Can The Process That Determines Outcome In Florida And Michigan Be Hijacked? Nope.
The other day, Harold Ickes, who's in charge of Hillary's hunt for delegates, caused a stir in political circles by suggesting the following:
Ickes also acknowledged that it would be possible for Clinton to lose pledged delegates but control a majority of the credentials committee, which ultimately decides if and how Florida’s and Michigan’s disputed delegations would be dealt with.
Woah. Is it really possible that the candidate who loses the pledged del count could still control the process that decides what happens with Michigan and Florida's delegations?
The long and short answer: It's borderline impossible -- and it's not going to happen.
Here's the gist of how this works.
There are a total of 186 members on the credentials committee. Twenty five of them are appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean. The remainder are alloted out of each state, at a number that's proportional to each state's population and/or Democratic performance.
The process is convoluted, but in essence what happens is that each campaign gets to send a number of members to the credentials committee out of each state in a number that's proportional to the number of delegates he or she has in that state. This virtually ensures that the number of credentials committee members he or she seats out of each state is roughly proportional to the popular vote he or she won in that state.
“Membership is proportional to the vote in each state,” says DNC press secretary Stacie Paxton.
So, while it's remotely possible that, say, Hillary, should she lose the overall popular vote, would end up with more credentials committee members here and there, in states like California, it would be virtually impossible statistically for her to have more members than Obama does overall, let alone a majority.
One other side note: It's not even clear yet what scenarios the credentials committee will be considering. Once the voting is over, and the credentials committee is seated, it will meet publicly to consider a whole range of options for Michigan and Florida -- not just the scenario favored by the Hillary campaign, which is the seating of the delegations as determined by the votes in those states.
One proposal, for instance, that's being talked about is that the delegations are split 50-50 between the two candidates. But again, it's unclear what scenarios will ultimately be considered. In the end, the credentials committee itself has a great deal of discretion over what scenarios to vote on, and hence, over what will ultimately happen.
But in the end, the scenario that envisions Hillary losing the overall pledged del vote but having a majority of members of the credentials committee -- and thus determining what happens with Michigan and Florida -- is pretty much impossible.
I don't think there is any threat of this here, first of all, because people would raise hell, but secondly it probably won't be an issue because even if the Michigan and Florida delegates were seated as they are now (the result of unfair elections), Hillary would only gain around 51 pledged delegates, which is about the same as Obama gained on her in the Potomac primaries alone. Basically she is so far behind in pledged delegates, I don't think Michigan and Florida are going to matter much.
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26280565
February 19, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you start doing a better job reading these crapola posts. The author says Mr. Ickes "suggested" the idea while the actual quote is "Ickes also acknowledged that it would be possible" which indicates he was answering a question on the idea. It is likely they were discussing a large number of ideas and strategies that either candidate might employ and someone has taken one and turned it into a "likely strategy" just to inflame the readers here. Let's try to be a little less gullible when reading these space fillers.
February 19, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hill and Barack's numbers of members on the credentials committee end up close, Dean's preference could be a huge factor. He could sway the whole thing, for instance, by appointing 25 Hillary supporters -- or Obama supporters. Right?
February 19, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. As I explain below, what Ickes is full of I cannot post. But the committees are, on crucial matters, irrelevant. If this is contested, it comes to a floor vote, and the candidate with the most delegates wins. End of story.
Why Ickes, who certainly knows better, would suggest otherwise, I leave to your fertile imagination.
February 19, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So something like 40% of Michigan went Uncommitted. I assume that many, if not most, if not all, of those would, if seated, side with Obama. That'd really diminish the impact of seating the delegates, yes?
February 19, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know... all these nefarious ideas the clinton campaign is floating (and then denying) are simply reprehensible. What is the purpose behind this? And how are voters supposed to feel?
Scary.
Disheartening.
Sickening.
February 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually believe that they are doing this for donor purposes. They must be getting a tremendous amount of heat from people who have given big bucks and it looks like they are going down in flames. Also, in order to attract more $$$s they have to look like they are going to steal the nomination regardless of getting hammered in state after state. That's the only logical conclusion.
On the flip side, this garbage motivates people to get out and vote for obama. So, the more they do it, the more people will vote for obama. It's like a catch-22.
February 19, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
You read my mind. This seems so Machiavellian, but really it is true and total desperation. This campaign's wheels are coming off, and she's willing to say ANYTHING to continue to appear viable.
February 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the days go by, and this incendiary delegate stealing business flows out of Camp Clinton, it becomes increasingly clear that it is all meaningless nonsense. I now realize that Hillary is just trying to steal media cycles. Remember, her campaign is out of cash. For her campaign, “No news is bad news.” She is desperately trying to give Hillary supporters in places like Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania some reason, ANY REASON, to believe she has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election.
Her strategy is ballsy, outrageous but the tactic seems to be working. You have to admit headlines like, Hillary says, “I’ll steal Florida and Michigan!” And Hillary says, “I’ll steal the popular Vote using Super Delegates!” are pretty damn amazing (if utterly disgusting) headlines.
Unfortunately, this kind of negative campaigning and hardball politics may keep her alive in Texas, and allow here to limp into Ohio and Penn., but ultimately it will leave her damaged and dangerous goods if she makes it to the finish line. But really, what choice does she have? If she doesn’t limp across the finish line, she’ll be positively crushed in the meantime.
I don’t think even she believes she can win the nomination using these kind of evil Shenanigans. Her real plan, is stealing a day or two worth of the news cycle from the Obama Momentum story or the Hillary is dead meat in Texas story.
I have to give her credit. So far, it’s actually working. She’s distracting the press from the reality on the ground. Things like, “Obama has 150,000 volunteers on the ground in Texas!” Her campaign has been so shitty at everything they’ve done up to now, it makes me grudgingly admit they do have some “Mad Skilz” too bad they are Rove like Republican smear merchant skills…
February 19, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
excatly. this is not the message for the voters. indeed, the more they repeat it, the more they tell their voters that they are irrelevant. this is the message to her money lenders. how else would you appeal to them but with words like "i will fight until june!" "I will get the superdelegates!" "i will seat MI and FL" - especially if FL is your main fund(g)raising land. it is hard to tell people who have invested 130 million dollars that nothing has come out of it - and then to ask for more. and voters? who the hell still thinks -especially in FL - that they really count.
February 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make that 170 million raised since 2000, that was spend basically before NH was finished.
Think about that. She raised 170 million since 2000. And she spent all of it on her Hillary is Inevitable Tour before she got out of Iowa. Someday, we will have a nice long Postmortem on the Clinton campaign and I cannot wait to talk about the utter incompetence of her campaign, but alas… That is a few months away.
But your point is correct. She has less than 10 mill in the bank that she can spend on the primary season. Obama clearly has that X5. And her support is evaporating everywhere, amongst women, elders, Hispanics and even in the NY Primary! Lol. She is no longer inevitable, nor is she even close to being the favorite. Her online stocks are trading at 20 dollars a share to Obama's 80!
But, we should never underestimate the Clintons. She is like a a badger trapped in a corner. We should expect a lot of bloodshed before she is dispatched for good.
Obama supporters should think of Hillary and the Clintons like they imagine a vampire. Always remember that, just because you you’ve splashed it with holy water and rammed a crucifix through its hearth it ain’t dead until you see it screaming, crumbling to ashes with the full light of the sun sending it back to the hell which it belongs in.
Only then can you know that it is truly dead.
February 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make that 170 million raised since 2000, that was spend basically before NH was finished.
Think about that. She raised 170 million since 2000. And she spent all of it on her Hillary is Inevitable Tour before she got out of Iowa. Someday, we will have a nice long Postmortem on the Clinton campaign and I cannot wait to talk about the utter incompetence of her campaign, but alas… That is a few months away.
But your point is correct. She has less than 10 mill in the bank that she can spend on the primary season. Obama clearly has that X5. And her support is evaporating everywhere, amongst women, elders, Hispanics and even in the NY Primary! Lol. She is no longer inevitable, nor is she even close to being the favorite. Her online stocks are trading at 20 dollars a share to Obama's 80!
But, we should never underestimate the Clintons. She is like a a badger trapped in a corner. We should expect a lot of bloodshed before she is dispatched for good.
Obama supporters should think of Hillary and the Clintons like they imagine a vampire. Always remember that, just because you you’ve splashed it with holy water and rammed a crucifix through its hearth it ain’t dead until you see it screaming, crumbling to ashes with the full light of the sun sending it back to the hell which it belongs in.
Only then can you know that it is truly dead.
February 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know the Clinton campaign is floating these ideas? Perhaps it's the Obama camp? You know, SCARE TACTICTS? Naah, he's the second coming of JFKhrist.
February 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the obama camp is using ickes, wolfson and penn like ventriloquist dummies? Some people are so in denial. I think that you got stuck somewhere along the way during the loop back.
February 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight: It's "nefarious" and "reprehensible" for Hillary to want to seat the elected delegates of Florida and Michigan because Obama should be allowed to keep out any delegations that he wants, since he controls the most delegates. And that is the will of the people, to make sure that some people's votes never count.
I want some of what you and Barack are smoking.
February 19, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, why didn't she make this point before iowa? I agree that they should be seated, but why not make the point before iowa and let everyone campaign there who wanted to in violation of the rules? She could have campaigned all she wanted to and obama could have as well. But he wouldn't have violated the rules and if she made this statement or campaigned she would have lost iowa, new hampshire, and nevada. Soooo, the election would be over already.
Instead she waited til she won on name recognition in michigan and florida and didn't piss off the 4 pre-2/5 states. Now she wants them seated and doesn't see why they shouldn't be. Gee I wonder why she is getting trounced by mccain in iowa and new hampshire in polls, two states critical for dems to win in november.
I am sure being a supporter of the clintons you don't see anything wrong with this. Well the non-clinton people do for obvious reasons. Sorry.
February 19, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the most irritating thing about Obama fans is all the sanctimonious whining they do. So Hillary didn't say before NH that she would seek to seat all the delates. So the F what? Is that against the law? Nobody knew how the race would develop and I'm glad Hillary is one candidate who knows how to adapt and try a different strategy. That's also an important quality for a preisdent to have. It's time Obama fans woke up and realized this isn't a student council election, this is a race for the presidency of the United States, and I am happy to support a candidate that has the guts to do what she needs to do to win. Because frankly, I don't think Obama has that ability. If Obama thinks his continuous whinning is going to stop Republicans from doing whatever they need to do to win the next election, he's in for a rude awakening.
It is also they height of hypocrisy to whine about what Hillary is talking about doing in accordance with the rules when Obama fans can't stop talking about overthrowing all the rules concerning unpledged delegates, to make them vote for him. For some reason they seem to think it's terrible when a candidate does what they need to do to win within the rules, but to demand the rules be changed to reflect what they now think is fair - that's OK.
February 19, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what is really irritating is how either stupid clinton cultists are or how they ignore facts. If she would have said that she wanted to seat the delegates from florida and michigan before iowa, she would have got shut out in iowa, new hampshire, nevada and south carolina. Get it. Are you that ignorant? I don't think so. Obama would be the nominee now and she would be sipping champagne on the french riviera. Instead she just lied. I guess you don't have a problem with that either. Of course not, just as long as the clintons get a third term.
February 19, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you need to get your facts straight. Hillary never promised that she would never try to seat the lawfully elected delegates in Florida and Michigan, she only promised that she wouldn't campaign there, which she didn't. It was Obama who broke his promise by airing campaign commercials in northern Florida before the primary. Now he wants to break the rules again to force all the unpledged delegates to vote for him. All he seems to do these days is break rules, whine about candidates working within the rules, and plagiarize. Some candidate you've got.
February 19, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone smell the desperation in camp Clinton?
Well, I think if any sane person actually cared about votes in Michigan and Florida, as Mrs. Clinton says she does then there is a very simple solution to this problem. Reschedule the primaries for these two states. We have many long months ahead before the convention. It would not be difficult to do.
But alas, no one believes that Hillary actually gives a shit what Florida and Mich. think. She cares about stealing these delegates where Obama was not allowed to campaign.
As we've seen, everywhere Obama has a chance to campaign, he wins. He’s beating Hillary in big states, small states. Now he’s taking the elderly votes, woman’s votes, Hispanic votes. He’s beating her by every measure.
So, camp Hillary, put up or shut up. Push to reschedule a real primary or caucus in these states. Or STFU about the delegates.
February 19, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary tried anything like that, she would risk fracturing the party. If that happened all of her good work and aspirations for universal health care and a swift end to the war would evaporate. If she would rely less on spokespeople and handlers, she could put this thing away quickly, but time is running out.
February 19, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I continue to be amazed at the stink of desperation coming out of the Clinton campaign.
There have been a number of these types of reports coming out, like going after the pledged delegates etc. Unlikely that any will succeed or gain traction but geez, is the Clinton spin machine really that broken? Are they really that hard pressed to show that they are still in the race?? I wonder what their polls are telling them about OH & TX...
February 19, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually impossible for entirely different reasons. Let me quote from the Call to Convention:
"Upon the request of members representing at least twenty percent (20%) of the total votes of the Credentials Committee, a minority report shall be prepared for distribution to all Convention delegates, alternates and the public as part of the Committee’s report. This minority report shall be distributed at the same time the Credentials Committee Report is distributed."
What then?
"Upon conclusion of the consideration and disposition of committee amendments and minority reports, the Temporary Chair shall put the question on the adoption of the report of the Credentials Committee with amendments previously adopted, if any, without intervening motion. A favorable majority vote of the Convention delegates eligible to vote shall constitute adoption of the report."
To make this simple: So long as Obama and his backers control a 50%+1 majority of the voting delegates on the convention floor, they prevail. The membership of the committees is only material in years when the issues they're disposing of don't rise to the level of a floor fight. Once the issues become sufficiently important, the only thing that matters is the total delegate count. And if Obama has enough votes not to seat Michigan or Florida, he has enough votes to win.
February 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reassurance, Fly, but don't these folks realize they are sowing tremendous ill will and anxiety with all these underhanded ideas they keep floating?
Honestly, it's enough to make you wonder if these folks are simply demonstrating to voters that hillary and her advisers are unable to put the citizens ahead of their schemes for power!
February 19, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I think about this, the angrier it makes me. Ickes is a master of the DNC rules, and he knows darn well that the convention itself is the final arbiter of all contentious issues, and not the various committees.
As I've blogged before, Ickes was one of Jesse Jackson's negotiators two decades ago, and succesfully stripped superdelegates from the nominating process on the grounds that they were undemocratic (they were subsequently restored). Now, he wants us to call them automatic delegates, and argues that they might fairly decide the nomination. He voted to punish Florida and Michigan as a member of the DNC, back before it was clear that doing so would hurt Clinton. Now, he wants those delegations seated.
What makes me seathe is not his support of Clinton - he's one of her advisers, and I respect his efforts on behalf of his candidate. It's his wilfull disregard for what he knows to be the rules, his willingness to twist them this way and that, always in the guise of self-righteousness. Reporters trust him to know what he's talking about, and he exploits that. That disgusts me.
February 19, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first time, Fly, that I've seen you other than cool, calm, collected, and objective. This reinforces my own sense of growing outrage at the hrc campaign's lack of respect for citizens here.
Your predictions for what these folks would have to do to try and pull off a win here are sadly and horribly coming true...
Thanks for sharing your concern.
Seems to me, first they were ready to split the black community. Now they're simply ready to split the party! And grab the nomination as if it was just a bunch of chips on the table in Vegas.
Bad enough we had a dictator under bush....
February 19, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
the delegate would vote.
and not under the candidates control.
no?
pledged delegates must vote for who they are pledged to, but i don't see any reason they would have to follow the will of that candidate in a credentials vote.
February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
storm:
There's nothing binding pledged delegates to vote for specific candidates, any more than they need to follow their will on rules fights. But if the credentials committee vote becomes a test vote, that's what's going to happen.
February 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point the only thing the Clinton campaign seems to be focused on is how to steal the nomination from the majority. They seem to not believe they can win it fairly.
Who isn't revolted by this sleazy campaign?
February 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So just put this together with the Clinton campaign's trial balloon today, about how they're considering "going after" Obama's pledged delegates.
186 pledged delegates on the credentials committee is a much smaller pool of individuals to bribe, intimidate, or otherwise "go after." They might only have to flip a few of them to get control, and then the "delegates" from MI & FL can ride on in.
February 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes also acknowledged that it would be possible
I don't see this as suggesting anything. It sounds like the answer to a question like 'would it be possible to do....' and he said, sure it would be possible. Nothing in the story at the link suggests any type of nefarious 'hijacking' schemes.
Really, I read TPM about half as often as I used to because of these blatantly biased headlines recently.
February 19, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Atrios....
"Clinton is planning to hire the hit man who killed Vince Foster to take out all of Obama's delegates."
February 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe Hillary, as desperate as she is for the nomination, would take it in such an ugly fashion. She'd guarantee herself a loss in November.
That said, what IS the deal with all of these sheisty paths to victory being bandied about by the Clinton campaign. It sure doesn't seem like a good way to scare up votes.
February 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of argument, IF (a very big if) they decide to seat the Florida delegates based on the votes (with no candidates campaigning there), then the 185 delegates would be or less divided among the three candidates: Clinton 55% / Obama 33% / Edwards 14%.
That would come more or less to: Clinton 101, Obama 61, and Edwards 18. The wild card here would be Edwards, depending on whether he releases his delegates and to whom.
If you look at this microscopically, Edwards can still play a significant role with his 28 total delegates, one way or the other.
But for the DNC to retain its credibility, I do not see how they can change the rules in the fourth quarter of the game close to the two-minute warning.
There may not be blood, but there will be chaos.
February 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I welcome correction if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that once he releases them, they are released. That is to say, there is no question of "to whom" he releases them. Once they are released he has no further say.
February 19, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably correct, but I would think they would consult with him as to their decisions.
February 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
If you'll forgive me, you're wrong.
In point of fact, no delegate to the DNC is bound by national party rules to vote for the candidate whom they are pledged to support - much less, for a second candidate whom their own candidate endorses. The pledge they sign specifies 'in good faith,' and any delegate can simply stipulate that they are casting their vote for a rival, in good faith. There are many reasons why they might not do so, but we're talking about ethical conduct here, not binding rules.
Besides which, Edwards currently has but 12 delegates. 14 are projected to come from Iowa, and we'll have to see what those elected as Edwards delegates elect to do at the county and state conventions before we know whether they'll actually materialize.
February 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
* "we're talking about ethical conduct here" *
Yes... and *that* seems to be the problem. That is what is so disheartening for a voter.
Here I sit, wanting to see the Rule of Law restored. And there sits hrc all but thumbing her nose at me. And every other voter as well! We've already had 7 years of a president who defies the law and smirks while doing it! I can't believe this woman and her advisers fail to consider the way in which informed citizens, who've been following events these 7 years, would view and abhor these actions on their part.
When did we turn into a plantation?
February 19, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think edwards has any role to play at this point. The gap in pledged delegates is too wide. She would have to win 60% of the vote in ohio, texas and PA and that would only get her close. Odds are that's not going to happen. She didn't even win 60% of the vote in her "home" state of NY. Unless something bizarre happens, which always could, she may very well be out of it at this point. Right now she is swinging for the fences on an inside fast ball down 0 and 2.
February 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why won't Hillary tell Ickes to shut up?
How on earth does this kind of stuff help her campaign??
I support Obama, but it's not like I'll be HAPPY to see Hillary lose. And it certainly won't make me happy to see her lose because of the nitwits running her campaign.
Sheesh.
February 19, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
"There are a total of 186 members on the credentials committee. Twenty five of them are appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean."
So what stops Dean from stacking the deck with his 25 appointees favoring one candidate over the other? Unless Dean pledges to appoint his 25 proportionately with Obama and Clinton supporters in ratio tied to the pledged delegates, and he has said no such thing, then he holds the kingmaking card.
So "Can The Process That Determines Outcome In Florida And Michigan Be Hijacked? Nope."
seems exactly wrong. Yup is more like it.
February 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forget that Dean is a Movement Progressive with a 50 state solution. Hillary is busy dissing every state in the union that isn't a big democratic state. Dean has been working diligently to get democrats elected all over the country. If there is anyone in the system, that would naturally be aligned with Obama it's dean. Not Raum, not any of these DLC Clinton cronies. Dean is absolutely on the same page with Obama. And Hillary is doing everything she can to undo the work he’s been doing for the last 3 years. He knows the Clinton 50+1 was the worst strategy the Dems have ever adopted. He also knows what it means to take a loss to win over the long haul. I would not worry on this score.
He knows what needs to be done.
February 19, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's possible.
It's possible for Clinton to prevail in the credentials committee, even it she's at a small disadvantage in pledged delegates. (Some of the parliamentary scenarios are complex, some are not.)
It's possible for Clinton to prevail in a floor fight on a contested credentials report, even if a majority of the delegates favor Obama, status quo ante.
Obama's majority will include superdelegates whose affinity for Obama is near-equivocal, and most/all superdelegates have broader defining interests than who gets the nod. A superdelegate vote for Obama is not necessarily a superdelegate vote against seating FL or MI (or a superdelegate vote for whatever majority resolution comes out of the credentials committee, which is yet another thing).
And there will be more than a few superdelegates, nominally leaning Obama, who would rather have the nomination decided by a credentials action in order that the nomination need not be decided by the superdelegates.
Many things are possible. It's possible that Ickes is just blowing smoke (though it's not clear to what end). One thing is not possible, however. It's not possible that Greg knows better than Harold what is and isn't possible in the convention.
February 19, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
RonK:
You offer a sophisticated analysis, and I'll concede that it is, in a narrow sense, possible that the delegate math for the adoption of a committee report unfavorable to Obama's prospects might be different than a simple tally of his supporters.
But I suspect you're being too clever by half. If this thing is actually close enough that Michigan and Florida might make the difference (and I don't expect that to be the case), then the vote on the majority report will become a test vote. And, as in all test votes, the actual issues at stake will become essentially immaterial. If seating the delegations becomes the prime determinant of the nomination, then delegates will not be able to hide behind the fig leaves of upholding the rules or enfranchising the voters. Whatever their public rationales, they will be held to account for their votes on the report as if those votes had been cast for the candidates themselves.
So I'll return to the premise with which I started - if this goes to the floor, than the candidate with a simple majority prevails.
February 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably making several more assumptions than you realize.
February 19, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quote attributed to Josef Stalin:
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
Is this now the mantra of the Billary camp?
Having endured stolen presidential elections in 2000 & 2004, is the democratic party ready to write its obituary by letting the nomination be perceived as being 'stolen'?
February 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I think you might be wrong about how the members of the Credentials Committee are selected. I wrote about this in a comment at The Field, and I was going to post on my blog here but never did. I might later tonight.
According to the Dem rules, the members appear to be selected based on the popular vote in each primary state, and the At Large delegate equation in each caucus state.
Here is the relevant portion of my comment, which addresses the nightmare scenario Ickes is alluding to:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=610#comment-2296
February 19, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
For completion's sake, I'll finish up with my line of thought here:
Basically, if Clinton bounces back and starts winning, closing the pledged delegate gap to, say, within 60 or 70, we could really have a nightmare scenario.
Because then, if she did control a majority of the Credentials Committee, at the convention the Committee would vote to seat the FL and MI delegations, and send a report to the floor to be voted on by all delegates and superdelegates (except FL and MI). If they accept it, FL and MI are seated, and Clinton gets about 57 pledged delegates closer to Obama (that’s the last reasonable estimate I came across), PLUS she gets her FL and MI superdelegates, in which she currently leads Obama by 9, and she could get the lion’s share of the remaining 29.
That could put her over the top. If not, she would then attempt to strong-arm a number of superdelegates–or even regular delegates–to close the deal. The smaller the numbers she has to deal with, the better her chances are of convincing weak-willed party members.
But the convention can also reject the report. In addition to almost all Obama supporters, there will be some regular and superdelegates who either support Clinton or are uncommitted–especially from IA and NH–who will NOT want FL and MI seated. If the floor rejects the report, the Credentials Committee must issue a new report within hours, and send it back to the floor. This back and forth could happen several times.
In the end, it would come down to three scenarios:
A. Either a handful of folks on the committee or on the convention floor change their votes, and Clinton wins;
B. No one changes their vote, and Obama wins;
C. Someone like Al Gore and Joe Biden broker a compromise: Obama and Clinton run together on the same ticket.
February 19, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Old Guard & Gatekeepers of the Party are baffled...
No one wants their keys to the castle
No one want to take their power & status away from them.
I believe these new crop of voters want to take an ACTIVE role in their FUTURE for America. Texas early primary voting began today. I have never seen so many people lined up for early voting in my area... I mean never. Lots of youngsters were out.. surprised me.. I guess they cut school... But hell.. It truley is a wonderful thing to see unfold... I hope these "strategic" manuevers don't backfire for the Dems.
February 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised the Clinton campaign let Obama off the hook for stealing Deval Patrick's speech. Obama didn't just steal Patrick's speech...he's stolen Patrick's entire campaign! Which speaks to the authenticity and genuineness of Obama's campaign, rhetoric and message.
The people of Massachusetts voted for Deval Patrick's campaign/message in 2006, but when they saw Obama running the same campaign with the same message two years later, they thoroughly rejected it. They were played for suckers once and wised up.
Most people usually catch on to a snake oil salesman. Unfortunately for Democrats, they look like they aren't going to catch on fast enough. But the rest of the country will in time for the general election.
And on another note, Obama (along with Deval Patrick) promises all of this magic change, which leads to the following questions. Just what has Deval Patrick "changed" for the better in Massachusetts in his two years there? And what, if anything has Obama ever "changed" for the better in his entire life?
The only "change" I have ever seen Obama accomplish is that his campaign (Deval Patrick's really) has changed alot of Clinton supporters into insane, rabid, foaming at the mouth Clinton haters.
February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, OxyConservative. How nice of you to come visit us at our neighborhood.
"...Obama promises all this magic change..."
"...And what, if anything has Obama ever "changed" for the better in his entire life?"
You're not interested in respectfully asking questions are you? And you have no idea what Obama has accomplished because you're really not interested in finding out, are you?
Well, I have the information, so I'll offer it to you anyway.
First, let's look at your criticism of Obama's (in)authenticity: Deval Patrick and Barack Obama have been friends for more than an decade, and their political beliefs are very similar. They've openly admitted this -- they've also openly admitted to "borrowing" from each other during political campaigns. See for yourself in the Boston Globe article dated April 16, 2007:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/16/patrick_obama_campaigns_share_language_of_hope/
Now, I haven't followed the career of Deval Patrick as Massachussetts Governor, but I do know a little about Barack Obama's accomplishments. The most thorough research and information gathering on this subject I've been able to find has been at Obsidian Wings. Enjoy:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html
It's wearing thin, the "what has he done except talk?" question, OxyConservative. It's becoming obvious that people who continue to ask it simply aren't willing to listen to the response.
"Most people usually catch on to a snake oil salesman." It seems you and I agree about that. I believe Americans are generally fair-minded, sensible people. They catch on when the doubts and accusations raised by people like you just don't make sense anymore.
February 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised the Clinton campaign let Obama off the hook for stealing Deval Patrick's speech. Obama didn't just steal Patrick's speech...he's stolen Patrick's entire campaign! Which speaks to the authenticity and genuineness of Obama's campaign, rhetoric and message.
The people of Massachusetts voted for Deval Patrick's campaign/message in 2006, but when they saw Obama running the same campaign with the same message two years later, they thoroughly rejected it. They were played for suckers once and wised up.
Most people usually catch on to a snake oil salesman. Unfortunately for Democrats, they look like they aren't going to catch on fast enough. But the rest of the country will in time for the general election.
And on another note, Obama (along with Deval Patrick) promises all of this magic change, which leads to the following questions. Just what has Deval Patrick "changed" for the better in Massachusetts in his two years there? And what, if anything has Obama ever "changed" for the better in his entire life?
The only "change" I have ever seen Obama accomplish is that his campaign (Deval Patrick's really) has changed alot of Clinton supporters into insane, rabid, foaming at the mouth Clinton haters.
February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised the Clinton campaign let Obama off the hook for stealing Deval Patrick's speech. Obama didn't just steal Patrick's speech...he's stolen Patrick's entire campaign! Which speaks to the authenticity and genuineness of Obama's campaign, rhetoric and message.
The people of Massachusetts voted for Deval Patrick's campaign/message in 2006, but when they saw Obama running the same campaign with the same message two years later, they thoroughly rejected it. They were played for suckers once and wised up.
Most people usually catch on to a snake oil salesman. Unfortunately for Democrats, they look like they aren't going to catch on fast enough. But the rest of the country will in time for the general election.
And on another note, Obama (along with Deval Patrick) promises all of this magic change, which leads to the following questions. Just what has Deval Patrick "changed" for the better in Massachusetts in his two years there? And what, if anything has Obama ever "changed" for the better in his entire life?
The only "change" I have ever seen Obama accomplish is that his campaign (Deval Patrick's really) has changed alot of Clinton supporters into insane, rabid, foaming at the mouth Clinton haters.
February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM is beginning to sound a lot like the MSM. IF Clinton loses the delegate count, it would be NEAR IMPOSSIBLE for her to chose how to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, but WE BETTER POST AN ARTICLE POSITING THE "HIJACKING OF THESE DELEGATES BY HILLARY" just because it sounds exciting.
What shame ... what a sham TPM is becoming.
February 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless I am mistaken, Greg's account only deals with the first half of the question of seating MI and FL. The first half has to do with the Credentials Committee. If they vote to seat MI/FL, then I think it has to go to the convention as a whole to vote on. So there are two hurdles to overcome. Getting past the CC and getting the vote of the convention. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
February 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, you are absolutely correct; flyonthewall has made the same observation above. But if she is so close as to be able to control at least one report coming out of the credentials committee, she will also be close enough in overall delegate count to have at least a handful of targets to strongarm into switching their allegiance, and vote for seating MI and FL, and thus hand the lead to Clinton.
February 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless I am not reading this correctly, yes, the recommendation of the CC (to seat or not seat MI/FL) will be voted on by the delegates as a body. So in the interval between the CC's recommendation and the delegates voting on it, there is going to be one hell of a lot of politicking and spin. Innocent bystanders should stay out of harm's way.
"The credential committee would meet in July or August, and its decision would be in the form of a recommendation to all the delegates at the convention. They have a range of options to consider, including recommending reinstatement of all or some of the delegates divided any way they see fit between Obama and Clinton. The recommendation would become the first order of business at the convention on Aug. 25."
http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=118015
February 19, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This site is becoming a little depressing. Why doesn't everyone wait for the primary votes to be counted before you jump out the window. I know the Obama camp is in love, but remember, when was the last time someone married the first person they had sex with?
February 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why my post was replicated twice. I didn't hit send but once. I apologise.
February 19, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
C&P
The DNC Credentials The DNC Credentials Committee is made up of 3 people. Those 3 people ALL SERVED in the Cinton Administration
That leads us to the three co-chairs of the DNC Credentials Committee: Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr. and Aliseo Roques-Arroyo. All three of them served in the Clinton Administration.
Okay, as far as we know they are all reputable, upstanding people, but if you were Hillary Clinton and these three people worked for you and your husband during the 8 presidential years Hillary includes on her "35 years of experience," wouldn't you feel like you might have some influence on the three co-chairs? After all, the decision of the DNC Credentials Committee will be political; this is not a judicial process.
February 19, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>You know... all these nefarious ideas the clinton campaign is floating (and then denying) are simply reprehensible. What is the purpose behind this? And how are voters supposed to feel?
I'm starting to wonder also. Do you suppose it could be a grand game of "Chicken"? Obviously the only peaceful way out of this is for one or the other candidate to acknowledge 'defeat' and withdraw, before the convention. By raw numbers, it doesn't look like they will be definitely defeated before then (no one can make the needed number).
I keep daydreaming that tonight will be a blow-out for Obama, Texas will go for Obama, and Ohio will be for Obama or too slightly for Clinton to make a difference .... and the handwriting will be there on the wall. Someone who was behind as much as Hillary would be behind at that point, and with momentum taking her further behind, could and I believe would in good conscience step aside, gracefully as Edwards did.
BUT ... what if it's closer or if there has been a shift, however slight, in momentum to Clinton, so that *arguably* Obama might be the one who could be considered the spoiler, the new kid depriving the party of its chance at peace and success? Could these rather revolting trial balloons be a signal to Obama (and party leaders) that Clinton is "planning for every eventuality and willing to do whatever" ...... so if there is any hope for peace, it can only come with an Obama withdrawal.
Obviously no one is, or could, be saying today that he should step down (how do you say that coming off 8 consecutive victories?), but maybe it's a crap shoot, sort of stacking the deck to get folks thinking how nice it would be to resolve matters in case there's any sort of slowing to his momentum?
Other than that, I can't imagine how they believe these things can help her campaign ... and without doubt they have *some* reason for doing it. (Some reason that she sanctions or they wouldn't be doing it.)
laurajordan, you are nicer than I. I've made it all the way from assuming I would be an enthusiastic Clinton supporter (NY, a woman, similar age, long-time fan)to someone who honestly will be HAPPY to see Hillary lose. Anything - anything! - would be better than the downward spiraliing Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton disaster.
February 19, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I'm an Obama supporter and prefer style over substance, I just want to comment that they both look like death warmed over in those pictures on the front page. They might as well be standing behind McCain at a speech.
February 19, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't gather why Ickes would even suggest this possibility - how does it benefit team Clinton to put a buzz out there that she may be willing to stoop to such tactics? Is it an intimidation move? I honestly don't get it...
February 19, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...Let's see...they float all these manner of *swinging* (read stealing) the various delegates necessary to win AFTER they suck the media into a kerfuffle about Obama *stealing* language from Patrick?
Of course the media willingly cedes to anything they can find that might be *wrong* with Obama, thereby willingly creates the cover the Clintons need to float all this insider party BS.
Don't any of these players get it that this wave or movement or cult or whatever tag they wish is NOT about the person of Obama?
Do they not get that BOTH Patrick and Obama had/have/will continue to be attacked for being all talk (read words) and no action (read insider lever pulling)?
Do they not get that BOTH Patrick and Obama reached into history to throw back those same words to refute the silly contention they are all words and no action?
Do they not get that BOTH Patrick and Obama represent the much larger yearning of the general public to be out of the politics as usual that their opponents represent?
Good grief...do they all have the attention span of a gnat?
Try all the tricks they (the Clintons, Patrick's opponent, the media) want, it will not change the thirst so many Americans have to get out of this hole of partisan bickering and party insider BS.
February 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone saw Howard Fineman last night on Hardball and then Countdown, he was most emphatic that, while he had his doubts earlier, he was absolutely CONVINCED that Clinton was going to take it all the way to the convention floor - no stopping short of that no matter what. I remember being startled and wondering what happened to make him so certain all of a sudden. Obviously he 'got' the same message that the anon. person talking to Roger Simons and Ickes are broadcasting. Still the question - why?
February 19, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, why would Democrats want to nominate a candidate who can fight? Better to lay back and watch Barack (debates scare me) Obama blow another election.
February 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems as though every day someone in the Clinton campaign is opening their mouth about some benighted strategy they intend to employ to hijack the nomination, if it should come to that.
Forget the ethical twilight of these schemes, what in hell do they think they can accomplish by tipping their hands this way? What message do these statements send that would be of any conceivable benefit to their cause?
I don't get what they're up to.
February 19, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Clinton objective with all this crap is to cloud the issue and make it appear that nothing will really be settled until it gets to the convention. They're doing to appear viable to donors and to stem the tide of bad media (even though this in itself engenders more bad press) in hopes they can pull off a miracle or cover Obama with enough slime to bring him down to their level.
After 3/4 she can either bow out gracefully or risk
damaging herself in Dem party circles forever.
February 19, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that the Clinton campaign understands Texas (Oh s---!) this is part of the expectations game for March 5th. With a 4-10 delegate cushion from RI and VT, it's hard to see how Clinton doesn't wake up on March 5th still trailing by 50 to 100 delegates. And if Obama wins more delegates in either OH or TX, the drumbeat of "when will she drop out" will commence in earnest, for a full six weeks until PA.
February 19, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Laura Jordon for welcoming me to "your neighborhood". All this time I thought some guy named Josh owned this web site. Silly me. But anyways, where's my welcome wagon basket?
First off, you never really addressed the issue of authenticity. To me, if you are campaigning as some sort of Messiah with such lofty rhetoric, I think you should at the least be using your own lofty rhetoric and not someone else's. You kind of look like a fraud when your buddy runs a campaign and you steal it two years later.
Also, thanks for the Obsidianwings link. I'm really surprised that as a US Senator, Barack Obama actually helps write legislation, and that all of the contributions he may have had a part in make the accomplishments of the Clintons pale in comparison.
February 19, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone smell the desperation in camp Clinton?
Well, I think if any sane person actually cared about votes in Michigan and Florida, as Mrs. Clinton says she does then there is a very simple solution to this problem. Reschedule the primaries for these two states. We have many long months ahead before the convention. It would not be difficult to do.
But alas, no one believes that Hillary actually gives a shit what Florida and Mich. think. She cares about stealing these delegates where Obama was not allowed to campaign.
As we've seen, everywhere Obama has a chance to campaign, he wins. He’s beating Hillary in big states, small states. Now he’s taking the elderly votes, woman’s votes, Hispanic votes. He’s beating her by every measure.
So, camp Hillary, put up or shut up. Push to reschedule a real primary or caucus in these states. Or STFU about the delegates.
February 19, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just finished reading through the Call to Convention 08 and uploaded the distribution of the credentials committee to my own website in PDF format (http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/pdf/credentials-committee-allocation.pdf)
The 158 allocated members of the credentials committee are allocated according to states won (the chart is self-explanatory). From that you should be able to figure out how many will represent Hillary and how many will represent Barack.
As far as I can tell, at this point she wouldn't have enough for a challenge, but even if she did I'm at a loss to understand how Michigan delegates can be apportioned when the election itself was declared unconstitutional with no federal court order for a revote.
March 30, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Rasputin,
It's not up to Obama or Clinton. you have read too many half-baked press reports. Neither of them has any control over voting in those states.
March 30, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER:
1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION
2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY
ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. I ALSO BELIEVE LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AFTER ILLEGALLY CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.
March 31, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink