Note to DNC: No Do-Overs

The DNC's profoundly stupid decision to tell Michigan and Florida (yes, Florida!) voters that their votes won't be counted has bitten them in the ass.  

Now, apparently, they want a do-over:

A top Michigan Democrat [Debbie Dingell] says the Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold Democratic presidential caucuses so the delegates they've lost for holding January primaries can be seated at the national convention.

Nope.

They DNC are complete idiots.  Plain f*ckin' dumb.  The Democratic Party should never be in the business of telling anyone anywhere (much less Florida - Rove had to be laughing his ass off) that their votes won't count.

But they did.  Here's what happened:

1.  Florida and Michigan (among others) said the NH/IA thing is stupid, and the proposed NH/IA/SC/NV plan is just as stupid. (Florida has more population than the four states combined, Michigan is only about .5 million shy of the combined total.)  So screw you guys, we're gonna move our dates up.  

2.  The DNC said any state moving its primary or caucus date to before 2/5/08 will not have their delegates seated at the convention.

3.  Other states comtemplating a date move chicken out, but Michigan and Florida proceed, reasoning that even a "beauty contest" is a bigger voice than they have had under the current system.  They put the ball in the DNC's court.

4.  The DNC strips Florida and Michigan of their delegates.   Michigan and Florida say, "what-ev'."  

5.  Candidates sign the "four-state pledge" barring them from campaigning in the rogue states of Michigan and Florida.

6.  Nothing in the "four-state pledge" precludes candidates from having their name on the Michigan ballot.  Certain Democratic candidates, pandering to IA/NH/SC and NV, either do not place themselves on or remove their names from the Michigan ballot.  These would be Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson.  Other Democratic candidates choose to appear on the Michigan ballot.  These would be Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel.  (Dennis Kucinich also appeared on the Michigan ballot.  Dennis said he tried to remove his name, but filed the papers too late.  Not that this matters.)

6. a.   As the contest progressed, Edwards and Obama supporters in Michigan were urged to vote "uncommitted" in the Michigan Democratic primary.  This message was on TV, radio, print and billboards. As far as I could tell, this was paid for by local orgs and not the Edwards or Obama campaigns. A perfectly fair thing to do.  

7.  Michigan and Florida each conducted free and fair elections, as provided for by their respective state laws.  

8.  Afterward, the Democratic nomination contest tightened.

9.  The DNC now realizes their stupidity, and tries to figure out how to un-shit the bed.

10.  The DNC gets dumberer.  Instead of simply revisiting their dumbass decision and deciding to recognize Michigan's and Florida's delegates, the DNC says Florida and Michigan should have new elections, and use the caucus system instead of a primary.  

WTF????

If the DNC wants Michigan and Florida to count, they are free to recognize each state's delegation.  They have no standing at all to compel new elections under new processes in either state.

BTW, it's worth pointing out that the GOP side decided to strip MI and FL of half of their delegates, instead of shit-canning the whole thing.  Pretty smart (at least better than the DNC plan) in retrospect, no?

Anyway, there are no do-overs in politics.  And in this case, there really is no reason for one.  If the DNC wants Michigan and Florida to count, all they need to do is count them.  It's not hard.

•  All votes should count

  Period.

  by HarveyMilk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:18:46 PM PDT

  •  Exactly!

    So the voters in Michigan and Florida should be given a legitimate opportunity to vote.

    They should get to see the candidates campaign and make a choice between them.

    WTF, indeed.

    by Mr X on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:21:37 PM PDT

    •  They did vote.

      Each state held its primaries.  The elections were free and fair.  

      The DNC is free to recognize Michigan's and Florida's votes and delegates, or not.  

      by HarveyMilk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:01 PM PDT

      •  There are no delegates to recognize. n/t

        by bawbie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM PDT

        •  I could not disagree with your conclusion more...

          First Harveymilk, let me say that I like your chronology because, unlike many people why don't understand how we got to this point, you laid out the chronology well.  So well, in fact, that all I can say to you is Congratulations.  You make my argument for me.  MI and FL knew exactly what they were doing when the moved the date up.  They were told that their delegates would be stripped.  They said screw you we're doing it anyway.  They should be punished.  It is the state parties that are being punished, not the voters.  Listen, I went to law school in Michigan, Brewer is an absolute idiot and a complete tool.  You know how the Democratic party members in MI and FL have their vote counted?  The vote out the idiots running their party that made the idiotic decision to violate the rules.  We could argue all day about whether you like the nominating calendar or not, but that misses the point.  The party argued about it for 18 months.  The final product was the four-state plan, and the Feb.5th date.  You cannot allow the various state parties to set the date whenever the hell they want and create chaos....how's this, for example:  "Iowa, wanting to remain first in the Nation, moves up their caucus date to November 15, 2010, one week after the midterm general election....."  You don't see anything wrong with this.  Rules are Rules, like them or not you must live by them.  You definitely can't seat any delegates from MI or FL based on the previous vote.  As to how to proceed, well I guess I'll leave that for another comment.

          by OH 09 Dem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:40:53 PM PDT

          •  If the DNC doesn't want to count

            Florida and Michigan, that is there's to do.  I can disagree witht that decision, but I agree that it is their's to make.  Florida and Michigan cannot force the DNC to recognize their delegates.

            What I take issue with is the DNC pressuring Florida and Michigan for a do-over.

            by HarveyMilk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:53:46 PM PDT

            •  s/b "theirs to do" and "theirs to make"

              I can't type for shit today!

              by HarveyMilk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM PDT

              •  Don't worry,

                I had a couple typos too, reading through the second time.  Anyway, I'm not crazy about the "caucus idea" either.  It seems to me that the DNC delegitimizes itself by taking this approach.  The ironic thing about all of this is how large a roll in the process MI and FL would be playing had they simply stuck to the schedule.  One thing I believe the DNC should do, however, is reduce the number of delegates required to secure the nomination by subtracting the delegates from MI and FL that no longer count.  As far as I know, this hasn't been done.  If we are going to have a close race to the end (which is debateable) then we should have a magic number that takes the stripped delegates into consideration.

                by OH 09 Dem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM PDT

                •  most of the calculations

                  I've seen do this already. The 2,025 number is without MI and FL.

                  by Tim Sackton on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:50:56 PM PDT

          •  A question for you please...

            The final product was the four-state plan, and the Feb.5th date.  You cannot allow the various state parties to set the date whenever the hell they want and create chaos....how's this, for example:  "Iowa, wanting to remain first in the Nation, moves up their caucus date to November 15, 2010, one week after the midterm general election....."  You don't see anything wrong with this.  Rules are Rules, like them or not you must live by them.  You definitely can't seat any delegates from MI or FL based on the previous vote.  

            Can you tell me which campaign may have been behind the brilliant idea to violate the DNC rules?  I know that it came from some kind of thought that they could come out running ahead?  

            I love the fact that they thought they were being so smart and now it's down to the fact that the winner will be decided by the people of Puerto Rico!!!  Ha ha... people are so calculating, aren't they?  

            by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:56:24 PM PDT

            •  The campaigns do not make the decision

              The state parties do.  The state parties in Michigan and Florida did not like the nominating calendar that was adopted by the DNC because they felt like the nomination would be practically decided before they got to have a say.  This has traditionally been true.  Michigan  and Florida were pushing hard, and were finalists in the Four State Plan, but ultimately the DNC chose Nevada and South Carolina.

              by OH 09 Dem on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM PDT

        •  no delegates? tell karen thurman.

          she's our state chair here in FL. we voted, and we are now selecting delegates based on that vote. they're overrrun with applications by people who want to go to denver and represent the people of the state fo florida. we voted- 1.5 million of us democrats.

          

          by campskunk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM PDT

          •  The DNC said no delegates

            and your state chair has nothing to do with it.

            She can proclaim herself the High Queen of Bizarrostan, and it means just as much.

            by Prof Dave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM PDT

            •  I believe they said they would not seat them

              Not that they'd vaporize them.

              by PBCliberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM PDT

              •  :), fine, distinction w/o a diff for Denver n/t

                by Prof Dave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM PDT

                •  They will seat the delegates...

                  It just will be after they make no difference. So the existence of delegates is very important so they will have actors in place for the big show.

                  by PBCliberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:29:22 PM PDT

                  •  They can't seat the delegates if all of the

                    campaigns didn't campaign in the state!  What about the agreement that they made?  There are consequences for campaigns too.  They agreed to that and now they can't just say that they want to change their minds!  Pleeeeeeezzzzeeee, let's be real about this.  The state parties created this and the people are going to have to live with it.  

                    by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM PDT

                    •  The national party can do whatever it wants...

                      ...that was the whole upshot of the court cases, both the precedent and the court's answer to Nelson et al's attempted circumvention under Voter Rights Act (sue Florida on the VRA issue the fed court said).

                      What will probably happen is unless the convention is brokered, the minions of the heir apparent party nominee will take control of the convention process and the Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated, with the rules somehow constructed so that they can either cast their unanimous votes for the obvious--or the folks running it wouldn't be running it--nominee, or cast votes that don't change the outcome.

                      This isn't about our ability to sit in Denver and look pretty and appear united. You know they'll do that. Its about our real voice in the decision making process.

                      Dean now is even talking about taking the candidates in the back room for a little pursuediatin' so that we don't wind up tearing each others' hair out while McCain looks presidential purring "stay the course."

                      This isn't physics or mathematics. Its politics. The rules are what we say they are and we have options.

                      Many many years ago, I had a problem with the administration for a high school club that I was president of. They didn't want to pay a bill we'd incurred because we hadn't approved it in advance, even though it was money we'd raised.

                      A woman I highly respected had been a member of the school board for decades, I considered a friend. I called her "the fox."

                      So I asked her for advice. Simply alter the minutes of the previous meeting, she said, to reflect the appropriation. We did it, and of course the vice principal nearly went into geostationary orbit. But it was all legal, and they agreed to pay the bill as long as we didn't do it again and didn't tell the other clubs about it.

                      Politics is the only profession I know of that, if it becomes obvious you're going to miss a deadline to enact something, you simply instruct one of your minions to unplug the clock.

                      by PBCliberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:54:34 PM PDT

          •  Then your state chair...

            ...had best get cracking organizing that state party caucus.

            Seating delegates from FL and MI would be an up-yours to the 44 states who followed the rules and didn't try to game the primary system for their states' benefit.  That Hillary Clinton and her supporters want these delegates to be seated, after agreeing to the rules when they were made, smacks of political opportunism.

            by mistersite on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:06:04 PM PDT

            •  No it doesn't....

              That Hillary Clinton and her supporters want these delegates to be seated, after agreeing to the rules when they were made, smacks of political opportunism.

              It smacks of a back room deal that is corrupt... sorta like Negroponte admitting that they had used torture without approval from Cheney.

              Unfortunately the people whos votes won't mean anything are the ones who got screwed.  

              by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM PDT

          •  The other sid of the ballot shows why

            1.5 million might be motivated to vote.
            Property tax cut. People knew that vote counted, if you cared about that you voted.

            People didn't know the nominee choice would count so people who would have gone to make that choice might not have gone to make a vote that didn't matter.

            No way should those delegates be seated.

            by joynow on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:29:53 PM PDT

            •  james baker!

              i didn't know you posted here!

              by campskunk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:02:45 PM PDT

          •  I'm so sorry for the Floridians whose votes

            ONCE AGAIN won't be counted.  I hope you cleanse the muck from the party leadership and put some smart Kossacks in at the top.  

            I know it doesn't make it right, but it's something that you'll have to live with as far as I can tell.  You can't do it over and you can't seat the delegates... it's just not right.  

            I'm really sorry about this.  

            by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

            •  oh, we know who's hosing us.

              and it's not karen thurman. she's my former US rep, and VERY good people. she's holding dean's feet to the fire, and he's sweating like a pig.

              by campskunk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:02:10 PM PDT

        •  If This Nomination Gets Stolen In A Backroom Deal

          They are going to need Water-cannons in Denver to kepp us from "Crashing The Gates"...

          by IndianaDemocrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM PDT

      •  This makes sense

        I agree with your reasonable approach to penalize the voters of 2 states simply because their state parties were stupid and greedy.

        by Daaaaave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM PDT

        •  Then hold new elections

          the old ones are not legitimate.

          I prefer the penalty as is, but if we are going to change the rules, then start from now with rules changes, not retroactively.

          Retroactive immunity for telecoms is bad, but retroactive immunity for rule-breaking for these states is good?

          Did I miss anything?

          by Prof Dave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM PDT

        •  Not even stupid and greedy

          I'm pretty sure that if, last August, there had been a poll of Dkos readers, about 95% would have agreed that the NH/IA monopoly is corrupt and something (SOMETHING!) should be done to break these two, irrelevant states' grasps on our primaries.  Michigan and Florida are just the sort of state that should have done it: large, diverse and representative of the Democratic base (in different parts).  

          The DNC was tone deaf in terms of scheduling the primary and now they're trying, as HarveyMilk said, to unshit the bed.  The candidates who took their names off the ballot made that decision complicit in the fact that they were denying residents of those states a voice in the primary.  

          It's too late for do-overs.  They all made their beds and shat in them.  

          by skiddie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM PDT

          •  Tone deaf

            only if you like the idea of the 2012 primaries starting sometime mid-February 2009 as each state leapfrogs over the next.

            by Daaaaave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM PDT

            •  DNC

              I'm not saying the DNC doesn't have a role, just that it completely screwed up the organization for the primaries this time around.  

              What is the goal with the primary elections?  To appease certain voters?  To choose a candidate by a certain time?  To get the best media coverage for all the party's candidates?  

              The calendar can be changed to reflect those goals, but they have to choose the goals they want, rather than trying to get them all.  We (the Democratic and other voters) are almost all fed up with Iowa's and New Hampshire's lead positions, but we get them anyway.  

              by skiddie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:41:43 PM PDT

      •  re:You Can

        continue all day with this simplistic line of reasoning.  Hard to see how Michigan's election was fair when most of the candidates weren't on the ballot.  Hard to see how Florida's election was fair when all the candidates pledged not to campaign there, then one reneged on her pledge.

        by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:26:54 PM PDT

        •  No one told Obama to remove his name

          from the MI ballot.

          by xy109e3 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:37:35 PM PDT

          •  Moot point

            no delegates to contest.

            Doesn't matter if his name is there or not.

            by Prof Dave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:46:54 PM PDT

        •  Who reneged?

          that's just bull.  Obama ran national ads seen in Florida.  Did you mean him?  Hillary went there AFTER the polls closed.  Did you mean her?  Obama said back in August or September that he would see that Florida's votes were heard.  Did you mean him.  Hillary said two days before the vote she would see that Florida's votes counted.  Did you mean her?

          Nobody campaigned, as defined by the agreement.  That might not fit into your belief that one candidate is inherently evil, but it is a simple and indisputable fact.

          by dhonig on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM PDT

          •  The "agreement" also stated

            that no delegates would be awarded to those states. So while we're all concerned about sticking to the "agreement", let's remember all the terms.

            by dagnabbit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:09:35 PM PDT

            •  Where did I say I was concerned

              about sticking to the "agreement"?  I was responding to a claim that one party "reneged on the agreement," and the other didn't.  Personally, I think the "agreement"is entirely null and void, since it was forced out of all the candidates by blackmail- the four "early states" sitting in front of them and demanding they make the "agreement" or suffer the wrath of the early states.  Where else would we demand that ANYBODY stick to such a forced "agreement"?

              by dhonig on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM PDT

              •  re:Well

                You call it an agreement.  The fact of the matter is that each candidate pledged not to campaign in Florida.  Then Hillary demonstrated her disdain for that pledge.  

                by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:43:44 PM PDT

                •  Hillary did NOT campaign in Florida

                  prior to 2/5. Whate part of "before" do you not understand?

                  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 the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

                  by xy109e3 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM PDT

          •  re:Wrong

            Hillary flew to Florida the moment polls closed in South Carolina.  Remember?  She didn't even give a concession speech.  Bill acted as surrogate in Missouri, I believe, where he talked endlessly about himself.

            by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:42:12 PM PDT

      •  And uncontested. n/t

        by ManahManah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM PDT

      •  then not, nt

        by World Patriot on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM PDT

      •  The elections were neither free nor fair

        MI wasted about 20 million dollars, not free.

        But let's talk about fair.
        Both primaries were held with potential voters understanding their delegates would not be seated thus affecting the decision of whether or not to go vote.

        Florida had a property tax cut on the ballot so the high turn out couldn't be used to legitimize the primary vote.

        In Michigan our governor, ex-governor and US Senator campaigned for Clinton. I never saw an ad to vote Uncommitted on TV or in the newspaper (only on line) but I did hear our state leaders campaigning for Clinton and when asked about the Uncommitted vote speaking strongly against it. The ex govv even said if we aren't going to vote for a name on the ballot we should not vote at all. They all represented Clinton as the only one who stood up for MI and they urged people to come vote for her to show appreciation.

