This gem from Talk Left is a perfect example of the kind of crazy that seems to be whipped up by the Clinton campaign. Apparently, Jeralynn has run the numbers, and if you include Florida and Michigan’s numbers into the popular vote tally (and remember, Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan), throw out the states in which there were caucuses, and do a couple of other things that Jeralynn does that she has detailed in her “methodology,” then you can state, with a perfectly straight face, that Clinton and Obama are tied in the popular vote.
In other news, if we had found WMD in Iraq, the whole thing might have been worth it! If we had only gone into Iraq with more troops and a coherent strategy and a plan to rebuild, things might be a success today! If the last eight years had not been a total disaster, Bush would have been the best President ever! If only I had tried harder as a kid, I might have made it into the NFL!
Also, if my Aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.
I can’t be the only person to recognize this odd and troubling detachment from reality that seems to be gripping both the Clinton campaign and her supporters, and it is truly bizarre. Meanwhile, the rascals at Rasmussen seem to want to play along:
If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama’s 30, Clinton would currently have a 120 (1738 to 1618) total delegate lead and a remarkable 167 (1427 to 1260) pledged delegate lead. These numbers give Texas’ “prima-caucus” delegates to Clinton and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.
This, of course, assumes two things. First, that the system is completely overhauled and turned into the winner-take all system. Second, it assumes that with a different system, the Obama campaign would have done nothing differently. Since neither is the case, this is a great talking point for the Clinton camp to use on the addle-minded, but it won’t persuade anyone who can tie their shoes. The rules were clear when the campaign began, and you don’t choose your nominee by asking “What if” at the end of the race.
zzyzx
She didn’t actually add too much to things beyond throwing out every single caucus state, except that she added the Washington primary, which not only didn’t count, but had school levies on Clinton leaning counties but nothing else on the ballot in King. Obama did win that still, but narrowly. I think it was added to look more “fair.”
So to summarize, if you add in 3 elections that didn’t count and throw out 12 that did and then add the votes in Michigan in the best popular interpretation for Clinton, you can come to this conclusion.
The problem Talk Left has is that they don’t understand the difference between being able to make an argument and being able to make an argument that will convince anyone else.
bootlegger
If we drop every state that the Dems would win if bin-Laden was running–Cali, NY, Mass.–BHO would win a landslide.
So there.
fritz
All those in the reality based community are just going to have to get with the program and join the fantasy.
some guy
Rassmussen doesn’t even make internal sense. Why do they award all the Texas delegates to Clinton? If it were winner-take-all, why wouldn’t Obama get all 67 caucus delegates–which would keep him in the lead, even with this fantasy scenario.
Marc
There are even vote totals for the caucases which she didn’t bother to include. It’s simply Alice in Wonderland time there.
Davis X. Machina
Yet these are the people who deride *Obama* supporters as fantasists (“Magical Unity Pony”)
Mote, beam, eye. Repeat PRN.
John Cole
I changed my title.
Dennis - SGMM
As others have so wisely put it:
“If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must elect Hillary!”
TheFountainHead
My doctor says that I have a choice. I can either continue to watch election coverage or develop multiple ulcers at the age of 24.
I think it’s fair to say at this point that even Democrats are trying to kill me.
zzyzx
The more I think about this, the more it irritates me. Why is it important to in their eyes to count Michigan despite the fact that the DNC said it wouldn’t? Because it’s the will of the voters that’s important, not the will of the DNC. It’s not the voters fault that the DNC sanctioned their state.
OK, fine. Now what’s the argument for not counting uncommitted towards Obama? Obama took himself off of the ballot. He has only himself to blame. So the will of the voters is more important than the rules when it helps Clinton but the rules are more important than the will of the voters when it helps Obama.
Yes, Jeralyn. It really is the case that absolutely no one wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan. This election completely reflects the will of the people. I don’t understand why you’re the only person in the world who sees that.
Jake
I’m pretty sure reading posts over at TalkLeft these days is a surefire path to stupidity.
This is your brain. This is your brain on TalkLeft. Any questions?
zzyzx
“I can either continue to watch election coverage or develop multiple ulcers at the age of 24.”
Watching election coverage cures ulcers!?!?
(Yes, I knew what you meant…)
Jake
“The problem Talk Left has is that they don’t understand the difference between being able to make an argument and being able to make an argument that will convince anyone else.”-zzyxx
Indeed, and the thing is that Jeralyn’s a lawyer (and a pretty good one if I recall). When bright, talented people have to resort to making fairly unconvincing arguments for a candidate, I think the gig is up. Game over man. Game over.
zzyzx
Ok, well I’m off to the caucus (Washington Legislative District). Here’s hoping no dirty tricks are going to be done, but I’m bringing my camera just in case.
