At MyDD, Jerome Armstrong notes that the DNC may be operating with a double-standard in stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates.
The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee imposed those sanctions on Florida and Michigan for moving up the dates of their primaries in violation of Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Now people are noticing that the committee has not discussed — let alone imposed sanctions — on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina for violating the same rule.
The defense mounted for this unequal treatment is that those states moved up their primaries in response to Florida and Michigan, in order to maintain the sequence of caucuses and primaries contemplated by Rule 11.A. ÂÂ
However, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina moved their dates after the DNC ruled against Florida and Michigan, which removes the “necessity” rationale for their actions.
Moreover, after Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina moved their dates, the sequence was restored, with the only effect being the earlier start of the process, which arguably does not justify imposing a sanction. Indeed, the total stripping of delegates is harsher than the standard sanction of reducing their pledged delegates by just 50 percent.
Armstrong then notes that including Florida and Michigan would currently give Sen. Hillary Clinton a lead of six pledged delegates and 100 superdelegates over Sen. Barack Obama.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Regardless of how they spin this, when the primary occurred (in Michigan) the official word was that there would be no delegates for the state. How they can grandfather those delegates back in through forgiveness or reinterpretation or whatever changes this not one iota. The Michigan voters were denied the opportunity to vote for (virtually) any other candidate but Hillary.
Double standard or not. Michigan Dems had no choice. Whether it was wrong or illegal or whatever is beside the point. If they want Michigan delegates, they need to pull a redo.
If you look at this whole thing as an insurance stratagem between Hillary and the DNC (conspiratorial yes, but we’re talking Clintons here), I think the seating of the delegates chosen in the primaries as held, is inevitable.
It’s actually an elegant way for Hillary to suddenly end up with enough pledged delegates to defuse the bomb currently ticking away under the party’s grandstand with the super-delegate business. Not that it would be any better received, of course — but it strengthens Hillary’s hand when it comes to talking Obama down off the barricades and averting the utter destruction of the party. Getting the nomination is the one thing that matters to her right now, and keeping the party intact is all that matters to the DNC. Mutual Assured Destruction demands that the two camps cooperate against Obama.
At least, that’s how I’d read it if I wanted to be all conspiratorial and stuff.
Honestly, the only way they can come out of this w/o stinking to high heaven is for Michigan to caucus or redo the primary. If they don’t count the delegates – Michigan dems are going to be pissed at someone. If they do seat ’em, Obama supporters are going to be pissed, and the hypocrisy of the situation will be paraded for all to see.
Of course, with the cooperation of the MSM, the second option may be the better route, because then they simply have to ignore the story, and call Rush an idiot for making hay about it. Viola! Problem solved.
Has one heavy-hitting black leader run to the side of Obama in regards to the primary kerfuffle? Telling, indeed.
Well, including Florida would certainly give Hillary what she wants and needs, but I don’t think she would have taken Florida quite so lopsidedly had she not (in effect) campaigned there, despite agreement not to.
If they had just run as Republicans like McCain they could have sidestepped this whole mess.
And we still have to count the hanging nads.
Hillary may not have officially campaigned in Michigan … but others did the work for her. Jenny Granholm and Debbie Stabenow. And, if I recall correctly, Debbie Dingell did as well- at least on radio programs .
They cannot, in good faith, seat those delegates. The stunts the Clinton campaign pulled to be the only one on the ballot, and the campaigning in Florida give not one iota of credibility to the results. Were she to recieve those delegates, I would hope and pray for an all out rebellion on the convention floor. It would make it even juicier if those delegates made her the nominee.
Sausage factory tours?
Has one heavy-hitting black leader run to the side of Obama in regards to the primary kerfuffle?
Maybe. There seems to be some confusion:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/254772.php
Not entirely accurate; the RNC only stripped half the FL delegates, rather than all of them as the DNC did.
Not entirely accurate; the RNC only stripped half the FL delegates, rather than all of them as the DNC did.
I know that, but we’re talking about what Hillary will actually do/can get away with, not what she should do, or what you think she can or cannot do.
I think if that’s her only hope, she may just try and do it.
I know that, but we’re talking about what Hillary will actually do/can get away with, not what she should do, or what you think she can or cannot do.
I think if that’s her only hope, she may just try and do it.
We can only hope, and pray.
Karl, with regards to this thought of yours from the HotAir post:
My hypothesis would be that a McCain-Clinton match-up could both drive more Dems to her than Reps to McCain, while turning off the mushy middle. To counter this McCain would have to really work an Obama-esque appeal to hopeyness and changeyness.
If the MI/FL thing goes down in Clinton’s favor and Black leadership is vocally upset, as indicated in my link above, what chance is there for the Republicans to gain back a significant percentage of the Black vote, do you think?
I don’t know that Hillary can actually seat the FL delegates, even if she pulls out all the stops. But she might be able to make a decent run at it.
As is typical, they only follow the rules as long as it benefits them to do so.
If the MI/FL thing goes down in Clinton’s favor and Black leadership is vocally upset, as indicated in my link above, what chance is there for the Republicans to gain back a significant percentage of the Black vote, do you think?
Unless Rice is the VP, I don’t think the Republicans can pull double digits in the AA community after Katrina. A far more likely scenario if Clinton wins is that Blacks stay home in November — a situation that still hurts her immensely if the Republican base shows, since blacks are a significant part of the Democratic base.
I’m sorry, but fuck them. After all their blather about “disenfranchisement” and all that crap in the 2000 elections, their party sets it up so that one way or the other, somebody is going to get screwed in the voting for their presidential contest. Seriously, fuck them. You get what you pay for, and George Soros has paid for the very best in political machines.
what chance is there for the Republicans to gain back a significant percentage of the Black vote
Tom in Texas – that is funny as shit. I don’t think I’ve seen anything that funny in years. You should write comedy for a living, man. What chance is there? Put it this way. If the Democrats introduced legislation to re-legalize slavery, they’d still carry 82% of the black vote for at least 3 or 4 election cycles. For that matter, they could introduce legislation requiring whites and all other Democrat voters to report to the gas showers immediately, and probably expect to retain a similar percentage of their base. You’re not talking about the sharpest knives in the tool shed here. Obama is talking about raising the total tax burden on the middle to upper middle class up to around the 40% mark. It currently hovers around 30%. Yet his strongest support is coming from affluent liberals. Given that destructive social welfare policies, condescending (and racist) attitudes about the ability of blacks to make it in the U.S., and economic policies that discourage upward mobility haven’t split the blacks at all, you tell me what you think it would take to draw black voters to the Republican Party. Self interest, racist condescension and disastrous Dem policies haven’t driven them away; for the life of me I can’t imagine what would.
Sharpton is against seating them. He’ll be on with Glenn Beck tonight. Should be a hoot.
I love internecine warfare!
A minor conspiracy I think makes sense here given the influence of the Clintons in the Democrat establishment. That is, some people are pulling in their favor. I somewhat doubt there is some kind of underworld plot going on in the background.
However, this sort of thing can only work in favor of Obama, because it will make him seem underdogish, a non-establishment guy (Even while really being an establishment guy.) The difecta.
Newest from Bond regarding his position:
“When these rules [regarding primaries] were set it was suspected at the time that they would be discriminatory for states with large African American populations. It seemed a harsh rule to disenfranchise millions of our voters just to appease the thousands of white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire,†he said.
“Party rules never stated that candidates had to take their names off of the ballot as was the case in Michigan. This was something that the Iowa and New Hampshire state parties imposed on the candidates in a bidding war to show their allegiance to the first-in the-nation ‘white’ primaries.
“Both Iowa and New Hampshire strongly OPPOSED the addition of South Carolina and Nevada as early primary states. They fought the Black and Hispanic Caucus tooth and nail to stop this addition of states with Black and Brown populations having a greater say in the nomination process. They lost and in retaliation made the candidates sign a pledge to them – not the DNC – to not campaign there and not have their names on the ballot. Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd refused to sign this pledge and left their names on the ballot. Clinton did not go into Florida until after the polls closed keeping her pledge. The Obama campaign miscalculated on this issue and should have stood with Michigan and Florida given their strong African American populations.
“Had Obama won these states I am sure many people would be supporting this change in the rules.â€Â
See, his position is principled and has nothing to do with his supposed support for Hillary. Kinda inspiring, really.
Heh1 When Identity Politics eats its young.
Just, simply, precious! Extra large popcorn and a six pack of Yuengling Lager if this becomes a convention fight. Who is the “authentic” African-American in this fight? Will sharpton lead a protest on the convention floor?
I’m tingling in anticipation.
Well, this will reveal that the ones who really steal elections are Democrats. But… nobody who ‘cares’ will notice.
I mean, we’ve been saying “Dead people vote Democrat” for years…
Now we’ll have decertified people voting while Julian Bond shouts, “Count every vote so every vote counts!!” Let’s see howard Dean crack the whip on this kerfuffle.
Because the children of the corn are racist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Given that destructive social welfare policies, condescending (and racist) attitudes about the ability of blacks to make it in the U.S., and economic policies that discourage upward mobility haven’t split the blacks at all, you tell me what you think it would take to draw black voters to the Republican Party.
I would disagree with the “at all” part of that, I meet quite a few Black people who are starting to see the light. And I just told you what I think might do the trick:
If the Democrats blatently fuck a Black man out of the nomination he earns.
People are pretty jacked up about Obama, it is the culmination of Dr. King’s Dream. I don’t think that could be glossed over with a few more entitlements.
Yeah, they’re guilty of politically-driven inconsistency, and? This is the problem with the party system: they can just decide to strip voters of their say. Personally I find that potentially unconstitutional: one man one vote, remember?
B Moe,
I doubt the GOP could pull the black vote, even if things go badly for the Dems on this. But they might sit at home in November if it got nasty enough.
To all:
Re MI, remember that Obama took himself off the ballot. It wasn’t required and he stayed on in FL. The withdrawal was Obama’s attempt to keep everything centered in IA, where he already had put down those roots. But it’s his fault he’s not on the ballot. Also, if Obama works the selection process for the 55 uncommitted MI delegates, I’m guessing he didn’t really lose much by absenting himself.
But they might sit at home in November if it got nasty enough.
I think it could create a rift big enough to be exploited down the road, especially if the Republicans focus on it. For a Black Man to get that close, and then have the rug pulled out from under him by someone like Hillary… the psychological wounds would be deep.
But can the Dem stranglehold on it be broken? I think it can, and should.
Baby steps.
To all:
Re MI, remember that Obama took himself off the ballot. It wasn’t required and he stayed on in FL. The withdrawal was Obama’s attempt to keep everything centered in IA, where he already had put down those roots. But it’s his fault he’s not on the ballot. Also, if Obama works the selection process for the 55 uncommitted MI delegates, I’m guessing he didn’t really lose much by absenting himself.
I’ve heard this, and the coordinating argument that Obama played a game and lost.
But, from a voter’s perspective this is all bs. The voters were informed their votes were for nothing- no delegates. That influenced the primary. No matter what other wrangling they make of Obama’s decision to remove his name can’t change that fact.
Also, there was no certainty that he would get the 55. They could be divided between Obama and Edwards. The bigger pie could be Michigan’s Super-duper delegates. Many/most of whom have already come out for Hillary; even if they are now saying they are uncommitted because they are in the middle of the fight to seat the delegates.
There’s an article at Counterpoint that talks about past elections and the way winners have had the carpet pulled out from under their feet by the DNC in the recent past.
[…] to mention — and perhaps is unaware — that stripping half the delegates is in fact the standard DNC sanction, and that Dean and others chose the death penalty in these cases, while imposing no sanction on […]