Make whatever argument you want about what the DNC did, it just left a bad taste in my mouth

Right or wrong, they imposed their judgment as a substitute for what the actual votes reflected. They would have had more credibility if they just refused to recognize the two states altogether. It's always dicey when party insiders substitute their judgment for actual votes.

Their judgment was just a surrender to the collective will of the party leaders to mold this primary to fit their interpretation of 'unity' and grease the wheels for these insiders to stage a 'unified' convention. It was certainly not a recognition of the will expressed by those who actually voted in those states. We now have a process where a vote for 'uncommitted' is subject to direct manipulation by interests apart from the delegates themselves, much less associated with the intentions of those who cast those 'uncommitted' ballots.

We'll see how that flies with voters as we move forward, but I predict some disenchantment with the presumed democratic process of one man-one vote from voters who expected their efforts at the polls to carry the day.

Their judgment is still not a true reflection of the votes cast. If they chose to recognize them, they should have respected those votes without imposing their own interpretation with their manipulations.

What part of this do you not understand?

And, I understand that many folks disagree with you.

the voters AND the non-voters, understood that the contest didn't count, then there was no primary and the votes cast were NOT a true reflection of the will of the voters. The point today before the RBC was to allow MI to still have some sort of participation in the Dem nominating process, so they don't feel totally shut out and don't become disgruntled for November. The point today was NOT to validate the Michigan non-primary non-results, but to use what flawed results they had, AND OTHER DATA, as a point of compromise between the candidates and as a way for Michigan to participate at the convention.

If you can find me a credible outside source that has a definition of primary that Michigan doesn't fit, then you will start to have some credibility. But if you just keep talking about it without any outside source, you know very well your opinion isn't going to mean much.

the party and all the voting public understands it, and now that the ONE candidate who left her name on the ballot is LOSING, suddenly decides that the contest results were ACCURATE and DO count? That's not a primary, that's banana republic shit.

Well said.

off and the people in the state are told it won't count.

Those that took their names off the ballot didn't give a damn what the results would be or they were AFRAID to see the results. I believe it was the later...obama knew he'd lose big-time.

Hillary got 55% of the vote against nobody. If Obama had been on the ballot, she woulda got creamed.

:rofl:

Might want to check that out...

staying civil amidst all this.

in order to return some votes to their respective states. You might think it would have been better to give them no votes at all, but the peoples representatives of FL and MI felt differently.

I certainly don't want to see the same hollering and chaos of the credential crowd magnified at the national convention, but these party manipulations are unquestionably removed from the will expressed by the majority of those who voted. The degree that those manipulations will affect the 'unity' party leaders expect to achieve by allowing the state to be represented will have to be weighed against the reality of how those decisions will sit with the folks who actually bothered to cast a vote.

You cannot have any "will of the voters" when there is NO CAMPAIGN, the voters are told the election doesn't count, and one of the contestants isn't on the ballot.

Obviously it would have been better if neither state had counted. But HILLARY is the one who wouldn't let it go.

How could you write such a post.

.

were assured didn't count? There is no way to say that the results are accurate. The MI Dems agreed on a compromise, because a compromise was what was called for in this situation. And if you're whining about DNC members exercising their "judgment" over the "will of the voters", then how do you explain the role of SD's in this process, whose entire ROLE is to be the final arbiter?

it's just manipulation to interpret a non-vote and make it count.

citizens understand that the primary is binding and counts. Otherwise, it was an exercise in futility. You can't have a ballot that reads "Clinton" and essentially "Not Clinton" when there were 5 or 6 people running for President. That's a farce, and any results derived from that process are inauthentic of actual support for Hillary Clinton.

If their primary were held today it would be a landslide for Obama....now those votes have already been tallied so why is he polling so well now....I think it might be the case of buyers remose....Does California believe they might have made a mistake?

I believe they removed their name from the ballot to curry favor with Iowa. They shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the process of votes in a state by pointing to their own decision to remove their name from consideration on the ballot. It was a calculated decision to hide their actual support in the 'uncommitted' slot, merging with other candidates' support in that uncommitted vote. Now the Obama campaign wants to be recognized in that uncommitted vote. They would have more credibility if they stuck to their original decision to refuse to present his name on the ballot for consideration.

charge of dirty tricks in terms of taking his name off the ballot and telling voters to vote uncommitted is based on thin air. He compromised. She got the win. The state turned her color, even though no one could vote for Obama. What more do you want?

Read my objections without projecting everything you disagree with on my concerns. Obama made the decision to remove his name based on a political calculation. I think he was trying to appeal to Iowa in that move to remove his name from the ballot. Political, not underhanded.

I want the votes to be represented as cast, not interpreted to suit some artificial construction of 'party unity'.

Get over it. Wanting the votes to be represented "as cast" is wanting to validate a process that by its very nature (an incomplete ballot) was invalid. The votes cast were a starting point and a guide for compromise, nothing more.

I can accept the politics in the end, but I don't have to fall in line with some artificial construction which presumes to interpret votes. We shape those interpretations with our arguments all of the time. Those efforts should bend to the will expressed in votes actually cast, rather than these arguments contrived to commit non-votes and 'uncommitted' ballots to one candidate or the other.

benefit of one candidate, because she happens to be behind in the overall primary contest, is an artificial construct as well. And finally, an artificial construct known by most reasonable adults as a "compromise" was required to placate the people of Michigan even though their state broke the rules, and to placate the campaigns and their supporters.

The efforts of this committee went beyond the types of constructs that have been accepted as a part of our primary process in their interpretation of non-votes and their allocation of 'uncommitted' votes to Obama.

understood it. It follows automatically that if the primary process is invalid, then the primary RESULTS are invalid. But instead of throwing those results away, which would be the most accurate "purist" option (and which would have hurt Hillary the most), they were used by the Michigan Democratic party as a guide to draw up a compromise that the state AND the national party AND the candidates could agree to, in order to give some basis for participation in the nominating process by the people of Michigan. It's pretty simple, really.

We'll just squint our eyes and roll over. But, don't present the decision as some expression of democracy. It's an insider manipulation for the sake of presenting a facade of unity. We can only hope, in the end, that voters will understand and accept all of that. I know I won't let it affect my own support for the nominee, but I'm not going to represent this as some 'validation' of the process.

Because it wasn't intended to be--except perhaps in the dim last hopes of Hillary Clinton.

This was about delegates and delegates only. The votes people cast were still cast. But, for resolution of the dispute a compromise of the delegates was reached. Sorry, the majority of the folks did not agree with Clinton.

but I don't know how anyone can credibly interpret a non-vote as support for one candidate or the other.

It's bullshit, of course. THEY were the ones whose voices were not heard.

They were the ones that said the votes would not count.

Had they stuck with the automatic penalties that they ultimately had to back down to, then the votes would have been fair.

This is the same issue as a court putting a "hold" on a recount, then ruling that the recount was invald because it wasn't completed.

It was the DNCs actions, and no other, that made the vote results questionable to begin with.

:hide:

Are you a rethug? Because only a rethug would come up with such a stupid thought.

declared their own election to be invalid. Of course, that is what Hillary said also. That is until after she decided she wanted it to count. Why would you be obsessed with "counting votes" in an unfair, flawed, and invalid election?

The actual votes in Michigan reflected that 45% of voters didn't want to vote for Hillary. A significant percentage (79%, according to exit polls), voted for Obama. The idea that Hillary should be awarded delegates from Michhigan, whilst Obama should get NONE at all,is frankly something that makes a mockery of the process, and if you cared as much about fairness as you claim to, would be something I should think would leave a worse taste in your mouth than what happened.

Do the math, there. (I make it to be roughly 35% of the total). Exit polls are considered generally accurate predictors of voting patterns. And Obama has consistently underperformed in polls.

The fact remains that a vote for uncommitted was a vote for not-Clinton, and that a significant number of those uncommitted voters were for Obama. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's a fact.

Learn something about statistics before you attempt to argue them.

fucking pathetic...she lost get over it..blame Hillary and her fucked up campaign. If she has any managerial or leadership skills she would have run her campaign differently. She was the inevitable candidate, with 100+ mill and name recognition, remember.

So, blame her for lagging so horribly behind that it even came to this..

The position I take now is consistent with that opinion on the influence of the superdelegates.


"Here we are, again trying to end military aggression in this election, like in '72, and the party insiders will, presumably, get to pick the nominee, no matter what the majority will decide. That would be 840 some party insiders controlling 40% of the vote needed to nominate. That's not a situation which anyone should feel comfortable with."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree/1250


You need to find a more intelligent argument than your effort to attack my own credibility

Obama has won a majority of all pledged delegates. The superdelegates, at this point, will be CONFIRMING the results of the nomination process as reflected in primary and caucus outcomes. The 'magic number' ofor the nomination is 50% of ALL delegates. Remove superdelegates from the equation, and Obama would inarguably be the nominee, having won more than 50% of all pledged delegates. As reflected in the results of primaries and caucuses, a majority HAVE decided. I am sorry you wish to argue otherwise, but you are wrong.

I agree that the majority of delegates apportioned by states according to votes cast shouldn't be overturned by ANY national party construction. But the superdelegates are, in effect, casting second-votes, substituting their judgment for that delegate lead you cite. Just the prospect that the Clinton campaign could expect superdelegates to recognize anything other than the pledged delegate lead should give voters pause about the role of those supers. Every time we allow someone to substitute their judgment for actual votes cast, we dilute the democracy voters expect to effect with the casting their individual ballot.

In 2000, Michigan violated the primary calendar. And 77% of the vote went to 'Uncommitted'. Al Gore and Bill Bradley removed their names from the ballot.

You can't make an argument about democracy and the expectations of voters when the election you're talking about saw a significant number of voters casting votes for 'uncommitted' and against a specific candidate. Do those voters' intentions not matter? Apparently not.

I agree that the role of superdelegates in the nominating process is a questionable one; I would have no problem at all with the Democratic party selecting its nominee on the basis of a simple majority of pledged delegates (and were that the case, Hillary would have no argument for her attempt to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses).

Look, I'd have been happy if they'd not seated our delegates at all. I'd have been happy if they'd seated them but not allowed them to vote on the first ballot. I'd have been happy if they'd cut our delegates' vote in half, based on the primary results. I'd have even been happy if they'd given ALL the uncommitted to Obama, because there was supposedly something in the works for all the other candidates to agree to that.

What I'm NOT happy about is arbitrarily taking some of the delegates Hillary earned and just GIVING them to Obama, when he didn't even have the goddamn grace to SHOW UP for our primary.

Fuck him. (Even though I support him for the nomination. But as a Michigander, I'm pissed at him, AND Edwards AND Biden AND Richardson.)

they all agreed NOT to campaign there. Do you even understand what happened in your own state? Doesn't sound like it.

I accepted that our "rogue primary" meant we weren't going to get any campaigning here.

I even accepted that our delegates may not be seated.

I DIDN'T accept candidates taking their names off the ballot just to pander to Iowa. That wasn't "not campaigning," that wasn't required by the rules or the pledge. (And I sweartagod if somebody quotes that pledge to me one more time I'm going to reach through this screen and slap them silly. Participate was undefined, candidates could chose for themselves, the only thing REQUIRED was to not campaign in rogue states.) Taking their name off the ballot at the last minute was just a slap in the face.

it's YOUR STATE that broke the rules. Hillary should have taken her name off as well, but she thought she might be able to claim one more win once all her competitors were gone, apparently.

you're not entitled to dictate my opinions and feelings. It felt like a slap in the face TO ME and to many other Michiganians. That's how we feel. Deal with it.

solved the problem.

Doesn't mean I don't feel what I feel, just means that it's time to move on.

He took his name off the primary ballot in MI that year, because the Michigan Democratic Party violated the calendar that year, too. ('Uncommitted' got 77% of the votes.)

:embarrassed whisper: voted in the pub primary to f'up Bushit.

The party just treated an election result as representaive of something it is not- the worst mockery of democracy. Those particular elections were NOT election for deciding the party nominee, because the people who could vote in those wlection KNEW that their votes would not go to such a purpose. The results mean absolutely nothing, and are not representative of the actual preferences of the state, or what Hillary Clinton wants them to be representative of. The party just proved itself to be a clown to appease an egomaniac.

There was no legitimate election held, ergo, there are no votes to be reflected.

You were sucking on the Ickes lemon.

I just hope that in the future, states won't decide that it's worth it to lose half their delegates to break the rules.

:headbang:
rocknation

It wasn't possible. That's what the Michigan delegation was saying.

You'll get used to it, there's more to come :)

That was pretty awesome.

"her opponent" ran an extensive campaign to get his supporters to vote uncommitted. Because of this campaign and because she was on the ballot, an uncommitted vote was a vote against Clinton.

This was a proposal by Michigan democrats leaders in an attempt to reflect what they believe to be the will of Michigan democrats given that they fucked up the ability of Michigan democrats to speak directly.

The DNC rules committee honored that request.

who they represent. I don't know how anyone can credibly parse those votes out to conclude they were cast in Obama's favor. It's not enough to just insist they were cast against Clinton.

besides "uncommitted", didn't it?

So for whichever candidates who were still on the ballot, it seems to me that it can be confidently said that "uncommitted" votes were NOT votes for them. Which means that the pool of possible candidates that "uncommitted" represented is not quite so clear-cut as simply "anybody not-Clinton".

There's no real winners in any of this, imho. But I don't understand why the Michigan Dem party did what they did in the first place. Why couldn't they have have negogiated for a primary date that "counted", instead jumping the calendar even though they were clearly informed that they were breaking DNC rules?

Peace,
sw

When those uncommitted votes get translated into delegates, there have to be people associated with them. Who are those people going to be? They aren't Clinton supporters because they voted against her. Same with Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel.

They won't be supporters of Biden Richardson or Edwards because they are not longer in the race. They are Obama supporters by default.

"Fault" being the opperative syllable because the primary was faulty. The Michigan delegation viewed this as a reasonable compromise. If Michiganders don't like it, they should vote out the Michigan delegation next time.

In the meantime, this is the best option possible.

you really need to attack my credibility based on which candidate I support? Pathetic.

Straight from Harold Ickes mouth. Harold, is that you?

such a shallow argument.

Whose 'mouthpiece' are you, as you promote your own 'divisiveness' here?"

sufficiently as a disruptor.

. . . of those terms.

You, on the other hand, have shown absolutely NO respect for me, personally. You are the disruptor here, with your idiotic innuendo. What a piece of work you are. Typical for you to presume you can define me outside of the Democratic party or this Democratic board. Your efforts on this thread alone belie any concern you might express for party 'unity'.

at the responses to your post. I'm not the only one to question your intentions.

I don't give a shit what you represent. All you've done here is trash me. Good luck with that.

Florida and Michigan did indeed break the DNC rules and without justification.

That's the bitter taste of defeat.

for the will of the voters.

The only more palatable option here would have been for a revote in both states--and since we cannot do that this is the next best thing.

according to the rules. The decision reached today was a COMPROMISE. In my opinion, Clinton got much more than she deserved. However, in the spirit of compromise and party unity I'm willing to go along with the committee's decisions.

are so important in the GE. According to the rules and penalty rulings they both should have got nothing. The party now sets a precedent for future Primaries that are even more of a circus than we are having now. More and more states will be encouraged now to break the rules and more candidates will be encouraged to use this to try and disrupt the process to their own advantage.

three groups: those who voted for a democratic candidate; those who voted for a republican because they did not think a democratic vote would be counted; and those who didn't vote, because they had been told their vote didn't count. It isn't fair to only count one group out of the three. Though what took place today was imperfect, it was probably the best of the bad options open to them.

Rules were broken....FL and MI according the the rules should not have been seated....

Please make a cogent argument that the MI vote, with one candidate on the ballot, a candidate who had already agreed that the primary didn't count, was a valid representation of the will of the people of Michigan.

The decision reached was demanded by the Clinton campaign. Now her supporters are can't be upset about the votes not counting, now they have to be upset about how the votes in an invalid election were apportioned. Give it a rest. Please.

The truly fair solution would have been a 50/50 split...4 of the 5 main candidates were not on the ballot. It wasnt even a beauty contest, it was a 3rd world style election.

HRC actually nets delegates from this compromise which is more than she would have gotten out of a truly fair resolution of Michigan.

and attributing uncommitted ballots to one candidate or the other.

It wasnt an election.

The reason the HRC camp is so upset about this ruling is because they angled and snatched up quite of few of the "uncommitted" delegates at the Michigan convention.

Sorry Bigtree, you cant argue that it was a fair election.

than interpreting the votes cast in the way they did.

acknowledging that Clinton would have likely won based on their data and thus affording her some delegate lead.

You have to remember, Lanny Davis actually suggested that the uncommitted be split between HRC and Obama even though HRC was on the ballot. So I don't really feel like the HRC campaign was looking to be fair either.

The compromise was a benefit to Hillary and a net loss to Obama.

As an Obama supporter I can't say I am upset by the events despite things going against my candidate.

. . . as outside the party, or associated with whatever extreme you point to (as you do here). What a tactic.

We are going to win in November and we aren't going to do it allowing ourselves to be held hostage.

If voters want to act like babies and vote for McCain because Mi got a voice? Fuck em!

The reasonable ones will vote for Obama. The repugs acting like democratcs will vote for McCain. The racists pretending to be victims of sexism will vote for McCain. They are NOT going to hold the party hostage anymore!


THE GAME ENDS NOW!

It's a bullying appeal. Vote for us, or else! I'm just not convinced that's good politics. It may corral DUers, but its a poor appeal for the bulk of voters we expect to support our nominee in November.

The votes you talk about was cast in an election that was said to be for nothing and where the candidates were told not to campaign. That would invalidate the results in any election.

I agree it is problematic when compromise has to be made on that background though. But objectively seen, I don't think the compromises arrived at is very far from the will of the voters. Remember they have to reflect a consideration for those who chose not to participate, given the information at hand when the vote was being held.

was not an option.

The only reason they want Michigan moved up is so that candidates will go there and pledge not to raise emission standards. The last thing we need is more pandering, especially with an issue as important as global warming.

Folks have become just too comfortable in telling voters how to think and act (or, what they think and believe).

I have had to see my vote used as a political football for the last four months now. Finally, the DNC has settled the matter in the most equitable way possible considering the clusterfuck that was made of it by our local politicians. I am happy to see it over.

Please respect our need to see this settled, just as yours and all of the other 48 states have.

And, I fully believe the 'party' will 'settle' this. That shouldn't preclude our own expressions of support or dissent.

I am happy that my vote is settled and will no longer be used for the political advantage of people who don't care about anything but our vote.

I'm respectfully asking, do you feel your opinion of the ruling should mean more than those of us who live here?

Do you really expect that only folks in Michigan and Florida should express an opinion? Is it really the case that the actions of the committee will only affect or impact Florida and Michigan? What about the precedents set today?

How can you include the will of the voters in that election, particularly those who voted "uncommitted", without some form of interpretation? To say that Obama shouldn't get any votes because he wasn't on the ballot is unfair at its face and is not a valid argument in ANY context.

a 50/50 split or no seating. That wasnt an election...1 candidate was on the ballot.

HRC actually netted delegates from this deal.

How can people make the argument that the results of a primary which had already publicly been announced as being meaningless, which the bulk of the Democratic candidates took their names off of in the spirit of the pledge they all took, reflected the will of the elcetorate? The decision that the committee came to yesterday doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the electorate either, but going by the results from January certainly don't, so it seemed very disingenuous for Harold Ickes to have made the suggestion that the election was being "hijacked". Without having a clear indication of what the actual will of the electorate was at the time (and exit polls are not a clear reflection of that), the only truly fair options would have been no votes for the delegation or a straight 50/50 split between the two remaining candidates. As is, Sen. Clinton benefitted greatly from the decision that was made.

It essentially never happened, so there was no substitution. They gabe Hillary a 10 delegate advantage (then halved). That's fair considering nothing actually happened.

Finally. Done and done.

but, I suspect you'll continue to try and shove your divisive bullshit down my throat.

Over.

Finished.

SWEET.

congratulations

conveniently never talk about what Hillary has done all of these months - why is that? Do you think she has run a clean campaign and followed all of the rules?

I didn't realize it before, but thankfully we can now see the reality of what a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency would have given us. A president who would follow only the rules she deemed beneficial for herself and those chosen by her. It is so sad that so many of her supporters want her to win so badly that they don't see how they have contributed to this farce. You've been used by the newest DC Madam.

Don't respond to this because you believe everything you wrote in your post, I believe everything I wrote in mine. You like to mock our need for 'unity'. Fine. Just say no to being united. I hope it makes you feel all warm inside.

And who are you 'unifying'?

'You guys' :eyes:

Today, you and your die-hards have behaved horribly. Today my eyes have been opened to the reality of the fact that you guys are doing this willingly. And today you guys come back like this. This is not a game for you to coordinate, we are all Democrats, we're all Americans, this is our country we're talking about.

So quit rolling your eyes and OPEN THEM. I had been trying to help the democratic party by posting kindly to Hillary supporters, you don't want it, YOU DON'T WANT THE UNITY, YOU MOCK IT. You don't answer my questions to you but you come back and mock unity again.

. . . lumping folks you disagree with in with whatever extreme you chose to associate them with.

I'm not 'you guys'. That's your own opportunistic invention you've chosen to make your petty political slam on Clinton supporters.

"We'll see how that flies with voters as we move forward, but I predict some disenchantment with the presumed democratic process of one man-one vote from voters who expected their efforts at the polls to carry the day."

The voters of Michigan were told prior to voting that their votes wouldn't count. If they went to the polls with the expectation that they would, it wasn't an expectation created by the rules under which they were voting or the information that was given to them.

NT!

and you cannot get a perfect result from a deeply flawed process. It wasn't possible.

So they went for what they could get: a compromise decision that satisfied the representatives from the two states. That it didn't satisfy Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes really isn't the point.

She's done.

Enjoy that bitter taste of defeat.

. . . when you should be out celebrating

apparently there was a majority on the RBC for a 50/50 split, they opted to go with the weighted option in favor of clinton

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1091448.aspx

I'll support those efforts.

I'm just saying that we all need to start concentrating on the fall election, and I am including myself in that. Or in other words, the bickering from both sides needs to stop so that we can get on with things.

plenty of folks here who don't seem to want to move on and would rather spend their time bashing Clinton. It's your choice whether or not to focus on the general election. Obama is doing that, to some extent. Nothing is preventing that overall focus by the partyexcept for the formalities of the nomination. Once that decision has been made, most everyone will turn to the general election, no matter what the loser is doing.

If you have ANY sense of justice or fairness or democracy, you would see that the will of the people in Michigan was NOT to give all their delegates to Clinton, and none to Obama. That's just ridiculous.

Everyone knew this election didn't count, and there was no outrage when the decision was made. You can't just change the rules when it's all over and you now DESPERATELY need those delegates.

They substitued their judgement to try and bring some closure to this thing and not completely piss off either side. The choices were:
1. Split things up like this, based on their best estimate of the electorate.
2. Give it all to Clinton
3. Stick with the rules and give both nothing.

I think their compromise was the only approach that was close to fair for everyone.

"They would have had more credibility if they just refused to recognize the two states altogether."

Hillary and her supporters were simply not permitting that to be an option. THey did the best they could when forced to compromise.

The Face of Hillary's Campaign

"Screeeeeeeech !"

you are one of my favorite posters. You have provided refuge in the face of the vociferous Clinton haters on this board. I say this as one who has favored Obama early on. With this preface, what outcome today would have been acceptable to you? I thought that the RBC did well today, in the face of bad decisions taken early on all around. How could this have been resolved equitably? I thought they did the best that could be done today, in view of all the poor decisions taken to date. How could they have done better?

p.s. Is drunk posting subject to a fine or revocation of posting rights?

They way they've allowed New Hampshire to dodge their ruling that there be caucuses in between Iowa and their primary just encouraged these states to strike out on their own to resolve the will of the legislatures in their states who wanted an earlier primary. The party shouldn't have penalized the states by taking half of their votes away. They've done enough damage with their two-faced effort to mollycoddle NH. They can't escape my conclusion that they've done nothing more than buttress their authority and ability to keep other states from assuming NH's precious role.

So, take those concerns and project them against what they ultimately did. As I said, interpreting non-votes and deciding the affiliation of 'uncommitted' ballots for those uncommitted delegates is an abhorrent control over our democratic process. The committee initially rendered these states' votes inconsequential so, there was really nothing they could do, in my view, to remedy that, except to reverse their positions and repudiate their anti-democratic, self-serving confrontation toward these states.

As it stands, there will be a predictable outcome and I don't believe that even a full apportionment of the delegates would have made a difference in what happens with the nomination. So, with the effect if the delegates awarded so inconsequential, I really see nothing they could have done which would have satisfied me that they understood the corrosive effect their manipulations and the domino effect of their refusal to hold NH accountable for ignoring their edicts and their insistence on holding everyone else accountable instead.

We have the advantage now of hindsight, as does the RBC. If they could undo what has been done, I'm sure they would. Was it Donna Brazille who said, "We did not know ..."

My armchair analysis (for what it's worth)

The NH waiver was intended as a "grace period". It would not have been repeated in 2012, but it was intended to give New Hampshire some time to adjust to the "new order".

The 100% stripping of delegates was an unfortunate decision. Had the 50% mandatory penalty been placed at the outset, voters would have known that their vote would count, if only by half. Candidates would not have removed their names from ballots and the resulting cluster-f*** would have been avoided. In retrospect, it was the sanction that should have been imposed. I think though, that the RBC thought there was time for the states to remedy the timing violation. As it turned out, that was not possible. Had this been a "traditional" primary, the nomination would have been comfortably settled by other states. In the past, nominees have been offered to states for endorsement, as the nomination decision had already been made. Because this primary has been so closely fought, the resentment at leaving votes left uncounted has been mounting. This resentment certainly threatened (threatens?) to spill over into the General Election, and some act of reconciliation was required.

These are the considerations I had in mind when posing the question -- in light of decisions already taken, could they have done better? I suggest that they did the best they could do yesterday, as they couldn't undo what had already been done.

Why should Obama be penalized for taking his name off the ballot while Clinton doesn't take her name off the ballot?

However they did do the best they can to count the votes AND the write-ins that should be counted towards the uncommitted vote because Obama had votes and we'd be disenfranchising these people. The votes are the right of the people and the DNC bigwigs would be in a worse position if they did not recognize the voters first. The State however should recieve the punishment they recieved because of their actions which could cause chaos. They basically ramrodded an election and went against the rules, that's not playing fair.

. . . with regard to states who've had enough with their protection of NH's privileged position and their double-standard in penalizing everyone who ignores their rulings except for NH's own spurning of the committee's will..

I think I hear what you're saying, bigtree. It sounds to me like you're advocating for an outcome that matches the ideals you hold and that you'd like to see exemplified by the Democratic Party. There are some arguing with you who would like to believe that the outcome achieved does represent the ideals of the party and should be respected as such. I think you, and they, are quite justified in joining combat on the issue, but I also think both you and they have missed the point.

Democracy isn't perfect, it's just way ahead of whatever is second best.

The RBC decision was made by human beings who have, for whatever reason, devoted a sizable portion of their lives and energies to trying to navigate the course of this Ship of Fools we call the Democratic Party. Although all of us who call ourselves Democrats (and, indeed, those who call themselves Republicans) work very hard to delude ourselves into believing that we have God (or the Good) on our side, the fact is, we don't. We're political parties, trying to win in political conflicts. If I could find a good philosopher-king I'd follow him without demur, the problem ism there aren't any.

So, I'll give you every point you've listed. I'll grant you every argument you've made. I'll do the same for every other participant in this thread and the rest of DU (with a few notable exceptions :-). But that won't mean a damn thing to the outcome. Think about it; the folks who made those decisions are no smarter, or wiser, or more compassionate than the folks here on DU or out on the streets of the country. They're just the ones sitting on the panel and trying to herd the cats.

I happen to think that the cat herd of which I am a member is a better cat herd than the one being represented by John McCain, so I'll go along with it. That doesn't mean I like it, or think it's ideal, but it's the best choice on the menu.

Namaste.

They have their agenda and they will mold their actions to fit that agenda. Those of us who want to influence all of that need to continue to work to build the coalitions to change the equations we disagree with. It's just that every time party officials step in the way and impose these artificial constructions around the votes cast, we move further away from the representation of our votes that we intend when we cast them.

I think it's lost on folks responding that my position actually hurts the Clinton argument, if followed to my conclusion that the credentials committee (and all party leaders) shouldn't be in the business of 'interpreting' non-votes and deciding who 'uncommitted' delegates should align with.

But my objections are still in the time frame where we are substantially affected by the committee's original fault in their aggression toward these states in the first place. Now they've come together to try and mend the effects of their aggression toward these states in the interest of 'unity'. But it's clear that they will go to any length to preserve their own authority and ambition in protecting NH's early role in our primaries.

If they had been as aggressive in sanctioning NH for ignoring their edict that there be some interrupting contest between their state and Iowa, Michigan and Florida probably would not have tried to affect that privileged position on their own. The party bears most of the responsibility for what's occurred and they refuse to own up to it. They chose instead to diminish the role of these states altogether and further humiliated them by only allowing their votes to count as half.

I don't believe that even their full acceptance of everything the Clinton campaign wanted would result in any significant advantage to her in overcoming Obama's delegate lead or would have been decisive in influencing any significant number of superdelegates to ignore that delegate lead in favor of some lead in the popular vote. And, I DON'T believe the superdelegates should get creative as they make their determination. I wouldn't expect them to, even if the Clinton campaign got everything they wanted from the credentials committee.

Overall, their actions should have the effect of creating an aura of unity at the convention. I don't expect the Clinton campaign to disrupt that with a challenge they know will ultimately fail. And, I'm going to appreciate that aura of unity at the convention, no matter how artificially constructed.

But, within the context of their zealous protection of NH's privileged status in our Democratic primary, I believe the party has set a standard of hypocrisy with regard to their refusal to sanction NH, and, has treated the voters in these other two states as if they should be expected to apportion their delegates according to what the national party believes is proper, ignoring the constitutional primacy of the states in the decision of how to send their delegates to the convention.

It could not have made Senator Obama's job more difficult to "unify" the Hillary supporters behind him either, which wasn't going to be easy before, but is now even harder, maybe even impossible.

Over 4 delegates?

Let me enlighten you. Senator Obama is ahead in delegates. A gracious split of Michigan would not have jeopardized his lead. But instead, the RBC, in your infinite wisdom, decided to adjust the delegates just enough to infuriate the entire Clinton contingent that is now set on Defcon Activist Revenge.


John McCain will reap the rewards.

I will vote for Obama but the fact of the matter still remanins.

The outcome of their decision, even if they bent all of the way to the Clinton position, would have made no difference at all in the outcome of the nomination. it was all about preserving their authority to protect NH's privileged place.

Denver! Denver! Denver! :rofl:

There was no legitimate vote in either Florida or Michigan.

What happened yesterday was a total capitulation to Clinton balanced with trying to keep the FL and MI delegations on board.

What you wanted was the nuclear option of granting every possible delegate to Clinton while giving zero to Obama. That option disappeared months ago when the Clinton campaign agreed to the rules.

bummer

Did you really need to post that on this thread? You could have completed your entire petty exercise of deciding what I think and believe within the agreeable confines of your own (biased) mind.

We're not stupid. We don't forget. I have locked horns with you before.

I don't have to "decide what you believe" -- you did that for us with your past behavior.

Try this transparent trick on someone of lower mental capacity. It isn't working on me.

but you still expect me to accept that you somehow know ANYTHING significant about me to justify your petty personal criticisms. You are sadly deluded by your political zeal.

. . . and to suggest that your responses have ANYthing to do with INTELLIGENCE??

:cry:

Get help.

don't flatter yourself that you've actually hurt anyone with your juvenile taunting and ridicule.

You're being called on your bullshit.

I don't know you or any of the folks who would support your juvenile taunting and ridicule. They are certainly entitled to their opinion. I'm certainly entitled to disagree. That's what really galls you, that I'm not affected at all by your petty diatribes. You need to stop this.

... as if you needed any prompting.

you made your point alright.

success in this election. I can understand why you would let the concepts of honesty and fairness to get in your way of doing the right thing.

It's OK, but for your own sake, you need to move on. For what it is worth.

I will not 'move on' from my opinion. That's worth discussing and debating here.

As I've mentioned on this thread, I don't believe that there's ANYTHING the credentials committee could do to change the presumed outcome of the nomination. Despite the Clinton campaign's expectation that superdelegates would somehow elevate the popular vote over the delegates apportioned by the states, I really can't see those party insiders buying into her arguments. All appearances suggest that Obama will be the nominee. I'm just fine with that.

So, it's really absurd to come on to this thread with your bullying, ridiculing appeal, as if that was somehow going to effect ANY of the concerns you are posturing to defend in favor of your candidate.

As for my 'self-worth', I'll be the judge of that. It'll be a cold day in hell before I let some internet poster, who knows nothing at all significant about me, be the judge or arbiter of what I think or believe.

They should have abided by their own rules and disqualified all the voters and delegates in both states. They didn't, in an effort to somehow be fair to the voters, and what are they left with? A whirlwind of shit from Harold Ickes and other delusional types who apparently believe, like a magician, Hillary is going to pull victory out of a tophat. Give her all the fucking delegates and she still loses. What is it going to take for reality to sink in?

It wasn't just about Hillary.

Let's just humor me with an actual nomination.

Oh, yeah. That wasn't good enough.