home

The MI/FL Solution

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:51:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

I have the solution for the Florida/Michigan disaster. Seat half of the Michigan and Florida delegations based on the existing results. Then schedule a Florida primary and a Michigan caucus primary in mid-May. If there is no need because Obama has already locked up the nomination in April, then, seat all the delegation based on the existing results and cancel the May contests.

This enfranchises those voters who voted previously AND ensures that Obama gets a fair shot at winning those two states. And it would be a great tiebreaker for deciding the nominee if we are still deadlocked come May. No one could complain could they? Someone will win this thing fair and square and then we can unify.

What am I missing? Is that not a brilliant solution?

Update (TL): Comments are closed now, more than 225 of them, thanks for your thoughts.

< A Good MoDo Column, Really | Federal Judge Tosses Ghost Air Lawsuit >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The MI/FL Solution | 227 comments (227 topical)
    This may be the perfect solution, except (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:57:27 PM EST
    that when I started reading I thought you were proposing a singlefootball game playoff between University of Michigan and Univ. of FL.  

    Rematch!!! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:58:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK, here I go. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    If I have this right, the violators were supposed to be stripped of half their pledged delegates. [Jerome says that too.]

    What did the DNC do? It decided to have no punishment for IA, NH, or SC, but double the punishment for MI and FL. If it had kept to its original rules, then:

    1- Michigan and Florida would have had delegates at stake. Campaigns would have been able to spend face time, ads, money there and build organization. [see Republican race] None of this happened.

    2- Michigan and Florida would have gotten media attention. [see Republican race] Didn't happen.

    3- Michigan and Florida would have provided bounce and momentum to their candidate. [see Republican race] Didn't happen. Can you imagine what the effect of a three in a row NH, MI, NV win would have done for Clinton campaign?

    By withdrawing their names and perhaps getting their friends in DNC to double the punishment, Obama campaign got what it wanted and benefitted HUGELY from punishment given to Michigan and Florida. Who says that staying on Michigan ballot didn't cost Hillary Iowa?

    Obama campaign wants to eat the cake and have it too.  I disagree with a re-do, because I believe that the punishment has already been given to Michigan and Florida; punishments that were not in the rules.  There's no way to re-do that.  

    Obama and Hillary both played, in a way.  Obama hugely benefitted from taking his name off the ballot (which deprived both states of media attention, brilliant play), and now he wants to have the delegates too.  

    (a slightly different version of this comment was posted at theleftcoaster.com, for those who keep score!)

    [ Parent ]

    BTW (none / 0) (#143)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    As I commented on The Confluence, whoever at DNC who came up with this arbitrary punishment (as opposed to much more sensible, original rule) should get fired.  It's a public relations nightmare.

    BTW, do you think that since Florida moved its date after IA, NH, and SC had done, it has grounds for suing the DNC?

    [ Parent ]

    I would think so. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    The DNC rules were flat-out, explicitly designed to ensure that although all voters are equal, some voters are more equal than others. If they were designed to ensure that the position of privledge rotated year-to-year, that would be one thing, but all indications are that they intend to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire in perpetuity.

    [ Parent ]
    I like it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    While I personally am attracted to Jeralyn's solution, my heart relaxed as I read your plan.  

    It's a face-saving solution that might actually come-to-pass.  

    Assuming the primaries haven't driven everyone over the edge to irrationality.

    What is Jeralyn's solution? (none / 0) (#121)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    I couldn't find the post.

    [ Parent ]
    post #13 (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:05:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do away with caucuses!! (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by SKY on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    No more caucuses!!  They're not at all democratic; they should be outlawed.  There's a REASON we have private voting booths in the GE to ensure a true vote.   Big Tent, I really appreciate your efforts to promote unity into a party which is so badly fractured.  A compromise will have to be sought, for sure.  I first suggest that we take all the Florida and Michigan officials who created this mess and put them in a big dunk tank.

    I repeat (4.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:46:50 PM EST
    And we want and expect the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to have a nice tidy democracy? Oh...brother.

