Granholm Proposes Legislation For MI Revote; FL Says No To Mail Revote

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for me only)

Via Ben Smith, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm puts Obama on the spot - proposes legislation for the Michigan revote.

It is basically a carbon copy of the existing primary legislation with dates changed to accomodate the proposed June 3 revote date. The one major exception is the amendment to Section 613(a)(2). It provides that on April 17, the State Treasurer will certify the amount of funds raised for the primary and if that amount is less than 12 million dollars, then the primary will be cancelled. That should satisfy any concerns about Michigan having to pay for the primary. Proposed Section 624(h) provides the authority for the State Of Michigan to receive contributions to pay for the revote. Apparently, no new entity was deemed necessary to receive such funds. One last section of particular interest, Section 615 would require voters to affirm that they did not vote in the Republican primary. According to exit polls, 7% of the participants in the Republican primary identified themselves as Democrats. McCain won those Dems by 41-33.

Florida Dems blow it:

Florida Democrats won't go forward with a plan to redo the presidential primary with a mostly mail-in vote. The plan to have the party run a second primary in an effort to seat the state's delegates at August convention was abandoned Monday after party leaders expressed concerns about the proposal.

The Florida Dem House delegation has disenfranchised Florida Democrats. Good job there Wasserman Schultz, Hastings et al. Michigan Dems have put you to shame.


Karen Thurman e-mail: "...A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it’s simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline.

"This doesn’t mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

"When this committee stripped us of 100% of our delegates last year, some members summed up their reasoning by saying, “The rules are the rules.” Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates. As the late great Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “We must adjust our ideas to the facts of today… Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.” "

Yadda yadda. Florida Dems stink.

The State House Minority Leader, a Democrat, seems to blame the FL Congressional Dems:

. . . While it was the only option available that would have given Florida Democrats an avenue to host a selection process that was in compliance with DNC rules, it lacked the consensus required to allow it to happen. Since an actual primary redo or a caucus are not plausible options, this will mean that Florida Democrats will essentially be delegating their fate to providence . . .

The truth is, because delegates are awarded proportionally, the revote by mail would not have likely resulted in Florida deciding the nominee as it is mathematically improbable that enough delegates would have been generated to change the outcome. But a revote would have been in compliance with DNC rules thus making it an insurance policy against the nightmare scenario of a divided national convention with Florida delegates nowhere to be found.

Many Floridians are rightfully concerned about this scenario. . . .

What a disaster. BTW, for you Hillary supporters, her chance to be viewed as the legitimate nominee just went up in smoke.

< Insider Trading Conviction of Qwest's Joe Nacchio Reversed | The State of Blogger Discourse on Obama and Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Go Jenny! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    Woo Hoo!

    Already has one (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    Per Politico spot.....

    [But about 32% of the those who vote in the GOP primary, according to the exit polls, were Democrats or independents.

    It's a fair bet that many of them were Obama supporters, as he was not on the original Michigan ballot.

    This could be a dealbreaker for the Obama campaign in Michigan.]

    Are they saying that people supported Obama but as he wasn't on the ballot they went and monkeyed with the GOP election, now they regret it and want to be able to vote again?

    I say (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    I say too bad - they made a choice to monkey around in the Republican primary when they could have voted "uncommitted" (many at the urging of Markos - wouldn't that be a hoot if this came back to bite his candidate in the end?)

    I think Obama's in a bad position on this. He can argue this point and not agree to a revote or he can go ahead and take his chances when many of his supporters might not be able to vote for him.


    Haha (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    Maybe Obama will take his name off the ballot again....?

    Why would it matter . . . (none / 0) (#26)
    by CLancy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:48:34 PM EST
    . . . if they voted in the GOP primary?

    Does the new law specifically ban voters who voted in the January primaries from voting in the June primary? If so, would not Dem voters from the January primary also be barred from voting in the second one? Since this is a state law and not some pure party function, one would think that it might raise some strong equal protection issues if certain voters were barred.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    Assuming, as the Obama camp points out, the first vote never counted, whereas, as another poster pointed out, the Republican primary did count. You couldn't vote in both primaries if the election was held on the same day,so there should be no difference here.

    some of that's logical, but not all of it (none / 0) (#42)
    by CLancy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:58:39 PM EST
    If they were held on the same day, that makes sense. But they weren't held on the same day. One was held in January, the other will be held in June.

    Also, I understand the logic behind the argument, but I don't think it sounds legal (necessarily) to ban voters. Perhaps my question would better be asked as, how do they determine eligibility without violating voter rights laws? To me, these laws would probably trump any extralegal sense of "fairness." Unfortunately, this would also mean that all Republican voters would get to vote as well.


    I think the same argument can be made... (none / 0) (#46)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST
    ..in states that don't hold their primaries on the same day - like Wyoming.  The Republican primary was early (around the time of Iowa) and the Democratic caucus was a week ago.  I don't know Wyoming law, but I bet you couldn't vote in both.

    sorry (none / 0) (#54)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:09:42 PM EST
    If they were held on the same day, that makes sense. But they weren't held on the same day. One was held in January, the other will be held in June.

    both a democratic and republican primary were held in January.  On that day, you could vote in only one primary.  Since this is essentially a redo of the January primary, those who voted in the GOP primary should be excluded.


    In Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by xspowr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:30 PM EST
    a voter may only cast a ballot in one party's primary, not both. Allowing independent and Democratic voters who cast a ballot in the Republican primary to vote again in a revote would essentially permit these voters to cast ballots in both primaries, which is impermissible.  As these crossover voters do not have any basis for a voting rights violation (i.e., they did vote, and their votes were counted, in the Republican primary), no equal protection issues are raised.

    "counting votes" (none / 0) (#86)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:29:24 PM EST
    If Obama's name had been on the ballot, maybe the Democrats who had voted for McCain would have voted in the Democratic Primary.
    That's the whole point of a revote.  To give the people a chance to choose.  Unless it's just to give Hillary a chance to pull in votes and delegates.

    Pledge (none / 0) (#29)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    I read over at MichiganLiberal that voters would have to sign a pledge under penalty of perjury that they hadn't voted in the Repub primary.

    Candidates (none / 0) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM EST
    should have no say in this matter.  If the Michigan legislature votes up and Granholm signs then if Obama objects he can go p*** up a rope.

    That's what really knocks me out about all of this talk about whether candidate A or candidate B approves or disapproves.

    I'm a citizen of Michigan and my elected representatives will decide in my name.  The candidates can go screw themselves.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    The Republican primary actually counted.  You can't vote in both primaries in the same year.  That's the way it always works.

    Also, "32% Democrats and Independents" is a pretty dishonest frame by them considering a whopping 25% of those were Independents.  I feel bad for Democrats who switched over under the assumption that they wouldn't get a chance to cast a meaningful vote this year, but you simply can't let Independents vote in the R primary one day and the D primary the next.


    Not to mention (none / 0) (#36)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
    That Obama's supporter, Rep Conyers, was running ads encouraging  voters to voted "uncommitted" for the express reason that those delegates might go to Obama at the convention.  So if a voter knew that a "uncommitted" vote would benefit their preferred candidate and then voted GOP anyway... well, they rolled the dice.

    Denying people the right to vote. (none / 0) (#37)
    by indy72 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    Since the Dems did NOT campaign in Michigan, those who cast a vote to a GOP candidate can reasonably argue that they were not fully informed.

    I don't see how blocking independents who voted in the GOP from voting again is NOT a violation of equal protection.


    Question (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    Wouldn't that actually be treating those voters as "more than equal"?  After all, they'd be getting something no other voter would - two votes.

    In my view, if a Michigan voter didn't know that an "uncommitted" vote would benefit candidates not on the ballot, they weren't paying close attention.  They made their choice, if they regret it now.... well c'est la vie.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    They were not fully informed of something that would happen in the future, that's true.  But we're never fully informed of the future, that's why they call it the future.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:08:44 PM EST
    I bet there are also some Romney voters who'd like to take another crack at picking a candidate, but you only get to choose once.

    How is it an equal protection argument? (none / 0) (#38)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    They voted in a legitimate primary that day.  Michigan law says you cannot vote in both the Republican and Democratic primary for the same election cycle.

    It may be legal, but is it fair? (none / 0) (#48)
    by indy72 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:29 PM EST
    Just wondering, does existing Michigan law specify that the primaries have to be on the same day?

    In any case, even if it is legal to deny independents who voted in the GOP primary the right to vote in the Dem primary, is it fair?

    I don't think so.  

    Also, it is just those independents that the Dem candidates need to woo back. Excluding them from the vote would certainly predispose them to McCain in the fall.


    Of course it's fair (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by xspowr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:14:36 PM EST
    Democrats and independents who wanted to cast a vote for Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson had the option to vote uncommitted in the Democratic primary, and were in fact urged to do so both by Obama and by the Michigan Democratic Party. Knowing that they could only vote in one primary, and certainly having another viable option before them, these voters made an informed choice to vote in the Republican primary. Nothing unfair about it.

    It's not a violation of equal protection (none / 0) (#52)
    by badger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    by any stretch of the imagination. Every voter gets to vote in a primary that selects delegates for the party of their choice. Those who chose to vote in the GOP primary will have their vote counted toward the GOP candidate they chose to vote for.

    To suggest it violates equal protection is like saying "I didn't know Gore would lose in FL so I should be able to take back my Nader vote and give it to Gore."

    You pays your money and you takes your choice.

    If you fraudulently voted in the GOP primary even though you're a Dem, that's your problem. You could've stayed home, and that would make you eligible to vote in the upcoming Dem primary revote. Maybe next time they'll know better than to listen to Kos.


    Oh, please let's do see that argument (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    as we all could use some levity.  Every election we hold gives evidence of many uninformed voters!

    "Yer honor, I wuz robbed of the right to be informed about the candidates, because neither Clinton nor Obama were on tv or in the papers.  Well, maybe they were, but I wanted to read about football. . . ."

    Conversely, in every election, there are good voters who inform themselves of the issues even though no candidate holds an even within a hundred miles.


    Since (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    it's a replacement of the original election allowing participants in the January GOP primary to vote in this one would be allowing them to vote twice.

    There is an irony here that some Democrats voted for Romney in the GOP primary to halt the McCain momentum that started in New Hampshire. In fact KOS made a flap encouraging Democrats to do just that.

    I voted in the Democratic primary (an Edwards supporter, I voted Uncommitted) on cleanliness principles.  In 1992 I voted in the GOP primary for Buchanan (selecting a bigger schmuck) and felt dirty for weeks after.


    Kos encouraged Dems to vote for Romney (none / 0) (#14)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:35:55 PM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    I know an Obama supporter who voted for Romney.  

    I remember warning him that voting in a GOP primary would eventually hurt him.

    I told him he'd feel dirty and also be subjected to several years of GOP solicitations for contributions, I had no idea it would come down this way.


    That one is tough (none / 0) (#15)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    But I wouldn't think it fair for the primary to be reopened to people who have already voted in the GOP primary, no matter what their registration. If those Dems were trying to muck up the GOP primary, then I don't have too much sympathy for them.

    There is no (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:21:40 PM EST
    partisan registration in Michigan.  You just register.

    Either way (none / 0) (#21)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:46:17 PM EST
    an unsatisfactory outcome.  I don't quite see how to argue against letting the voters vote if it's not a closed primary.  Maybe one gets half a vote if one voted in the other primary.

    It should be noted ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    that of that 32% only 7% were Democrats.  And the largest percentage of them (41%) voted for McCain.

    If you look at the exit polls, it's really hard to argue that some large group of Obama supporters voted in the GOP primaries.


    Especially when you consider that he was (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    airing messages for his supporters to vote "uncomitted."

    But some may have (none / 0) (#43)
    by indy72 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:25 PM EST
    All it takes is a small number to bring up a lawsuit challenging the new law as being against equal protection.

    Equal Protection (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    EP allows for the "one man one vote" principle, not "one man, two votes" principle.  An EP challenge would more than likely thrown out.

    Add to that the fact ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:10:55 PM EST
    that the courts have essentially said such arguments don't apply to intraparty nominating contests.

    Because if the Voting Rights Act or equal protection arguments did apply, caucuses would have been declared unconstitutional years ago.


    If they took Kos' advice, (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    that's exactly what they did...crossed over and voted for Romney to keep him in the race.

    Hahaha.  Funny, huh?

    Unintended consequences.


    but i read on one of the other blogs (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    that the race is already over. and the writer is an honorable man.

    to some, maybe (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:37:40 PM EST
    because those, like me, (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:42:23 PM EST
    who have yet to vote are not relevant...

    Not Just Hillary's Legitimacy Went Up in Smoke (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:10:16 PM EST
    So did Obama's since now there's going to be an unseated state.  There needed to be a resolution to both states' issues to ensure that the nominee, whoever it is, appears to be legitimate.

    And, more importantly, the DNC and the Florida Democratic Party have allowed this to do long term damage to Democrats in that state, probably for decades.  I just posted this over at Correntewire (I don't think I've seen it here, but I've been away and if I missed a post, my apologies), from the NYT:

    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.

    Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida's delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

    "If we do not resolve this issue," Mr. Korge said, "I think it's safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000."

    The Clinton campaign says it is not encouraging this and I suspect that's true, if for no other reason than I doubt they'd have to encourage it.  Why on earth would a big Democratic Florida donor continue to raise money for the national or state party now?

    Or as Bryan put it

    The national party has been draining money from Florida for years which caused the state party to go into debt. Finally Floridians are fed up with getting nothing but contempt for their money.

    This has always been bigger than Obama and Clinton.  The failure of the DNC, the State Party and others, including the Obama campaign, to recognize that is a failure in leadership and a violation of their duties as leaders to the Democratic Party.  

    Good (none / 0) (#2)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    for Jen! Make him take a stand and look like what he is.

    Now ask Gov Crist (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    to find a way to do something similar.

    What is he gonna care? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    Wait.  Was that snark?

    Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#5)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM EST
    Crist is a Repub so he certainly wouldnt' be looking for a way to fix this glorious gift to the Repub party.

    He already indicated (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    that he was willing to help. Let's see how far that goes.

    Crist isn't going to help (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    if the frakkin' FLA Congressional delegation isn't willing to help themselves.  

    I cannot believe that FLA's Democrats are going to go to the convention to fight on credentials. That's ridiculous. The best they can do now is to allocate the delegates in accordance with the primary, but give each delegate only 1/2 vote. It still penalizes FLA voters unfairly, but at least that way at least the vote count out of the delegation is proportional to the votes cast by the electorate.

    But proposal to give half the delegates to Clinton, and half to Obama?  Totally undemocratic and inequitable; it negates the will of the FLA electorate and remains unacceptable.


    True (none / 0) (#20)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    Help but not come up with a plan, money and agreement necessary.

    Its a great strategy too. Knowing chances are high that Dems won't work out a solution he can sit back and say he even tried to help the poor, leaderless Dems.


    I think that Gov. Crist (none / 0) (#17)
    by felizarte on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    is more committed to the principles of the constitution than any one political party.  After all, he put his political prestige on the line by supporting a paper trail for votes cast and not leave it to those paperless voting machines.

    And if he said he would help, he is probably good at his word.  He joined with the Michigan governor in writing the initial letter.  This is just a follow through of that declaration.


    Wow, look at that! (none / 0) (#6)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    The preamble:

    A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled
    "Michigan election law,"
    by amending sections 302, 531, 542, 565, 607, 608, 613a, 614a,
    615a, 615c, 624g, 625, 644g, 713, 814, 737a, 759a, and 759c (MCL
    168.302, 168.531, 168.542, 168.565, 168.607, 168.608, 168.613a,
    168.614a, 168.615a, 168.615c, 168.624g, 168.625, 168.644g,
    168.713, 168.814, 167.737a, 168.759a, and 168.759c), section 302
    as amended by 2005 PA 71, section 565 as amended by 1984 PA 113,
    section 607 as amended by 1996 PA 583, sections 608 and 625 as
    amended by 1988 PA 116, sections 613a, 614a, 615a, 615c, 624g,
    759a, and 759c as amended by 2007 PA 52, section 644g as amended
    by 2004 PA 293, and sections 713 and 714 as amended by 1990 PA
    7, and section 737a as amended by 2006 PA 87, and by adding
    sections 615d, 642c, and 644h; and to repeal acts and parts of

    We'll see what Obama and his legal team have to say.  I hope and pray, assuming everything is on the up and up, that he accepts.

    Obama's legal team--Obstructionists R Us (none / 0) (#13)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    I thought he retained (none / 0) (#59)
    by badger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    Dewey, Cheatem and Howe for the primary stuff.

    Car Talk (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    is probably off topic.

    Those guys sure get around, tho...


    I thought you were old (none / 0) (#87)
    by badger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:04:13 AM EST
    The Three Stooges is where I heard it (Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk) - forgot that Car Talk uses them too.

    I AM old... (none / 0) (#88)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:23:17 AM EST
    but with it.

    Sometimes.  After my nap.


    Well done, Gov. Granholm (none / 0) (#7)
    by Grey on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    I fully expect a whole new set of reasons why Obama won't find this solution palatable, of course.  Let's see how long it will take for the media to finally wake from its Change and Hope torpor and say that Sen. Obama, apparently, doesn't care all that much about the right of all Americans to vote and to be counted.

    And it was so mind bogglingly difficult (none / 0) (#10)
    by frankly0 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:32:03 PM EST
    to come up with this legislation -- I mean, who would think of the idea of using the previous legislation, changing the date, and making the primary contingent on the funds being made available?

    Certainly nobody in the Obama campaign, who must find the genius required for this beyond comprehension.

    Gods walk amongst us!

    College kids out for the summer... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST

    And home for the summer too n/t (none / 0) (#25)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:47:57 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    anyone from MI who goes to school out of state has probably already voted.

    Michigan Universities (none / 0) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    with significant out of state enrollment (they often register where they attend school rather than at home)like U of M (Ann Arbor - Washtenaw County) finish spring semester in May and will go home or off to summer jobs near home.

    I'm not clear if they'd be able to vote absentee and I woner how many would bother.

    In January Uncommitted carried only Washtenaw and very lightly populated Emmet County.


    Will it be open to independents/repubs? (none / 0) (#22)
    by indy72 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    Will the proposed primary be opened to independents and voters who voted in the GOP primary last time?

    IMHO, it should be. Remember that neither candidate campaigned there in January. And so voters in the GOP primary cannot be assumed to have been completely informed decision makers, and should be given a new chance to vote.

    I heard a rumor (none / 0) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST
    That a new concern for the Obama camp is that those who crossed over and voted in the Republican primary will not be allowed to vote.

    Anybody else hear this?

    CNN just (none / 0) (#27)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    announces no new primary in FL but hopes for another solution to seat delegates.

    No mail in primary you mean (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#31)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:53:46 PM EST
    Nope. They mean no revote of any kind.

    Let's see how the public reacts to that (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    Wondering if (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:43:06 PM EST
    Florida's Congressional delegation (except for Nelson) are Obama supporters, even if undeclared? For that matter what about Democrats in the Florida House and Senate?

    Are the state's elected Democrats putting the shaft to the state's rank-and-file Democrats knowing full well that the election outcome would be an even bigger win for Clinton?


    Link (none / 0) (#34)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:55:31 PM EST
    Link to info

    A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option.

    There's more including a letter from Thurman.


    No (none / 0) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:56:24 PM EST
    at least I don't think so - the news headlines so no new primary

    No... (none / 0) (#39)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    no revote of any kind. they are pushing for another solution. if they push this, and use the proper rules...they could possibly get their delegates seated as is. Espesially is Michigan gets a re-vote.

    Florida has special circumstances...


    Article says no primary re-vote, no caucus (none / 0) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:46:29 PM EST
    Florida is apparently going to try to work out some other solution prior to the convention, or before the credentials committee.

    It's a victory for Obama. If he's the nominee, I wonder if FLA voters will hold it against him.


    Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    just ended. At least for a victory accepted as legitimate.

    This is disastrous for her. I think she should drop out now, for the good of the Party.


    So... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:05:35 PM EST
    it's not OK to tell Florida voters to stuff it but Hillary should drop out and tell PA, etc. voters to stuff it?

    Not bloody likely.


    Just what does 'good of the party' (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    mean here?

    Let's get this straight; Democratic office holders (my GUESS Obama supporters) screwed the rank-and-file and somehow that means Obama is crowned 'legitimate' and Hillary should just roll over.

    Many, many Democrats, nationwide, will be seriously disillusioned by this.

    So for the GOOD of the party she should stay on and fight it out.


    So, BTD (none / 0) (#70)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    you're saying that its illegitmate to rely on Super Ds to decide the outcome of the Dem primary, which is where this now leaves us?

    But that's where we've been for some time now.

    With or without MI or FL, neither HC nor BO can achieve the magical minimum of pledged delgates (2025) to make them the undisputed nominee.

    So, why all of a sudden must Hillary drop out?


    Oh, no, not BTD, too. She should drop out? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    And just as we're seeing today the polls starting to drop, as they will continue to do, with McCain overtaking Obama -- while Clinton remains the one Dem who can defeat McCain, and by even more than before?

    Keep in mind that even pledged delegates can vote for a different candidate, and even on the first ballot, for several reasons including the loss of the "electability" you vaunt as favoring Obama.

    Not any more.  Not now.  If he somehow aces his way out of the current problems, as perhaps he can because he has wiggled out of much before -- and the polls rebound, then come back and say this.

    But even then, wait for Pennsylvania.  As without another big blue state, it would be Obama who would lack legitimacy -- and thus would lack electability even more.  And then what in the world would be left to recommend him over Clinton?  One vote he didn't have to cast?  Uh huh.


    Any opinion on why Nelson, who (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    supports HRC, is assuring she can't win?

    Not really... (none / 0) (#67)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:50:48 PM EST
    I don't see it as a victory for Obama. There is a case to be made, using the DNC's own rules and the repub legislature situation in florida, for seating their delegates 'as is'.

    I am not a lawyer or an expert in elections or the DNC rules but the way I read it is that if the Florida states party did everythng it could to try and move the primary back to the original date (which they did) then the DNC has the option to not punish them at all.

    Am I reading it right BTD?


    Yes, that is my understanding of the rule (none / 0) (#81)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:52:43 PM EST
    But hasn't the DNC already decided that FLA didn't fall within this rule?  I'm not sure what they think FLA could have done -- perhaps run a separate primary after January 29 that the state party paid for itself?  Other than that, what could they do? The legislature, controlled by Republicans, wouldn't move it back.

    I am afraid BTD is right -- there is really no path to the nomination for Clinton built on claiming a majority of the popular vote.  But I don't think she should drop out until PA. Obama is having his own problems right now. He may be able to get past them, but he may not.  If his candidacy is tanking in the head to head GE polls, the superdelegates may have second thoughts about his nomination regardless of the total popular vote.

    However, even as a Clinton supporter, I am worried about Obama's candidacy failing as a result of the Rev. Wright's sermons. White voters rejecting Obama over what the pastor of an African-American church said?  That might do just as much damage to GE support from African-American voters as having superdelegates "override" the delegate count for any other reason?  

    What do others think?


    No (none / 0) (#85)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:56:41 PM EST
    The DNC did not decide Florida didn't fall within this rule. it was an idea or perception that was floated around but that's all.

    I am not sure what they think the FLorida party could have done either but I do believe that it gives the party strong ground to stand on in order to get their delegation seated.

    Michigan may have republicans moving to stop their revote now. What is the DNC going to do if that happens?


    Seems like a good plan (none / 0) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    While I am certainly not going to credit Granholm, since she put MI into this mess in the first place, it does seem like a good way to go forward.

    How (none / 0) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    did Granholm put Michigan in this 'mess to begin with?'

    Granholm is Governor but Levin and Dingell are arguably the most powerful Democrats in the state.

    Michigan began seeking an earlier primary since at least 1998, four years before Granholm was elected Governor.


    BTD what's your take on this? (none / 0) (#51)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    This just scares the Bejesus out of me. I have a very bad feeling how it would end.

    They're (none / 0) (#58)
    by magisterludi on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:18:29 PM EST
    hoping for a bloodbath in Denver.

    We need an election lawyer. (none / 0) (#61)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    As I read this legislation, and I am no expert, anyone of the 869,169 Michigan voters who took a Republican ballot in January could not vote again in this election.  The 594,398 Michigan voters who took a Democratic ballot in January could vote again. Anyone who did not vote in January could vote in June. I expect that some voters will be willing to challenge that and ultimately the Michigan Supreme Court will have to decide whether to allow the election to go forward with only a portion of the Michigan electorate disenfranchised by the legislation.  Rush Limbaugh has suggested that Republicans will have greater turnout in November if Hilary is the Democratic nominee.  The Republican Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court is the only member of the court up for reelection in November. I do not know if Cliff Taylor listens to Rush Limbaugh, but perhaps he ought to disqualify himself.      

    There is no need for all that (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    No voter would have a case. It would never reach the Michigan Supreme Court.

    You do not have a right to vote in a primary election. Case closed.


    But, it's not fair!!! He might LOSE!!! (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    And your qualifications (none / 0) (#89)
    by jsj20002 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:28:54 AM EST
    for making that statement would be what?  What may be the law in Puerto Rico may be somewhat different under Michigan's Constitution. Have you been following the Michigan Supreme Court's judicial activism?  Do you know why the majority is called the Republican "Gang of Four"?  

    Good Provision (none / 0) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:58:17 PM EST
    "Section 615 would require voters to affirm that they did not vote in the Republican primary"

    Good. But it still allows many non-Democrats who didn't participate in January to corrupt the Michigan vote.

    That may be what Obama's counting on.  Don't be surprised if his staff efforts aim at that very objective.