May 02 2008
FL and MI, how to make them count
Following Clinton’s Pennsylvania victory, she tallied her popular vote counting MI and FL votes - putting her ahead of Obama. This led to a Media Backlash, with across the board condemnation by leading commentators pompously proclaiming the “inviolability” of DNC election rules. Clinton was chastised for daring to even raise the issue. For the Clinton camp, this marked a major Media defeat of her drive to get FL and MI seated. Voter sentiment soured, and FL and MI were written off.
This is unacceptable. While it seems inconceivable that Obama could be selected as Democratic Presidential Nominee following Wrightgate , Clinton supporters will make it harder on ourselves if we capitulate to the Media verdict on FL and MI, and prematurely forfeit their vote. We are too silent on FL and MI, and this silence is disenfranchisement.
We need to redouble our efforts for these two states’ electoral recognition, and to begin, we need to craft coherent message.
Clinton needs both states to secure the nomination, without them, Wright or no Wright, Obama will push on to Denver. So what can Clinton supporters do, to help improve the odds of a FL and MI vote impacting the Primary verdict on a Democratic nominee?
First, we need to fight harder for FL and MI. Second, we need to fight with an effective rhetorical frame.
We need to keep Florida and Michigan Visible. A recent protest by the League of United Latin American Citizens, was held on behalf of FL and MI, should have been front page news for all Clinton blogs. While it consisted of no more than 300 people, all such events demand our solidarity and attention. For outlets with connections to Democratic Party activists from MI and FL I suggest regular op-eds repeating a basic set of demands for vote recognition.
Second, our message - the outreach we need to pump daily into the blogosphere. I think the following key points must form the core of our FL and MI rhetorical frame, used in various combinations or in stand alone fashion.
1) Overall, do not present FL and MI as a partisan issue. All Democrats, pro-Obama or pro-Clinton, need to send America and the World a clear message of our basic respect for the ideal of Voter Equality fundamental to the fairness of the democratic voting systems.
As Democrats, we cannot afford to be the party of partisan convenience. Were Florida and Michigan states Clinton had lost, we would have to fight for their recognition with equal zeal, as we do now. FL and MI are a perfect opportunity to show Democratic solidarity, and also to send a clear message, what Democracy is about.
FL and MI should not be a partisan question, but one offering a display of Democratic Party unity, concerned for the General Election, and our commitment to respecting the equality of the vote between every American citizen’s regardless of their state of residence.
Does the Democratic Party really want to go down as the party which disenfranchises the vote of 2.3 million people? The only way we can escape such a stigma, is if we make the FL and MI vote count - not after the superdelegates decide- but NOW.
2) It is the Obama camp, and not the DNC or its rules, who are disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters.
We know Obama will not join in the call to show Democratic solidarity by recognizing the FL and MI vote. This is a perfect opportunity to paint him as someone who Disunites, Disrespects, Discriminates, Dodges, and Dallies. Disunites by not joining the Party in solidarity with FL and MI. Disrespects, by not respecting Florida and Michigan voters. Discriminates, because the votes of SC and IO are fine, but those of FL and MI, are not. Dodges, because he has publicly been evading the issue, and Dallies, because behind the scenes, his camp has deliberately stalled any resolution of the impasse.
The story with DNC rules is simple. FL and MI have nothing to do with DNC rules. That the DNC rules are in play, is Axelrod’s sell - not the DNC’s. As with the “Debate” the media reported canceled by the “North Carolina Democrats” so with Florida and Michigan, its not the Party, its the Obama camp who behind all the trouble!
When Clinton suggested a re-vote for both states, the Obama camp stalled on the talks. When she spoke of a mail-in vote, Obama objected on spurious grounds, even though he sponsored a mail-in vote law in the US Senate. When the FL and MI took their cause to the DNC, Obama did not support them. When Clinton arranged for talks with the DNC, Obama was opposed to any recognition of the two state’s vote. Also
note, that Obama makes no references to FL and MI, and has yet to declare his concern for counting FL and MI vote. So the story is simple. Its not DNC rules, its Obama.
3) Disenfranchisement - Key Term & our rallying cry.
We should all unite behind this term, while throwing out synonymous slogans like “Not Florida Again” or “Voter Theft”, or “Count the Vote Now!,” etc. Based on my second point, it is clear who needs to be singled out as carrying the burden for both undermining Party Unity, propagating the DNC-rules myth, bullying the DNC into inaction, and disenfranchising the voters of these two states -> Obama.