Walker
Even MyDD has gotten pretty shrill lately in its anti-Obama cries. But it has not approached the Red State craziness that is TalkLeft.
Bob In Pacifica
How’s the Rezko trial going? Jeralyn was digging deeply there. Lots of Rev. Wright coverage too, but unless it happened in the last week there hasn’t been anything said about Hillary’s membership in that reactionary cult, “The Family.”
By the way, didn’t Charley Manson get the copyright for “The Family”?
Everyone just needs to stand by. In a few weeks there will be a lot of people there who will need to be talked off the ledge. In the fall every vote will count.
Punchy
OT:
John, can we get a Final 4 thread? Also, I think your email addy is broken.
Dennis - SGMM
Now, now, I have it on good authority that Jeralyn is working on a dynamite post that proves Clinton should be the nominee based on the numbers she would have achieved if everyone else had dropped out after Super Tuesday. She’ll then close the deal by demonstrating beyond doubt how Clinton would be victorious in a hypothetical match up with Zombie Ronald Reagan. Any Obama supporter not totally in the throes of CDS will be changing their lawn signs.
dmsilev
The Rezko trial is still going on. The prosecution’s star witness is currently being grilled by the defense.
The Chicago Tribune has a summary of the news so far. In a nutshell, our “esteemed” governor is up to his eyeballs in sleaze, but there have been nothing but cursory connections to Senator Obama.
And yes, Jeralyn has gone over the edge. “If I put my thumbs on the scale and lean as hard as I can on Senator Clinton’s side, Obama has a slight lead. Obama is DOOOOOOMED!”
-dms
Ted
Bill Paxton’s whining is just what I wanted in my head right now!
cleek
TalkLeft : talk is all we have left
The Grand Panjandrum
John, I’m glad you wrote this up. I saw it yesterday and started to write my own post and decided against it. I wasn’t as diplomatic about it as you were.
Since TalkLeft(Behind) is so interested in counting “every” vote I find it curious that they left out this little bit of information refernece marred ballots in the Washington state non-binding primary (my emphasis added):
Couple that with TalkLeft(Behind)’s very next post titled: NYT/CBS Poll: Obama’s Support “Softening” and you start to see why they are in full blown Looking Glass mode. She took the title of a NY Times article about its polling, cherry picked the title and one quote to make her point. Unfortunately, the title of the article itself is quite misleading, and the remaining, unquoted part of that article doesn’t really suggest any meaningful “softening” of support for Obama.
Jeralyn should leave all the crazy blogging to Armando. He’s better at over-the-top stuff. She just sounds whiny and desperate. BTD, at least, has a certain panache to his madness that makes his rants read as self parody (although I’m pretty sure he is serious.) So if BTD is the Mad Hatter who is Jeralyn?
Dennis - SGMM
Bill Paxton’s whining is just what I wanted in my head right now!
Well, all righty then.
John Cole
Before we get too far into this thread, let me be clear about something. I really, really, really like Jeralynn. I can honestly say she is probably one of the few people in the blogosphere that I have never once said anything nasty about (Avedon Carol also comes to mind, as well as Hilzoy), because I really do think she is one of the most fundamentally decent people out there.
I do think that she is wrong about this stuff, and I do believe she is so far in the tank for Clinton that she just is not thinking clearly. That being said, if all you are going to do is come in and say something along the lines og OMG Jeralyn is nuts, please don’t.
I think her logic here is crazy, and I think she is wrong, but I really don’t want this thread turning into a TalkLeft or Jeralyn bashing thread. Especially when you consider all the good that Talk Left has done in many, many important fights regarding criminal justice.
In other words, if all you are going to do is come here to dump on Jeralynn, don’t. Don’t fuck with her. Period.
robroser
What’s interesting is that (according to Rasmussen) a hypothetical Clinton pledged delegate lead of 167 would be ‘remarkable’, but the actual Obama lead of 171 means a tight race and 4 more months of this bullshit.
1jane
All blogs are opportunistic to a point..TL traded in any rational objectivity they may have had when they threw themselves under the bus for Clinton. It’s the insults, failure to allow objective facts or another point of view and huge numbers of Deletes that have reduced their regular posters to hand full. Serious censorship fom a lawyer and a guy who was tossed off of Kos. Who knew?
demps
it seems there are a lot of people who are dodgy over this contest, but I also think that most people outside the “blogosphere” are more reasonable about this whole thing. It is nothing if not amusing though to see the impassioned arguments on both sides that mock reason.
peach flavored shampoo
You’re equating the wrong two things. TalkLeft With JM(R) is excellent; most of us would agree. However, TalkLeft With Armando is fucking trash. And that’s who’s pushing the egregious anti-BO material.
