home

Revote Recap: MI Dems Fighting For Their Voters, FL Dems Intent On Handing FL to The GOP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:14:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

What is the status of the revote processes in Florida and Michigan? In Florida, because of recalcitrant and foolish Democrats in that state, coupled with a lack of fight from the Clinton campaign, the FL revote plan is near dead on arrival:

The Democratic Party's unprecedented plan to conduct a do-over presidential primary by mail sustained several potentially fatal blows Thursday, leaving state party leaders with few remaining options. The entire Democratic House delegation opposed the plan, Barack Obama and representatives of Hillary Clinton expressed concerns, and state officials said Florida law would prohibit them from authenticating voters' signatures.

(Emphasis supplied.) The "can't do" spirit did not infect all Dems. Some looked for solutions to the problems raised:

The key concern that arose Thursday involved the verification of voter signatures. [Dem Minority Leader Steve] Geller arrived at Gov. Charlie Crist's office at noon with a stack of statutes he said already authorize state or county election officials to verify those signatures. And Mark Bubriski, a spokesman for Thurman, said Crist can order the secretary of state to make a state database of signatures available to the Democrats or their representatives.

Crist said he would do it. But if you do NOT want a revote to happen, saying NO is the easiest way. At this point, it is Florida Democrats who are intent on disenfranchising Florida. And the Clinton campaign is going along with it.

In contrast, Michigan Democrats want Michigan to count:

Key Michigan Democrats were negotiating feverishly toward breaking the impasse with the national Democratic Party over the state's 156 national convention delegates. The most promising compromise on the table was a June 3 do-over primary.

. . . Sources close to the negotiations said the talks were centering on a state-run, privately financed June primary of voters who would be willing to declare themselves Democrats.

A compromise may be announced as early as today, the sources said, but they added that details must be negotiated, including figuring out how the party declaration would work, nailing down $10 million or more in private financial backing and securing legislative and gubernatorial approval to call the election.

If you WANT to get it done, you can get it done. In Michigan, the Democrats want to get it done, to have their votes count. In Florida, the Democrats are looking for excuses to say no. IF and when Michigan has its revote, what will Florida Democrats and Democrats in general have to say to the people of Florida? I know what those voters will say to Democrats in November if it turns out like that - I am voting for McCain and the Republicans.

The actions of the Democrats in Florida, with the exception of Bill Nelson, are incredibly irresponsible and I believe they will reap in November what they are sowing now - an electoral disaster in Florida in November.

< No to Obama's Proposal of 50-50 in Michigan | FL Dems: Your Chance Tell The FL Dem Party What You Want Done About A Revote Primary >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Revote Recap: MI Dems Fighting For Their Voters, FL Dems Intent On Handing FL to The GOP | 195 comments (195 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Thanks for your efforts on this (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Jim J on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:17:54 AM EST
    It's all so disheartening, and all the more so in that Talkleft is nearly the only place to get a realistic assessment.

    We're being railroaded into President Obama just like we were railroaded into President Bush -- again with Florida at the center of the controversy. Unreal.

    I cannot believe I've spent so much time over the last decade spouting off about "progressive" causes when in the final analysis this is how it's all going to shake down. It has nothing to do with fair representation and never did have anything to do with fair representation.

    Yes, disheartening is (none / 0) (#32)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    the perfect word to describe my feelings as well.

    Parent
    I declare this nomination process to have (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:24:02 AM EST
    absolutely no legitimacy at all.  Unless the rules comittee (or whatever they are called) can get the Florida delegates seated at full value then my husband and I will be staying home in November.  This is as bad as the 2000 fiasco.

    Way to have a maximalist position. (none / 0) (#7)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    And people wonder how Democrat's manage to consistently lose elections despite the American people actually agreeing with them on the issues.

    Parent
    You may call my position whatever you like (none / 0) (#15)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    but I'm with Jeralyn on this.  We will not vote for a candidate who has been declared the winner by essentially stealing the election.  

    Parent
    How was the election stolen? (none / 0) (#20)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    Clinton agreed to this rules ahead of time.  How is it cheating to not change them?

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    ...hiding behind the "rules" generally isn't making a good case for a fair election.

    If I recall the 2000 election was "won" by Bush under the pretense of honoring the "rule of law"

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#46)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM EST
    The 2000 election was "won" by voter mistakes and a huge miscalculation by Al Gore.  Newspapers did the recounts after the fact and it turns out that he would have lost the recount that he asked for but if he would have asked for a (fairer sounding) state wide recount, he both probably would have received it and would have ended up with more votes.

    Then again, I'm not one that thought the 2000 election was stolen.  I think it was lost due to an uninspiring campaign, the Nader voters (remember that if 1% of the Nader voters went for Gore instead , he would have had a wider lead than Bush ended up with), and a mistaken belief among the electorate that Bush would be a copy of his father, a moderate Republican that would have a mediocre one term presidency.  

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#54)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST
    The Supreme Court, who ultimately decided the outcome, invented previously-unknown principles of Equal Protection jurisdprudence to justify its decision.

    The analogy doesn't really work, however, because in this case the rules were clear and agreed to beforehand.

    Parent

    Oh I think the SC's argument was lame... (none / 0) (#67)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST
    ...don't get me wrong.  I just don't think that the election was stolen because even if Gore got the recount he was asking for, he would have lost.  

    As for this election (bringing things back around), it's not Obama supporters who are bringing up new measurements as the correct rule for deciding an election.  The most I've seen from the Obama camp is lobbying Superdelegates, which both groups are doing.

    Parent

    My only point is that... (none / 0) (#103)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    ...the "rule of law" or "play by the rules" generally becomes a rallying cry only when confronting a set of circumstances which calls into question the prudence of said rules...

    Parent
    Huh back at you... (none / 0) (#106)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:16:25 AM EST
    "...if he would have asked for a (fairer sounding) state wide recount, he both probably would have received it and would have ended up with more votes."

    In other words, the ground rules of the election were a determining factor in the outcome and not the actual result of the vote.

    Parent

    Wow. Are you a Republican? (none / 0) (#156)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Hilarious, isn't it? (none / 0) (#22)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST


    Parent
    How could she not agree? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    If she doesn't, she can't run at all. It would be an unenforceable contract if it were not the DNC.

    Parent
    Her argument would have more moral force... (none / 0) (#75)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    ...if it had been raised before the election happened and she suddenly realized that she needed the votes.  This decision was made in August 2007.  Clinton had months before the election to make her objections known.  Can anyone find a quote from 2007 where she did so?

    Parent
    Do you have a point? (none / 0) (#113)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    Why would her argument have any more or less merit 6 months ago?

    The principles today are exactly the same as they were then.

    Parent

    It would have had more merit (none / 0) (#121)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    because in 2007 she had nothing to GAIN by arguing for FL/MI to be seated. Now, she has something to gain. It is extremely simple.

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    What do you want her to say: "Well, in Oct 07, I said that FL shouldn't be seated, and even though now, seating them would help me win the nomination, because the situation on the ground has changed so much since Oct 07 when I was polling 30% ahead, I am going to stick by that Oct 07 statement."

    If this is what you want, will you please ask Obama about the statement he made two years ago saying he was not qualified and did not have enough experience to be POTUS?  Do you really want to hold him to that statement?

    They are politicians.  They do crap like this all the time.

    Parent

    It's a difference without distinction... (none / 0) (#168)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:10:39 AM EST
    ...are you really claiming that one's argument is inherently weaker because the outcome may benefit them?  They may be biased in their view, but it doesn't reflect on the validity of their argument to the electorate.

    It's just political gamesmanship to dismiss every rational argument for counting FL and claim it's invalid simply because it benefits Clinton.

    Parent

    Well, so did Obama, but that didn't (none / 0) (#146)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    stop him from running ads in Florida, when none of the other candidates did. Nor does it stop him from demanding that the Superdelegates vote for him, even though the rules say that they are independent and can vote for whom they please.  I guess Obama is really right with the rules only when they benefit him, but not when they don't.  When they don't, we get threats of lawsuits and of creating uproar among his rabid followers.

    Besides, this isn't about Obama and what he wants (WOW as they refer to it over at Riverdaughter), it's about disenfranchising 2.5 million voters. But I suppose that pales in comparison with counting  the votes  of the 3000 +/- people that voted for him in the Wyoming caucus, a state that will vote Republican in November, as will many of the states he has won.

    Parent

    And you think... (none / 0) (#87)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    That there aren't plenty of Obama supporters who will not feel the same way?

    If Clinton wins the nomination, and the margin is the seated delegates (and popular vote) from the MI and FL contests, you better believe that many will see this as a blatant end-run around the primary rules designed only to deny their candidate the nomination.

    Parent

    Meaning (none / 0) (#93)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    seating the delegates from the Jan. 29 contests. Edit is my friend.

    Parent
    yes, this is Obama's strategy unfortunately (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    A full and fair re-vote in both states is potentially damaging to them because it makes those votes legitimate. Running down the clock means that something will have to be done about the delegates at the convention, and this allows them to cry foul and de-legitimize everything.

    Parent
    Obama will probalby win a MI revote... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    ...and he will probably do better than 33% in a FL revote.  Your idea that a re-vote is damaging to him is just not true.  

    Parent
    Well, then, why is he fighting it? (none / 0) (#161)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST


    Parent
    A re-vote gives Clinton a reason to... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    ...stay in the race until June.  It is more important to get her out of the race than it is to win in MI and improve on his 33% in FL.  The delegates up for grabs in those states wont' be decisive because they are proportional and Obama has a give enough cushion to absorb any loses.

    I am sure you have heard this before but it is highly unlikely that Clinton can win a majority of the pledged delegates or the popular vote.  The only way she can win is to bloody Obama up so badly that the supers decide he can't win in November and give the nod to Clinton.  

    As a result, Obama's best move right now is to get rid of Clinton as soon as possible.  Allowing a revote in June in two big states doesn't allow that.  

    Parent

    Spoken like... (none / 0) (#178)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    ...an Obama follower.

    As though she doesn't have a reason to stay in the race today?  Even Joe Trippi thinks this one goes to the convention.b

    Parent

    Yes. He can" get rid of her" by (none / 0) (#179)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    "bloodying" her up so much that either of them will lose in the general election.  Believe me, if Hillary's supporters don't think the primary is fair, they are not going to support Obama in the general. Dream on. It's to his benefit to make sure that this is perceived as fair, which is why he says one thing and does another with regard to this issue.

    Parent
    Don't support him then (none / 0) (#181)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    If you care more about two primary states that broke the rules than you do about the GE then I don't think anything will make you happy.

    Parent
    It wasn't the people of the states who broke the (none / 0) (#187)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    rules and, yes, I do care more about them than I do about Obama.  Much more.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#188)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    Thanks - I think your analysis is correct. Still don't like it because voters should get to vote and be counted, but I hear you.

    Parent
    Possibly strategy (none / 0) (#142)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:43:03 AM EST
    Possibly not. Unless you're inside his head, it's very hard to say for sure.

    Certainly, it's unfair to accuse him of being the only one to play games with this. If Clinton felt that having FL and MI stripped of their delegates was unfair, the correct time to do something about it was before the two primaries. Coming out after she's apparently won them to argue they should count doesn't look good.

    Parent

    I actually agree (none / 0) (#132)
    by spit on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    if you're talking about the margins from January, and that's why it's so $(%)! important to have a revote. The nominee is going to be cast as illegitimate by a big chunk either way, otherwise.

    Which is why Dean and the DNC and the two candidates are so maddening IMO right now -- we need them all to get proactive and really work for a solution. Instead, they're each mostly tacitly sitting around waiting for the other parties to deal with it.

    Parent

    Maddening, but understandable (none / 0) (#149)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    The real problem is that the whole system is very convoluted, and ad hoc. The folks with the nominal authority over this (the DNC) aren't in a position to actually make things happen on the ground. The folks who can make it happen have reasons for not wanting it to (at least in Florida). The campaigns have no credibility on the issue, because both are obviously be concerned in getting the outcome most favorable to them.

    Suppose the DNC tells Florida to hold the vote, and the Florida party refuses, on the grounds that the Jan. 29 vote was perfectly fine, thank-you-very-much. It's not like the DNC can go and knock heads together. The only credible threat they have is not seating the delegates. We've all seen how well that worked.

    If both campaigns came out strongly for the same plan, it might be a different story. But again for obvious reasons, that's unlikely. If the Florida party demanded the re-vote, then the DNC and the campaigns might budge, but again this seems unlikely.

    In the mean time, the kabuki dance continues.

    Parent

    That's right. If the people of the states of (none / 0) (#160)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan are allowed to have their votes count that would be cheating in the first degree.  On the other hand, not letting them count would no doubt be "fair".  Fair to whom?  Obama, of course. He's the only person in the country who counts.

    Parent
    Which 2000 fiasco? (none / 0) (#21)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    The election in Florida,  or the Nader voters throwing the election to GW Bush?

    That worked out fantastically well as of course Nader was right and there was "no difference between Bush and Gore".


    Parent

    The votes not being counted fiasco-- (none / 0) (#39)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:45:57 AM EST
    brought about by Theresa LaPore's butterfly ballot design which resulted in the vote being even close enough to permit BushBoy to take it through the courts to his party's Supreme Court justices.

    Nader was a factor only because the butterfly ballot gave votes to Buchanan which were meant Gore.

    That fiasco--once things were close, the votes were no counted in their entirety.

    Parent

    Fast forward to 2008 (none / 0) (#43)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    ...and of course Obama is right there with 'no difference between Clinton and Bush'

    Parent
    Hmmm, there are plenty arguing the other (none / 0) (#69)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    way on here as well.

    Parent
    I'm talking of the candidate himself... (none / 0) (#108)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    ...supporters say dumb stuff routinely.

    Obama should be more careful than to say things like 'she's Bush light' or 'sided with George Bush'

    Parent

    I think this is a case of him (none / 0) (#118)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
     drawing contrasts,  and I cannot see the problem with Obama attacking Clinton from the left on foreign policy, Iraq etc.  That's politics.

    He has made it clear that he will support Hillary if she is the nominee and that he will encourage his supporters to do the same.

    Parent

    Nice foot-bullet. (none / 0) (#28)
    by tbetz on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:35:38 AM EST
    In the absence of a legitimate Florida primary held within the DNC early-primary-related rules, what makes sense to me is a more generous and gentle interpretation of those rules, instead of the harsh interpretation currently being applied.

    Apply the outcome of the Florida beauty-contest to a delegation reduced in size by 50%, as that is the minimum penalty provided for in the DNC early primary rules relating to violations thereof.

    Without a legitimate primary or caucus, there's no way that the whole delegation should be seated.

    If Florida Democrats can't get it together to have a primary within the rules, te DNC should generously use the results of their beauty contest's vote, but halve the size of the delegation.


    Parent

    Fine, then they should halve the size of the (none / 0) (#166)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM EST
    delegation in Michigan. It was Obama's idea to take his name off the ballot and he asked people to vote for uncommitted.  The uncommitted vote included votes for John Edwards, so giving him the total of the uncommitted votes would already be giving him votes he did not earn.

    Otherwise, you are subtracting votes from Hillary that she earned in Florida, when all three names were on the ballot and Obama was running ads against the rules, and adding votes to Obama that he didn't earn.

    Explain again how this is fair.

    Parent

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    you keep writing (this is the second story in less than 48hrs)
    "coupled with a lack of fight from the Clinton campaign"  this phrase make sthe reader think that
    Obama "is fighting" for a re-bvote or a solution.
    Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Why are you putting the responsability square on the Clinton camp shoulders? If you believe the delegates should somehow be seated (having in mind the Nov. GE) it is the responsability of both camps and the DNC to fix this?
    What has the Obama camp has proposed? a 50/50 split which is absurd as you agreed and highly unfair to those votores who chose Clinton by a
    majority (more than 50% in each state)

    The Clinton camp has repeatedly asked teh Obama camp to meet. There is an official letter from M. Williams to D. Plouffe where she writes:

    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.

    What has the Obama camp has actively done to help resolve this?

    This is relevant b/c this is everyones involve responsibility

    Why

    Obama clearly has written off Florida for November (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    Clinton should be leading on this.

    Parent
    she cant lead (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by neilario on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:50:40 AM EST
    she then gets nailed by the press for angling for votes  and stealing the election  yadda yadda  i think it is unfair [ and i think you are genuinely fair] to say she should be leading because it is a publicity trap for her to do this. others can argue on her behalf but she cannot. The people that should be arguing are anyone who actually cares about enfranchisement and november. and i also think if you indicate she is not doing what she should be you do need to indicate he is working against this - which he is.

    Parent
    yes. i agree. She is rightfully making the case (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    that this is disenfranchisement of the people of Florida and MI. If she goes too far (I'm still not sure what BTD thinks "leading" consists of), she will be crucified and her every word twisted into "Clinton Will Stop at Nothing to Steal the Election."  They are just waiting for her to do that.

    They were on the right track making the case that this was for counting the people's votes.   That speaks to fairness and Democracy. I'm still not sure what BTD wants her to do specifically. "Lead" is a pretty broad word.  I'd like some specifics before we all buy into the meme that she's not leading.

    Parent

    Demanding an election (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM EST
    can not possibly be construed as stealing an election.

    Insisting on the result of a controversial previous election can.

    You have it exactly backwards.

    Parent

    Well, yes, logic would tell you that, (none / 0) (#151)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    but the Obama people are already claiming she is doing this to steal the election.  This is an example of what we used to call "Bushspeak,'before the Democrats started using it-- ie, up is down and black is white.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    which argument is likely to have traction? The seating the existing delegation will be stealing it or having a new election will be stealing it?

    Sorry, you are not making sense to me.

    Parent

    Well, I think she has said that she would be fine (none / 0) (#175)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    with either solution. I'm not sure what YOUR point is, ie, that she's not "leading."  I'm just asking for more specifics on what she should do to lead?  Give an example of something more she could do or, conversely, tell us precisely what it is that she isn't doing?

    I'm not trying to be snide. I'm willing to listen, but I don't think you've made any sort of case, as you haven't given any specifics about what she's doing wrong.  

    Parent

    It Seems to Me... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    That she is.  Clinton and her surrogates have been talking abt revotes, and the importance of 2.2 million Americans having their voices heard.  I do not know how she can be any clearer.  If Obama flat out refuses to engage in this process, how is she to proceed given that Dean has already said that campaigns have the right to veto??  

    I just do not know how much more she can realy do than talk abt it every chance she gets, which she seems to be doing, and have her surrogates talk abt it every chance they get, which they seem to be doing.

    All of that being said, I am with Jeralyn anyway.  I do NOT think there should be a re-vote in FL, or in EITHER state, and DEFINITELY not give the nomination away to Obama with this foolish, insulting 50-50 concept, which is ludicrous on its face.  

    Obama screwed up in MI - he should have to live with that.  MI voted, and not for him.  FL voted, and not for him.  Why he thinks he is ENTITLED to additional delegates is beyond me.  Seat them.  The way they voted.  He should NOT be getting any do-overs.  

    I just do not get why would anyone would think he DESERVES to have a second chance at delegates???

    Parent

    A whole new group of readers (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:45:43 AM EST
    need to learn about pressure BTD style.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    My failures are legion in the realm of pressuring.

    Parent
    You believe (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    in catching flies with vinegar.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    In politics, that is actually the only way.

    I think the battles I pick are quixotic.


    Parent

    important ones (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST


    Parent
    Nonetheless (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM EST
    Quixotic it seems.

    Parent
    Well I think (none / 0) (#194)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    that given Obama's do nothing attitute and Dean sitting in his hands; anything else you want the  Clinton camp to do would be equivalent to watching "Don Qijote y Sancho Panza" fighting the wind mills.


    Parent
    Pests (none / 0) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:02:39 AM EST
    Pass me a fly swatter.

    Parent
    I'm a slow learner (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM EST
    but I find BTD inspiring!

    The only bloggers I can read anymore that seem intellectually  honest to me are BTD, Jeralyn, digby, and Greenwald.

    Anyway, how can a non-Floridian help at this point to support a FL re-vote?

    Parent

    FL Dem Party seeking input from FL Dems (none / 0) (#42)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    but only for TODAY.

    http://www.fladems.com/page/s/primarymemo

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    I will post it.

    Parent
    Here's a question for you BTD... (none / 0) (#56)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:54:13 AM EST
    ...do you think that Florida and Michigan, while suffering this year, are ultimately going to pave the way for a reform of the primary schedule, and maybe even a more fundamental reform of the nominating process?  I can't imagine that Florida or Michigan are going to budge in 2012 or that the DNC/RNC will seek to punish them again. If I were a betting person, I'd bet that they lose somewhat this year, but have won in the long run, and done a lot to stimulate reform of the flawed (in many other ways) nominating process.

    (I still say forget the Dem candidate should forget Florida, but I tip my hat to them for throwing a much needed wrench in the gears...)

    Parent

    You can be sure that, if McCain wins, (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    the Democratic primary process will be revisited next time.

    Parent
    i hope you are right, but it would (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:21:57 AM EST
    appear they learned little from bush/gore.

    Parent
    I hope so (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:58:42 AM EST


    Parent
    Me too... (none / 0) (#80)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:03:20 AM EST
    ...I hope they give the DNC the middle finger and say "We're doing it again, so get used to it."

    And I hope my state, North Carolina, tenth largest in the country with a very diverse population, gets on board.  It's a disgrace that we vote on May 6.  Get enough states doing this and the DNC will have to sit down and work out a new, fairer schedule.

    Parent

    Good... (none / 0) (#49)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:49:12 AM EST
    ...I don't think the Democratic candidate should waste a dime or any time on Florida.  I think the DNC lost Florida months ago. I hope (just my opinion) that the candidate forgets it altogether and concentrate on Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada and keeping everything else from 2004.

    I'd also like to see how a Democratic president who is in no way beholden to Florida reshapes US policy toward Cuba.

    Parent

    I live in CO (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:02:50 AM EST
    Trust me, you aren't winning CO and I have serious doubts you can win NM. Here is a tip. Latinos don't hate McCain. They are with Clinton on loyalty not because of her social policies. You can't win Ohio because of the Reagan Democrats. I will give you maybes in IA and NV. But those are big maybes.

    He can't win. And he sure can't win without FL and MI.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#83)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM EST
    one person in CO who despises Obama also thinks he can't win there?  Let's just write it off then.

    Parent
    Ah...look at the presidential voting history (none / 0) (#99)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    This state has voted republican in a presidential race like once since the 1950's. Obama is not a Salazar democrat. You tell me how he is gonna win a statewide race. This state is a lot more than Denver and Boulder. You will have tentative latino support, the AA population is low, Nader will do well with many people who are pissed off at Obama,and the military is big here. We also have big defense companies, the second largest number of federal jobs, etc, etc.

    Kerry thought he was gonna do it and he got smoked. And just wait until the 527s start running the good reverend in their commercials and start highlighting the increase in the payroll tax. This state is full of contractors and small businesses and we aren't all rich.

    If you think you can win it in Denver, Aspen and Boulder you are the one that is off your rocker.

    Parent

    typing too fast (none / 0) (#122)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    this state hasn't voted republican

    Parent
    But he didn't get smoked... (none / 0) (#123)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    ...he lost by 100,000 votes, 5 points.  And he was not nearly the candidate that Obama is AND does not have the favorable structural advantages that any Democratic candidate has this year.

    I think Colorado (and no, I don't live there) is winnable - we're talking a net gain of 50,000 votes - 2.5% of the electorate - in an election with a much stronger Democratic candidate (either one) under very favorable conditions.  

    I don't know if Obama would win for sure, but to write it off so easily seems a little premature.

    Parent

    McCain (none / 0) (#133)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    is not George Bush. He is decent on the environment. Latinos don't despise him because of his stand on immigration. Lots of people's jobs depend on defense contracts. There is a ton of military and they love John McCain. There are a lot of independents in this state but I think they will break for McCain. They want lower taxes, no new gun laws (there was just an article in the paper about the high amount of applications for concealed weapon permits), smaller government. I don't think social issues are going to be that big here because the state is pro choice. Also, the greens do ok here and they will benefit from HIllary's absence.

    I have talked to numerous people about this. I really don't think Clinton can win here either this year. I am not shilling for her on this. I think anyone counting on CO though is mad.

    McCain may sound like Bush but he is not perceived to be Bush. Most think he will break his own way anyway after he wraps up the nomination or is president.

    Parent

    Also you have to remember (none / 0) (#141)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    Prior to the election in 2004, the Republicans controlled all aspects of state govt (legislature, gov). That isn't the case today. People will be looking for "balance" I think. And like I said, if nothing else, the payroll tax is gonna kill Obama. People hate taxes here and too many people will be impacted by it. Everyone seems to think that $100K is a lot. For a family living in CO it isn't that much. Colorado is expensive and lots of those same people are also paying their own health insurance. It adds up.

    Parent
    That suggests to me... (none / 0) (#145)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    ...that since 2004 Colorado is trending Democratic.

    In its most recent Colorado poll, Survey USA has Obama up 9 points over McCain in the state.  I doubt that he would win by that margin, but given the structural advantages I've noted above, I do not think that picking up 3 more points than Kerry got in 2004 is the hurdle you make it out to be.  

    I appreciate you not shilling for Hillary, but I think she could also win in Colorado.

    Parent

    Like I said (none / 0) (#153)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:56:41 AM EST
    I don't think so when it is all said and done. We haven't gotten to the GE and the 527 commercials yet. That pastor alone and the payroll tax will absolutely kill him. Guns, money and water usually rule the day.

    The state has trended Dem but a western Dem isn't the same as Obama or Hillary for that matter. Outside of DeGette and Udall, every other statewide elected dem is really conservative. And I don't mean the religious kind.

    Parent

    Well, we'll see... (none / 0) (#157)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    ...it is too early, but if Kerry could get within 100,000 points, I think Obama can do much better. It will be close one way or the other, but this will be a battleground, and the conditions - in my opinion, and according to SurveyUSA - at this point look favorable.

    Parent
    As another poster said (none / 0) (#162)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    The polls here are always wrong. I wouldn't hedge your bets on them. Also, what happens when solid dems like me vote down ballot or for Nader because we just don't like Obama. You also are putting too much faith in the Latino population which I believe will split in half at least.

    In some ways, Kerry was a better candidate here because at least the Dem coalition was united. I don't think that will be the case this time.

    My mother was so pissed off the way she was treated by Obama's supporters at her caucus that she will not only not vote for him, she will never attend a caucus again in her life. That is another vote lost. Seniors aren't big on the guy anywhere.

    Parent

    I neither live in CO nor hate Obama (none / 0) (#147)
    by spit on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    but I'm pretty dubious about counting on CO. I think we've made some slow inroads in the mountain west, but they're long term, and I just don't think we're entirely "there" yet in terms of being able to seriously call CO a likely swing state, especially vs. McCain (who has exactly that "independent-minded maverick" sort of thing that people love in a lot of the west).

    I would be thrilled to see it in our column, don't get me wrong. I just think people are being a little premature in assuming CO will be particularly swingy -- it sort of reminds me of NJ, where polling makes the republicans always think they might have a shot, and it never goes red in the end.

    Parent

    I'd rather count on Colorado... (none / 0) (#150)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54:20 AM EST
    ...than Florida, especially this year!

    Again, Survey USA has Obama up by 9 points in Colorado over McCain.

    Parent

    I know everybody loves that SUSA (none / 0) (#164)
    by spit on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    and they are a very good polling outfit generally, but I still take GE polls this far out with a huge grain of salt. A lot of these, I have serious questions about, honestly. OR and WA will probably go blue either way (though they are swingy), NJ and NH almost certainly will, while ND is... ahem... not going blue unless we're winning most of the country.

    Obama hasn't been hit from the right much, no matter what some of his supporters think. They'll go for him on guns, they'll go for him much harder than Clinton has on foreign policy experience, and they'll go for him on taxes. Those are issues McCain will gain ground with in the west in particular. I'm unusual on the blogs in that I don't think Iraq will be at the top of people's minds in the GE -- it'll be an issue, but one among several -- and I don't think we're going to succeed in tying McCain to Bush all that well in the minds of swing voters.

    As for FL, I don't love relying on it, either, but I honestly think generally that our chances there are better than CO at this time -- that's just my opinion, and it's based on anecdote, to be clear.

    Now, as for the whole FL voting mess, we will be screwing ourselves badly there for years if we don't find a decent solution, I agree.

    Parent

    Well the election is NOT today (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    So your grain of salt has nothing to do with SUSA.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#172)
    by spit on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    but I think people get caught up enough in the "SUSA is terrific" thing that they forget the "these numbers have no GE campaigning in them" thing.

    Maybe I worded that badly.

    Parent

    Again.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    ....Kerry lost by 100,000 votes, five points, in Colorado.  This was no blowout, and a lot has changed since 2004.  If it's not a swing-state this year, then there is no such thing as a swing state.

    Parent
    You will be (none / 0) (#159)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    sadly disappointed my friend. The west is the west. It isn't like the rest of the country. Democrats aren't like democrats in the rest of the country.

    McCain is not Bush

    Parent

    He sure can win.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:08:04 AM EST
    ...without Florida.  I'm not terribly worried about Michigan, especially if a revote goes through.

    Kerry, a much less compelling candidate than Obama, lost New Mexico by a few thousand votes.  Colorado, which is trending Democratic, went for Bush by 100,000 votes in 2004.  

    Finally, the structural advantages of ANY Democrat are just enormous this year.  The economy is going to get much worse over the next seven months, unemployment will go up, inflation and gas prices as well.  Right/track - wrong/track numbers have never been worse, and Bush has an approval rating of 30% (he was 55% in 2004).  The Republican party is demoralized and the Democrats are more energized than they have been in a generation.

    Why do you not think that a Democratic candidate - including Obama, who won the Colorado caucus, can't pick up 50,000 votes there?

    Parent

    Independents in this state (none / 0) (#102)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    are people who want their guns left alone, their taxes decreased and smaller government. McCain will appeal to them. The Democrats are also third in registration in this state and like I said before, Salazar and Obama won't be seen the same.

    Parent
    One other thing (none / 0) (#109)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:18:48 AM EST
    The Supreme Court argument won't work here as well either. This state is pro-choice by like 70%. Not even when the Republicans controlled the legislature and the Governorship did they try to seriously go after abortion rights.

    There is an anti-choice measure on the ballot that will go down in a blazing defeat.

    Parent

    Um... I lived in New Mexico for years and my kids (none / 0) (#110)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    still live there. I go there frequently.  New Mexico has a huge hispanic population, which will like McCain because of his immigration stance.  Whites tend to vote Republican.  It's always neck and neck between the two parties in all the elections.  Sometimes the governor is a Dem, sometimes a Republican, the two Senators are split between the two parties and so on.

    Clinton would have a chance there. I can't see Obama having one outside of Albuquerque and Santa Fe.  

    Anyone else here from NM who has an opinion on this?

    Parent

    i wouldn't give either of them CO (none / 0) (#125)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    I live in Uber Demland--we'd go for either of the candidates 90-95% to 5 or so for McCain.  But Kerry polled well in CO right up to election day and got rolled.  Everything in CO is solid GOP except Denver, Boulder, Pitkin/eastern Garfield and Eagle counties.   Latin vote could be enough to swing it but not sure, McCain favors amnesty so that isn't going to line Latinos up against him.  Maybe Dobson hating McCain will be enough to keep the CSprings voters from voting.  

    Unless McCain really screws up though I'd assume CO will poll close but vote red.

    Parent

    That is an excellent point! (none / 0) (#57)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    And hopefully one of the reasons Obama does not seem overly concerned about placating Florida.
    Totally speculating here, but he could know he will tick off a huge constituency in Florida if he does become Pres. He could campaign for normalizing relations with Cuba if he is not worried about FL voters.


    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#128)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    normalizing relations with FL would be a huge draw for FL voters...esp to the Dems as the Cubans living in FL vote GOP every election.  

    I might be misreading your statement but it looks like you think he could only talk about Cuba if he doesn't mind alienating FL?

    Parent

    He will alienate Miami Cubans (none / 0) (#143)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    if he proposes normalizing relations.

    Parent
    That was my point... (none / 0) (#155)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:58:01 AM EST
    ...I wish it weren't so, but I just don't think US foreign policy toward Cuba should be held hostage by a million Cuba Americans in the greater Miami area.

    And since Florida is likely a lost cause now, this could be a silver lining.

    Parent

    I completely agree with you (none / 0) (#176)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    I have yet to hear an explanation why speaking with Cuba is off the table, yet relations with China are a go...makes no sense. It is ONLY because of the Miami Cubans.

    I would love to see that attitude change!

    Parent

    MI has a dem governor (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:05:56 AM EST
    Who supports Clinton.  I think that is why it is getting done.

    FL has, as you know, is run by the living embodiment of the devil.  Crist has a vested interest in keeping FL in tatters.  

    I'm not defending the Clinton campaign--I agree with you that they should be fighting for FL; however, I am taking that a step beyond and throwing in my usual "why"?

    Because here is my theory: Obama's people either made it clear, or Clinton's people realized, that a mail-in revote would be challenged and sued to death, and that because of Obama's saber rattling about fraud, the mail-in would be forever tainted and even if she won the state by large margins, certain elements in Obama's camp would think that she had stolen the election, and put it out there for all to hear that Clinton had done so.

    I think the full revote in MI helps Clinton move toward a full-on revote in FL.  The only problem is, the state, via Crist, is not cooperating.

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    My understanding is that Crist is being more cooperative than even the candidates.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:08:27 AM EST
    Crist is not the problem here.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    The fact is that we have no idea what is going on behind closed doors.  Crist said he'd support a vote but not pay for it.  Folks came forward and said they would pay for it and Crist said he didn't know if he could let them verify the signatures.  He is playing cat and mouse on this and smiling all the way.  It is not in his interest to help the dems out of this mess.  It is in his interest to keep letting the mess spin out of control--as opposed to MI, which has a dem governor.

    Lookit, I'm not saying Crist is the main obstacle in all of this.  I am not saying Clinton should keep sitting on her hands (in fact, she should be shouting from the rooftops; I totally agree with you) I am just saying Crist is one of the problems among myriad problems, and that that fact should enter into the equation.  

    It goes back to my "why" question.  Why isn't Clinton shouting for a revote?  Why isn't Obama shouting for a revote?  Why isn't Crist, Dean, the DNC, etc, shouting for a revote?  We are discussing the fact that they are not demanding a revote instead of asking ourselves WHY they aren't demanding one.

    Something else is going on.


    Parent

    Crist already agreed with Geller (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    that the signature verification process can be handled.

    Because of state law, the state can not handle the election itself. It can only assist and Crist said he would assist.

    Crist is not the problem.

    Parent

    Something else is going on (none / 0) (#138)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    Behind closed doors.  I'd bet you a whole dollar.

    Parent
    BTD Is Right (none / 0) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST
    Crist isn't the problem.  

    Crist is very popular.  This is the guy who ditched the felon purge when he took office.  

    By supporting a Democratic re-vote he's endearing himself to the state's Democrats which would bode well for him if he runs for re-election.

    He's no dummy.

    Parent

    So why is Sterling Ivey saying it cannot be done (none / 0) (#192)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:27:05 PM EST
    without changing the law. In addition to that little bleep, you think a Fl Republican legislature will be giddy with support?

    Crist may have spoken too soon in that he "can do it".

    Parent

    Crist wants a revote (none / 0) (#114)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    it drags out the Dem nominating process and buys more time for his buddy, McCain.
    Crist is angling for the VP slot, I don't care what he publicly says.

    Parent
    To my mind... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM EST
    ...the entire notion of a revote is DOA thanks in large part to flaky incompetence on the part of Dean and the DNC.

    The organization that was so eager to stand firm and nullify the votes of millions because they had the gall to move up the primary date, then slumps back in the easy chair and throws up hands when asked to arbitrate a solution to their mess.

    Obviously the competing campaigns are not going to come to full agreement.  Each will position the process to their advantage and each will sprinkle enough criticism to leave open the 'see, we told you it wasn't fair' critique should they lose.

    The DNC needs to step up to the plate with an aggressive and fair solution... NOW

    Yes. I so agree. The mismanagement of (none / 0) (#130)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:34:18 AM EST
    this is going to cost us the election. Whatever side loses is going to cry foul.   Dean was totally out of his mind when he decided to give the two candidates veto power over any solution.  This is because, by letting the situation stand as is, it harms Hillary. So, naturally, Obama benefits by just stonewalling or threatening any possible means of solving the problem. To him, it's not a problem not to seat Florida and Michigan, at least in the short term. It might very well be a problem in November. But if he doesn't win the nomination, that won't matter. As we know, he is not thinking of the voters'  rights in this, but only about himself and his success.  I guarantee you, that if any sort of solution goes forward, he will cry foul and stir up his rabid followers enough to blow Clinton's chances completely in the general election.

    Parent
    This Whole Debacle Is Way Beyond Stupid (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    Just how many years are the Dems willing to concede Florida to the Republicans? Does anyone think that if the voters in Florida are disenfranchised that this will have an effect on their votes for only the 08 cycle. Cuban Americans vote have Republican because of what happened 47 years ago. How many Floridians will not vote Democratic for years to come because of this?

    Don't know what the Clinton campaign is doing on this. They should be coming out in full force for a revote in Florida. Dropping the ball big time IMO.

    Well this just confirms their pattern over almost every important issue so far. They spend all their time finding ways not to do what needs to be done and trying to rationalize their behavior rather than finding ways to get things done. Obama was right about one thing. The Dems are not the party of ideas (him included).

    The GOP has traditionally worn the label (none / 0) (#45)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    of "The Stupid Party".  That may change after this.

    Parent
    Almost Guaranteed IMO n/t (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST


    Parent
    Florida is a lost cause this year... (none / 0) (#74)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    ...the DNC blew it months ago, no revote is going to change that.  I don't care if there is one or not, and don't think it will change things one way or the other (I think Clinton still has a math problem, even with popular vote)...

    BUT I do hope that the Democratic candidate doesn't step foot in Florida for the general.  Don't waste a dime in its media markets.  It's a lost cause and resources should be spent elsewhere,

    Parent

    If The Dems Follow Your Advise, (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    Florida will be a lost cause for years to come. Do you think that this will only effect the presidential election in Florida? How willing do you think Floridians will be to vote for Senate and House Dems in national and state elections if the Dems send a message to them that they have no value to the Dem party.

    Parent
    No, this is what's stupid. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    For the people to give up without a fight.

    The Democrats have given those with access to a computer a forum to make their voices heard.

    I don't care if you're in Maine or California, Montana or Mississippi or anywhere inbetween.

    This issue is about one thing and one thing only.

    Disenfranchising voters.

    Florida has become a testing ground for "what can we get away with THIS time?"

    In 2000 and 2004 it was disenfranchising Florida.

    Now, it's about Michigan and Florida.

    How long do you think it will take to make it to your state?

    In about 2 hours Florida will make a decision that's going to affect every citizen in America somewhere down the line.

    Write an email.

    Tell everyone you know in every state to write an email as well.

    Make it short and to the point.

    To:
    email@fladems.com
    Subject:
    Florida Primary
    Text:
    COUNT THE VOTE

    Don't do it for Obama.

    Don't do it for Hillary.

    Don't do it for any personal agenda or opinion you might cherish.

    Do it because 1.7 million people voted in Florida.

    Do it because those 1.7 million people broke no rules.

    Punish those who caused this mess if you must.

    But don't punish the voters.

    The clock is ticking.

    Send that email.

    Parent

    if only (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:19:01 AM EST
    we had a Debbie Dingle in Florida

    DNC feels they don't need Florida (none / 0) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    for Obama to win the GE.  It's as simple as that.

    Do FL Dems think they need Florida? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:23:46 AM EST
    Does Clinton think she needs it? Excuse me, too many Clinton supporters are looking to blame everyone BUT FL Dems and the Clinton campaign.

    Parent
    Can we please (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    Have a new thread today on something else?

    Parent
    There are many threads below this one (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    Pick your favorite.

    For the record, I write what I want to write about. You can read or comment or NOT as you choose.

    J. write what she wants to write about. Same for Chris.

    Parent

    Nooo (none / 0) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:35:18 AM EST
    I just see the extraordinary shilling and bias of the DNC toward Obama. (Brazille, Dean, Dean's brother).  If they were actually showing some leadership, maybe they could put their foot on the scale to steer Florida, rather than putting their foot on the scale to steal the election for Obama.

    You don't actually think that has any bearing on the Florida situation?  Well I DO!  So there.

    Parent

    If no one is fighting for Florida revotes (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    except Nelson and Geller, what do you think the DNC will do? You think they will not take a pass?

    Sorry, you are aiming your fire in the wrong direction IF you want to aim at the folks who actually can get it done.

    Parent

    Florida will get over it (none / 0) (#36)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:43:20 AM EST
    The Dems will seat the FL delegates one way or another.  Does anyone doubt this?

    Parent
    nope (none / 0) (#52)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:52:53 AM EST
    FL already stood up to the DNC and had their delegates stripped.  Now that they have the opportunity to make it right they are trying to play hardball from a weak position and once again they will lose.  Something has to be done by June 3 I believe or there is nothing the rules committee can do about it.  Not 100% on this but I listened to Dean explain it once...said that he assured both states that their delegates would be seated provided they submitted plans for seating the delegates by x date.  The DNC had to approve the plan, then the plan would be carried out but nothing would be certified and no delegates seated officially until the rules committee reviewed the state's and DNC's actions.

    Parent
    so i guess my answer to your question (none / 0) (#60)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    is, yes there is a possibility that the delegates won't be seated if both the states and the DNC can't agree on a plan.  Dean's insistence that both candidates have to sign off on the plan isn't a part of the rule--i think it is just a way to cover his ass.

    Parent
    I have faith that a room full of politicians ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    ...will find a way to "interpret" the rules so that the FL delegates will get seated in August.  If there is no revote the "results" from the January vote will be used to seat the delegates.  I don't understand why people are hyperventilating about this.  

    Parent
    the delegates (none / 0) (#90)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:07:11 AM EST
    can overrule the rules committee and seat the delegates, under the existing rules.  They are like the Supreme Court and the rules committee and DNC are like lower courts.  They won't have to "interpret".

    Parent
    whose delegates? (none / 0) (#131)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    The collective of already seated delegates?

    Parent
    Amd the last thing you want (none / 0) (#184)
    by badger on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    is a nasty floor fight over seating the MI and FL delegations or "alternate" delegations.

    Nothing like taking the opportunity to use national TV to tell MI and FL voters "were not sure we want you in the party".

    Parent

    They'll get seated in August, but their (none / 0) (#135)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    states' votes will have no bearing on the primary election.

    Parent
    Do you think (none / 0) (#84)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    seating the delegates 'one way or another' simply solves the problem? The 50/50 idea seats them all, but is hardly democratic. Giving all delegates to Obama, for instance, would be seating them one way or another. Or how about giving them all to Clinton? I take it you will support giving them all to Clinton because that meets your criteria of seating them 'one way or another'.

    But no. HOW they get seated is every bit as crucial as whether they get seated.

    Parent

    Yes, I do (none / 0) (#117)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:25:34 AM EST
    This really isn't a huge problem.  It will get solved.  The Republic won't crumble if the delegates get seated 50/50 or 99/1 or if we divide by zero.  

    Parent
    I am more concerned (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:30:35 AM EST
    with the dems crumbling--or staying home in November.

    Parent
    You are nothing but (none / 0) (#139)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    a creator of strawmen. I never said anything about the republic crumbling.

    I've read a number of your comments now and I find your whole technique is nothing but one strawman after another, e.g. the Republic crumbling, seating the delegates regardless of allocation is the only issue, etc.

    Your view that a 99/1 split would solve the problem with no negative repercussions is either dishonest or fantasy. I'll leave it to others to decide which.

    Parent

    I am way more than that... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:57:10 AM EST
    ...and I was using a hyperbole when I made the "republic will not crumble" remark.  Is it my fault if you can't recognize one?  

    Also, I have been consistently saying that this isn't a big deal.  The voters in FL & MI will realize why this happened and will consider issues that actually personally affect them come November.    Many people seem to disagree with that argument and yet they can't seem to tell me why FL & MI voters who care about Healthcare, the War in Iraq, and the economy will disregard those concerns and punish the Dems for the way the primary was handled.  To me, that argument seems ridiculous on its face.  

    If you want to claim this issue is a big deal then you need to make a case for that because right now you aren't.

    Parent

    Pure speculation... (none / 0) (#165)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    "voters in FL & MI will realize why this happened and will consider issues that actually personally affect them come November"

    Polls disagree.  Neither is it a compelling argument to claim that none of this matters because you personally believe that others don't think it matters (which is contradicted already by those on this blog)

    Parent

    Your argument is pure speculation as well (none / 0) (#180)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    My argument, however, relies on common sense.  The economy, the war and healthcare poll much higher than primary voting procedures when voters are asked about what issues are important to them.  The GE is 7 1/2 months away, and by the time it gets here both the MI & FL delegates will have voted in the Dem convention.  

    Your argument seems to rely on the idea that voters will hold a grudge for 7 1/2 months and then take it out on the Democrat running in November.  I just don't buy that.  And even if it is true, Hillary Clinton can campaign for Obama in Florida and help calm those voters down.  Either way this isn't a big deal.  

    Parent

    I'm not as upset as I was.. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Rainsong on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    The Dems will seat the FL delegates one way or another.  

    I think FL should call the DNC's bluff.
    A 50% reduction, like the Repubs did would be OK as second-best.

    At first I didn't, I was aiming for a re-vote, but then I changed my mind:

    Any re-vote would not be fair, its too late in the season. You may as well re-do all the Super-Tuesday states, and capitalise on any 'buyer's remorse' they might now be feeling. Jan 29th wasn't so far ahead of ST anyway, and several of the ST states had little or no campaigning either. If they had run in the ST crowd, the result would have been unlikely to have been much different to what it was.

    The FL voters mostly voted in good faith, "just in case" it might be the ONLY opportunity they would have to vote at all, and that the state Dems and DNC "might" come to some arrangement over the delegates. Nobody mentioned do-overs later in the season at that point in time.

    Now time has moved on, and if you re-run the ST states you might get very different results in some of them too. What makes a re-vote in FL, so late in the season, more "valid"?

    Its like an old management axiom I was given once in a workshop:

    Don't embarrass the "Family", and Don't Upset the "Children".

    Where the "family" is the organisation you work for, and the "children" are the workers who work for you.

    In this case, don't embarrass the Party, and dont upset the voters. And a re-vote in either state would do both.

    If FL was being sidelined by the DNC as a write-off for the GE by penalising them so harshly in the first place, (and it was a way over-the-top punishment IMHO), then it makes no difference how a FL primary re-vote works out.

    Worst case, one side or other, will be massively pissed.

    Or best case, a small percentage of Dem voters will still be pissed by the whole thing. Even a small percentage of pissed FL dems will lose that state, losing ground-troops as well as votes. Maybe not that many, but enough to lose that particular state.

    Either way, FL is definitely lost for the GE with a re-vote option. So, I think FL have absolutely nothing more to lose by calling the DNC's bluff. If the DNC doesn't budge, the state is lost for the GE, if they hold a re-vote option the state is still lost.

    I think FL should hold their ground on this one and put it back to the DNC and go through the committee process (which is about the same time as a re-vote would be counted anyway), and let the DNC make its decision. The Party either wants FL, or they don't.

    Parent

    I think we (Florida) (none / 0) (#193)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    will storm the convention, demand our delegates get seated. Heh

    Parent
    Yes, what can they be thinking? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:44:09 AM EST
    They should be out strong on this. Very disappointed with them.

    Parent
    definetly blame Florida election officials (none / 0) (#40)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM EST
    and the DNC for not working things out.  Now I blame Florida election officials solely if they won't accept any remedy offered by the DNC.

    I'm just glad I'm not a FL resident. I'd be so disenchanted with wondering if my vote was going to count that I doubt I'd go back to the polls ever again.

    I would agree to any solution that doesn't involve 50/50 split.  If that is the solution then why go through primaries?  Just flip a coin or have a roshambo round robin to decide the nominee from now on.

    Parent

    Florida will be seated as per the initial (none / 0) (#6)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:24:15 AM EST
    vote,  probably with a 50% penalty applied.

    Parent
    Maybe even fully (none / 0) (#73)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:00:38 AM EST
    If Obama has a large enough lead going into the convention and is comfortable with the superdelegates breaking his way...

    Parent
    The DNC isn't the holdup here. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:26:40 AM EST
    The problem is local Florida politicians, who can't seem to agree on anything. When the entire Democratic House delegation rejects every plan that comes along, there's not much the DNC, Obama, or even Hillary can do.

    Parent
    But are they just incompetent (none / 0) (#10)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:28:33 AM EST
    or is it a calculated gamble that they can get the Jan. 29 results to count?

    Parent
    I'm not sure... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:35:37 AM EST
    Not being particularly close with anyone from the Florida legislature. But personally, I would think that a very, very poor gamble, so if that's the case, then Florida legislators know something I don't.

    However, I can pleasure of working very closely with the Texas State Legislature, and I can tell you from personal experience that we have legislators who belong to the same party, espouse 99% of the same ideals, and support the same national candidates, but cannot stand each other. Seriously. If one of them says the sky is blue, the other will begin vigorously insisting that it's pink. The basis of the disagreements is entirely personal...but that makes it no less vicious. I'm beginning to wonder if something similar isn't going on in Florida. Politicians are, by nature, creatures of ego. It never fails to surprise me how quickly grudges can be developed and how deep they can go.

    Parent

    Yes, but surely that's strange (none / 0) (#30)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    as the whole house delegation have come out against a revote.

    Parent
    Yeah, it IS strange. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    Did Bill Nelson run over all their cats last year or something?

    What's even stranger is that they're almost all Clinton Supers. You'd think that alone would promote a little more unity.

    Parent

    That last fact (none / 0) (#58)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:54:44 AM EST
    that they are almost all Clinton supers, makes me suspect that brinksmanship may be the motivation.

    Parent
    I still don't see how seating all the delegates (none / 0) (#64)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    necessarily gets Hillary the nominations.  Superdelegates are continuing to break Obama's way and the only way to stop that momentum in my eyes is for her to win proper Florida and Michigan contests.   Otherwise I think she's toast.  Superdelegates are just not going to buy Florida and Michigan as having been proper contests whether or not they get seated based on the initial votes.

    Parent
    Well,how could that work? Clinton stands to lose (none / 0) (#140)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:31 AM EST
    by their stance.

    Parent
    My kingdom for an edit function! (none / 0) (#33)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    Huh. 'I can pleasure?' Great for me, I suppose, but also proof that I should drink more coffee before posting.

    That should read 'I have the pleasure.'

    Parent

    I don't see why... (none / 0) (#31)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST
    ...if the DNC can nullify an election in defiance of a state's legislature, why can't they just proffer a solution, take it or leave it?

    They know full well that throwing this over the wall to various state legislatures and candidates will create nothing but a ball of confusion and we can just throw up our hands and say 'oh well, couldn't agree, sorry'

    Parent

    That was the strategy (none / 0) (#77)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    from January. Demand that the results of the non-sanctioned primary count and not negotiate.

    But it's hard to imagine that those primaries will count. It's blackmail. Either accept the non-sanctioned primaries or lose our states.

    Has the DNC received plans from the states yet? Who's running out the clock here?

    Parent

    Go Blue! (none / 0) (#9)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    At least one state party doesn't have its head where it shouldn't be.

    What is the motivation of the FL Dems?  Is it just the same petulance that drove them to refuse to work something out with the DNC when the legislature first moved the date?  Are they gambling that the DNC will eventually back down and seat the delegates from Jan. 29?

    What should the Clinton campaign do? (none / 0) (#11)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:28:33 AM EST
    I don't know--but if I get some input from folks here I'll be glad to pass it on in an email to the campaign.

    And to the DNC.

    Basically, FL has a great argument to have their delegates seated as is, bcz the whole date thing was controlled by Repubs. And the Repubs were telling everyone in May of 2007 what they were going to do.

    But the DNC decided to treat FL and MI the same, altho the deed was done by R's in FL and D's in MI.

    What's with that, Dr. Dean?

    Don't absolve the FL dems (none / 0) (#16)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:30:29 AM EST
    The DNC tried to work things out so that the FL dems could have an alternate delegate-selection process.  The FL dems played hardball, and now they may cost everyone November.  Well played, Florida Dems.

    Parent
    They need to demand revotes (none / 0) (#23)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    settling for splits is all well and good but if the revotes happen in June and Hillary wins both then she gets to come to Denver with two important wins---the momentum is necessary to get superdelegates to choose her.  If she is going to settle for a split right now then she might as well drop out.  If she pushes for a revote loud and aggressively either Obama better cave or risk showing the supers that he doesn't want to have to fight--which makes him look like a weaker candidate in the GE.

    Parent
    For FL, revote or seat as voted is my take (none / 0) (#51)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM EST
    BTW, back when dates were being shuffled around, the general take was that the Dems would seat both MI and FL delegates--since that's what had happened in the past.

    This year the DNC wants to be the strict parent--and, again, in FL the Dems could have done what? Who was going to pay for another primary? They did not want a caucus. What were they supposed to do?

    They also needed to get the vote out for some referendum.

    Parent

    no way the DNC (none / 0) (#71)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    is going to seat as is---re-vote is the only way.

    Parent
    This "great argument" (none / 0) (#48)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    is not going to convince anyone but die-hard Clinton supporters (assuming the delegates are decisive).

    Getting them seated with a 50% reduction is more likely, but the January popular vote will always have a asterisk by it.  This will fatally Clinton's only realistic path to the nomination: winning the popular vote, and taking that argument to the super-delegates.

    Parent

    I'm starting to think FL (none / 0) (#12)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:28:51 AM EST
    needs to outsource their elections to a neighboring state.

    Come on FL, We need you now, we need you in November.  I'd like the votes counted as is but it isn't going to happen so if you don't want to be disenfranchised own your mistake and get to making things right.  Your Dem citizenry deserves to have a  decent election experience at some pt.

    I now propose (none / 0) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:12:00 AM EST
    We find another state to hold Florida's election.  It seems a Republican state would volunteer just to drag out the Dem process.  We could all fundraise for the state.  They could mail out the ballots, collect them and count them.  

    Parent
    I propose Illinois. (none / 0) (#127)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST


    Parent
    forget the elite (none / 0) (#18)
    by wiredick on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    leaders of the national and state Democratic party; give the people of mi and fla an oppotunity to vote.  Haven't the leaders of our party not screwed up just about everthing they have done the last 30 years.  Throw all the bums out and put in some leadership that will work for their electorate.  Just one old man that's kind of sick of the whole mess.

    Well, (none / 0) (#34)
    by magisterludi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:40:57 AM EST
     I have been sorely disappointed in the democratic party for some time now, especially the sway bluedogs like Rockefeller and both Nelsons hold on policies. Now this unbelievable ineptitude of Dean and the DNC and the FL congressional team... ugh.
     I think I've become quite the socialist anyway, so maybe I'll just write in Bernie Sanders. Actually vote my conscience for a change, not just the lesser of two evils.
     

    I'd like to see Re-votes in both states (none / 0) (#55)
    by mikecan1978 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    MI I think will be more to Obama's advantage.  Something has to be done with Florida though.....

    Please note (none / 0) (#62)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:56:58 AM EST
    That the Obama campaign is on board for a Michigan revote:
    State Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan, said the primary idea is worth considering.

    "If we can have a fair, open and inclusive election, that is always something you have to consider," Thomas said Thursday. "I have to see details before openly endorsing something. But I'm pleased folks are still talking, and we're all on the same page of trying to resolve this."

    Looks like those of us defending Obama yesterday were correct.  He is not standing in the way of revotes in Michigan or Florida.

    Except for this: (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    Obama: Michigan and Florida revotes "not realistic".  
    It's from this morning.  Read it and weep.  

    Parent
    Oh well (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:07:26 AM EST
    Bad Obama.

    Parent
    If you actually read the quote (none / 0) (#182)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    instead of just posting the stupid headline you would have found the full quote which is:
    "My understanding is that the full primary is just not realistic," he says. "It's not on the table because neither state wants to pay for it and there are all sorts of problems"

    Frankly that was my understanding too, that the most both states were talking about was a mail-in primary.  Nowhere does he oppose a re-do in that interview.  

    Personally I think Florida probably does not make a difference and Obama wins even if seated as is (though I think the claim that it was a fair election is absurd).  I think if they get a revote in Michigan he should just agree to seat the Florida delegation as is.  If he does that before he is the official winner, and before the MI revote, I think he comes off looking the best out of the whole mess.  

    The DNC, of course, looks like crap.  

    And Hillary looks like the hyporcrite she is since she was fine with the rules until it turned out they mattered.  This is what makes me crazy, her claim that she is fighting to enfranchise voters when she never made that argument when the decision was being made (of course the people who stayed home because they were told the vote did not count she does not care to enfranchise).

    Parent

    Great! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    Good for Obama.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    Do you have a link? I would like to post this.

    Parent
    It's from (none / 0) (#94)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    the your Michigan link -- Detroit News.

    See also this:

    The Obama campaign's Michigan co-chair says that all the momentum right now in private negotiations between Michigan Dems is behind the option of having a redo primary in the state, suggesting that an agreement on a redo is likely.

    "There's a lot of momentum behind the redo option," the Obama official, State Senator Tupac Hunter, told me by phone a few minutes ago, adding that he'd been in discussions with Michigan Democratic Party officials as late as last night. The redo option is "taking up the lion's share of the discussions," Hunter says.



    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    True enough.

    Though this is the same Tupac Hunter who said no revote 2 days ago.

    And this morning on NPR Obama seemed to say something else.

    I think MI looks good right now.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#111)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    It's three-dimensional speed chess, with many players, many of whom are not masters.

    But at the end of the day, Obama should not, cannot, and will not be what stands in the way of revotes.

    Parent

    in Michigan (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:26:23 AM EST
    He very much will in Florida I think.

    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#174)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    Or maybe we won't (if the FL Dems and the Clinton campaign can't agree on a plan).

    It's pretty clear at this point that Obama is willing to accept primaries and caucuses, but not mail-in primaries.  

    Parent

    It is not clear at all (none / 0) (#183)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST


    Parent
    He has only expressed objections (none / 0) (#189)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    to mail-in primaries.

    Parent
    Too bad (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    Florida is more important IMO.

    Parent
    Tupac Hunter is a state co-chair. (none / 0) (#129)
    by tbetz on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:34:04 AM EST
    I have yet to see anyone from the national campaign agree with him.

    Parent
    Of course, he wants them in Michigan because (none / 0) (#169)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    recent polls show him with 41% to HIillary's 41%.  He just doesn't want them in Florida, where Hillary is beating him in the polls by double digits.

    Yes, he certainly deserves your defense. What a fair guy!

    Parent

    mail in ballot (none / 0) (#63)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    I don't understand the hesitancy to go with the mail-in ballot option.  Florida had over a million voters use that option during the primary via absentee balloting.  
    I heard one analyst on TV this morning say that there is a requirement to use "2 ENVELOPES" to guarantee a secret ballot and he said the problem would be that people wouldn't know where to get the second envelope from.  Sheesh.  (Ah...It comes with the ballot package)

    She has nothing to lose either way, BTD (none / 0) (#70)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    If she gets the delegates, she wins.  
    If she does NOT get the delegates, she wins by blaming him for it.  
    If she gets a revote, she definitely wins because she's going to kick his ass a second time.  
    There is no scenario in which Obama comes out a winner.  
    Now, the ideal situation is that Florida seats the delegates as is and save everyone a lot of trouble, Floridians the time and effort and all the backers of the plan a lot of money.  So, if they seem a bit passive about it, you can understand why.  The revote option was always the second choice.  

    oh I don't know about that (none / 0) (#82)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    Obama doesn't have to win either state in a re-vote to come out the winner---he just needs to keep them close enough to not to make superdelegates nervous about voting for him.

    Parent
    What about the party? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    According to many people around here, Floridians are going to be pissed if they don't get a revote and that will cause the Dems to lose the state and possibly the election in November.  Why doesn't the Clinton campaign consider this and make an effort to get the revote?  

    Parent
    As I understand the poll... (none / 0) (#116)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    ... the desire for a revote was predicated on the idea that the present delegation "may" not get seated at the convention.  I interpreted the desire for a recount as the Floridians saying that they were determined to have delegates one way or the other and if there was uncertainty, they preferred to revote.  
    So, remove the uncertainty and there's no need for one.  

    Parent
    Not quite (none / 0) (#158)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    goldberry: "If she does NOT get the delegates, she wins by blaming him for it."

    That's not necessarily true. Her supporters will buy it, but will the uncommitted superdelegates? It's not a sure bet either way. Even if it does work out, the possibility that a good chunk of Obama supporters will be frustrated enough to sit out Nov. makes it dicey.

    The revote is the only good scenario for both candidates. Absent that, one or both sides are going  to have problems with the results, quite possibly to the detriment of Democratic chances in Nov.

    Parent

    All of those people saying that FL (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    is unavoidably lost this year.

    NONSENSE

    In order to save our chances, we need a revote.

    Clinton contact person for Revote issues? (none / 0) (#148)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    I'd love to send my letter to a Clinton contact person.  Does anyone have a name/address?

    I posted this yesterday. If you are from (none / 0) (#171)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    Florida, BTD gives you a link. But this one might work if you are not. It's from Riverdaughter:

    From an email I just got. I suggest using it. to express your outrage.
    "Word is filtering out from the campaign that we should contact people we know at the DNC ASAP. The FL and MI decision will be going down soon. The person we should really pressure is Phil McNamara. Phil will not be making decisions but he is the staffer who runs all affairs for the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Also if he receives a flood of messages it will get back to Dean.
    Obama is pushing for a 50-50 split of the delegates. That doesn't refelct the will of the people. It reflects the wishful thinking of the Obama campaign."
    Phil McNamara
    mcnamara@dnc.org


    Parent

    I did send a message to him (none / 0) (#190)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:21:20 PM EST
    And I found a Clinton contact too:  ann.lewis at hillaryclinton dot com (also thanks to riverdaughter)

    Parent
    I havelet an off f topic discussion (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    of Colorado go on because it is largely respectful and I am too lazy to delete all of it but do not go off topic again.

    Do over in Florida (none / 0) (#195)
    by Eddie3067 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:15:22 PM EST
    The Dems in Florida have really messed this up. I don't think it benefits either candidate to have these delegates unseated.

    As an Obama supporter, I think he'd do well in both states so long as it was a fair race (Primary or Caucus). The mailin option has too many possibilities for problems. It's my understanding that a primary isn't possible because the voting machines are not in... Can't they borrow machines from a state that has already voted in the primary race? I'm sure there would be some sort of recertification process but we should make every effert ot have Florida count. We also need to ensure that the results are not skewed by republicans. It should not be that difficult to do.

    Hell, Florida can use the voting machines from Illinois. Let me know and I'll drive them right over.

    Revote Recap: MI Dems Fighting For Their Voters, FL Dems Intent On Handing FL to The GOP | 195 comments (195 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment