Proposed Florida Re-Vote Plan Released

Here it is (pdf.)

Thoughts? Mine are we don't need a revote. The DNC needs to lift its penalty against Florida, award the delegates and seat them in accordance with the Jan. 29 vote.

Floridians voted in record numbers, the parties were all on the ballot, everyone got to see and hear both candidates in televised debates and in the news. The Republican-dominated legislature forced the early date.

The DNC needs to admit it was wrong in assessing the penalty and lift it. If they don't, I'm concerned that Floridians will blame the Democratic party and sit out the November election.

Let's not hand the election to McCain. Let's skip the revote plan and award and seat the delegates according to the Jan. 29 record breaking primary vote.

Update: How Florida voted on Jan 29 is below the fold. Obama did dismally. It's obvious why he doesn't favor a recount.

Obama won only the northern counties closest to Georgia and the deep south. He won no county below the top of the state.

In addition to the counties Hillary won, here are some statistics, according to her campaign:

  • Hillary will end up with more votes than John McCain.
  • She won women, men, and just about every age category. She won the youth vote.
  • She won 6 in 10 Latinos and nearly 3 in 10 African American voters.
  • More than 1.5 million Democrats voted today, more than twice the number of voters in the 2004 primary.
  • Among those who decided on Election Day, a plurality of those chose Hillary.
Update: Via Corrente and Mary Beth, Tampa Tribune:
In the poll of 600 Democratic primary voters, with a 4-point error margin, 59 percent said they favored a revote paid for by the party, while 35 percent said the current delegation should go to the convention and seek to be seated.

Asked whether the situation would affect their votes if it weren't resolved, 63 percent said no.

But 14 percent [of Democrats polled] said they would consider voting Republican, 11 percent said they might not vote or might skip the presidential race, and 12 percent said they weren't sure. (my emphasis)

Put another way, the poll found:

Voters said that if the controversy is not resolved and Florida Democratic voters do not have a voice in choosing the Democratic nominee, only 63 percent will still vote with Democrats.
< Client # 6 and Kristen Revealed | New Delegate Awards: Obama Gets No Net Gain After Miss. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can't Trust Credentials Commitee (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Coral Gables on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:17:02 AM EST
    One of those links I wished I had saved earlier today... a poll showing over 60% of Floridians would not vote for the Dem candidate if Florida wasn't represented at the convention.

    And congrats Jeralyn. I didn't expect this to appear before tomorrow. I can now go to sleep and wake up late to see everyone's opinion as Florida moves forward.

    thanks for sending it to me! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:19:40 AM EST
    I didn't know it was released either.

    :D (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:55 AM EST
    Consider me your link fairy.

    Just added that to the post too (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:40:14 AM EST
    thanks link fairy.

    That pdf actually said (none / 0) (#10)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:23:05 AM EST
    something like 67% were still gonna vote Democratic, which was too low.

    A minor point (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:07 AM EST
    addressed in this memo is that according to the DNC, a 50/50 split of delegates is not an allowable solution under the rules.  So hopefully we've heard the last of that ridiculous idea in both MI and FL.

    The Obama rules take precedence, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:19:02 AM EST

    As far as I know... (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:41:29 AM EST
    He might consider re-registering for the Communist Party. I think their party leaders typically decided how delegates were divided, then the party certified the vote to reflect their decisions. The whole election thing was optional too, so that would save the party $10MM. He could campaign as a "new" kind of communist who favored a lean, mean party machine.

    Heh (none / 0) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:18:58 AM EST
    very good, oje. he could also (none / 0) (#102)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:31:37 AM EST
    proclaim that the unity plan.

    HRC can join him! (none / 0) (#124)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM EST
    In the Soviet Union they also ran sham elections and pretended that the counted for something.

    gee steve (none / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07:30 AM EST
    who do you think came up with that idea?  could it be Axelrod and Brazille?

    obama's position is "no revote" and "no counting this vote"... just screw florida because they didn't vote for me.


    I think, J., that's what we call a lost cause (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    Let them compete for Florida. It should help Obama if he ends up becoming the nominee.

    another inconvenient fact (none / 0) (#103)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:34:44 AM EST
    >>>>Among those who decided on Election Day, a plurality of those chose Hillary.

    Obama had just won SC 3 days earlier - giving him mega media coverage.


    Polling results in FL on effects of controversy (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:24:18 AM EST
    Mary Beth quotes the Tampa Bay Tribune:

    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.


    That means a new primary is essential (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:21 AM EST
    or that the sanction be lifted (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:41:03 AM EST
    and the Jan. 29 vote count.

    Seems very much a lost cause (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:44:39 AM EST
    not a lost cause (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:11:27 AM EST
    Dean just needs to find the guts to stand up to Obama and his bullies. The people of Florida should not have to go to the polls again.  
    The only revote that is fair is a write in for those who did not vote already.

    Agree. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by 0 politico on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:11 AM EST
    Either way, this needs to be resolved in a manner that is equitible to the FL voters, regardless on one campaign's efforts to resolve this in a non-equitible way.

    yes the voters (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    who already spoke should not be forced to go to the polls again.  Have a write in that includes only those people who did not vote.  Mail THEM all ballots.

    Cuban Americans Still Refuse To Vote Dem (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:20:41 AM EST
    due to the Bay of Pigs that happened 47 years ago. This could have a long term effect on the Dems winning in FL if the anger reflected in that poll is carried forward to future elections.

    Also, many of those people probably have family or friends in other states who are hearing about how they are being disenfranchised. Not good PR for Dems. Nobody likes to see Grandma or Grandpa or Mom or Dad not having their vote counted.


    I think that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by sara seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:24:30 AM EST
    has already lost Florida

    If Obama, like Clinton, had embraced that the Florida VOTERS count - then he would have been ahead of the game.

    Now Obama is playing politics - realy Old-bad politics -- the kind of politics he supposedly is against - or was against.

    So at this time I really do not think it matters for Obama - he has lost Florida no matter what he does now

    you don't get it... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:35 AM EST
    he's a transcendent politician...he's way beyond petty partisan politics...yeah right.

    I guess the image of Obama standing up for the citizens of FL or MI is just kind of lost on them...and others who figure out the implications of his position.


    blaming the current fiasco in florida on obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:53:45 AM EST
    is like blaming the iraq invasion on clinton.  

    makes no sense.

    florida has florida to blame.  

    i would like to see the delegates seated as well, but you have to seat them legitimately.  as it is, they are illegitimate according to the dnc, not obama.

    so far as i know, he is ready to go along with whatever the dnc decides.  whoever you are for, hopefully you agree with whom is to blame here.  the fault lies with the state and the dnc, not either candidate.


    What you do not see (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by sara seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:00:42 AM EST
    are the Florida VOTERS.

    The Florida voters are not the ones that created this mess - the DNC and the Florida Democratic party are the ones at fault.

    So do not blame the Florida voters -- because trust me - the will punish whomever that does not let their votes count.


    sara, i see clearly. (none / 0) (#54)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:41 AM EST
    the dem voters in florida are getting screwed again.  if they would like to hold someone accountable, then i would begin with their gov, their state party and the dnc.  this has nothing to do with obama or clinton.

    punish those that did this, not those who did nothing.


    As you said (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by sara seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:34:25 AM EST
    florida has florida to blame

    my point - the Florida voters should NOT be blamed - and should not have to suffer the consequences of errors by the DNC and The Florida Democratic party

    And they should not suffer because Obama is afraid that he will lose big in Florida - and that is why Obama is stalling.


    no, you are in favor of punishing the voters (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:33 AM EST
    over a petty arbitrary rule that doesn't matter anymore.

    You clearly fail to understand (none / 0) (#125)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:10:16 AM EST
    that everything bad is Obama's fault.  You need to start with that premise to understand many commenters.

    Hey, if the rule fits (none / 0) (#134)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    Use the scientific method. Try and disprove that statement. :-P

    i live in florida (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:35:24 AM EST
    we expected our votes to count at some point. obviously, that was naive. it seems to me that taking the position that voters' wishes be respected is always good politics.  thanks for your support, cy street.

    Why would you expect that? (none / 0) (#122)
    by ItsGreg on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:28:51 AM EST
    If the DNC made it clear that not abiding by the rules the primary votes would result in the votes not counting, why would you expect the votes would count?

    I'll agree with everybody that the blame does not lie with the voters themselves, but what's the point of having rules if the rules aren't followed. Yes, the rule is stupid and ought to be changed. But if the rules are voided this time, then why should anybody pay attention to whatever the new rule is?

    I think it sucks that Floridian and Michigan voters got hosed, but I dislike setting a precedent that says rules don't need to be enforced. The voters of Florida and Michigan should be calling for the heads of their state Democratic parties, since they're the ones to blame.


    when a legal (none / 0) (#123)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    election is held many people are optimistic enough to think that their votes will count. even in florida. at the time, pelosi was saying the delegates would be seated. but most of us thought the dnc was bluffing. it was too crazy to believe they'd disenfranchise us. my students were keen to vote, my colleagues were keen to vote, everyone i knew was keen to vote. no one thought it really would not count. no one thought there would be a revote. no one thought the dnc were playing "hardball politics" with our vote and to the extent that we did, we thought it was safer to vote than not vote.

    i'm glad your vote counts. why do you want to discount mine? ir it only after the votes are counted that some parties want to throw them out?

    what i want to know is to what extent the take mich. and florida off the ledger was always an anti-hillary plan? i didnt think it was then. i a am beginning to think so now.  


    At the time, (none / 0) (#152)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    even  Obama  was  saying  he  would  support   seating  the  Florida  & Michigan  delegates  at  the  convention.   And  he made  that   statement  publicly,  in  the  illegal press  conference  he held.  

    Voters  in  both  states  have  every  right  to be  disgusted  that  Obama   is  not  standing  by  his  statement  now.  


    Why assume the worst? (none / 0) (#154)
    by ItsGreg on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    Why assume I want to discount your vote? I'm simply responding to your comment that you expected your vote to count in Florida despite all the evidence that it wouldn't.

    I know of Democrats in Florida who did NOT vote in the primary because they'd been told their delegates would not be seated. A re-vote would allow them a chance to make their voice heard too. I would hope we would want ALL Florida voters to have that opportunity.


    Did you ever read a newspaper? (none / 0) (#126)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:11:12 AM EST
    Because it was widely reported that the results wouldn't count.

    What were the newspapers saying about the primary? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by mm on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    I know this won't change anyone's mind but I haven't seen it mentioned yet how all the major newspapers in FL had endorsed and encouraged people to vote in the primary.

    After Florida's shabby treatment by the Democratic presidential candidates, you could not blame voters if they decided to sit out the state's Jan. 29 primary. However, this contest is too important to pass on. Florida Democrats face a historic choice, one they will tell their children and grandchildren about some day. Even though the national party has stripped the state of its delegates as punishment for moving up its primary, our votes cannot be denied. They will help determine whether the 2008 Democratic nominee will be an African-American or a woman. Either would be a first. http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/20/Opinion/Obama_for_Democrats.shtml

    FLORIDA PRIMARY: Democrats: Obama
    Palm Beach Post Endorsement
    Sunday, January 20, 2008
    Barack Obama has set the tone for the presidential campaign, which is why The Post endorses him in the Florida Democratic primary.
    One irony is that Sen. Obama has influenced all his major challengers despite his youth (46) and the fact that he was little-known nationally until his riveting address at the 2004 national convention. Another irony is that Sen. Obama is downplaying the state primary because of a fight between the national and state Democratic parties. But all the candidates are on the Jan. 29 ballot, and we hope that voters ignore the sideshows and turn out.

    The intramural Democratic fight has robbed Floridians of the chance to see the party's candidates. At best, they will be here for two days before the primary. Chances are, though, that a vote on Jan. 29 will mean something to the winner at some point. Democrats should vote for the man who changed a campaign with two words.

    I remember listening to Randi Rhodes that day and she was going on for the entire 3 hours telling her listeners to go vote "with their heart".


    I'm trying to give you a sense (none / 0) (#129)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:24:48 AM EST
    of how many of us felt and feel in florida. if you are not interested in knowing how we felt and feel, then why comment? we did not create this mess. 1.7 million of us turned out to vote. most of us are willing to vote again.

    Good, you should vote again (none / 0) (#131)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:32:51 AM EST
    That is the only fair thing to do.  I am sensitive to the point that it isn't your fault.  I'm also sensitive to the feelings of all your fellow Floridians who didn't vote because they thought it was a beauty contest.

    "don't count the votes" (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:19:56 AM EST
    is that really a legitimate position? I do not see anyone blaming Obama, what I do see is Obama trying to block a fair solution.  If he really thought he would do better if he campaigned bigger there (because he did campaign there against the rules) then he would be for a re-vote.  He is not for that and he is not for seating the delegates.  The only thing he is for is splitting the delegates 50/50...how the hell is that fair?

    Well, I imagine his idea of NASA cuts (none / 0) (#157)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    won't help him.

    DNC should reverse itself and seat FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:39 AM EST
    Obama and Edwards did not have to remove their name from the MI ballot.  It was a choice to invalidate HRC's win. FL was a fair primary and the original vote should be counted.  The DNC made a mistake by penalizing FL and MI and the DNC should reverse itself and admit that it's in the best interest of Democrats to count the votes and seat the delegates of FL and MI.

