A new Clinton spin that's not quite true
Slowly emerging on the Clinton side, I'm increasingly hearing surrogates trying to defend the Clinton campaign's efforts to reinstate Florida and Michigan by citing the Obama campaign's efforts to shape superdelegate voting and then saying something along the lines of "Both sides are trying to change the rules."
That's just not true. There are no rules on how superdelegates should vote. You might argue that the original intent was for superdelegates to vote without regard to the popular vote, but there is no standing rule or law against the Obama campaign trying to guilt superdelegates to his side.
My point is, the Obama campaign is trying to shape the superdelegates' decision making, not change the rules. This talking point is an outright lie. (I'm so tired of all the spin.)
(The NYTimes has an interesting article on superdelegates.)
That's just not true. There are no rules on how superdelegates should vote. You might argue that the original intent was for superdelegates to vote without regard to the popular vote, but there is no standing rule or law against the Obama campaign trying to guilt superdelegates to his side.
My point is, the Obama campaign is trying to shape the superdelegates' decision making, not change the rules. This talking point is an outright lie. (I'm so tired of all the spin.)
(The NYTimes has an interesting article on superdelegates.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:00 AM
7 Comments:
Narrowly drawn, this argument is correct. Clinton wants to change a ruling of the DNC so she can get more delegate votes. Obama just wants the superdelegates to ignore the obvious intent of the rules so he can get more delegate votes.
But it's a distinction without a difference.
The broader point is that both sides are gaming the system (we could also talk about Obama and caucus states...)and both are willing to contradict the will of voters... which would be the effect if superdelegates override the popular vote, but also if Michigan and Florida are shut out.
By
Anonymous, at 2:29 PM
It's not a "distinction without a difference." The Clinton campaign wants to change the existing rules!!!!
The Obama camp is simply trying to influence the supers through guilt.
If the Obama camp was trying to change the rules, they would try to get the DNC to pass a new DNC rule that required the supers to vote the way he wanted. But they're not doing that, are they?
IT's not the same thing at all!!!!
I'm sorry I'm so hot on this one, I'm just getting really freaking tired of all the Clinton spin.
"This state matters, that one doesn't. Nope, not that one either. Black votes shouldn't count as much."
And this whole sham about how Clinton can't compete in caucuses. She didn't compete in caucuses primarily because her campaign made the decision not to!
So, now we should say they don't count either? Just because her campaign made a serious mistake?
.....
It is what it is. Michigan and Florida were excluded by mutual agreement. The superdelegates are able to vote any way they want for any reason. Some states hold caucuses. If you choose not to compete in them, you can't blame the winner.
These are the rules! They were laid out before anyone started.
If she convinces the supers to elect her against the popular vote, fine, but Obama has the same right to try and get their votes as well (without changing the rules.)
IF CLINTON CAN'T WIN UNDER THE EXISTING RULES THEN SHE SHOULDN'T WIN!!!!
Counterargument?
(I'm sorry, You know I'm normally pretty rational on this, but I'm I'm just up to here with all the spin and shading.)
By
mikevotes, at 4:05 PM
cartoon
By
-epm, at 5:06 PM
I have an article bookmarked which makes it very clear that there is very little judicial redress over party rules.
By
mikevotes, at 5:25 PM
Well, my semi-facetious answer is that, if I understand correctly, under the rules, Clinton has the right to try and get the rules changed...
More seriously, and this is the point I was trying to make... while it is certainly poor sportsmanship to try to change the rules in the middle of the game, I think that pales in comparison to the sin of disenfranchising millions of voters. It doesn't matter who agreed to what when, because the voters of Michigan and Florida are not to blame for this ****-up and they should not be disenfranchised because of it.
If Obama were really taking the high road, he would be attempting to find some reasonably fair way for Michiganers and Floridians to have their voice heard.
By
Anonymous, at 3:04 AM
TG Yes. At the convention. I'm not sure though,whether they can get them reinstated with just a committee vote or whether it has to pass the delegates (which would likely mean she'd won already.)
And I can deal with the disenfranchisement argument. That seems a valid argument to me, although I still think you have to revote in some way. (If Florida continues its stance that it won't then, no, they're not in.)
If I remember right, Pelosi is the convention chair with a better ability to influence this than Dean, and she's been pretty strongly no.
But like the superdelegates, all of this will likely be worked out before the convention.
By
mikevotes, at 7:12 AM
If you'll pardon the very loaded phrase.
It's not the underlying situation that aggravates me, it's the lying.
By
mikevotes, at 7:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home