The Florida House voted 115-1 for the bill. 34.7% of the yea votes were Democratic. It then went through the Florida Senate 37-2, then the House again for 118-0. Explain how this constitutes a power move by the Republicans? Were 40 of the 42 House Democrats bullied into voting for it?
I’d love to see more evidence of Republican underhandedness, mind. But I’ve yet to see a plausible explanation for how it was all their fault when the Democrats happily participated in shooting themselves in the foot.
I agree. And I see what you inferred, which was reasonable but not what I intended.
Let me put it another way: Any margin narrow enough for the superdelegates to change is obviously one that the rules permit. But just because they can doesn’t mean they should. “Razor-thin” was perhaps an unfortunate wording on my part. In any election, if there is a reasonable argument to be made that the most electable candidate is not the one with the most delegates, or even the popular vote, then the delegates are there specifically to correct such a circumstance.
Apologies if the scenario I described as a plausible one for the supers to act came across as the threshold. I’m not sure what that threshold is, though I would tend to agree with you that the larger the margin, the less plausible is the argument that the wrong guy has the lead. “Popular sentiment” as I meant it, as I would exercise my judgment as a super, would likely be a reasonably slight lead.
Yep, this is the type of scenario I was envisioning, something where the tide had turned in voter’s sentiment, post vote. Call it buyer’s remorse, as some in the press did after Texas / Ohio. But if it were pronounced, and I were a superdelegate, I could well decide that Obama’s lead was not sacred.
And though I gave the impression that 100 delegates and a certain lead in the popular vote was a clearer boundary than I should have, what I actually meant was the greater such a change in public sentiment (as evidenced by the polls), the greater could be the lead I would vote against, in my judgment. Again, an extremely large lead would require something like a scandal, in all likelihood, to sway me to vote against the leader. But I still could with a clear conscience. As a superdelegate, that’s what I’m there for. That’s what I guard against.
Hopefully I clarified. A better choice of words would have been “narrow enough” where “enough” is a function of a bunch of other factors–current polls, states won, etc. Does that make it clearer?
Agree with your assessment. I’d only add that if MI and FL seemed like Hillary states (and with all the other moving parts considered that I mentioned to RTFirefly), however narrow the margin, this gives Hillary two more large states with lots of EC votes (“gives” in the sense that a super could assess them as such). Of all the things f’d up about the Dem’s primary processes, the most ridiculous may well be the proportionate assignment of delegates. This seems to be so foolishly “fair” to the loser that it ignores how the actual general election will be conducted. A superdelegate can and should weigh this disconnect.
Of course, this brings into play whether a given state is safely the Dem’s under any circumstance. But, again, my point is just that the evaluation the superdelegates need to make is–and should be–a bit more nuanced than seeing who has the most delegates or popular vote.
100 is a nice round number, and probably a reasonable boundary as far as it goes. As I mentioned, though, I used that as an example (and didn’t offer it very clearly) when what I should have said is that there are plausible arguments for the superdelegates to cast a vote for Hillary, despite a lead for Obama in delegates and popular vote. As I said to RTF, the greater Obama’s lead, the less likely such an argument would hold water, save for an emerging scandal or some such incident.
I’m not as sure as you, though time may prove you right (as preliminary polls may well too). The Wright issue could end up carrying more weight, depending upon how Clinton plays it, than we currently perceive. But maybe not.
Be careful with terms here. By “Florida and Michigan” do you mean the state committees or the voters? If the latter, do you mean “rewarding” as a synonym for “treating equally with the other states”?
That approach to the argument requires clarity of terms even more. *Who * exactly is being “bratty” here (*not * just “Michigan and Florida”)? And do you think of engaging in counterbrattiness as leadership?
We’re looking at only a few percent difference in the head-to-head polls with either candidate. After the last election, where the same opinion was just as widely held, I think a little more caution is called for. Other people don’t necessarily vote the way we think they should, or consider the same information or follow the same thought processes in making their decisions. It’s too soon to have forgotten that.
Excluded middle. Many other alternatives do exist, including tossing the whole fuckup and doing it over. As you know. So why is that not an option - if it’s because of the risk your guy would lose, then it’s Florida 2000 all over again, except with Obama playing Bush.
Except the ones in Florida and Michigan. You don’t want their voices to count.
And that gets back to the topic of clarifying just what principles should be followed - unifying leadership in the cause of advancing our democracy and our national image by following the voice of the voters, or just your guy winning. What’s all this about Obama *not * being a “traditional politician”, then?
That ignores the fact that Obama needs the supers’ votes too. It ignores their role and its purpose, which Stratocaster has just explained well. In short, that assertion is unsupported. merkwur, perhaps you’d like to take a shot at answering the question about what a unifying leader would do here. You do have some thoughts beyond what you’ve provided us here, I trust.
Depends on what you think has been going on behind the scenes. She’s proposed do-overs, she’s even proposed sharing the ticket, but we know of nothing Obama has done but stall and brush off.
Maybe that shows his influence with them really is stronger?
Both of these have already been covered. Do-overs cost money. She was offering the vice-presidency despite being in second place which she later rescinded because Obama hadn’t passed the commander in chief test.
Again, what “leadership” could Obama show that would resolve the issues surrounding a possible re-vote, particularly cost.
Yes, it will cost money. What doesn’t? Still pocket change for parties that actually want to do it. IOW, another phony obstacle that a *leader * would look to overcome, and could do so easily.
So what exactly has Obama *done * to try to *resolve * the problem, to repeat the question yet again since it appears to be necessary? Got anything *positive * you can point to yet, sport?
Or, for that matter, ya got any other alternatives of your own to present, besides stall-and-rationalize (and denigrate), that is?
So where does the money to overcome this phony obstacle come from? Leadership?
Hard to believe but I’m actually not adressing Obama here. I’m simply talking to you about how the inability to hold a revote specifically hurts Obama’s leadership. You seem to be of the mind that if Obama threw his weight behind a new primary, it would just happen. Not to mention I said a ways back that I was disappointed that Obama didn’t encourage a re-vote. Unlike you, I just think it wouldn’t have done much good in Michigan.
I’ve done none of those things. I’ve asked you a question and you’ve replied that leadership would fix it without actually answering how that would work.
Elvis the same arguments repeated over and over again become tiresome. Face the facts, Florida and Michigan both had elected leadership that chose to run primaries in a way that they knew would not count yet they did it anyway thereby disenfranchising their voters. They declined the offer to come up with alternatives. And they have expressed a solid disinterest in running real primaries or caucuses now. There are two paths from here. The primary process can continue forward until enough supers decide to put their support one way or the other to put one or the other over the top be that before the convention or during it. Or one or the candidates concedes and the other allows the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated as is.
Obviously Obama is not going to concede with his lead. And he has a way to go to collect enough supers outright. It could take a while and the prospects for a party victory both in the presidential spot and in various congressional districts could get hurt in the slow and bloody process.
But a Hilliary victory in the former case would require a circumstance in which the supers were convinced by a two to one margin that going against a very solid pledged delegate lead, and a very probable popular vote lead no matter how you slice it, was in the best interest of the party - not only for winning the presidency, but for winning the most congressional seats and for future election cycles. To call that a hard sell is an understatement. To call that impossible is closer.
What I suspect will happen is that supers will start to move increasingly to Obama’s camp and that the pressure for Hillary to concede with some appearance of grace will build. At some point some combination of Reid, Pelosi, Gore, Edwards, Dean, and Carter will visit her and make it clear that she either concedes with some grace or they all come out against her and paint her as the spoiler that she threatens to be. Will some go public before then? Maybe maybe not.
Why, exactly, is it incumbent upon Obama to do something to resolve a problem he a) didn’t create and b) has no control over?
If Obama had won those two states, would you be this frothing about demanding that Hillary do something to resolve the problem the states and their legislatures created, with no fault of her own?
You know, Elvis, I have to admit to a grudging admiration for your continuing to fight what you obviously view as the good fight here, but honestly, things are to the point now where Hillary has no realistic chance of gaining the nomination barring a superdelegate mutiny against the will of the voters, an occurrence that seems less likely with each passing day.
Wouldn’t it better - both for your blood pressure and in a practical sense - to give up the fight, good or not, and begin to focus your attention and passion on the upcoming election within the context of Obama as the Democratic nominee?
* Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.
Do you believe that will still be true after the next few, post-Wright primaries? Obama had given up on Pennsylvania even before that. You’re still assuming your conclusion, ya know.
Thanks for the condescension. Now then, wouldn’t it be better for *you * to focus *your * attention on making sure the Democratic nominee is someone America can support with pride? :dubious:
Because that’s the kind of thing leaders do. That’s most especially what people who wish to establish their credentials as leaders who can unite people do. You’ve made the point, many times, quite emphatically, that that’s who he is - well, this is a great chance for him to demonstrate it to the still-unconvinced, isn’t it? This is identically a great chance for him to *disprove * that assessment, too. That’s what makes it “incumbent” upon him. DSeid, you continue to see the same arguments being made to you because you’re still refusing to address them - except, that is, under the *assumption * of an Obama victory. Can we save time and just take it as read that simply winning, just like “traditional politicians”, is indeed your highest goal?
Elvis1ves, if this question has been asked of you previously, I apologize, but I want to know: if the situation was exactly reversed and it appeared that Ms. Clinton was a lead pipe cinch to win, would you be expecting the same from her?
And what exactly would this accomplish? You’ve still not answered this question. You insist that Obama is holding up, stalling, preventing the re-vote. How would his leadership overcome the other obstacles facing the states that would want to redo their primaries?
No, actually I was being sincere. I’ve genuinely started to feel sort of badly for you lately, given the tremendous amount of time and energy you’ve devoted to banging your head against the wall in these Hillary threads to no good end.
Apparently you’ve forgotten some of our past wranglings. I’ll be focusing my attention on making sure the Republican nominee gets elected.
If you now admit to having *been * a “wall” in our discussions, then progress in THe Fight has been made.
You only want the Republican to get elected, and *not * to be somebody America can be proud of? That does clarify other matters as well. vison, sorry for missing the question earlier - but yes, I would. Democracy as a principle matters more to me than any election. I believe that’s required of citizens if a democracy is to thrive. HW, it’s disappointing that you still won’t discuss the larger picture. If, however, the only obstacle you can see to doing the right thing is to get $9M somewhere, then one approach would be to tap the DNC campaign budget, and another would be to call George Soros. Satisifed now?:dubious: Okay then, why ain’t it happening?
