No Seats For You!

Recently there has been increasing discussion, sparked initially by NBC Political Director Chuck Todd, about the Clinton campaign's real motives behind pushing for a revote in Florida and Michigan. The likelihood of only modest pledged delegate gains from the two contests suggests that Clinton is, instead, aiming for the superdelegates.

Combined, Michigan and Florida have 54 superdelegates, all of whom were stripped of their status when their states were stripped of their pledged delegates. Among them, Hillary Clinton is expected to have substantially more supporters than Obama, the product of longtime friendships and her advocacy in favor of seating each delegation.

The Obama campaign should argue forcefully that these superdelegates should not be seated in Denver, regardless of what happens with revotes in the state. To be sure, the people of Florida and Michigan had no say in the decision of their states to move their primaries forward. While the original votes in January clearly cannot be counted, a revote does seem to be a reasonable remedy, and one that seems likely to be pursued.

But the superdelegates played a far different role. At the least they were complicit in allowing their states to violate DNC rules. In many cases, they were the leaders of the charge. Not only did they knowingly violate party rules for the sake of increasing their own political influence, they recklessly endangered the voting rights of millions of Democratic voters. They are responsible for the chaos in which the party now finds itself, having done so with the belief that there would be no consequences. It is essential that the national party prove them wrong.

The Clinton campaign will concede that Democrats played a central role in moving the primary up in Michigan. Democratic Senator Carl Levin, a man who has long despised New Hampshire's first-primary status, led a movement that resulted in a bipartisan bill to move the primary to January 15th. That bill was eventually signed into law by Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.

But the Clinton campaign - and many of her supporters - have argued that Florida Democrats had no choice in the matter. In a state with a Republican controlled state legislature and a Republican governor, the Democrats, they argue, were forced to break the DNC rules, entirely against their will. It is, of course, true that the state legislature in Florida is controlled by Republicans and that Governor Charlie Crist is one too. But this argument, like so many disseminated from the Clinton campaign, is deeply deceptive.

After speculation began that Florida might consider moving its primary to January 29th, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson gushed to the Palm Beach Post about the possibility of preprimary candidate forums in Florida; he expected, according to the Post, that the "lure of the delegate-rich early Florida primary" would help convince candidates to attend. Later, when the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates, Senator Nelson took the national party to court.

The bill that would officially move the primary to January passed the State Senate with a vote of 37-2. A week later, the State House passed with bill unanimously, 118-0. In no uncertain terms, this was a bipartisan effort. Then in June, the Florida Democratic Central Committee voted unanimously to support the early primary. The elected officials and party members that make up the Florida superdelegate pool no doubt played integral roles in violating national party rules.

If revoting does take place in either state, it will occur only after the DNC Rules Committee approves a new plan. But, as Karen Thurman of the Florida Democratic Party confirmed, such a new plan will only be produced if it includes the willing participation of both candidates. Each campaign has begun to make separate demands; Clinton, for example, has already ruled out the possibility of caucuses in either state. The Obama campaign should make their own demand, and should be unbending in its insistence:

The Michigan and Florida superdelegates violated the rules of the Democratic Party. They should not be seated at the Democratic convention.

Comments

[cowboyjerkface]

NO SOUP FOR YOU!
This is what you get when you dont follow rules. The dems in either state who allowed this to happen should be drawn and quartered.­..(well not really of course) but you get my drift. If you break the rules you must pay! Once again .....
NO SOUP FOR YOU!

[PeppermintTwist]

Fine, draw and quarter the people (mostly the REPUBLICANS) responsible. But meanwhile, SEAT THE DELEGATES. The delegates represent the voters. The voters were NOT responsible. Therefore, we do not, contrary to popular belief, deserve to be drawn and quartered. No, we deserve to be REPRESENTED in the primary process.

Now, Howard Dean? He could do with some drawing and quartering. In fact, the pundits on "Florida This Week" were saying that the general consensus among Florida Dem voters is that Dean should "be waterboarded". I could get behind that. In fact, I will supervise, if no one else wants to volunteer.

[CTtransplant]

In pushing to get the FL and MI delegates seated AS IS, Clinton is disenfranchising those voters (regardless of WHO they support) who decided not to bother voting because they were told their votes would not count. From all the comments coming out of FL on various sites, under various articles, I gather a lot of them are indeed Obama supporters. Now, in all fairness, if there were a LOT of voters who didn't vote because they were told their vote would not count, doesn't it then seem very clear that the only FAIR way to handle it is to re-do the vote? IF indeed anything at all is going to be done?

[splashy]

She has said she's very happy with a revote. In fact, folks that support Hillary are very willing to help pay for a revote. It's the Obama folks that are dragging their feet.

[splashy]

She has said she is fine with a revote, AND some of her supporters are willing to kick in the money to help pay for it. It's the Obama folks that are dragging their feet, not the Hillary supporters.

[mroan]

Any constitutional/ electoral law scholars out there that can help me understand something about this argument that there is disenfranchisement going on here? It seems to me that voter's rights in a primary are not the same as a regular general election. Are citizens guarenteed anything in regards to the right to participate in party primaries? Maybe it varies by state constitution?

MI and FL violated the rules so they got benched. members of the party in those states who are upset at this point need to hold thier party leaders accountable.

[DaNang65]

Not a constitutional law scholar but I have read the U.S.Distri­ct Court's decision in Nelson v. Dean (sorry I've lost the link but you can google it). May I suggest that many of the posters here, and everywhere else I see this commentary, haven't got the first clue what they're talking about. In a nutshell there is hardly any applicability of voting rights law in party selection of candidates, and none applies here. State law does not trump party rules as SCOTUS has repeatedly held.
You are quite correct that the citizens of Florida and Michigan should be directing their wrath at
their own state party officials.
The DNC has precious few disciplinary tools at its disposal. My own prospective (2012>) solution would be to amend the rule so that rather than not seating the pledged delegates, the cause of all the ruckus, the DNC prohibited any Superdelegate from an offending state from participating in the convention as a Superdelegate or a pledged delegate. I just don't believe they'll play chicken with their own votes.

[Rrhain]

Your explanation of the Florida bill is, to use your own words, "deeply deceptive.­"

It was not simply a bill to move the primary. It was a bill to require a paper trail on all voting. Added to it by Republicans was an amendment to move the primary.

So what were Democrats to do? Keep the party rules but run the risk that the Republicans in Florida would once again steal an election? Or violate the rules, hoping the party would pull its head out of its ass, and help keep the election secure?

[splashy]

So true! Many people have missed that point. It was the Repubs that caused this problem, along with the Dem leaders who only punished Florida and Michigan while letting other states slide.

Have a revote. That would solve the problem easily. Of course, the Obama crew is stalling, trying to just cut out Michigan and Florida entirely, because they don't benefit Obama.

[PeppermintTwist]

Well stated and very important point there, Rrhain! Thank you so much for your post!!!

[nomadic]

As a Floridian voter and resident I agree. Our Democrat delegates should not be seated or counted. Everyone went along with this when it was warned it would happen and that's the way it is. I'm also a registered independent so I had no dog in that fight that I could support one way or the other.
Once again Floridians botch something and then go crying to press.
After what happened in 2000 the state should have impeached Bush and Harris for conflict of interest and they didn't. From the disenfranchisement of voters refused the ability to vote, to the rally to prevent the recount, it saddens me to see this all being played out again in a brand new and equally absurd way from the party on the other side of the aisle.
Is it any wonder why I'm a registered independent?

[danceswithyids]

REVOTE
From Michigan and am sick and tired of all these people telling me we can't have a revote due to the rules.
Well guess what, the election rules have already been broken and nobody did a thing about it.
1. New Hampshire actually voted before the DNC said they could
2. There is a time when the state polls are supposed to close as a rule. I don't believe I have ever seen an election where the polls somewhere didn't remain open past the rules alotted time.
3. Senator Obama ran ads for a week in Florida.

When you are all ready to flip out over these first two items, then I'll actually listen to your opinion on whether my state gets to have a chance to vote in this primary.

[SteveNearDC]

Clinton Fan and PeppermintTwist
You have no arguement whatsoever to stand on. Yes the voters in MI and FL are being screwed, but their own state representatives screwed them. Not me. Not Obama. Not Obama supporters.
You should have taken up this fight last year. Why did you wait? Now you are upset, because it appears that your choice is going to lose.
In a democracy we have rules and laws that must be obeyed. Don't give me that crap about voters being dis-enfranchised. Those voters should have spoken up last year. Get over it, or raise the money for a complete re-do.

[PeppermintTwist]

Hey, I DID take up this fight last year!!! Why do you Obamabots all ASSUME so many things about people posting on the side of seating the delegates? I've been fighting this asanine thing since Dean did it!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!! I wish the Obama supporters would quit making incorrect assumptions and mischaracterizing people--it is getting highly infuriating! We, the Democrats of Florida, have been fighting Dean's decision from Moment One. So get your facts straight before you start attacking people baselessly­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!

Also, you say "you are upset because it appears that your choice is going to lose". WRONG AGAIN: I've been fighting this since before the field was narrowed down at all. I've been fighting this since EVERYONE was in the race. So, yet another baseless attack by an Obamabot.

And do NOT lecture me on democracy. You obviously do not understand what one is, nor do you care about protecting and preserving it. Otherwise, you want want my vote to count, no matter who it was cast for, just as I want yours to count, no matter who it was cast for.

[Nic]

Maybe if some of you would READ the DNC by laws re: the seating of the delegates AND the dates of the Primaries and Caucusus,you would not only sing a different tune,you would call for the ouster of IA,NH and SC delegates too. This mess was created by Howard Dean who could and should have done something about it BEFORE Jan 08.
Now,while we talk abor rules,didn't Obama remove his name fe the ballot in MI? And now he wants to get back on it? Didn't he AGREE NOT to campaign in FL? Yet,his ads were running there.
The Dems are going to hand this election to Insane McCain and we only have the DNC to thank for it.

[moxymama]

Thank you, Nic, for all of your points. I can't believe the number of people who see this as "Obama plays by the rules but Hillary doesn't." It's a crap perspective.

Howard Dean has made a huge mess of things, in more ways than one (tangents that I won't go in to here about the tone of each campaign). But given the way the DNC laws read, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should all be thrown out, too -- but you don't hear anyone on either side bringing these up.

The core issue is that -- as someone else pointed out -- the Dem voters in these states were pawns and had no say in how this was to be played out. In Florida, the Republican legislature deliberately screwed the Dems with the piggy-back measure.

Not only did Obama (and Edwards) remove himself from the Michigan ballot to pander, but his campaign actively worked to have voters vote "noncomittal" rather than for Clinton (as did Edwards' campaign). So, in effect, he was running a real campaign strategy there, yet no one at the DNC has said anything about it.

And now he wants to be on the ballot, after telling the voters of Michigan that he didn't need them the first time around. And Dean and the DNC say nothing. Extraordinary.

And -- yes, folks -- Obama did attend fundraisers in Florida before that primary, and did run cable ads.

Every bit of venom should directed at the DNC.

[PeppermintTwist]

The points in your post RULE, Nic! Dean should have worked towards tweaking the systemically unfair primary system ages ago, so that we would have a fair, rotating system of regional primaries each presidential election seasons. Instead, we have an increasingly archaic system in which two small, homogenuous states vote first EVERY time, which apparently irritates some of the bigger, more diverse swing states like Florida (although, speaking as a Floridian, I couldn't care less WHEN I vote, I just care deeply that my vote will count towards DELEGATES and thus representation in the primary process of MY PARTY).

And Obama's ads did run in Florida, yet for some reason that I can't even wrap my brain around, his supporters keep saying that Hillary violated the pledge not to campaign here. When the reality is: she didn't, he did. I don't fault him for the ads running, I give him the benefit of the doubt that somehow he didn't realize it. But when his supporters consistently attack the other candidate for breaking the pledge when she didn't and he did? Me no get! Plus the pledge was ASANINE in the first place, if we can speak freely, peeps. But MOVING ALONG...

Another excellent point you make, which I have been saying, too, until I'm blue in the face, is that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, so THAT is why it was off, not because of some vast international Clinton conspiracy to take over the world. omg, stop the madness!

Anyway....­your post is bril!

[Opus007]

No surprise- this is all about Hillary- and her desparate effort to win the nomination. She has become unglued in her obsession for power. Don't we want someone in the White House in these troubled times that exhibits some grace under pressure?

She can't win- so why doesn't she drop out now so we can do something constructive to solve the issues facing this country instead of being side tracked every damn day by some sort of Clinton drama. Her supporters remind me of the dogged Bush supporters that give him their unwavering support even after if is clear that he was just telling them anything to get their votes. Their authoritarian mindset allows them to totally ignore the rational facts and viciously attack anybody that doesn't share their blind devotion.

I used to be neutral about Hillary- now I have not one crumb of respect for her. I will not forget or forgive the destruction that is being inflicted on this country and Democratic party by her self centered quest for power.

[timinhi]

Gee Dylan--I've been a loyal Democrat since 1976, and the member of a longtime Democratic family for the 18 years of my life preceding that, and I don't recall your having been elected as the official Party "Rule Keeper."

[CTtransplant]

Opus007,

Oh, boy, do I agree with you!!!!! And, I will go so far as to add...

If it were any other woman running for President (and there are a LOT of good women out there to choose from!), I would more than likely have voted for her. By choosing CLINTON to run for president, they have ensured I will not!

[PeppermintTwist]

So, let me see if I have this straight: this whole thing is Clinton's fault? Priceless. I'm getting such an unwanted and horrifying education about some Obama supporters. The ability to spin things is truly dizzying.

So, this isn't the fault of the Republicans in FL who changed the date, or of Howard Dean, who opted for the most Draconian and INSANE "punishment" humanly possible, and then some (i.e., sign the pledge or the wrath of the DNC will be upon you, candidates!). No, this is all Clinton's fault?

Obama supporters look so wide-eyed and sweet at the rallies. It is scary what is behind those eyes.

[PeppermintTwist]

P.S. I am passionate on this issue not because of support for Clinton, but because of support for millions of voters of this country, no matter who they choose to vote for. I was passionate on it since the git-go. So all you Obamabot STFU already with the mischaract­erizations­. This is ZERO about Clinton, Obama or anyone else for me. It is about is my party going to disenfranchise millions of innocent voters or isn't it?

[rberlind]

Great post, Dylan. I've also advocated not reinstating the superdelegates from these states even if they do hold new elections. I've given two reasons for this:
1. The states vilolated DNC rules and should suffer some penalty. By allowing new elections but not reinstating the superdelegates, the DNC can allow the voices of the voters to be heard while still imposing a penalty. Banning their superdelegates is the best penalty since it penalizes the people in the state parties most responsible for the problem. In retrospect, it probably would have been better if the DNC had just stripped the states of 50% of their pledged delegates (as mandated by the DNC Delegate Selection Rules) and their superdelegates. Then the voters would have been heard but the politicians would have been punished.
2. Since it has been Clinton advocating counting the Florida delegates or having new elections (for her own selfish reasons, there will be a bias in her favor amongst the voters and the superdelegates. It's impossible to do anything about the bias amongst voters, but banning the superdelegates would avoid giving Clinton an unfair advantage.

[olderdem]

The Clintons have no respect for "rules" or the law. Bill lied under oath. What more proof do we need, and why would we want these people back in the WH?

[JerryJef]

I support this proposal enthusiastically. The leaders of both state parties purposefully defied the DNC. Florida Democrats were put in a severe bind. The Republicans loaded the bill with replacement of touch screen voting machines by optical scan counting machines which the Dems have been wanting for a long time. Then the Repubs upped the pressure on the Dems by putting a hotly fought property tax amendment referendum on the same day. So the Republicans flat out manuevered the Dems. While I have sympathy for them, I cannot condone making a local Florida problem a national problem.

Michigan, on the other hand, has absolutely no excuse. The Michigan primary was a willful and malicious attempt by Michigan Dems, principally Sen. Carl Levin and DNC member Debbie Dingell, to sabotage the national Democratic Party, and possibly the election out of childish pique for the preference given New Hampshire. I would ban Levin, Dingell, and Granholm from the Convention for that.

The Commission of Presidential Nomination and Timing in the their report to the DNC argued case law and cited U. S. Supreme cases that the party controls its own affairs including the rules over nominations. That amounts to nothing more than legalistic mumbo jumbo. In the real world outside the narrow confines of legal theories the Party has lost control of the Primary process. State legislatures now rule. It is time both parties admit that and work accordingly. It time for Iowa and New Hampshire to see the jealousy of the other states will not permit them any longer to enjoy the preferred status of first in the nation. The Party can no longer justify putting the geneal election at risk just to stroke the egos of Iowa and New Hampshire.

[PeppermintTwist]

Well, I have to give you credit: even though we disagree about seating the delegates, at least you make a reasoned, thoughtful argument and you obviously are well versed on the facts of the matter. You are not just one of these scary Obama supporters who just doesn't want to re-enfranchise millions of voters because they feel it is all a vast plot by Hillary Clinton and her supporters to take over planet earth, and anyone who argues for seating the delegates is obviously just another tentacle of the Clinton "monster". No, you make some very valid, well-thought-out points, and your argument against seating the delegates is substantive. I still disagree with you, but I respect your argument.

Where we do agree is that the primary system itself need revamping. I am NOT for one single national primary day, as that would allow whichever candidates have the most money to simply saturate the big media markets and win. I still want good, old-fashioned campaigning, and candidates going to little diners and listening to the people in small towns, etc. So a rotating system of regional primaries sounds fair to me. But this bizarro Iowa and NH juggernaut is obviously not going to stand much longer. Nothing against Iowa or NH, I love 'em both. But let's improve the fairness of the primary process by rotating who goes first, so that all states feel that they have as much say in the process as all other states.

[jwod]

What is this, junior high school? It would seem those in FL and MI have learned now. And a new vote/caucus would allow the VOTERS IN EACH STATE to participate in the nomination process. The superdelegates' responsibility seems tenuous at best. But they can make their own arguments. Participation is what I thought it was about. Proposing some new adventure in punishment, for political acts, is about as juvenile as one can imagine. But then again party politics is built on the juvenile ethic.

[mmihok]

Why would we spend tens of millions of dollars, only to have the vote split, and not have any effect on the delegate counts anyway? The local democratic parties knew what they were doing when they were pushing it. The best recourse we (I live in FL) have now is to vote those individuals out of office (starting with Crist) next election.

[magen]

Out here in the real world if you break the rules, you pay the price.

[CLINTONfan]

no apparently in the real world the voters pay the price...

[ltfcrazy]

The voters in MI and FL elected the people that did this to them, and they have the power to elect someone else next time. It has nothing to do with the presidential candidates. The Obama campaign played by the DNC rules and the rules should stand.