Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
I'm extremely time- and access-challenged at the moment, so a few points and notes on the MI/FL primaries flap. First, of course....
I TOLD YOU SO.
As in, beginning eighteen months ago, before any particular state party had scheduled any of their primaries/caucuses. I said that Dean and the DNC's attempt to game the system was DUMB. I said it would BITE THEM IN THE ASS. I said it would PIT THEM AGAINST THEMSELVES, alienating their own voters. I said it repeatedly, early, and often as the whole thing unfolded. Self. Inflicted. Wound.
The DNC made this mess for themselves in trying to game the primaries to produce a clear front-runner early on to provide some clear-field weeks or months of campaigning against the other party's nominee. Well, it worked! In big heaping steaming piles! Just not for them. John McCain now has breathing space to organize and fundraise and stump while Clinton and Obama chew off pieces of each other and toss them on the grill.
The states are not the ones being hurt here. Democratic voters in those states are being hurt, and the unity factor of the national Democratic Party. The states have no reason and zero obligation to pick up a do-over tab to address that. None. Nada. Zip.
This was not an Evil Republican/Rovian Plot, despite the spinning from enraged moonbats and the DNC itself. In both Michigan and Florida, the bills setting the primary date passed by massively bi-partisan veto-proof majorities. The governors didn't do it. The GOP didn't do it. The GOP punished their own line-jumpers (and they had more than the DNC) with the traditional half-value delegates penalty. The DNC changed their own rules on a voice vote to make their penalty ALL delegates from those states. High-stakes poker, and they got called and re-raised by their own people. The state parties had ways to get around the dating problem, just as Iowa and Louisiana got around it for the GOP. They didn't use them. Self. Inflicted. Wound.
The posturing from the Obamites is plain old whining. ALL the candidates were on the Florida ballot. Clinton won. Obama took himself off of the Michigan ballot to pander to Iowans--and it worked very well for him--but there was no rule he had to get off the ballot, so the whining that he wasn't on it fails to impress. He collected his reward for it in Iowa. Neither of the candidates broke the rules. Both shaved them a bit tight, but hey, that's politics for you!
A "do-over" process that changes the results in either state is no solution. It would actively make the problem worse, alienating even more party members. And a "do-over" that confirms the disallowed results just makes the DNC's threats and posturing a complete laughing-stock. Self. Inflicted. Wound.
If you count all votes cast and all delegates that should have been awarded, it's a neck-and-neck race, as tight as they come. It could indeed come to a floor fight, and at this rate the super-delegates will indeed be the deciders. The DNC tried to shuffle in a back-room selection process that looked above-board, and that attempt completely and utterly failed. Now they have to engage in an overt back-room process that promises to be every bit as ugly as 1968, and I am LMAO.
Because, well, I told you so, early and often.
Our RSS feed
Welcome Back
Where ya been, buddy? Hope it was just political work and not personal tales of woe. That's your welcome back straight line, BTW.
Agree strongly for the most part. In fact, I've been ranting and raving about it all over. There'sno doubt that the democrats have brought this sh!t upon themselves. Can you explain this bit:
I have no idea what this is about. Not questioning its accuracy, just wondering what the story is.
I disagree with you about the do-overs in one respect. I think that while they're not a solution, they're the best available remedy for several reasons. Turnout in FL and MI was likely affected by the fact that the delegates had been stripped. There had to be a why bother sentiment that kept some folks home and pushed others to the GOP bout.
But I agree strongly with you about the do-overs in another respect. There's no way the states should pay for them. They graciously hosted freebies for the parties, and the DNC stripped their delegate a over a detail. The DNC should both pay for the re-dos _and_ issue a public apology. If it were my state, I'd threaten to leave the dem nom off the state ballot unless the DNC uncled up 100%. Sadly, the most likely outcome now is that the DNC will seat the delegates under some form of brokering, and declare victory.
I think the states that want to set their primary dates as they see fit ought to prepare for 2012 now by declaring that's their right by law for any primary that they finance, and that if the DNC wants a different date, they have 2 choices: 1. administer and finance the primary with their own dough on private property, or 2, have no primary and no candidate on the fall ballot.
That'd learn 'em.
Of course, the GOP dodged a half bullet.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
Brian, Obama and Edwards
Brian, Obama and Edwards took their own names off of the Michigan ballot to gain traction with Iowa and NH Dems, thinking the MI race wouldn't count and they could gain some early-contest tactical advantages by so doing. Besides, they thought they'd do poorly. Hillary didn't go for it--she knew she was in good shape in Michigan and Florida. She followed the rules. She did not campaign in Michigan or Florida. But she left her name on the ballot.
But Obama and Edwards withdrew from the race entirely in Michigan. They dropped out of it. They DID NOT RUN IN MICHIGAN, but there was no party rule at all that said they couldn't do so, that they couldn't stay on the ballot, just that they couldn't campaign there. When Hillary didn't fall for it and they saw her MI numbers, they stayed on the Florida ballot, which to be consistent with their excuses they should've bailed from as well. And they got BEAT in Florida while on the ballot.
Now Obama is whining that he lost Michigan because he wasn't on the ballot, and so Michigan delegates should not be seated unless he can be on the ballot for a do-over. Well, he FREAKING DROPPED OUT. HE QUIT. Whose fault is that? That's like saying that mid-term exam you blew off to go drink beer and chase women shouldn't count against your final grade because you weren't there. But hey, you're willing to make up the exam if everyone else has to, and you can diddle the curve.
Go ahead with do-overs. The damage to the party is already done. But to be really fair, the ballots should be exactly the same as they were the first time around. :-)
I completely agree
and I know you say this with no real dog in the race. Maybe Brian doesn't think you're being objective, but I do and I did when you first predicted this mess. Yes the damage is done and I can't believe the Democrats have so disabled themselves. Dean and Pelosi. What a bang up job with Bush in office. It is quite pathetic and McCain's chances look beter each day. He could even have a chance in Florida and California. Unbelievable. Really.
And now Obama says that those who voted for the resolution to use force "have no standing" to question him. like Hillary. I better stop, Brian will think I'm ranting again, but I am going to laugh when Obama tells McCain he has no standing to question Barak's views on Iraq.
what I still don't get
Thanks for the fill in Tully. The part I was really wondering about was why would Iowa care about Michigan's primary as long as they were still first? It doesn't make much sense.As I thought I madeclear previously, I'm not disputing your account. What I am saying is that I don't know any of the details of this, and so I don't understand your description of events.
Did people from Iowa really vote for Obama because he took his name of the MI ballot? It just sounds so fricken stupid.
And Max, you have no clue here. I've been ALL OVER the idiocy of these penalties from Day 1. So PLEASE don't put words in my mouth about me thinking Tully's not objective, since I've been agreeing with him all along.
BTW, the reason to stop your post BEFORE once again whining about Obama's position on Iraq? It would be because this thread isn't about any of the candidates' views on Iraq. I know this isn't a subtle point. It really ought to have seeped in by now.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
Straight insider pool,
Straight insider pool, Brian. Yes, it helped both Edwards and Obama in Iowa. Iowa politicos are extremely possessive about their "first" status.
I've heard a few say
In the interim, I've heard a few folks suggest that Obama wasn't on the MI ballot because he was following party rules. Again, I have no basis for judging such claims. So they're either flat wrong or shading the truth on the details? I'm willing to trust you on this, since you seem to
know both the details and the rules germane to it.
Any speculation as to why Hillary stuck in MI? Was she probably anticipating a later overturn? I can see how, operating from a position of strength at that time, she'dlet Obama and Edwards take the risk.
I have an off-topic query. Anyone know why Puerto Rico gets 55 delegates in the dem primary? That's more delgates than half of the states. But PR isn't a state. PR doesn't get any electoral votes in the gen elec, IIRC.
_________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
I need to be working,
I need to be working, but...
There was NO party rule saying people had to get off the ballot in either MI or FL. That's pure-d BS. Those saying so are flat wrong, or lying. The party rule was that candidates could not actively campaign in those states without losing any delegates won from same. This no-campaigning rule was established BEFORE the rules committee went to an ALL-delegates penalty--half of those state's delegates were still available under the previous long-standing penalty rule when the candidates put their names ON the ballot. Both Clinton and Obama followed the no-campaigning rule in MI and FL.* Under the original rule in place when they put their names on the ballot, Clinton would have been entitled to half the MI delegates and both Clinton and Obama would have been entitled to half the delegates they should have gotten out of FL. Both states would have had (reduced) deleegations seated--just as the GOP line-jumping states will at the GOP convention.
AFTER the primary dates were set in MI and FL, AFTER the candidates were on that ballot, the ALL-delegate penalty was passed by the DNC, and Obama and Edwards took their names off the MI ballot--they DID NOT RUN in MI. Can't get votes if you DROP OUT. With an ALL-delegate penalty it looked like a no-loss move for them.
They did this to pander to PO'd Iowa pols, who were mad they had to move their dates up to get ahead of MI. Obama and Edwards were showing lousy numbers in MI, there were (supposedly) no delegates at stake, they played up to Iowa. NOTE: They did this AFTER the ALL-delegate penalty was announced, and several weeks BEFORE the Iowa causes. They threw away their MI status to pimp to Iowa and NH. Period.
It paid off for them in Iowa--check the Iowa caucus results. Clinton had great numbers in MI, so-so in Iowa, so she stayed on the MI & FL ballots but did not campaign there. NO PARTY RULES BROKEN. But Obama/Edwards did NOT pull off of the FL ballot--they were hoping that Iowa/NH/NV/SC momentum would carry them to good figures in FL, and they could then appeal the penalty and claim the delegates, or at least claim more mo' if they did well. And if they didn't do well, they'd stick with supporting the ALL-delegate penalty and be loud about saying FL didn't count. FL had been scheduled for AFTER even the original Iowa/NH dates, so there was no one to pander to, so they stayed on the ballot figuring it was a no-lose situation, that it couldn't hurt them and might help.
The end result, though, is that it's a tight race, and MI and FL voters are PO'd at the DNC, and want their votes counted. Counting them at full would leave the race essentially tied. Counting them at halfs, much the same. Barring a near-total Obama sweep of the remaining states (highly unlikely) even the current situation leaves all REAL final choice in the hands of the superdelegates. There simply aren't enough regular delegates remaining for either candidate to get over the threshold on regular delegates without sweeping. Instead, the insiders have complete control of the outcome, and the hypocrisy of "the people's choice" rhetoric is transparent.
So, the back-room dealing must now be blatant. Like 1968. There will be major negative repercussions for the DNC, and for the eventual nominee. It will be that much harder for the nominee to win the general election, and the fallout for the party may well extend down-ballot to other races.
[*--they could hold fund-raisers, and did]
Thanks
Thanks, amigo. Now get back to work. :-)
I thought I heard some stories that Clinton did a little last-minute campaigning in FL, but it could have been fund-raising.
I know YMV, but I still think the DNC can't just retroactively grant the delegates as they would have been earned because candidates had to make decisions based on the stated rules at the time. Looks like they're working on ways to do a make-up.
If that happens, then the most reasonable assumption is that Clinton will end up with 55% to 60% of the FL+MI stash. I tried to find out how many delegates each state would have had but RCP didn't have them they just zeroed them FL and MI. I found that the total is 366. So it seems like under the most likely evolving scenario, Hillary will catch up by 45 to 75 delegates, which won't put her on top, but could more than halve the gap. If MI ends up doing a caucus, I wonder if Obama can earn a stalemate or take the W.
Perceptionwise, I tend to think that the genpub's acceptance of an "overturn" by superdelegates would vary depending on how close the final count was. If Obama stays ahead by more than 50 or close to 100, that's a lot different than if, say, Hillary closes to within 15 or 20 or 30, and has MO.
If Hillary can close the gap to mid double digits, then she only needs about a 55% majority among the SD to get the nomination. That's doable. Wise for the party's fall fortunes is entirely another question.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
You know Tully, after such a long break, I thought you'd come
back with something positive :).
My brother and I had a somewhat heated debate over this mess last night, and we ended up agreeing that the whole thing was stupid, and that the do-overs are ridiculous. This master plan the DNC had has indeed turned into one big mess of their own making, and one only hopes this is settled soon.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
Welcome back Cotta...
Of course you were right Tully, which is why I read your posts. Welcome back. And I agreed with you at the time, imagining another legal last minute crisis with Florida again.
While I think the do-over will happen, it stinks. Another thing stinks and that is a candidate's winning a nomination without getting the majority of registered Democratic votes. Why Republicans and Indies are shut out in New York while in Texas, well, er.... still counting their complete open mess. Primary, caucus, Republicans, Indies...gees, I suggest Canadians and Mexicans should vote in Democratic primaries as well. The DNC back-up was supposed to be the wise Superdelegates who Pelosi and Dean now "order" to follow the popular vote which Huffington says tonight favors Hillary by about 30,000 votes...LOL. Larger if you count just Democratic voters.
What a complete mess. That is why I suggested another truck of pop corn for you. The reason why I think Hillary should take your line is that Obama people actually think they might get through a caucus re-vote. Nope. No Way. And how much did Obama spend in Florida. Penn and Florida will vote Hillary. Probably Michigan as well. Some Democrats think Edwards is the key with the open NC vote coming up eventually. Are Edwards delegates really bound to Edwards? If NC ends up as the critical vote, why keep it open and allow Republicans a chance in altering the outcome?
Just a note-Harper's Chief of Staff floated an unsupported story picked up by CTV and then AP, that a Clinton advisor told him essentially the same thing Obama's staffer said to Candian representives. Prove it. I expect the Canadian government will look into their administration's playing around in the US primaries. There was at least a memo in Obama's case. Imagine if we did that...LOL.
I have no problem
I have no problem believing they both did it or have done it on multiple private occasions. Both Obama and Clinton are too smart to believe they're going to bring exported American manufacturing jobs home, regardless of their rhetoric.
It's that simple. The rest of it is 100% posturing, and worth ignoring. When Clinton and Obama whine about NAFTA, they're both pandering.
Wait for proof if you want Max, but in your heart and in your head, you KNOW I'm right.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
I think Clinton was smart
I think Clinton was smart enough not to send the signal AP reported and Harper denied. You are right that on NAFTA they are both pandering, but Obama has really blasted Clinton over NAFTA. Serves him right to slip up as his staffer did. You see the double pander, one to nail Clinton and one to play to the crowds. In any case, you are right about the pander they both share share.
Bloomberg had a good editorial about the Democratic protectionism which has spread to the Boeing whining. Defense Tech had a good review of why Boeing was not picked and how it does not really lose jobs or gives up national security. These days a project like that requires input from many countries. The idea is to unite and work together and Dobbs once again made me ill ranting about the tanker deal. It is part of the general pandering. Quite amazing when you think about it.
Lou Dobbs?
Lou Dobbs?You give him the power to make you ill? C.mon Max. It'scalled a remote control. Use it. :-)
I can feel my IQ drop every time that guy opens his mouth.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
Remote control works fine...
Of course I have a remote dude. I was testing my powers of prediction and wanted to see what garbage CNN allowed Dobbs to spin. Holy crap. He went through a list of absolutely false claims about the GN deal to build a new tanker. The idea that Boeing wouldn't give a firm price, outsources 60% of their parts and the claim we shouldn't have military production partners is beyond reason. His rant exceeded the gibberish on immigration. In the last several months my opinion of CNN has gone from bad to worse. Complete stupidity. Biggest problem with EADS? EU won't approve golden shares to protect them from being controlled by entities like China, Dubai,Russia etc. And that wasn't even mentioned by Dobbs. AF is quite pissed at the way Boeing operates and nothing the GN deal would do would, as Dobbs so stupidly puts it, give our technology to others.
Sometimes, Brian, you have to peak, just to see what's brainwashing Americans.
Democrats play politics with national defense