The Democratic angst over the Michigan and Florida delegations grows as more people ponder the possibility that neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama will lock up the nomination before the party’s convention.
Dan and Carin flagged the growing dispute about the Michigan delegation this morning. The Michigan Democratic Party said Friday that Sen. Hillary Clinton will get 73 pledged delegates, while 55 delegates will be uncommitted since Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards had taken their names off the ballot, many of their supporters voted for uncommitted.
Those unhappy with the botched primaries have floated the idea of having the both states organize caucuses for this spring, but that notion is rubbing people in those states the wrong way. Carin linked the Detroit Free Press:
Former Gov. James Blanchard, chairman of the Clinton campaign in Michigan, said he couldn’t imagine a second-chance election.
“They do that in the Soviet Union, but we’re not doing it here,” Blanchard said. “It’s un-American.”
It is also worth noting that Obama and others removed their names from the Michigan ballot, not because of some diktat from the DNC, but due to a political maneuver by Obama to keep the focus of the race on Iowa.
The same angst is bubbling up over the Florida delegation, with Sen. Ben Nelson declaring on the floor of the US Senate:
You can’t undo an election with a caucus, and especially you can’t undo an election where 1.7 million Florida Democrats have gone to vote in a secret ballot and replace it with a caucus that maybe 50,000 people would show up…
On the other hand, you already have people like super-delegate Donna Brazile and lefty blogger Chris Bowers threatening to quit the party if super-delegates decide the nomination.
caught some Dem strategist on FNC this morning saying that this angst over Superdelegates is just a rightwing, Republican fantasy.
it doesn’t matter if this all shatters nothing lasts forever
Oh. That was for Donna, not about the retirement thing.
cause that would have just been weird
hf,
Got that. And the Kodachrome reference in the prior thread.
What’s delightful about this is that it illustrates the internal contradictions of “liberal” rhetoric.
Lots of us contemplated, long ago, what would happen if Obama and Clinton were locked in battle for the nomination: the fruition of identity politics. Now it has come to pass the popcorn.
Superdelegates is just a rightwing, Republican fantasy.
Are the “Superdelegates” like the Democratic Party’s own version of the Electoral College?
Dang it. Forgot my other question: Are they also Superbad?
of course not eLarson, they just represent the people.
Supercalafrajilistickexpealadocious – I can’t spell it. I’ll never get to be a super-delegate.
Superdelegates are just like regular delegates except they can fly and throw buildings and stuff.
And they get to fight archvillains on Saturday morning.
Superdelegates are political insiders. Representative, senators, DNC members, Governors, ex-presidents and VPs, mayors …. They are listed here .
The following are endorsing HIllary:
Gov. Jennifer Granholm (MI)
Hon. John Cherry (MI)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Rep. Sander Levin (MI)
DNC Joel Ferguson (MI)
Rep. Dale Kildee (MI)
Rep. John Dingell (MI)
Mark Schauer (MI)
Obama’s got John Conyers on his team.
In a move that is BEYOND funny, Debby Dingall (wife of John Dingall) withdrew her endorsement of Hillary. She iis the head of the Dem Party in Michigan, and has been VERY VOCAL in her support for Hillary. Except, suddenly she withdrew her endorsement for HIllary … because … she’s embroiled in the battle over the primary. Her position (surprise, surprise) is the one being floated (Hillary gets the 73, etc) which is OBVIOUSLY to Hillary’s advantage. So …she moved to the non-endorsment list, cause that makes her non-partisan on the issue. Right?
There are about 20 on that list (No-endorsement). Kwame and his mom are both there (interesting, no?) as is the Levin (father and son …)
Thor, all you have to do is marry some one who is high-up in the DNC. That’s how Debby Dingall got her’s. OR, you could have been born into it, Like Kwame.
And, opps, but the Levins are BROTHERS not father and son. There is a son of Carl, but he works for Jenny Granholm.
So if it’s Hillary!, do we inherit the “Selected, Not Elected” meme?
A family affair, eh. I’m downloading the paperwork necessary to adopt one of Nancy Pelosi’s tits.
Pelosi has tits? Who knew?
About umpteen little Pelosis. In your face, Condi!
hf,
I would prefer not to think about what has been in Condi’s face, thank you.
[…] be settled in the primaries and caucuses. Super-delegate Donna Brazile, last heard threatening to quit the party over the possible impasse, is getting lobbied by her niece. Meanwhile, the candidates state their […]
Sen. Ben Nelson is from Nebraska. Florida has Sen. Bill Nelson.
good catch
Donna is one of the more vocal voices on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. She wrote the rules that create superdelegates in 2008, decide what percentage of the total number of delegates they represent and that their vote is unpledged.
The superdelegates do not have the power to overturn the results when a candidate wins. However a candidate has not won till they garner a solid 50% + 1 of the total delegates. This year there are 4049 total delegates and the winning number is 2025. Unpledged delegates have the same single vote as pledged delegates. If neither candidate hits 50% + 1 after the last state primary then the single votes from unpledged delegates will hopefully put one candidate over the winning number.
These are the rules exactly as Donna Brazille wrote and approved them with her fellow R & B Committee members. Igt is selfserving and hypocritical for her to now threaten to quit if the DNC follows the very rules and primary plan Brazille herself helped write. It’s also outrageous that Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 is also threatening to quit if the DNC has to reinstate the delegates from Florida and Michigan. In both cases the state legislatures screwed up and violated the DNC rules, not the voters. However the punishment of not counting those primaries was made under the assumption that someone would hit or come close to 50% + 1 on Super Tuesday so the race would be clearly decided. FL and MI would be publicly chastised. However since we need enthusiastic high Democratic turnout in both purple states to insure victory in November there was talk going back to last year that their delegates would eventually be sat at the DNC. To not do so would turn the Democratic party into the James Baker of 2008 and greatly anger Floridians who still feel the pain of 2000.
However things did not work out in this primary as planned. The delegate count is very split and Florida and Michigan have a real case that their voters should be heard with such a narrow race. Also do we as a party punish the voters, the lifeblood of the Democratic PArty because of the short sightedness of Florida’s State Party leaders and legislators?
If you do think they should not be sat ask yourself why? The pledge not to campaign in FL and MI was written and submitted by the State PArties of IA, NH, SC and NV not the DNC. No one demanded, hinted at, suggested or encouraged anyone to remove their name from the Michigan ballot. Edwards and Obama did so not to comply with the DNC rules but to please the Party Chairs of IA and NH who are very territorial of their state’s early primary status. The attention Obama paid to the IA paid off and propelled him greatly. However voluntarily removing himself from the Michigan ballot was a calculated risk, even if it seemed to be little risk at the time. Like with DNC sanctions against these states, there was an assumption someone would hit 50% + 1 early on and neither state would be needed to play a deciding role int he election. However the calculated risk paid off big in Iowa but now with a split primary, it may have consequences as it will be difficult for the DNC to not reenfranchise Florida and Michigans’s pledged delegates without seriously crippling the party’s credibility in two key states by doing exactly what we condemned in 2000.
We need to ask ourselves, aside from who we want to see win, as progressive Democrats can we in good clean conscience disenfranchise the one and a half million Florida VOTERS who came out to the primary and had nothing to do with the poor decisions of their state party and legislature? Do we ask ourselves hosestly how much our support of one candidate or the other influences our decision. If it is a big influence then are we any different than Bush, Rove and James Baker in FLorida in 2000?