I read the above argument was that the result of the Florida primary was because the Obama supporters stayed home.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Doesn't matter who they wanted to vote for. An analysis over at TPM shows that up to a million voters may have stayed home because they were told that their votes wouldn't matter. It's hard to use the "will of the voter" or "disenfranchised voter" arguments when that many people sat out.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida
Not having the data at hand so I can't argue this, but how did the results of the primary vote compare to the polling done? Did one candidate or the other over or under perform the MOE?
But all this is besides the point as the RBC is recognizing the vote results.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

I'm not sure about the polling. There was no campaigning so it was a name recognition contest.

Why do you  say that the RBC is recognizing the vote results? They haven't made a decision yet.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

If they are considering what to do with the pledged delegates it goes without saying they recognized the result of the primary.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

They're just hearing arguments at this point.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida
Arguments as to what to do with the delegates or arguments about the validity of the primary vote?
My understanding is the RBC has put their imprimatur on the results.  
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

No decisions have been made yet as far as I know. They are hearing from the various camps. They can still do anything they want.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Though HuffPo says they reached a deal last night and all of this is posturing and Clinton will net 19 out of FL.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Checking pollster the results tracked the polling and the polling was quite stable since no campaigning was done.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Then the admonition that the primary didn't count had no effect on the turnout.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Well it certainly had an effect on turnout and since they weren't allowed to campaign it also had an effect on the results.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Turnout
The turnout and the percentage supporting each candidate are two different things.  Polling looks at the latter.  Furthermore, campaigning affects both, as has been shown in other states.  Obama, as the lesser known candidate, stood to improve his support percentage through campaigning.  
The results of his GOTV efforts have been remarkable everywhere he has campaigned.  Your comment is obviously mistaken.
by texasobserver 2008-05-31 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Actually that doesn't follow at all.

Anyway, even people who are for full reinstatement acknowledge that turnout was severely depressed.  Their argument is basically "yeah well, but screw 'em.  If they were dumb enough to believe Hillary Clinton they deserve what they get."  

I haven't heard anyone argue that what happened in January would have happened under a normal primary. I think the reason for that is that it defies common sense.

by Jess81 2008-05-31 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

If you sincerely believe that the conditions going in for the Florida Primary had no effect on turnout, how do you explain the fact that Florida was one of the only states in the entire country to have higher turnout for the Republican Primary than for the Democratic Primary?

Are you contending that Florida has become one of the most red states in the entire union?  Because that's a logical deduction if you believe that voter turnout wasn't depressed in Florida...

by Obamaphile 2008-05-31 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida
I meant to say results of the primary, not turnout.
The argument has been made that the low turn out some how skewed the rests in Senator Clinton's favor because of name recognition. Were that the case then John Edwards should have done better than Obama.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

If you'll stop pissing in the weeds, we can all acknowledge that every FL voter was told the FL primary did not count.  Informed estimates suggest that more than one million more votes would have been cast if this had been a sanctioned primary.  

It's also noteworthy that the committee that voted to sanction MI and FL last summer had a dozen Clinton supporters on it, including Harold Ickes.  All of them voted in favor of the sanctions.  Clinton supporters at MyDD like to ignore this little tidbit because it becomes impossible to avoid the conclusion that her grandstanding for Democracy and enfranchisement is utterly self-serving.

by deminva 2008-05-31 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida
And some chose to heed this, others chose to ignore it and vote anyway. My question is simply of all the polling done were the results of the primary outside the MOE?
If Senator Clinton outperformed expectations then a valid argument could be made that the shifting of the date and resultant admonitions change the outcome in her favor.
That is the question. Not that it matters because that is not the argument being made in front of the RBC.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

I agree, but for me it all boils down to a vexed situation.  We shouldn't have to apportion delegates or partial delegates on the basis of what the vote might have been.  If Florida hadn't broken the rules, we wouldn't be in this situation.  On the other hand, if the DNC doesn't enforce some sort of sanction, states will do whatever the hell they want in 2016.  It won't matter for 2012, since Obama will be up for re-election.

by deminva 2008-05-31 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

You are listening to Ausman right? He is arguing about the supers, the supers that have nothing to do with giving Florida a voice. He is saying give pledged delegates a half vote or cut them by 50% but you must give the SUPERS a full vote. He may be right according to the rules, but Jerome is right (wow I never thought I'd say that) that something stinks about this system.

Ausman is all about giving Florida party insiders a voice. You should be proud.

by batgirl71 2008-05-31 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

He is right according to the rules and he is fighting for Florida Democrats both at the state and national level. As a Democrat, I would think you would support this.

Supers, like caucuses, do not represent the will of the people, only the preference of a few. I'm all for doing away with both.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:01AM | 0 recs
So you accept a 50% reduction?

Those are the rules.

by batgirl71 2008-05-31 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: So you accept a 50% reduction?

Actually a 100% reduction are the rules.  

They're contemplating changing them.

by Jess81 2008-05-31 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

You go with the rules you have, not the rules you wish you had.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Go Florida

Glad we agree. They will only get 50% of their delegates since the rules are the rules.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-31 07:27AM | 0 recs
He's not right

They "shall be delegates" indicates nothing about the vote that will be given to that delegate.  If Guamanian delegates can be given only half of a vote, then the same must be true about Floridian supers.

by Renie 2008-05-31 07:38AM | 0 recs
Dean's opening comments

Via Greg Sargent (geez... all this liveblogging... I have this mental image of a slew of people (guys, really) in the front row with their laptops all typing furiously and glancing over at each other):

Howard Dean delivered some strong words in his opening remarks at Rules and Bylaws, telling an anecdote about his bitter, hard-fought loss in 2004.

"I was very very angry at my party for some of the things that had been done," Dean said, going on to recall getting a phone call in the middle of the night from Al Gore, to whom Dean ranted and raved about his loss.

"What do I owe the Democratic Party," Dean recalled telling Gore. "Why should I be a Democrat after what the party did to me?"

According to Dean, Gore responded: "Howard, you know, this is not about you. It's about your country."

"Nobody could have said that to me except for Al Gore," Dean continued, since Gore had had the presidency snatched from him by "five intellectually bankrupt Supreme Court justices who did the wrong thing."

