The Fifty Percent Solution Is "Acceptable To The Challenger"
Jon Ausman, the puckish and bemused Florida DNC member who's trying to get the Florida delegation seated, is bringing the house down with his challenge -- to the extent that any presentation before Rules and Bylaws can bring the house down, of course.
He just wrapped things up, and his final word is this: Seating half the delegates is "acceptable to the challenger."
That's shaping up more and more as the likely outcome. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein cites two sources saying that a deal has already been reached to seat the delegation with each member having half a vote -- which would give Hillary a net gain of 19 delegates.
Of course, few expected Florida to be as tough to resolve as Michigan, which is the real morass. Hillary adviser Harold Ickes will argue that the committee has no legal authority whatsoever to award "uncommitted" delegates to any candidate, meaning that the only legal outcome (in Ickes' view) is Hillary's preferred one.
Senator Nelson is telling it like it is.
Count all the votes. Period.
May 31, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask you this - if the challenge was to the votes themselves - if Hillary was arguing that they weren't valid votes for some reason - say the voter was disqualified for some reason, according to the challenge, would you still be arguing every vote?
How about if precinct chairs forced people to vote for a certain person or paid people to vote a certain way - and that was the challenge - would you still be bitching about "every vote" like this was an election?
May 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're sorry. The GotALife 2008 program is designed only to present choppy, critical phrases (2 to 3 at a time) in regards to how the system is undermining the nomination of the best candidate - Hillary Clinton. Your question is too complex for processing. Please revise and resubmit.
May 31, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bye Hillary
The DNC is saying no to you
Like the rest of the US
May 31, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Nelson's was a general argument before a rules committee dealing with specific language. Not sure it went anywhere. The previous speaker was much more effective, digging into the details.
May 31, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Nelson tried to pull out that party unity card to try to wash over the fact that Democrats did vote for this along with a paper trail (which is of course a hard decision that I can't totally disagree with). But I think it talks to the Clinton supporters bullshit.
"You're not on my side? You're bringing up things that are relevant to why this got screwed up that might not be easy for people to understand and I can take the easy route? YOU SIR ARE AGAINST PARTY UNITY I SAY!"
Yeah, and seriously, I don't think Joyner could have found another empathetic piece to throw out there in American history to try to connect to Clinton and counting the votes. Good God, they're pushing the empathy card so hard it's sickening.
May 31, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "cites two sources" link is malformatted, and does not work as a link (at least in Firefox, and probably not in others).
Your HTML has the link as "a rhef=(blah blah blah)", whereas in reality it should be "a href=(blah blah blah)". Please fix this. Thanks.
May 31, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And for anyone else who wants to actually get to that link before TPM fixes it, here is a working copy of it.
May 31, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
FL is the easy one - every vote counts as 1/2.
MI is the clusterfuck.
May 31, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton Super Del Gov Granholm ought to be asked by this committee, what were you thinking?!?
May 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it shouldn't be. The Clintons are on record saying it didn't count. Ahh, that's right the clintons lie about everything. I forgot.
May 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This really is infuriating. If they were going to cut the delegates in 1/2 they should have done that before the primary on January 29 and allowed the candidates to campaign. This is blatantly unfair to obama. The January 29 "contest" was part name recognition plus skewed further to clinton based on the proposition on the ballot. However, we need to get on with this, so it is what it is. But it really pisses me off.
May 31, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention blatantly unfair to all the voters who would have voted for Obama.
And the other 48 states that followed the rules.
May 31, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I bet the other states that didn't violate the rules are kicking themselves. Think about it the political leaders of Michigan and Florida have gotten a ton of free press and airtime for the last 5 months whining about "disenfranchisement" and the american way is one person one vote, etc., etc. They benefited tremendously from breaking the rules. It is truly Absurd.
Also, the only one being punished in this whole debacle is obama, not the states. The lesson to be learned from this fiasco is that rules don't count. Break the rules and take advantage. In the future, states won't abide by the rules nor will candidates. They will point to this nonsense and say why should I follow the rules and be at a severe disadvantage. Pathetic.
May 31, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get CSPAN or MSNBC, so I'm watching on CNN.
They keep pulling away during closely reasoned presentations to ask their "best political panel in the whole f-ing world" what they think.
And they just now had John King do, for the 11-zillionth time, his horse-race bar-chart thing.
Could we possibly be allowed to hear the actual arguments going on in the committee room?
That's why we tuned in, dammit.
May 31, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can stream C-Span.
May 31, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hate tiny screens.
May 31, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC is letting it play out, only interrupting between speakers.
That's bloody FDR's grandson up there as co-chair! I love it!
May 31, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know, so cool, ain't it?
May 31, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the C-SPAN link:
http://cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
May 31, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hat tip to Leto in previous thread.
May 31, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson appears very pro-Clinton here
If he is representing the Democratic Party of Florida (and not any campaign in particular), it is fair game to address how the Florida Democratic Party was complicit in creating this mess. His losing his temper with MacDonald (McDonald?) is all posturing.
He lost a fair amount of his credibility during his remarks, in my opinion.
May 31, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. What bullshit was that?!
You don't want to re-hash how we got to this fucking mess in the first place? Well, boo-fucking-hoo.
May 31, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, okay, that was Jon Ausman. I was wondering what Philip Seymour Hoffman had to do with this whole mess.........
May 31, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same thought!:)
May 31, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't listen to Bill Nelson for more than a few minutes at a time. His voice makes me want to take a nap not to mention he is usually blowing a lot of hot air.
Sadly, he isn't any where near as annoying as the woman who is speaking after him.
May 31, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joyner is making me cry. The people of FL have suffered enough, they weren't able to see the candidates face to face.
Did an adult really write her speech?
May 31, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
More like "Florida has caused the rest of the country enough suffering." I'm about finished with the whole state. Drama, drama, drama....it's like the Hillary and Bill Clinton of states.
May 31, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was the Florida and Michigan gop that caused this travesty.
Why in the world would the DNC allow the gop to do this is beyond me.
Let the Dems win DNC. Count every single vote . Period.
May 31, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it was Michigan Democrats who wanted to push up the primary.
May 31, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michigan, in particular, was all Democrats. Florida, the Democrats were complicit. Your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
May 31, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wayne Barrett over at HuffPo disagrees
June 2, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhh, didn't you pay attention to what was going on? The dems control michigan and the governor who wanted to push it up is a clinton supporter. Also, the dnc gave every opportunity and was willing to help florida pay to comply with the rules and have their nominating contest after 2/5.
Oh, why do I bother anyway, I know this will fall on deaf ears.
May 31, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton Superdel MI Gov Granholm signed the law that led to this trainwreck.
May 31, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this video will jog your memory about Fla. Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller (he's the duplicitous asshole who filed two lawsuits ex post facto "just so [he could] show it to them later". Also, huge Clinton supporter...of course, Clinton has nothing to do with these things, she just had an hours-long meeting with him the night before the suits were filed, etc., etc.
May 31, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you vote to move the election date, Senator Joyner?
Oh, you did?
Why the hell are you here then.
And, please stop yelling.
May 31, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michigan: I was flipping back and forth between CNN and VH1 Classics, but caught CNN saying that the Uncommitted question may be solved by simply calling up the other major players who weren't on the ballot -- Edwards, Richardson, Biden -- and ask them, do you want the Uncommitted delegates to go toward Obama?
Sounds fair.
Again, in my home state, the Uncomitted vote (which went by 40%) was the anybody-but-Clinton vote.
May 31, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
so seating half the delegates with a full vote gives them a net gain of 6 for HRC? and seating them all with half a vote is 19?
May 31, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
May 31, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, pretty bizarre. Poblano has a pretty good break down of this -http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/six-versus-half-dozen.html
May 31, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did the rumored massive pro-Clinton demonstration not materialize? The ABC web site didn't mention demonstrators; CNN reported that "dozens" were demonstrating.
May 31, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious about this also. They haven't been showing the crowds outside much, so my guess it's not nearly the "10,000" the Clinton campaign was touting.
May 31, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what about superdelegates in FL and MI? Would they all be seated at half a vote as well? I've heard that Clinton has lobbied them heavily and may get most of them?
May 31, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh goodie, finally a normal person in the form of Rep Wexler.
May 31, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't listen anymore. But on Huff Post I noticed a LOT of bloggers in Florida are REALLY angry as they did not vote, being told it would not count, and now they are saying they would vote for Nader of HRC. I blame Hillary for all of this, and what kind of President would break the rules after agreeing to them? Oh wait........
May 31, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the passion/anger that Wexler is showing.
May 31, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Wexler.
But, he is yelling, too.
May 31, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm obviously an Obama guy, but if anyone's supporters are due a moment of righteous anger it is Obama's folks.
May 31, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, am an Obama guy.
However, the yelling is a bit much.
May 31, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Obamic outrage. I'm touched by Wexler. Shouting makes his argument so much more valid.
Sen. Obama offers? Offers? He is not in a position to offer.
Pompous and arrogant to the end.
May 31, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Wexler is good!
May 31, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wexler rocks.
May 31, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick question: Has this morning only been about Florida?
May 31, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far, I believe.
May 31, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
May 31, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one hell of a lot more entertaining than I thought it would be.
May 31, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one has yet put forth a reasonable argument that the percentages that the candidates won in Florida would have been any different had 1 million or two million more people had voted.
There is no evidence that more Obama voters stayed home than Clinton voters.
And there is no actual proof that anyone stayed home that wanted to vote.
Seat all delegates, count all the votes.
Formulas and compromises are all arbitrary. the actual vote is the only fact.
May 31, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other FACT that you failed to mention is that this was an unsanctioned election. Period. End of story.
May 31, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. It has been funny watching Clinton's DNC folks try to ignore their own rules.
May 31, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's so much wrong with your comment, there, that I'm not even going to bother trying to take it apart sentence by sentence. I'll just say: You're wrong.
May 31, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong about my being wrong.
May 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How old are you? 10?
May 31, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouting again.
May 31, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harold Ikes is such a douche!
May 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Concept of Fair Reflection???
Go Wexler, Go Wexler, Go Wexler...
Was that smoke coming out of Ickes' ears, just now?
May 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He just makes it up as he goes along, and when he's called on it, he gets up an leaves. Entitlement suck twice as bad when you don't get what you want.
May 31, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes just got PWNED!!11!!!
May 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally. Ickes did not look happy.
May 31, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Seat all delegates, count all the votes."
Unfortunately for your argument, that is not what the Ausland challenge calls for.
He accepts Florida was in violation and the mandatory penalty should apply.
In what universe do you imagine the DNC rules committee granting the state more than it has actually requested?
May 31, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wexler made the point that Dean et al fucked up.
Thank you for supporting Clinton and pissing off the Rules Committee.
Keep it up.
May 31, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I get it now! You ARE Harold Ikes!
May 31, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was so good, I need a cigarette.
May 31, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Are the Clinton folks on the DNC as ignorant as they sound or does it just seem that way due to the illogic of their arguments?
May 31, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take your Obamic filter off your ears.
May 31, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer: The Clinton folks on the DNC are as ignorant as they sound.
May 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: Clinton's position is prevailing.
May 31, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only in those who care to argue against their own rules!
Most of the Obama folks on the DNC are just waiting to vote on the half vote solution.
May 31, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
When one lacks a leg to stand on, one typically falls over. We're in that peculiar era where Wiley E. Coyote has drifted off the clif, but gravity has yet to catch up to the situation.
T -3 Days. Going to Denver Tuesday night is sheer brilliance. He opens the GE campaign by making sure the GOP will always play second fiddle.
May 31, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
St. Paul on Tuesday...
May 31, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
(SMACK FOREHEAD)
too true! thanks!
May 31, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell? Brewer argued that the 50% reduction is not an appropriate penalty because it's meant to be a deterrant prospectively, not something to be administered as a penalty after the fact. So, if a State chooses to defy the rules, and ignore the warning, it's inappropriate for the Committee to then mete out the penalty.
Off with their heads. Delegates are cut in half.
May 31, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama--via Bonior-- wants to 'respect' the right of the citizens of Michigan to participate in the choosing of the nominee by giving them them the exact same results they would have gotten if everybody stayed home.
He recounts with crocodile tears the difficulties faced by would be Obama voters -- Obama took his own name off the ballot 'in respect' of the committee -- so much for Obama's lying claim that the rules required it and they couldn't write Obama in because Obama hadn't authorized it.
Amazing that Bonior even thinks he is a small d democrat.
If Hillary had kept her name off the ballot in New Hampshire 'in respect' of the committee rules setting the schedule with New Hampshire -- just how many votes given to Obama do you think she would be entitled to? That's the steal he is trying here.
May 31, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment is just loopy.
(1) A 0-0 delegate split is NOT the same as 64-64. The difference is that Michigan gets no convention delegation in the first split.
(2) The DNC's agreement with the candidates and the four "pre-window" states specifically mentioned that the candidates would not campaign OR PARTICIPATE in a non-sanctioned early contest. That's why those candidates came off the ballot.
Was removal from the ballot a specific requirement of the four-state pledge? No. But coming off the ballot certainly honored, at the very least, the full spirit of the pledge. And the "...campaign or participate..." verbiage means that there's an excellent legal argument to be made that coming off the ballot WAS required.
(3) Your New Hampshire "analogy" compares apples to tractors. New Hampshire's primary move to 1/8 was approved by the DNC - because Michigan jumped ahead of them by moving to 1/15. No candidate would willingly come off a ballot for a sanctioned primary.
June 1, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink