We're about to hear the end of the big Michigan/Florida do-the-delegates-count snafu — and they're showing the whole debate live now! I just know you're popping the popcorn and settling in to watch the whole shebang — here are three things to know while you watch the showdown.
The Role of Republicans in the Florida Trouble:
Were the Democrats sabotaged? Though Florida's Republican-controlled state legislature determined the date of the primary and Republican lawmakers did push vigorously for an early contest, it started with a Democrat. State Sen. Jeremy Ring introduced the legislation to reschedule the primary He said, "one thing you can be sure of," he said that Florida will be relevant during the primaries.” He's also said that he wasn't duped by anyone. Then the voting. Not one Democratic member of the state House voted against the measure, and hardly any opposition in the Senate.
I promised three, and I will not ask for a change of the rules after the beginning of the game — for the rest, read more.
Has Hillary Always Wanted the Votes Counted?
Not exactly. Clinton said in 2007 "it's clear that this election they're having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything." A little bit later, her campaign manager said, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. . . . and the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will . . . adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."
Then on Jan. 25 (after Michigan and Florida) she said, "And so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan."
What's Likely to Happen Today?
Probably not awarding the delegates according to the popular vote and seating all of them, like Clinton would like. The Rules and Bylaws Committee probably will not reverse the sanctions completely — that's a decision that would set a bad precedent for other states and start the primary season for the 2012 election, around tomorrow. The committee members "have expressed little interest in the option of seating all the delegates." They will probably follow the recommendation of DNC lawyers who say that the appropriate legal resolution would either be to allow half the number of delegates from each state into the convention, or let the full delegations attend with half a vote each. Obama will likely get a party favor of delegates from his missed Michigan contest.
Newsweek has two great FAQs with even more tangly info — just so you'll know exactly what to yell at the screen. What do you think the outcome of today will mean for Hillary?
Birkenstock
7 For All Mankind
Stila
I just read on the Washington Post that 2 members of the 30 member panel weren't there! (One woman had to attend her daughter's wedding, supposedly). Doesn't it seem odd that they would miss this HUGE event??
1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uluCnBctpHU
Oh the drama!!
Drudge just put up a youtube link where you hear Bill Clinton say on April 29th:
""Probably the only option now is to seat them under our rules at half delegates,"
He is acknowledging that the rules state that both states should only get half of their delegates seated. Supposedly it came up on the drudge report, according to a washington post blogger who is at the committee meeting:
"The report on Drudge set off a flurry of emails and instant messages from reporters to operatives -- both in the room and outside of it "
2I just posted a link to a video of audio recording of Bill Clinton saying that the rules state that MI and FL should only get half of their delegates on April 29th.
One thing that he is incorrect on in the video is by saying that Obama's people pressured people to not have a re-vote. The actual case is that the states wanted the DNC to pay for a revote, instead of paying for their own mistakes. The DNC wanted to put their money toward the general election, instead of spending 10s of millions of dollars on groups that intentionally violated the rules. It was the states and the DNC that couldn't agree...it had nothing to do with Obama.
3"Sources" are saying they already reached a Florida compromise?
"Two sources, including a high-ranking official with the Florida delegation, have confirmed that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee reached an agreement last night and will seat the state's entire delegation but give each delegate half a vote. The result would be a net gain of 19 delegates for Sen. Hillary Clinton, though no word yet on how the superdelegates from the state will be allocated."
Hmm! The FL situation was different I suppose, what with Obama not being on the ballot in MI...
4Ohh, the Hillary supporter making the case to count Florida is really good. "Right now as it applies to Florida? We are missing! The 'People'!" She's goooood.
5Arthenia Joyner. Forget Hillary and Obama. I'm voting for HER.
6If that is the Florida agreement, I am pretty happy with that. That is what the rules suggest, so I am cool with that.
I am watching Arthenia Joyner (state FL Represenative)...and I am thinking, why didn't you say all of these things in August when your state planned ahead of time to intentionally violate the rules? Speaking up then could have changed things! I just can't feel bad for someone when they plan 6 months in advance to screw the system, and then complain about the results. Don't try to cheat in the first place, then!
Michigan might get a little crazy. I read one article the other day that had compared it to a Stalin-like election with only one name on the ballot. I can't get over the fact that Hillary pledged to pull out of that state and didn't. No one really talks about that! 40% of people chose "uncommitted" instead of the only name on the ballot. It is a very weird situation they've gotten themselves into. I don't know how it will be resolved. Part of me feels like it is too late to matter anyway.
7Why am I up on a Saturday watching this and commenting? Joyner by the way rocked the room. I have to say, I think what's happening is a great way to really see how a democracy works. I am sort of proud to be an American during this primary.
That emoticon just gave me a headache. I hate emoticons.
8Did Rep. Wexler just say that Florida didn't apply to the committee to become a early voting state? So they didn't even try to go the legal route?
9Work those poms, rac!
10Good morning rac and jillness
Obama's case is up! It really does make for compelling governance. There's something John Adams-era about it. I of course want the decision to be fair, but seeing it play out is fascinating.
11I never understood why those two states wouldn't conform to the rules. Anyone with half a brain would realize that they were needed to win the primaries, so they wouldn't have lost the campaign revenue. Still, it's not right to punish the electorate for the actions of a few myopic party officials.
That made absolutely no sense. Emoticons are now my enemies.
12Where did the half-vote solution come from? It seems arbitrary. Punish or don't right? Looking it up now...
13Huh. Well, "Legal experts said seating half the delegates allotted to the states is 'as far as it legally can' go, AP reported." The idea comes from the "Ausman petition"... Hmm.
14Oh darn! I wish I could watch this right now!
15i am watching the michigan debate. this is ridiculous, every single person involved in this allowed this to happen one way or another. and they keep saying we need to "respect the vote" but why didnt they say that when they chose to break the rules?
16Oh, man. The 30,000 write-in votes in MI that weren't "Uncommitted". It just gets more complicated.
17Im not watching but I love readin the commentary here!
I don't think this will really solve anything, there will be plenty of people who will still be pissed even if it gets settled... you can't make everyone happy.
What bugs me is that now if McCain wins in Nov, FL and MI are going to be the DNC scapegoat... as in "well if the republicans wouldn't have cheated in FL and MI"
and even if it makes no sense whatsoever, it will still probably happen because it seems like a lot of the times the DNC can't just lose, it always has to be because the RNC cheated.... wtf!
18so true cabaker! There is always something
19the whole thing is stupid, they want to divide the delegates up evenly in michigan, so then its going to be "oh well obama/hillary isnt even the real democratic nominee". and i swear to god if i hear the word "fair" one more time im going to start screaming incoherently.
20This I did enjoy. Totally quote of the day.
"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin.'" -- Donna Brazile
21ya i agree with her, im sorry but my mother taught me something too "life isnt always fair, so just suck it up and move on" im embarrassed to be a democrat right now.
22I love the quote: "One thing you can be sure of, FL will be relevant during the primaries." They may be relevant, but their delegates shouldn't count. What interesting drama
23if they were so concerned about being "relevant" than why didnt they follow the rules!? they knew that this would happen and they held their primaries anyways. and now they want to whine and cry about being "relevant". "ohhhh we didnt know it would last this long....wah wah wah"
24"if they were so concerned about being "relevant" than why didnt they follow the rules"
AMEN!
25i was watching and thought the clinton supportors, while free to state thier opinion, were a little out of hand and kind of disrepectful! and the verbal smackdown of harol ickes at the end was priceless!!! i think what they passed today was the fairest solution and probably without a doubt in august those two states will eventually get a full vote after all is said and done. i cannot wait to hear the words 'presumtive democratic nominee barack obama' on tuesday b/c i really think he will get the superdels and the votes on tuesday will put him over the top once and for all!!!
p.s. i dont know if anyone heard this(although im sure you all did) but barack resigned from his church today. it was something that def. had to be done and im glad he did.
26Lacey I agree that her supporters were out of line. I didn't see how anyone could think clearly with all that racket.
I doubt that her camp will be happy with the outcome, but honestly, she got more than she was owed in my opinion. By the rules, neither candidate would get any delegates, and they were awarded half so she should really be happy with what she got.
27Harold Ickes is threatening to go to the convention over 4 delegates . As one of the board members said, this was a decision reached over a LOT of deliberation. There are just so many things to consider when it comes to Michigan, and I think what they reached was fair.
I think that the protesters complain that justice wasn't done, but where is the justice in rewarding flagrant disregard for the rules? What do these people really stand for?
28I'm really pissed now that I didnt watch because I read an article about all the bickering and it sounded entertaining!
Won't Obama get the delegates he needs in the next 3 days? I thought I heard that... maybe I'm just lost... there has been FAR too much math in this primary!!!
29yeah i think he will get the number needed in the next three days, i heard that he will get the supers to declare on monday and then on tuesday after the primaries he will have clinched it. so that way the people, instead of party insiders, will give this to him. and according to chris matthews obama will get the 'hollywood' ending, lol.
and jillness i too thought it was petty that ickes kept stating that this decision was 'hijaking' the election(or whatever he said) and that taking four delegates from hillary was grounds enough to take it to the floor of the convention. if it was like 20-30 then i could understand but its only 4, not that big of a difference if you ask me.
30in this race 4 delegates is kind of a big deal with that being said, i was all gung ho with harold ickes and his rant and THEN i read that he was one of the original voters to strip florida and michigan of their delegats. are you freakin kidding me? where the hell was your outrage a year and a half ago? i am so confused as to why everyone is shouting democracy last year they didnt care about it. what the hell am i missing?
31Last year, they were believing all the great press Hillary was getting as the one to beat so they could be harda$$e$.
32That is the thing, flutterpie. Ickles, Hillary, and Bill Clinton are all on record as saying earlier that the states should be stripped. How they can lob such serious accusations in the name of defending breaking of the rules is beyond me.
And before these delegates were decided, Obama was 150+ delegates ahead of her. 4 doesn't seem to make that much difference in light of that spread, IMO.
Her camp was saying every vote needed to count. I don't see how this argument applies to this situation because it was over delegates, not counting of the popular vote. Delegates are representational. In our system, every person's vote is a fraction of the whole, which is based on the number of people who live in your area...not the number of people that vote. Delegates for a person's area are awarded based on who wins their zone and how many delegates that zone was worth, not directly because of one person's vote .
33I wish I had been able to watch this, too. Party issues aside, I think the whole delegate allocation process and the electoral college have done a lot to remove the democratic process from the people.
IIRC, several states were moving their primaries up this year, weren't they? The point being, states with late primaries really have less say and fewer choices in the process. Therefore, I don't really blame states that wanted earlier primaries. And it's a bit unfair that the party allow some states to be early, but not others.
Why don't we just have one primary day, nationwide, and allocate delegates the same way everywhere? Say, one delegate per 25,000 voters in each state? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing.
Looks to me like the Dems are desperately trying to throw away another one....
34That would just be a crazy election day with too many candidates... I thought the Party moved some primaries so that a greater number of groups would be represented on Super Tuesdays - like South Carolina was moved so that black voters would be represented. Then other states decided they didn't want to be left out of the action.
35It's a crazy system but I doubt the states would agree to being told by the parties exactly when to have their primaries and how to conduct them.
the whole thing started out really childish, i know that florida was pissed about the democrats not campaigining as much there and then michigan followed florida.
36Guess everyone's jealous of the attention Iowa and New Hampshire get. This has all been such an incredible waste of time, money and energy!
37I think that voting on one day is a bad idea. We need to have time to get to know the candidates and what they stand for, and they need to address problems in each state not just for the U.S. as a whole. This is the ONE thing I agree with Howard Dean on.
38i seriously think thats what it was stephly, im wracking my brain trying to remember and im just soo over it that i dont want to google it. harmony-what dean suggests is good in theory but in this society more voting days would just be more time for the media to influence decisions. no thanks!
39Oh no! I don't think we should have MORE. I just don't think it should happen on one day that's all.
40I don't know why states struggle so much for "relevancy" during a presidential campaign. For what? A bunch of pointless rah-rah-rah's, a quick 10 min blip on CNN and half-hearted campaign promises that will never amount to anything? I don't care if my state is first, in-between or last. What's the point of it all? I don't know, maybe I'm just bitter.
41Good point Grace - the time to be relevant is when you're electing and appointing local government and party officials so that the national party has a decent pool of people to work with. But there's no glory in that.
42"I don't know why states struggle so much for "relevancy" during a presidential campaign"
It is allllll about the CASH!
When a state is an early runner, they get SO MUCH media attention...which means that media crews are eating at the state's restaurants, staying in their hotels, just spending money like crazy. Even small time businesses like local caterers, party supply stores, bookstores, everyone sees a boom in business. It brings in millions and millions of dollars to the states. They buy radio and tv ads, etc. And the campaigns visit for 6-9 months before the caucus/primaries because a lead in early elections can give you a huge bump. The states are just upset because they want the money that comes with being an early state.
The problem is you can't all be early. There has to be some sort of organization. I don't know why they chose the states they do, but we can't just have a free for all.
43Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.