Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs Looking More Likely By The Day

On the Florida front, today Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who is also a Hillary Clinton supporter, wrote Howard Dean a letter in which he advocated a do-over primary (h/t Ben Smith):

There are two options for seating the Florida delegation. Either the DNC should seat the delegation according to the election results from the Jan. 29 Florida primary or allow a do-over election in early June, paid for by the DNC.

I believe a primary would be the only fair way to resolve the issue in Florida, which has no tradition of a caucus. It would be manifestly unfair to replace a primary with a caucus, in which only a fraction of the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in the January 29 Democratic primary would participate.

Howard Dean made clear on CNN this morning that the DNC would not pay for a do-over contest -- that the DNC's resources now have to be trained on attacking John McCain -- so it's still unclear who would be footing this bill if a primary were to be scheduled. Ben Smith offers an alternate possibility, however:

Still, if this is down to haggling over money -- the cost of a vote-by-mail primary is expected to be about $5 million -- that suggests it's going to happen.

As for Michigan, Gov. Jennifer Granholm has previously discounted the possibility of the state's holding another primary, again, due to the cost, but would be fine with a caucus, which, according to The New Republic is exactly what Michigan intends to do.

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

"They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."

Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.

If these two scenarios do come to pass, it seems to me that it would represent the fairest of all results. Not only would the voters of two key states be represented at the convention in Denver and in a way that has no taint, but it would also split the methods by which the contests are run, evening the score, if you will since on its face, a big state primary would be more likely to favor Clinton while a caucus generally favors Obama. And hey, anything to stretch this thing out even longer...

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Democratic nomination, Florida, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

91 Comments

Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

I don't want a split in methods, I want a primary vote. I'm tired of hearing about voters (on both sides) getting shut out from voting or not having the time to even vote.

by RJEvans 2008-03-06 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

I agree, there has to be two primaries. Both Michigan and Florida had primaries - where servicemen serving oversees and the elderly and full time working moms could vote. These categories clearly cant all vote in a caucus setting (which favors the unemployed college kids).

Florida is holding a primary. Governor Christ said so. So saying Michigan is second class and does not deserve a primary will not go over. Both states deserve to give the fullest amount of their citizens a right to vote.

As for costs, it will not be a problem. Hillary raised 4 million in 36 hours. All the Michigan Democratic Committee has to do is set up special fund where people can donate for a special Michigan Primary. 5 million will be raised within 2 weeks. All of the supporters, to all campaigns, who have already maxed out their allowable donation limit of $2,300 will be able to give again to this special Michigan DNC primary fund.

by moi moi 2008-03-06 02:39PM | 0 recs
Puhhh

The Michigan 'Caucus' would not be a true Caucus.

It would be a primary, with shorter hours(10:AM-6:PM), so they can call is a Caucus.

And don't worry, the neo-con Hillary wants to accept the Soviet style, one person on the ballot, no campaigning results from Michigan rather than allow a new 'Caucus'.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp aign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview -clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html

|"I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated."|

Pathetic.

by Dave Dial 2008-03-06 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Puhhh

"Hillary wants to accept the Soviet style, one person on the ballot, no campaigning results from Michigan"

No. Your own quote there shows she okays a new ballot. Two persons.

Could it be because caucuses sound like Thug City and simply scare many people?

Sooner they are history the better.

by Fast Pete 2008-03-06 04:48PM | 0 recs
PA tilts toward Obama

Enthusiasm Tilts Toward Obama in Pa.
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM - 1 hour ago
Excerpt

STROUDSBURG, Pa. (AP) -- For Edwin David, who served with the famed World War II unit of black fighters known as the Tuskegee Airmen, Sen. Barack Obama is an easy choice.

"Just let me live till voting time in November," said David, 83, living in retirement in the Pocono Mountains. "In my lifetime, we just might get to see the first African-American president of the United States!"

Fresh from victories in the big states of Ohio and Texas, and with polls having shown her holding the lead here, even if it has dwindled, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton starts her campaign in Pennsylvania as the favorite to win the April 22 primary.

But in random interviews last week with dozens of voters in swing districts across the state, much of the Democratic voter enthusiasm seemed to tilt toward Obama, not only because he is a fresh face, but because they believe he has the best shot at beating Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, whom they call old and out-of-touch.

But unlike David, many said it wasn't an easy decision.

Kate Clark, 53, a cafe owner in Nazareth, a small town near Allentown, said she struggled with her choice. Tempted to vote for Clinton because of her gender, she said Obama's energy and vision ultimately won out.

"I think we need to see the United States and see the world through eyes that are younger, through eyes that have dreams, through eyes that see something new for the nation," Clark said.

Clark said she worries about the health of the environment -- and the economy. Fewer people are walking through the doors of her quaint eatery now than at any time since it opened 11 years ago.

"People are afraid. The five dollars that they have is being spent on gas, on food," she said. "Everyone's tight with cash."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTUgX jxuUNmDrcqwzFdR59AaJ1JQD8V8GEG80

by dearreader 2008-03-07 12:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Michigan caucus IS a primary...

They are open from 10am to 6pm and you go in, write your candidate's name on a ballot, drop it in the box, and go home.

It's a caucus in name only...

They've done this before...

by LordMike 2008-03-06 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Are there absentee voting for servicemen? And is your vote private (not subject to being screamed by supporters of the opposing candidate - like in the Texas Caucus).

by moi moi 2008-03-06 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Vote is private... don't know about absentee ballots...  

by LordMike 2008-03-06 03:05PM | 0 recs
Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

8 hours and private voting is pretty good. Add absentee for servicemen, and I think we have a winner. Maybe we could increase it to 12 hours.

by moi moi 2008-03-06 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

10 to 6 is too short.  Cuts out most working people.  And that helps Obama.  He does best in non-democratic states and states that make it hard for working people to vote.

by PlainWords 2008-03-07 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

I'm all for that.

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-06 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

I Michigan caucus would be awesome. This is great news!

by animated 2008-03-06 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

It't a caucus in name only.
Precincts would be opened 8 hours, voters sign in and verified, mark a ballot, and leave.

More democratic than a usual caucus we're familiar with.

by annefrank 2008-03-06 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

In most caucuses (but not all) you can come in, sign something and leave.

by JDF 2008-03-06 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

But this one is open much longer than a traditional caucus.

by LordMike 2008-03-06 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

I don't know - what does McCain say about this?

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

What does McCain have to do with this?

by RJEvans 2008-03-06 02:35PM | 0 recs
Great news

I'm sick of wrangling over the fate of Michigan and Florida. Look, I'm an Obama supporter and I recognize the limitations of caucuses. But states don't hold them to give advantages to candidates. They hold caucuses because they're cheaper. And Michigan is broke. Moreover, the Michigan caucus is more of a firehouse drop-in caucus than a true caucus.

The January mess was a disaster for MI and FL. This will help put things right.

by elrod 2008-03-06 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Great news

Couldnt we just raise funds in an independent committee to pay for the new primary. I think a firehouse primary costs $5 million.

by moi moi 2008-03-06 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Not so much

There is no justification for throwing out the Florida vote other than supporting a rule that was crazy in the first place - and helping Obama.

His supporters should think long and hard about the possibility of a McCain presidency.  Obama has done well mostly in Republican states, in caucuses (which disadvantage the working people who are the soul of the Democratic Party), and in states with crossover primaries where Republicans can vote for the weakest Democrat.  Clinton has done well in the states that are needed to put a Democrat in the White House in November. Obama's strength is in all the wrong places.  That's reality.

Obama would be far behind if the Democrats didn't have proportional voting.  As usual, the Republicans are smarter:  they are choosing their strongest contender by using winner-take-all primaries that are more like the general election.  I'm all for proportional voting, but not as long as the general election is winner-take-all.

Count Florida.  Pay attention to the voters.  And win in November.

by PlainWords 2008-03-07 07:20AM | 0 recs
Just curious

Just curious, but how do you do GOTV in a mail-in campaign? Do you go door-to-door and make sure people mail their ballots?

by elrod 2008-03-06 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Just curious

yeah, what will likely happen is various supporter groups will get the appropriate credentials to collect, and will go from door to door asking if they've filled out their ballots, and urging them to do so, as i recall here in oregon, if you offer to turn in a ballot you must accept it regardless of voter choice and destroying such ballots is very, very, very illegal.

in the end it could favor obama because of the critical nature of gotv in mail in vote drives.

i would be shocked if they didn't model their system similar to oregons, if only because our system is tried and tru.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Just curious
i'm not sure if i made this clear, but the support groups would be going door to door accepting ballots to turn them in.
that's the mail-in equivalent of gotv, it's more like "Bring in the vote"
by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

a florida vote by mail primary, and a michigan caucus seem to be fair.

go for it.

i'm an oregonian so i view vote by mail with extreme support.
it's cheap, and it's easy to participate in.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Vote by mail would be awesome. It is cheap, and it allows all to participate.

by moi moi 2008-03-06 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

No Florida revote!
All candidates were on the ballot - and although they weren't supposed to campaign, Obama aired TV ads and claimed FL was part of a national cable package and couldn't be omitted.
Yeah riiiiight!

The DNC should blame the FL Repub legislature (although it wasn't entirely their fault) for placing FL Dems in this position.
Then announce the FL delegates will be seated.

by annefrank 2008-03-06 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

yeah except it had almost unanimous support by the florida dems in the relevant votes.

the party agreed to it, even if the republicans hadn't voted for it, the vast majority of dems in the house did anyways.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs
That's what I wrote - the Repubs weren't entirely to blame.
Of course, they initiated the evil scheme - but Dems went along with it.
Later - Dems tried to change it but were voted down. Shocking! ;>
by annefrank 2008-03-06 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

The FL dems were happy to go along with the republicans because they thought it would help Hillary, just as Michigan moved up and had a primary instead of their usual caucus because that would benefit Hillary and hurt Edwards. Now they get to suffer for their mess.

by Quinton 2008-03-06 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

An important point often left out.

by anothergreenbus 2008-03-06 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

Clinton ads likely bled into the northern panhandle from neighboring states, if you want to get that pissy about it.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs
Obama was the ONLY candidate to air TV ads in Florida.
A clear violation of the rules.
by annefrank 2008-03-06 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

You wouldn't be fighting so hard to not have a re-vote if you didn't think the outcome might be different this time.

by JDF 2008-03-06 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

Hopefully, you don't make a living reading minds.

by annefrank 2008-03-06 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

From the NYTimes:

"The D.N.C. also wants it to be known that Mr. Dean doesn't necessarily oppose the "re-seating" of these delegates. Mr. Dean offers up the options of a do-over or an appeal to the credentials committee."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 03/06/the-florida-michigan-morass/index. html?hp

by cmugirl90 2008-03-06 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

No more ridiculous, unrepresentative, Obama caucuses!  

The Michigan and Florida voters fairly chose Hillary Clinton in big numbers in actual primaries!

It is now WAR. Obama forces will NOT TAKE AWAY OUR VICTORIES.

It is now time to split the Democratic Party.

We Clintonites loathe Obama, and want nothing to do with him, and his forces shall not take away our hard-won victories.

We Ohioans delivered an Obama campaign massacre last Tuesday.

We have just begun to fight!

by lambros 2008-03-06 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

you're high on something.  How is Michigan a hard-earned victory when Obama's name wasn't even on the freaking ballot?  Do you honestly think that's a "hard-earned victory"?

by hekebolos 2008-03-06 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

A lot sat out because they knew their votes wouldn't count.  But I guess that's "fair" to you, since you "won."

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

So what you are saying here is that you are more loyal to Clinton than you are to the Democratic party...

This is my main problem with Clinton as a candidate. I have a sincere fear that she will not be able to deliver down-ticket support. The sad thing is this is not her fault but the fault of supporters like the one above who clearly do not care about a majority just so long as they get their Clinton presidency

by JDF 2008-03-06 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

Agreed... Very few Clinton supporters seem to care at all about expanding the party...  Consideting the Clintons' history of "party building", their candidacy makes me very, very nervous about the future.  I don't want to see another "republican revolution" in a couple of years.

by LordMike 2008-03-06 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

Clitonites?

Freep freep!

by Si Ella Puede 2008-03-06 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Wouldn't it be to Obama's advantage to seat them as is right now?  If he gets beat in Florida again, that's a huge story and not a good sign to send the SD.

As someone else suggested on another blog - seat Michigan as is.  Obama gets all the "uncommitted" where he makes up for those who didn't vote by getting the Edwards votes.  

And, if the argument made by the Obama people is correct, he still is ahead in the delegate count, although by not as much.

Wouldn't it be better not to give Hillary 2 wins in both Michigan and Florida?

by cmugirl90 2008-03-06 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

There are no Edwards votes, he also wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

by JDF 2008-03-06 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida

You're wrong.
Edwards was on the ballot in Florida.

So - a revote would abolish his delegates.

by annefrank 2008-03-06 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida

I didn't say he wasn't on the ballot in Florida- I said he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan

And what is the practical problem in abolishing his Delegates, he has relatively few AND is no longer running. Is this really a problem?

by JDF 2008-03-07 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

he won't get uncommitted votes, those go to nobody.

no a new race is good for him, even if he loses both elections will likely be closer so he can avoid any controversy with the seating, while at the same time making his lead more solid, because as is, with michigan she gets a huge delegate jump and he gets none.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

The uncommitted votes are allowed to vote for whoever they want. The assumption is that for the most part they would not vote for Clinton since they didn't go to her in the first place.

by JDF 2008-03-07 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida

I think that this is rediculous for a number of reasons:

1. Having a caucus in Michigan is silly. Here are a few illustrations of the skewed nature of caucuses:

* The TX caucus mess
* Washington state- where Obama romped in the caucus, but Clinton came very close to winning in a primary which saw over 600K vote and awarded exactly zero delegates

2. It's been said over and over, but it's true: Obama took his name off the ballot in MI, and everyone had a chance to vote for everyone in FL. Either it is important that these delegates be seated or it is not important. If it is, then seat them. If it's not, then stick by your guns. Over 3 million people have already voted in these two states.

3. Forcing a candidate that they have to win a state twice in order to get delegates is a silly and undemocratic notion.

4. I don't know why the Clinton campaign is being so quiet about this, but it is an abomination that could very easily cost them the nomination.

5. The entire notion of the DNC committee invalidating the delegates from MI and FL in the first place was to be preservative of the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Great job: Barack Obama is ahead in the nomination fight. Iowa reigns supreme. The penalty against MI and FL ensured that Clinton got no momentum whatsover out of wins in MI (where Obama wasn't on the ballot, because, again- he voluntarily took his name off) and FL (where all were on the ballot). If you seat the delegates now, months later, you have absolutely preserved Iowa / NH's influence. Mission accomplished.

6. If Obama nets more delegates out of MI and FL, and wins the nomination as a result, I will forever regard his nomination as illegitimate.

Don't like the result? Ah, no problem. We'll do it over. Oh, and we'll pick the format more favorable to you while we're at it, Sen. Obama. No worries.

This is a travesty.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-03-06 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida

what? so if he wins the new races it's illegitimate, but if they don't count the old races with no campaigning, and him not even on one of the ballots, in races that weren't supposed to count it is still illegitimate?

i don't follow....

and clinton is quiet about it because she knows she can't catch up on pledged delegates, so she's hoping she can eck out a population vote victory with a landslide in florida.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida

what? so if he wins the new races it's illegitimate, but if they don't count the old races with no campaigning, and him not even on one of the ballots, in races that weren't supposed to count it is still illegitimate?

In my opinion, yes.

In Florida, every candidate was on the ballot.

In Michigan, they weren't, but Obama took his name off voluntarily. That simple fact cuts against the fairness argument substantially in my opinion.

Nearly four million people voted in these two states.

and clinton is quiet about it because she knows she can't catch up on pledged delegates

If MI and FL's primaries, with massive participation, are counted, then she could easily catch up. That is a fairness problem, to me.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-03-06 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida

how fair is it to count the two caucuses that weren't supposed to count?

it's not like they were disenfranchised illegitmately, the rules were set, and michigan and florida openly and defiantly broke those rules.
 the votes they cast will outside the rules should not count.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida

You're really going over the top. FL and MI broke the rules and paid the price. They ahve two choices:

1) Choose a slate of delegates under the rules. This can be either via caucus or primary. Primaries are more expensinve and since it was the state party that broke the rules, the state party must pick up the tab.

2) Apply to the credentials committee to seat a slate of delegates in July.

Those are the options. Gamble that the credentials committee will buy your argument and be completely meaningless in choosing the candidate or hold a primary or caucs within the rules and pick up the tab.

There are no other options.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-06 04:42PM | 0 recs
OH god

I am so sick and tired of people whining about Fl and MI.  Just do over the god damn thing and get it over with.  I will do anything to NOT hear Hillary yapping about it.

by rejectandenounce 2008-03-06 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

i'm not sure hpw many oregonians surf here, but in my opinion a mail in vote could easily be favorable to obama.

the importance of GOTV drives can be critical to success in a mail-in election.

simple things like not having stamps, or not wanting to go the mail box because of shiftlessness can actually come into play.

moreover, the nature of the system means that while some people might be to lazy to actually go to the polling stations, a well organized GOTV drive could go from house to house and effectively encourage a vote that might otherwise have been impossible to garner in a normal primary.
 this is something critical for obama.
he has a superior ground game and as such could have massive waves of volunteers immediately begin canvasing neighborhoods encouraging a obama vote and offering to take it right then, slap a stamp on it, and take it to a polling center or mailing facility.

the most important thing is that with his organizational strength, he can be doing this on day one of the vote in period. allowing him to start hitting up neighborhoods before hillary's campaign starts canvassing.

this can be critical, because when a candidates supporter is at your door explaining the virtues of a person, it could otherwise sway a vote then if they were by themselves in a poll.

and hey, if it's a pretty 23 year old college chick, with a nice smile, it's only more incentive.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

What a bunch of hypocrites some of you are.  MI and FL now have a chance to be counted and you b*** because you think the format will favor Obama.  Why don't you just admit that this was never about enfranchisement and only about manipulating the game so that Clinton could win?  Or, why don't you demand that Clinton fire Ickes since he got her into this mess?  

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

Don't forget McAuliffe. HE and Ickes both were on the rules committee and voted to strip delegates.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-06 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

florida and michigan should both hold caucuses, not primaries. No need for taxpayers to have to foot the bill for Florida's and Michigan's decision to break the rules.

by mecarr 2008-03-06 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

i think a florida primary and a michigan caucus is a fair compromise, that way no one can say that if obama wins both it's because they were both formats that were convenient for him.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-06 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility

I don't care if they both hold primaries. The STATE party has to pick up the tab.

They could hold an online fund raiser. I'm sure plenty of Hillary supporters would donate to the primary fund.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-06 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of

Anyone who thinks the Michigan vote back in January was fair shoud move to some 3rd world country where votes are considered fair even when the other major candidate wasn't on the ballot. Come on guys, let's give the people of Michigan a choice to choose one candidate over the other...and if Michigan wants to hold a caucus because they cannot afford a primary, then let them do the caucus.

by mecarr 2008-03-06 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of

Michigan is holding a caucus - but not the usual non-democratic type that disenfranchises so many.

by annefrank 2008-03-06 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

well, good. I'm glad this is getting handled this way. Also, if Nelson feels it necessary to have a primary, by all means he should have FL pony up the money for it. Florida very well knew what was at stake when they decided to bypass the DNC's threats.

but in any regard, I don't care if Hillary still ends up with 100% of the delegates this time around, this is the fairest thing to do.

by alex100 2008-03-06 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L
Who is going to pay for that??
Do Michigan over because only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot.  Leave Florida with the delegates as is, they were both on the ballot.  You can't disenfranchise 5 million people!
by Christines 2008-03-06 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Obama supporter here.  Even if this process causes Obama to lose and installs Clinton as the Democratic candidate, I would support a re-election in MI and FL, because its the right thing to do.  Also, if Hillary does win the presidency, it would be very satisfying to see the right wing crazies blow their tops.

I like Hillary, but I voted for Obama.

by agpc 2008-03-06 03:25PM | 0 recs
yeah, hillary is changing the rules

in the middle of the process is not gonna piss many voters off.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 03:34PM | 0 recs
Seat the delegates

from the previously held contests. Give Obama all of the undeclared votes in MI.

Move on.

by Coldblue 2008-03-06 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Seat the delegates

Why in the world would you give the undeclared votes to Obama? Because he wasn't on the ballot? Either was I. Give me the undeclared votes. It makes just as much sense, don't you think?

by NJ Liberal 2008-03-06 05:17PM | 0 recs
Placate the Obama campaign

and I don't believe that the do-over would produce a decidedly different result.

by Coldblue 2008-03-06 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Placate the Obama campaign

Well I imagine Obama would get more votes than 0 in Michigan this time.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-06 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Obama CHOSE not to take part in the MI vote...Dodd, Biden, etc. stayed on the ballot as did Clinton, while Obama and Edwards took themselves off.  So, why should there be a do-over????

by Gloria 2008-03-06 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Because they were told it wouldn't count.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: another Boneheaded mistake

By the DNC?  Yes.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-07 05:39AM | 0 recs
Biden wasn't on the ballot either

Kucinich (who tried to remove his name - his filing to do so was late), Dodd and Gravel were.

But Michigan and Florida broke the rules. Right now they have zero delegates and a re-vote is really a favor for Hillary. She doesn't see it that way because she is trying to game the system, but it is a favor.

She isn't going to get them seated as is and if she insists on it - then neither FL or MI are going to have delegates to the convention. Thats the way it is and the Super Delegate's will see all the money Obama can raise and they'll flock to him to end this thing anyway. They'll go to Obama because they'll want a piece of the money that he can generate with his enormous donor base.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-03-06 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

A quote from a poster on Hillary's blog who lives in Florida:

"(BTW...I feel a revote is unfair to those of us that actually did care enough about the process to go down and vote)"
by AmQuietOne at 3/6/2008 3:57:15 PM

I agree. It's inherently unfair for those primary votes to be ignored. It wasn't their fault that the Republicans moved the FL primary up. It isn't fair of the DNC to disenfranchise the states of MI and FL. Hasn't Florida had enough problems with making their votes count? This time, it's on the DNC and shame on them if they don't count the votes. A do-over is just plain unfair.

As for Michigan, blame the Dems in the state legislature for that one. They don't even want to discuss a do-over. If they do, the only way to do it properly is with a direct substitute for what they had--a real primary.

The best thing the DNC can do at this point is allow the votes cast to stand.

by Nobama 2008-03-06 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

And what about all the people that would have voted but for the fact that they heard their votes wouldn't count?  People who cared the first time, when there was no indication that their votes would ever count, should certainly care the second time.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

to Lazeriath or anyone else:  "He won't get the uncommitted votes [from Michigan]. They go to nobody."

do you have any authority for this? Lots of conventions have had uncommitted delegates who go there and vote for someone. In this case, the uncommitted delegates in Michigan were elected in a flurry of a campaign to elect uncommitted delegates expressly to vote for Obama. Why should that be frustrated? Does any rule state that an uncommitted delegate is a non-existent delegate?

I think both states must have new primaries. The voters there have to have a real chance to participate in the party process.  We want them energized, not vengeful, when the general election comes. That is far more important than which candidate is benefited more in new primaries.

And vote by mail is a great solution. It would be far cheaper than a full-fledged primary, and would allow absentee voters and military personnel to fully participate. And the one big knock against vote by mail, that early voters might change their minds if they waited till a single day election, probably isn't much of an issue.

by anoregonreader 2008-03-06 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Maybe we should wait to see exactly what a 'caucus' would look like before tearing it down, huh?  It's not like they're all the same, anyway.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

For weeks you guys have been screaming about a re-vote, and now that it looks like it's gonna happen, you're claiming it isn't fair?

by Skaje 2008-03-06 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

"For weeks you guys have been screaming about a re-vote, and now that it looks like it's gonna happen, you're claiming it isn't fair?"

Oh, understand what's going on here. The Clinton campaign has no interest in fairness.  They are trying to win, by hook or crook at this point.  If the Fl and MI delegations are seated as-is, she will gain about 40 delegates from FL and she'll gain even more from MI, since Obama won't get any, since he wasn't on the ballot.  But if they re-vote, FL will probably wind up looking more or less like Ohio, which (based on available delegates) will gain her only about 20-25 delegates, and she could very well lose delegates in a MI caucus.  Which would leave her still over 100 behind Obama in pledged delegates.  She would have no case to make to superdelegates given the size of the lead in pledged (elected) delegates.

She will not agree to any sort of re-vote, since it won't help her.  Obama should really slam her for this.  Why won't she agree to re-votes?  Is she scared?

by davey jones 2008-03-06 05:22PM | 0 recs
Evening the score?

"it would also split the methods by which the contests are run, evening the score, if you will since on its face, a big state primary would be more likely to favor Clinton while a caucus generally favors Obama"

This is a stupid reason to have a caucus ... to even the score, but sacrifice democracy in the process?  Utterly incomprehensible.

Hillary should push for two primaries.  This is the only fair way to elect nominees.

by Sieglinde 2008-03-06 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

"Hillary should push for two primaries.  This is the only fair way to elect nominees."

Fine.  Have primaries.  Have caucuses.  Have something other than an uncontested race.  But I suspect, based on Hillary's statement today, she won't agree to either.

by davey jones 2008-03-06 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Is there a link to this quote that everybody is talking about?

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

"Is there a link to this quote that everybody is talking about?"

Link here:  

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp aign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview -clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html

Here are portions of the quote:

"I would not accept a caucus.  I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted.  I think that they want their votes counted.  And you know a lot of people would be disinfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. ... And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida.  I think Florida should be seated."

by davey jones 2008-03-06 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

Wow.  That doesn't come off as opportunistic at all.  I guess in Clinton's world it just sucks to be those voters who would have voted but didn't because they didn't think their votes would count.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:19PM | 0 recs
in negotiating, you always start at an extreme

of course in a negotiated process, all parties with any sense are going to make their first "offer" an extreme one, the best possible one that's beyond their wildest dreams.  they know that concessions will be made, so if you start where your "final offer" should be, you are going to end up losing a lot of ground.  

this is all part of the negotiating game.  

by chiefscribe 2008-03-07 07:23AM | 0 recs
we should stop thinking about seating as is

Dean has made very clear its not gonna happen. MAYBE the caucus in MI/as is in florida compromise, but even that seems unlikely.

lets all get behind a revote, its fair, democratic, and it certainly achieves the goal the states had in mind when moving the primaries.

by omar little 2008-03-06 06:05PM | 0 recs
Looking More Likely By The Day

Why dont we send Bill out to raise the funds?
He could use his library donor list

Im sure the saudis would kick in at least 10 million

by chriscizzila 2008-03-06 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L
Good first-hand account of the Michigan "caucus" process:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/0 2/11/definition-of-a-caucus/
by euripideandreams 2008-03-06 06:40PM | 0 recs
Let's make a deal

1.  Clinton and Obama agree to a 50% delagate penalty for the two states.

  1.  Michigan uncommitteds are pledged to Obama.
  2.  Florida results stand, and delegates are allocated propotionally.

We'd all like to have a redo, but these things cost money, and this money is badly needed for things like issue ads, congressional candidates, etc.  

If Obama can win Pennsylvania by getting refocused and backing hope with substance, he'll be able withstand the delegate hit from this agreement and and be a stronger nominee for it.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-06 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibility Of Michigan and Florida Do-Overs L

No do-overs.  Hillary killed it.

by Drummond 2008-03-06 09:29PM | 0 recs
I have the solution for Florida!

Obama should pay for the new primary.

Hear me out. I am not saying at all that any of this is his fault. The blame for this mess lies squares on the Florida legislature with a side order of the Clinton campaign for wanting to change the rules now and seat them.

But, if Obama offers to pay he wins good will for the general election, it undercuts Clinton's contention that she cares more about Florida's voters, it keeps the DNC happy, it keeps the democratic party from infighting (as much), and it makes Obama look like a diplomatic problem solver/deal maker.

He might still lose delegates as a result, but that only makes him look like the bigger person for taking on that risk in the name of the democratic process.

Thoughts?

by jrrl 2008-03-07 06:00AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


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