Michigan, Florida getting seated at convention [Archive]

bigdruid

05-31-2008, 05:30 PM

with half a vote each. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/index.html) Now, the question is, how will they decide to apportion them?
According to TPM (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/), they are going with the straight election results in Florida, and giving Obama all the uncommitted delegates in Michigan.

This yields a net of +24 delegates to Hillary, although there's rumors of her campaign continuing the fight for Michigan (she doesn't want Obama to have *any* delegates, which just seems patently absurd).

Lum

05-31-2008, 06:16 PM

It is patently absurd. It's also necessary if Clinton is to have any hope of closing the delegate count. The Clinton campaign has already ensured that the great majority of pledged "uncommitted" Michigan delegates are Clinton supporters, so they basically wanted to make a clean sweep of a Soviet primary election and award 100% of Michigan's delegates to her count.

The Clinton campaign's rationale is that it was Obama's choice to sit out the election, and he should not be rewarded for it. Note: I didn't say it was a good rationale. As David Bonior, who supported Edwards at the time and now is in the Obama camp, put it, whatever you can call what happened in Michigan that day, it was not a primary.

In any event, this signaled the end of the Clinton campaign.

- The final vote for the Michigan compromise was 15-13 - the entire committee minus all but one of Clinton's partisans. (That's right, they couldn't even keep all their own for that one.) That signals strongly that the party leadership has already decided how this should end. Expect a flood (150+) of superdelegate endorsements on Wednesday.

- There is no chance in hell that a superdelegate is going to watch today's coverage of the RBC and allow any chance of that happening at the convention. None.

Quaro

05-31-2008, 06:21 PM

Yes, they argue that Obama taking his name off the ballot was pandering to Iowa and that Hillary stood by her principles and stayed on so the votes could count. They are also livid over Obama 'stealing' four of her delegates. Uncommitted means uncommitted, some of those people may well be Hillary supporters!

The chanting, "McCain! McCain" at the end really bodes well for the general election.

Don Quixote

05-31-2008, 06:34 PM

So does this put Obama over the magic number? I thought he was 50 or so away, and now he netted 67. Is it now 'over'?

bigdruid

05-31-2008, 06:36 PM

No, because now the total # delegates (and hence, the # delegates needed to gain a majority) moved out a commensurate amount.

Don Quixote

05-31-2008, 06:54 PM

Oh yeah- I forgot that this number was not counting the FL/MI delegates. Carry on.

triggercut

05-31-2008, 07:28 PM

What it means is spelled out pretty clearly on the front page at DailyKos:

Yesterday, Obama needed 41 delegate votes to clinch the nomination; Clinton needed 244.

Today, Obama needs 64 votes; Clinton needs 240.5.

There are 291 delegates remaining.

There are 86 elected delegates remaining. Obama will probably win 39-45 of them. He'll need 20-25 Supers to put him over the top.

I still think the Obama Camp will trot out that many supers between tonight and Tuesday night when the polls close in Montana and the caucus ends in South Dakota, and when he speaks late Tuesday in St. Paul MN, he'll be declaring himself the nominee.

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 07:36 PM

I certainly hope so.

charmtrap

05-31-2008, 08:01 PM

noun

05-31-2008, 08:06 PM

Well, let's be honest. Obama's behavior is a cut above all the Democratic nonsense. This is why he's an attractive candidate to Dems, Republicans, independents, etc. Blame Hillary for her screechiness and Dean for his tardiness, but don't hold it against Obama if he gets the nomination. He actually tried to play by the rules.

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 08:08 PM

triggercut

05-31-2008, 08:09 PM

I generally support Obama, but I'm about this far from voting Green Party or jesus, something. If these idiots can't run their own primary process, what chance do they have to run the whole country? This has been a pretty demoralizing display, frankly.

How so?

I thought that--other than the constant disruptions in the post-lunch session--that this meeting was conducted in an orderly, intelligent, and frankly brilliant way. Everyone got their chance to talk. They got their chance to rebut. They got their chance to answer and ask questions. Then they went and deliberated on things, worked out a sensible, logical deal, and reconvened to motion to carry that deal.

Early in the week it became apparent that hundreds, if not thousands of Obama supporters were going to descend on DC today to counterprotest the Hillaryites. Camp Obama begged and pleaded with their supporters to STAY AWAY from the RBC meeting today. To give their traveling supporters something to do, they did a huge voter drive in Virginia instead.

