Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[SummerChild]

TonyB,

I think that the solution is really very straightforward - don't change the rules of the game midstream. Also, I think that splitting the delegates may be giving one candidate more than the candidate deserves.

If Michigan and Florida agreed to operate in this manner, then I think that is that really. I think that the elected officials of Michigan and Florida should pay for their decision-making in November and that the rule that none of the delegates should count should stand. It is a shame to disenfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida in this way. This is a matter for their state legislatures to answer for, I think. I do not agree to change the rules midstream b/c the election turned out to be such an interesting and still unsettled matter. Now, they want a do-over?

The people of Michigan and Florida need to take it up with the people that made those decisions in their states. Those people postured and acted childish and now they are living to regret their decision. It is no different to me than a child that postures and throws a temper tantrum and then seeks to undo the act.

It would not set a good precedent for future elections. Why wouldn't any other state simply posture and then later decide that they want to do something else and all should be forgotten? What's going to happen with the next presidential election if we allow a do-over this time?

I think that they should just vote in November with everyone else at this point.

SC

Originally Posted by TonyB06

I think Ferraro's comments reflect the frustration of the Clinton campaign. They never planned to be in a primary fight this late in the season -- and their "strategy" of late seems to show this.

These kinds of remarks are typical of campaign minions and lower level functionaries, however, ...they do the "dirty work," of allegation and innuendo, hoping it will sway the simple-minded to their cause. I think in the longer term, HRC will be hurt (in the eyes of the superdelegates) by not making a more forceful denunciation of Ferraro's remarks than she's done to date.

I'm curious to see how the DNC will repair this delegate fight with Michigan/Florida. ...politically, it would seem they'd split the delegates down the middle and save the DNC or the states the $30 million it would cost for the do-over.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

TonyB,

I think that the solution is really very straightforward - don't change the rules of the game midstream. Also, I think that splitting the delegates may be giving one candidate more than the candidate deserves.

If Michigan and Florida agreed to operate in this manner, then I think that is that really. I think that the elected officials of Michigan and Florida should pay for their decision-making in November and that the rule that none of the delegates should count should stand. It is a shame to disenfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida in this way. This is a matter for their state legislatures to answer for, I think. I do not agree to change the rules midstream b/c the election turned out to be such an interesting and still unsettled matter. Now, they want a do-over?

The people of Michigan and Florida need to take it up with the people that made those decisions in their states. Those people postured and acted childish and now they are living to regret their decision. It is no different to me than a child that postures and throws a temper tantrum and then seeks to undo the act.

It would not set a good precedent for future elections. Why wouldn't any other state simply posture and then later decide that they want to do something else and all should be forgotten? What's going to happen with the next presidential election if we allow a do-over this time?

I think that they should just vote in November with everyone else at this point.

SC

IMO, there is very little that is "straightforward" about politics at this level. Perception always plays a role.

As I recall Obama, Clinton and Edwards all pledged to not campaign or appear on the ballots of Mich/Fla because they "jumped ahead." at the last minute HRC put her name on either the FLa or Mich ballot ....so you might wonder why this hasn't been hit on as a campaign issue by the Obama campaign.

Secondly, these were state party decisions, supported by the legislatures, I think, and HRC's albeit "self-serving" argument is that the people, separate from the party, are being disenfranchised. Of course, it's postering, but there is a deeper point in all of this. National CNN Columnist (and Bruh) Roland Martin suggests both states be set aside and voters of those states take it out on their elected officials who made this decision.

at the end of the day some political solution is going to be reached, becuase those are heavily populated states and the DNC doesn't want "dissafection" to carry over into the fall campaign.

I'd guess Obama would like the situation to remain static, but I don't think that'll be a viable posistion to hold once an idea emerges that gains momentum.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

IMO, there is very little that is "straightforward" about politics at this level. Perception always plays a role.

As I recall Obama, Clinton and Edwards all pledged to not campaign or appear on the ballots of Mich/Fla because they "jumped ahead." at the last minute HRC put her name on either the FLa or Mich ballot ....so you might wonder why this hasn't been hit on as a campaign issue by the Obama campaign.

Secondly, these were state party decisions, supported by the legislatures, I think, and HRC's albeit "self-serving" argument is that the people, separate from the party, are being disenfranchised. Of course, it's postering, but there is a deeper point in all of this. National CNN Columnist (and Bruh) Roland Martin suggests both states be set aside and voters of those states take it out on their elected officials who made this decision.

at the end of the day some political solution is going to be reached, becuase those are heavily populated states and the DNC doesn't want "dissafection" to carry over into the fall campaign.

I'd guess Obama would like the situation to remain static, but I don't think that'll be a viable posistion to hold once an idea emerges that gains momentum.

Re: the names

All candidates names were originally on the ballots. Due to Florida's rules no candidate could pull his or her name off of the ballot. All candidate's names were on Florida's ballot.

Obama and Edwards pulled their names off of the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not but it "didn't matter" at the time since the vote's "didn't count." That's her story and she's sticking ... well she's saying they SHOULD count now.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

IMO, there is very little that is "straightforward" about politics at this level. Perception always plays a role.

As I recall Obama, Clinton and Edwards all pledged to not campaign or appear on the ballots of Mich/Fla because they "jumped ahead." at the last minute HRC put her name on either the FLa or Mich ballot ....so you might wonder why this hasn't been hit on as a campaign issue by the Obama campaign.

Secondly, these were state party decisions, supported by the legislatures, I think, and HRC's albeit "self-serving" argument is that the people, separate from the party, are being disenfranchised. Of course, it's postering, but there is a deeper point in all of this. National CNN Columnist (and Bruh) Roland Martin suggests both states be set aside and voters of those states take it out on their elected officials who made this decision.

at the end of the day some political solution is going to be reached, becuase those are heavily populated states and the DNC doesn't want "dissafection" to carry over into the fall campaign.

I'd guess Obama would like the situation to remain static, but I don't think that'll be a viable posistion to hold once an idea emerges that gains momentum.

Frankly, to agree to a do over in either state would set a dangerous precendent. I believe that the delegates should not be seated based on what ALL parties agreed to BEFORE the race got 'interesting'. Blaming the Republican legislature in FLA (what about Michigan? I guess noone is to blame for that one?!) is copping out; I am glad that the Congressional (as opposed to state legislature) FLA Dems are opposed to a revote because they can see the larger picture.

I also hate that voters in states like Florida, Michigan, California and Ohio are usually somewhere in the middle of a political controversy that affects the rest of the country (ie recent and current presidential elections, affirmative action propositions, voting machines).

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Frankly, to agree to a do over in either state would set a dangerous precendent. I believe that the delegates should not be seated based on what ALL parties agreed to BEFORE the race got 'interesting'. Blaming the Republican legislature in FLA (what about Michigan? I guess noone is to blame for that one?!) is copping out; I am glad that the Congressional (as opposed to state legislature) FLA Dems are opposed to a revote because they can see the larger picture.

I also hate that voters in states like Florida, Michigan, California and Ohio are usually somewhere in the middle of a political controversy that affects the rest of the country (ie recent and current presidential elections, affirmative action propositions, voting machines).

...if you're the head of the DNC heading into a close fall election, do you want to risk Mich/Fla Democrats feeling (rightly or wrongly) like they've been cut out of the process, and considering the possibility of sitting home in November?

I see your point, but pragmatically don't you think it's in the Dem party's best interest to find some way out of this morass, so they can reasonably count on these voters turning out on Nov. 5?

[SummerChild]

TonyB,

I think that I would think about it like this:
I give the voters of Michigan and Florida much credit in terms of being intellectual saavy enough to know that their own state, and not the Democratic party, is the group that prevented their votes from being counted. Now, Florida could actually go Republican if people sat at home. However, Michigan, with the state that Detroit and some of the other areas are in economically - do you think that they would *really* sit at home in November and let Republicans go out and turn Michigan red. Come on now. Detroit is experiencing one of the worst fallouts of this economy and it is likely spreading over Michigan (although i'm not sure).

I doubt the people of Michigan will sit at home in November in large numbers.

And Florida, well, I also worry about a do-over in Florida b/c there is always so much shadiness with the voting down there. A paper vote? How untrackable is that? That might be worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle only for smaller potatoes.

SC

Originally Posted by TonyB06

...if you're the head of the DNC heading into a close fall election, do you want to risk Mich/Fla Democrats feeling (rightly or wrongly) like they've been cut out of the process, and considering the possibility of sitting home in November?

I see your point, but pragmatically don't you think it's in the Dem party's best interest to find some way out of this morass, so they can reasonably count on these voters turning out on Nov. 5?

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

TonyB,

I think that I would think about it like this:
I give the voters of Michigan and Florida much credit in terms of being intellectual saavy enough to know that their own state, and not the Democratic party, is the group that prevented their votes from being counted. Now, Florida could actually go Republican if people sat at home. However, Michigan, with the state that Detroit and some of the other areas are in economically - do you think that they would *really* sit at home in November and let Republicans go out and turn Michigan red. Come on now. Detroit is experiencing one of the worst fallouts of this economy and it is likely spreading over Michigan (although i'm not sure).

I doubt the people of Michigan will sit at home in November in large numbers.

And Florida, well, I also worry about a do-over in Florida b/c there is always so much shadiness with the voting down there. A paper vote? How untrackable is that? That might be worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle only for smaller potatoes.

SC

Well, super lawyer that you are, I know you hold it down intellecutally over most of us

Of course, your speculations are as valid as mine are on this, but I still think the safer political play is to take possible voter disaffection (among your base) out of play.

Besides Obama -- especially if dude is not going to more forcefully challenge HRC on her flip-flop on this -- cannot be seen as "not wanting" a solution to this, it'll look like he's afraid of the outcome.

Depending on how this plays out, it'll be interesting to see how voter motivation polls in Michigan/ Fla. i.e. how likely are you to vote --strongly, somewhat, likely, not likely, etc... Obama is bringing a lot of newer, first time voters to the process. are they are more easily soured on the process (likely to sit home) if they feel they've been played?

Of course, as a former Obama law student, I'm sure he could put you on payroll and have you canvas Michigan from Labor Day through Nov. 5 and just put it on lock for him.

[SummerChild]

Tony, you're so funny.
I actually think that it would be a bad idea to allow the do-over whether it would turn out to be in Obama's favor or not. I think that it hurts the notice function in theory. That being, how can anyone ever have notice of what is going to happen (w/ these presidential elections - or at least what to expect to happen) if we keep moving the target, changing our minds, etc. It is most unsettling to think that A was the case for months and then to think that B could be the case now that other factors that were not contingencies to A, have come from out of left field. The uncertainty in the last two presidential elections b/c of craziness like this and the Supreme Court jumping in last time arguably where they had no business and then writing an opinion that is regarded by many legal experts as not being incredibly sturdy - this is craziness. We need to bring back some stability to the process and I think that that starts with abiding by the rules that are outlined at the beginning...no matter who wins.

I don't want to take a chance with disaffection either so I hear you. It's just like - what next? What if there was a movement now to try to change so that superdelegates do not count? There would be the same failure of notice to those superdelegates albeit they are way fewer in number than the populations of Michigan and Florida - but hey, one could argue that they influence could be pivotal in this election so it would not be insignificant to change the rule midstream here.

This election is becoming a big mess. Why won't people just play by the rules and stick to the issues? And may the best man (or woman) win.

SC

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Well, super lawyer that you are, I know you hold it down intellecutally over most of us

Of course, your speculations are as valid as mine are on this, but I still think the safer political play is to take possible voter disaffection (among your base) out of play.

Besides Obama -- especially if dude is not going to more forcefully challenge HRC on her flip-flop on this -- cannot be seen as "not wanting" a solution to this, it'll look like he's afraid of the outcome.

Depending on how this plays out, it'll be interesting to see how voter motivation polls in Michigan/ Fla. i.e. how likely are you to vote --strongly, somewhat, likely, not likely, etc... Obama is bringing a lot of newer, first time voters to the process. are they are more easily soured on the process (likely to sit home) if they feel they've been played?

Of course, as a former Obama law student, I'm sure he could put you on payroll and have you canvas Michigan from Labor Day through Nov. 5 and just put it on lock for him.