home
Florida Finalizes Mail In Revote Plan | 153 comments (153 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Craig Crawford's idea (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by echinopsia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:11:39 PM EST
Do more instead of Do-over

The Trail Mix Do-More Solution

Here's a solution: Only send ballots to registered Democrats who did NOT vote in the Jan. 29 primary (voting records show who voted and who didn't). That would cut almost in half the number of votes to process by mail. For choosing delegates to the national convention count both the new mail-in results and the original primary. Call it a Do-More instead of a Do-Over.

Barack Obama should have the advantage in the new mail-in balloting if his supporters are correct in arguing that many of his voters did not show up on Jan. 29 because they thought it would not count. Hillary Rodham Clinton obviously benefits from any solution that counts the primary she's already won by 17 percentage points.

Such pros and cons for each candidate should be a reason to consider this approach. No solution is going to work if it only benefits one side.



[ Parent ]
How is that fair (none / 0) (#22)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:17:12 PM EST
Hillary starts off with an 17 point lead?  

So the only thing Obama could hope for is to cut into her lead?  

Obama's argument is not that his supporters stayed home.  It's that the voters in Florida didn't know him or his message.  That is still the case with this solution.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by xspowr on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:29:28 PM EST
I'm not sure about the official position of the Obama campaign on the "voter turnout suppression" meme (if there has been an official statement), but I've certainly seen lots of chatter about that from Obama supporters on the blogs.

As for the "voters don't know him or his message" meme, I guess the 569,000 Florida voters that cast a ballot for him were operating on guesswork, and the 857,000 voters that cast a ballot for HRC didn't watch any television, listen to any radio, read any newspapers or blogs, do any independent research, or just plain missed the Obama ads that violated the no campaign pledge? And now they, and the voters that didn't turn out, will now get to know him? I've never been to Florida myself, but it's interesting to learn that it's hermetically sealed off from the rest of the country.  That being said, I agree, I don't like the "partial" plan. Let's seat them the way they are or do the whole thing over.

[ Parent ]

Didn't you know? (4.50 / 4) (#35)
by echinopsia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM EST
Floridians live in caves. NO TV, no newspapers, no Internet.

It's sad, really. They had no opportunity to learn about either candidate, but especially about Obama.

[ Parent ]

too much sunshine (4.00 / 2) (#40)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:37:45 PM EST
in the Sunshine State.  No clouds to part.  The light is already shining down.

[ Parent ]
Funny (none / 0) (#44)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:43:51 PM EST
Nothing like snark to really make a point.

I guess campaigning really doesn't do anything for the candidates.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#50)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:53:00 PM EST
Obviously the candidates are entitled to campaign.  But I think you overrate the importance of campaigning in the big states.

One of the reasons some of us attach significance to Hillary's wins in the biggest states - even though, for example, California will not be in play either way - is because the general election plays out a lot like a big-state primary.  You have to rely on TV ads, making headlines, and tools other than retail campaigning.

I expect Obama to work hard in Florida but that kind of state just isn't like Iowa where you can shake every hand.  We'll see how it plays out.

[ Parent ]

I simply (none / 0) (#57)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM EST
pointed to Obama's argument about Florida because someone was incorrect about what it was.  

I'm not sure I agree about the relevance of big state primaries.  I get what you're saying, but in the big states Hillary started with a tremendous advantage as well as control of most of the big state political machines.

Also the latino vote has really been the reason why Hillary has done so well in many big states.  

[ Parent ]

have you looked at a census lately? (none / 0) (#61)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:00:26 PM EST
Because Clinton's demographics stack a lot higher than Obama's.

As for the political machines, are you familiar with the one running Chicago?  How about John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy's?

[ Parent ]

Thats true but why do people always (none / 0) (#90)
by Salt on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
mention Obama growth areas what missing in that story Ms Pelosi for example seems to belive Obama brings the growth?

[ Parent ]
Just for the record (none / 0) (#102)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:34:50 PM EST
there is no "Kennedy machine" in Mass., nor is there a "Kerry machine."  Neither guy has had significant opposition, so no need to have one. (Kennedy did have a tough race with Romney way back when, but the fact that it was tough actually underlines the fact that he had and still has no machine.)

Mass. voters are pretty notorious for making up their own minds on stuff, and they've been badly bummed by their own post-election experience with an inspirational reformer who ran on a somewhat vague platform.  Deval Patrick's endorsement of Obama almost certainly hurt him more than helped him in Mass.

(speaking as a recent ex-Massachusettsian, if I can figure out how to spell it...)


[ Parent ]

I meant their mailing lists (none / 0) (#106)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:44:31 PM EST
and fundraiser lists.  I got six billion mailers from each of them.  I wish I was exaggerating.  They might not need MA, but they have friends with deep pockets.

[ Parent ]
As someone from Mass.... (none / 0) (#104)
by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:37:58 PM EST
Not much of a political machine for Kennedy or Kerry.  They both always get elected, and then we kinda forget about them and expect them to do their jobs as liberals in the senate, they have never really had to campaign here.  Honestly, I think local politicians (mayors, etc...) have much more "muscle" here, and they went pretty strongly for Clinton.

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#63)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:02:51 PM EST
The Latino vote is pretty important for Dems in the general as well.

All I'm saying is that there's a big difference between states where you can shake every hand and those where you can't.

[ Parent ]

How many Latinos (none / 0) (#64)
by auntmo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:04:22 PM EST
voted  in   Ohio,  Fly?

[ Parent ]
maybe they were some of those (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:05:53 PM EST
"vaguely Latinos" that the Times piece was talking about?


[ Parent ]
Kathy (none / 0) (#103)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:35:41 PM EST
that's at least the third time you've made me laugh out loud this evening.  Thanks!

[ Parent ]
My point (none / 0) (#89)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
wasn't that latinos are the only people voting for Hillary.  That would be silly.  But it would be silly to suggest that the latino vote didn't give Hillary Texas and California.  

[ Parent ]
Obama has a ton of cash. (none / 0) (#146)
by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:55:34 AM EST
Have you not noticed that he crushed her in money in Jan. and Feb? The difference in just those two months was something like $30+ million. He can and will get on TV, both now and in the fall.

Some other hurdle you care to set up??

[ Parent ]

You don't understand (none / 0) (#149)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:00:43 AM EST
Obama has shown the ability to win votes through retail campaigning.  He has not shown the ability to win votes through TV advertising and other GE-suitable techniques alone, as his showing in the large states demonstrates.

Money was no object for him before any of the other big-state primaries, so I don't see any reason he would be able to buy Florida if he couldn't buy the other states.

[ Parent ]

I see your point. (none / 0) (#150)
by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:26 AM EST
But I also see a lot of value in the fact that he was able to compete in a lot of those places. Sen. Clinton had huge leads on him, but he closed gap after gap, and ended up winning a whole bunch of places.

He finished within like 8 points of her in CA. That's pretty impressive when you consider her margin among women, Latinos, and Asians.

He also kept her from breaking 60% in NY. That's her home state. She should have beaten him badly.

So, I still argue that his combo is best suited to win in the fall. We can certainly disagree, though.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#151)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:41:32 AM EST
if we do have a re-vote in Florida, it provides an excellent test case for whether the type of GE-style campaigning I'm talking about can make a big difference for Obama.  Certainly if there's a big difference between the January vote and the new one, that has to tell you something.

[ Parent ]
huh? (none / 0) (#141)
by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:12:43 PM EST
they have been campaigning for a year.

[ Parent ]
It's a very insulting argument: (none / 0) (#116)
by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:59:01 PM EST
If only you get close enough to BO, you will become a believer.
Ugh.

[ Parent ]
Are you denying that Clinton's (none / 0) (#147)
by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:56:44 AM EST
16 years of fame in Washington was not an advantage in a race where Obama made no personal appearances in the state?

Is that what you wanna go with?

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#148)
by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:57:20 AM EST
I meant denying it was a difference.

[ Parent ]
I think that's true. It wouldn't be fair. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by derridog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:41:31 PM EST
The do-over needs to be perceived as fair by both sides, but if Obama's people don't quit badmouthing it, it won't be. If he becomes the nominee and has alienated the Floridians, that can't be good for him. I think he should just accept this as the best he can get.

[ Parent ]
So things are only "fair" if (none / 0) (#60)
by kenosharick on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:59:55 PM EST
they are set up to help obama? Like caucuses are "fair," but superdelegates are "unfair," right?

[ Parent ]
Officially there was no vote last time (none / 0) (#33)
by ruffian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:30:40 PM EST
According tp the DNC rules, that Jan. primary is invalid and it is as if it never happened.  The votes cast then do not count.  The only way to do anything is from scratch.

[ Parent ]
No (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by xspowr on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:49:19 PM EST
The DNC rules do not mandate that the January results are invalid and that "it is as if it never happened." The DNC has penalized FL and MI by stripping those states of delegates; however, the DNC rules provide for the reversal of that decision by the Credentials Committee (politically unlikely, but perfectly within the rules), which would permit the seating of those delegations as is.  Sorry to pick nits, but blanket statements like the "Jan. primary is invalid" is simply wrong, and conflates the validity of the results with the DNC's decision to disregard those results as a penalty.  There is therefore nothing theoretically wrong with the "add on" approach under the DNC rules, as the rules do not render the original votes invalid (i.e., there may be other arguments on that point, but the rules themselves will not provide you with authority vis-a-vis validity).

[ Parent ]
Actually (none / 0) (#51)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:53:06 PM EST
as far as I understand it the primary delegates are stripped.  That's a done deal.  

They can try and have a revote that can be approved by the DNC or they can appeal to have their delegates certified.  But that delegate count can be based on anything they want.  

However the primary delegates themselves have been ruled null and void.

[ Parent ]

wrong, see credential cmte above (none / 0) (#53)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:55:53 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Did you read what I said? (none / 0) (#68)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:08:37 PM EST
The credentials committee can seat delegates for whatever reason they want.  

Can't find the actual rules but I did find this pretty interesting

[ Parent ]

CC (none / 0) (#69)
by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:09:01 PM EST
No, they also have the right to appeal to the credentials committee.  The CC isn't 'sat' until late in the season.  The CC is split between Obama and Clinton so this would not be resolved by them, there is no majority. Then there is the rules committee (I don't remember, I think 24 or 28 members).  The rules committee support a re-vote.

[ Parent ]
That's not how I read it (none / 0) (#74)
by xspowr on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:12:12 PM EST
The states can apply to the Credentials Committee to seat the delegates as is, to my understanding; much of the discussion about seating the existing delegations has revolved around whether HRC or BHO partisans will control that committee, and that in turn will determine whether the delegations are seated, and (as I think you suggest) any potential alternate allocation of delegates. Nothing, however, prevents the current delegations from being fully recognized by the Credentials Committee, which may overturn the penalty decision of the Rules Committee as it see fit. More to the point, however: the post I was replying to claimed that the original voting results themselves would be invalid for purposes of an "add-on" type of do-over, and was grounding that point by an appeal to the DNC rules, which do not support that conclusion.

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (none / 0) (#86)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST
my point was more of a technical point than a practical one.  

According to the link I posted upthread, the credential committee is comprised predominantly of controls the most delegates.  So it is unlikely they would allow them to be seated.  But then it would go to the floor which could get interesting.

[ Parent ]

Florida Finalizes Mail In Revote Plan | 153 comments (153 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft