Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters, no to seating MI and FL

[BeyondGeography]

The San Francisco Chronicle

==House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who may be the most super delegate of all as chair of the Democratic national convention in Denver -- gave an interview with Bloomberg TV's Al Hunt in which she laid down the law for super delegates:

Don't veto the people's choice.

"I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that," she said, adding quickly, "I don't think that will happen."

She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party's voters.

"I do think that they have a respect -- it's not just following the returns, it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people," Pelosi said. "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."

That message will be music to the ears of Barack Obama, who's building a lead in pledged delegates and is urging the super delegates to follow the voters. He now leads 1,133 to 996 in pledged delegates, while Hillary Clinton has a 242-163 edge among super delegates, according to the latest tally by RealClearPolitics. Obama holds the overall edge, 1296-1238.

Pelosi had one more stunner in the interview: She said the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination.

"Well, I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is. That is to say they can't make the difference because then we would have no rules," she said.

Pelosi added, "But I do think that the best outcome for us is if one of the candidates pulls ahead and this issue is disposed of long before we get to the convention. We certainly don't want to ignore Florida and Michigan, but we can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by."

For a play-it-safe speaker who's pledged to stay neutral, these are sharp words. And she will be one of key referees if this fight isn't settled before Denver.==

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=14

[Warren DeMontague]

1. It seems pretty simple to me: They broke the rules, they knew they were breaking the rules.

Therefore, to my understanding, they're outta luck, at least unless they want to try doing their primaries over.

[DrDan]

12. and exactly who are "they"?

do you really believe the voters of Fl and Mi had any influence?

You are simply willing to ignore these voices?

It was a powergrab by the leaders on both sides - and the voters got screwed.

But that seems to be ok with you . . .

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I believe that the rules were clear. Whoever was responsible for making that decision in FL and MI

bears responsibility- but the rules were clear. The primaries were held too early, they don't count.

Period.

Is it "ok" with me? No, it isn't ok with me that whoever in these states think they can flagrantly flaunt the rules on primary scheduling and tell the rest of us to "fuck off". They could have held their primaries on Feb. 5, like many of us did.

I don't want to ingore any votes or voices. Let them have the primaries again, and now it can count.

Unless they're not willing to, unless it's really not about letting people vote in such a way, pursuant to DNC rules, that their votes WILL be counted- unless it's really about foot stomping or bitching or demanding a certain result.

They can have their primaries over. Whoever wins the legitimate primary held on a legitimate date at a legitimate time can have their delegates legitimately seated. I have no problem with that.

[DrDan]

37. so if those us if Florida do not care to vote for the choice of the DNC

it should be clear to you why.

There was a very clear battle for power between the state leaders and the DNC. And neither cared whether the voters were disenfranchised or not.

So screw both of them. Screw the DNC. Screw the state party.

I will be voting for my choice (even if it means writing in that choice) - and will be ignoring the choice of the party.

And I am encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Whatever. My state waited until Feb. 5 to vote, I don't see why you think you're so "special"

that you can break the rules.

It's not clear to me who, precisely, you don't want to vote for that you were magically able to vote for before.

[DrDan]

49. I do not think I am special . . . quite the contrary

based on the feelings of the DNC and state leaders, we voters are nothing.

I did not break any rules.

"Magically vote for"???? What the hell does that mean.

I thought I was quite clear. The party will select a candidate. I feel no obligation to vote for that candidate. I will vote for a D, obviously. Not the choice of the party, however.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Why don't you cut to the chase and tell us what the REAL problem is.

Your candidate might not get the nomination so you're not going to vote for the nominee? That's just beyond idiotic. So what's the problem? Who don't you like? And why? Want to give any specifics, here?

Because I can tell you with 100% certainty that I WILL support our nominee in November, even though neither Hillary or Obama was my first choice. The candidate I supported didn't garner ANY traction, didn't get ANY media attention. But he's proved himself to be a true patriot in his actions in the U.S. Senate in recent days.

And he wasn't even my FIRST choice- the guy I really wanted to run never got in the race. Oh well.

I am a Democrat, and that's not conditional- I will support our nominee, I always have, sometimes more enthusiastically than others.. but this year, I will be happy to vote for Hillary OR Obama; while, like I said, neither was my first choice, both are smart, capable, and a damn sight better than the alternative.

