home

An Absurd And Futile Plan For FL And MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:56:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Mark Halperin reports this absurdity:

-Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

Does anyone think this will salve the wounds? Would Clinton be stupid enough to accept this? This is Howard Dean's plan? How clueless is the Democratic Party?

NOTE - Comments are closed

< Dean: Candidates Can Veto Revote Plan | Gitmo Hearings Underway >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    An Absurd And Futile Plan For FL And MI | 208 comments (208 topical)
    someone (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    wants to eliminate the popular vote argument.

    Since we all know what they're up to... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    ...what makes them think we are just going to buy into this convenient fiction passively?  
    If I were Dean, I wouldn't want NY Bennies and NJ Shoobies showing up in Denver in August when they should be at the shore.  

    [ Parent ]
    I pout more than you (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM EST
    The belief is they can piss off the Clinton supporters.  AAs will stay home.  The youth will stay home.  Embittered women wil get over it and vote.  Clinton's democratic base will always vote democratic.

    On the other hand, based on that theory, I pout less.  They underestimate my ability to pout.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't bet on it (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    See, from my point of view as a creative class woman in her forties, the concerns of the young female twenty something are of no concern to me.  I've paid my dues and McCain is unlikely to affect my life one way or another unless the economy goes in the tank.  But that's just as likely to happen with Barack as well so I might as well just sit home and watch the leaves turn.  
    If young women are going to treat us as has beens and prematurely age us and make us unimportant, then let them win for Obama without my help.  

    [ Parent ]
    make that two of us (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:38:13 PM EST
    I will NEVER vote for Barack Obama. Ever. So they can stop blackmailing me with abortion.

    [ Parent ]
    and another *ditto* (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    I wont vote for a right-wing neo-con, no matter what the Party logo on their banner.

    [ Parent ]
    Then Sen Clinton (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:44:23 PM EST
    will be very disappointed in you:

    "I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Sen. Obama if he were the nominee."


    [ Parent ]
    Here is a tip (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:51:30 PM EST
    Older women do not run around fainting at political rallies or looking for someone to save their souls. They look at their bank accounts, how they are going to take care of their parents, their taxes, how they are going to pay for their kid's cancer, etc. I am not voting for American Idol and I'm not voting for someone because someone else told me to.

    [ Parent ]
    Not all younger women do either (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    I have never even been to a rally and I'm certainly not looking for someone to save my soul.  Dismissing Obama voters won't win Hillary any fans.  We aren't all idiots.  We aren't even all young.  Trust me, we are looking at our bank accounts too, and worried about health insurance and taxes.  We are the "debt generation" after all.  Maybe we actually THINK Obama will do better on these issues.  I know I do.  I also know that if he loses I will suck it up and vote for Clinton because this election is bigger than either candidate individually, or my own personal pride.  

    [ Parent ]
    This really isn't about Clinton for me (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:09 PM EST
    It is a an intense dislike of Barack Obama. We have very differing view of him and that is fine. I have also voted every time in my life for Dem. I do not believe he reflects my values, concerns or frankly the historical planks of the democratic party. Thus, I won't vote for him.

    I think what the original poster was saying is that many older women feel completely put off by younger Obama fans. I can tell you that at my caucus they were shouting down older women and senior citizens. I knew right then that Obama was going to have a big problem.

    This perception was in fact created by his supporters and his positions, statements and campaign attacks on Clinton have increased the division.

    Does that make sense.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it really doesn't (none / 0) (#108)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:10:39 PM EST
    make sense. Especially the part about Obama not reflecting your values or concerns..considering there is very little difference between his policies and Clinton's. Do not be fooled, there are huge differences between either Democrat and John McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    You see small differences. I see gigantic ones. It is a matter of perception. I don't trust him on top of it. I frankly don't know who he is or what he stands for really. He tries to be all things to all people.

    I'm a democrat. I know what I believe and I know what my party has stood for since FDR, not just JFK. Obama is Republican lite. I might as well vote Green. At least it represents my interests.

    And while you may not like to hear this, I do think John McCain will be a better commander in chief than Obama and since I run around war zones, that matters to me. Those of us getting shot at don't need four more years of amateur hour.

    [ Parent ]

    But how (4.50 / 2) (#122)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    can you THINK that when his health care plan is a sellout to the insurance companies and he will put social security on the table. And have you looked at who is economic advisers are?

    Seriously, I've often wondered, how a thinking Obama voter could actually be one. I'd like to know.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    I think Hillary's plan is selling out to insurance companies.  Are you kidding, they would LOVE a mandate that would force everyone to buy insurance.

    [ Parent ]
    You don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    what a mandate would do. It would take control OUT of the hands of insurance companies. They could no longer discriminate against sick people. No more pre-existing conditions. No more dropping policies. No more refusing to cover expenses.

    You need to do your homework on this - you don't understand it.

    [ Parent ]

    Additinally (none / 0) (#143)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    Young people should have be covered by insurance otherwise the rest of us just end up paying for it in a lot of ways. It is about responsibility, fairness and economics.

    Obama's idea to punish them after the fact is absurd and demonstrates his lack of understanding of the crisis in this country.

    [ Parent ]

    like that will happen (none / 0) (#208)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    why study up when you can just buy the rhetoric?  Frankly I find it hilarious and sad that after 8 years of "the guy you'd like to have a beer with" someone is leading the Dem nom. process by being "the guy you'd like to have a beer with".  A half term+ US Senator---but hell ya, he's qualified, why?  Because he was a State Senator before that---sheesh.

    Hope and Change?  Yes we can?  Those aren't platforms those are catchphrases aimed at the naive.  Most of the most vitriolic Obama supporters can't tell what Obama believes in regarding tax cuts--he wants to keep most of them; regarding Iraq--he wants to withdraw so long as Al Queda isn't a viable entity in Iraq and violence is below a certain level OR you could just simplify by saying he doesn't really want to bring the troops out within 6 months; health care--Obama's universal system does not give Ins Co's incentive to lower rates, get rid of fine print policies and sets no bar for where the government steps in to cover the difference; Obama has no foreign policy experience period yet his supporters insist that he has a better panel of foreign policy experts, George Bush had Colin Powell--that worked out well; Environment?  Stock platform--inc mpg, lower emissions, punish polluters---but no assurance that he will at least enforce that meager platform.  I could go on but I'm sure this thread is probably used up by now.

    [ Parent ]

    Senator Clinton is a very gracious woman. (none / 0) (#130)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:20:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'd like to hear Obama (none / 0) (#160)
    by Coral on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    say the same thing about Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Past the point of no return (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    Many Obama supporters would sit it out......And the same for Hillary supporters....

    This process is going to go on too long.....McCain will likely win....

    [ Parent ]

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Alvord on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    I am a Clinton supporter and I am so mad I don't know that I could vote for Obama if he got the nod. From other blogs I know that Obama supporters would have a hard time supporting Clinton.

    McCain is a strong candidate. It looks to me like the Dems are going to go down to defeat if something drastic isn't done.

    Something drastic like the convention nominating someone other than Obama or Clinton.

    John Edwards anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Gore? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:36:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    We could dream. (none / 0) (#158)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:37:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is wrong (none / 0) (#91)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    the blog world is NOT the real world.
    Many people are not even paying attention...they do not tune in until October.

    [ Parent ]
    A welcome breath of sanity and humility (none / 0) (#107)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    This article explains how little one can predict from the primary to the general.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#113)
    by honora on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:12 PM EST
    My 75 year old like-long Democratic mom just called me on the phone.  "Did you hear what they did to Geri??  Do you know about his pastor??  I have been talking about my unease about Obama for months and she has just looked at me like I was crazy.  Now, she gets it. To paraphrase Michelle "Old white women are going to wake up and get it!!"

    [ Parent ]
    Mothers (none / 0) (#175)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    I will repeat myself... my mom is not on the net and she in not happy.

    [ Parent ]
    And Aunts (none / 0) (#188)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM EST
    My aunt who isn't political sent me an email today talking about Geraldine Ferraro and Obama's pastor. I didn't think the woman even knew who GF was but she does watching morning TV.

    This goes deep.

    [ Parent ]

    This is from Riverdaughter. I just found it. It (none / 0) (#196)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    says it's very important to contact the DNC now and gives an email address:

    Bumped up from the comments from Tucsonlynn:
    From an email I just got. I suggest using it. to express your outrage.
    "Word is filtering out from the campaign that we should contact people we know at the DNC ASAP. The FL and MI decision will be going down soon. The person we should really pressure is Phil McNamara. Phil will not be making decisions but he is the staffer who runs all affairs for the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Also if he receives a flood of messages it will get back to Dean.
    Obama is pushing for a 50-50 split of the delegates. That doesn't refelct the will of the people. It reflects the wishful thinking of the Obama campaign."
    Phil McNamara
    mcnamara@dnc.org
    Now's your chance, guys. Make your voice heard, especially if you are in a state that went decisively for Clinton. Without FL and MI, our votes are meaningless as well. Let them know that there are millions of us out here who know what's going on and the jig is up. Make it polite, of course. But if you must, tell them, "Don't make me come to Denver and cause a scene."

    [ Parent ]

    Ditto (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by geordie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:21 PM EST
    My first comment here - as a refugee from Daily Kos - and I wholeheartedly agree.  I'm in my 50's - and, bonus, a Florida resident - and I've been a Democrat my entire voting life.  I'm currently contemplating changing my registration to Independent (as much a protest at Florida's astoundingly incompetent Democratic Party organization as anything), and it will take a LOT to get me out to vote for Obama at this point.  He and his supporters have no respect for or empathy with older voters and are making no effort to speak to even middle-aged voters like me.  I care about Social Security, I care about the economy, I care about the environment - yet all I hear from him is some sort of nebulous "vote for hope" crap.  And now his campaign wants to forget Florida?  Well, we can forget him, too.  And he can forget the White House.

    And if young women cared a rat's ass about the right to choose, they'd have been out there voting for Gore and Kerry - they didn't, so, you know what, I'm never going to need an abortion at this point, what do I care?  Yes, I am bitter and distressed at what's happened this year - but while I won't vote for McCain or a third party candidate, I may just stay home because I've been told too many times already this election (mostly at DailyKos, admittedly) that nobody cares what I think or how I vote.

    [ Parent ]

    A few things (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    I have a lot of respect for the over 50 voter.  Obama cares a lot about those issues and "vote for hope" is one of his messages not the only one.  Also, about that youth vote for gore and kerry - I think people forget that we have another generation boom here.  Many of us weren't eligible to vote for Gore and Kerry (I was able to and DID vote for Kerry).  Also, it's not JUST about abortion.  It's also about tax cuts for the rich, TORTURE (which John McCain originally got right but then just voted AGAINST a Bill explicitly outlawing it).  Or let's see, the fact that he thinks it's funny to sing about bombing Iran.

    Finally, you're right Florida is a discrace, I think they should re-vote or seat the delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse Me For Being A Wee Bite Skeptical (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    After months of a united Democratic Party debunking the Republican meme that Social Security is in crisis, Obama decided that he would campaign on the fact that Social Security is in crisis.  According to Senator Obama, Social Security is back on the table.

    Obama choosing to distribute Republican-like "Harry and Louise" fliers which jeopardizes Universal Health Care also makes me doubt that he has a commitment to health care.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    Well if it is about all those things too, then I see no reason why HRC supporters should be hammered with the message that they must support Obama because young voters and AAs won't do the reverse.  Do Iran, torture and tax cuts for the rich not matter to those groups?

    Again, it's the "you have to do it because they won't" argument that kills me.  It's a playground argument, it's a "take your ball and go home" argument that older women are supposed to put aside their principles and preferences "for the good of the party".  It's frankly a little insulting.  

    [ Parent ]

    About as much as (none / 0) (#202)
    by badger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    paying their fair share of health insurance or protecting Social Security matters to Obama supporters. The argument cuts both ways.

    And about those tax cuts - I stand to pay more taxes if the cuts are repealed. I think they should be repealed, but if you can't pay your fair share or protect the system I've been paying into all my working life ...


    [ Parent ]

    Obama cares a lot about those issues (none / 0) (#145)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    Oh really? So I and thousands, possibly millions have just missed that message? Are we just not paying attention?

    No. He does not care about our issues, nor do his supporters.

    Hillary cares about our issues, and the issues of the working class, Latino, poor, and sick.

    We are not stupid. Why take a chance on him and "our aspirations" (whatever the F that means) when we've got a sure thing?

    [ Parent ]

    absolutely agree (none / 0) (#62)
    by delandjim on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    I absolutely agree, 'older women' which I still am not quite sure what the age cutoff is for that. Will stay home, or vote for McCain. There is a fair crossover to him from her vote.

    [ Parent ]
    WOW (none / 0) (#76)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    just....wow

    [ Parent ]
    I'm glad we don't concern you (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM EST
    What exactly have young women done to offend you?  We didn't vote for your candidate?  That means we treat you as has beens?  Maybe we just have different priorities.  I can accept that without dismissing yours as unimportant.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:05:27 PM EST
    I think the anger comes from continually hearing that while young people and AAs will sit out, older women will come around because of the Supreme Court.  It's pretty arrogant to treat one of the most devoted segments of the Democratic Party that way.

    I am a 30 year old woman, so I guess I split the divide here.  I'm certainly sympathetic to those who will sit out, although that is not something I will do.  The message I have heard from "analysts" and Obama supporters seems like double blackmail (although a harsh term):  1)  You have to bend on your principles because these others won't and 2) don't forget Roe v. Wade!  At a certain point, you start to get angry that your principles don't matter, that you have to be there because you always have been.

    As I've said, I'll vote for the Democrat, but Obama won't get my money or my time.  Because I don't like being taken for granted any more than any other voter.  

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking as (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    one 'o those "older women," the reaction is not against you personally, but I'm increasingly reading and hearing commentary that we "old white women" are "hard-core racists" (actual quote) because we mostly support Hillary over Obama, especially if we also happen to be lower-income.

    Yes, you "young folk" obviously have major issues around debt and economics, just as we do.  But you also have long lives and mostly professional careers ahead of you, which give you a heck of a lot more time to recover from a mistake.  We old gals have a much shorter timespan in which to get things in this country and in our own situations fixed, and we're worried not only about ourselves but our children.

    We're just not that into rolling dice, at this point in our lives.  Many of us see Obama as Bill Clinton said, a roll of the dice, and we see a whole lot of young people, often including our own children, happily willing to roll those dice on everybody's behalf.

    [ Parent ]

    Im hearing this from many places today (none / 0) (#102)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    Ive been concerned about the anti women tone towards women for some time now, but even my lefty, way lefty, the most Liberal peaceful and proud to be Liberal in the family, is now totally torked off, imagine my surprise when she knew who JF was to begin with.  What was the final straw she can't explain it, is it because JF was a random female hit, what why now.

    [ Parent ]
    Who's JF? (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    I can't quite unroll what you're saying.  Could you give it another shot?  Sounds interesting!


    [ Parent ]
    sorry GF (none / 0) (#138)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:25:42 PM EST
    Geraldine Ferraro.

    [ Parent ]
    Wait 20 years and you'll understand. (none / 0) (#147)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well said (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:41 PM EST
    And thanks for saying it.

    Rewarding people for being too stupid to tell the difference between McCain and Clinton is the point at which I get off the Democratic bandwagon.

    [ Parent ]

    You are wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by sas on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST
    Embittered women will not get over it and vote.  You must not know any embittered women.

    If they do not do right by Florida and Michigan, the Democratic party can go to hell.  And I have been a party worker since 1971 - and I will be embittered.

    And I will not be appeased.

    [ Parent ]

    Species (none / 0) (#69)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:44:44 PM EST
    That reminds me of the conversation from the movie Species

    Doc: We decided to make it female so it would be more docile and controllable.

    Guy: More docile and controllable, eh? You guys don't get out much.

    They should never underestimate the ability of anyone to hold a grudge. When I was a surly teen my mother and I went months without speaking while holding a grudge. I proudly come by my grudge holding ability through her.

    [ Parent ]

    Somehow I do not view Dem women a crowd that (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:23:21 PM EST
    can or will be victimized so Im feeling real sorry for Obama et al at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    Embittered women wil get over it and vote.  Clinton's democratic base will always vote democratic.

    Embittered women?  Wow... what a misogynist comment...

    You must be speaking of yourself; you surely sound embittered... and full of arrogance: don't take anyone vote for granted.

    [ Parent ]

    Is there a phone number for the DNC? I'm furious (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    and I really want to tell someone about it.

    [ Parent ]
    All they'll do is (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    Ask you for money.


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, well I'd like to leave them a message about (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    that too!

    [ Parent ]
    Well Ok then (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    I sent them an email a month ago.

    They asked me for money.

    I told them to stop asking me for money until they resolve the situation.  I said if they resolve the situation, I would send them 100 bucks.

    They replied with a simple request to give them the money they need to defeat McCain.

    But all I wanted to do was give them an incentive to stop defeating themselves.


    [ Parent ]

    Well, I just went to the DNC wesite. They have a (none / 0) (#148)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:33:10 PM EST
    comments link.  I gave them a comment. I highly suggest others do that also.

    [ Parent ]
    How is giving away half my vote FAIR to me? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EST
    Obama should concede the states he gave up on when he made his personal choice to take his name off the ballot and the tactic didn't work in his favor.

    He's already taxed my patience with turning up his nose at every solution offered but annointing him heir to the Bush throne.

    This nonsense that Obama will grudgingly "accept" half of people's votes now is as revolting as his promise to risk half of people's trust in the GE towards Republicans acting in good faith (cause Obama's fresh never before seen charm will just hypnotize them into doing what he says!)

    NO SALE.

    [ Parent ]

    It won't salve the wounds so long as... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    everyone continually rubs them!  As my mom used to say, if it hurts, stop picking at it.

    BTD:  You forgot an important tid-bit that is very relevant.

    "Florida law prohibits election officials from authenticating votes cast in the Democratic Party's proposed do-over primary by mail, state officials said Thursday, a potentially fatal blow to the increasingly embattled plan.

    ''There's no authority under Florida law that would allow county supervisors of election or the state to verify signatures in an election of a state party,'' said Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for Florida's secretary of state and Division of Elections."

    I tried making this argument earlier to no avail, but the Florida election officials have come out with it.  It's true--mail-in primaries in Florida can't be slapped together in a few weeks.

    Also, as expensive as it is, I doubt the Congressional delegation wants to pitch it to their constituents, considering the delegates would not put Clinton in the lead in pledged delegates or popular vote.

    Bottom line:  it's a political ruse, not a stark reality.  The supers will decide, and Florida isn't going to change that.

    Good Post (none / 0) (#33)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:26:48 PM EST
    and I agree with most everything you're saying ...

    One other aspect of all this that everyone seems to have forgotten is that to "re-open" Florida and Michigan will be very costly for both compaigns.

    To do an effective job campaigning in those 2 states, particularly FL, given its size, will cost each campaign $10 to $15 million.  Since we already know the likely outcomes of the revotes, that seems like a real waste of money given the primaries elsewhere and whatever campaigning will go on between early June and late August in Denver.  

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#49)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM EST
    As far as Michigan goes, I think the cost would be worth it, and here's why.

    Giving them 50/50 is making the contest moot and doesn't do much for the Democrats PR campaign in the general.

     Furthermore, since super-delegates are basing their decision in some part, at least, on the performance of Obama and Clinton in "key states", then we need a real primary in Michigan to determine who is stronger there.  

    As far as Florida goes, everyone knows where it's constituents stand regarding Clinton, Obama and McCain.  The super's have polls and a previous primary to tell them where it stands--squarely in Clinton's camp.  Another "re-do" costing 30 Million to tell them the same thing will seem foolish in hindsight and bite them in the a**.  The super's will remember this when it is time to decide.

    Finally, I don't see the harm in seating Florida as is.  If it would give Clinton the lead in pledged delegates, it seems entirely unfair to deny her that.  If it wouldn't give her the lead, then it seems irrelevant.  So why not seat them other than to punish the state party?  

    [ Parent ]

    No, No, Yes and Pretty (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    I think I've covered everything.  

    It is a reasonable proposal (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    Both sides compromise and we can move on to the rest of the primaries and caucuses.  What is it you don't like about the proposal?

    Um, giving Obama unearned delegates? (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    That would be the first objection.  
    Then there's they idea of reducing Florida by half when they were unfairly punished in the first place and therefore, not exactly treating the Florida delegates as fully franchised when we need them in the fall.
    Then there is the whole thing about the candidate who actually won Florida not getting the bump she deserves.  
    Then there's the notion that somehow Dean et al are trying to game the system.
    Ok, that's enough for a start.

    [ Parent ]
    Giving him unearned ones and taking away her (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    earned ones! That's really fair.

    [ Parent ]
    It is a compromise (none / 0) (#27)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:24:04 PM EST
    The time for a solution that doesn't involve a compromise is quickly running out.  The longer this goes on the more it reflects poorly on Democrats as a whole.  

    [ Parent ]
    "reflect poorly on democrats" (none / 0) (#30)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    I would say we are long past that.

    Hello Nader

    [ Parent ]

    I dont' think Dems (none / 0) (#37)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:59 PM EST
    want to pay for the primary to give her a "bump" that in the long-run wont' be decisive.  The super's are deciding the nomination now, and this whole Florida/Michigan thing is just a canard.   Neither of them will get enough delegates out of Michigan and Florida (or any of the remaining contests) to seal the nomination without the help of supers.  So, maybe they're all beginning to recognize that it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

    I'm also fairly certain the Clinto camp doesn't want a re-vote in Florida, Bill Nelson be damned, because they'd most likely underperform the earlier vote, and they know that they're going to need to save some political muscle for the fight over super-delegates in any situation.


    [ Parent ]

    It is always worth the trouble (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:40 PM EST
    to let the peoples' voice be heard.

    [ Parent ]
    The 1/2 vote to me isn't as big a problem (none / 0) (#57)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    That was what it was supposed to be in the first place.

    The big problem is definitely giving Obama delegates he didn't earn in MI...

    [ Parent ]

    Because the point is not for the DNC or the (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    candidates to decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally. The point is to let the voters decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally.

    If they wanted to penalixe FLA and MI by giving each delegate half a vote -- which is what the GOP did -- the ROOLz allowed for that all along. It would be more acceptable solution, I suppose, if they did it for both states.

    But the 50/50 solution in MI is utterly unacceptable. It negates the votes already cast, rather than gives them voice. If the MI primary vote is illegitimate because JE and BO were not on the ballot, splitting the delegates 50/50 doesn't cure that. How do we know, without another vote, how much of "uncommitted" would have voted for BO rather than JE?  How do we know whether JE's supporters would have gone for Clinton or Obama in a 2 way race?  It is certainly possible that in a 3 way race in January that JE would have gotten a sizable vote, given his populist message. So giving Obama 50% of the delegates without having any idea of how many voters would likely have voted for him is completely arbitrary.

    We know that Clinton got 55% of the votes, so why not give 55% to Clinton, and uncommitted gets 45%, with both candidates free to try to get them in their column?  Obama thus would have a chance to pick up 45% of the delegates on the merits.

    If that solution isn't acceptable, then the only fair alternative is to do it all over again.

    [ Parent ]

    I need to repeat this: (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    Because the point is not for the DNC or the candidates to decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally. The point is to let the voters decide how many delegates get added to each candidate's tally.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's name wasn't on MI (none / 0) (#36)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    You'd have to be insane to seat the delegates based on a primary where one person was on the ballot.

    Giving Hillary 55% is equally wrong since how many Obama supproters stayed home because his name wasn't on the ballot.

    It's redo or a split.


    [ Parent ]

    Then it has to be a re-vote (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    I am not really advocating seating MI as is.  All I am saying is that it is no more inequitable than the 50/50 split idea. If one is inequitable, then so is the other, because neither is based on a vote in which all candidates were on the ballot.

    You don't compromise with peoples' votes. You don't decide to make them meaningless because it would cost more than you want to spend to make them meaningful.

    This isn't about what the candidates want. Its about what the voters are entitled to.


    [ Parent ]

    Re-votes are the most fair way to go (none / 0) (#47)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    In both Florida and MI....now what if no one pays for it?   That seems to be the rub.

    [ Parent ]
    Then the Demcratic Party (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    needs to change its name to the Arbitrary Party.

    [ Parent ]
    Just a note (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    All the candidates except for Edwards and Obama were on the ballot (did Dodd or Biden remove theirs too? I think they might).

    They risked this happening so they could suck up to the states that were supposed to go before Michigan: "Hey look, HILLARY doesn't think your state should be voting before Michigan! Vote for us instead." They took the risk. It wouldn't be a risk if it was guaranteed to win. And it didn't.

    Not to mention this whole 'Vote uncommitted for Obama or Edwards' stuff that went on before that primary. Do you deny that the Obama or Edwards camps were pushing that?

    Look: I want revotes. But to say that Obama or Edwards are blameless in Michigan is just too much. They knew what they were doing, and they messed up. And now they don't want to bear responsibility for their actions. The Obama and Edwards camps were responsible for taking actions that invalidated the entire primary in MI, not Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    If FL & MI had played by the rules in the ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    ....1st place then their voters would have been heard.  Instead, they both chose to buck the system the other 50+ states/territories/etc agreed to live by and do what suited them.  As a result, both states should be punished.  This compromise steps back from the harsh zero delegate punishment handed down last year and allows Clinton to gain delegates on Obama.  I just don't understand how anyone can argue that FL & MI should not have to pay a penalty.  Worse, both states now get to play the role of kingmaker as a direct result of thumbing their noses at the other states and the DNC.  

    Is your only solution to this problem a revote with no delegate sanctions?  If so, then I think you are asking for too much.  Especially with only two and half months left.

    [ Parent ]

    Not about "states", about voters (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    I don't understand why you keep framing this as if it's "states", "punishing states", etc. States don't exist without people. This is about the voters. Who cares about the states?

    [ Parent ]
    That is how the system works (none / 0) (#81)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    The States get to decide when to hold their primaries and caucuses.  As a result the States who decide not to follow the rules get punished for such behavior.  If you want to change that basic fact then feel free to do so after the 2008 election.  Until then, however, we all have to live with the system we currently have.  

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by cloudy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    decides how the states are punished.  See: IO, NH, and SC.  The DNC also has the right to revise the rules during the process.  A re-vote is completely within the rules.  Isn't it better to resolve the issue NOW and not after 4 years of President McCain?   Because FL & MI will have an impact on the General Election.

    [ Parent ]
    Well will Democrats learn (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    that nuance doesn't sway voters? Saying oh blame the DNC, blame this, blame that, that's just how the system works, rules are rules, etc, is not going to convince the voters of FL & MI to support a party in November that didn't want to count their votes in the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Careful (none / 0) (#144)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM EST
    I said that in another thread and was accused of calling the voters stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    Which candidate do you support? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:00:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama (none / 0) (#89)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What a surprise (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is pretty cheap (none / 0) (#133)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:22:12 PM EST
    If you want to respond to my argument then I would be happy to read what you have to say.  If you want to dismiss what I say because I am an Obama supporter then you are taking the cowards way out.  

    So please, give me your best shot after that comment I am sure I can take it.    

    [ Parent ]

    Ah (none / 0) (#116)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    Same state of Florida moved the Repub primary. The RNC simply cut their delegates in half and there's been nary a word since.

    Compare that to how the Dem primary has been handled.

    The only difference is the Democratic party instead of the Republican party decides on the punishment for Democrats. It is a sad day when the Repubs can handle such a situation and the Dems can't.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, the situation might be different if (none / 0) (#152)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    MCain and Huckabee were neck and neck.

    [ Parent ]
    They were neck and neck at 0 (none / 0) (#180)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
    You seem to only be looking at NOW. You do realize that the original decision took place last summer? Before any primaries. When everyone was neck and neck.

    This story may matter more to people outside of Michigan and Florida now, but it has mattered to the people of the states since the initial decision.

    The difference is closeness in the Dem primary versus the Repub primary, its about how 2 parties handled the EXACT same problem before anyone had even voted. Thats what people will notice.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#190)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:57:27 PM EST
    that the Democratic Party has handled this poorly. If they had just cut the delegates in half and followed the actual rules, there probably would have been less talk about the issue (if that is your point) ... until now.

    But I don't see how that matters now. Given the state of the race now, the delegate situation of FL & MI would be an issue now regardless of what specific punishment the DNC had decided on. After all, the punishment was meted out in the view that it wouldn't matter since we'd have a nominee by now.

    [ Parent ]

    Oops (none / 0) (#195)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:31 PM EST
    The above comment was supposed to be in reply to your  "Well Friend" comment. Don't know how I did that.

    [ Parent ]
    There's been nary a word since (none / 0) (#163)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    because McCain has clinched the nomination and will seat the entire delegations at the convention. Apples and oranges, my friend.

    [ Parent ]
    Well friend (none / 0) (#173)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    There was nary a word PRIOR to anyone having the Repub nomination locked up.

    Last summer and fall while there was plenty of press on the Dems screwing this up, the Repubs were able to just run their campaigns. How many press stories were there with the Dems visiting Florida and not talking to the people (unless they had money)? How many stories about lawsuits and disenfranchisement of Dems?  Apples and apples.

    [ Parent ]

    Other state legislatures... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by sumac on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    did NOT play by the rules either (ie: Iowa and South Carolina), yet the voters in those states were not penalized. And stripping MI and FL of 100% of their delegates is severe even if we are holding these two states arbitrarily to the rules, as decided with whimsy, it seems. Remember when you say these states should pay a penalty, you are punishing the voters for the legislatures' actions.

    But who cares if voters are disenfranchised? Right? It's not about the people, it's about the candidate. Honestly, at this point, I could care less about Hillary or Barack. And yes, I am a Hillary supporter, but this problem is much, much larger than the two of them. The potential ramifications of the DNC's actions (or inaction) are unthinkable. Dean needs to step up to the plate and start leading the way so that the Democratic party does not completely fracture. Why have a DNC chairman if he/she can't lead?

    Then again, maybe it would be a good thing for the party to crumble. Perhaps it is so far gone, there's no fixing it. We'll just have to start from scratch...

    [ Parent ]

    If by "you" you mean Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by magster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    they would say because this arrangement hands the nomination to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I can agree with Florida but (none / 0) (#45)
    by cloudy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    no one is fooled that seating MI 50/50 or not at all is basically the same thing.  MI voters deserve a say so either we seat the delegates as is according to the current vote or we re-vote it.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama conceding is more reasonable (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    I strongly object to taking what isn't his. HRC and JE made calculations that didn't go their way and they abided by the results.

    Only Obama is drawing out this process and making the Dems look bad.

    I'd share lunch with a fellow Dem who forgot his or hers on the fly. I wouldn't share with one who didn't like yesterday's, today's or tomorrow's and it's what s/he asked for in the first place.

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds like Obama's plan to me (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:05 PM EST
    The question is how will they apportion the popular vote? I imagine this plan will still be met with an attempt to de-legitimize the actual voters (votes cast).

    Popular vote isn't counted in the Convention (none / 0) (#9)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:10:17 PM EST
    Popular vote could be considered by supers.

    [ Parent ]
    That is my point (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    thus how will it be apportioned? Do we then decide to "give credit" to Obama for all of the "other" votes in MI? Does Obama concede FL as a victory for HRC...etc...

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like they're trying to (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    ignore Florida and Michigan. I think that's a terrible idea.

    If they'd cut the delegates in half in the first place, like they were supposed to, that would have been a different story.

    Don't you think (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    taking them away completely as a starting point was always just a negotiating position meant to get to acceptance of seating half of them?

    [ Parent ]
    Where do you get that idea? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    I don't.

    If the Democratic party would create this level of gigantic mess in order to establish a better "negotiating position", they're even stupider than I thought. If they'd started out with the 1/2 delegate thing, nobody would have particularly said boo, and nobody would have any kind of good argument that they're being treated unfairly.

    [ Parent ]

    Think about what Dean wants (none / 0) (#104)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:08:09 PM EST
    He wants control of the primary process. He's got to punish FL and MI in some way that will have real impact in order to establish that control. Initial position is that they lose all their delegates, even though that goes beyond the called-for punishment, which otherwise makes no sense. The "compromise" to the standoff is still a pretty hefty punishment, and the one actually called for in the rules.

    You think no one would have said boo? I don't. I think otherwise we'd be talking about a compromise that involved seating the whole delegations. In effect the early date jumpers would have got away without punishment and the party's ability to hold the line on primary dates would collapse totally.

    And it was FL Republicans who created at least the FL mess, remember, not Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    When coming up with a "punishment" (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    it's important to make sure it doesn't seem tyrannical, or you lose all leverage when it's pointed out that your punishment is damaging.

    There might have been some grumbling at the 1/2 delegates, but those complaining wouldn't have had a solid argument. I note that the Republican party has had zero of these problems in their primary -- they stuck with reducing the delegations by half. Granted, were they running a close race, it might've lead to more grumbling, but I think it would've been a much harder case for anybody to make that it was grossly unfair -- now, it's a harder idea to push, because now we know how the outcome went in FL, so the political stakes are clear.

    As things have gone, the party is losing its ability to hold the line anyway, unless it gets revotes -- now, they look like they're totally waffling on "the rules", and simultaneously doing it in a way almost guaranteed to piss off the most people. We're going to have a primary scheduling load of hell on our hands if we don't deal with this problem in a comprehensive way before the next such cycle, because the DNC kneecapped itself by being unnecessarily harsh, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think they were thinking (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    that the number of delegates would ever matter. They assumed this would be over on super Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]
    This was true (none / 0) (#110)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    only until Super Tuesday...

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#103)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    It was an effort to give the FL & MI vote the same effect as if those states had voted last, by saying they don't count, then seating them at the convention anyway.

    For this plan to work, however, required someone to have clinched by now who could then seat the delegations at the convention as-is.

    The GOP plan was more or less the same, and it's worked out for them.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't agree that the GOP plan was the same (none / 0) (#139)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    they followed their standard rules, and cut 1/2 the delegation, not the whole thing.

    [ Parent ]
    They are similar in that (none / 0) (#177)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    both parties felt the punishments would be rendered moot because some candidate would clinch the nomination early, thereby permitting the full delegations to be seated.

    The spin I kept hearing early on from supporters of all candidates was that the DNC punishment wouldn't matter in the end because we'd have a winner by now.

    The only difference I see between the two parties on this is that the GOP was willing to let FL & MI count for half their value during the expectations game and horse race, while the Dems wanted them to count for zero during that period.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (