Obama willing to go "more than half-way" on Florida and Michigan

[Steerpike]

Precisely the reason the electoral college was formed, too. Politicians used to not care what certain people thought. They gave favor to larger states, which used to mean richer, whiter people, and they wanted those voices heard more.

The States were supposed to determine the President, not the citizenry at large. That's because the States were supposed to be a union of Sovereign states and the President the head of the Federal government that had limited duties with respect to these States. Works well enough if that's the type of government you actually have, but we don't have that any more.

 

[Steerpike]

DNC lawyers have ruled no more than half the delegates from the two states can be recognized:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/05/28/AR2008052803093.html?nav=rss_politics

 

[Care4all]

The Dems put in Super Delegates precisely so they wouldn't be stuck with the decisions of you voting members of the party

I KNOW!

I am so ready for the rules to be changed to one primary, some time in may, for both repubs and Dems, so that everyones vote from every state will count, so that it would reduce the amount of shenannigans from cross over votes like what happened this time when the repubs already had a winner and the repubs that had not had primaries yet could switch over and paly around....

And because I do think that the way the Dem party has it set up is unfair to many states in many ways...

Caucuses are a joke too, imo...like texas where Hillary overwhelmingly won the actual vote of the citizens there, then at the caucus that afternoon/evening where there were not even 1/10 of the amount of people that voted that day, and Obama wins their caucus, and guess what, Obama got more of the delegates, caucuses somehow with much fewer people actually discerning their will, GET MORE DELEGATES, than races where a primary is held....THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME????

The whole thing is just crazy, crazy crazy, all twisted up and confusing so that as you say, those in the limelight for the party had all the power in the end.... scarey to me....that this is the way it is....

maybe i just don't understand their reasoning on this fully?

Care

 

[Steerpike]

maybe i just don't understand their reasoning on this fully?

Care

A lot of it is just political reasoning. Some of it historical as well I suppose.

You'll likely never get just one nationwide primary for both parties. Small states that are now politically important aren't going to want to give up that kind of power.

 

[Jon]

DNC lawyers have ruled no more than half the delegates from the two states can be recognized:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/05/28/AR2008052803093.html?nav=rss_politics

Which is understandable and expected, now it's just a matter of how they allocate those delegates. Clinton should at least receive the percentage she won in both elections, but that's not to say Obama should receive all the rest, either.

Bad news for Obama is...Clinton's got more support on the rules committee. That is, unless at least 8 of the 9 uncommitted members rule in his favor, which is highly unlikely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/meet-the-dnc-rules-commit_n_102924.html

 

[Steerpike]

Which is understandable and expected, now it's just a matter of how they allocate those delegates. Clinton should at least receive the percentage she won in both elections, but that's not to say Obama should receive all the rest, either.

Clinton is done anyway.

They'll come up with some political compromise for the delegates I guess, but it will be a compromise that does not end up changing the current result in terms of who is winning. If they made a decision that actually changed things, there'd be too much political hell to pay.

 

[Ravi]

Clinton is done anyway.

They'll come up with some political compromise for the delegates I guess, but it will be a compromise that does not end up changing the current result in terms of who is winning. If they made a decision that actually changed things, there'd be too much political hell to pay.

Al Sharpton wouldn't get to make jokes about riding donkeys anymore.

 

[ReillyT]

If that's the case, there should be revotes in all the states that voted before Edwards, Kucinich, and Gravel dropped out. It's arguable that Clinton or Obama may have received more votes if those names were on the ballot.

Get real, fella. Polls are just polls, and have nothing to do with actual votes. One person can take 15 different polls and skew the numbers, but they can only vote once. Votes are what count.

Fair enough. Michigan wasn't a fair contest for anyone, so its votes shouldn't count. I just thought that if you wanted to gauge the will of the voters of Michigan, and another primary election isn't possible, polls are the best that you have got. I personally think the vote shouldn't count at all.

 

[ReillyT]

Actually it would be very UNFAIR to not give Hillary the delegates that she earned by the voters voting for her...

And I repeat, OBAMA CHOSE to take his name off this primary in Michigan for his OWN POLITICAL POSTURING, there was no rule for him to do such....

Hillary and the voters of Michigan should not be punished for what Obama as a candidate CHOSE to do...

your way, is extremely unfair to Hillary, who got actual votes that need to be represented.

The DNC RULES were writen in the year 2006 for this 2008 primary, he SHOULD HAVE READ THEM...

And as far as the ad in florida and michigan...

I can assure you that people do not run ads and spend the boocoos and boocoos of money for them, if they DID NOT KNOW that advertising GIVES RESULTS....

His ads and mini press meet, both broke the rules and both will go unsanctioned.... by the good ole boys club of the DNC....I don't see that as playing fair or within our own private party rules....


And btw, we are the private party...we the Democratic member formed the party...there is no they against us, we members are the they, which the committees are suppose to represent, I thought?

care

The DNC said it wouldn't count. At least some of the voters and the campaigns acted on the assumption that the vote would not count. I don't see how anyone can possibly think it is fair to count them anyway.

Ads do matter, but don't overstate it. I doubt a couple of days of ads in a national buy didn't have much effect here. However, we can never know, since the vote wasn't fair by pretty much any standard of the primary process.

The democratic party is controlled by the leaders of the democratic party. Perhaps you think they should respond to you. I am sure Obama supporters think the party should also respond to their desires. In fact, it does pretty much what it wants.

 

[Steerpike]

The DNC said it wouldn't count. At least some of the voters and the campaigns acted on the assumption that the vote would not count. I don't see how anyone can possibly think it is fair to count them anyway.

Yeah, that's the problem. There's no way to tell how the votes would have gone if the DNC hadn't ruled the votes wouldn't be counted. There's no way to tell how many people stayed home and who they would have voted for.

 

[Care4all]

A lot of it is just political reasoning. Some of it historical as well I suppose.

You'll likely never get just one nationwide primary for both parties. Small states that are now politically important aren't going to want to give up that kind of power.

They can ban candidates from campaining in the larger states until March, let the smaller states have the candidates visit them first and campaign there first....

The whole issue was that smaller states thought that the candidates would never visit them if it was all popular vote, but there certainly are ways around this, to make this happen, without sticking to the elitist system they have...

Shoot, I am a nobody, not even that involved in politics outside of message boards like this, and even i could come up with one way of handling the smaller states where they would not be ignored, even if the primary was held on one day in May... certainly those in the know, the insiders could put their thinking hats, coupled with a little ingenuity and come up with some kind of reform that would better serve ALL CITIZENS, both small state and large state, for the Primaries?

Sometimes everything needs to be blown up and we need start back from square one, from scratch, and i am beginning to think we are getting near to that point.....

care

 

[Jon]

Clinton is done anyway.

They'll come up with some political compromise for the delegates I guess, but it will be a compromise that does not end up changing the current result in terms of who is winning. If they made a decision that actually changed things, there'd be too much political hell to pay.

The results actually could make a difference. With a primary coming up that Clinton is slated to win by a large margin (Puerto Rico), and two other primaries (Montana, South Dakota) that will probably be an about even split, getting a majority of the delegates from Michigan and Florida would further close the delegate gap. This could put her within 100 or so delegates of Obama. Furthermore, if turnout in Puerto Rico is as big as expected, Clinton is likely to close the gap on the popular vote (counting Florida, of coures) and possibly even take the lead. With those things in mind, along with the polls showing Clinton beating McCain by larger margins in important states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - we could see a lot of unpledged delegates leaning her way.

 

[Steerpike]

Sometimes everything needs to be blown up and we need start back from square one, from scratch, and i am beginning to think we are getting near to that point.....

care

True. There are many such things that could stand to be blown up. Getting the collective will together to do it is another story...

 

[ReillyT]

They can ban candidates from campaining in the larger states until March, let the smaller states have the candidates visit them first and campaign there first....

The whole issue was that smaller states thought that the candidates would never visit them if it was all popular vote, but there certainly are ways around this, to make this happen, without sticking to the elitist system they have...

Shoot, I am a nobody, not even that involved in politics outside of message boards like this, and even i could come up with one way of handling the smaller states where they would not be ignored, even if the primary was held on one day in May... certainly those in the know, the insiders could put their thinking hats, coupled with a little ingenuity and come up with some kind of reform that would better serve ALL CITIZENS, both small state and large state, for the Primaries?

Sometimes everything needs to be blown up and we need start back from square one, from scratch, and i am beginning to think we are getting near to that point.....

care

I actually like the time frame the DNC set up. It allows candidates with fewer resources and less name recognition to focus their efforts on a few states to demonstrate their viability. If we started with something like Super Tuesday, the best known candidates would always pull out a victory because lesser known candidates wouldn't have the resources to compete.

 

[Jon]

However, we can never know, since the vote wasn't fair by pretty much any standard of the primary process.

You're absolutely right, the vote was not by any means fair, for any candidate. But since the DNC has refused to pay for revotes (and the Obama camp, unlike Clinton, hasn't offered to help raise money for one), the only option we have is to count the votes that were cast. Period.

 

[Steerpike]

This could put her within 100 or so delegates of Obama. Furthermore, if turnout in Puerto Rico is as big as expected, Clinton is likely to close the gap on the popular vote (counting Florida, of coures) and possibly even take the lead. With those things in mind, along with the polls showing Clinton beating McCain by larger margins in important states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - we could see a lot of unpledged delegates leaning her way.

It could, but I don't see the DNC letting it happen. If the unpledged delegates throw the election to the white candidate, regardless of what you want to argue about how close they are in popular vote or whatever, the Dems are going to do serious damage to their relationship with a constituency they need to win. I think the DNC is probably going to do anything it can to ensure that doesn't happen.

I could be wrong, however.

 

[ReillyT]

The results actually could make a difference. With a primary coming up that Clinton is slated to win by a large margin (Puerto Rico), and two other primaries (Montana, South Dakota) that will probably be an about even split, getting a majority of the delegates from Michigan and Florida would further close the delegate gap. This could put her within 100 or so delegates of Obama. Furthermore, if turnout in Puerto Rico is as big as expected, Clinton is likely to close the gap on the popular vote (counting Florida, of coures) and possibly even take the lead. With those things in mind, along with the polls showing Clinton beating McCain by larger margins in important states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - we could see a lot of unpledged delegates leaning her way.

I highly doubt the superdelegates are going to flip back towards Clinton. I think it is especially unlikely if the basis for doing so is the result of the Fla/Michigan primaries and the popular vote total of Puerto Rico, which won't even vote in the general election. I am pretty sure this thing is done, but only time will tell I guess.

 

[Jon]

I actually like the time frame the DNC set up. It allows candidates with fewer resources and less name recognition to focus their efforts on a few states to demonstrate their viability. If we started with something like Super Tuesday, the best known candidates would always pull out a victory because lesser known candidates wouldn't have the resources to compete.

Your argument that lesser known candidates don't fare as well against a hugely popular candidate like Clinton falls flat on its face when you consider that Obama won Iowa - the first state to vote.

 

[Steerpike]

...the only option we have is to count the votes that were cast. Period.

Or to count none of them. That's an option.

 

[Jon]

Or to count none of them. That's an option.

You're right, it's an option that will upset millions of voters in both state and likely hand two large electoral states to the Republicans in November. Novel idea.