But, Florida and Michigan are not about Clinton winning these states. They are about why Obama refuses to count the votes, he has received. What is wrong with one third of the Florida and Michigan vote for Obama? Are these voters beneath those Obama received in South Carolina or Iowa?
4) No DNC rules allowing for disenfranchisement exist. The DNC’s actions are illegal.
At no point in the Primary did DNC formulate any rules that FL and MI votes would not be eventually counted, nor that their delegates would not be seated. There is nothing in the Party rules which allows the DNC to nix the FL and MI vote. Nothing whatsoever.
5) Under Obama Pressure, DNC violated its own rules, and illegally chose to disenfranchise FL and MI. This was a blatant act of pro-Obama favoritism, disruption of impartiality by the DNC, and an attack on the Party and our Ideals.
DNC rules specify that any state which violates the rules may at most be docked half of its delegates at the convention. However, the DNC chose not to apply these rules, instead choosing, contrary to its own rules, to rob FL and MI of all their votes!
The reason was simple. Counting MI and FL would have given Clinton the delegate lead through the entire Primary up to two weeks ago! Not counting FL and MI was something the DNC chose to do as a direct response to Obama pressure. Because Clinton expressed a different desire at the time, and DNC rules were ignored, the DNC deferred to Obama out of sheer favoritism!
In February, Dean went on record as always intending to seat the FL and MI delegates in Denver, but he was hoping to do it after the Nominee had been selected as a result of a clear Primary victory. This victory was expected by the DNC on February 22, in Texas and Ohio, in Pennsylvania; all instances when top Democrats applied ruthless pressure on Clinton to quit the race as a part of an overall strategy to resolve the MI and FL issue in Obama’s favor.
Today the DNC continues the policy of making the FL and MI vote count only after a Nominee is chosen! This can’t fly. It is a logical absurdity. It amounts to disenfranchisement, no two ways about it. Do not be mislead by such nonsense for one second, and take a strong, unequivocal stand for Florida and Michigan.
6) Clinton, along with other candidates, signed a document which called for the respect of DNC rules.
Yes, and these rules were immediately violated by the DNC, as stated in point 4 above.
There is a wide misunderstanding, that Clinton and Obama agreed to enforce the DNC’s disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan. This is false. Neither Clinton or Obama ever agreed to this. Both signed a declaration of allegiance to DNC rules on Florida and Michigan, which amounted to a promise not to campaign in the two states; which in no way bound any candidate (and the others who signed the document) to disenfranchising FL and MI. In fact, it bound the DNC to respect its own rules, which it failed to do!
Neither of the candidates did campaign in either state. They went out of their way to not appear at rallies, make public pronouncements, or address FL and MI viewers via television. They ran advertisements, and both Clinton and Obama held Florida fundraisers, which strictly speaking, did not violate any pledge they had signed.
7) The Obama camp loves to run a clip of Clinton saying “Florida and Michigan count for nothing” .
This is true, she said it, and so what? At the time of their Primaries, the states counted for nothing, and that was part of the agreement. Another part of the agreement was, that they would soon be made to count once the DNC had applied appropriate rules. These intentions are amply evidenced by a ton of quotes from Dean and the DNC at the time of the Florida and Michigan vote.
At no stage has Clinton in no way implied, that she would not seek to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. She was merely stating the DNC consensus at the time. Did she intend the DNC to violate its own laws and disenfranchise both states?
Certainly not! IN fact, she was and remains the first, loudest, and only advocate that both states vote be counted!
Obama chose not to be on the Michigan ballot
This was a strategic mistake on his part. Further proof that he was intending to disenfranchise Michigan all along. Instead of sending a message of Hope to Michigan Democrats that while their vote was presently not being counted due to their infringement of Party Rules, the Democrats would seek to find a way to make it count, Obama chose to send a clear message that Michigan was worthless. This attitude is further attested by his desire to block any resolution of the impasse up until present.
Clinton, along with three other Democrats, equally sworn to upholding DNC election rules, chose to send a clear message of Hope to Michigan. She knew, like Obama, that presently the Michigan vote would not be featured in the total delegate tally, but unlike Obama she showed solidarity with Michigan voters and held out a promise of respecting their electoral decision in to the future.
9) For the last two months Obama is insulting the people of FL and MI, touting his Delegate and State lead, with FL and MI nowhere to be seen or mentioned.
How can someone, who talks of grass-roots and political engagement and the importance of votes, who poses as the Apostle of Direct Democracy and a candidate running on a popular mandate, get away with the unconscionable farce of running around the country marginalizing Florida and Michigan, without any Media scrutiny?
