MI/FL: The State Of Play

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:02:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

NYTimes:

Democrats in Michigan and Florida struggled Friday to resolve the impasse over their disputed January primaries, coming up with a plan to hold a June primary in Michigan while remaining deadlocked in Florida.

. . . Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do. “If you’re not going to count my vote, I’m not going to give you my money,” said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

. . . MORE

. . . The anger from Clinton fund-raisers seems to emanate mostly from Florida, where the impasse appears farthest from resolution. Democratic Party officials in Michigan on Friday proposed a new primary election on June 3 to make up for the January election.

. . . As for the latest Michigan proposal, aides to Mrs. Clinton signaled they were likely to go along with the plan, but the Obama campaign was more skeptical, according to people involved in the process.
. . .

Nobody is leading or has any sense of urgency on this. The Democratic Party stinks. BTW, the candidates themesleves are not all that either.

< Obama Tells Sun Times Rezko is Still a Friend | Iowa County Assemblies Today: What Will Edwards' Delegates Do? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

MI/FL: The State Of Play | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

on the ground (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by diogenes on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST

If the Florida democratic house reps are all against a revote, maybe it's because the voters on the ground (not the activists who voted in an uncontested primary for Hillary) don't want anything done that would favor Hillary.

I think Hillary is waiting for Obama (none / 0) (#1)
by blogtopus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM EST

to dig his own here. The narrative is set: Obama isn't interested in their votes.

Well (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM EST

Wouldn't you rather have extra votes than just a narrative? If the voters of Florida are angry with Obama, how does that do Clinton any good without a revote?

[ Parent ]

They can demand that the delegation is seated (none / 0) (#10)
by goldberry on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:57:31 AM EST

as it is. There's nothing preventing this except that Dean and the RULZ committee have a meeting where "after careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the movement of the date of the Florida primary, it has been determined that the Florida Democratic Party was not culpable. We are in favor of allowing the penalties to be waived so that the delegates awarded in the January 29th primary on be seates as is at the convention in August. It was not our intention to disenfranchise the innocent voters of Florida but to discourage other states from moving up their primary dates. Since the rules appear to have been applied inconsistently, the punishment has not been effective and we see no reason to continue to apply the penalty so that additional funds will need to be raised to hold a new primary."
Done, end of story. Obama takes a small hit. Of course, if he had taken it upon himself to propose this solution, he would have benefitted from the good will of the voters that would have followed. Oh, well, too late now.

[ Parent ]

: Okay (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:05:48 PM EST

but considering a re-vote would be better still for Hillary, I'm not sure why she would want to stake her chances on that scenario. Dean and friends could just as well say "nope, you're out of luck," and then what do you have?

[ Parent ]

They had better decide soon (none / 0) (#2)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:18:20 AM EST

This can be the deal breaker. Especially in Florida which has given the Democrats such a hard time in the last two elections. And even though it was the State's legislators who went against the DNC, it is the DNC who is starting to look like the Donkey's posterior.

Hilary's thank you trip to Florida (none / 0) (#4)
by Saul on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:27:51 AM EST

after the election was over will probably be a big plus for her if they have a re vote. The Floridian democrats probably said " Well at least someone cared that we voted"

Fundraisers (none / 0) (#5)
by Foxx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST

yes! Perhaps money will talk when nothing else has worked!

I've been wondering whether perhaps Clinton is not pushing harder because she is thinking Obama is going to implode from all the scandals. Do overs are a risk for her.

Why would Clinton push aggressively for revotes? (none / 0) (#6)
by goldberry on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST

She has nothing to lose by patiently waiting this out. The ball is entirely in Obama's court. All Clinton has to do is abide by the final outcome. The worst possible thing for Obama to do is dither and decide not to seat the delegates. Then, not only does his campaign take a hit but everyone who has been backing him and telling him to hold out takes a hit as well.
Clinton will get those delegates. All Obama needs is a face saving way of handing them over to her. Dean could provide one. Why isn't he?

It seems obvious to me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:51:59 AM EST

that if there is no revote, Clinton will NOT get the delegates.

[ Parent ]

Couldn't the DNC seat (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:54:42 AM EST

X no. of officially uncommitted delegates from MI and FL?

[ Parent ]

You have some evidence that they will? (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:56:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]

None. Just a hypothetical. (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:01:42 PM EST

The DNC seems to be lacking self-discipline (none / 0) (#14)
by goldberry on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST

It is holding its breath and not giving in. Therefore, parental pressure may be brought to bear on the recalcitrant committee in the form of withholding priveleges and rewards until there is compliance.
If there wasn't an id in charge at the DNC, this would have been resolved long ago. Maybe we should not allow ids to run important committees in the future.

[ Parent ]

: x (none / 0) (#18)
by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:51:13 PM EST

I'm not sure what you're saying here? An "id" in charge of the DNC? What does that mean?

[ Parent ]

Maybe she doesn't need them (none / 0) (#11)
by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST

There is a calculation that whether they are seated or not they may still provide a strong argument in terms of "well my real delegate count is X" and popular vote "you can't ignore the voters."

It may be enough to muddy the waters in her advantage. And add that to the crass political calculation of not allowing a revote may be more advantage than actually re-running the primaries.

Just a guess.

[ Parent ]

Funny, it doesn't seem obvious to me (none / 0) (#12)
by goldberry on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM EST

One does not seem to be tied to the other. The first question is can the delegates be seated as is? And the answer is, yes. all that needs to be done is for the DNC to waive the rules and remove the penalty.
The issue of whether there should be a revote is an entirely different question. Just because one party is throwing a temper tantrum over question one doesn't mean that question 2 must be resolved affirmatively so that the brat will shut up.

[ Parent ]

You think they're going to restore (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM EST

the delegates now? Based on what?

It seems to me that Brazile and Dean are in the tank for Obama. Why would they restore the delegates?

[ Parent ]

If my recall is accurate, previous (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:13:39 PM EST

discussions on Talk Left of "the rules" indicated those rules include the ability of the FL and MI Dem. parties to petition the DNC, address the criteria specified in the rules, and request the delegates be seated. But I haven't seen anything indicating either the MI or FL Dem. party has done so. Seems like a no-brainer as to FL.

[ Parent ]

: That's what... (none / 0) (#22)
by TN Dem on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:40:54 PM EST

I always thought might happen as well. I mean even the voters knew that the votes they cast did not count towards delegates at the time, they thought enough for a record number of them to come out and vote.

[ Parent ]

Regardless of whether these delegates are seated (none / 0) (#16)
by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST

or not seated, there is a strong possibility that the legitimacy of the nominee will be in question. Given the contested nature of this primary, I do not think this is an outcome that the Democratic Party can afford.

While a redo will undoubtedly be fraught with its' own set of problems, I think this is the best possible compromise and most legitimate option currently available.

As a Clinton supporter, I sincerely hope that she does not push for delegates to be seated according to the first primary. While I would agree with that position in principle, I think the current (and likely future) political milieu prohibit it. The nominee, particularly Clinton, must be seen as legitimate, and my hope is that a redo would bolster that legitimacy.

[ Parent ]

ignoring the fact that you are (none / 0) (#20)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:35:34 PM EST

dissing both candidates, the simple fact is that there was a very large turnout in FL and HRC took it easily. Thus, there is little enthusiasm for a 'do over' from her campaign.

So if the DNC and Obama choose to punish FL voters for their votes, they do so at their peril.