Extracted and excerpted:
On May 31st the DNC rules committee meets, and Clinton loyalists will need to present coherent, persuasive, and unimpeachable arguments to crush any attempt to further stall progress on Michigan and Florida.
I say “stall” because the Axelrod camp wins if deliberations are deadlocked because a motion is not carried by a simple majority.
The Clinton negotiation strategy should be focused on increasing the costs of any such delay, to untenable levels for the Axelrod camp and the Party.
Costs should include all the technocratic threats I mentioned in the closing paragraphs of my last post dedicated to the subject.
A rally, such as being proposed by Hillary Forums, is a good start for pressure group politics, but ultimately, an outright boycott of Democratic Candidates on MI and FL ballots in the General Election must be considered.
Simple motto: You Don’t let us vote in the Primary, We wont Let you Vote in the General.
I’ve already debunked most arguments made by Axelrod’s camp claiming FL and MI deserve no hearing.
I neglected a few more, which the likes of Donna Brazile plan on deploying on May 31st:
1) DNC rules were applied - and they will stand
2) Admitting FL and MI is unfair, and somehow “disenfranchises” other states, sets destructive precedent
3) The “Virtually disenfranchised” in FL and MI
4) Compromise
Before I get into into each argument, I’d just like to acknowledge what is already commonly known in Clinton circles. :
DNC election rules apply only to delegates, not to the popular vote.
When the popular vote is tallied, (RealClearPolitics measure will most likely be the benchmark), only fools will keep 2.3 - 2.5 million Florida and Michigan voters in the cupboard.
I hope this descriptions applies to a limited number of Superdelegates (”independent delegates”).
- 1) DNC rules were applied.
No. They were not applied. The rules call for a 1/2 reduction of delegate totals.
This option was not exercised - the rules were ignored.
Nothing in the DNC rules allows for total disenfranchisement of FL and MI. Nothing.
To claim that MI and FL were disenfranchised legally, is bombastic nonsense.
Neither Dean nor Pelosi, nor Clinton, ever maintained that FL and MI would not have their delegates seated in Denver.
The implication all along, was that Primaries in MI and FL, would not be allowed to marginalize Primaries in four states previously scheduled ahead of MI and FL.
When Obama, Edwards, and Clinton signed a four-state pledge to honor the DNC position on Florida and Michigan, all this implied was to not allow Fl and MI to take precedence over Primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
No candidate in any way, shape, or form, signed on to banning FL and MI delegates from the Convention in Denver.
What Obama signed, or how he interprets his signature, is an altogether different matter.
Removing his name from the Michigan ballot, while relying on the neighboring media market of Illinois to advertise, and explicitly rally his supporters to vote Uncommitted in Michigan, sends a mixed signal on his intentions, and a clear signal on his incompetence.
The only binding aspect of candidates signatures in the four state pledge, came in the form of limiting their campaign activity.
Candidates interpreted this to mean, a ban on physical appearances in either MI and FL.
No more, and no less. Both Clinton and Obama appeared in FL, but for reasons which cannot be legally pinned down as “campaigning”, and there is no doubt on their staying true to their word.
To construe candidate signatures as binding on their policy stance on FL and MI delegates counts, is to spread disinformation.
We see such disinformation every time FL and MI are mentioned in the media.
It is plain wrong, and Obamacans need to get this through their heads, no matter how thick.
Continuing on the subject of DNC rules. Not only is the DNC not following the rules, in denying FL and MI the vote, they have absolutely no grounds to negotiate with FL and MI representatives, about 1/2 reductions of their delegate count.
DNC rules state that any state party which itself moves the voting date, will be penalized.
As is well known in Clinton circles, neither the Florida nor Michigan Democrats chose to move their elections forward.
The choosing was done by someone else!
Republicans controlled both FL and MI State Legislatures, and when passing omnibus bills disbursing moneys for both Democratic and Republican Primaries, forced both of them forward.
Democrats fought against this in both states, but in both cases could not veto omnibus bills apportioning moneys for their own election!
The DNC provided them with no alternative options or moneys for their elections, and carelessly left the Democratic parties of MI and FL, stranded!
Not even the finest reading of the DNC election rules, permit stripping or reducing in half state delegates, for actions committed under duress by the opposing party!
- 2) Donna Brazile recently suggested that admitting FL and MI delegations was unfair to all other states, and would be a destructive precedent for future elections
- The logic here is appallingly stupid.
- Is Brazile suggesting that nixing the vote of 2.4 million voters, is the only way we can keep our Primaries fair for 48 other states?
- Or is she seriously suggesting that accepting 2.4 million voters, will somehow disenfranchise 48 states? In either case, the stupidity is ghastly.
Numerically, FL and MI do not impact the 48 other states.
Numerically they neither enfranchise or disenfranchise them.
To bring 48 others states into the MI and FL argument, is plain insulting.
Politically, for both the Nation and the Democratic Party, 48 states lose only, if FL and MI lose.
If FL and MI win, the 48 states gain. There is no scenario, in which a loss of MI and FL, is a win for 48 other states.
In plain English, depriving 2.4 million voters of their vote, is positive sum loss for the Party.
Reinstating their vote, is a positive sum gain.
Brazile’s argument, is a cheap ploy, which anyone sitting across the table from her, should be at liberty to call for what it is, an unfounded “Victim” card.
The same goes for precedents.
Mrs Brazile would be well advised to consider her “precedents” wisely. (Never mind that she needs to be fired off CNN), what kind of precedents does disenfranchising 2.4 million voters send for future elections, compared to the precedent of counting FL and MI send?
The precedent at disenfranchisement needs no explanation.
A careless party, which carelessly abandons its state parties, and which is vulnerable to partisan infighting, will not make it into the next election cycle.
The hemorrhage will be awesome.
Then there is the 48 state strategy- which is an outright insult not only to FL and MI, but to every state.
Ban MI and FL, and you are telling every state that its vote is never guaranteed into the future.
The precedent set by counting both FL and ML delegates, is altogether positive.
It sends the message that the DNC is aware of its faults and negligence which it intends to correct, and that our party is a democratic party not just in name. That it is competent enough to apply its rules correctly, and even failing to do so in a timely manner, finds ways to compensate.
Now Brazile will say, that counting FL and MI sends the message to future DNC election rule violators, that the rules can be broken with impunity.
She wont be troubled with the obverse question; whether the rules can be applied, without cause, shame, impunity, and in a haphazard - hence discriminatory - manner.
No, counting FL and MI will not tell future violators, that the rules don’t matter. The opposite will be told, that no matter how biased the media, and partisan the party, the rules will be applied fairly, without discrimination, and at the appropriate time.
Donna Brazile should pause, before talking of any precedents. Her logic, is self-incriminatory.
- 3) There are people of strong prejudice and limited means but strong popularity (Brazile), and then there are the charlatans. One such charlatan is the Rev. Sharpton, whose action network is advocating the line, that counting MI and FL is direct theft of those votes, which were never cast. ?????
Among all the arguments made in the press, this is by far the stupidest, most useless, and based on the greatest emotional appeal.
I don’t expect anyone to make it at the May 31st meeting, but the media will try. My response to this inane logic, is this:
a- for every imagined Obama voter who did not vote, one can easily imagine Clinton voters who did not vote. Such imagining, when taken to its logical extreme, can be applied to every single election ever held on earth, from Roman times, to present. If you just imagine a better turn out in Florida of 2000, Gore could have won. If you just imagine a better turn out for the Communists in 1933 Germany, Hitler would never have won the Reichstag. If you just imagine… well, elections are fundamentally based on opposition to the imagination. They are metrical, tallied, and thrive on assumptions such as one man one vote at one time for one candidate. For every imagined Black who did not vote for Obama, there is an imagined Latino and Asian - you choose- who slept in on Clinton.
I realize Axelrod’s campaign thrives on the imagined. From imagined “grassroots” to imagined “victims,” but disenfranchising 2.4 million voters, requires no imagination.
b- This argument ignores, conveniently, that the Democratic Parties of both states, encouraged turn-out, and at no point did the DNC discourage it.
Neither the Parties nor the DNC ever or even suggested replacement elections could possibly be held, and not a single FL and MI voter was under the impression that they had a choice in the matter.
Voters’ options were simple, either vote now or you don’t vote at all.
If you don’t vote, there wasn’t a single message or promise from anyone that you’d be given another chance to cast your ballot.
This was 100% clear!
Obama bombarded the Florida election market, and while he didn’t show up in person, at no point whatsoever did he hold out the hope of another re-vote.
In Michigan he promoted voting uncommitted.
If some Blacks and college students, contrary to what was obvious, want to lie that they didn’t show up in FL and MI because of the DNC ban, then logically, they failed to heed their Leader- who was paying serious money for a messages getting them out to vote!
We can compromise on delegate numbers within very narrow constraints.
Neither cutting the delegates by half, nor playing around with the voter turnout and numbers, is politically acceptable.
Any such shenanigans amount to further dilution of the one man one vote rule.
You cannot accept one person’s votes, while rejecting another’s.
This is a fantasy option, which only occurs in nightmares.
It spells defeat for Clinton, and democracy along with it.
It is not the position Clinton takes, nor should her supporters. Votes must be recognized, exactly as they were cast.
In conclusion. There are three choices before the Rule Committee on May 31st.
- Stall (fail),
- approve,
- and re-vote. Here is how I speculate the outcome.
The Clinton camp, made repeated attempts to offer Florida and Michigan a re-vote. Contraty to DNC rules, and to what Dean and Pelosi maintained, Axelrod declined every single opportunity.
His drive to disenfranchise both states, was determined.
It was an illegal disenfranchisement, and there are no two ways about it. Still, a re-vote can be put on the table. It may be the only acceptable solution to the impasse.
Unfortunately, Axelrod knows his demographics, and strategy. He understands that a re-vote is both a political defeat of his candidate, and that the demographics will not budge.
He would be taking a big risk, hoping for an outcome even marginally more favorable to Obama, than that already tallied for MI and FL in January.
Approval, will be very difficult for the Rules committee to approve MI and FL on May 31st.
Approval amounts to admission of sins, and confessions will be in order.
I don’t expect the political wherewithal for approval.
Clinton proxies need to win the argument, without expecting a decision. Had the committee met on June 4th, this may have been different, but May 31st is too early, for a Primary hinging on the Puerto Rico popular vote.
The most likely outcome for May 31st, will be nothing politically, but by documenting a Rhetorical victory, Clinton can carry it over to the next meeting, when her popular vote will provide the wherewithal for more courageous decision making
I may be wrong, this is just guessing the future, but there is no guessing the argument, and Clinton supporters are 1000% correct, to fight on behalf of FL and MI.
<link>
=================
The DNC, Waivers and the Rules and Bylaws Committee :
The DNC allowed Rules to be broken for other states, but not Michigan and Florida: By doing this they rigged two big states out of the running for handing delegates over to a candidate. Is this democratic ? No...they are a fascist orgqanization now.
See here and read these contents to better undertstand the issues that are presented in the excerpted post above:
<link>