    Since they have addressed the idea (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:27:24 AM EST
    of forwarded/undeliverable ballots and in person voting at the REOs, along with extending registration and giving ample time to return the ballots, I think both campaigns should sign on and be done with it. It's the best compromise either could hope for. But that's just me.

    Who'll be on the ballots? Plan doesn't say. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:27:30 AM EST
    Will Gravel supporters be disenfranchised?

    Seems likely (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    I think that makes yours the only legitimate objection to the plan. ;-)

    Note: as of now, he isn't on the PA ballot either.


    it's not just robbery (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:42:03 AM EST
    it's voter fraud.

    voter fraud? (none / 0) (#40)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:48:14 AM EST
    In FL?

    How can that be?

    I can see the logic...hold a primary, toss the results overboard and split the delegates even though he didn't get the votes. Have the Cubans taken over?


    It certainly is voter fraud (none / 0) (#128)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:23:29 AM EST
    to tell people that their votes won't count, then some people stay home, then turn around and say "whoops!  we are gonna count that one after all.  sorry we lied to you."

    The hypocrisy of this "seat the delegates as is" chant is truly breathtaking.

    And before someone repeats the "OMG RECORD TURNOUT 1.7 MILLION" talking point, please see this post demonstrating that turnout was depressed.


    So you're actually NOT sensitive to Fla voters (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    I am sensitive to the point that it isn't your fault.

    That (or other TeamObi rope-a-dope) wasn't what the vote was about, though.

    As in counting Florida's votes, and making their votes count. Concern-trolling Florida voters' "feelings" but discounting the actual fair votes just because your guy lost, which is Plan B for the TeamO, is the kind of "new" politics I want no part of.

    It's just more My Way or the Highway strong-arming that the last guy who screwed Florida -- first by SUING his way past a vote count and then by letting his brother and cronies stop the vote count -- used to get to power no matter what.

    I've had enough of uniters whose idea of unity is to just crown them king.

    Count the friggin' votes.


    You've got no argument (none / 0) (#141)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    Just long-debunked cant.

    Counting the votes is 'no argument', huh? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    Why not actually count the actual votes and let people sort out their feelings, their way.

    There's no argument for NOT counting the votes, no matter how many astro-turfing minions try to bury that glaring boil on the campain.


    A really good summarization of the problem (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:58 AM EST
    From someone named MaryBeth at Corrente

    You can't take people's votes and give them to someone else and maintain any level of integrity.


    Absolutely spot on.

    YEP (none / 0) (#153)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    But  not   to  worry.....Dean &  the  DNC  have   firmly  said   Obama's  50/50  plan  is  out of  the  question  and  against   party  rules.  

    Not  gonna  happen.  Obama's   surrogates  are pushing  a   false  possibility.


    either compromise would satisfy me (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:13:44 AM EST
    Either seating the delegates or having a re-vote. The main thing is that we can't go into the general election telling residents of FL and MI that their votes didn't count.

    Although turnout was high in FL, my own brother in Broward County didn't vote in January. He was under the impression that the primary was meaningless because no DNC delegates would be awarded. He would certainly vote if they had some kind of re-vote.

    it seems to me that (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:28:39 AM EST
    the DNC and sen. obama are hoist on their own petards, with respect to both FL & MI. unless the DNC are secretly republicans, masquerading as democrats, they couldn't be doing mccain's job for him any better.

    "hey, i have a great idea, let's not allow the florida primary to count, that'll really get them behind our candidate in the GE!" "brilliant!"

    "while we're at it, lets keep MI out too, they'll be revved up for the GE then!" "brilliant!"

    spare me the "but they violated the scheduling rules!" mantra, so did SC. yet, i don't see SC being threatened with not having their delegates seated. go figure!

    sit them all, or do a re-vote, it's the only way to be sure. the longer nero fiddles, the more of rome gets burned.

    Haven't seen it yet (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    But for all the commenters who are saying 'there are so many voters who didn't go in because they were told their votes wouldn't count', they have to come to the logical conclusion that a proportional amount of HILLARY voters stayed home too. It's statistically sound. The proportion of votes should remain the same.

    Can you prove that more Obama voters stayed home than Hillary voters?

    I was just about to make the same point (none / 0) (#140)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:26:46 AM EST
    Current polls have Clinton ahead by 16 percentage points. She won in January by 17. In contrast to the sharp differences between the primary vote and the caucus vote in both Texas and Washington, the January Florida vote tracks current Florida voting sentiment very accurately.

    Tree, looks like we woke up another flat-earther (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST
    Just because you don't agree with the idea doesn't make it not so. Sorry, you can't create your own reality if you wish hard enough. If you could, why aren't you king of the universe by now?

    The burden of proof is on Obama: He must prove that more Obama voters were disenfranchised than Hillary. If he wants to invalidate a primary, he needs to prove that it adversely affected his campaign in a way that wasn't also felt by the other campaigns. He can't.

    See Tree's reply above. Current polls show Hillary winning FL by the SAME amount as during the primary. Ergo, Obama is at the same level he was during the primary. So all those disenfranchised voters who stayed home appear to have been proportional to those who went in to vote.

    What was your point again?


    Yes, totally (none / 0) (#142)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    I think this is a valid point that needs to be made again and again. Just like with creationists, you can't use logic or science when it comes to the Obama supporters.

    Sure you can (none / 0) (#144)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    but self-serving assertions with no underlying evidence are neither science nor logic.

    Speaking of self-serving assertions (none / 0) (#151)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:10:18 AM EST
    You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that the Florida primary results didn't represent the will of Florida Democrats. You've got no evidence that the percentage of Obama supporters that didn't vote is any greater than the number of Clinton supporters that didn't, thus you have no proof that the January result didn't represent the popular will in that state.

    One of the reasons I come to this site (none / 0) (#159)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    is because it's one of the few places a Clinton supporter can voice our preferences without enduring a hundred posts of ridicule and name calling. But at the same time, I appreciate the fact the posters like JJE, Halstoon, JoeA and others come here to make the case for Obama, knowing that the majority of responses will disagree with them.

    It's not my place to police this site, but I would hope we could avoid comments like "Obama supporters are like creationists," and "You can't use logic when it comes to Obama supporters." I don't agree with most of the pro-Obama comments, but I wouldn't say they're devoid of logic. Besides, there's a very good chance that come September I'll be an Obama supporter, as well.


    the authors of this site will support Obama (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:13:06 PM EST
    if nominated.

    Name calling isn't allowed here. Over the top comments should be reported by email and I will delete them.


    It's not statistically sound at all (none / 0) (#143)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    It's just a wild guess.  Can you prove it?  I like to err on the side of democracy, myself.

    yeah, I've argued the point many times (4.50 / 2) (#65)
    by tandem5 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:54:05 AM EST
    that there is such outrage over a small body of officials (the super delegates) having the power to overrule, in a sense, the pledged delegates in selecting the nominee, but little or no concern over the few party officials and state leaders (compared to that of the millions of voters) that did overrule the electorate of Florida and Michigan.

    This is all pointless (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:53:34 AM EST
    The delegates will not be seated as is. You know why? Because the DNC and the Obama campaign won't allow it. It is not fair to Obama so he will veto. It is not fair to Obama so DNC will veto. It is not fair to Obama so every Obama supporting elected official in MI and FL will veto. This is a non-starter. It will never work. Why waste time on it? IT WON'T HAPPEN!!! We wouldn't be in this mess if Clinton and her supporters had promoting a viable solution early on instead of this fantasy.

    This thread about the revote plan... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:01:13 AM EST
    what do you think of that?

    Revote (none / 0) (#82)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:07:19 AM EST
    If we had been talking about revotes early on instead of indulging in fantaties that benefit our candidates maybe there would have been enough time to organize revotes. Now it's iffy, and there are so many recriminations and Obama is in a position of extreme strength and won't do Hillary any favors, nor should he. If the situation were reversed I imagine Hillary instead of calling for revotes would be calling for Obama to drop out for the good of the party.

    Why don't you just state your opinion ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:33:23 AM EST
    not what if, maybe, someone else might have done, if something different had happened?

    There is a good chance of losing FL in the GE if we don't find a way to respect the voters of that state.

    This isn't about one candidate.  It's about the party's chances in November as well.


    Hillary is not focused on the GE (none / 0) (#92)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:42:06 AM EST
    too much is she? She is not campaigning like a GE candidate. She is trying to win the nomination. Period. Obama is the same way, though I think to a lesser extent because of his temperament and because he is now the likely nominee. Either side if they had their druthers, will take the nomination and worry about MI and FL when they cross those bridges.

    My opinion is that whoever is the nominee should seat the delegates. Seat them as long as they don't affect the outcome. Rules are Rules. We can't change in midstream. Some people say you should punish them further by cutting the delegations in half. I don't agree. They've been punished enough.


    Okay, so lose FL (none / 0) (#93)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:55:46 AM EST
    Nice plan.

    I don't think it'll make a difference (none / 0) (#94)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:10:52 AM EST
    if he loses Fl it won't be because of this nonsense.

    That was one of her two big missteps (none / 0) (#105)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:39:18 AM EST
    Spending 6 weeks trying to get FL and MI seated as is instead of working on a revote and not contesting the February states are why she's in this mess.

    As for just counting the vote as it, this post talks a lot about the Florida voters, but what about the Obama voters.  How do you think people will feel if he loses the nomination due to a vote that everyone was told didn't count ahead of time?  That wouldn't exactly make them happy with the process, and there are a lot more Obama voters than Floridians.


    What wasn't fair (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:16:49 AM EST
    Name one advantage Clinton had on Jan. 29 that Obama didn't have?

    More people in Florida supported her? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:22:24 AM EST

    you read my mind! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:34:56 AM EST
    was going to post exactly that!

    You're missing the point (none / 0) (#88)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:29:04 AM EST
    Forget about her universal name recognition because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that all the participants and the electorate were told that none of it would count. Therefore it won't count. No credible institution would set rules like that and have everyone play by those rules and then reverse itself. I don't know why this has been so difficult for some people to grasp.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:04:08 AM EST
    The operative words are "no credible institution!"

    The politics of hope should go down the drain with Howard Dean's demonstration of leadership, pushed into being by the netroots/Deaniacs as "leadership you can believe in!"

    Thank gawd he didn't become president...who knows where such judgment and stubborness would have led?

    "Buffalo Bill's defunct..."


    Obama told them it would count (none / 0) (#98)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:04:25 AM EST
    I know it is just words. And we have seen by his campaign that his words are just "best case scenarios". But Obama went down to Fl and gave a press conference that ensured them that he would work to seat their delegates. But since the election went against him that just went into the history bin as another best case scenario.

    Can you source that? (none / 0) (#114)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:15:41 AM EST
    When exactly did he go down there? And what exactly did he say?

    September 2007 (none / 0) (#138)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    In an unscheduled press conference after an Obama fundraiser in Tampa.

    Obama Vows To "Do What's Right"


    Bravo, tree! (none / 0) (#155)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    But  of course  Obama   told  the  FLorida  voters  he would  support  their  reinstatement.  

    And then  when  he lost,   he  reneged.  

    It  is no  wonder  they  now  resent  his   flip-flopping.    

    Did  Kerry  teach him   that?  :)


    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#166)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:33:36 PM EST
    You know, context is important. The lead of the story is the only place where it mentioned delegates, and here's what it said:

    Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

    The key here is to note that his hint was that if he were the presumptive nominee; he is not the presumptive nominee. He is the leading candidate for the nomination; that is far different.

    The situation Obama mentioned--and the one you pretend he's violating--is the one McCain is in. Now that McCain has 1191+, he can seat the whole delegations from FL & MI, not just half. IF Obama or Clinton had done the same, the same would have happened in Denver.

    I hope that helps!


    Name recognition. (none / 0) (#112)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:13:34 AM EST
    There is no denying that she held a substantial margin in that category.

    After Iowa (none / 0) (#158)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    I doubt it.

    You would be wrong. (none / 0) (#167)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    Winning Iowa doesn't give you the same recognition as being First Lady for 8 years and then a senator for 7. Clinton is world famous. A lot of people don't pay attention to politics until it's on their home turf.

    She will likely win a re-vote. I'll not argue that. But I really don't think she'll keep her same margin of victory.


    It is not a question of fairness (none / 0) (#99)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:06:53 AM EST
    Benefit Obama does not equal "fair". I would agree with your comment if you replace "fair" with "benefit Obama". They are not the same thing.

    That isn't going to happen Jeralyn (none / 0) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:12:55 AM EST
    and I am sure you know it.

    The only way it could happen is if the credentials committee approves it, which they won't since it's members are proportional to delegate counts, or a floor vote at the convention.

    There is no chance that Obama will allow those delegates to be seated, and he shouldn't.  

    What does everyone think of the fact that Party registration is open until April 30th under this plan?

    if there is no chance that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:26:19 AM EST
    will allow those delegates to be seated, he will suffer the consequences of being identified as the one who suppressed the votes.

    How then could he be for counting all the votes in November?

    How could anyone believe that he is a transcendent politician?

    Write off FL and MI...nice way to enter the general election cycle.


    Obama will lose the GE too (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sara seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32:34 AM EST
    if he follows though with shutting out the Florida voters.

    Do remember this mess is between the DNC and the Florida /democratic party --

    the Florida voters did not cause this mess -- and the Florida voters will make Obama feel their pain if he does not see their point -- and soon.


    I hear an echo in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sara seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:27 AM EST
    There is no chance that Obama will allow those delegates to be seated, and he shouldn't.

    Bush would be so proud


    FL is accustomed... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32:54 AM EST
    to not having their votes counted but I was under the impression that required SCOTUS to weigh in...evidently not so.

    This is the Obama expedited way (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sara seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:37:30 AM EST
    to disenfranchise voters in Florida

    I cannot imagine how someone this smart as Obama cannot see what he is doing to the Florida voters

    There are huge flashing DANGER signs all over this mess - and yet he is barreling through


    could it be (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:45:10 AM EST
    that he is so focused on beating HRC that he fails to see that he has effectively written off 2 substantial states (EC wise)?

    win the battle, lose the war philosophy.


    Why is nobody stating the obvious? (none / 0) (#59)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:38:02 AM EST
    The obvious solution is that Hillary should concede. She's too far behind in delegates to ever catch up in the remaining primaries, and her continuing on only hurts the party.

    If Obama can't win FL and MI (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by badger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:05:52 AM EST
    maybe he should concede. Or at least allow those votes to be counted.

    why should she concede to a dem (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:43:36 AM EST
    who will likely lose in the ge? why should she concede when the odds are she is going to get more votes that he did? it seems to me obama should wait until pennsylvania and, if he loses substantially, then concede. she can put him on as vp and then, with his redstate popularity, we will finally win utah in the ge. with hillary at the top of the ticket we will at least win michigan and pennsylvania, have a good chance in ohio, and be competitive in florida.

    obama cant get any of those states. he likley wont get michgican either.

    and, as most here know, he aint going to win utah either.


    Um...wrong (none / 0) (#62)
    by otherlisa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:50:53 AM EST
    If FL & MI are seated and she wins PA by the sort of margin she won Ohio, it will be up to the super-delegates to determine the nominee. Obama is still the more likely nominee, but Clinton has a decent shot.

    It will be up to the superdelegates (none / 0) (#119)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:22:16 AM EST
    no matter what. Despite the media spin, Obama needs the supers just as much as Hillary.

    Re voter registration (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:36:05 AM EST
    I think that there is no fair point at which to cut off the registration. Obviously, once the Repubs voted and their votes were counted any later date for registration allows them to get a second vote, this time in the Dem primary. But if you didn't have some registration open, then some could say that they switched their party registration from Dem or didn't make it Dem for the Jan 20th primary, because they thought their vote wouldn't count due to the DNC ruling.

    I can't see how any date would be absolutely fair. Its the problem with revotes and why I oppose them - every decision can be legitimately questioned. But if a revote is the only option of any vote counting, I guess you have to work on a sliding scale of fairness.


    I agree .. They should stipulate (none / 0) (#100)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:09:09 AM EST
    that the re-vote is to be open only to those who did not vote in the Republican Primary.

    Jeralyn is right... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:04:54 AM EST
    in that the current vote has to be kept on the bargaining table. That vote was legitimate by my reading of the DNC rules, because it has language that takes into account the control of Democrats to set the date. Here is the party line...

    If Floridians get to caught up in a revote, and then that gets shot down, the legitimation of their first vote might also come into question. So, they must argue for the revote on the grounds that the first vote was legitimate, but undermined by the political calculations of a renegade credential committee and an unforeseeably close race that complicates the seating of their delegates. The Florida Democrat party is the victim of the Republican party and the DNC that colluded to disenfranchise Florida voters. It was not their own doing.


    The list of Registered Democrats (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:54:00 AM EST
    The memo does not state how the Florida Democratic Party will get a copy of the list of Registered Democrats....

    CNN did a blurb on Anderson Cooper 360 that said it is illegal for the State of Florida to release the list.....Any vote without the list would be be subject to fraud.....


    It also said a mail-in ballot was illegal (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:43 AM EST
    under Florida statutes, that you can't have a mail-in with candidates that already are on the ballot, like Hillary and Obama. They interviewed the state supervisor of elections or someone like that.

    It is a (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:57:42 AM EST
    giant mess....

    I think (none / 0) (#60)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:41:47 AM EST
    It is possible that the msm didn't actually do research.

    I'd bet the FDP has access to the voter rolls. Doesn't seem like they are that secret. Why here's a list of people/addresses of new registered voters (Dec 2007)in my Florida county from the county election website. Not that secret.

    I also found a site that will sell anyone a list of registered Florida voters.


    It's not the list of voters they need, (none / 0) (#109)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:06:39 AM EST
    it's their signatures. Can't verify the ballots w/o access to the signature list.

    We need a revote (none / 0) (#3)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:05 AM EST
    If by some miracle Clinton pulls of the election, and we haven't revoted Florida, then her selection will be tainted. If Obama wins, then Floridians will resent him for rejecting them in the primary. We don't need for fairness - we need it for the appearance of fainess.

    i don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:09 AM EST
    All candidates were on the ballot in FL.  All candidates save Obama obliged no-campaigning agreement.  A record number of voters turned out despite not knowing if their vote would count.  Hillary won hands down.  In MI your point has merit.  In FL the playing field was already as fair as it could get...voters had access to plenty of info on the candidates to make an informed decision.  They chose Clinton.  The fair thing to do would be to seat the delegates in FL according to H's win.  In MI, since Obama was "sensitive" to the feelings of Iowa and NH about MI leapfrogging them he refused to put his name on the ballot.  Hillary didn't break a rule.  Obama voters could have still written in Obbama so far as I know.  IMO, MI should be seated as is as well as it was Obama's intention to gain votes in IA and NH by withholding his name in MI.  His gambit backfired so he should pay a price for it.  Not to mention if Edwards is on the ballot in MI and FL and campaigns hard in those states would that have changed his fortune?  As is is the only fair thing.  The realistic thing is to seat FL as is and hold a revote in MI.

    I tend to agree with you (none / 0) (#6)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:42 AM EST
    First, another campaign in Florida will cause both candidates to spend millions of dollars that should be reserved for the general election.

    Second, I don't think a re-vote is going to make any substantial difference in the numbers of delegates awarded to each candidate.

    Third, the idea that some landslide popular vote victory for Senator Clinton, used to aid the argument that superdelegates should throw there support toward her, is not compelling in terms of fairness at all.

    On the other hand, if the DNC relents and seats the delegates, it has set the precedent for future states to be mavericks. I can understand why they want to draw a hard line.

    your proposal flies in the face (none / 0) (#25)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32:07 AM EST
    of the dnc rule book.  at the very least, you would have to penalize the state by seating only half their delegates as the refuglicans did.

    i doubt the obama camp is going to agree with either approach on account of the popular vote totals.

    perhaps they would consider one or the other if michigan staged a caucus.  both sides are going to have to give to get.  however, i do not see either budging an inch at the moment.

    it might help you case to include your proposal for michigan.

    much luck.

    Caucuses are bad (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by splashy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:27:25 AM EST
    They don't allow those that don't work 9 to 5 jobs, the elderly, and the disabled the ability to vote.

    A regular primary, or mail-in vote, is much  better.

    They should do away with caucuses, and have primaries that last a week so people can pick a day that works for them.

    That's how it's done in Arkansas, and it's great! No intimidation, a nice weather day can be picked if you are off that day, and no lines.


    Florida Record Breaking Vote (none / 0) (#30)
    by Coral Gables on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:35:34 AM EST
    I have done a little research on Oregon turnout in "Vote By Mail". The record turnout by Florida in January could very well get smashed by a new "Vote By Mail" primary June 3. Based on the larger turnout in Oregon compared to Florida in the past, it is conceivable that the Florida record primary turnout of 1.7 Dems in January could be topped by as many as 500,000 additional voters.

    I also think this is the exact reason that Obama is scared of a revote. If the other candidates are ignored in the January beauty contest, Clinton won 60% to 40%. If Obama makes no inroads, and thus far his milquetoast stance on revotes has won him no glorious press in Florida, he could lose a revote by as many 440,000 votes using the same percentages.

    That margin of defeat shouldn't happen but if he continues to fight a revote, and it still goes forward, he will get smashed in a revote and also lose Florida in the GE should he be the nominee. He has received terrible advice on this issue.

    In other threads from the past two days... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:46:21 AM EST
    posters noted that the Obama campaign already had people on the ground in Florida for some reason. Maybe, they have been planning for all contingencies and began the process of registering independent Florida voters in their database (Kerry/Moveon) to beat the April 30th deadline. So, it might be closer, but that would have to be one heck of an operation.

    I posted the link to his florida website (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:49:57 AM EST
    showing meetups scheduled all over the state in the next month. Here it is.

    of course obama is hitting the beaches (none / 0) (#47)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:57:38 AM EST
    in florida.  his campaign is preparing for the general election and a possible do over in florida.  he kept his pledge to stay out before the primary.

    why is it strange for any candidate to be in florida now?

    if i am clinton or obama, i would be all over the state.


    I don't think it is strange... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:05:36 AM EST
    Just saying that, with his 50/50 plan is shot down by the DNC, there were signs he was preparing for all contingencies. I disagree with the Obama campaign's statements and strategies often, but I do not think he and his staff are nefarious. It is an election, the narrative and the election must both be won because, in the end, the superdelegates will decide the winner.

    Preparing for the GE in Florida in March with the nomination this close and complicated? Not that, I do not buy.


    If you are still around... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:16:57 AM EST
    Did you compare that map in your link to the maps at the top?

    Obama's supporters (if not the campaign) look to be planning an effort in the counties that he lost. It is probably a matter of population also, but that is a pretty interesting difference between his best counties in the first primary and his campaign's most active locations in the upcoming month--particularly the Tampa to Orlando corridor (swing counties I believe) more so than Miami. That is not looking too random to me...

    Also, though it is hard to get some of the pop-ups, there does not seem to be any activity planned until late, late March (31st?) or mid-April... by which time they will know if spending the money will be worth the effort.


    please stay on topic (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:53:48 AM EST
    It's the Florida revote plan. Thanks.

    New Open Thread? (none / 0) (#50)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:59:03 AM EST
    Not tonight (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:36 AM EST
    Sorry. We had three today which is the most ever. Maybe tomorrow. No promises, we don't do them every day.

    please don't name-call (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:57:13 AM EST
    You can refer to them as Obama supporters. It will give your comment more credence and stay inside our site rules. Thanks.

    What about MI? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alec82 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:49:07 AM EST
       Not to be indifferent to FL, but why is MI being overlooked in this discussion?

       After all, MI is largely to blame for this primary mess, but not its voters.  Speaking as someone who has roots and family in Michigan, I find it rather disturbing that partisans on both sides of this debate are so willing to write MI off.  Senator Clinton cannot claim any kind of legitimate win in MI; she ran against no one and, having talked to friends and family in my own home state, plenty of people crossed over to vote in the GOP primary to influence the choice because they did not have a voice in the Democratic primary and they knew it. Nor can Senator Obama claim any kind of victory; his name was not on the ballot.  He doesn't want delegates seated because (I assume) he worries he cannot win the state.  Tough luck.

         The idiocy that partisans are displaying in this election defies belief.  Florida is important, yes, but it has yet to vote Democratic in the last eight years.  Yet partisans on this board ignore Michigan, a state that barely votes Democratic and is dependent on African American turnout.  One of the reasons I supported Senator Clinton early on was because I thought Dean's decison to disenfranchise MI was misguided.  At the time, of course, I assumed that she would win most states in a landslide.  That is not clear today.  

        I invite a contested race between Senators Clinton and Obama in Michigan, be it by mail or an open primary.  The very fact that no one is calling for it suggests that "old reliable" Democratic states are being sacrificed by both campaigns.  To call for seating FL delagates without seating a (fair) MI delegation is not only unwise, it is hypocritical and to be condemned.  I have no doubt that most who are watching this campaign will know why.

    I write about them separately (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:53 AM EST
    because there are factual differences. In Florida, they all were on the ballot. I also oppose a revote in MI, but for different reasons.

    As soon as Michigan plans are announced, I'll be writing about it again. And how absurd the 50/50 split proposal is. But, for now, if we can stay on topic of Florida, we can get more readers heard, since we close comments at 200. Thanks.


    Flroida is one (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jgarza on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:51:19 AM EST
    of the few states where more republicans voted than Dems.  SO two conclusions, either its really red and their is no hope, or lots of dems didn't show up because they thought their vote didn't count.

    SO i guess the people that didn't show up because they were told their vote wouldn't count don't matter?

    Because it's not true (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:01:25 AM EST
    And if you continue to post misinformation here, you will be suspended. I shouldn't have to look up links to prove it.

    # of Dems who voted in the Florida primary in 2004: 758,000

    # of Dems voting in Florida 2008 primary: 1.7 million

    One million more Dems voted this year than in 2004. They sure stayed home.

    Last warning.


    FL DEM (none / 0) (#76)
    by joeysky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:44:48 AM EST
    They will stay home.  Those old birds are stubborn.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#107)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:47:47 AM EST
    Yes, the was a greater turnout, but that's not his point.

    In both MI and FL, more Republicas did vote for a Presidential candidate than Democrats.

