Dodd Plan For Disaster In FL/MI

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only. Jeralyn opposes a revote.

I am starting to worry that some Democrats do not get that they are playing with fire with this MI/FL situation. The latest is from Senator Chris Dodd, who I once supported for President, and who is now an Obama supporter:

"Split up the delegations, let 'em each have 50 percent of it and move on," said Dodd. "You don't have to go back over and re-do these things. . . . My view is make this as simple as you can."

. . . "I don't like the idea that taxpayers will have to pay," said Dodd. "Why should they have to pay twice?" . . . Some in the party have proposed having major Democratic donors pay for the do-over primaries instead of taxpayers. Dodd rejected that approach. "The idea that a bunch of fat cats are gonna finance it, I don't like that idea at all," Dodd said.

More . . .

So, according to Dodd, the taxpayers can not pay and no one else can pay either? Yep, no revote and no actual representation for the will of the people of Florida and Michigan. But what does Dodd care? Florida and Michigan deserve it according to him:

Dodd said holding primaries again would wrongly reward the two states for trying to jump ahead of other states on the national party's primary and caucus calendar. "There's gotta be a price you pay for this thing," Dodd said.

Heck of a message to be carrying for November. It was YOUR fault. To heck with you Florida and Michigan. Obama is sooo gonna lose Florida and Michigan in November if this nonsense keeps up from his camp. But who cares about that? Not Chris Dodd apparently.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< ABC News: Spitzer, Not the Prostitution Ring, Was the Subject of Investigation | Spitzer Lawyers Up, Resignation May Come Tuesday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Had hoped this was snark (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:09:17 PM EST
    but you nailed it. Does anyone in CampObama realize that there are millions of Democrats in these states who are entitled to be heard from?

    I know, right or wrong, rules or no rules, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    the bottom line is that the people of MI and FL did nothing wrong and their votes should be counted no matter who it helps. Take away their Super D's or something but don't punish the voters.

    Just do a freaking revote (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    There is absolutely no reason not to, unless you are determined that Obama win this thing no matter what.

    I thought it was Hillary who would (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:30 PM EST
    "do whatever it takes to win."  Sheesh.

    I do want a re-vote and I'm starting to believe (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:28 PM EST
    it will happen.

    That Is The Whole Idea (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:16 PM EST
    They are determined that Obama win this thing no matter what.

    And why should MI and FL complain? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    They'll get to participate and cast half their delegates in the coronation.  Really, what's to complain about?

    They simply cannot be serious about this.


    What a bunch of ... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:25 PM EST
    ... well if I use a medical term and call them sphinct-rs, am I violating protocol on this site? If so, apologies to Jeralyn, and I'll be good from now on; but this one has got me pretty riled.

    I believe that's the only point he has. (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:09:01 PM EST
    And you don't care about the rules (none / 0) (#209)
    by fladem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST
    and think you can bend them anytime.

    Hillary Clinton said in October of 2007 that she knew the Michigan Caucuses wouldn't count.  Harold Ickies voted to punish both Florida and Michigan.

    If Clinton had said one word about this before New Hampshire she would have some credibility.  She didn't, she didn't give a damn about either Florida or Michigan until she thought it would benefit her.  

    In fact, she is simply lying about her position.  According to CNN, Feb 22nd:

    Clinton told Smith that she had promised not to campaign in either state, and had kept her word - but that she had never said she would not ask for the results of those contests to be made official, a request her campaign made public on the eve of Florida's January vote.

    Ahh, but here is what she said in October, 2007 according to the Washington Post:

    As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008



    What was kos wailing about (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:13:38 PM EST
    re "unimportant states"?

    Offhand (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    I wonder why Olbermann and/or Jon Stewart haven't done what they do best on a quote like that?

    Crash the Gates  ---------------->>>  Rules are Rules.

    You do not wonder (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:17:45 PM EST
    You know why.

    My wonderment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM EST
    Is of course rhetorical, that is true.

    Olberman has been too busy slashing Hillary (none / 0) (#64)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    in every show and blatantly supporting Obama to care about how he wins. The Barack camp can do any vicious thing they want, not a peep from the media; Hillary breathes wrong an is evicerated.

    Of all the ideas I've heard. . . (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    this is by far the dumbest.  It is so horrifically stupid that I literally don't know how any sane, self-respecting person could propose it.

    If you want to punish FL and MI, deny them representation or force them to bend to the will of the DNC and hold an election within the permitted time frame.

    But by arbitrarily making up polling results you're punishing only the Clinton voters.  You're actually rewarding the Obama voters.  That's not punishing.  It's stealing.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:53:45 PM EST
    Obama's own idea.  No redo, no seating Clinton's delegates, give him 50% and no re-do.

    to be saying it NOW when the revote has such momentum and is almost certain to happen.

    Good Lord (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:01 PM EST
    No one in MI/FL is going to be fooled if you pretend to count the votes only to disregard the results.

    Fat Cats? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    Okay, who said anything about fat cats? My understanding is that a couple of Clinton campaign surrogates have come out saying that Clinton will raise $15 million from supporters for a re-vote, and challenging Obama to do the same. (If they raised $50 million in a month, how much of a hardship would that really be?) Secondly, even if there were "fat cats" who donated money to the cause -- they are doing so to allow people to vote! If they also happen to live in either FL or MI then they will also have the right to cast one vote themselves. Raising the spector of fat cats makes it seem as though big moneyed interests will be buying votes, not, as is the case, buying the opportunity for others to have their vote matter.

    Yes, when I'm with the fat cats (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    and against Dodd on this . . . well, the Dem party is just doomed.

    (Carville, as I recall, did say he could line up donors to pay Clinton's half in no time at all, so that sounded like big donors.)


    Carville (none / 0) (#70)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    said he had fund-raisers lined up.

    I guess it's Fat Cats vs. Fat Heads? (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:51 PM EST
    They are frothing at the mouth with their (none / 0) (#42)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    hatred and can no longer recognize the truth.  

    Well, to be fair. . . (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    there's a reasonable amount of disingenuousness in politics -- Clinton's broaching of the unity ticket is another example.

    But this is just plain theft.  It's nuts.


    That's not what bothers me (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:05:54 PM EST
    After all the sturm und drang over Clinton Ci-C remarks and how it hurts the Party, to countenance this suicidal behavior is beyond anything.

    Here's the thing, do they NOT think Obama can do well in Michigan? I do not mean win, I mean get 45% of the vote. That is all he needs.



    I assume they're not worried. . . (none / 0) (#116)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    about the delegate effect, or even the popular vote effect -- I don't think Clinton can recover from her current positions.

    I think they're worried about the narrative of having Clinton win three large events (PR, FL, and MI) right at the end of the primary season and the beginning of the super delegate primary.

    Frankly, I'm not too sure why they're worried at all because I think Obama has it pretty well wrapped up.  But clearly they are worried -- both the campaign (and their hesitancy about embracing re-votes) and also the larger Obama-sphere (witness the hysteria at Daily Kos et al -- diaries and front page).


    I know what they are worried about (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    But it is too late to stop it now.

    Time to start negotiating the terms of the revote.


    NO WAY should Mr. Hope get half of the delegates! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by vicsan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    The people didn't vote for HIM. There must be a revote, whether Mr. Hope wants one or not. He's NOT entitled to half the delegates...period.

    Dodd was my candidate for President also. LOVED the guy. What has happened to him? This is the same man   who filibustered the FISA Bill because of the "Constitutional Rights" of U.S. citizen's Right to Privacy. What happened to the importance of a citizen's "Constitutional Right" to Vote?? What the heck is going on? This is just crazy. What is Obama doing to our party???

    And Obama has barely lifted a finger (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:55 PM EST
    to help Dodd with the FISA fight.  I have to believe that these guys are all supporting Obama because they can't stand the thought of a woman President.

    Neither has Clinton (none / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:14 PM EST
    it's true. (none / 0) (#105)
    by HadIt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    All the Dem candidate (I think??) sucked on FISA except, of course, Dodd.  

    What he's saying now is still stupid.


    Either (none / 0) (#81)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:41 PM EST
    that or they have personal grudges against the Clintons.  Dodd voted for impeachment with the Republicans.

    You have to wonder if they just don't want a strong president they can't control.


    Control. (none / 0) (#191)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:57:10 PM EST

    Dodd's campaign debt was retired (none / 0) (#118)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:16:12 PM EST
    Where in the Constitution does it say (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
    there's a right to vote in a Primary?

    If there is, throw out all the "closed' Primaries.


    good question. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:22 PM EST
    What is Obama doing to our party???

    i believe the technical term is "trashing". it becomes clearer and clearer that sen. obama is in this strictly for..............sen.obama. if not, he's allowing his surrogates to give that very impression to the general public.

    if sen. obama is truly concerned about the entire democratic party, and not merely his own interests, it's time for him to step up to the plate and do the right thing: endorse revotes in both FL & MI.

    i won't waste time on SC, since the DNC appears to be intentionally blind to that.

    Remember his first complaint against HRC (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:40 PM EST
    She's "divisive". For this particular umbrella claim, BO doesn't detail her actions nor character but as a passive object bearing that attribution for the actions and character of others. He holds her up as bad because a small, vehemently anti HRC and anti-dem group can't stand her, never could stand her, and never will stand her.

    He's promised to work with the RW of that group over the Clinton supporters who remain loyal Dems. If that hasn't set up a flag, nothing will.

    She's a Bad Lady in the same way Bad Men were held up by the Bushies on the promise that they were the one individual person impeding all that was good from gushing forth in a natural progression.

    And the repetition of this is why I'm veering away from giving Obama my support, much less, trusting what he says at face value. That trust in the face of no meaningful leadership in the Senate was contingent on seeing him take the lead in current burning issues. He's behaved hypocritically, stingily, weasely and, yep, DIVISIVELY -- using the word as an active verb here.


    Gravel got more votes in Michigan than Obama (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    Why should he be cut out of a delegate deal?

    This, actually, is an inteesting argument (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    and could really expose the idiocy of Doddobama.

    Deserved the votes more to (none / 0) (#111)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    Just like Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    saying that caucuses are a democratic way to elect officials out of one side of his mouth, then crowing out the other side about how even though Hillary won the Texas election handily, Obama will get more delegates out of Texas because of the undemocratic caucus system.

    Obama's roolz baby!

    Heads he wins!
    Tails Hillary loses!

    Good luck with that against McCain!

    Daschle (none / 0) (#85)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:01:40 PM EST
    did a poor job after 9/11.

    Looks Like Some Dems Are Working (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    overtime to elect President McCain.

    Do they really think that Hillary's supporters will just meekly go along with a 50/50 split of FL and MI? Talk about making the nomination illegitimate.

    Do they think that MI and FL will? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07:31 PM EST
    That's the point.  I'm for Clinton, but I'm for fairness first.  And I was all for Dodd, but there are many attitude adjustments to make this year.

    Dodd has always been an opportunistic suckup (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Jim J on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:53:33 PM EST
    to the "netroots" and hence of course to Obama, the next flavor of the month.

    No offense, BTD, but Dodd's just a dim blowhard, a Kerry with better hair.

    I dunno. . . (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:56:56 PM EST
    Kerry has pretty good hair.  It's what's under it that's worried me sometimes.

    They all just want to be loved... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:44 PM EST
    ..by the children.

    Of course. . . (none / 0) (#98)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST
    to some of us any hair is good hair.

    Plus, wouldn't a (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    50/50 split actually lower the number of total delegates needed to win the nom as opposed to the number that would be needed if both FL and MI had 100% of their delegates?

    A point that has to keep being made (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:19:10 PM EST
    is that a 50-50 split would give Obama votes that were never cast for him,. There is no way to argue that that is democratic. In all of these proposals, all that Hillary is asking for is that she get the votes that were cast for her. She's not asking for a single vote that a voter didn't cast for her.

    I realize there's more to the issue than this, but that is a fundamental difference that must be emphasized. I'm not sure when in our history we have awarded votes to a candidate because it seemed like the fair thing to do, or that he would have gotten them under other circumstances.

    At first I thought (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    this was a strategy whereby they propose something so ridiculous and stupid that by default their next suggestion appears brilliant!

    But seriously, lets say there is a re-vote--how does BO campaign there?  Won't HRC (justifiably) bring up "he didn't want your vote to count" all the time.  He'll be on the defense the whole campaign.  Then again, he did this to himself.  

    If all of our outrage over Florida 2000... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:50 PM EST
    ... meant anything back then, we simply have to find a way of including Florida and Michigan now. Either we were standing up for the principle of counting every vote back then, or we were just making up whatever arguments we could find to help Gore win.

    Everything that happened in Florida in 2000 went by the rules. The rules gave Katherine Harris the power to shade everything for Bush, and the rules gave the US Supreme Court the power to hand the election to Bush. We weren't angry because the rules weren't followed. They were.

    We were outraged because fundamental principles of democracy were abandoned for political advantage. Weren't we? Or were we really as unprincipled as the Republicans--using principle as a flimsy excuse to do whatever it took to win?

    NOOOO!!!!!! (none / 0) (#210)
    by fladem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:13:31 PM EST
    It DIDN"T go by the rules.  The Supreme Court of Florida ordered a full recount by hand.

    It was the US Surpreme Court that stepped in and bent the rules to hand Bush the victory.

    2000 did not go by the rules.


    Craig Crawford reminded me today (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:50:24 PM EST
    That the reason DNC is in the Florida pickle is because the poison pill that moved the Florida vote up....was attached to a measure to provide a paper trail for Florida electronic voting.

    In case anyone forgot, I'm reminding US....and please make sure you mention this the next time someone says da-Rulz is da-Rulz and we can't have a revote and we gotta split the votes to favor Obama, um, uh, for the good of the party.


    Anyway delete liberally if this is off-topic.

    I still prefer Florida as is (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:29:14 PM EST
    as all candidates were on the ballot.  Michigan I would accept a 50/50 without a vote if Michigan holds an election asking people to vote on whether or not they want to support said 50/50 split.  Lol?  Not really.  The primary process is already strung out and antiquated, it gets worse when the DNC steps in and starts trying to tell a state when it can have its electorate show up at state polls.  It would get exponentially worse if we just say..."Well, heck we don't really need to let the people speak because we (the DNC, or Chris Dodd, or whomever) can speak for them, better we decide than some 'fatcat' donor."  

    No more caucuses.  No more strung out primary season.  One day, one vote, winner takes all.  For the amount of money Obama and Clinton are raising and spending they could have held enough debates, ran enough tv ads, killed enough trees for print ads to let everyone on the planet know everything we ever wanted to know before holding a one day primary.  The idea of a six month primary might have worked pre-internet, pre-televison, pre-paper on every step, but in todays world the extended time doesn't allow a less well known candidate to become better known it allows the top money raisers to assassinate the characters of anyone and everyone who stands in their way.  If the old system was still relevant Dennis Kucinich would be able to gain a respectable share of the Dem. vote because he is knowledgeable and capable (so what if he sees ufos.)

    Taxpayers Paying Twice (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    Well here is a win win solution:

    Refund the money from the first time around and then have a revote. The taxpayers would be thrilled, and so would the voters.

    Taxpayers (none / 0) (#73)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:56:26 PM EST
    paying twice?  Where do you get that?  Donors will pay for a re-vote.

    Dodd's Concern (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST
    . . . "I don't like the idea that taxpayers will have to pay," said Dodd. "Why should they have to pay twice?" . . .

    This is exactly why Dodd went exactly nowhere (none / 0) (#9)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:17:04 PM EST
    in the presidential nominating process.  

    Write In Candidates? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    Because of this mess does  any one know if you can write in a Presidential Candidate in the GE ballot in every state or do all states prohibit a write in presidential candidate? Heard several people asking about this.   I know that writing in the candidate will be counter productive to winning  the electoral votes but I am just wondering if you can write in a candidate.  

    I heard on NPR today (none / 0) (#16)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:19 PM EST
    That Corzine and someone else (can't remember who) are talking about raising money to pay for re-votes. Anyone know more about this?

    Rendell (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    Gov. of PA.

    Corzine and Rendell (none / 0) (#22)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    And both of them are quite proficient at this whole fundraising thing. They know how to shake the trees.

    Rendell does (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:24 PM EST
    Corzine IS the trees.

    True, that. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:19 PM EST
    Surrogate number 2 (none / 0) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:41 PM EST
    Surrogate number 2, McCaskill was on tonight saying some people are trying to game the system, that she was not comfortable with the supporters of one candidate financing a re-vote and that Obama was taking the right approach in that he was waiting for a decision from the DNC.  Whatever the decision from the DNC, he would go along with.

    The taxpayers don't pay for it.  Donations don't pay for it.  Who is going to pay for it?  I'm willing to donate.  It doesn't take fat cats to get this done.   It seems the Obama surrogates were out in force today not supporting a re-vote.


    That does not even make sense (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:44:57 PM EST
    IT WAS DEAN who suggested to Nelson that the Florida Democratic Party could raise soft money for a revote.

    McCaskill is just full sh*t on this.

    I can not believe where Obama is going with this.

    Just bullsh*t.


    Your restraint (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:52:51 PM EST
    is admirable.  I was livid but refused to use caps or cuss words or exclamation points.  I will say McCaskill had the grace to look nauseous when she was challenged, but like a good little surrogate, she stuck to the circular logic line.  I try not to get mad at Obama but I have lost it over this garbage.  These are his people/his voice/his position.

    Yes. . . (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    I believe they're circulating recall petitions against Corzine at Daily Kos right now.

    You have got to be kidding me. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:23:14 PM EST
    Please tell me you're kidding. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM EST
    whoa (none / 0) (#62)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    honestly, you're off the edge here...good luck.

    No, he's not. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:46:38 PM EST
    And it's not a good time, with this economy so cutting into advertising, to drive down long-term future growth.   There will be a shift in the blogosphere, those sites whose owners rely on it for income.

    Verbose but true (none / 0) (#188)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:55:40 PM EST
    The Obama koolaid will have a heck of a hangover. I'm sure that Dkos has lost a LOT of readership because of this.

    Seriously, who wants to go hang out at the bar where you get nibbled to death by 1000's of rabid chihuahuas?

    I don't know if they'll every publicly admit their bias or their outrageous claims were, well, outrageous. Stay the course.

    To be fair, when I was reading this thread I at first thought that it was very unfriendly to any Obama supporters. But I took a step back and it is just unfriendly to B.S.


    "It's just unfriendly to B.S." (none / 0) (#203)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:28 PM EST
    and thus, there is much to talk about this year.:-)

    Great to have you here, read you over there. . . .


    they have NO idea (none / 0) (#215)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
    how many Clinton supporters have already cancelled their MoveOn membership?

    how many Clinton supporters will never watch Keith Olbermann again?

    how many Clinton supporters will never return to Daily Kos or the other blogs that have been absurdly unfair to Clinton?

    Some people have made the decision, not just that they prefer Obama, but that Clinton and her supporters have become so inconsequential that they're no longer relevant.

    Most Clinton supporters aren't like me, vocal on the blogs.  They're the Democratic base; not rabble rousers, just the people who quietly show up every year.  They're people like my wife who cancelled her MoveOn membership without a word to anyone.

    A lot of Obama supporters need to learn the meaning of that word, divisive.


    I can't find any diary like that (none / 0) (#119)
    by HadIt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:16:42 PM EST
    so yeah, I'm assuming it's sarcasm.  But I've been on a dKos sabatical since I found new haunts (like here) and my goodness am I less riled up.  Anyway, I wouldn't have been surprised if someone had posted a diary there to recall Corzine.  I was more curious if it was at the top of the Rec list.

    I (none / 0) (#77)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:32 PM EST
    believe that it is possible to write someone in.  We are in Illinois and I think it's possible.

    Interesting numbers (none / 0) (#27)
    by corn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    on the Credentials Committee crunched here

    Well, any committee with almost 200 on it (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
    is the problem right there.

    Rules and Bylaws committee looking useful, though.


    Very disappointed in Dodd (none / 0) (#29)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    I can't believe they'll actually continue on this path. They were all over the map the last few days, proposing lots of different things--or at least saying they'd be ok with a lot of different things. I think these are just trial balloons to see what they can get away with, before Obama himself comes out and takes a stand.

    Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:43:09 PM EST
    taken a stand. He's got his surrogates out there.  These are not impartial people.  They are out there speaking on his behalf making sure his message stays in the media.  His message is telling me he's stalling.

    In that case, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    he's taken several stands. McCaskill saying that he'll just abide by what the DNC decides seems like it's just cover for him to be able to complain about lack of fairness later.

    The whole thing is making my blood boil (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    and I don't even live in Florida or Michigan.

    I am livid at the lack of leadership on this from the DNC, and at the openly partisan comments of people like Donna Brazile.  It may be truly impolitic of me to mention that the people who seem to be most interested in doing anything to get Obama a victory are the same people who couldn't put together a winning campaign either as consultants or candidates, or former members of Congress who failed to provide leadership and then ended up losing to Republicans.  Maybe a little projection there?

    This is not that difficult a problem to solve but there needs to be an adult or two who could see past the ends of their own noses to what's really important: respecting the citizens' right to vote.  There just isn't anything more important than that.  Anyone who isn't able to focus on that needs to STFU.  I don't care if Claire McCaskill wants to be the next AG - she can curry favor on someone else's time.  I don't care that John Kerry couldn't close the deal in 2004 and wsan't willing to fight for it, and now wants some kind of weird redemption - I'm still waiting for him to tell us that he will follow the will of the people of Massachusetts and will be voting for Clinton at the convention.  Oh - my bad - there's some kind of special rule that doesn't make that apply to him - just to everybody else.  Tom Daschle?  Harry Reid's doppelganger?  Chris Dodd?  To take a line from Jack Nicholson's movie - no one cares what you think.

    And just so no one thinks I'm being unfair, Hillary's people can sit down and shut up, too.

    There was a time when I thought winning the WH might not be a breeze, exactly, but I certainly expected more of the party and the candidates than to get bogged down in this endless in-the-sandbox squabbling and bickering that is doing nothing but keeping people's eyes off the prize.

    Oh - and memo to Obama - winning the nomination is not the end of the contest, it's the beginning, and the more smug you appear and the more gloating you do, the more you underscore the arguments against your candidacy.


    The 50/50 allocation,,, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:29:29 PM EST
    ... and calling it democracy, is downright Orwellian. All Democrats are equal, but some Democrats are more equal than others. I like Chris Dodd, but I'm beduddled by how he can't (or, more likely, won't) see this.

    The goal of the 50-50 split (none / 0) (#68)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
    is to get  Obama closer to the magic number so he will need less Superdelgates to clinch it

    Offer a revote or a penalty, and move on. (none / 0) (#34)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    I don't see why this has to be complicated or a source of ongoing controversy. A revote would be fine, as would be letting the existing results stand but penalizing the delegates by 50% (and giving MI's "uncommitted" to Obama). The compromise should be fair to both candidates, while recognizing the fact that the states broke the rules.

    Offering a choice between losing half your delegates or having a revote under "normal" election conditions (both candidates on the ballot, full campaigning and ground operations) would meet both criteria, and would produce a democratic result.

    I'm an Obama supporter and I approve this message.

    He doesn't get the uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:36:17 PM EST
    Uncommitted does not mean Obama. Wasn't Edwards still in the race at the time the MI primry was held? If they are to be allocated, it has to take that into account.

    Yes. And both BO and JE voluntarily removed (none / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST
    their names from the ballot in an attempt to pander to Iowa.

    If that's the position on uncommitted (none / 0) (#82)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    then it forces a revote. Which is fine. But you can't say "Obama gets zero delegates from that uncommitted pool" and pretend it's a democratic result.

    BO AND JE BOTH VOLUNTARILY (none / 0) (#92)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:05:14 PM EST

    Is that clear enough for you?  They both removed their names from the ballot voluntarily, so neither received any votes.  How is this the fault of anyone else?

    A re-vote is being suggested but apparently BO (through his surrogates) doesn't want one.  They just want to take half the state's delegates.  

    Now please tell me how this is fair.  And how it follows the "rules."


    Argumentum ad capslock never works (none / 0) (#139)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:22 PM EST
    The central purpose of the election should be to discover the will of the voters. So, we need to determine who those "uncommitted" voters wanted to choose. At this point, the party should either agree that uncommitted goes to Obama (with a 50% penalty for both sides), or there can be a revote, and the voters can be asked again. I think a revote is the best solution, regardless of what Chris Dodd says.

    I'm basically with BTD 100% on this. We need a solution that reflects the will of the voters, not one that favors one candidate or the other. A revote meets that criteria. A 50% penalty is the inferior option, but is a reasonable option if money is the problem.


    LOL :-D (none / 0) (#194)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    Sorry, but I love that. Argumentum ad capslock. Gotta remember that one. Thanks for teh funny.

    Of course it is (none / 0) (#94)
    by xspowr on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
    The voters of MI voted "uncommitted" because that was the choice on the ballot (thanks to Obama himself) and that is precisely what those delegates would be: uncommitted.  There is no practical or legitimate way to determine whether those votes were for Obama or Edwards or really just plain uncommitted.  Obama would certainly be free to argue for those delegates at the convention, and he would doubtlessly get a large share of those delegates, but he currently has no viable claim that those are his votes or his delegates (his surrogate campaign to throw his votes in that direction notwithstanding).

    Sure (none / 0) (#114)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:47 PM EST
    There is no practical or legitimate way to determine whether those votes were for Obama or Edwards or really just plain uncommitted, so the solution is to have another vote and find out for sure.

    This makes MI a more difficult problem (none / 0) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:15 PM EST
    I agree he doesn't get zero, but I don't know how to split them up without a re-vote.

    But if I were feeling immoderate, I would say that he took his name off the ballot voluntarily and there should be consequences for that. :-)

    In such a close race where we need to come together afterwards, the most important thing is for whoever wins it to win it fair and square. A re-vote in MI seems warranted.


    Those consequences (none / 0) (#145)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:28:43 PM EST
    would unfairly punish the voters too. Remember, it wouldn't just be Obama getting punished; it would be his supporters and voters who wanted to choose him, but couldn't.

    Allowing the people to speak and having their vote count should always be the highest principle. If it takes a revote or some other process to get there, then fine, but wiping those votes away would be neither democratic nor Democratic.


    Obama was not "punished" (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by xspowr on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:21 PM EST
    by the MI vote. At the risk of beating an already well-tenderized horse, Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot. Self-inflicted wounds do not constitute punishment.

    Obama's supporters were likewise not punished or deprived of their vote. Their candidate chose not to run in MI.  Obama deprived them of that chance.  By your logic, Al Gore supporters were also disenfranchised in MI because he chose not to run and did not appear on the ballot.  The people did speak in MI and their votes were counted.  They chose "uncommitted" because that was the choice left to them by Obama himself.  And, as mentioned above, Obama can still contend for these delegates at the convention.  The only thing that has been "wiped away" are the votes of 2 million voters in two key swing states by the DNC over a scheduling dispute. Now that is undemocratic.


    I agree with you completely (none / 0) (#153)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    The process should protect and give voice to voters.

    the only ones .... (none / 0) (#35)
    by txprog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    playing with fire are the clinton machine and her supporters.  terry mcauliffe did not have ANY problme removing delegates from michigan in 2004 when he was chairman.  now that it beneifits clinton...hes all for cahnging the rules midstream.  where was clinton back when they announced the rules a long time ago.  she did not care...she did not need florida or michigan back then because she was going to blow everybody away.  now that it suits her interests she is leading the way with her blind supporters to change the rules.  i will concede that obama, edwards, and others did not contest the rules either because at the time it was an enormous disadvantage for them.  rules are rules. i seriously doubt clintons would contest any of the states that obama won if they were in the same situation.  as far as dodd not wanting 'fat cats' paying for the revote....i dont want that either.  the people who have all suggested they could raise money are all clinton supporters.  how would you guys like it if obamas friends payed for he revote and all of a sudden obama wins by huge margins. maybe if he wins those states you guys will just forget about them and flush them down the toilet like all the other states obama won.  forget the delegates.  most people dont know what the hell a delegate is anyway.  forgive the typos...been a hard day..im in a hurry.

    Repeat after me: This is NOT changing the rules (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:38:58 PM EST
    The rules allow for a do over. So you'll have to come up with a better argument than that.

    Both campaigns should pay for the revote.  There is such a proposal on the table.


    Actually no (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:54:56 PM EST
    the laws of Michigan do NOT allow for a re-do.  Michigan would need to pass a law to allow for a re-vote primary.  Carl Levin mentioned this over the weekend.  

    I don't know what the laws are in Florida but I suspect that their legislature needs to get involved if we are going to allow state facilities to be used for voting purposes.  

    It's not just about money.


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:57 PM EST
    You are making it up now. The Michigan Dem Party decides this.

    Not Michigan law.


    No, he's not making it up (none / 0) (#214)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:15:38 PM EST
    Carl Levine did say that on one of the Sunday talking shows.

    Also, this article says the same thing

    Political experts: Second primary unlikely for Mich.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    I'm not sure how much we should rely on the newspaper that called Nelson Mandela an "African-American."

    As long as the taxpayers don't have to pay for the re-vote, it will happen.  That's the purpose of all this posturing.


    I'm not afraid of letting MI and FL vote (again). (none / 0) (#40)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    Why should BO and his supporters be?

    Rules, rules, rules (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    When a state is stripped of it's delegates it has two options.... appeal to the credentials committee or find a way to seat their delegates (in other words... have a re-vote).  The rules have always allowed a re-vote.  It would be changing the rules to not allow them the opportunity to seat their delegates.

    The truth is (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    the reason that Hillary didn't challenge Florida and Michigan's delegates being stripped wasn't because she didn't think she would need them.  She didn't want to piss off Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.  

    It is as simple as that.


    Why is the onus on her to manage states' affairs? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21:15 PM EST
    Your telepathy notwithstanding.

    So freaking what? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:09 PM EST
    This is about the Dem Party, not Clinton or Obama.

    Heck, put decent Dem you want on the ticket, at this point I do not care.

    I want to win in November. And this is a recipe for losing.


    umm (none / 0) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    me too.

    Nothing (none / 0) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:20 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with Clinton.  It has to do with the voters of Michigan and Florida.  The states have ALWAYS had the right to appeal/re-vote.  Florida has been screaming about this since the legislative debate to move the primary date began.  They continue to want their votes to count.

    As usual Chris Dodd (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:48:14 PM EST
    is trying to find a middle ground.  

    Whether the denizens of TalkLeft want to admit it or not, the legislatures of Florida and Michigan flagrantly violated the rules.  It was intentional and confrontational.  They challenged the DNC, and the RNC, to punish them.  They challenged and lost.  

    As much as people here wish to talk about the "will of the people" the legislatures of Florida and Michigan ARE the will of the people.  And the people of Florida and Michigan are free to express their displeasure with their state legislators for acting in a way that stripped their right to participate in Democratic nomination process.  They can vote them out of office.  That's how our system works.  You don't get to say "Hey that doesn't count!" when your elected representatives do something against your interests.

    While I would support a re-vote that support comes with a bunch of angst over the fact that, in the case of  re-vote, both states are not only not getting punished but they are being exalted over the 48 states.  So what happens in 2012 when New York decides to move its primary to January 5th?  What then?  California decides to move their's to December?    The DNC can't prevent them.  All they can do is punish them for it.  And now the DNC proves itself to be truly toothless.  Nothing will stop the states from trying to one up each other.  How is that good for the Party?

    And what exactly would a re-vote achieve?  I realize that many Hillary supporters here have dreams of lopsided blowouts but it just isn't going to happen.  She might get 20-40 delegates.  She might not get a single one.  It certainly isn't, in itself, going to be enough to swing the delegates to her by any stretch of the imagination.  

    So the truth is that the RIGHT thing to do is split the delegates.  That way they can seat them but the states are still punished for their actions.  

    So if a re-vote is the choice, that's fine with me.  It won't be the coup the Clinton campaign is counting on.  And by having the re-vote this will no longer be the political football it is being used as.  But don't pretend that a re-vote is some sort of appeal to justice and fairness.  It is an act of political expediency being pushed by a candidate who has everything to gain from a re-vote and nothing to lose.

    Nonsense. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:56:21 PM EST
    If a re-vote is held, the DNC wins.  They went to the mat with the states, and the states blinked and did exactly what the DNC told them they had to do.  That's the best possible outcome from this pissing match.  It's not "escaping punishment".  The DNC doesn't care what the states do as long as they hold their primaries at the required time.

    The degree to which people seem to be salivating over the idea of denying Florida and Michigan their representation is astounding.  If you support the DNC's goal of reining in primary madness (as I do) then you should be happy that they've forced a revote.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:00:57 PM EST
    No one will jump the gun again.

    The DNC won.

    Now accept the victory and let's beat the Republicans in NOVember!!!

    This is what this is all about!!

    I am so gonna rip Obama over this.


    I assume you'll rip him. . . (none / 0) (#86)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM EST

    F*ck no (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:14 PM EST
    this is the most outrageous piece of crap I have ever seen.

    This is REALLY putting yourself before the Party.

    You see, even if he loses the revotes, heck loses badly, he STILL is the odds on favorite to be the nominee, but now with a chance to win two big prizes! 44 EVS!

    But to further diminish the chances for Clinton winning the nomination, he is willing to sacrifice a piece of his own chance to win the Presidency.

    Inexcusable. Trying to avoid it when there was a way out? Sure, I have no problem with that. But we are PAST that now.

    Heck, at this point, I think you can argue that Obama should be leading the parade for a revote.

    It would help him in a revote and it will damn sure help him in November.


    I don't think this position (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27:46 PM EST
    is going to help Obama with the superdelegates.

    First of all (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    You said earlier today that a re-vote was the most damaging option for Obama, worse than seating them as-is.  Now you are saying it is the best option?  

    Secondly, you have a quote from the Obama campaign saying they oppose a re-vote?   I see a bunch of surrogates arguing against them but not a single whiff of opposition from the campaign itself.

    The surrogates are arguing for framing, just as the Clinton surrogates are doing.  Let's be honest about that at least.


    Do you think your FRAMING (none / 0) (#130)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    will help you in November?  Losing FL and MI is the choice here, not some loopy framing.

    Because there is no stopping it (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:11 PM EST
    These will happen.

    Obama can NOT stop it. Period.

    You MUST see that now. The drumbeat will only get louder and louder. The FL Dem Party will raise the necessary funds as will the MI Dem Party.

    IT can not be stopped now.

    I think IF Obama COULD stop a revote, he would. He can't.

    And the main reason is Democrats from all over not married to Obama KNOW there is no choice now.

    Time to startnegotiating for the best terms and get in front of the parade. Heck, Obama should unveil his own proposal - something favorable to him and start arguing for it. But SOME TYPE of revote is coming.  


    I suspect you're right (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    although there are a lot of details that need to be hammered out.  Mail-vote elections are fraught with problems.  Have they ever been done on a state level before?  

    But they probably will get some sort of revote.  I don't think they will get their full delegates, however.


    flyer (none / 0) (#157)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:27 PM EST
    OREGON.  Read something besides Obama talking points sometime.

    Isn't Oregon a caucus? (none / 0) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:39:12 PM EST
    They do GE with a 100% mail-in (none / 0) (#170)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:41:55 PM EST
    and I think all the caucuses are done.

    That's interesting (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:00:28 PM EST
    I didn't know that.

    I'd imagine it takes a fair amount of planning and logistical coordination to make sure the mail in votes are legitimate.  

    I have family in Portland.  I'll have to call them up about that.


    Oregon is all vote by mail primary (none / 0) (#171)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:42:00 PM EST
    Decent thing to do (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:02 PM EST
    It was not a good thing to do because it is expected he may lose both and it would have been part of Clinton's big state electability argument.  On the other hand, some of us believe that it is very important he supports a re-vote, as he gets an incredible amount of goodwill even if he looses.  If he is seen to be prohibiting a vote for any reason, it looks, no matter how it is spun, bad.

    Yes, that's the part I don't understand. . . (none / 0) (#126)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:04 PM EST
    My impression is that he's pretty much got the nomination sewn up.  Even with re-votes I think he'll go to the convention with a lead in both delegates and popular vote.  And the supers have been breaking his way -- I definitely see him getting a majority of them.

    The only real danger is that Clinton's end game (winning PR, MI, and FL as the last three contests) could somehow provide that elusive "momentum" that would allow her to get the superdelegates she needs.

    I just don't see it.

    I think Obama and his campaign probably raised their own expectations too high and now they've become timid as a result of failing to knock Clinton out twice.


    That's exactly the point (none / 0) (#133)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    The only real danger is that Clinton's end game (winning PR, MI, and FL as the last three contests) could somehow provide that elusive "momentum" that would allow her to get the superdelegates she needs.

    I just don't see it.

    That is the one big risk for Obama.  Since it almost certain that these re-votes would occur in June they could have a disproportionate impact on the election.  They would almost certainly lead to a convention fight, unless Obama somehow won both which is unlikely.  

    The impact of the vote and the delegate count would be negligible but the impact on the narrative and public opinion would be far greater.  

    This is what Obama wants to avoid.  Heck had he listened to me back in Feb he could of avoided this mess by pushing for re-votes early on.  But sadly I haven't made his campaign staff yet. :)


    In that case. . . (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:29:46 PM EST
    I think it's clear Obama has no one to blame but himself.  He should have listened to you.

    But seriously, after listening to the bogus claims of voter suppression in Iowa against Hillary Clinton are you seriously suggesting that it's okay for Obama to argue against millions of Democrats getting to vote in a completely legal election according to the bylaws of the DNC simply to preserve his election narrative?


    I don't think (none / 0) (#151)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:23 PM EST
    that is the same thing simply because the situation is much different right now.  

    Let me ask you, do you think the actual delegate result for Florida or Michigan will matter?


    I don't know. (none / 0) (#165)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:38:02 PM EST
    I tend to think that Clinton will pick up some delegates, but not enough to wipe out Obama's lead -- or even come close to doing so.

    But what do the delegates matter?  As long as the states hold their primaries between the permitted dates, the votes should count.  Right?


    As I said (none / 0) (#168)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:29 PM EST
    I am fine with a a re-vote.  I think there is more to a re-vote than you propose but I'm fine with it.  No problems.  

    Yeah, no kidding (none / 0) (#149)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:13 PM EST
    Sometimes doing what's right isn't the easiest thing to do. Clinton is in the easier position here, no doubt. Tough noogies for Obama.

    But if he wins the nomination battle only to lose the general elction war, what good does that do? What's his end game, setting himself up for 2012? I just don't get it.


    And it could have been his position (none / 0) (#216)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:49 PM EST
    to take the high road first, to argue for the voters of these states -- that's what is puzzling and worrying . . . once again, about his judgment.  His judgment on the really big, core issues of clean elections, no corruption, etc.

    Obama has Dodd coming out saying this crap today, Obama won't talk with the Chicago press about Rezko (and omigod, the Chicago press is having so much fun with this; he's sure no saint in his hometown), etc.

    We need a president who can get a lot done, and fast, to fix all the damage of the Bush years.  We don't need to write the agenda right now that would be used to yet again tie up the White House in all sorts of narratives that again will distract from "getting things done," as SNL says.


    Internals (none / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    As you said: there has to be a reason Obama's folks are against the revote.  Okay, well, what are our options here?  All I come up with is: 1.  their internal polling shows the Obama wave has crashed much too short of the shore.  2.  The big state narrative is more important to the higher ups than even we (the smart kids, that is) realized.  3.  Someone has realized that Obama only gets 39% of the white vote, and that there are a lot more white voters than any others.  4.  There is a Rezko bombshell coming.

    I would pick options 1 and 3. (none / 0) (#160)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM EST
    as the most likely.  Having never been a smart kid I have no idea about option 2.  I really don't think his campaign is silly enough to pursue this bizarre strategy without some reason.

    I paid some attention to McCain the last few days and he's got a better hand to play than I originally thought.  This election is going to be really close no matter what which makes FL and MI more important.


    right (none / 0) (#169)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:41:55 PM EST
    there has to be a reason they are doing this.  Sure, we are logical, and apparently some of us have a LOT of time on our hands to sit around talking about this crap, but there are paid operatives in both campaigns who are devoting quite a bit of time to this little puzzle.  One side is saying revote.  The other side is saying let's just split them evenly and all go home.

    I'm surprised that, with as many lawyers as we have on this site, no one has asked why Obama doesn't want a revote.  BTD laid out why he should go ahead and embrace the revote down thread.

    Reminds me of the rumor that was going around pre-TX and OH that should Clinton lose, the super d's would basically force her to bow out.  Only, she won TX and OH, so they did not.  Why?  They can see the delegate math, too.  They knew that Obama would win WY and MS.  So, that put it all down to PA...and now MI and FL are getting thrown in,and uh oh.

    My theory is that they have told Obama if he can't win the big states and prove himself, he is in a heap of trouble.  They have all the polling we have-plus more.  There is something in there that is making Obama scared (for lack of a better word) of losing MI and FL.

    Couple this with Clinton saying she'd take him as number 2...and Kathy is yet again a genius.

    Tips can be given to TL.


    I see where he's went into his Malcolm X (none / 0) (#177)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:49:44 PM EST
    impression in MS, with the okie doke and hoodwink ya stuff again.  That's gonna be helpful with the white male vote :-)

    Since I hadn't seen that since SC, I assume he may feel he needs more solidarity there.  Or want to try and run up the score before PA.  You're probably right about those superduper dels and are yet again a genius.


    You do realize that (none / 0) (#199)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03:36 PM EST
    the Malcolm X thing is more of an inside joke than some special black dog whistle, right?  

    It's a movie quote. Nothing more.


    heh (none / 0) (#201)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:04 PM EST
    Denzel did it a lot better but it's still a dog whistle in this case.

    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#206)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:10:01 PM EST
    I've joked around about that quote countless times with AA friends of mine.  It is used in just about any situation in which an injustice of any kind can be seen, even in jest.

    The reason why the lawyers aren't asking Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:04 PM EST
    about why he is against a re-vote is because he has never said he was opposed to a re-vote.  He has continually said he will abide by whatever the DNC approves.  

    You can hope that there is all sorts of secret polling that supports your beliefs all you want.  That doesn't make it so.

    Obama is, right now, going to be the nominee.  He has no need to do anything about Florida and Michigan, Hillary does.  So he sits back and has his surrogates create static while he simply says "Whatever you guys decide upon".  

    Obama is not going to chip in for a new primary.  Not a chance that will happen.  

    What you guys don't seem to get is that he doesn't have to do anything.  Unless the states get their act together that would mean either no re-vote or caucuses.   BTD's option is a possibility, i.e the mail in vote, but that is a pretty big logistical challenge.


    Congratulation on losing the GE (none / 0) (#186)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:54:28 PM EST
    I think you're probably right (none / 0) (#189)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    but this is the kind of think that makes me uncomfortable with him as a President. I want a leader, not someone who sits back and says "whatever" because he thinks he has it sewn up.

    That isn't reasonable (none / 0) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58:49 PM EST
    Campaigns are campaigns.  You do what you have to in order to win.  If the roles were reversed I guarantee to you that they would both be acting reciprocally.

    But....but...but......I thought BO was all about (none / 0) (#202)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:12 PM EST
    the "New Politics."  And that Hillary was the one who would "do anything to win."  But now it's just "campaigns are campaigns" and "You do what you have to do in order to win."

    What a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.


    You know (none / 0) (#208)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:31 PM EST
    I've posted here pretty regularly.  How bout you show a single post of mine that has ever suggested that Obama was going to change politics.  Good luck with that.    

    But thanks for calling me a hypocrite.  


    You may be right (none / 0) (#212)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:14:01 PM EST
    I will think about that. Thank you for the lively discussion.

    Why? (none / 0) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:41 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan achieved EXACTLY what they wanted.  They both brazenly passed their primary laws in an attempt to become king maker states.

    If a re-vote is approved these two states become the primary because they will hold their elections after everyone else and since the race will not be decided they will have their say.

    I advocated for re-votes over a month ago at this very site.  I was laughed at.  Now I'm being ridiculed because I point out that, eventhough I'm fine with a re-vote, it does reward FL and MI for violating the rules.


    FL and MI are not being rewarded (none / 0) (#127)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:09 PM EST
    I don't understand this punishment idea. Who will truly be punished if we don't carry MI and FL in November? I gotta say, this is such a clear example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    We have to consider three things: what is fair for the nomination process, what helps us win in November, and what we do about the primary schedule next time. Next time is four years off. I think the other two things are more important right now.


    you advocated, now only "ok" (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:23 PM EST
    What happened? Why aren't you advocating for them now?

    Because (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27:29 PM EST
    the re-votes are simply a political ploy.  They have no real impact on the results from a delegate perspective.

    Realistically Obama would probably lose Florida at about the same rate he lost Ohio or California, about 10 points.  

    Michigan would be likely be close.  Michigan has a lot of AAs and college town liberals.  But it has a lot of blue collar workers.  It would be close.  

    I don't like having Florida and Michigan as the last 2 states to vote.  It is a tremendous reward for violating the rules.  

    If it has to happen that's fine.  But I also see what the re-vote really is about.


    Well (none / 0) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:59 PM EST
    what date would you prefer?

    I suggested May.

    As for what is "realisitc." I like the actual events to determine what is realistic myself.


    Furthermore (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:59:31 PM EST
    How is splitting the delegates fair?  You're saying we don't care who these voters actually voted for, or who they might re-vote for, they must split their vote equally between the two candidates.

    Is that in the rules? --that we can take their votes and arbitrarily allocate them in the manner that the Obama camp sees fit?  I don't know if it is or not; it's a serious question: Do the rules allow an evenly split allocation in spite of the rules established beforehand for delegate allocation?


    Yeah, splitting is clearly not fair (none / 0) (#90)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:04:03 PM EST
    I don't get why anyone is advancing that as an option. The delegate compromise should be 50% of the results as they stand. It punishes the rule-breaking states but still reflects the will of the voters. (It's what the consequence should have been from the very beginning, and we could have avoided this whole annoying mess.)

    Or of course, a revote. Which is clearly the most acceptable option at this point.


    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    and it ain't a lovin one.... that options are only advanced or abandoned based on which candidate it favors and it needs to stop.  It really, really needs to stop.

    I don't think that's entirely true (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27:37 PM EST
    I think you'll find that most Clinton supporters would prefer that the vote stand as it is. But many of us recognize that's not going to fly, and insisting on it will just create a deadlock, and Obama supporters will forever cry that they were robbed. A re-vote will give Obama votes in Michigan that he currently doesn't have, so I fail to see how this is the option that most favors Hillary.

    Which isn't to say that supporters from both sides aren't angling for a solution that helps their candidate, but at least on the Clinton side, we're not being absolutists about it.


    All I am saying is that (none / 0) (#66)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:53:44 PM EST
    a revote is allowed under the rules. It is no stretch of the rules, no violation of the rules, it is allowed under the rules.

    This is about more than the nomination, it's about carrying MI and FL in November. If that is both candidates' goal, then I would expect both of them to be supporting a re-vote or some way to seat the delegates where the delegate split reflects the will of the people.


    The DNC rules (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    allow for a re-vote.  It is unclear what the state laws allow for and I haven't seen much about it.  

    AFAIK, Michigan does NOT allow for a re-vote primary.  A law would need to be passed.  

    No one knows what the will of the people is in Florida or Michigan.  And if a re-vote can't or won't happen, what then?  

    The more I think about it the more I think that a 50/50 split in which the delegates are not bound to the candidate sounds more and more appealing.  


    State law does not matter (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:02:41 PM EST
    in either state.

    The Dem PArty's will do what they do and state law will not matter whit.

    These are not going to be state run affairs and I defy you to argue that the governments of Michigan and Florida will challenge these contests.

    But wait, I know who might. Is that what you are suggesting? That Obama will SUE to stop the revotes?

    Are you really suggesting that?


    Where exactly (none / 0) (#112)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:26 PM EST
    do they plan to hold these elections?  Bowling alleys?  

    The notion that the states won't be involved in a primary is pure folly.  

    You speak of the irrationality of Obama supporters but you sure come up with some bizarre theories.  Where did I suggest anything remotely close to Obama suing anyone?  


    Mail boxes most likely (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:09 PM EST
    mail boxes? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:21 PM EST
    That's ridiculous.  How can you get all those people into mailboxes?  Have you seen the average Floridian?  Girth they got.  

    Honestly, the only way to settle this is to just split the delegates in half.  Obama did not campaign in Florida or Michigan, but everyone knows he would get Edwards' supporters, so throw those in, too.  It's not his fault he lost.  Now that people know the O, they would vote for him in large numbers anyway, so what's the point?


    haha (none / 0) (#162)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    Middle ground? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:55:50 PM EST
    Let me ask you a question, why do you so want to lose Florida and Michigan in the Fall?

    IS making sure Obama wins more important to you than DEMOCRATS winniing?

    Why do you fear a revote?

    Denizens of Obamaland like you are just ridiculous on this. You will defend anything now.


    Where in the world (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:02:39 PM EST
    did you get that I was afraid of of a re-vote?  Was it when I said I was fine with a re-vote?  

    You want to make it solely about the horse race, as if no other factor matters.  That simply isn't the case, at least not for me.  

    You guys are so self-righteous.  "The will of the people must prevail!", "Democracy must reign supreme", "Let the people be heard!".  I'm waiting for you guys to whip out some Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry quotes.

    As for your "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, I have no desire to see the Democrats lose Florida or Michigan.  However I don't believe that this particular kerfuffle will affect the results in November one bit UNLESS the delegates are seated as is and that is only because that would look very bad.


    Self righteous? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM EST
    Are you nuts? This is about DEMOCRATS winning in November!!!

    Heck, I think it is important as a principle that Florida and Michigan have their say, but it is not the most important thing in the world to me.

    That is NOT my point. This is about DEMOCRATS winning the White House in November. That is all I care about now.

    That you do not believe this will affect us says something about your judgment or your bias. Only you know which.


    Perhaps so (none / 0) (#163)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:37:15 PM EST
    we may find out regardless.

    IMO, I think that people are overhyping the impact of the primaries themselves.  

    Unless there is a clear example of finagling the system I don't think that the vast majority of people will be affected by whatever solution we come with in Florida or Michigan.  And I believe that no matter what decision is made there will be a group that will stay home, a small group but they do exist.  I have no idea which group would be bigger, the Clinton or Obama group.

    My primary concern is the Democrats winning in November as well.  I can't take 4 more years of Republican rule.  My preference is Obama and while I have my concerns about Clinton there is no question that I will vote for her.

    But I can't say I care much for the hand wringing going on by either side.  


    Someone's gonna lose (none / 0) (#167)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    But I think fewer people will stay home in November if they view the process as having been fair. If either side thinks it was stolen from them, I think they will have a harder time coming out to vote.

    I agree with that (none / 0) (#173)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:44:03 PM EST
    That's why I said that sitting the delegates as-is is simply unacceptable.

    What if Florida gets to seat their delegates as-is but Michigan is required to split theirs 50-50?

    Not sure if I like that idea, just throwing it out there.


    Won't reflect the will of the people (none / 0) (#184)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    Michigan needs a fix. He may end up with half the delegates (or more) in a re-vote, but I don't know how we can look at the old vote and know that's the right thing to do.

    As for FL, I have moved from thinking that a re-vote wasn't necessary (seat them as is) to thinking that we need one for the sake of fairness. This whole situation is terrible.


    I agree (none / 0) (#190)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:56:18 PM EST
    the situation is terrible.  And apparently I am the only one upset at the state legislatures of Florida and Michigan for putting us in this mess.

    No, you're not the only one (none / 0) (#193)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58:57 PM EST
    But I don't want their decisions to continue to haunt us.

    Hardly (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:02:26 PM EST
    The Republican State Legislatures that is. No Dem voted to change the primary in MI, and in FL the GOP tied in a provision that no Dem could vote against, so that vote was unanimous.

    Dirty tricks. THey must be having a good laugh about now.


    Say again? (none / 0) (#205)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
    No Dem voted to change the primary in Michigan?  Isn't the Michigan legislature controlled by the Democrats?  Isn't the Michigan governor a Democrat?

    No (none / 0) (#207)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:10:58 PM EST
    It is controlled by the GOP. 17 dems vote unanimously against the measure and the republican majority voted unanimously for the measure.

    Link (none / 0) (#211)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:13:32 PM EST
    And (none / 0) (#213)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:15:32 PM EST
    Here the vote was 21-17..

    The Senate may be (none / 0) (#218)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:21:57 PM EST
    but the House is Democratic controlled as is the Governors office.  

    All (none / 0) (#89)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:03:49 PM EST
    this stuff is just nuts.  There should be a National Primary Day when everyone goes to the polls and it should be a good weather month.  That would end all this nonsense and be much less expensive.

    Get real (none / 0) (#99)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:07:42 PM EST
    The legislatures are not being punished for their actions. The people in the states are.  In FL it was the REPUBLICAN-dominated legislature that did this, not the Democrats. The Republicans get to sit back and watch the Dems make fools of themselves. You aren't punishing them by banning the delegates, you are rewarding them.

    Is it any wonder that Republicans in Congress can pull the Dem's chains and get their agenda thru even when they are in the minority?


    You do realize (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM EST
    that the GOP stripped Florida of half of its delegates as well, right?  

    This whole notion that the people are not responsible for the people they elect is a new concept to me.  


    If Democrats (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:50 PM EST
    elected a Republican legislature and Governor, you might have a point.

    And I wouldn't be opposed to that (none / 0) (#154)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    After all that was the "automatic" penalty. But it also should be applied to NH, IA, and SC that also violated the rules.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:18 PM EST
    but that horse has left the barn.  

    Pardon but no delegations are seated yet. (none / 0) (#183)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    You think the DNC (none / 0) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:54:45 PM EST
    is going to retroactively strip New Hampshire and Iowa of their delegates?  

    No, just pointing out that (none / 0) (#195)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:54 PM EST
    you shouldn't keep counting your chickens before they hatch.  It's a good way to lose an election and Democrats are famous for it.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:01:41 PM EST
    what chickens I'm counting but I can assure you that there is no way that the DNC, or RNC for that matter, will ever retroactively strip delegates from a state unless there is evidence of criminal fraud.

    You cannot assure me the sun will rise in the (none / 0) (#200)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03:52 PM EST
    east and provide me with any comfort.

    amen (none / 0) (#174)
    by txprog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:44:07 PM EST
    thanks flyer.

    It must be the water in Connecticut (none / 0) (#58)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:49:20 PM EST
    First we got Lieberman and now Dodd is having some kind of outer body experience.

    I can't think of any valid reason... (none / 0) (#113)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    ... to oppose a revote in MI and FL. It seems like the obvious solution.

    I know the politics of it. I doubt Clinton would be pushing for this if she didn't think she would win the revotes. But sometimes expediency actually does correlate with principle, and surely all Democrats think that all voters should have the opportunity to make their voices heard. And Clinton is making a concession by including Florida in the deal, where she won an even contest by 17 points.

    Obama needs to go along with this, and fast. His refusal to do so casts doubt on whether he has principles other than winning. His backpedaling on his public financing pledge is already troubling enough.

    Forget principle (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:14 PM EST
    This is about helping Dems win this thing in November.

    Whatever Dodd's smoking, I want some. (none / 0) (#121)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:11 PM EST
    Let me see if I got this straight.  Hillary won decisively in what is arguably the most important swing state -- so let's call it a tie and and award the delegates 50-50.

    If Hillary's people were to suggest such a plan, there wouldn't be enough ear plugs and noise-cancelling headsets in the galaxy to shut out the screaming and wailing.

    Two words, nutjob: pro rata.

    Two more words: "fair" & "square."

    Sheesh.  Or as they used to say in Maine when I was a lad, "Jes-s Chr-st and Andrew Jackson!"

    It is interesting... (none / 0) (#124)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:18:06 PM EST
    ... how often people's definitions of what is right aligns with what would be good for them personally.

    If he would just join the re-vote crowd (none / 0) (#140)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:26:23 PM EST
    he would probably gain more votes.  As is he may just loose a lot he could have otherwise gotten in Nov.

    Jiminies, good thing Senator Dodd isn't DNC chair. (none / 0) (#148)
    by eleanora on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    But I'm so disappointed in Dr. Dean. I supported him in 04 and then with cash and lobbying my state party leaders to help get him elected Chair. And I'm just delighted with the 50 State Strategy and all the good it's done us around the country, competing in places we used to ignore. But I'm sorry to say that this mess is squarely in his corner.

    Why on earth the other states (NV and SC?) that went early didn't receive sanctions as well is a mystery. And why didn't the DNC tell FL and MI, you lose half your delegates and the candidates will not be making any media buys at all? They can campaign and get all the free press they can scrounge up, but your state just lost a lot of money and 50% of its power at the convention. That's how you keep voters and candidates happy and involved while smacking the hands of grabby idiots.

    Or what about any other sane, rational solution that would keep our minds on the voters and our eyes on the prize? Revotes are inevitable and needed now, but this mess didn't need to happen at all.

    Results not in yet. (none / 0) (#158)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:43 PM EST
    If the DNC forces a re-vote in FL and MI, they win.  In principle, reining in primary madness is a good idea.  NV and SC were chosen to go early to diversify the early states, they were specifically exempted from the scheduling rules along with IA and NH.

    Gee, it was my plan too. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:32:38 PM EST
    Actually, my plan had primaries as a first choice and caucus as a second, then if the state parties couldn't manage it to split the delegations down the middle and seat them.

    Believe it or not, if you count the delegates Obama won over the last week, between Texas, Wyoming, the extra four he picked up in California, he actually stretched his lead by another 14 delegates.

    Isn't anyone here concerned about our elections now being funded by campaign funders? Could we at least have a list of Clinton Library donors to compare the proposed financiers of these do-over elections? I'm sure Carville won't mind supplying a list.

    The fat cats argument is specious. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:18 PM EST
    I don't care if the RNC donates the money, as long as the people running the actual elections are trustworthy. Corzine and Rendell aren't going to be counting the ballots.

    Woud it meet your criteria if we let Rezko (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:37:57 PM EST
    pony up some change for this thing?  That way BO would have one of his supporters and we'd be even.

    Wicked funny. Bad, bad Angel. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:50:11 PM EST
    Aren't you thinking of Auchi? (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:53:45 PM EST
    Rezko is poor now, or so he says.

    Are you concerned about them Bob? (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST
    What is your concern?

    Is there any reliable polling data (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:42:34 PM EST
    as to whether MI and/or FL Dem. voters will, in fact, stay home for the GE if the delegates aren't seated?  

    revote (none / 0) (#182)
    by deminma on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:33 PM EST
    I think they should punish the states by cutting delegates by 50%  -  no supers - They caused the mess.

    No revote in Florida  - huge waste of money that should be used by the nominee and the delgate count would not change substantially

    revote in Michigan  -  although it would be preferable to do nothing to save the cash if the delegates are not important -  which is probably true at 50% allocation  -- This is only possible if Michigan thinks it first vote was valid.

    you can't punish voters for the (none / 0) (#217)
    by tandem5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST
    actions of a comparatively microscopic group of individuals. Elections are not the property of party officials or candidates - they belong to the electorate.

    Anybody that thinks otherwise can't claim any injustice to super delegates overturning the popular vote or the pledged delegate count.


    To fladem above... (none / 0) (#221)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:38:09 PM EST
    I know what you mean, but the US Supreme Court is part of the rules too.

    Whoa, there (none / 0) (#222)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:20:46 AM EST
    I detect the following fallacy:

    1. Chris Dodd supports X.

    2. Armando believes X will cause bad thing Y.

    3. Therefore Chris Dodd doesn’t care about bad thing Y.

    Illogic is not a virtue :)

    The Candidates agreement (none / 0) (#223)
    by glennmcgahee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:12 AM EST
    The pledge that was signed by the candidates was that they would not campaign in either state. They did NOT sign an agreement that delegates from the states would not count. Only Obama broke that pledge as he ran TV commercials aimed at Florida voters before the primary. Of course, the MSM claims that Hillary broke that pledge when she appeared AFTER the primary to thank her supporters and to recognize that Florida is important. We'll vote again if you wish. But it will be a major blowout this time.

    Dodd does not see the 2 states are differenct (none / 0) (#224)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    It's not difficult: FL Dems had no control over the date--that was done by the FL R party and officials.

    In MI, the move was done by the MI D party and officials.

    But, for Obama's purposes, it is good to be inaccurate. Way to go, Dodd. You might be a voice of reason on this, but, OK, you've see the light.