Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
FL + MI / 2
As loath as I am to follow the Republicans' lead on just about anything, the best solution to the Florida/Michigan dilemma is the one the GOP came up with in the first place. Namely, cut the delegations in half (as a way of penalizing those states for defying the calendar) and seat them according to the vote (to avoid the appearance of disenfranchising MI and FL voters). I suspect the Obama camp is, or soon will be, just fine with recognizing the percentages from FL, given that they've already reportedly signed on with the proposal out of MI (where he wasn't even on the ballot) that would net Clinton 10 delegates there - and that's with the full delegation seated. If both states delegations were halved, the net impact on what remains of the race becomes relatively inconsequential. I just can't see Dean acquiescing to any deal which doesn't include at least a tacit "punishment" for MI and FL, nor would I want him to, since it would represent surrender to renegrade states. Ironically, despite the fact that we owe this problem largely to Florida Republicans deliberately sabotaging their state's Democratic primary calendar, the GOP has provided the Dems with the best solution.
Comments (10)
"Ironically, despite the fact that we owe this problem largely to Florida Republicans deliberately sabotaging their state's Democratic primary calendar"
sigh... I hate it when this gets repeated. Check out the vote (just google it, I'm tired of grabbing a link for this) to move the primary in the FL legislature, 115-1. I think the FL state party deserves more than their fair share of the blame for this.
May 9, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it might be one of the only ways to get this lameness settled, but I still don't like it. That would still give Hillary Clinton an advantage in delegates. I believe she ended up "taking" 72 or so and he took about 50. Giving her a 22 delegate advantage. So, half of that: 36 to 25 would still give her a 9 delegate lead in that state. Admittedly, that's much better than 22
HOWEVER!!!
Alot of people seem to be under the impression that Obama would get all of the vote for 'uncommitted'. Not necessarily, not even hardly. Just because her name was on the ballot doesn't mean she didn't get uncommitted delegates. In fact, there have been a few stories on this:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/OPINION01/804240315/1008
At the district conventions, the Clinton campaign apparently scooped up a bunch of uncommitted delegates from there and I don't imagine she'd settle for something like this that you're proposing. That being said, I doubt she'll accept the 50/50 split I want either, but just while we're throwing these out there.
May 9, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant to specify that was just for MI. Not including FL.
May 9, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this was the original policy for the Democrats, as well. I have no idea why they decided to change it.
May 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a fine idea going forward, but you can't change the rules now. As you don't know how many voters didn't bother voting because they were told their votes wouldn't count. And I think big states might decide to move up and accept the 1/2 delegate penalty if it means becoming a player early in the process versus a rubberstamp later once the race has been decided.
May 9, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if Hillary doesn't accept? And she won't?
Will the Rules Committee realize we need to heal this party and vote against her? She has a majority of the declared members of the committee, including Harold Ickes, but not a plurality of all members.
I think you're right, though: there has to be some tacit consequences here, or everything goes to hell next time.
May 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Florida Democrats deserve just as much (dis)credit for this mess. They all voted (except one) to disregard the rules of the DNC.
May 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add my voice to the chorus of people who have been following this story for some time now and lay the blame at the feet of the spineless Florida Dems. The Minority Leader in the Senate is actually on record as saying he submitted a bill to avoid moving the Democratic Primary but didn't actually speak up in support of it because he didn't want the party to be seen as "weak" if it was voted down. Poor, dumb, short-sighted bastard. But they're comfortable pointing the finger at Howard Dean and claiming their constituents are being disenfranchised? It makes me sick. They're not being disenfranchised. Their elected officials just suck. If you fight and lose, you fought and that has some merit. If you don't fight, and you still lose, and then compound that by blaming someone else who punished you for knowingly violating rules, you have no courage and no honor, and you get whatever you deserve.
May 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the phenomenal participation of democrats in this election, can anyone estimate how many new voters would have been brought into the process if these states kept to the DNC schedule?
We only hear about representing the voice of those who came to the polls despite knowing it wouldn't count.
What about the voice of those who didn't go to the polls because they were told it wouldn't count?
That's the equivalent of voter fraud.
The only equitable way to solve this is to split 50/50.
May 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say seat both states fully as they voted way back when, and yes it disenfranchises all who stayed home and all who crossed over and voted in the Rep primary. And then strip ALL of their state's superdelegates of a vote at the convention. Punish the people who actually knowingly caused the problem. And yes Obama will lose some declared supers as well.
May 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment