Why Clinton Should Fight For Revotes

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The estimable Mark Schmitt (Ezra Klein endorses Schmitt's faulty thinking) questions my argument that Hillary Clinton's candidacy for the nomination requires revotes in Florida and Michigan. While Mark wrongly identifies me as a Clinton supporter (see this for my reasons for supporting Obama), Mark makes an interesting but flawed argument:

Big Tent Democrat puts it in the context of the argument about the popular vote:

[T]he problem with the Clinton campaign's refusal to fight for revotes in Florida and Michigan [is that] to be perceived as the popular vote winner, Clinton needs revote wins in Florida and Michigan. I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.

But it's actually easy to understand. What would happen if an agreement were announced today that there would be re-votes in Florida and Michigan? Immediately, the previous primaries in those states would become dead letters. Instead of being 200,000 votes down in the popular vote (by her campaign's count), or 500,000 down (by my count, which gives Clinton her Florida votes), Clinton would be down in the popular vote by almost 1 million. And 193 delegates that they are currently counting would suddenly disappear.

The problem with Mark's argument is that while he may be counting the Florida popular vote (and he is not counting the Michigan vote, rightly in my view) in his calculus, the Media is not. And certainly no one is counting the Florida and Michigan delegates. Thus, Mark ignores these realities when he writes:

Contrary to the gullible media's belief that "time" is a "powerful ally" on Clinton's side, in fact, Clinton's only ally is uncertainty. The minute it becomes clear what will happen with Michigan and Florida -- re-vote them, refuse to seat them, or split them 50-50 or with half-votes, as some have proposed -- is the minute that Clinton's last "path to the nomination" closes. The only way to keep spin alive is to keep uncertainty alive -- maybe there will be a revote, maybe they'll seat the illegal Michigan/Florida delegations, maybe, maybe, maybe. In the fog of uncertainty, Penn can claim that there is a path to the nomination, but under any possible actual resolution of the uncertainty, there is not.

But for the Media (certainly for example for NBC and most Left Blogs) there is no uncertainty regarding the "fair" outcome, the only uncertainty in their minds is whether Clinton will "steal the election." That is a bad uncertainty for Clinton. She can replace that bad uncertainty with a more positive uncertainty - to wit, Clinton could come close in the pledged delegate count, could WIN the popular vote, could win convincingly with Democrats (as opposed to Independents and Republicans in Open Dem primaries), could win the key big contested states, and could have the big momentum as the contest comes to close.

What is obvious to Mark about Obama's inevitability is not obvious to me. Nor is it obvious to a more committed Obama supporter, Chris Bowers:

Without a single more superdelegate making an endorsement, it is still possible for Clinton to move pretty close in the delegate count. . . . If that winning streak also results in her winning the national popular vote, then she would have an overwhelming argument to bring to superdelegates based on both momentum and the popular will.

Without revotes in Florida and Michigan, Clinton's claims of a legitimate popular vote win, a closing of the pledged delegate race, a pattern of big contested state wins and of closing momentum becomes impossible

In my view, Schmitt has the uncertainty argument exactly backwards. Clinton has negative uncertainty now, reinforcing every false stereotype of her and her campaign ("She'll do anything to win"). Revotes in Floirda and Michigan allow her to build a new positive uncertainty narrative in this race - one where she is fighting to count every vote and win the contest for the will of the people.

< Rasmussen: Hillary Leads in PA, 51% to 38% | House Dems Stand Strong: Say No To Telecom Immunity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But she is fighting for re-votes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:19:31 PM EST
    You've been saying Sen. Clinton needs to fight for a re-vote in both MI and FL, something with which I completely agree, and she has been.  I don't quite understand why you suggest she's not been fighting for that.

    Or am I misreading you?

    That aside, my argument is and has been that the popular vote is a better indication of voter intent than the number of elected delegates, so it seems to me that both candidates should be fighting to count every damn vote in every state.

    I feel she has not been (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    She is sitting on the sidelines with empty press releases.

    Not just (none / 0) (#32)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    She made a public statement on this while giving a speech on Wednesday.  There is video and everything, so it's must be true!

    You and I agree that she should be personally and publicly calling for re-votes, at the very least so that she can paint Obama as the guy who does not think every vote counts; I'm just saying it's not just been press releases (though, mostly, yes).


    What was I saying again? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    so it's must be true!

    Gosh!  I slipped in all kinds of ways with that, eh?  It must be true...


    3rd Try, as threads move on: WHAT should Clinton (none / 0) (#47)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    do to show leadership on getting fair treatment for FL?



    I have been asking the same question (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    Pound the issue relentlessly (none / 0) (#79)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    as BTD is doing.  I think there may be some gamesmanship here.  Clinton may think she has a realistic shot of getting the delegates as they are, so she's not pushing all that hard.

    She should (none / 0) (#80)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    head for FL and talk personally to the organizers and/or public. But as soon as she does that... the OBAMA CAMPAIGN WILL CALL FOWL!

    Any push ... and she gets pushed back. This is a problem.


    I doubt she is paralyzed (none / 0) (#93)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    by fear of criticism from the Obama campaign.  It certainly didn't stop her from declaring victory in the beauty contests initially.

    I don't see (none / 0) (#104)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    the word "FEAR" in my comment... Please do not put works in my mouth. You can disagree without twisting my words.

    Words - not works (none / 0) (#106)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    So you are cool (none / 0) (#133)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    with putting "works" in your mouth lol

    LOL (none / 0) (#167)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:29:59 PM EST
    Works vs words has been a hot itme lately!

    Item (none / 0) (#169)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:32:47 PM EST
    my dyslexia is really giving me fits today... really.. I am dyslexic. When I'm tired... it gets worse.

    Ok, if you want to split hairs (none / 0) (#120)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    then explain what you mean.  Your comment suggested she was reluctant to go to FL because of pushback from the Obama campaign.

    Really- She (none / 0) (#170)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:38:09 PM EST
    will get pushback big time if she pushes this... I can see it now.... She is not playing by the rule... She will do anything to win... on and on and on!!! blah blah blah

    The re-vote has to look fair...And if Hillary pushes this.. it won't look fair.


    Get her two campaign co-chairs in Florida... (none / 0) (#83)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    To quit throwing roadblocks in front of every proposal?

    That might be a good start.


    The problem may be (none / 0) (#59)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    that Hillary has so far framed this as "we'd prefer the original votes to count, but if we have to we'll support do-overs," when it would be politically preferable for the campaign to completely jettison (at least publicly) any preference for the January results and come out swinging completely for a re-vote. Clearly, Hillary knows how take the fight to someone when she needs to; I think BTD's concern (not to put words in his mouth) is not about specific tactics that she's not employing, but rather how she's framing the issue.  If she comes out strongly for a revote, i.e., without treating it as a less favorable "Plan B," then she pressures Obama, the DNC, and the Florida folks now, plus she also wins a later PR battle in the event no revote occurs ("I clearly wanted the revote, but everyone else stood in the way.").  This would allow her to make a legitimate case to the SD's to consider the original popular vote in her favor, and it's the popular vote, not the delegates, that will be crucial to her pitch for the nomination. Without framing the revote as "Plan A," she may lose some credibility down the road if she needs to argue for seating the original delegation and arguing that the original votes should influence the SD's decision.

    I am still unconvinced that the original votes (none / 0) (#67)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    should be tossed. It is once again giving in to Obama.

    Why not get signatures from every Florida Dem who voted in the primary as to their preference? It's their vote. EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    In fact, I'm one of those conniving, undemocratic, election-stealing Clinton supporters that believes the results from both MI and FL were perfectly fair as is, and that both delegations should be seated without penalty.  That being said, this is increasingly becoming a battle of perception and an argument over legitimacy and electability.  That, imho, is the basis for claims that she needs to step up the fight for a revote and to de-emphasize her preference for the original results: to apply pressure now, and to win the perception/legitimacy/electability battle down the road if no revote occurs (which at present appears to be where we're heading).

    i too supported clinton, (none / 0) (#115)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:35:11 PM EST
    and one of the main reasons i fell out with her campaign was their ongoing claims about michigan and florida.  they mishandled this issue from the start.

    ultimately, i blame dean.  he had the same tools that the rnc had.  they seated their delegations with penalties.  makes sense.

    for obama, this is a layup.  his opponent is busy fixing dean's bungle, while he pushes forward.

    i agree with clinton supporters that obama is getting the better of this, but i do not agree that he is to blame.


    Process is Key as well (none / 0) (#173)
    by Igs on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    Agreed, and for 1, I would also be perfectly happy with a re-vote.

    There are two things that keep getting ignored:

    (1) The DNC has a very legitimate reason for penalizing states (and state delegations) that move up their primaries in violation of DNC rules.  As mentioned above, it frontloads campaigns and makes primaries essentially a beauty contest -- it marginalizes lesser known candidates to an extent that would truly be a dis-service to the party in the long run.

    (2) The DNC already ruled on (i) the propriety of the MI & FL elections, and (ii) seating the delegations.  As per the rules established, these delegations were not to be seated.  This decision was relied upon by the candidates and affected strategy and the manner in which campaigns were conducted...not to mention a ban of campaigning heavily favored the better-known candidate.  

    Changing the rules during the middle of the contest undermines the legitimacy of the process.  Where it is done for the real (if not stated purpose) of simply empowering your candidate, it is insidious.  Gerrymandering the system, which would be the result if you begin changing the rules mid-way through the game, poses a real threat to the integrity of the Democratic nomination.  As a result, it impacts the eventual Democratic nominee.  

    As Americans, and especially as Democrats, we must be committed to ensuring process, whether the results are favorable or unfavorable.  The integrity of the process is paramount.  

    No orderly system can be thought of as Democratic where rules are changed, switched and fine-tuned to elect one candidate over another -- this is absolutely undemocratic.

    On the flip side, I also concur that the Democratic party should seek to enfranchise voters.  Part and parcel of the Democratic method of nominating candidates is the value of democratic ideals in empowering the electorate while simultaneously selecting capable leaders.  In that process, the DNC must assure its nominees' viability in the general election --- alienating two key swing states does not achieve that goal.

    This leads to an essential conflict: if I am unwilling to compromise as to the rules set forth by the DNC concerning tbe MI and FL delegations, I disenfranchise voters.  

    BUT, and I feel has been almost entirely ignored on this and several other threads, if I enfranchise voters by compromising the integrity of the nominating process, I accomplish an equally disturbing and inappropriate end.

    This is why a re-vote, and not simply counting these elections (of which one main candidate was not on the ballot in 1 state) seems to be the most reasonable path as we could then rely on  the results of a properly conducted, if not perfect, primary (as they occurred within the appropriate time-frame set forth by the DNC).


    You do? (none / 0) (#156)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    Surely, as a lawyer, you understand that telling someone that their vote counts for X, and then, after the vote is counted, changing the stakes to Y is tantamount to fraud.  Surely you understand the value of adhering to neutral rules that are determined before the outcome is known.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#178)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:54:59 PM EST
    for telling me what I understand. May I suggest that you spend less time on your ventriloquist act and more time crafting hypotheticals that actually correspond to reality rather than to campaign talking points that emphasize "fairness" to one candidate to the detriment of the core Democratic value of counting every vote.

    Feel free to demonstrate structural or procedural irregularities in the MI or FL primaries; advantages or handicaps that did not apply equally to all candidates (self-inflicted wounds don't count, sorry); voting rights violations; or any other irregularity that would void those elections as elections.

    Then, please review the DNC Delegate Selection Rules ("neutral rules" to borrow your phrase), which were determined long before the outcome was known, and which expressly provide for the recognition of election results and the seating of both delegations through an appeal to the Credentials Committee, in addition to permitting other less formal procedures for the recognition of the original results (for example, through negotiations between the DNC, the states, and the candidates, such as we are now witnessing).

    Which "neutral rules" would you be referring to that raise the inference that the election results would never count under any circumstance? Not the Four State Pledge, of course, as no candidate agreed therein not to count the MI or FL votes, nor did they agree not to advocate the seating of the original delegations. Nobody is moving the goalposts by disregarding established rules, as you allege, as those rules clearly permit the seating of the original delegations under various scenarios.

    As a practical matter, over 2 million voters in both FL and MI (including more than 500,000 Obama supporters in a record turnout in Florida) certainly believed that their votes at least had the potential to be counted, even if the probability was not high. They do not seem to have been aware of the "rules" of which you speak, nor do they appear to subscribe to your absolutist interpretation of said "rules." I'm afraid your hypothetical is somewhat lacking.

    And don't call me Surely.


    Anything to win, the consequences be damned (none / 0) (#179)
    by polivics on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:35:00 AM EST
    Feel free to demonstrate structural or procedural irregularities in the MI or FL primaries

    Um, how about the fact that only one candidate was listed on the ballot in Michigan?  I know this kinda thing was accepted practice in the Soviet Union, but I'd like to think our standards for democracy are a tad bit higher.

