Obama Opposes Revote In Michigan

By Big Tent Democrat

So say his MI Campaign Co-Chair:

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path. "We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

(Emphasis supplied.) I guess the Obama MI Co-Chair does not agree with Obama's previously held positive view on mail in voting, agreeing instead with Obama's newly minted distaste for mail in voting. Oh and a 50-50 split is the ONLY thing Obama will accept in Michigan. Hope we are clear now on how Obama feels about the will of the people of Florida and Michigan.

< Report: Obama Outspent Hillary 2:1 on Ohio Ads, Still Lost | Now That It Is Over . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How does mail-in voting ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:38:23 PM EST
    disenfranchise people?

    I'm told Oregon has had record participation with their mail-in voting.

    Apparently it's far worse (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    than not counting any of their votes at all.

    Y'know, we Michiganders may not be the brightest bulbs, but we understand that a 50/50 split is the same as not counting Michigan at all.  I'm not sure who they're trying to kid with this one.


    They are trying to fool the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    They think the press will pick this up as a "compromise."  Or confuse it with how the GOP dealt with MI and FLA, which was to seat half the total number of delegates originally allocated to each state, but in proportion to the results of the primaries' votes.

    local news here in FL... (none / 0) (#186)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    ...reporting that 20% of Florida Dem voters will either not vote or vote Republican if they're not given a voice in the primary.

    In other words, with no revote the Dems can kiss FL goodbye.


    Some of you michiganders (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    Some comments (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:03:32 PM EST
    from the Michigan Liberal blog...

      This is a cop-out that's not fair to Hillary Clinton's campaign. (I say this as an Obama supporter.) I don't see how she could agree to 50% of the delegates when she won 55% against no-one. It's not fair to Obama, because it's a "fix" in the corrupt sense of the word.  A mail-in vote doesn't set anything back. It moves things forward, giving both campaigns the chance to have a real contested election. Does anyone remember the MSM headlines about the MI primary? "Hillary 'wins' Michigan."

      as an obama supporter, agreed...

      This is a pretty bad blunder, and unnecessary. I've supported Obama since Jan 2007, and this is the first real blunder I've seen.  I would like to believe that Sens. Hunter and Thomas are off on their own on this, but I see no evidence for that. If Obama is letting them speak for him on the Michigan situation, it is his responsibility.

    Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:12:22 PM EST
    Good for him/her.

    thanks, Steve M, for posting that (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    it's refreshing to hear something logical on this issue from an Obama supporter.

    Having railed against the fiasco in FL circa 2000, I cannot believe some of these same people are now seeking to deny FL and MI the right to have their votes counted.

    It is hypocrisy at its most despicable.


    To be clear (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    that's three separate Obama supporters I quoted.

    We Midwesterners are reasonable people.


    First blunder? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    He must have a much more charitable definition of blunder than I do.

    I laughed when I read that.... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:41:45 PM EST
    I went over to CNN a while ago and Cafferty (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    had a thing up about whether or not the FL and MI votes should count, etc.  Got down to about the 4th or 5th comment and one guy said heck no FL shouldn't count at all BECAUSE OBAMA WASN'T ON THE BALLOT.  I left the site and will not return...another one to cross off the list.

    Obama supporters... (none / 0) (#146)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:27:55 PM EST
    ...believe whatever is favorable to their candidate.  I had to laugh at the Kos post claiming Obama had a "good" week last week by picking up a net gain of 7 delegates.

    Low and behold his analysis factored in superdelegates which we all know are nothing more than a rubber stamp to validate the leader in pledged delegates.


    Did you see? (none / 0) (#151)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    The AP is reporting he had a net gain of 5 delegates in MS yesterday, and that was wiped out today, when HRC picked up 4 more from MY and 1 from CO.

    (The link is too long, but if you got to ap.org and search "clinton delegates" you'll see the report titled "Democrats split delegates")


    More than that (none / 0) (#173)
    by faux facsimile on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    Not only 1 in Colorado and 4 in New York, but also 3 superdelegates.

    What I really don't get is that we still don't have finalized results from the Texas caucus, and we're still getting updates on Super Tuesday a good month later.

    Why is it so hard to get votes counted in a timely fashion? Oh well, I guess FL and MI aren't the only places with counting problems of some fashion.


    Michigan (none / 0) (#35)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:50:41 PM EST
    is starting to resemble Mississippi of late.  Maybe it's actually not the best time to hold a primary after all.

    Last night, in his televised State of the City address, the scandal-plagued Mayor of Detroit proclaimed, "I've been called n* more times in the last 30 days than in my entire life."  And you thought Obama/Clinton had political drama?


    I get all that ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:56:07 PM EST
    but can someone please explain what is the argument for mail-in disenfranchises anyone?

    It increases participation.

    Well, I guess it would disenfranchise those voters who Obama buses in from other states to vote illegally in caucuses.  So Tupac may have a point.


    "It increases participation..." (none / 0) (#148)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    Therein lies the problem.  Ever notice how well Obama does in caucus states which generally have very low turnout (relative to a primary) and rely on vocal activists?  He's lost all the big states with broader demographics.  In short, his entire candidacy has been built on small caucus states and those with large African-American populations.  His toast once you pull in the broader electorate.

    "It disenfranchises people who need to (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    participate," according to this yutz, and yet splitting the delegates 50/50 -- which is the functional equivalent of not counting them at all -- is not disenfranchising?

    Do these people understand how transparent they are? The goal isn't to seat delegates. The goal is to seat delegates in accordance with the will of Michigan's Democratic voters.

    Unless Obama "denounces and rejects" this yutz -- or humiliates him into resigning -- this can only be interpreted as "Obama doesn't want the people of Michigan to have any whatsoever influence on who should be the nominee."

    I can't believe Chris Dodd came up with this stupid idea.


    A 50/50 split? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    I guess I don't really know what that means. That she gets half of her designated delegates and he gets what? Half of the Undecideds?

