Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

If Hillary Clinton wins Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, there is no doubt this primary will continue, likely at least into late April when Pennsylvania votes. And if that happens, while it's been off the radar screen a bit, we should expect a return to a discussion of what happens to Michigan and Florida, because, let's face it, Hillary Clinton needs those delegates to close the pledged delegate gap with Barack Obama.

Up to now, the Clinton party line is that the delegates in both states should be seated based on the results of the January primary votes and that, as the DNC rules state, this dispute should be resolved in committee. This is looking more and more like a flawed position since the credentials committee won't meet until the summer and let's say for argument's sake that the decision does go her way and that the delegate allocation ultimately decides the nomination in her favor (an unlikely scenario) her victory will be tainted with the perception of backroom deals, the party picking the nominee over the voters, etc. What Clinton should hope happens, both because she needs an infusion of pledged delegates sooner rather than later and because she needs a nomination victory to be a clean unambiguous win, is that Michigan and Florida are allowed to redo their primary following a period of campaigning by both candidates. This would appear the fairest scenario and, while it poses logistical problems to be sure, it's certainly a scenario that neither side would appear to have a viable argument against.

The concept of some sort of re-vote has been getting some buzz lately, with Michael Moore recently advocating for a Michigan re-vote (either a "primary or caucus"), Florida Democratic state legislator Dan Melber urging for a vote by mail primary for Florida on his blog, and a new Mason-Dixon poll of Florida Democrats finding a slight plurality favors a re-vote.

28% - Florida should hold another Democratic primary or caucus

24% - The DNC should seat a Florida delegation that reflects the January results

20% - Not Sure

15% - Penalty should stand

13% - The DNC should seat a Florida delegation that is made up of an equal number of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters

But the concept got perhaps its biggest boost today with the news that Florida Governor Charlie Crist would support a do over in Florida and that DNC Chairman Howard Dean would be open to same.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist said he'd support a repeat of the Democratic presidential primary so the state's delegates can be counted at the party's national convention.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said he's open to the possibility. Primary elections are paid for by a state's taxpayers, so the offer from Crist, a Republican, is "very helpful" because money is an issue, Dean said.

"We're very willing to listen to the people of Florida," Dean said on CNN's "Late Edition" program today.

It is, of course, difficult to separate Crist's words from his status as McCain supporter and possible VP pick (i.e., it is arguably in his interest for the Democratic primary to drag out even longer) but it's undeniable that the endorsement of the governor gives the concept political viability that it hadn't had before. If this primary continues past Tuesday, look for the up to now theoretical concept of one or more do-overs to become a very real possibility.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Florida primary, Hillary Clinton, Michigan primary (all tags)

Comments

110 Comments

Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

If Clinton can win OH, TX, & PA, this is a fair solution. We can't seat delegates from an election where the candidates did not have a chance to campaign, and we especially can't seat delegates from an election where only one candidate's name was on the ballot.  We also can't afford to not seat delegates from a state at all.

From a campaign logic perspective, Clinton has a huge name recognition advantage and Obama has pulled much closer every time he gets a chance to campaign in a state.  However, FL and perhaps MI are demograpically favorable states for Clinton, so we can't dismiss her victories there out of hand.  

by Nissl 2008-03-02 02:34PM | 0 recs
Obama spent ~ 1.5 million in FL

that is not exactly an abscence of campaigning, although he might like everyone to believe that.  He lost Florida.

by Molee 2008-03-02 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama spent ~ 1.5 million in FL

That number is based on national TV buys(CNN, MSNBC, etc.), which has to cover every media market, and it came less than a week before Florida even voted.

by Setrak 2008-03-02 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama spent ~ 1.5 million in FL

My understanding is that much of that is Clinton campaign spin that refers to a national ad buy.  I'd be happy to revisit this understanding if you'd care to post a link.

He couldn't hold rallies, he didn't hold "private fundraisers," he would have spent many more millions if he had been allowed to have targeted advertising.

Do you honestly think the margin would be the same in a revote?

by Nissl 2008-03-02 04:21PM | 0 recs
Debunked on this site

The $1.5 million spent in Florida was reported as Amex bill payments to a post office box in Florida and payments to a consulting firm headquarted in Florida.

Jerome posted an erroneous diary about the money and immediately pushed the debunking diary off the rec list when he was debunked by the very organization he sourced.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-02 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama spent ~ 1.5 million in FL

That is total B.S.  He purchased ads on national markets which include all 50 states including Florida.  At least bother to divide the 1.5 million by 50!

by Drummond 2008-03-02 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama spent ~ 1.5 million in FL

He never really competed in Florida.  Maybe a few fundraisers, but other than that, Obama was awol, which is a pledge all other credible dems but Clinton adhered to.

Has it occurred to anyone that Florida and Michigan were strategized (sp?) states that Clinton took advantage of because she knew she could win with no competition and the delegates would be seated because no one wants to disenfranchise voters?

A bunch of bunk if you ask me if they seat these folks without a re-vote.

And how is it that she (Hillary) could only win 55% of the vote in an uncontested primary?  

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm..........

by hillsboroughrules 2008-03-03 10:08AM | 0 recs
I see the problem with Michigan but

not with Florida.  The votes in Florida should stand precisely as they are.  Floridians have access to news, television, cable, internet, newspapers, magazines and more.  They were following the race.  No one needs to have flyers and postcards arrive in their homes to make a decision on a vote.

by Montague 2008-03-02 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

Bullshit. If this is the argument then lets all have a national primary and elect the person with the most name recognition every 4 years. The point of the primary season is to run an extensive campaign, not merely coronate the person who has the most media attention or is the "inevitable" candidate.

by Sean Siberio 2008-03-02 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

Bullshit back atcha.  Campaigns were GOING ON FOR MONTHS before the Florida vote.  With the internet, news is nationally available at a moment's notice.  Campaign events and debates are nationally televised in real time.  

You must think Floridians were too stupid to be paying attention to the news.

As it happens, right now it appears that the person with the most favorable media attention is, in fact, being crowned.

by Montague 2008-03-02 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

How do you reconcile that with polling in nearly every other state that has voted that shows Obama gaining a ton of ground wherever he spends time and campaigns more?

Do you think everyone had already made up there minds in those states and the polls just got more accurate as the vote drew closer?  

If campaigning didn't actually help, no one would do it, right?

by syrinx 2008-03-02 04:49PM | 0 recs
Actually, polls are never accurate

until very, very close to an election.  

Yes, there are people who are swayed by the spending of money, and Obama certainly has a lot of that.

Again, re: campaigning, of course it helps.  All parties had been campaigning well in advance of the Florida vote.  Yes, people will change their minds as other things change.  But again, it's not necessary for people to receive things in their mailboxes, nor to shake someone's hand or attend a pep rally, nor to see nonstop TV ads, in order to make up their minds.

by Montague 2008-03-02 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, polls are never accurate

I don't know a whole lot about polling, but I wouldn't be surprised if polling became more accurate over time.

But I'd think there are two types of inaccuracy:

  1. Early polls are farther from the eventual outcome then later polls.  This wouldn't really be inaccuracy, though, since polls are represent people's opinions at a given point in time.
  2. Early polls present less accurate "snapshots in time" then later polls.

(1) is obviously irrelevant for this discussion.  I'll take your word for it that (2) is true as well.  Even so, though, if you look at polling in other states, there is a shockingly consistent pattern - they don't look like randomly inaccurately values.  Regardless of specific percentages, I'm inclined to think the general trend is significant.  They almost always show Obama catching up from ~20% down and coming close or ultimately winning nearly everywhere he campaigns.

From your response, it sounds like you agree that campaigning can get votes.  And you agree Obama would have done better if he had be able to campaign in FL.  (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so say so if that's not what you meant when you said - kind of cynically :) - that spending money in states gets votes and Obama has lots of it).

So I guess I just don't see how we don't agree here.  We both think it's important for candidates to campaign in states and that they can do better the more they get to do so.  I suppose I would go a bit farther and say that if you're by far the lesser known of two strong candidates, it's absolutely critical to campaign - and yes, hold rallies and let people see you and hear from you in person.

Given those facts, why would you think it's fair to count the vote as it currently is?  Especially in the name of being more democratic!  What's less democratic then telling the lesser known candidate he (or she) isn't allowed to have direct contact with people who's vote he wants?  Add in a little bit of "they also told the voters their vote wouldn't matter", and I just don't see why you wouldn't be all for a re-vote.  What am I missing?

by syrinx 2008-03-02 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

No, I don't think they were "too stupid", but, as has been shown, most people tend to put off thinking about election season or whom they will vote for until relatively close to the election, be it primary or the general. The fact that candidates were unable to campaign there, to rally supporters, to call people, canvass neighborhoods, makes the whole thing unfair.

Let's face it, no one in there right mind would consider the mainstream news as a substitute for campaigning. If you really believe that, and I doubt you do, then lets see the Democratic nominee do no on the ground campaigning in any of the battleground states this fall and lets see how well it works.

by Sean Siberio 2008-03-02 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

bullshit back atcha again....let's redo ALL CAUCUSES AND MAKE THEM PRIMARIES....to be REALLY fair.

by nikkid 2008-03-02 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

what's unfair is changing the rules in the middle of the election.  All candidates knew that caucuses were part of the process and all knew that MI and FL delegates would not be seated.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-03-02 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

No election oversight commission, except in the most backwater third world dictatorship would give any credence to an election where voters where told before the election that their vote would not be counted, where candidates could not campaign and that the only vote that would count would be for a proposition which would motivate one segment of voters (homeowners) to vote and provide no reason for young people, renters, minorities and the poor to bother to show up.

All the hand wringing over disenfranchisement is pure BS. If you care about voters votes have a revote run like a real election, let the voters know their vote will be counted and let the candidates campaign, but since a fairly contested election would end in a very different result not so advantageous to Hillary I don't expect she will support a revote.

by hankg 2008-03-02 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I see the problem with Michigan but

"The votes in Florida should stand precisely as they are."

No friggin' way. The only way for that to happen is through a shady backroom deal and if that's the way the party goes then they can kiss a lot of votes good-bye. Mine included.

by Ian S 2008-03-02 06:32PM | 0 recs
Floridians knew their votes wouldn't count.

Lots of Floridians probably stayed home on primary day because they knew it wouldn't count.  If it were my state and I didn't vote in the 'beauty contest' because I was told it wouldn't count, I'd be pretty pissed off if they suddenly said it did count after the fact.  Many of the people who did show up were there because of the property tax initiative down ballotm, something that would only affect property owners.

by GFORD 2008-03-02 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Even though I am an Obama supporter, I don't like the idea of spending more tax-payer money to fund a do-over.  Although it'll be a great talking point to use against Fiscally-Conservative Crist.

One benefit of it is that it'll give Clinton and/or Obama a chance to campaign in the state, build an organization there, and be ready for November.   I'm really surprised Crist said that.  Even if you follow under the assumption of some(which I don't), that the Republicans want Obama to get the nomination, it doesn't make sense to offer the chance of a do-over at this stage.

by Setrak 2008-03-02 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

If we do this, we will earn the reputation of a disorganized and chaotic party that we are often stuck with.

What a silly and rediculous notion.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-03-02 03:54PM | 0 recs
Not at all

I believe DE did a revote in 1996 after it moved its primary up and the DNC refused to let the results stand.

by MILiberal 2008-03-02 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Not at all

DE did a caucus after an invalid primary in '96 and also in 2000.  DC did a caucus after the DNC refused to seat delegates from a too-early primary in 2004.

It's not disorderly and not unprecedented.

by Brian Watkins 2008-03-02 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Not at all

Yes because Delware and Michigan/Florida are of comparable size and voting population...

No offense, but that analogy is so ridiculous I can't believe you evn said it with a straight face...

by world dictator 2008-03-02 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Not at all

Not to mention the fact that in 1996, Delaware wasn't exactly critical in determining whether or not to, well, renominate an incumbent President with no opposition.

We could very well be in a situation at the end of the nominating contest where Obama wins without MI/FL and Clinton wins with MI/FL. This is a little different.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-03-02 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

So I take it you would prefer taht the penalties stand? Because allowing them to sat en totale would send much the same message: The DNC is powerless, the Democratic Party is disorganized, etc.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-02 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL , MI Re-votes?

So I take it you would prefer taht the penalties stand?
Of course not, why should a party follow its own rules?...(rules agreed to by Hillary before this all began)...especially with a chance for Hillary to possibly pick up more delegates.

The motive of HRC supporters is so transparent:

we won...the votes don't count...do-over!!!

What's funny is that if Barack had beaten Hillary in FL we wouldn't be hearing a peep about this.

by desertjedi 2008-03-03 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?
But we sometimes ARE a disorganized and chaotic party!

Much better than being a "march in lockstep" Stepford Wives party!

by PhilFR 2008-03-02 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Please clarify your position on what you mean by winning in TX in OH.  Is it winning the --

popular vote in OH?
delegate count in OH?
popular vote in TX?
delegate count based on primary vote in TX?
full delegate count in primacaucus in TX?

And how big a win gets Clinton a ticket to move on -- is .5% enough in the popular vote?

by mainelib 2008-03-02 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

I'm sorry, but I am from Pennsylvania and should get the opportunity to vote in this election for Hillary Clinton, the same as you have been given the Opportunity to vote for Obama.  The election isn't over until everyone has been given equal opportunity to have their vote counted.  Including Mich and Florida.

by Scotch 2008-03-02 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL MI Re-votes?

right on, scotch!!
by moevaughn 2008-03-02 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

This is the bigger problem with the primary process that MI and FL were trying to address.  

How do you have a relevant vote when the nominee is usually selected before most states even get a say?

Right now it is a complete mess.  There is no substitute for doing something right the first time.

You want to vote for Hillary but that is only the half of it.  Think how many didn't get to vote for their candidates because they dropped out long before their "turn" came.

I agree with you in principle but I just want this to all be over after Tuesday for the good of the party and I want us to get it right going forward.

by nintendofanboy 2008-03-02 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

I agree.  Having live here for my entire life, I have never had a say in a primary.  I think if PA and the later states don't have a say THIS year, then it will never happen.  We need to have a one week or one day primary so that everyone gets the chance to vote, and pushing of Momentum by the MsM is not an option.  The Media should have no influence on elections and especially not to the extent they do now.  I would be for making polls illegal, too.  But that is probably unconstitutional.  However, some countries make them illegal for a certain period right before elections.  

The entire system needs revised, and The National Party has not done anything about it.  It certainly isn't democratic the way it is now.

by Scotch 2008-03-02 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

We need to have a system that has candidates campaigning in 3-5 states every couple of weeks.  We should rotate which states get to go first each election cycle.  

Compress the schedule too much and you virtually guarantee a win for the higher name recognition candidate.  Yes, that would have helped Hillary this year.  No, it isn't good for the party.

by Nissl 2008-03-02 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

That would be an even worse solution-- it would in effect mean that the frontrunner in January always wins-- No Obama, No Bill Clinton, No Jimmy Carter (I might be wrong here), No JFK, etc.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-02 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For Revotes

Okay, well, I don't have any say in it, and that solution is not set in stone.  However, something needs to be done with it, because it is a lousy system as it stands.

by Scotch 2008-03-02 05:12PM | 0 recs
you are being too kind

This is the bigger problem with the primary process that MI and FL were trying to address.

No, if they were trying to address that problem they could have scheduled on Feb 5.  They were trying to take the influence for themselves.

by John DE 2008-03-02 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

What about people like me?  I voted in the Michigan primary for HRC and then moved to VA after their primary was held?  If you have a do-over, my vote doesn't count.  What about people who voted in one state and then now moved to Michigan - they get to vote twice???

FACTS:

The candidates NEVER pledged to remove their name from the ballot - only not to campaign. Obama and Edwards removed their name from the ballot because a) they didn't want to tick off the voters in NH and IA, and b) they knew they weren't going to win, so this was a good way to invalidate the votes if and when the delegates got seated.

The ground camps for both Obama and Edwards made significant efforts to have people vote for "uncommitted". There was ad time taken out, and it was discussed in all the media outlets for weeks before the primary, so anyone who says they didn't know about it is just lying.

Some Obama and Edwards voters chose to vote in the Republican primary.  Too bad.  You made your choice.  If you truly did not want HRC to win, you  had the chance to vote "uncommitted" (which, by they way, should have won by about 80%, since there were more candidates who took their names off the ballot then left them on).

Since Michigan is an open primary state, does that mean that Republicans who already voted in the Republican primary will get another vote to vote in the "do-over"?  Will Democrats who voted in the Republican primary to mess theirs up, get another vote?  I say no.

In Florida, Obama's name was on the ballot, and he campaigned against the rules (yes, a "national" ad buy, but there is a way to have the ad blocked in certain markets - they do it all the time).

There is absolutely NO reason not to seat Florida.

A legal, certified election was held in Michigan and the results are in.  If the DNC is not going to punish IA, NH, and SC for also technically violating the rules, then Michigan and Florida should be seated as they are.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-03 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

EXCELLENT!!! You covered such important points.  Good job, cmugirl90!

by moevaughn 2008-03-03 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL &; MI Re-votes?

Don't worry...

Hillary isn't dropping out until she's exhausted her last Supreme Court appeal in October...  count on it!  She's in it until the very last day...

It doesn't matter if the funding dries up... It doesn't matter care if the superdelegates switch.... She'll be fighting for votes in Denver, even if she has to hitchhike to get there...

She's not going to quit... period!

by LordMike 2008-03-02 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL

I assume this means you would be angry if either candidate dropped out before Pennsylvania thus nullifying your vote? Or would you only be angry if Hillary dropped out?

by JDF 2008-03-02 06:59PM | 0 recs
I would not worry about

TX, winning in a primary in a  "red" state is not significant.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-02 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I would not worry about
It's not?!?!

Seems to me that our job as a party is to turn "red states" into "blue states".

by PhilFR 2008-03-02 06:53PM | 0 recs
That was a refference to

Mr. Penn's comments.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-02 08:38PM | 0 recs
ya folks, all need to

turn your sarcasm detector on. :)

by kindthoughts 2008-03-02 09:07PM | 0 recs
Good!

Excellent.

The Democratic Party can't afford to disenfranchise two hugely critical states.

This has to happen, no matter who our nominee is.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-02 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Good!

I agree!  Assuming, at least, that the states are willing to foot the bill.  Elections aren't cheap.

by mnicholson0220 2008-03-02 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Good!
Oh, they're not that expensive either, esp. if you do them by mail. The DNC could pick up the tab, or the two candidates could split it fairly easily.

Let's not let the cost of democracy stand in the way of democracy.

by PhilFR 2008-03-02 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

I'm praying it doesn't come to this.  I just want these primaries to be over so we can focus on winning the White House and beating McBush.

by nintendofanboy 2008-03-02 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Did it cross anybody's mind that Charlie Crist's suggestion could be a way to prolong the Democratic primary even further in the spring, which is good for McCain ?

by Benjaminomeara 2008-03-02 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

If Obama and Clinton can run respectful, positive campaigns, then pro-longing the nomination is not necessarily dangerous.  It leads to building up organizations, GRASS ROOTS!  It also gives Hillary a chance to soften up her image and Obama a chance to continue introducing himself, while keeping the Republicans off to the sideline of headlines.  As MediaFreeze correctly stated, it'll relieve some of the feelings of disenfranchisement that some MI and FL voters could have.

I still really have to wonder what Crist was thinking.  I'm sure there are some Republicans that aren't happy to hear his statement.

by Setrak 2008-03-02 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL MI Re-votes?

It's no longer a positive campaign... so, it IS a problem... Hillary is hitting Barack harder than republicans are...  If he is the nominee, he will be damaged more from a fellow democrat then a Republican.  Hillary isn't helping her own cause, either... she's not helping her terribly high negatives with her recent attacks.  If she managed a miracle and won this thing, she'd also be quite scarred from the campaign.

However, there is a good point to be made about campaigning in Florida...  It would be good for our candidates to do that.

by LordMike 2008-03-02 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL MI Re-votes?
Despite the negativism, I think it's nothing compared to what's to come. A tough campaign isn't a bad thing in my book.
by PhilFR 2008-03-02 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Considering he mentioned it in the diary, it seems obvious it crossed the diarist's mind.

by Collideascope 2008-03-02 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

This is stupid, stupid, stupid.  Honestly, can the DNC do anything more to make itself a laughingstock?  They disenfranchise Florida Dems b/c the Republican controlled legislature set the primary date, and now they want a revote?  When people did vote, and a winner was declared?  Get a brain DNC and call a special meeting of the committee (surely these people could be induced to, you know, do their JOBS) and resolve the matter now.

by mlr701 2008-03-02 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

But what would you regard as fair?  Somehow I think that most of the HRC people would be against adopting the 1/2 delegates solution that the RNC is using, much less assigning all the uncomtted votes to Obama in order to give his side a reason to actually agree to the proposal.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-02 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

I think the freaking Democratic Party Should Pay for it.

by Scotch 2008-03-02 03:59PM | 0 recs
Why?

I mean, really? I can understand it for Michigan, considering the state of the budget right now, we simply don't have the money to pay for a new primary. But Florida? I mean, if the state legislature made the mistake in moving the primary up, why should the party foot the bill for it?

by MILiberal 2008-03-02 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

Because it was a stupid thing for the Democratic Party to do in the first place.  The people deserve the right to have their votes counted.  The Party had a knee jerk reaction, not anticipating what could happen later in the campaign.  The legislature is a republican legislature that decided to move the vote forward.  The republicans at least had a workable penalty, but as usual democrats screwed it up.  The entire primary system has been let go to be a conglomeration of ridiculous elections.  Some are closed, some are open.  Basically, people registered as Democrats have not elected Obama.  How is it a Democratic nominee has been elected by those outside of the party.  Why does this stand?  The Democratic party has been lose and dragging their feet too long, and this year the mass confusion has come back to bite them.  It is their problem,one that they caused, and they should pay for it.

by Scotch 2008-03-02 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

agreed!

The DNC disenfranchised its own voters for something the voters did not do and had no control over.
Did the DNC cut off their nose to spite their face?  Did they throw their own babies out with the bathwater?  

The DNC has been so horribly incompetent and stupid, and they should pay for a new primary if it comes to that.  They should also fire Howard Dean.

Why should the FL taxpayers/voters pay for something they didn't do?!

by moevaughn 2008-03-02 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

Fire Howard Dean? Seriously?! The man's done more for the party than any DNC head in recent memory.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-02 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

The party seems in worse shape to me than it has been in decades.  I go along with getting a new head, soon.

by Scotch 2008-03-02 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

Disagreement with you can't be tolerated, eh MIliberal.  Democrats have turned into the most intolerant group of people around.  Poor baby.  

by Scotch 2008-03-02 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

Really we were in better shape in the 1990s when we lost BOth houses of congress for the first time in recent memory? Dean's reversed the decade long gutting of the DNC that the Clintonista orchestrated.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-02 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why?

I am talking about the national party, by the way.  Not the state D party.

by Scotch 2008-03-02 04:09PM | 0 recs
I find it hard to see the downside

I've been pushing this as a way to help Clinton for weeks now.  Of course, her best plan would have been to have it be on this Tuesday so that Obama would have to work much harder with his ground game.

She waited way too long to go for this.  By the time it happens, it'll probably be too late for Clinton to gain much from it.  I still think she wins Florida in a revote, but I'm no longer sure about Michigan.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-02 04:05PM | 0 recs
this can only help Obama

It's not going to happen anytime soon. If anything it will probably happen sometime before Pennsylvania. Obama will have a massive financial advantage.

by highgrade 2008-03-02 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

This is all a collosal waste of time.  I say let her have the delegates as they are.  She'll still be behind, then this thing can be put to rest.  

Give her what these guys want--the delegates as they are now--see how many votes that gins up.

by foxsucks81 2008-03-02 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

As an Obama supporter, I'd be 100% in favor of that. It would be a fair resolution of the issue.

by dmc2 2008-03-02 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Yeah 100% fair to Obama because he can drown the states with money AND they'd probably run the re-do as a caucus, at least in Michigan.

How is this fair to Clinton? If anything this seems worse for Clinton because it probably kills her chances in PA and stretches her resources thin.

I'm fine with giving Obama the uncommitted delegates, he did basically campaign for them. However a re-do is dumb. There are no re-do's in politics. If we re-do Michigan and Florida can Clinton re-do Iowa?

by world dictator 2008-03-02 06:00PM | 0 recs
Sham election

There are also no elections at least in democratic countries where the voters are told their votes won't count before the election (as that will impact voter behavior) and all the candidates names don't appear on the ballot and the candidates can't campaign full stop to make their case.

In Florida there was a proposition on the ballot that motivated homeowners to vote but gave the young, the poor and renters no reason to show up which when combined with the above circumstances skewed the results further.

Hopefully March 4 will make this all a non-issue.

by hankg 2008-03-02 06:13PM | 0 recs
No Re-vote

There has never been a determinative re-vote in the history of modern politics.

Why start now?

Count MI and FL as-is.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-03-02 04:38PM | 0 recs
exactly,

because nothing says fair election liek the ~40 uncommited votes in Michigan.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-02 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: No Re-vote

This would in-effect strip the DNC of any power as a national organization-- the state parties could do whatever they wanted to do and any time the DNC tried to crack down the parties would just have to hold their breath and pout until the DNC caved.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-02 05:12PM | 0 recs
unfortunately for you

The examples of re-votes in the primary system are listed above (Delaware.)  So I am sure you will now remove your objection.

by John DE 2008-03-02 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Purpose of a revore? To force an Obama win because supposedly the voters were too stupid to listen to the media the first time? This is atrocious crap. The vote being called into question because Obama hadn't won so amy states and that invalidates the vote? This gives Obama supporters a second try? This is beyond unfair. Why should the voters have to go back out and vote again. It's not exactl an easy process for some who are working or don't have transp. The Obamabots take this into consideration and figure more oif their kind will flood the polls and reverse a democratic decision. Can't believe the left blogs are pushing this.

by India 2008-03-02 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

No there should be a revote because no election commission overseeing any election any where in the world would certify an election under the rules MI and FL were run on. Telling voters their vote won't count and then after the election saying we were only kidding. If you listened to us and stayed home,  screw you as long as we get the results we want we will just make up the rules as we go. Anything to win.

by hankg 2008-03-02 07:51PM | 0 recs
OF COURSE Crist-R, wants to try to aid HRC...

He, along with Bob Novak, Karl Rove, and Bush, and Co., realize that if Hillary gets the nomination...they'll have a MUCH easier time of it in Nov.

Why else would a Republican want to help her out?  We know that status quo (waiting to the covention) leaves her net felegate gain in FL at "0".

by a gunslinger 2008-03-02 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Well if they are going to have another vote then they should do it between Mississippi and Pennsylvania (so both candidates can campaign) or do it after Puerto Rico in mid to late June.

by EightMoreYears 2008-03-02 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: We in for FL and MI to be seated!

Rasmussen has nothing on Survey USA(which all but predicted the results for Super Tuesday).  Rasmussen is still running on the 2004 model.  Remember that Barack is still introducing himself to the American people.  The more he does it, the more people who like him.  McCain, like Clinton, is already known and has little room to expand.

Oregon:
Hillary vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=389f3a04-b047-479f-b879-6 d5d9babb0ba&q=45892
Barack vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=389f3a04-b047-479f-b879-6 d5d9babb0ba&q=45622

California:
Clinton vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=13f96411-ff24-4479-9d8b-c 51804507f93&q=45892
Barack vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=13f96411-ff24-4479-9d8b-c 51804507f93&q=45622

Kansas(I know, I know..):
Clinton vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=b360f1e0-c0d9-46af-b292-5 d4ab0cdd0d9&q=45892
Barack vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=b360f1e0-c0d9-46af-b292-5 d4ab0cdd0d9&q=45622

New York:
Clinton vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=b86ce8ea-720b-4ac1-9c03-b 7e41e2988fd&q=45892
Barack vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=b86ce8ea-720b-4ac1-9c03-b 7e41e2988fd&q=45622

Virginia:
Clinton vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=bbe615f5-c846-4849-a0c2-9 99687fd54c4&q=45892
Barack vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=bbe615f5-c846-4849-a0c2-9 99687fd54c4&q=45622

Iowa:
Clinton vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=fc31417c-5816-4971-ac96-6 7161bbe397d&q=45892
Barack vs. McCain;
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=fc31417c-5816-4971-ac96-6 7161bbe397d&q=45622

Let's not also forget about the Democrats that will be running to be Governor, Congressman/Congresswoman, Senator..  Obama is a God send to them.  If we want to reform this government and lift ourselves from the brink, we need to expand those majorities.

by Setrak 2008-03-02 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: We in for FL and MI to be seated!

OK, OK.. I screwed up on the link.  Check out http://www.surveyusa.com yourselves!

by Setrak 2008-03-02 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

The mere fact we have to have this discussion shows how batshit crazy the Clinton people have become. There were rules. They had consequences. But yet again Hillary wants to try and win in spite of the voters.

Just another example of how there is no honorable way for Clinton to win the nomination.

by Bob Brigham 2008-03-02 05:10PM | 0 recs
So unfair to Clinton

Likely that FL and MI come out closer than they did in January, and Clinton loses any significant delegate boost she would get out of them.

by b1oody8romance7 2008-03-02 05:14PM | 0 recs
Either they hold ne elections or get no delegates

There is no middle ground. Those are the choices and SCOTUS precedent supports that conclusion.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-02 05:22PM | 0 recs
Every option in that poll

The pros and cons of the options, summarized. Where it says 'Florida', just mentally add an 'and Michigan'.

28% - Florida should hold another Democratic primary or caucus

Pro: Probably the best option if the primary is still being contested after Tuesday. Results are the only ones that could unequivocally be called a "free and fair election".

Con: Going to cost money. A caucus would be cheaper than a primary, but I can't imagine the Clinton campaign would go for that.

24% - The DNC should seat a Florida delegation that reflects the January results

Pro: Requires no money.

Con: Completely stupid. Most of the candidates weren't on the Michigan ballot, and everyone in both states was told the election didn't count. Completely neutralizes the DNC's ability to set ground rules for their primaries, meaning we could end up with the 2012 primaries in 2011.

15% - Penalty should stand

Pro: It enforces the party's rules, and it's what all the candidates agreed to. Requires no money.

Con: Removes Florida and Michigan voters from the process of choosing a Democratic candidate.

13% - The DNC should seat a Florida delegation that is made up of an equal number of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters

Pro: It enforces the party's rules and sort of allows voters to pretend they got to choose. Requires no money.

Con: It doesn't ACTUALLY provide any choice. Also it doesn't really apply to Michigan.

Conclusion:

To say we've already had elections that should count is to be willfully blind to the fact that voters were told they didn't. How many thousands of voters would have voted in the FL and MI elections if they'd thought it would count but didn't? How might peoples' opinions have changed if they'd gone out and met a candidate, attended a rally, etc?

There were rules set down ahead of time that all candidates agreed to. Those are the rules, and those rules were violated by two states. That the states' Democratic parties might not be to blame is completely irrelevant. The rules are the rules.

If the DNC and both campaigns agree to change the rules to allow the states in question to re-vote, with both candidates having the chance to campaign there, and with all voters going in understanding that this does count, then that's a different story. If not, then the party is not served by changing the rules after the fact, and neither are the voters.

by nathanp 2008-03-02 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Every option in that poll

That's one of the stupidest poll questions I've ever seen. There are an infinite number of other solutions -- why ask about just these? Besides, the only important poll question to ask Floridians, imo, would be "did you vote in January and if so, did you think at the time that your vote wouldn't count?" Because if those responding "yes" is more than 10% I'll be shocked. Why else would 1.7 million voters turn out (a record by such a huge margin it's ridiculous)? And don't tell me it was about some local ballot initiative. Please.

You Obamatrons are going to have to face the reality here that just slightly less than 50% of those voting in this race (and over 50% of registered Democrats) support Hillary and STILL support Hillary. Many just as passionately as you support Obama. Somehow, sometime, Obama is going to have to win us over. And not counting Florida and Michigan, or re-voting as a caucus, or splitting the delegates evenly ... none of that is going to help. To put it mildly. Your guy may have won the nomination, but he ain't getting near the White House until and unless he unites the party.

Here's a solution: Count Florida as is. It was a fair vote. Let Obama have the uncommitteds in Michigan. Call it a day. But do it SOON. This will get Clinton closer but still leave Obama in the lead, with a dozen states to go. That's fair.

By the way, Obama not only decided on his own to take his name off the Michigan ballot, he led a friggin' boycott! Clinton was the only one smart enough not to bite.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-02 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Every option in that poll

"Why else would 1.7 million voters turn out (a record by such a huge margin it's ridiculous)?"

Actually Florida's Democratic turnout was pathetic compared to other states in this cycle. In other states Democratic turnout was 2 to 3 times Republican turnout. In Florida it was about 1.2 times. If Florida had a real election I'd expect results similar to the other states so there are probably a lot more then 1 million voters that would have voted with a campaign, GOTV, local events and knowing thier vote would count who will be disenfranchised.

"Clinton was the only one smart enough not to bite."

Clinton already knew that she was lying and pandering to Iowa and NH with her commitment to boycott MI and FL. She planned on gaming the rules if need be back then. Why have to face Obama in a real campaign when you can count on your name recognition advantage and cheating the system to get by.

by hankg 2008-03-02 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Every option in that poll

re:  other states Dem/Repub turnout

those other states have open primaries and there were lots of machivelian repub crossovers, which accounts for the temporary swelling on Dem side;  in the GE those crossovers will return to their own party to vote Repub.

in Florida crossovers are not allowed.  Dems pick their candidate: Repubs pick theirs.  period.

by moevaughn 2008-03-03 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Every option in that poll

FL voters turned out by and large to vote for the property tzx initiative which recieved half a million more votes than the DEM and GOP primaries combined.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-02 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Every option in that poll

That's one of the stupidest poll questions I've ever seen. There are an infinite number of other solutions

Such as?

Besides, the only important poll question to ask Floridians, imo, would be "did you vote in January and if so, did you think at the time that your vote wouldn't count?" Because if those responding "yes" is more than 10% I'll be shocked.

So your answer is predicated on the theory that 90% of Floridians or more don't watch the news.

Got it.

You have any data to back up that assertion or no?

Why else would 1.7 million voters turn out (a record by such a huge margin it's ridiculous)? And don't tell me it was about some local ballot initiative. Please.

Right, because what possible interest could Florida voters have had in a measure about property taxes in the middle of a housing crisis?

You Obamatrons are going to have to face the reality here that just slightly less than 50% of those voting in this race (and over 50% of registered Democrats) support Hillary and STILL support Hillary.

Well if all those Floridians (and Michigonians) STILL support Hillary, I'm sure they won't mind voting for her again, especially the 90% of them (according to your numbers) who didn't realize their vote wouldn't count the first time.

Somehow, sometime, Obama is going to have to win us over.

My dear fellow, that's what elections are for. So why are you opposed to a free and fair election?

And not counting Florida and Michigan, or re-voting as a caucus, or splitting the delegates evenly ... none of that is going to help.

I don't know whether to start by pointing out that it's the Democratic Party who decided not to count Florida and Michigan once they violated party rules and not the Obama campaign, or by asking what's so unfair about a caucus? Instead I'll just point out that a new primary is almost certainly the fairest way to seat those delegates, (and, in all likelihood, the only way they'll get seated.)

To put it mildly. Your guy may have won the nomination, but he ain't getting near the White House until and unless he unites the party.

To put it bluntly, your conviction that either of us represent a large portion of the Democratic party is idiotic. Poll after poll after poll has been produced saying that the vast majority of Democratic voters would be satisfied with either candidate.

And sticking your fingers in your ears and declaring that the rules Clinton agreed to shouldn't apply anymore is not an argument that holds sway with anyone but hardcore Clinton partisans. Free and fair elections do not occur when voters are told "your votes don't count".

by nathanp 2008-03-02 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re-Vote or split the Party

It's a no brainer.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-02 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Is it too late for a revote of the 2000 election? How about the 2004 election?

A revote? Are you people freaking insane?!

by RJEvans 2008-03-02 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

There's two fair options:

1) Leave things as they stand. The rules are clear. The states broke them. The states' delegates don't get seated.

2) Hold a free and fair election in a manner acceptable to the party and both campaigns.

by nathanp 2008-03-02 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

As slow as the DNC moves, I doubt a re-vote will ever happen. There's gonna be procedural hurdles that'll make a vote in either of those two states months away. Dean is just trying to save face here.

by mecarr 2008-03-02 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

So, first it was "Hillary has to win TX and OH by 20 percentage points each or she has to drop out"

The it was "Hillary has to win TX and OH, period, or she has to drop out"

What is it now? "Hillary has to not get completely blown out in TX and squeak by in OH"?

Is there any HRC supporter who's willing to set, and stick to, a threshhold for Tuesday results which would result in that HRC supporter asking HRC to drop out?

by obsessed 2008-03-02 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC must drop out

How about:  OBAMA MUST WIN BOTH OHIO AND TEXAS OR DROP OUT.

I'm sick of Obama people, and the media parroting along with BHO, that HRC has to drop out.  

Fact is the race is so evenly divided, it should go right to the end, and the voters in every last blooming state should have a voice.

by moevaughn 2008-03-03 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Absolutely without any bearing on the polling or how voting went in the previous primaries, if there is any shadow of a doubt as to their validity, we MUST revote.  I would guess Hillary would still win both states but at least then she would have won them fair and square.  The last thing we need in a general election is for Republicans of all people to tell us we didn't hold a fair contest in FLORIDA!  I can't see a valid reason anywhere on the post or in the comments or otherwise that doesn't think the strongest thing for the Democratic party and our candidate (which ever one we choose) is a fair and democratic primary contest and that simply was not the case in Michigan.

by jlars 2008-03-02 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Why do we think Hillary would win MI?

by obsessed 2008-03-02 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

It's not a slam dunk, but there is a strong possibility she could.  I wouldn't bet against her.

1. With nothing else on the ballot, knowing their votes wouldn't matter, 55% of the Democrats who did vote chose Clinton with no push from the Clinton campaign and a concerted effort in AA to push "uncommitteds" to the polls.  I read those Clinton votes as acts of definance, a strong attempt to be heard by voters already familiar with both.
2. she has strong support from Granholm and Stabenow. (Levin has vowed to stay out of it)  These endorsements might not make much a difference to the rank and file, Granholm might actually work against Clinton with them, but the machine outside of Detroit will be pushing Clinton.
3. Clinton is seen as the stronger pro-union candidate with AFL-CIO unions. She already has AFSME and AFT and Obama's SEIU endorsement will only hurt him in Michigan, especially with UAW members.  The MEA will go as Granholm goes.  The latest NAFTA/Canada flap will damage him badly.
4. Demographics -- 14% African American (Detroit really needs to turn out hard to have significant impact on elections -- it should for Obama -- but the registration level, transportation and polling site problems in Detroit are legendary)
Older working class, no real "intellectual class"  strongholds outside of AA, plenty of Reagan Democrats.
5. In Michigan it's going to be all about the economy -- the stronger foreclosure policy, the more comprehensive healthcare policy -- and no one in Michigan has had two nickels to rub together since .... the Clinton Administration.  The name "Clinton" means steady employment in Michigan.
6. Right now Kilpatrick enjoys the credibility of George Bush.  His endorsement is useless and he is hamstrung in every respect.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-03-03 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

just give he what she wants, and she'll go away.  she's the one who's so shrill an grating we'll be willing to cut off our legs just to get her to go away!

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-02 08:49PM | 0 recs
jerome has been wrong

on pretty much everything in this election from the very start

that is a fact

by chriscizzila 2008-03-02 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

If Hillary wins in Ohio & Texas, shouldn't Obama quit?

It's obvious he can't win.

by krj47 2008-03-03 02:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

If Hillary passes Obama in pledged delegates Obama should drop out. That is a highly unlikely result at this point.

by hankg 2008-03-03 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL &a

Why should Obama quit?  Hillary didn't when Obama passed her on Super Tuesday.  She hasn't even though his lead is pretty big given proportional delegates.  

If she builds a 150 to 200 PD lead then yes, I agree.  But she needs to follow the same standard.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-03 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: drop out obama?

Yes absolutely!!! When is the press going to say this and stop parroting Obama's campaign ad nauseum.
by moevaughn 2008-03-03 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

Politically Savvy move by Crist.  Gives him nice cred for Re-election now... when McCain loses, I am wondering if Crist will be planning his own run in 2012 or if he is setting himself up for a VP role.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-03 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: We in for FL and MI to be seated!

Holy Cherry Pick Batman.  Should we cherry pick all the GE polls showing Hillary getting killed while Obama wins?  And to cherry pick NJ which is practically her home state?

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-03 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Are We In For FL & MI Re-votes?

If Hillary Clinton wins Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, there is no doubt this primary will continue, likely at least into late April when Pennsylvania votes.

What exactly does "win" mean? A vote lead of .5%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%? Both OH and TX are shaping up to be failures for Hillary in terms of delegates gained. As hard as that is to swallow for some, we all know that. Anyone rememeber the old and forgotten adage, "Hillary needs to win big in both OH and TX to get back in the race."? Didn't think so.

The key to tomorrow's primaries is simply this - will HRC be able or not be able to spin the vote totals into a reason to keep her campaign's respirator plugged in - not whether she actually gains ground on Barack's delegate total.

If she wins TX by 1000 votes and OH by 5,000 votes, even if she gains no real ground, I'm sure this will be seen as a true mandate that the people of this country who really count want HRC as their candidate. And this will be very unfortunate for the Democratic Party.

Since the final votes will most likely be fairly close to the polling totals, in essence, she's already lost.

by desertjedi 2008-03-03 05:53AM | 0 recs
how does FL and MI even help her?

Obama's pledged delegate lead is 150 or 160 now, isn't it?  Even if you ignore the 40% of MI that voted uncommitted), Clinton would pick up 73 delegates in MI and a net of 38 in Florida.  That's only 110.  So she's down by 40 or 50 even with those.  And the idea that Obama doesn't get any of the uncommitted MI vote is stupid.

Who thinks at this point that she can catch up even 40 or 50 delegates between now and the end?  it already looks like tomorrow will be a delegate draw.  Then the rest of the calendar has only 600 or so pledged delegates, including Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, and Indiana, all states where Obama already leads.

The fact is FL and MI aren't enough for her and so I wish the whole thing would just be put to rest.  

by snaktime 2008-03-03 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: how does FL and MI even help her?
 
That's not the point.  Election Integrity is the point.  Millions of Democratic voters have been disenfranchised by its own party.  I'm going to be one of the ones leading a big time revolt if my mom's vote in Florida is does not count.
by moevaughn 2008-03-03 09:33AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------