Just why is the 50-50 proposal stupid?
And another thing. People seem to forget that in all past presidential elections, the vast majority of primary voters had no say at all in who the candidate would be. Not saying this is good, but your situation is far from extraordinary. In other words, get over it FL and MI, you screwed up. Next time follow the rules. You will have a chance to vote for Pres like everybody else.
Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.
Sept. 1, 2007
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge
The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
-I guess it's OK to break the rules when you're losing.
The info on the FourState Pledge (my previous post came from The Swamp, which was a link at Buzzflash).
Komack is right. Clinton strategy can be summed up as Rule or Ruin. What I like to know is where the hell are Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, the whole lot of them? They ALL signed that agreement along with Clinton, but now sit back and permit her to shred the party in pursuit of power.
How can we fix this?
***************
Real simple. Without garnering substantial delegate totals from Florida and Michigan neither candidate can win on the first ballot - unless we have some more rule changes. On the second ballot 2025 delegates should line up behind compromise candidate Al Gore. Sen. Obama takes the second spot on the ticket and Sen. Clinton remains in the Senate assured that she will become the Majority Leader.
-I guess it's OK to break the rules when you're losing.
...how, exactly, Clinton broke these rules escapes me, since the question of 'participation' is open to interpretation, other Democrats were on the Michigan ballot, and both Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot, even though the DNC-dictated circumstances were the same...
There is plenty of blame to hurl at both candidates for their behavior regarding these two primaries, but the bottom line is that a lot of this discussion is pretty much all 'inside baseball'. The only thing that really matters is that the Democratic party (as so well illustrated by some of the comments above mine), through the actions of its leadership at all levels and its leading candidates and partisans with their increasingly divisive commentary, is drawing all of us toward the day where we may well have to face the prospective of waking up every morning and staring into the bathroom mirror while repeating the phrase "President McCain" over and over again. That worries me a great deal, and I don't see a fix that doesn't include the good will of people who seem to be losing the capacity for such a thing...
We could have fixed it with revotes. But Obama blocked it because he knew he would lose. It is more important to him to win than it is to allow the voters a voice. There is no fixing it now. Thank Obama.
The 50/50 plan is not stupid. It's smart. Unfortunately, or, alternatively, fortunately, it's also vote stealing. See Jeralyn for why.
On The Rulez, see 2 Corinthians 3:6.
I really can't believe, that after Florida 2000, I'm being told, by putative Democrat priscianus jr, to "get over it," in words that echo Scalia after Bush v. Gore.
Shouldn't the first principle here be making sure all the votes are counted?
Sorry to go on like this, but Avedon inspires me.
1. I genuinely don't understand, just from the logic of it, why Obama didn't go for the revote proposal. There was money on the table to pay for it, and the "complicated" would have become simple if he'd bought into it. The revote would have totally legitimized his victory in the eyes of everybody, he had a good chance in MI, and if what their campaign keeps saying is true, that when people get to know Obama, they change their minds and vote for him, he would have eaten into Hillary's lead in FL. The whole revote thing was a win for him, a win for the party, and if it kept Hillary in the game for awhile, so what, if he's as good as they say he is and has more money anyhow.
One of the early Obama talking points over at Kos was that Obama had really good negotation skills, and that's how we were going to get universal health care, as opposed to the confrontational approach advocated by some and imputed to Hillary. Where is there any sign of those negotiation skills in this situation?
2. If you want to live and die by the letter of the rules, then what The Rulez say is "campaign or participate." What The Rules do not say is take your name off the ballot. Now, there are good tactical reasons for doing that if you want to taint an expected victory by an opponent, and that's one theory about why Obama made the choice that he did. But it was definitely a choice by Obama.
3. Can we please stop hammering on the rules? The rules have rules for changing the rules, and probably rules for changing the rules that change the rules. This is just a debating point, not analysis.
4. In short, I think that the "fix" Avedon wanted was the revote, and Obama rejected it. Now, it's on to the credentials committee and maybe a floor fight. Wheee!
5. Hillary's not Alice Palmer. And a national campaign is not a Chicago ward.
I'd suggest that we sit the Florida and Michigan delegation as uncommitted delegates.
In effect making them all super delegates.
Just to remind folks. Technically Obama did break the four state pledge by campaigning in Florida.
He had a commercial broadcast into Florida and he had a fund raiser that turned into a campaign event.
Clinton, whatever her other faults, did not break the four state pledge.
I like the idea of seating FL/MI as uncommitted....
As I keep saying, what totally frosts me about the 50/50 concept is that it presumes that the Party owns the votes, when in fact voters own their won votes. It's up to the voters to divide their votes between the candidates, for the party to do that, when the votes have already been cast; that's different from the other undemocratic features of the system, known in advance, like caucuses and superdelegates.