"This is not about Barack Obama," Dean went on, speaking about the current primary. "This is not about Hillary Clinton. This is about our country. This is about restoring America to its greatness" and "moral authority."

by odum 2008-05-31 06:44AM | 0 recs
So Ausman decided to burn down the barn

by pretending that the DNC is in the bag for Obama. Classy.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

"Long rambles by Herman and Roosevelt about "the context" of when the RBC over-stepped their own rules to make a 100% delegate reduction for FL & MI"

ramble = to talk or write in a desultory or long-winded wandering fashion.

Are you sure you are not letting your bias show, using pejorative words because you disapprove of the process Herman and Roosevelt were describing.

(and over-stepped? at the very least I thought that was something to be decided after hearing the arguments - even if they are presented in a long-winded way).

by My Ob 2008-05-31 06:47AM | 0 recs
Are you sure you are not letting your bias show

You expect anything else?

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you sure you are not letting your bias sho

reading Jerome's updates, I realize I don't believe anything he writes.

by Metrobot 2008-05-31 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Fowler is a Clinton Supporter - he seems to be turning.

by cardboard 1 2008-05-31 06:47AM | 0 recs
I've realized watching it unfold...

This week that the DNC has completely different issues than the Obama campaign, even though they both seemed to be closer in agreement than either was with Hillary on this issue.

Obama no longer really needs to have MI and FL penalized.  Even if they are seated fully, and his margin shrinks, he's still going to be ahead, and win enough superdelegates to become the nominee - because all but a handful of Michigan uncommmitteds, who have already been selected, are essentially Obama supporters, meaning any decision which leaves uncommitteds ultimately ends up giving most of them to him.  However, insofar as a solution can be made which would allow him to cinch the nomination with the superdelegates in his pocket next week, he's willing to take it.  

On the other hand, the DNC wants a penalty to remain in place because Michigan and Florida violated the rules.  If they were seated in full, it would signal the DNC was toothless, and there is no reason to follow its wishes in the next presidential election.  So the DNC is more concerned with taking half the delegates away, and less concerned with modifying the ultimate make up of the delegate spread.  

The essential point is I believe it is the DNC, not the Obama campaign, which is the principal obstacle for the delegations to be seated in full as is.  Obama has no realpolitik reason to oppose full seating now, and the DNC has every reason to.

by telephasic 2008-05-31 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Somehow, Jerome always finds a way to argue that he can't see any way to look at something other than the way that happens to be the exact position of the Clinton campaign.

It's just so damn coincidental that something that helps Hillary Clinton is the thing considered democratic!

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 06:48AM | 0 recs
I don't care

As long as the RBC doesn't give Senator Clinton some excuse or another to drag this into August, I'm happy.

by maxomai 2008-05-31 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Yeah, imagine thinking counting votes is democratic.

Good grief.  We've been duly made to understand that wanting votes to count is election stealing, thanks to Obama supporters.

by Juno 2008-05-31 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Changing the rules after the fact is undemocratic. Disenfranchising people who stayed home because they were told the election wouldn't count is undemocratic. An election where not all the candidates were on the ballot is undemocratic.

Thanks for the intellectual dishonesty, though. Stealing an election is when you have to  change the rules to win.

This is the great part about all this. Most of us Obama supporters want to find a compromise, we want the votes to count in some way. But because we don't want to give everything Clinton demands, seating in full according to the unfair vote, we are the ones who are wrong. We are the ones who hate democracy!

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

yes it is - so the RBC should have just stayed with the 50% reduction of the delegates instead of changing it to 100%.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-31 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

hey I'm fine with a 50% reduction, though thats not enough for most Clinton supporters. They need it all!

That said, the changed to 100% was not done after the fact. It was done long before voting began.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

The question is was the RBC within the rules to change the penalty to 100%?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

I'm not an expert on the rules, so I don't know. But if the rules do allow it, then there's nothing wrong with them changing the rules BEFORE the contests began.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC
Exactly! I heard so many different opinions on what constitutes the rules I'm at sea.
If I feel this way so do many others and we are ill served by those responsible for this kettle of fish.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

If you want votes to count when no campaigning was allowed, you bet your ass that's election stealing.

It's pretty much the tactic they use in Russia you know: You can be on the ballot, you can have people vote for you -- but we arrest you or shoot you if you dare campaign.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-31 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Florida doesn't exist in an inpenetratable bubble. The candidates may not have campaigned there but they did elsewhere and were broadcast on TV and blogged on the internet.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

You should take that argument to show and tell.  It's simple enough for a third-grader to understand and uncluttered by nuance or context.

by deminva 2008-05-31 07:56AM | 0 recs
i'd say poor choices...

and awful assumptions, were made all around.  hard to get out of such a mess...

by bored now 2008-05-31 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC
Remember that anything said or done at this meeting that isn't within strict accordance of the rules will come back in the form of an RNC ad this November.
Also if the party bosses don't move to quickly repair this C F of a nominating process Democrts will be painted as the party that can't get it right.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 06:56AM | 0 recs
Ausman's argument

the PEOPLE of Florida should be penalized by 50% who had nothing to do with the breaking of the rules but the SUPERS who had everything to do with the breaking of the rules must be given their full vote.

Are you proud Hillary? This is what counting every vote is about?

by batgirl71 2008-05-31 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Ausman's argument

I agree that it's patently unfair, but we have a crappy rules system. And seeing as we'll need party leaders in both states to endorse this plan, and those leaders are superdelegates, full-strength SDs will probably end up winning the day.

Which blows. Add it to the list of things we need to fix before the next primary.

by really not a troll 2008-05-31 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

this is basically another Republican move to disenfranchise Democrats

I was under the impression that the Democratic legislature in both states fully supported moving the date up. We've seen videos from Florida and had MI legislators on record to this effect, yes?

by really not a troll 2008-05-31 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

In the case of Florida, wasn't a measure requiring paper trails for electronic voting machines tied to the primary date legislation? Sounds like Florida was between a rock and a hard place on this.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Yes, it was.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC
Yeah the FL Democrats looked reaaaaaaaaal upset when they had to vote for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAw dE
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

The the democrats as well as the republicans in Florida made this choice, and they made a well informed choice - the DNC spent months trying to negotiate with Florida, and there are many other examples of states losing their delegates for breaking the rules (2008, 2000, 1996, etc.).

