Hillary Clinton for President!!

[Lemonaide]

I want all the delegate counts in in in!!! Let's count Florida and Minnesotta. We have to. It has to look like a completely clean election for once. In recent history, each election has been marred by phony votes and other question marks. We've been screaming for years that "It should've been Al Gore". Okay, we all consede this, but let's not compound the problem by having a less than normal count.

Is having a less than normal count insurance for the opposition that somehow the newest candidate will be a question mark for later.

[fencerchica]

I'm stealing some thoughts from Matt Zeitlin, but what are you hoping to gain for Hillary or the democratic process by seating the MI and FL delegates?

Seating those states would help Hillary narrow the gap between herself and Obama, but would still not be enough to overcome his lead in the pledged delegate count. It also wouldn't affect Obama's lead among the superdelegates. The only thing it would give her would be a lead in the popular vote, but that's a statistic without any official meaning. An argument could be made that it would give her more credibility among the undecided superdelegates, but we already know that she won the popular vote in those states, and making a meaningless unofficial statistic into a meaningless official statistic shouldn't have any impact on the superdelegates' decision process.

I do feel bad for the Dems in FL and MI, because they were railroaded into breaking the national party rules by the decisions of their local GOP-dominated state legislatures, and then the DNC inexplicably decided to throw the book at them for a violation that wasn't their fault.

On the other hand, with the DNC's draconian punishment being a fait accompli, Obama followed the rules of the DNC and removed his name from the MI ballot (he was legally unable to remove his name from the FL ballot). Hillary, on the other hand, found a rather underhanded way of skirting the DNC rules she signed a pledge to abide by, via her staying on the MI ballot and her "fundraising" visits to FL leading up to the FL primary. So to unconditionally seat all the delegates from both states would be unfair to the Obama campaign. I think a compromise measure, such as only seating half of the delegations from MI and FL -- exactly the punishment the RNC applied to those same two states -- would be the best solution.

[Nolano]

FL and MI should not be counted without a revote. As stated above, Obama withdrew from the MI ballot, and did no campaigning. Without voting again, the results from those elections would be skewed.

[Grimaldi]

This whole issue is one of the main problems with Democrats in general, I feel. They have rules on how things are supposed to be run, people choose to not play by the rules, and then when it comes time to reap the results, the whining begins. Sure, I think the Democratic voters in those states got screwed, but it's a Democratic party issue. Any change from the original rules/policy is wrong at this point, and will end up being unfair to somebody.

We've been screaming for years that "It should've been Al Gore". Okay, we all consede this, but let's not compound the problem by having a less than normal count.

I think most Democrats will "concede this", but saying everybody is a bit extreme.

FL and MI should not be counted without a revote. As stated above, Obama withdrew from the MI ballot, and did no campaigning. Without voting again, the results from those elections would be skewed.

I'll admit this is a tempting option, but as has already been noted, it would be expensive, and no one is willing to foot the bill. The plans that have been presented, especially ones intended to cut costs, bring out all the special interest groups complaining the people will be disenfranchised (the elderly, the homeless, Spanish speakers, etc). I try to fight the schandenfreude of watching the complete disintegration, but it's tough.

And it's still not fair in the long run, as the original elections there could have had some influence on the election, and the second round of votes could have incredible ramifications for the convention.

I do feel bad for the Dems in FL and MI, because they were railroaded into breaking the national party rules by the decisions of their local GOP-dominated state legislatures, and then the DNC inexplicably decided to throw the book at them for a violation that wasn't their fault.

Ah yes...nothing Republicans like doing more than screwing with democratic primary dates (). You'll get this angle from several liberal sites, and the opposite from conservative ones. The truth, I think, is somewhere in the middle, but most will recall that when the elections were actually occurring, Democrats weren't calling foul. They figured the election would be decided early, as usual, and their votes wouldn't matter, so they wanted to vote early to try and influence based on voting results and not delegates. It's not a bad idea, really, in most years, but this year was the wrong year to try it, and now everyone's trying to fix it somehow (and blame somebody else).

[Shi no Tenshi]

I want all the delegate counts in in in!!! Let's count Florida and Minnesotta.

I'm glad you are so informed as to not even know the proper states. I'm glad you've taken so much time to research the issue; I can only assume you put that much time in everything else.

We have to. It has to look like a completely clean election for once.

Could you define 'clean' for me? The amount of lies perpetrated and 'misquoted', 'taken out of context', etc., is something that should not be acceptable, even if some consider it so.

We've been screaming for years that "It should've been Al Gore". Okay, we all consede this, but let's not compound the problem by having a less than normal count.

Yes, lets not compound the problem. The only way Hillary could win the nomination is by emulating Bush more than she already has. If she somehow wins the nomination, any of her supporters that actually whined about the whole Florida recount debacle will be horrendous hypocrites if they say it was fair this time.

[mrbiggs]

Everyone knows at this point that the primary process is completely wrong and awful from any reasonable point of view.

However, the longer this election goes on, the weaker the eventual candidate (Obama) will be. So it would be nice if Hillary would withdraw soon.

[Grimaldi]

Everyone knows at this point that the primary process is completely wrong and awful from any reasonable point of view.

It's easy to beat up on the primary system (much like the electoral college system), but any other system will have issues as well. The primaries are run by the state and national parties, so they can change things at will, but I don't see it happening anytime soon, at least not significantly.

[mrbiggs]

It's easy to beat up on the primary system (much like the electoral college system), but any other system will have issues as well. The primaries are run by the state and national parties, so they can change things at will, but I don't see it happening anytime soon, at least not significantly.

I agree that all systems have issues. However, once you start giving people with some sort of party ties (that appear to sometimes be chosen at random) the voting power of thousands of normal people in a supposedly democratic election, you're going to have problems. The populace is realizing that while they think they've been choosing the candidate, they've only had power because there wasn't a close election. In my opinion, this translates to very little power.

Also, I don't think it makes sense that states can assign their primaries to any random day, but if they make them too early then that loses the entire state the right to vote. This is one of those situations where both sides are so wrong I don't even know what to say. But what I do know is that the only people who DON'T have anything to do with choosing the primary date (rank and file party members) are the ones who are getting punished.

The first of these problems is not complicated and is easy to fix; get rid of superdelegates. The second is more complicated and more difficult to fix, but it could be fixed. If we put a man on the moon we can make it so that sates don't bicker incessantly over when each has their primary.

I'm actually a defender of the Electoral College for several reasons. But I think the current primary system is inexcusable. The logical gap apparent in having each state choose a date (when an earlier date is clearly better) is glaringly obvious.

[Grimaldi]

I agree that all systems have issues. However, once you start giving people with some sort of party ties (that appear to sometimes be chosen at random) the voting power of thousands of normal people in a supposedly democratic election, you're going to have problems...

The first of these problems is not complicated and is easy to fix; get rid of superdelegates.

That's how the Republican party works. Despite all the crap they get for elitism and such, they don't have a system to give the "party elite" a method to "correct the errors of the majority of voters".

Susan Estrich had a column not to long ago about how the superdelegates came into being, and I can understand the rationale behind it. Primaries are run by party members, so they are going to elect someone with views skewed closer to the party's beliefs than the general population's. The superdelegates were supposed to help mitigate this to some degee, after some horrific loses (I think Mondale was the last straw, if I recall correctly). I still don't agree with it, but it's not a totally ridiculous line of thought.

[fencerchica]

That's how the Republican party works. Despite all the crap they get for elitism and such, they don't have a system to give the "party elite" a method to "correct the errors of the majority of voters".

Nope.

Although it is true that the GOP's "unpledged delegates" (~5%) are fewer in number than the Democratic "superdelegates" (~20%), the GOP does in fact grant "the party elite" a special voice in their national convention.

[fencerchica]

Ah yes...nothing Republicans like doing more than screwing with democratic primary dates (). You'll get this angle from several liberal sites, and the opposite from conservative ones.

It's not clear to me whether or not there was ill intent on the part of the GOP. The mechanics of how this happened, however, aren't a matter of debate or "angle". You can check out the voting records in the FL and MI state legislatures if you think otherwise.

[fencerchica]

This whole issue is one of the main problems with Democrats in general, I feel. They have rules on how things are supposed to be run, people choose to not play by the rules, and then when it comes time to reap the results, the whining begins. Sure, I think the Democratic voters in those states got screwed, but it's a Democratic party issue. Any change from the original rules/policy is wrong at this point, and will end up being unfair to somebody.

To borrow a phrase from you, I think some Democrats may feel this way, but saying "Democrats in general" is a bit extreme. Also, I agree that a recount is impractical. Total disenfranchisement of Florida is extremely distasteful (for the DNC to react so harshly was uncalled-for) and the only thing for it at this point is to work out a compromise seating a portion of the FL and MI delegations, which is what the DNC lawyers are currently trying to accomplish (with the support of the Obama campaign, but somewhat understandably with a lot of opposition from the Clinton campaign).

[Grimaldi]

Nope.

Although it is true that the GOP's "unpledged delegates" (~5%) are fewer in number than the Democratic "superdelegates" (~20%), the GOP does in fact grant "the party elite" a special voice in their national convention.

I stand corrected! Interestingly, it specifically mentions in the article how the GOP reps aren't commonly referred to as "superdelegates", but the net result is the same. The shame, the shame...

It's not clear to me whether or not there was ill intent on the part of the GOP. The mechanics of how this happened, however, aren't a matter of debate or "angle". You can check out the voting records in the FL and MI state legislatures if you think otherwise.

