Florida's Delegation: What Now?

For the superdelegates, the Ausman Challenge.

For the rest... in staccato format...

(a) A fight at the rules and bylaws committee meeting in April... the RBC does not, as of today, have a meeting scheduled for April. But I suspect that the Florida Democratic Party will formally file a challenge and will request an RBC meeting in April...

(b) the RBC, which has veteran DNC rule sticklers as well as Clinton and Obama partisans on it, may well debate and rule, or may table the petition until July, when jurisdiction is taken over by the credentials committee.

(c) A negotiated settlement is not likely -- at least formally -- because there is no mechanism for it. The only mechanism for seating delegates is through (a) DNC sanctioned re-votes or (b) RBC/credentials committee resolutions adopted at the conventions. If not A then B. If not A or B, then the delegations will not be seated. Process "B" will play out.

Very senior aides to Hillary Clinton are not in a compromising mood. The Obama campaign may float a 52-48% delegate compromise... we'll see.

The only other folks who are floating the idea for a compromise are DNC members and members of Congress who want their delegates seated.

But a compromise would have to be iron out through the rules / credentials process.

Howard Dean cannot wave his magic wand and deem it so.

Comments

There is no way that the DNC will keep the January FL delegation from getting seats. They want to win in November, too.

I'm just shocked that (GOPer...) Crist stayed out of the re-vote mess. He's half of the reason that the vote was illegal.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 18, 2008 8:25 AM

hello and good morning and can I say FUCK the senior Clinton aides who "aren't in a compromising mood." These people have lost this election, not because they had a bad candidate, but because they ran an arrogant, entitled campaign. Weren't so interested in Florida and Michigan when they though they had this wrapped up on Super Tuesday? Oh well, we're in no mood to negotiate. How about you're in no PLACE to negotiate. God damn, I'm sick of Clinton's aides.

Posted by Kristen | March 18, 2008 8:34 AM

Kirsten, you seem to have a solution for the problem that worked for Eliot.

You are the same Kirsten?

Posted by D | March 18, 2008 8:43 AM

I voted in Florida for Hillary. I want my vote to count, my full vote... I still want Hillary, I would vote Hillary again if neccesary.
So, if Obama gets the nomination I now have to weigh:

1. Vote to get out of the Iraq war.

2. Put someone who is in conjunctin with Nation of Islam in the White house.

3. Not vote and see what happens.

"These people" havn't lost anything. The Super Delegates will see that Obama is tied with dangerous, racist people. I'm sorry but the Obama follower's out there need to realize this and rally to support Hillary. He's lied about his association with these people. They're in his campaigns! Can't you see this!? How dangerous this is?!? You cannot give these people any kind of power, you're asking for the downfall of this country! Research! Be Cautious! Most people didn't even know what Obama stood for when they voted for him, but now they know!

Posted by Brian C. | March 18, 2008 9:55 AM

Party elders, end the misery. Step in, call out the Clintons, explain to people that Obama has already won the nomination and he has done so by playing by the rules, and explain that if we want to have good leaders, we have to judge them on what they say and do, not on the political tact of their pastor's sermons.

Posted by alex | March 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Brian C.,
Quite simply you are an idiot willing to played by fools and jesters. Please go vote for McCain.

Posted by bjd | March 18, 2008 10:12 AM

That is quite the Life of Brian story here.

Posted by D | March 18, 2008 10:14 AM

Clinton is only behind in the popular vote by 80,642. I included Michigan and Florida because the popular vote has nothing to do with delegates or DNC rules, it is merely an indication of who the majority of Democrats want as their nominee.

After Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico, Clinton will clearly have received the majority of votes in this primary election. She will also most likely have the momentum going into the election, because the remaining states are somewhat to her what February's string of elections were for Obama.

Obama's supporters can continue to argue that this is about delegates, but I hope that the superdelegates consider the will of the majority of Democrats when they cast their vote. Obama's campaign can continue to support disenfranchising voters, and support caucuses in states that do not allow working people or those in the military overseas to participate, but that attitude has already cost him both Michigan and Florida in the general election.

I'm from Florida, and I voted for Clinton and I want my vote to count. Most of my friends here agree: if Obama does not support seating Florida's delegates at the convention, in full, based upon the results of our primary in which 1.7 million Democrats voted, then Obama will NEVER get our vote.

Posted by Ian | March 18, 2008 10:27 AM

FL is the most impt swing state in the country and the DNC needs to kiss it's a$$... seating it's delegates at the convention after a revote would be a start.

FL needs to revote so voters can get to know and love the Democratic candidates.

There cannot be a 52-48% split of the delegates b/c Hillary won the delegates 50-33%, even after Obama advertised on TV in FL.

Posted by Jack | March 18, 2008 10:27 AM

FL is the most impt swing state in the country and the DNC needs to kiss its a$$... seating it's delegates at the convention after a revote would be a start.

FL needs to revote so voters can get to know and love the Democratic candidates.

There cannot be a 52-48% split of the delegates b/c Hillary won the delegates 50-33%, even after Obama advertised on TV in FL.

Posted by Jack | March 18, 2008 10:27 AM

"I voted in Florida for Hillary. I want my vote to count, my full vote..."

The people you should be screaming at are FL's state Dem. leadership. They knew the consequences for moving the vote, and did so anyway.

Counting the votes already cast is bullshit, since Edwards and Obama played by the party rules, as they did in Michigan. They didn't campaign in either place, and did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan. Clinton's willingness to give her own party the finger, and then disengenuously claim to be taking the part of "disenfranchised" voters is ludicrous. If Obama had won those contests, there's no doubt she'd be arguing that they should NOT count. How anyone can support her after the sheer amount of shenanigans and blatant lust for power displayed is beyond me.

Counting the Florida and Michigan votes as originally cast is wrong and unfair. Voters in those states have only their own Democratic leadership to blame, since the national party was very clear on what would happen if those two states ignored party rules.

Posted by Michael | March 18, 2008 10:47 AM

"Obama's campaign can continue to support disenfranchising voters, and support caucuses in states that do not allow working people or those in the military overseas to participate, but that attitude has already cost him both Michigan and Florida in the general election."

Following the established rules of his own party is what "cost" him the election in those states. Obama did not "disenfranchise" voters in either state; the Florida and Michigan state leadership did. They knowingly moved the primary dates after having the DNC clearly delineate the consequences.

Posted by Michael | March 18, 2008 10:53 AM

"The people you should be screaming at are FL's state Dem. leadership. They knew the consequences for moving the vote, and did so anyway."

You should get your facts straight. The florida primary was moved for both parties by law (not by dem's choice) passed by a repblican legislature and signed by Crisp, a republican govenor. The DNC unfairly stripped Florida of its delegates for somethong the Florida democrats had no control over.

Its obvious from the tone of the messages here that obamma will get very votes in florida in the fall.

Congratulations to the Florida Republicans for ensuring the election of John McCain in November.

Posted by wayne mcclintock | March 18, 2008 12:07 PM

Of course Obama does not want a revote - he will lose- again.

He is in full stall mode in FLA & MI. Not too impressive for a man with all that high talk.

He is just your average cold, calculating politician - the primary difference is that he has wrapped it up neatly in a package of flowery talk (never mind that it is all nonsense and bs).

He is now so fully wounded from the expose of his lying and poor judgement on the Wright matter that it really doesn't matter.

HRC is no better, but Barak Obama is 100% unelectable now.

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 12:46 PM

Wayne, did the Florida State Democratic party protest the move? It's been my understanding that it was done with their at least tacit approval.

And even if the move was purely political positioning on the part of the Republicans, it's extremely unfair to reward Hillary Clinton for refusing to follow her own party's decision while Edwards and Obama complied.

Posted by Michael | March 18, 2008 12:59 PM

Obama is clearly stalling on the MI and FL votes. He knows if there were a re-vote in these states - and by re-vote talking about a true primary, not some caucus - it is highly likely he would lose both, and in FL quite possibly by a substantial margin. So, what HRC would get out of these do-over votes is not just delegates, but a chance to a) increase her popular vote total, with a good chance of actually overtaking Obama in the popular vote; and b) a real opportunity to demonstrate to the superdelegates that she is more electable then Obama. Bottom line is this: If there were somehow a re-vote in FL and MI and HRC won both, and actually passed Obama in the popular vote, she would have a very compelling case to make to the supers to support her as the "safer" choice. From Obama's perspective, the best deal might be to agree to actually sit the FL delegation under the existing 50%-33% structure. Yes - HRC will pick up delegates, but not nearly enough to overtake him, plus Obama will both look magnanimous and more importantly overcome the possibility of a big and humilating loss in a major state.

Posted by Alan Kingman | March 18, 2008 1:05 PM

I am a lifetime Republican but I am considering voting for Barack Obama this year. Many republicans are upset with McCain and have total disdain for Hillary so Obama is the only viable choice for most of us. Hillary has done an outstanding job slicing and dicing Obama on superficial non-issues, enabled by her media admirers and now he is falling behind McCain in national polling.

It is a shame that the Democrats have turned on one another and Clinton, in the throes of drowning, has effectively pulled Obama under with her while McCain rows merrily by on his way up the Potomac to the White House.

Posted by Porchhound | March 18, 2008 1:19 PM

I am a Democrat who supports and voted for HRC. Although I've had some reservations about Obama's readiness to be President, my plan has been all along to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee was in the November election. However, based on everything I have learned about Obama recently, if he is the nominee I will be voting for John McCain in November. Its beyond all reasonable belief to imagine that Obama was friends with Reverend Wright and a member of his Church for TWENTY years, and yet had no idea of his nutty and racist beliefs and never heard one of his sermons when he spoke like this. I know if I ever heard or was even aware of my pastor speaking like this, I'd find a different church ASAP.

Posted by Mark | March 18, 2008 1:20 PM

When the race began, it seems no one knew the outlaw FL and MI delegations might be needed to reach 2025. If we want to avoid a floor fight or an election determined by superdelegates then dividing FL and MI down the middle is the way to go. Obama isn't going to allow any scheme that keeps Clinton on life support even longer, nor should he.

OBAMA '08

Posted by B. Mull | March 18, 2008 2:34 PM

The florida vote turnout was very low because people knew it would not count. Other states with Obama campaigning were overwhelmed with the turnout. The Florida vote percentages and delegates do not really represent voter preferences and should not be counted.

Posted by Jim | March 18, 2008 2:44 PM

Florida screws up another election. Florida Democratic apologists argue that the GOP legislature and Gov. Crist moved the date and Demos had no control to stop it. Florida Democrats could have sponsored a referendum to have different primary election dates for Democrats and Republicans as they do in Louisiana and several other states. Florida Democrats also could have filed an emergency suit to prevent the GOP from moving up the election. However Florida Democratic Party leaders didn't show too much anger or disgust when the primary was moved. Florida residents can raise hell when they want and Florida Democrats should have gotten out in the streets when it became clear Florida Republicans were manipulating the Democratic Party election process. The party should stick to its guns and not seat the Florida delegation, or to allow the Florida delegation in the convention with delegates allocated to a 50-50 split between Hillary and Obama. If anything comes out of this, it will send a message to New Hampshire and Iowa that they will suffer the same fate of Michigan and Florida if in 2012 if the DNC decides to allow states other than New Hampshire and Iowa to be the first primaries. And unlike Florida and Michigan, nobody will miss the handful of Iowa and New Hampshire delegates if we're in this situation four years from now.

Posted by harryo | March 18, 2008 4:00 PM

I hate to say a convention without Florida delegates is nonsensical. Or at the least, the Democrats should simply tie a bow and hand Florida to McCain.

Oh well there's always the Supreme Court

Posted by justice | March 18, 2008 4:44 PM

Of course Obama does not want a revote - he will lose- again.
He is in full stall mode in FLA & MI. Not too impressive for a man with all that high talk.
He is just your average cold, calculating politician - the primary difference is that he has wrapped it up neatly in a package of flowery talk (never mind that it is all nonsense and bs).
He is now so fully wounded from the expose of his lying and poor judgement on the Wright matter that it really doesn't matter.
HRC is no better, but Barak Obama is 100% unelectable now.

Fred, based on your ignorance and arguing methods I'm guessing you're an older white American solidly in Hillary's camp. Newsflash: Clinton won't win the election. She (and Bill) have thoroughly stripped away any semblance of credibility in the campaign season. Add that to her baggage from '92-'00 (Whitewater, Paula Jones, pardongate, etc, etc, etc ad naseum) - she's toast. To quote a great movie - "I see dead people but they don't they're dead".

Good luck on your little dream ride -

Posted by Dave M. | March 18, 2008 4:56 PM

~
Dave,

Florida voters came out in force and voted overwhelmingly for Senator Clinton.

Why shouldn't their votes count?

Your buddy, BO, ran ads in Florida, in defiance of his vaunted "rules." He then claimed that she won because she had more name recognition.

Every word out of his mouth is lame, lame, lame.

You kool-aid drinkers are going to have to face the truth eventually.

He is not now, nor was he ever, electable.

You've been had.

~

Posted by DickeyFuller | March 18, 2008 5:07 PM

Check your facts on the ads that were run. Part of the issue was other state "drip" over, part of it was packaged with lower level Democrats. He (and Edwards) stuck to the agreement and didn't campaign there. Unlike Hillary, who pulled usual "Clintonian" manuever.

How many hundreds of thousands didn't vote, knowing the delegates wouldn't be seated? Why would the legislature knowingly set their date despite warnings from the RNC & DNC the delegates wouldn't be seated?

While I never believed Obama would win Florida (too many NY old folks there), he certainly would fight a fair fight and keep her win to single digits. Once people saw he was a plausible candidate in early February he won 12 straight races. 12 straight races. He would win Michigan handily (I would venture 53-47).

The only way Hillary becomes the candidate is through a scam, and then watch as 35% of the democratic party turns their back on her in Nov. Again, she is unelectable.

Posted by Dave M. | March 18, 2008 5:28 PM

Please sign this petition to GET FL DELEGATES SEATED. IT WILL HELP.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/seatourdelegates/index.html

Posted by John | March 18, 2008 6:59 PM

"I voted for Hillary in Florida and I want my vote to count."

Well, your beef is with your Party's national committee and National Chairman, Doctor Dean, the magnificent man in the dysfunctional machine. The Florida Legislature passed the primary date on a bipartisan basis knowing that it defied the will of both national parties. The Democ-rats took one action and the Republicans another. Democ-rats Senator Nelson and impeached and removed Federal Judge Congressman Hastings went to Federal Court and the Judge there said this is a private matter by a Party allowed to set its own rules.

Now the Democ-rats (or at least one of them) want the State government to use its employees, detracting them from their other [taxpayer paid] duties to facilitate the correction of the Democ-rat Party's mistake. Too bad Democ-rats--we taxpayers will not stand for it and even the Democ-rat legislators realize this and are putting their own reelections ahead of the needs of Doctor Dean and his dysfunctional machine!

Posted by David S. Levine | March 18, 2008 7:42 PM

Lets be real with what this election is for Clinton. Its an attempt to reach her ultimate goal at whatever cost. Some would compare this to Reese Witherspoon in the movie Election. I prefer to go with the Moby-Dick comparison. Hillary Clinton is like Captain Ahab, the Democratic party is the ship and the crew, and the position of President is the white whale. Hillary clinton would bring down the democratic party in order to reach her ultimate goal of becoming president, just as Captain Ahab took down his ship, crew, and ultimately himself all to catch the white whale. Hillary, please for all of us who are actually concerned with the status of this country, drop out.

Posted by aj | March 19, 2008 3:49 AM

You should delete "Kristen"s obscenities. This sort of obscenity is inappropriate

Posted by Norbert | March 19, 2008 8:53 AM

Why would a compromise of 52%-48%,Clinton-Obama,be considered as fair? Obama did not win 48% of the vote. Reduce the Florida delegation by half,apportion the delegates per the per centage that each candidate won and the remainder of the delegates would be converted to super delegate status. Just give Obama all of John Edward's delegates? I don't think so!! By the time this nominating process is over,no matter the outcome,Obama supporters, in and out of the media, will be able to describe and inummerate each of his hemoroids.

Posted by Al C. | March 19, 2008 9:54 AM

Ian says: "Obama's supporters can continue to argue that this is about delegates, but I hope that the superdelegates consider the will of the majority of Democrats when they cast their vote. Obama's campaign can continue to support disenfranchising voters, and support caucuses in states that do not allow working people or those in the military overseas to participate, but that attitude has already cost him both Michigan and Florida in the general election."

I really don't see why the "popular" vote is relevant, or what it means in this case. First, Ian says it's the will of the majority of Democrats. But that's not what we have. Some states had primaries where only Democrats could vote, some allowed independents, some allowed everyone, including some Republicans who may have deliberately been voting for who they thought was the weaker candidate. So it's unclear whose "will" is represented by adding up all those votes, and it's certainly not the will of registered Democrats.

Second, it's unfair to blame a candidate for doing well in caucuses. Both candidates played under the same rules, which were in force long before anyone knew who the candidates were even going to be. One can argue that caucuses are less "representative" than primaries. But all the candidates had the same shot at playing the system as it was.

Third, it's unfair just to add caucus votes to primary vote totals. If states and candidates had been told that the overall popular vote was going to be important, states might have chosen a different process and candidates might have run their campaigns differently. We can't know what those results would have been today; all we know is how the candidates fared in the delegate contests that they were given.

Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but it didn't make him president. If the candidates knew that the popular vote was going to matter, Bush might have spent more time in New York and California, but he didn't because it was electoral votes that mattered, and going to states safely in one camp or the other would have been a waste of time. As much as I would like to see a popular vote system, that wasn't the rule, and that wasn't how the candidates campaigned.

So: the Democratic candidates were given a delegate contest, not a "popular vote" contest; we can't just add caucuses to primaries; and we don't know what the primary total would mean even if we did add it up. Just because a number is given the name "popular vote" doesn't mean it means anything or is relevant. So I don't understand why people don't look at it to see if it's worth considering.

(And to include Michigan in the totals seems absurd to me. Every candidate but one removed his name from the ballot and we count the results? What kind of democratic process is that?)

Posted by dsimon | March 19, 2008 10:21 AM