    This moving of the goalposts on the part of Clinton campaign would be amusing if it weren't so infuriating.  Clinton and Obama both knew before the election that Michigan and Florida were going to be penalized, that their delegates would not be seated.  Both campaigns agreed to this state of affairs by complying with rules against campaigning in the states.  I certainly never heard Hillary complaining about the rules until after the election when her fortunes started to tumble. "Anything to win, the consequences be damned" is not the kind of governing philosophy I want in my next President. Should Hillary win the nomination through such Machiavellian tactics, she'll split the party and hand the oval office to McSame.


    michigan and florida are being penalized (none / 0) (#87)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    so other states would not front load the nomination process.  the reasoning for this was to prevent a schedule that rushed the voters to judgement.

    it is clear clinton would have benefited early on in the process, name id, inevitability and such.  as it is, the voters have been given more time to take a longer look.

    the rules make sense.  and if there is a different result, the rules will have worked.


    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#90)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    ...but we are certainly not at stasis in this race.  Obama clearly wants to run out the clock since - contrary to the belief of some - it's not necessarily the case that the more people know you, the more they like you.

    if i was in team obama's camp, (none / 0) (#101)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    your damn right i would work the clock.  if you are winning a race, that is coming to an end, why extend it?

    you right about name id cutting both ways, but the positive far outweighs being an unknown.

    if florida gets it together, i agree clinton has a better case to make, but better does achieve victory.  the clinton case needs to be stronger for me.  if she goes all the way and loses, the question that will be asked when this is over is:  "should she have stayed in as long as she did?"

    reminds me of the opening of miller's crossing:

              Well look, if your gonna laugh at me, the hell
              with you.

         Tom walks to the door, putting on his hat.

              And with you.  I'll square myself with Lazarre if
              you don't mind.  Thats why God invented cards.

         He pauses in the doorway and turns back to Leo.

              . . . There is something you can do for me.

              Name it.

              Think about what protecting Bernie gets us.
              Think about what offending Caspar loses us.

         Leo chuckles good-naturedly.

              Come on, Tommy, you know I don't like to think.

         Tom has stepped into the hallway and, just as he closes the

              Yeah.  Well, think about whether you should start.

         The door clicks shut.

         CUT TO BLACK


    Big Orange has a diary (none / 0) (#105)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    with the headline "Obama Wins 19 Votes In Florida."  According to the diary, Sen. Nelson has caved on a FLA re-vote, and there is likely to be agreement to seat the FLA delegates based on the original primary vote, with each delegate having only 1/2 vote. I do not know whether this story is true, since after the first few lines there was so much "OBAMA VICTORY" stuff that I had to stop reading.

    I am going to check around, but wondered if anyone here has heard this.


    Not surprisingly, the Big Orange diary (none / 0) (#111)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    exaggerated.  The underlying source for the claim that Nelson has "ceded" the issue of a re-vote comes from an Orlando newspaper that doesn't actually say that -- it just says that Nelson has floated such a solution:

    With the Florida Democratic Party's proposed mail-in do-over of its Jan. 29 presidential primary drawing more heat than support, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson began floating the idea Friday of seating half the state's 186 pledged delegates at the party's national convention.

    Nelson said he spoke Friday with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Senate floor about the plight of Florida and Michigan, the two states stripped of delegates because their early primaries violated national rules.

    "Both of them said, `You have to seat Florida and Michigan.' Now, of course, the devil is in the details,'" Nelson said.

    The Nelson plan still gives Clinton the edge, based on her 17 percentage-point win in January. But instead of gaining 38 delegates, Clinton's victory margin in Florida would be reduced to 19.

    Should be unacceptable... (none / 0) (#135)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    ...in a nominating process which is predicated on achieving an absolute threshold number of delegates, to simply wipe half of Florida's delegates out of existence.

    If someone can explain the logic behind 'let's just cut the number of delegates in half' I'd love to hear it.  Otherwise it just appears to be a totally arbitrary sanction.


    And what about Floridians? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    See, this is the thing that no one is considering.  Maybe Floridians already feel they have had the final word on the subject and no further primary is necessary.  Oh, sure, if there is still uncertainty about the disposition of the delegates they want a revote to make sure Hillary takes Florida.  But has anyone actually asked them what they prefer?  If it were put before them today, certify the delegates  or hold another primary, what would they say?  Remove the uncertainty of seating the delegates and I'll bet they'd say, "Well, alright then, That's that!"
    As for stealing the election, Obama will be a tainted candidate if he doesn't seat the delegation or go for revotes.  He will have invalidated the voters of all of the other big states that went for Clinton in the process and believe me, this is a mistake that would be much, MUCH bigger than Ralph Nader ever was.  The DNC should wake up and smell the coffee if it thinks it can win in Novemeber by pissing off the base,  And let's be honest here, Obama voters are not the traditional base voters with the exception of the AA contingent who have nothing to fear from a Clinton presidency.  
    Yes, uncertainty works in her favor.  Certainty works in her favor.  Nothing as far as Florida goes works in Obama's favor.  He ought to just bag it now or risk disaster.  

    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    if they feel they've said their bit. All of the rest of the world doesn't agree, and so if they want to be counted, they need a new primary.

    The rest of the world minus 1 (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST

    Minus 2 (none / 0) (#17)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    'Cause Jeralyn agrees with you.

    Everyone was on the ballot, so I think FL could be seated as is.  The DNC made a mess of things so, for legitimacy's sake (because Obama's fans don't agree this was a legitimate primary and OhMyGoshHillaryIsGoingToStealThis!) a re-vote would seem appropriate.

    I'm a Clinton voter, and that is my disclaimer.


    That's the way it works (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    They behave like children and scream "STOLEN ELECTION" and then we consent.

    Guess what.

    Revote = Stolen Election.


    Well, that's the cut of it, isn't it? (none / 0) (#64)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    We've got a bunch of kids who are tired and don't want to get out, and are threatening to piss in the pool unless they get their way.

    Guess what (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    I gotta go pee.

    I you believe she (none / 0) (#142)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    legitimately won the first time, why are you against another vote? If she truly has enduring support, I would expect her to win by a larger margin.

    Because I live in the real world (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    If Obama thinks his pledged delegate lead is enough, and can win outright, why not just count the Jan. 29th vote.

    What does HE have to fear?


    He has nothing to fear (none / 0) (#155)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:47:06 PM EST
    January 29 was not a real election. No amount of you repeating that it was fair will make it so.
    It is wishful thinking that the delegates will be seated based on the straw poll of Jan 29. You are making the same mistake the Florida Dems in office are making.
    Unless a real election is held, the delegates will not be seated in any way that could affect the nomination outcome.

    It was a real election (none / 0) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    Sure it was.

    The folks in FL think it was and that's all that matters.


    for the hundredth time (none / 0) (#175)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:09:05 PM EST
    I AM in Florida.

    yeah and so? (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    Not Sure Floridians Even Agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by RNinNC on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    I've seen polling that says that even Floridians don't agree on how to go about seating their delegates. I hope I can figure out how to make this link work.

    the problem with your argument is (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    Floridians are willing to revote to get their vote counted.

    Only because (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    They've been told their vote won't count if they don't.

    And they've been offered free stuff.

    Who doesn't like free stuff?


    Then (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:33:35 PM EST
    who are you to object to their accepting free stuff?

    Just don't confuse (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    That with a different question:

    "Do you think the Jan. 29th vote should count?"


    You ignore the actual question that matters (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    SINCE your Jan 29 vote will not be counted, do you want a revote?

    The answer is yes.


    It should be and it will (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:41:54 PM EST
    Or write it off in November.

    Memo (none / 0) (#74)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    The memo released yesterday by the FL Dem Party Chair was pretty clear on that:

    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.

    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. (Emphasis mine.)

    For the life of me I cannot understand why the FL Congressional delegation is being so stubborn about this.  FL will not count as is!  Get it together and come up with a plan.


    It can and should count as is (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    And Obama should not be considered a legitimate winner if he can't win without the help of this revote.

    Certify the existing vote.  If Obama still wins, we all acknowledge his victory.


    But counting half the delegates (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    is exactly what the Republicans have done....So, if the Democrats do the same thing, the Republicans do not get an advantage....

    But why is Hillary okay with a re-vote in Michigan but her Florida supporters, including Wasserman Schultz, are opposed to a re-vote there?


    But the Republicans (none / 0) (#126)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    already have a clear cut winner who will probably lift the punishment at the convention. So the GOP will still have an advantage in FL.

    why no one says (none / 0) (#18)
    by neilario on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:30:42 PM EST
    that by BO trying to block MI and FL he could be seen as stealing the nomination is wrong. If there is not a revote in those states neither one will be seen as legitimate. Again, it is not about the candidates - it should be about the voters.

    Florida Democrats need to understand (none / 0) (#53)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    the difference between a party primary and a general election.

    A party primary is run by the party and its rules. Whether you agree with those rules or not. For all practical purposes, a non-sanctioned party primary is the equivalent of no primary.  

    That's the bottom line.

    FN1: All Democrats need to understand this point.
    FN2: I think the sanctions were over-broad given Florida Democratic voters were hostage to the GOP legislature. It would have been smarter and less divisive if the party had simply stripped Florida of some of its delegates. The insiders would have been punished and the rank and file voters would not care. But we are, where we are.


    No disinformation please (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    A primary is not run by the party and its rules. It is run by the state and is subject to state law, not party rules.  Caucuses, by contrast, are purely party affairs, and generally not subject to state law as to how (or when) they are run.  Where states enact legislation that conflicts with party rules regarding a primary, the state party is required to take "provable positive steps" to enact legislative changes that bring state law into compliance with the rules. The party may choose to impose a penalty on a noncomplying state, but party rules have no controlling effect on the primary itself.

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    What Florida Statue forces the DNC to accept the results of a non-sanctioned party primary?

    Read carefully please, precision counts (none / 0) (#109)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    I did not say that state law forces the DNC to accept results from an allegedly noncomplying state.  In fact, I expressly noted that the DNC does have such authority. It is your erroneous assertion that a primary is run by the party under party rules that I took issue with. Accuracy matters, and as your post claims that "all democrats need to understand this point," you should probably understand it yourself first.

    Its a distinction without a difference in that (none / 0) (#117)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    the party can choose to waive any of its rules it wants at anytime.

    What are we left with? A non-sanctioned party primary the results of which the party cannot be forced to be accept.

    Is that precise enough for you?


    Oh, please (none / 0) (#147)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    See my response to Squeaky below regarding the "distinction without a difference" argument.  As far as your precision goes, you continue to avoid my central point (i.e. that you have misstated the legal relationship of party control and party rules with respect to state primaries), and back your "argument" up with a nonsequitur and irrelevant point about the party's ability to waive it's own rules. I'll leave it to others to determine for themselves the degree of precision you exhibit.

    So you are conceding the party has the power (none / 0) (#153)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    to decide whether or not to accept the results? And that the results cannot be forced upon the party by the state of Florida or its Democratic voters?

    I'll concede the point that the parties run caucuses and states run primaries.

    As for your other points

    1. I never said it was the Florida voters or the Florida Democratic Party's fault the primary was held without party sanction.
    2. regarding the GOP controlled legislature created the problem- that may very well be, but your complaint isn't with me. Its with the Party rules as the DNC is viewing them. Which gets back to my point- It was a non-party sanctioned primary that the DNC cannot be forced to accept. Unless I am wrong about that minor little detail, everyone needs to understand that minor little point.

    I'll gladly leave it to others to judge.



    The 14th Amendment (none / 0) (#127)
    by badger on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    The same thing that says you can't have a county election commission arbitrarily deny your right to vote based on it's grading of your literacy test.

    You're confusing the right of the party to set its own standards nationally with regard to selecting delegates with the party arbitrarily deciding that some classes of voters will be denied the opportunity to participate at all. The party has no right to say "black's votes don't count in our primary" or "women's votes don't count" and it has no right to say that votes from FL or MI don't count.

    And whether you think there's a legal basis for that argument, there's certainly a moral basis that goes back to voter rights activism in the 1960s and the women's suffrage movement long before that (or the rights of felons to vote now).

    The party can sanction FL and MI, but not by taking away their franchise. The party can insist on a re-vote if they object to the original election, but they can't refuse to count the votes at all (unless they're the Supreme Court).


    Btw (none / 0) (#136)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    Who actually conducted the Jan 29th election? And who conducted the MI election (Jan 15?)?

    I'll concede I have not read the cases (none / 0) (#144)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:13:31 PM EST
    and you may know what you are talking about and it may be I don't, but I don't think the 14th amendment section 2 applies to primary nominations. On its face it only applies to actual elections to federal offices- not the right to run under a particular banner.

    As for discrimination that is section 1, which I don't believe is applicable since no one is facing discrimination as a member of an inherently suspect class (for the casual reader of this, that usually means race and gender).

    That said, if you have a specific case as this proposition I certainly will read it and concede the issue.


    Meaningful Distinction? (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    ... party rules have no controlling effect on the primary itself.

    Just the results which is what counts.