Now, I just watched “Recount” this week, and the idea of not fighting tooth and nail for this seemed incredibly wrong. I couldn’t believe that Plouffe and Axelrod were calling for quiet calm. This thing could be stolen, dammit!

And now I am once again reminded that there’s a reason why those two fellows do what they do for a living, and why I do what I do for a living. Clinton’s supporters were obnoxious, loud, and frequently simply over-the-top. They interrupted the proceedings constantly, and did their best to create chaos out of the calm order of the way things went today.

In other words: they showed the uncommitted Democrats in the party a preview of what might happen in Denver if they don’t wrap this thing up now. If the rulings by the RBC put the lid on the coffin of the Clinton Campaign, the behavior of her supporters today nailed it shut.

Skipper

05-31-2008, 08:12 PM

I generally support Obama, but I'm about this far from voting Green Party or jesus, something. If these idiots can't run their own primary process, what chance do they have to run the whole country? This has been a pretty demoralizing display, frankly.

No not really. The pretty demoralizing display is in the form of people who are Hillary supporters faced now with her not getting the nomination (which was a possible outcome this ENTIRE time) now chanting McCain. So your chosen one doesn't get the nod and instead of voting the same party for someone with very, very similar views, they say "fuck it, I'm just going to fuck it all up."

Classy.

Factory

05-31-2008, 08:23 PM

I generally support Obama, but I'm about this far from voting Green Party or jesus, something. If these idiots can't run their own primary process, what chance do they have to run the whole country? This has been a pretty demoralizing display, frankly.

C'mon, let's give credit to the Florida (and I assume Michigan) republican parties for setting up an excellent wedge issue to attack the democratic party with.
Should be entertaining when democratic controlled state governments try for some payback against the republican party.

Sarkus

05-31-2008, 08:26 PM

It's not Obama's fault that Hillary is willing to destroy anything that stands between her and the nomination, including her own party. However, her superdelegate supporters, who don't have the excuse of running, should have abandonned her in droves by now if they truly had the best interests of the Democrats at heart, which is the reason they supposedly exist. That they have not speaks very, very poorly for both them and the party they lead.

I don't think it's as simple as that. A lot of them committed themselves early and the rest have largely come from states that voted Hillary's way. From a political point of view, they have to ride this out until it ends. If they bail early, they risk alienating Hillary supporters who could have an impact on their futures. By waiting, they avoid having to make any kind of stand and can just quietly move to support Obama in the general without facing any consequences.

The only risk they take is if Hillary refuses to accept defeat when the supers put Obama over the top. Then, you will probably see supers abandon her in a public way.

NoWayJose

05-31-2008, 08:27 PM

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 08:29 PM

If they bail early, they risk alienating Hillary supporters who could have an impact on their futures. By waiting, they avoid having to make any kind of stand and can just quietly move to support Obama in the general without facing any consequences.

See , that makes my point for me :-). I said "if they had the best interests of their party at heart" that they'd abandon her. They don't. Instead, as you
correctly observed, they're out to avoid risks, avoid alienating her supports, avoid consequences.... They aren't doing the job they were created to do.

Bah.

Sarkus

05-31-2008, 08:29 PM

C'mon, let's give credit to the Florida (and I assume Michigan) republican parties for setting up an excellent wedge issue to attack the democratic party with.
Should be entertaining when democratic controlled state governments try for some payback against the republican party.

It's not that simple. In Michigan it was a Democratic governor who pushed for the date change. In Florida the Republicans controlled and pushed the measure, but almost all the Dems voted for it (though they claim now they had to due to how great other aspects of the bill were).

Arguably it was the Democratic party that screwed this up. The Republicans penalized Florida prior to the primary with a 50% rule but at least that made it clear what the rules were beforehand. The Dems held to their earlier threat to both MI and FL that they wouldn't count at all, which lead to the candidates making decisions on how to handle the states, and then later (now) changed the rules to make those primaries mean something.

Sarkus

05-31-2008, 08:33 PM

You people are weird. How you can equate fervent support with nailing the coffin shut is beyond me. The Clinton campaign is done because she won't win enough supporters mathematically to beat Obama, not because her supporters like to shout a lot. In fact, I'd say sneering at them for not falling in line behind Obama is probably going to do a lot more to cost Obama the election than their acting like children will. Obama supporters can strut about this all they want, but they should keep in mind this just means more work for Barack over the next five months.

I wonder if anyone thinks Clinton would have any chance of winning the nomination if all the delegates were sat in the numbers her campaign suggested. I don't know, but I think probably she would still have none. If this is the case, it might have been smarter to just let her have her way and rob her and her nutcase fans the chance to scream and cry.

I'm not suggesting pandering to them, but I'd recommend saving the condescension for McCain's backers, not Clinton's. If you truly can't stand them, then just let them carry on and hope they settle down by the convention, hopefully following her lead.

Who cares what a few Obama supporters on a gaming message board think? If you read the thread, you'll realize Obama himself is doing exactly what you suggest, namely not making a big deal about what Hillary's hardcore supporters are doing. He's letting them look bad by their own actions.

See , that makes my point for me :-). I said "if they had the best interests of their party at heart" that they'd abandon her. They don't. Instead, as you
correctly observed, the're out to avoid risks, avoid alienating her supports, avoid consequences....

Bah.

What'd you expect? They are politicians, after all . . .

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 08:44 PM

What'd you expect? They are politicians, after all . . .

Exactly. We've got more than enough politicians. What we need are statesmen.

triggercut

05-31-2008, 08:47 PM

You people are weird.

Really?

How you can equate fervent support with nailing the coffin shut is beyond me.

"Fervent support" is in the eye of the beholder. Camp Clinton expected at least 5,000 protesters today, and got about 300. So that's one strike against you.

Second up, if you're telling me that Democratic Party Leaders watched today's RBC meeting and saw the shouting and disruptions inside and outside the committee meeting and thought "This is GREAT!!! This is what we want at our convention!!!" Then you're not "weird", you're sort of out of your mind.

The Clinton campaign is done because she won't win enough supporters mathematically to beat Obama, not because her supporters like to shout a lot.

The postulate you make at the start of this sentence was true in February after the Wisconsin Primary. It didn't make a difference, slow her down, or sow any party unity at that point now did it? Again, your point falls.

In fact, I'd say sneering at them for not falling in line behind Obama is probably going to do a lot more to cost Obama the election than their acting like children will.

Obama isn't sneering at anyone. Are you even paying attention to current events? He's spent the last three weeks being more cordial and olive branchy towards her campaign than she's ever deserved.

as Obama supporters can strut about this all they want, but they should keep in mind this just means more work for Barack over the next five months.

The Ellen Jamesians making the noise are a superminority of Clinton supporters. They're not supporting the party ideals of the Democrats, they're supporting her gender, regardless of the candidate. I hope and pray we have a woman president in my lifetime; I hope and pray it isn't Hillary Clinton.

I wonder if anyone thinks Clinton would have any chance of winning the nomination if all the delegates were sat in the numbers her campaign suggested.

You seem to enjoy this subject a little. Perhaps you should do some reading on the subject. If the Michigan delegation were seated according to Hillarymath, she would be able to claim the state's "flawed primary" (quote courtesy Michigan Senator Carl Levin) vote in her popular vote totals, and we'd have an entire summer of "I won the popular vote!" nonsense, instead of a nominee being clinched on Tuesday or Wednesday.

I don't know,

You got that part right.

I'm not suggesting pandering to them, but I'd recommend saving the condescension for McCain's backers, not Clinton's. If you truly can't stand them, then just let them carry on and hope they settle down by the convention, hopefully following her lead.

I'm not sure how many of the protesters today at the RBC meeting are avid readers of Qt3, but I'm fairly certain that number approaches zero.

So, anything else?

Angie Gallant

05-31-2008, 08:56 PM

Obama doesn't need to do anything about the Hillary supporters. The 24 news networks will play that footage of a Hillary supporter calling Obama an inadequate black male who only ran to defeat a white woman, and how McCain is going to win because of it over and over. Every "undecided" super-delegate is going to see that over and over and not want to deal with it at the convention.

Talisker

05-31-2008, 09:03 PM

Goddammit. As a Michigan Democrat, I really wanted our state party leaders to get spanked harder than that -- our delegates should've been told to stay the fuck home.

Anaxagoras

05-31-2008, 09:14 PM

Exactly. We've got more than enough politicians. What we need are statesmen.

Statesmen are nothing more than politicians that are usually on the right side of issues... whether by good chance, political instinct, or by convincing the masses. This belief that politicians should "stand up & lead" is amazingly naive. And very American.

