home

The Florida Revote Plan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I have the utmost respect for Jeralyn's opposition to a Florida revote. But I think Jeralyn does not ask herself the real question we face now. To wit, the choice is between a revote and not seating the Florida delegation. The original Florida primary vote result will not be honored by the DNC. That is a fact. The choice now is between no Florida delegation and a Florida delegation chosen by a revote.

The plan submitted by the Florida Democratic Party is the only one being offered, the only one viable. It must be supported. Not seating a representative Florida (and Michigan) delegation will be disastrous for the Democratic Party's chances in those two states come November.

In my view, there is no choice. We must support the Florida revote plan.

NOTE- Comments closed.

< New Delegate Awards: Obama Gets No Net Gain After Miss. | In 2004, DOJ Precleared MI Internet Voting >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • The Florida Revote Plan | 267 comments (267 topical)
    Either option will be opposed (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    by the Obama campaign.

    I've said from the start that they will try to block seating the delegates or revoting while trying to look like they are trying to resolve the issue fairly.

    Good thing Obama has "transcended" politics.

    Obama has 'transcended' politics (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    And declared himself King.

    He's not, though, in any sense of the word.


    [ Parent ]

    I knew Elvis (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:34:42 AM EST
    Elvis was a friend of mine.
    Senator, you are no Elvis.


    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a quote where he did so? (none / 0) (#14)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST
    Or are you just blinded by Obama-hate?

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama quoted me, I'd be thrilled (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    But if you can find a quote of him quoting me be my guest!

    Or are we not, as individuals, allowed to have opinions under Obama rules now?

    I was undecided and either HRC or BO were excellent Dem candidates. Then Team Obama started this scorched earth policy of blowing up Dem chances unless he was annointed.

    It's made it clearer to me why HRC is a better choice to win in November and, more importantly, to govern.

    Oh, and do your own homework. I've done mine and don't have to explain my vote.

    [ Parent ]

    You made a statement (none / 0) (#82)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    that was inflammatory, and now you can't back it up.  telling.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do I need to 'back up' my vote or opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    It's not inflammatory to have an opinion / position that either the FL and MI votes should count as is, or have a revote.

    I didn't like TeamO's threats that they wouldn't back HRC if she was chosen, during the fair primary process, to be the Dem candidate (as publicly stated by Michelle Obama and other TeamO spokespeople.)

    It tells me he's not the second coming of Dr. King, who was about REAL change. Obama is revealing himself to be a bad choice to beat McCain (and the Republicans Obama wants to unite with, which is the centerpiece of his campaign) -- after taking down the "Monster" Hillary, of course.

    I think he'll lose the Dems the election because he's too divisive, in the active-verb sense that he's intentionally dividing people unless he wins.

    (I'm still allowed an opinion under Obama rules, right?)

    [ Parent ]

    You're certainly allowed to have an opinion (none / 0) (#184)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    but if you can't provide any substantive support for it, you shouldn't expect anyone to take it seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's speeches are peppered with MLK bites (none / 0) (#215)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
    His position on ONLY counting FL and MI votes as benefits him is abundantly on the public record. (You can catch up and do your own homework and read the past threads here.)

    His spokespersons' message, such as Michelle Obama saying during her appearance on Larry King Live, that Obama supporters would not back HRC in a general election, will deeply damage the Dems in the election, which is becoming harder to win with or without Obama's blessing as the media turn more to John McCain.

    Obama's candidacy and flighty public positions are damaging now and will be even more so down the road as he plays Nu Skool Politics with those swell Repugs who can't WAIT for him to come on over and unite with them!

    [ Parent ]

    And I'm allowed a vote too, which I want to count (none / 0) (#243)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    Team Obama only wants to count the votes that benefit him and brush aside the ones that don't.

    "Agreeing" to just take those HRC ones because BO made a strategic campaign error isn't my idea of democracy, old, new, or whatever nouvelle bizarro version TeamObama is trying to push on people.

    [ Parent ]

    Falsehoods don't help either (none / 0) (#196)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    Michelle Obama never said she wouldn't back Hillary.  She said she was unsure.  Lies don't help your credibility, especially when they're so easily disproven.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's falsehood about counting MI and FL votes (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    Casting aside the votes and declaring he'll take half isn't respecting the process is what a FALSEHOOD is.

    I didn't misrepresent the ugly nature of his campaign to unite with Repugs once Monster Lady was taken out.

    I didn't misrepresent Michelle Obama's statement about not supporting HRC and other appalling things Ms. Obama said on Larry King Live.

    Calling me a liar -- or whatever juvenile charge Team Obama's slinging this week -- doesn't alter facts.

    Do the Monster Mash to your hearts content, Team Obama's lost it.

    [ Parent ]

    Calling a vote FAIR is a FALSEHOOD, too (none / 0) (#234)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    When Sen. Clinton said the Michigan and Florida primaries were "fair" and "should be respected", she took a position that is so implausible any court would direct a verdict against her on that one.

    So, it's a falsehood, as "fair" is determined by our legal system and by our sense of conscience.

    [ Parent ]

    These emotional ravings (none / 0) (#246)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    Don't make any substantive points.  I've tried to engage you with logic and facts to no avail, so I'm done arguing with you.

    [ Parent ]
    The 'ravings' are TeamO's OWN POSITIONS (none / 0) (#253)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
    This ludicrous stance that citing well-known public stances are my irrational imaginings or emotional ravings is ridiculous.

    Flail away ... TeamO is not ready for prime time and the more I see, the more evident it is to me that Obama and his team aren't capable of winning the election or, after that, governing.

    [ Parent ]

    Right she was unsure and that (none / 0) (#199)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    such an improvement coming from the wife of a candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    it is not the same thing, but i refer you (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:06:13 AM EST
    to obama's promise that he will play by chicago political rules. that is not anything to brag about considering the history of chicago politics.

    and as to whether someone thinks of himself as royalty, well that is inferred by their attitude and manner don't you think? isn't that the position that michelle took about hillary? she won't support her if her attiutde isn't just right? right?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, the Chicago rules worked well for him when (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    he first ran for office against Alice Palmer, who was a community activist and who held the office and who had supported him in his run for a different job.  When he couldn't win that  office (for a reason I no longer remember), he decided to run against her, even though she had been his staunch advocate.  Then, instead of actually running against her, he challenged the signatures that she had given the voting office to allow her to run, along with the signatures of three or four other people running.  He knocked them all off the ballot, so he could run unopposed.  Those are the "Chicago Rules."

    It seems to me that Obama has been using the Chicago Rules all along, accusing the Clintons of racism in order to inflame racial hostility in Blacks to demonize the Clintons just so he could win, his use of the Harry and Louise ads to attack her Health Care Plan so that the Republicans can now use that to attack his own Health Care Plan, which will not work without mandates anyway (which he has now made it impossible for him to propose).  

    He seems like a really nice guy, until you look under the surface. I gave him money until I realized that I couldn't actually support him.  He lets his surrogates do his dirty work, but he's been doing dirty work since he started running for office back in his Rezko days.  

     If people would just do a little homework on the man, instead of reacting emotionally, it would be better for the country and for progressive values, which supposedly we in the "Reality-based Communitiy" espouse.   We have a lot of serious problems in this country, starting with the fact that the economy may be in meltdown, we have dire environmental problems, not to mention the war (which in spite of Obama's speech of 2002, he has voted for every time he's had the chance -that is, he's voted for  Bush's position every time since he's been in the Senate except when he's ducked the vote).

    So, I can hardly wait to see what else the Chicago Rules will bring us. We all know how honest Chicago politics are.

    [ Parent ]

    i see (none / 0) (#88)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:19:36 AM EST
    so now we're inferring that he thinks he's king, not because he said anything of the sort, but because of our subjective views on his "attitude."  Not much rationality in that.

    [ Parent ]
    really? (none / 0) (#93)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    Someone can't feel like a candidate's attitude reflects an air of superiority and royalty?  It can't possibly be a surprise to you that politics is personal, subjective, and emotional.

    [ Parent ]
    People who don't understand simple declarations (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    ... that hold true both literally and figuratively should take a breather.

    Otherwise, they're just papering the thread with clutter to make a meaningful discussion frustrating if impossible.

    Demanding that I "quote" where Obama said, um, my opinion SLASH play on words is cluttering.

    In case it wasn't, though, KING = Dr. King, whom Obama frequently cites, without attribution, in speeches and small-k king, a self-appointed ruler who's allergic to counting votes. (THAT was clutter, but minimally useful!)

    Astro-turfing minions are particularly thick today.

    [ Parent ]

    Not to mention that he takes on King's religious (none / 0) (#167)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST
    cadence when he speaks. He is a good mimic and he is a great copier of the words and ideas of other people. But I'd like to know that there is something genuine in the rhetoric.  I don't believe there is. I think it's all about him.

    [ Parent ]
    People who can't back up their claims (none / 0) (#177)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    should take a breather.  They certainly shouldn't imply people who disagree with their emotive rants are just astroturfing.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama probably believes (none / 0) (#45)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    and probably correctly, in my view, that he would have done far better in Florida and in Michigan had he engaged in those states with the same grassroots tenacity he's engaged in the others, and campaigned hard in order to overcome what was, at that time, Clinton's superior name recognition.

    Holding a primary by the rules would have been much better for Obama's campaign. Florida broke the rules and the DNC disenfranchised it. Now the Clinton campaign is doing everything it can to get the delegates in through the back door. If Clinton was in a commanding delegate lead, do you think she'd be pursuing this with the same ardor? Ha!

    Nobody wants to see Florida or Michigan voters disenfranchises. But let's face facts here. Clinton went into the primary season heavily favored as the presumptive candidate. The Florida and Michigan results certainly reflect that. But the landscape has now drastically changed. Obama's substantial delegate lead now makes him the presumptive candidate. Seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, as is, is extremely unfair not only to Obama but to those across the nation who've thrown their support toward him. Florida voters did not have the benefit of a hard fought campaign in the state to help them make their choice. Seating them as is would be more unfair to Obama and his nationwide supporters than not seating them at all. It gives Clinton a boon she did not earn by campaigning but possessed as the presumptive candidate at the time.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]

    3 days before the FL primary (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    Obama had received much positive media attention by winning the SC primary.
    And yet - voters in Florida deciding on Primary day - voted for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    That's correct (none / 0) (#163)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:49:31 AM EST
    without any in-state campaigning or in-state GOTV efforts. Because of that, Clinton's presumptive nominee status and name recognition probably counted for much more.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    Obama ran ads in Florida and Clinton didn't. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:54:40 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's about disenfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by SandyS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:32:26 AM EST
    Honestly, no, Clinton would not be pushing to resolve Florida and Michigan.  But, neither would she be in favor of disenfranchising voters in the fall and would accept a plan to address this issue.  Because she is truly a democrat, unlike Obama, who only cares about his own campaign - otherwise, why try to block a revote?  It is clear to me that Obama would not expect to do well in either state, otherwise why would he be in favor of disenfranchising the state most damaged by the election in 2000?  This is disgraceful on his campaign's part.

    [ Parent ]
    Your faith in Senator Clinton's willingness to do (none / 0) (#170)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    the right thing is, in my view, misplaced, judging from her argument on NPR today why the Michigan delegates should be seated. Anybody who makes the argument she made this morning can't be trusted.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, I am much less concerned (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    about anything being "fair" for either of these candidates than I am about making sure that all of the states get fair representation in this primary process.

    Running for President is a rough and tumble process which is rarely "fair" - the candidates knew that when they got into it and they'll deal with many more "unfair" situations on a given day in the White House than this primary could ever produce.  So they need to cope and adjust.

    But the people of Florida and Michigan got clipped in a battle they had no control over which is something we need to address with their best interests in mind first - the candidates need to adjust to their needs and their will - not the other way around.

    Remember that the candidates are vying for the honor of becoming public servants.  We in the Democratic Party need to demonstrate that we understand the relationship between elected officials and electorate as it was meant to be.  If we fail to deal with Michigan or Florida our position on that front will be much, much weaker and Obama's in particular could suffer significantly.

    The goal in this primary is to nominate a candidate to win the general election in November.  We have to look beyond these two candidates and their needs and start examining what we will need in November - I don't care what anyone says about the electoral map - giving up Florida and Michigan from the outset is just nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    Rarely fair? (none / 0) (#174)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    I disagree. It's rarely nice, and sometimes very dirty. But as far as fair goes, if people follow the rules that everybody agrees upon then the process itself is fair.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    Rules & Process (none / 0) (#203)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    When the process puts an innocent man to death, the process is flawed (Herrera).  When voters' votes don't count, the process is flawed.  Rules and process shouldn't be placed above fairness.

    [ Parent ]
    Different issues (none / 0) (#214)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:11:52 PM EST
    An innocent man who is executed didn't agree, beforehand, to a process whereby he could be executed for a crime he did not commit.

    A candidate, on the other hand, who agrees to abide DNC rules about the process of primaries and caucuses cannot hardly complain that those rules aren't fair, later. So far as the voters themselves are concerned, no, it's not fair to them, but there are competing national interests involved that cannot be ignored, either. One obvious solution for the disenfranchised voters is to replace their state democratic leadership.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]

    The voters concerns are paramount. (none / 0) (#235)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:21 PM EST
    And they didn't agree to the rules either.  The DNC's needs don't compare.

    Everyone knows the DNC screwed up.  They should walk this back.

    [ Parent ]

    It's also about the voters (none / 0) (#240)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    in every other state. In a representational democracy, the voters agreed to the rules via their elected representatives. They may not be happy with the choices their elected representatives made. But that is the fiction of consent upon which our system of government rests. There's no reason to disavow that fiction in this case only.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    That makes no sense. (none / 0) (#249)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    I get your point about the 'fiction of consent' but when we follow a trail down to a point where rational minds realize we're doing something unfair, you walk it back.  You can make all your same arguments about Herrera, but in the end an innocent man was killed.  That makes no sense.

    Your argument is opportunistic.  An objective observer would no doubt agree to make the votes count.

    [ Parent ]

    what is fair about (none / 0) (#222)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    the disproportional representation of small states in the nominating process?

    [ Parent ]
    That is why I wouldn't even (none / 0) (#242)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    call another primary in MI and FL a "re-vote" - while they each state held an election - opening polling stations and handing out ballots etc. - neither election met the criteria of the rules originally set forth by all of the states - therefore they didn't really do anything but hold glorified straw polls.

    Seems to me that if either candidate perceives new elections that are conducted within the rules as they were set up in 2006 as "unfair", then they really aren't talking about rules at all.

    Writing off FL and MI as it stands now makes no sense.  I think the only choice we have is to hold elections in whatever fashion that meet the criteria set forth by the bylaws.  It is not like either camaign is hurting for money or that they have spent money of any significant amount in either state - why not run real contests now?  Both will benefit in November if they do and both will suffer in November if they don't.  It is a worthwhile investment imo.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#247)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    Thanks for your comment.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    Rarely fair? (none / 0) (#176)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    I disagree. It's rarely nice, and sometimes very dirty. But as far as fair goes, if people follow the rules that everybody agrees upon then the process itself is fair.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    Okay. Let's just say that fairness is in the (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    eye of the observer. Is it fair that Obama gets more delegates in Caucus states where a tiny fraction of the population actually gets to vote and it disenfranchises Clinton's base because poor people, rural people, young mothers, old people, people who work on Saturdays or can't afford four or five hours on the weekend to go to a caucus, or who might even be intimidated by the idea -can't vote?  Is it fair that Wyoming's 5000 people voting count while Florida's 1.7 million voters don't? Is it fair that Obama wants the Superdelegates to vote for him if he has the most pledged delegates even though he might end up with less than the popular vote? Is it fair that he wants them to vote for him even though the RULES say that they can vote their conscience or for what they think is the good of the party? Is it fair that he intends to make a big deal out of this by further inflaming his followers who are already acting like thugs, threatening everyone who doesn't agree with them?

    Just look at Howard Dean and how he behaved when he was accused in an ad paid for by his fellow candidates of being like Osama bin Laden and then had his candidacy killed by the Dean scream nonsense.  He turned around and told his supporters not to be angry but to give Kerry everything they had to try to win against Bush because that was more important than his winning. He took a much lesser joh as the DNC chair to try to install a 50 state strategy and did that in spite of getting grief from his own party about it.  There's a man I can respect, unlike Senator Obama who will stop at nothing to get elected, including killing off the Democratic Party's chances in November.

    [ Parent ]

    But fair to who? (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    You seem to think that fair to Obama is the ultimate test. I would submit that fair to the voters, then fair to the party, then fair to the candidates, is the preferred fairness hierarchy.

    The 'rules are rules' argument doesn't address fairness to the voters at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Stop putting words in my mouth, please (none / 0) (#224)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    There are a lot of competing interests involved in setting up a process as complicated as a party nomination process. Florida's state democratic leadership broke the rules. Florida voters' gripes should mainly be with them.

    I said in a different comment that what I favor is the right of each candidate to campaign and organize in Florida as they would have done so had Florida not jumped the gun. If, after that effort, Clinton's victory in Florida is every bit as substantial as it was in January, I'm satisfied that the process was fair, not just for the candidates, but for voters throughout the nation as well as Florida.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]

    Clinton is ahead in Florida polls (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST
    RIGHT NOW, with a 17% point lead. The "landscape" has not changed in the minds of the Florida voters despite the fact that Obama is the national frontrunner now, and Floridians have had a chance to see him for six additional weeks.

    As for the rest of your argument, it really amounts to little more than claiming that seating them rather than not seating them is more unfair TO OBAMA
    because he lost. If that's your argument,then why bother to seat any state's delegates, if its going to be "unfair" to the loser to seat them?

    [ Parent ]

    That's not my argument (none / 0) (#185)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    My argument is that all candidates should have the chance to campaign and compete in every state in accordance with the rules set up by the DNC. Yes, I believe Obama would have done better than the current polls suggest if he had been given the chance to organize and campaign, but that's just informed speculation. If the vote were to come out identical with the current polls, I'm fine with that, so long as Obama and Clinton have a fair opportunity to ask Florida voters for support, just as they were able to do so in ever other state (save Michigan).
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    The Florida state party may have (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    "broken" the rules, but the voters of Florida certainly did not.  The DNC rules have always included a provision for FLA to submit an "alternative plan" for choosing and seating delegates, and therefore it is perfectly permissible under the "rules" for the FLA state party to conduct another vote that would permit FLA voters' voices not only to be heard, but to count.

    The FLA and MI delegate issues are not a question of fairness to one candidate or another. They are a matter of fairness to the voters. I think Obama will pay a price if he is seen by the Democratic voters in those states as having been unwilling to agree to a procedure that would permit them to have a say in which candidate is the nominee -- and whoever the nominee is in the fall will also pay a price for his reluctance. Which means the whole country will pay a price.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's not just about fairness to Obama and (none / 0) (#192)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    Clinton. It's about fairness to voters, but not just those voters in Florida and Michigan, but also to the voters in every other state who have pledged their time and money to one candidate or the other. What Obama, Clinton, and the DNC owe to them is a fair process that guarantees a secure vote and opportunity to compaign.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    Nothing is fair to Obama (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    You are moaning that Obama did not get the chance to outspend Hillary 4:1 in FL. Oh, the unfairness of it all!!

    [ Parent ]
    How can we have a president (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    who is against having all votes count?

    I want a president who is a candidate who is working -- working hard, and speaking for it NOW, when it matters -- to have all votes count.  Somehow.

    That's because I believe in democracy.  How 'bout you?

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (none / 0) (#99)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    Obama was coming off a big win in South Carolina and had just won 1 caucus and 1 primary to HRC's win in New Hampshire.  Are you saying the record number of people who voted in Florida and Michigan don't watch the news, or read the newspapers, or have internet access, or listen to the radio?  

    Since Obama wants to benefit for a tactical decision he made in Michigan by removing his name from the ballot, do you then think HRC should get a do-over in, say, Colorado?  And since Obama actually held a press conference and aired a national ad (that could have been blocked in the Florida markets), against the rules, does HRC get a do-over in Georgia?

    [ Parent ]

    No, I'm not saying that (none / 0) (#158)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    I'm saying this. Obama is a great campaigner and his campaign has left the Clinton campaign far behind in its organizational and GOTV efforts. Obama's position in this campaign is due in large part to those facts. Holding a vote in Florida that deprives the Obama campaign of the opportunity to work for voter support in the same way it worked for voter support in other states, coupled with Senator Clinton's frontrunner status at the time of the Florida primary, makes it difficult to credit the Florida vote as a reflection of the support each candidate might achieve by campaigning in Florida.

    Your argument about Michigan and Colorado doesn't make much sense. The DNC did not disqualify Colorado from the primary season. It disqualified Michigan, and each candidate signed a pledge acknowledging that. Senator Clinton, despite signing that pledge, is now trying to sneak the delegates in. That's outrageous, frankly.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]

    Not sure this is dispositive (none / 0) (#172)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    digdugboy writes:

    Clinton went into the primary season heavily favored as the presumptive candidate. The Florida and Michigan results certainly reflect that. But the landscape has now drastically changed. Obama's substantial delegate lead now makes him the presumptive candidate.

    1. When Clinton was heavily favored, that was because she had been annointed as the front runner, just like somebody always is. And now IMNSHO they're in the tank for Obama. Who cares? I'm not sure why the desire of our famously free press to manipulate the Presidential nomination process  should trump the right of Florida voters to have their votes counted.

    2. Obama's "substantial lead" is all of a 100 delegates, and both candidates are approximately equal in the popular vote, with many races yet to run. I understand why Obama supporters would want to bootstrap any lead at all into a victory, but I have a hard time seeing how the numbers support this -- and in any case, I don't see why such game-playing should trump the rights of Florida voters.

    Finally, how does it make sense, at the end of the day, to disenfranchise FL and MI when it comes to the general? It doesn't. Check the polling:

    Another finding, which pollster Jim Kitchens called "stunning," was that a quarter of the respondents - all Democrats who voted in the Jan. 29 primary - said they were upset enough over the issue to consider not voting or voting Republican in November's presidential race.

    These voters think they're being treated unfairly, and they're right.

    So, with the Carville offer of $15 million still on the table, why is Obama not only lawyering up, but appealing to the Bush Justice [cough] Department, instead of looking for a solution that's best for the voters? I don't have a problem with Obama looking worse and worse on this issue -- unless he ekes out the victory and becomes the nominee, in which case a perceived lack of legitimacy from a broken primary voting system could cause him, and the party, real problems.

    The whole episode looks a lot how Obama knocked off Alice Palmer in Chicago by challenging signatures. Yes, politics ain't beanbag, but what it takes to gain legitimacy in a national election isn't the same as what it takes at the state level in Illinois, either.

    So, it seems to me -- with legitimacy the #1 priority, whoever wins -- that the revote is the best solution (which isn't the same as saying it's good...)

    [ Parent ]

    I support a revote too (none / 0) (#206)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:26 PM EST
    so long as the revote is secure and allows each candidate to campaign in Florida as he or she wishes and can afford. I agree that disenfranchising Florida and MIchigan voters is not good for our nation's process. I also agree with you on your point about our famously free press.

    Our opinions of the candidate's character obviously differs. I cannot credit Senator Clinton with any good faith whatsoever, especially after her transparently disingenuous comments about Michigan today. I'm willing to give Obama a little leeway, still, to demonstrate that his objection in Florida are about fairness and not merely about tactical advantage.

    I suppose that's as good a reason why people choose one candidate over another.

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]

    Incorrect (none / 0) (#221)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    He's preparing for a vote.


    [ Parent ]
    Does logic apply to politics? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:31:36 AM EST
    I think Obama will eventually embrace the revote.  If it is the only viable plan and the DNC backs it, he's stuck by his past comments.

    If he tries to weasle out of that previous committment, Clinton can bash him effectively in other states that haven't voted yet and with S-Ds.

    Plus, as has been pointed out elsewhere, if he seems to be blocking FL and MI representation, the GOP will trumpet the issue in the GE.

    It would be stupid to be seen as the stumbling block.  He's given himself wiggle room by promising to abide by the DNC's decision, but once the DNC makes a decision, he can't be seen as being obstructionist.  That would be dangerous.

    Obama will abide by anything the DNC backs. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:33:17 AM EST
    Getting the DNC to back it is the problem.

    [ Parent ]
    are these people elected? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    how exactly did Donna Brazil et al get so much freaking power?


    [ Parent ]
    No kidding (none / 0) (#25)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    She ran a bad campaign and now we listen to her?

    [ Parent ]
    can (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    they be impeached? fired? marginalized?


    [ Parent ]
    They are running out of time (none / 0) (#16)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    so they need to fish or cut bait pretty quickly so both states and the campaigns can get on with the process.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama never pays a price. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ivs814 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:07:14 AM EST
    He took his name of the MI ballot in a successful effort to minimize Hillary's predictable win there.  He ran campaign adds in FL and explained it away by saying that the Democratic Chair in SC told him it was okay.  No cries of "Not Fair" or DNC punishment to him for a flagrant violation of the agreement not to do so.  By now everyone should know that he is always given a pass.  

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't the other candidates remove their names (none / 0) (#127)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST
    except Clinton in deference to DNC wishes?

    http://www.uwire.com/2007/10/10/5-democrats-want-off-michigan-primary-ballot-due-to-early-date/

    Could you link to the story you referenc in your post?

    [ Parent ]

    No, JE and BO removed their (none / 0) (#138)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    names from the MI ballot in order to demonstrate to IA and NH voters that they were committed to the primacy of those two states' contests. It was a strategic decision on their parts. The DNC never said that there could not be a "beauty contest" in MI and FLA, just that the results of those contests would not result in the seating of delegates.

    None of the candidates could remove their names from the FLA ballots under FLA law.

    [ Parent ]

    they could have removed them in Fl (none / 0) (#144)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    had they done it before the Florida Democratic Party turned in the candidate list.  It was only after certification that they would have been required to sign an affidavit stating that did not plan to run for president.

    [ Parent ]
    If you read the article I linked to (none / 0) (#205)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    it clearly states that the DNC asked all the candidates to withdraw their name from the ballot.

    I think it's fair to say that trying to appeal to Iowa and NH was a motivating factor for all the candidates, but the cynic in me isn't going to give any candidate for being the last one in the pool.  By staying on the ballot, Clinton assured a "beauty contest" victory making her pledge not to campaign in MI meaningless since it would only be her and Dodd on the ballot.

    So if Obama's decison to take his name off the ballot was strategic, Clinton's decision to stay on must be considered strategic as well.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not arguing that the MI vote should (none / 0) (#219)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    be counted as is. Some people are, perhaps, but I am not. I'm assuming that if the DNC had required all candidates to remove their names, Clinton would have done so. But if the January vote is not being counted, the question of whether what any of the candidates did was "strategic" is a moot point.  The question is how does the DNC now permit MI voters to have their say in the nomination process?  I'm assuming that you agree that a 50/50 split of the total delegate count does not achieve this goal.

    [ Parent ]
    People are starting to talk (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    And it's not good for the DNC or Obama.  

    I live in Kansas and it's head-shaking time here. Even my Obama supporting friends are more worried about the possibility of not seating FL & MI than whether Obama wins.

    I've been reading today that Obama's trying to run-down-the-clock (is this a sports phrase?) -- if that's true, it might be a bad strategy.  Because (here in Kansas) they want FL & MI seated and they want a revote.  And they aren't sure Obama does.

    This plan looks good to me.  Why (at this point in time) is it even an issue?

    Because actions can have unintended consequences (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:02:23 AM EST
    This plan looks good to me.  Why (at this point in time) is it even an issue?

    As a programmer, I've learned over the years that you can do something that seems cool and makes sense, but if you're not very careful, you open up the door for malicious people to abuse the system.  

    The Voting Rights Act was passed for a reason.  The regions affected have a history of taking innocuous looking loopholes and using them to disenfranchise people.  I can see multiple ways a mail in program could have that effect.  Mailboxes in some neighborhoods might not be secure leading to ballot stealing or destroying.  Poorer populations are more likely to not have their latest address on record and are less likely to have proper forwarding information.  When you know people are voting by mail, you can put additional pressure on them to vote in a particular way because you can watch them vote.  These are just off the top of my head.

    Will any or all of these happen?  Probably not.  However, people want to have a chance to look at the final plan and make sure that subtle inequities aren't built into the system before saying it's OK.  That's why the law was passed and it's why you can't just say, "Hey let's just line up and count."

    Odds are that this will fine, but the deadlines are such that there's no time to look at the plan and people don't have that much faith in the ability of Florida to hold smooth elections.  That's the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    Been there (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    They already use mail-in.  If they already found the mail-in system legitimate for the original vote, why is it all of a sudden unacceptable today.  No one is proposing the creation of a new system or plan.

    There are numerous exceptions to enable people to vote.

    [ Parent ]

    You're confusing FL and OR (none / 0) (#87)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    OR does all mail in ballots.  This would be the first time FL (or MI) would be doing that.  If it were the same method they've always used, there wouldn't be an objection.

    [ Parent ]
    It would be the first time (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    they'd be doing it for the whole election, but FL in particular has very high rates of absentee voting -- not sure about MI.

    It's not like the wheel has to be reinvented. OR provides a model, and it's not like there is no history in either state of dealing with the issues around mail-in ballots.

    [ Parent ]

    Good idea (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    Lets not have their votes count at all to avoid any appearance of unseemliness.

    [ Parent ]
    We don't have a lot of options (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    The choices are essentidally: re-vote with a regular election, caucus, or mail-in. A regular election can't be set up in a few weeks. You need polling locations, poll workers, machines, counting equiptment, and voter notifications. They spend months setting it up, and it's incredibly expensive. We've seen how well caucuses work, especially for older and disabled voters.

    Any system can be gamed, but there is a history of voting by mail already. A lot of states encourage absentee voting, and Oregon does it's entire election that way. Can somebody pressure others to vote a certain way? Probably. But that applies just as much to absentee voting as to mail-in voting. People can also be pressured in a caucus, and neither the DNC or the federal govt. seem to worry too much about that. If ballots are stolen, that can be rectified - ballots have names, numbers and addresses on them. People who don't get ballots will complain, and the ballots can be identified and not counted. Anonymity can be maintained by not linking the numbers directly with a voter on the card they send back.

    If we're not going to seat the delegates from the original election, I think that mail in is the only good option we have available to us.

    [ Parent ]

    I think these are not trivial concerns (none / 0) (#153)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    I don't know how it works in Oregon, but in CA vote by mail is an option for all, but you can also vote in person.

    I have studied the jury selection process and one of the problems you see there is that racial minorities are often underrepresented.  One of the reasons for this is that they tend to be poorer and the poorer you are the less stable your residence tends to be.  Moving more often means that your address information, whether for a jury summons or a mail in ballot, is less likely to be correct.  There are also issues about mailbox security in low income neighborhoods.  

    I'm not saying that this means a mail-in ballot is not the best solution to the terrible problem created by the Democratic Nitwit Committee.  I would just love to see an intelligent discussion of the issues by either side.

    I totally disagree with Hillary's insistence on seating the delegates based on clearly flawed elections.  I thought this quote from the Times today summed it up nicely:  


    "From the viewpoint of legitimacy of elections, this is a mess," said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on election law and administration.

    "Yes, we had a contest, but it was a contest run under unusual rules," said Professor Hasen, who is politically neutral. "Candidates were not allowed to campaign, and voters were told by the D.N.C. their votes wouldn't count. That kind of election doesn't comport with our usual democratic norms."

    I have no doubt that a) there are people who did not vote because it was not supposed to count and b) that had Obama campaigned the way he did in other states he would have at least narrowed the gap as he did in other states.  I also find it awesomely hypocritical that Hillary did not object to not seating those delegates at the time the DNC was screwing this up.

    At the same time I think Obama (who I support) should drop his obstructionism, admit that the DNC has screwed this up, and work for a way to have a fair revote.  A mail-in vote may not be perfect but I'm not sure what would be better.  I agree that caucuses suck and should be eliminated.  I full scale primary seems impractical given both time and money constraints.  I think that both campaigns have the resources to get out there and make sure that all of the voters get ballots despite the problems I mentioned above.  I think now is the time to starting the serious discussion about how to do the revote right and drop all the rest of the nonsense.  I continue to support Obama but I do not like his approach on this

    [ Parent ]

    You should read the pdf that Jeralyn posted (none / 0) (#223)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    earlier detailing the proposed plan. The Florida plan is a hybrid of sorts. There are provisions for voters to go to various election offices set up throughout the state, both to receive their ballot and to vote on site if desired. Essentially, anyone who is eligible to vote can vote any day during the two week period. It gives maximum flexibility for those who want to vote by mail or in person. I think it adequately deals with enfranchisement issues for poorer voters. The way t deals with them actually makes it more equitable than current election practices. Its a great plan.

    [ Parent ]
    This is getting to the point of absurdity, (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    where we may all be feeling like we're seeing people's lips move, but the words they are saying make no sense.

    The most important thing is not which plan benefits which candidate, but that the people have their say, that they can cast a vote that counts, that regardless of the outcome, the people who take voting seriously can fulfill their desire to be heard.

    That does not happen with any plan that unilaterally splits delegates 50-50; this is not the last piece of blueberry pie in the pan to be painstakingly cut so that each person receives exactly half.  No.  These are people's votes.  Obama can pout and stamp his feet and continue to act like a brat, but he cannot set aside the actual vote and take half the delegates.  No.  If he wants the Michigan vote to stand, then he gets no delegates, since he wasn't on the ballot, and there is no way to know how many of those votes for "uncommitted" were really for him.  If he wants the vote to stand, the delegates allocable to the uncommitted vote go into the convention uncommitted - or let him lobby to convince them to commit to him.  If that's not acceptable, then he needs to suck it up and get behind a re-vote.

    As for Florida, since there seems to be no way the existing vote will be able to be used to award delegates, there must be a re-vote.  For those who whine that the rules are the rules, and the punishment must stand, try looking at it this way: they were denied delegates because of the early date.  If it is as if the vote never happened, then consider the re-vote the "real" primary, which, coming well after the February 5 line-in-the-sand, meets the DNC's original rules.

    And let's get on with it.

    People are watching and listening.  They remember Florida, 2000.  They remember Ohio in 2000 and 2004.  They remember listening to some squeaky-voiced DOJ officials describing voter suppression efforts in the name of eliminating voter fraud, and they were outraged.  Anyone who thinks that there will not be repercussions from excluding the voters of Florida and Michigan from this process is not paying attention.

    As for the issue of who should get the nomination, I would love it if all states held closed primaries - no caucuses ever again -  so that only registered Democrats were voting to decide the nominee.  Delegates should be allocated the same in every state.  If this is a one person - one vote country, then pick a ratio and deal with it.  Decide on a minimum for the state with the smallest population - 1 delegate per 1,000 votes, for example - and deal with it.  But no more vote-dilution that results in California votes being of lesser value than Wyoming votes.  Yeah - a huge number of delegates would result, but there are ways to deal with that.

    What little respect I had for Barack Obama has vaporized as, with each passing day, he appears to be less and less interested in the people, and more and more interested in himself; I do not find that to be a quality that will translate to good governance.  At this stage, his intransigence imperils not just his candidacy, but the future direction of this country and I am having a very hard time coming to terms with the magnitude of ego one needs in order to be blinded to that reality.

    I know this is long - thanks for reading.


    [ Parent ]

    Because there a billion byzantine rules (none / 0) (#17)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    and regulations, and ton of local politicians with various agendas to try and navigate through. Obama isn't the problem...the Florida legislators providing most the resistance are Hillary supporters, for example...the problem is time. There are all kinds of deadlines, some codified into law, some not, and time is almost gone. And now that it's the very last minute and a crisis, everyone involved is trying to push their personal agenda to the very top.

    [ Parent ]
    $15 million is on the table... (none / 0) (#190)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    ... from Carville. Surely a lot of these problems ca be solved with money?

    Of which both candidates have been able to raise staggering amounts?

    [ Parent ]

    Oregon voter weighing in (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    Since there have been some questions raised by the Obama campaign as to the feasibility of mail in voting, I thought I'd share my experiences as a former Oregonian:

    I was registered to vote in Oregon up until very recently.  I voted by mail from 2000 onwards and in 2000 I worked as a volunteer with the Gore/Lieberman race in Oregon so I'm pretty familiar with the process.

    Basically, mail in voting is fantastic.  It is convienent, easy to figure out and encourages greater participation.  In Oregon, ballots are mailed out about 6 weeks before election day.  You can mail them back (secrecy envelope, then an outer envelope that you sign - signatures checked against what is on your file) or you can drop them off at one of many drop boxes.  These are typically located at government buildings, ie schools and libraries.  They are secure and very visible.  

    Ballots cannot be forwarded.  So if you want to vote and don't receive your ballot by mail, you go to your local county elections office and ask for a new ballot.  Your ID is checked against the voter list and you are given a new ballot.

    Campaigns regularly ask for and receive lists of which voters have not turned in ballots, which they check against their "target" lists.  Makes GOTV much easier because you have an idea of how many of your targeted voters have turned in ballots and you can focus your efforts on those who have not.  Of course, all campaigns also inform voters on what do if they haven't received a ballot or if they have questions.  Campaigns will regularly provide transportation to voters who need to pick up a new ballot.

    There were a lot of concerns about secrecy and disenfranchisement in the beginning, but there's never really been an issue with either.  The first probably because Oregonians are so nice :) and the second because turnout speaks for itself.

    Basically, if a state has absentee ballots now, I don't see why it would be hard for them to do mail-in.  The issues raised by the Obama people, to me, are lame.  Finally, Oregon took awhile to develop the program because we are trailblazers :), the trail's been blazed - I think FL and MI can follow our lead.

    And one last thought - it seems a bit disingenious to me for the Obama camp to be saying that they'll respect whatever the DNC decides while making very clear noises that they won't accept this option.  Either they have an opinion or not - they can't have it both ways.

    California Voter (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    weighing in.  I agree with you.  We have the same procedures here.  We haven't had any fraud problems.  If there are any issues with any of the states, I imagine they would be presenting that evidence to support their argument.  It is not just a bit disingenuous.  It is getting ever the top.  I just can't figure out what anyone thinks they are gaining by delaying.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm a permanent absentee voter (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by sonya on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    here in California, and I love it.  Everyone has equal access to the polling place and ample time to vote.  Any objections to mail-in ballots is based upon placing self-interests before the interests of voters.

    [ Parent ]
    That's incorrect. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    Oregon's mail - in system took years to produce.  And they check signatures with an electronic record of the signatures of the registered voters.

    There is no such system in Florida today, and the Democratic party doesn't even have a reliable database of Democratic voter's addresses.  The plan is to mail out ballots, then have them mailed back in.  Doesn't that seem rife with fraud-potential?

    I think it's a bit disingenuous, at the least, to say that this would be the best solution when clearly it wouldn't.

    I'm in favor of seating the delegation as it was determined in the Jan. Primary.  

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the incites (none / 0) (#69)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:12:53 AM EST
    Sounds like a good way to go for FL and MI revotes to me, though I understand some of the concerns for a state not used to the system. A redue primary would still be the best way to go, but I don't see how the Obama campaign can be against this mail in revote plan.

    [ Parent ]
    Again (none / 0) (#152)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    Do some homework.  There is a lot of problems with creating  a mail-in vote in a month or so time.  His concerns are understandable, and they are concerns that the system will not get ballots to all voters; that ballots may be lost, stolen, fraudulently sent back; and that Republicans who voted in the primary earlier will vote in this primary and thus have two primary votes even though that was against the rules.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hello Florida has Closed Primaries (none / 0) (#183)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    secondly why do I keep hearing this voting fraud mantra I thought that was a Republican ruse to disenfranchise voters.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#241)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    What?  One can change their registration status easily enough to allow for double voting to occur.  No coordinated ruse going on, by a systematic failure of this mail-in primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever happened to "Yes We Can" (none / 0) (#262)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    All of the concerns you mentioned can be addressed, and most of them have been addressed in the plan. There is signature verification, there are provisions forvoters who don't get their ballots in the mail to pick up their ballots instead, or to even vote in person at election offices. Most of this is already dealt with. The items that haven't can be ironed out over the 30 day discussion period.

    Obama has been given a perfect opportunity to prove that he can bring people together and get things done yet all he's doing is finding excuses for non-action.  "No We Won't" seems like a more apt slogan these days.

    [ Parent ]

    Not likely to vote again... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Richard in Jax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    Not me. I voted in the first Primary and have lost interest in the joke this thing has become since. Most folks here in Florida feel the way I do. A re-vote will not represent the population of voters that voted the first time.

    Just listen to Randi Rhodes (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:29 AM EST
    Randi Rhodes on Air America often talks about how her family didn't vote because it wasn't supposed to count. Floridians have had enough of this kind of stuff. For this reason, too, there needs to be a re-vote.

    These are empirical facts, which no theoretical considerations, of what is fair or what is the rules, can eliminate.

    So does Randi (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Lil on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    think there should be a re-vote? She's another one I've had to scale back from listening to, so I'm not sure what she's advocating these days.

    [ Parent ]
    Randi Rhodes (none / 0) (#266)
    by mm on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM EST
    Randi Rhodes spent the entire 3 hours of her show on the day of FL primary begging her listeners to go vote in the primary, "with their heart".  It was a blatant appeal to her listeners to vote for Obama.  

    I've stopped listening to her show.

    [ Parent ]

    So I guess her family didn't care about (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    amendment one either.  Hmm funny since it was something that concerned everyone who owned property in Fl.  It was one of the reasons I went to my polling place.  Did Randy say if they went and only voted on one side of the ballot or just did not go to vote?  Just curious cause most people I know went mostly because of both.

    [ Parent ]
    And then again I live in a county (none / 0) (#135)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST
    w