    Do over for MI, not for FL. Seat all delegates (4.00 / 1) (#224)
    by goldberry on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:21:38 PM EST
    Michigan gets a do-over primary because not all of the candidates were on the ballot and to win by default doesn't pass the smell test.  But NO CAUCUSES!  It's too intmidating and time consuming for the average voter.  Does that mean the party should hold a regular voting primary?  No.  Simply have a mail in primary ala Oregon's general election.  Mail out ballots, impose deadline, count returned ballots, voile!  Everyone who wants to participate can do so in his/her own time and in private.  
    For Florida, just seat the delegates.  They had a regular primary.  More than a million people showed up and it was a greater that expected turnout.  That indicates that the voters were paying attention and motivated.  The lack of campaigning in the state may have even helped them come to a decision because the only expesure they would have had would have been to the nationally televised debates which were pretty informative on the Democratic side.  It's hard to argue why this primary shouldn't count, especially considering that NH, SC and IA all jumped the gun  after they saw what punishment was meted out to MI and FL.  The rules should apply fairly to all states or not at all.  
    My solution enfranchises all voters, gives the Obamaphiles and Edwardians the chance to vote in MI and makes the issue go away.  It is much more fair and equitable than BTD's.  Everybody who agrees, raise your hand and say, "Yeah!"
    Go ahead, don't be shy.  
    ;-)

    Oh, for heaven's sakes. She never agreed (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    to remove her name from th MI ballot.

    Last time (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    Before you comment, read the commenting rules.

    Hot Rod, I have had to delete 5 of your comments in various threads.

    Abide by the rules or do not comment.

    Florida primary would cost $$$$$$ (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:00:18 PM EST
    Also, compromise would mean both sides acting rationally.

    Dollar should not be the issue (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:05:15 PM EST
    Let Dean and Brazile pay. Snark.

    But I see you can see no real objection to this can you?

    You see all the benefits and fairness to it.

    I take it you agree it is brilliant.


    [ Parent ]

    Brilliance and compromise (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    have not exactly been the two watchwords of this debacle.

    [ Parent ]
    There are lots of rational, fair, and (none / 0) (#17)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:13:57 PM EST
    practicable ways to resolve this.

    The same can be said of Israel/Palestine.

    If Florida were to hold a separate primary, it would be better for them to just toss out the old one--it would make the campaigning there twice as important.  

    [ Parent ]

    Same importance (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:18:08 PM EST
    If the scenario is that it matters in May, ANY WIN will sway the SDs, as it should.

    You propose making the previous votes not count and that is not a compromise. That is the Obama position. The Clinton position would be no need to revote.

    I take your proposal as yet another tacit admission that my solution is brilliant.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so brilliant (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:42:14 PM EST
    The compromise is to have primaries (or caucuses, if primaries can't be done) done within the rules of the Party.

    Representatives of both candidates should immediately meet with Dean or whoever sanctions these things to arrange for these primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    An objection...and a solution (none / 0) (#26)
    by solon on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    Basing half of the delegates on a vote in which, in one state, only one candidate was on the ballot and, in another state, where the candidates agreed not to campaign denies fairness to the candidates and citizens in other states and threatens the legitimacy of the entire vote. It changes all of the rules as to how to determine the nominee and would allow citizens of Florida extra voice in the nomination process, devaluing the voter of Democrats in other states.

    The solution to this problem is that you seat the delegates in Michigan and Florida once the nominee is settled, either for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. The candidates agreed to the rules, knowing that this may threaten their prospects in November. Yet, they did not have a problem with this before the primaries began. Changing the rules during the middle of the vote is quite dangerous.

    If the people of Florida and Michigan have a problem with this, then they need vote their state representatives out of office. The state representatives caused the problem; they should be responsible for their actions.

    If the Democrats cannot carry Florida or Michigan in the general election, then they better find other states to carry like Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, or New Mexico.

    [ Parent ]

    This could very well destroy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    our chances in November. It's unacceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    So Obama gets his way is your solution (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:27:34 PM EST
    Do you think we are stupid?

    you think your use of a lot of words fooled us?

    the lot of you, Obama and Clinton supporters, DESERVE to lose.

    [ Parent ]

    don't you think, in general, the Clintonistas (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    are more frugal with their words?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    Man was that blathering of a comment annoying.

    [ Parent ]
    What is wrong with political solution? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    There is no fair solution. The toughest political team will win. The others will have to accept it and not whine. But all this alleged transparency, rules that are not rules, and all the mockery of justice will get us nowhere. The Obama whining about the Clintons lobbying the superdelegates is really annoying.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama gets his way? (none / 0) (#92)
    by solon on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:46:15 PM EST
    I don't think that is my position here.

    Let's see... The candidates agreed to a position long before the primaries began. At this point in time, when one candidate is behind, you think it is a good idea that the candidates should agree to change the rules, enabling the benefit of one candidate. The process would be void of fairness to everyone who voted...yet this is not a problem to you on grounds of political expediency.