Democracies require that their leaders do exactly this kind of swaying with the wind. That's what a good politician does. It's OK to pick a couple issues to fight against the wind on.... but by and large they have to sway. Otherwise, you end up looking like Ron Paul.

Andrew Mayer

05-31-2008, 09:32 PM

I generally support Obama, but I'm about this far from voting Green Party or jesus, something. If these idiots can't run their own primary process, what chance do they have to run the whole country? This has been a pretty demoralizing display, frankly.

You think that's bad... you should check out this "American Democracy" thing these guys set up back in the late 1700s.

It's a ridiculous mess of jerry-rigged compromises and nonsense that was intended to keep together a struggling group of small governments called "states" who had somehow managed to win a war for independence despite deep divisions among them.

First, and this is hilarious, they decided that every "state" got the same number of "Senators" no matter what their size. Big, small, whatever, they get two each.

And then there's an electoral college, where there's representatives sent from each state rather than direct vote results.

Stupid really, but it kept Virginia happy.

There's more, but I'm sure you can read about it for yourself...

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 09:33 PM

Statesmen are nothing more than politicians that are usually on the right side of issues... whether by good chance, political instinct, or by convincing the masses. This belief that politicians should "stand up & lead" is amazingly naive. And very American.

Democracies require that their leaders do exactly this kind of swaying with the wind. That's what a good politician does. It's OK to pick a couple issues to fight against the wind on.... but by and large they have to sway. Otherwise, you end up looking like Ron Paul.

See, I don't agree. Statesmen are politicians who are more attached to their principles than their power and act accordingly. Right side, wrong side, any side so long as it's reasoned and sincere. Democracies are horribly served by those who "sway in the wind" since so many voters do that already. We need more genuine leaders, not mere politicians. If that makes me "amazingly naive", well, I'd rather be that than hopelessly jaded and cynical.

Andrew Mayer

05-31-2008, 09:35 PM

See, I don't agree. I think statesmen are politicians who are more attached to their principles than their power and act accordingly. Right side, wrong side, any side so long as it's reasoned and sincere. Democracies are horribly served by those who "sway in the wind" since so many voters do that already. We need more genuine leaders, not mere politicians.

No offense, but this is quite possibly the most semantic semantic argument I've ever seen.

Anaxagoras

05-31-2008, 09:38 PM

No offense, but this is quite possibly the most semantic semantic argument I've ever seen.

I don't understand. I strongly disagree with Dave, obviously, but I thought he made a coherent point.

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 09:41 PM

I don't understand. I strongly disagree with Dave, obviously, but I thought he made a coherent point.

Thanks, I think :-).

Sarkus

05-31-2008, 09:51 PM

See, I don't agree. Statesmen are politicians who are more attached to their principles than their power and act accordingly. Right side, wrong side, any side so long as it's reasoned and sincere. Democracies are horribly served by those who "sway in the wind" since so many voters do that already. We need more genuine leaders, not mere politicians. If that makes me "amazingly naive", well, I'd rather be that than hopelessly jaded and cynical.

The problem is that true (in an idealistic sense) statesmen can't act that way in a democratically elected system. Want a statesman in the House of Representatives? They have a two year mandate. Etc., etc. If you stand on principles all the time, you'll be out of office quickly.

Instead, the statesman has to first build a base of support that will follow them on key or unpopular issues. That requires being a politician. The best a statesman can do is pick and choose the most important issues to stand for and do so when they can. That means compromising other times and perhaps going with the popular flow instead of what they truly believe. The "great" statesmen of history weren't always on the right side of things.

The best we can hope for is that there are some closet statesmen types who will stand up when they have to. Hillary's superdelegate supporters don't need to do that when we all know what the outcome will be in a week or so.

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 09:52 PM

Instead, the statesman has to first build a base of support that will follow them on key or unpopular issues. That requires being a politician. The best a statesman can do is pick and choose the most important issues to stand for and do so when they can. That means compromising other times and perhaps going with the popular flow instead of what they truly believe.

And then we rag on John McCain as a sell-out for doing exactly that. Can't have it both ways.

DragonPup

05-31-2008, 09:59 PM

Sarkus

05-31-2008, 10:00 PM

And then we rag on John McCain as a sell-out for doing exactly that. Can't have it both ways.

Exactly. And that's the problem. If you insist on looking closely at everyone's voting record and speeches and interpret them as always meaning what they are saying (ignoring what may be said or done for political reasons) then no one will ever be a statesman.