They all thought that having a primary after Super Tuesday was meaningless, and they decided that having an earlier primary, without delegates, was better for their state.

Usually nobody cares about whether delegates are stripped, because whether your convention delegates are seated is relatively meaningless. The only reason that it's an issue this year is that the contest is close enough that the loser sees a chance to claim the stripped delegates to change the result of the primaries. But if they opposed to stripping delegates from states in principle, rather than opportunism, they would have voted against the punishment this year or previously, which, of course, they didn't.

by laird 2008-05-31 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Thanks for the updates as they go along, Jerome. I don't have CNN or CSPAN so am missing the live coverage.

by Justwords 2008-05-31 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

For the love of God. This was NOT a Republican move. IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC STATE SENATOR who introduced the bill and it was voted UNANIMOUSLY.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 07:07AM | 0 recs
Republican move? I'm sure then that it was a

party line vote then right and the Dems had no ability to stall legislation. Eh. Neither of those things is true so he's lying.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican move? I'm sure then that it was a

Stop, you really don't know what you are talking about.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican move? I'm sure then that it was a

Yeah actually I do. It wasn't a party line vote and the Dems had the full ability to hold up legislation  as they have on other issues.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican move? I'm sure then that it was a

I don't think Sen. Nelson can make this anymore clear to you. I hope you are watching.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican move? I'm sure then that it was a

I was clear on what happened way before today.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:19AM | 0 recs
I believed my FLA vote woldn't count

There are many poor black folks in the I-4 corridor.  I will bet my life that many many of them also believed what we were told.

Unlike what the Clinton supporters manning the Democrat table at the polls told me 'don't worry.  there is a huge Clinton GOTV and the delegates will be seated'.

The disengenuity of this whole "we care" crap makes me physically ill.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I believed my FLA vote woldn't count

You can read the minds of the Floridians who didn't vote in the primary?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:25AM | 0 recs
I AM A FLORIDIAN WHO DIDN'T VOTE

so cut the lofty bullshit.

I BELIEVED what I was told BEFORE I went to the polls.

When I left the polls, I was TOLD by Democratic Party volunteers MANNING THE TABLE AT THE POLLS that there was a Huge Clinton GOTV.

I was TOLD by Democratic Party volunteers that they "had it on good sources" that the delegates would be seated.

There is not another person here in this discussion who has been more screwed over by EVERYONE involved.

"Care about my vote" my butt.  This is a crock of corrupt bull pucks.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I AM A FLORIDIAN WHO DIDN'T VOTE
What B S?
I was asking crisblask why he was so sure that the results were changed in Senator Clinton's favor?
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I AM A FLORIDIAN WHO DIDN'T VOTE

Because I was told so by the volunteers maning the Democrat table at the polls that they were.

Get over your distaste for DKOS and read my story.
Happy to swear on every word in court.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I AM A FLORIDIAN WHO DIDN'T VOTE
You went to the polls but you didn't vote?
Some one who you believe to be a Senator Clinton supporter said that the vote would favor her because voters were told it wouldn't count?
I'm asking you to show me by demonstrating how Senator Clinton out performed the polls and Obama under performed them. I'm not from Florida and wasn't following events down there so I don't know.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:42AM | 0 recs
I'm Indie, I believed the Politicians

I reposted the diary here for those allergic to Orange.  Intro below:

Hi folks,

When I moved to Florida in the fall after six years in Canada I was looking forward to voting in the primaries and explaining it all to my son, now old enough to really get into the details and implications...

...and then I noticed that my vote wasn't going to count...  My first thought was "Who the hell thought of this?  Didn't a 'Florida 2000' alarm go off somewhere?"

When I switched over my drivers' license I filled out my state voter registration and put down "Independent" instead of "Democrat" - which I had been intending to vote in the primaries prior to learning it wouldn't matter.

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 09:07AM | 0 recs
Oddly interesting handle BTW, UM...:~)

Excuse me all if I'm more than a little cranky today.  I won't repost my entire story here - you have the link - but I challenge anyone of any allegiance to show how they were more fundamentally and completely disenfranchised than I was.

This makes me mad at much more than the opposing Dem candidate and her camp.  the entire thing - including the actions of the FLA Dem party volunteers - has been a personal affront to me.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Oddly interesting handle BTW, UM...:~)
I'm sorry but I don't do Kos or Josh.. I don't shop at Wal-Mart because of their anti-union stance nor do I watch ABC/Disney programming or buy Disney/Pixar DVDs since that propaganda hit piece "The Path to 911"
Kos lost me when diarists started bashing Senator Clinton with republican talking points and Greg Sargent did that piece defending MSNBC's "pimping" remarks.
I think everybody was disenfranchised, not just you.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:04AM | 0 recs
Your choice, but imho there is no

reason to stop observing the world.

Self-censorship is at least a personal choice, but the result is not much better than letting other tell you what you are allowed to read.

I come here because I don't only want to hear what I want to hear.

After this f*(*&ng primary is over, I will likely spend a lot of time causing heated debate at LGF etc...

chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 09:10AM | 0 recs
I heard that Florida had been punished

but NO ONE can take away my right to vote. So I voted and I want my vote to count.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I heard that Florida had been punished

Of course they can take away your right to vote.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I heard that Florida had been punished

You don't have a "right" to vote for a private party; sorry.

by pacopoolio 2008-05-31 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I heard that Florida had been punished

You don't have a right to a primary vote. You have a right to a GE vote.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:47AM | 0 recs
I am furious with the DNC
I just heard Senator Nelson offer a clear explanation of the Florida debacle. The Republican controlled Congress in Florida attached legislation to an election reform/paper trail bill that would move up the primary to Jan 29. In order to be within DNC rules, Democrat leaders in both houses attached an amendment to move the primary back to Feb 5. Democrats are outnumbered 2-to-1 and their amendment was defeated.