    Yes, I believe it's quite a meaningful distinction (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    First, as I note in my second response to Molly, accuracy matters, particularly when Molly claims to be educating us about a point that "all democrats must understand," and especially as Molly does not understand the point him or herself.

    Second, Obama supporters frequently misrepresent the Florida debacle as something brought on by the Florida Democratic Party and/or the DNC, without giving sufficient (or often any) weight to the operative fact that it was the Republican-controlled legislature that moved the date of the primary in Florida, not the FDP. By misrepresenting the legal relationships and authority of the players, Molly reinforces a false narrative about the Florida process.  Results do count, as I plainly imply by noting the DNC's ability to penalize noncomplying states, but I respectfully submit that accuracy matters, as well.


    Accuracy is important (none / 0) (#140)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:10:24 PM EST
    As is completeness.  So let us also note that the DNC attempted to work with the Dem party to alleviate the problem, even before the primary date was moved, but the Florida Democratic party was recalcitrant.  This may alleviate the frequent tendency of Clinton supporters to act as if the Florida party had its hands completely tied by the legislature.

    Absolutely, completeness matters (none / 0) (#164)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:23:23 PM EST
    Of course, as I was making no comment on the actual historical development of the Florida situation, or making any claims for the innocence of the FDC, but was rather commenting on the inaccuracy of a specific fact put forth by the original poster, and (only tangentially) its potential to reinforce a false narrative, there was nothing incomplete about my point. :)

    I respectfully submit (none / 0) (#172)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:44:05 PM EST
    That you were indeed commenting on the historical development of the Florida situation, in pointing out the legislature's role in the development of the alleged offense, and the tendency of certain parties to omit same from the record.

    Opinion respectfully noted. (none / 0) (#177)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:42:35 PM EST
    And respectfully disagreed with. Enjoy the tail chasing! :)

    Oh I See (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    I believe that you are  making rather nasty generalizing about Obama supporters, and casting them as ignorant people. Also, given that you portend to be a stickler for accuracy,  you are making incorrect assumptions about who is an Obama supporter or not.

    I have followed this from the beginning, and apart from the dirty dealings of the FL GOP all the Dems voted for the measure to move up the primary. Yes, I understand that the GOP tacked on a paper trail measure that supposedly forced the democrats to vote for the measure.  I think that is weak because the bill was going to pass with or without the Dems vote.

    It would have been a much better show if zero democrats voted in protest for the measure as they did in MI. At this point the FL Dems look almost as culpable as the Repubs.


    Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    Please do not attribute assumptions to me that are not fairly implied or expressly stated.  I used the plural and generic phrase "Obama supporters" with no reference to you whatsoever. Your assumptions about my assumptions are unfounded (particularly since I don't have an assumption as to your preferred candidate; if anything, my recollection is that you are a Clinton supporter, or at least voted for HRC).

    Second, although you are certainly entitled to your opinion as to my arguments, please do not put words in my mouth. Nowhere have I said that any candidate's supporters are "ignorant people" nor have I made "nasty generalizations" about anyone. Supporters of both candidates engage in creating narratives favorable to their point of view, and such narratives necessarily take the focus off unfavorable facts. Although it was not relevant to my original, quite humble little post about the factual accuracy of one statement made by Molly, I was responding to your query about "meaningfulness" by explaining my concern that false facts reinforce false narratives, in this case one prevalent on the Obama side of the aisle; Clinton supporters frequently do the same thing by underemphasizing the role of the FDC and Florida's Democratic legislators as beggars at their own demise. Nowhere in any of this did I engage in ad hominem attacks on the character, intelligence, or fund of knowledge of Obama supporters in general, or you in particular.


    OK (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:23:48 PM EST
    I apologize for mischaracterizing your statement as nasty and demeaning.

    Second, Obama supporters frequently misrepresent the Florida debacle....

    Still not sure how you can justify seating the FL delegates according to the results of Jan 29. The DNC sets the rules and needs to come up with a face saving solution for all. Re vote seems a no brainer to me.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:32:40 PM EST
    I apologize for any confusion that my inartful choice of words may have created. I've been enjoying your posts for months and I felt bad that our first exchange seemed to get off on the wrong foot. :)

    As for seating the original delegations, I'm pretty much in lockstep with Jeralyn on that one, for all the reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam the last few weeks, but I've yielded to BTD's logic that the revote is now the most practical (and maybe even possible) alternative. We are cursed to live in interesting times.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    To get snippy. TL and BTD and their differences of opinion, make for great blogging. Personally I wish the nomination was decided yesterday so that we can all focus on defeating the GOP. I am not holding my breath.

    Revotes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    Help Obama.

    One is necessary.  The other is not.

    Obama needs to prove he can win without second chances.

    He can not do that.

    He won't and he can't.

    Why don't you have to prove (none / 0) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    Hillary would have won with the same vote totals had Obama meaningfully campaigned in those two "primaries"?

    Hillary would get a lot of mileage by winning Florida in a party sanctioned primary. She has more to lose by their not being a re-vote in a party sanctioned primary.  


    Because timing is just as important (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:02:17 PM EST
    As anything else when it comes to elections.

    And yes, I understand the PR reasons why a revote can work to Clinton's benefit.

    Obama never would have had a chance without the way this situation played out.

    This is his second chance at a state he never would have won if it happened when it was supposed to happen.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    You can't prove that logically (that Obama never would have had a chance).

    No doubt timing is everything. Had Florida waited until Super Tuesday, would HRC gotten the same amount of votes? We don't know the answer to that and will never know the answer to that.

    Its not a 2nd chance in any event, because there was no party sanctioned first chance.


    Yes (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    A 4 day difference has less impact than a 3 month difference.

    There's just no way you're going to convince me that a Super Tuesday vote would have been any different than the Jan. 29th vote.

    You can try.


    No (none / 0) (#112)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    There's no way you can predict the precise impact of what happened over the intervening 4 months. There's also no way to predict what would have happened had it been announced that the original FL and MI primaries were kosher with the DNC.

    Counterfactuals are fun, but unprovable.


    This isn't Logic and Empiricism 101 (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:38:32 PM EST
    Give a real world reason why the vote on Jan 29th would have been any different than a vote on Super Tuesday.

    Who needs logic and empiricism (none / 0) (#121)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:45:21 PM EST
    when we feel it in our gut!

    (Reality Community RIP 2008)


    I still don't see a good reason (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    why Jan 29 would have been any different than Super Tuesday.

    I will concede you may be right (none / 0) (#129)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    I will not concede it is a given. We don't know and we will never know.

    For the record I think the situation we are in sucks. I would have been happier if the DNC (early on when still possible to do without screams) had said "in retrospect, the punishment is too harsh, we cut Florida's delegates in half, but they will be seated.

    Take em out back and have them shot at dawn as my constitutional law professor used to say.


    I see (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    Obama would not have been able to win without cutting votes in half.

    actually what I said is to cut the (none / 0) (#148)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    delegates in half, not split the delegates (i.e. change the proportions) between the two.

    That was an option and It would not change the outcome of the popular vote in Florida.

    Also, I don't support either candidate individually. I support the nominee. I like both candidates for different reasons. I will be sorry to be forced to chose between the two in a re-vote.


    Resources and narrative (none / 0) (#134)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    If the primaries had been moved to Super Tuesday, campaigns would have had to choose where to spend their resources and time and the SC results and Florida GOP results would have had time to sink in.

    My suspicion would be a substantially narrower spread, as has typically happened when the two candidates have both campaigned and run ads in an area.


    That's a wash (none / 0) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    As neither candidate did any advertising at all.

    You bring up two good points.

    Minor, miniscule compared to the kinds of things that happen over the course of three months.


    I thought... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    ...the entire premise behind a revote was the challenge to the legitimacy of the initial primaries?

    Yet Schmitt's entire thesis is that she loses ground by erasing the initial vote tally?  The initial vote is already being dismissed - witness Kos spinning that Obama has an 800K popular vote lead (a number only achieved by omitting FL and MI).

    Yep (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    Exactly my point.

    I agree and think (none / 0) (#2)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    that if she wins in FL & MI re-votes AND PA -- she's got a clear path to the nomination. And she ends on a really high note.  

    I just saw Ezra talking about that Schmitt post and thought the numbers looked funny to me.

    I sure hope she's pushing hard for Florida.  I've sent messages to everyone I can think of begging for it.

    Since the numbers I've seen (none / 0) (#3)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    both popular vote AND delegate counts don't include FL & MI, it's almost like they're subtracting those votes twice.  I must be wrong....

    Numbers games. (none / 0) (#40)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:39:07 PM EST
    This is getting annoying, but to recap:

    Counting neither FL, nor MI, nor the 4 caucuses that we have no vote totals for, Clinton is down by 700,000

    Adding back the Jan. 29 FL results, Clinton is down by 500,000

    Adding back the Jan. 29 MI results (Obama gets 0 in this case), Clinton is down by 100,000.

    Some estimates are that the 4 caucuses, of which Obama won 3 (IO, WA, ME), lost one (NV) would net Obama ~100,000 votes.

    So including everything, including the estimates, Clinton is currently down 200,000.

    Schmitt's math up to that point is perfectly explicable.


    Very round and inaccurate numbers (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    you have just spouted.

    That is simply wrong.


    All right (none / 0) (#65)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    Are these better?

    No FL or MI: Clinton down by 703,226.
    No MI: Clinton down by 408,954
    Both FL and MI: Clinton down by 80,645

    (source: RealClearPolitics)


    Yes better (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    Now your only error left is the addition of the cuacus votes.

    They would NOT net Obama 100k votes (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    Obama won Iowa by 8 points. That is 16,000 votes extrapolating.

    He won Maine I believe by 20 points out of 20 caucusgoers. That is 4,000 votes margin.

    He won the Washington primary by 39,000 votes and the Washington caucuses by a smaller margin in raw votes.

    Clinto won Nevada by 6 points, extrapolating I think that is worht about a 4000 vote margin.

    Obama adds about 55,000 vote margin including all the missing caucuses.


    Pretty sure it's a bigger difference. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:29:45 PM EST
    I don't necessarily trust Kos, but he has a post on the caucus totals, and most of his math checks out. I recomputed the numbers with publicly available data:

    Iowa had >227,000 total. Obama won by 8.11%, so 18410 votes.
    Nevada had 117600 total. Clinton won by 5.79%, so 6810 votes.
    Maine had >45000 total. Obama won by 19,52%, so 8780 votes.
    Washington had >250000 total. Obama won by 36.33% so 90830 votes.

    Total:  111210 net for Obama.

    Now, I suspect the real difference is less, given the way caucuses work, but 100,000 is hardly an unreasonable starting point.


    You are speculating as am I (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    I do not believe your WA and IA numbers.

    WA had a primary so I would give Obama 39k margin there in any case.

    The Maine number is just plain wrong.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#151)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:38:50 PM EST
    The ME total comes from here. How is that wrong?

    What is wrong with the IA numbers? Totals are from here.

    I suppose one could argue that the WA primary should count rather than the caucus, but there's a big problem there too: since it didn't count in terms of selecting delegates, plenty of folks simply didn't vote in it.


    Newspapers ALWAYS overreport (none / 0) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    these things. I bet it was not even 30,000.

    Same with Iowa (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    This is just like reporting crowd sizes at rallies.

    Knock them down by at least 25%.


    The funny thing is (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:55:58 PM EST
    they can give raw vote totals.

    Why do you think they have not? Do you think they are a little embarrassed to be caught lying? I do.


    Iowa totals wrong too? (none / 0) (#163)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    The state democratic party claims 239,000.

    All right (none / 0) (#162)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:09:16 PM EST
    How about the results from the Democratic party. 43866, so slightly less than the 46000 mentioned. Are these also bogus?

    As for the WA issue (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    As I said, when determining the POPULAR VOTE, you should look at, you know, the popular vote.

    Here is my question (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    Wouldn't you think estimable and inestimable would mean the opposite?  Yet they don't.

    Just like (none / 0) (#6)
    by eric on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    flammable and inflammible.

    inflammable (none / 0) (#8)
    by eric on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:23:33 PM EST

    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    Here is a question for Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST

    What overriding principle is served by disenfranchising the voters from two states?

    If "rules is rules" is all the Obots have, they lose.

    I've explained this (none / 0) (#20)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    about a million times in numerous threads.

    My answer (none / 0) (#28)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:34:36 PM EST
    They're already have been disenfranchised.  Calling a faux election a real one doesn't make it a real reflection of their interests.

    Yet even non-Obama supporters, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    saddled with merely 0.5xuiq, see the obvious fallacies of your premise.

    I half agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    A revote helps Clinton in Florida but kills her in Michigan.  She'll win Florida in a revote so putting those in a more legitimate context helps her.  However, just Florida isn't enough.  If she's going for the popular vote argument, NC is likely to wipe out most of her PA gains.  All of her chances to take over the lead (other than winning the NC election) hinge around the Michigan election being considered unbiased.  

    That's a free 300,000 votes and go a long way towards closing the gap.  A new election there will be close to 50-50; Obama could even win it which would both make the gap worse and destroy her big states argument.   The best chance for now involves no revote in MI.  It's a long shot, but that's what she has.

    Heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    Michigan is Ohio.  I doubt Hillary is worried about losing there.

    At the end of the day, no one will ever buy the concept of a slim popular vote lead that is premised on Hillary having won Michigan by a count of several hundred thousand votes to zero.  It would be absurd.  She has to take her chances with a revote no matter what comes of it.


    No it isn't (none / 0) (#46)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    We hail the victors.  They hang on sloopy.  Also nowhere in Michigan is like SE Ohio.

    Really? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    Cheboygan?  The UP?

    Northern MI is Clinton country for the same reasons SE Ohio is.

    I believe Obama can make Michigan a couple points closer than Ohio was.  I cannot envision him winning the state.


    It's just my opinion but (none / 0) (#149)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    I think a slightly different dynamic may prevail in the UP than in the Springtucky area of Ohio.

    It's the echo chamber (none / 0) (#55)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    I've seen enough people who are buying that argument - heck there's another thread on this board that puts forth an argument that not only includes Michigan, but removes votes that did count based on exit polling - and they talk to each other and convince each other that their argument is correct.   It's one of the issues with the Internet; people just talk to people who agree with them.

    As for "Michigan is Ohio," before the campaigning started, Clinton had a double digit lead in OH.  Now they're polling evenly.  Without a huge blowout, she doesn't gain the delegates or the votes she needs.


    What I would do for an edit button ;) (none / 0) (#58)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    Polling evenly in MI that is, not in OH...

    One poll (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    And a Ras poll at that.

    Frankly, no one knows what will happen in MI, though most think it favors Clinton.

    Here is a novel idea, why don't we wait for the votes?


    We already had votes. (none / 0) (#71)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    Too many voted for the GOP state legislators. Blame the and those that put them in office.

    Not so black and white... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by gish720 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    The vote in Florida to move the primary date had to do with a compromise the dems made with the republicans in order to pass a bill in which we got a paper trail and a much more accurate voting technology.  What surprises me is tha South Carlina moved their date and got no punishment...does anyone know why that occurred?

    Not in a party sanctioned primary (none / 0) (#81)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    minor detail I know.

    round and round and round and round and . . . (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    Seems like (none / 0) (#43)
    by TN Dem on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    NC is tightening. Last poll I read had Obama by 8 or 9...

    PA is tightening too though... (none / 0) (#57)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    Clinton's lead in the last one is down to 13.  When you're trying to make up a gap of 1,000,000 votes this late in the game, you need huge blowout and can't really lose any.

    Don;t mix and match polls (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    The Ras poll movement is within the MOE from 15 to 13.

    The SUSA poll had it 19, the Susquehanna poll has it 16, the SV poll has it 18. The ARG poll has it 11.

    Thus, Clinton's lead among the MOST RECENT polls (some Febrruary polls had it as close as 6) could be anywhere  from 11 to 19, depending on which poll you pick.

    Thius the one data point you cherrypick could be spun as her lead increasing. It would be silly to argue that, but just as silly to argue it is decreasing, as you do.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#77)
    by zzyzx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    Oh, Clinton can net 328,300 in the MI re-vote (none / 0) (#124)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    Simple. Assuming the same turnout as before (594600), all she needs to do is beat Obama by 55.2 points.

    Or in other words, a 77.6-22.4 victory.

    Alternatively, if they have the same voter total as in Ohio (2233400), which would mean slightly higher turnout than in Ohio since Michigan is slightly smaller populationwise, a victory by only 14.7 points would do the trick.

    That is to say a 57.4-42.6 result would be okay.


    BTD right on uncertainty, Schmitt right on math (none / 0) (#23)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    It's true that most people aren't buying the inclusion of FL and nobody is buying the inclusion of MI.  So Clinton's claim to being within 300,000 votes of Obama is not a good one.

    However, Schmitt is right that Clinton's odds of having any claim to the popular vote go down if there are revotes in MI and FL.

    Thus, Clinton has a choice between trying to win pretty and trying to win ugly.  If there are revotes and she finishes with a popular vote lead, nobody except a few fools on moveon.org will complain if the superdelegates give her the nomination.  However, if she is behind in pledged and popular votes after the revotes, Obama is the nominee.

    Without revotes, if Clinton wins PA and goes well in the other primaries, she may be able to use the January votes to claim a popular vote lead, which, combined with the "big state" and "momentum" arguments to make a play for superdelegates, might work, even if she is behind in the popular vote not counting FL and MI.

    In that scenario, many Obama supporters would complain and it would be very ugly.  But it is not impossible.

    The Math again? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    Let's count the votes as opposed to wild speculation on "the math."

    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#38)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:37:45 PM EST
    I'm just saying that there is a downside to revotes for Clinton: her chances of having a claim to the popular vote go down.

    However, her chances of having a good claim go up.  So on balance it's better for her to have revotes.  

    More importantly, it is definitely better for the party.


    There is potential (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:39:03 PM EST
    loss of raw votes.

    There is no downside because the current vote count is not treated as legitimate.


    If so, you are right (none / 0) (#51)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    But I think that if she wins PA and does well in the other May/June states, she might be able to make a case based on "big states," momentum, and the January votes.

    If she is successful, it will be ugly for the Democrats because Obama and his supporter will not be happy.


    Sometimes I wonder (none / 0) (#56)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    If the Clinton strategy is more about 2012 at this point than 2008.

    The other element of her argument (none / 0) (#72)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    Would be the importance of seating MI and FL.  

    If there are no revotes AND FL and MI provide Obama's margin of victory in pledged delegates and popular votes, June through August will be a real game of chicken between the two campaigns.

    With the Democratic party being the beat-up cars hurdling toward a cliff.


    A convenient assumption for you (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    that has been disproven in both Texas and Washington.

    It's a stretch... (none / 0) (#174)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:08:01 PM EST
    ...to claim "crushing, blow-out wins" when you're actually talking about margins of a few thousand people state-wide.  Low turn-out makes it appear to be a blow out (wow a 20 point victory!) but it loses its shine when you realize that single digit percentages of the voting population turned out.

    Why Mark is wrong (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    The media loves the horse race and as much as they'd love to write Hillary's obituary, it is not in their business interests to declare this thing over.

    If MI and FL have a do-over, the narrative will not be "Whoops! With those states off the board for now, suddenly Hillary has no chance."  With MI and FL suddenly added to the tail-end of the process, they become a defining moment in the race.  The media will be fascinated by the do-over concept and they will want to hype those races as much as possible.

    this would be putting them back (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    on the board. Not off the board as Schmitt implicitly assumes.

    I do not follow his logic at all.

    the uncertainty Schmitt touts is negative uncertainty for Clinton - will she steal it? - as opposed to can she win it?


    The thing is that there is no way to (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    take the same picture twice, so people really have to stop thinking about this as a "re"-vote and start thinking of it as a "vote."  That's really hard to do - where is Tommy Lee Jones with the mind-eraser when you need him?

    Both campaigns are in a whole different place in March than they were in January, and will likely be in yet another place by the end of April. There are people who didn't vote in January who will vote in the new election, people who regret their original votes who will now get a chance to change them, and people who may not vote again because they are angry at being made to jump through this hoop.  And then there are the people who moved, the people who died.  More will register to vote.

    I think this entire election season will be talked about for years, and Amazon may need an auxiliary warehouse for the collection of books that will be written about it.

    Right on. Nicely said. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    Have to consider the context (none / 0) (#48)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    The Clinton side of the argument is so sadly suppressed in the left blogosphere that an Obama supporter has to make it.

    I have often found myself arguing cases for people I don't agree with at blogs where everyone else is making bad arguments against them, faute de mieux.

    This is a response to a deleted comment (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    that called me a liar.

    Above in reply to a deleted comment re balance n/t (none / 0) (#52)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:42:41 PM EST
    pwned n/t (none / 0) (#54)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    Friends like these.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    Not sure what Senator Clinton can do..
    Florida Senator and Clinton supporter Bill Nelson proposes counting January primary results -- with state's elected delegates getting 1/2 a vote each.

    She just got unlucky to not even get her own legit votes... I guess!

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    But Nelson has a good excuse, House FL Dems stymied him at every turn and Clinton has done NOTHING to fight for a revote.

    Time for Clinton supporters to ask questions of their preferred candidate.


    I have (none / 0) (#82)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    I've sent messages to everyone I can think of (and the contact button at the website)

    AND messages to all family and friends.

    Mostly because of your posts on the subject.  I'm guessing the campaign has been deluged by email messages today.


    True-but... (none / 0) (#91)
    by honora on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    If they can not get a re-vote, then to get Florida's delegates counted means that the popular vote numbers are 'legitimate' and will be counted.  If they feel that they can only win with the popular vote anyway, then giving up some pledged delegates may be the price they pay.  

    The votes should count as it (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    She doesn't need a revote, Fla broke no DNC rules, if the States voters are not tallied the Party risks their nominee being perceived as a Pretender.

    If enough supers can decide the winner (none / 0) (#88)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    a clear winner after June... I guess all the FL delegates would be automatically be seated...

    I don't agree ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    I think you want your position an issue to peak at the right moment.

    If MI comes approves a redo that will be the point to start ratcheting up the rhetoric on this issue.

    Then it will be a big story and the Clinton campaign will have the time and space to make arguments in support of MI and to push FL to do likewise.

    It's a timing thing.

    Not sure I follow the logic (none / 0) (#96)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:11:15 PM EST
    Wouldn't ratcheting up the rhetoric on Florida (or Michigan) put pressure on Michigan (or Florida)?  I don't see why she (or he) should wait for events rather than driving them.

    Because as I said ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    you want it to peak at the right moment.

    I guess (none / 0) (#123)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    I think it's just as likely to peak and remain high if she's seen as out front and leading in pushing this along.

    Intelligent people can differ ... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:43:45 PM EST
    I simply have a different view of how the media works.

    Anyway, I said what I wanted to say.  I don't feel the need to elaborate further.


    I'm a Floridian who wants a re-vote (none / 0) (#95)
    by gish720 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    As things stand now our votes are not being counted at all.  In order for our votes to be heard I think the only thing to do is have a re-vote.  You can't just have a re-vote and expect to get only the outcome you desire, so we have to take our chances and have this be legitimate.  If Obama comes out with more votes in the final analysis that's the way it'll have to be in order for Florida to be heard at all.  The Obama campaign has been more effective than I thought was possible in succeeding in their argument to suppress our votes, in which case we need to vote again.  I agree with BTD that it's the only way our votes will matter.  Unfortunate but true. I personally believe Hillary WILL still come out on top, especially with the fact that Obama has been fighting to have our votes not be counted.  I know there are people that twist themselves into all sorts of pretzel shapes to support Obama no matter what he says, but while that's a shame it's the way it is, so unless we want Florida to be unrepresented at the convention then a revote is our only option, in my humble...

    If the circumstances (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    Were to change and you were told that the Jan 29 votes would be certified, would you still rather do a revote?

    Logic to her madness (none / 0) (#110)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    Despite what we say hear I find it very hard to believe that Hilary does not have a planned strategy for Florida. We just haven't figured it out.  She knows the importance of Florida, I doubt she just going to let it go.

    I'm not sure... (none / 0) (#139)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    ...the mythology is that Clinton doesn't blow her nose without some carefully crafted strategy behind it.  I tend to think they're a lot more seat of the pants than they let on.  The 'overly orchestrated' meme seems to be an effort to assign deliberation to campaign gaffes...

    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#113)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    Yes, that's right.

    I think what Jeralyn doesn't take into account in pushing to seat the presently "elected" delegates is that people like I will be screaming bloody murder if the Michigan delegates are seated. As far as I am concerned, Michigan was a deliberate act of bad faith on the part of Hillary Clinton, an act of cheating and lying, and I do not accept the argument that politics is some kind of battle where such tricks are okay; if the other candidates are having their names removed, then you have yours removed, too, or you are lying and cheating.

    What is needed is a compromise, a re-vote being one such compromise. Live with fact that you don't think the compromise was the best thing, that a vote was "stolen"; what matters is that you and the people who think you are trying to "steal" the election are in agreement.

    This is so simple. But you have to be willing to let your preferred candidate lose, if that's what is going to happen. Normally that is not a difficult thing to do, but this year it's proving more difficult. I don't know why; Dr. Justin Frank wasn't sure why, either, when he was on the Jeff Farias program talking about this, about why supporters of either potential nominee are threatening to hold their breaths till they turn blue.

    I feel the same way (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    Only about Obama and Dean, two people who benefit by Clinton losing.

    Everything has worked out Obama's way.

    You have to be willing to let YOUR preferred candidate lose.


    Anyone advocating (none / 0) (#150)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    real elections in FL and MI (not re-votes) is willing to find out what the voters truly want. The "elections" held in January did not count, and are irrelevant towards determining what the voters want.

    Add in the popular vote (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM EST