    If the Democrats were to adopt your "solution" how long do you think it would take for the republicans to (1) attack the integrity of democrats in Florida and Michigan; (2) point out how the candidates "changed their position;" and (3) state how the democrats will not hesitate to do this if they were in power.

    Further, if this is such a dire problem to voters in Florida and Michigan, then seating the delegates from the two states will not help them in November because the damage is done. As a result, the democrats better find other states to win.

    On a side note: Maybe you should edit the tone of your comments as you bash others for their tone. And the reasons as to why my posts seem longer is that they attempt to create a full argument: claim, evidence, and reasoning. It is better to do this as it helps the debate. it certainly is much better than just posting an assertion with no evidence.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (none / 0) (#207)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:41:54 PM EST
    1. I don't think the candidates really had a choice in the DNCs decision to strip the delegates

    2. You are basically reciting Obama's most recent position on this issue...so you are, as BTD said, advocating that Obama gets his way


    [ Parent ]
    In FL, you give all the delegates won by (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    the candidate who abided by the pledge to that candidate, and you give only half of the delegates won by the other candidate who broke the pledge by doing ads and a news conference.

    You do not do a do-over in Florida.  Both remaining candidates were on the ballot.  (Obama must have forgotten to take his name off that one, huh?)  And the schedule was the work of the Republicans in the Florida legislature.

    Michigan, I'm still thinking about.

    Or as I said in your other thread on this, you not only don't seat Florida and Michigan, you also don't seat other states that went before February 5.  Both candidates lose delegates that way as well from those states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.

    And then you fire Dean.  And by then, Brazille has been long gone for many a month.

    [ Parent ]

    So it really isn't about disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#212)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:52:31 PM EST
    It's about helping Hillary.  If you can nix 4 other states votes then you are ok with it.  

    FTR, the rules explicitly allowed those 4 states to have their primaries/caucuses before Feb 5th.  Rule 11A.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0) (#221)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:11:00 PM EST
    Yes, before Feb. 5, but not at any old time before Feb. 5!  There were specific dates provided and those dates were violated.

    NH is the worst violator of the bunch, because they not only went before the date they were allowed to, but they also jumped another state (NV) in the sequence.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (none / 0) (#223)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    If you wish to take away their votes as well I won't object. That would mean that Obama would lose 13 net points to Clinton.  

    As I said, not very democratic but whatever it takes.  

    Let me ask you a question.  Do you think that either Florida or Michigan should be punished in any way for willfully violating the rules of DNC?

    [ Parent ]

    It's about keeping pledges (none / 0) (#222)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:16:19 PM EST
    -- not just pledged delegates.  So states and candidates and possible future presidents learn to keep their promises and abide by rules.  You gotta problem with that?

    [ Parent ]
    Not at all (none / 0) (#225)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:22:12 PM EST
    The states pledged to abide by the rules of the DNC and RNC.  They violated those pledges.  They WILLFULLY violated those rules.  So why do you think they should be seated anyway?

    [ Parent ]
    If you are angling for the Nobel Peace (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    Prize, you'll need a wider readership.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    I am making a movie.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope you will give me producer (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:28:01 PM EST
    credit?  Remember how I suggested you and Molly Bloom do a War Room type movie on Obama's brilliant campaign?

    [ Parent ]
    DioI get to "revise" my statements (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM EST
    and say Axelrod is a Jedi?

    [ Parent ]
    no caucus! (none / 0) (#176)
    by nycvoter on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:59:15 PM EST
    I don't mind the idea of a count part and do over part but not it it's a caucus. Military, many seniors, many working people and people with kids who can't afford babysitters.   It's just not right.  

    [ Parent ]
    Because people voted (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    Because this idea is designed to create a solution that will be deemed acceptable by all.

    Because this is my Unity Schtick.

    Surely you do not object to unity?

    Or having Florida and Michigan happy with Dems?  

    Hard to understand why you would need this explained.

    I object to any solution (none / 0) (#231)
    by MaxUS on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:45:23 PM EST
    that would result in 9% Republican voters in VA having a bigger say in who the Democratic nominee is than the 100% true blue democrats who voted in Michigan and Florida.

    If you can't convince the Democratic base to vote for you, you can't become the Democratic Nominee. Seems like a no brainer to me.

    My hope is that when superdelegates choose a candidate, they favor the candidate that was chosen by the Democratic base. It's great to invite cross-overs to the Party, it's quite another thing to allow them to influence the outcome in a significant way.