    I know that I've read about this idea. But I'm still missing how this works...

    In Fla, she'd get half of hers and he'd get half of his 67?

    i believe it means (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    they each get half the state's delegates.

    It means that the voters don't matter (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:40:28 PM EST
    Ding ding ding ding (none / 0) (#163)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:54:17 PM EST
    50/50 = 0  

    Splitting the delegates 50/50 is the equivalent of not seating them at all unless Obama and Clinton split the vote 50/50.

    Obama wants to seat the delegates without having their votes -- and therefore, the votes of Michigan Democrats -- to count.  

    He wants to render Michigan meaningless, so that Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico are the very end.  And presumably, splitting the delegates without a re-vote means that the January Michigan popular vote wouldn't be counted in Clinton's total popular vote, so that Obama wouldn't run the risk of losing his lead in that category.

    Very clever.  Except that it is so undemocratic.


    Have you heard their reasoning? (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    That the delegates can choose whomever they want at the convention--you know, the convention that will take place long after the "winner" is decided?

    They are trying to bank the delegates until he gets the nom.  It is no different from saying we need to let the rules committee decide whether or not to seat the delegates.



    yep (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    game the system, run out the clock.

    Game the system, run the clock? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:10:53 PM EST
    Sounds familiar.  Some guy sitting in the Oval Office has been doing that for the past year and some months.

    Yes (none / 0) (#164)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    After all the sturm und drang about the ROOLZ, and how superdelegates cannot be allowed to impact the nomination, he wants to create more superdelegates.  Superdelegates who will only be appointed after all the other primaries are over.

    So he'd get half of the delegates (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:44:47 PM EST
    in MI in spite of his taking his name off the ballot? But...hmmm...interesting...

    pretty cool idea, huh? (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:46:56 PM EST
    the politics of change.

    It's a new kind of politics (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    No need to vote this time!

    So in other words, a mockery (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    In sports they say, "that's why they play the games"  In politics, not so much?

    No, they literally mean ... (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    50/50.  She gets half, and he gets half.

    Net gain = zero for both

    Therefore it will have no impact on the nomination.

    It's just another way to disenfranchise the voters in these states.


    It will have impacf -- Obama gains more (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:21:45 PM EST
    from this ploy.  He is closer to the needed number, so this helps him argue "now I'm only  XX  away, and she's still  XXX  away."

    We really need to see that, work that math in our heads, to understand how despicable this is -- and remember who thinks it is a good idea.  

    Dodd, for one, is now disallowed as majority leader.


    Cream, you're right ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:24:17 PM EST
    I thought that right after I posted.  

    I tried to make that point earlier... (none / 0) (#147)
    by K Lynne on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    But was told that the 'magic number' was changed when MI and FL were taken out of the equation.  Anyone know if that is the case?

    No (none / 0) (#171)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:02:52 PM EST
    I believe the magic number remained the same -- which is why in a two candidate race, neither one can reach the magic number without superdelegates.

    Actually it does matter... (none / 0) (#150)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:36:21 PM EST
    "Net gain = zero for both"

    It doesn't change the delta, but the myth that Obama is pushing is that nothing more than a simple lead in delegate count makes you the winner.  In reality there is an absolute delegate threshhold of 2025 to be the nominee.  Every single delegate puts him closer to that number whether or not it changes the gap between him and Clinton.


    The threshhold does go up to 2205 (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    I think, if MI and FL are back in the total tally. But, yes, half a state's delegates still put him closer to any threshhold than Clinton, and he will spin it, and the media will buy it, because they can't do math (I used to teach journalism :-), etc.

    wow (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    they will accept nothing less than a completely arbitrary split of the delegates, that in no way reflects the will of the people, but does serve their own ends. they're scared. and good luck running with that...

    Buh Bye (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    Michigan in the fall!

    Re-Vote (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by mikemi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:21:18 PM EST
    Everyone seems to think that Michigan will go Democratic regardless which candidate is elected. As a resident and Democratic volunteer for the past three Presidential elections Michigan does NOT tilt Blue we had to work our asses off to deliver it to Gore Clinton and Kerry. If McCain selects Mitt as his running mate, given his fathers ties to the state, along with the delegation not being given a vote at the convention. Michigan will go McCain. Florida goes McCain... Then Obama or Hillary will HAVE to win Ohio and Pennslvania. Go ahead with this "rules were rules" talk and we will need to get used to saying "President McCain". How does that sound? I say this as a John Edwards voter. I voted uncommitted. I would like a chance to make my vote and voice heard. If you think splitting the delegates 50/50 will not cost you Michigan you are dreaming.

    if obama (none / 0) (#103)
    by joei on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    is the nominee, i am downgrading his chances of winning to ZERO from a prior 1%



    Is Obama actively trying to get the nomination (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    in such a way as to lose in November?  That's incredibly dumb.

    Gulp (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:40:05 PM EST
    It's time to take this fight out into the open. I hope Hillary calls him out on what he's doing, and publicly.

    There was a CNN report... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    with her hoping that Obama would join her in (left blank here cause I got called away...but the caption was about the MI/Fla issue).

    What can we do? (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    Please, this is so unacceptable. What can we do? Is there some organized way we can fight this? I've written and called the DNC, but isn't there is a more organized and stronger way to fight back against this? It is so outrageous. I don't are about Clinton's or Obama's outcomes in this, I care about the voters' rights.

    Bad enough (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by OldCoastie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    to get beat once in a state - shame to have it happen a second time.

    And I ask for posterity AND (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM EST
    the record, where are those great champions of the voters of Nevada, Kid Oakland and There Is NO Spoon!!!????!!!

    Let it be written, that the two biggest phonies you will have seen in this election cycle are Kid Oakland and There Is NO Spoon.

    Yes, I am calling them out by name.

    What I am actually doing (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    for those who can't tell, is to goad them into noticing this little problem.

    I doubt it will work.


    Don't you see (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:54:40 PM EST
    how this is Geraldine Ferraro's fault?

    Do not mention her name (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:55:31 PM EST
    This is off topic.

    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    <shhh> (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    We are doing our best to avoid that "issue."

    Appealing to "insecure white women" is what we are about here (reference, see early orange post on this today.)


    on behalf of the insecure white women here (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    we salute you

    You saw what I saw this morning? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    Where is (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    Kid O to berate me about my lack of respect for the laws and the Constitution?

    He's spending too much time (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:05:41 PM EST
    writing s*** nonsense at dkos.

    Perhaps it is time for me to post on DK, (none / 0) (#172)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    rather than a GBCW diary, a why the f**k Obama wants to disenfranchise MI and FLA diary.  It would be worth getting troll-rated into oblivion for.

    Let Us Know If You Do (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST
    Provide us with a link so we can recommend the diary and provide support in the comments. I will go back for that but not for anything else.

    If you're a true masochist... (none / 0) (#175)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    ...try that one on HuffPo.  You'll leave with entrails in hand...

    My daughter wants me to proofread (none / 0) (#176)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:42:22 PM EST
    her Iraq War history paper tonight. So my entrails will remain inside my body for at least another day.

    BTW, she came to me and said, "Mom, have you read Fiasco?"  "Yes, honey, it's on my bookshelf."  "Well, I read two chapters for history class, and it was so much worse than I thought. Why hasn't Bush been impeached?"  I had no answer.


    Hope for the future... (none / 0) (#177)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    ...actually quite impressed at the reading material in schools these days.  I really didn't get much from "Where the Red Fern Grows"

    Simple Answer (none / 0) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:42 PM EST
    Our elected officials in D.C. failed to honor their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. They had more important things to do like raising money and protecting their seats.

    And keeping their powder dry (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:09:41 PM EST

    post to dKos (none / 0) (#180)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:26:03 PM EST
    make sure you use IN SORROW a lot, and make your post really long-winded and sanctimonious, a l teacherken.

    And of course... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:39:37 PM EST
    ...there must be a conversion experience involved.  You know, "I used to be a strong supporter of so-and-so, but now I see that s/he's really a vile, evil piece of trash..."

    I'm always left wondering why I should trust the judgment of someone who was apparently such a sucker the first time around.


    The 50/50 thing (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by spit on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    I'd seriously be offended by that. There's not much that can really, truly offend me, but doing that and pretending it's some kind of solution is deeply offensive to me.

    How stupid do they think people are? This isn't just about sending some FL party folks on a trip to Denver, for Dog's sake.

    Revote or seat as is (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    Florida will have a by mail revote or fight on the convention floor to have all their delegates from the previous election seated as is. Those are the only two options acceptable to the state.

    And yes, a floor fight would be ugly. Almost as ugly as what will happen to Obama in Florida if he fights against a revote. 59% of Dems that voted in January want to vote again rather than leave it up to the DNC at the convention.


    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by spit on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:59:29 PM EST
    IMO, revoting is simply the only way at this point to get widely-viewed-as-legitimate results from MI and FL. And that should be bloody important to people, no matter who they support or don't support.

    The real question is.... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:38:11 PM EST
    What argument will the Obama campaign come up with to dismiss the Michigan and Florida popular vote after they seat and steal 50% of the seated delegates?

    Will she get to keep her 1.2MM votes, or will the State of Michigan be forced to recertify the vote to reflect a 50/50 split also? hehehe


    Blah (none / 0) (#44)
    by spit on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:55:54 PM EST
    MI party folks. Either way. It's an unacceptable solution to either state problem.

    Also (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM EST
    I will soon be getting my Pennsylvania absentee ballot (actally issued by the Philadelphia County Board of Elections). Will Obama now argue that my vote "isn't secure" and that it therefore shouldn't count?


    Depends who you are voting for (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    Not if it is for him (none / 0) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    Then, it might count.

    And 50/50 in Michigan. Just because someone made another bonehead mistake and took his name off of the ballot should not mean he gets to split. He is lucky I am willing to give him the undecided.


    I Believe... (none / 0) (#191)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    HE made the boneheaded mistake.  As I understand it, it was a political stratey for Obama to take his name off.  And now he gets to have a DO-OVER to FIX a mistake of his own CHOOSING???  Wow - I wonder if Clinton gets to pick a state for a do-over, too (and I still think Florida's result should stand - it was fair and square - everyone was on the ballot, voters turned out in record numbers, etc., etc., etc.  Yes, it was early in the season, but other states are not having do-overs because their primaries were early!!).

    SO - Dr. Molly asked if there was some concerted action we could take on all of this.  Ideas?


    So we have moved (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    from the 50 state strategy to the 48 state strategy.  

    more like 47 (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    since something tells me Ohio doesn't count either :-)

    47 is better than 14 (none / 0) (#62)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    or however many "big states" HRC thinks count.

    Can I pick the 14 we win? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:10:25 PM EST
    Unfortunately, no (none / 0) (#90)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    If you could, I'd be far more sanguine about HRC's November prospects.

    BS (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    God help us all. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:00:16 PM EST

    My suspicion and hope (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    Is that Plouffe trumps this guy, and this was a breakdown of message discipline and not a statement of the actual campaign position.  

    The update here suggests that the "whatever the DNC decides" position is still the official one.

    Plouffe agreed with this guy (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:09:46 PM EST
    He called it the "easiest option" (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    Unless there's a quote I'm unaware of.  He also said they'd abide by the DNC decision.  That's a far cry from the "nothing but a 50/50 split" taken by Tupac.

    The "easiest option" (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:39:32 PM EST
    ...is to use the results of the election which already took place.  

    Didn't Plouffe say pretty much the same (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    thing about FL today?  I may have read wrong but I thought the 50:50 stuff spewed out.

    Brazile said it this weekend (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    or she did, basically--split FL evenly and give Clinton MI...as if that's a fair deal.

    Indefensible (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:10:52 PM EST
    So let's get this straight:

    He wants, at least, to taint any Florida corrective vote and preferably to prevent voting in Florida altogether. Having done the math he feels he can defeat a credentials fight on the floor. So if the correction is allowed there wouldn't be a credentials fight and that means do everything to prevent a corrective action.

    He wants to prevent any corrective action in Michigan and actually deny seating the delegation; the effect of an arbitrary 50/50 split.

    Talk about damaging the party.  Any superdelegate who votes for this guy should be drummed out of the party.

    If the party hierarchy stands around with their fingers up their arse and allows this answers the question about why we've lost so many elections we should have won.

    Is anyone foolish enough to trust this guy with the executive power of the Presidency?

    Absolutely beyond the pale.

    Aha, here's what we can do: Call out (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    super-delegates who support a candidate who would support this.

    If it goes forward, you can bet that I will be writing to (and copying widely to local lib blogs, etc.) my governor, an Obama s-d, and others in my state who dare to support this plan.

    And I'm right next door to the Michiganders, so I may have to copy this to the Detroit Free Press and other media there, too.

    Please be ready to write your super-delegates and let them know that we know their job, and it is not to support making a mockery of not only the Democratic Party process but of democracy itself.

    Remember, supers include the only delegates who are accountable to us . . . at their next election.  Remind them that we will remember that, too.


    FLorida (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    I am offended that they are suggesting this in both Florida and Michigan. And I say that as an absentee voter in Florida.

    I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. NONE.

    BTD...are you still a tepid Obama supporter because of his media status?

    For me this issue far surpasses any debate about (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    which candidate should get the nomination. Was the mantra of "let every vote count" in 2000 just rhetoric? It wasn't for me. If Obama (or Clinton) push, allow, or concede a 50/50 split in delegates that will be sufficient enough reason for me to abstain in the general election.

    Obviously he opposes it... (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    ... but doesn't want to make it seem like he does, because that position is impossible to defend (not that that is stopping some of his supporters).

    So he sits there and raises one concern after another--security, fraud, the DoJ has to approve it, etc. etc. while kicking the ball over to the DNC. Meanwhile Clinton and her folks are on record as supporting a revote, and even offering to raise money for it.

    If he was really in favor of revoting, he'd make a public statement saying so, not this painful hemming and hawing and equivocating.

    It's just like the pledge about public financing. Once it went from a political advantage to a handicap, it went out the window.

    Barack Obama is for Barack Obama. Anyone thinking differently is going to be very disappointed one day.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:05:55 PM EST
    Which is why I will not vote for him. EVER

    Oh c'mon (none / 0) (#141)
    by smott on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:09:42 PM EST
    ...then you're doing your part to get McCain elected. You can't think that BO's worse than him??

    Actually (none / 0) (#143)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:10:42 PM EST
    I think it is about a tie.

    McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    The only thing I can say about McCain, is that he comes as advertised.  Obama, on the other hand, makes you feel like you'd better read the fine print...

    Good point! (none / 0) (#178)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:03:37 PM EST
    McCain is "what you see, is what you get".

    There's a reason (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by mm on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:45:12 PM EST
    There's a reason that no one can understand what the official Obama position is.

    Clinton has very simply stated her position - there are only two choices.  Seat the delegates as is or have a revote.  

    What you get from the Obama camp is unintelligible gobbly gook.  Vague statements from Obama while his surrogates go out to push the 50/50 split option.  I heard Wexler today on CNN jump on the 50/50 split bandwagon.

    Obama is intentionally vague... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST
    ...on just about everything.  Against health care mandates but kinda for them if you're a kid.  Not necessarily against wars but just "dumb" wars.  Against lobbyists except if they're state lobbyists or campaign contribution bundlers.  Et cetera.

    This is ridiculous! (4.80 / 5) (#50)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:58:33 PM EST
    I can't believe this 50/50 split idea is actually getting play!!  I thought it was a stupid idea that would be dangled out in the mediasphere for a day and then be withdrawn by someone of sane mind in his campaign.  

    Are they TRYING to make caucuses look good by comparison or something ????????  

    If Obama keeps up with this, I really won't know what to think.  This is an aggressive move to use the primary process to anoint yourself.  This is a party destroyer.  I'm almost never sympathetic to people who will flee the Democratic Party as a punishment to it, but this is an incident that, depending upon how it plays out, makes me think Dem Party ideas could be better served elsewhere.  And I don't live in MI or FL.  

    Is this the kind of thing that makes people say "that's when they left the Democratic Party?"  Are we risking some major damage to the state parties?

    Why would it get play? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    We all know what a former VP candidate says is much more important.



    If I ran the MI or FL Democratic Parties... (none / 0) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:36:47 PM EST
    ... I'd not send any delegates to the convention. Just let them do the roll call of the states without me.

    The complaint (none / 0) (#11)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    has been that a mail-in campaign can't be done effectively on short notice.  The concern is that people have changed addresses.  Also, something about verification of signatures.

    I don't know if any of this is true.  BTD seems to think that these are not valid concerns.  I don't know what to think.

    It's like Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    prattling about "voter fraud."

    Do you get your bank statement every month? Your electric bill?

    This should be at least as safe and fair as that.


    Wait up (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    the concern is that people have changed addresses?

    People change addresses all the time. Did the entire state of Michigan move to the Upper Peninsula in the last month? What freaking kind if concern is that?


    Next step (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    find a situation where Obama has spoken against photo ID to vote laws. I'll bet there's at least one.

    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    How can we check the photo IDs by mail?

    Excellent point.


    I wonder what Mayor Daley thinks (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:48:43 PM EST
    about Obama's newfound voter fraud concerns.

    Check the cemeteries (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    The concern is (none / 0) (#21)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    if he doesn't continue to stall, they're actually going to have to re-vote and he might get his patooty handed to him on a silver platter!

    Doubt it (none / 0) (#61)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:04:29 PM EST
    Polling shows MI is pretty even.

    One poll? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    If it were really a toss-up, no way would Obama be sending out surrogates to make a desperate 50/50 argument.

    Michigan looks a lot like Ohio and the votes will be in the same ballpark.


    yep (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:18:40 PM EST
    If it were really a toss-up, no way would Obama be sending out surrogates to make a desperate 50/50 argument.

    If he thought he could win even one of them, he would be pushing for the revote.  Their internals must be pretty god-awful to warrant this kind of posturing.

    I just don't understand how inept this is.  


    I agree Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    His internals must be really something in both states for hm to take such a public risk.

    Obviously ... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:48:18 PM EST
    it shouldn't even be a question for debate.

    Reality check:  Can we now all agree:  Obama is just another ambitious politician.


    Of the most cynical variety (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:03:22 PM EST
    Very Cynical (none / 0) (#140)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    I hope the rest of the party catches on to this and catches on soon.

    It's called an opening offer (none / 0) (#94)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    It's a negotiating tactic.

    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    He thinks he's going to win a re-vote, but he has surrogates pretend like he doesn't want a re-vote, just to be a tough negotiator!  Right.

    opening offer? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    I've heard about three since this weekend from various Obama surrogates.

    Lookit, if you have a Bentley to sell and I offer you ten dollars for it, would you tell me to f*ck off or would you say that I had made you an "opening offer"?

    If this is how Obama deals, then he needs to percolate in the senate a bit more.  Talk about bringing a Nerf bat to a knife fight.


    Bentleys aside (none / 0) (#110)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    The point is he can rely on this as his last resort reasonable position if revoting plans fall apart.  Clinton's last resort is seating them as is.

    your assumption that this is a (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:35:12 PM EST
    reasonable position reveals the fallacy of your argument.

    I don't think so (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    That polling is suspect. My mom's side of the family is from Michigan and I have lots of family still there. Michigan is more like Ohio than WI.

    Obama will lose and lose big in a revote.


    I think so (none / 0) (#104)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    I lived there for three years and have gone back numerous times.  It has similarities to both WI and OH.  It certainly doesn't have anything like SE Ohio.

    I'm a Michigan Lifer (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    Sixty-six years worth of lifer. Obama loses big time. People here won't forget the NAFTA flap. We've been beaten up too much in the last seven years to tolerate Obama's Milton Friedman Memorial Economics Team.

    And by the way you're confusing the western UP and northern Wisconsin with an area of the state that actually has any population.

    The entire UP and the upper third of the lower peninsula is one congressional district out of fifteen.

    Pardon me if I have little regard for your "knowledge" of the state.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:06:07 PM EST
    I laughed at someone who tried to tell me that MI would vote like WI because they are adjoining states.  I mean, I suppose they technically are, but find me one Michigander who thinks of WI as an adjoining state.

    It's a shame there are no people in the UP because it is solid Clinton country.  I mean, those folks were jobless back before it was the popular thing to do.  And in fact, Hillary won like half the Wisconsin counties along the border with the UP, even as she got rolled in the rest of the state.

    I only have 27 years of MI experience to put up against you guys, but I can't think of any significant differences between MI and OH in the context of this election.  It will not be close.  Like Maxine Waters said, these people have plenty of hope, what they're looking for is help.


    Three years? (none / 0) (#119)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    I have ties and have spent time in Michigan my entire life, almost 40 years. I still have deep ties there, in the auto industry and burbs surrounding detroit as well as other rural areas.

    Obama will lose Michigan. And he will lose it at least as bad as he lost Ohio.


    didn't you hear? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    Did the entire state of Michigan move to the Upper Peninsula in the last month?

    Clinton surrogates blew up the Mackinac Bridge


    Heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:50:43 PM EST
    Do you know how it works in Oregon ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    regarding voter verification?

    My parents live in Oregon and I remember there were some objections regarding privacy concerns, secrecy of ballot, etc..


    How things work in Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    I wanted to be sure of the facts, so I just got off the phone with my local county election office here in Portland (Multnomah County).

    This is how it works:

    • When you register to vote you must provide, on the form, one of three things: your Oregon drivers license number OR your Oregon state identification number OR the last four digits of your social security number. The voter database is tied into both the Oregon DMV (licenses and IDs) and the Social Security Admin. databases.

    • A ballot is mailed to the address on your voter card. If you are no longer at that address, the ballot IS NOT forwarded. You must keep your info current, but in Oregon this can also be done by mail. Find forms at post offices, libraries, places like that.

    • Your ballot comes with two envelopes. Fill out ballot and put in security envelope. Seal that envelope and put it inside mailing envelope. Sign the back of the mailing envelope. That signature is verified by the county election officials when your completed ballot is returned. Envelopes are not opened and counted until voting ends at 8PM on election day.

    More info and FAQs at Multnomah County elections website (sorry, I can't seem to link)  www.mcelections.org.

    The weather's getting warmer... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    so it's possible :)

    Changing addresses shouldn't matter (none / 0) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:45:34 PM EST
    If a change form is at the post office the ballot will arrive.

    The proper precinct can be determined by Drivers License address change which automatically updates registration.

    But the point that BTD makes about all trolls moving to the UP since (gawd) January is solid.

    There hasn't been enough movement to make an impact or to open the door for fraud.

    The address change thing and the fraud thing is truly a Republican argument.

    That a GOP argument is offered should be no surprise coming from a candidate who's employed the Milton Friedman Memorial Economics team to formulate policy.


    On veirfication of signatures (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    Did the election boards lose all the signature verifications in the last month?

    I mean, come on, at least TRY HARDER to make up sh*t.


    The easiest option... (none / 0) (#157)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    ...in FL is to use the results of the election that already took place.  But no way we can break the DNC "rules"...we'll just have them make up a new one that somehow justifies splitting delegates 50/50

    michigan and florida are a distraction (none / 0) (#49)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    neither campaign is responsible for the mess michigan and florida have made of themselves.  it follows that neither campaign is in charge of making it right.  the party and the states need to come to a resolution that is approachable to both campaigns.  

    i agree with team clinton's aversion to holding a caucus to decide as much as i appreciate team obama's suspicion of a mail in vote without registered signatures.  they are both thinking of their self interest as it should be.  what's the rumpus?

    most likely, neither campaign will agree to a process and that will be the fault of michigan and florida, not either candidate.

    this is a sad statement on the party leadership that we are playing florida voting games again.  dean could have easily taken the approach the refuglicans applied.  count the votes, diminish the delegates and move on.

    shame on dean if you ask me.

    Dean is working this (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:24:16 PM EST
    In a way to benefit Obama.

    I can not think of one way any of this has worked to Clinton's benefit.

    I can think of many ways this has worked to Obama's benefit.

    I'm just one person.

    My vote really won't matter in the long run.


    Count em (none / 0) (#149)
    by mikemi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM EST
    Exactly,if we in Michigan have to pay a price so be it. Give Hillary 50% of her won delagates and Obama 50% of the uncommited tally. This would at least give the appearance of voters having their votes count for something. I don't like it but let us not shoot ourselves in the foot.

    Months ago I thought the Democrats could nominate a tree and beat the Republicans. Now regardless of who gets the nomination we will have to fight. The party in Michigan is already putting out anti McCain information and with the AFL and UAW vowing to follow him around informing people of his record. If the DNC splits us 50/50 the task will be even tougher. How did we do this to ourselves?


    What the devil is with (none / 0) (#65)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    this country anymore? We can't do this and we can't do that. Good grief if the people who are running things can't do any better than this we sure need some people that can. All you ever get out of half the "leaders" is what we "can't" do. How about getting off their dead butts and figuring out how exactly it can get done. Maybe it won't be perfect, nothing in life is, even your candidate or mine, but it can be done without all this stupid angst. We don't need people who can think up problems, we've got plenty of those; we need people with solutions.

    yes we can! (none / 0) (#158)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    ...except that we can't somehow run a credible mail-in primary :-/

    Three Cheers n/t (none / 0) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:57:42 PM EST
    False headline, directly contradicted (none / 0) (#66)
    by AF on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    by the very article that broke the story:

    The Obama campaign, however, said Hunter's position doesn't represent the campaign's, though they have expressed similar concerns about mail-in ballots.

    "Anything other than the fact that we think that the DNC and states ought to work this out, but we'll play by the rules, is not an expression of the position of the campaign," said spokesman Bill Burton.

    BTD, I'm with you on the revote, but you are repeatedly making inaccurate statements about Obama's position on the issue.  He is not against it.  He is neutral on it.  

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    He is obviously trying to have it both ways.  Surely you are able to see this.

    You can't have one "official position" and then send out surrogate after surrogate to advance other positions.


    Honestly, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:27:35 PM EST
    what I think he is trying to do is object to all the choices until someone says, ok, how about a caucus (like when you negotiate with a 5-year old - "You can have your dessert if you eat your peas and carrots.  Ok, you can have your dessert if you eat your peas or carrots.  You can have your dessert if you eat one bite of your peas.  Ok, you can have your dessert without eating your peas or carrots.")

    I think this is very passive/aggressive.


    That's correct (none / 0) (#118)
    by AF on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:33:13 PM EST
    He is straddling the fence on new primaries (he supports new caucuses) and I wish he wouldn't.  I am not with the Obama campaign on this.

    But he does not oppose new primaries.  I wish BTD would stop saying he does because it just isn't true.


    He hasn't supported a new primary... (none / 0) (#189)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:11:46 PM EST
    ...not sure of the point in saying he doesn't oppose it.  Not supporting it is a distinction without a difference.

    I quoted TPM (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    Be careful with false accusations.

    Here is a question, how could the Co CHAIR of a campaign NOT speak for the campaign.

    So mail in ballot are NOW ok with Obama?

    You are losing my respect very fast with this type of BS from you.


    The TPM post you linked to (none / 0) (#111)
    by AF on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:29:01 PM EST
    is entitled "Report: Obama's Michigan Campaign Co-Chair Says Obama Campaign Opposes Any Revote."  

    Its source is an article in Detroit News entitled "Obama's camp wary of mail-in redo in Michigan and Florida"  which begins:

    Barack Obama's national campaign has "concerns" about a proposed vote-by-mail caucus and his Michigan chairman flatly condemned it Tuesday, taking the air from an idea that top Democrats hoped would resolve the impasse between the state and the national Democratic Party.

    David Axelrod, Obama's senior strategist, said the campaign is reserving final judgment about write-in caucuses in Michigan and Florida -- both of which ran afoul of national party rules by holding January primaries that Hillary Clinton won -- until a plan is officially on the table. "But obviously there are concerns about a mail-in vote. I mean, there are concerns about eligibility, ballot security," he said.

    So yes, your headline is false.  You reported something said by Obama's MI campaign co-chair and contradicted by Obama's high level spokespeople as something "Obama" said.


    are you being serious? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    my reply was to AF (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    and still stands.

    Axelrod 101... (none / 0) (#159)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    ...pump a ridiculous assertion via surrogates and then issue a meekish "denial"

    He cannot have votes that aren't his. (none / 0) (#76)
    by vicsan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:10:56 PM EST
    It's that simple.

    He knows he will LOSE the lead if the MI and FL delegates are seated. Win at all costs, eh?

    Let the DNC Credentials Committee decide this issue. I don't think Mr. Hope will like that either. He'll throw another fit after they rule against him. :)

    yep (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:16:02 PM EST
    Party divided.

    I agree with you.


    Nader must be laughing (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:22:34 PM EST
    I talked to three friends today. They now have his vote...and probably mine.

    NO NADER!! (none / 0) (#105)
    by smott on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    God PLEASE don't vote for Nader. Yes we may be disaffected with either BO or HRC, but in no way does that conflate them with McCain. Because that's what a vote for Nader does. We've been down that road before.

    He can't win CO (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    It won't matter. Besides, I don't think he is qualified to be president. I don't even think he is a real Democrat and he sure doesn't care about the party I have spent my entire life supporting.

    I don't owe BO anything.

    I don't like Nader. But I'm not voting for someone who wants to raise the payroll tax, wants to privatize social security, has NO foreign policy experience, has engaged in race baiting to win and has no problem disenfranchising millions of voters.  He reminds me of George Bush.

    Apparently, I am not alone. You live with the base and you die with it as well. Lesson 101 in politics.


    ...and getting more so (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by smott on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    Y'know a week ago I generally felt that BO supporters were more likely to not vote for HRC because they'd become disaffected....now it seems like the nbr of those in the HRC camp getting fed up with BO to the point that they might not vote for him in the general either is rising steadily.

    ....maybe it's just because I visit here more often but I dunno.

    There's more and more bad feelings on either side. Most generated by surrogates it's true.

    I wonder how BO and HRC actually feel about each other?...


    If nominated he will lose in the GE. Bets are on. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:23:53 PM EST

    ...if nominated she may very well lose too (none / 0) (#109)
    by smott on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    ...her negs are huge. Either one is a gamble. SUSA polls show them both topping McCain narrowly in the electoral college.

    HRC does it by winning the swings.

    Bo loses most of the swings but does it by getting some red states to flip.

    WHich is more likely?


    check the polls (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    his negatives are within a statistical hair width of hers now.

    Welcome to the big leagues.


    Heh (none / 0) (#113)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    her negatives are like 2% higher than his.

    ...so you're saying... (none / 0) (#115)
    by smott on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    ...he galvanizes the GOP base nearly as much as she does?

    How many "anybody but Obama" bumper stickers have you seen?


    I AM PRINTING AS FAST AS I CAN! (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:33:10 PM EST
    How many "anybody but Obama" bumper stickers have you seen?

    LOL! (none / 0) (#122)
    by smott on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:35:34 PM EST

    Still I don't think BO motivates the wingers nearly the way she does....


    The difference... (none / 0) (#162)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    ...is that Clinton's Democratic support is solid among the base of the party while Obama's has been pretty emphemeral.  He's a phenomenon which has persisted all of 6 months.

    Meanwhile Tweety Matthews pops up a stat showing that 24% of Clinton's votes in Mississippi came from Republicans.  So depending on what argument Obama supporters are trying to make, she's either too hated by Republicans, or too loved.


    Was there a gender split .. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    .. gender split in the MS Republicans?

    I mean is it plausible these were mostly Repub women breaking for her?


    Don't know... (none / 0) (#182)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    ...I didn't see that they broke down the demographics that far.  She did lose women overall but hard to know how much of that came from the overwhelming African-American vote for Obama.

    We Are Going To Bet The House (WH) On (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    losing the swings and flipping red states?

    Dear Gawd will sanity ever become the norm in the U.S.


    I dunno... (none / 0) (#139)
    by smott on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    It's early for GE polls but that one from SUSA actually had more of BO's delegates in the "safe" category than HRC's...even though he was getting a bunch from perennially red states.

    But it just feels better to make the GOP swing the purples than to hope BO can flip the reds...


    Some of the reds... (none / 0) (#183)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    ...are just plain untouchable.  Like Wyoming or Idaho.  Yet it won't stop Axelrod from pointing to such states as evidence of Obama's strength in a general election campaign.

    Some of my relatives are Yoopers (none / 0) (#100)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:24:31 PM EST
    and if they weren't too busy hunting deer out of season, they'd be totally in favor of a revote.

    Remember, Obama is on record accepting the DNC's decision.

    His surrogates will pooh-pooh the idea of a mail-in vote while he remains above the fray.  They'll argue that they are just looking out for the voters.

    In reality, the mail-in vote is the only viable option remaining.

    It is up to Dean and the DNC to work out the details, but Obama can use his "concerns" as a bargaining chip during the negotiations on when to hold the revote.

    I predict that he will drop his "concerns" (or more accurately when his concerns are addressed and he feels comfortable that all voters will be heard) when he gets an acceptable end date for the revotes.

    The closer to June the better for him for cynical and practical purposes.  He needs to be able to focus on Penn and then, if he loses Penn, focus on winning Indiana and NC.

    If he loses Penn and then in quick succession loses a close race in MI and big in FL, the tide of perception could move against him even if the delegate difference doesn't change much.

    He's going to be very careful with these revotes.  He wants them to happen when their impact will be minimized and when he's had a chance to campaign in the states.

    Time is on his side.  In public, he supports the DNC's position; in private, he wants to manuever the DNC's position to late in the primary season.

    The UP (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    is rock-solid Clinton country.  Maybe Obama's surrogates should propose a re-vote of just the Lower Peninsula, to save money.

    How interesting. I would have (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:37:21 AM EST
    predicted the UP is solidly "anybody but Hillary" country.  

    A lot of Michiganders have fond (none / 0) (#194)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:40:36 AM EST
    memories of the Clintons and the 90s so their affinity for her and not for the new guy is understandable.

    What really needs to happen (none / 0) (#112)
    by frankly0 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    is for the Clinton campaign itself to speak with one voice on the issue of re-votes. It should choose an option, such as mail-ins, and push for it, from every surrogate, to the campaign, and to Hillary herself.

    That's how closure will have to come to this issue, whether Obama wants it or not.

    Make the argument candidate to candidate, and all the evasions and equivocations of Obama start to tarnish him badly.

    miz clinton, (none / 0) (#144)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:17:47 PM EST
    nor her surrogates get to decide how two states and a party resolve their delegate issues.  i disagree with your advice for two reasons.  first, if her team is seen out front, pushing their case, then voters will be turned off.  second, and more importantly, the super delegates are watching the campaigns closely.  if you are seen by those you obviously need to win playing with the process, they will most definitely rebuke you.

    this is the paradox of both campaigns.  you might win florida by will, but lose favor of the supers you need beyond florida.  

    if i were either campaign, i would stay the hell away from the dnc and michigan/florida debacles.  you run the risk of getting their mess all over your dress.


    Actually it is... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    ...largely up to the candidates to broker a solution to MI and FL since Dean has essentially thrown up his hands.  And there's no "might" for Clinton in winning FL.  It's a given.

    Meanwhile, the majority of Dem voters favor some kind of revote in MI and FL.  The only mess comes from attempting to claim that some arbitrary party rules trump the 'will of the people' ... you know that thing that Obama crows about everytime someone mentions the word superdelegate?


    disagree (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by frankly0 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    Look, if the campaign has a solution such as mail in votes, they can make the case on grounds that resonate very well with the larger public: that the chosen solution is the one that most enfranchises voters.

    It's hard to miss with a argument that appeals to democracy. How could the Obama campaign raise a problem with that? That the more people vote, the more it favors Hillary, and that's unfair to the Obama campaign? I would love to see them make that argument.


    Unless this is brinksmanship... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    This New York Times article does not paint a very bright future for the Democratic party... and goes to great lengths to portray this as a she says, he says dispute:

    "Not surprisingly, they staked out opposing and irreconcilable positions."

    No he doesn't (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:39:30 PM EST
    He does not oppose it.  He was just on Fox.  He said it will all be worked out and I believe him.  So stop it, just stop it.  Question...What does 'worked out' mean?  Can he just get on the fence already.  BTW, Clinton on the other hand is an opportunist.

    I hope she amps up her challenge (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:45:26 PM EST
    This is just ridiculous.  I firmly believe she's not going after him completely with the gloves off because she can't tear down another dem like that.  Just like everybody else in our party leadership, she's using kid gloves on him.

    This is the kind of stuff she should be bringing up.  See how he answers that, like, eight times.


    Ha! (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    Good snark.

    What did he say? (none / 0) (#161)
    by mikemi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:50:30 PM EST
    My dear old dad used to call his type of response "mush mouthing". This it will all work out BS is offensive. Is he in favor of voting or NOT? If he is in favor of voting it is just the method we need to work out. But his party chairs in Michigan are saying 50/50 or nothing.

    Sorry - (none / 0) (#132)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    can you just delete the link?  I don't know how to code it with words!

    I'll try again - you can delete my other two (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:50:24 PM EST
    Clinton picks up 5 more delegates, wiping out gains made by Obama in MS yesterday.  (I know - it's OT)

    From the AP:

    Sen. Barack Obama picked up five more delegates than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Mississippi's Democratic primary Tuesday.

    But Clinton erased the gain Wednesday after final election results became available from a couple of Super Tuesday contests.


    Clinton eliminated the gain when she picked up delegates based on final results from the New York primary and the Colorado caucuses, both of which were held Feb. 5. Clinton gained four delegates in Colorado and one delegate in New York


    Could polling data be used to apportion delegates? (none / 0) (#169)
    by dwmorris on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    Has anyone compiled and analyzed the polling data from MI?  While the polls immediately before the election would be most pertinent, it would also be interesting to see how Obama and Edwards were polling at the deadline for removing their names from the ballot (i.e. this might add credence to the assertion that, because they were losing badly, they removed their names so they could "game" the outcome).  It seems to me that analysis of this data would give a reasonable approximation of how the delegates would have been split if the all three names had been on the ballot.  Since the super delegates are going to decide the outcome anyway (based presumably on all the facts, rather than simply the "official" delegate count), it would be very useful for professional pollsters/statisticians to generate this analysis so that the predicted delegate split would be available to the SDs as they deliberate.  I also like this approach because it is bottom-up and neither of the campaigns, the DNC, nor the Michigan democratic leadership can stop the analysis from being injected into the public dialog.  Perhaps some of the campaigns that were active at that time could be persuaded to release their internal polling data for inclusion in the analysis.

    A point to keep reinforcing (none / 0) (#190)
    by ChrisO on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    is that even if Hillary completely got her way, all she would get would be the votes already cast for her. If Obama gets his way, he will be handed votes that were never cast for him. I'll vote for the guy, but I've seen a lot of evidence that he's used to being handed stuff, and his call for a 50-50 split, as well as his demands that his opponent drop out in the middle of a close race, only reinforce that notion.

    As an aside, can people please stop asserting that they know how their state will vote because they live there? Many polling organizations spend a lot of time and money researching this stuff, and they seem to be wrong as much as they're right. I really don't think someone is in a position to make an accurate prediction based on conversations with their friends.

    Are you going to retract? (none / 0) (#192)
    by dc2008 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:49:04 PM EST
    So now that the Obama campaign has clarified that they don't share Hunter's position, are you going to retract your hastily written headline?

    Election Manipulation by Obama (none / 0) (#195)
    by WayCurious on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:35:45 AM EST
    Obama took his name off our ballot now cries 'I wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan."

    Mark Brewer told us to vote 'uncommitted' if we didn't see our candidates name.

    Now Obama wants MORE delegates than if ALL the uncommitted were just for little old him.  (Funny how it's all about 'the rules' 'cept when it's not in his favor.)

    Does the DNC have NO RESPECT FOR VOTERS?  

    First, they have SuperDelegates in case we don't do what they want - now they are manipulating our vote and reallocating delegates - thinking we're so stoopid we think we're being represented!

    DNC VoteNazi, Howard, 'no vote for you' Dean, shouldn't decide the nominee, the people should!

    If they don't allocate the delegates proportional to how we voted, we should look for a party that cares more about US then themselves.

    Obama flipped off Michigan when he took his name off our ballot - now the whole DNC is doing the same.