The Will of the People (your mileage may vary)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The Clinton campaign and its advocates and supporters are trying to increase the chances of votes in Florida and Michigan. The Obama campaign and its advocates and supporters are working, in a delicate way, to diminish the chances of votes in Florida and Michigan.

(I don’t say “re-votes” because one cannot argue that the original votes were meaningless while calling a subsequent meaningful vote a “re-vote.” There have not been any sanctioned votes in either state, so the only question on the table is whether Florida and Michigan should have primaries at all. The notion of giving real weight to the beauty contest votes in Florida and Michigan is grotesque, and not worth even discussing.)

Neither camp is concerned with the integrity of the nominating process. Both positions are amoral and self-interested. If the whole situation was reversed the Obama campaign would be arguing for social justice in the form of two primaries that enhanced Obama’s chances for the nomination, and the Clinton camp would be invoking the sanctity of the rules.

To most jaded political observers this is all obvious and unexceptional. It seems, however, that many Obama supporters on and off DU are not jaded, and see matters like these in melodramatic terms as tests of virtue in a world of heroes and villains. So I offer this observation, not so that people will favor one candidate or another, but in the interest of reducing the net level of preciousness on DU:

Barack Obama is comfortable with, and even desirous of, becoming the nominee through a "national" nominating process that discounts 10% of the population of the United States.

No objective person would consider such a nomination legitimate. (If some wrinkle in the national process entirely discounted the people of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi from the nation and Clinton won the nomination narrowly, the nomination would surely be considered a fraud.)

That doesn’t mean Obama is a villain and it certainly doesn’t mean Clinton is a hero. Were the practical situation reversed Clinton would be shamelessly delighted to win a national contest in a system that excludes 10% of the nation.

It does, however, mean that Barack Obama wants to win and doesn’t give the first hint of a damn about “the will of the people.” So every invocation of “the will of the people” in any context by Obama, his campaign or his supporters is transparent self-serving crap.

And the orchestrated dismay over super-delegates overturning the will of the people is low comedy when you consider that the same people distributing petitions and threatening civil unrest if the super-delegates tamper with “the will of the people” are not equally outraged by the imminent prospect of our nominee being chosen by only 90% of the nation.

(Every invocation of “the will of the people” in any context by Clinton, her campaign or her supporters is also transparent self-serving crap, but that case is made 100 times a day here, and hardly needs amplification.)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. ...

[Romulox]

2. They call her Natasha when she looks like Elsie...

"Neither camp is concerned with the integrity of the nominating process."

Agree 100%. Moreover, I am not a Hillary supporter--I am a Michigan supporter.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. "I don't want to vote for Chelsea..."

[Romulox]

5. LOL. nt

[AX10]

3. kick

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. My bad... I forgot to put "Ferraro" in the subject line.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. There's perverse pride to be found in offering posts that neither camp likes

[redqueen]

10. or notices.

I didn't see this till just now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Obama Camp Claims DOJ Will Need To Review FL Revote Plan

Obama Camp Claims DOJ Will Need To Review FL Revote Plan
By Big Tent Democrat

If you were in doubt if what posture the Obama campaign was going to take on revoting Michigan and Florida, wonder no more:

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is raising red flags about the idea of a revote in Florida to solve the mess over the state's delegates to the presidential nominating convention. David Plouffle, campaign manager to Obama, noted that the lead advocate for a mail-in revote is Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, is a supporter of his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton. Plouffle said any revote would need to get U.S. Justice Department approval.


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/121217/576


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5040313&mesg_id=5040313

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Supplementary data:

Florida and Michigan are larger than the following states combined:

Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, District of Columbia, and Wyoming

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank01.htm

_________________________

Florida 18,089,888 ...4
Michigan 10,095,643 ...8
_________________________

Arkansas 2,810,872 ...32
Kansas 2,764,075 ...33
Utah 2,550,063 ...34
Nevada 2,495,529 ...35
New Mexico 1,954,599 ...36
West Virginia 1,818,470 ...37
Nebraska 1,768,331 ...38
Idaho 1,466,465 ...39
Maine 1,321,574 ...40
New Hampshire 1,314,895 ...41
Hawaii 1,285,498 ...42
Rhode Island 1,067,610 ...43
Montana 944,632 ...44
Delaware 853,476 ...45
South Dakota 781,919 ...46
Alaska 670,053 ...47
North Dakota 635,867 ...48
Vermont 623,908 ...49
District of Columbia 581,530 (X)
Wyoming 515,004 ...50

[redqueen]

11. How is it not legitimate?

All candidates took a pledge that specifically stated the delegates would not be seated.

I'm sorry that the voters in those states have been screwed over by their incompetent state leaders, but the rules were known beforehand and agreed to... so however illegitimate it may 'seem', I don't agree that it is.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. you are using "legitimate" to mean "within a set of rules"

Saddam Hussein won all of his elections within the rules. They were not, however, legitimate.

George W. Bush became President within the rules, but it was not legitimate.

Legitimacy of elections is a public sense that they are fair and representative as expressions of the popular will.

By invoking the actions of candidates you're buying into the George W. Bush Florida 2000 fallacy that elections are contests between candidates, with the people as bystanders.

It doesn't matter how many pledges the candidates sign... that has no bearing on the people, who are supposed to be the focus of the process. The candidates are not free to bargain away such things.

If millions people had signed a paper agreeing that they would not be able to participate in the nominating process then you would have a point. But they didn't.

We will get a nominee without MI and FL. That nominee will be duly chosen, but will not have any claim to legitimacy due to the process employed. No national process to determine "the will of the people" can be legitimate as a measure of that will while excluding 10% of the population off the top.

[redqueen]

14. Sorry but not all rules are equal.

Are you seriously saying that you think the DNC's rules for this situation were analogous to Saddam Hussein's in the elections there?

:wtf:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. No, the point was to take the equation of election legitimacy and election rules off the table

And I am not proposing anything that violates the rules. If Howard Dean says legal primaries can still be held, that's good enough for me, rules wise. (There's no way Dean supports Clinton.)

Based on Deans position, it seems that it is not against the rules for FL and MI to hold primaries before June 10.

The rules say unambiguously that the earlier "votes" held in FL and MI mean nothing, and I agree with that. That's the rule.

But there is nothing in the rules saying that FL and MI cannot possibly count... only that their early fake-primaries do not count.

The invocation of the rules to justify a bad outcome that is not required by the rules seems like just the sort of ad hoc, interested analysis the OP addresses.

[Arkansas Granny]

13. That has been my opinion on this matter also. We need to abide by

the rules that were in place and were known to all.

[redqueen]

15. Well if rules are blatantly unfair, then I could see having a problem with them...

but this time they seemed pretty run-of-the-mill, which is why the candidates signed on in the first place.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. We are all arguing past each other.

The question is not whether the bogus-ly chosen delegates in FL and MI should be seated.

Of course they should not. That is the rule.

The question is whether it is proper for the Obama camp to seek to put road-blocks in the way of FL and MI having legal primaries today.

There is no rule banning FL and MI having proper primaries within the rules.

The point of the rules was not to disenfranchise two states, it was to de-legitimize two un-sanctioned votes. And those votes are, under the rules, meaningless.

That's the punishment.

There is not a further punishment that FL and MI are to be excluded from the process no matter what.

[redqueen]

20. Are you referring to his saying the DOJ would have to look over the process?

What roadblocks are you talking about?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. Well, let's say he isn't exactly pushing for new primaries.

My intention is not to expose Obama skulduggery, merely to note that the campaigns have positions and apply pressure and shape circumstances to best advantage.

As they should.

But at this point, I don't see how anyone could say the Obama camp is seeking new contests.

This isn't a partisan thing. If Fl and MI were 80% Obama states I would still want them to vote! That would turn a narrow Obama win into a bigger Obama win, which would be good for the party.

No good can come from having a nominee who nobody will ever be able to say for sure would have won if the whole country had participated.

That's the sense of de-legitimacy I'm referring to.

I don't want Clinton people to be able to say, "Yeah, but she would have won if the whole country voted." That doesn't help anyone.

She's not going to win anyway. So let her lose with everyone being counted.

[redqueen]

24. That's 'roadblocks'?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing your point.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. The point of the OP is that neither camp views this as a moral or ethical issue.

Stipulate any set of facts about the Obama and Clinton campaigns' approach the the question, and it would be reversed if the circumstances are reversed,

If Obama was all about "the will of the people" he would be fighting for new contests in FL and MI.

I do not blame him for not being enthusiastic about such contests. He has no obligation, as a candidate, to seek unfavorable outcomes for himself.

I do, however, blame his supporters for pretending that the Obama campaign as all about "the will of the people" as a moral stance, when it is demonstrably not concerned with the will of the people at all.

If the super-delegates handed Clinton the nomination in contravention of the primary results that would be within the rules, but it would stink.

And if voters in FL and MI don't get a say in the nominating process, that will be within the rules, but it will stink.

Those two things are equivalent, but are treated by partisan supporters as somehow different.

[redqueen]

27. Sorry, but simply saying that the DOJ has to review plans

doesn't sound like what Clinton said about re-votes. It's not anything close to a roadblock either, IMO. Do you remember what she said? Do you think it balances, what's coming from both camps re: do-overs?

[Arkansas Granny]

21. If the rules are blatantly unfair they should be addressed and changed

before the next election. You can't change the rules halfway through the game.

[redqueen]

25. Indeed.

Anything else appears far more illegitimate, IMO anyway.

Additionally, it opens the door to who knows what kind of shenanigans on down the road... not such a good precedent, rewarding rule-breaking.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. FL and MI having primaries today is within the rules

If it were clearly outside the rules, Howard Dean would not be talking about it.

The rule is that the beauty contests votes count for nothing, and that's fine. Those delegates cannot and will not be seated.

But the rules, as explicated by Dean, do allow both states to have primaries some time before June 10.

So they should have primaries... not for the sake of one candidate or another, but for the sake of the people in those states.

It seems beyond argument.

And if they do NOT have primaries (as allowed in the rules we are all talking about) then the nominating process is missing 10% of the population. Which is a problem any way one looks at it.

[Arkansas Granny]

22. As long as that contingency is part of the established rules I would

have no argument with it.

[azmouse]

16. I totallly agree.

The candidates agreed to those rules. That should be the end of it.
Instead Hillary wants to muddy the water by claiming these states will be disenfranchised. Tough. She knew the rules before the votes were (or weren't) cast.

[ruggerson]

28. it's called selective indignation