Name a "great statesman" of history (who acted in a democratic system) and I will find something they did or supported that was purely a political act.

Unicorn McGriddle

05-31-2008, 10:07 PM

Less examination = more "statesmen"?

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 10:28 PM

Exactly. And that's the problem. If you insist on looking closely at everyone's voting record and speeches and interpret them as always meaning what they are saying (ignoring what may be said or done for political reasons) then no one will ever be a statesman.

Name a "great statesman" of history (who acted in a democratic system) and I will find something they did or supported that was purely a political act.

My top choice would be Washington himself. He...

1) resigned as commander-in-chief after the war, a conscious imitation of Cincinnatus
2) could have served more than 2 terms, but stepped down
3) fought the establishment of political parties, since he saw them as divisive
4) refused more exalted titles than "President" that could have moved the United States towards monarchy

Nonetheless, I'm sure if you try hard enough, you'll find something he did that was political. It's the proportion that matters, though, and he's very heavy on the "statesman" side of the scale.

Sarkus

05-31-2008, 10:37 PM

My top choice would be Washington himself. He...

1) resigned as commander-in-chief after the war, a conscious imitation of Cincinnatus
2) could have served more than 2 terms, but stepped down
3) fought the establishment of political parties, since he saw them as divisive
4) refused more exalted titles than "President" that could have moved the United States towards monarchy

Nonetheless, I'm sure if you try hard enough, you'll find something he did that was political. It's the proportion that matters, though, and he's very heavy on the "statesman" side of the scale.

Well, I'll grant you Washington was pretty clean. But then again, he already had built his reputation as a general, and you can't deny that some of his military decisions were the result of political realities versus what was the best use of his army.

I agree that the proportion matters, but we live in a world today where if we can find one tiny thing wrong with someone we blow it up as if it's a fatal flaw.

It's also rare to recognize a statesman in their lifetimes, or at least during their careers. We often look at retired politicians and see them as statesman but rarely recognize it while they are still active.

Anti-Bunny

05-31-2008, 10:43 PM

My top choice would be Washington himself.
Like Jefferson, he supported slavery while privately writing that it was immoral.

I vote Thomas Paine.

bigdruid

05-31-2008, 10:43 PM

Arguably it was the Democratic party that screwed this up. The Republicans penalized Florida prior to the primary with a 50% rule but at least that made it clear what the rules were beforehand. The Dems held to their earlier threat to both MI and FL that they wouldn't count at all, which lead to the candidates making decisions on how to handle the states, and then later (now) changed the rules to make those primaries mean something.

Exactly. The Democrats slapped Florida and Michigan with sanctions that were so severe that there was no way they were going to stick - everyone knew that some kind of deal would be brokered to seat the delegates from those states, but people assumed that it'd happen after a nominee was selected.

Had they selected more reasonable sanctions, this whole mess would've been avoided.

triggercut

05-31-2008, 10:43 PM

Well, I'll grant you Washington was pretty clean. But then again, he already had built his reputation as a general, and you can't deny that some of his military decisions were the result of political realities versus what was the best use of his army.

I agree that the proportion matters, but we live in a world today where if we can find one tiny thing wrong with someone we blow it up as if it's a fatal flaw.

It's also rare to recognize a statesman in their lifetimes, or at least during their careers. We often look at retired politicians and see them as statesman but rarely recognize it while they are still active.

Man, you suck at your own game here. Not even a mention of George showing up at the meeting of the Continental Congress wearing a full dress uniform?

But beyond that, Markell is right and you're not. Statesmanship is about proportion and the longview. It is about Abe Lincoln realizing that full emancipation in 1861 would cost the Union Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland and putting off that act until it was both the right thing to do and politically workable. I would also happily add both our post-WWII presidents, Truman and Eisenhower to the list of "statesmen" in this country. For the current times, I'd have no trouble putting Jim Webb in that category.

I think you make the greatest error in your rather muddled definition by positing that somehow statesmen are never criticized in their own time; that's ridiculous. Washington had plenty of critics in his lifetime, as an example, and it is only in the longview and with hindsight that we can see that he was on the right side of history, his critics not so much.

Dave Markell

05-31-2008, 10:58 PM

Like Jefferson, he supported slavery while privately writing that it was immoral.

I vote Thomas Paine.

