A Party Looking To Self-Destruct

I have never seen such a self-destructive display in politics as what I saw today from the Obama campaign and the members of the RBC.

After all the self-righteous preening about "the rules," after Donna Brazile invoked her mother's lessons about how you have to play by the rules and how people who don't play by the rules are cheaters, she and the other members of the RBC proceeded to ignore every rule in the book.

The timing rules that apply to New Hampshire and the other early states?  Gone.  The supposedly automatic 50% penalty that applies to anyone who violates the timing rules?  Gone.  Instead you heard one speech after another about how "48 states followed the rules," as if saying it makes it so.

The rule prohibiting delegates from being reassigned from one candidate to another?  Gone.  The rule mandating that "Uncommitted" is a voter preference entitled to the exact same protection as a vote for a candidate?  Gone.  With one well-meaning compromise, the results of every delegate selection process in the country were rendered merely advisory.  If the RBC or any other body has the authority to reassign delegates from one candidate to another - based upon exit polls, the desire to "compromise and move on," or whatever else - then they can vote tomorrow to assign all of California's delegates to Chris Dodd.  There is no such thing as a pledged delegate if the committees of the DNC have this power.

Let's talk reality here.  Is any Obama supporter in the house under the impression that he might win the nomination by a mere 4 delegates?  Of course not.  Yet by playing hardball with the Michigan situation and forcing thereby the MDP-approved compromise of 69 delegates to Clinton, as opposed to the 73 she would have received under the result her campaign urged, the Obama campaign gave Clinton and her supporters an excuse to keep fighting about this in order to gain a mere 4 delegates.  Excuse me, 4 half-delegates.  Can anyone explain to me how this is a rational decision, even from the standpoint of Obama's pure self-interest?

Let me be 100% clear about something.  This is not the fight I want to have.  I will vote for Obama, I hope everyone votes for Obama, I don't think any of this stuff is worth risking the White House over.  I would not be upset if Clinton dropped out tomorrow.

But saying "let's compromise and move on" only works if everyone is willing to go along with it, and obviously not everyone is.  What happened today was nothing more than an attempt to construct a new reality, to pretend that everything is happening according to the rules just by saying so.  And as you might have noticed over the last several years, no matter how much someone wants to create their own reality, no matter how many times they get supporters to repeat the same slogans and no matter how willing the media is to go along, there are going to be reality-based people who understand that it just ain't so and refuse to give in to the new reality.

The DNC's own lawyers told them there was absolutely no basis under the rules to seat a 69/59 delegation in Michigan.  Today, a bunch of people gave a bunch of speeches about what their mothers taught them and how sacred the rules are, and then the actual rules went straight down the memory hole.  There are people who see that and will refuse to play along.

It didn't have to happen this way.  Everyone knows what Obama's delegate margin is.  It's apparently believed universally among Obama's supporters that on top of everything else, there are a mountain of superdelegates just waiting for a few more days to endorse him and seal the deal.  Yet somehow, for the sake of fighting over a handful of delegates that apparently make no difference in the big picture, the Obama campaign has allowed the issue of Michigan and Florida to keep on festering.

I hope none of this amounts to anything at the end of the day.  But if the Democratic Party loses this election in November, the autopsy is going to reveal a self-inflicted wound.



Display:


Zero delegates should have been seated. (2.00 / 8)

But what's done is done. It would be nice if we could move on, now the FL/MI talking point has finally been extinguished.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:55:19 PM EST

Re: Zero delegates should have been seated. (2.00 / 13)

I do not know why you bother commenting when you obviously did not read more than a few words of the diary.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you'd rather not have comments, (2.00 / 7)

don't diary. FWIW, I did read it, and this was my response.

Both candidates agreed these "elections" wouldn't count. When one candidate found herself in need of delegates, she demanded they count enough for a hearing to be held several months later. She ended up netting a few delegates from two sham contests.

Now it's over. Try to accept that, instead of continuing to bemoan the loss of democracy.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you'd rather not have comments, (1.90 / 10)

You did not read the diary in 90 seconds.  Don't bullshit me.  Let alone with the lie that both candidates agreed the elections would not count.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you'd rather not have comments, (2.00 / 4)

It didn't even take 90 seconds. Why does this offend you?

Both candidates agreed. You want the quote where your candidate stated these elections wouldn't count for anything? Where she said this was a race to 2025?

This is over, man. Are you going to be bitter from here until November? What will you do with all this resentment?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you'd rather not have comments, (2.00 / 3)

God, are you some kind of speed reading freak?  A few paragraphs in only a minute and a half?  It took me 20 minutes to read that.  Don't make everyone feel inadequate with your superhuman reading abilities.  Jerk.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

713 words in 20 minutes = 36 wpm reading rate. (2.00 / 1)

That's about two seconds per word. If you're reading out loud, then maybe I could believe that.  But that's slow, even for reading aloud.


by xynz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude, you're criticizing snark. (nm) (none / 0)

nm


by DCCyclone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 713 words in 20 minutes = 36 wpm reading rate. (none / 0)

Wow, you could teach math in an ivy league school with that kind of book learnin'!


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:05:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Learn to speedread (none / 0)

It's not that difficult.  Try being a lawyer that has to go over a crap ton of briefs.  The argument presented above wasn't that hard to determine.

Maybe you're the slow one?


by Regenman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:21:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Learn to speedread (none / 0)

Actually, judging by the comments, the argument was pretty friggin' hard to determine.  Maybe I'm a horrible communicator.

Most of the commentors seem to think that this is a diary where I bitch about how badly Hillary got screwed and vow to take the fight to Denver.  I like to think it's pretty clearly nothing of the sort.


"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 Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:32:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you'd rather not have comments, (2.00 / 2)

Talk about both an offensive post and selective memory....

First of all, some people read quickly...

Secondly, ALL the candidates agreed in advance that the delegates would not be counted... there is much in the way of statements from all of them in that regard.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you'd rather not have comments, (2.00 / 4)

Despite the crickets, here's an article from the period of your selective amnesia:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_ pf.html

Look for the part where Clinton stated the elections wouldn't count for anything.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

713 words in 1.5 min = 475 words/minute. (2.00 / 1)

That's a good rate, but it's not speed reading.

I read about 400 wpm and I'm not a speed reader.


by xynz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton (none / 0)

said the Michigan election was not going to count in October of 2007.

She has since said that she has always supported seating the Michigan delegates.

This is just a lie.  There isn't any room for debate over it.  She is on record having said the election wouldn't count.

More obviously, the man who made her case today, Harold Ickes, VOTED TO STRIP ALL OF THE DELEGATES AWAY from Michigan and Florida in December.

I am a Floridian.  AND I AM MAD AS HELL.

Here is the order of my anger:
1.  Charlie Crist, who has not caught any heat for scheduling a primary he knew would run afowl of DNC rules.  And who scheduled a ballot referendum on the same day at the primary.

And whose role is NEVER mentioned in discussions about this mess.

  1.  Howard Dean - Who showed NO leadership on this issue.
  2.  The RBC - who catered to NH and Iowa (though they did so within the rules).
  3.  The State Democratic Party of Florida - which played an idiotic game of chicken and lost.
  4.  The Florida Congressional Delegation, for not realizing the game it was playing, and refusing to support a revote.

Niether Clinton nor Obama would make my list.  


by fladem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

My point is that whatever meaning people want to attach to Clinton's statement about the Michigan election, Obama supporters consistently try to slip Florida in there somehow and say "she agreed these elections wouldn't count."  It's not honest.

Setting that aside, let me ask you this.  Given the stunt that Crist and the Florida GOP pulled, what could the Florida Democrats have actually done to head off this mess?  I mean, they did sponsor an amendment to strip the early primary date from the bill, they just didn't have the numbers.  What am I missing about the backstory?

The RBC made a harebrained decision, of course, but in their defense I don't think anyone had an idea how messy it would get.  Everyone, Harold Ickes included, assumed that the nomination would get resolved in a couple months (like it always does), MI and FL would get their delegations restored, and "the point" would get made.  Frankly, try to imagine how it would have looked if some people on the RBC wanted to strip all the delegates, and Ickes and the other Clinton supporters were insisting that an early state that obviously favored Hillary be allowed to count for something.  As a practical matter, I don't think they had a choice but to go along - certainly, no one would have given them credit for taking a principled stand if they had tried to get Florida to count!

I still think the original sin was the DNC's decision not to punish NH.  There's a state that really, really needs to understand that it does not get to run the whole process.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I knew, (none / 0)

and the FDP knew that this was a time bomb.  Everyone just hoped it wouldn't go off.

It did.

The comment that Clinton made was directly about Michigan.  But of course I also noted that Harold Ickes voted against both Florida and Michigan at the RBC meeting (co-chaired by Clinton supporter Alexis Herman)

I also note you made no attempt to refute the obvious, that Clinton has just plain flat lied about her position on Michigan.  You seem unwilling to confront this basic fact.

The Clinton hands are not clean on Florida and Michigan: they have no high ground to claim.  


by fladem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I knew, (none / 0)

Well, I won't say lied, because I don't think it's quite that simple.  But I will agree that she was being a bit slippery at a minimum.  The other candidates had taken their names off the ballot in a last-minute surprise move for this precise reason - to try and embarrass Hillary in the early states - and she was obviously trying to avoid the implication that they all had created.

But I don't think she was like "Ha, I'll tell these rubes it doesn't count, but the moment the early states are done voting I'm going to fight like hell for those delegates!"  No, like everyone else, she assumed the nomination would be resolved within a couple months and that Michigan would get a delegation.  Whether that delegation would be assembled pursuant to the January results or by some other method was most likely the furthest thing from her mind, because once there's a nominee it hardly matters.

I think, frankly, that Clinton was the only one with her eye on the party's interests in November, even though she was surely doing it because she assumed she'd be the party's nominee.  All through January, the Obama campaign was doing their best to spread the narrative that those two elections were meaningless beauty contests, and Clinton was pushing back and reminding people that we can't afford to ignore the voters of those states if we want to win in November (and, of course, that was the same point she made back in the NPR interview).

If you want me to concede that Clinton lacks the moral high ground, pfft, that's an easy one.  These people are politicians.  Good luck getting me to ever claim that they're acting out of high-minded principle.


"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 Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero delegates should have been seated. (1.85 / 7)

FL/MI has NOT been extinguished. Not by a long shot. See you in Denver.


by SoCalHillMan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero delegates should have been seated. (2.00 / 1)

You can go to Denver to watch the speeches for our nominee, but if you're going to protest, you're probably going to be disappointed, as this will be long over by then.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero delegates should have been seated. (2.00 / 1)

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all.
And what about Florida & Michigan?
Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.) Read the damn rules first!
-and-
2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The rules give the RBC the power (2.00 / 0)

to determine punishment if they conduct a hearing.  They conducted a hearing, and decided not to punish Iowa and New Hampshire, and to fully punish Florida and Michigan.

They followed their rules, which gave them descretion in the application of Rule 11.


by fladem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rules give the RBC the power (none / 0)

You are correct, however, that decision is subject to appeal to the convention at large.  The convention has the final say on seating of all delegations.  This would be one of the challenges that could come before the convention to test voting strength prior to nomination balloting.


by Demo Dan in Dayton on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:23:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Denver is lovely (none / 0)

Denver has a semi-arid climate with four distinct seasons. While Denver is located on the Great Plains, the weather of the city and surrounding area is heavily influenced by the proximity of the Rocky Mountains to the west. The climate, while generally mild compared to the mountains to the west and the plains further east, can be very unpredictable. Measurable amounts of snow have fallen in the Denver area as late as early June and as early as September. [17][18]
Downtown Denver as seen from 8500 MSL
Downtown Denver as seen from 8500 MSL

The average temperature in Denver is 50.1 °F (10.1 °C), and the average yearly precipitation is 15.81 inches (40.2 cm). The season's first snowfall generally occurs around October 19, and the last snowfall is about April 27, averaging 54.9 inches (156 cm) of seasonal accumulation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records an annual average of sunshine during 69 percent of all possible daylight hours [19].


by reconad on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero delegates should have been seated. (2.00 / 1)

Will not happen.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Extinguished? (2.00 / 4)

Like hell.


by Caldonia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 1)

I'm sorry you think that the plan suggested by the Michigan Democratic Party was unfair to Michigan.

Have a good evening.

AGAIN, gang, let's stay out.  Let them vent.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:22 PM EST

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 6)

It may have been perfectly fair to Michigan.  I respect every one of the Michigan superdels who put forward the compromise, and I think they had their eyes on the ball in a way the Obama campaign apparently does not.

But the one thing no one can say about the Michigan compromise was that it was consistent with the rules.  If it's going to be a political compromise without any regard for the rules, what's the point of all the speeches about Donna Brazile's mom?

The DNC's own lawyers made clear that the MI compromise couldn't be justified under the rules.  You'll notice that not one person from MI tried to argue that the rules offered so much as a fig leaf for their plan.  Rather, their entire argument - which I'm on board with, by the way! - was "look, who cares about the rules, just do it our way so we can win in November."

Making windy speeches about how important the rules are, and then disregarding the rules, just makes the whole thing look like a sham.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 3)

I'll give my own thoughts.  Please do not impute them to any other person.

Slavish adherence to the rules is a vice.  I'm most of the way through law school.  I've got a healthy respect for the law, and rules can often have similar force.  The policy goals behind them, however, often matter more.

As far as I am concerned, Michigan and Florida had to be punished to some meaningful degree because, failing that, there would be no meaningful order to the primary process.  I am not happy with how we conduct our primaries, but I do agree that we should probably start with a handful of states small enough for retail politics to matter.

Ultimately?  The folks on this committee were in a clusterfuck of a mess and they knew it.  Most of them have strong allegiances to one of the candidates.  They had to resolve this somehow.

There is no precedent for a mess like this.  I cannot imagine that most of these guys and gals wanted to have to fix this.  

Personally?  I argued in favor of the rules for two reasons, and I'll be very honest about that fact.  First, I cannot abide by anarchy in our selection process.  Second, I refuse to reward a candidate who games the rules as best he or she is able.  I do not agree that Senator Obama did so.  Senator Clinton conceded that these two contests wouldn't matter, and didn't really say anything until it was obvious it would help her.

My willingness to ignore what Michigan and Florida had done evaporated once it became clear that one of the candidates would use this as a vehicle to somehow fix the mess she herself had made in February.

I will not agree to any sort of arrangement that allows the candidate who had every conceivable institutional advantage at the start of the race, yet managed to blow it, regain the lead, or the momentum, or anything similar.

Senator Clinton blew it by not planning for easily forseeable events.  Taking up the cause of two states she didn't defend at the time was a bold, brazen, and depressingly political move.

I'm glad that the Rules and Bylaws Committee did not give her what she wanted.  

As to the voters in those two states?  I can live with the Florida compromise, as can, I suspect, the Floridians.  As to Michigan?  We have no way to know what the voters of that state wanted.  Good, bad, whatever, it was a tainted primary.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 2)

I think if you care about setting the right precedent, you have to be concerned about how NH got let off the hook for jumping out of order.  It's going to be very, very hard to get all the states to respect the agreed-upon rules in the future if the precedent is that the rules apply to everyone except Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happens if the same thing comes up next time, but it's 10 or 15 states that are sick of NH getting to violate the rules and move up their primaries?  At some point it becomes impossible for the DNC to punish everyone and make it stick, you see how tough it was to punish a mere 2 states.

NH had no good excuse for moving up their primary.  They never should have been given permission to do so (and, not for nothing, they definitely didn't meet the written requirements for a waiver under the DNC rules).  I'm telling you, completely independent of what it means for any candidate, that was the original sin.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 1)

Fair enough.  We have a good two or three years to fix this problem.

If it happens again, we have no one to blame but ourselves.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for this diary.

The worst, absolute worst, precedent about this ruling is that it steals votes from one candidate and awards it to another who had taken his name off the ballot.

Well, what's the point of having primaries then? This is the same crowd who says superdelegates should not overturn the pledged delegate plurarity?

This is a mockery.  This is a gross violation of the MOST FUNDAMENTAL principle of democracy.


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

Words do matter. To begin with, no votes were "stolen". What isn't legitimately yours cannot be stolen.

Clinton had every right to claim all of "her" votes, but clearly with only her name on the ballot in MI there were likely many voters that weren't political hacks, and weren't well informed of the timing battle between the state and national bodies. They might well have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot, but lacking that, voted for the most recognizable of the remaining names. Any reasonable person would agree that there's a non-zero percentage of voters for whom this could be true.

The committee merely crystallized this demographic as being worth roughly 4 delegates. pretty arbitrary, but you have a better formula? So what's the point of having primaries, you ask? Good question. Why not ask that of the Michigan Democratic party, that went ahead and held those non-binding primaries after they were explicitly delegitimized?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The fundemental problem (2.00 / 0)

is the long standing coddling of New Hampshire and Iowa.

New Hamshire and Iowa have state laws about their order in the primary process.  The only way to effectively deal with them is to be able to show that the DNC is able to effectively sanction states that go outside of their schedule.

I am a long opponent of the exalted status of New Hampshire and Iowa, and did signficant research here last summer showing how they are able to wield absurd power in the primary process.  

The vote today by the RBC shows that they can make the DNC sanctions stick to some degree.  

But the only real way for the DNC to take control would have been to completely deny Florida and Michigan delegates.  


by fladem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let it end (2.00 / 0)

Let it End. No more fighting. I understand you are upset but let it go.

Watch now we are going to end up with someone having the name Let it End.


by Hillarywillwin on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:35 PM EST

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 12)

I agree, this a mistake.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:54 PM EST

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 3)

A mistake would have been to not punish MI & FL for a violation of the rules. It had nothing to do with Obama and what he needed or wanted. They had  to punish those states.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 7)

Do you believe it was a mistake not to punish New Hampshire for a violation of the rules?


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 1)

Do you believe the waiver they received was not given in accordance with the rules?


by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:02:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 8)

Do you believe a waiver for MI and FL would not be in accordance with the rules?

Either enforcing the rules is mandatory or it's not.  Decide.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.  They weren't granted waivers because the party wanted to maintain their order.  

No waivers =  broken rules.  


by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 1)

BULSHIT


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 0)

A waiver after the primaries were held? That's a very relevant difference (vis a vis NH, IA, and SC). The problem with Michigan and Florida at this point in time is that their primaries were perceived by the candidates and voters meaningless in terms of delegates. That fact affects the legitimacy of those elections, without question.

At any rate, I don't think there was any kind of great solution to the Michigan primary. I could have lived with a full seating of Florida, but MI posed problems that the rules are not equipped to resolve. If you disagree, what do you think the ideal solution would have been?


by DPW on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 5)

There is obviously no ideal solution.  The best solution would have been to award delegates according to the results of the January primary, with a 50% penalty.  That would have set the correct precedents and would have had the added virtue of actually complying with the rules.

Preaching all day about how important the rules are, and then issuing a decision that violates every rule in the book, is just ridiculous.  If they had seated 0 delegates, it wouldn't have been particularly fair to the voters, but at least they could have claimed to be respecting the rules.

No one could possibly argue that today's result is consistent with the rules.  The memo from the DNC's own lawyers said 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 Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

I may have misunderstood your question. If you're wondering whether a waiver for MI would have been in accordance with the rules before it held a primary, I'm not sure. I honestly don't know the rules that well. But, from my less expert point of view, it seems that there was general agreement that 4 states would get early primary/caucus privileges (for a variety of reasons). Everyone else had to go on or after Feb. 5. The way the individual states were handled in response to moving their primary date seemed consistent with the overall design of the calendar. Waivers were granted to the states that moved up to preserve their DNC-approved early status. Those hoping to jump ahead of SC and/or NH were punished. Again, the rules may not have been applied with honor--I don't know--but given the settled objectives of the DNC calendar, this all made sense to me.


by DPW on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 4)

I believe, completely independently of my support for any candidate, that it was a huge mistake to let New Hampshire violate the rules without any penalty.  That, more than anything else, sets the wrong precedent for 2012.  Anyone who believes that IA and NH should not control the primary process from now through eternity understands that it doesn't matter what schedule gets agreed to, because New Hampshire gets to violate the schedule and no one will say anything to them.

Sen. Levin explained it all very clearly today.  There is this myth that New Hampshire was minding its own business until these other states came along and leapfrogged it, at which point New Hampshire simply reassumed its prior place in the sequence.  That's not at all what happened.  What happened was that after a great deal of wrangling involving states that are sick of NH owning the process, a schedule was finally agreed to where NH would be third instead of second - a very minor concession, but at least it set a precedent for breaking up the top two.  And then NH immediately found a ridiculous pretext - the fact that SC Republicans were moving up their primary, and thus the SC Democrats wanted to as well - to move right back into the second spot.  Small wonder that states like MI were extremely upset by the DNC's refusal to do anything about this.

Anyway, since you're one of the few reasonable people who dropped by, my point in writing this diary was certainly not to have another retarded argument about what the rules say.  I am perfectly content to let people believe the myths that have been drilled into everyone's head the last several months.  The larger point is, even if you think the decision reached today is 100% wonderful, what the heck was the point in fighting over it?  Even if it was 100% legitimate to reassign 4 of Clinton's delegates in Michigan to Obama, why push for it?  Everyone knows those delegates are not going to make the difference.  Why lend unnecessary legitimacy to the other side's arguments?


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you really think he doesn't know this? (2.00 / 1)

Do you really think there is anything going to be said in this diary that hasn't been said a thousand times on MyDD? Do you really think anybody's going to be swayed by anything you say tonight? Why not just let it go? We have a compromise. Sen. Obama has endorsed it. Let them vent.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think he doesn't know this? (none / 0)

I have a feeling the diarist will never be swayed but the people reading and not commenting may be swayed.  95% of the time the lurker is my target audience.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think he doesn't know this? (2.00 / 1)

Tonight. Just tonight. Well, maybe and Wednesday, shouldn't we just let it go?


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think he doesn't know this? (2.00 / 1)

I don't think so.  We should not let people think that the OUTRAGE over this decision is wide spread among Democrats.  It isn't.  Most Democrats care more about issues that affect their daily lives.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think he doesn't know this? (2.00 / 2)

It is not over, Not by a long shot.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think he doesn't know this? (2.00 / 2)

Ah you both have good points.  I'm really into letting them go without feeding into their fury, but on the other hand, I don't like the idea of this site giving readers the impression that the entire democratic party is pissed, when in fact it's really not that many people.  Tough choice.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

They had permission.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Given the way (none / 0)

the Secretary of State of New Hampshire played games with the schedule, I believe they should have been stripped of all of their delegates.  

But the DNC caved very early to Iowa and New Hampshire.  In fact, when the schedule was set Kathleen Sullivan, the NH State Chair laughed at the proposed schedule in 2006 and made clear that she would not be bound by the schedule.  


by fladem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the way (2.00 / 2)

My question is, why is it accepted as gospel among Obama supporters that 48 states followed the rules?

What NH did this cycle was ridiculous, although arguably no more ridiculous than the kind of crap they pull every cycle.  But it is the best-kept secret in the progressive blogosphere.

Look at this diary.  You will see one vapid comment after another about how NH "got a waiver."  Most of them don't even know that there was even a schedule that called for NH to be third and not second!

I don't see how we ever hope to reform the primary system when people don't even want to understand basic facts about what goes on at the top of the calendar.  What accounts for the reality-based community's sudden distaste for reality?


"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 Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:41:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 1)

I'd have pushed just as hard for zero delegates if Obama had "won" two contests he agreed (along with everyone else) wouldn't count at the start of the primaries.

This should be beyond your desire to keep a candidate in the race.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have any suggestions... (none / 0)

On how Obama should correct this mistake now that it has been made.  If you are in his shoes, how do you bring Clinton supports into his tent after this perceived injustice?


by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:01:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe it was a strategic mistake (2.00 / 7)

Obama should have gone along with Clinton.

The delegate cost to him would have been negligible.

As it is, he did nothing to bring Hillary's supporters onboard, and everything to antagonize them.

It dosen't appear to me Obama thinks he needs them, so there's nothing to correct.

Next, I expect him to compound this mistake by deciding against a unity ticket.

Dems are historically fixated on the battle and losing the war in the process, as evidenced by Bill Clinton being the party's only 2 time presidential winner since FDR.

The more things 'change' the more they stay the same.


by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think unity is up to clinton (2.00 / 2)

If she wants unity, she should call out her supporters that boo'd and hissed at the concept on national TV in front of the whole world.

If she does that, sure, unity ticket.


by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I believe it was a strategic mistake (2.00 / 1)

Since the states chose the remedy and not the candidates it seems strange to blame Obama but guilty until proven innocent is how it works for him in the good ol' US of A.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I believe it was a strategic mistake (none / 0)

Dems are historically fixated on the battle and losing the war in the process, as evidenced by Bill Clinton being the party's only 2 time presidential winner since FDR.

Out of curiosity, how is Bill Clinton winning two elections evidence of the party losing the war in the process?  Do you mean the fact that we've only had one president win two terms is evidence that we do something wrong, or do you mean that Bill Clinton did something fundamentally different than the other  one term democratic presidents?


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

So its better to let states break rules without consequences?

Way to encourage diaries like this, BTW.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 5)

The original sin here was permitting New Hampshire to break the rules without consequences.

Arguing that the rules must be enforced, while supporting the RBC's decision to let NH off the hook with no penalty, is an intellectually bankrupt position.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

All the original decisions were bad ones.  You cannot compound that by making other bad decisions.   And my understanding was New Hampshire asked for an exemption from sanctions while Florida and Michigan did not.  Regardless of the original decisions made, the time to challenge those decisions was prior to the vote occuring.   And some Hillary Clinton supporters that are currently challenging those original decision voted in favor of them to begin with.  Others that voted against those original decisions noted no outcry was raised at the time.  Florida and Michigan did not raise an outcry, they gambled that the "inevitable"  Hillary Clinton would make all contests meaningless by quickly knocking everyone else out of the race and lost.  You don't get to claim the high ground or intellectual bankrupcy after the fact.  Even more so when a large portion of those standing beside you making the claim were originally responsible for it.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 4)

Arguing that the rules must be enforced, while supporting the RBC's decision to let NH off the hook with no penalty, is an intellectually bankrupt position.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

You've gotta to be kidding.  Even the Clinton campaign acknowledged in the pre-meeting conference call that your position is ridiculous, and the only argument they were making was about fairness to the voters (who didn't make the decision) and not angering voters.  

Heck, this is even confirmed by Talkleft.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/30/ 13333/0744


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:58:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

Can't really understand what your point is, sorry.  The decision to let NH break the rules with no penalty led to Michigan moving up their primary, and established a precedent that the DNC doesn't have the balls to enforce their schedule against the early states.  That's very bad news for anyone who thinks we need to reform the primary calendar.


"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 Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:08:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

WTF?  You don't see the difference between allowing a state to move up with permission and having a state not get permission but move up anyway with no punishment?

Seriously?  Again, the Clinton campaign even acknowledges there's a difference.

As for the primary calendar, I'd personally just like to avoid the insanity and just have an election everywhere on a single day, but obviously that's never gonna happen.  This year proved that IA and NH will have theirs at 12:01 AM on January 1 if they have to.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:01:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is a mistake seating any delegates. (2.00 / 1)

Because by seating delegates from Florida and Michigan they endorsed voter suppression.  We did not have disenfrachisement, an attack on civil rights or an abandonment of Democracy, until we seated those delegates.  By seating delegates we have signaled a tolerance of Republican style voter suppression.  Giving people a reason not to show up at the polls by telling them their vote would have no imapact then turning around and giving the people that voted an impact is voter suppression.

I am disgusted with the people that have attacked fellow Democrats with this issue.   And have been willing to damage the party out of candidate loyalty.   It really needs to stop.

The original stripping of 100% of Delegates and the ban on campaigning in the state was incredibly stupid.  But once we hit the Michigan and Florida Primaries with those rules and decisions in effect either no delegates should have been allowed,  or  pledged delegates should have been split evenly between the remaining candidates(just for the purpose of giving Flordia and Michigan a delegation at the convention).  I am very upset that the national party allowed a candidate to attack fellow Democrats and make this an issue after the voting occured.  The entire DNC including all superdelegates should have issued an immediate reprimand to the candidate that tried to make an issue of Florida and Michigan after the voting had occured.   We were not capable of a fair and equal resolution to this problem once the voting occured so it should not have been allowed to become an issue.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is a mistake seating any delegates. (none / 0)

I agree completely. Treating a non-binding primary as legitimate also disenfranchises voters. What these voters didn't have was a desperate candidate promoting their cause.

It's ridiculous to peddle the idea that you're correcting disenfranchisement with the RBC first telling voters that their vote won't count, then later, surprise! too bad you didn't vote, it did count after all. That nearly half of the democratic party bought into this idiocy is depressing beyond words.

Even with the compromise of 1/2 a vote per delegate, those votes did end up counting. For anyone that felt that their voice was quelled, they're still doing better than those disenfranchised by the above turn of events. Just because Ickes isn't involved on theatrics on their behalf, doesn't change that.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The party HAD to punish MI & FL (2.00 / 1)


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:57:23 PM EST

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 2)

"The supposedly automatic 50% penalty that applies to anyone who violates the timing rules?  Gone."

Uh.... they just agreed to apply that to both states.


by nwodtuhs on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:57:30 PM EST

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (1.85 / 7)

To every state that violated the timing rules, or just to two of them?


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 2)

The two that did not receive waivers, and thus broke the rules.  


by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (1.75 / 4)

In other words, whether the rules have been broken is determined not by the rules, but by whether the RBC decides to enforce the rules.

Why did those states need a waiver?  BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE RULES.  They wouldn't have needed a waiver if they weren't in violation of the rules!

I cannot believe you fail to see the circularity of this argument.  If the rules MUST be enforced, unless the RBC decides that they don't have to be enforced, then there's no argument that MI and FL needed to be punished.  The RBC could have decided that the rules didn't need to be enforced against them, just as they decided the rules didn't have to be enforced against the early states, and there would no longer be a "need" to enforce the rules.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 1)

The other states had permission.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 3)

Again, if the only thing necessary to make a violation of the rules okay is for the RBC to say it's okay, then the RBC could have said it was okay for MI and FL to violate the rules.

You cannot simultaneously argue that it was absolutely necessarily to punish MI and FL, and also argue that it is perfectly okay for the RBC to excuse violations with no punishment.  The two arguments are completely contradictory.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

They had permission long ago. MI & FL specifically DID NOT have permission and were told as much.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 2)

New Hampshire and South Carolina announced in early August that they were moving up their primaries.  The RBC granted them waivers in December.

As Sen. Levin explained today, Michigan contacted the DNC repeatedly following this announcement to find out if they intended to enforce the rules against New Hampshire and South Carolina.  They did not even receive a response.  It was only then that Michigan decided to move their date up as well.

Again, you cannot simultaneously argue that the RBC has authority to excuse violations of the timing rules, and also argue that the RBC has to punish violations of the timing rules.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

Why in the world does that help MI when MI was specifically told that they would be sanctioned?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

Again,the party has to punish MI and FL because they told them that they would.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's called descretion (none / 0)

and they exercised it. Iowa and New Hampshire were both scheduled at the head of the line, and the RBC judged that it was not a material breach for them to move up their primaries.

Both Florida and Michigan KNEW that they were going to be sanctioned.  Neither State Party believed it would stick.

I certainly didn't.

What you miss here is the reason why they were sanctioned.  22 States moved to February 5th on the assumption that if they moved earlier they would have been punished.  The DNC memebers for those states were adamant that Michigan and Florida be severly sanctioned.

These same states did not have the same concern about Iowa and New Hampshire, since they were already going to go before Feb 5th.  

Had the RBC not acted, chaos would have ensued as more than 10 states would have moved into early January (including, I believe, California).


by fladem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's called descretion (2.00 / 1)

I understand all that, but letting NH jump out of turn was still the original sin.  They knew it was coming, they just didn't have the balls to do anything about it.

If NH gets to keep trampling the process you're going to see a lot more than 2 rebellious states next time.  After all, if enough states make noise it's not politically possible for the DNC to punish them all.

By the way, the rules don't give the RBC anywhere near the sort of discretion it would take to grant NH a waiver on these facts.  The criteria for a waiver are specific and they are written.  It was simply a gutless act.


"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 Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:44:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You just plan flat wrong (none / 0)

the RBC clearly had the descretion to do so.

Hell, about half the RBC (including Harold Ickes) are lawyers ( and high priced ones at that) and well understand both rule 11, and the descretion given the RBC.  It should also be noted that some very high ranking Clinton people were on the RBC, and the RBC voted without dissent to grant waivers to Iowa and New Hampshire - yet another reason why the Clinton position is completely hypocritical.  

The State Laws in Iowa and New Hampshire give them the upper hand.  Until the DNC shows that it is able to enforce the rules by stripping a state of its delegates, Iowa and NH will continue to rule the entire process.  

Which is why today's decision to grant Florida and Michigan half of the delegates may represent a step backward.


by fladem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You just plan flat wrong (none / 0)

I've read the rules, and I know exactly what discretion they give to the RBC.  My legal services command a pretty fair price too, after all.  The RBC is not a court and they hardly make every decision in accordance with the rules; today's ruling, which ran against the opinion of the DNC's own lawyers, proved that.

If a state violates the timing rules, the only circumstances under which the RBC can grant a waiver is if they find the state took provable positive steps to bring its state laws into compliance with the DNC calendar. Ironically, FL is the only state that can even argue that it met this burden, by virtue of the Democratic amendment that would have stripped the early primary from the election bill.

The NH Dems obviously made no effort to change their state law.  Why should they, they revel in it.  I remain of the position that the only way to deter NH is not by showing that the DNC is willing to punish other states, but by showing that it is willing to punish NH.


"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 Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What firm do you belong to? (none / 0)

Don't be disingenuous.  When Michigan jumped the tank, NH was given permission to reschedule.

Is your legal reasoning akin to Ickes?  Oh, all those uncommitted votes OBVIOUSLY don't belong to Obama?

What's your billing rate?  I'd hate to pay it when I select firms for outside counsel.


by Regenman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:24:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What firm do you belong to? (none / 0)

Amusingly, since MI only decided to move AFTER New Hampshire announced its move and the DNC stood by silently, your snappy putdown turns out to be more than a little fact-free.

On the off chance that you actually do select firms for outside counsel as part of your job, I take it all back and concede that you are entirely right.  Also, my rates are quite reasonable and negotiable.


"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 Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:35:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

They received waivers because they did not change their order in the primaries.  They moved forward, but did not leap frog other states.

Neither Florida or MI would have been punished if they did the same.  There was no conspiracy to get them, they broke the rules and tried to leap frog the primary order everyone knows the party wants to protect.


by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 2)

Completely false.  Senator Levin explained all this today, if you were listening.  Absolutely false, to say the states did not change their order as provided in the rules.

Further, the rules do not say "the dates are optional, it's only the sequence you need to respect."  Not that the sequence was respected.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (none / 0)

Are you suggesting that Iowa and New Hampshire leaped ahead of other states to be one and two?  Because if so they have been doing it for decades.  Maintaining the order is not leap frogging, it's quite the opposite.

The rules provide for waivers, which were granted, regardless of why.  Rules are rules, and NH and Iowa didn't break them.  If they did they would have been punished, there was no conspiracy against FL and MI.  There was no secret cabal that hates them and wants them not to vote, they broke the rules and get the consequences.


by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Party Looking To Self-Destruct (2.00 / 2)

It's obvious you don't have the slightest clue what the rules said about the sequence of the early states.

Again, not the slightest clue.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM EST
[