More votes to think about

The Clintons sensing a bit of movement in Wisconsin?

The Clinton campaign has coaxed Teresa Vilmain (left), who earned high marks for running her Iowa operation, down from the wilds outside of Madison to run her suddenly-rejuvenated Wisconsin operation, we're told.

Early on, it looked like Hillary Clinton might effectively concede Wisconsin's Feb. 19 contest to Barack Obama. But her schedule released late last night shows an apparent change of heart -- she'll spend four days there starting Saturday, after trips today to Texas and tomorrow to Ohio.


Senator Levin of Michigan and Nelson of Florida are ready to play hardball:
The Illinois Senator suggested holding caucuses in the states in an interview with WJLA-TV and the Politico.

But Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) dismissed the possibility in interviews on Tuesday. Levin and Nelson said caucuses would effectively void the primaries in each of their states, and are pushing to have their delegates receive full voting power at the convention.

"You can't undo an election with a caucus, especially one where 1.75 million Florida Democrats voted," said Nelson, who filed an unsuccessful lawsuit last year seeking to overturn the national party's decision to strip Florida of its delegates.

Levin had similar thoughts. "It would not be practical or fair to hold a caucus," Levin said. "You've got 600,000 people who voted. You can't just throw out the votes of 600,000 people." Levin said the state will appeal to have its delegates restored by the party convention's credentials committee this summer.

More in the extended entry, for those of you who think there's a simple solution...

Nelson said a caucus would result in the disenfranchisement of Florida voters and a dramatic reduction in the number of people who are able to participate, which is a particularly big issue in Florida with its large population of seniors for whom going to a caucus can be an ordeal.

Levin predicted that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will ensure that the full complement of delegates from each state will be seated at the GOP convention, which will leave the Democrats in a bind.

"They're not going to punish anybody," Levin said of the GOP. "Would the Democrats punish Florida and Michigan if the Republicans don't? And what possible impact would that have on a general election where you need Florida and Michigan to win?" Levin asked.

Levin also said that the cost of additional elections is a factor. "I don't think the state's going to pony up" the millions it would take, he said.

Nelson also said that it was a nonstarter to hold a full-blown do-over of the primary, which would require the approval of Florida's Republican state Legislature.

"The last election cost the state $18 million. That's not practical," Nelson said.

Asked about the fact that Clinton appeared on the Michigan ballot and Obama did not, Levin noted that it was Obama's choice to withdraw his name.

"I was disappointed that he did," Levin said.

Nelson also noted that Florida has never had a caucus, and organizing one on ultra-short notice would be difficult at best.

"We are very serious about the right to vote and having our votes count," Nelson said, urging the national party to reconsider its ruling stripping his state of its delegates. "Obviously they need to be seated."

Nelson added that the Florida situation is different from Michigan in multiple ways. In Florida, the Republican state legislature moved up the primary date, but Democratic voters were penalized for it, Nelson said. And the main candidates were on the ballot in Florida, while major candidates other than Clinton took their names off the ballot in Michigan.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who joined Nelson in last year's lawsuit, also dismissed the possibility of holding another contest.

"In order to do a caucus, it will cost roughly $4 million," he said. "Certainly between $2 million and $4 million. Florida doesn't have the funds with which to do that," he said.

Hastings said that perhaps as many as 100,000 people would attend caucuses, a far cry from those who voted in the primary.

"What does that say to the ... people who voted? Once again my vote doesn't count."

Mark Bubriski, a spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, said the party has no intention of holding a caucus, and said holding a primary simply would not happen because the Republican state Legislature would never agree to hold one.

Hastings said he is urging the DNC and the Clinton and Obama camps to iron out a compromise.

"It is unfathomable to believe that Florida and Michigan should be marginalized or made to be irrelevant and then expect either of them to win Michigan or Florida in November," Hastings said.

"The people that messed this up are the DNC Rules Committee," Hastings said. "It's their responsibility. They need to remedy it."

Hastings said Obama would be making a mistake if he objects to seating Florida's delegates.

"In my judgment it's a mistake to further abuse the Florida delegates and the voters," Hastings said. "It's a mess. Stay tuned."



Display:


Spin away (none / 0)

I'll be sure to quote this liberally next Tuesday night.


by zonk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:38:50 PM EST

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

Huh?  There's hardly any spin there by Jerome.  What is there to quote next Tuesday?  Obviously Clinton is going to give it a shot in Wisconsin but she still will probably lose it.  What's the big deal about it?  He didn't make a "prediction" this time...


by diplomatic on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

Discussing what candidates plan to do is bias. In fact, if Armstrong blinks twice, but not once during a full moon that's a sign of bias. If he points out Obama is taller. Bias. If he remains completely silent. Bias.


by bruh21 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

The first comment isn't about bias, it's about how the poster thinks Jerome is wrong.

Jerome IS a font of anti-Obama spin--but there's none of that in this post. While I think Levin and Nelson are acting like little babies about this, I don't think Wisconsin is going to be an easy win for Obama--I never did, not once.


by MNPundit on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:32:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (2.00 / 1)

I no longer care who wins the nomination other than I hope that person beats McCain. I spent weeks trying to decide which candidate to support, and I finally realize its hard to choose because really there isn't much difference.  I am pointing this out to say that many of you are over the top,a nd you can't even see how over the top you are at this point. WHether Armstrong is biased or not pesonally is irrelevant to whether this diary or any number of diaries in which any non Obama walks on water or Clinton doesn't walk on water post is met with  you are biased.


by bruh21 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:38:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

Thank you Ralph Nader


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:45:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

A see you a product of the American education system. Re-read what I wrote. Then explain how your comment applies.


by bruh21 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (2.00 / 2)

Thank you Bruh,
The key is to keep Democrats focused on winning the WH in Nov.  We have 2 excellent candidates; let's NOT tear ourselves apart!!
by borlov on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (2.00 / 1)

The MI/FL comments are even better than the candidate comments.  Dozens of people stomping their little Internet feet and proclaiming that the ONLY fair way to resolve the controversy is THEIR way, and there will be hell to pay otherwise!


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

Yeah, I think the same thing. Now that I dont have a dog in this race its freeing me up to be objective. A lot of over the top commentary.


by bruh21 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

So according to your carefully reasoned analysis, those of us who support Obama are making it all up and Jerome has shown no bias?

Look, even Jerome has admitted his bias on occasion.  His predictions last week were laughable.  This post is far less blatant, but the pro-HRC spin is definitely there.  Jerome says maybe there is movement to Hillary, most commentators have seen this as a sign that her campaign has realized that she can't afford to get blown out again.  Tack your pick, but don't insult our intelligence by pretending that Jerome does not have a dog in this race.


by upper left on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

According to my analysis many o fyou write the same thing in every diary regardless of who writes it, and that can be seen on display with Ezra Klein, Paul Rosenberg and any number of other bloggers where the same "you are an Obama hater" commentary can be found. If you were selective in your ire you might be more believable. Overal when you throw this sort of roving commentary (by you I mean Obama suppoters) on every blog that pretty much says  youare not objective or in capable of it.


by bruh21 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

Your response seems strangely off-point.  I was discussing the objectivity, or lack there of, of Jerome's analysis.  If you think I am wrong, develop an argument.  Saying, "you all say the same thing," does not strike me as very compelling.


by upper left on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

I did develop an argument, but it requires you to not pretend that i must answer you as if what you are saying is remotely serious-- ie argue as to armstrong's objectivity- whatever that means for you. perhaps an analogy will help- if you are running around yelling the sky is falling all the time, people like me who don't have a dog inthe race will cease to listen to your claims of bias because thats all you ever do- claim bias. disagreement is per se bias to you.


by bruh21 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spin away (none / 0)

"Sensing a bit of movement".

The Clinton campaign has coaxed Teresa Vilmain (left), who earned high marks for running her Iowa operation, down from the wilds outside of Madison to run her suddenly-rejuvenated Wisconsin operation, we're told.

Now... can you spot the logical fallacy in this statement?

Please... she's bringing back the ground game that garnered her the only 3rd place finish seen by either of the two campaigns?

Yeah... rejuvenated... bit of movement... I get it.


by zonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Hopefully they'll be an easy solution to Florida and Michigan. By all accounts it looks like Obama will have a large enough pledged delegate lead to seat them without a problem at the DNC without throwing his nomination into question.

If it's closer than that, though, there will have to be a compromise. The results from the January elections are imperfect but they're all we have. The end result may be something similar to what the Republicans have done: Half Florida and Michigan's delegates and give the "uncommitted" to Obama.


by Kal on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:43:29 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

I doubt that happens in Michigan for one simple fact - that Edwards still would've garnered a decent amount of votes, particularly at that point in time.

While I am a HRC supporter, the easiest solution for Florida is to halve the total delegates and split it proportionally based on the vote.  This saves the DNC while not disenfranchising folks.  That's something the DNC should get on now - rather than making themselves a bigger mess down the line.

I have no idea about Michigan.  There's no easy way to do things.  Simply saying uncommitted to Obama would be unfair due to Edwards standing at the time.  I think the most likely scenario that would save the DNC is to simply halve the delegates and grant them to HRC.  That way, she doesn't have the bulk of the delegates, so it's impact is minimized.  There's no simple solution about it.  You can't simply overlook the dynamics of the situation at the time (the 3-way race).

I think those two scenarios are probably the best way for the DNC to save face without giving McCain a strong point to attack on.  The issue of disenfranchisement can often play bigger than any policy thrown out there.


by toonsterwu on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

What sort of incentive does that setup for states next time? Will each state want to go first? Will we have a national primary on the January 1 2012 because each state will want to be first?

Also, if Hillary gets delegates in MI but Obama gets none, what's the incentive next time to follow DNC rules? Basically, the message is: follow the rules at you peril because they can be changed at any time.


by poserM on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

I would think losing half your delegates is a bit of a disincentive.  Besides, our primary process needs some changing, and I'm glad there are states like Florida and Michigan that are willing to step up and try to make a change.

--sam


by samizdat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:12:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Florida is going to get 100% of their delegates seated or the next president will be a war veteran.


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:47:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The GOP (none / 0)

seated only half of the Florida delegates, so I think you are wrong about this.


by fladem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Iowa, NH and SC broke the rules as well...


by seattlegonz on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:44:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

To anwser your question, No, we won't have a national primary on the January 1 2012 because most states will be content to wait their turn that time around. Certainly if we have a different state iowa first.

This cycles huge run to the front was fueled by Kerry's win with only two real contests early in the year.

The fact that that hasn't happend this cycle isn't just because our candidates are stronger, but also because the new proportional allocation of delegates have made a momentum fueled victory an impossibility.

With the vast majority of the country actually having their votes count this time and the likelyhood of their votes counting next time hugely improved as well there simply isn't as much incentive to race to the front as there was now based on the fear of another Kerry style nomination process.

No matter what the commitee will decide on whatever grounds, fear for a disorderly primary season in 2012 shouldn't factor into it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Read somewhere that the Michigan legislature is threatening that any political party that does not accept the full results of their primary will not be allowed on the ballot in MI this fall. Think about that. No Conyers, no Dingle, no Levin. Great results DNC.

All this was done to protect IA's and NH's places as 'first in the nation'. Why is that something worth anyone's time, let alone the DNC?


by DaleA on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

You are goddamn right about that!  In many ways, this may be the best possible outcome.  Ultimately the crisis will be defused before ripping the party apart, because one of the candidates will bow out (or shoved by the superdelegates).

At the same time, this is indeed a crisis, and it guarantees some kind of action will be taken before the 2012 primary. Our incumbent president will mean token opposition, the perfect time for the DNC to take a bolt gun to the heads of the Iowa and NH parties.

Maybe this insanity will finally come to an end.


I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland
by alvernon on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:01:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

So the MI state legislators would also be taken off the ballot?  I don't think it's a winning strategy for MI to try to blackmail the DNC - that's what got us into this mess (NH, IA).  Michigan's best shot of getting its delegates seated is to play up the unfairness angle, not resort to extortion.  Besides, there has to be SOME control by the party over the primary schedule, otherwise each state will act in its perceived best interest and it will be a total mess the next time around.  Granted, the schedule now is not the optimum one, and NH and IA will have to be dealt with at some point, but that doesn't change the fact that coordination is necessary.


by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:08:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Never happen, so why bother discussing it?

You think Levin and Conyers and Dingle are just going to let that happen, so that Hillary can get her way?

Please


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:10:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Thats a very good angle

Ultimately Florida and Michigan have the Party by the balls.

I think its clear that we need a new schedule with all this talk about lets not let all the states vote  Hillary quit now.

Honestly did the party make the schedule expecting the last states to get no say in an already decided election???

We a better schedule maybe make everyone vote on super tuesday with some small states earlier than that to shrink the crowd.


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

So, states that violate the instructions of the national party and hold their primaries early in non-contested primaries have the party "by the balls"?  

Eff their recalcitrant asses.  

Oh, I forgot that the rule du jour in Washington is to do whatever the hell you want and then threaten further misbehavior if anybody thinks of punishing you.  Hey, it works for Verizon!


by RickD on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 1)

I read this and decided to donate more money to Obama.


by tom32182 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:44:39 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 2)

Me to Clinton...


by Opandora on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You'r eGrasping for straws (2.00 / 1)

Have you seen the movement in the national polls?

Your corporate owned candidate is finished.

Stick a fork in her.


by descrates on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:45:24 PM EST

"Stick a fork in her" (none / 0)

That's probably been said about her hundreds of times.  Her detractors should learn by now not to celebrate until the results are final.


by diplomatic on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please (none / 0)

She cried her way to a win on NH.  Since then its been virtually completely down hill.  Today Obama took the lead in the RPC average for the first time--and that's after most of the country's democrats already having voted in a primary.  Obama is in control of the race.  The only way she wins is through some sort of desparate backroom deal making.


by descrates on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Stick a fork in her" (none / 0)

Agreed! (this from an Obama fan)

However, she really only has one "comeback" to her credit, and that's NH...  

She has no choice to fight every state now... a strategy she should have been doing in the beginning... Her adherence to the Kerry plan of big states only + 1 instead of the 50 state plan will be her undoing...

Even if you hate Obama and his candidacy, he is helping grow the party in places that it has never grown before... That's what the 50 state plan is all about...  

Maybe she'll listen to Howard Dean, now instead of fighting him tooth and nail...  The DLC way.. the Kerry 2004 way is a sure loser, whether it be in the general election or the primary.


by LordMike on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Stick a fork in her" (none / 0)

Gee taking the major states on Super Tuesday. Yeah, she really took a fall after NH.


by cath on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Stick a fork in her" (none / 0)

She didn't "take" them by enough...  

That's the failure of the 14 state strategy...


by LordMike on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:06:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Stick a fork in her" (none / 0)

taking the "minor" states might win him a primary.


!
by alex100 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:24:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Stick a fork in her" (none / 0)

She took some big ones... and the two biggest that were offered that day... BUT one of those she was ALWAYS going to take as it was her home state.  She loses NY and she would be toast.  

Obama has won more big states, using many of the Clinton supporters standard of Big states being Missouri or Higher.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:07:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'r eGrasping for straws (none / 0)

When Obama was a politician in Illinois he took campaign contributions directly from corporations.  


by steveinohio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'r eGrasping for straws (2.00 / 1)

And now he doesn't.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Jerome, you've been right a lot before this year so I hate to mock you, but didn't you say she could compete in WA, and then in VA (maybe not in VA)?

Also, do you se ethe irony of opposing the first democrat in a while who could what's the phrase I'm looking for "change the map"?


by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Uh, no on either.

He changes the caucus math for the most part, except where there are highwater marks of AA voters, I'll give you that much.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

We'll see, I think he could be Reagan to Mccains Mondale (more like 40 states than 49, but in the smae genreal vicinity).


by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

And he wins Colorado over McCain by 7 (while Hillary loses by 15). And he wins NH by 15 (while she wins by 2). And in NH Hillary won the primary! Buyer's remorse?

I don't know what you're thinking but it's obvious that Obama matches up better against McCain than Clinton. You asked for evidence of this the other day and polling out today from NH and CO confirms it. A lot can change, of course, but for now Obama is in position to win convincingly.


by elrod on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0)

You didn't predict that she would win in Washington State?

Oh, I see that you went back on that prediction, but said it'll be 'closer then the 60-40 that Obama's camp predicts.'

And there was a prediction about Maine thrown in there as well too, it seems...

http://jerome-armstrong.mydd.com/story/2 008/2/9/14926/38364


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:03:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

Clinton backers keep deluding themselves with their arrogant sense of entitlement.

That is how they can keep making these zany predictions over and over.

Go Big O!


by gil on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Florida will be lost either way i imagine and Michigan will be won either way.

More Pro-Clinton bias from Jerome.  Can i even say what a shock anymore?


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

How is that Bias? You must be drinking KOS cool-aid. He is just reporting the news that you will never hear on most any other left blogs.


by Opandora on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 2)

>> reads something doesn't like = bias.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Dude, the frozen delegate counter is more convincing than any of the supposedly biased analysis. How much longer is it going to be before you update that thing?


by scvmws on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

my prediction is that the FL/MI delegate issue will be a non-issue by the time of the Convention. Either Hillary will have enough votes to make it so, or Obama will.


by poserM on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 0)

They should be seated.

Florida was disenfranchised once in 2000.  Now OUR OWN PARTY is disenfranchising them again.

The delegates must be seated.

It's Obama's own fault that he removed his name from the ballot.  A stupid move that will cost him.

GO HILLARY!


The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49:14 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 1)

It was stupid for Hillary not to put her name on the ballot in Newfoundland. What's that you say? She was told that Newfoundland wouldn't be given any delegates to the convention? What a stupid, stupid person she is! That's going to cost her.


I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland
by alvernon on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too late for that argument (none / 0)

She thought it was terrible for Florida and Micghigan to jump the gun when she was pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire. But now that she needs those delegates - obtained by virtue of both candidates refusing to campaign there - she thinks it's some grave violation to follow the DNC rules and sanctions.

Every time a Hillary supporter brings up Florida and Michigan I know we are closer to an Obama nomination. Say, whatever happened to the importance of superdelegats? Or as that talking point no longer operable now that Obama has taken the lead in spite of Clinton's superdelegate edge.


by elrod on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

their own state disenfranchised the voters. State leaders knew what the ramifications were and they ignored them.

unfortunately. for. everyone.

and we've already learned the invaluable lesson from others like you. following rules makes you stupid.


!
by alex100 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:58:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Universal, you and the Clintonista would be better arguing for 1/2 delegations, because that's realistic there is no way other than Hillary forcing there seating due to a delegate lead, that they can be sat as is, it would basically break the party (not in terms of voter unity but in terms of a national organization-- there would be no reason to listen to the DNC at all, because hey they can't enforce the rules).


by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49:23 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 1)

This is true.  MI and FL would actually end up having the most influence of any state, when the opposite was intended.  It would mean the effective death of the DNC and absolute primary hell the next time around.


by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Florida could have decided the last 2 elections for us.

They DESERVE a MASSIVE say in who we run.

The party is going to have to eat crow on this.

Imagine if Florida kicked the democratic candidate off the ballot...


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:53:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

"Imagine if Florida kicked the democratic candidate off the ballot"

Imagine if they ran an election where the Democratic candidates votes were systematically undercounted!  Oh wait, we don't have to imagine that, we can remember it.  

Seriously, pandering to rules-breakers?  Yet another opportunity for the Democratic party to look weak.  Yay!


by RickD on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Yes, lets punish the Democratic voters of Florida for the actions of the Republicans.

Great idea. Lets kick the biggest victims of 2000 some more, because we can't be bothered to actually thing beyond the word "Florida"

Yes, Lets disenfranchise them some more, because the first time their votes didn't get to count wasn't bad enough for them.

...

My God... some people...


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

I'm sorry, I guess I missed where the Dems filibustered in the FL legislature and the vote came down to party lines... OH WAIT I DIDN'T BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

And apparently missed the part where I was talking about the legislators instead of the actual voters

Ever since Biden dropped out I don't care that much who wins the nomination. I certainly don't care about the Florida legislators. But somehow I do care about a shitload of voters not getting their votes counted yet again. I held this position way back in 2000, I held this position when the FL decision was first made and It's my position now.

So yes please continue to show mock outrage about how wrong it is to argue that voters should have their votes count. It'll make you so much more persuasive. You have my rapt attention. Please, do go on...

Explain to me why it's right that more then a million voters who had shit all to do with the decision either way should be punished so you can get back at a hundred legislators or so?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

No state deserves to hold the party hostage.  Florida does not have the right to assume New Hampshire's dictatorship over the primaries.


by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:08:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

That is exactly the long term problem if Michigan and Florida circumvent the DNC's sanction of their primaries.

All the talk about restructuring the primaries next time, whether that is changing which states go first, when it starts, primaries vs. caucuses, the role of superdelegates, etc., requires that the party have the power to enforce whatever agreement is reached.  If the candidates and states don't have to follow the rules set by the DNC, what good will it do to change the rules for the 2012 nomination?


by pampango on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:08:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No problem (none / 0)

Obama will eventually seat them when he is the nominee. But Hillary supporters looking to blame Obama or the DNC for this mess are off base.

The spin here by Hastings and co. is not very credible and it won't fly.


by Clipper on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49:26 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

I think Clinton needs Wisconsin and Rhode Island to secure the margin of victory she'll need in Ohio and Texas.  I think Wisconsin is especially important to break the narrative that only Obama plays in the Midwest.


by ejintx on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49:29 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 0)

Even Pat Buchanan said that she had to campaign personally in Wisconsin, rather than leave it to her various surrogates.  Her campaign is just coming around to the obvious.

Cut the delegates in half, award a proportional share of Michigan to Obama.  I could live with that.


by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:28 PM EST

Cut them in half? (none / 0)

Sounds painful.


Nobody's right if everybody's wrong --Stephen Stills "For What It's Worth"
by vj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cut them in half? (none / 0)

Democracy is a bloody process. :)


by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

So, about these delegates. Who decides if the get seated?
can Obama and Hillary just agree to seat them? Or are there rule to be followed here? Or perhaps we don't need rules.
by poserM on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:38 PM EST

The FL and MI delegations will be seated (none / 0)

This primary is likely to be over on March 5, once the superdelegates start breaking heavily for Obama. Clinton will withdraw from the race, and then both delegations can be seated because they don't matter anymore.

Don't expect any movement on this until after the March 4 contests. Nobody wants to start a big fight over an issue that won't matter once Obama finishes this race.

If it's not over by March 5, then we can expect an all out civil war within the party, and it won't matter if FL and MI are seated or not, because the nomination will be worthless at that point anyway.


I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland
by alvernon on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:51:55 PM EST

There's a simple solution (2.00 / 1)

Hillary will drop out March 6th after losing one or both (Ohio/Texas0.

And then we'll all look back at your attempts to pad Hillary's delegate totals with fraudulent elections with fond amusement.


by mcdave on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:52:21 PM EST

Re: There's a simple solution (none / 0)

not march 6th, thats my birthday


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (2.00 / 0)

In hindsight, Obama will claim that taking his name off the Michigan ballot was the single-biggest tactical mistake he made. He would have carried Detroit by at least 60%, amounting to at least 200,000 votes. And the upper middle-class liberal whites of Oakland county, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would have backed him. Clinton would have won the Reagan Democrats of Macomb county and probably also carried the north country and the UP. So, in a nutshell, it would have been close, with either Obama or Clinton winning in a squeaker (which would have looked bad for Clinton).

But, instead, the Obama campaign panicked when Michigan moved up the primary so close to the Iowa vote out of fear of a compressed calender, and that's when happen you panic on the national stage, you lose.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Obama will probably control the credentialling committee.  I think he will seat them, but it will not happen unless he controls the uncommitteds.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Obama's going to withdraw when he loses Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. The pressure will be intense. He's already faltered once with taking his name off the Michigan ballot, he'll cave again.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

That's a good point (esp. re: the kicking and screaming), but the pressure will be so intense to let Hillary get on with things, that he would be honorable enough to step aside.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (2.00 / 1)

The two of you can't be this naive and ignorant.  Hillary would need to win 70-30 in PA, TX and OH to knock Obama out.  And that isn't going to happen.  If she wins by 10-20, we go back to where we were on 2-6-08, a tie.  If its in single digits or Obama wins, she is in serious trouble.  But anything other than a 40 point blow out will not knock Obama from the race.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Um why would he drop out then when just two weeks after PA is the state that could be his "firewall" NC? (seriously more delegates thatn MA or NJ, more African American than VA and the same demographics among white voters).


by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Even if Obama loses Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, he will likely lose by small margins and the delegate balance won't change much.  Hillary's problem is she has lost 15 states by 20% margins.  This is not the electoral college and you don't get extra credit for winning big states.

The idea that Obama should bow out after even small margin losses in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is ridiculous.


by snaktime on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:55:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

You do get more points for winning congressional districts, and the DeLay Texas redistricting scheme is going to play to Clinton's strengths, though--she's going to win the hispanic supermajority districts pretty handily, while the educated white democrats in Austin are split into large rural districts.  I could see the final texas delegate count coming out pretty skewed in Clinton's favor.


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Hee hee hee.

Please save this post - clip it to your fridge.

I'll get back to you on March 5.  


by TL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:57:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Well he holds the lead right now on the Credentially committee so we will see.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Not so sure about your analysis.  The African-American vote hadn't swung so clearly to Obama at the time of the Michigan primary, which was prior to South Carolina.  

Also, I don't know if you've ever been to Ypsilanti, but your description of it isn't apt in terms of income levels, although it is a college town.

The Obama campaign was well organized in Michigan to drive votes toward "Uncommitted" which also included Edwards voters.  


by steveinohio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

I'm from Detroit, so I think I know what I'm talking about.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (2.00 / 1)

Yet you don't.  Its kind of funny it worked out that way.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

Totally disagree. there was going to be no contest, so the decision he made was not an electoral one, but a political one: to send a signal to Iowa that he respected their position. Anyone can disagree with the propriety of that, but I maintain that it actually helped him in the eyes of Iowans, and contributed to his win. At the very least, it avoided a big point of contention, which could have hurt him badly there. And as has been well documented, winning Iowa was the linchpin of Obama's credibility. Edwards did the same thing, because he also HAD to win Iowa. Clinton didn't really care all that much about Iowa, focusing instead on the big states of Feb. 5.


by along on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking His Name Off The Michigan Ballot (none / 0)

It's going to be hilarious if Hill loses this and ever tries to run in NH, NV, IA, or SC again-- heck she might just get stripped of her delegates from those four states (at least IA and NV are unbound so far).


by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Jerome,

How is it that dispatching someone who organized a third-place finish in Iowa to Wisconsin, WEEKS after Obama devoted resources to the state, good news?!?!

BTW:  The superdelegate total is trending Obama.  That will continue unless she loses Wisconsin by less than double digits (which in normal circumstances is not good news, btw).


by ChrisR on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:55:25 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

More to the point,

The Clintons have been in politics like forever.  They find an Iowa operative to run a fledgling campaign in Wisconsin?  Isn't there someone from the state of Wisconsin available in their rolodex?


by ChrisR on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

You clearly have no idea about Wisconsin politics.  And Teresa is one of the more well-respected organizers in the entire party.  

Teresa lives just outside of Madison - she's a legendary Iowa organizer because she grew up in politics there.  Teresa has run coordinateds in WI before and everyone knows that she's about the best strategist and organizer in the state (with one or two potential exceptions...one of one or two also being for Clinton).  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

How'd she do in Iowa?


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Don't be facile.

She's won more big elections than any strategist in Wisconsin and the Midwest.

Remember when Bush was supposed to win Wisconsin and Kerry did instead?  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Even so, how much can one person do over four days?


by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:47:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Clinton and Obama have both had things going on the ground here for a few weeks.  More importantly, where were they over the last year?  I don't know.  Edwards was the only one with an organized presence (disclosure: I led it).  This is, sadly, largely going to be a mass campaign; as in mass media, mass events.  It's not about field organizing particularly at this point - nobody bought the voter file access, and none of them have real field operations readily built or available.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe (none / 0)

they should hold a special election asking The People if they want the way they voted and the delgates that go with their vote to count?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:55:34 PM EST

Re: Maybe (2.00 / 1)

Wow that's a complete waste of time :-)


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was (none / 0)

a little serious but mostly tongue in cheek.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was (none / 0)

I know.  My comment was pure snark.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Sensing "a shift in Wisconsin"? I think the donors are outraged that Hillary basically left the playing field in WI to Obama after being trounced in 8 consecutive primaries and said either you get in there and play or we're getting out.

So who did they send in - the person who did so well in Iowa for them. That's really stepping up with a winning strategy.


by CB Todd on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:58:19 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

For to have a shot you are right she has to compete.    But she will lose... she just wants to make it closer.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:00:34 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

I want to see Jerome Armstrong with a pro-Obama post. PLEASE! PLEASE! Just humor me.


by tom32182 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:02:01 PM EST

Post one yourself (none / 0)

it's that easy.  Is this some kind of MYDD fetish to constantly be picking on Jerome?


by diplomatic on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

And whither "uncommitted"'s vote?  Would you disenfranchise those voters, when it was clear that they voted for someone other than Clinton?


by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Fair enough.


by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another tidbit (none / 0)

AFSCME has sent out an 11 page booklet outlining various policy positions of Hillary's and is urging their union members here in Wisconsin to vote for her. It's very professional--it even has a Table of Contents.


by Tove on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03:02 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Let's start a Gupta chant!! How much for the donor list?? High big please!!

Obama is going to get his pimp on and beat Hillary by close to 20 points in Wisconsin. Hillary doesn't stand a chance in the Madison or Milwaukee regions of the state.


by Djneedle83 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:04:12 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Unfortunately for Obama, Madison and Milwaukee aren't the only places with Democrats.  Fortunately for Obama, I think he's got enough energy everywhere to win here.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 1)

    I hope that if Obama does control the credentials committee, he seats the MI and FL delegates on the condition that he gets all the uncommited and Edwards delegates.  I think this deal is within the power of the credentials committee.  Is that a fair deal?  If Clinton is going to do an about-face on the importance of Michigan, Obama should give her a taste of her own medicine.  Cutthroat and by the rules.  


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:04:44 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

I think its fair.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:10:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 1)

Teresa Vilmain won high marks for running Hillary's Iowa campaign? This is exactly what has been wrong with the Democratic Party lately.

Hillary Clinton LOST Iowa. Not just lost, but came in third.

We need to stop praising and rehiring losers.


by b1oody8romance7 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:11:15 PM EST

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

And blew out all her cash with it!  I understand the Hillary is very loyal, but sometimes loyalty doesn't make good sense!!!


by LordMike on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (2.00 / 1)

Seriously, at this point I expect to announce the hiring of Bob Shrum.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More votes to think about (none / 0)

Well, she came in second in the number of delegates... and she was only 1 delegate behind Obama overall.  I would say that's pretty good.

I know it's all the rage to hate on Clinton right now, but let's not distort the past while we're at it.  While there is no doubt that Obama won in Iowa, Clinton didn't do poorly either.

--sam


by samizdat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 1