People need to calm down. Either Clinton or (more likely) Obama will clinch the nomination without the FL & MI delegates; the winner will control the credentials and rules committees at the convention; the FL & MI delegations will be seated, and everyone will be happy. If Clinton loses it will (most likely) be by a greater margin than she would have gotten by counting those states with or without a revote. Right now she would only net 42 from FL and 80 from Michigan, assuming the uncommitteds there don't get counted for Obama (and none of Edwards' FL delegates go to Obama). With revotes she would certainly do worse. Right now in pledged delegates Obama is up by over 150 - her current lead in superdelegates makes the difference around 110. So: he wins by more than 122 delegates, FL and MI are moot but get seated, it all works out.
Not because they're evil or bad people [...] but because they're a political team playing politics-as-usual. And [...] they will do anything to win.
I'm not sure what the writer's definition of 'evil' or 'bad' is, but mine certainly includes doing 'anything' to win, and I don't understand why politicians should get a pass for behaviour that in other circumstances would get one labelled a psychopath.
How it is that selecting representatives at random from the telephone directory could not be infinitely better than this escapes me.
Hi Avedon. Short version on how to fix it: Give it time. A month after the nomination is decided people will realize it's the Dem or McCain. Also, everyone needs to STFU about the primaries for a while. There's a war to worry about, a tanking economy and of course my favorite topic (latest is here). Why not direct our energy in those directions for a change?
cmike has a pretty good idea.
How can we fix this?
throw a bigger kitchen sink.
The locution where people explain to me what I "need" to do makes me extremely cranky, even when caffeinated. I mean, how can they know what my needs are without asking me?
As for the question: "why not direct our energies" in directions other than the choice of a Presidential nominee?
Er, because the differences between the two candidates on policy may be marginal , but they're real, and in a democracy I have the right to affect election outcomes.
My two issues are Social Security and Universal Health Care. These programs have or will have direct, personal impact not only on me, but on people I know who are sick today and cannot afford care. Hillary didn't put Social Security in play in Iowa (see Lord Eschaton); Obama did. Hillary's health plan is superior to Obama's (sayeth Krugman), and Obama's creative class supporters are already walking it back in any case. Moreover, IMNSHO Hillary's base is more likely to support those classically liberal programs than Obama's is.
On MI/FL, I still think a revote would have been win-win-win for Hillary, Obama, and the party. Apparently, Obama thought it was a loser for him and didn't go for it. That's his right; he shouldn't be forced to take one for the team.
But why, then, should I STFU and take one for the team when Obama doesn't?
Can someone please explain to me what the problem is about Florida and Michigan? I gather they had an early primary - how does that affect their delegates?
Lambert - you admit the differences are marginal. Is the time and energy we're spending on it proportional to its importance? Not even close. Not in the ballpark, not even in the same city.
By the way Lambert I've really enjoyed your comments in this thread even though I largely disagree with them.
play that shuffling minstrel clip again, lambert. that was fun.
how does hillary's base feel about her support for outsourcing? [gasp] sorry, didn't mean to be sexist.
are mydders still having fun with obama's middle name?
I know nothing about the delegate system but is it too late to get all the delegates to change their allegiances and vote for John Edwards?
Just to save the party from itself?
Dan:
"Marginal" in the sense of not the sort of systemic change that I think most progressives would want.
Definitely not marginal by the standards of real programs that will make real differences in people's lives.
Lambert, by marginal I mean: Small difference in policies and programs between the two. The difference between an Obama presidency and a Clinton presidency will probably be small, and the time and energy being spent over that difference is totally out of whack. (The difference between either of those and a McCain presidency is much larger.) I think we could do a lot more good by using most of that effort in focusing on the issues I mentioned before, and pressuring them to do so in their capacity as Senators (which both seem to regard as a distraction these days).
Lambert, there's no operational difference between Clinton and Obama on Social Security. Both are against privatizing it, both are for raising the cap on payroll taxes, both want to see Bush's tax cuts done away with as part of any possible deal on Social Security as well.
Frankly, the thought that either Clinton or Obama could do anything other than electrocute themselves as Democrats by touching that third rail is ludicrous. Bush found that out as well, to his dismay.
Gee, thanks a lot:
“Barack Obama basically called all white people racist,” wrote blogger/radio show host Taylor Marsh on the Huffington Post, neatly avoiding the inconvenient fact that such a libel from the biracial candidate would include (or half-include) himself.
From the accounts I've seen...
The DNC has rules on when states can run their Primaries.
Last summer, the Florida legislature passed laws requiring a paper trail in the balloting system. The Republicans combined that with a forced date for the Primaries which broke the DNC rules. Vote for honest elections, and get screwed. No doubt there was much sniggering.
The DNC had time to amend its rules, but didn't.
I suspect that there's a general legal principle that would prevent the DNC rule from being applied, because the rule requires a breach of statute law. There are certainly several large cans of worms on the table.
There's a British English phrase: they couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery. You may think it applies but I couldn't possibly comment.
Dave B., the Republican Party penalized Florida's delegation by cutting it in half because the early vote also violated the RNC's rules, so the most sensible thing I can see is for the Democrats to do the same.
If Clinton pushed for this, it would probably happen, but she wants a full restoration of the FL delegation because she needs a full delegation seated to boost her chances to be the Democratic nominee.
Not having a revote in FL is unnerving. You can cite Pro/Con arguments that buttress your candidate 'til the cows come home, but not having a revote is a Dumb Move.
I think we're going to look back and see it as a "What were we thinking?" moment -- like the Dems not going for an immediate STATEWIDE recount in FL in 2000.
There were "it's-too-hard-costly-time-consuming-there-are-
rules" arguments then too. But ultimately what stopped it was both sides were afraid of the outcome.
I'm also think it's stupid for any progressives to use a dangerous and meaningless cliche such as
the "Hillary/Clintons will do anything to win"meme.
Word-for-word, that's what the media used as an attack-narrative on Gore in 2000. They were pushing the oh-so-pious Bradley in the primary (he's be pulled from the crypt once more for his tedious passive-agressive act) then Bush their nickname-dispensing frat boy. And the consequences of that disaster are all around us.
David W:
You're welcome.
lambert, my own grandfather was a typical white person as well, but one day some years ago when I was at the dog track with him and he spotted a black man with a white woman, the "n" word was uttered along with a few other choice words.
So basically, I can understand where Obama is coming from here. I also understand where Taylor Marsh is coming from.
Caucuses are still possible & don't have the burden of needing the state governments involvement.
We can fix it by having a brokered convention and nominating Edwards or Gore on the 5th or 6th ballot.
One way to fix it: How about if we stop acting like consumers who are shopping for presidential candidates as if they were consumer products or computer software. If consumers don't like this year's car models or Release 1.0, they just skip this product cycle and wait for the next model or Release 2.0. Great consumer behavior -- voting with our dollars -- but not so much in politics. With candidates being sold like consumer products, it's not surprising that more and more people are approaching election's with a consumer's sense of entitlement and threatening to not vote at all if they don't get exactly what they want.
The trouble is, they'll get exactly what they DON'T want in the end -- though it may be what they deserve.
There are statistical techniques that could answer the question of how the MI and FL primaries would have come out had they been held according to the rules.
It's clear to me that we should seat delegates for MI and FL without penalty, since Democratic voters in those states did nothing wrong.
Still, I've described the votes that were held in MI and FL as "shams," which is a harsh word for being illegitimate, both in terms of their status under the rules and how well they reflect the will of the electorate.
For that reason, I think allocating delegates exclusively according to those votes would be arbitrary and unjust.
But then so would the proposed 50/50 split.
So I think what we should do is make our best effort to answer the question of what the will of the voters would have been.
We have data and statistical techniques we can use to answer that question.
The data include the results of other primaries, as well as the imperfect FL and MI votes. The techniques include various kinds of regression analyses.
Together, these would generate the best answer to the question of what the outcome would have been had the both candidates been on the ballot, had full campaigns been run, and had the ballots been taken on prescribed dates.
David:
On Social Security, I wrote precisely that Obama put Social Security "in play"; that's what he did; that's when Atrios blew the whistle, and that's how Obama lost my trust on it. Take privatization off the table, if you want; I don't think the whole episode says good things of his judgment. In addition, I argue, even if the candidates are a wash on policy, which I don't admit, then vote the base: Obama's base won't push him on the issue; Hillary's will. Same thing goes for universal health care.
On Social Security, I wrote precisely that Obama put Social Security "in play";
you haven't read about how bill clinton considered privatizing social security during the 90s?
So, basically, no one knows why Florida and Michigan are unfair, but everyone's ready to complain that they are?
Nobody can put social security 'in play'. What planet are you living on? If the elite could get away with privatizing social security, they would have done it by now. At this point, nobody can put social security 'in play' but the American people. Barak Obama couldn't push through SS privatization if he wanted to spend all of his capital on it. To pretend otherwise is just irresponsible fear-mongering.
OBama killed the revote because this thing is already over. Did you really expect him to give Hillary a few more months to damage him before the GE? Given the rhetoric she's resorted to? He's likely to end up the nominee anyway, so why bother? To make some people who probably won't vote for Obama in a state that won't go for either Democrat feel better?
Seriously, is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would even get the nomination if she proved Obama was unfit for office somehow? Those same rules that let SD's pick whoever they want also allow the addition of more candidates on later ballots. With the baggage Clinton already carried before this campaign, combined with the baggage she's taken on in the black community, how likely do you think it is that they would pick her? Many would think it easier to unite when everyone is angry. It's far harder when one side wins and the other side hates them for it.
Commenting by HaloScan