    [ Parent ]

    A lawyer responds on this issue (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:06:59 PM EST
    in an earlier thread of your's here.

    What do you make of his argument?

    This is not my area of expertise, sorry. My only thoughts are that Fla was fair in that they were all on the ballot, they just couldn't campaign there and  Floridians knew there would be attempts to change the exclusion decision which is evident from the fact that they turned out to vote in record numbers.  Also, Florida couldn't have set a later primary date because the Republican state legislature refused to allow it. It wasn't a voluntary decision by the Democratic party.

    As to Michigan, the non-Hillary supporters voted uncommitted, so Obama's and Edwards' delegates can now vote for Obama. I don't see the prejudice there.

    I don't like the idea of new elections at all.

    This is a plea bargain here (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:08:33 PM EST
    or in my world, a settlement.

    [ Parent ]
    Right. (none / 0) (#29)
    by doordiedem0crat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    Take into consideration us Floridians were told our votes WILL NOT count absolutely.

    This decision was enough to have some voters not show up. Keep in mind older voter turnout was far higher than the younger due to the Homestead exemption amendment on ballot. Plus neither candidate could campaign in the state and make their case.

    The vote does not accurately reflect the will of the Florida voters.

    If the delegates are to be reseated then a revote is in order.

    [ Parent ]

    all of you (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:26:02 PM EST
    are being ridiculous and not at all thinking about what is best for the Party.

    If Obama and Clinton are this pigheaded, we are headed to a loss in November.

    My solution is clearly brilliant and the fairest possible way to handle this while retaining the unity of the Party and serving its political interests in November.

    this is depressing.

    [ Parent ]

    "Clearly Brilliant" (none / 0) (#68)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    Heh, that's funny.

    I prefer Chris Bowers solution

    [ Parent ]

    That's not a solution (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:42:35 PM EST
    That is a description of what we have now.

    And Chris graciously accepts that those are the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Recommendations in post I link to (none / 0) (#88)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:45:07 PM EST
    "In short, I think the results of the Florida primary should stand. In Michigan, I do not know what the best alternative would be, but I do have ideas. A revote via a caucus is not very democratic, but neither is a vote when the names of several major candidates were not on the ballot. One alternative would be to allocate between 42 and 55 of Michigan's 55 uncommitted delegates to Barack Obama since, according to exit polls, he had more than three times the support of Edwards in Michigan. I would be in favor of that alternative, or of a revote via a caucus. While neither is a perfect solution, both are superior to giving Hillary Clinton a 73-0 advantage in delegates from Michigan at the convention, which would be an absurd and offensive interpretation of the will of Michigan voters."

    And then, of course the LARGER recommendation - that superdelegates go with the pledged delegate winner.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, I didn't read your link before I posted. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    I would agree with his MI and FL solution but not the superdelegates. They are useless if they are required to vote by district/precinct. I could see a suggestion that they vote by popular vote but even then, because of the very small number of voters in caucuses, it wouldn't necessarily be representative of the people of the state.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! Let's intimidate them to vote our way. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    I'm assuming that's the let's keep track of the supers committee since I didn't click on the link yet.

    [ Parent ]
    Intimidation! (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    It worked for Kennedy!  

    Seriously--ask all the dead people who voted for Kennedy.

    Backroom dealing is nothing new.  People don't like it now because they feel so invested in their candidates, and this race has dragged out soooo freakin' long.

    Listen, I have a friend who just lost her home she had lived in for 20 years because she couldn't pay medical bills for cancer treatments, and couldn't work because she had half her bowel cut out of her body.  I want Clinton to win because I think she understands how to keep this from happening to the next person and the next person.  You younger folk don't know that the reason some people so vehemently hate the Clintons is because they got things done.  

    That being said, I will vote for the democratic nominee.  I may not feel good about it, but it'll be better than what the republicans are offering.

    [ Parent ]

    Gratuitous slur (none / 0) (#110)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    It only makes you look worse.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought I was lookin' darn good (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:58:57 PM EST
    Are you saying that the Kennedys didn't buy votes?  Read some history.  Next, you'll be telling me Jack didn't have affairs.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand and accept your reasons for Hilary (none / 0) (#115)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:57:43 PM EST
    Others feel different - such as myself.

    I'm not against Hilary, and don't like Obama's health care position.  But he is far enough ahead in other factors, that I choose him.

    Hilary is a good candidate.

    Obama is an awesome candidate (in my opinion.)


    [ Parent ]

    Spot on! (none / 0) (#210)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    But in the situation with one of my sisters who also lost her home due to medical expenses, she still won't vote for the "universal" healthcare plans.

    My family have all been through "universal" healthcare as military dependents onward (anyone surprised at the Walter Reed mess? That's the status quo!), and simply can't support such a system. I've known folks killed by it, not only due to lack of care, but it's paperwork.

    Many claim it's the best thing since sliced bread, but until you've been through it, it's anything but. I'd take the healthcare provided now over what I had for "free". No one deserves such treatment, it's horrid.

    [ Parent ]

    Keeping values (none / 0) (#98)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    Is not intimidation.

    [ Parent ]
    Not just here (none / 0) (#129)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    The NAACP requested FL & MI be seated...Link

    In a letter to party chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond is expressing "great concern" at what he says is the prospect that millions of voters in the two states could "have their votes completely discounted." And he says the refusal to seat the delegations could remind voters of "racially discriminatory primaries."

    I'm not sure I follow that last line? This is just the beginning of another racism issue? I believe the article could have done a better job in reporting this. This is just stirring.

    Now compare this article..Link

    Much better.

    How are we going to bring this together to win in Nov?

    [ Parent ]

    Depressing indeed (none / 0) (#185)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    Unfortunately I am starting to think there is no way out of this mess  anymore. I think no matter what happens we will go into the general election weakened. Honestly I think the general attitude to the Obama supporters has driven the Clinton supporters into a hard corner.

    I really hope I am wrong, but I am sitting here trying to figure out how we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

    [ Parent ]

    nothing keeps me from the polls voting day (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycvoter on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:02:03 PM EST
    most talk was more about eventually seating the delegates than not, so I don't buy that arguement.  Especially when 1.7 million people went to the polls.  I usually get to vote in June for the primaries in NYC and it usually doesn't matter by the time I vote, but I would NEVER think about not voting.  SO LAME

    [ Parent ]
    On another board that will remain nameless (none / 0) (#182)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:06:17 PM EST
    someone told me that the average Obama voter was more educated and better read, so they knew to not go vote, cause their vote would not count, unlike the uneducated Hillary voter. Oh, brother.

    [ Parent ]
    The creative class (none / 0) (#192)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    getting creative with its critical thinking again?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#195)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:25:49 PM EST
    the creative class...(who in heaven's name are they) anyone who uses HTML is now creative?

    [ Parent ]
    Agree with Jeralyn totallly!! (none / 0) (#15)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:09:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The Jeralyn Solution. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:16:42 PM EST
    Two votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Three votes (none / 0) (#112)
    by carolyn13 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The people knew in both (none / 0) (#37)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    Fl and Mi by watching TV what was going on with both candidates even though both candidates were not physically there.   So I do not buy the argument that some say that the out come would have been different in both states had each  physically campaigned in those states.  I think the results would have been very close to what they were had they campaigned there.  I say let the figures stand in Florida.  Don't know about MI.  Can't understand why just because  you could not campaign in MI why the other candidates pull of their names from the ballot.  No one told them they had to do that, just that they could not campaign there.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:50:44 PM EST
    The old elections are not going to count. They shouldn't. The states were told not to do it, and they did it anyway. If those primaries now count, expect states to be lining up their primaries on New Year's Day 2012.

    There are reasons why the DNC didn't want early primaries. Perhaps one is that they wanted it later so that voters got a better idea of who the candidates are.

    Rules are rules. I expect that underlying a lot of Clinton's concerns about having new primaries in MI and FL is that Clinton's early advantage is now gone, and she wouldn't perform as well in primaries in May.

    [ Parent ]

    I have been told (none / 0) (#113)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:56:58 PM EST
    that the vote for the early primary was bi-partisan. Anyone have the breakdown of votes for moving the primary?

    [ Parent ]
    The early primary bill (none / 0) (#168)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:52:55 PM EST
    was tied to having all voting machines in Florida using a paper ballot trail - no one could politically vote against it

    [ Parent ]
    I read that. (none / 0) (#173)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    Really, my thought on this (which I said upthread) is that they are already punished:

    No candidate visits. No media exposure. No ads. No campaign offices in either state. No bounce. No momentum.

    Now, it's too late for a half solution. The punishment that DNC served has been harsh already.  What do courts do? They give a punishment equal to the amount of time the accused has already spent in jail.  

    Let the delegates stand.  


    [ Parent ]

    oops!! (none / 0) (#174)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:58:24 PM EST
    should be: Let the delegate count stand!!

    [ Parent ]
    Seat them (none / 0) (#16)
    by koshembos on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:12:51 PM EST
    No matter how bad the Democratic nomination process is, you cannot treat Michigan and Florida as non entities; this is Anti-democratic. Seat them!!!

    It may be unfair to Obama, an important consideration, but being unfair to millions is way worse.

    But then he will take his jacks and go home. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:29:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#152)
    by tek on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    Let's definitely do it.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not the process (none / 0) (#108)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:53:25 PM EST
    It's the states that violated the process.

    It is unfair to Obama, and all the other candidates who might have found traction in their campaign but obeyed the DNC.

    I want MI and FL to be represented. Under the rules. New primaries in May.

    [ Parent ]

    Who didn't know Obama (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycvoter on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:06:09 PM EST
    I'm sorry but Obama won states he never visited and no one mentions that. Obama didn't win Floria because 55% of the people wanted Hillary

    [ Parent ]
    You don't mean that its unfair to the candidates (none / 0) (#209)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:48:14 PM EST
    the DNCs action of stripping the delegate is what was unfair to the candidates...

    Not to mention the voters...

    FL and MI have earlier primaries was unfair to blessed Iowa and New Hampshire...that is who was TRULY wronged in all this...the small caucus state of Iowa, and the small "bell weather" state of New Hampshire...I don't know how FL and MI sleep at night, honestly! The AUDACITY!

    [ Parent ]

    It is NOT unfair to Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    Obama got huge advantage from putting Hillary on defence.  Everyone else withdrew their name on the deadline on purpose to put her on defensive, and it may have cost her Iowa.

    Plus, by taking their name off the ballot, (and thanks to the harsh punishment by DNC), the other candidates succeeded in reducing the effect of Michigan to zero.  It was clear from the beginning that the anti-Hillary must be a momentum candidate.  Can you imagine what winning NH, MI, and NV in a row would have done for her? Can you imagine her momentum in Super Tuesday?

    The candiate of Michigan and Florida voters (Hillary Clinton) was deprived of all this.  

    So, Obama has already had HUGE benefit from this fiasco.  Time to seat the delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Another solution (none / 0) (#18)
    by GV on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    I think the Florida results should stand, as is.  Everyone was on the ballot and it was the Republican legislature who moved the primary dates up.  Why should Florida Democratic voters have suffered for the sins of Republicans?  Florida is also, obviously, an important swing state and there's no reason to leave Florida voters with a bad taste in their mouth about the Democrats.  I also think Florida Democratic voters, after being screwed in 2000, deserve a break.

    All that being said, I think there needs to be an entirely new election in Michigan.  Only Hillary was on the ballot and it was the democrats in control of the legislature that screwed everyone over.  

    someone, perhaps a troll (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:17:18 PM EST
    said something a few days ago about the Florida dems actually having a say, and refusing to go to battle to move the primary.  I don't recall specifics, but has anyone heard this?  Because, if so, it changes the argument.  I'm not saying at all that it negates it, because I think they SHOULD be seated, but I am curious as to whether or not there is any truth to the claim.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the decision to move up (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    the primary was made by a near unanimous vote of the Florida legislature -- I believe two Democrats voted against.

    So while it's true that a majority Republican legislature made the scheduling decision, they made it with the strong support of the Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    do you have a link (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:27:21 PM EST
    or proof of this story?  Because after I heard it, I did quite a bit of investigoogling and found no mention.

    [ Parent ]
    No, (none / 0) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:38:04 PM EST
    I'm just reporting an account I read, probably on a blog.

    [ Parent ]
    Ohhh...you read it on a blog (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:56:04 PM EST
    so it must be true.

    I honestly think you should stop repeating this unless you know for a fact it's true.  I investigoogled for about 45 minutes trying to back up your claim (granted, I got stuck on KittenWar for a while, but I was really looking) and I found nothing.

    My cousin lives in Florida and is very involved in the local dem party and she said that what you claimed was either not true or is a very well kept secret.

    Take it for what it's worth, and I honestly mean no offense, but I really wish you would find proof before you repeat it again.  Like I said, if it's true, then people should know, and I would welcome you spreading the truth.

    [ Parent ]

    It was included in a bill to require all (none / 0) (#184)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:08:52 PM EST
    voting machines to have a paper trail.  (link)
    The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 37-2 on April 27 and the House put up a vote of 118-0 on May 3.  On May 21, 2007 Gov. Charlie Crist (R) signed a bill to move the date of state's presidential primary to from the second Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January.


    [ Parent ]
    I dont care about being fair at this point to (none / 0) (#24)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST
    Obama, as he made his decision to remove his name from Michigan as a "gamesmanship" move to up his profile in Iowa and it backfired. Too bad so sad. These voters should be respected for trying to be included. Florida wasn't the fault of the democratic voters, it was the republican controlled congress that did that. As the NAACP said they should just seat them!!

    [ Parent ]
    MI and FL solution (none / 0) (#141)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM EST
    I agree with GV completely. Some have pointed out that FL results should not stand because there was no active capaigning. But who says that you must have to see the candidates in person before you vote? FL (and MI) voters  had all the opportunities to know about the issues and the positions of the candidates. I hhappen to think that they made  informed choices. Also, ccandidates could have put up national commercial in those states as Obama did. That may be construed as de facto campaigning. On the day of the Florida Primary Craig Crawford reported that on that day he had seen Obama ad in Florida six times! So Florida election results can stand. MI can be  a different story since Obama had removed his name. There may be a new primary there. Insidentally as for the  legality of the application of DNC rules in case of FL and MI, the post of xspowr is terrific.
    But  as much as I like to think that FL result should stand and MI should have a new election, I don't think that is likely. None of the campaigns, the states or DNC will go for it. So in final analysis I think BTD  has proposed the best compromise. For the  sake of party unity DNC and the campaigns and all of us should accept it. For us to have any chance in November, we must have the  support from MI and FL. And yes BTD's proposed solution is "clearly brilliant" . I mean it.

    [ Parent ]
    A Big Mess (none / 0) (#22)
    by democrat1 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:18:40 PM EST
    This is going to be a big mess if one of the candidates does not get a huge win and FL/MI becomes redundant. At this point it seems unlikely. I personally think that we should ignore FL/MI and count pledged delegates and add super delegates. If  the lead is substantial and losing candidate concedes, there won't be any problem.  Otherwise FL and MI should have reelection and add the FL/MI delegates.  Then who ever gets the majority, will be the nominee

    Obviously (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:20:12 PM EST
    Unity, compromise and winning in November seems NOT on the agenda in this thread.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you saying that the voters get to vote (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:27:23 PM EST
    twice (those that already voted)? If we have to compromise, I kind of like your idea. Why do you chose a caucus for MI though?

    I am having a lot of trouble catching up on threads today. They don't make a lot of sense with what I assume are a lot of deletions. Are we being invaded by trolls?

    [ Parent ]

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:29:00 PM EST
    New elctions to selct HALF of the delgates.

    Is this unprecedented? Of course not. Texas is doing this as well. On March 4th.

    so let's not all act shocked.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not picking a fight here (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:34:41 PM EST
    but didn't you say last night that the Texas system was insane?

    And while I don't completely disagree with you, as I said earlier, this campaign season has not been known for compromise and brilliance.  I think the fact that you can't get general consensus here on TL for what is a very practical plan proves as much.

    People aren't even open to talking about possible solutions.  Can you imagine the anarchy if/when this moves forward?  No one will be happy.  Even the people who design the plan will end up saying they are not happy.

    [ Parent ]

    It is insane (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    you ever heard the sayiong "so crazy it  might just work?"

    But seriously, this is a compromise.

    [ Parent ]

    unfortunately (none / 0) (#136)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:19:45 PM EST
    we are not that kind of crazy.

    Yes, it would work.  Yes, other suggested fixes would work.  The problem is: will anyone be happy with it?  The fact of the matter remains: whoever this benefits will have to deal with a very sore loser.

    Obama: I didn't have enough time to win them over.  She had name recognition.

    Clinton: I won it the first time.  He had more money for commercials.

    And good googlie mooglie, can you imagine the charges that will fly around the internet like packing peanuts in a balloon factory!

    [ Parent ]

    There are no trolls (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    I am keeping threads clean though.

    No more notices just deletions.

    [ Parent ]

    Because Hillary is being political (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:18:52 PM EST
    She left her name on the ballot. They could have as well. They were not forced. Advantage Hillary, this tells me maybe she anticipated a bit better of what could or would happen.

    She left her name on the ballot. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:35:14 PM EST
    The others didn't. Those results cannot be counted because Clinton left her name in a primary that wasn't supposed to be counted. That's cheating. No advantage for Hillary.

    Have another primary in each state, or caucuses. Whatever. While Big Tent doesn't like awarding the candidates equal delegates, it would give people from each state the ability to attend and participate in the convention even if no candidate gains an advantage with the count. Better than nothing for the people in the state.

    The non-primaries don't count.

    Those non-primaries were held when they shouldn't have been held. Why should Clinton be rewarded? Those results are meaningless when it comes to determining delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, not cheating (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    it was the smart political thing to do. Always, hope for the best plan for the worst. She did the smart political thing, it's not cheating. Who wants in the end a bunch of naive politicians yelping about cheating. Frankly, just on this I prefer Hillary. If the others could not see the train wreck, well, they are part of the problem.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST
    Obama gained political advantage by pandering to Iowa voters by taking his name off the ballot. When he did so, he knew the Michigan delegates could still wind up being seated. If they are seated it won't be because Hillary triangulated. It will be because she triangulated better.

    [ Parent ]
    She cheated? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    I think that is more than a bit far fetched...cheated?!

    [ Parent ]
    The same simplification (none / 0) (#202)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    She cheated, she voted for the war.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting dichotomy (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:07:13 PM EST
    Hillary wins =  She cheated OR Obama actually wins
    Hillary loses = Because she is evil OR Because Obama is the political messiah and all that deny him will be punished

    Its very odd to me...very foreign.

    I don't think I've ever seen less gracious winners and more sore losers than Obama and his supporters. Hillary and Obama are running totally different campaigns, and it is most clear when the votes are counted...

    I've come to the realization that there will not be any "eye opening" for most Obama supporters (same for Hillary supporters), until they are disillusioned either during the GE or if he wins the presidency...he will be truly transformational and mark my words...as the greatest let-down of a president in the past century (not because he'll be a bad president, but because he cannot deliver on the bill of goods he is selling, nobody can...at least not in a democratic society)

    [ Parent ]

    Do you know what the word compromise means? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    what does compromise mean? (none / 0) (#187)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    I dunno, but it's the same word that so many here use to criticize Obama, but here you're using it as a good thing.

    I think you're solution is fine vis-a-vis Florida, but it's just not fair vis-a-vis Michigan, b/c Obama and Edwards' names were not on the ballot.  The voters their didn't have a true choice.

    Please, stop thinking about the candidates for a moment and think about the voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Your basing this on 2 assumptions (none / 0) (#200)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:34:05 PM EST
    1. That the choice of who is on the ballot is the choice of the voters to begin with...

    2. An assumption that those who did vote, were not able to make a choice between what was offered on the ballot...

    Both of these are false assumptions...

    What you're advocating really though is a desire to penalize Hillary, less for the way MI turned out, and more because if you do a "do over" you feel that Obama has a good chance to win...the same reason Hillary and her supporters DON'T want a redo (minus the inherent unfairness of a do-over for HRC)...

    Look at it this way...Team Hillary, and Team Obama  are scheduled to play a baseball game against each other...Team Obama calls in sick and forfeits...when the standings come out the next week, Team Obama wants a do-over...the logic Team Obama offers is that because they didn't show up, Team Hillary had an unfair advantage to win the game...the "fans" didn't get their choice of teams to root for...

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, compromise (none / 0) (#218)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:00:47 PM EST
    is the only thing that gets any work done.

    That's politics. Two sides with strong issues meet at a table and make compromises before voting on a bill.

    One sided agendas only last as long as they're overturned later.

    Why the compromises -- it at least keep them alive longer, as they don't PO either side too much to mess with.

    [ Parent ]

    Bob (none / 0) (#162)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    Obama voluntary took his name off the ballot - neither the DNC nor the 4-state Pledge suggested it or required it  -  so how is it cheating?

    Oh, and in addition to Hillary -  Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel all chose not to follow Obama's "extension" of the 4-state Pledge.  Were they all "cheating?

    [ Parent ]

    Never ever (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:21:50 PM EST
    thought I would see the day BTD recommended a caucus, much less as 'fair.'

    My head hurts.

    Nope -- settlement rejected.

    Denny Crane.

    Michigan had a caucus before (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:24:01 PM EST
    Consistency in the process seems fair to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Not this year. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    When they moved the date up, they also changed to a primary.

    There WAS campaigning re the ballot in Michigan to get Edwards and Obama people to vote 'undecided' and split up those votes later at the convention according to radio ads etc. run by John Conyers and others before the primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Well then it is a primary (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:36:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    You can't even agree with yourself!  <snark>

    The problem with practical solutions is that EITHER side who ends up losing is going to spin it so it seems like a lot of folks are disenfranchised.

    [ Parent ]

    IT should be what it was before (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat