DNC lawyers find they can’t restore Florida, Michigan delegations

After having first endorsed the decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its convention delegates, the Clinton campaign reversed course and insisted that the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee seat the full delegations from both states, even though voters in the states were told in advance that their votes wouldn’t count, and even though the candidates didn’t campaign in either state.

This morning, the Democratic Party’s lawyers explained that the Rules and Bylaws Committee can’t grant the Clinton campaign’s request — the committee, even if it wanted to, simply doesn’t have the authority. (thanks to Sarabeth for the heads-up)

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party’s legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is “as far as it legally can” go. […]

The DNC analysis does not make recommendations for how the Rules and Bylaws Committee should vote, but gives context from the party’s charter and bylaws for the committee to consider.

There is, however, an option to restore all of the states’ delegates. It’s just not a very attractive one.

The [lawyers’] analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates — by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes — risking a floor fight.

In other words, Clinton could decide to take this matter to the Credentials Committee, but that would mean dragging out this process until late August. What’s more, the Clinton campaign could make its case to the Credentials Committee, only to have committee members decide not to grant the request, meaning that the process had been delayed for no reason.

Is Clinton prepared to do that? It’s obviously difficult to speculate, though Clinton did suggest a week ago, in an interview with the AP, that she’d at least consider taking her fight to the convention.

It’s probably worth noting, just as an aside, that if the party were, for whatever reason, to reverse course and accept the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries just as they are, despite all the reasons not to, Clinton would still lose. The delegates she would gain still wouldn’t be enough to overcome her existing deficit.

So, why bother? Because if the campaign can, somehow, get the non-binding Florida and Michigan contests to count, Clinton may be in a position to claim that she won the popular vote. That might not be enough to change superdelegates’ minds in the 11th hour, but it might be enough to undermine the legitimacy of an Obama nomination, and may very well feed the perception that the Democratic nominee “stole” the nomination that Clinton, under this scenario, rightfully earned.

How this is supposed to help the Democratic Party win the White House in November is unclear.

“How this is supposed to help the Democratic Party win the White House in November is unclear.”

This statement appears to presuppose that Clinton is interested in the Democratic Party winning the White House in November…

  • Is Clinton prepared to do that?

    So, why bother?

    Yes. Because she fully believes that the icky brown dude can’t win and she’s our only savior.

  • geeee…

    This is gonna piss shillary off – guess she will have to go back to her racist excuses that proclaim that white voters count more than people of color and kkkarl rove’s lies. Oh, she can use the assassion thing too.

    And now she can’t lie with the vote totals…

  • So, why bother? Because if the campaign can, somehow, get the non-binding Florida and Michigan contests to count, Clinton may be in a position to claim that she won the popular vote.

    “May be in a position to claim” is exactly right. From TPM:

    Even if you change the rules and fully seat Michaigan (sic) and Florida and count them for the popular vote totals and don’t count any portion of the Michigan “uncommitted” (which were understood a the (sic) to be for Obama) vote for Obama, Hillary is still behind in the popular vote total. The only way she moves ahead in popular vote is if you do all that and don’t count four of the caucus states.

  • If she takes it to the convention floor she’s pretty clearly trying to get McCain elected so she can run in 2012.

    Once again; seat the elected delegates from Michigan and Florida (uncommitted in MI to Obama).

    Do not seat the supers from Michigan or Florida.

    The only people who are disenfranchised then are the party hacks who screwed this all up to begin with.

  • get the superdelegates to get up off their worthless assets and for once take a stand and get this over with!!! Now I remember why I left working in professional politics – I had to spend too much time in the company of politicians, a species that on the whole makes Hollywood studio executives look honorable.

  • Please make all this go away. I just want McCain. That’s all. Lots and lots of posts knocking McCain. And some day, I’d really like to forget why I totally lost respect for the Clintons and let bygones be bygones. The longer this goes on, the longer that’s going to take.

  • “…if the campaign can, somehow, get the non-binding Florida and Michigan contests to count, Clinton may be in a position to claim that she won the popular vote.”

    She’s already claiming that – I can’t see how seating/not seating all or part of the delegates changes either the validity of the claims, or anything else, really. I can’t believe that someone who stands up for the rights of Zimbabwean voters would actually try to claim a victory in popular votes based on an election in which hers was the only name on the ballot – but there’s a lot of stuff about la Clinton that I can’t believe…

    The main thing is – she needs right now 245 delegates, super or pledged, to get the nomination. Right now 285 delegates are available. Even with the best-case Lanny Davis scenario for divvying up the FL/MI delegates, she is not going to be able to overcome this problem.

  • The super delegates and party leaders must make their move immediately following the the final primaries on June 3rd. I would be shocked if they don’t. Once that happens Hillary Clinton will not have any arguement left. Floriday and Michigan won’t matter at that point. I’m guessing those two states will have half of their delegates restored (and somehow allotted to both Clinton and Obama) on Saturday. They will be fully seated at the convention.

    I’ve asked before, how long has it been since Hillary Clinton has campaigned on the issues? It has to be easily two months that her campaign has been nothing more than I’m the better candidate, I’m not being treated fairly, hard working whites won’t vote for him, seat florida and Michigan or I’ll crap all over the convention, remember Bobby Kennedey was assassinated. Is this what anyone wants in the White House? Is this the kind of candidate the Democrats want to field in the fall? Barack Obama and John McCain are seriously engaging each other on the issues. Hillary clinton has become a freakish side-show that, unfortunately, the media can’t get enough of. Once the primaries end on June 3rd I sincerely hope the attention focuses fully on where it should be…and away from the Clintons’ histrionics.

  • It’s a good thing that Obama is running as a Dem outsider, since Hillduggery and the DNCharacters are really making the organization look bad.

    This post reminds me that the decision way back when that the MiFla voites wuoldn’t count wasn’t just an on the fly idea. It was a legal contract that the DNC entered into in good faith with voters that this is the way the rules would work. A lot of people depended on the integrity of that and it’s sad to see Hillary try to break that contract like some starlet who had a break out first film.

  • The thing is, there IS NO SUCH THING as a “popular vote” in the nomination process. Some states have a caucus. Some states use a primary. Some states have a hybrid system. It’s all good and fine and all meaningful in terms of producing a candidate, but it renders any cumulative tally that goes across state lines completely and utterly meaningless. Aside from being factually wrong when you crunch the math honestly, it’s a meaningless, nonexistent metric to begin with. Hillary is the most electable…she just lost the elections leading to nomination is all. Yeah right.

    Hillary was a credible candidate, she’d have made a respectable president, and the Democratic Party got some good out of a long primary season. But the ultimate goal is winning in November and avoiding additional McBush nominations ot the judiciary. One hopes they don’t lose sight of the big picture. Hillary isn’t old, she has a lot left to do over the next several years. But we are nearing the time where focus HAS to be on November…

  • I am so sick of the clinton’s crap – now is when we should be talking about national issues and what a total disaster mclame is. Shillary was the front-runner, but the more people see her, the less they like her. Even CA (which she won) no longer would support her nominee.

    Shillary is now “catapulting” kkkarl rove’s talking points as the candidate of ruch limbaugh – how sick is that. We are wasting time, energy, and money on her egotistic sense of elite entitlement when we should be talking about this (from TPM):

    Great Company He Keeps
    On the McCain/Gramm/UBS front (noted in yesterday evenings posts), it seems that not only is Sen. McCain’s top economics advisor, fmr Sen. Gramm, lobby and work for UBS, but according to today’s Financial Times the company is advising members of its private banking team not to step foot in the United States in order to avoid indictment.

    (ed.note: In cases like this, I want to make a distinction between the particulars of the legal troubles UBS may or may not be in and the political implications for Sen. McCain. Anything tied to a big international banking concern is necessarily highly complex. And we’re digging in to try to find you more on that. But as a political matter, for McCain, having your top economics advisor be the vice chairman and (until recently) lobbyist for a company telling a class of its employees to get out of the country for fear of being indicted is simply not a good thing. As I said, we’re digging in on this story. But for the moment, I would caution readers to keep this distinction in mind.)

  • Maybe they can get a Supreme Court ruling! [ducks]

    Man, I did time in law school and I do understand the impetus to WIN AT ALL COSTS. One of the reasons I left was because I was already an agressive dickhead and professional training did not help.

    The price of deciding you’ll DO ANYTHING TO WIN, is everyone thinks you’re a jerk and avoids you like a leper. This works for lawyers. You just hang out with other lawyers. For polititians, not so much. I think Clinton has reached the point where she has nothing to lose if she keeps going because this is it for her career.

    Plus it puts off the day when she has to pay back those loans.

    At one time I would have liked to see her as the A.G. or even on the S.C. I still think she’d be great and the idea of Hillary Clinton, US Attorney General would give a lot of ReThugs heart attacks. But now, such a move would be immensely unpopular just because she’s been … well, she’s been acting like a lawyer.

  • If Hillary does not bow out on or near June 6, expect her to move heaven and earth to get to convention.

    And if she does not drop out after June 6 the race stops being about voters and the Dem nomination. At that point her quest is about vanity, self interest and the pursuit of power all above the needs of the Party and the nation as a whole.

  • For a moment, I was getting worried that the Democratic party – the less effective half of our undemocratic 2-party rule – might nominate a skilled, popular, and even inspirational politician for this important election.

    Now I am seeing signs that the nomination process is falling apart, and whoever takes their place on the ticket will be tarnished and weakened. Could it be the Democrats are going to blow another election they have no excuse to lose? Sure. These are the Democrats.

    Looking at the state of both party’s campaigns, I stand amazed. THESE are the only two parties deemed superior enough to legislate from Congress or serve as President?

  • There are only two assumptions we can make at this point:

    1. She’s completely engulfed in her bubble and it has rendered her ignorant of the facts surrounding her chances to win the nomination in 2008.

    2. She’s well aware she’s out of the current race, but hopes she’ll get a second chance in 2012 which would only be possible if Obama loses in November.

    Honestly, I think she’s too smart for the first option, but just devious and ambitious enough for option two. I will donate to anyone who runs against her in New York.

  • Clinton is simply throwing sand in the umpire’s eyes. She knows that many voters, particularly many of her louder supporters, are poorly informed and have no intention of rectifying that shortcoming. So many voters don’t even know that her “popular vote” scenario only works if you not only screw Michiganders but also completely omit four states who followed the rules; some more fantasy-prone Clintonites seem to truly believe that the superdelegates will rise up and reverse course to save her; a few of her real dead-enders actually tell themselves that this will go to a second ballot at the convention. There is no limit to what her cultists (thankfully, a distinct minority) can convince themselves is true–or to the amount of factual evidence they have to set aside to believe it.

    A friend thinks Clinton’s sole goal now is to create smoke and mirrors that leave the credulous with the impression that the nomination was unfairly taken from her. That friend may be right–Clinton certainly doesn’t want the public memory to be of a candidate who started with every advantage and threw them all away through arrogance and incompetence.

  • How this is supposed to help the Democratic Party win the White House in November is unclear.

    It is not. Helping Hillary comes first and all else is secondary.

  • Could the voters who stayed home sue the party if Fla & Mi delegates are seated?

  • Please make all this go away. I just want McCain. That’s all. Lots and lots of posts knocking McCain.

    Doc, you may get your wish—four years’ worth, if she drags this into Credentials.

    Here’s the frightening scenario: The Convention is only scheduled for “X” number of days. Delegates only have so much room-time, then they have to vacate their hotel rooms. The Center’s only booked for a certain time, so they’ll have to move the meeting outside. Delegates also only have so much time before the arrival/departure times on their airline tickets—they’ll have to go home after such-n-such a timeframe.

    All she’ll need to do is get her people to stay an extra day or two, while the Obama delegates go home.

    This is the scenario—and if the supers cannot settle thing thing within the next week or two, then we’re looking at a usurped nomination process—and the nightmare of Macainist dogma.

  • I cannot believe the amount of ink and number of electrons that have been devoted to this manufactured controversy.

    The DNC had rules and told states what would happen if they chose to violate those rules. MI and FL legislature’s ignored the rules and warnings and their constituents suffered the consequences. The presidential candidates were aware of the situation as were voters who cast ballots — and those who chose not to vote knowing their votes wouldn’t count. Those were the rules and they were understood.

    If there can be disenfranchisement in a party primary, MI and FL Democrats were disenfranchised by their state legislatures. Yes, it sucks, but what allowed this to happen are structural flaws in the Democratic primary process, and thus separate matters that the DNC needs to address after this primary is over — not by changing rules while it’s going on.

  • D-Day is now June 6th, 2008. If the Clintons give any indication of continuing their ignoble, losing fight after that date, it is a full indicator that they desire to destroy Obama’s probable victory in November so that she can run again in 2012.

    If they do not cease their war on the democratic party by that date, I challenge all persons who care about their country and cannot abide by a McSame presidency to join me in all-out, full-scale war upon the Clintons.

    If the superdelegates cannot force the Clintons to face reality by that date, all democrats need to take action. To allow the Billary machine to disrupt Obama’s campaign against McCrap for another 2 to 3 months greatly increases the likelihood that McBush will be the next president. This is a disaster for our country that we should not and cannot idly permit.

  • I don’t think it’s going to be quite that bad. No matter what happens with the RBC this weekend, and no matter what the Clinton campaign’s response, I think we’re going to see a strongly united party moving forward with our nominee, concentrating on the general election and simply ignoring her. There will be an outpouring of Obama supers starting June 4 and the loose ends will come together with a vengeance.

    There really isn’t anything that can prevent her from taking this to the convention if she wants to (even if she were to get everything she wanted from the RBC, which assuredly ain’t happening, she can keep going under the argument that delegate votes aren’t final until they’re made on the convention floor. It doesn’t matter to her that the likelihood of supers reversing course between now and then is smaller than, say, her getting hit by lightning).

    What will finally stop her, if she continues this madness, is lack of funds. She won’t get a dime from anyone but a few dead-end small donors, she’s already $20 million-plus in debt and continuing a campaign through the summer costs big money she doesn’t have and can’t get now.

    The party will move forward regardless of what Clinton does. We will not have a second balloting at the convention. This primary process is over and everyone else knows it.

  • Apparently there are large numbers of voters supporting Hillary, enough to claim half if not a majority of the popular vote and this cannot be so easily discounted by those here who continually attack her. Those people are thinking why doesn’t Obama just step out of the way and quit dividing the party. The inexperienced senator has campaigned more than he has legislated and has a number of people fooled, etc etc etc. The “majority” of the “people” want Hillary etc etc.

    Remember, millions of people support her and continually calling her names and attributing her motivations to evil intentions only alienates these millions of people. Have more faith, Obama should just continue like he is and we don’t have to tear Clinton down to build Obama up. I read more about Clinton negatives than Obama’s positives and eventually we will have to deal with this alienation.

    No matter how we deal with FL & MI eventually we will have a democratic nominee that we need to get into the WH. I believe it will be Obama but feel that Clinton isn’t doing anything her supporters (at least half the “democratic” party) don’t want her to do and these supporters want the same kinds of changes Obama wants…they are not the evil ones being controlled by an evil witch. They are much like Obama supporters in what they want to see happen with a new administration only they feel their candidate can better deliver it. There is no “loser” here, only one who gets the nominatioin. There isn’t that much difference between their policies and both need to follow the party’s platform for change. Neither are that progressive or they wouldn’t have profiteers (private ins companies) in their national health care plans.

  • Not sure here on what the big hubbub is about disenfranchisement. People lose voting power in all kinds of ways — gerrymandering of congressional districts, the power of incumbency, the power of money in deciding front runners, winner take all rules in the electoral college voting, the usual pattern of capturing nominations in early primary states, etc. A lot of the system undermines any sense of fairness. Unfortunately, MI and FL chose a path that undermined their attempt to increase the power of their voters. Too freaking bad, but they blatantly broke the rules.

  • The problem with this scenario for the Clintons is that the Credential Committee will be made up of the delegates already selected i.e. Obama will have control of the committee at the convention. In order to overturn the RBC, she would have to get either pledged or PLEO delegates to switch from Obama to her to gain control of the Credentials Committee.

    So this would be largely a exercise in party disruption with little chance of success.

  • To The Other Ed @ 29:

    “So this would be largely a exercise in party disruption with little chance of success.”

    It would be a success if the objective is to destroy Obama’s chances against McCrap in November. It would be a success is the objective is to prevent a Democrat from gaining the presidency so that she can run again in 2012.

  • Sure, just give a big FU to the 2.5 million voters who showed up to vote in MI & FL.

    Obama is going to LOSE in Florida, and very likely the entire GE, and his supporters could give a damn about constitutional rights of voters who are being disenfranchised because it favors their savior in the short term, and then turn around and call us names and insult us.. frankly, I’m sick of it.

  • That’s why the RBC should go with the 50% penalty. Exactly the same as the Republicans imposed on MI/FL, negating any value in the General Election and allowing the Democratic candidate to compete on an even field without any FL/MI voter resentment.

  • SadOldVet @ 24,

    If they do not cease their war on the democratic party by that date, I challenge all persons who care about their country and cannot abide by a McSame presidency to join me in all-out, full-scale war upon the Clintons.

    If it comes to that – and I sincerely hope the Clintons retain a vestige of self-respect and it does not come to that – count me in.

  • The Dems cant win without the AA vote. If Hillary, by whatever means, gets the nomination very many AAs(& others) will stay home. The SDs have to end this next week, leaving absolutely no doubt that they are solidly, permanently behind Obama. Their platforms may be similar but the candidates are definitely not. Obama has the potential to be a great leader, Hillary is just a functionary. Drastic changes are coming to America, whether we want them or not. Old school backroom politics wont hold the seams of our society together. Obama may be the person to hold us together, Hillary couldn’t do it. How many inspiring speeches has she given lately?

  • That’s why the RBC should go with the 50% penalty. Exactly the same as the Republicans imposed on MI/FL, negating any value in the General Election and allowing the Democratic candidate to compete on an even field without any FL/MI voter resentment.

    Exactly right.

    and Greg @ 31, give it a rest.

  • Dear Greg,

    *I* am not calling anybody names. But the one thing *I* am sick of is people who think the rules should be changed in the middle of the game.

    If MI and FL were to have counted, don’t you think that both Obama and Clinton would have played their cards differently? It’s *impossible* to predict what the resulting vote would have been. The fact is, both were playing by the rules at the time. One of them decided later that they no longer liked the rules.

    -Franklin

  • What happened to FlaMi voters happened before anyone even suspected that Obama would be the front runner.

  • Greg,

    Did you read the article? Your rant seems copied and pasted from all of your other identical rants. Obama and his supporters are not to blame for the loss of delegates, and if you’d even perused the article you’d realize it’s beyond anyone’s ability to seat the entire delegation legally.

    I’ve always said they should get half of their delegates, and that seems like the maximum anyone can do legally at this point.

    But ultimately, it’s irrelevant. That would not give Hillary the lead in anything, including her claim to the popular vote, unless of course you arbitrarily discount several other states. Since you seem so vehement concerning your ‘disenfranchising,’ would you be so cavalier to do the same to others?

  • Greg,

    I’m guessing you already know this, but there is no “constituational right” to vote in a political party’s nomination process. Rather, it is the political parties themselves which have the constitutional right of free association to establish their own internal rules for selecting a candidate that will represent them on ballots. It could be done without any voter input whatsoever. Did you notice how those lawsuits in Florida keep getting thrown out? That’s why.

    There are prudential reasons for the DNC to reach some kind of compromise with respect to MI and FL – but it’s not a question of “voting rights” or “disenfranchisement” or “suffrage” or any of the other hyperbolic analogies tossed around by Clinton and her supporters.

  • “Because if the campaign can, somehow, get the non-binding Florida and Michigan contests to count, Clinton may be in a position to claim that she won the popular vote.”

    …and thereby disenfranchising people in MI and FL who DIDN’T VOTE because they were told their vote did not count. And I’m willing to hazard a guess: Not all of ’em would’ve voted for Clinton.

    This is why the whole discussion sucks. Unless the candidates agree to stand by their original SIGNED PLEDGE not to seat the delegates from those two states, then no matter what is decided, there are bound to be people who are left out.

    Voters in MI & FL knew in advance what the deal was. To a degree, I agree the primary calendar sucks and believe there should be 6 regional primaries, one every 3-4 weeks. This gives the candidates time to spend in each region, but stops this “Iowa & New Hanmpshire are always first it’s a tradition” horse hockey.” 6 regional primaries, and the regions’ order varies each election season, so every region gets a chance to, eventually, be first.

    But I digress. MI & FL voters knew their votes wouldn’t count, and as much as it sucks for them, it was at least a definitive answer, and a definitive punishment for those states breaking the rules. Had no one tried to break the rules…AGAIN…this would not be an issue.

    NOW who gets to be disappointed? Clinton has made it clear that nothing less than 100% delegate representation is acceptable, and now it’s clear she won’t get what she wants unless she takes it to the convention.

    The one thing that MIGHT end this would be if whoever’s on that committee were to stand up NOW and say “I, for one, will not vote to allow a hearing on this matter. As far as Im’ concerned, the case is closed.” Clinton would be angry, her supporters will be angry, but they should be angry at her for getting their hopes up. And the rest of us can concentrate on McCain.

  • I believe Greg has been asked several times why, in his quest for total “franchisement” through the legitimization of two sham primaries, he’s perfectly okay with throwing out four entire states that the DNC judged compliant with its rules: Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington.

    Oddly, he never answers. Maybe that’s not covered at the McCain talking points corral?

  • “So, why bother? Because if the campaign can, somehow, get the non-binding Florida and Michigan contests to count, Clinton may be in a position to claim that she won the popular vote. That might not be enough to change superdelegates’ minds in the 11th hour…” – SB

    That is exactly right, except you miss the rule about Super Delegates. Their votes are not fixed by the Obama Campaign fantasy that the pledged delegates have to determine how they can vote. As Obama will not have 2025 pledged delegates on June 3rd, either candidate would have to have Super Delegates to win. Therefore there is no reason for Senator Clinton not to try and get their votes, and winning the ‘Popular Vote’ is an agrument she wants to make, which will be easier (and maybe only possible) by including the totals from Florida and Michigan. So I expect that the Clinton Campaign will be pleased as punch if they get only half the delegations seated, because they will argue that all the popular vote (not halved) should count to make their argument.

    “The DNC had rules and told states what would happen if they chose to violate those rules. MI and FL legislature’s ignored the rules and warnings and their constituents suffered the consequences. The presidential candidates were aware of the situation as were voters who cast ballots — and those who chose not to vote knowing their votes wouldn’t count. Those were the rules and they were understood.” – beep52

    As I understand it Michigan’s primary was moved forward by the Democratic Party in that state.

    Florida’s primary was moved up by the Republican controlled legislature. After which the Democratic Party of FL begged the DNC for a waiver to have their primary early.

    Exactly the same waiver that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina had to get for having their caucuses and primaries before Feb 5th.

    And yes, Florida is trying to appeal to the Supreme Court (just on CNN).

    As for the Super Delegates, they are holding out for one of three reasons:
    1) They support Clinton and want to have a reason to vote for her,
    2) They think that the Democratic Party should be able to choose it’s Vice Presidential candidate ‘democratically’, rather then by the most undemocratic manner possible (by one man or woman),
    3) They want to force the eventual nominee to run on their issues (the environment, gay marriage, abortion rights?).

    The last Super Delegate to tip over and win the nominee the nomination is effectively the most powerful man or woman in the party.

  • It would be a success is the objective is to prevent a Democrat from gaining the presidency so that she can run again in 2012. — SadOldVet, @30

    While I do believe Hillary has lost her bearings, I don’t believe she could have lost them to *that* extent. If she were to run in ’12, just who would vote for her in the primaries? Not even all of the people who’d voted for her this time; CA and NJ are already having “buyers’ remorse” and more would view such behaviour as unacceptable. And, even more to the point… Who’d finance her quixotic run? She had had a lot of big time donors this time around. But most of them are pragmatists, not ideologues (you don’t make pots of money being a dewy-eyed idealist). When you give milk, you expect to get some butter in return or, at the very least, some cream. But, her sponsors gave milk and she blew it; all they got was a bit of thin whey. Why should they risk investing again, when her chances of winning would be slim (this time around, her chances at the beginning looked sterling solid).

    Besides… This has had to have been a grueling campaign for her; she doesn’t look anywhere near as fresh now as she had in, say, December. Would she be willing to go through the same meat-grinder 4yrs down the road, when she’ll be older and have less energy?

  • Lance, let me ask you something. Do you really think that the remaining 200 uncommitted superdelegates, plus a number of previously committed supers and/or pledged delegates, are going to turn around and begin supporting Clinton now?

    Please don’t tell me that anything is possible. I want to know exactly how probable you think this is–straight up. And if dozens of uncommitted superdelegates come over to Obama after June 3, what then? Do you believe that even larger numbers than the 245 Clinton needs now are likely to change their minds between now and August? If so, why?

  • “As I understand it Michigan’s primary was moved forward by the Democratic Party in that state.” — Lance

    Right you are, thanks.

  • Lance said The last Super Delegate to tip over and win the nominee the nomination is effectively the most powerful man or woman in the party.

    Yeah s/he is the Joe Lieberman of Democrats.

  • Florida’s primary was moved up by the Republican controlled legislature. After which the Democratic Party of FL begged the DNC for a waiver to have their primary early.

    False. See
    Note the timeline on page 34

  • Wow. Clinton must really hate being a Senator. How desperate can she get? This so very much needs to be finished by June 3rd. Then she can start chewing on that mountain of sour grapes she’s built up during this campaign. 😛

  • “I believe Greg has been asked several times why, in his quest for total “franchisement” through the legitimization of two sham primaries, he’s perfectly okay with throwing out four entire states that the DNC judged compliant with its rules: Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington.

    Oddly, he never answers. Maybe that’s not covered at the McCain talking points corral?”

    It’s different when it happens to other people.

  • Well I see the media people, journalists, anchors, etc…thinking only in the candidates, but have they thinking in the VOTERS MIND? specially voters in Florida and Michigan, both with about 4 millions voters?
    Who has the final decision in November 4? The super delegates of the voters?
    In democracy the right to vote, choose by vote is a principle, constitutional right in my knowdge, but I see, internal the Party is like a private Club where the leadership intelligent or not, rules some times against themselves like DNC. Who present the discrimination rule against only some states and others no??? DNC allow other states do the primaries before February 2nd, but MI and FL no?????
    I am dissapointed with the DNC as millions in FL and across the nation and a can predict in the future that the Democrat Party will loose population, credibility, suppoters and more. What a shame!!!!

  • Question: What is the single determining factor to secure the Democratic Nomination?

    A) Leading in the Popular Vote
    B) Winning the most Big States
    C) Appear in June to have a higher Electoral Vote margin project for November
    D) Win the most Swing States
    E) None of the Above

    The correct answer is ‘E’.

    The ONLY metric that determines the Democratic Party’s nominee is DELEGATES.

    Superdelegates account for 20% of the total. What is their popular vote total? 796. Is that fair since they hold the weight of almost 8 ‘unsuper’ voters? Aren’t they “undemocratically” deciding a nominee without using popular votes?

    Keep in mind that most caucus states do not (and did not) rely on a certified tally of popular vote participation. Districts simply meet and vote on a delegate for a local area. And it is that single delegate that counts – not the 150 people that showed up to vote.

    States that ran primaries kept a record of voters, but all that matters at the end of the day is the delegates those voters secured for their candidate of choice.

    The Denver convention center can’t hold 35 million people all at once. So we pick delegates to keep the fire marshall happy. And because we live in a Republic (not a raw Democracy).

    Also keep in mind that some states are weighted differently than others. So a vote in California may weigh more than a vote in Alaska.

    Finally, the proportional awarding of delegates rewards a higher margin of victory of the raw vote total. That’s why Clinton earned more net delegates from West Virginia (41pt margin) than Pennsylvania (9pt margin). And that’s why Obama netted 140 delegates in Feb with those 11 straight lopsided wins.

  • So let’s see, if senator Clinton wants the people who voted for her to have a voice, then she’s trying to get McCain elected ??

    Obama is winning the nomination because the whole process was changed cause Jesse Jackson complained about “all or nothing” (otherwise Senator Clinton would LONG be the nominee). Is that fair ???

    Obama wins in EITHER states where the black vote is close to 50% OR where he outspends Hillary 3:1 in advertising trying to make her out to be a demon. Is that fair ???

    Obama refuses to let Michigan count (he was “smart” — he pulled his name OFF the ballot cause he KNEW HE WOULD LOSE) …. and only wants to seat “some” delegates from Florida (even though neither campaigned there). IS THAT FAIR ????

    No, of course it is not fair !!! But, if you are a woman then you should politely bow out (of the race) because otherwise you get called a racist.

    IS THAT FAIR !!!?????

  • Comments are closed.