While I have nothing against Paine, I think you misjudge Washington on slavery. I refer you what I think is a good wiki article on the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery). He was initially a man of his times, but his views evolved and he eventually demonstrated attitudes well in advance of most of the country. While I wish that he had used his prestige to advance the cause of abolition, I don't think it's fair to say he supported slavery in his last decades.

Sarkus

05-31-2008, 11:10 PM

Man, you suck at your own game here. Not even a mention of George showing up at the meeting of the Continental Congress wearing a full dress uniform?

But beyond that, Markell is right and you're not. Statesmanship is about proportion and the longview. It is about Abe Lincoln realizing that full emancipation in 1861 would cost the Union Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland and putting off that act until it was both the right thing to do and politically workable. I would also happily add both our post-WWII presidents, Truman and Eisenhower to the list of "statesmen" in this country. For the current times, I'd have no trouble putting Jim Webb in that category.

Which is exactly my point. Dave started this discussion by complaining that the superdelegates supporting Hillary should have stood up and walked away from her on principle and that the fact they hadn't proved they weren't statesmen. If Lincoln had emancipated early, he would have been standing on principle. My whole argument is that even statesmen make politicaly motivated decisions sometimes and don't always stand on principle. Seems to me we actually agree.

I think you make the greatest error in your rather muddled definition by positing that somehow statesmen are never criticized in their own time; that's ridiculous. Washington had plenty of critics in his lifetime, as an example, and it is only in the longview and with hindsight that we can see that he was on the right side of history, his critics not so much.

Your greatest error is in not having spent much time reading my previous posts. I never said statesmen weren't criticized in their own time. Find the quote that proves it. Note what I said just a few posts ago:

It's also rare to recognize a statesman in their lifetimes, or at least during their careers.

MyNameIsWill

05-31-2008, 11:12 PM

This turned out better than expected. Only 67 to go for Obama.

NoWayJose

05-31-2008, 11:14 PM

Really?
Yes.

Everyone is still trying to beat Hillary, and there's no upside in it. Obama had the right idea about a month ago when he stopped even talking about her. Let her supporters, whether it's the 300 loudest or the thousands who are still turning out to vote for her despite her clear inability to win the nomination, have their say. What's the harm? Some bad press for a couple of days? Big deal.

When you people go crazy criticizing them, you're doing Obama harm, not Hillary. What is she going to do, resign her senate seat? He's got to get busy convincing those people to vote for him, much less the disenchanted republicans and eternally clueless "undecideds." He shouldn't have to fight for the democratic vote anymore, and if you just let Hillary play herself out, chances are he won't have to, at least quite as hard.

Calm down, triggercut. Your candidate has the nomination. It's time for him to get the party behind him and show he's earned it. It's not going to happen while you let Hillary's supporters continue to be the enemy. They're not, they're just upset. They're going to calm down eventually, if you let them. You have to go first, though.

Calm.... down. :)

Lum

06-01-2008, 12:15 AM

They're going to calm down eventually, if you let them. You have to go first, though.

Uh, nope. It's not the job of the Obama campaign to bring die-hard Clinton supporters to reality. That would be the job of Hillary Clinton.

If she refuses to do that, well, then the Democrats have a problem. Somehow I don't exactly see her emulating Ron Paul at the convention, though.

Qmanol

06-01-2008, 02:00 AM

You misread the post. All he's saying is that people need to do the same thing as Obama has been doing - step away from the crazy people, and just let them rant themselves out. Engaging them at this point is just feeding the cycle.

Sharpe

06-01-2008, 03:45 AM

I actually think some important "stepping away" has to be done by the superdelegates, both the uncommitteds and those previously committed to Clinton. For the uncommitteds, they have to face the reality that keeping neutral simply fuels the kind of craziness that can hurt the party and make the party look like like fractious, incompetent losers at the convention. If a strong majority of uncommitteds don't break for Obama in the next few days, then I will agree that the Democratic party is doing a poor job, as a party.

Also, the previously committed to Clinton delegates now have an opportunity to rethink. The primary voting will be entirely done on the 3rd, and this weekend the Florida and Michigan issues went to vote of the proper committee and a compromise favoring Clinton was approved according to DNC rules. I think a Clinton superdelegate can now in good faith offer two reasons for chaning his or her vote: the voters have spoken and they picked Obama; and the committee has spoken, and they refused Clinton's most extreme arguments about FL and MI. For Clinton to keep disputing the ruling of the party and demanding 100% of a cake that she already got 60% of (when a lot of people like me thought she should get 0%), that shows that she is not cooperating with the party and working in the party's best interests. At that point, I think the party members can justify abandoning her.