For the last two months Obama has been touting his victory in the Primary, while cruelly and heartlessly suppressing the vote of 2,300,000 Americans! This shouldn’t be ignored.
10) The DNC theft of the Florida vote is particularly illegal.
While the story of Florida moving its Primary forward is unfortunate, the story of the DNC disenfranchisement of Florida, is Criminal. The Florida Democratic party, was forced to move its primary forward, by a Republican controlled State Legislature. Prominent FL Democrats opposed this State Legislation, but to no avail.
This fact is entirely lost in the Media. Why? Because it exposes the DNC attack on Florida as anti-democratic, biased, and untenable.
All Democrats are entitled to knowing this fact, and Clinton supporters need to get it out there. The DNC action against FLorida, is illegal. The Florida Democratic Party did not violate DNC rules- rather, it was the Republican Controlled State legislature, that did.
In this context , how can the DNC hold Florida accountable for what the State Republicans did? How can the DNC construe its authority over Florida Democrats, when no responsibility for moving the primary forward, be attributed to them!?
In Conclusion:
Too many Clinton supporters get carried away with the legal questions of Florida and Michigan. This is a distraction. The facts are the facts. The DNC played games with us, it allowed Obama to play games with us, and it is attempting to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters, so it can have Obama as the Party Nominee.
The DNC has betrayed the trust of the American people, and if it continues to ignore the Voice of FL and MI voters, it is sending a message not just to Democrats, but it is telling all Americans that one of our country’s two leading parties, is neither Democratic, nor Respectful of the Popular and Delegate vote, nor concerned with impartiality.
It is our duty, as Democrats, to see that DNC election rules are respected, first and foremost at the top of our party. Those who fail to adhere to the rules, need to be handed the pink-slip. DNC representatives are all obliged to respect these rules, otherwise they are not Democrats. It is our duty as Democrats, to fight for the recognition of the vote of every fellow Democrat. If there is a campaign which discourages this fight, which sends a clear message that some voters are more equal than others, this campaign should be held directly responsible for undermining the Party, the democratic process, and our chances in the General Election.
The Obama camp, needs to be held accountable for any misinformation it spreads on account of Florida and Michigan. It must be exposed for the divisive, opportunistic, and anti-democratic Chicago machine, that it is. Already Obama has gone too far in corrupted our Party, already he has divided it and subjected it to incredible bias and prejudice. How much longer can this go on?
It cannot - and Florida and Michigan must be recognized as soon as possible.
***
Two further suggestions, if the DNC does not budge, Florida and Michigan must be clear about what the DNC is telling them : you count for nothing.
As such, Florida and Michigan Democrats are no longer bound to any party platform or allegiance. So they can
1) Florida and Michigan should be encouraged to boycott the General Election. No Democratic party candidate on the state ballot in November in either states. Voters will be encourage to vote third party, or Republican.
2) No contributions from Florida and Michigan to national Democratic fund-raisers, now or five years into the future. FL and MI should demand that costs of running their unrecognized elections are immediately reimbursed.
3) All FL and MI members of Congress should organize state wide rallies, boycotts, and protests. They should lobby for a bill in Congress, asking that the Democratic Party have its registration revoked and its ability to run its candidate nationwide, should be filibustered with legal means.
18 responses so far
Excellent. Will do my part. Keep em coming.
Maybe Bill O’Reilly should be asking these questions;
I read that B.O. going on the factor?
[…] and MI, how to make them count tnr1.com wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFollowing Clinton’s […]
[…] tnr1.com wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFollowing Clinton’s Pennsylvania victory, she tallied her popular vote counting MI and FL votes - putting her ahead of Obama. This led to a Media Backlash, with across the board condemnation by leading commentators pompously proclaiming … […]
If Florida and Michigan votes do not count as originally cast, then neither will my vote count toward electing a democrat to the oval office. I will not sit out the election but rather I will vote for McCain in order to HELP DEFEAT OBAMA. That is a promise.
We should have a nation wide rallies and boycott to let them know we’re serious. How about first week of June? Anybody?
Gregory wrote: “The DNC action against FLorida, is illegal. The Florida Democratic Party did not violate DNC rules- rather, it was the Republican Controlled State legislature, that did.”
There is nothing illegal about a State legislature (be it Republican or Democrat controlled) legislating the date of its Primary, or any manner through which the Primary is conducted.
The Constitution (and the Supreme Court interpretations thereof) have recognized the states’ jurisdiction on this matter. There has been recent debate on whether or not the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to regulate the timing of Presidential Nomination Primaries, but rest assured the “manner” by which Presidential Primaries are conducted is placed squarely in the jurisdictional realm of each state.
As for why the DNC is perfectly within current Constitutional boundaries, you look no further than a Supreme Court case, DNC vs. Wisconsin, in late 1980, in which the DNC sought to overturn the Wisconsin Superior Court decision upholding Wisconsin state legislation design to force the DNC to seat and count Wisconsin’s delegates as the state saw fit (which in this case happenend to be perfectly reasonable: seat them along the lines of how the people voted in an open-Primary).
In the 1980 Democrat Presidential Primary, the DNC ruled that Wisconsin’s delgates would not be seated, because the state violated party rules. Wisconsin fought back in the state Superior Court, won, and then the DNC fought back in the Supreme Court and really really won: The Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin was violated the DNC’s Constitutionally protected freedoms and rights of association.
Gregory wrote: “Too many Clinton supporters get carried away with the legal questions of Florida and Michigan.”
I think you’re wrong about this.
I think that there is a solid case for Michigan and Florida for 2 reasons: 1) in 1980, the majority Supreme Court opinion rested almost entirely on a precedent set in a 1976 Supreme Court decision ruling against the state of Michigan and in the favour of two Michigan delegates (who, if I recall correctly had voted, or were seated, or went the Convention in defiance (against) of Michigan state law). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled against Michigan, upholding the DNC’s role again along Constitutionally protected associational rights and freedoms. In the 1976 case, Michigan conducted an exercise in selective delegate discrimination.
In other words, the specifics of the 1980 and the 1976 Supreme Court cases differ in important respects from each other as well as from that of Michigan and Florida today, which leads to…
2) reading the dissenting minority Supreme Court opinion in the 1980 case, you find a “burden placed on the associational rights and freedoms” “test”. In the minority dissenting opinion, the DNC had not demonstrated to a sufficient or satisfactory degree that the burden that Wisconsin placed on the DNC’s associational rights and freedoms was enough to warrant and justify the DNC’s actions.
I think this can plainly be argued for Florida and Michigan. In Michigan and Florida’s case, the DNC exercised authority derived from a rule that arguably usurps Constitutional jurisdiuction from the state and perhaps even Congress itself.
Gregory, you seem to agree that the signs all point to rabid and blatant pro-Obama rot and curruption all throughout the upper echelons of the DNC, which is exactly why I feel extremely sceptical about Florida and Michigan being seated and counted as is before a Nominee is chosen.
NOTE: in the end (of the 1980 story), the DNC chose to seat Wisconsin afterall, but it’s important to note that the DNC’s decision occured well before the Supreme Court decision, AND AFTER the DNC had admitted to the Supreme Court that it did not have the resources or the time to state their case during a Supreme Court hearing (the case was argued months after the convention in December of 1980 IIRC).
In other words, I don’t think you should draw much comfort from the 1980 fiasco, given that the DNC hedged their bets (like any other shrewed and calculating Institution would in their shoes).
Today is much different, the DNC can rest firmly on the 1980 Supreme Court decision and stick to their guns with seemingly the support of the Main Stream Media and the DNC party big wigs. CNN’s Cafferty comes to mind, the fascist that he is, raving about “rules are rules”…
Obama — selected, not elected.
@Rob
1) You misread my quote. I never suggested the Florida legislature acted illegaly. I am saying the DNC has - in violation of its own rules. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise.
2) The DNC is acting illegally. It has no right to transfer responsibility to the Florida Democratic party, for a Republican legislature. Nor does the DNC have a right, to annul all of FL and MI votes.
You are looking at court cases, with no relevance to FL and MI. You have to abide by the DNC rules agreed upon in 2007, not 1981.
By the way, you forget to mention, that not once has a state threatened with a boycott of its votes, ever actually been boycotted. Never. There were threats and cases based on those threats, but these were never carried out.
Again, the legal argument is 100% on our side. DNC rules were not applied to Florida and Michigan, and core Party members never imagined they were agreeing to a total disenfranchisement.
Don’t get distracted with court cases which are irrelevant to the present situation. It’s good to know the facts of these cases, but you must remember 2007 DNC rules. They do not allow for total disenfranchisement!
You state that “Neither of the candidates did campaign in either state,” but that is not true. Barack Obama flooded the TV airwaves in Florida and claimed it was just a national ad that slipped into Florida through the cable stations. It ran constantly for weeks before the Florida primary and stopped as soon as our voting was over. If it was a national ad that was aimed only at super Tuesday states why did it stop after we voted? He also encouraged his supporters in Michigan to vote “uncommitted.” That is a form of campaigning when you encourage someone to vote against your rival. As a Democrat from Florida I will vote for McCain or write in Hillary before I vote for Barack.