Why did the DNC penalize Democrats in Florida for a Republican scheme? This is not the kind of thing the DNC should be doing and goes against all Democratic principles.

by zenful6219 2008-05-31 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

That was one side of the story.

He conveniently forgot to mention several facts, such as the party affiliation of the state senator who first brought up the bill to move the primaries up.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

Party affiliation is a moot point as long as the rest of the Democratic Party members of the legislature worked to overturn, via an amendment, the law.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

Unless of course they knew that was just for show.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

Isn't there and exception clause in this primary date rule that covers a situation like this? Did the DNC find that Florida Democratic Party legislators not practise due diligence in trying to over turn this part of the legislation?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

Yes, as you can see by the video, Steve Gellar, practicing due dilligence.

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-31 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

It is technically true but watch this video (this is a Democrat) and tell me they were heartbroken to have voted for it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAw dE

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

The answer to this would be how did the voting on the amendment returning the primary date go by party affiliation? did a significant number of Democrats vote to kill the amendment?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

You'd want to step back and ask why they didn't filibuster the original legislation or at least vote against it.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

This is where the part of the legislation dealing with paper trails comes into play. Were the Florida Democrat members of the legislature voting for the lesser of two evils? Did they want to risk that part of the legislation by filibuster?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

See if they made a conscious decision and chose what they thought would be best they can't whine about their choice now.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

My understanding is they aren't "whining" but want a fair application of the rules. As I asked was the attempt to rechange the primary date sufficient? Did the RBC take that into consideration?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC
The Democrats are outnumbered 2-to-1 in Florida's Congress. The Republicans used the mother-bill, election reform and paper trails, and added the primary date change to it. Considering the huge mess they had in Florida in 2000, and the fact that the Republicans could care less for election reform, Democrats saw their likely best chance to get election reform. Even though they submitted an amendment to change the date to Feb 5, and it was defeated, Democrats voted for the overall bill because it was probably their best chance to get election reform.
by zenful6219 2008-05-31 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

The DNC stripped the delegates from Florida and Michigan, which is the standard punishment for states that break the rules (as was done, or threatened, in 2008, 2004, 2000, and 1996). This is not a new or unique punishment, which is why the vote to enforce the rules was voted for nearly unanimously (only one, an Obama supporter, opposed the punishment).

Keep in mind that the Florida and Michigan parties decided quite specifically to make a tradeoff, to get an early primary date in return for losing their delegates. They were assuming that the nomination would be resolved by Super Tuesday, making any later primary meaningless. So they decided that they would rather have an early "beauty contest" primary and lose their delegates. This is a well known tactic - Michigan has tried this, and been punished for it, in several elections.

The only difference this year is that the contest is close enough that the loser can attempt to claim the stripped delegates to change the outcome of the primaries. This is why we're seeing the same people that wrote the primary rules, and a few months ago voted to strip the delegates from Florida and Michigan, now making these impassioned speeches claiming with a straight face that every vote must be counted.

Luckily the DNC and the super-delegates don't appear to be dumb enough to be taken in my such transparent maneuvering. They're being polite and letting everyone make their speeches, after which they'll enforce the rules that everyone agreed to. They might allow a a "compromise" to appease Clinton's supporters, but aren't going to overturn the result of the primaries of the states, because that would be a disaster for the party.

by laird 2008-05-31 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I am furious with the DNC

by applejackking 2008-05-31 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

I'm glad that Sen. Nelson admitted that live revotes were not feasible and that multiple problems also made a mail re-vote unfeasible, as well.  Sounds like Obama didn't singlehandedly mastermind vote suppression in FL.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

you are accusing Obama of voter suppression? A mail-in vote would have been the ultimate form of voter suppression as Florida is a complete mess anyways. It took Oregon 10 years to perfect mail-in voting.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-31 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

No, I'm saying that the "Obama disenfranchised voters" meme is complete BS, and Sen. Nelson's words confirm that.  We're on the same side here.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thead at the RBC

Sorry about that. Got it.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-31 07:43AM | 0 recs
Arthenia Joyner

Wow. Set aside her preference for Clinton, Florida is a better place for having her as it's advocate.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Arthenia Joyner

I think she is doing a terrible job... my opinion.  I mean she opened by calling people yellow.

by cardboard 1 2008-05-31 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Arthenia Joyner

The RBC "has the power to bring Florida back into the Democratic fold"...wow. Yes, it does. Yes, it does.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Arthenia Joyner

She just admitted that they would have doubled the number of voters if there could have been campaigning. So they disenfranchised those voters...nice.

by applejackking 2008-05-31 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Arthenia Joyner

I must admit that even though I support Obama and disagree with her vehemently, I giggled at the way she just said "I want it all" with a smile.

by Renie 2008-05-31 07:43AM | 0 recs
Meanwhile, Obama gets more unpopular

Per Rasmussen today:

Obama's numbers are 45% favorable and 53% unfavorable (see recent daily ratings). Those figures represent Obama's lowest ratings of the year. His favorability ratings peaked at 56% in mid-February. Twenty-five percent (25%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while 37% have a Very Unfavorable view.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

Is this the candidate the DNC wants?

by katmandu1 2008-05-31 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Meanwhile, Obama gets more unpopular

What is today's date?

by cardboard 1 2008-05-31 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Meanwhile, Obama gets more unpopular

Way far out from November. So far that the polls have little meaning.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Meanwhile, Obama gets more unpopular
Do you really want us to pick our nominee by picking who has the lowest unfavorable ratings ?
Do you really need me to point you to the hundreds of polls showing Hillary with unbelievably high unfav ?
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 07:43AM | 0 recs
Is this the candidate the DNC wants?

It isn't the DNC's purpose to choose the nominee. They are trying to clean up a mess made by selfish politicians.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this the candidate the DNC wants?

You are entirely correct.  The DNC's purpose is NOT to choose the nominee -- but the purpose of the Clinton camp is to co-opt the DNC into the ultimate smoke-filled room.  The pretense of wanting to count every vote is all about an elitist, superdelegates-know-best theory of politics.  Doesn't look like it's working, however.  

by Headlight 2008-05-31 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this the candidate the DNC wants?

The outcome is already decided -- in the nominees favor. This all just a PR exercise for the factions.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC
Thanks to the Clinton representative for admitting the turnout would have been double that had the primary been real and contested.
You just made our case, Ms Joyner ! Thanks a lot !
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Only if the results were outside the MOE of the polls. Not being from Florida I am ignorant of the poll results.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

We are a nation of rules. Enforce the rules!

by MissVA 2008-05-31 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I love Mark Warner. I was disappointed that he decided not to run for President.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Warner is the best VP choice and will ensure 16 years of democrat rule in the White House.

by MissVA 2008-05-31 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Whatever reason caused Warner not to run for president may also preclude him from being Obama's VP.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I think he was scared off by Hillary's early strength.  That won't be a factor here for VP.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-31 08:44AM | 0 recs
He was scared off by Hillary's early strength

Or perhaps Hillary discreetly let him know she had the dirt on him. Hillary's early strength didn't scare off a lot of others, thankfully.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 09:18AM | 0 recs
Cowardly FL dem party

Nelson said the Dem amendment to the "Motherhood" bill that would have removed the Jan. 29 failed.  He also said the Motherhood bill passed almost unanimously.  And we have been told ad nauseum that the legislature in FL is GOP-controlled and the Dems were helpless.

If that is the case, the FL Dems could have voted against the "Motherhood" bill, and it would have passed anyway.  So there is no merit to the argument that the Dems simply had to vote for the bill because the legislation was simply too important.

by JJE 2008-05-31 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Cowardly FL dem party

Are you really as dense as your post?  The Republicans could run ads in the Fall about the Dems not supporting a paper trail.  

"State Sen. Smith claims to be for voter audits, but he voted against this bill creating a paper trail."

This a complex issue and you treat other posters as simpletons not aware of all the ramifications.

by mdana 2008-05-31 09:52AM | 0 recs
Republican attack ads

are the consequences of political decisions, dipshit.  You miss the point like a simpleton and I'll treat you accordingly.

by JJE 2008-05-31 06:15PM | 0 recs
Wexler states that Obama never campaigned in FL

I hope someone on the committee asks Wexler about the Obama ads that ran here on CNN and MSNBC for a week before our primary.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Wexler states that Obama never

What would the question be?  "How dare you run a national ad before the FL primary took place?"

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

It is funny that Jerome is not mentioning the audio tape of Bill C. two days ago arguing the best solution is half-votes.

In other news, Obama did not run "TV ads" in Fl and you know it. And I think it bodes ill for the WHOLE Florida Democratic party that they put their voters in such a mess that their vote would not count.
Imagine if they had let the primary be later in the spring - how important and pivotal a primary that would have been.
If you think Ms Joyner improved her electoral future with that performance, well, I am glad you are not in charge.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Obama DID run TV ads in Florida. He stated they were 'regional' ads and couldn't be helped, however at the time of the Florida vote I'm trying to figure out just what 'region' he was advertising in that bled into Florida.

by Justwords 2008-05-31 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

he made a massive ad buy in preparation for super tuesday.  he couldn't do this without having a slight overlap in northern florida.

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Isn't there a Youtube showing Obama making an appearance in Florida?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

You can troll rate all you want Lefty Coaster- doesn't change the FACT he ran ads in Florida.

by Justwords 2008-05-31 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

any pictures of hte protesters anywhere?

by nikkid 2008-05-31 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I just left to try to find the link for you- there was a spread of about 158 pics (I didn't get through them all). Shows people lined up on both sides of the street, a few Hillary signs but mostly Count the Vote signs in various phrases. Mostly middle agers, all ethnicities and men and women both.

If I can find the link to where I saw the photos I will post it for you. Sorry- it was a one site led to another thing and I don't remember where the link was. ;)

by Justwords 2008-05-31 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Jerome, so you know, very little booing was heard on the TV coverage...just came across as a lot of applause.  Pundits broke in and talking about Obama making a compromise.  It is going over well on TV.

by cardboard 1 2008-05-31 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Jerome's take on this is, let us say, unique.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Well, for one thing, he is actually there.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

So are dozens of journalists and dozens of other bloggers who all have a ... different reading. Surf the Internet. You will see what I mean

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Sure, but his perceptions may diverge quite differently from those of others.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

And is Jerome going to talk about Harold Ickes ... getting p'wned by Wexler .. and Ickes walking out like a petulant child? .. of course not

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-31 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I'm watching CSPAN. I'm pundit free thank god. I'm hearing some booing/hissing, but more applause.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Wexler was amazing and bought the house down.

Wexler is the next senator for FL. Mark my words.

by MissVA 2008-05-31 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

When Obama supporters boo, we are immature!

When Clinton supporters boo, Wexler is being too confrontational!

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 08:07AM | 0 recs
Wexler is AWESOME

Jerome - geez, you're being "blinded by the (Clinton) light".  

The cognitive dissonance is simply astounding.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

OH YES YES....WILL YOU COUNT ALL THE VOTES??? OBAMA-MAN????

by nikkid 2008-05-31 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

What about those who didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

This is the eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too argument.

Counting the votes is about honoring the will of the voters, rather than the flawed nominating process.  

Except, of course, when it benefits Clinton.  Then the fact that names weren't on the ballot or hundreds of thousands did not show up to vote, well, that's just the process.

by TL 2008-05-31 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Yeah the real process is punishing MI & FL.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Yeah - that's why obama should have publicly taken up Clinton's offer of financing revotes. He didn't.
Had we had Clinton and Obama standing on the same stage together saying, we want revotes in both those states, we would have had them. We didn't get them.

Obama took his name off the ballot and he did not aggressively support revotes. Those are two big strikes against him.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-31 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

There are no strikes against him. The strikes are against MI & FL who violated the rules. I read about some of those BS revote proposals. They weren't good.  

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:28AM | 0 recs
Bullshit disgusting politicians

They are all disgusting.  I find it nausiating that even while agreeing to take the reduction in the voters say, the superdelegates still want full representation.   I say that the Superdelegates from both states should be denied their say entirely.  Sure, they can get pissy, but (hopefully) they are not going to be stupid enough to throw away their entire political futures by making too big of a fuss.   Hell, if they can better guarantee the peoples vote by giving up their own, they can even make themselves look better.

At this point I think that Dean needs to personally bar Jennifer Grenholm from even entering the convention.   She was warned not to do this, she gave a big F*ck you to the DNC and she needs to be smacked down.  The rest of the states, outside Florida, all followed the rules.   She didn't, she got caught and she needs to be punished.  

by monkeyga 2008-05-31 08:10AM | 0 recs
Wexler

Yelling doesn't an answer make.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Wexler

I know. Poor Joyner

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-31 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Wexler

She answered the questions asked of her with a smile on her face.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

JEROME- just read a NYT article and the committe met last night for 5 1/2 hours until 1 a.m. this morning trying to reach a concensus...so this 'open door' show is only a continuation of last nights meeting and apparently a rehash of last night.

by Justwords 2008-05-31 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Huh. So that's what Ickes looks like.  I love how he pretends that he isn't at the root of this problem.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

ickes just got pwned

by astoria gooner 2008-05-31 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Ickes was slammed! A proper put down.

by MissVA 2008-05-31 08:16AM | 0 recs
What happened?

Because I loathe that guy.

by Jess81 2008-05-31 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Jerome, what is unbelievable is your continued demonstration of such biased "reporting." You are as bad as Matthews, Obermann, or Fox news have ever been accused of being.

Dude, give it a rest.  

by magnoliagirl 2008-05-31 08:16AM | 0 recs
Dishonest coverage - it is what it is...
Jerome is "reporting" for the few Clinton
fan(atic)s.
by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

He's much worse.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 09:06AM | 0 recs
Again, with the yelling, Wexler

and table pounding.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Again, with the yelling, Wexler

Yelling is such a turn off.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Again, with the yelling, Wexler

I'm sorry buy joyner yelled her entire talk

by cardboard 1 2008-05-31 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC
By giving FL concession, Obama is giving Clinton the SAME amount of delegates she won over Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio combined.
Obama chose well having a pitbull like Wexler here today.  That was awesome.
by MissVA 2008-05-31 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Wexler is the next senator for Florida.

by MissVA 2008-05-31 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

They could do worlds worse.

by werehippy 2008-05-31 08:37AM | 0 recs
&quot;Confrontational&quot;

Wexler's a blowhard, no doubt.  But I strongly disagree with the characterization of his remarks in this diary.

There's a ton of energy in that room, and lots of posturing on all sides.  There's no cause to single Wexler out.

On the substance, I just heard Wexler urge the committee to grant the Ausman petition.  This would be the Ausman petition referred to in the diary above this way:  "Ausman is making the pitch for Florida. Their appeal is straightforward, wanting 23 superdelegates (full), 185 pledged-delegates (50%), and 3 unpledged delegates not included in the appeal."

The "confrontation" that the diary objects to is in the fact that Wexler is raising the points that support Obama's side of the compromise.  Mostly, this is standard political stuff - saying that there were hundreds of thousands of Floridians who didn't vote - that there were 1.7 million voters who showed up, and that was a great turnout, but more Republicans showed up that day, and with all respect to Republicans, Florida Democrats are every bit as passionate than the Republicans about this race and their candidates.

Complements all around - standard politics.

The offense is not caused by Wexler's tone or by any nastiness toward the other side - it's because he's bringing up the arguments that benefit his candidate.

by TL 2008-05-31 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Why all the Clinton RBC members interest in counting all the votes all the sudden?

They all voted for the sanctions in the beginning.

Alice Huffman cares nothing about counting votes, she cares about her candidate.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

She said that they could not have foreseen all the problems. As mad as I am about their decision, and feel that they were wrong, I can understand her explanation.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

She couldn't see Florida being important in general election? Honestly, close race or not it still only takes a majority of delegates to win the primary, something that can be accomplished without Florida.  But if she is really arguing that she couldn't foresee Florida being important in the fall and the voters may be disgruntled by their decision then I'd say she lacks the foresight necessary to serve on such a committee.

by matchles 2008-05-31 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Congrats to huffman comparing our Democracy to  a crystal ball.

Wexler is strong,

I am proud of the Wexler position.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-31 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Did Ickes just walk off the panel?

The same Ickes that voted to strip Florida of its delegation?

I may be wrong, but unless I see him back in his seat, did he just take his toys and go home after setting the rules one way, and complaining that the opposite were not followed?

Ickes said that Florida shouldn't get ANY votes.

Now he's bitching that Obama is willing to concede 19 delegates?

To Robert Wexler???  The champion of Florida getting it's votes counted fairly???

The Obama campaign (via Wexler) has conceded 19 delegates to a man (Ickes) who voted that Florida's delegation shouldn't count at all.

Fucking hypocrite.

by doschi 2008-05-31 08:27AM | 0 recs
It's been interesting

comparing the reaction here to Wexler vis-a-vis the comments on DKos (I know, I know ... but I was too curious not to peek). They seem to really like his "energy" over there, while here he is seen as "posturing." Of course, both characterizations could be right.

by professor 2008-05-31 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: It's been interesting

It's all about the cognitive dissonance. Our preconceived values strongly effect our perceptions of information.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 08:41AM | 0 recs
Good comment

phantom rec.

No-one should ever feel compelled to apologize for reading anything.  In fact, it strikes me as lazy not to seek out and consume information from those who specifically disagree with whatever you believe.

LGF isn't inhabited by Aliens, either.  Just Republicans like the members of almost all of our families...

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 08:45AM | 0 recs
Wexler is coming across as a bully

I'm surprised the Obama campaign put this man forward as their representative.  His sneering, chiding and pounding the table is reminiscent of a five year old being told he has to go to bed early.  What's he going to do next - call somebody out for a fight?  Donna Brazille was a much better advocate - and she's on the rules committee, able to effect change.  

All this does is make Democrats look like idiots.  

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-31 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Wexler is coming across as a bully

It's an emotional issue and Obama is being accused by some of "disenfranchisement" - what is he supposed to do?  Having the R&B Committee act like complete hypocrites, and having Ickes walk off the stage after some sort of gotcha question, is what makes this look ridiculous.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Wexler is coming across as a bully

Yes, I didn't like that Ickes walked off after asking Wexler a question. Maybe he had to go to the bathroom, but it looked like he walked off angry or pouting. I'm not sure.  

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Wexler is coming across as a bully

He should have held it.  No big Slurpee before deliberations.  :)

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Wexler is coming across as a bully

LOL. You're right. I did notice that he was caring a coffee cup with him. Maybe he needed to get drink.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:44AM | 0 recs
What ever happened to a 'reasoned' debate?

The representative for Michigan can manage it.  Why not Wexler?  And you can't say Michigan's spokesman is in the tank for Clinton.  He's advocating for Obama.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-31 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Doesn't the Florida compromise of seating half of the delegates (or half votes) completely undercut Michigan's argument that all of its delegates should be seated?

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:41AM | 0 recs
Wexler

Why are you smearing Wexler?

He conceded, this is misleading.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-31 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Gotta say as an Obama supporter, I can dig 69-59 Clinton for Michigan right now.  Then again, I've been awake for over 24 hours.

Don't hold me to this, but it sounds alright so far.  I'd prefer 50-50, but to unite the party and finish this business altogether, that's better than "zero" for Obama.

Is that half of the Michigan delegates, or is that dividing them 100%?

I'll probably change my mind in 5 minutes.

Looks like Ickes took his chair back next to the African-American woman with the short blonde hair.

I guess his self-imposed time out was over.

by doschi 2008-05-31 08:47AM | 0 recs
You don't live here, Jerome

It seems unfavorable for the future of Wexler in Florida, statewide at least, that he becomes the spokesperson arguing against the best interests of Florida.

I was told not to register as a Dem, and not to vote.

Clinton supporters represented the Dem party at the polls (where I could only vote on a Property Tax bill).

You have no idea what is best for the voters of Florida. I am one.  I have some idea what is good for myself.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't live here, Jerome

I didnt hear any hissing or jeering of Brazile either, I dont see how its relevant even if it happened.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-31 08:52AM | 0 recs
It's kind of funny to read other blogs and how

much they differ from Jerome's take on this. I guess they could all be Obama shills. I'm sure that's it.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: It's kind of funny to read other blogs and how

all you have to do is watch this meeting and you get it. Its Clinton vs. Reality here. Clinton supporters on this committee are willing to cede no ground. They are not willing to be rational or evaluate the rules fairly.

They are fighting for their candidate, and it disgusts me. This is so inappropriate.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's kind of funny to read other blogs and how

I sat through nearly 8 years of an administration that didn't care about rules. I'm a bit tired of it.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: It's kind of funny to read other blogs and how

And 4 or those 8 years was because we had a candidate that rolled over instead of fighting as he vowed.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: It's kind of funny to read other blogs and how

What do you mean? No one made Bush be someone who doesn't care about rules but Bush.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I regretfully wish that one of the other front-pagers were liveblogging this event.  Jerome, I'm really looking forward to you taking a week off with no internet access, then coming back with a slightly less biased approach.

by travelerkaty 2008-05-31 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

The intellectual dishonestly in this room is disgusting. Seriously, these people claim to be impartial?

A lot of these people have no place on a Democratic Rules committee. I expect the committee members to argue for fairness and rules, not for their candidate.

Yet these Clinton supporters on the committee keep throwing out ridiculous arguments and hoping they will stick.

Ickes put forward the 2004 Florida primary, calling it contested (yet Kerry had clearly won long before).

Another supporter claimed we can't use exit polls because we know how much trouble we've had with them (yeah, thats it. Its not because they dont favor Clinton)

And a another claimed that uncommitted was a legitimate choice, that no one actually wanted to vote for obama, they wanted to vote for uncommitted.

What the hell is going on? This is disgraceful. These people should not be on the committee if they can't evaluate the rules fairly. I'm not saying they can avoid their biases, but they act like they don't understand logic.

What a shame.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 08:52AM | 0 recs
The intellectual dishonestly

Let them rant. Everyone knows Obama holds the cards and controls the process.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 09:26AM | 0 recs
Jerome, where are you?

What's going on in the room?

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Gosh we have Jerome's totally unbiased look at things, grlpatriot's GOP troll look, nikkid's deadender smear-Obama-no-matter-what look... I think I've got an excellent picture of how things truly stand, thanks.

by ragekage 2008-05-31 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

What is your problem? I'm a Clinton supporter and have been on this site since February. Grow up.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Then someone's using a very similar name to you and posing as a Clinton supporter, referring to us as libs and the "Democrat" party. Just FYI. I'll hunt down the passages and perhaps you'll help me in driving them away?

by ragekage 2008-05-31 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

This "Democrat" party thing that keeps getting recycled is a typo. I've done it twice myself. I type fast. I don't understand the problem.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Because it's a GOP syndrome. The GOP trolls who only listen to Limbaugh, et all, hear them call us the "Democrat" party over and over again, and it becomes writ to them. They don't understand it's a partisan sneer in our direction. Considering you're one of the very few who have made that spelling error around here, even among many people who "type fast", and the fact you're sometimes very vitriolic and boisterous, and given the modus operandi of GOP trolls, it does make things a little suspicious. Your history is long and varied, certainly, but these things instantly call into question your authenticity, even among Clinton supporters.

by ragekage 2008-05-31 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Thanks for providing context over the uproar over "Democrat" party. I had no idea. I'll be more careful next time. With that said, I really do resent being called a troll for vigorously supporting Clinton and expressing my opinions on this site. If anything, I'm one of the more fair users on this site. I do not abuse the ratings system. I very rarely troll/hide rate. I do not hound or stalk other users here. I call out bad behavior and ratings abuses when I see them. I don't spam diaries, nor do I respond to comments with childish pics, vids, and rude/vulgar comments. That to me is trollish. I do write, post, and recommend diaries in support of Clinton. I do write, post, and recommend diaries that question Obama. It is not trollish to do that. I also post on other diaries unrelated to the candidates. I'm happy to discuss this with you further. But please, please, stop calling this 20 year Democrat a troll because I support a Democrat.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Don't let all the paranoia talk of trolls on this site get to you. When I signed up to be a "Democrat" over 40 years ago their was no box for Democratic Party...just Democrat. That may have still been true 20 years ago,

It became an issue for republicans when we started calling ourselves the Democratic Party...because it assumed we were for 'democracy' and the Republican party wasn't...of course we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic and they are quick to point that out.

