Article: Clinton's campaign leaves no delegate behind

[elixir]

This article notes how the Clinton campaign will work hard to get to November. Within the rules and by working hard, Hillary will be our next president.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html

[Thepricebreaker]

1. No Thanks.. n/t

[SteelPenguin]

2. Honestly the whole thing about Michigan and Florida is a real turn off to me

we still haven't had our primary, and my wife and I haven't made up our minds officially yet, but if she's really pushing to seat the Michigan delegates especially...well then she's definitely lost my vote. I hate that the voters in Michigan were disenfranchised but Obama, Edwards, and the rest weren't even on the ballot there because they did what the party asked of them.

I could support a re-do of the primary, but actually asking for those delegates to be seated, is a huge turnoff.

Florida less so because everyone was on the ballot there, but still because nobody was allowed to campaign there who knows how things would have turned out otherwise.

You can't agree to the rules of a contest and then when things turn a different direction, argue against those rules. That's very unsportsmanlike and dishonorable, imho.

[elixir]

3. This isn't about MI or FL, it's about the superdelegates.

[not_too_L8]

4. It's about Texas

Which HRC is losing by the way

New Numbers from Texas

Clinton 42%
Obama 48%
Someone else 3%
Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

[rug]

5. Which poll is that?

[not_too_L8]

7. new numbers from texas

From...American Research Group, Inc.


Way to go "O"

[SteelPenguin]

6. They also mention in that article that she's pushing for Michigan to be counted

I understand that it might come down to Superdelegates. I'm just saying that if she is really pushing for Michigan to be counted (as mentioned in that article) I won't vote for her in the primary, and I'll be very disappointed.

[AlGore-08.com]

8. I don't know what the answer is for Florida, but I find the idea that the results are not accurate

Because the candidates were not allowed to run 30 second TV spots deeply troubling. It's not like there was no media coverage of the campaign in Florida, or that the debates were blocked for Florida TV viewers or that Florida residents were blocked from reading candidate websites. Florida had a record turn out and all the candidates were on the ballot. Do we really believe that voters are incapable of making sound decisions if they are deprived of 30 second TV spots that say little or nothing of substance? Should we revisit past primary elections and give Lyndon LaRouche every state in every race he ran in, because he COULD have won if only he'd been able to spend billions of dollars more on 30 second TV ads than his opponents? Once that precedent is in place, why not just let Bob Dole be President in 2008 - - because he COULD have won in 1996 if only he could have spent trillions of dollars more on TV ads than Clinton did? It's a terrible precedent to set and we shouldn't set it.

I also don't think we should be pushing the argument that the results are invalid because voters knew their votes wouldn't count in the DNC delegate count. I've voted for President in three states: Indiana, New York and California. My Presidential vote has never "counted", because I've lived in states where one party or another had a lock on the electoral vote. I still voted in every election. This is the first Presidential primary election I've voted in where the nominee was still in doubt when my state held it's primary. In other words, this is the first year I knew my vote "counted". Should my vote not have counted in the past? Should I be penalized because I was a good citizen and actually voted in every election? Do we want to define whether a vote matters solely by whether it can swing an election? If so, let's just stop voting for President in California and New York and Texas and any other state which isn't in play. If a Presidential candidate starts polling above 55%, let's just call off the election and give that candidate the Presidency. And let's definitely cancel elections in years where there's an incumbent President, because they almost always win a second term.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of holding caucuses in Florida as a solution. Caucuses always have a much smaller number of participants than primary elections, and the participants tend to be middle class and above, rather than working class and working poor. Tossing out a primary and replacing it with a caucus is not an even swap. It's apples and oranges -- and they give an edge to one of the two candidates in question. Additionally, since the front runner has changed since the Florida primary was held, even if we held another primary (which we can't), we'd probably get vastly different results. That doesn't make the existing results wrong. There were a number of times during Bill Clinton's Presidency when pollsters recorded that George Bush Sr. won hypothetical rematches against Bill Clinton. When those poll results were published, should we have held a new election in some format that favored Bush Sr., because the "old" results giving Clinton the White House had be superseded by new voter sentiment?

Michigan is more problematic, because all the candidates except Clinton took their name off the ballot. I am really at a loss over what to do here. It was a major tactical mistake for Obama and Edwards and the rest to take their names off. (If they had left their names on, they could have at least used the results for bragging rights.) Are we supposed to reward candidates with do-overs when they make tactical mistakes? Maybe we should give Hillary Clinton and few billion dollars to run ads, give her a month or two to campaign while Obama has to sit on the sidelines, and then do over every state she's lost to Obama due to tactical blunders.

The real problem with Florida and Michigan are fourfold. One: There is no way to exclude the delegates or hold a caucus without disenfranchising people who actually voted in these primaries. Two: If there's no down side to holding primaries before the DNC wants you to, the 2012 primary will be nightmare of states jumping to be the first in the nation. We'll be voting in the 2012 primary before we hold the 2008 general. Three: Given the dynamics of the race, Obama would probably win caucuses in these states. Since this won't match the original results, Republicans will have a field day painting Obama as a guy who has to cheat to win. We'll all need good luck to successfully persuade Independents and Republicans (and some Democrats) that it was perfectly fair to throw out one set of election results that would have given us candidate A and replaced them with a second set of results that gave us candidate B. (Bush v. Gore, anyone?) Four: Changing the DNC rule and seating the existing delegates will probably swing the nomination from Obama to Hillary Clinton. Again, the Republicans will howl that HRC has to cheat to win and we'll have the same problem explaining to folks who aren't already on the bandwagon why this was a perfectly fair way to win the nomination.

And because somebody will flame me if I don't disclose - - I have no dog in this fight. I will support whoever wins the nomination. I just think that there is no good solution here.

[SteelPenguin]

9. You're right about at least one thing

There is no good solution here.

The thing to keep in mind is not changing the rules after the game starts. You do that and you're a dishonorable unsportsmanlike conniving jerk. Period. You can't agree to a set of rules and then change them mid contest if it benefits you.

The rules the democratic party laid out where that no other primaries were to take place before a certain date, and the elected officials of both Florida and Michigan ignored those rules and changed their primary dates. The democratic party didn't disenfranchise those voters, those state legislatures did, and if people don't like that, they should seek repercussions on their elected officials. There were solutions prior to the primary date, which not enough people were interested in, cared about, or knew about frankly. Ignorance is never an excuse though.

As far as accepting the Florida votes even though there was no campaigning, I also generally disagree with. Campaigning DOES make a difference. TV Ads DO make a difference. You can launch as many strawman arguments about billions of dollars spent as you like, but the simple matter is that we have NO idea what difference if any would have been made in Florida were candidates allowed to campaign there. The fact though that nobody did, does level the playing field a bit, yet for candidates like Obama and Edwards that have shown far more progress in the polls when allowed to campaign in states rather than rely simply on name recognition and the national media, point to the fact that campaigning in the sate would most likely have changed the numbers. How much? We'll never know.

Perhaps one could look at Michigan and say it was a tactical error to withdraw their names from the Michigan ballot, or maybe they were standing with their party and didn't believe that the party would turn around and allow those delegates. Maybe he did it to not lose a beauty contest, but he was playing by the rules that the party laid out that those delegates wouldn't be seated. For the Party to turn around and seat them...Well that's like playing risk and leaving eastern Australia lightly defended, and then having the game changed midway so that you can invade Eastern Australia from the Western U.S.

If we don't play by the rules we set, how can we be trusted to do anything?

Michigan and Florida should simply NOT be seated. The people in those states, and elsewhere, made mistakes to get us where we are today, but the answer isn't to seat the delegates from those states, but to recognize that the poeple in those states got screwed by greedy people who thought they could do whatever they wanted to do, and burned millions of people for it.

I'd feel the same way if Obama had all the votes in Michigan or if Clinton did. If they seat those delegates, I'm leaving the party. I won't align myself with people who change the rules mid-contest.

[anamandujano]

11. Excellent post. I'm starting to think that in the good old USA, people need to

get used to their vote not being counted.

Bush and the supreme court gave us a good taste of it. Now the voters of two states have to suck it up because of the political infighting of their state legislators and the elites of the party, all entrenched politicians. They knew the were being f*cked with but they cared so much, they went to the polls anyway.

I'll even go so far as to say that the early states are more reflective of those who committed to the Democrat party, because McCain had not yet emerged as front runner and repukes did not have the option to waste their vote and crossover to meddle in our primaries.

How do you feel about imposing NEW RULES on the super delegates? The people in each congressional district got to choose their delegates. Why should a super have to represent them AGAIN, with their precious vote?

If we're going to have to follow rules, why not follow ALL the rules.

The Obama people want to have the rules that favor them followed and toss the other ones and impose new ones.

[Barack_America]

10. Steel, not to mention...

That she was very vocal in the days leading up to the Florida primary that she was going to "fight for their votes to count". That's borderline campaigning, IMO.

This Michigan and Florida strategy was drummed up as soon as they realized how badly they were going to lose South Carolina.

If you disagree with the DNC's ruling, fine. But to only "fight" for those votes once you realize you need them, looks very poor.

I agree with you entirely.

BTW, how's Crosby doing?


ETA: In all honesty, seating the delegates in MI and FL is part and parcel to her superdelegate push. She really needs those states to count if she's going to stay competitive enough in the pledged delegate count to appeal to superdelegates.

[anamandujano]

13. Your post is a little logic challenged. If she spoke about fighting for the votes

in the days LEADING UP TO the Florida primary, which was BEFORE she knew she needed them (according to you--I say she always had the intent to work hard for every vote, and she has), then how could it be part of a desperate strategy taking shape now, i.e., she NEEDS them?

[Barack_America]

14. I think you have your dates confused.

The South Carolina primary occurred on January 26, before the Florida primary on January 29.

The date of the conference call in which the Clinton campaign outlined their strategy to make Michigan and Florida count was January 25th, when polls, including her internals, were indicating that the defeat in South Carolina would be large. There was no similar statement released before this date (i.e. before the Michigan primary), hence it was a new strategy at this time.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5492
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/hillary_dnc_should_seat_the_michigan_and_florida_delegates.php

So yes, she realized that she would need these delegates before the Florida primary, and moved to have them seated, also before the primary.

[JTFrog]

12. She and Penn have worked hard and spent millions to blow off 22 states and push inevitability!!! nt