At least that’s how I see it.
joe
If you don’t count the last two minutes of the Superbowl, Tom Brady’s got another ring.
And if my mother had wheels, she’s be a streetcar.
John Cole
Named Desire?
El Cid
I am in the process of doing my taxes. If we take the figures which represent my income and instead place them in the “donations to charitable organizations” category, the government owes me a lot of money.
demps
one thing I truly don’t understand however is why BTD insists he is an Obama supporter? How can he perpetrate such nonsense?
DrDave
John:
I think Jeralynn–who I read rarely but have seen on TV lots–is still hung up on the “Hillary is inevitable” meme and can’t get past it. So she has to concoct scenarios by which Hillary can still succeed. It doesn’t make her a bad person but she’s in denial; this will pass in a few weeks or at most a couple of months when Obama wins the nomination. Beyond that, I don’t think it matters that much because she isn’t going to influence the process much more than I am and eventually she is going to have to confront the fact that the general election is going to be Obama – McCain.
At that point, I expect she will come around because I can’t see any scenario in which she supports McCain. Can you?
Jake
I think that video of Bill Paxton wandering the Aliens landscape, wondering what the heck they’re supposed to do, is a likely accurate characterization of the mental state of the average TalkLeft loyalist in the not-too-distant future. I’m thinking come mid-June, they’re going to be wondering WTF just happened.
Awesome. But yes, we will need to get those folks to cowboy up for Obama come November. A good point.
John Cole
Ted Haggard has convinced himself he isn’t gay, he just likes to do a lot of amyl nitrate and meth and then have anal sex in hotels with other men. Humans are really, really good at believing what they want to believe.
Jake
Speaking of crystal meth, I just started watching Breaking Bad on AMC. Anyone catch that? It’s REALLY, REALLY good. Think Six Feet Under dark comedy/drama.
flyerhawk
I asked the rabid rabble over at TL whether it would be ok to come up with a solution for MI and FL after the other primaries were finished. That way they could be seated but those 2 states wouldn’t be given inordinate influence because they broke the rules.
Needless to say that didn’t go over well.
“That’s the thing. Keep FL and MI out of the narrative. Build the narrative that says Obama has an insurmountable lead because FL and MI aren’t being counted.
Is that it?
Have I figured it out? ”
“Why would anyone agree to wait to see how the cards fell to make a decision. Obama is running scared and he knows that if Florida and Michigan are counted he will not get the popular vote.”
Obama is running scared now because…. well I have no idea why he is running scared. But he is.
ACK
Seriously, this is the one blog that just never disappoints — laugh out loud funny. The excellent analysis/snark ratio is just perfect.
ding7777
TL is making a separate argument for primary votes only to be used as a measure for the popular counts.
She did not ignore caucus votes – she said they are used for the delegate count.
flyerhawk
demps,
BTD may very well be a tepid supporter but I don’t think he is more interested in playing to the crowd than providing balanced commentary. Obama bashing diaries are quite popular there, the vitriolic the better. Clinton bashing threads are simply unacceptable. Even tepid criticisms are met with harsh rebukes.
The funny thing is that because there are a small handful of Obama supporters there they feel the place is open-minded because they can compare themselves to Taylor Marsh where posting pro-Obama talk is on the same level as posting positive viewpoints regarding the Nazis.
jake
That option is only available to large corporations.
SquawkLeft is using the same math used by corporations like Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, etc, etc, etc: If you call all of the “debt” “profit,” then every thing is just all tits and roses.
ParagonPark
I think you give Merritt both too much and too little credit. Essentially, you suggest she’s just failing to see how absurd her arguments are because she has been temporarily swayed by emotion in one particular context, but is otherwise reasonable and intelligent.
I think it is more likely that in the context of Clinton-Obama, she is aware of the profound dishonesty of her arguments and that she is merely so contemptuous of her readers that she thinks she can fool most of them, drive away most of those not fooled and simply censor the diehards who remain to refute the dishonesty permeating the site.
That penchant for dishonesty and basing arguments on misinformation and fallacious reasoning at Talkleft is also not limited to the nomination race. It’s merely become so blatantly one-sided and transparent as concerns the nomination it’s unmistakable to anyone with a pulse. But, if you have ever paid attention to her pronouncements on a panoply of legal and political issues, the willingness to distort, conceal, obsfucate and intentionally mislead is not at all out of character.
tBone
This raises another good point – what about the zombie vote? The zombie populace doesn’t have a voice in the caucus and primary process. Why does Senator Obama want to disenfranchise the undead?
I’ll tell you why – because he knows that after killing and eating the brains of poll workers and normal voters, the zombies would overwhelmingly break for Hillary.
