Looking for a way out of the Florida/Michigan impasse
The reality is, the punishment was never really supposed to matter. Florida and Michigan were breaking the party’s rules by moving their primaries up, and they were willing to accept the DNC’s punishment as a consequence, but everyone acted with a wink and a nod — once a candidate emerged in the primaries as the nominee, the states’ delegates would get seated anyway.
Of course, given the state of the competition, it’s obviously not working out that way. How to proceed has quickly become a dominant point of discussion in Democratic circles.
With the two Democratic presidential candidates in near-deadlock and battling for every delegate, party leaders and the rival campaigns started searching in earnest on Thursday for a way to seat barred delegations from Florida and Michigan. But they remained deeply divided over how to do so.
After weeks in which the issue hovered in the background, it shot to the forefront of the Democratic race as it became apparent that the delegates at stake could be vital in influencing whether Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the nomination.
Mrs. Clinton won the most votes in primaries in Florida and Michigan in January. But the states held their contests earlier than allowed by the Democratic National Committee’s rules, leading the party to strip them of their delegates to the nominating convention. Neither candidate campaigned actively in the two states, and Mr. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.
Obviously, because the rule-breaking states would be a huge boon to her campaign, Clinton wants to scrap the punishment and have her “victories” honored, even if it means changing the rules in the middle of the game.
The more likely scenarios seem to involve a second round of contests in Florida and Michigan that would count. Though there’s considerable disagreement about how do-over contests would be paid for, the Clinton camp, as of yesterday, “signaled that they were open to a revote under certain conditions.” Harold Ickes, a top Clinton adviser, told the NYT, “We haven’t ruled out rerunning these contests.”
His boss, however, may feel differently.
In fact, Clinton seems to be taking the opposite position.
In an interview published last night in U.S News, Hillary Clinton stated her opposition to any new caucuses in Michigan or Florida — a form of election where on-the-ground organization has benefitted Barack Obama.
“I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted,” Hillary said. “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.”
Hillary also stated her opposition to “any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida.”
It’s a little hard to know for sure how inflexible Clinton may be on this point. Her comments to U.S. News came on Wednesday, and her campaign was saying something very different yesterday, when intra-party discussions began in earnest. It’s possible Clinton’s remarks on Wednesday were just bravado, and that she’s more open to negotiation than she let on. (That said, I suspect she’d continue to oppose caucuses under any circumstances, given that she almost always loses caucuses as opposed to primaries.)
The fight over money, meanwhile, is no small matter. The states don’t want to foot the bill for another contest, and the DNC can’t afford it.
Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, and Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, a Republican, have jointly called on the national party to resolve the situation. Aides to both said on Thursday that they were seeking a solution that did not require either state to pay for new elections.
Ms. Granholm, a Clinton supporter, said Thursday that there would be a noisy protest at the Democratic convention if the Michigan delegation was not seated. But she left open the possibility of a new Democratic primary, as long as the taxpayers or the state party do not have to foot the bill.
“If there is a redo, it has to be inclusive,” she said. “Whatever it is would have to be a primary-like election.”
Florida officials said rerunning a statewide primary could cost as much as $18 million, which some state officials consider prohibitive. “A revote is not going to happen,” said Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton.
Michigan officials did not estimate the cost of a new election, but party leaders involved in negotiating a solution said that a full statewide election, as opposed to a caucus, could cost as much as $10 million.
Caucuses would be considerably cheaper, but Clinton won’t want to take the risk.
What a mess.
I think what we need to ask ourselves is what is best — for Hillary.
While I realize that in a heated primary season every candidate is looking out for their own self-interest, Hillary’s blatant and obvious maneuvers to that effect are absolutely breathtaking.
As a Michigan democrat, I would be upset to see the delegates seated because Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. Hardly a choice for us. Clinton only won as big as she did for this reason.
I will say it again: the one way I would *not* be able to vote for Hillary, should she somehow manage to win the nomination, is if she does it by getting the delegates seated based on these bogus “contests”.
If I was a Florida or Michigan Democratic voter, I would be kind of bitter about not being able to participate in the nomination due to the state’s party refusal to follow national party rules.
So I really hope they figure out a way to “do-over” the elections.
I heard a story on NPR this morning that Howard Dean told Senator Nelson that a new primary could be funded by soft money… anyone know more about that?
Take note, Clintonistas….Hillary only champions your “sacred right to vote” when you vote for her. Vote for the other guy and apparently you can go to hell, for all she cares. Propose an equitable solution and you can go to hell on that one too.
The Democratic party has sanctioned the state delegations to their convention for deliberately breaking party rules. Why hasn’t the party sanctioned the candidates who broke the rules?
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson all withdrew from the Michigan ballot.
If there is a re-vote in Michigan, the primary candidates who broke the rules should be disqualified from the ballot.
OTOH, if Michigan and Florida get seated, we may lose the election in November when her royal majesty gets her clock cleaned… But Iowa and New Hampshire can kiss their first-in-the-nation status goodbye unless they schedule Their 2010 elections on the first Wednesday of November this year.
Let’s take the good with the bad.
Revote June 8th.
Not sure who will be paying, but should innocent parties pay for the state legislatures’ arrogant blunder?
The really embarrassing thing about Clinton’s Michigan “victory” is how narrow it was. She only got 55% of teh vote with essentially no one else on the ballot.
45% of voters in Michigan got motivated enough to go to the polls and to vote for “anyone but hillary”
Reposted from yesterday:
As a Floridian, I believe that the “delegates” as is are tainted, because there was no campaigning done here.
What we need is for Obama & Clinton to come here and campaign (I would put that in caps, but you guys don’t need that). Then hold a new type of open vote, where the Democrats can pull in the indepenants, too. A mail-in vote open to all but registered Republicans could do this.
Floridians would get fired up with our candidates coming here, and we can’t get complacent about this election. As it is, the stupid (again, caps appropriate) Democratic leadership here screwed the voters here by agreeing to the Republican lead.
It would be worth $25 million to take the 4th largest state, no?
It was not the voters that did the stupid dance, the fact that this outcome was possible was not reported to the majority prior to the passage of the “Let’s be all important” bill moving the date up.
It was the legislature’s fault, so don’t punish the voters! The voters did not know the possible outcome. And this will supress the Democratic vote, to boot! You want McBush to get Florida because the Republicans sold the Democrats down the river?
Let the voting be late, but let’s get the Democratic 50% of voters in Florida up to over 50%+1 & have whichever Dem that gets the nomination win those electoral votes!!
Having the candidates campaign here will fire up the Democrats. We can win Florida
America must begin to stand up for her democracy. We cannot allow anyone to further take our Democracy from us, be it the Clintons’, the Bush’s or anyone else. In the current delegate controversy, Camp Clinton must follow the Rules like everyone else and not be allowed to change the game in the middle. They know this. They cannot be allowed to Cheat the System for their own aggrandizement and selfish grasping of power. There must be a fair and equitable resolution to this matter.
As for Hillary’s superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and so she voted Yes on a War/Mistake that should have never been waged instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, that we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911, but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifyingly ineligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surrounds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified. A Photo-op does not eras her Iraq vote or exonerate it. Camp Clinton loves to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is — Masters of Spin & Hype and Delusion, often busing people in to their events to make the crowd look bigger than it is!
Then there is the current Camp Clinton Mantra, that may be the American public are having second thoughts about Barack Obama, beginning to doubt him because he did not win in Ohio. That is such spin. They won Ohio because they slandered him and made people doubt that he is a true Christian and some secret closet Muslim instead. They duped him on Naftagate, when they were the initial culprits, somehow Rezko’s trial was pushed up to conincide with the primaries and the insinuation that Obama was a criminal too, just waitin to go down with Rezko. That is why people doubted him unfairly, because of old-time party politics, instituted by a “do anything and say anything mentality”, no matter the cost to the person and the party.
Those of us who care for our Democracy for the vetting of truth and for fair and accurate reporting must begin to call the main stream media to task. We can exercise our rights and our united power by calling CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the important questions they should be asking her, like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, a company accused of sexually harrasing women? Why have they not further discussed Camp Clinton’s initial call to Canada in the Naftagate controversy? Why do they continually bring up negative stories on Obama and soft question of her — like the press is bought and paid for, yet again! It is an illusion that the press has been hard on her and soft on Obama. That is a traditional Camp Clinton spin and we all know they are the Masters of Spin (that means in essence they do not speak the truth).
MEDIA OWES OBAMA AN APOLOGY AND UPDATE ON NAFATAGATE, CALL INITIATED BY CLINTON:
Naftagate was the work of an initial call from the Clinton camp and Bush’s Canadian allie, Stephen Harper in an attemp to sabotage Obama and the democrats, which they did!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
Brotherhood (1937) – 552: Do you wish to be courageous? Then prove your courage in battling for Brotherhood. Assurances alone will not create courage, nor will praises affirm achievement. No preparations can be a guarantee of success. Courage is tested by unexpected obstacles. I have already spoken about courage; if I repeat it, it means that this quality is especially needed on the path to Brotherhood
Let the Vetting Begin!
The problem I have is the irony of breaking the rules to become more important to the primary process, being punished for it, and ultimately having that punishment lead to an even greater importance in the primary process.
By breaking the rules, it now appears they are on their way to getting what they wanted.
That’s a terrible precedent, and one that will make the next Democratic primary a complete breakdown.
If they re-vote, I still think they should only be allowed to seat half their delegates.
Millions of potential voters were told, “your vote won’t count.” Many of those people, Obama and Clinton supporters alike, did not go out and vote for that reason. To seat Michigan and Florida delegations without giving these people a chance to vote would be disenfranchisement as well.
Dean just needs to put his freakin’ foot down and say, “Either it’s a redo of some sort, and everyone gets the opportunity to have their voice heard, or it’s nothing at all.”
I know it’s not really feasible, but I wish it were possible for states to have mandatory “holidays” on election/primary/caucus days. Or at least, like RI, they should have polls open for ~14 hours to include as many people as possible.
Edwards and Obama withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot when it was agreed that the Michigan delegates would not be seated. Clinton justified keeping her name on the Michigan Primary ballot stating: “It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything,” (See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_pf.html)
It is much easier to win when you are unopposed.
It is not always easy to see the consequences of mere words.
Obama and Hillary can each pony up half of the cost of a new primary in Michigan and Florida. LOL – Obama can raise his share of the cost in twenty minutes flat.
Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. If Clinton’s Michigan delegates are seated, I’d be very, very unhappy.
The turnout in the Florida primary was huge because Governor Crist had a controversial property tax propositon on the ballot. Clinton was favored then because she was the known candidate and Obama did not campaign here.
The single most important thing coming out of this year’s elections has to be a return to democracy, including checks and balances, oversight, no signing statements, no torture, no manipulations of elections, no political flunkies running executive agencies for the benefit of the party in charge, and no unitary executive. HRC does not share my views on this!
Why does it seem Hillary is the only one with a mouth lately? Why should she have any say in the matter? Does she really get to make a choice about what she is willing to do and can she actually negotiate? Seems the DNC would decide and give the ultimatum for an agreement to the terms, but she can’t do this election on her terms. Geez. Where are we?
My guess is that party leaders do not really want to resolve this issue because it is really very simple and cost effective to have a redo on the primaries in FL and MI.
First in FL law requires that 45 day notice be given for a special election therefore set a date and then open Open County Election Offices for 10 days for voting. Then divide the delegates by county rather than district. Meaning if 1 candidate got 55% and the other 45% that would be the split.
This would be fair to everyone and everyone that wanted to vote would have a chance to vote.
I only say having these revotes because neither candidate can get to 2025 without a hugh defection in superdelegates from the other side.
Obama needs to get ahead of this. He needs to give the money to the DNC, and the DNC should help both states run a mail in primary for registered Democrats and Independents. As soon as he offers the money, Clinton will match it, and all will be good again.
And the idiots that are running the Democratic Party in Michigan and Florida need to step down.
plambeachmaven: “Obama and Hillary can each pony up half of the cost of a new primary in Michigan and Florida. LOL – Obama can raise his share of the cost in twenty minutes flat.”
That would be the slickest solution, assuming Clinton would cooperate. However, doesn’t it seem a little weird to have candidates bankroll an election?
If only there was some concerned citizen in Florida and Michigan with $10-20 Million dollars to donate toward the cause of democracy.
Of course The Empress doesn’t want a “do over” – she wants it her way, she wants it now. The lying scumbag never meant a word of any promise she made last fall about “honoring” the party decision about those primaries – why else would she “leave” her name on the ballot?? She knew from the get-go she’d do this.
The goddamned Clintons have never been out for anyone or anything but themselves, and God save anyone who gets between one of them and what it is they want. How glad I am going to be when we get past the “shiny object” of her colossal ego and her arrogance.
Aww, the Michigan and Florida governors don’t want to pay for new elections. Well, that’s just too bad.
You broke the rules by moving up your primaries. Now you’re looking at the DNC to fund new votes, even though you only need new votes because of *your* rule-breaking? Not a chance.
If my son broke the window in his room and then “couldn’t afford” to pay for the replacement, too bad. It would still come out of his allowance. I hope Dean tells you the same thing, children.
I suspect much of this is grandstanding. She may be overly ambitious and even a little conniving, but she’s not stupid. She knows she has no chance if she does something so ludicrously unfair.