I have cut and pasted at least 3 of your arguments onto a post by a man named Earl O. Hutchinson on HP. It was fun. I am going to save your whole essay and keep on watching for places I can use it.
Oh, and it made me seem much smarter then I am. That was fun too.
@Alan
They did not “campaign” in the sense DNC rules provided. Gregory listed the forms - he did not imply that what you describe did not take place - but that was not what DNC rules were concerned with.
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
On March 26, federal judge Nancy Edmunds ruled that the Michigan law establishing the state’s Jan. 15 presidential primary is unconstitutional. The Michigan primary election law states that a list of voters can only be given to the state’s Republican and democratic parties and not to smaller parties but according to the judge the law unfairly prevents minor parties from access to voter lists which upset the ACLU. Michigan’s Democratic party needs the list of voters from the January 15 primary to make sure that no Republicans who already voted will be able to vote again in a new democratic primary because if the state can’t guarantee that a republican didn’t vote in a new democratic primary then they violate the DNC’s rules.
The DNC decided that they weren’t going to flat out disenfranchise Michigan but rather they’d leave it up to Obama and Clinton to agree to how they’d like this to be handled. However, if Obama and Clinton can’t agree, they weren’t going to change their other rule regarding the voter list that would allow Michigan to hold a new primary.
What I’d like to know is how can it be constitutional for the DNC to punish the citizens with disenfranchisement, a punishment that’s so severe and wildly anti-American, anti-democracy and anti-freedom, not to mention a punishment used only for convicted felons, given the fact that the DNC can change their rules at will? Why isn’t it a violation of the constitution that the DNC can lord this level of power and why isn’t this considered taxation without representation? Michigan is in a hard place because they had a state primary law in the books that was ruled unconstitutional and there’s no way enough time for Michigan to change that law and hold a new primary before the convention in order to satisfy the DNC rules. Don’t Michigan citizens have a constitutional right to hold a primary and doesn’t that constitutional right trump the rules of the DNC?
Hillary already agreed to the rules as they are. Matter of fact, her supporters made up the majority of the committee which made the rules.
Now that she’s losing, she wants to go back on her word.
Not that this is surprising. Even her supporters rate her as less than trustworthy.
You’ve lost. Accept it and move on. Find something productive to do with your time, like handing out Nader literature at Greyhound bus stations.
Wrong Odo. Senator Clinton agreed not to campaign in Michigan or Florida but she did not ever agree to take her name off the Michigan ballot. Clinton honored her agreement in both states by not campaigning but Obama didn’t. In Florida he ran commercials and Dean allowed it because they were commercials running nationwide (No bias, huh Dean?). His campaign also ran “Be a Democrat for a day” which was designed to encourage Republicans to crossover vote for him.
In the state of Michigan, Obama’s surrogates, our state politicians, campaigned for him quite heavily on the air and through literature. They told the voters NOT to write his name in on the ballot but to get out and vote uncommitted for Obama so that he could argue for delegates at the convention.
For your reading pleasure, here’s just one Michigan radio ad that ran before our primary:
MALE: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS CONFUSING. I WANT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BUT OBAMA’S NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT.
FEMALE: THERE IS NO ONE ON THAT BALLOT I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.
MALE: WELL, THESE FOLKS CAN HELP US. EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS, WE NEED YOUR HELP.
FEMALE: HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR OBAMA ON TUESDAY?
Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN’T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA’S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES. BUT YOU CAN VOTE UNCOMMITTED
Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED.
Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE.
MALE: THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS. I WILL JOIN YOU AND VOTE UNCOMMITTED ON TUESDAY.
FEMALE: ME TOO - AT LEAST MY VOTE WON’T BE WASTED
Councilwoman Conyers: THIS TRUTH IN POLITICS MESSAGE WAS PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MONICA CONYERS
**Just a little note about this misleading Obama CAMPAIGN AD:
“Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN’T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA’S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES.”
[No. your vote will not count because the Primary election ballot isn’t set up as a write-in ballot. It had nothing to do with the DNC rules. Also, the DNC did NOT require ANY of the candidates to remove their names from the ballot. It was a personal choice to do so. Candidates who kept their name on the ballot were not penalized by the DNC for doing so.]
[…] 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 […]
[…] many times do we need to repeat this!? How many God damn times, before the Lame and Stupid, Lepers, Tuskagee Syphilitics, HIV/AIDS […]