The MI/FL Solution

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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
    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!)


    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?


    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.

    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.

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


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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?

    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?

    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.

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

    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?

    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?

    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.)


    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.


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

    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?


    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.


    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

    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.

    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?

    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?

    Agree with Jeralyn totallly!! (none / 0) (#15)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:09:07 PM EST
    The Jeralyn Solution. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:16:42 PM EST
    Two votes.

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

    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.


    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?

    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

    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.  


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

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

    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.


    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

    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!


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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!!

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?!

    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.

    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)


    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
    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.


    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...


    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.


    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
    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.


    IT should be what it was before (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
    I think they had a primary this year not a caucus. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    You sure? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:36:18 PM EST
    I am pretty sure it was a caucus.

    Link to your source? :-) (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:22:42 PM EST
    Looking for fairness in all the wrong places. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:22:38 PM EST
    The decision should be political. There is no fair decision. They should duke it out and whoever wins, but no whining. It's a political party, it's not a nation. Hillary was clever to not let her name off the ballot. She should fight to keep them. Let the superdelegates play their political wild card. There is no just or fair solution.

    Not the perfect solution. . . (none / 0) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:24:32 PM EST
    because it would give Clinton a net gain in delegates, and why would Obama agree to that when if there's no agreement the delegates don't count?

    Woo the superdelegates (none / 0) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:25:39 PM EST
    They are free agents. Make deals. What is wrong with that?

    why does he get to have a say in how (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:26:54 PM EST
    this is resolved?

    Cuz he wants to win in November? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:30:55 PM EST
    Cuz he is not going to get the nomination any other way if he loses TX, OH and PA?

    Cuz he cares about the Dem Party? (okay, this one was a joke.)


    Untrue (none / 0) (#75)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:41:02 PM EST
    He can lose all three - narrowly - and win the nomination just fine.

    You've got to accept that sometime.  I can game out delegates scenarios for you, if you like.


    delegate scenarios (none / 0) (#84)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:43:24 PM EST
    "and this is the stamp my gramma sent me from her trip to Ohio!"

    Come on--the networks can't agree on delegate counts, and they at least have their real names on the numbers.


    Don't get you (none / 0) (#91)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:46:01 PM EST
    What are you saying?

    Nobody knows the delegate count (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    yet in some caucus states.  They don't do national delegates yet, just state delegates who go to state conventions this summer and then decide what to do.

    This is the result of Dean's expansion of the primaries, but to include a lot of caucuses in states where they didn't want to pay for primaries.

    Obamarod (Obama or Axelrod) saw -- or conspiracy theorists would suggest they were tipped off or even involved in this setup -- brilliantly saw the way to exploit the caucuses as never before.  There will be many books written on this campaign and who best mastered "the art of the possible."

    But this is the result now, while those books still are being researched: That we really don't know who has how many delegates . . . although we do know that the candidate who won the most caucuses has the softer numbers.  It wasn't expected to still be a problem by now, but it is -- and the DNC is stymied, no surprise.


    Game out (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:45:54 PM EST
    Exactly, this is not a game.

    We need unity, not gaming.


    The problem is. . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:42:26 PM EST
    that this agreement would have to be reached well before anyone knows what's going to happen in the remaining big states.

    I also think the "we're going to lose Michigan and Florida because of this screw-up" argument may be overstated.  After all, people turned out in record numbers for a vote they were told wouldn't count.  I  think a little fence mending could go a long way after the nomination.


    I would have thought it was overstated (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:45:09 PM EST
    but I have been in FL a lot the past few months and I can tell you, it is UNDERSTATED.

    I yield to your. . . (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    superior knowledge.

    (on this issue only!)


    Everytime I think of 2000 AND this I shudder nt (none / 0) (#100)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:49:15 PM EST
    There is no knowing if we'll win or lose (none / 0) (#97)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    There's no way to know if we'll lose those states.  But do you think either candidate is so strong they want to add this issue to everything else they'll be balancing through the campaign?

    I believe in the 50 state strategy:  If we can find a way to seat the delegations, shouldn't we go for it?  


    RE: Nomination (none / 0) (#82)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:42:48 PM EST
    So many other factors to consider in the electability argument, your "worry", such as it is, is small beer.

    You say that now (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:44:22 PM EST
    But when the SDs go for Clinton don't go crying in YOUR beer.

    I'll take the bet (none / 0) (#94)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:47:03 PM EST
    If Obama gets over 100 pledges delegates more than Clinton.

    What am I missing? (none / 0) (#47)
    by LadyDiofCT on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:29:22 PM EST
    What am I missing?  You say "This enfranchises those voters who voted previously AND ensures that Obama gets a fair shot at winning those two states." Are you suggesting that Hillary and Edwards got fair shots in Florida, and Obama didn't?  That this should be a do over so that Obama has a chance to pick up more votes now that he is the front runner?

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    The spirit of unity and compromise is NOT in the air.

    I am trying to answer all objections.

    I hate you all now.

    I am going to become a Republican where at least they want to win the general election . . .


    Don't make me call your mom. (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    Settle down.

    Have a drink.  (Unless you're a nasty drunk).


    Me too! (none / 0) (#71)
    by LadyDiofCT on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST
    I really really really want to win.  I thought we would win if we stuck together, but then this party decides to go nuclear on each other, racism, sexism, pitting young against old, experience over change.  Eating our own.  That's why we lose.  Let's see if we have any leadership out there that can bring us together, but I'm loosing faith.  After the cave in on retro immunity yesterday I finally realized what incompetents we're working with here.  Is there any leadership out there?

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:41:39 PM EST
    But I have eaten no one.

    fibber... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:44:56 PM EST
    You had a bit of Rezko shwarma with me the other day.

    <burp> (none / 0) (#133)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:16:44 PM EST
    okay, maybe I ate a few...

    It's just an expression (none / 0) (#101)
    by LadyDiofCT on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:50:08 PM EST
    But you surely noticed the vile despicable smear machine in action among democrats in this campaign?  This is not the way a winning team beats it's opponent.  

    That would make you (none / 0) (#147)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:30:12 PM EST
    Big Tent Republican... so Repubs have TENTS?

    I wish they would come to a legal within the rules solution BEFORE a clear winner is appearent. It might help to keep things from looking bias........ OH H#$*! What am I thinking... they'll still argue over it being biased. WE are scr#@$ in Nov.


    You're confusing him with BFS (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:31:58 PM EST
    aka his evil twin on the other side, where they don't have tents.  The anti-BTD is BFS, Big Fallout Shelter.  They hunker down underground and blog  about survival after the world goes all nucular.

    It's a compromise. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    Hillary gets to keep half of what she won in both states and she and Obama fight it out for their shares of the other half.

    It's a mess.  But we (Democrats) HAVE to seat those delegations -- Imagine trying to campaign through the summer & fall if we don't.

    So we compromise.


    Good God (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:30:42 PM EST
    This is an awfully expensive solution.

    Surely the two sides can just agree on some negotiated resolution between the two extremes without throwing all this money away just to reallocate half the delegates.

    Cheap at the price (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    for a united Party.

    think of the alternative.


    I agree. Price is not the object. (none / 0) (#76)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:41:09 PM EST
    If we must think up an alternative solution, (no I won't accept a caucus) then let's do this and split the difference....

    Seat Florida as is.  All were ON the damn ballot!

    Run a primary in Michigan.  Not all were on the ballot (dummies).


    Well (none / 0) (#130)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:11:46 PM EST
    The two campaigns can negotiate any old compromise between themselves, because they control the delegates who will make the final decision.

    But once you propose a solution like this, now you need to get MI and FL in on the agreement.

    Or is your notion that neither campaign will agree to a deal, so this solution has to be forced down their throats?  Hmm.

    It seems to me that if I were Howard Dean, I could mediate a solution that wouldn't require a new election, by virtue of my leverage over both campaigns.


    Hate to state the obvious (none / 0) (#56)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:33:44 PM EST
    but when did a Dem was concerned about spending money. ;)

    I couldn't resist -- DUCKING! lol


    Hee hee (none / 0) (#172)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    But we're now the party of fiscal responsibility.

    Didn't you get the memo? ;)


    Won't work even if it's fair (none / 0) (#52)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:31:38 PM EST
    Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe the establishment will let it happen. They want Obama to win, let along with the MSM (it sells more).

    Knew something wasn't right, when the MSM was calling who won based on exit polls (the same polls these organizations claimed they won't call early, especially after their snafus in 2000). The MSM is fully to blame for this Obama "momentum", as I've never seen such one sided coverage in campaigns (said there tonight watching Lou Dobbs, and Cafferty had to open his sour mouth again about Clinton, for example). It's like both the establishment and the MSM have a pact...support Obama, it's what's selling.

    I thought the GOP could be dirty, but this is the Elitist+MSM version of the Swift boat junk.

    I saw that. He was so angry at her for not (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:37:10 PM EST
    sticking around to thank her voters in Maryland, DC and Virginia. I thought - what about Nevada, Jack? Plus I think they were both campaigning somewhere else on Sat. night as well.

    All I know is that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:40:43 PM EST
    Clinton called him to congratulate him on the first few wins, but after Nevada, that stopped.  I mean, he scampered out on his plane before it was even over and then told everyone he won.

    Sets a tone, don't it?


    They (none / 0) (#109)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    like with McInsane, hear no evil; see no evil; and talk no evil about their favorites.

    McInsane insulted Asians with his "gook" comment. Not one bit of outrage. If McInsane used the "N" word, or even had a hint of anti-semitism, he'd get the Mel Gibson treatment, only then.

    If Obama did the same, he'll be immuned (or his surrogates claim an Asian is racist against him). He's special and equal to them.

    This is what sucks. You have to walk on tiptoes, can insult everyone else, but their token representatives. They did it to Bill, they did it to me....who else?

    It's SICK. And the MSM and Obama sidekicks should be ashamed of their double standards.


    BTD sorry to break it to ya (none / 0) (#93)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    but I don't see that solution as fair at all unless you are pulling for Obama. Face it, there is no equitable solution which is why the super delegates have to vote to get us out of this mess..

    Where is Soloman when we need him :-) (none / 0) (#96)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    They have to do it (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:50:49 PM EST
    and everyone has to let the decision stand and no whining about fairness. It's about winning in November. So get all the netroot people and tell them they don't get a place in the table on this one. Let them earn their keep, the politicians that is. And if y'all don't like it, become active members of the Democratic party and matrix all the solutions you want to try to figure out justice and equity. (good luck)

    It wont work (none / 0) (#148)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:31:49 PM EST
    if as you said SC, NH and IA also broke the rules well actually even if they did not, the only way for this not to matter is if Hillary has a blowout in the remaining States and goes into the convention with the most delegates or Obama withdraws or is sidelined. Any other remedy disadvantages Hillary and her supporters add the caucus process, and the elevation of SC with its disproportionate demographic and amazingly it is the same groups disenfranchises and disadvantages within the base, the process lacks integrity. Women particularly would be silly not to question their continued standing in the Party at this stage they are not feeling the love to be sure.

    Salt (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:38:31 PM EST
    history tells us the women will end up being disenfranchised.  We are much taken for granted, and I suppose the blame lies squarely on our own shoulders.

    Let's just get our own candidate. Oh wait. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    You know, I have been sitting here trying hard to think of a woman with as much potential as HC has to run for President and I can't think of a one. You can just forget all the nice unity women out there. They would never make it and I really wouldn't want them to.

    agree... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:13:08 PM EST
    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#186)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:12:08 PM EST
    and we are the largest demographic in the electorate by far and if we move together as the black community has for Obama, she would and could still be the nominee.

    No Way, BTD (none / 0) (#99)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:47:51 PM EST
    This whole plan to reinstate the FL and MI delegates reeks of political desperation and is a bit dishonest even.

    Let me remind everyone: The Democratic Party has officially stripped these states of their delegates for violations we need not explain here. Fair or not, this is what happened. As a result, all of the candidates campaigned with this in mind. Thus, revoking this decision post-facto is fundamentally unfair.

    Secondly, all of the candidates signed pledges to not campaign in FL and MI. Hillary, however, chose to put her name on the ballot. This could easily be construed as "campaigning." It's a matter of construing language, but in any case putting her name on the ballot defeating the spirit of the sanctions against FL and MI.

    If Hillary were winning this race, she would be indifferent I wager to the "disenfranchisement" of FL and MI voters. But she's losing, and she's a Clinton, so she's going to engage in every Machiavellian possibility to grasp power.

    Get your facts straight (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by xspowr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    HRC did not choose to put her name on the ballot in MI.  BO and JRE removed their names from the ballot.  All three appeared on the FL ballot.  Further, having one's name on the ballot was not considered "campaigning" under the definition of that term agreed to by the parties (again, this is why no one violated the no campaign pledge by appearing on the FL ballot). No need to construe what the term meant at all.

    the facts are (none / 0) (#205)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    that none of the candidates could legally take their names off the ballot in FL.

    Hillary left hers on in MI, claiming that it didnt matter because the vote would not count.


    A distinction without a difference (none / 0) (#219)
    by xspowr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:04:53 PM EST
    Read the original post. The point is that appearing on the ballot in either state was not "campaigning" on the part of any candidate in violation of the no campaign pledge.  To imply that HRC violated this pledge by "putting" her name on the ballot is factually inaccurate; BO and JRE chose to remove their names from the ballot for political advantage in IA and NH. Further, your point applies to all the candidates in FL, not just BO; HRC and JRE could not remove their names under Florida law, either.

    I would also point out, both to you and in response to the original poster, that the only candidate who arguably violated the no campaign pledge in FL, both in letter and in spirit, and as that term is defined in the pledge, was BO, through his national ads and post-fundraiser press conference. Those are the facts.


    Was Hillary's the only name on the ballot? (none / 0) (#105)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:50:52 PM EST
    I didn't think the Ballot thing was part of the Deal.  I thought that was something thought up by one of the other candidates.

    And if it was wrong for the candidates to be on the MI ballot, why was OK in FL?

    Were the two states under different restrictions?


    Obama got the Ted (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    endorsement gala the Monday before the election. That was campaigning.

    She didn't "put" her name on the ballot. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    They removed theirs to either pander to Iowa or to prevent a coming loss, or both.

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#125)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    "Hillary, however, chose to put her name on the ballot. This could easily be construed as "campaigning." It's a matter of construing language, but in any case putting her name on the ballot defeating the spirit of the sanctions against FL and MI."

    There was no agreement to remove names from the ballot.  Clinton did not decide to put her name on, Obama got the others together and they decided to remove their names from the ballot.  Clinton was not on the ballot alone, Dodd's name was also there.

    What is worth looking for is a way out of the DNC created mess that's been made of this primary cycle.  Unless you want to cede MI and/or FL to the republicans in Nov?


    Not very smart (none / 0) (#126)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:09:07 PM EST
    I say to get name off.

    hillary publicy justified leaving her name on (none / 0) (#203)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:35:49 PM EST
    the ballot by claiming - the vote will not count.

    What "others"? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:36:01 PM EST
    I read that only Obama and Edwards removed their names from the MI allot, while other Dem candidates in addition to Clinton were on the ballot, too.

    Awesome idea (none / 0) (#114)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:57:01 PM EST
    Though I beat you to the punch. ;)

    Still, a good idea is a good idea. If I recall correctly, the Republicans penalized one or two of their states in a similar way, and no one made a fuss about it. Unfortunately on our side, the fuss has already been made, and I seriously that any solution will be acceptable to anyone unless Clinton or Obama win the nomination without MI or FL.

    woops, typo (none / 0) (#116)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:58:03 PM EST
    "seriously doubt", that is.

    the republicans (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    are much better at controlling their party (at least the rule portion) than we are.  Democrats insist on democracy.  We are crazy that way.

    Democracy and fairness (none / 0) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:04:41 PM EST
    Except there is no fairness in politics. I want them to fight it out behind closed doors and make some deals, maybe we will finally get some politicians who can get things done--instead of all the whining.

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:14:56 PM EST
    Perhaps Obama should call Clinton and employ some of his uniting and hope to persuade her to come around to his way of thinking?  He is the master negotiator, after all.

    Seriously, I am totally with you on the back room negotiating.  Someone needs to step up and make this work, whether it's Howard Dean or the Tooth Fairy.  Neither candidate can do it without losing face or looking like they want to quit (the term p*ssing contest" comes to mind).  It defies reason that this is not being hashed out behind closed doors instead of in full public view.

    I think it also indicates a greater problem within the party.  If we little folk are battling it out like this on TL, can you imagine what Donna Brazile is doing in these meetings and phone calls?  The superdelegates are terrified, there are whisper campaigns all over the place and the only thing Howard Dean seems to be saying is "where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?"

    I really do think there are big rifts all the way to the top of the party.  So much for the uniter.


    Only problem (none / 0) (#159)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:40:17 PM EST
    no one smokes anymore to calm down. So the advantage of the smoke filled room is gone, everyone will be just really psycho. Make them smoke and drink some bourbon to calm them down. Heh, I think Hillary did the right thing with not letting her name off Michigan and Florida. The others were naive. I hate the whining and all the rules are rules. My mom told me rules are made to be broken.

    Republicans were smart enough to only strip (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:09:31 PM EST
    half the delegates.  DNC was too dumb for that, thus complete disenfranchisement.

    the rules allow for halving delegates (none / 0) (#132)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:15:25 PM EST
    Come to that, the rules would strip SC and maybe IA, too.

    It's not even a solution (none / 0) (#124)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:07:15 PM EST
    Sen. Levin of Michigan and Ben Nelson of Florida are adamant: no revoting in either state, period.

    I agree with them.

    Sen. Levin (none / 0) (#201)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    is very much a guilty party is this enormous screw-up. A revote would merely confirm what everyone already believes - that he led us off the cliff.

    The Solution for Now (none / 0) (#135)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:19:30 PM EST
    Is simple:  Sit tight until March 5.  If Obama wins in TX and/or OH, the super-delegates go with him, and then they seat Fl and MI.

    Only if Hillary turns this around is this an issue.    There is no advantage to fighting about it now.

    wait a minute (none / 0) (#137)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:21:48 PM EST
    are you saying I missed Discovery Health Channel's re-airing of the tiniest person in the world for NOTHING?!

    That's just crazy talk.


    Point taken (none / 0) (#149)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
    But in all seriousness, the solution depends completely on how the rest of the primaries play out.  Chances are the problem will be avoided altogether.  Even if it isn't, the precise numbers will determine the best solution.  There are a ton of options but they all depend on where we are at the time.

    This is one reason why I doubt they will recaucus.  


    Girl, you have made me (none / 0) (#206)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:40:29 PM EST
    do more housekeeping in the last couple of days than my cats have seen in months, with the way you keep making me spew my soda all over the computer and desk and all.

    (So is that Discovery Show gonna be rerun?  Preferably late at night, so my family doesn't get to laff at my guilty-pleasures sort of tv?)


    So your suggestion... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:43:41 PM EST
    ... is that Hillary can have the delegates as long as she'll lose anyway?

    I think it kind of goes without saying that a resolution of this issue would potentially impact the votes of Ohio and Texas, and the loyalty of the superdelegates. It would be in the best interests of the party to settle it fairly and quickly. I do think votes in the general election could be lost if Hillary supporters in those states think she would have been the nominee if the party had not disenfranchised them.


    No, my suggestion (none / 0) (#171)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    is not to make a painful decision that will enrage many voters unless it turns out to be necessary.  If it becomes necessary, then we'll grit our teeth and hash it out.  

    Why would it be in the best interests of the party to make a decision that will leave tons of people unhappy, when that decision might be avoidable?  And why would Hillary's supporters think they were disenfranchised if there votes were counted?


    I think.. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    ...that announcing a solution, even an imperfect one, would show that the party cares about the voters of those states. The half-and-half approach, to me, conveys respect for both the fact that at the time, voters preferred Hillary, and the fact that the party didn't really want to allow those states to vote at those times. I'd consider that prefereable to cutting those states (which are very important general election states) out of the process entirely.

    Seating any FL and MI delegates (none / 0) (#190)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:14:33 PM EST
    before the outcome is determined will be seen by some Obama supporters as unfair.  There will be outrage.  Al Sharpton will hold press conferences. College students will hold rallies.  I understand there are arguments on both sides and compromise may be a necessary evil.  But as soon as the decision is announced, the damage will be done.  It should not be announced unless it is unavoidable.

    Well, I disagree... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:23:43 PM EST
    ... in this case, refusing to decide is still to make a choice (apologies for the mangled Rush lyrics). I can see arguments either way, but the fairer thing is to resolve this in an awkward compomise both sides can live with as soon as possible.

    Disenfranchised not just MI and FL but NY, NJ, CA, (none / 0) (#227)
    by goldberry on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    MA and AZ.  Those are pretty big states and those of us who voted to put those states in Hillary's column are going to be pissed as all get out if it turns out that she's not the nominee because Howard fricking Dean puts his thumb on the scale to exclude at least one state's perfectly good primary.  People might want to redo Michigan but the voters spoke rather decisively in Florida and it was part of a larger pattern of the Big D states going for Hillary in overwhelming margins.  Now, I don't know what Dean and his band of merry Big Blog Stores is up to but I don't like it one bit.  The end does not justify the means. Disenfranchising Florida means disenfranchising all of the other big D states.  It's eerily reminiscent of 2000 and if I were him, I would definitely not want to go there and have some of us just sit the election out in protest.  

    I agree but it is very likely that (none / 0) (#183)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:06:58 PM EST
    Ohio will absolutely go for Hillary voting started a week ago and she is up 17 I believe.

    I wish (none / 0) (#138)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    you hadn't told me it was on!  Now I'm depressed.

    Dude (none / 0) (#142)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:26:33 PM EST
    I tivo'd it.  She was so tiny...

    Interesting idea, but (none / 0) (#139)
    by Polkan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:23:15 PM EST
    Nelson already went on record that there will be no revote in FL.

    I have to admit, despite my anger at her campaign mistakes, I think her FL/MI strategy is very clever. If she manages to tie Obama in delegate count (Clinton set up PR operation?), this fact will force him to make a choice: appear selfish and grand-standing by disenfranchising FL/MI or just agree to sit the delegates in the name of the greater good (i.e. the party).

    I'm sure that won't end it though.

    selfishness (none / 0) (#144)
    by kimberly on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:28:13 PM EST
    I don't like the idea of giving Clinton any votes from a challenge that was said to be of no delegate value by the Democratic Party.

    I actually feel rather scandalized that Hillary wants to claim these votes in retrospect.  Has she no shame?

    The problem now is that I don't want to hand the election to the voters in Michigan and Florida at the end of the process, after they once exerted their selfishness onto all of us why reward them now and let FLA and MI voters decide the election?

    On behalf of all the Clinton supporters here (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:32:05 PM EST
    I want to validate your scandalization and recognize the exerted selfishness of Michigan and Florida.  It is, indeed, a shameless travesty.

    Problem (none / 0) (#154)
    by hookfan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:34:24 PM EST
    The "voters" didn't exert their "selfishness" on us-- the republican legislature did in Florida, and it appears that Obama elected to not have his name on the ballot in MI.

    Although I support Hillary, the only fair and acceptable result is having Obama win in Ohio or Texas. Or draw straws.


    presidential death match! (none / 0) (#165)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:45:02 PM EST
    Obvious solution.

    At the end of the day, there has to be a clear-cut winner, whether it's an overwhelming popular vote or an overwhelming delegate majority.  If it is razor thin, and the sd's decide, then no one will be happy.

    Honestly, I think that we just have to wait it out (as someone else said) and see where things lie after Ohio and Texas.  If it's still close, then we've got some problems, and then I will be calling for Howard Dean's head because if it comes to that, the only real reason for his job is to keep party unity, and if he can't do that, then we're not really ready to sit at the adult table and we get what we deserve.

    Of course, that doesn't mean we can't talk it to death in the meantime, but I gotta go watch the rest of this tiniest person thing I Tivo'd.  


    Huh a no (none / 0) (#177)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    we voters in Ohio and Tx would like to way in, can we wait until our votes are counted.  Big Clinton Townhall tomorrow night at OSU in Columbus.

    Actually Hillary didn't want to claim (none / 0) (#213)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    them in "retrospect" she wanted to claim them before the voting took place...

    But i do want to know exactly what you mean by this regarding FL and MI;

    after they once exerted their selfishness onto all of us

    1. it wasn't the voters that did this
    2. How is it any more selfish than Iowa and NH demanding to be first every year?
    3. How does FL voting early disenfranchise voters in other states...that is mind bogglingly illogical

    FYI (none / 0) (#145)
    by tek on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:29:21 PM EST
    Obama ALREADY had a fair shot at winning those states.

    If he wasn't winning, his people would not be calling for a do-over.

    The Democratic Party needs a (none / 0) (#146)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    HERO right now.....badly!!!!!

    Your solution (none / 0) (#151)
    by sas on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    Favors Obama.

    Unfair advantage to Obama.

    NO to caucuses!


    Apparently you've missed it (none / 0) (#214)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:56:33 PM EST
    Its been ALL OVER the news...we have a hero

    Barak Obama? Heard of him? He's going to rescue us...oh wait..."We're going to rescue us!" Because we're the rescuers we've been waiting for!


    why (none / 0) (#155)
    by Turkana on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    a caucus, for michigan?

    He changed his mind. He had forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:38:53 PM EST
    they had a primary

    Uh - way too simple! (none / 0) (#158)
    by brainwave on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:40:08 PM EST
    Heh. Yeah, I imagine it's going to be some compromise along those general lines. Not sure it can involve a revote (although I totally agree that it should) - seems like neither the two states nor the state parties have any interest in that. -- On the issue of the DNC's strange "double or nothing" decision - did they, instead of penalizing FL and MI outright, give them an ultimatum: cease and desist or have all your delegates stripped? That would mean they made up a new rule instead of breaking their own old one. Yeah, I know, big difference ;-)

    ok lets just remove all the delegates from all the (none / 0) (#160)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    states before Super Tuesday....that way it is totally observing the rules!!!!!

    ok and go with the popular vote count at the end (none / 0) (#170)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:56:03 PM EST
    good idea the delegate structure in the States is just a meaningless formula anyway. Really good idea and a good example to set but can it be done by the "rule" book?

    Maybe a caucus (none / 0) (#164)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:44:00 PM EST
    according to DNC...

    The DNC has said it would allow both states to hold a different contest, probably a caucus, that would comply with party rules. Either state can also appeal the penalty to the DNC credentials committee, which will not meet again until this summer.

    Beyond ridiculous (none / 0) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    No do overs.

    I'm not suggesting (none / 0) (#169)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST
    this is a solution for me... but it seems to be a solution for the DNC.

    I really thought Dean could not mess up any more that that scream.

    This would definitely be worst.


    I meant it for Dean (none / 0) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:58:29 PM EST
    This is bad planning. He should not be discussing this with everyone. This should not be a public process. No floating ideas or nothing. No community participation. Obama does not get his net root friends to participate, this is private.

    If the rules say 50% penalty, why did the DNC (none / 0) (#191)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    impose 100% penalty?
    Democrats: State Democrats, facing a reduction in the number of pledged delegates and alternates by 50 percent, considered various options, such as holding caucuses or a convention on Feb. 5, 2008 or later.  A proposed vote by mail primary would have cost from $7 to 8 million.  On June 10, 2007 the State Executive Committee voted unanimously to use the state-run January 29 primary even at risk of a penalty. >

     Some time later the DNC offered to put up $866,000 help fund a caucus with 120,000 ballots and 150 voting sites.  On August 4 the State Executive Committee formally adopted its Delegate Selection and Affirmative Action Plan, setting the date of Florida's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary for January 29, 2008. >

    The matter heated up at the August 25 meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, where representatives of the Florida Democratic Party pleaded that they had done what they could to move the date within the window but were at the mercy of the Republican-controlled legislature.  Further, they argued that holding a caucus with just 150 voting sites compared to 6,700 locations for the state-run primary would hurt efforts to build the party in this key state and could affect the outcome of property-tax referendum to be held on January 29.  The Rules and Bylaws Committee held firm, found the FDP plan in noncompliance, and voted to penalize Florida Democrats 100 percent of their delegates to the national convention if they did not come up with a plan within 30 days that complies with the timing requirement.  "We're going to follow the rules," said RBC member Donna Brazile.


    You got to be kidding!! (none / 0) (#199)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:32:35 PM EST
    DNC's solution was a caucus with 150 voting sites for the whole state of FLORIDA?? What a sham?  Oh, This stinks!!

    Everyone, check this out



    Yep, Dean is dead to me (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:42:05 PM EST
    I like my Michigander neighbors, and they're MAD.

    Good god... (none / 0) (#215)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:56:47 PM EST
    It's like they're really are working for the Republicans.

    If they couldn't change the date, and had only 150 sites to get voters too, they couldn't. They must've known there will be trouble, because the last thing the Democrat party needed was to mess up the FL primary.

    They blew it, and royally too. If they stick to their guns still, I hope no one blames the Dems in FL to be legimately angry with the Dem party, or that they will switch voting for a Republican in protest.

    Can't do such tomfoolery with voters it can backfire -- and the DNC would've known this too.


    This should be no surprise (none / 0) (#217)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:00:21 PM EST
    Donna Brazile completely messed up Al Gores campaign...she has something of the anti-midas touch when it comes to political foresight, anything she is involved in, I think it would be safe to bet the outcome will be less than what was desired or expected...

    Holy cow. (none / 0) (#226)
    by zyx on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:27:22 PM EST
    That's the harshest thing I've seen lately, and I've seen some nasty stuff.

    A couple of things (none / 0) (#211)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM EST
    First, it probably has to be a caucus.  That the party can do on its own.  A primary would require the legislature to get involved, that seems unlikely.  (This is discussed a bit here along with the fact that Rs outnumbered Ds 2-1 in the Fla legislature that voted to move the primary)

    Second, did Hillary object to the DNC decision in advance, or does she just want to seat the delagates now that she has won?  I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that this was all engineered by Obama.  This was done before a primary vote was cast and I don't know how well it was anticipated how this would turn out.

    It seems to me that a total revote in which everyone campaigned would be the fairest resolution, but BTD's plan seems like a reasonable compromise, so it will probably never happen.

    Wow speaking of polls look at this (none / 0) (#216)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:57:57 PM EST
    I completely agree with DHR (none / 0) (#228)
    by dc2008 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:34:15 PM EST
    I really have to agree with DHR on this.  I don't see any serious reason to regard either the Florida or Michigan votes as reflective of the balance of views of Democrats in those states, given the way that they were carried out.  What am I missing in saying that?  I think the DNC blew it big time in approaching the situation the way that they did, and thereby creating the unfortunate scenario that we have now, but that is water under the bridge.

    If it's legitimate to hold a new primary and caucus in May -- which sounds like a good idea to me -- then those should be the results that are used, clean and simple.  Whether they should count for 100% or for 50% would depend on whether the DNC still thinks the states should be penalized.  I'd vote for 100% with a warning about future elections (if I had a vote in that).

    Comments Now Closing (none / 0) (#230)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:41:25 PM EST
    More than 225 comments, time to close this thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

    This Disenfranchising Mess (none / 0) (#232)
    by FedUpInFL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    As a Florida Democrat and watching this nightmare unfold, all I can tell you that there is enough blame to go around.

    The FL Dems want to cry foul and spew that they are innocent in all this. Karen Thurman and Bill Nelson pushed for the primary date to change.

    We are a red state and vastly outnumbered in our house and senate. Charlie Crist was happy to sign the legislation into law. Now our Constitution is changed.

    The Dems in our congress didn't stop themselves from voting for it, however. We may have avoided the punishment had they voted against it. After all, we are outnumbered and have a repub governor and didn't have the votes to stop it. It would have passed without the Dem votes.

    To say that the voters here in Florida didn't contact their reps to beg them to stop themselves just isn't true.

    We called, we emailed, we screamed, we yelled, we begged.

    The Dems, realizing their folly tried a last ditch effort to stop the speeding train and added a last minute amendment to reverse the date back to Feb 5th. It failed.

    The question is now - what of primaries in the future? Will Florida forever be disenfranchised since the primary date is now cast in stone in the state Constitution? No one seems to know the answer.

    A do-over is fine by me. Seating the existing delegates is fine by me. I just want the nightmare to be over.

    I am so sick over this I may stop voting all together. What's the point if it won't count?