Delegate Mirth ( the end has come! )

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He has never argued that superdelegates should be prohibited from voting contrary to the popular vote, delegate count, etc. He has only argued that it would be wrong for them to do so, because it would damage the party.

I don't think so. I think the Obama camp has aggressively pushed the idea that it would be wrong for the superdelegates to vote contrary to the popular vote because it is wrong, and that people would be angry because it is wrong.

Saying that it is wrong is not the same thing as saying that it is against the rules. Can't you see that? You may disagree with the contention that it is wrong, but don't say that he is trying to change the rules because that is simply not what is happening. No matter how many times you repeat the assertion.

Clinton on the other hand literally is asking for the actual rules to be changed in the middle.

She's asking that the party not be bound to inhabit the disastrous hole that the Chairman dug by making his misguided and ineffectual threat to the states. Frankly, if Obama thinks it's perfectly fine for the party to squat in that hole in the name of sticking to the rules, then that calls his judgement severely into question, in my view.

Please. She is asking the party to save her failing campaign. She doesn't give a whit for the rights of the voters.

Clinton went to Florida on the evening of the primary, after the polls closed, and at a rally at the airport (iirc) made a speech about the importance of seating the delegations so that the voters would not be disenfranchised. So it is not only now that she is making a fuss. She has been fussing about it for months in exactly the same fashion.

You don't quite recall correctly, actually. The visit to the airport was before the primary, in a borderline violation of the pledge not to campaign in the state (another reason why the results should not count. The remarks that you are referring to were from a "victory rally" that she held in Miami after the primary was over. Clinton wasn't concerned about the rights of the Florida voters until after the disastrous (for her) Iowa caucuses made her realize that her campaign was in trouble and she needed help.

[Jnyusa]

I think we are overlooking an important point here: that Hillary's arguments can be both self-interested and correct.

I've heard both sides of the coin argued here in this thread - that it would be bad for the party if those delegations were seated because it would upend the decision of the national committee, and that it would be bad for the party if those delegations were not seated because it would disenfranchise the voters they represent. Both arguments have merit, in my opinion, and should be considered and decided independently of whose candidate they serve.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think we are overlooking an important point here: that Hillary's arguments can be both self-interested and correct.

I've heard both sides of the coin argued here in this thread - that it would be bad for the party if those delegations were seated because it would upend the decision of the national committee, and that it would be bad for the party if those delegations were not seated because it would disenfranchise the voters they represent. Both arguments have merit, in my opinion, and should be considered and decided independently of whose candidate they serve.

Oh, I agree, Jn, and I have little doubt that they will be seated. The key is to do so in a way that does not influence the results of the election in a patently unfair way. Obama finally has a large enough lead that it should be possible to find a solution that doesn't do so. Indeed, both Michigan and Florida have presented plans to the DNC that are likely to be adopted. Michigan's plan calls for a split of delegates that gives Clinton a net gain of 10 delegates. Florida's plan has not yet been publicly revealed (so far as I know), but is likely to be in the same neighborhood, maybe a bit more. A net gain of (say) 25 delegates for Clinton is going to change the dynamic of the election (as I've said before) but will eliminate the bad taste in the mouth of the voters in the two states.

Clinton, of course, is against any plan that doesn't go a long way towards overcoming Obama's lead, even if such a plan would in fact be patently unfair (such as including the results of Michigan without giving him any delegates at all, since no one actually "voted" for him).

[Cerin]

The problem with seating the delegates now is that the results are tainted. Tainted by Obama not being on the ballot in MI, tainted in that at the time of the voting the voters did not think their votes counted, thus changing their behavior, and tainted in taht there was no official campaigning (although Mrs. Clinton made sure to show up right before for "fund raisers" in the state). The tally of delegates from this misguided voting process is not legitimate.

I agree that the results are tainted and that the process was not legitimate. But it's the only vote we have because the states (both with Republican legislatures) blocked efforts to stage re-votes. The important thing now, in my view, is to do everything possible to minimize the effects of the leadership's stupidity on the voters in November. Those were real people who voted, and they want to know their vote matters.

So arguing that we must seat Florida and Michigan or we are disappointing all the people all over the world to US as a shining example of democracy is somewhat misguided, in my opinon.

That isn't my argument. My argument is that we must do everything possible to make sure that democratic voters in Michigan and Florida are enthusiastic and engaged in the general election. If those voters are made to feel disrespected because they are misguidedly punished for their representatives' mistakes, I think it could well affect the outcome in those two states, which have historically been of pivotal importance in electoral calculations.

Cerin, if Obama has the rules on his side in the Michigan and Florida matter, how is it irresponsible for him to stand his ground when not doing so would benefit his opponent? There's nothing shifty or underhanded about it. He's running for president; it's his job to try his best (without doing anything unethical) to win.

Prim, you've framed your question a bit differently than I did my comments. I see a problem (based on all I've read and heard) with ignoring all those votes cast by Michigeese and Floridians, who have been just as excited as we've all been here to take part in this historic nominating process. I think it could, first, create disharmony (to put it mildly) at the convention, which conventional wisdom (ha) says is not wise. Secondly, I believe it could well dampen the enthusiasm of these voters, if not make them downright angry and determined to stay away from the polls in the fall.

What I said was, if Obama isn't concerned about these possibilities (which I'm sure he must be aware of), if he insists on going by this horrendous 'rule' simply in the name of sticking by the rules, especially when considering that as others have pointed out, it doesn't even matter to the results, then that causes me to question his judgment. I want our candidate to cover every conceivable base; I don't want anything taken for granted that could imperil results in the fall.

And I don't understand the "disastrous hole" you refer to, unless "disaster" is defined as "anyone but Clinton getting nominated."

The disastrous hole was created by Dean threatening a punishment that punished voters instead of those responsible for moving the primaries. The potential disasters are those I mentioned above -- disharmony at the convention, potential voter alienation in the fall (and of course, the failure of the threat in the first placed, misguided as it was).

At this point it seems very unlikely that FL and MI will affect the nomination even if Obama gets no delegates from MI.

Exactly. So why risk disaffecting Florida and Michigan voters to no purpose, by refusing to recognize the millions of people who cast their votes in those primaries?

Yes, I understand that you believe he is unelectable.

I don't believe he is unelectable. I fear they are both unelectable.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Cerin as much as I do right now.

Appalling, isn't it.

cross-post with Jn and Voronwë

[Túrin Turambar]

The Obama camp rejects the 'rules' pertaining to superdelegates, insisting that the superdelegates can only function ethically as a ratifying body. They then turn around and insist on the 'rules' with respect to the FL and MI delegations.

But that’s a straw man, Cerin. No-one here has said that the Superdelegates must vote for Obama or questioned their right to vote however they like. The consensus is that Obama is the best candidate, making Clinton the nominee now will damage the party, and that they should vote for Obama. This isn’t any sort of attack on the rules. As Voronwë asked – do you see the difference?

If anything, your insistence on maintaining the independence of the Superdelagates ‘because we all agreed to’ and then insisting that the MI and FL delegations be seated is inconsistent.

Those were real people who voted, and they want to know their vote matters.

They knew their vote didn’t matter when they cast it. It isn’t like the DNC decided out of the blue to exclude the delegations.

[Holbytla]

Ellie wrote:

Anyone who bought into the myth that in America, all votes are equal, is not paying attention. It's never been that way. The whole presidential election with the Electoral College is to make sure that the States exert some power over the will of the people. I mean, come on, people! So arguing that we must seat Florida and Michigan or we are disappointing all the people all over the world to US as a shining example of democracy is somewhat misguided, in my opinon. Besides, our luster wore off quite a few years ago anyways.

Maybe we are talking past each other here, or maybe you aren't referring to what I wrote, or maybe I am suffering the effects of two hours of sleep , but...

I don't believe there is any way to seat any delegates from Michigan or Florida at this time. That horse left months ago, and for the reasons you stated it would be inherently unfair.

I am also well aware that note all votes are counted equally and again as you stated the electoral college is a good example of that as are the Iowa Caucusses and the NH primary.

However I absolutely believe that every person in this country should have his/her vote count to some extent, and the debacle that is Michigan and Florida (once again) should never be allowed to happen. Under any circumstances. Ever.
Not with public money for a public office. NFW.

[halplm]

It is quite interesting looking at this argument from sort of "outside" as I really truly don't care who wins. There is a great deal of "talking past each other" going on here, because everyone has equally good points, and equally bad points that work out for the candidate they like, and everyone emphasizes the right ones.

And realistically, there are almost no substantive differences in policy between the two of them. On most issues I care about, you can throw McCain in there and not get much difference . It's almost impossible to imagine what has happened happening, which is why the rules for superdelegates primary timetables, and seating delegations that broke rules, and everything else are so convoluted and messy... because one candidate is supposed to emerge (usually picked by the party elite) as the favorite.

Obama "messed all that up" by actually getting PEOPLE to vote for him... imagine that. One could argue that the reason the superdelegates exist is precisely to prevent this from happening... which is ironic, because despite Clinton being the favorite for a long time, I don't think the Party wanted her at the highest levels.

I think the most useful information to come out of this primary... if people pay attention to it... is that the politicians still pretty much run everything, and people really have to get organized and make their voices heard to really function as a democracy like we should. (The Right learned this when they killed the Immigration reform stuff last year).

[Primula Baggins]

The problem with seating the delegates now is that the results are tainted. Tainted by Obama not being on the ballot in MI, tainted in that at the time of the voting the voters did not think their votes counted, thus changing their behavior, and tainted in taht there was no official campaigning (although Mrs. Clinton made sure to show up right before for "fund raisers" in the state). The tally of delegates from this misguided voting process is not legitimate.

I agree that the results are tainted and that the process was not legitimate. But it's the only vote we have because the states (both with Republican legislatures) blocked efforts to stage re-votes. The important thing now, in my view, is to do everything possible to minimize the effects of the leadership's stupidity on the voters in November. Those were real people who voted, and they want to know their vote matters.

But, Cerin, what about all the people who did not vote because they believed in good faith that their votes didn't count? You can't chastise them for laziness; they were plainly told it didn't matter. And what about people in Michigan who would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ballot but who voted for Clinton or stayed home? Why should only those who went and voted for Clinton be "re-enfranchised"?

I guess I'm looking at this scientifically. A measurement you know is not accurate, from a sample you know was incorrectly taken, is not "better than nothing"; it's worse than nothing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cerin, would you agree with this statement: "The best result would be if Michigan and Florida's delegates are seated in a way that does not unfairly influence the result of the election"?

Obama picked up two more superdelegates today, by the way. He is now only seven behind Clinton in the superdelegate count, according to CNN's calculations.

[vison]

halplm, you might want to check around and take a look at some of the recent polls. Mr. Obama has not ony "beaten" Ms. Clinton, he is going to "beat" Mr. McCain.

eta: I've been surfing about and so far Ms. Clinton is refusing to consider the deal on Michigan. All or nothing, she says.

I guess it should be nothing.

[Cerin]

Saying that it is wrong is not the same thing as saying that it is against the rules.

Of course it is ... it is saying it is against the rules of ethics. It is an attempt to impose a standard that is not represented by any rule governing the superdelegates. Obviously, I do not claim they are attempting to officially impose this standard with an actual written change of rules. I know they are not.

You may disagree with the contention that it is wrong, but don't say that he is trying to change the rules because that is simply not what is happening.

He is advocating the idea that it is unethical for superdelegates to exercise their judgment contrary to the primary result, even though there is no rule that says it is unethical for superdelegates to exercise their judgment contrary to the primary result. This represents to me, an attempt to change the ethical rules under which the superdelegates operate. Of course I realize that there hasn't been an attempt to codify this idea in the actual written rules.

No-one here has said that the Superdelegates must vote for Obama or questioned their right to vote however they like.

I've not been referring to anyone here, when I talk about pressuring the superdelegates. I'm referring to the spin the Obama camp (spokespersons) put out every time the subject comes up in the media. These spokespersons have put out the idea that it is ethically wrong for the superdelegates to act as other than a ratifying body.

The consensus is that Obama is the best candidate, making Clinton the nominee now will damage the party, and that they should vote for Obama.

I don't believe there is consensus that Obama is the best candidate, neither among the electorate, nor among the superdelegates! Those superdelegates who feel that Obama is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Obama. Those superdelegates who feel that Clinton is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Clinton.

If anything, your insistence on maintaining the independence of the Superdelagates ‘because we all agreed to’ and then insisting that the MI and FL delegations be seated is inconsistent.

Yes, it is inconsistent, because I don't see the two 'rules' as similar in kind. The existence of the superdelegates is a deliberate and long-standing feature of the party, the MI and FL fiasco is peculiar to this year and the result of poor decision-making. I guess you could think of it in terms of chopping down a redwood as opposed to digging up a poorly-placed sapling. The first will take more careful consideration, preparation and execution, whereas the second is just a mistake that is easily recognized and dealt with.

But, Cerin, what about all the people who did not vote because they believed in good faith that their votes didn't count? You can't chastise them for laziness; they were plainly told it didn't matter. And what about people in Michigan who would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ballot but who voted for Clinton or stayed home? Why should only those who went and voted for Clinton be "re-enfranchised"?

I have no good answer. The whole thing sucks. I just think it's pure foolishness to stick by this stupid declaration by Dean and the DNC when it might mean losing the election. They handled the situation badly, they made a stupid threat, it didn't work. Why should we be bound by it? I don't think we should.

I guess I'm looking at this scientifically. A measurement you know is not accurate, from a sample you know was incorrectly taken, is not "better than nothing"; it's worse than nothing.

Yes, I guess that's the difference. I'm not concerned about the accuracy, I'm just concerned about the fact that in spite of the leadership bolloxing things up royally, lots of people voted.

Cerin, would you agree with this statement: "The best result would be if Michigan and Florida's delegates are seated in a way that does not unfairly influence the result of the election"?

If you mean, that does not unfairly influence the result of the nominating process, then no, I would not agree with the statement. There is no seating of the delegates that could be determined to be fair to the nominating process, so it would be futile to try and base a solution on fairness.

I agree with Jn. A decision should be made on principle, irrespective of its effect on the results.

[Túrin Turambar]

Saying that it is wrong is not the same thing as saying that it is against the rules.

Of course it is ... it is saying it is against the rules of ethics.

Has Obama or any of his spokespeople used that phrase? It seems like a very twisted argument to me.

Or, to put it this way, you’d prefer people to vote for Democrats for the Presidency, House and Senate this year. Does mean that you’re suggesting that it would be against any sort of rule to vote for Republicans? Likewise, how is a Democratic supporter hoping people will vote for Democrats, or a Democratic candidate trying to make it sound important and urgent that voters vote for them, any different to Obama and his supporters calling for the support of the Superdelegates?

The consensus is that Obama is the best candidate, making Clinton the nominee now will damage the party, and that they should vote for Obama.

I don't believe there is consensus that Obama is the best candidate, neither among the electorate, nor among the superdelegates! Those superdelegates who feel that Obama is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Obama. Those superdelegates who feel that Clinton is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Clinton.

I was referring to the consensus on this site. I can’t see how anyone disagrees that “those superdelegates who feel that Obama is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Obama. Those superdelegates who feel that Clinton is the best candidate should feel free to vote for Clinton”. The general view is that the former are correct and the latter are not.

But, Cerin, what about all the people who did not vote because they believed in good faith that their votes didn't count? You can't chastise them for laziness; they were plainly told it didn't matter. And what about people in Michigan who would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ballot but who voted for Clinton or stayed home? Why should only those who went and voted for Clinton be "re-enfranchised"?

I have no good answer. The whole thing sucks. I just think it's pure foolishness to stick by this stupid declaration by Dean and the DNC when it might mean losing the election. They handled the situation badly, they made a stupid threat, it didn't work. Why should we be bound by it? I don't think we should.

Whether the threat has worked or not will need to wait until 2012. Saying the threat didn't work is like saying that people who break the law shouldn't be locked up because 'the threat didn't work'.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Obama picked up two more superdelegates today, including one that switched from Clinton. According to ABC News, Obama has now taken the lead in superdelegates. Other news organizations still have Clinton with a lead of varying amounts (which seems odd to me, but I don't pretend to understand politics).

[Primula Baggins]

I was happy to learn that one of those superdelegates was the Congressman from my district, Peter DeFazio.

He'd said he was going to wait for the vote May 20. (Though there's little question how this district is going to vote.)

[halplm]

halplm, you might want to check around and take a look at some of the recent polls. Mr. Obama has not ony "beaten" Ms. Clinton, he is going to "beat" Mr. McCain.

eta: I've been surfing about and so far Ms. Clinton is refusing to consider the deal on Michigan. All or nothing, she says.

I guess it should be nothing.

Like other things I've mentioned, people tend to only see polls they want to see....

[Cerin]

Has Obama or any of his spokespeople used that phrase? It seems like a very twisted argument to me.

They most commonly use 'overthrow the will of the people'. Of course, that itself is a very subtle and clever twisting of the truth. The 'will of the people' regarding a nominee has not been expressed, given that the race is so close that neither candidate has been able to amass the required number of delegates through the primaries/caucuses alone. That is the very reason the superdelegates are a factor. Had the will of the electorate clearly designated one candidate as the nominee, the superdelegates would be insignificant to the result. Whichever way they vote, there is no 'will' being 'overthrown', but that very incendiary phrase clearly suggests something very wrong would be being perpetrated if the superdelegates freely voted according to their judgment on who would be the best candidate and the result did not reflect the primary/caucus result. But of course, it wouldn't be wrong at all according to the rules, which is why I use the phrase 'trying to change the rules'.

Or, to put it this way, you’d prefer people to vote for Democrats for the Presidency, House and Senate this year. Does mean that you’re suggesting that it would be against any sort of rule to vote for Republicans?

It's not the same thing at all. I would never suggest that it would be morally (ethically) wrong for someone to vote for Republicans. I wouldn't suggest that people were somehow shirking their civic duty or subverting the spirit of the voting process if they voted for Republicans.

Likewise, how is a Democratic supporter hoping people will vote for Democrats, or a Democratic candidate trying to make it sound important and urgent that voters vote for them, any different to Obama and his supporters calling for the support of the Superdelegates?

Hoping, and making it sound important and urgent, is not at all the same as suggesting that there is an ethical failing inherent in a certain way of voting.

Whether the threat has worked or not will need to wait until 2012. Saying the threat didn't work is like saying that people who break the law shouldn't be locked up because 'the threat didn't work'.

The threat of a certain punishment was made in an effort to keep FL and MI from moving up their primaries. They moved them anyway. The threat didn't work.

It's the misguided and misapplied threatened punishment that is in question now.

[River]

Good leaders don't make stupid threats. However, good leaders are rare and your typical average leader will make a stupid threat at least once in their career. Once they do, if they ever want to be taken seriously again, they must follow through.

[Cerin]

Good leaders don't make stupid threats. However, good leaders are rare and your typical average leader will make a stupid threat at least once in their career. Once they do, if they ever want to be taken seriously again, they must follow through.

Personally, I think it would be far preferable for Howard Dean never to be taken seriously again, than for Michigan and Florida voters to be alienated in the upcoming election. His future career concerns me less than the overall future of the country.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I want to make something clear, in case it hasn't been made clear already. I agree with Cerin that the Michigan and Florida situation has been horribly bungled by the DNC, and that it never should have come to the point that it has. But it has. Where we differ (if I understand correctly) is what would be the worst-case scenerio of an over-all bad situation. To me, what would be a worst-case scenerio would be to have the race unfairly influenced by votes that simply can not be considered by any standard to have legitimately reflected the will of the voters. That would be the most undemocratic result of all, because it would essentially disenfranchise the voters of all the states that had legitimate votes.

[River]

Good leaders don't make stupid threats. However, good leaders are rare and your typical average leader will make a stupid threat at least once in their career. Once they do, if they ever want to be taken seriously again, they must follow through.

Personally, I think it would be far preferable for Howard Dean never to be taken seriously again, than for Michigan and Florida voters to be alienated in the upcoming election. His future career concerns me less than the overall future of the country.

Fine, so long as the party leadership in MI and FL goes down with him. There's a lot of shared responsibility to go around here. Dean should not have made that threat, maybe, but at the same time there was a decision made to break the rules and it wasn't the voters who made it. Moreover, the candidates who honored their party's ruling on the matter are being penalized.