"Anything Is Preferable To Our Votes Not Being Counted"

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

In reference to the attitude of the Florida congressional delegation with regard to the mail in primary revote proposal that will be made by the Florida Democratic Party this week, I believe this quote says it all:

Some of South Florida's Democratic leaders were skeptical about holding a mail-in vote, but considered it as a possible option."If it's the only alternative, it's certainly better than our votes not being counted," said Joseph Geller, Mayor of North Bay Village and Hillary Clinton supporter. "Anything is preferable to our votes not being counted."

(Emphasis supplied.) It is the only option. It is preferable to Florida's votes not being counted. That is the bottom line. Time to get behind the Nelson mail in revote plan.

BTW, in an ironic twist, Barack Obama has co-sponsored the Senate version of this bill, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act". Alcee Hastings is a co-sponsor of the House bill. And here is the ACLU praising the bill.

Let me add that my "campaign" for a revote started a month ago. For more on this from Talk Left, see the links here.

< Spitzer Lawyers Want No Charges, Not Plea Bargain | Clinton Campaign On MI And FL >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What can we do? (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:31:22 AM EST
    Who can we call to show our support for this?  Who can we write?  Does anyone know?

    If you have friends in Florida (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:42:55 AM EST
    Have then communicate with their Congresspersons if they are one of the 9 Dems who are stupidly opposing this.

    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:48:03 AM EST
    we can get Lorne Michaels to do an SNL skit about the stupidity of it.
    SNL seems to be having more influence on the race this year than most anyone else.
    which is pretty scary really.

    isn't it ironic they are more on target than (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    the so called media?

    you would think (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:37:03 AM EST
    Florida would be sick of being the punch line of voting jokes.

    Experimental Process (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Saul on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:48:08 AM EST
    One Fl representative said that mail in will be experimental and assuring every voter gets a ballot will be difficult due to current address not being current on the voter registration.  I feel there are going to be a lot of mistakes in trying to execute this first time process.  Plus is it a complete redo or ballots only sent to those that did not vote in the first election.

    I have always said the Michigan needs a redo but not Fl.  Florida had an even playing field.  No one campaigned there. Everyone was on the ballot.  Only Obama had some TV ads but Hilary is willing to let that go.

     The other question I never got answered was how many people that were going to vote did not vote because they were told that their vote did not count.  I asked that because Fl says it was a record Dem turnout.  That makes me feel that they could not have been to many that used the excuse that I did not vote because I thought it would not coutn.

    If they have the wrong addresses (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:49:59 AM EST
    then they have a problem already.

    Amazing statement.


    There are no perfect elections (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:10:17 AM EST
    We can work very hard to reach every voter, but there will always be a few who fall through the cracks. Look at the census. They make every effort to reach every person - to the point of going to people's houses if they don't fill in the forms - but they still don't reach everybody. We have to stop focusing on getting every vote and start focusing on how to make elections as fair and unbiased as possible.

    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:12:29 AM EST
    To flyspeck this proposal in this way is simply absurd.

    The alternative is not counting the Florida votes.


    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    I do think the Obama camp will pursue a strategy of questioning the legitimacy of the mail-in revote, simply to bolster their case if this thing goes into overtime.  They certainly won't be shouting from the rooftops about how fair and equitable it is.

    While I understand that they do what they have to do, I think the meme of "stolen" is very damaging to the party whichever side it comes from.


    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:41 AM EST
    That is why I provided a link and the information that Barack Obama supports a bill that mandates allowing mail-in voting in federal elections.

    His buts can be exposed pretty easily.


    Cmon (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    Surely the Obama Rules trump your logical arguments somehow.

    I think it would be very hard in this case (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    The Media wants revotes it seems to me.

    I thought so at first (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    but the last couple of days . . .

    snark (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    got that one

    And I thought I was the only one feeling snarky (none / 0) (#102)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    this morning.  Off to the gym to work out my anger issues...  Y'all have a great day!

    Yes, (none / 0) (#111)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    i suspect this idea will be open to irregularities and that may be why some Dems oppose it.

    I don't see why they can't hold a regular primary since the money has been offered.  It seems that the Obama camp is dead set against a real primary and that makes me uncomfortable.


    Regular Primary (none / 0) (#116)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    As far as I know a regular primary is not a possibility as their are 15 counties in Florida in the process of changing to new voting machines that will leave a paper trail.

    Guess (none / 0) (#112)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    Florida had an even playing field.  No one campaigned there. Everyone was on the ballot.

    This is like saying that both the rich and the poor are prohibited from sleeping under bridges.  With no campaigning, the candidate with better name recognition has a huge advantage.  Guess who she was.


    This (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    argument from Obama people is getting really old.  Obama did campaign in FL, he was the first one to campaign there.  I don't think he suffered from lack of name recognition.  Hillary's name has been so maligned, I think it's hard to argue she had an advantage on that account.

    I am not calling for her delegates to be seated as is.  I said:  why not a real primary now that the money is on the table, so I don't really understand what you are arguing.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    Let's boil this down to the central question and put it to Obama supporters here: what is your argument against a revote?  If it's voter fraud, please explain how mail-in voting is more rife with fraud than regular polling.

    Florida Delegate Debating (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:44 AM EST
    There are only two options at this point in time: 1. A revote
    2. Taking the issue before the credentials committee at the convention which will take the form of a floor fight.

    Some articles say the credentials committee is yet to be chosen and is picked at the convention. Others show a list of people on the committee, so it's less than clear who will be on this committee (another possible fight?). Obviously both articles could be correct (one committee exists now for other purposes and another gets seated for the convention issues?).

    All the talk here about compromises (50/50, 60/40, seat them as is, don't seat them at all) cannot be done prior to the convention. Anything proposed by the two camps at this time is little more than political posturing.

    By having no revote, the mess sits on the burner simmering until the convention where the debate will obviously be heated unless one candidate drops out prior to that time.

    Neither candidate will have the required number of delegates on their own before the convention, and the Florida/Michigan issue will do a slow burn until the convention if a revote plan isn't proposed and approved for each state in the very near future.

    Those are the two options. Revote now, or sit and simmer.

    And thank you BTD for eliminating the degrading nicknames used by many for both candidates. It's demeaning to our candidates and one of the reasons many of us have found this site a great place to enter into daily debate.

    Personally (none / 0) (#137)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    I want to sue the DNC..again..and the Florida State Republican Legislature.  If that doesn't work, I want to secede.

    why not sit on our hands? (none / 0) (#3)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    Seriously -- I think that if the plan is rejected, there is an excellent chance that the Florida delegation will be seated as-is.  After all, they've made a good faith effort to come up with an alternative, and if they are shot down by the DNC, there won't be much choice but to seat the delegation!

    First (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:44:16 AM EST
    it won't happen if the nomination is in doubt. In which case, it won't matter period.

    Second, the legitimacy of the nominee and the Party is at stake.

    Third, do you WANT to have a chance in Florida?


    Yes, the legitimacy of the nominee is at stake (none / 0) (#15)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:49:35 AM EST
    How much of a handicap do we need to give Obama for him to win, BTD?  We would be giving him every advantage possible and penalizing Hillary AND all of her voters, whose numbers are quite substantial.  So, what gives?  If Obama does not seat them as is, given all of the chances he's been given to redo the vote, he doesn't deserve the nomination.  He won't have earned it.  It will have been given to him.

    I am not viewing this from a candidates' fate (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:53:26 AM EST
    I am viewing this from the Party's fate.

    And the party benefits from shenanigans like this? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:02:43 AM EST
    If Obama snags the nomination based on squelchin MI and FL and by extension, NY, NJ, CA, OH, AZ, MA, AR, NM and a bunch of other states, it will have lost all credibility not only in the minds of Republicans but many Democrats as well.  FL and MI will not be the only things the DNC will have to worry about in November.  Because it frequently ignores NJ, it has no idea how susceptible this state is to a John McCain.  It is playing with fire.  We are figuring out what they are up to with Obama and why they want him so badly and when more than half of the party is not on board, it would be suicidal to keep pushing him down our throats.  
    I resent it and I am deeply offended.  All this crap about Clinton supporters being a bunch of Archie Bunker types who can't think their way out of paper bags is incredibly insulting.  There are options.  After all, what good will Barry do US if he's just going to be a puppet of the frustrated party leaders who finally see the chance to set their own agenda with Barry, who will be completely beholden to them?  
    There will be a reckoning with Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Kennedy and Kerry before this is all over.  And it will not be pretty.  

    IT does not (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    That is why a revote is imperative.

    the result will be prez mccain! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:04:43 AM EST
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:59:14 AM EST
    now, I'm more worried about getting a president who's going to fight for the American People.  The Democratic Party has demonstrated so far in this campaign that they aren't too interested in the democratic process.  They seem very interested in hand-picking the candidate of THEIR choice and disenfranchising the voters.  You really have to wonder why the Old Boys Club and Nancy Pelosi are sooooo determined to have a man who just is not ready to be in such a powerful position.  

    Parties do fade away and give way to new parties.  I'm just about to think that's what needs to happen.


    Yep. This is the 1840s again (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    in so many ways. And do we know what came from it? A new third party that won the White House six years later. (Well, and then secession, and you know the rest.)

    Obama doesn't seat anyone (none / 0) (#114)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    And Obama isn't the only politician in jeopardy here. There are people in Florida who don't like Clinton's flipflopping on the January primary. The Dem state legislators aren't looking great and the Florida congressional delegation doesn't either.

    The problem is that there needs to be a plan to get a revote. How this will affect politicians in November can be discussed after the primaries.


    I'm For A Revote (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    Need to have them seated with no question to their legitimacy IMO no matter who it benefits. To me this issue is not and should not be a question on which candidate benefits.

    I was opposed to the draconian punishment (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:22:11 AM EST
    inflicted upon Florida and Michigan, especially when exceptions were made for other states for what now appear to be reasons designed to help one candidate more than others.

    I thought it was politically short-sighted for candidates to take their names off the ballot in Michigan; it might have said "we respect Iowa and New Hampshire," but if you lived in Michigan, I think what it really said was, "Michigan voters don't matter."  Having surrogates pushing for Obama and Edwards supporters to vote "uncommitted" didn't make it all better.

    I thought the explanation for Obama's national ad buy that aired in Florida was specious, and came close to violating the pledge not to campaign there.

    When 1.75 million people turned out in Florida, I thought that made a compelling case for reversing the decision to strip delegates, or at least going to a 50% strip rather than 100%.

    Why am I not surprised that Obama co-sponsored a Vote-By-Mail bill and now wants to provide the arguments for why it will not work in this case?

    Several days ago, I posted a comment wondering if all this stalling was really designed to get the Obama ground game up and running in Florida - at the time, it felt like paranoid thinking, but it appears my concerns were well-founded, if anecdotal reports are to be believed.

    I was willing to accept the Florida and Michigan votes as is, and allow Michigan delegates allocable to the "uncommitted" vote to go into the convention that way.

    If the goal is to have a vote that everyone agrees is legitimate, then all the talk about splitting anything 50-50 needs to stop.  Re-voting should be done only to legitimize the vote, not make matters worse; if either candidate goes into this already talking about illegitimate results, we are doomed no matter what the plan is.  Agree to a plan, and agree that neither the candidates nor their surrogates nor DNC-types like Brazile will campaign on the illegitimacy of the re-vote plan.

    There needs to be a decision, and an end to the micromanaging of the whole thing.  This is America.  Our vote is our voice.  Let the people speak.


    seated (none / 0) (#4)
    by deminma on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    I would agree seated as is,  with a 50% penaly  -  which what was in the by-laws.   The voters already think they have voted.    The only problem is that it will not help the clinton momentum narrative and the popular vote number becomes even further clouded from the super dlegate perspective.    I think with the additional 100k last night popular vote will be out reach anyways.  

    Nope, no punishment (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:46:09 AM EST
    In order for punishment to be effective, it has to be proportional, relevant and consistent.  The DNC met none of these criteria when it met out the punishment to Florida and Michigan and nothing at all to IA, NH and SC.  What it was engaged in was it's own fumbling attempts at Republican style game rigging.  The jig is up.  Just seat them as is, no penalty, and get on with it already.