    Florida:  1,924,346 (R); 1,734,456 (D)

    - also note that in FL the total voter turn-out  was 4,268,602 but only 3,658,802 voted for a Presidential candidate; which means  609,800 voters went to the polls and did not select a Presidential candidate.  

    Same with Michigan, more Republicans voted than Democrats: 868,002 (R);  592,261 (D)

    Voter Turnout link is accurate:


    That isn't misinformation (none / 0) (#130)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    It's a completely reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.  You're citing 2004, which is completely irrelevant.  The proper metric is to compare turnout in FL to turnout in other primaries in this historically high-turnout primary season.  When we do that we see that FL turnout was indeed depressed.

    New Hampshire:
    Democrats: 284104
    Republicans: 233381
    Reps as % of Dems: 82%

    South Carolina:
    Democrats: 529771
    Republicans: 442918
    Reps as % of Dems: 84%

    Democrats: 1684390
    Republicans: 1920350
    Reps as % of Dems: 114%


    A Washington Post article.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:32:12 AM EST
    with reaction to the plan submitted last night.

    I really do not understand the objections. Every method enfranchises voters and disenfranchises others, so who in the Fla. house caucus can claim that the primary method in the first vote will be more democratic than the mail-in vote in the second round?

    There are some pretty hokey ideas about the will of the voters in this country and the nature of space-time continuum in the universe...

    I'm with Jeralyn on this issue (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:36:49 AM EST
    This may seem like a dumb question, but when was Florida scheduled to vote if they hadn't changed their date to Jan. 29?

    Super Tuesday, I believe (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:38:52 AM EST
    or at least that was the cut-off imposed by the DNC.  February 5 or later.

    I see (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:44:42 AM EST
    Then Florida was not intended to be a state that would be isolated on one day at the end of the campaign.

    And it would be hysterical to conclude that a Feb. 5th primary vote in FL would have been radically different than a Jan. 29th primary vote.

    The result that exists right now is the result that best fits the intent of the schedule.


    It should also be noted ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:57:21 AM EST
    that it was because of the fact that FL and MI moved their votes up that IA, NH, NV and SC were held so early.

    So even the supposed damage of MI and FL changing the dates was circumvented by other changes in the schedule.


    The Jan 29th date (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:06:08 AM EST
    Betrayed no intent of the rules, then.

    That's established.


    I think you could say that ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:21:11 AM EST
    it violated the letter of the rule, but not the intent, since IA, NH, NV and SC were all held prior to FL.

    And has been stated ad nauseam, the stripping of all the delegates wasn't the only remedy even if the DNC chose to punish them.  The rules allowed for a 50% penalty.  This is what the Republicans did.

    The DNC also could have imposed no penalty.


    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:26:15 AM EST
    ..but how many FL Dem voters understand the finer details?

    Some voted in good faith, thinking it was a minor redtape screw-up at the Party level, and would all be resolved. Others didn't vote thinking it didn't matter, but a majority never vote in primaries anyway.  Nowhere near a GE turnout.

    FL was only a few days ahead of Super-Tuesday, and the punishment was way over-the-top. It was unfair to begin with.

    The GOP cut only half their dels as punishment,so the states got their punishment immediately, and then they all moved-on.  

    Why should Dems get double punished, then ignored for weeks, then have to do a rush-job?

    FL should never have reached this level of drama, and although I was willing to give in to the compromise re-vote by mail-in, just to resolve the whole thing, so it could move-on, I've changed my mind back again.

    Its blackmail, and its bullying, and its a waste of money and resources. Why should they give in?

    The DNC has ignored the state for weeks, hoping it would not be an issue by now. Now there's desperation to "resolve" the mess in one heck of a hurry. Obama is happy for a revote, but only on his terms when he is ready after he has pulled his charm machine into operation so even if Clinton wins again, she wont win by as much. And everyone will think its "fair"?

    Some will never buy it or be convinced, and it only takes a few % in FL to sit it out, for it to go red.  

    It was "unfair" on FL to begin with, and this is still 'unfair' on FL - and, two wrongs don't make a right.

    I now wish FL would just sit it out, +shrug - missed the boat, thats the way the cookie crumbles, see you all in 2012.  


    I tend to prefer the revote idea, (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:53:24 AM EST
    because if we go with the count, and the credentials committee overturns it, there's no turning back.

    It's then too late to hold revotes, and we likely lose both states in the general election.

    I think for the party revotes are a better idea.

    But I still don't agree with what the DNC did to MI and FL.  And I understand Jeralyn's passion for having the original votes count.

    a revote is the only democratic way to handle this (none / 0) (#85)
    by dc2008 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:21:37 AM EST
    There are huge and important facts missing from this analysis that fundamentally skew it to a pro-Clinton position.

    First, it has been a defining aspect of the these primaries that Obama does better as people get to know him better. That may simply be because name recognition and familiarity means a lot in electoral politics, and Clinton came in with more at the outset. That process did not happen in Florida leading up to their primary, to nearly the same degree as it happened in other states, because there was not a real campaign.

    CNN reported that they had been "flooded" with emails from people who said they didn't show up to vote because they understood that the vote wasn't going to count.

    For both these reasons, I don't see how the Florida vote in the way it transpired can be seen as a legitimate process reflective of the views of the electorate. That isn't the fault of Florida's voters, but it's the truth.

    By contrast, a re-vote will actually be fair to both candidates. There will be a campaign, to whatever extent the campaigns have time and money to mobilize, there is more familiarity with both the candidates now then there was before, and people will understand that their votes will be counted and that it's important.

    Florida did not have a real primary, plain and simple. Why the opposition to a re-vote? By the way, the Clinton campaign opposed a re-vote until about a week ago, presumably because they don't believe that Hillary will net the same margin over Obama that she did before, if there is a real campaign.

    Let's not be biased toward Clinton and undemocratic by opposing a re-vote, or biased toward Obama and undemocratic by not counting Florida at all, let's be fair and do it right by having a re-vote.

    Both sides (none / 0) (#90)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:34:24 AM EST
    will haggle over revotes trying to gain the advantage. I don't believe it will ever happen. For example, the Obama campaign rightly points out that a revote in in MI in June will disadvantage them because the college kids will be out. This will rob them of both voters and ground troops.

    That is so bogus (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:00:09 AM EST
    College kids can vote. In their home towns or by absentee. And if it is a mail vote they can vote from anywhere.

    And the party is not responsible for ensuring the Obama camp has ground troops. Jeez!!


    This converts the closed primary to an open one (none / 0) (#96)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:55:09 AM EST
    I just scanned it so I might have missed it but it seems you can register as a Democrat up to a week before mailing of ballots. So Republicans that voted in their primary can switch and vote in this one. Obama's Dem-for-a-day campaign will go into full throttle.

    Along those lines, another potential big flaw. Military ballots will be sent out before the registration window closes. There will be complaints that military voters are being disenfranchised because they have to make up their mind to register before the general population.

    I think they should make the registration cut-off much earlier. Here in NY the registration deadline for party switchers was about four months before the primary. The DNC was fine with that.

    Alcee Hastings doesn't support Obama, (none / 0) (#118)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:51 AM EST
    so it's still not just Obama supporters opposing a re-vote. And Al Sharpton has made it clear he'll sue to keep the original results from counting due to Voting Rights Act violations. You simply cannot tell people an election does not count and then later decide that election will count. It's classic disenfranchisement.

    Considering the revelations about mail-in votes and selling signature lists, it would appear the Democrats are at the mercy of Charlie Crist. My guess is he signs an override rather than risk major unrest in his state.

    Of course, if he refuses, that gives the DNC cover, and then the rules committee will decide the seating of delegates from FL.

    rules are rules (none / 0) (#120)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:23:54 AM EST
    lol, unless the rules do not favor Obama.
    I really have come to despise this man.  I have to change the channel or mute the TV every time he comes on.

    Florida re-vote (none / 0) (#121)
    by dwoodsfl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:27:02 AM EST
    My son goes to Univ. of Miami, and many students did not vote because they knew it did not count, and they did not follow the other items on the ballot. I personally would have voted for Obama, but decided not to vote since it did not count. The elderly voters showed up at the polls, but many like my son and I skipped the vote. This gave HRC a big edge over Obama. Also, HRC was a much more known figure in FL and Obama would have picked up much more support if he had campaigned here. The FL results are not valid, they favor HRC for the reasons listed. A revote will not happen, there is not enough time to organize it. Obama will be the presidential candidate.

    Edwards (none / 0) (#127)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    Edwards was still in it at the time of this vote.  Most of his support came in those northern "deep South" counties and Hillary will be exptected to pull the lion's share of his support.

    potential for incalculable damage, the other way (none / 0) (#132)
    by dc2008 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:45:24 AM EST
    Thinking about this some more, I believe that counting the votes in the way they were done -- a flawed process in which the rules changed midstream and many people thought their votes wouldn't count -- would risk doing incalculable damage to the Democratic Party, but the other way.

    Because Florida and Michigan were not legitimately structured votes, should they happen to tilt the election one way or the other, the side that lost as a result would feel that the election was stolen. The party would be shattered, and we would lose in November.

    If the apparent proportions of how votes split in the two states were to change in a re-vote compared with how they came out before, that could cause some bad feeling, but nothing compared to what would happen if the original vote totals were used and they changed the outcome.

    Re-votes will consume time and money, and they will delay the final selection of a candidate, all of this unfortunate. But there will a resolution that most people will acknowledge is the least of the various evils available.

    Splitting the delegates from the states doesn't seem like a great idea, but on the bright side I doubt that it will have the very negative effect that has been predicted regarding not counting the votes at all. I believe that it will be widely seen as a gesture to the two states, reflecting regret that things turned out the way that the did. Still, I think there should be re-votes.

    This may turn out to be a smaller issue than it seems, as it is quite unlikely at this point that Clinton can win either the pledged delegate count or the popular vote, even if Florida and Michigan are both counted as their numbers are now. Unless the super-delegates are willing to tilt things away from the first place candidate, Michigan and Florida are likely to be matters of principle only, important but not ultimately changing the outcome.

    Not sure what 'legitimately structured votes' (none / 0) (#136)
    by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM EST
    means, but I doubt many caucuses would meet that ambiguous standard either.  The FL vote was fine.  This discussion of exclusion is so lame, especially when compared to caucus states.  And you're other point, 50-50 ain't so bad, is lame too.  It's a slap in the face to the will of the voters, far from a nice gesture. Suggesting Clinton wouldn't win anyway is no justification for doing something unfair.

    By the way, apparently the Voting Rights Act... (none / 0) (#135)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    ...DOES apply or at least the drafters of this plan seem to think it does. Under the "Overview" section appears the comment, "The plan can be submitted to the Justice Department for approval under Section 5." So yes, this plan is intended to be submitted in April for Section 5 approval. How can it go forward without receiving it?   I don't see any way that doesn't take at least two months.

    I would argue that there is a huge difference (none / 0) (#145)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    between televised debates and active campaigning in a state.

    Most people don't watch debates; a lot of people don't pay attention to the news period.

    It takes a lot of hard work to get your name into their awareness - much more than just being in the national media for 6 months.

    Clinton had the name recognition factor in her favor so when faced with a choice, more people will select the name the know.

    I don't find the argument compelling.

    Please... (none / 0) (#161)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    We Floridians have television, radio and we do indeed read.

    If Florida's primary had been held on Feb 5, as originally intended, there would only have been limited campaigning because of the nature of super Tuesday. Candidates have to pick and choose where to campaign.


    Mail In Could Require Change in Florida Law (none / 0) (#149)
    by gabbyone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    I heard on CNN that it is against Florida state
    law to have a mail in vote which means the legislature would have to vote to make this legal.
    This would be the same legislature where
    Republicans voted for an earlier primary which
    caused all the problems to start with.  

    No way - re-do or no-do (none / 0) (#160)
    by ORLeadership on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:38 PM EST
     You can't really think that's a fair way to railroad someone who followed teh rules and wasn't on the ballot. Can't wait until there's a redo so we can shut the stat-whore mouth's.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#163)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    This is another personal attack. Please delete.

    election (none / 0) (#164)
    by Warren Richart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    Long before these states voted, everyone knew that the votes were not counting, and the candidates signed a pledge to that effect.  If the concern is allowing delegates for the states involved at the convention, 50 50 split of the delegates would allow delegates to be seated at Denver and delegates can change at anytime.  Save alot of money.  Get along with the campaign.

    Warren Richart from the caucus state of Iowa  

    "Let's not hand the election to McCain" (none / 0) (#165)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    So why doesn't HILLARY drop out already?

    Repug FL Legislature is at fault (none / 0) (#168)
    by CLD on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:56:49 AM EST
    So let's stop punishing FL Dem voters already, OK?

    We voted because we expected our votes to count. That's what you do when an election is held.

    Hillary has no need to drop out. For an excellent explanation of why, go here.

    The candidates only signed a pledge not to CAMPAIGN in our states; not that our votes wouldn't count. Not that they'd remove their names from the ballot. And certainly not that they wouldn't fight to ensure our votes were counted and our delegates seated.

    Honestly, why would any Dem want any fellow Dem's vote to not count? Why would any candidate want any American's vote to not count? Unless they're arrogant, think we're a bunch of "Archie Bunkers" and feel they don't need us.

    The voters should not be punished for the shenanigans of a group of idiot politicians.