So, c'mon... spit it out- what's REALLY got your goat so much that you're threatening to write in the name of some mystery Democrat (Harry Truman? ...Who?) and throw away your vote rather than voting for this presumptive nominee you don't like so much?

[DrDan]

85. sorry to disappoint - but not a HC supporter here

much as you would like me to be so

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Whatever, Captain Inscrutable.

I don't really care, actually. I didn't assume support for any particular candidate in that post.

I just think it's funny that you won't come right out and say what exactly it is that's bugging you, and why.

[elixir]

62. The state made the choice to move it up, not the voters.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. So the state should schedule a new primary, and with all the media attention

the voters will be more engaged than ever. Everybody wins.

[elixir]

61. Why not punish the Fl and MI party chairmen through penalties of some sort?

[cbayer]

45. "The Florida Democratic Party believes that all people have the right to be heard

and to participate in the system. "

That from their website. But I can't find anything on their website about how the decision making group is actually chosen. But it seems clear that they bear the bulk of responsibility for this disaster.

Is it the same group that gave us the 2000 FLA debacle?

[fadedrose]

82. They are the 3 stooges

Stabinow, Granholm, and Levin. supporting roles by the Dingles...and probably the DLC

[marshall]

26. didn't they know before they voted that it wouldn't count?

That could have swayed their vote, or caused people NOT to vote who might otherwise have voted. In so many ways this is not necessarily an accurate result that might have occured had the states followed the rules and had a proper vote.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. And as far as I understand it, there's nothing to keep them from having the primaries again.

I'd be fine with that.

[fadedrose]

83. Another goofy thing

Knowledgeable people were advising Dems to vote in the Republican primary so that we can choose their candidate - Romney, I think, because they thought McCain might be harder to beat.

And then there were Dems who didn't know who to vote for since their candidate was not on the ballot so they didn't bother. TOO AFRAID THAT THEIR VOTES WOULD GO TO HILLARY, and damned if that's not what's going to happen.

Great primary we had.

[bunnies]

2. Thank you Madam Speaker.

Power to the people.

[DrDan]

13. well . . . . some of the people

those from the 48 states. . . .

[Kolesar]

3. Who is ahead in the "popular" vote (where there is electoral data as opposed to a caucus?)

[JustinL]

88. Obama

I added the current primary results from CNN and came up with:

Obama - 9,121,415
Clinton - 8,614,123

Obama is ahead by 507,292 votes, or 2.9% of their combined totals. I excluded Michigan and Florida, and could not find results for American Samoa or the Virgin Islands.

link

[Kolesar]

95. "Not insignificant" (that was quite an effort)

thank you

[MadBadger]

4. I think we can add Pelosi as a undeclared superdelegate for Obama

[Yael]

15. Doubtful. Her licked finger stays in the wind.

I don't believe she will make a decision until the Denver Convention Center has run out of confetti to drop.

[MadBadger]

23. I disagree. Ever since the Kennedy Endorsement, it seems she is all about Obama

There may be something also about Pelosi that likes being the most powerful woman in the United States.

[Yael]

60. That is a very good point.

[Enrique]

89. ha!

I knew this thread would provoke some sexism.

[cbayer]

48. And as speaker, that's exactly where she should be. nt.

[elixir]

63. Bingo.

[joshcryer]

57. Yes, her flip flop and desire to disenfranchise a million voters makes her for Obama.

Agreed.

[madfloridian]

5. I am glad to see her saying that. I worried what she said previously.

Very glad she changed her mind.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1567

..." Pelosi also said the imbroglio over the primary isn’t the fault of Florida Democrats, who are the ones being sanctioned.

“Let’s be clear about what happened in Florida. The Republican legislature changed the date of the election there and also put a tax issue on the ballot that the Democrats just could not walk away from,” she said. “It wasn’t Florida Democrats who said they wanted to push earlier.”

[Debi]

7. Maybe someone sent her your journals!

:hi:

Thanks for keeping us all informed mad!

[NMMatt]

8. Good to see this

Personally I agree that it is unfair to Florida concerning the Republican Legislature. The key point is that this should have been decided long before the Primary happened. The rules may not have been the best, but changing them AFTER the election is worse.

[madfloridian]

9. I just posted yesterday that it was introduced by a Democrat.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1829

Florida state Senator Jeremy Ring. He introduced the bill, then had a tantrum when the candidates said they would not campaign....and unendorsed Obama.

[DrDan]

17. yep . . . you are correct . . .

ignoring 1.7 M voters is better than changing the rules set and broken by those power-grabbing leaders of the party. . .

[cbayer]

6. It is very hard for me to find an argument with her logic on this. nt.

[jackson_dem]

10. So Pelosi doesn't want to overrule voters but wants to exclude the voice of 1/10 of the population?

How does that work?

[GarbagemanLB]

11. I think I hear someone whining...

Those states broke the rules. Take it up with the idiots in those states who decided to push the primaries forward.

[jackson_dem]

24. 1.7 million Democrats voted in Florida alone. Let's say "fuck you!" to them now

It isn't as if we need Florida and Michigan in the general! We have (maybe) Iowa and (maybe) New Hampshire!

[Warren DeMontague]

33. So the rules only apply when you like them? No one is saying "fuck you". Have the primary again,

this time done under legitimate circumstances, and the delegates will count.

[jackson_dem]

39. Tell that to 1.7 million voters

A revote be rigging it for Obama since he is stronger now than he was then. Almost 2 million vote. The votes were counted. Let their voices be heard.

The real problem is Iowa and New Hampshire.

[TheDoorbellRang]

52. That's like complaining

that all the desserts are gone when your teacher bumped you to the end of the cafeteria line in grade school for butting in.

The only thing that would be "fair" at this point would be a redo, and whining that a redo would somehow rig it for Obama cuz he's stronger now just sounds pathetic.

[elixir]

65. With that reasoning we should redo Iowa because the caucus process is unfair

in that it doesn't track who is voting and how often, right?

In MI and FL the voters followed the rules and their being punished for mistakes made by party leaders.

I'm sure if Obama had a substantial gain in FL, you'd be singing a different tune.

[TheDoorbellRang]

75. Your reasoning is incorrect. All the "rules" were in place long ago

when the primary season was scheduled. Everyone at the time agreed to the rules: caucus or primary, date, delegates, etc., etc.

FL and MI tried to change the rules after they were agreed on, even tho they knew the penalty. They just thought Dean would cave with their little game of chicken. They're finding out otherwise, now. Also, everyone knew several states held caucuses. To start crying foul because your opponent plays within the rules more effectively is...well...let's just say unsportsmanlike behavior.

[joshcryer]

58. No one is suggesting breaking any rules. Pelosi wants to manipulate the rules her way.

She wants to tell the delegates (including superdelegates) how they should vote. If FL and MI aren't seated, if those voters' votes don't count, then FL and MI will not go to the Democratic nominee.

[elixir]

69. So what made the first time "illegitimate"? Because the DNC said they couldn't do it? That doesn't

make their votes illegitimate.

[Laurab]

43. No, lets have another primary - one that counts.

That would be the only way it would be fair to seat the delegates. I'm quite sure many people didn't vote, because they knew it wouldn't count. I wouldn't have. That's the bottom line - and there is no question as to what is right and what is wrong here, except for, apparently, Hillary Clinton supporters.

[GarbagemanLB]

44. Hillary and the Hillbots don't want another primary because they are scared.

[anamandujano]

84. At first I wanted another primary but now I realize that because McCain has

emerged as winner, the Repukes are free to cause mayhem like they have been in recent states. So, I don't think it would be fair.

There was a fairly good "uncommitted" vote in each state and they can be awarded to Obama and Edwards.

[elixir]

68. YOu know they're not going to do it because of the huge cost, so that's not a viable solution.

[elixir]

64. But I agree with JD. Why should we penalize 1/0 of the population because of party elders.

Isn't there some way to penalize the folks that made this decision w/out affecting the voters?

[spoony]

91. I hate it when people "whine" about their vote not counting

Don't you? What do they think, we're living in some kind of representative country? Pffft. Whiners. Wanting their votes counted. Bastards. Have some cheese with that whine you commies!

(Must I include :sarcasm: ?)

[cbayer]

16. If i were in that population, I would be outraged!

But not at her. I would be outraged at the state democratic committee who made a decision to disenfranchise their own constituency.

[jackson_dem]

27. The blame also lies with the DNC and the fanatics in Iowa and New Hampshire

It was idiotic to strip them of all their delegates. A penalty was needed but to disenfranchise both states, especially Florida given what happened in 2000, was very short-sighted.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. What's the problem with having the primary again, hmmmm?

Then no one is "disenfranchised".

[jackson_dem]

41. It's an insult to say your previous votes don't count

How many people would show up a second time? The revote is being pushed by Obama supporters because they didn't like the original result.

How about a revote in Iowa? Maybe they can nominate a winning Democratic candidate for once. Iowa and New Hampshire have repeatedly failed us.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. So really what you're afraid of is that Hillary can't win if the primary is held legitimately.

Iowa's primary was held as per DNC rules. As was New Hampshire's. As was California's, where Hillary won. All those delegates count.

If FL and MI want their votes to count, they can have a legitimate primary.

[elixir]

70. There's nothing "wrong" with it. The states won't do it because its tooo expensive.

[spoony]

92. Tons of problems.

For one, what about the people who knew their vote in the Dem race wouldn't count and voted in the Repub primary? Do they get to redo it now that it could count? What about their other vote? What about people who for whatever reason voted last time and can't this time? It's a total clusterfuck, and that's even if the state were able to pull an election out of its arse in time. We're not exactly swimming in spare change here.

[cbayer]

38. You are right, I would be enraged with them too. Actually, I am enraged with them. nt.

[DrDan]

18. EXACTLY!!!!!

bingo

[madfloridian]

21. Maybe she learned that Democrats started it in Florida.

The DNC knew it, the rules committee knew it. The bill was introduced by a Democrat.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1829

[jackson_dem]

28. We don't need Democrats in Florida anyway so no biggie right?

1.7 million Floridians who voted in the Democratic primary being disenfranchised because of Iowa and New Hampshire is dumb. How do we win without Florida and Michigan?

[Warren DeMontague]

31. It's not "because of Iowa and New Hampshire". It's because of clearly stated party rules.

No one needs to be disenfranchised, FL and MI just need to have their primaries again, this time legitimately.

[jackson_dem]

42. The rethugs penalized Florida but let their votes count. Why can't we?

The rules are rigged because of the two meglomaniac state. Florida and Michigan were fighting for a fair chance to have a say in choosing the nominee and the DNC came down and sacrificed these two vital states for two small states that may both vote for McCain in November.

[cbayer]

50. Disagreee. There is a process for changing this silly system.

And overtly breaking the current rules does not achieve the purpose.

But I agree with your point that they could have been punished without having all of their delegates taken away. (OMG, are we agreeing with the republicans?)

[jackson_dem]

51. It feels weird doesn't it? The RNC is right for once

[cbayer]

53. SHHHHHH!!!! Do you want to get us thrown out of here? nt.

[elixir]

72. Didn't the RNC split give only 50% of delegates to the candidates?

[cbayer]

74. I think that's the right %. I know they gave them some but not all. nt.

[joshcryer]

56. The irony is that Pelosi wants to include them if their votes don't matter. But...

...if their votes matter she doesn't want to include them.

As I said, it's all so cute.

[madfloridian]

55. Only the Hillary folks are pushing this.

To their shame.

[elixir]

71. How do you know, did you read "Hillary supporter" on their lovenotes? Just because Obama is against

this doesn't mean anyone for it is a Hillary supporter.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. The people who excluded the voice of 1/10th of the pop. were the brain trusts who decided

to say "Fuck you and your rules, we'll have our primary when we want".

Too bad.

[goodgd_yall]

34. Well if there's a protest vote out of this in Florida come GE time

we Democrats might just get screwed again.

[ronnykmarshall]

14. Boy she's gonna be the new Saint around here now.

[goodgd_yall]

30. No kidding. n/t

[Tropics_Dude83]

19. Nancy Pelosi will always have a special place in my heart

Why?

1. The address she gave with children surrounding her when she first became speaker of the house. The joy I felt at seeing her lead the democratic takeover of congress.

2. A woman introducing the president for the first time ever at the S.O.T.U. I cried when Bush praised her so strongly in the 2007 S.O.T.U and at the whole process of a woman being speaker.

3. Her past work for liberal causes.

[elixir]

73. Same here. I love Nancy, just not all the time.

[last_texas_dem]

25. I agree with Pelosi

The FL and MI situation is a mess, and will suck no matter how it ends up being settled. But assigning delegates to those states after the fact, when their primaries took place under the assumption that there would be no delegates assigned for the votes being cast is certainly not a fair way to settle it.

[Guaranteed]

32. Clinton: NO! Don't follow the voters!

The voters SUCK!


Oh yeah! And don't follow the rules, either!

[ErnestoG]

87. They will take from me what is mine mine MINE!!

[demokatgurrl]

35. What about the people who voted in MI and FL?

What about those "people's choice"? Disregard them? The VOTERS, I'm talking about. Fuck the superdelegates.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

46. I don't know about FL, but yes, disregard MI

That ballot was flawed, without Edwards or Obama on it. Some Dems probably voted Clinton because that was the only candidate they'd heard of. Some voted in the Republican primary, figuring their Democratic vote wouldn't matter. Some stayed home. Those who paid attention to the news knew it was a race between Clinton and "uncommitted".

Now it makes sense to not seat the MI delegates (and the MI superdelegates, if that was possible). A new caucus or primary would be a mess, trying to get the rules nailed down in a fair way.

[GarbagemanLB]

47. Re-vote or nothing. Sorry.

[joshcryer]

54. Pelosi cannot tell the delegates and superdelegates how to vote. If anything this will...

...make them be more adament about counting MI and FL. You don't tell people how to vote!

[Danger Mouse]

59. It's absurd. The Dem parties in Florida and Michigan created this mess...

they were told NOT to hold their primaries early, said 'Fuck you!' to the DNC and their constituents, and held the primary anyway.
If we don't enforce the rules, it sets a bad precedent for next time.
I feel bad for the voters in Florida and Michigan, but if you want someone to be mad at, don't blame Pelosi, Dean, or the DNC...blame the stupid and selfish Dems who put forward this idiotic idea.
They certainly didn't have YOUR best interests in mind at the least...they just wanted to be first, like little children screaming and stomping and demanding to cut ahead of the line.

[PermanentRevolution]

66. I blame both, really.

I blame my legislature much more than I blame the DNC, though. In the end, all the DNC has done is follow through on what they said they'd do from the beginning. I do think a more equitable solution could have been worked out before the primary to avoid a mass-disenfranchisement, but I can't fault them terribly for following through on their promise. My state legislature, on the other hand, knew exactly what it was doing and had been told exactly what the response would be, and chose to ignore that with a near-unanimous vote in favor of shifting the primary. They could have moved us to Super Tuesday and we'd still have been plenty relevant. Hell, they could have left us exactly where we were and we'd still have been relevant. But they decided to make a point about the national policy of letting Iowa and New Hampshire set the momentum for the primary race, and they got slapped down for it, just as promised.

My problem now is that, since that decision has been made, we must NOT go back. We Florida voters had a long time before we voted to deal with the fact that our votes were meaningless and decide how we would react. A lot of us voted in the primary anyway, knowing that our votes were meaningless. Others chose to stay home, or not vote in the primary, knowing that their votes were meaningless. To retroactively re-enfranchise ONLY those voters who chose to vote in what we had been assured was a meaningless contest is NOT, in my eyes, a viable solution to the problem. I don't want my vote suddenly counting if it means someone who decided it was pointless to vote in a meaningless primary doesn't get the same opportunity to select their candidate. I'd rather we all were punished equally, if punished we must be.

[spoony]

94. Moving a date is a minor sin compared to telling millions of people

their vote is the equivalent of a disposed diaper.

So in this cast of villains, Dean gets TOP billing.

[calteacherguy]

67. Thank you Nancy for speaking the truth! K&R!

[Igel]

79. Odd, I think.

Don't overrule the people: We're the Democratic Party, dammit, and the people decide. Yes, the rules say the superdelegates are uncommitted to anybody except themselves, but let's override the rules and say there's a moral imperative for the superdelegates to obey a higher rule: What the party rank-and-file say.

On the other hand, the *party* leadership decided the rules on when the primaries would be. Many dems voted in those primaries. The rules say their votes cannot be counted, flawed or not (as though other systems don't also produce often-flawed results). Let's not override the rules, there's a moral imperative, a rule higher than what the rank-and-file say: The rules set by the dem leadership.

Seems like scrambling and eating the eggs necessary for baking a cake, and then expecting the cake to be served for desert anyway.

[fadedrose]

80. HANG TOUGH Nancy, Follow the Rules

Let's show them what a woman can do even if she hasn't been married to a president.

[fadedrose]

81. deleted

[TexasObserver]

90. Don't veto the people's choice. Super Delegates should not vote in the nomination vote. Period.

If they can't understand that, they're not Democrats, big D or little D.

[JCMach1]

93. So MI and FL don't get a choice then...?

she is contradicting herself...