You are not a troll simply because you used the word Democrat...we are all Democrats and identify ourselves that way...the party is Democratic...the people who belong to the party are Democrats.

by Justwords 2008-05-31 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

My pleasure. We're on Defcon 2 with these trolls, so things get testy. As I said, you have a long and varied posting history, which would mean for you to be a troll, you'd have to be a particularly good and committed one, which doesn't match 99.9% of the trolls we get here. And Occam's Razor says you are genuine, which I'm inclined to believe. But prudence suggests we shouldn't let it go unchallenged.

I certainly am not calling you a troll because you support Senator Clinton. Perhaps a more judicious look at the statements I've made about Senator Clinton and her supporters in the past would illustrate this more clearly to you, just as your past illustrates yours and the perception you want to foster about yourself and your candidate.

by ragekage 2008-05-31 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I understand, but this has led to a witch hunt and Clinton supporters are being unfairly targeted. The behavior is turning people off your candidate.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

What Clinton supporters have been unfairly targetted? We have several prominent Clinton supporters who are leading this effort.

by ragekage 2008-05-31 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Alegre, Texas Darlin, Linfar, to name a few.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Linfar and Texas Darlin star prominently, contribute to, and cite places like Hillaryis44, NoQuarter, and Taylor Marsh, to name a few. Alegre too, to be sure, and she's never striven into pure racism and hatred like SoCalDarlin, but she throws in an extra element of being intellectually dishonest.

For instance, Alegre would've made an off-hand ad hominem crack at the start of this thread, and would never have bothered to actually engage me on this point. You, on the other hand, have actually talked, discussed, shared your feelings, took a look at both sides of the argument, et cetera.

That's not a witch hunt, that's a purposeful look at who really represents Clinton and who doesn't, and it ain't the three people you just mentioned for sure. You a helluva lot more representative of your candidate and supporters than they are.

by ragekage 2008-05-31 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I understand what you are saying. But here's the other side. Pro-Clinton diarists are targets. In all fairness, you have to realize that we, and those three diarist especially, cannot respond to every comment, most of which are rehashes of old arguments, smears, rude comments/pics, and just silly. The best thing to do is correct the record respectfully and move on, let it go. You actually might get a response back. Repetitive hounding feels like an attack. It puts people on the defensive.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

And for the first few hundred times I've talked to Alegre in particular, that was the tack I took. But it was never, ever a respectful or honest response; it was always ad hominem and rhetoric. Look, I brought up this issue with you, and we're still here hashing it out and resolving it. You and I disagree on a great many things, but we still have the respect to stand up for what we believe in and try to answer challenges to those beliefs.

And the majority of Clinton supporters on this site are the exact same way. Sricki, Canadian Gal, SevenStrings, VAAlex, etc, etc, the list goes on. And I've never seen them, you, do that at all. Ever. You guys don't make statements using egregious takes on the facts, of course, but you guys haven't wavered no matter how contentious it's gotten here, and that's a hell of a statement about you guys and your candidate. I'll be damn proud to work with you guys no matter who the nominee is.

That's why I think Alegre's a troll, and will not tolerate her junk writing, and why I don't consider it an undeserved "pile on" when people go after her.

by ragekage 2008-05-31 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

I understand. This has been a long hard primary season. My best to you.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Ickes's agenda is so transparent as to be ridiculous.  In the past he admitted that he changed his viewpoint after being hired by the Clinton campaign.  Each of the networks should include a text box with a giant asterisk under him whenever he speaks.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

This would be a lot better if it weren't a bunch of biased people who don't seem to give a damn about neutrality.

Every time Ickes asks a question, which is, in fact, a Clinton talking point, I'm forced to wonder what the point is.  This isn't an attempt to do what's best for Michigan and Florida.  This isn't about what's best for the party.  It's about trying to phrase talking points so that they seem like questions or statements about democracy and party rules.

by freedom78 2008-05-31 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

No, and honestly, I don't think a lot of these people have any place on a rules committee. These people ARE not supposed to be campaign representatives on the committee. They are supposed to act impartially. For them to act like this is so inappropriate.

I'm fine with the campaign representatives doing what they are doing. But the people on the committee are the judges, and yet they are fighting for their candidate.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Exactly.  If this were a trial, the judge would have to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest, yet there seems to be no such concern about this problem.

by freedom78 2008-05-31 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

At a minimum, those who work for the campaigns should have recused themselves.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Great run down on what's happening at the RBC.  Kudos to Jerome.  

by markieparkie 2008-05-31 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Levin is doing a great job on explaining this mess.  I didn't realize NH defied the rules that they were supposed to go third and they jumped back to the second place.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

He's clearly very invested in this.  I still don't understand how, if one accepts the Florida compromise, Michigan's position is not totally undercut.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

well, he IS the senator for MI - I think anyone who represents their state would be invested in their state's position.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Interesting to think that if they had not been allowed to jump back ahead of SC, this primary may have been wrapped up months ago!  :)

by NeverNude 2008-05-31 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

And their penalty for violating the rules was?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

They got a waiver.  MI didn't.  And went ahead anyway.  And may suffer a penalty.

by NeverNude 2008-05-31 09:54AM | 0 recs
No sign of humility in Wexler.

No sign of humility in Clinton and Armstrong either :)

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

photos taken from the Hillary Protestors.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmason/2539 124964/in/photostream/

Goes far towards unity.

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-31 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

"Black Panther 4 President"

Is this really from the protest?!

by asherrem 2008-05-31 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Yes it is, I found it on someone's flickr profile, nestled between HRC protestor pics.

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-06-01 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Live thread at the RBC

Blanchard is unbelievable: "No one was saying that the votes wouldn't count." Incredible.

by thinman 2008-05-31 10:47AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads