Why Floridians Get No Votes

Ezra Klein takes a look at Hillary Clinton's complete and utter assent to the "Florida doesn't count" principle until her recent ex post facto efforts at a backtrack. Money quote from HRC's campaign manager commenting at the time on the DNC's decision to strip Florida of its delegates:

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Trying to wriggle out of that sort of thing at this point is just lame. The rules are arbitrary and unfair to tons of people in tons of states across this great nation of ours, but Clinton agreed to play by them and that's all anyone's asking her to do now.

Comments

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this duplicitous strategy (with the hope that no one notices).

Posted by Billary | January 30, 2008 4:49 PM

Obama wins NY Post endorsement
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm

A slap in the face to Billary

Posted by Ann | January 30, 2008 4:52 PM

Matt, quick, before I start a baseless conspiracy theory - what happened to the CEO pay post?

Posted by Slippery Pete | January 30, 2008 4:55 PM

Speaking of New York, anyone else see the new poll (PPP, I believe) showing Clinton leading 45-33-10? Isn't that... kind of a narrow lead for her home state?

Posted by jbryan | January 30, 2008 4:57 PM

Billary is about getting and keeping the power. The rest is details for losers, including covering shrub's ass on the war, criminalizing flag burning, supporting Kyl-Lieberman, suing to stop caucases in Nevada, and her Florida flip-flop. Go away Billary.

Posted by john o. | January 30, 2008 4:58 PM

In the beginning, Hillary was ahead due to greater name recognition in all the states. Then as Obama became more widely known and appreciated, Hillary became sneakier. Obama did not campaign in FL, (being determined to follow the rules) and although some of his supporters may have tried on their own to get the word out, it was not, (as with Hillary), a pre-planned media event whereby he would show up (like Hillary) in FL at the end. Hill/Bill not only lie but cheat. Obama is honest Abe.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | January 30, 2008 4:59 PM

I hope all of the Obama supporters who were so upset by the prospect of denying voters the right to vote in Nevada when evil, Machiavellian Clinton supporters tried to stop caucusing inside of the big casinos will now once again declaim self-righteously about the principle every vote should count. I'm waiting . . .

I live in Florida. I voted yesterday. The idea that my vote was some kind of beauty contest or symbolic or a joke makes me want to puke. The fact that I voted for Edwards and my state's delegates were won by HRC is of no matter to me. We had an election in Florida and once again smart people around the country are bloviating on why the actual results of our election do not matter.

MY, does it even occur to you that there are other people with a stake in having our votes count than Hillary Clinton? Whatever stance she took at whatever point in time is immaterial. The Florida Legislature, absolutely dominated by Republicans, took it upon itself to move up our presidential primary vote. And so the Democratic Party decides that it's only fair to punish Florida Democrats by telling us that our votes don't count. Don't we, the people of this state, have a stake in this too? Does the Democratic Party really want to piss us off that bad?

Why do we even have a primary system in this country at all if the parties can just arbitrarily decide to set aside the results? New Hampshire and Iowa can bite me. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that no other state can vote before February.

And MY, with your smug pontificating about the disenfranchisement of 20 million voters, you can bite me too.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 5:06 PM

The point is not that what HRC is doing is 'unfair', it's that it is both ridiculous and reeks of desperation.

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 5:10 PM

I hope all of the Obama supporters who were so upset by the prospect of denying voters the right to vote in Nevada when evil, Machiavellian Clinton supporters tried to stop caucusing inside of the big casinos will now once again declaim self-righteously about the principle every vote should count. I'm waiting . . .

Nice try, but no dice.

The attempt to shut down certain polling sites in Nevada was an attempt to change rules that everyone had agreed to months in advance. In contrast, the attempt to count the votes in Michigan and Florida... was an attempt to change rules that everyone had agreed to months in advance.

Once a set of rules are agreed to, they should be adhered to. In each case (while one involved disenfranchisement and the other involved franchisement) the attempt to change the rules at the bottom of the ninth was coming from the Clinton campaign. That's the problem.

Posted by jbryan | January 30, 2008 5:10 PM

MY,

With all due respect, to call Clinton's attempts to reverse her Florida position merely "lame," is, in and of itself, well, lame.

She's shown herself to be a complete and utter weasel (apologies to actual weasels for the comparison).

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 30, 2008 5:12 PM

Whoa...Rob Mac. Why so upset? Is it because:

1) You wasted your time voting yesterday when you could have been playing golf?

or

2) Your boi, J-Ed shit the goose and is back to Chapel Hill?

Too bad for you.

Posted by Julie | January 30, 2008 5:12 PM

If Obama had won Florida, all these blogs would be singing a different tune. All I ask is the same set of rules please.

Posted by Bob | January 30, 2008 5:15 PM

I'm surprised that more people aren't accusing Hillary of 'stealing' the election, with shades of Bush v. Gore, with the attempt to get delegates in this way.

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 5:16 PM

Ok, Bob...same set of rules...Hillary Clinton....hmmmmmm....didn't you get the Mark Penn memo?

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 5:17 PM

If Obama had won Florida, Hillary would have no chance nationally and as a result no one would care if the delegates are counted.

Posted by Gully | January 30, 2008 5:20 PM

Rob Mac, I feel your pain, but even you must agree that the Florida election simply wasn't a fair election because no one was allowed to campaign there. This gives celebrity the edge, and celebrity easily won. That's no way to elect a president. Unfortunately, as much as the Florida votes should count, they simply can't, because they are illegitimate.

How about all those nice folks in New Hampshire who gave Hillary her big comeback? She told every single one of them that she would respect their primary by not allowing other states to push their primaries up earlier, and then after she wins, Hillary goes off and breaks her word. The Manchester paper rightly called her a liar because she broke her pledge.

Think about it...

After Iowa, Hillary says the voted didn't mean anything.

After New Hampshire, where she won, she stabs the voters in the back by breaking her word.

In Nevada, she lobbies to have thousands of workers votes not count just because she doesn't think they will vote for her, months and months after tacitly agreeing to the rules because at the time she thought they were in her favor.

In South Carolina, she uses the pathetic Robert Johnson to begin race baiting to split the people in half by race, and then abandons the state before the vote, leaving her husband there to make like it didn't count, because after all Jesse Jackson won there, again trying to diminish an election that she lost...

In Florida, she breaks her word after realizing she was going to win an election that favored her celebrity after she and her opponents had promised to not campaign there, and now she pledges to seat delegates from a sham election, spitting on Iowa and New Hampshire and anyone who believed her in the first place...

Look, Hillary is a very talented politician and smart lady, but in my book, she has shown time and again that is lacking in the character department. She simply isn't trustworthy, and puts her own power above party and country. Which makes her unfit to serve.

No way Hillary Clinton gets my vote. No way.

Posted by Jimmy James | January 30, 2008 5:21 PM

I don't begrudge Hillary's decision to make FL voters feel as if their vote mattered, but the WAY she handled it was gross. On MSNBC last night she could've said "Well, it was a really nice victory, albeit a symbolic one, which is too bad" but instead she equated the FL victory with the ones in Nevada and NH and Michigan, and suggested that she will fight to have the FL delegates seated at the convention. The point, clearly, was not to make Floridians feel good but to create the illusion of having won something in Florida that is as significant as the NH or NV victories. That's sneaky, it's gross, it's classic Clinton.

Posted by tinisoli | January 30, 2008 5:21 PM

One might add that she's putting at jeopardy the moral authority of the next US President to tell politicians in other countries - such as Kenya -that they need to abide by election rules even if they lose.

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 5:22 PM

Dana Milbank gets the money comparison on Page 1 of the Washington Post:

"There are more voters in Florida alone than there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle argued in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. This was the same Solis Doyle who last summer committed Clinton to signing the Florida boycott pledge, saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

Never, EVER send out the same person to "flop" who previously "flipped". It makes the internet searching so much easier.

Posted by Aaron | January 30, 2008 5:26 PM

Do you and Kos and Josh all compare notes before you trot out this boilerplate crap? It's all the same these days. I think the blogosphere's best days are behind it.

Posted by Jim J | January 30, 2008 5:26 PM

Nice try, jbryan.

I recall a good bit of moral posturing in the Nevada fight not about how we all need to play by the same set of arbitrary rules drawn up in the smoke-filled rooms, but about how we must not disenfranchise voters. It is convenient to change your rhetoric when the facts change, though.

Let every vote be counted. Except those cast in Florida.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 5:26 PM

Of course, none of this would have happened if the states hadn't been trying to shove to the front of the line like a bunch of bratty kids. February 5th is good enough for big, important states like NY and CA, after all... and I don't think much of the how-dare-you-ignore-us blackmail game either, especially given that the primary schedule is already an embarrassing joke.

Obviously the best solution (except for public financing, which would at least make media costs less of an issue) would be to work out some sort of rotating schedule. Even if we had to keep IA & NH at the front, I think having some unpredictability among the first couple of cycles-- maybe by starting with the states with the narrowest results in the previous election-- would at least move some of the media narrative away from those states.

Posted by latts | January 30, 2008 5:33 PM

I'm with Jim J on this - Matt, Josh and Kos need to try to tone down the Hillary hatred just a bit- its getting a bit fucking tiresome. Hillary agreed to this bondoggle back in the day because one dare not insult the dear souls in Iowa and New Hampshire. As panders go, a pretty small one. Saint Obama agreed to the Michigan and Florida because he made a pretty cagey assessment that there would be no fucking way he'd win in those states. Good for him. But insulting the residences of two of the largest states in the union is probably not the smartest political move Obama or the DNC has made (God Bless Dean's soul).

Posted by DougMN | January 30, 2008 5:39 PM

I recall a good bit of moral posturing in the Nevada fight not about how we all need to play by the same set of arbitrary rules drawn up in the smoke-filled rooms...

I'm not sure how much smoke was in the room, but the plans in Nevada were publicly vetted, formalized by the state party, and then approved by the DNC. That's a legitimate process, and those are the rules that were devised.

...but about how we must not disenfranchise voters.

Ideally we should do both. I agree that it's unfortunate the situation in Florida turned into a game of brinksmanship where ultimately the delegates were taken away in accordance with the rules, but there were alternative choices presented that could've avoided that result.

It is convenient to change your rhetoric when the facts change, though.

My rhetoric has been consistent. When a set of rules are agreed to, they should be adhered to throughout the entire process. If you think there's a problem with them, then you can change them next time around. I don't like the front-loading of primaries and hopefully for 2012 a different plan will be adopted, but what was agreed to this time is what we got.

Let every vote be counted. Except those cast in Florida.

And Michigan.

Posted by jbryan | January 30, 2008 5:40 PM

Jimmy James, clearly you are willing to believe every dark conspiracy theory ever floated about Hillary Clinton, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that there are, in fact, more voters in Florida than in SC, NV, IA, and NH combined. This is true no matter who said it or what they may have said before.

And, otto, I think that the next president ought to be able to tell the president of Kenya or any other democracy, struggling or otherwise, that if your election rules tell you that you must ignore all the votes of a state/province representing about 8% of your population that there is something wrong with your election rules and you should fix them immediately. Spare me the moralizing. I have no doubt that, had Obama won Florida I'd be hearing all kinds of high-minded calls to count every vote from you. Whereas I would be saying the same exact thing no matter who had won.

Those of your talking about how the candidates did not "campaign" in Florida and therefore counting the results would be unfair are just pathetic. Believe it or not, Florida does not exist in a glass bubble at the bottom of the ocean sealed off from all media. We follow the national news just fine here. We know the candidates perfectly well. None of them "campaigned" here, but they're all equally well-known, so give me a freakin' break on that one. Yeah, a record number of voters showed up to vote for someone based on the name recognition of a single candidate.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 5:41 PM

This will cost the Democrats in Florida and Michigan this November - and they will deserve it.

I can already see the Republican ads in those states reminding the voters of how the Democrats dissed their primary.

If the election is close, this could be decisive.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | January 30, 2008 5:43 PM

"I recall a good bit of moral posturing in the Nevada fight not about how we all need to play by the same set of arbitrary rules drawn up in the smoke-filled rooms, but about how we must not disenfranchise voters."

In regards to Nevada, the Clinton campaign wanted to change the existing rules in an attempt to gain more delegates.

In regards to Florida ... the Clinton campaign wants to change the existing rules in an attempt to gain more delegates.

The question is whether Florida should be above the clearly marked rules that kept the nomination schedule from being even further compressed.

"It is convenient to change your rhetoric when the facts change, though."

Last summer Clinton committed to signing the Florida boycott pledge.

"Let every vote be counted. Except those cast in Florida."

Florida knew that when they changed the primary date. Why didn't they change it back if they wanted those votes to count?

The question is whether one wants to cheat the 48 state parties that followed the rules. (I am rather hoping for a president who believes in the rule of law, myself.)

Dumb Idea: How about a National Primary Day in May?
Please explain why this is dumb.

Posted by Aaron | January 30, 2008 5:43 PM

When candidates don't have a chance to campaign, the establishment candidate is always going to win. The Florida primary was just a beauty contest where the biggest celebrity had a huge advantage. This is called an unfair election.

This is Florida's own fault, because the state couldn't help itself and pushed it's primary up in violation of Democratic Party rules.

I wish Florida could get it's act together, but it doesn't seem to be able to. Time and time again.

Why don't you Floridians stop complaining and learn how to follow the rules for once - whether it's hanging chads or party primary rules - and the rest of the country might start taking you seriously.

Until then you're a national joke.

Posted by Jimmy James | January 30, 2008 5:51 PM

Aaron, to you it's all about what the Clinton campaign wants or doesn't want. That is not relevant to me as a Florida voter. To me what is relevant is that Florida's votes should count. I thought this before this primary vote yesterday. I think it today.

I don't think a national primary day is dumb at all, but, again, that's neither here nor there this year.

What is clearly dumb, though, is for Obama's campaign to so blithely piss off the states of Michigan and Florida--states he'll need to win in November should he get the nomination.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 5:54 PM

DougMN:

Thanks for the clarification on your ethical ambiguity. Thank God you're not my neighbor or colleague. Machiavelian assholes like you who shamelessly bend the rules and piss on others in order to get ahead sicken me. What a pathetic little dweeb you must be.

Posted by Joe | January 30, 2008 5:54 PM

Why didn't the DNC just cancel the Florida primary? It seems to me the fact that an election was held there, and a million people showed up to participate in the Democratic party's nominating process, leaves the Democrats in an awkward and dangerous position if these delegates aren't seated. In hindsight, the DNC's handling of the situation -- and the existence of delegates from the Sunshine State -- was inevitably going to leave unresolved the issue of what to do about them. So what if there was an agreement earlier? You mean to tell me the sacrosanctness of an agreement about an ill-advised disenfranchisement outweighs the importance of winning in November?

Posted by Jasper | January 30, 2008 5:56 PM

is for Obama's campaign to so blithely piss off the states of Michigan and Florida

Asking Hillary to stand by her commitments = "blithely pissing off" Michigan and Florida.

Hillary cynically trying to weasel out of her commitments = awesome leadership.

Right.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 30, 2008 5:59 PM

Jasper...I've been critical of some of your basic analysis prior but that's a very good point. I wonder as well.

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 5:59 PM

Dumb Idea: How about a National Primary Day in May?
Please explain why this is dumb.

Well . . .

1. It favors establishment or celebrity candidates with high name recognition and massive fundraising networks already in place.

2. It disfavors outsider candidates with primarily ideological and populist appeal.

3. It cedes extraordinary power over the process to the national media and mega-contributors (even more power than they already have).

4. It doesn't allow primary candidates time to respond to set backs in one state by adjusting their messages to fit the popular mood.

5. It negates the role of local party activists in vetting the candidates.

6. It exposes the nominating process to the distorting influence of emotional events, like a terrorist attack, a personal scandal, or even an unflattering photograph.

I could go on . . .

Posted by southpaw | January 30, 2008 6:00 PM

The primary was scheduled by the Florida Legislature. The DNC had no authority to cancel it. Beyond that, Japer is quite right.

And I re-read DougMN's post to see if I could figure out what pissed Joe off so much. Nope. I don't get it. Even if you disagree with him, Doug's comment is pretty mild stuff.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 6:00 PM

Why didn't the DNC just cancel the Florida primary?

They don't have the power to. The Florida Secretary of State's Office runs the elections down there.

Posted by southpaw | January 30, 2008 6:03 PM

Doug's comment is pretty mild stuff

Rob Mac...maybe what Joe's smoking isn't(?)

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 6:06 PM

Check out Tampa Bay Online for September 30, 2007.

Posted by jojo | January 30, 2008 6:08 PM

I think the DNC should offer Florida and Michigan a compromise: the votes in the pre-Feb. 5 primaries won't be counted, but they're free to hold a second primary between Feb. 5 and the convention, and those will count. This would cost both states some extra money, but taxpayers in the states can blame the state leaders who made the dumb move of trying to schedule their primaries early.

Posted by Jesse M. | January 30, 2008 6:09 PM

And MY, with your smug pontificating about the disenfranchisement of 20 million voters, you can bite me too.

I was a Fred guy, but I'd be pretty pissed if, in an alternate universe, the Republican party pre-agreed not to seat the delegates of a hypothetical state Fred ended up winning, only to have the Fred campaign try to break that agreement after the fact.

If Florida wanted its delegates counted, it shouldn't have moved the primary (or, at least, gotten clearance to do so). If Hillary wanted Florida's ballots counted, the time to say so was last year, not now.

Posted by Shinyk | January 30, 2008 6:15 PM

Florida Democrats could not cancel the primary election on January 29. But they could have not had a presidential primary on that day, and instead held their own caucus later in the primary season.

Posted by John | January 30, 2008 6:24 PM

I think the DNC should offer Florida and Michigan a compromise: the votes in the pre-Feb. 5 primaries won't be counted, but they're free to hold a second primary between Feb. 5 and the convention, and those will count.

I'm sorry, but this will not work.

And early primary is about wielding power. This "compromise" would be too late.

Florida and Michigan are big states with lots of electoral votes; and their voters don't care beans about some contrived insider agreement that the national Democratic Party made at their expense.

And the Republicans are going exploit this against them in the fall.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | January 30, 2008 6:25 PM

Do you and Kos and Josh all compare notes before you trot out this boilerplate crap? It's all the same these days. I think the blogosphere's best days are behind it.

My view is that the liberal blogosphere is upset because their raison d'etre is to inform the electorate and the Hillary campaign is saying - as the Republicans say on a regular basis - that the electorate is a bunch of dumbasses who don't pay attention. Hillary's campaign holds the electorate in contempt, much as the Republicans do.

Matt, Kos, Ezra, and Josh believe the electorate can be informed and can make the right choice based on the facts. Hillary's campaign is saying they're wrong, which understandably rankles.

Posted by Peter K. | January 30, 2008 6:25 PM

In all likelihood the DNC, Florida and Michigan Dems, and the Clinton and Obama campaigns will negotiate some kind of compromise to have those states' delegates included in the convention, to defend the national ticket from exactly the kind of disenfranchisment hoopla getting thrown around here.

It's also likely that that compromise will involve some kind of late-season caucusing to select delegates that everyone can agree were fairly chosen. Which means that Florida and Michigan will probably wind up being more influential than they would have been in selecting the Dem nominee.

Posted by UN Plaza | January 30, 2008 6:30 PM

Peter K, you've nailed it. I've said for months to my wife that the thing that drives me up the wall about the Clintons is how by their actions they are saying how stupid they assume everyone (aside from themselves and their cohorts) are. And they get away with it for years. Incredible.

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 6:33 PM

Florida and Michigan are big states with lots of electoral votes; and their voters don't care beans about some contrived insider agreement that the national Democratic Party made at their expense.

What makes Florida and Michigan so special that they get to jump ahead of most of the other states?

I think the 48 other states and the DNC should band together and punish Florida and Michigan in other harsher ways.

I'm in Illinois and my vote doesn't really count, but crying about it or taking unilateral action doesn't help the situation. A new fairer system needs to be devised. (I can tell you registration for the Democratic primary is at unseen before, record levels).

Posted by Peter K. | January 30, 2008 6:34 PM

Florida Democrats could not cancel the primary election on January 29. But they could have not had a presidential primary on that day, and instead held their own caucus later in the primary season.

Right. And the DNC offered this kind of option to both state parties, and they turned them down. But voter outrage at disenfranchisement may convince them to change their minds back, if they get the chance.

Posted by UN Plaza | January 30, 2008 6:35 PM

Peter hits the nail on the head... also, Josh Marshall has repeatedly said that he thinks Clinton is the best choice for the nomination. He's only been critical of certain things the Clinton campaign has gone about it's business.

Stop whining about how Clinton is somehow a victim, she's been the front runner since day 1. Clinton will likely win the nomination. I feel as though 90% of the Clinton supporters will be crying about how unfair the primary has been until the day she makes her acceptance speech at the convention.

Posted by NM | January 30, 2008 6:39 PM

NM, in your mind the only aggrieved party here is HRC. This is not about Hillary. This is about the fact that when people go to the polls, their votes should count. You cannot convince me that had this tipped the other way and Obama had won Florida by a huge margin you guys would be railing about the unfairness of the rules. I, on the other hand, would be saying exactly the same thing.

Peter K., in Illinois your vote will certainly count. Unless you are privy to inside knowledge, Illinois delegation will be seated at the Dem convention. Just because the news media tells you the election is already decided does not mean your vote is not part of the contest.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 7:13 PM

"And MY, with your smug pontificating about the disenfranchisement of 20 million voters, you can bite me too. "

Rob, you're missing the point. Absolutely, Michigan and Florida should have counted, and the NH/Iowa/SC/Nevada stranglehold should have been broken-- but once the candidates, in order to pander to those early states, agreed to not campaign in those two states, it's outright wrong to change the rules in such a way as to advantage one candidate. The rules are only fair when they hold for everybody.

Clinton: "No, Florida shouldn't count."
Clinton wins Florida.
Clinton: "Count Florida!"

Clinton: Approve of polling sites on the strip.
Casino workers union endorses Obama.
Clinton: No polling sites on the strip!

In this formula, people should only get to vote when she knows they'll vote for her. That's no way to run an election.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 30, 2008 7:21 PM

"What is clearly dumb, though, is for Obama's campaign to so blithely piss off the states of Michigan and Florida--states he'll need to win in November should he get the nomination."

"And the Republicans are going exploit this against them in the fall."

That's got to be the most horrible thing about this whole mess. Hillary is prying open a wedge between Florida and the DNC/Obama. She values her personal power over the good of the party.

Posted by ben | January 30, 2008 7:33 PM

Unlike Anthony Damiani, I don't think it should be up to Hillary Clinton to decide whether Florida's votes count or not. Our votes should count no matter what she (or Anthony Damiani, for that matter) says. What is "outright wrong" is saying that the votes of one state count and those of another do not because of some ridiculous arcane rules that the voters of the states of Florida and Michigan had no say in.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 7:35 PM

Sorry about the double post. To clarify:

If Obama is the eventual nominee, Hillary will have destroyed his chances in Florida general election. He (and Democratic party) will be seen as having "disenfranchised" Floridians and it may cost him the election.

It is exactly this sort of dirty play, brinksmanship and win-at-all-costs attitude that I expect from the other party. I don't want my party represented by someone like this.

Posted by ben | January 30, 2008 7:39 PM

Obama supporters complain, whine, and call foul when they don't hear what they want and things don't go their way. Hillary didn't advertise in Florida, against the rules, Obama did. Hillary didn't take questions from reporters in Tampa, against the rules, Obama did. Your guy cheats and you criticize his opponent. Sore losers.

Posted by rreddy | January 30, 2008 7:44 PM

I don't think it should be up to Hillary Clinton to decide whether Florida's votes count or not. Our votes should count no matter what she (or Anthony Damiani, for that matter) says.

I'm totally with you, dude. While we're at it, lets make the Sun's free throws in the 4th quarter worth 3 points each (it's about as fair and about as likely to happen).

While you're complaining about all the injustice in the world, why don't you start thinking about the super delegate system. About 1/3 of the delegate votes are awarded to people like Bill Clinton and Janet Napolitano so that they can decide in dark, smoke-filled back rooms who the party should select.

Posted by ben | January 30, 2008 7:47 PM

Look, here's the likely outcomes:

On the one hand, maybe Clinton or Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination outright by the time of the convention. In that case, Florida and Michigan won't matter and your delegates will get seated, because they won't matter. Your votes will have "counted" as much as anyone else's, because your delegates will be participating in the convention. It's not the rest of the country's fault that the winning candidate will have racked up enough delegates not to need you under this scenario.

On the other hand, maybe it will be close come convention time. In that case, Florida and Michigan may turn out to matter, a lot. So what would probably happen is the DNC, the state parties, and the campaigns would get together to work out a compromise that would allow your votes to "count," probably by holding caucuses in Florida and Michigan that would select delegates. Under that scenario, Florida's votes would certainly count, possibly even more than everyone else's, since your votes would probably determine the nominee. (To say nothing of the fact that you would have gotten to vote twice, because the first time didn't count.)

So chillax, Florida. Either you don't matter in the first place, or you will wind up mattering a whole lot.

Either there will be a clear nominee by convention time

Posted by UN Plaza | January 30, 2008 7:50 PM

This is getting to be pretty tiresome, but still fun at the same time. ATTENtion! Can I have your attention please? I know alot of us are feeling pretty wound up by all of this, and that's great, it really is. But I have a small favor to ask of all you Democrats, no matter whose cat you're stroking. Stop saying things like "I will never ever vote for _____", or "the Democratic party is gonna pay for this in November." Take a deep breath and think it through for just a minute. Do you want Pres. McCain to nominate two Justices to the supreme court? How do you feel about a few more years of war in Iraq? Permanent tax cuts? Get real, chill out. We can sort out the hurt feeling later, this is starting to get out of hand. What's best for all of us, that's what we want.

PS: Obama '08

Posted by jjcoop | January 30, 2008 7:55 PM

It's been apparent for some time now that the Clinton campaign is peddling a Rovian disinformation campaign designed to sway low-information voters. These tactics, more than anything else, is what's driving the blogosphere furor -- not this inchoate Clinton-hatred, which most Democrats did not have until fairly recently.

What's truly frightening, though, is the tendency among some Clinton supporters to casually brush aside election rules and pledges, mocking them as quaint distractions only naifs take seriously. The Clintons, it is said, "play to win", and should be praised for being too savvy to pay retail price like the rest of the suckers running. Under this logic, elections have no rules, and anything the Clintons can pull off to win is not only justified, but further reveals their heroic nature. Victory, no matter how achieved, shows that the Clintons are tougher than anyone else, that they're winners. Put it this way: Had the Clintons pulled off a GOP-styled phone jamming operation to take New Hampshire, there would be sycophants on these blogs cheering them on. Where's the end point here? How do you draw the line between anything-for-victory tactics and signing statements, or unauthorized wiretaps? If the Clintons feel no need to be bound by rules when it comes to elections, why stop when they get to the Oval Office?

The most disturbing thing to emerge from these primaries is that some Democrats think this reasoning is okay.

Posted by Ryan W. | January 30, 2008 8:00 PM

The media has been ignoring Hillary's massive victory in Florida and it ain't fair.

I know I wasn't crying about the Michigan caucuses but Hillary has had a shitty week and she needs a bump and goddammit - the media just hates here and is ignoring the voters of Florida

oh lordie oh lordie - give me strength

Posted by Insane Hillary Bot or Digby? | January 30, 2008 8:10 PM

What is "outright wrong" is saying that the votes of one state count and those of another do not because of some ridiculous arcane rules that the voters of the states of Florida and Michigan had no say in.

What's outright stupid is that you can't tell the difference between voting within a party system and voting under the aegis of government.

Florida Democrats were offered an alternative. They blew it. Clinton was OK with that, and now she's not.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 8:15 PM

The point is that Hillary Clinton won decisively in Florida and that is important despite the rotten bullies who keep attacking her. The more the Obama followers bully, the more I will vote for Clinton and refuse to vote for Obama even if he happens to win. I am tired of the bullying, and like Obama less with every rotten attack by Yglesias.

Posted by Jennifer | January 30, 2008 8:49 PM

"Insane Hillary Bot"

More reason to vote for Hillary Clinton, keep bullying, like Yglesias, creeps.

Posted by Jennifer | January 30, 2008 9:01 PM

Welcome back Jennifer. Let's talk, shall we:

"The point is that Hillary Clinton won decisively in Florida"

. . . in an uncontested primary awarding zero delegates based solely on name recogition.

"the rotten bullies who keep attacking her"

I totally agree. Why hasn't that big bully, Obama, dropped out already. Doesn't he know that he's running against a poor, defenseless woman?

"the more I will vote for Clinton and refuse to vote for Obama even if he happens to win"

I only get to vote once, but if you can do it a few times, good for you.

"I am tired of the bullying, and like Obama less with every rotten attack by Yglesias"

What about the gender-traitors Oprah, Sebelius, Napolitano, and Ted Kennedy?

Posted by ben | January 30, 2008 9:05 PM

All these posts on all these blogs are tiresome. Hillary's folks are comfortable with her machinations and those opposing her are not. Nothing is going to change anyone's mind until we blow this sure-fire election in November because we're not ready to govern.

One more thing: for years I've watched the good voters of Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide MY nominee before I got a chance. When at last my state voted, we got to pick delegates but it didn't matter; the nomination was a fait accompli. I have zero sympathy for Michigan and Florida.

Posted by Henderstock | January 30, 2008 9:12 PM

My new favorite hobby is watching Hillary's minions try to defend her. Their arguments are ever more tired, ever weaker, at this point they're downright pathetic. Its quite entertaining. She can do anything she wants - race bait, blatantly lie, be an all around horrible human being, and they'll defend her to the death. Now I understand why President Bush still has a 30% approval rating.

Posted by Nick | January 30, 2008 9:24 PM

I also live in Florida and I don't think that it is fair for Floridians to be denied the right to be heard, but at the same time, the way in which Hillary Clinton went about addressing the issue is so off putting and arrogant, it makes her look self-serving.

Posted by MGJ | January 30, 2008 9:25 PM

Ben, are you picking on Jennifer again? She sounds like she just got off the short bus.

Posted by ken | January 30, 2008 9:28 PM

Rob Mac - I think people are arguing here less about the appropriateness of counting Florida and Michigan delegates and more about the appropriateness of Hillary offering the opinion that they should.

The point is, whether or not the Florida delegates should be counted, it is wrong for Hillary, at this late date, to suggest that they be counted.

If Obama or Edwards changed his mind at this late date, that would be okay, as in either case it is obviously a matter of principle (as such a move would not benefit them). But the timing and everything indicates that Hillary is just looking to manipulate the rules to her favor.

Posted by Glaivester | January 30, 2008 10:02 PM

My thoughts - if the Democratic nomination is a landslide, the Democrats will count Florida and Michigan in order to placate them. If these votes make the difference between an Obama win and a Hillary win - then the issue will be harder, because counting them, and thus denying Obama a victory by changing the rules at the end of the game, will likely alienate a whole lot of blacks )not that they would go GOP, but they might stay home on voting day).

Alternately, if Hillary wins because of superdelegates, a lot of black Democrats will likely feel cheated (even though such a win would not violate any rules or agreements previously made).

Posted by Glaivester | January 30, 2008 10:10 PM

This will cost the Democrats in Florida and Michigan this November - and they will deserve it.

No, it won't, at least not in Florida. Because the Dem nominee will spend much more than 1/50th of the post-primary period (or even 1/17th, if you go by population) fellating America's Wang™. Michigan will get rougher treatment.

Rob Mac: come back and complain that all of the spring training games held in your state aren't included in the MLB standings, would you?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 30, 2008 10:17 PM

Here, lets try something new that doesn't include talking about what a horrid person Hillary is and how saintly Obama is.

Many would agree that Iowa and NH's lock on the earliest voting is not desirable. Talk about how this is undesirable reached a bit of a fevered pitch this cycle. I cannot recall how Gov. Dean has weighed in on this. Folks associated with the states of Florida and Michigan decided (rightly or wrongly is unimportant) that moving their primary ahead was an appropriate thing to do. Threats re unseating delegates were levied. Various ideas about how to solve the problem have been floated in the hive mind. My question - what has Gov. Dean said is going to be done to correct this crock of shit prior to the 2012 election, or is this going to be left up to the new 'leader of the party'? I hope not, because the next President of the United States is going to have more on his/her plate that fixing a screwed up primary system.

Posted by DougMN | January 30, 2008 10:18 PM

As far as the propriety of Hillary's calls to seat Florida's delegates go, I think we've just about flogged that horse to death. I will say this, though: by dropping out today, John Edwards took a steaming crap on Hillary's attempt to dominate the news cycle by touting her "win."

Posted by julio ointment | January 30, 2008 11:11 PM

Glaivester, change "blacks" to "Obama supporters" (there is a difference) and I think you've got it right.

Posted by Tractarian | January 30, 2008 11:21 PM

So far in this thread, I have read a lot of inside Democratic party baseball and nothing about how this benefits voters in Florida or in Michigan.

And, come November, that's all that will matter.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | January 31, 2008 12:57 AM

Background please, is Florida going to have no delegates at the convention? Will they be there but not be allowed to vote? Because of something done by a republican backed state legislature?

Either seems like stupid policy even for the democrats (and a way to help the republicans win Florida in November).

Posted by michael farris | January 31, 2008 4:33 AM

Just to be clear, i'm registered in Florida and if the democratic party seats no delegates from Florida then I'll strongly consider voting for the republican (something I heretofore thought impossible).

Posted by Michael Farris | January 31, 2008 4:40 AM

Tractarian - Obama supporters will be upset, but a lot of them will feel that they need to support the Democratic nominee. A lot of blacks, however, will likely feel that the process was alterd specifically to make certain that the nominee was white.

That is, a lot of blacks would more specifically see such a decision not just as unfair, but as racist.

Posted by Glaivester | January 31, 2008 8:14 AM

Farris:

Typical American. Don't get your way so you pout and go home with your toys. Grow up wanker.

Posted by Euro Dude | January 31, 2008 8:31 AM

What is "outright wrong" is saying that the votes of one state count and those of another do not because of some ridiculous arcane rules that the voters of the states of Florida and Michigan had no say in.

In fact, the voters of Florida and Michigan did have a say: they could have bullied or encouraged their state party officials not to schedule their primaries before February 5. And then, like magic, there would be no issue at all!

Posted by Persia | January 31, 2008 9:28 AM

Rob Mac, I feel your pain, but even you must agree that the Florida election simply wasn't a fair election because no one was allowed to campaign there. This gives celebrity the edge, and celebrity easily won.

Wait, Obama won FLA? Sorry, but Hillary's not the celebrity du jour in this contest. I'm voting for BO, but to claim that HRC has the possession arrow in the current media climate is absurd.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 31, 2008 10:06 AM

Euro "Dude",

My, how charming you are!

Posted by michael farris | January 31, 2008 10:35 AM

The issue is strictly between the DNC and the Florida Democratic Party, the latter of which is currently in breach of an agreement made by both parties. Anyone whose concern regarding this issue is the rights of Democratic voters in Florida need to take it up with the state or national party leaders, and leave Clinton and Obama out of it.

For those who are concerned about how this issue will affect the campaigns, remember that their campaigns also require a professional relationship between each candidate and the DNC. Whether the state or national parties have the better argument, candidates are already obligated to the national party. Opposing the DNC's priorities in this issue in exchange for a reward could generally be called a conflict of interest, which may explain to Clinton supporters why there seems to be an unusual amount of Clinton-hate in the left blogosphere recently.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | January 31, 2008 2:17 PM