Imagine that – Florida in the center of another election controversy. Calls to seat those delegates as is are bogus. Those elections were tainted and everyone knows those votes lack legitimacy. If the talk is of disenfranchised voters, what about the voters that stayed home because they knew the elections wouldn’t count.
Sticking the Democratic party with the bill is a crock of sh*t. Why is it the rule breakers will get their cake and eat it too and those that followed the rules get stuck with the bill? How Republican of them.
It says a lot about the officials supporting Clinton asking for tainted delegates to be seated, rather than doing the hard thing and right thing. It smacks of political opportunism at the expense of being morally right, just as it was for Hillary to remain on the Michigan ballot when everyone else pulled out or when Hillary went to Florida before the primary despite promises to not campaign their due to appropriately timed fundraisers. It makes it very hard to like the woman after all this.
Here’s a nice discussion on the topic from last night’s NewsHour
Start with “Comparing election proposals.”
Ref #17
FL is a closed primary and one of the solutions being talked about is a mail-iin primary for all registered Democrats. MI is talking about a caucus.
Rethugs in the legislature in Florida are floating the idea of having ballots in November with no democratic choice for Pres if the delegates are not seated.
I think the cheapest way (sort of the status quo, which it appears no one wants) to take care of this is split the delegates 50/50.
Ref #22
Would you mind answering a simple question? How does Obama get to 2025 without FL and MI?
A few officials decided to break the rules, leaving dems in two states without a voice.
Everybody should have a chance to get their vote counted.
No dem campaigned in either state. With Obama not on the MI ballot, they really gotta do that one over.
As far as stooping, I don’t see Obama doing anything less than HRC, nor should he. If facts discredit your opponents claims, you should expose that.
I found this interesting
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
_______________________________________
And sheesh, this has religious overtones!
“I’m asking you to believe.”
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
But he’s got a facts sheet too
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
It’s time to let our brains do the thinking, not our fears and not our hearts.
I’m a Florida democrat and I’m against a re-vote for a number of reasons…
1. Both candidates agreed that because Florida and Michigan broke the rules, neither state would be allowed to have their delegates count. Neither candidate objected at that time.
2. With the above information, both candidates planned and are in the course of executing their campaigns accordingly.
3. Taxpayers have already funded this fiasco once. Why should we have to underwrite it twice?
4. If the promised punishment is rescinded and Florida and Michigan are allowed to get away with changing their dates, why wouldn’t other states change their dates in future elections?
5. You don’t change the rules halfway thru the contest.
6. It wasn’t just Florida’s republicans that changed the date, a majority of Florida’s democratic representatives also voted to change the date.
7. Senator Nelson said he already went to court to overturn the date change and lost.
The “experts” in the NewsHour piece claim it will cost $3 million for a mail in ballot in Florida. I’m going to start a new web site called “www.shutthef_ckupandvote.org” to collect contributions from around the country to fund the vote.
#23
I would personally contribute to financing new primaries in both MI and FL.
DAN GELBER: “Let’s help Florida count, and let’s help the voters get into this race and be engaged so that November we have a change of course in this country,”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june08/delegates_03-06.html
#29
URL is offensive. I guess you aren’t serious
#28
MI and FL are needed to break the virtual tie between HRC and Obama.
I keep recommending that they have a benefit concert with Bono, Springsteen, and other big name performers who support this kind of thing. But nobody seems to be with me in that. I was even thinking that as a safeguard, they warn people that if they don’t raise enough, they’ll end the show with a Barbara Streisand – Rosie O’Donnell duet. They could even throw in Celine Dion on that threat, as a way of apology for her country meddling in the last primary. They’d continue to perform non-stop until they met their fundraising goal.
Who’s with me, people?
#28: It’s important for Dems and Independents in Florida and Michigan to feel like they’ve had their say. It will help either nominee.
Tax payers should not foot the bill. Let the campaigns do it.
It’s not changing the rules to hold a new mail in ballot. Read the excerpt from the News Hour. (I’m just like a journalist now: repeating something I’ve heard without checking its validity.)
How about the campaigns pay for the revotes themselves? Either split it fifty/fifty or, better yet, according to the percentage of the vote gathered. Both get to look magnanimous, everyone gets their vote counted, and the winner gets a boost with some extra cost for the trouble.
Comeback Bill (26). Would you mind answering a simple question? How does Obama get to 2025 without FL and MI?
The 2025 is the number only if FL and MI don’t count. They would need 2207 if those two states count. Try this site for an explanation:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/ultimate-delegate-summary.html
I’ve got a question that somebody raised yesterday, but I didn’t see answered:
If Florida and Michigan delegates are seated, does this raise the overall number of delegates needed to win, or does it still stay at 2025? The person asking the question assumed it would go up, and if that’s the case, I fail to see how this solves much unless one of the candidates gets a clear majority of both states. But I thought that sounded wrong, and thought I should ask to find out if that’s true. Can anyone help me here?
#31: Yes, the URL is offensive, but not nearly as offensive as the actions of the idiots who thought it a good idea to move the dates.
I’ll happily contribute an equal amount to both campaigns if they fund the mail in ballot.
Being a Florida voter I can say that, aside from being pretty funny that we seem to be the center of election controversy once again, many people are not happy what turned out. We the people did not have anything to do with the primaries being moved up and, even without any delegates, over 1.4 million registered democrats voted that day. More than twice that of any other primary in history.
plambeachmaven is correct that Crist had the tax bill on the vote and helped the turnout. However, the tax bill was controversial because is sucks and provides minimal relief. There would have not nearly been the turnout had it been for the primaries. Plus every other state has either local elections and/or bills on the ballot as well.
Personally, the fairness of this issue is never going to be agreed upon because, like most things in life, both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The only people this is not fair to is the 1.4 million registered democrats who voted.
Either way you look at it, the DNC f–ed up and come November, this state is dead for the democrats.
Thanks #35 I was looking for that yesterday.
#38: Why would a mail in ballot funded by the campaigns be unfair to those who voted earlier? I would assume they would have voted on issues other than the nominee at that time, and that still counts…
Yes, it’s a hassle, but is it unfair?
MI and FL are needed to break the virtual tie between HRC and Obama. -Nell
I’m assuming that by ‘virtual tie’ you mean clear lead for Obama. Just a bit of a typo.
Manny from Miami (38): The only people this is not fair to is the 1.4 million registered democrats who voted.
Why just those 1.4 million? Why not the registered voters who didn’t vote because they were told it wasn’t going to count? What about the millions in other states that didn’t think they had to go first and now last? Try to think of this as karma for Florida voters’ collective soul, instead of
blaming the DNC for not letting your state choose where to position themselves at the expense of the other 49 states. And if Florida decides to vote Republican in November, Clinton supporters can expect more of the same next time. And it won’t be the fault of the DNC!
“they were willing to accept the DNC’s punishment as a consequence”
NOT TRUE. Florida Dems got this ramrodded through by a GOP-controlled Florida House and Senate. They were forced to move up the primary date by GOP Florida pols who knew that disenfranchising Florida Democrats would inure to their benefit.
Heimyankel #28: “Both candidates agreed that because Florida and Michigan broke the rules, neither state would be allowed to have their delegates count.”
Ah, but a revote would be within the scheduling rules.
In theory, taxpayers ought to pay for a revote, and stick the parties with the tab for the January nonsense.
Florida Dems got this ramrodded through by a GOP-controlled Florida House and Senate. -Todd and in Charge
Please stop perpetuating this myth. Florida Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly supported it. You only need to take a moment to look up the votes.
The House voted 118-0 on Thursday to pass the measure.
So spare the me indignation. Not a single Democrat in the Florida House voted against it.
You have the internet and a brain. Try using them simultaneously.
doubtful (45) There were Dems at the time who were claiming that the only reason they voted for this is that the Reps were only willing to overhaul the voting procedures if it was attached to this Primary change. That’s not to say they all felt this way, but it was the argument some were making.
But there is a much bigger issue here. Over 4000 American soldiers are dead and perhaps over a million Iraqis and Afghanis as well. Why? Partially because about half of all American voters were too lazy or stupid to pay attention to the Bush 2000 campaign. Partly because a lot of people gave top priority to gay marriages, AK47’s for hunter, and lower taxes. Partly because Dems and Reps alike didn’t fight for fair voting procedures in Florida. Partly because voters in some districts of Florida didn’t care enough to make sure their ballots were clearly marked. Partly because Bush lied. Any one of these would have prevented these disasters.
Hillary Clinton voted for AUMF. Was she deceived? Her husband had access to Presidential Daily Briefs. She had more access to the best advisors from the Clinton administration than any other Senator. As she is showing in this year’s campaign, it is easier to court voters who are dumber than shit than to make a principled decision.
OK, first let’s clear up a couple of things…
If Michigan and Florida delegates are not seated, that is NOT disenfrachisement!!! Blacks were disenfranchised in the South for decades through Jim Crow laws…you do NOT have a right to vote in a primary election. That is a privilege extended to you by the national party organizations as a way for them to help pick their candidate. If the DNC wanted to, they could have 4000 superdelegates, and 50 pledged delegates, effectively telling the American people that they don’t care what they think. That’s obviously bad for business, but in this close of an election, it will turn out effectively to be the same thing.
Just to reiterate…in a primary election, you don’t elect ANYONE. You are picking a nominee, not a government office. You do NOT have a right to vote in a primary.
Everyone is getting uptight about Michigan and Florida not counting. OK, let’s just think about the possible outcomes here.
1. Status quo – neither delegation is seated, Obama wins the nomination, Hillary supporters outraged. In this case, the DNC at least has the rules on their side, and Hillary knew going in to the primary that this would happen. FL goes from likely blue to toss-up, and general election is close as a result.
2. MI and FL votes count, either through revote or reversing the decision not to seat them, and Obama still wins. Best possible scenario for party unity. Obama wins general election easily.
3. MI and FL revote, and Hillary wins. Obama camp is outraged, there’s a general feeling that Hillary manipulated the system, suddenly the national election is a toss-up instead of a likely Democratic victory.
4. MI and FL delegates are seated as-is, and Hillary wins. Obama camp is apoplectic, nationwide feeling that Hillary stole the election, Republicans laugh their heads off…Dems cruise to a resounding defeat in 2008. Obama elected overwhelmingly in 2012, thanks in part to people feeling like he got screwed in 2008.
So as I see it, in the scenarios where Obama gets the nod, you have a likely victory and a toss-up, whereas where Hillary gets the nom, you have a toss-up and a likely defeat.
So to me, the course is clear. Just nominate Edwards and confuse the hell out of everybody. 🙂
Anyone familiar with campaign finance laws here? Because I’m pretty sure you can’t just “donate money” and have the state hold an election. That’s an especially big conflict of interest if you’re talking about the candidates themselves paying for the election! Absurd!
Just like the candidates can’t just take all the leftover cash they have from the primary and put it toward the general election. There are millions of laws governing where that money can and cannot come from, and where it can and cannot go.
Danp
In years past when Fla did not break the rules, both Democrats and Independents were allowed to cast votes. This year was a closed election and still 1.4 million registered democrats in a historic republican state came out to vote; more than twice than previous years. I call that a pretty good argument that the voters in this state want to be heard. The millions of other registered voters in other states you mentioned had votes that actually counted for something.
The ones to blame are the overeager State congress who decide to move the primary so that we could create a bigger role in the nominating process(boy did they get there wish!)and the DNC for creating an unfair punishment and this creating a no win situation. However the one thing I do not blame is karma. Florida would probably had gone blue this year; but not a chance in hell of that.
Manny from Miami (49) : The ones to blame are the overeager State congress who decide to move the primary so that we could create a bigger role in the nominating process
… which you elected. And therein lies our only point of agreement!
…and the DNC for creating an unfair punishment… -Manny from Miami
The rules and consequences were known in advance the the legislature was allowed corrective action which they did not take. You may think the punishment was more than was warranted, but since only two states broke the rules and were both given the same treatment, it was anything but unfair.
…and the DNC for creating an unfair punishment
Check the record: I think you’ll find that your (state) representatives in the DNC voted for all of those rules and the punishment for breaking those rules.
It’s tough to make the argument that the punishment is unfair. Stupid maybe, but not unfair.
It should also be a good time right now to bring up the fact that Clinton agreed with the rules—and the consequences for breaking the rules—long before the votes took place.
But then again, that’s back when she was known as “Miz Inevitable.” things are much different now that she’s looking like “Miz Also-Ran….”
#53: Think of this from a different angle: Obama is the first to come up with a solution to have all of the voter’s voices in Michigan and Florida be heard by funding the mail in ballot. Get it out there first, and go big with it. Eventually Clinton will have to chip in so that it’s fair.
And in the end, let them duke it out in a fair fight for both Michigan and Florida.
Can’t we just settle this with a Celebrity Deathmatch? 🙂
Yeah I can live with comments 50-52, makes sense.
NOT TRUE. Florida Dems got this ramrodded through by a GOP-controlled Florida House and Senate
This Clinton talking point is another, shall we say, misstatement. My understanding is that only one Florida Democrat voted against moving the primary date. If so, live with the consequences of your actions.
For Clinton supporter Jennifer Granholm to be whining about anything is disgusting. She can’t do her job as governor. Under her guidance, Michigan put on a sham election for the benefit of Hillary Clinton. She wants her delegation seated even though the farce primary she put on didn’t even have the name of the other candidates on the ballot. That’s getting into Fidel Castro territory. She should shut up, or maybe even resign.
As for Hillary Clinton, I know Peggy Noonan is crazy but she has one good sentence her column today. Speaking of Clinton she says, “She will wear down a great nation”. Her relentless partisanship on her own behalf is just wearying. She will, in fact, do anything to win whether fair or not. She cares about nothing except herself. Much of what the Republicans have said about her for years is absolutely true.
2. MI and FL votes count, either through revote or reversing the decision not to seat them…
Question: assuming the delegate apportionment is like every other state (proportional, not winner take all) and the MI 45% none-of-the-above vote goes to Obama (as the not-Hillary option), how many delegates does that actually work out to for each campaign? I’m guessing its a net difference of maybe 20-30?
If that’s the case, why not allow them to be seated? Obama still is way out in front on the delegate count.
You know, the funny thing about having “do-over” elections is that in all likelihood the split will be pretty close to even in both places, perhaps within 10% one way or the other for each state. Unfortunately, I don’t think we could ever agree to just assign a 50/50 split for both states because it would lack legitamacy.
And although I believe the state legislatures are to blame for this mess, the truth is, a re-do is necessary to put it behind us in a way that most people could accept.
And to not include two whole states in the process would make us look like monkeys to the rest of the world. Some pillar of democracy.
And by the way….I said this in another post, but I wonder why the Obama campaign doesn’t make more out of Clinton’s claim of victory in Texas. The fact is Texas has a two step process for selecting its delegates, a primary followed by a caucus. When you add the two results together, Obama–not Clinton–won Texas. This makes March 4 a split decision with each candidate winning two states.
59. independent thinker said
That’s true, but I think Clinton’s point is that to win electoral votes in the general election, you just need the popular vote, which she got. The question is, would Texas really go blue, even though the Dems had a higher turnout? And moreover, if it goes blue for Hillary, wouldn’t it also go blue for Obama (they were pretty close, after all)
This isn’t such a difficult issue to resolve. Conduct a raffle selling I Love Obama and I Love Hillary buttons to the general public at $20 a pop. The candidate that sells the most buttons gets to decide how the Florida and Michigan do-over will be conducted and the cost will be covered by raffle proceeds. Any surplus funds will be handed to the winning candidate as part of the general election fund. My cut is a new Ferrari.
Edo
how many delegates does that actually work out to for each campaign? I’m guessing its a net difference of maybe 20-30?
If that’s the case, why not allow them to be seated? Obama still is way out in front on the delegate count.
Well it is not quite that easy. Not only are the pledged delegates not seated in Mi/Fla, in now infamous superdelegates of each state are not seated as well. Down here we have 25 superdelegates while Michigan I am not sure. Now it may not sound like a lot but add the two in each state and now your pushing more the 30-40 delegate count(if not more depending on the unpledged) and add that to the measly 12 delegate swing from Tuesday and starts to be more significant.
Addison #60
True, but this isn’t the general election. This is the Deocratic Party primary and proportional delegate allotment is the means by which the party selects its nominee. Besides, neither Clinton or Obama are likely to win Texas in the general.
My question was more about wondering why the Obama campaign isn’t doing more to discredit Clinton’s claim of victory in Texas. I would think he would be hammering home the point that HE, not SHE will earn more delegates from Texas and that her claim of a great comeback just isn’t accurate.
Since his main argument for why he should be the nominee (other than his rhtoric of unity and better judgement) is that the process is all about earning delegates and that he will likely arrive at the conventiontion with more pledged delegates, he should be taking every opurtunity to remind folks of who is winning by those criteria.
This year was a closed election and still 1.4 million registered democrats in a historic republican state came out to vote; more than twice than previous years.
Manny – But EVERY state is having huge Dem turn-out for the primaries, including my homestate of Texas, which had more people vote in this primary than all the people who voted for Kerry in 2004. You cite that 1.4 million Dems voted in this primary, yet 3,583,544 people voted for Kerry in Florida in your “historic republican state”. And while not all of those were Democrats, CNN’s exit polls show that 37% of all voters that year were Dems and that Kerry won 85% of them; which means that Kerry had 2,393,285 Democrats vote for him. That’s almost one million more Dems for Kerry than the number who voted in your primary. And unless Florida was one of the few states where Democratic numbers went down, there should be even more Democrats there four years later.
And all the same, those numbers show that there were 2,815,629 Democrats in Florida in 2004. That’s more than double the number you say voted in this primary. I fail to see how that proves your point. It’s all guesswork of course, but I have a strong feeling that more people would have voted in the primary if they thought it would be included. And I’m sure that a revote would dwarf the number of Dems who voted in the mock primary.
Oh, and just to help you out, CNN says there were over 1.6 million people who voted in your primary. But still, it’s obvious that a whole lot of Democrats didn’t vote in your primary.
63. independent thinker said
I think Obama has a lot more than that to suggest he should be the nominee…he’s winning the national popular vote in the primary; many polls show he is more likely to beat McCain than Hillary is.
Furthermore, Obama doesn’t really need to convince voters that he won more delegates in Texas…at the end of this process, he is going to have more delegates no matter what anyone thinks. What both candidates need at this point are convincing arguments to persuade superdelegates to support them, because that is where the final decision will rest.
But I agree…Obama should win Texas when all the delegates are counted (which will be awhile), and the good PR for that certainly won’t hurt him with voters.
I don’t think I got an answer to #36, so I’ll ask again:
If we include Florida and Michigan primaries, does that increase the overall number of delegates that are needed to clinch the nomination, or is it still 2025?
I assumed it was still 2025, but after I read someone else ask that question yesterday, I thought it should be clarified. If the number goes up, then there’s really little point in doing a re-do.
Doctor Biobrain:
Wikipedia is your friend.
Not only are the pledged delegates not seated in Mi/Fla, in now infamous superdelegates of each state are not seated as well. -Manny from Miami
Is that true? I was pretty sure it only affected the state delegates. Does it really effect the supers too?
Haha, I’m a dumbass. I used ‘affect’ and ‘effect’ both in my last comment. TFIG, right.
Let’s not forget that Crist wants the delegates seated because it benefits Hillary. There were rumors today of Crist being asked to be McSame’s running mate. Maybe as a reward for the votes that McSame will get when the “base” becomes solidified against a Hillary presidency? Just asking…
I think someone should take up a plate to help the states pay for a new primary.
Also, saying Clinton only won while none of the above was an option is kinda childish.
Dan – Thanks, but I couldn’t find the answer to it there (not that I had looked before). Perhaps I just missed it.. All I could find was that 2,024 was a simple majority of all delegates, but it didn’t mention if the full number of delegates included FL and MI. I’m assuming it does, but assumptions aren’t really what I was looking for.
66…Yes, the total number of delegates to clinch the nomination was calculated based on every state’s delegates participating. Bringing FL and MI back into the mix doesn’t change that number — it is still 2025.
AND…superdelegates are NOT affected by the rule-breakage, only the pledged delegates are locked out.
Dr. Biobrain good point. I got the “twice as many” from the local news here, guess next time I should check the source. However the state senate and house are very republican with nearly two thirds of their numbers made up of the GOP. Also of course we followed our 8 year reign of Jed Bush(which i actually like) with Crist. Plus I would be curious to see how many registered democrats are in Broward County which make up the bulk of our registered democrats. So from that I’d say we are pretty conservative although a shift may happen.
BTW McCain was asked if Kerry was going to be his running mate. He took a microsecond to answer
The fight over money, meanwhile, is no small matter. The states don’t want to foot the bill for another contest, and the DNC can’t afford it.
And I’m supposed to be convinced that people from the Democrat Party are actually able to run the country? They can’t even handle their own BIG election fiascoes. Have the superdelegates pay for it, or Screamin” Howie Dean. Pelosi has the cash, as I mentioned in another thread. How about the Kennedys? Time to put Teddy’s daddy’s bootlegging money to some use. Or Oprah; instead of funding Obama, she can pay for an election.
The great Democratic Party. Sheesh!!!
So from that I’d say we are pretty conservative although a shift may happen.
Manny, as a liberal who has lived his entire adult life in Texas, FL doesn’t look so conservative to me. Gore should have won it in 2000, and I believe Clinton won it in 1996, though he lost it in 1992. Sounds like you’re a battleground state to me, even if Bush won it by 5 points in 2004. Texas is slowly treading to the left, especially as the Hispanic population grows; but it’ll still be awhile until it becomes a battleground.
As for your “twice as many” claim, that’s true as far as primaries were concerned. I was just saying that far, far more Dems voted in the general election in 2004. And that’s because Florida didn’t matter in the 2004 primary, so people didn’t turn out. But the point isn’t whether more people turnout for the primary, but of how many Democrats turned out compared with voting Democrats. And as we saw, John Kerry got way more Democrats voting for him than the number of people who came to your primary this time. That means you’ve got a lot of voting Democrats who still didn’t vote in the primary. I’m sure the number will vastly increase if you get a re-vote.