home

Obama Camp Resisting Revotes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Commenter Coral Gables points me to this very revealing story that demonstrates clearly that the Obama Camp is ratcheting up its campaign against revotes in Florida and Michigan:

"The Democratic Party is going to run a mail-in election and they're going to police it and they're going to - I mean, I think it's a nightmare," senior Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod said Monday on MSNBC. . . . [S]tate party staffers are pushing ahead with a $10-million plan that could be submitted to the Democratic National Committee as early as this week.

. . . Growing skepticism from the Obama campaign and from key supporters of the Illinois senator. . . . "Does anyone really believe we're going to get this right? And does anyone really want another screwed up election in Florida?," asked Tallahassee City Commissioner Allan Katz, a DNC member and top Obama supporter.

Who is afraid of the Big Bad Revote? Barack Obama is. And it can not be denied anymore.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 19 | Boehlert On Tweety And Hillary's 60 Minutes Moment >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Camp Resisting Revotes | 211 comments (211 topical)
    That's too rich-- and very Rovian, (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    actually. They are actively trying to thwart Democracy, while saying they only want to protect it.

    Yes, they are "protecting" the (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    "integrity" of the disenfranchisement of FLA and MI voters.

    This is stupid from the Obama perspective.  He's already lost those states once. It's not going to be a surprise if he loses them again. Yeah, the delegates will count, but those delegates alone will not put Clinton in front. If he thinks he's the frontrunner, he should act like the frontrunner and say that nothing that happens in FLA or MI is going to change things.

    [ Parent ]

    Depending on how the races break ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    I think it could put her in front, or within a handful of delegates.

     

    [ Parent ]

    You believe she will gain (none / 0) (#119)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    100 or more delegates out of the approx 370?

    [ Parent ]
    I thought the estimates of ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    what she would net from the current results was 105, and that's giving Obama delegates for the uncommitted votes.

    IMHO, the revotes aren't going to go that differently.

    [ Parent ]

    If you count the popular votes she got (none / 0) (#125)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    in FLA and MI, she is about tied with Obama. (Of course, most people don't count those votes.) But I am not sure the delegates she'd have if those votes counted would have her even with Obama.

    However, if you couple the delegates from either the first vote, or the revote, with the delegates she is likely to win from PA, she would be tied or very close, I think.  And she would almost certainly have the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    risky strategy (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kmblue on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    I will watch with interest to see how it plays out.

    Not to (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    mention that they're acting as though it's already the preemptive narrative for the Campaign to claim voting was in disarray and Clinton stole it when she wins both.

    Well, no doubt they'll try to make it in (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    disarray, by whatever methods they can.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm going to re-iterate (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    Obama is hoping he can win this before they revote.

    Dean is helping him.

    Waiting for Pennsylvania? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    Nothing is going to happen before Pennsylvania to end this race.

    And believe you me, we will be hearing about Florida and Michigan EVERY DAY for the next 6 weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    It certainly doesn't look... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    ... like Pennsylvania is going to be driving a stake through the Clinton campaign, either.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    Tonight they will celebrate another Obama win.

    They won't be discussing Obama's reticence here.

    As narratives go, it's a sub-narrative, so I think we just disagree on the amount of coverage this is getting.

    Which is not to say you staying on it isn't appreciated.

    [ Parent ]

    Mississippi? It's not exactly HUGE. (none / 0) (#99)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    I think you're underestimating people Edgar08.  After a while, even the least political among us start to see a pattern.  Besides, it might not be a blowout for Obama in Mississippi.  He isn't going to widen his lead by very much.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's not HUGE????? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    Why do you hate Mississippi, Goldberry?

    [ Parent ]
    about that "popular vote".... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    What about states that have primaries AND caucuses?
    Voters are counted twice?

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    Dean is helping him.

    Dean has his own fight, which is to ensure that the states that challenged the DNC are seen to be forced into compliance.  Once that's taken care of, it's in his interest to have the most robust possible competition (in the sense of bringing out the most voters) as possible.

    Everything Dean's done seems to fit with this, the simplest version of what his interests are.

    I doubt there's much love lost between Dean and the Obama team, which includes many of the people who knee capped him in 2004.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#60)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    Obama's campaign has more former Clinton aides and campaigner's than Dean's people.

    [ Parent ]
    I beg your pardon? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
    Not sure what you mean.

    It's true Obama has a lot of former Clinton people, but he also has the communications guy who morphed Dean into Osama bin Laden in 2004.

    [ Parent ]

    I never kneecapped him (none / 0) (#113)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    I was a Clarkie.  I just never liked Dean much because he struck me as the kind of guy who likes to dabble in stuff and come up with nifty ideas but has no real idea about how to carry it out.  THAT'S what I didn't like about Dean.  It wasn't his scream or anything else about him.  Some of us paid attention to what he said and how he went about running his campaign and simply said, "No, thanks" based entirely on our own criteria. It wasn't personal.
    I wish you former Deaniacs would get over this "He could have been a contender, He could have BEEN somebody!" schtick.  He wasn't as great as you thought and the current situation is proving it. I am SOOO glad he wasn't the nominee if this is what he was capable of doing to just the party.  

    [ Parent ]
    Whoa, Nelly. (none / 0) (#129)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    I'm referring specifically to campaign operatives who did the dirty on Dean, not to general Obama supporters (who, I would guess, tend include a larger than statistically expected number of Dean fans).

    As for Dean, he certainly wasn't as good as people thought by the only measure that really matters -- getting elected.  I tend to agree with your assessment, but I'd also say that he was clearly lacking the ambition and ego that everyone decries in the current pair of candidates but which is a prerequisite to engaging in politics on this level.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm just noting that the roolz (none / 0) (#183)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    Including the enforcement thereof.

    Have always broke in Obama's favor.


    [ Parent ]

    One argument Obama is sure to lose (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    To refuse the revotes is basically turning away from their "different kind of politics" campaign line; and reinforces their "wink/nod/wink mode just like in Nafta and the Bower statement on hiws actual foreign policy as opposed to the one crafted in the primaries.

    It conveys the impression that they are actually afraid of the impact of the two revotes; that in the final analysis, he is just an ordinary politician;  This is a lose/lose situation for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Seems (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    like they are sowing seeds of doubt and trying to cast it in disarray before it even happens.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    selling the majority of Americans (none / 0) (#116)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    on the idea that elections are rigged or faulty is an incredibly difficult task.  If Americans were truly worried about election fraud, or saw it as a serious issue, then we would have a better election process.  Has anyone noticed how difficult it is to vote?  The long lines, standing outside in the rain (or tornadoes), the mix-ups in polling places, the challenged ballots...and that's not even including the hacked Diebold machines, which make the news occasionally, but never inspire the sort of outrage that would get the process changed.  Even the supreme court handing Bush the presidency wasn't a huge enough issue to cause rioting in the streets.

    All this to say that Obama's spin on this, that it would be a nightmare, that we shouldn't do it, etc, is not going to play well.

    [ Parent ]

    We have too much stuff to riot (none / 0) (#186)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    That's the marvel of our "system".  It keeps people materially satisfied or striving, and relegates politics (as the right has successfully) to being the evil necessity that stands between us and our trinkets and gadgets and things.  It's insidious in a very keen way.

    [ Parent ]
    It's amusing (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    to watch people who adore all those f'ed up caucus results suddenly get the vapors at the thought that MI and FL might do something unorthodox with their primary.  "oh no, a firehouse primary is only open for a few hours! we can't possibly have a system that makes it hard for some people to vote!"

    That is why a mail-in (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    is the only viable alternative -- which the alternative they fear the most.

    [ Parent ]
    Lawsuit? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    Do I smell a whiff of a lawsuit in the air to challenge the results?

    I live in CA.  I do not like having the concept of a mail-in challenged.  We are proud of the convenience and inclusiveness of our mail-in option.  No lines, no parking problems, convenience in pick up and drop off.  The only issue that is addressed in CA is having a signature on file to compare to.  If you are registered Dem, you get a Dem ballot.  If you are registered Rep, you get a Rep ballot.  This stuff is too obvious and yet another thing that is pissing me off.

    Just To Throw In My Two Cents (none / 0) (#133)
    by zfran on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    I live in Texas. Can't vote by mail-in (absentee) unless you can prove you're going to be out of the city on election day, or can prove that you're physically disable to be there. Otherwise you have to either lie, or, vote in person!!!
    Just thought I'd mention it.

    [ Parent ]
    There's something funny about his campaign (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    What's his plan for those two states?  I think he's looking worse everyday that he doesn't speak for himself.  He should never have postponed this issue until now.

    Just as Hillary HAS to win All of Ohio, Texas & Pennsylvania (and it's looking like she will)

    I think Obama HAS to win something out of PA, MI or FL.  And that's looking unlikely.

    I don't believe in spreadsheet predictions for elections.  I think that once the tide turns, everyone moves in the same direction.

    I know that on paper he looks like his campaign is as strong as ever.  But, I think he's peaked.  How does he turn the tide at this point?

    Not by dragging his heels on THIS.  He needs those states as much as Hillary.  Doesn't he?

    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    Katiebird, you nailed it.  Calling it momentum would be a mistake but I do think there is a change of mental attitude that favors Clinton solidly from here on out and for precisely the reasons you stated.  He can't and won't win the big/swing states.  He wins by caucus and that tends to suppress people, specifically working voters who might otherwise support Clinton.  
    Obama is suffering more from the long drawn out primary season because it gives voters time to see very clearly what his strategy is.  He is going for low-hanging fruit in conservative states and courting the AA vote.  He wins by excluding people.    He wins by flooding the caucuses with young people who won't stick around and are unlikely to vote for the rest of the Dems.  He is a movement and a personality.  And it becomes clearer everyday.  

    [ Parent ]
    And... (none / 0) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    The fact that he does better in caucuses would lead me to question (if I was an SD) his viability in the GE, since there are no caucuses in the GE - it's straight up or down.

    [ Parent ]
    My perception of caucuses now... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    ..having never participated in one, is that you have to be aggressive. And that there will be people there who will try to persuade you to vote their way.  As that is a position that I don't willingly like to place myself in, I think I wouldn't like them. I like to make up my mind before I go to the polling place. And maybe my perception of them is all effed up, but that's the impression that I'm left with after this crazy campaign season.

    [ Parent ]
    Having never really focused on them before (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    (even though I have been voting in presidential elections since 1976), what astounds me about caucuses is how they (1) exclude people who can't attend the caucuses at the specified time; (2) encourage, rather than discourage, last minute attempts to influence a person's vote by candidate surrogates; (3)award delegates in a manner disproportionate to the number of people living in the relevant district, or the number of votes cast in the caucuses.

    Somehow I thought of them as friendly little get togethers in small towns where punch and cookies were served and everyone got a chance to talk.

    Now, I think we should abolish them. Seriously.  They really don't accurately reflect the level or depth of popular support a candidate would have in the state in a regular primary or the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    Senior Citizens (none / 0) (#57)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    Clinton leads among senior citizens in just about every state. The blow back on the FL and MI revote hurts both candidates. Clinton is afraid not to have the revotes because she desperately needs the votes in her second place position. Obama will play by the rules and go along but his campaign wishes the issue would go away.

    [ Parent ]
    fwiw - a revote is playing by the rules (none / 0) (#93)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    The DNC rule book has rules to modify rules so that every rule can be re-ruled by another rule.

    [ Parent ]
    If I may speak. . . (none / 0) (#102)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    for 1jane, I took her comment to mean that Obama will ultimately accept the re-vote not that he will attempt to permanently ban Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    What I don't understand (none / 0) (#107)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    are his options....