With McCain as the Republican candidate, the undead and nearly-dead will be a hugely important voting bloc this fall. Can we really afford to nominate a candidate who clearly doesn’t have the support of that community? I think not.
J. Michael Neal
McCain has the zombie vote locked up. I mean, have you looked at the dead people he puts on the podium when he speaks?
bhagamu
My favorite part about Jeralyn’s post is that she prefaces with: “this is how many individual human beings went to the polls to vote for a candidate”, and then after that, she says that caucuses don’t count.
CT
We should nuke the site from orbit-its the only way to be sure.
Salvo
What I don’t get is the blind faith assumption on the part of HRC supporters that she could win Michigan easily in a fair vote. Michigan, outside of the southeastern part, is solidly wingnut GOP. Southeastern part is composed of the AA population of Detroit, the elite liberal pops of Ann Arbor and Lansing, and the Reagan Dem/Independent pops of the Detroit suburbs. And with all the entire rest of the state against them, this small section has still managed to keep MI blue through the last 4 GE’s. And all 3 of those huge blue populations are Obama stronghold demographics. I don’t see a way that HRC could win MI in a fair revote.
What the media isn’t reporting on is that it was HRC surrogates here in MI who were responsible for moving up the primary in the first place; the rationale behind it, as reported by the Detroit Free Press, was that MI was already going to be tough for HRC to win, so the earlier the primary, the less chance they would have to get to know Obama, and she could perhaps eke out a narrow victory. When it backfired, HRC kept her name on the ballot for exactly this type of situation. There’s no doubt in my mind that Obama could rack up a double digit victory against her in a fair primary.
The only reason he’s opposed a MI revote in the first place is that the HRC camp is adamant that anybody who voted in the GOP primary cannot vote in the revote(which is odd, given how much crossing over helped her in TX and OH). Given that MI has a proud tradition of crossing over to mess in other peoples primaries, the reason behind this refusal to allow crossovers is that lots of activist Dems(including myself) who didn’t want to vote for HRC, crossed over on Jan 15th to vote for Romney. By excluding them, HRC is hoping to take a large chunk of Obama’s voting base and keep it close in MI; in other words, it would leave the voting pool only open to a small number that gave her the Jan 15th “victory”. Otherwise, she doesn’t have a chance.
cbear
In all fairness, Jeralynn was on one of the cable networks a week or so ago with (iirc) Cliff Schecter, and at the end of the jousting, stated unequivocably that all Dems needed to come together at the end of the primary season and support the nominee, whether Clinton or Obama.
Rick Taylor
One thing about lawyers is they’re trained to make the best possible case for a position, regardless of how sound the position actually is. I picked that up in another friend of mine who was a lawyer.
Also, she didn’t say anything about what the numbers she was giving meant, beyond that this is what the popular vote was; she left it to the ensuing discussion for people to argue it. Obamabots like me basically laughed and said, are you joking? I said it meant Obama was doing incredibly well if he was still ahead after not counting caucus states and counting Michigan and Florid while giving him zero votes for Michigan. But the general consensus seemed to be, while it was flawed not including the caucus states (although one poster said it was your own fault if you lived in a caucus state, you should push for primaries, or at least to have the vote counted as well), and also flawed not counting any votes for Obama in Michigan (though of course that was his fault taking his name off the ballot and then blocking a revote), it was still a legitimate measure that might influence superdelegates put alongside the delegate count. One poster said Obama was pushing Hillary to withdraw from the election because they knew after PA he’d be falling behind in the popular vote.
What worries me is that this will be the source of bitterness after the narrative becomes Obama won having stolen the election by blocking revotes in Florida and Michigan, even after having lost the popular vote.
Andrew
Double agree x1000. The second to last episode of the incredibly short season blew me away. The rest were quite good as well.
bernarda
You might like this song “Pigs Might Fly”.
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=g7QXwCGtjiw
Rick Taylor
[spoof on!]
And what I don’t understand is why Obamabots can’t see she actually won Michigan in a fair vote! Unlike Hillary who scrupulously kept her no campaigning pledge, Obama’s surrogates went out to coach people to vote for uncommitted. Even then, he could only manage to get 45% of the vote, which she’s offered him, even though it ought to be split between Obama and the other candidates.
Frankly though, if Obama removes his name from the ballot in a transparent attempt to win votes in Iowa, then he shouldn’t cry. He didn’t have to do that, he made his choice; let him live with it. You know I’ve noticed that Obamabots are always real big on the roolz, except when it would actually inconvenience their boy in his quest to steal the election.
Yeah, that’s why Obama went to so much trouble to block it. *snort!*
Roolz are roolz are roolz are roolz. Except of course when they would inconvenience the Obamessiah. I don’t see anyone should get to vote in the Democratic primaries if they already voted in the Republican. Besides, the only way Obama is winning in this extremely close election is that Rebublicans and Independents are crossing over, because they know they can make mincemeat of him in the general election. He’ll be like a lamb to the slaughter.
[spoof off]
John, did you say something about us needing better trolls?
Rick Taylor
*Republicans and Independents* -> *Rethugs*
LiberalTarian
Violates Ocham’s Razor principle: too complex and too mean spirited. She believes what she is writing, or she wouldn’t write it.
The woman has a right to her opinions. You can agree or not, but why attack her personally? Granted, it is easier to deride a person than rebut their opinion graciously. If you are trying to change her opinion, leading with insults won’t help you.
Rick Taylor
I can actually understand that one. When I posted anything that was defending Obama in the slightest on Tayor Marsh, it was immediately assumed, oh you’re an Obama supporter. When I posted that link to the University of Chicago Web page, someone told me face it, “Your boy lied.” It rankled, first because I don’t like to here Obama called a boy, and second it made the assumption that I was an Obama supporter because of course I couldn’t believe the argument I was making unless I was in the tank for Obama. Hell I voted for Hillary, and I’d still be supporting her if she’d stayed ahead in the vote and never resorted to machinations on Michigan and Florida and her Commander-in-Chief threshold nonsense.
So from “Big Tent Democrat”‘s point of view, he doesn’t believe the arguments he’s making because he’s in the tank for Hillary, he really cares that the voters of Florida and Michigan have to be enfranchised, and he’s really upset at Obama’s obstructing the votes in those two states. He feels, right or wrong, he’s speaking from deeply held principles, and he’ll criticize Hillary’s campaign when they cross them. He recently criticized her spokesman Ickes for arguing that the popular vote might not be the only measure super-delegates could use, because he feels the popular vote is the gold standard. And so if someone dismisses his argument because he’s just in the tank for Hilary, they’re questioning what he considers to be the sincerity of his deeply held values.
At any rate, I take people at their word. If someone’s making a stupid argument, I just stick to pointing out how the argument is stupid, I don’t make ad hominem attacks, saying they’re only arguing that way because they’re in the tank for so-and-so, even if secretly I suspect it’s probably true.
Rick Taylor
I agree with that, but I honestly don’t know what her opinions are. When she wrote that post on “The popular vote”, she labeled what she was doing, making clear it didn’t count any votes for Obama in Michigan for example. But then she didn’t say a word what conclusion we were supposed to draw from it. The implication was clear; oh the common wisdom is wrong, the race is very close both candidates have 50% of the vote. And that’s basically the way her commenters interpreted it, Obamabots and Hillobots alike. But she didn’t say that. She could have added, this is why Hillary is staying in the race. She could have added, this just goes to show how useless the popular vote is because you can draw any conclusion you like by shifting your assumptions. But she didn’t say a thing.
Rick Taylor
bhagamu said:
She didn’t say caucuses don’t count. She said they weren’t counted in the popular vote totals she was giving, which was inarguably true. Again, she left it to the commenters to draw their own conclusions (which we did).
LiberalTarian
RT–I think you gave good reasons for questioning her logic, and, as you said, you didn’t attack her personally. I was schooled that writing “I believe” and “in my opinion” is redundant. I’m going to bail on trying to dissect her post or her motives, though I appreciate how John Cole distinguished criticism of her logic from criticism of her as a person.
tBone
Off-topic, but this is so full of Win: John Ashcroft Can Haz Mispronunciation
ParagonPark
Wow! People only write to express what they truly believe and never for rhetorical or persuasive purposes? Thanks for setting me straight. I guess that is doubly true in politics? I need a little help though on why it is “too complex” for someone to be deliberately misleading rather than just really stupid, or why it is more mean spirited to believe them dishonest than to believe them stupid.
Because my opinion (which I suppose I have a right to hold?) is that what she writes in support of her opinions (which I agree she has a right to hold) is deliberately intended to deceive people by stating misinformation and flawed logic. I think being deliberately deceptive is a bad thing, but you are entitled to your opinion.
People who have offered rebuttals to the TL party line are wasting their time if the purpose is to change the behavior of Merritt and BTD. My purpose is no in any way premised on the thought they wuill change their stripes and begin behaving more honestly. I’m just cautioning people who read that stuff to keep their eyes open and assess the propaganda with something more keen than “oh, it’s just someon’es opinion.”
ed
Shorter Clinton: Anything that lets me win is good. Anything that doesn’t let me win is bad and doesn’t count.
Bob In Pacifica
I’m a liberal and I come from a “rights of the accused” point of view so I’m generally in lockstep with Jeralyn on non-primary issues, especially when she talks about legal issues. I spent a lot of time there and on her supplemental board discussing the Durham false rape case a couple years ago.
Her embrace of Clinton to the exclusion of reality is scary though. Reading the commentary there is just, well, bizarre. As disconnected as Jeralyn sometimes seems to be the core of commenters are even farther out of the loop. There are two images that come to me when I visit. One is how children have to clap to keep Tinkerbelle alive. The other, from my youth in New Jersey, is of the guy who’s sniffing glue and has to be coaxed out of the bag.
ParagonPark
Actually, it’s neither bizarre nor disconnected. It’s all quite rationally crafted and parsed for the purpose of creating the false impressions desired by the Clinton camaign, and is so closely connected to what the campaign seeks to accomplish one could reasonably ask whether Merritt is expecting a quid pro quo in the event Clinton wins.
Rick Taylor
That’s not what she was doing though. She was putting out a bunch of facts without drawing any conclusions, although there were obvious conclusions one might draw (and which her posters certainly did). I suspect that deep down she really knows the argument that the race is extremely close because if you calculate the “popular vote” in a certain way it’s nearly 50-50, so she doesn’t say that. She just lays out the calculation, knowing her commenters will draw that conclusion.
douglasfactors
That’s exactly why I quit being an advocate.
It’s not morally wrong to argue for an unsound position, if that’s what our adversarial system requires, but it makes me physically ill.
socraticsilence
`Rick, I’d buy you reasoning for BTD’s “tepid Obama” defense, if he ever posted anything that wasn’t a shot at the man, and/or a support of Hillary. I do think he has a point about Kos being hypocritical on the issue of MI and FL, but considering the fact that he raely if ever post something supportive of Obama in more than a backhanded fashion its hard to read his critique as genuine and not simply partisan.
Rick Taylor
I made a very long post on Talk Left in answer to the question, what should we do now for Florida and Michigan assuming a recount is not possible. I’d appreciate any remarks. I’m sorry for the length.
I’m tired of arguing, but the question deserves a reply. The position I’m going to take won’t be popular here, and I’ve been very slow in coming to it. The thing that turned it for me was reading someone else on another blog remark that in a representative democracy, the citizens our responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make on their behalf. Our system of government does not work without this principle. As I remarked in another post, I am personally responsible for the Iraq war, even though I opposed it, because it was carried out by the government I had a part in electing. I cannot refuse to help pay for the consequences of this war just because it wasn’t my choice. Our system of government presupposes that citizens are responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make. I know that’s an oversimplification and there’s a lot more to it, and this being a legal blog there are people here who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do, but that is my starting point.
So to put it bluntly, my solution is no solution. Florida and Michigan were informed of the consequences of moving the primary dates back, they did it anyway. And as far as I’ve been able to find after researching it, neither government made any serious effort to seek a remedy in the form of a revote before March; I have quotes from February from officials and in the case of Florida even from Hillary Clinton saying they were not interested in any form of revote.
So given all this, I think the process should go forward under the rules. If all but one candidate concedes, then of course that candidate will control the appropriate committee and arrange for the delegates to be seated. I believe that this is actually what everyone involved expected to happen when this began, including the two states involved, and I suspect this is what will actually happen. But if it doesn’t, then it will go to the convention and the delegate committee will have to be formed and it will have to be hashed out according to the rules. I’m not happy about this, but I think that’s the way it will have to be handled by this point, assuming the race remains extremely tight.
Now as people have pointed out, this keeps voters in those states from having a direct effect on the election through the delegates they appointed (of course it can still have an effect on the decisions of the super delegates, they can use this information how ever they like). But again, the states involved chose this path, and did not seek any solution until March. Now that, against all expectations, the race is going on so long that those delegates might conceivably have an effect on the outcome, they might like to change that decision. And if it was still possible to do a revote, that would still be the best solution.
Now from here, there is a basic disagreement. I’ve read the arguments of people involved in the primaries, and from what I can gather, the fundamental reason revotes aren’t happening is because the states involved simply waited to long in order to seek a solution. By March, there simply wasn’t enough remaining time to craft a revote plan, putting it through a 30 day process of review, submitting it to the Department of Justice, studying it to see if it was racially discriminatory and met all legal requirements, especially if the plan involved a system of voting such as mail-in-ballots that had never been implemented in the given state before. This is why revotes are not happening, it is not because of Obama having simply pointed out some of these potential difficulties.
Now I’m aware that even in voicing this opinion that the lack of revotes is not Obama’s fault, it is possible that I will be given a reprimand, told I am wrong, told I am banned from the current thread, and told any further posts I make on the matter will be deleted. This has happened to me before and I’ve seen it happen to others. But I cannot fully explain my position without making this point, so I’m doing it for that purpose, and I will not attempt to argue the point further.
So given this, I believe revotes are not practical The states involved waited too long before attempting this, and as one caucus goer put it, “Lack of planning on your part will not constitute an emergency on my part.” And while I feel uncomfortable that people are being prevented from having the delegates they cast votes for being seated before the nomineee is chosen, again, in a representative democracy, the elected officials are the representatives of the people, and the people are responsible for the decisions they make. That is the bottom line.
Now, having made that point, I will now suppose that the problem isn’t the delay of the states in seeking a solution, but that Obama is solely and completely responsible for the revotes in the two states not happening. I’m granting this point not because I believe it, but because it is considered established here, to the degree that a poster may be banned from a thread simply for arguing against it. So even though i do not believe this myself, my arguments here will not be considered satisfactory unless I at least take into account the possibility it is true.
So assuming that, my answer of what’s to be done doesn’t change. Of course people are free to try to influence Obama to see this is a mistake and to influence him to change his position. But assuming that’s not successful, all the parties agreed to the procedures in advance, it still doesn’t make sense to change them in the middle of the election, without an established procedure to do so. Of course people may be angry at Obama if he wins the nomination as a result. If I believed that Obama was the one responsible for the revotes not happening, I’d be angry with him too. In that case, People will have to decide for themselves if they can still support him after that. I’ll just mention that the election is not over. It’s also possible that Hillary will win a convention floor fight to seat the delegates from the unsanctioned primaries, including one in which her opponent was not even on the ballot. If that happens, I will be very angry; I will believe that she won the election through chicanery, and it will be difficult for me to vote for her. But I’ll still do it, because she’d be an infinitely better president than McCain. But again, everyone will have to make their own decision.
One last thing. I sympathize with BTD when posters accuse him of being a Hillary supporter. It’s basically accusing him not only of being wrong, but of having come to his conclusions in bad faith, not out of principle, but out of devotion to a particular candidate. Similarly, in writing this, I suspect that I will be told I only came to these conclusions because I wanted Obama win. The reverse is actually true. I supported Hillary early on in the elections and voted for her in the primaries in my state. I still think she might make a better president than Obama; I certainly prefer her on economic matters, particularly health care. If my preference between the two candidates has shifted, it is only because I’ve been appalled by what appear to be to me her attempts to game the rules in her favor in the middle of an election. In general when I disagree with someone, even strongly, I attempt not to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they’ve come to their conclusions through reasoning, if it is mistaken reasoning, and not simply dismiss them out of hand as partisans. I would appreciate it if others would do the same with me.
Johnny Pez
James Carville sent me a letter today asking me to donate to the DSCC.
Man, that Chuck Schumer is one smart fella.
Josh E.
Armando/BTD honestly believes the stuff he writes, in my view. I’m sure he does consider himself a tepid Obama supporter. Of course he bangs the anti-Obama drum all the time and the anti-Hillary drum almost never, but I don’t think this is because he is actually a Hillary supporter. It’s because he wants a platform, Merritt gave him one, and it’s on a pro-Hillary blog. If he posted a lot of anti-Hillary stuff he’d probably lose his platform, so he doesn’t. The best evidence for this hypothesis is a comment he wrote after it became clear that the Michigan and Florida revotes were dead, where he said he was preparing a post calling for Clinton to drop out. That post was never published. I’m sure he has lots of criticisms of Clinton, but he holds them back because he knows his audience.
The other reason that he seems anti-Obama is that he really likes to pick fights with other bloggers. Since the liberal blogosphere generally tilts Obama, that means he’s going to be throwing rocks at pro-Obama bloggers, thus making him seem anti-Obama.
demps
Rick Taylor, you make a very cogent argument. I wonder at the response it has received. I was simply wondering, you state that Senator Clinton may actually exceed Senator Obama as a president, I am just curious as to your reasons, because you do strike me as very fair minded. Her tactics during this election cycle are enough to sway you, despite that conviction? If I were so inclined, I might be disturbed by what has transpired, but probably remain a supporter nonetheless
crg
Minnesota’s a caucus state, but the democratic presidential delegates are handed out by a preference vote that occurs before the caucus. You cast ballots before the caucus and are under no requirement to stay. Votes are counted at the precinct caucuses (I know – I was the lead teller at mine). But Obama had an overwhelming victory, so, of course, they toss it out.
zzyzx
Ah level two of the caucus, that’s where the action is. I represented a precinct in the 46 Legislative District of WA – the fighting 46th as Colbert would say. This year everyone is fired up so I figured I had better arrive early and document any problems that happen.
Sign in started at 8:45 but the place was pretty packed by 8. Everything went smoothly; there was no pressuring or fighting or anything. Our House representative Jim McDermott was an early speaker and made a strong case for focusing more on McCain than who we will be nominating. Typical Washington I guess, all process, lots of discussion, and nothing else.
Speaking of process, there was a long wait while the credentials committee met and ballots printed out. That led to endless discussion of the 46 District’s Democratic Party Legislative Platform. The fact that you’ve never heard of it shows just how important this document is, but that didn’t stop people from arguing endlessly over minor details about what was in it.
The system to amend the platform was pretty simple. People would flag the sections that bothered them; it turned out that just about every section was problematic. Then we’d go back to them and discuss the problems one by one. First there would be a replacement suggested (which could include striking it completely) and then a speaker would come out for the change, one against, and then – if they could find two more – another for and another against. Despite the obvious pattern, people were still confused by the fact that they had to present alternate language and no one could ever get the pro/con/pro/con pattern right. The chair kept his good spirits up and was calmly correcting everyone, but I ended up in the top with some like minded spirits and started heckling. Of course when the guy argued against the minimum wage platform with the line, “When slavery was eliminated, the price of cotton went up,” I wasn’t the only heckler.
I knew Clinton was in trouble early by two signs. While the Obama table was quickly stripped of most of their stickers and signs, there were Clinton volunteers walking around and handing people extra stickers. The more serious problem was the woman constantly walking around with a sign asking for any alternates to please sign in. Sure enough, a lot of Clinton people didn’t show. Our 40/20 split ended up being 45/15.
We then got to listen to 300 people make speeches to explain why they should be one of the 45. I decided to run too, but my speech was a lot better in my head than in actuality alas. Interestingly, an unpledged superdelegate was one of the officials at the meeting. Hearing that many fired up Obama supporters was likely to help make up his mind. I doubt I’ll get to move on – we ran so late that the vote counting happened after the caucus dispersed – but it was a pretty fun day. I’d gladly do it again.
Pb
Hey, didn’t the Clintons have connections to the governor? Didn’t Hillary Clinton endorse him back in 2002, and use her permanent secret service detail to keep the media away from a fundraiser for him? What about their mutual ties to David Wilhelm? And didn’t fromer Clinton adviser Rahm Emmanuel run for and win Blagojevich’s seat in the House? etc., etc. All I can say is, if Obama ran his campaign the way Clinton runs hers, it’d be all six degrees of Clinton Rezko ties:
…and that’d only be if they didn’t stoop lower, to go for the slumlord grandmother line.
zzyzx
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention. We were warned in training that LaRouchites like to try to get elected to the state caucus by pretending to be supporters and giving great speeches. Sure enough, two people were there in LaRouche t-shirts and Clinton stickers. I guess they thought that would be an easier path. I hope they were voted down.
Rick Taylor
demps wrote:
What you describe as a conviction was more a slight preference. I liked Hilary better on domestic policy, Obama on foreign policy. But they’re positions are extremely close and they’re both obviously very smart capable ambitious people.
And what she is doing now is appalling. Every candidate has to balance their self interest with the interests of their party, and Obama has certainly disappointed me at times, but she’s gone way over the line.
Without directly coming out and saying it, she’s strongly suggested each of the following:
The citizens of Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised. They have every right to feel victimized. It’s the DNC”s fault and Obama’s fault for doing this. if she doesn’t get the delegates she wants seated, and Obama wins as a result, his nomination will not be legitimate.
This is playing with fire. It can conceivably damage the party in the fall. Look at Talk Left and Taylor Marsh. Look at the crazy ideas that are floating around. These are all memes she is exploiting. And she’s only doing it to pursue a long shot chance to win the nomination that will almost certainly fail in a divisive floor fight that will damage both candidates.
All she had to do was to play by the rules, rules which favored her going in. If she’d simply been content to do that, to lead by example, we wouldn’t be seeing the degree of division and crazy behavior in the party we’re seeing.
So no, while of course I’ll support her if she wins the nomination, I wouldn’t have even wanted her running in the primaries if I’d known she was going to do this.
Rick Taylor
You know what’s really strange about Talk Left I just realized? Armando has finally started a thread to show Obama “blocked” revotes in Michigan. All it is is a link to legal objections the revoting plan, reasons they might not pass legal muster.
Now what’s really strange is, you’d think there’d be some discussion of whether Obama’s objections actually had legal merit. There’s a difference between raising possible objections that other people besides Obama would raise (like the Department of Justice) whether or not he spoke out, and throwing up legal quibbles to run out the clock. So you’d think there’d be an investigation into that, *especially since Talk Left has a talented lawyer their blogging on legal issues.*
flyerhawk
Rick,
Here was BigTent’s response when I asked him for actual evidence to support his assertions…
His mountains of evidence is the memo that he continues to circulate that you reference. That is all the proof he needs. And as you say, those objections themselves have no merit.
Truly he has a dizzying intellect