        On the ballot there was instructions about how to make a write-in vote. After the candidate names (Hillary only top tier name) was a Write-In area.
        The machine accepted the ballot with a write in Candidates name filled in.
        The ballots were not counted but rather considered a spoiled ballot because only registered write in candidates will count as a write in. We had none. None of that was noted.

        In my county alone over 600 ballots in Dem primary had a name written in and went uncounted.

        But many voters were simply not motivated to go out on a snowy winter day to a vote that wasn't going to make any difference.

        After the vote the governor started to assure people that our delegates would be seated.

        We would like our voices heard but seating our delegates would do the opposite.

        In 1988 the Michigan Dem primary result was Jackson 53%, Dukakis 29%

        In 2000 the Michigan Repub primary result was McCain 50% bush 43%

        Sometimes MI likes the insurgent. Someone should ask them to actually vote before delegates are seated to speak for them.

        by joynow on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM PDT

      •  The DNC is NOT free to recognize their votes! n/t

        by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM PDT

    •  They should not... their local party

      leaders and Dr. Dean created this mess.... and they should be forced to live with their creation!  Hillary is lending $5 million dollars to her campaign and now you're asking her to go raise more to do over the mess that they made?  No way!!!!!

      by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

    •  We do get to see the candidates campaign

      At least we do in Florida. I hear Michigan had some modern amenities too.

      Down here midst the gators, we have both MSNBC and CNN. We have the major networks and their news actually comes in the very same day it appears in places like DC and NY. We even have air conditioning and paved highways. Some places even have the Internet and indoor plumbing.

      by PBCliberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:25:44 PM PDT

  •  All votes should've been counted.

    But since they weren't, they shouldn't be.

    Period.

    by dagnabbit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:22:08 PM PDT

  •  If they had just followed the rules...

    (Michigan and Florida that is), we wouldn't be in this mess!!!

    by thecoolmacdude on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM PDT

    •  If the DNC

      had pulled their heads out of their asses and devised a fair and equitable nominating system, this problem could have been avoided.

      Instead, the DNC said "nah nah nah nah, we can't hear you!"  Bad decision, on their part.

      by HarveyMilk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM PDT

      •  Plenty of blame to go around

        but ultimately, it doesn't matter.

        They made a decision, and should stick to it.

        Doing otherwise will wreck their credibility.

        There is no legitimate wiggle room on this issue.

        Time to stop with this, trial balloons or not.

        by Prof Dave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM PDT

      •  If FL and MI had abided the rules

        and kept their primaries where they were they would have played a HUGE role in this contest.

        Too bad the greedy bastards fucked up and shot themselves in the foot.

        by bawbie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:26:55 PM PDT

        •  re:Exactly

          For all I know, Hillary would have cleaned Obama's clock in Florida and Michigan in legitimate primaries.  We'll never know, because the rules and penalties were all laid out clearly many months ago.  Stupid state parties, stupid DNC.  Now we live with the fact that the delegates from MI and FL will not be seated (unless there's only one candidate standing come convention time).

          by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:29:37 PM PDT

        •  This is closer to hideworthy

          than a lot of Harvey's comments.

          "greedy bastards"?

          by Chicagoa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM PDT

          •  When you understand how it happened in Florida...

            greedy bastards refers more to republicans than democrats. We've never shied away from namecalling republicans.

            What we all needed to do in this...and didn't...was stop and figure out what this means to the voters, not to the policy wonks and party insiders and candidate-specific shills that populate this place and those like it.

            We told the people of Florida whom we want to elect our party...the independents, the non-lockstep democrats, even a few thinking republican rank and file ...that we wanted to screw 'em out of their vote the same way the Republicans do.

            That isn't a good way to GOTV. So even though it isn't good gameplay for my candidate (because I'm now a solid Obama supporter), the people of this state voted on election day. They had a full range of candidates. The people of Michigan voted on election day. They had the option of voting against Clinton, and Obama chose not to be on the ballot.

            Its real simple. When people go to the polls on the legally decided election day and cast their votes, you count them. You don't do a do-over, and you don't use the party to maneuver away their voice.

            If we don't do this, we don't deserve to use the term honest election.

            by PBCliberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:59:32 PM PDT

      •  And allowing these delegates in is not going to

        get closer to a solution by 2012.  Keep them out and make them vote again.  That'll keep MI and FL from repeating this mess next time (and other states from following their lead).

        by Dan Hogan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM PDT

      •  I like both Obama and Clinton

        (though I'm currently a pledged county delegate for Obama).

        If Clinton gets the nomination, I will enthusiastically campaign for her. But do not make me choose between Clinton and Dean.

        Trying to make Michigan and Florida count was the worst thing anyone has done this campaign: totally underhanded. I really hope she drops this pettiness.

        by sxp151 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM PDT

        •  the timing

          What bugs me is the timing of it, and the publicness of it.

          If Clinton were negotiating with Dean, Obama, and the FL and MI parties to work something out, quietly, that would be fine.

          But making a big public stink over it, so soon after making a big public stink over the Nevada caucus sites (which turned out to help her, apparently), just seems disingenuous. It seems like trying to change the rules only after you find out they don't favor you.

          by Tim Sackton on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM PDT

      •  People

        Stop hiding him, he's just espousing his own viewpoint. He isn't saying anything sexist, racist, vile, republican, or offensive.

        He just has an opinion that the DNC is treating MI and FL unfairly. I happen to disagree with him and I think the caucuses would be a good idea, if only because they are cheaper. Seriously stop hiding him just because you disagree or I'm going to have to keep reccing him out of a desire for fairness.

        by Chicagoa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:38:39 PM PDT

        •  Exactly...I'll second that notion and rec too!

          by Lipstick Liberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:55:16 PM PDT

      •  Well ...

        let's have 50 separate and distinct DNCs.  Let's see how that works.

        Howard Dean is the chairman of the DNC.  I like Howard Dean.  He's been right about a lot of things and I think he was right about this decision as well.

        by Norm DePlume on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:40:41 PM PDT

      •  State parties had the chance

        to submit plans making their case for an early primary. That is how Nevada was selected to hold an early caucus. The state parties in Florida and Michigan chose not to do this, and instead to go ahead and hold primaries outside the DNC rules and hope that the DNC would cave, which would be likely to happen if Clinton or Obama wraps it up before the convention. Otherwise, they took a gamble and lost...new primaries where both candidates have the opportunity to compete isn't a perfect outcome, but it's the most fair thing they can do now.

        by democrattotheend on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:54:33 PM PDT

      •  No reason to hide-rate this.

        It's bad reasoning, and completely wrong, but doesn't deserve to be hidden.

        by mistersite on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:07:26 PM PDT

        •  Right-I'll remove my rec if they remove hides n/t

          by Lipstick Liberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM PDT

  •  re:Gosh

    You make it seem so easy.  And the only complicating factor is that before, during, and (so far) after these rogue primaries, everyone was operating under the assumption that the delegates wouldn't be seated.

    Everyone, I should say, outside of the Clinton campaign, which went so far as to break its pledge by campaigning in Florida and maintained its viability by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

    by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:25:16 PM PDT

    •  Um...what?

      Everyone, I should say, outside of the Clinton campaign, which went so far as to break its pledge by campaigning in Florida

      You got proof in that, Puddin'?

      by Dormaphaea on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:37:14 PM PDT

      •  Exactly.

        She never campaigned in Florida, although he did have a national ad buy that aired commercials throughout the state on CNN.

        by wandering i on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:48:56 PM PDT

        •  1.She had two private fundraisers

          and they were all over the news.  
          2.She announced her visit after the polls closed early enough to get on the evening news before tues morning.

          by Lipstick Liberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:34:16 PM PDT

          •  Obama has done more fundraising

            in Florida than almost every other candidate.

            And Michelle Obama has done quite a bit herself.

            Nice try though.

            And holding a rally in Florida after the polls close is hardly "campaigning".

            by wandering i on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM PDT

      •  re:Hey

        Don't call me "Puddin."  I'm Tapioca!

        by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:46:05 PM PDT

  •  Nope.

    While I agree that the current set-up sucks, I will personally instruct my delegate(s) to block seating those delegations.  

    Breaking the rules needs to have consequences, or the Democratic party will fall to bits (again).  

    by FlyingToaster on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM PDT

  •  Especially because MY CANDIDATE "won them"

    By violating a pledge that the other 2 candidates honored.

    by RaulVB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:13 PM PDT

    •  Who broke a pledge and how?

      other than Obama, who clearly broke it when he held a press conference in Tampa last fall?

      by dhonig on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM PDT

  •  All of Them?

    Even the ones I cast this morning in my 5 person office caucus?

    by brillo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM PDT

  •  Tags are corrected - please leave them that way

    by PatsBard on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM PDT

  •  Reccommended

    Simply because I saw nothing even REMOTELY hideworthy.

    by Chicagoa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:35:08 PM PDT

  •  Kind of curious

    that Clinton did not take up this cause BEFORE the early states had their chance to vote. If she'd refused to sign the pledge Florida and Michigan might not have been stripped of their delegates to begin with.

    by democrattotheend on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:51:15 PM PDT

  •  Are u kidding?

    The candidates made a deal NOT to campaign in those states....... and the DNC should keep its damn nose out of it.  Hill and Obama should keep their promises and the lesson should be to Michigan and Florida:  No Do-Overs and Decisions Have Consequences.

    Isn't it ironic that all of these friggin' states that had to be amongst the first to have their primaries have very little impact?  Why?  It looks like the decision will take place in June in Puerto Rico!

    And as to Howard Dean's "...arrangement talk" ---- get out of it and stay out of it Dr. Dean! The candidates should not have to raise money for the mistakes that the local and national party leaders made when they attempted to be influencial.

    Also, I'd be very interested in determining which campaign and which campaign "chief" developed the strategy to get SC up in the early days of the campaign.  Do you suppose it had something to do with a campaign that was connected locally to SC Democratic members of Congress?  

    by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:57:30 PM PDT

  •  Not in this case they shouldn't n/t

    by victoria2dc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM PDT

•  Count them "as is" or don't count them.

  I agree that there should be no do-overs.

  by CAL11 voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM PDT

  •  There is no "as is"

    The "as is" result of the elections in MI and FL were:

    Clinton: 0
    Obama: 0

    The choice now is that result, or a vote that will have delegates associated with it.

    Those are the choices.

    by bawbie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:53 PM PDT

    •  HRC wants to change the rules

      but if your going to change them, why not something fair to everyone?  

      The DNC outmanuevered her.  Good for it.

      by Inland on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:24:51 PM PDT

    •  The rules say zero, zero. But there were...

      votes cast and counted.

      by CAL11 voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM PDT

      •  Votes that have no more impact

        than the DKos straw poll.

        by bawbie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM PDT

        •  Unless the DNC changes the rules. n/t

          by CAL11 voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:29:28 PM PDT

          •  Heh.

            That sure as hell better not happen as long as the nomination is still contested.

            by bawbie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:41:41 PM PDT

            •  I thought the rules were set before the start...

              of the primary elections.

              by CAL11 voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:49:11 PM PDT

              •  Which is why

                it needs to stay as-is.

                This whole thing is moot.  There are no delegates from MI and FL, and changing it now is just as bad as retroactive immunity for telecoms.

                One set of rules, before hand, and stick with them.

                If the outcomes are bad, change it next time.

                by Prof Dave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:52:16 PM PDT

                •  So why is the DNC doing this caucus thing? n/t

                  by CAL11 voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:55:16 PM PDT

                  •  Because

                    someone is floating a trial balloon.

                    I don't care who.

                    It needs to stop if the DNC wants to maintain credibility and prevent screaming fits of changing the rules mid-stream.

                    by Prof Dave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM PDT

  •  "No do-overs"

    "No do-overs" is a silly playground taunt, but if you like the saying: agreeing that the delegates wouldn't count and then, after you win, arguing that the delegates should count is asking for a do-over.

    Hillary wants a  do-over in her acquiescence to the DNC decision.

    Pointing out that the states can have a beauty contest followed by a caucus, on the other hand, is not a do-over.  That was part of the original offer from the DNC.  Those were the original rules, and so a later caucus is not a do-over .

    by Stevie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM PDT

    •  Got a link to the original offer from...

      the DNC?

      by CAL11 voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM PDT

      •  yup

        Google is your friend.  I googled "florida primary dnc later caucus" and among others I got, from the Orlando Sentinel, August 2007,

        ... The DNC already has said that a later Florida Democratic caucus could be held to select delegates and wouldn't interfere with voting in such early primary and caucus states as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

        The state Democratic Party, which wants to retain the Jan. 29 primary, has not agreed to the later caucus idea. State Democrats were given 30 days to come up with an alternative, under Saturday's DNC ruling.

        by Stevie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:11:53 PM PDT

•  and the candidate you support is....

  ...?

  by Mr Bula on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:22:13 PM PDT

  •  Hillary Clinton.

    And the candidate you support?  Lemme guess, Barack Obama.

    I'll bet Barack now wishes he'd left his name on our ballot.  Decisions decisions....

    by HarveyMilk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:25:45 PM PDT

    •  notice i haven't taken a position on this

      honestly don't know what would be best. The whole thing's a mess.

      by Mr Bula on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM PDT

•  You want it both ways.

  Why are you afraid of a caucus or primary in which

  A.) Obama is ACTUALLY on the ballot in Michigan?

  B.) Obama can ACTUALLY campaign in Florida?  Clinton won Florida on name recognition primarily as the ballots that came in on primary day favored him.  Further her "fight for Florida" was de facto campaigning.

  What's wrong with a fair fight?  Isn't that a decent compromise in which everybody wins?

  by broui on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM PDT

  •  What's wrong with a fair fight, indeed?

    FL and MI, represented.  HRC's agreement to the rules set down by the DNC, validated.  Everyone's happy, right?  

    Of course not.  Somebody doesn't want a fair fight.  Somebody wants a Bush v. Gore result.

    by Inland on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM PDT

  •  Let's face it,

    If it's a big blue state and Obama doesn't live there, he doesn't carry it.  Big Blue States Where Obama Doesn't Live are Hillary territory.  Little red states where Democrats die of loneliness are Obamaland.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:44:54 PM PDT

    •  We'll see March 4

      But what in the hell does that have to do with my argument?

      Stay on point.

      by broui on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM PDT

    •  Stupid thing to say so face that.

      Obama does better and better the more voters are exposed to him.
      Clinton was a known.
      Obama didn't get much time to campaign in those big blue super Tuesday states, he still cut way into Clinton lead from the month before.

      In the "Big Blue States" where they live Obama won his by 31% Clinton won hers by just 17%...and of course Illinois was also where Clinton grew up so another of her home states.

      Evidently when they know the candidates big blue states just like him better.

      by joynow on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:41:14 PM PDT

•  You should like you want them to count.

  That's ridiculous. And you know it. So I'm not even going to bother articulating an argument for why Michigan and Florida should not be seated. Period.

  by Tetris on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:13 PM PDT

•  DNC doesn't play Calvinball. eom

  by Geekesque on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM PDT

  •  They took their ball and went home.

    And now they want to play with Michigan and Florida.

    The game is over.  The DNC can recognize the score, if they wish.  But they cannot replay the game.

    by HarveyMilk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM PDT

    •  Um, no. The game is in the DNC's house.

      If FL and MI want to play, they have to play by the rules.

      By the way, think if they had scheduled their primaries for Feb. 19.  Oops.

      by Geekesque on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:43:07 PM PDT

      •  No kidding.

        FL moved its date ahead so it could "have a say" in choosing the nominee. But as fate played it, they'd be having a much greater impact if they'd gone after Super Tuesday. Dorks.

        (P.S. I live in Florida so I'm allowed to call us dorks. Heh.)

        by pattyp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM PDT

  •  I don't know....

    ... this delegate thing seems kinda like Calvinball to me.  I'm a huge fan of Calvinball though, so I'm biased.  Players SHOULD be able to makeup a new rule at anytime. But the best part of Calvinball has always been the scorekeeping:

    1.8. Score may be kept or disregarded. In the event that score is kept, it shall have no bearing on the game nor shall it have any logical consistency to it. (Legal scores include 'Q to 12', 'BW-109 to YU-34, and 'Nosebleed to Trousers'.) (Figure 1.9)

    by decon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:25 PM PDT

•  The do-over is the best idea..

  People from Michigan and Florida are in favor of this idea..they should be allowed to make the decision..and their delegates should be seated...after they have a do-over..

  by RubyGal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:20 PM PDT

  •  DNC outmanuevered HRC altogether.

    HRC can't complain, becasue you don't "do over" a contest that never happened, and because then FL and MI get represented at the convention.  Brilliant, actually.

    by Inland on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

    •  The contest never happened!!

      The Michigan primary had a ballot with Clinton's name, Kucinich's name and maybe Gravel..but the rest pulled their name off the ballot because way back in the summer of last year when this occurred, it was determined by the DNC that Michigan did not follow the rules and they were told that their delegates would be seated.

      wow..this is interesting..

      by RubyGal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:32:28 PM PDT

      •  There was no contest, by definition--