    What IS his first choice?  

     1. Does he want a convention where the seats for MI & FL are empty?

     2. Does he want FL & MI at the convention?

    I can't tell.

    IF he wants them there, why doesn't he jump in (as BTD says below) with some enthusiasm?

    I don't think he's wanting the issue to go away -- that's just childish.  The issue isn't going away.


    [ Parent ]

    see (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by joei on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    that's were the genius plan implemented by his surrogates kicks inn -- split 50/50 and seat them

    [ Parent ]
    Obama could be hurting himself (none / 0) (#157)
    by Curtis93433 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    This is why he is delaying the end result.  He is hoping this ends up in the Credential Committee, where as they will split the delegates evenly 50-50.  Supposedly he has the votes in this Committee and the States would need to do something before it goes to this Committe for a vote.  The funny thing is that Obama is really hurting himself with these States and it appears he does not want their vote to count.  He could potentially have a serious backlash in a revote.  The perception does not look good.

    [ Parent ]
    Is there any evidence mail-in votes (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    are unreliable? I realize this is the talking point du jour from Obama Central, but I personally have never heard of a  problem with mail-ins before.

    Washington State (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    In Washington state, the "absentee voter" policy is so liberal that all you have to say is "I want to become a permanent 'absentee' voter" and they start sending you a ballot every election.  You don't have to be traveling or anything.

    The absentee process is so successful that the plan is to switch Washington to an entirely vote by mail system.

    Chain of custody isn't really a problem.  You place your ballot in an anonymous envelope and place that envelope in an envelope with your name, the date and your signature on it.

    The poll worker opens your signed envelope, verifies your signature, and checks off that you've sent in your ballot and places your "anonymous" envelope in a bin to be later opened and counted.

    It's really a simple process, and allows the voter the time and space to make informed decisions.  There's no more fraud potential than in any other election.

    I don't know how it would disenfranchise poorer citizens.  They can vote without worrying about work hours.  If the issue is the 39 cent stamp, the Democrats can prepay the postage....

    IMHO, It's a great way to go.

    [ Parent ]

    Yepper (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    It totally is. Florida's system is the same way with the added part that you can fax your paperwork to the board of elections if you waive the right to a secret ballot.

    It worked out good for me this time because my ballot got here with only a day or two before it had to be back. so I just signed it the extra time, to waive my right to a secret ballot, and faxed it in.

    [ Parent ]

    Paranoia now being part of my thought (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    process, I have to wonder how many Obama "organizers" will be "helping" people with their mail-in votes in a way they could not help at precincts...

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it would be worse (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    than the thuggery at the caucuses.

    [ Parent ]
    This has always (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    been one of my concerns with mail-in elections.  Imagine your spouse insisting on "helping" you fill out your ballot, unlike a voting booth where nobody knows what you do.  Imagine an evangelical church asking that everyone bring in their ballots next Sunday so we can all fill them out together.

    But it does work well in Oregon, apparently, so maybe these concerns are misplaced.

    [ Parent ]

    illegal (none / 0) (#184)
    by Nasarius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the latter example at least is illegal. Yes, this sort of thing can happen, and you can't prevent the rare isolated incidents of intimidation. But try to crank it up to any significant scale, and you get in Very Big Trouble as one of the voters you're trying to intimidate reports you to the authorities.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton will too (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    But the signature is the signature. And that expresses the will of the voter.

    [ Parent ]
    Alice Palmer (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    Doesn't Obama have some staffers who are very good at challenging signatures?

    [ Parent ]
    1996 revisited midnight lawyers (none / 0) (#131)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    But he is for enfranchising voters he wouldn't do that.

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto (none / 0) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    I know.  It is the same process here.  There are so many exceptions to requirements, a person actually registered their dog to vote.  I don't think access to ballots is the issue.  I think it is that they are not literally going to be 'mailed in' in this case.  My understanding is there will be drop off sites and there will be 6 to 8 hours to drop off.

    [ Parent ]
    You realize (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    that she put her phone bill in the dog's name so that she could register him.  It wasn't as easy as some attempted to make us believe.  It took her some time and effort to do it, not something that you could probably do before a special election.

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    That's true.  I forgot that part.  I just remember, it took awhile to figure it out.  I noted that it is just a matter of bringing in a current bill or that there are forms one can sign declaring residency.  The threshold is very low.

    [ Parent ]
    In fact I thought that perhaps they might be... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30:13 PM EST
    ...and many posters from states that have mail in elections assured me that they are really quite effective.

    [ Parent ]
    In 2000, the FL military mail-in vote (none / 0) (#32)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    had numerous problems

    [ Parent ]
    Military ballots (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    The Florida military mail in had no more issues than any other state. The question was should the military abide by the same time frame as other voters in having their ballots arrive. The only reason it was mentioned in Florida was because Florida was close.

    [ Parent ]
    was it just the military's or all (none / 0) (#38)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    absentee votes.

    [ Parent ]
    a negative about the mail in vote (none / 0) (#108)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    is that Florida has never done it - that I'm aware of.
    And we know the history on Florida counting votes...

    [ Parent ]
    Florida Republican Gov counting votes (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    This would be the Democratic Party.  We have a lot of absentee votes here that are mailed in so it would just be a larger process.

    Are you casting doubt on the honesty of the Florida Democrats?

    [ Parent ]

    What's absurd about the argument from (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    the Obama campaign, and which will make it transparent to the public that they have absolutely no interest in seeing democracy win, is the simple fact that the only alternative they leave open is the complete disenfranchisement of every last voter in FL and MI. How do you compare that result with the possibility that a small number of voters in FL and MI might be disenfranchised?

    They are never going to win this argument, however they try. They will only make themselves look like dishonest fools in the process.

    Which would be a good thing, from my point of view.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    "we can't risk another screwed-up election, so let's have no election at all!"

    [ Parent ]
    Nice way to sum it up (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yep pretty much. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    I don't see how disenfranchisement is a new kind of politics. The Obama campaign is setting themselves up to be like Kathrine Harris or Ken Blackwell as symbols of voter supression.

    [ Parent ]
    What is disturbing (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    To me is to see a democrat use arguments that republicans tend to use to reduce turnout. Mail-in voting in other states always tend to show higher turnout, more participation, and i have not seen any stories of fraud better or worse than a walk in election.

    I understand each side has their own political motives on this, but to use a bs argument about fraud, chain of custody, problems, when it may actually cause more people to vote is disturbing.

    When did we turn into republicans?

    Yeah, like caucuses are a piece of cake (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    No confusion and bad management there.  Obama is rapidly losing credibility and time is running out.  

    A passive-aggressive strategy (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    Say that you will go along with whatever the DNC decides, but criticize every single proposal as unworkable, disenfranchising, fraudulent, too expensive, etc.

    Am I shocked that the Obama campaign is behaving this way? No, it's exactly what they've been doing on this issue all along.

    "I will support whatever the DNC. . . (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    decides to do.  No matter how stupid it is.  No matter how heinous, how terrible.  No matter how many puppies have to die I will support the DNC.

    Because that's the kind of Democrat I am".

    [ Parent ]

    I would add taht (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:55:57 PM EST
    this strategy is remarkably similar, if not identical, to the classic game Why Don't You/Yes But.

    [ Parent ]
    Warren, you are a godsend (none / 0) (#132)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    Thanks for that Link. I've been thinking there HAD to be a name for that kind of behaviour.

    Danke.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:56:33 PM EST
    I think it is a very bad strategy.

    This is going to happen. Why not pretend you are THRILLED about it?

    [ Parent ]

    acting "thrilled" is (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by OldCoastie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    exactly what he should do, but I think Obama tends towards petulant... it's not in him to act thrilled...

    he's making a big mistake here... and if gets the nomination after continuing the petulant act, I think he has no chance of picking up MI or FL in the general...

    [ Parent ]

    Tarnishing Obama's image as (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    the so-talented politican.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#105)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    it's a bad strategy too. Where did I say I thought it was a good one? Thrilled by it? huh?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh never mind (none / 0) (#106)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    I get it. Obama should pretend he's thrilled by it. I agree.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama should be for a revote (none / 0) (#137)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    Yes, Obama should say he is 100% behind letting Florida and Michigan revote and have their votes counted. I took this stance a week ago and am still waiting for him to come out and say it.

    He needs to win people over to his side in Florida and Michigan. By being in the forefront of the argument to let every vote count he would have started his campaign in both these states on a positive note.

    Still waiting.....

    [ Parent ]

    How much (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    would a paper primary cost?  

    Have all 6500 polling places open 7 a.m to 7 p.m. but without the voting machines and give everyone a "mail-in" ballot to fill-in and deposit immediately.

    Surfing (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    OK, I was surfing around and found a ditty over at MYDD.  It appears Levin has changed....

    From the Detroit Free Press  Levin went from 'financial and logistical hurdles' to...

    A day after Levin mentioned during a TV interview that the mail-in option might be the best way to hold a second primary, the senator acknowledged that his position on a do-over primary had changed because "there may be agreement among the candidates" that there should be a do-over

    The media completely ignored the (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ivs814 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    FL & MI vote when it happened and then completely discounted the results.  This in turn fueled the distorted perception that Obama was in the lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates creating a crest of momentum that came crashing down on the reality that Hillary had indeed kicked his butt in both FL & MI and it conveniently didn't count.  What is unfair is that by completely ignoring FL & MI, Obama's imaginery lead  resulted in weeks and weeks of his supporters trumpeting his inevitability and crying for Hillary to drop out.  

    well, there's a lot of potential... (none / 0) (#6)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    ...for mischief in a mail-in primary.  It has the potential to disenfranchise a large number of voters, particularly those from demographics more likely to support Obama.  Are independents and republicans who voted in Michigan last time around eligible this time around?  

    I think, if there is resistance, one additional reason may be how the media plays it--"this is a huge triumph for Clinton" (when in fact the bigger win for her would have been getting them seated with the existing delegate mix, not her facing two expensive additional contests in June, where she faces a real chance of losing one of them).

    I'm sure Obama will be asked directly about the re-votes in the next couple days, and pressed on the issue no later than next week.  I still think this is mainly stalling, in order to get the best possible deal and blunt the positive media spin for Clinton.

    I am curious (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    how a mail-in primary disenfranchises people.  Are there fewer mailboxes in some areas?

    A mail-in primary in FL would almost certainly be to Clinton's disadvantage because of all the snowbirds who may have voted in FL in January, but will be back home by the time the re-vote takes place.  Ballots don't get forwarded along with the rest of your mail.

    [ Parent ]

    Come on.. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    That's just silly. Florida has had a mail-in portion to their primaries for a very long time. There is an enormous amount of absentee voters in Florida. I myself am an absentee FLorida voter. I called my state arty last night and was told that my ballot would be forwarded to me in the event this gets done, and they expect it to.

    I will be able to either mail it in, fax it or e-vote, same as any other primary for which I vote absentee. Florida has no intention of leaving out their residents who are not living in the state at this time.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    I was told that it is illegal to forward a mail-in ballot, unlike an absentee ballot.  I guess I should refrain from passing myself off as an expert on Florida law, since it was someone else's comment.

    If the snowbirds are able to vote in Florida without a problem, then a key factor for Obama is whether the re-votes will take place before the end of the school year, when many students return to their homes out of state.

    [ Parent ]

    He better get them to do it soon (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    because a lot of the places he won like Alachua and Leon Co. are college areas UF and FSU and FAMU.

    [ Parent ]
    vote caging - Florida 2004 (none / 0) (#117)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    Military ballots were mailed to soldiers' homes! and they never got the ballots.


    [ Parent ]
    A mail-in is clearly superior (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    to either a caucus or "firehouse" rules, since anything that requires more than a few minutes travel for senior citizens and poorer urban dwellers would be disenfranchising.

    Perhaps Obama is still hoping for caucuses, but that's just not going to happen.

    [ Parent ]

    The Homeless Vote? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Fredster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    that's what I wanted to know.  How does it disenfranchise anyone other than the way FL/MI voters have already been disenfranchised?  

    [ Parent ]
    What demographics? (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    Other than the AA vote you may be referring to, we've been told time and again highly educated, high earning white voters are his demographic. So how exactly, are they dis-enfranchised in this process? Can they only work email?

    [ Parent ]
    Errr. . .what? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Errr. . .what? (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    well, there's a lot of potential for mischief in a mail-in primary.  It has the potential to disenfranchise a large number of voters, particularly those from demographics more likely to support Obama.

    Come again?  I can't see how a mail-in disenfranchises anyone.  I can see how there might be mischief caused by too many votes, not the other way around.

    Are independents and republicans who voted in Michigan last time around eligible this time around?

    Good question.  I presume that they would be if they voted in the Democratic primary last time, but not if they voted in the Republican one.

    PS: Sorry for previous comment misfire.

    [ Parent ]

    Oregon (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    The one state that has a vote by mail system has an 82% turnout in general elections.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    Have this issue get resolved in the Media after a few more wins in bright red states.


    [ Parent ]
    Pffft (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    Please. Not here. Spin it somewhere else Mike.

    [ Parent ]
    Nevertheless (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    There is NO assurance that the mail-in votes will have proper chain of custody or that the counts will be accurate.  This is true all over the country, more in some states than others.  Of course, to argue against the Florida vote and not the other states' votes is very telling.  Florida doesn't even make the worst states list from Black Box Voting.

    Mail in is a bad idea (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    Full Primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Money (none / 0) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    5 to 8 million for mail-in.  20 million for primary.

    [ Parent ]
    so? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    Certify the original results then if you're worried about money.


    [ Parent ]
    Re-vote process (none / 0) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    I'm just looking at the ability and cost of a re-vote.  Whether to have a re-vote or use current number is a different issue.  

    [ Parent ]
    If you're looking at cost (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    I'm just saying one option is free.


    [ Parent ]
    Money is not the problem (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by themomcat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    Corzine, Rendell and Carville have all said they would raise the money on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign only needs to put it s money into the pot and Voila! a rerun.

    [ Parent ]
    California (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    You have multiple persons transporting the ballots.  You can drop them directly at the elections board or a team transports them.  Dems/Reps/Indie in the same vehicle.  The people want to vote.. I don't think they will have any problem getting volunteers.  Again, we do this in CA.  It may take us a little longer to count our ballots, but I have never heard of mass amounts of fraud here.

    [ Parent ]
    So, must we then put all absentee votes (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    in doubt?  They are mail-in after all.

    There is NO assurance that the mail-in votes will have proper chain of custody or that the counts will be accurate



    [ Parent ]
    Here you go (none / 0) (#172)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    This link addresses many of the potential problems associated with mail-in voting.  They are serious, as are all issues that impinge upon our right to vote.

    Some of issues from the linked post are:

    Not enough postage, not clearly indicated
    Incorrect ballot inserts
    Signature not accepted
    Missing ballots (not delivered correctly perhaps)
    Chain of custody (possibility of being able to stuff the ballot box)
    Extra ballots printed (where are they and what happens to them?)
    Counted electronically (a HOST of problems associated with that)
    Huge cost of recount if necessary


    [ Parent ]

    Even if you acknowledge (none / 0) (#200)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:39 PM EST
    these as problems, what is the alternative?

    The FLA primary in January had all the indicia of fairness: record turnout, all candidates on the ballot, and all candidates on an equal footing vis a vis the prohibition on in-state campaigning.  Would you rather accept the results of the FLA January primary?  I would, but I know that, despite the record turnout, there may be some voters who stayed home because they didn't think their votes would count. And I accept that the MI primary results don't even have the virtue of having had all candidates on the ballot.

    Unless someone figures out how to pay for a full, complete re-do of the MI and FLA primaries, there are only two alternatives: mail-in voting, which gives everyone the chance to vote in a situation where the votes will be counted; or permanently disenfranchising the voters. The latter is untenable, and will only hurt Obama if he is perceived as having prevented a mail-in re-vote.

    [ Parent ]

    People (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Fredster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    mail in absentee votes all the time.


    [ Parent ]
    Mail in votes disenfranchise poor voters .... (none / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    and would be bogus.

    So said Wasserman-Schultz on MSNBC yesterday.  I think she's a Clinton supporter, too.  I'm looking for link.

    Any detail? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    Did she describe the disenfranchisement?  Is it because the drop off hours would be typical to a caucus process and would be less than the hours a primary would be open?  Normally you have days to drop off a mail in ballot.  It would be great if they could allow a couple of days for drop off rather than just hours.

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking as (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    Someone who has tried to register people for absentee ballots--
    The poor/AA are much more suspicious of mail in ballots than are others.  They think that it signs them up for things/gives the government the ability to track them (somehow)/commits them to ONLY being able to vote by mail in the future...you have to realize that this is the group republican strategists usually try to target and cheat.  There were stories in 2004 of repubs going into AA areas of Iowa and providing them with fake or incomplete absentee ballots.
    People KNOW they can go down to their polling place and vote.  They are a little more suspicious of mail-in ballots.
    We need to revote the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    That certainly makes sense to me, and it would tend to work to the detriment of Democrats in a GE.  In the context of this primary, I'm really not sure who it would favor since the exit polls suggest Clinton does very well among lower-income voters.  In fact, in the first Florida primary the "under $15,000" category was by far Obama's weakest.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#118)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    That's true...Hillary does do better among low income dems, but to have a fair result I think we need to make sure Obama's voters aren't turned off by the process.  And the most paranoid about mail-in voting BY FAR are poor AA's.  We do NOT want Al Sharpton on the radio the day after raving about stolen votes.
    I like Carville's 15mil offer.  I think Obama should raise money as well, though if he drags his feet a little I won't blame him too much.  We are, after all, asking him to contribute to a process (FLA primary revote) that would almost certainly result in a loss.

    [ Parent ]
    you said it right the poor and the AA voters (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    are suspicious.  White or black you will always find a group of people who just don't like to be found specially out here in the swamps.  But that is an across the board problem here in North Fl.
    Don't know much about MI

    [ Parent ]
    Claw (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    you raise a good point about mistrust of govt in the aa community.  We have to keep in mind that rumors quickly become concrete evidence in some parts.  I wonder if this is what Obama means when he uses his coded "bamboozled" rhetoric, that he is setting up the rumor that if Clinton wins, it will be by deceptive means.

    [ Parent ]
    Link (none / 0) (#55)
    by magster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    I guess the interview was on Fox News, which baffles me because I never watch Fox News.  I wonder how it is that I saw this.

    [ Parent ]
    Because I blogged about it (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    Being the fair blogger that I am.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you actually have to drop them off? (none / 0) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    What happens if you really are out of state for the summer months?

    My parents live down there and are registered Dems. But when Dad's got the summer off from teaching, they do travel...here then various and sundry parts of NY including a week to visit the grandkids up near Syracuse.

    They are literally all over the place...and they voted this past Jan.

    [ Parent ]

    Wasserman Schultz (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    having so much experience with mail in voting.

    She did say it and she is a Clinton support