MI/FL And The Popular Vote

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:39:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

On George Stepanopoulos' show, Ed Rendell represented the Clinton campaign and John Kerry represented the Obama campaign. Here is the video.

It seems clear that the Obama camp has completely backed down from the "Hillary should quit" campaign. That's good. Now they are engaging the the winning metrics. Especially the Michigan and Florida issues. Frankly, I think Kerry did as well as he could with a tough hand. Rendell has become quite adept at this though and he talked "popular vote," the will of the people and MI/FL. For me the Clinton argument is better than the Obama argument. But I have been for revotes forever. An aside, Rendell does a great job asking for a positive campaign when asked about Bosnia. Well done Rendell.

< Blogging The West Virginia Primary | The Cuomo Dream Ticket Plan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

MI/FL And The Popular Vote | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

During all this mess I have come to really admire (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by athyrio on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:46:18 PM EST

Rendell....He seems to be a fairly no nonsense fella and sorta "tells it like he sees it"...What a great supporter for Clinton...

: As A Philly Suburbs Guy (Bucks County) (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by OxyCon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST

I can tell you that must of us here know and admire Rendell.
He's fair, decent, knowledgeable, upfront and has a very even temperment.
He'd make a great Vice President for Hillary and the country.

Hillary should quit meme (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by OxyCon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:46:46 PM EST

I have a hunch that one of the reasons why Obama is backing down on his calls for Hillary to quit is because he has already gotten assurances from Howard Dean that there is a plan to give the nomination to him.
It sure sounds that way when you listen to what Donna Brazille has to say.

Let us (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST

ALL hope that there has been no secret deals with Dean by EITHER candidate.


: God help them if there has been a deal, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM EST

because the voters will never forgive them. At least this one won't. And if I ever do find out that the DNC arranged his nomination in spite of the popular vote, I will sue them. As a member of the Democratic Party, I expect its leaders to be led by the voters when it comes to the nomination. I live in FL, so they are already on my bad side. To fall for the soap bubble that is Obama and foist it on the party as the nominee if the party voters say otherwise is a crime. Or at least it should be.

Michigan NEEDS a re-vote. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by lansing quaker on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:51:08 PM EST

Gov. Rendell is right.

There's a reason the big Rust Belt Governors support Clinton: Strickland (OH), Rendell (PA), Granholm (MI). Why? It's the Economy, Stupid.

Michiganians aren't interested in Unity. They want concrete solutions to concrete problems and want the combination of strong policy and political capacity to make it happen.

If Michigan doesn't get a re-vote, you can be sure as anything that Michigan will go Red, Red, Red in '08 unless some magic hits the State.

Michigan was only 51/48 (D) in 04 - running against Bush.

Michigan was 51/46 (D) in 00 - coming off of the Clintons.

We are by no means a solid blue. And Detroit "unity" animosity runs very high. Obama's weak labor support in the Rust Belt is high, and Casey is right - we need a revote in Michigan.

If Obama becomes the nominee, and McCain runs in Michigan with "Obama didn't want you to count in your own Democratic primary!" You'd better believe the two forces combined will tip Michigan into an easy red.

Lest we forget. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Marguerite Quantaine on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:10:55 PM EST

If it wasn't for Hillary Clinton, the voters of 10 states and territories would have no say in the nomination process.

Her perseverance has proven she'll be the voice of the people and the defender of the disenfranchised, whereas Obama has proven he'll be a Democratic Party puppet.

His decision to give Clinton permission to stay in the race (as if she needed it) was opportunistic at best.

Meanwhile, the Rezko trial resumes tomorrow.

Nominate in haste. Regret forever after.

Florida and Michigan should count (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:43:16 PM EST

for one major reason: if they don't count, they vote McCain in November. Yes, Florida will probably flip red anyway, but I've seen polling that union state Michigan is leaning McCain lately, and I found it interesting that it started going that that way after all the discussion about a redo.

I would prefer a redo, but it's probably not gonna happen in either state, so here's how I see it.

Florida had a vigorous campaign season via proxy.
Obama spent more there than Clinton did and lost.

In Michigan, Obama should just recognize that he took his own name off the ballot in Michigan which the DNC did not require. Since he and Edwards were both still running, either the "undecideds" should be split along exit poll lines, or evenly, between Obama and undeclared delegates.

Then the DNC should take a penalty in terms of numbers of delegates (all candidates), and seat them at the convention.

Only way to play fair.

Hard to believe, but one poll says you're right (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by catfish on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:10:15 PM EST

25% said less likely to vote Dem:

"According to a Miami Herald poll earlier this week, 24% of Florida Democrats say they are less likely to support the ultimate Democratic candidate if their votes in the primary don't count."

Wonder if that will hold once November rolls around?


: Thanks for the quote (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:15:18 PM EST

I didn't want to go looking for a link.
I saw it first on an electoral college tracking site. One week, Michigan was leaning GOP on the Obama tracker, leaning Dem on the Hillary tracker. After the hoopla over the re-vote, it's now strong GOP on Obama, and leaning GOP for Clinton, so it's hurting both of them.
If the Dems want their vote in November, they have to take them into account in Colorado.

OK (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:41:39 PM EST

If this thing is close, and the pick a nominee without doing right by Michigan and Florida, they are in big trouble.

If women feel that Hillary is getting the shaft, you won't have to worry about blacks not voting.

Because we will not stand for it. Look, DO THE MATH - the Democratic party is about 60 % women - we will rebel, and it won't be pretty.

: Sssshhhhh!!! (none / 0) (#30)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:40:58 AM EST

You're explaining the "gender gap" problem of women not showing up to the polls in too clear terms. Men might be able to understand it.
If a candidate doesn't speak to our concerns, we are less concerned about the candidate.
If they understood that, horror of horrors, Dems might be able to win national elections on decently regular basis, and who knows where that might lead.

When Rendell thinks about what (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:49:25 PM EST

he's going to say in advance, he can be very good.

See also his interview with Charlie Rose where he discusses this.

: Good interview (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:45:52 PM EST

Rendell comes off as a "salt-of-the-earth" type. He's a good advocate for Hillary and I gather he is well-respected in PA. Plus, he seems like a really nice guy and is much more conciliatory towards Obama than I would be. I guess that's why I'm not a politician!

Mattt (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST

Mostly fabricated? You know it is unacceptable to write that.

Wha? (2.00 / 1) (#5)
by mattt on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST

Rendell equates Rev. Wright with Bosnia? How are the controversial (and context-free) comments of one's pastor remotely equvalent with a candidate's own pattern of embellishment on their record?...

I think Kerry is dominating (but of course I would). And I'm still waiting to hear how Obama is "blocking" revotes when the Dems at the state level in FL and MI, who are responsbile, haven't been able to agree on viable plans.


The Bosnia comment hardly speaks to a pattern (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:01:16 PM EST

of embellishment. Her recent rendition of the Bosnia story was off-the-cuff, but she has written about it accurately in her autobiography.

As for Obama, he has flip flopped numerous times. Originally, he said he would agree to whatever decision the DNC made. When the DNC allowed for revotes, Obama rejected new votes on the premise that Republicans and Independents would be unable to vote in the new primaries (assuming they had voted in the original Republican primary). Instead, he was floating the idea of a 50/50 split, which is absolutely absurd and disgustingly transparent. He wants to seat the delegates in a ceremonious fashion so that he won't lose both states in the General, but really this is just another form of disenfranchisement because the delegates will not be divvied up according to any vote.


Bosnia (none / 0) (#24)
by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:29:28 PM EST

has been described in several different times several different ways. Here's a nice summation by JMM.

She has also been questioned on her support for NAFTA (she championed it on at least one occasion), her role in passing SCHIP (she didn't have any), her role in the Ireland peace accord (it was signed without her), and much of her "experience" in general.


ignoring of course... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:03:37 PM EST

that JMM has demonstrated to be entirely partisan in this, it would be news if he had a different take.

I'm not certain that it's necessary to point out (but I will) that:

David Gergen made it clear that Hillary was privately dismissive of NAFTA but had to support her husband.
Her role in promoting SCHIP has been confirmed by many
Her role has been confirmed by at least one (if not more) of the Peace Prize recipients.

In the end, you will see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear and tell the story you want to tell - but coming from JMM simply doesn't make it true.

Perhaps you want to check into the other thread about the serious lack of objectivity of JMM unless your real purpose was merely to take some swipes at Hillary.


Good Lord (none / 0) (#32)
by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:11:14 AM EST

Is Marshall still going on about Bosnia? Talk about beating a dead horse. But then Marshall is too arrogant to understand that he's become just more Obama background noise and just another cheerleader with no creds left.


Seriously... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:41:53 PM EST

...what does it take for Obama supporters to acknowledge that Obama's campaign is ACTIVELY thwarting a revote in Michigan.

There's this obsession with totally disregarding any actions by his campaign or advisers (and even Wright is no biggie since Obama didn't say that stuff). Haven't we just lived through 7 years of buck-passing?

At any rate, here's how Obama is supporting the Michigan proposal:

Obama, Clinton memos on Michigan do-over

"...raises a significant constitutional question and, along with it, the prospect for litigation that would undermine the perceived legitimacy of the election...burden on voters here is one of complete disqualification...vulnerable to challenge under the party rules...no reason to believe that this (Voting Rights Act) review will conclude promptly or without issues raised..."

And blah blah blah. Talk about a 'kitchen sink' strategy. Bob Bauer has thrown every legal wrench he can get his hands on into the machinery of a revote.


"significant constitutional question" (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:51:03 PM EST

probably just refers to first time voters being required to vote in person under Michigan law. First time voters are Obama's core group, and they wouldn't be allowed to vote in a mail in.

Having failed to persuade the state to go with a caucus his supporters could dominate, he then opposed a fire house round they could not.

The mail in vote in Oregon goes fairly well, but in Michigan and Florida, he instantly he raised issues about security and "fairness".

There's a pattern. It's politics, and suppressing an election a politician cannot win is the oldest trick in the book.


Constitutional Question... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST

...Bauer raises it in the context of prohibiting participation from those who voted in the Republican primary in MI.

It's plainly FUD. States routinely close their primaries to certain classes of voters. As long as that class distinction doesn't run afoul of federal elections law, I don't see how it's relevant.


: Yes, and the issue is (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:11:18 PM EST

a core group of potential voters who lean toward a specific candidate.
I've worked with lawyers, and lawyer speak trying to shade an issue to achieve the results you want doesn't impress me in the least.

>>Having failed to persuade the state to.... (none / 0) (#35)
by mattt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:08:26 AM EST

I think I've got it now...

Obama proposes one alternative to get votes counted in MI, but since that approach (caucus) favors him he is Teh Evill Stealer of Elections.

Clinton proposes other alternatives that favor her - counting results of an election where she was the only name on the ballot; or a quickie re-vote that would be dominated by party apparatus with limited time for grassroots organization - and she is the Champion of Democracy.

Speaking of undemocratic processes - what about the fact that Clinton's current lead in superdelegates is entirely based on the 100 or so friends of the family who committed to her before Iowa? How the heck is that related to any will of the voters?


>>You know it is unacceptable to write that (none / 0) (#34)
by mattt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM EST

No - LOL - I was not aware that particular "f-word" was off limits. Since it's obviously A-OK to accuse one candidate of "stealing" the election by "disenfranchising" millions of people, I figured sensibilities would be stern enough to tolerate a politely-worded statement that another politician had engaged in some fabrication.


Kerry was good too... (none / 0) (#4)
by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:58:50 PM EST

if those two spoke for Obama and Clinton more often, rather than Axelrod and Penn/Wolfson, I think we'd have a much more pleasant primary. They stayed on topic, they made their points, and they disagreed, but they remained civil and respectful. That was a good video.

And in response to Rendell's request to a (none / 0) (#22)
by jes on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:44:11 PM EST

positive campaign, Kerry outright lied when he said Clinton brought up the Wright issue spontaneously during the Scaife Post-Gazette interview.

Clinton answered the question (none / 0) (#25)
by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:32:49 PM EST

because she wanted to answer it then. She was asked it days before and avoided it. She's a strong enough women that she wouldn't get pushed around by reporters on something like this. She raised the issue because she wanted the issue back in the headlines.


So, to you "raising an issue," means (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:52:18 PM EST

previously refusing to comment in response to questions, but later commenting in response to a question on the same issue.


: Raising an issue doesn;t mean (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:27:00 AM EST

responding to a question, regardless of how calculated the answer may seem.
The reporter raised it. She responded.

positive campaign ? (none / 0) (#28)
by diogenes on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:23:31 PM EST

This is the same Rendell who in February made sure to point out that many white voters simply would not vote for a black to be president.

What about Kerry's bombshell? (none / 0) (#33)
by desert dawg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:14:21 AM EST

Hillary Clinton's health care plan is a non-starter in the Senate because it calls for mandates.

The same issue as in 93 over which the Republicans and the insurance companies deep sixed HRC's plan. When did Kerry switch parties? That is the clearest indication yet of why Obama should not be president.