    For an election to be considered fair (none / 0) (#28)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:58:16 AM EST
    Everyone must know what the stakes are before they know the outcome.  That's why seating the FL delegation as is will be a travesty, unless it's just an empty gesture that doesn't change the outcome.

    well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:01:52 AM EST
    remember we are talking about Florida.
    doesnt their licenses  plates say "The Hanging Chad State"

    1.7 million voters can't be wrong (none / 0) (#42)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    Now, you go to Florida and tell all those people what a travesty their vote was because they didn't know what they were doing.  
    Don't insult them any further than Barry, Dean and Brazile have already.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#53)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:12:20 AM EST
    I guess everyone who elected Bush "can't be wrong".  Their vote wasn't a travesty.  It was a beauty contest.  If they thought they were electing delegates, they were misinformed.  Florida had lower  turnout among Democrats compared to Republicans than any other state that had voted at that point.  Those are facts.  If stating them hurts people's feelings, there's not much I can do.

    These arguments about the January vote (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:18:27 AM EST
    are pointless now.

    We need a revote.


    I know (none / 0) (#73)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    but people persist on calling for them to be seated based on that vote.  That is, in my view, the "opening offer" for the Clinton campaign.  Obama's opening offer appears to be the 50/50 split plan.  In my view it is useful to hammer home the point that both of those would be travesties to move people toward the reasonable compromise.

    LOL (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:10:07 AM EST
    So only way to make the punishment fair is to not punish them at all.

    That seems..... logical.


    Can we get past "punishment" (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:17:41 AM EST
    and get to what is best for the Democratic Party any time soon?

    Not (none / 0) (#96)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    if you're Howard Dean.  He seems to be in full punishment-fetish mode.  I don't think he'll seat anyone as-is, so we need a revote.  That way neither candidate can really cry foul and neither state is disenfranchised.  
    Hopefully Brazille will threaten to leave the party if we revote, we'll do it, she'll leave, and then the skies really will open, etc.


    full punishment-fetish mode (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    no kidding
    he is starting to scare me

    Yeeeaaahhhhhh, or whatever the supposed (none / 0) (#107)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    scream was.  

    All this Dean hatred (none / 0) (#117)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    isn't getting things moved along.

    I think the DNC was right in their position, I think that they could have handled it better, but there's enough of a mess on everyone to agree to agree it needs to be cleaned up.

    Let's get a revote organized and on track.


    I like Dean (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:22:55 AM EST
    I just think he handled this badly.  And I was mostly making fun of his pro-wrestling-esque appearences on news shows...I also hadn't heard that he'd preapproved the mail-in vote.  That's good news.  Mail-in isn't my favorite option but if mail-in is the only way to get this done, let's do it.

    why are we even (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:19:46 AM EST
    talking about punishing democratic voters for something the republican legislature did?

    This has been addressed (none / 0) (#83)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:28:32 AM EST
    It was undoubtedly GOP shenanigans that are at the root of this problem.  But the DNC tried to get the Dem party to agree to DNC-funded caucuses even before the legislature moved the date, but the Florida Dem party wouldn't agree.  I think you can add Karen Thurman to your villians list in this debacle.

    I think the more interesting question now is what, if anything, may Crist and the GOP legislature do to try to block a revote?


    If seating the delegation based on the straw poll (none / 0) (#9)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:44:40 AM EST
    Changes the outcome, kiss November goodbye.

    Precisely why a revote must be done (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:52:00 AM EST
    Imagine picking the nominee based on NOT having Florida and Michigan count.

    I agree (none / 0) (#26)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    I've always supported a re-vote.

    it once seem inevitable to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:00:07 AM EST
    but now there seems to a lot of things lining up against it.  the the big O certainly has the media on his side.
    in the rest of the country if not possibly in Florida.
    I am starting to worry big time.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    It is very convenient to blame Obama on this. Focus your anger on the Florida Congressional Dems. They are the bad guys right now.

    I am not "blaming" Obama (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    but as you correctly point out below he could end this easily.
    I was just pointing out that in any battles that are to come he will likely have the media on his side.
    obviously the congressional delegation should take up the responsibility but they dont inspire a lot of confidence at the moment.

    It seemed you were (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:16:22 AM EST
    It is to his credit and the Media's discredit that he has them on his side.

    no argument there (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    one can only hope he can run the country as nimbly as he has run his campaign.  which has been unfortunately brilliant.

    But so divisive. When does (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    the unity start?

    If you and I can agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:15 AM EST
    how can the rest of them not?

    It is a mystery (none / 0) (#75)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:23:39 AM EST
    I'm only 90% blinded by Obama partisanship.  The remaining 10% wins sometimes.

    Evidently Kos Supports Dodd's Plan (none / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:42:48 AM EST
    of a 50/50 split of the votes in MI and FL. Source is MyDD since I don't access Kos any more.

    I can't believe the Democratic Party or some of its members are discussing ways of not counting votes.  Just confirms my decision to become an Independent.

    Kos is (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:44:38 AM EST
    well, you know, at this point.

    I Think It Is Very Sad (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:49:38 AM EST
    Of course, I go from sadness to anger and back again on many of the things occurring in this primary season.

    Take it for what it is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:51:19 AM EST
    This too shall pass.

    for me (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM EST
    anger is starting to win out.
    which is sad.

    yes, we know. (none / 0) (#48)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:08:01 AM EST
    And I am sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    many people think I am, you know, at this point.

    He is a good guy. This all will pass.


    Why don't we follow ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    Dodd's plan for ALL THE DELEGATES just split them all 50/50, same with the Supers, and then have the Magic Eightball decide the race.

    That is the worst alternative of the three (none / 0) (#29)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:59:43 AM EST
    What a silly proposal

    Agree 100% (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:05:36 AM EST
    Even putting that proposal out was stupid IMO. So far, the Dem Party has gone out of their way to tick voters  off.  

    Splitting the delegates 50/50 is crazy (none / 0) (#86)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    Seating them as is with a 50% reduction (as the Republicans did) would be workable,  however I think it's too late to do that and the only way forward is a revote.

    A 50% reduction would suit Obama as they would be seated,  but with a question mark over their legitimacy.   It would stop Clinton from getting a positive news cycle from "winning" revotes (which I do not accept would necessarily happen in Michigan), and it would ensure that his delegate lead remained intact.

    It won't happen though,  for the above reasons.


    yeah (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM EST
    most of the discussion here seems to be about FL.
    MI seems way more problematic.  those delegates, I think, certainly cant be seated as is but I dont hear much talk about that one.

    Is there any possibility of seating both states (none / 0) (#104)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM EST
    as is,  but with a 50% delegate penalty applied.

    I can see positives from both camps.  For Obama,  who has the front runner mantle it removes the prospect of potentially losing both states in a genuine contest and he would be likely to retain a significant pledged delegate lead.

    For Clinton,  she whould be able to narrow the delegate gap and pull the popular vote closer (about 150,000).

    Then it comes down to how they do in the remaining states and how convincing they are with Superdelegates.

    i.e. Obama argues that the popular vote in a genuine contest in Florida and Michigan would have been much much closer.  That even counting pv he is still ahead overall (probably), and is still ahead on delegates.

    Hillary puts forward her big state, swing state argument and tries to woo the superdelegates that way.


    yup, i am already registered as one, (none / 0) (#44)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:06:28 AM EST
    and i won't be changing anytime soon.

    The 50/50 solution (none / 0) (#118)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    as someone said, is Obama's (or more precisely, his surrogate's) solution. It is positive in that it is neutral to the candidates and allows delegates from Florida to participate at the convention.

    Of course, being neutral to Clinton in terms of delegate totals is damaging to what she needs, and certainly below what she could expect in an actual vote.

    Any kind of revote is better for her than no vote.


    The 50/50 solution (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    is garbage because it entirely disenfranchises the voters who came out in record numbers and didn't vote 50/50. It's simply another name for 'don't seat the delegates' because it will have the same practical effect on the voters.

    No one is fooled into thinking this is a solution or even a compromise. It's designed simply to negate the FL and MI vote because Obama figures he can't win either state in a re-vote.


    the 50/50 split is not neutral (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    since the popular vote did not reflect that outcome and it also pushes Obama closer to the nominating total; hence his need of Superdelegates are lessened

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:47:31 AM EST
    I am hearing rumors that it is against Florida state law (or in the FLA state constitution) that a mail-in vote to nominate or elect candidates is illegal. Do you or any of your readers know anything about that? It doesn't seem to be part of Alcee Hastings' argument, but if true it would pretty much end the idea of a mail-in.

    This is to pick delegates (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:50:51 AM EST
    not nominate candidates.

    The Democratic candidate for President will be selected at the Democratic National Convention.


    So you are saying (none / 0) (#119)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    that no such law exists, or that it doesn't apply? Since what I heard refers to the mail-in election, I thought maybe you knew or heard about the rumor. I claim no expertise in Florida law.

    Apparently not if it's party-run (none / 0) (#135)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    as opposed to state-run

    Would a mail-in vote work in Florida?  We spoke with Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections Kathy Dent, who says a mail-in vote in Florida could be illegal.  "The law in Florida right now prohibits mail-in voting if there are any candidates on the ballot.  Which means, since there would be Obama and Hillary on the ballot, Florida law prohibits it, for the Supervisors of elections to actually conduct it."

    Dent says the Democratic Party conducting its own mail-in election would be a different thing, but comes with its own set of hurdles.

    so (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:51:51 AM EST
    if they split the delegates 50/50 how do they handle the popular vote.
    would that count as is?  or are they going to try to split that 50/50 too?
    even Tweety is starting to admit that if Hillary can win the popular vote she can take the nomination.

    They are not going to spolit the vote 50/50 (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:12 AM EST
    That is simply ridiculous and Obama is stupid to propose it.

    I agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:56:53 AM EST
    that it is highly unlikely and I dont think Hillarys campaign would ever accept it.
    but I was just wondering about the popular vote.
    if they left that as is if might be incentive for Hillary to take the crappy 50/50 deal and try to take the nomination based on the popular vote. no?

    I mean (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:57:59 AM EST
    she did very well in the popular vote there, right?

    I hope (none / 0) (#32)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:01:58 AM EST
    It's just a negotiating stance.

    I hope so too (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    but I dont think it is.
    I think the strategy is to run out the clock and count on the spinless politicians to sit on their hands until it is too late.

    Did Obama propose it? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    I thought it was Dodd. That's like confusing Clinton with Ferraro, no?

    What are the protections... (none / 0) (#36)
    by mike in dc on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:45 AM EST
    ...against vote fraud in this plan?  Is is similar to Oregon's vote-by-mail protections?

    I imagine so (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:06:54 AM EST
    What we need now is an agreement in principle.

    I'd hope so.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by mike in dc on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    ....since apparently the vote has to be done by June 10th, and Florida would need 90 days prep to do a full primary(and we're 93 days away from the 10th right now), so the mail-in option is the only way a re-vote will happen in Florida. There are going to be physical sites for ballot drop-offs, right?

    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    That is in the plan.

    Could Crist or the legislature (none / 0) (#85)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    do anything to screw up a revote?  I bet they'll try anything they can.

    I do not think so (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:32:33 AM EST
    for a couple of reasons.

    I think they do not have the power to do so.

    I think Crist can't do it after the big show he made about it.


    why revote (none / 0) (#38)
    by deminma on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:04:01 AM EST
    The people think the vote they took was valid.   The only negotiation is over the delegate count  -  for which many of the people do not care or understand?  What if Obama says he will make it 60/40 for both states.  Hard to see how hillary would do better.  

    Valid revote argument for michigan but I think they are not going to get their act together.


    IF Obama stands up and says (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:06:15 AM EST
    the Florida vote was legitimate and fair and square and the DNC accepts it, then we have no problem.

    They are not going to do that.

    I wish people would stop building imaginary sand castles that do not exist.

    That goes for you but especially for the Florida Congressional Dems.


    Obama sounded very open and accepting (none / 0) (#68)
    by magster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    of revotes last night on MSNBC.

    But not of mail in primaries (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    which is the only alternative now.

    Sorry, that game won't work.


    I heard the same thing (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    and thought he sounded very vague and noncommittal

    where he was very noncommittal at best.

    Since that is the only alternative for a revote in Florida, it is tantamount to being against a revote.

    And given his support for a federal law mandating that states permit mail in voting, highly hypocritical.


    Yes, but the state currently doing mail in votes (none / 0) (#93)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:36:41 AM EST
    (Oregon I believe), has had 10 years of experience perfecting them.  There are legitimate concerns that a rushed mail-in primary could be screwed up (this is the Democratic Party remember, and it's Florida).

    Is the argument against doing Firehouse Primaries in both states purely down to cost?


    You can't do firehouse primaries in FL (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    particularly since Florida has never done caucuses.

    You can flyspeck any plan to death if that is what you want to do.

    My point is you better look at the alternative and say you are comfortable with it. Here the alternative is disenfranchising Florida and Michigan.

    If you can live with that, game it all you want.


    Yep (none / 0) (#108)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    Can't make the perfect the enemy of the good on this one.

    Oregon's Model Can Be Used In Florida (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    Don't see a need to reinvent the wheel. If they have already worked out the bugs in this type of voting, just adopt their plan. Also, Florida has to have a procedure to handle mail in absentee ballots so they can't be completely ignorant on how to handle mail in ballots. Don't see why this has to be a problem unless people (politicians especially) are bound and determined to make it one.

    mail in (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:37:02 AM EST
    yes that is pretty much the only part I could bring myself to listen to.

    He sounded vague and noncomittal. What a (none / 0) (#90)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM EST
    shock.  I'm surprised he didn't say "I agree with Hillary."

    I deleted a series of comments (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:22:26 AM EST
    discussing denigrating nicknames.

    The bottom line is this - they are not allowed at this site.

    Let me clarify (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    They are not allowed at this site regarding the candidates or the commenters.

    The Media, I get to think up denigrating nicknames for, much as J objects in her heart of hearts.


    so (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:33:00 AM EST
    Tweety is ok.

    Almost required (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    No Do-over (none / 0) (#77)
    by Sunshine on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    Obama supporters are claiming that many people did not vote because they thought that their vote would not count... Why are we to beleive that these were people that were going to vote for Obama, Clinton supporters also may have thought that their vote was not going to count... It's more likely that these voters were spread equally among all the canidates....

    No do overs, no votes (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    Did you even read my post?

    Rock, paper, scissors. That's how it will end up. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:30:33 AM EST

    Best 3 out of 5. (none / 0) (#95)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    Nope. I don't think they could ever agree on (none / 0) (#99)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM EST
    how many games to play before the winner is chosen.  It would go on forever....

    Has anyone noticed? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:47:38 AM EST

    1. If you have a revote, NONE of the 1.7 million ballots cast the first time will count.

    2. The mail ballot is a way to "cage" voters.  An undeliverable ballot is not much different than sending a post card and then challenging that voter at the polls if the post card is undeliverable.  The difference is that with a challange at the polls you can cast a provisional ballot, but if a ballot never shows up you are pretty much "sans a paddle".

    An undeliverable ballot? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    Are they going to remove mailboxes from Hillary neighborhoods?

    But you did get #1 right. The January non-primary will not count.


    Not at all (none / 0) (#134)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST

    At lease in my state if there is a mistake in your voter registration address, it does not matter because you show up in person at the poll.  OTOH, a mistake in that address on a mailed out ballot can mean no ballot arrives.

    In other states, there are procedures in place (none / 0) (#129)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    to deal with people who do not receive ballots.  

    First, the mailing date for the ballots is widely publicized so people can begin to expect them.

    Second, if a person does not receive a ballot within a reasonable time after the announced mailing date, he or she can contact the local election office for what happens next - I would explain what that is but cannot remember all the details provided on this point by another commenter in a recent post on this subject.

    The bottom line is that, if modeled after states which have already fine-tuned the process, there is no reason mail-in voting has to disenfranchise anyone.

    Is it perfect?  Of course not - but I'm not aware of a method that is.

    I serve as an assistant chief judge (Democratic) in the precinct where I vote - until you see the voting process from that side of it, it's hard to appreciate just how amazing it is that things go as well as they do.


    so what will it mean if Hillary wins Pa. and Fla.? (none / 0) (#125)
    by athyrio on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST

    It means that (none / 0) (#127)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    she wins states with a more varied demographic, she wins big states, she wins swing states and she proves that she is the better candidate for the ge.

    Now, whether or not it means she wins the nomination is altogether separate from any of this.


    get the lawyers ready.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by amde on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    legally speaking would disenfranchisizing the voters or not allowing the revote (which looks closer to happening) be a violation of voter rights? I've heard rumors about FL taking legal action against the DNC because the are "removing the right to vote and be heard." Seems like it could stick....

    Floridians are especially sensitive (none / 0) (#136)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    What with the 2000 fiasco, the voter purges, the likely machine hacking, etc., Floridians are primed to react badly to what the DNC has done to them. Just listen to former Florida voter Randi Rhodes (and still a property owner, I think) on this topic to see what I mean.