Blue Jersey to NJ Delegates: Pledge to uphold DNC rules

Let me be the first (4.00 / 2)

delegate candidate pledged for Edwards in NJ to state that I will vote AGAINST seating delegates from Florida and Michigan.  They broke the rules - let them explain why, but actions should have consequences.  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 22:01:28 PM UTC

A few things (4.00 / 1)

First of all, Senator Clinton has not violated any rules.  The DNC condoned fundraisers in the state as they did not deem it campaigning.  Furthermore, she is not flying in until AFTER the polls closed.  The pledge was not to campaign for the Florida Primary.  Kind of hard to campaign for votes in an election that's over.

This scene is utterly ridiculous.  We, as Democrats, CANNOT win the general election without at least one of these states.  This isn't about condoning a diverse state for daring to shake up the mayflower reunion of Iowa and NH.  It's about motivating and rewarding the activists, elected officials, and so many more who will work nonstop from the convention until November.  Not seating them is a horrible inside baseball story which helps no one and hurts us (the party) more.

This was a gigantic game of chicken that got out of hand and has given the Republicans a leg up in two HUGELY influential states.  Enough is enough.

---

by: BlueJG @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 22:15:51 PM UTC

Florida and Michigan can still have their delegates. (4.00 / 2)

Just not from these non-binding primaries. The FL and MI state Democratic parties can hold separate caucuses between Feb. 5 and the convention to choose their delegates.

Senator Clinton violates the pledge in letter and spirit.  She may not be campaigning for Floridians votes tonight, but to suggest that she's doing anything other than "campaigning" and she's doing it anywhere other than in front of television cameras in "Florida" is dishonest.  Her recent announcement that she will ask her delegates to flout the DNC rules and advertising her Tuesday night Florida appearance while votes are still to be cast in the state violates the pledge in spirit.

In any event, if Clinton thought the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated in spite of the DNC rules, she should have made that argument last summer and fall when these decisions were being made.  Waiting until after Iowa and New Hampshire had already voted to make her announcement is fundamentally dishonest and disrespectful to the voters in those two early primary states and to the Democratic Party.

One thing I do agree with you on: I don't think we should condone rule-breaking.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 22:57:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's rules (4.00 / 4)

and then there's playing fair, doing the right thing, you know - ETHICS.  

Florida is perfectly free to have their primary later.  

Since when is appearing at a fundraiser during a Presidential election not campaigning? Does this depend on what the definition of CAMPAIGN is?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 23:14:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DNC word is law, eh? (2.00 / 1)

Hey, I didn't define campaigning, the DNC did.  And since you both think what the DNC says is law, then why are they correct in their punishment but incorrect in their definition of campaigning?

Was Barack Obama running a TV ad in Florida campaigning?  Was it okay because he "tried" to get it pulled from a national ad buy?

And you if you truly want to discuss disrespectful, explain to me how we're saying "HEY FLORIDA, YOU'RE PRIMARY DOESN'T MATTER" is respectful?  hundreds of thousands of Floridians have voted.  I'm for saying their votes counts.  The DNC is for saying they don't.  You're welcome to side with the DNC, but I'm not willing to tell over a million people (b/w the 2 states) that their votes don't matter.

---

by: BlueJG @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 23:39:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am (4.00 / 4)

Their party leaders are trying to cheat me and every other voter in the 44 states out of our influence.   You don't even address the issue, because it is true.  Furthermore, since no one was allowed to meaningfully campaign, the results are meaningless.

In any case, Clinton said their votes don't count, said she won't campaign there or "participate" in it, and now suddenly appears to claim the opposite.  Next time you all tell me she'll get out of Iraq, I'll remember this.

I'm all for their delegates being seated, after the other states decide the nomination.  Then everyone will agree for them to attend.  That is the only course that is fair.  

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 00:57:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did not (4.00 / 1)

(point to random woman in the crowd) have sex with that woman.

It depends on what "is" means.

I think it's a huge red herring to say that we will automatically lose either Michigan OR Florida just because their delegates don't get to vote.  The activists, elected officials, and everyone else who is working until November SHOULD be willing to support WHOEVER becomes the official nominee for the Party.  

In short, I don't see that it hurts the party at all.  It isn't like this is being sprung on them after they arrive.

The problem with seating the delegates is that they were not elected in a free and open election process.  Seating them is not endorsing democracy, but defeating it.  What about all of the voters in those states who would have come out to vote if they had not been told beforehand that their vote would not count?  Don't they deserve a chance to have their say?

Unless they have another primary/caucus - which they could do at the drop of a hat - they shouldn't be counted.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:34:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: A few things (0.00 / 0)

Are you speaking officially as a Clinton campaign staffer or is this just your personal opinion?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:25:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Re: A few things (0.00 / 0)

I'm a clinton supporter, but not a staffer.

Though I would feel this way regardless of who won Florida or Michigan.  

---

by: BlueJG @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 16:48:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There could be something worked out (4.00 / 2)

like a caucuses in June by Florida and Michigan, that I would think is fair -- but I agree that it would be totally unfair to use this result to seat delegates.

As a person running as an uncommitted delegate, I'll make the pledge (in the unlikely event I'm elected).

---

by: jennypenny @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:53:07 AM UTC

Hillary (0.00 / 0)

looked so smug tonite in Florida on MSNBC.  So sure of herself while speaking of her delegates getting seated.  It reminded me of Karl Rove being interviewed the night of the 2000 election when he appeared so incredibly sure Florida would go Bush's way.

Gave me the willies, it did.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:54:18 AM UTC

Some More (2.00 / 1)

First of all, having witnessed a caucus firsthand, let us not confuse that with anything that is democratic.  It isn't.  If you're out of town on business, you can't vote.  If you're deployed overseas with the military, you can't vote.  If you can't find a babysitter and don't want to bring your kids to the caucus, you can't vote.  If you work nights, you can't vote.  If you're old and cannot leave the house, you can't vote.  It's not democratic.

Also, what about the hundreds of thousands of people who DID vote.  Why are we willing to tell them their vote did not matter.  Saying something like 'they should work for us anyway' is too simplistic.  Of course, many will work, but it's a matter of energizing and motivating people.  If you're willing to tell me that you'll work equally as hard for Obama or Clinton, then my face is red, but the fact of the matter is you won't.  Because the candidate who isn't your choice doesn't motivate or energize you.

And another point.  A party caucus costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, as does a primary.  Would you rather ask states to hold another another primary, at the taxpayers expense, but of political party rules or ask a state party to drain incredibly value funds which they'll need to compete in 2 states where the republicans already have a 6 month headstart.

This boils down to people not liking Hillary.  As much as the media is trying to push this as a delegate battle, it won't be.  We'll have a presumptive nominee based on momentum and wins and losses in the state contests.  NJ is important not because of it's delegate count, but because its a diverse state hat will have a winner and a loser.

Well over a million people pulled a lever for someone in a Democratic primary without campaign events, constant phone calls, tv ads, visibility and much more.  They did it because they felt a civil duty to go and vote.  I don't want to tell them it didn't matter.

---

by: BlueJG @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:54:07 AM UTC

and perhaps (4.00 / 3)

another million did not vote because they were told correctly it did not count, or because they did not get the information from the candidates needed to decide.

In fact, you can clearly see from the exit polls that younger voters did not go.


Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:26:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: and perhaps (0.00 / 0)

sure, it'd be great to have had even more people vote.  But, I'm also not going to say that because they weren't getting phone banked they weren't aware of the presidential election.  

It's likely that the people who didn't vote aren't the ones who even realized it 'didn't count'.  Are you telling me if NJ's delegates were stripped for next Tuesday, you wouldn't still go?  The people who pay attention to that kind of stuff are very well-informed voters who don't need a phone banker or tv ad to persuade them.  But, yes, I'm willing to concede there would have been higher turnout if you're willing to concede it wouldn't come from people who made a conscious choice not to go because no delegates were at stake.

I'm not arguing with the past.  It was a bad decision and ALL of the candidates should have stood up and said so.  And I'm not arguing with perception.  It looks bad that, since Hillary won the two her being the only one to advocate it looks opportunistic (in that same vein, I'm also not willing to argue that, if the situation was reversed, Obama would be arguing to seat them).

My argument is that we're in this situation now and how do we rectify it.  Asking a state party to spend upwards of 1 million dollars on a caucus in June when we'll already have a presumptive nominee isn't a good solution.  Asking a state to hold a second primary as a result of party rules also doesn't seem like a good solution.

(Also, Florida is a GOP state house and a GOP Governor...they moved the primary up.  We had 2 choices.  Hold a non-binding primary and hold a second one later or try to make it count...the GOP screwed us on that one, not anyone else)

We need to figure out the best way to move forward.  I personally feel that we shouldn't, on a national stage, be refusing to seat FL or MI.  It's a process story that we do not need during our convention when we're trying to catch up in those states.  

---

by: BlueJG @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 16:59:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"how do we rectify it" (4.00 / 1)

You're creating a problem where there isn't one. The delegates aren't getting seated. It sucks, but those were the rules. How do we rectify it? I don't know. Give Floridians prime speaking slots at the convention, perhaps. But we don't seat the delegates and fundamentally alter the nomination process.

I think what bothers me most about your argument here is that you're trying to move the goalposts. You're talking about "what's fair" to the Florida delegates as if they're somehow more important to the other delegates around the country whose state parties DID follow the rules. I don't know you from Adam, but I must say that you're coming off as intellectually dishonest here.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 17:42:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: "how do we rectify it"? (0.00 / 0)

How does seating their delegates hurt our delegates?  I'm not moving the goalposts and I think to suggest otherwise is unfair.  I see this inside baseball story as an issue for our party.

Also, it wasn't the delegates who chose this path.  It was the state party in Florida getting put into a bind when the Republicans moved up the primary.  The Republicans wanted us to be fighting over this issue.

I just don't see how seating their delegates hurts our delegates.  The people I'll be voting for next Tuesday didn't have any conversations with Howard Dean about when NJ should be.  But they sure will be worknig their butts off for us in November.  

Hey, I'd love to be wrong.  I'd love for this not to be an issue and every FL and MI activist be just as motivated to work as everywhere else.  I'd love us to make up the organizational disadvantage we now have in those states because no one has been doing anything for months.  And I'd love the national media to not cover whether or not we seat FL and MI in Denver.

I'd love to be wrong.  But my bet is it's an issue that will get coverage regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Howard Dean or anyone else says.  The media will continue to discuss whether or not we will seat FL and MI and if we do not, they will talk about it even more.  But I hope I'm wrong.  

---

by: BlueJG @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 19:16:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Made Their Bed (0.00 / 0)

Michigan's Democrats went full speed ahead.  It didn't seem as though Florida's Democrats put up a fight.  The main reason caucuses came in was because they are much cheaper because no one is paid to run a caucus.

So, Florida's Democrats aren't helpless victims here.  They could have done the same thing as South Carolina or other places that have two events.

Also, now that this is a two-person race, the whole question is going to be moot anyway.  Either Hillary is the presumptive nominee and they are seated or Obama wins and people are seated.  There weren't any delegates on the ballot anyway, were there???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 20:03:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jeez (0.00 / 0)

Your rhetorical dishonesty here is just galling. I did not say that "seating their delegates hurts our delegates." What a convenient strawman for you to debate.

I did say that, 'You're talking about "what's fair' to the Florida delegates as if they're somehow more important to the other delegates around the country whose state parties DID follow the rules." And I stick by that. Florida and Michigan didn't follow the rules. They knew if they didn't follow the rules, their delegates wouldn't be seated. They went ahead anyway. New Jersey followed the rules. Our delegates will be seated. End of story.

Seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan doesn't "hurt" the rest of the delegates around the country, per se, but it will show other state parties that it doesn't matter what the DNC says, that its rulings are toothless, and that the price of breaking DNC rules is worth paying.

The very definition of moving the goalposts is changing the rules mid-game to benefit one side over another. How can you be claiming that this is anything but a classic case of moving the goalposts?

---

by: Scott Shields @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 21:26:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An Inconvenient Fact (0.00 / 0)

From October 30, 2007 in Salon:

The Florida effort to move the date was sponsored by a Democrat, state Sen. Jeremy Ring, also of Broward, who remains unapologetic about his role. "I think we have successfully blown up this antiquated primary process," he said in a phone interview last week. "I have absolutely no regrets."

They created this situation and it is indicative of the quality of one candidate's character the way they are playing this now.  Do you think that Hillary would have won New Hampshire if they knew she was going to pull this "stuff?"

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 22:38:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Flip Flop (4.00 / 1)

The candidates agreed on the rules.

There was a vote of the DNC to set the rules.

Florida and Michigan decided to cheat.  An ugly word, but the truth.

The DNC and its chair, Howard Dean, stood firm.  All of the presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

All of the "major" candidates except one (guess who!) took their names off the Michigan ballot.

"Guess who" then finds herself in a real race.  "Guess who" then tells Florida Democrats on the eve of the primary that she will hold a rally in their state on primary night and tell her delegates to get Michigan (where "GW" also "won") and Florida seated.

Of course, that didn't just happen.  A representative of "GW" told us on this blog that she was headed to FLORIDA for the campaign after the national pre-primary caucus.

We should also remember that "GW" and spouse were rather loud in their "complaints" about the process in Nevada which again was approved by all the candidates and appeared to be fine with "GW" until "GW's" opponent was endorsed by a major union in Nevada.

Sometimes, people aren't "liked" for very valid reasons.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 13:40:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's not forget (4.00 / 1)

how the Florida brouhaha happened.  The Republicans in the State Legislature insisted on a January 29 primary and rejected all the Democrats' attempts to put it off--and with a Republican majority in the State Legislature there wasn't much the Florida Democrats could do.

Republicans love it when Democrats fight each other.  We need to avoid feeding their frenzy.  

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 17:40:56 PM UTC