Fracturing of a Party Part II The Democrats

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Dem Delegate Fight Pits Sharpton Vs. NAACP
February 13, 2008 9:24 AM

Interesting development in the Democratic delegate fight -- one that pits civil rights leader against civil rights leader.

As you know, the DNC stripped the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties of its delegates as punishment for moving up their primaries to earlier in the process than the national party wanted them to.

With no candidate campaigning having taken place in those states, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, cruised to early victories in Michigan on January 15 -- where hers was the only name on the ballot -- and in Florida on January 29, and is now claiming those delegates. Needless to say, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, disputes this.

The DNC has said both states can holds caucuses to comply with party rules and have recognized delegates.

Yesterday, Clinton's side of the argument got a boost when NAACP chairman Julian Bond wrote to DNC chair Howard Dean to express "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Not seating the Michigan and Florida delegations would remind Americans of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," Bond said.

This morning, Rev. Al Sharpton sided with Obama, writing to Dean to express the opposite sentiment.

"I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton wrote. "Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere."

Sharpton said that Bond's argument of disenfranchisement "should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."

[/Q]

OMG - I agree with Sharpton - The Apocalypse is here now!!!!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html

If Hillary gets away with this, it is CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BVS]

Wow, I agree with Sharpton as well, I guess if you take enough shots you'll make a basket every once in awhile.

But on that note, I wouldn't exactly call this a fracturing of a party

So quit trying to steal my thunder

 

[Dreadsox]

Wow, I agree with Sharpton as well, I guess if you take enough shots you'll make a basket every once in awhile.

But on that note, I wouldn't exactly call this a fracturing of a party

So quit trying to steal my thunder

Haha!!! I thought your thread would be about the Dem's originally.

I truly believe the Dems are equally as fractured. This system was set up to get her the nomination quickly so she could use the massive amount of money to win the general election.

This, would DESTROY the party for the general election if she succeeds in doing this.

 

[BVS]

Haha!!! I thought your thread would be about the Dem's originally.

I truly believe the Dems are equally as fractured. This system was set up to get her the nomination quickly so she could use the massive amount of money to win the general election.

This, would DESTROY the party for the general election if she succeeds in doing this.

True, but I don't see quite the fracturing in idealogy than I do with the Reps...

 

[phillyfan26]

I think you're talking about two already fractured parties. I think the GOP is just fracturing at a higher rate of speed right now.

 

[Dreadsox]

I think the GOP is done fracturing. There is not much more to fracture at this point.

I would say the Democratic party has a fault line building up pressure, and the question is how big a magnitude will the earthquake be?

 

[BVS]

I would say the Democratic party has a fault line building up pressure, and the question is how big a magnitude will the earthquake be?

Good point...

 

[phanan]

Damn, I agree with Sharpton, too.

Yikes.

 

[U2democrat]

Hooray Rev. Al!

 

[yolland]

I would say the Democratic party has a fault line building up pressure, and the question is how big a magnitude will the earthquake be?

What would the source of the pressure be? Are you saying you see the present tight primary race as a manifestation of tensions within the party that were already there, and if so, which tensions?

I don't think the Democratic leadership has any intention of seating Florida's and Michigan's delegates, unless perhaps they're freed to vote for either candidate or split 50-50 by fiat.

 

[Dreadsox]

What would the source of the pressure be? Are you saying you see the present tight primary race as a manifestation of tensions within the party that were already there, and if so, which tensions?

I don't think the Democratic leadership has any intention of seating Florida's and Michigan's delegates, unless perhaps they're freed to vote for either candidate or split 50-50 by fiat.

I would say without any hesitation that:

1) This system was designed to give her the nomination quickly to save her $$$$$. It didn't and there is tension because of this.

2) Democracy broke out and the Clintons, through their tactics have created a fault line, purposefully thinking he was the "black candidate". Painting him as such, and their comments in doing this have created a division in the party between the African American Democrats and the party. If Obama loses because of FL & Michigan - uh oh - will voters turn out in Nov.?

3) Obama is now with each passing week breaking down the alleged barriers that the Clintons relied upon. Latin voters have slowly been moving twards him. THis was a division they counted on to win in TX - BIG in TX. Women are also starting to increase in moving his way.

4) SHe was the ONLY candidate on the ballot in FL. SHe feels she deserves all of those delegates. They want it at all costs. If this happens the divisions and fracturing will be immense.

 

[anitram]

I honestly believe all the super delegate stuff and MI and FL are blown out of proportion and will only come into play if we have a statistical tie.

Hillary needs to win OH and TX huge. And PA. She's going to essentially lose everywhere else and probably by enormous margins. Can she win OH and TX by double digits? I think it's early to speculate at this point but I'd say TX is a no go and OH is a better shot. If she and Obama essentially tie or she wins by such a small margin that the delegate difference is negligible, the writing will be on the wall for her.

The Clintons never give up; this much is true. But I think she cares about her legacy and she is not done in life and there is no chance that she will behave as some pundits suggest. This is not a woman who hasn't been publicly humiliated before (in much worse ways than losing the nomination for the presidency), and it isn't a woman who is completely politically unsavvy.

If she wins huge, which at this point is very debatable, then at most I could see a re-vote in those states. But that is the worst case scenario. Maybe I have too much faith in the Clintons. But I just think that they are intelligent enough to realize the personal costs that would come to them, and they will abide by the rules of self-preservation.

 

[kellyahern]

4) SHe was the ONLY candidate on the ballot in FL. SHe feels she deserves all of those delegates. They want it at all costs. If this happens the divisions and fracturing will be immense.

I think that was only in Michigan. In Florida, Obama was on the ballot, along with Edwards and even the other guys who had dropped out already.

The trouble is that a lot of democratic primary voters might not have bothered to vote because they were under the impression that it didn't count. So the result of the Florida primary might not be an accurate representation of what Florida democrats want, which is why it should not count.

 

[CTU2fan]

Wow I generally agree with Al but not this time. Votes in MI and here in FL ought to count, and most of the talk surrounding this issue was that in the end the party would cave and the MI & FL delegates would end up being seated. While it's possible that some voters stayed home under the assumption that their votes wouldn't count it's pretty silly to think that only potential Obama voters would feel this way.

In the end hopefully it doesn't matter, you'd like to see one of these 2 candidates accept defeat so the other can move on to campaigning for November.

 

[MaxFisher]

4) SHe was the ONLY candidate on the ballot in FL. SHe feels she deserves all of those delegates. They want it at all costs. If this happens the divisions and fracturing will be immense.

I agree. Hillary will fight tooth and nail to the very end. She'll pull out all the stops. Florida/Michigan 2008 will make Florida 2000 look like a tea party.

 

[Axver]

here in FL

So, when's the username change coming?

 

[Irvine511]

I agree. Hillary will fight tooth and nail to the very end. She'll pull out all the stops. Florida/Michigan 2008 will make Florida 2000 look like a tea party.

this is the Republican fantasy of "Hitlery."

we'll see if it's true or not.

i can see her going both ways.

 

[kellyahern]

Wow I generally agree with Al but not this time. Votes in MI and here in FL ought to count, and most of the talk surrounding this issue was that in the end the party would cave and the MI & FL delegates would end up being seated. While it's possible that some voters stayed home under the assumption that their votes wouldn't count it's pretty silly to think that only potential Obama voters would feel this way.

In the end hopefully it doesn't matter, you'd like to see one of these 2 candidates accept defeat so the other can move on to campaigning for November.

Why should votes in Michigan count if only her name was on the ballot?

 

[indra]

Why should votes in Michigan count if only her name was on the ballot?

Didn't the others choose not to have their names on the ballot? I know they were under pressure from the party not to participate in any way, but I understood they still could have had their names on the ballot if they wanted.

 

[CTU2fan]

So, when's the username change coming?

If FLU2fan votes for Lemon in U2 Survivor I don't know anything about it

this is the Republican fantasy of "Hitlery."

we'll see if it's true or not.

i can see her going both ways.

Me too actually, and I'm really curious how this all plays out. I know I'll vote for whichever one of them wins in November anyway.

 

[MaxFisher]

this is the Republican fantasy of "Hitlery."

we'll see if it's true or not.

i can see her going both ways.

The Clintons look out for the Clintons. The overall good of the DNC or anyone/anything else comes in at a very far 2nd. Hillary believes she's OWED the nomination. She has endured too many pride swallowing years of riding the coattails of her husband/multiple affairs to lose to some freshman senator.

 

[martha]

I know I'll vote for whichever one of them wins in November anyway.

Which is what every single Democrat I know has said. So much for a fractured party.

Have any Democratic commentators gone on TV and urged people to stay home or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination?

 

[Irvine511]

The Clintons look out for the Clintons. The overall good of the DNC or anyone/anything else comes in at a very far 2nd. Hillary believes she's OWED the nomination. She has endured too many pride swallowing years of riding the coattails of her husband/multiple affairs to lose to some freshman senator.

i think that's a bit extreme -- i do think the Clintons put the Clintons first, yes, but they also have a global brand to protect.

bowing out gracefully would enable them to continue.

first and foremost, they are very, very shrewd people.

which speaks volumes about Obama's prowess. the Republicans could never beat the Clintons, but yes he can.

 

[Jeannieco]

Didn't the others choose not to have their names on the ballot? I know they were under pressure from the party not to participate in any way, but I understood they still could have had their names on the ballot if they wanted.

The thing that really peeves me about the whole Florida and Michigan issue is that Hillary signed a pledge just like all the other candidates, and now she wants to go back on that pledge.
That's not right, and if anything, there should be a do over in those two states. That's the only fair thing to do IMO if it comes down to it that is.

 

[deep]

There is a reasonable case that the Florida delegates should be seated

both Obama and Hillary were on the ballot and neither campaigned
and Democratic voter turn out was good

to disenfranchise the will of the Florida voters may make Obama supporters happy, but would taint any legitimacy if this is how he comes to the nomination

and would be a big boost to McCain in the November election


Now, Michigan is a different story. Obama's name was not on the ballot

only Hillary's was

Yes, there was a concentrated effort by the Obama people to get his supporters to the polls, and vote "none of the above"

but that is not the same

there is a good case to be made for holding a vote, perhaps a caucus like they did in New Mexico, (but better planned)

the caucus have voting places open for a specified time where voters could go in a drop a ballot in a box for their candidate

that system if much better than having groups of people in different parts of the room cheering and yelling at each other

 

[MaxFisher]

i think that's a bit extreme -- i do think the Clintons put the Clintons first, yes, but they also have a global brand to protect.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/13/19387/5496/337/456290

When the Clintons rescued the Democratic Party from its electoral coma in 1992, they never sought to cure the patient by revitalizing it at the cellular level. Instead, the Clintons and the Democratic establishment at the time only sought to keep the patient barely alive and breathing, so as to suit the very narrow and vain electoral success of one man. There was never any effort to build the party. To use the capital of the Clinton's electoral success in 1992 and 1996 to reach new voters and bring them into the Democratic fold for good. There was never any effort to build the party at the local level.

It is clear now why the Clintons never did that. For if they gave voice to new Democrats, they would lose control over that voice. They would lose control over the message. Thus, the Democratic Party, and more specifically, the DNC, existed only to serve the electoral prospects of the Clintons during the 1990's, and not to serve the future of the Democratic Party. Indeed, it did not even serve the present of the Democratic Party, for the Party, through this neglect, suffered worse electoral losses nationwide than it ever suffered under the Reagan Revolution, which, ironically, was the disease the Clintons were brought in to cure.

No, the Clintons kept the Party alive to serve them, and in the process, the Party grew weaker. No attention was paid to the smaller states. No attention was paid to the local level. No resources were spend unless they advanced the interests of the Clintons.

 

[namkcuR]

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/13/19387/5496/337/456290

When the Clintons rescued the Democratic Party from its electoral coma in 1992, they never sought to cure the patient by revitalizing it at the cellular level. Instead, the Clintons and the Democratic establishment at the time only sought to keep the patient barely alive and breathing, so as to suit the very narrow and vain electoral success of one man. There was never any effort to build the party. To use the capital of the Clinton's electoral success in 1992 and 1996 to reach new voters and bring them into the Democratic fold for good. There was never any effort to build the party at the local level.

It is clear now why the Clintons never did that. For if they gave voice to new Democrats, they would lose control over that voice. They would lose control over the message. Thus, the Democratic Party, and more specifically, the DNC, existed only to serve the electoral prospects of the Clintons during the 1990's, and not to serve the future of the Democratic Party. Indeed, it did not even serve the present of the Democratic Party, for the Party, through this neglect, suffered worse electoral losses nationwide than it ever suffered under the Reagan Revolution, which, ironically, was the disease the Clintons were brought in to cure.

No, the Clintons kept the Party alive to serve them, and in the process, the Party grew weaker. No attention was paid to the smaller states. No attention was paid to the local level. No resources were spend unless they advanced the interests of the Clintons.

Do you get a kick of out of spewing your Clinton hatred here? I am supporting Obama but I certainly don't feel this much hatred towards the Clintons.

You are representative of why Hilary shouldn't get the nomination - because many conservatives just cannot let this vendetta against the Clintons go.

You feel about the name 'Clinton' the way we(liberals) feel about the name 'Bush'.

 

[MaxFisher]

I'm not spewing Clinton hatred. My point is that Hillary is not going to bow out gracefully.

The title of this thread is "The Fracturing of a Party Part II The Democrats". I'm offering evidence of what I see is an impending all out war by Hillary to stay in the race. The Clintons are in this to win and they aren't going to go down easy.

Also, Democrats have been on a soapbox regarding voter disenfranchisement for the past 7 years...is the same party really going to throw out all those FL and MI primary votes?

 

[Dreadsox]

I think in looking at the big picture, the Republicans should be worried about the voter turnout for the Democrats far outnumbers the voters turning out for Republicans.

That should scare the party more than who is the candidate.

If the Florida/Michigan issue is not handled correctly that turnout could change.

 

[martha]

Are regular joes really paying all that much attention to a delegate fight? So much so that they'll vote Republican in the fall? I doubt it.