Bottom line: I expect a flood of superdelegates to Obama in the next 3 to 5 days. If it happens and Clinton slogs on, she will only have herself to blame for the damage done to the party. If it doesn't happen, then I partially blame the party as well.

Matthew Gallant

06-01-2008, 07:05 AM

I wonder if anyone thinks Clinton would have any chance of winning the nomination if all the delegates were sat in the numbers her campaign suggested. I don't know, but I think probably she would still have none. If this is the case, it might have been smarter to just let her have her way and rob her and her nutcase fans the chance to scream and cry.
Yes, she would still be way, way, behind. What you're ignorant of here is what effect this would have on the next primaries. Michigan and Florida breaking the rules and getting away with it 100% would be bad news for the party. And ultimately, it would not mollify any Clinton die-hards either. It would just force them to come up with a rationale that's a notch higher on the frustratingly one-sided scale. So, you in fact have a pretty crappy idea there.

Rightbug

06-01-2008, 07:14 AM

Goddammit. As a Michigan Democrat, I really wanted our state party leaders to get spanked harder than that -- our delegates should've been told to stay the fuck home.

Just out of curiousity, we know what the Clinton people felt about the proportioning of the Michigan delegates and we know what the final decision was but what are you hearing from you fellow Michigan Democrats? Are they likely to view yesterday's solution as fair? And related, do you know a lot of people who would have voted differently if they knew the results were going to count and/or if Obama had been on the ballot?

Talisker

06-01-2008, 07:21 AM

Just out of curiousity, we know what the Clinton people felt about the proportioning of the Michigan delegates and we know what the final decision was but what are you hearing from you fellow Michigan Democrats? Are they likely to view yesterday's solution as fair? And related, do you know a lot of people who would have voted differently if they knew the results were going to count and/or if Obama had been on the ballot?
Most Democrats I know didn't bother to vote; further, while you kept hearing recently about how "we shouldn't disenfranchise Michigan voters," that's primarily the state party leadership speaking -- there was a local NPR bit a few days ago where they went out and asked Joe Voter how he felt, and every single person they talked to was pissed at the state party leadership.

The do-or-die date for disenfranchising Michigan Democratic voters was January 15, not May 31.

Sidd_Budd

06-01-2008, 09:02 AM

Most Democrats I know didn't bother to vote; further, while you kept hearing recently about how "we shouldn't disenfranchise Michigan voters," that's primarily the state party leadership speaking -- there was a local NPR bit a few days ago where they went out and asked Joe Voter how he felt, and every single person they talked to was pissed at the state party leadership.

I wish I would have heard the NPR piece. This presidential primary was the first one in which neither my wife nor I voted, because we were pissed at the party leadership.

I think the 50% penalty is a decent solution. It was widely expected that they would find some way to take Michigan into account. I just hope the penalty squashes future proposals to move up the national party's timelines.

Mark Asher

06-01-2008, 09:24 AM

Exactly. The Democrats slapped Florida and Michigan with sanctions that were so severe that there was no way they were going to stick - everyone knew that some kind of deal would be brokered to seat the delegates from those states, but people assumed that it'd happen after a nominee was selected.

Had they selected more reasonable sanctions, this whole mess would've been avoided.

I sort of doubt that. Had the deal been half votes all along, Camp Hilary would have been pressing even harder for full votes. Basically, you are looking at a candidate desperate to gain delegate votes, so she is going to work every angle she can think of. Her goal is to be as close as possible with delegate votes and make some kind of claim about winning the popular vote.

I just hope that if enough supers declare to put Obama over the top, she relents. If he has the votes and she still fights on, I do think it will harm the party.

noun

06-01-2008, 09:48 AM

Obama's going to be remembered either as a master politician or the best statesman of our time. This is brilliance (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html).

Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.

Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.

Informal talks have already begun between Obama and Clinton fundraisers to discuss a merger, enabling Mr Obama to pay off Mrs Clinton’s campaign debts of $11 million (£5.6 million).

triggercut

06-01-2008, 09:53 AM

The problem Camp Hillary has with the Michigan allocation of delegates decided by the RBC yesterday has almost nothing to do with the number of allocated delegates, and everything to do with the deeper meaning of it.

Camp Clinton wanted a 73-35 delegate split initially. That split would've reflected the votes she got in the Michigan primary, and would have split the "no preference" votes amongst Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd according to polling numbers.

Camp Obama ran an end-around on that strategy on Thursday-Friday, getting Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd to promise to pledge over any delegates they were awarded in Michigan to him. So, entering Saturday's meeting, Camp Clinton was already a bit surly but satisfied if they could get a 73-55 split in MI. The key number was getting them 73; 73 would represent the actual popular vote in the state in that bogus primary, and they thought they had that--Carl Levin was expected to brook no compromise on the subject.

Instead, Levin pulled the rug out from under them. Instead of going nuclear, he was accommodating and genial in the hearings, and mentioned that Camp Hillary wanted a 73-55 split, while Obama wanted a 64-64 split. He called the MI primary an obviously "flawed primary" and then suggested that they split the difference between what Obama and Clinton wanted--69-59 allocation.

That works just fine for Obama. Reports at HuffPo say he actually had enough votes to force a 64-64 split, but they wanted to get the 19-8 vote instead of a 15-13 vote; 19-8 means "take this to the credentials committee and you'll lose"; 15-13 means Clinton fights on over Michigan.

69 delegates allocated is a campaign killer for Hillary though. What it means is that the RBC, and hence the Democratic Party--with the full consent of Michigan Democrats--are *throwing out the popular vote in Michigan*. The only measure whereby Clinton can justify staying in the race is by claiming she has a larger share of the popular vote. The only way she can work that math is by including the votes in Michigan she got. If the party is throwing those out and allocating delegates based on a compromise and not the actual vote, she's got nothing but a semantics challenge.

noun

06-01-2008, 09:57 AM

.... she's got nothing but a semantics challenge.

"It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Lum

06-01-2008, 10:36 AM

69 delegates allocated is a campaign killer for Hillary though. What it means is that the RBC, and hence the Democratic Party--with the full consent of Michigan Democrats--are *throwing out the popular vote in Michigan*.

If, in 2004, thanks to electoral shenanigans Kerry was not on the ballot in Michigan, I don't think there would be much worry about *throwing out the popular vote* if the consequent results were challenged. The primary was fatally flawed. Using it as some kind of 'sacred benchmark of the American voter' is simply smashmouth politics - it benefits me so I'm for it. Florida is a perfect example of the other side of the spectrum - the Florida vote was essentially fair (there wasn't any campaigning and at the time the media was calling it a meaningless "beauty contest", but everyone was on the ballot and by that time it was pretty much a national campaign anyway), yet the Obama camp had every right to press for a nullification of the delegates. They didn't.

Ideally there should have been a revote funded by the Michigan Democratic Party, which caused the whole mess. Since that couldn't happen, the best solution was a compromise, and not a Lanny Davis-style "I'll take all my delegates and some of these over here and we'll call it a day" compromise.

Enidigm

06-01-2008, 11:05 AM

A statesman is someone who can navigate the political waters and drive the government toward a coherent goal only their political ability can achieve.

It's not only standing up to your principles, it's working with government toward establishing those principles. And sometimes that means deferring it for later until the climate has made it more amenable. But it's the force of their oration and vision that is transformative.

A "politician" (in the negative American context), otoh, is someone who represents his district out of his own selfish desire for power. If his district is 90% against abortion, against abortion he will be. If a real statesman changes that debate, and his district flips, than flip with the wind the politician shall.

Anaxagoras

06-01-2008, 11:16 AM

If a real statesman changes that debate, and his district flips, than flip with the wind the politician shall.

But if abortion isn't terribly important to the statesman, then the statesman is obliged to flip as well. Because you can only afford to stand your ground on so many issues... and you need to decide which issues are worth fighting over and/or resigning over.

The very distinction seems fallacious... except for the idea that statesman are both skilled & stick to some core principles of some sort. But if you & the statesman don't agree on which principles are "core", then a statesman could easily appear to you as "just another politician".

And then we rag on John McCain as a sell-out for doing exactly that. Can't have it both ways.
I know some have taken this position, but I certainly don't. I find McCain's cave-in to the religious right disturbing precisely because it indicates that going along with them is an OK proposition... McCain would rather fight other battles. Assuming he has core principles at all, then disagreement with the religious right isn't among them.
To me, that's unacceptable. Disagreement with the religious right is one of my core principles, so if a politician agrees to go along with the religious right, that politician is unacceptable to me. Not because he flip flopped, but because we strongly disagree on what's important.