I'm not debating the mechanics of State legislatures setting election dates, as that's the usual mechinism for such things, only the accusation of some that the Republican-led legislatures forced the Democrats into a primary date they didn't want in some bizarre scheme to mess with their election (to what gain for the GOP, I'm not really sure).

I hate using wikipedia for anything where bias can slip in (politics being one of the worst), but I'm too lazy to track down various articles from around the blogosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michiga..._primary,_2008 Has a few interesting quotes, such as the early line "Michigan Democrats moved their primary date to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process." Another classic is "Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell, who had been a leader in moving Michigan's primary date to January 15, defended her actions, saying that Michigan's rebellion against the DNC rules would spark a national campaign to change the primary process"

Florida has a similar story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida...rimary%2C_2008
with quotes like "In the spring of 2007, the Florida legislature passed by overwhelming majorities House Bill 537[2] which moved the date of the state's Republican and Democratic primaries to January 29th, a week before the earliest permitted date[3] of both parties."

The Republican legislatures, or course, are screwed either way. They vote to move the election day forward, and Democrats can later claim they had their votes disenfranchised by Republicans. Republicans don't move the date, and Democrats claim the GOP isn't supporting their wishes and their votes won't really matter (like every other election in recent history).

[telkanuru]

The Republican legislatures, or course, are screwed either way. They vote to move the election day forward, and Democrats can later claim they had their votes disenfranchised by Republicans. Republicans don't move the date, and Democrats claim the GOP isn't supporting their wishes and their votes won't really matter (like every other election in recent history).

Sucks being in charge, doesn't it.

This whole thing just makes Hilary look grasping. I've had a very negative outlook on her ever since her whole "guns don't kill people, video games do" thing several years back, and this doesn't help.

Obama '08.

[Philistine]

{snip}
"Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell, who had been a leader in moving Michigan's primary date to January 15, defended her actions, saying that Michigan's rebellion against the DNC rules would spark a national campaign to change the primary process"
{snip}

And it just may--which would be long overdue, IMHO.

FWIW, though I haven't followed it much at all, it has always been my impression that those states moving their primaries up were doing so solely in order to get more prominence and attention from the candidates, and have more of an effect on the actual nomination.

Joke's on them that they guessed wrong this time.

--Philistine

[lindajdunn]

I think they should have left MI and FL out and uncounted to insure other states didn't follow their lead. As things stand now, I suspect there will be an appeal and more party division.

[Lemonaide]

This is good for them. They have to work things out. I still believe all states should be in for the count.... avoiding any associations with 'Goreism'. In future years, they'll look back and say, it was a good race, a fair race and no hanky-panky involved. I like having both states in the race for the sake of fair-play. I was a little bemused by the PR and Guam votes, but if they've always voted then we have to count them in. The two territories don't vote in the regular election.

PR went to Hillary, I think it's because they're heavily Catholic and felt that Obabma's connection to the radical left, left them in a fuzzy place.

Obama can definetly win, but we don't want to cast a shawdow of doubt on his win. What he can do, and I don't mean to steal this from Hillary, (by all means).. I've noticed that she is wearing alot of American Indian color, which is great. I'm not American Indian, but what did Hillary have in mind for that group of people? Was she brining them into the political system?

Thoughts? Comments?

[lindajdunn]

All candidates agreed not to campaign in MI and FL. The two states knew well in advance that their votes would not count. Some residents of the states have made public statements that they DID NOT VOTE because they'd been told their votes would not count.

Now the people who played by the rules are being told Nyah! Nyah! Fooled ya! and those who will benefit from the flawed vote are trying to pretend that the voting represents the will of the people of those states.

Politics as usual. Change the rules in the middle of the game. Tell the voters it will be X and then make it Y.

[Lemonaide]

Yes, they all agreed, because someon who wanted something without fighting for it, talked them into it. We want a President that plays by the rules, that plays it tough. Not people who can be 'convinced' by others to play it another way. If we all do things the right way from the beginning, there would be no mess to fix.

p.s. to above above post: As far as Indian Land goes, the best scenerio I can come up with is that it's what's under the land that is sometimes most important: oil and mineral rights and it's unfortunate, but that's how the oil barrons got rich. If it were in the right hands, it coulda been an entirely different thing.

p.p.s. I feel a little sick that I see Hummingbirds all over the place again, you know, that was my poem someone lifted and I want credit where credit is due.

[Shi no Tenshi]

I've noticed that she is wearing alot of American Indian color, which is great. I'm not American Indian, but what did Hillary have in mind for that group of people? Was she brining them into the political system?

Thoughts? Comments?

As a card carrying Native American(yes, I've got papers, hell, my cousin is the guy that did that nation of Lakota thing), I can honestly tell you that none of the Native Americans that I know noticed this at all. Not even a little bit. Nor does it matter.