The Popular Vote And The FL/MI Problem

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for me only)

Steve Benen notes Ed Rendell saying this:

On a conference call with reporters moments ago, Rendell said: "Let's assume that Senator Clinton goes ahead in the popular vote count." He then asked, "which is more democratic" -- choosing the winner of the popular vote or the winner of the pledged delegate count.

"The way we select delegates is not all that democratic," Rendell continued, in a reference to caucus voting. "The rules were going in that super-delegates were there to exercise their judgment...as a super-delegate I want to make sure we win in the fall, and I'm gonna take the candidate who can do that."

Steve acknowledges the power of that argument while doubting Clinton can win the popular vote. Frankly, speculation from any of us is rather pointless. Let's count the votes when they come in. But therein lies the problem with the Clinton campaign's refusal to fight for revotes in Florida and Michigan. To be perceived as the popular vote winner, Clinton needs revote wins in Florida and Michigan. I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.

< Gitmo Hearings Underway | Inspector General Report Released on National Security Letter Use and Abuse >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Do you suppose (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    'the popular vote' is a hint from Gov. Rendell that they're going to challenge the definition of ... the popular vote?

    ie. How caucuses are counted (check my state of Washington....caucus vs. primary, as you know...ridiculous!)

    They should henceforth focus on reality (none / 0) (#62)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:32:23 PM EST
    no more delusional thinking. Caucus delegates and popular votes will not be eliminated.

    Eliminated? (none / 0) (#72)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM EST

    Is English your native tongue?


    Do you know (none / 0) (#92)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:33:14 PM EST
    the definition of eliminated?

    Yes. Do you? (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:10:52 AM EST
    Only 'delusional' thinking would lead anyone to think anyone has suggested eliminating anything.  Only you mentioned that.

    Don't interpret.  Just read the plain language or ask a question if the intent isn't clear.


    How does taking votes away from one candidate... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    ... and giving them to another candidate legitimate the voting process?

    Because that is exactly what the deeply bogus 50/50 solution does. The candidates are "splitting the difference" as if they owned the votes. But they don't. Voters own their votes.

    When Democrats go wrong, it's because they don't fight. I'm distressed that Hillary isn't fighting on  this.

    Don't be too sure... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:24:30 PM EST
    not all 'fightin' is televised or even visible.

    oldpro (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:03:46 PM EST
    not all 'fightin' is televised or even visible.

    I agree--or at least I hope this is the case.  I can't believe that Clinton's team is being this purposefully obtuse.  I mean, sure, they've made missteps before (sometimes giant leaps) but I think both campaigns know what is on the line here.

    There has to be something going on behind closed doors.


    It's the "New Politics" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by badger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:44:48 PM EST
    Used to be called the "Politbureau"

    Oh...but according to Obama (none / 0) (#5)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:24:43 PM EST
    that would be the "fair" solution...

    What world are we living in?


    The new (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:26:24 PM EST
    'non-divisive' politics!

    Capitulation politics? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:51:26 PM EST
    Or the old Chicago style politics where the party big wigs in the smoke filled rooms figure out how to "make things happen" the way they want to?

    I wish there was some agreement on what the due process of these primaries is supposed to be.  Both the due process for voters and their votes and the due process for the candidates.  Even if I go through the process of looking up and understanding each of the fifty states rules and procedures governing each individual state, I still am wondering if they could be overturned if the authorities say so.

    Can anyone tell me if anything about this is carved in stone?


    Ah...non-divisive (none / 0) (#57)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:20:39 PM EST
    so long as you're a member of the exclusive "we"

    You know the ones,..."through Obama WE will can"...one day they will print that on our currency...


    That's absurd they are requesting you send (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    your thoughts to the DNC.

    Phil McNamara


    Yes. Please everyone -send your thoughts. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    As Riverdaughter says, it's okay if at the end you mention that you don't want to have to come to Denver to make your point heard (I'm paraphrasing).

    ohh Mr. mcnamara (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    Was wondering where I had obtained his email poor guy, he is in for a large in box.

    Mr. McNamara (none / 0) (#67)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:00:07 PM EST
    Is begging me to tell him where I found his email address.

    Should I tell him?


    Letter to Mr. McNamara (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:01:34 PM EST
    Dear Mr. McNamara:

    I have just read that the following is being proposed as a way to "solve" the issue of what to do about the votes from Florida and Michigan in the Democratic primary:

    -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.

     - The two states' superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver.

    This is entirely unfair and unacceptable to me as a lifelong Democrat. It awards unearned delegates and votes to one candidate and takes earned votes and delegates away from the other.

    My grandfather was a union organizer for the coal miners. My mother took me to work on the McGovern campaign the first year I was able to vote at 18. I have been a Democrat and Democratic Party supporter all my life. If you follow this absurd and outrageously unfair plan, I will change my affiliation to Independent and sit this election out. You will never see another penny of my money.

    Revote Florida and Michigan, by mail if possible. Revote in Florida, perhaps, by sending ballots to registered Democrats who did not vote January 29 and add the votes of those who did to the existing results. Revote Michigan with two Democratic candidates on the ballot.

    This is the only option that is fair.

    If you follow this ridiculous plan of awarding 1/2 delegates and splitting delegates, you are negating the votes of Floridians and Michiganders. You are disenfranchising them. You are not allowing them to choose their candidate for president. You are ensuring that Democrats lose these states in the general election.

    I live in Denver, less than a mile from the Pepsi Center. Don't make me come over there and cause a scene this August.


    (name withheld)

    Mr. McNamara wrote me back asking where I got his email address. I told him, "Online. You can expect more where this came from. A LOT more."



    Clinton on NPR (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by The GrandPanjandrum on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:24:13 PM EST
    Senator Clinton made it clear on NPR what her position on this matter is.
    Clinton tells Inskeep that the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates should count because both are seen as key battleground states in the general election. But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries. "If there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count these votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete re-do of the primary and nothing else is fair," she says.
    That sounds pretty straightforward to me.

    On HillaryClinton.com too (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:32:53 PM EST
    statement from Maggie Williams.
    In Florida and Michigan, nearly 2.5 million Americans made their voices heard and participated in primary elections. We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored.

    Over the last few weeks, there has been much discussion about how to ensure that the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated. We think there are two options: Either honor the results or hold new primary elections.

    To that end, we are in active consultation with all of our supporters in Florida, including Members of Congress. In Michigan, we are in active consultation with the committee appointed by Governor Granholm.

    We hope that your campaign will join us in our efforts to ensure that these votes are counted.

    Why aren't they pumping this out in the media more?


    Maybe they are pushing it (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by badger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    and the media isn't interested.

    How can you argue they were fair (none / 0) (#25)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:46:38 PM EST
    when nobody campaigned and Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot? Maggie Williams makes no sense at all.

    I think "fair" (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    in the case of Michigan is pushing it.  But Obama did voluntarily take his name off the ballot, and when it became clear that was a big mistake, his grass-roots groups campaigned vigorously for his voters to go vote and vote for "uncommitted."

    So it's not quite as one-sided as "his name wasn't even on the ballot" makes it seem.

    I agree, not the way to do things.


    Some ran ads, Obama did (none / 0) (#81)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:05:44 PM EST
    Uninentionally Obama ran ads in Florida, if this politico commenter is correct:
    Obama says he did not campaign in MI or FLA, but he failed to say a week before the SC primary he took out air time for a campaign ad on the CNN channel that aired in millions of homes, including FLA. This ad also ran after SC before the FLA primary. -

    it is because they voted in january (none / 0) (#31)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:48:53 PM EST
    they cannot be seated as is.  so, the only option offered is to hold primaries.  meanwhile, florida, dean and michigan cannot get this together.  so, michigan and florida will be penalized per the party rules and their primaries will be nullified, their delegates unseated.

    if this is the case, there is no reason to continue this race.


    actually they can be seated as is (none / 0) (#55)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    Nobody wants to wait to the convention to see what the rules committee has to say about it but Dean said from day one that the delegates from MI and FL would be seated at the convention.

    All this rhetoric about leaving FL and MI in no man's land is hollow.  Dean, the DNC, Clinton and Obama know that the states can't be disenfranchised or they risk losing them in the GE.  The delegates will be seated.  If I don't believe that then I might as well believe that 2000 did in fact mark the end of democracy in the US.


    we agree. (none / 0) (#58)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:21:23 PM EST
    i began my comment with "as is".  in regards to deciding the outcome of the nomination, they will have to wait four years.

    Again from Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    Clinton Reviewing Proposal

    Clinton said yesterday that the Michigan and Florida primaries should count toward the Democratic nomination or be held again. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the campaign is reviewing the Florida proposal.

    The campaign's preference is ``to honor the elections that have already taken place,'' Singer told reporters today. ``If that's not possible, we believe that there should be a re-do of the vote.''

    Obama expressed reservations about the mail-in plan.

    ``It's not just me, but the entire Florida House delegation, including Clinton supporters, that have expressed concern,'' he said today. ``In Oregon they have a mail-in system, but it's something that's been in place a long time and they've scanned all the signatures of all the registered voters so there's a verification system in place. I know some of the Florida folks are also concerned that since there's such large number of Florida residents who don't live in Florida during the summer that they would all be missing in this.''

    this is the proposal ... mailin and in person..

    `We are positive that a combination vote-by-mail and in- person election can be conducted in the time available,'' Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman wrote in a draft proposal to the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presidential campaigns and party leaders. ``It is the best option that has been presented to me that offers Florida voters a voice in the nominating process,'' she wrote.

    Apparently Governor Rendell (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    has been reading you.

    You going to read the Puerto Rico tea leaves for us soon?

    Here are some guesses about their strategy (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    1. Their internal polls probably tell them that they are not going to get any significant boost in Michigan and that their margin of victory in Florida will be considerably less than it was before, especially with Edwards now out of the race.

    2. The cost of campaigning in Florida and Michigan outweighs the likelihood and magnitude of benefit to them.

    3. It is possible that Obama could pick up enough pledged delegates in Florida and Michigan to make it even more difficult for Clinton to overcome his margin with superdelegates.

    4. Senator Clinton is less hewed in by leaving Michigan and Florida open, and instead arguing that she would have taken Florida by her previous margin of victory.

    Alternative (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    Obama also has his own pollsters.  They should be showing the same thing so wouldn't he be pushing for it as he would improve?

    the difference for obama (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:00:18 PM EST
    is obvious.  one of his paths to the nomination is a clinton concession speech.  strategically, obama is not going to lift a finger to put any new oxygen in the clinton tanks.

    clinton needs more days on the calendar.

    obama needs the door to close tighter.

    that is the math.


    Not sure about that (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:12:49 PM EST
    The Obama campaign seems to me to be showing signs of some real anxiety here for some reason, likely some of their own private polling.  Mr. "We don't need any more debates" is suddenly pushing for new ones in Penn and NC.  A confident frontrunner doesn't push for debates at this late date, particularly against an opponent who's generally better at them.

    So I don't think the HRC camp's muddled message on all this is out of fear of losing FL votes over her margin the last time around.  I'd guess it's because various campaign factions are at odds about how to deal with the situation and nobody's really won that argument yet.  Mark Penn anyone?


    Did I say he was incompetent? (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:48:17 PM EST
    Did I say she ran circles around the guy?

    No, I said what you said, that she's "generally better than he is."


    you are spot on. (none / 0) (#39)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
    rendell's assumption is part of the same strategy.

    That can't possibly be her strategy (none / 0) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    Asking superdelegates to vote for her based on speculation about what would have happened in a re-vote?

    I think she's not letting go of the "as is" argument because she thinks she needs an unreasonable position to mirror Obama's unreasonable "just leave FLA and MI out" position -- leading to the inevitable meet in the middle re-vote.  The problem is that the media isn't listening to Obama's reluctance, it's still listening to her supposed attempt to "change the rules."

    I think she should give up on the "as is" argument -- say she thinks its fair, but she knows it won't fly, therefore the next best thing, the ONLY next thing, is a re-do.  Let Obama continue to drag his feet in the face of that.  Let him explain that complete disenfranchisement is preferable to a re-vote that might confuse a few people.  Does he think that Floridians and Michiganders aren't paying attention to this debate?


    I don't see how a new vote in Michigan (none / 0) (#74)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    It doesn't really matter to Obama. He gets to 280 electoral votes without either Florida or Michigan, and in the current SUSA poll he's down to McCain 47-46. It's a state he can pick up and extend his victory margin anyway. That part doesn't matter, as it appears there is going to be a vote in Michigan now, anwyway.

    Here's the map


    My guess: (none / 0) (#103)
    by digdugboy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    The numbers will improve for Obama. McCain is not going to be the least bit inspiring on the campaign trail, and as the economy continues to worsen he's going to become less and less attractive, with his tax cuts, no health care reform, and continuing the war in Iraq in perpetuity. So, I don't think Obama risks much at all by opposing a new vote in Florida, so long as the delegates aren't seated in accord with some wonky plan.

    I hate to keep hitting this (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    But again, as much as people say "It's not going to happen," there are two concerns here.

    1.  Repairing the DNC's relationship with Florida.

    2.  Doing what's fair.  Looking at the rules, and realizing that if you can't follow them to the letter then you should be able to make an assessment about the intent of the rules and enforce that.

    So to address number 1.  A poll was floated around the other day that said 56% of Floridians favor a revote.  That is incorrect.  56% of Floridians favor a revote if 1) it is free, not at taxpayers expense (who doesn't like free stuff?) and 2) the exist vote won't count.

    That was the question.

    Now go ask this question.  Run this Poll in Florida.  "Which do you prefer.  The Jan 29 vote being certified or voting again?"  Well, I think we can infer an answer there.

    So.  If you are to address number 1 above, what does Florida want, then I think we have an answer there.

    Certify Jan. 29 and  you maximize to the greatest possible degree Florida's Democratic participation in Novemember, no matter who the nominee ends up being.

    Now.  number 2.

    Because we know that the rules can no longer be followed to the letter we have to ask ourselves what best reflects the intent of the rules.

    And to that I say Florida was never INTENDED to be a state that was isolated at the end of the process.  It was INTENDED to be a state that was grouped with other states near the beginning of the process.

    A revote betrays the intent of the rules in this regard.

    If you care about Florida, stop whining about what will or won't happen, make it happen, make Jan. 29 count.

    If you care about the rules, make Jan. 29 count.

    Clinton has said she will accept the ruling of the DNC if the ruling is a revote.  Her camp has put up the money.

    But the right thing to do here is to add the delegates and popular vote.

    There is no way in hell anyone is ever going to convince me that a vote on Feb. 5th would have been in any way different than a vote on Jan. 29.

    By the same token, there is reason to believe that a vote 3 months later would be different.

    The vote we have best reflects the intent of the rules and schedule, and it best repairs the DNC's image in Florida.

    you know the problem with making sense? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:56:04 PM EST
    There are too many people with a little bit of power who go out of their way to make things confusing rather than simple.  Making sense doesn't compute with them.  For Howard Dean to think that a 50/50 split is a rational compromise it shows how far away from reality Dean and the DNC are.  "Dear voters, thanks for showing up even though we told you we were gonna screw you; but we are still going to screw you by deciding who gets your delegates amongst ourselves.  Maybe 2012 we'll give you back your voice."--Sincerely, Howard Dean

    Add to my arguments (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    Jeralyn's arguments, adding in the fact that the Jan 29 turnout was unprecedented, then yeah.

    we expected the dem leadership to (none / 0) (#53)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    follow through on the promises made to us when we elected them to majorities in congress. they failed. we expected them to lead or help set up these primaries so WE could elect a candidate. they failed! that should tell you something about them. we should stop expecting from them. it isn't there!

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:46:59 PM EST
    FL flips the coin, MI calls it in the air.  Heads all the votes count as is.  Tails both states do a mail in re-vote.

    If they are worried about votes being counted right?  I still like a post on dkos from 04.  Hire McDonalds to run the election.  On election day you roll thru the drive thru, hand off your election card at window one, pull ahead and order Big Mac for Clinton, Quarter Pounder for Obama.  McDonalds knows every burger they have ever sold.  There are McDonalds every 2 blocks in major cities and generally there is one within moderate driving distances of most towns.  Simple idea but bombproof--as long as McD's was willing to shut down for a day for some compensation.

    Monday court hearing to reinstate (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    delegate voting rights. Do you think they are waiting for the case to be heard?

    which court? who is the judge? (none / 0) (#75)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    I don't know how to set up links (none / 0) (#77)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    I'll try but this is what it says (may have been posted but I did not see it)

    "As pressure mounts over what to do with Florida's Democratic delegates - a Tampa attorney announced Thursday afternoon that a lawsuit he filed to reinstate Florida's delegate voting rights at the Democratic National Convention will be heard before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 17th."


    Hope he wins (none / 0) (#80)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:58:25 PM EST
    sounds good! thanks! (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:35:05 AM EST
    is this the same court that was used during the bush gore suit i wonder?

    The funding has been put up (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:27:46 PM EST
    What more do you want.  Money is money, you know.  They should just put it in Clinton's campaign coffers at this point.

    It's not their job to push the solution.

    It's Dean's.

    They can establish the swing they need counting the Jan. 29 vote.

    Which is what will have to happen if Dean and Obama keep stalling.

    A popular vote argument (none / 0) (#11)
    by herb the verb on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:33:01 PM EST
    doesn't have to have those state's delegates "count". In fact, the popular vote argument is not an "official" argument at all. All Clinton has to do is point to the vote totals in the January elections. If revotes happen that is fine too, but mainly for the pledged delegate argument.
    If there is a bottleneck to getting the MI and FL delegates counted then that is further evidence (to the Clinton camp) that the pledged delegate count is bogus and the popular vote is more valid.

    Not saying that is right...

    Related, Plouffe is now saying that their surplus of Texas caucus votes (you know, all those who were required to have also voted with everyone else earlier in the day) should count towards Obamas 'lead" in the popular vote. How intellectually bankrupt do you have to be to make that argument?

    Where? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:46:03 PM EST
    I heard they were doing that at his website.  Do you have a source.  I would love to see that one for myself.

    kos has made that argument (none / 0) (#63)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:33:45 PM EST
    on the Orange front page.

    Read it and snicker (none / 0) (#90)
    by herb the verb on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:50:40 PM EST
    Somebody at HuffPo (where some of the bestest lunacy comes from) named Sam Stein steno-ed it here:

    Some really choice quotes, "offered", then swallowed hole . Here is my fav:

    The difference between these estimates and those from the Obama camp, Plouffe offered, was due to the fact that many of the caucus states had yet to tally their popular votes. In Texas, he offered as an example, "we project to pick up a 120,000 popular vote advantage [in the caucus], which is larger than what Senator Clinton got out of the primary."

    That's some kind of offer! Can't somebody give me an offer to count MY vote twice?

    My question is this, how dumb do they think people are? I mean come on! my four-year old could debunk that one.


    Bingo you are right their delegates dont count but (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:54:00 PM EST
    the voters do and should its the right answer the voters did nothing wrong. PERFECT and honorable.

    Heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:08 PM EST
    Plouffe makes a mistake there.

    It's a Chicago thing (none / 0) (#78)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    why not count voters twice?

    dead people too?

    Generally unserious ideas from unserious people. That's transcendent politics for you. Transcends reality, fairness, counting votes.


    I have a theory (none / 0) (#12)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:33:41 PM EST
    To be perceived as the popular vote winner, its needs revote wins in Florida and Michigan. I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.

    [Fixed your typo of "inn" in my quote because I noticed it :) ]

    I think it's a mixture of not being able to let go of the argument of having the initial vote count (the fighter instinct) and not doing all of the research when it was time to finalize Plan B.

    I keep thinking back about how Clinton professed shock over Texas's system even though it's been that way for decades.  Her research team might not have known about the legal issues in FL over mail elections and they don't have a Plan C yet.

    I think it is odd she isn't chomping (none / 0) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:41:23 PM EST
    at the bit to win "twice".

    i don't think she would mind (none / 0) (#48)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:06:07 PM EST
    in MI but everyone can see why she wants FL to stand as is--record turnout, all names on ballot, voters had access to TV, internet, and print to find out about the candidates.  It wasn't as if everyone showed up Jan 29 without a clue that Hillary was a former First Lady, current Senator, and had a vagina.  It wasn't as if no one knew that Obama gave the keynote at the 04 Convention, was a US Senator, was black and had a penis.

    But the key is record turnout.  The voters of FL spoke and they overwhelmingly chose HRC.  Obama supporters can claim that Obama's charisma would have changed things all they want but the fact is Obama had been on National News programs, in debates, televised conferences for months leading up to FL.  Voters had the info, saw the charisma, heard about "hope and change" and still voted for HRC.  A re-vote may give him some gains--especially rallying more blacks to the polls but HRC would still win, Obama knows it so why go thru this bs. I don't think Hillary would mind a re-do in FL but I don't think, with her margin of victory, she understands the necessity when a record number of voters showed up to vote for her.  And I don't blame her.  


    Why is the decison up to the DNC (none / 0) (#15)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    and not the states of Michigan and Florida who are affected?   If the people of Michigan wants a redo and Florida wants a redo then that is what controls.  If they say let each candidate raise the money for the redo primaries, which I think that can be done very easily,  and we are ready to go.   I understand that Clinton is for a redo of primaries.  If Obama does not want to the redo or raise his half of the money for redo and wants to go again the wishes of Michigan and Florida,  then the Michigan votes will be counted as originally voted as well as Florida votes. End of Story  What do you  want to do? Fish or cut bait?

    The states, in their infinite wisdom, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:43:06 PM EST
    got us into this mess in the first place - not the voters in those states - the elite elected officials.  They clearly don't feel at risk although I think they will be eventually because of this screw up.

    as far as I have heard (none / 0) (#49)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:08:37 PM EST
    the GOP was pushing the date change.  When the GOP approved the move the Dems had no choice but to follow.  Am I mistaken?

    In Michigan it was all Dems and (none / 0) (#73)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:44:31 PM EST
    in Florida it was a bipartisan affair.  But they'd all like you to think they were victims of someone other than themselves.

    ok so then it would have ok for (none / 0) (#83)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:09:06 PM EST
    the dems to appear to be voting against having a paper verification trail in electronic voting?  Cause that is what was the other part of the same bill.  If you voted no you no on that too.

    What I don't understand is, why are the two (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    candidates given veto power by the DNC?  That simply means that whoever benefits least will logically veto the solution. What a stupid idea!

    What happened to the rule that they could take it to some committee and it could be decided that way?  I mean the Superdelegates are in place so that, supposedly,  grown-ups, who have the good of the party at heart (their explanation not mine), could take care of situations that were getting out of hand. Well, this one is getting out of hand. Obama can't be allowed to veto or manipulate to his benefit the votes of 2.5 million people! What are those idiots thinking?

    The whole thing has been handled so badly that now, it looks like the Dems are simply going to lose the General Election no matter what they do.  


    All this sturm und drang (none / 0) (#18)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:41:28 PM EST
    over mail-in ballots.  

    We've gone to mail-in in WA State and it's a HUGE improvement over polls with semi-trained volunteers/pollworkers - a nightmare open to much fraud (not to mention stupidity).  

    For Florida, the issue would be signature comparisons...the government has them, the party doesn't...and evidently, can't rent/lease/buy or borrow them.  Dealbreaker.

    BTD (none / 0) (#23)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:45:54 PM EST
    you are not alone on this....

    To be perceived as the popular vote winner, Clinton needs revote wins in Florida and Michigan. I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.

    Neither do I.  Question is : what would expect the Clinton camp to do if

    (a) the Obama camp offers nothing but reverts to
    "we will do what the DNC says"  and

    (b) the DNC does nothing....

    What is her campaign to do? Seems to me like Don Qijote fighting the wind mills.

    That was actually not so true (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:48:32 PM EST
    To be perceived as the popular vote winner the existing vote can be certified.

    Edgar08, that is interesting (none / 0) (#70)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:05:14 PM EST
    I didn't know of that option. Do you mean she could get the actual count certified independently of  the FL delegates?  Interesting indeed.

    Could she do the same with her MI vote count?
    After all if someone didn't want her surely voted
    "uncommitted" or didn't vote at all... I don't see why she should have the poeple that participated and chose her.  Is that so?


    PS--to my post above (none / 0) (#87)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    I meant why shouldn't have the people that voted and chose her counted !!

    Certify what? (none / 0) (#76)
    by faux facsimile on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    Edgar08: "To be perceived as the popular vote winner the existing vote can be certified."

    How does that work? Most of the candidates weren't on the Michigan ballot.


    Neither... (none / 0) (#82)
    by DudeE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:08:39 PM EST
    ...did second tier (ie non threshold) candidates have any standing in caucuses.  Yet we'll tally those votes?

    The myth is that the entire primary process is 100% rational.


    And there's no difference (none / 0) (#86)
    by faux facsimile on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:19:15 PM EST
    between a ballot that excludes 2 of the top 3 candidates and a caucus that has a threshold requirement? Despite their many flaws, caucuses do have fixed rules which they follow. The Michigan ballot, in contrast, was simply arbitrary.

    (And thanks to Edgard08 for clarifying that his points were about FL, not MI)


    It was not (none / 0) (#88)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:28:07 PM EST
    arbitrary in the sense that it was Obama's choice not to place his name in the ballot. That was his (bad) decision noone force him to this.
    He could have left it there.

    Is your argument... (none / 0) (#89)
    by DudeE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:48:32 PM EST
    ...that caucuses are representative simply because they have "rules"?  And the rules say you can't vote for your first choice because not enough of your neigbors approve.  

    And the Michigan ballot was not arbitrary.  Did they flip a coin and agree to scratch Obama?  He took himself out of the game.  Dumb call, but it's one he made on his own.


    I was referring to (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:10:49 PM EST

    Howard Dean turns out (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    to be an entirely incompetent administrator. Where's his fighting spirit now?

    Isn't he supposed to work for the FL and MI Democratic parties too?


    I agree. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:13:02 PM EST
    He said he would "knock heads" earlier to decide the nominee.  Why can't he "knock heads" and come up with a solution that everyone can agree on.

    He must have meant that (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    he would cause the voters to knock their own heads against the wall in frustration.

    That (none / 0) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST
    sums up Dean's attitude pretty well !

    He should be fired as head of the DNC. He obviously cannot/will not do his job.


    I believe he is trying to tip the scale toward (none / 0) (#56)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:49 PM EST
    Obama, thus the problem for him....He seems to be representing the Obama faction and not the Clinton faction....big problem...

    The whole idea (none / 0) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:51:00 PM EST

    It looks like the effort at changing the focus from delegates to popular vote is just a smoke screen to devalue caucus states.  

    If popular vote were the goal, why have delegates at all?  As a hypothetical, if a state lowered its voting age to 12, should the increase in turnout allow give state more weight in selecting the candidate?

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruthinor on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:28:30 PM EST
    what this is all about.  In the LA Times today HRC said that there were only 2 fair solutions for FL:  seat the delegates or revote in a primary.

    here's the link (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruthinor on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:30:52 PM EST
    According to kos Obama has an 800,000 vote lead (none / 0) (#66)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:43:58 PM EST
    Hillary is not going to catch him. He is not Kucinich, he is a formidable candidate. I wouldn't be suprised is Obama has the plurality of the pop vote in the ramaining contests.

    Yeah, you keep on telling yourself that, kid. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    The plurality in a two person race? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    pesky Gravel :-) (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM EST
    Sure (none / 0) (#93)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:39:44 PM EST

    2. more than half of the whole; the majority.  


    Majority (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:25:25 AM EST
    Why not just admit you meant majority?

    According to Kos... (none / 0) (#84)
    by DudeE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    ...yep, very credible since he leaves out FL and MI.  There may be a point in omitting MI, but there's no reason FL's popular vote isn't in the count (except if you're in the tank for Obama, that is)

    Agreed (none / 0) (#91)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:51:56 PM EST
    He likely leaves WA's primary votes out as well in favor of the cuacus result popular vote estimate. A caucus where 250.000 participated and Obama had a 67% to 31% advantage makes a better argument for Clinton's deficit in popular totals than a primary where more than 660,000 voted and a little over 38,000 votes seperated the two.

    The Washington Primary Total is Irrelevant (none / 0) (#95)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:55:43 PM EST
    The State Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge the primary vote (because it is not a closed primary) and only awards delegates from the caucuses.

    I don't agree with their approach. Thousands of voters are disenfranchised through the caucus process -- and the party regulars can't seem to come to terms with the reality that Republicans can also cause mischief in a basically open caucus -- but those are the procedures approved by the party insiders in a vote last year in Bellingham.

    And, unsurprisingly, Kos is not dealing with a full deck.


    Right (none / 0) (#96)
    by TN Dem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:56:32 AM EST
    I understand that the primary was of no relevence for delegate allocation, but I do feel strongly that it should be counted if this were to become about popular vote in sd's eyes or in the eyes of the American voters.

    I do agree with the open primary allowing for a certain amount of gaming, but I feel the caucus system is ripe for that as well. In addition, many states held open primaries, including my own, and those totals will be counted and have been responsible for many allocated delegates.

    It is a shame that it took this crazed election to make us aware of our asinine primary methods! I for one will be lobbying for a changes in my states system, and it sounds like you have a solid case against yours as well!


    Hillary (none / 0) (#94)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:42:27 PM EST
    is going to blow him away in FL and MI?

    And don't forget the "irrelevant" states that lean Obama. Didn't he just add 100k in in MS?