New MI Plan Floated: Not A Revote

By Biog Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I am for revotes, so right of the bat I do not love this MI proposal:

Under [Rep. Bart] Stupak's [D-MI] formula, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who received 55 percent of the primary vote, would receive 47 delegates. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who pulled his name from Michigan's ballot, would receive 36 delegates. Many Obama supporters in Michigan voted for "uncommitted," which received 40 percent in the primary.

The remaining 73 delegates would be awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote garnered nationwide by Clinton and Obama after the last Democratic presidential primary is completed.

(Emphasis supplied.) If I were Clinton, I would take it. Why? Because it puts focus on the popular vote figure, and likely leads to Michigan's (and probably Florida's) vote count being included in the popular vote count. It probably is a good solution for the Dem Party as well. I am against it myself. Revotes are clearly the best option. There is no reason NOT to have them. Obama will almost certainly oppose this plan.

< Wayne Barrett: Obama Blocked Revotes In FL/MI | SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 2-1 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Clinton can't take this (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by zzyzx on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    This nets her between 9 and 13 delegates from Michigan and removes MI from her argument.  She needs the full delegate count from Michigan (with Obama not getting the uncommitted votes) to happen in order to have any chance of overtaking the lead.

    There are only a little over 200 unpledged superdelegates left.  If Obama has a 100 delegate lead left, she's going to need them to break 75-25% in her favor.  For that to happen the argument has to be completely clear even for those who are leaning towards Obama; including Michigan's popular vote total - with Obama getting 0 votes - isn't going to happen.

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    Clinton needs to be seen as having a credible will of the people argument.

    She would gladly sacrifice 20 pledged delegates to get the popular vote totals included.

    She is not playing a pledged delegate game now, she can't. She is playing a superdelegate/popular vote/big contested states game.

    She should do this deal if she can. Count Florida and Michigan votes.

    Then do everything she can to win as big as possible in PA. That has to be her plan now.


    How do you sell this to Obama supporters? (none / 0) (#21)
    by zzyzx on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:55:56 PM EST
    Clinton doesn't need to be seen as having a credible will of the people argument, she needs to be seen as having an overwhelming one.  Right now Obama is the nominee.  There has to be some incredibly strong reason to get that to change.

    Does she have a path to the nomination?  Yes.  Win at least 9 of the remaining 10 contests, and win most them with very large margins.  That would both narrow the gap and give the SDs an argument for the reversal.  

    You need a story that's so obvious that many of the Obama people will say, "Yeah, I don't like this, but I can see why they're voting that way."  Any argument that involves giving Clinton a free 328,000 votes to put her over the top - and even then it'll be a very narrow lead - isn't going to do it.


    He is not the nominee... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    because Michigan and Florida are not being counted. His front-runner status is thus tainted with the stain of illegitimacy.

    If there were a re-vote, and he won big in both states, then HRC would have to drop out. Obama supporters should be for a re-vote because of that possibility. However, Obama must have some kind of polling data that shows such a win is unlikely; thus, he cannot see any advantage to his narrative in a re-vote for him.

    Unfortunately, his blocking the re-vote is not showing a lot of confidence that he can beat HRC in these states...which indirectly bolsters her "big state" narrative. He's not doing well with this issue at all.


    Kos' response to this proposal (none / 0) (#57)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    >>>Settling Florida with only a 6-delegate loss would be a great outcome for Obama. He likely couldn't do better in a real contest.

    Heh. Heh. Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM EST

    I don't know that you can sell it to them. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    They think Obama has a chance of winning states like Idaho.  I think they really think they don't need Michigan and Florida to win.  These are the little self-decptions that bother me about the Obama campaign.  The enthusiasm and hope are great, but I have these moments where I seriously question whther they are grounded in reality sometimes.  I don't agree with the idea that we should only campaign employing the traditional big electoral state strategy.  I'm a 50-state strategy gal and that is a major reason why I think it is nuts to compromise the Democrats' chances in states like Michigan and Florida.  People keep making the case that Obama is a big supporter of the 50-state strategy, but really it might be only a 48-state strategy for him.  If he is going to cut the list down, I could think of some much better states to drop than MI and FL.

    Not Idaho (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    but Nevada and possibly Colorado...

    Florida will vote for McCain regardless....It will be a matter of whether the Dems make a good show of it....


    Clinton won Nevada. (none / 0) (#62)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    And she could beat McCain in Florida.

    I was being glib, but only partly (none / 0) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    because without MI and FL you have 43 electoral votes to make up and that means that he can't skate by on a couple of the Mountain West states, he has to sweep them.  Or he has to sweep the South.  These are tall orders especially if you know you've given up two relatively reliable Democratic states for those that haven't gone Dem ever or so long ago that no one remembers when they did last.

    I'll add that McCain will be a formidable candidate.  Anyone who doesn't think so needs to get off these blogs and talk to regular people.  The polls are showing too close a race between either Dem and McCain to even believe that people noticed what we went through with Bush and the GOP over the last 7 years.

    We are already starting behind the eight ball and it has nothing to do with a long primary and everything to do with a failure to present Democrats - any Democrat - as a better option to any Republican.  Plus too many people are under the false impression that McCain is a moderate candidate.  This General Election will be tough.  Alienating two big states is really, really foolish.


    Can't lose Michigan (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    Florida and Ohio are not must-wins but would be nice...Michigan is a must-win.....

    With a good campaign, a Democrat should win Ohio....Florida is a reach...


    How does this get the popular vote included? (none / 0) (#23)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:58:19 PM EST
    The popular vote would only determine 73 delegates in MI.  This plan would not magically make pledged delegates irrelevant.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:00:40 PM EST
    Stupak is not a fool, by agreeing to that formula you are agreeing to a popular vote relevance in choosing delegates.

    It is rather ingenious actually.


    The flip of this... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by zzyzx on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    ...is that the negotiations can completely destroy the popular vote argument forever.  All Obama would have to say is, "Well I lose out here, but it's worth discussing.  I have just one question, "How are you defining 'popular vote?'"

    The fact is that popular vote totals for this election are neither well defined (Include Texas caucus or not?  Include the states that don't have vote totals or not?  FL?  MI and FL?) nor even knowable due to the caucus states that don't record that data.

    A long discussion over what exactly is the popular vote metric would get so confusing that unless someone led in all ways of measuring it, people would argue either way about it and we'd go back to other methods.


    That's the goal (none / 0) (#32)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    But super delegates don't have to buy it and probably won't, if Obama has the lead in btoh pledged delegates and popular vote (not including FL and MI).

    Obama has a minimal lead (none / 0) (#63)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    in the popular vote.

    2% if you don't Florida and Michigan. Less than 1% if you do.


    It would also give Obama (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    votes that were cast for Hillary Clinton. He took his name off the ballot voluntarily, he should not get any of the votes. If he hadn't been showboating for the DNC, he would have left his name on the ballot and gotten his own votes. To give him delegates when he wasn't even on the primary ballot is wrong. He pulled out, let him forfeit the delegates. He can't have it both ways. I know he thinks he can, though. And he is trying his hardest to steal, yes, steal, delegates from Hillary Clinton. If he had wanted their votes he should have stayed on the ballot. He didn't. He made a judgment call, a bad one, and now he doesn't want to live with the consequences. Well, life doesn't work that way, and neither should politics. He should pay for his bad judgment, just like everyone else has to.

    Obama's name on MI ballot (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by annie1982 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:42:02 AM EST
    What are you talking about???  All the candidates were asked to take their names off the MI ballot.  The democratic party and state reps in MI and FL held their elections prior to Feb 5, as the rules set forth.  They knew the consequences.  All the candidates agreed to not campaign in those states - Hillary herself said 'I don't care if my name is on the MI ballot or not as it is clear the votes in MI and FL do not count.'
    The votes and voters were the SAME before Feb 5 and after....if this is such a crime to disenfranchise the voters due to the party holding elections outside the rules, then why in the world was Hillary not screaming prior to the elections???  She did not object UNTIL she knew she was behind in the votes.  This is so obvious.  Why should Obama be blamed for this???  And just because their votes won't count in the democratic nomination process, why are these voters so selfish and self-serving to hold back their vote in the Presidential election in November?  That is ridiculous.  Vote your representatives out of office if you want to complain....or else shut up and encourage your representatives and party people to abide by the rules.  This is ridiculous.  And Obama does NOT have to agree to a re-vote - an election that has already been done AND will cost money, that his opposition's fat cats have agreed to pay for?  You have got to be kidding!

    If Obama had won MI, instead of (none / 0) (#145)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    being out of the game, you can bet that he would be screaming to seat them. He didn't win FL either, so naturally he is not wanting to seat that delegation. And FYI, it was the REPUBLICAN legislature that set the date for the primary, they stuck it on a bill the Dems were sure to vote for no matter what. So the DNC is letting the Republicans dictate the Democratic nomination process in FL. And Obama has just as many fat cats backing him as Hillary does, he just won't admit it. It would take the gloss of the "small contributor" funding off his campaign. And as for the candidates "agreeing" to a revote, what the hell is that about? It's not about them, it's about the voters. Someone should wake up and explain that to Obama. He seems to think this election is all about him. It's not.

    your wrong (none / 0) (#146)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    The deal was no campaigning, thats it. there was nothing said about removing the name, Obama and Edwards did so voluntarily. Also, at the same time she said this vote wouldnt count she said FL and MI were vital to winning in November and should not be shut out or ignored.

    Dont divorce yourself from reality simply because it reflects badly on the candidate you support.


    There is no popular vote argument for MI (none / 0) (#28)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    without revotes.

    At any rate - as I have mentioned before - we don't have a credible popular vote total.  Various ways this is true:

    a. You can't get an estimate of popular vote from "beauty contests", where candidates either aren't competing, or aren't on the ballot.
    b. You would have to estimate the popular votes from caucus states were primaries, and there is no way to do that.  A state like Texas, the popular vote is counter to the caucus, but states like Hawaii, Virgin Islands, Alaska, even Nebraska, Obama would gain a HUGE AMOUNT in the popular vote total.

    Hillary Clinton can't win the popular vote, on an honest count.


    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:06:28 PM EST
    you would think so but this plan would create one.

    and Obama wins with no count. Stalemate. (n/t) (none / 0) (#31)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    Hawaii? Alaska? Virgin Islands? Nebraska? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    == Huge Amount?  Unlikely even if you assumed 100% voter turnout.  I'll even throw in Idaho and Wyoming.

    Huge enough (none / 0) (#77)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    Depending on your definition.

    Let's do a thought experiment, with Hawaii.

    In 2004 Presidential elections Hawaii had 430K vote.

    With the enthusiasm for this contest - Hawaii counts ! - let's assume that, say 250K vote in the democratic primaries - which is most likely understating things.

    Say that instead of 76.1 to 23.7 percent split (from the caususes) say the vote is more like 60 to 40.  Actually a conservative assumption for Obama, since he grew up and has roots in Hawaii. Compare this to Wisconsin, which went 58.1% to 40.8% for Obama.  You can figure 1.9% more, is reasonable.

    Based on the above numbers, the popular vote would be the following:

    Total votes: 250,000

    Obama - 60%:  150,000
    Clinton - 40% - 100,000

    That's a low estimate of a 50,000 gain, only from Hawaii.  

    Add this to the 750-810K total result, or, EVEN if you include FL as is (which again, isn't an accurate reading of the popular vote, since it wasn't a real contest), this would still be nearly a 500K lead for Obama.  And then, you'd have to have a Michigan vote.  

    And then, you'd have to do the estimates for the other states, like I just did for Hawaii.

    So again, I don't see how Clinton - barring blowouts the rest of the way, you never know - could lead in popular vote.

    We'll have a much better estimate after the voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana.  Until then, these arguments simply give us something to talk about.


    The grand total of his lead (none / 0) (#81)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    is less than three quarters of a million. How many millions have voted, and how many are still to vote?

    In fact, if you include FL, caucus estimates, and base MI's vote on exit polling data, it's less than one half million.


    But it's late in the game (none / 0) (#88)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    And actually, according to Real Clear Politics, at least 28,317,000 have voted for the main two candidates.

    So, based on the count INCLUDING Florida as is (which as I've said, isn't a good count), you are looking at 48.6 versus 46.8, with around 90% reported in.

    In almost all cases, networks would project a victory for Obama, given these numbers.  It's only if you grant Clinton the "unanswered" Michigan numbers, that is seems close.

    But again, we'll see what happens with the next big three states. Things 'should' be more clear then, unless they aren't!


    And by the way (none / 0) (#93)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    That 48.6 versus 46.8 does NOT include estimates of the caucus states, that I give in the example of Hawaii.

    Yes, it IS possible that Hillary will win Penn by 25, win Indian by 20, eke out a victory in North Carolina - in which case THEN the "popular vote" comes into play.  But I refuse to have a discussion about popular vote not include all the ways that the popular vote total is misleading, since the agree upon metric of competition that both candidates agree to, is the pledged delegates.


    Glad you brought up RCP (none / 0) (#104)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    because if you use the WA primary in calculating in RCP's horse race blog on PV, Obama has about 100K, and he loses the PV when Hillary takes Pennsylvania.

    There are 12 different ways of calculating the PV, and a very viable scenario where Hillary takes the PV lead in 10 of them without breaking a sweat.

    If she does really well in PA, she takes the lead in all 12, but if she does moderately well, she takes the lead in every category that includes FLA.

    Huge lead indeed.


    You are counting Michigan as is? (none / 0) (#114)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:25:55 PM EST
    I'm assuming - if not, not sure how you get your numbers.  Please, feel free to enlighten me.

    The numbers are plugged in (none / 0) (#118)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    to a spread sheet, compiled by a PhD, who BTW, does not expect Hillary to win the nomination.

    There are 12 different ways to calculate the PV. I assume, based on previous blogs, the MI PV is based on exit polling data for the uncommitted.


    "popular vote" not completly fair... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    ...but its much MORE fair than any other system of determining a winner. You have to look at everything state-by-state, and when you do, you'll see that that state-by-state Obama still has the advantage in popular vote calculations. For example: His home state of Illinois had an open primary, while Clinton's home state of New York had a closed primary. If you adjust the numbers, Clinton would have likely picked up about an additional 250K votes in popular vote tallies. The bottomline: almost everyone in every state that wanted to vote, could vote.

    Trying to have it both ways (none / 0) (#106)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:14:39 PM EST
    It seems to me.

    To overturn Obama's very likely lead in pledged delegates, you want to look at the popular vote. Because otherwise the "will of the voters" is undermined.

    That is the argument, correct?

    But by the logic OF THAT ARGUMENT, it seems to me then, that you do a complete disservice to the population of voters IN the caucus states - why should their votes not count as much as the votes in  other states, because they didn't have a primary?  Why shouldn't there be an ACCURATE ESTIMATE of primary voting from a caucus state?


    Yes, it would disenfranchise states, but not (none / 0) (#120)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    ...individual voters: Whoever wanted to vote, whether it be in a caucus or primary, was able to cast their vote.  

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#90)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    Why would you have to extrapolate caucuses into primaries?  Those states made a decision not to hold primaries even though it inevitably leads to lower turnout.  They made that call - they'd should have to live with the results.

    By that logic (none / 0) (#96)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    So should Hillary - and live by the fact that this is a pledged delegate competition, first and foremost.

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:11:07 PM EST
    Actually, it's a delegate contest first and foremost.  There's no distinction between supers and pledged - you just need to reach a certain threshold via a combo of the two (which, btw, Obama can't get without supers either).

    You can do bizarro math and crystal balls to try to figure out what WOULD have happened if caucus states had chosen to hold primaries or you can deal with the numbers as they exist.  I choose the latter.


    The popular vote arguments is FOR the supers (none / 0) (#113)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    And I'm saying, this argument doesn't have a lot of weight, if the total number of votes isn't clean and well represented in all states.

    You go ahead and have your arguments about the the votes "as is".  Have fun with that one.

    a. The competition is ABOUT pledged delegates, and every super know this.  And this is the contest that Obama has - barring meltdown - WON.
    b. This secondary argument about popular vote, then, is saying, supers should choose based on popular vote.  I am saying popular vote is weak, for the various reasons I have ascribed - and if a super CARES about popular vote, then the super should LOOK at where the popular vote totals "as is" doesn't reflect the ACTUAL popular vote.

    I'm fine with disagreeing with you on B.


    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    I'm not sure you really want to go down the path of asking supers to re-evaluate caucuses as if they were primaries.  Because if you do that, Texas and Washington show a much closer result.  Which might cast into doubt that whole "pledged delegate" thing....

    I'm almost at my quota today, so I'll stop now.


    disagree (none / 0) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    she only needs to win the popular vote to have a good case for the SD's. That doesn't mean she'll win, but she'll have a reasonable chance. She has no chance of wining the (non SD) delegate count because of the caucuses. So there's nothing stopping her from doing anything that will get those popular votes in her column.

    The more I see of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by clio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    the more his campaign seems to be all about Obama and no one else.
    Not the voters, not the party, not even the country.  Nobody but Obama.

    While I recognize that with presidential ambitions come presidential-sized egos, when the chips are down Obama seems focused exclusively on his own ambition and advantage to the point that he has difficulty even being civil to those whom he perceives to be thwarting him.

    Obama gives a nice speech, but his actions belie his words.

    Leave it to the left wing liberals (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Scott on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    to want to try to split things!  LOL    FL and MI should count the way they are with uncommitteds going to Obama or they should revote.  What is this splitting crap during an election?  I mean it's not a bag of Halloween candy... a few pieces for her and a few pieces for him.  

    After all Mr. Obama didn't have to take his name off the ballot in MI and it was NEVER discussed that anyone would do this before the vote.  He did on his own accord... and FL speaks for itself... all were on the ballot there and he even aired campaign ads there on cable news outlets.  When called on it he claimed to know nothing about it (typical for Mr. Obama) then claiming it was because the ads were on cable news outlets that air nationally... that's a farce too!

    For the post that said that Mr. Obama didn't and isn't blocking the revotes...that's a joke too!  In Michigan I can tell you that it's FACTUALLY UNTRUE!  I know people in the State government there that will tell you otherwise.  His people were lobbying behind the scenes for the idea to be shut down in the legislature.  

    Let's tell ourselves WHY he doesn't want a revote or for things to count... SIMPLY...  It's because he isn't going to come out on the winning end of it.  He's neither a leader nor a patriot! But rather a big talking head that would crap on voters to get a desired outcome!  

    If the Democratic Party seems insistent on pushing him to the nomination without all 50 States being heard FAIR AND SQUARE... I as a life long Democrat will have NO PROBLEM being a McCain Democrat this year!   I agree with another post I read here on that topic.  

    I voted "Uncommitted," Scott. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by clio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    Don't you dare give my uncommitted vote to Obama.  It was for JRE to begin with and since he dropped out it belongs again to me.  
    Obama has not earned it, and may never get it.
    Neither has Clinton.

    So here I am with my uncounted vote in my hand listening to silly arguments  about the best way to take it away.


    Heh. I'm about as liberal as you get... (none / 0) (#43)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    and I voted for Hillary. ;-)

    Edwards was running to (none / 0) (#65)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:35:05 PM EST
    so you can hardly make the argument all the uncommitteds were for Obama.

    The exit polling says that's a lie.


    It troubles me that (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by DCDemocrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    there are so many proposals out there that want, in at least an oblique way, to ratify the January results but then move beyond those results and give Obama delegates he has not earned.  Personally, I think the delegations should be seated according to the January results as they occurred, or Michigan and Florida should revote.

    If this plan solves the MI primary (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    then counting FL as is should be considered since all candidates were on the ballot.
    Yes, they broke the "rule", but not the purpose of the rule to have the primary after the first 4 states.

    But then (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    MI's primary has to be added to the Nationwide Popular Vote in question, of course.

    Whcih is why Obama will say no (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    Well then (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    This'll just be one more example of Obama refusing to acknowledge the existence of a large state because the state didn't want him to be the nominee.

    yep, any bets he'll be for democracy (none / 0) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    I wouldn't count on it since it would add some risk to his nomination. Funny enough, I think he would still win, but it's very telling that he doesn't want to take the risk.

    But-but-but... (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    he won Wyoming!!

    Sorry, couldn't resist the snark. :-)

    By the way, BTD - it's a credit to your fairness that Hillary supporters like me feel comfortable here. You are not a hater. If all Hillary and Obama supporters were like you, the blogosphere would be a happier place. :-)


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#2)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    Yea, I think she should take this too and she should accept the Bill Nelson plan for Florida where they only get half the delegates.

    Now they can count popular votes and thats good for her.

    I gotta believe Obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    would not support it because it gives an edge to Clinton. I wonder what Dr. Dean thinks about it.

    It's really too bad (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:41:23 PM EST
    Does he take the minor edge his opponent gets in this case, or does he take the MAJOR edge refusing it gives his opponent in the GE?

    Hmmm. Penny wise, pound foolish.


    I don't think so (none / 0) (#6)
    by sister of ye on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    Base our vote partly on the national vote split? Have our delegates decided by other states' voters? As a MI voter, I say - I don't think so. Not until I get a chance to cast my vote to change the results of every other state's elections.

    The original election should stand unless the DNC also strips the votes from IA, NH and SC. Obama decided to disrespect the voters of the 8th largest state to curry favor with IA and NH. He should accept the consequences.

    That's what bothers me too (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    That part about allocating MI delegates according to national popular vote is just bogus. What has that got to do with Michigan?

    better than nothing, but not the best (none / 0) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    and I agree, good because it focuses on the popular vote. If I were Clinton I'd say immediately that something like this could be workable -- leave it a bit vague in case there are unseen pot holes. But definitely be out front for counting votes in some way at least as she has been.

    Still, I think the SD's should weigh in and say either they won't vote or they'll conditionally side with Clinton until this is resolved. That would get things resolved in, oh, about a day.

    The assumption there... (none / 0) (#10)
    by zzyzx on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    ...is that the vast majority of SDs are buying Clinton's argument about MI/FL.  So far there hasn't been evidence for that that I've seen.

    assumption is that they like democracy (none / 0) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    not that they buy any particular argument. The voters of MI and FL need to be counted before this is resolved. Period. To do anything else is against democracy. So my big hope is that some reasonable percentages of SD's are for democracy. As I said in my first mention of this, I'm not holding my breath.

    If she wins big in PA (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    that would change.

    Would you advise Clinton to (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    go bowling in PA?  

    One thing's for sure... (none / 0) (#52)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    she'd better get the right kind of cheese on her Philly cheesesteak, and not elitist French Gruyere the way John Kerry did!



    I completely agree with this. (none / 0) (#11)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    Let them use their power to get the votes counted.

    Of course HRC should take it. (none / 0) (#17)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:50:53 PM EST
    It's unfair to BO.  It's partly based on a fake (as all, including HRC agreed) primary, where BO wasn't on the ballot, and 32% of the R vote (which did count) was Ds and Is (including some BO supporters) and nobody campaigned.  Banana Republic, no thanks.

    An 11 delegate edge would be HRC's biggest net win on any election day, including her "big" wins on Super Tuesday II.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    Obama should insist on a revote instead . . .  

    Fake election (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sister of ye on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    Just count me as one of those fake voters who showed up at the polls. Because MI and FL voters live under rocks and had no idea who Obama could be. [/snark]

    Obama's supporters paid for ads here in SE MI for people to vote uncommited so BO could get those votes at the convention, showing his assumption that those votes would be counted. It's only when Clinton pulled a clear majority that the "Unfair! They broke the roolz!" cry started. Well, so did NH, IA and SC. If our votes can't count, theirs shouldn't, either.


    fake was (none / 0) (#39)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    a poor choice.

    Even as I wrote it I knew it was a sloppy shorthand to express that everyone (including HRC and Ickes and the voters of FL/MI) knew that the D votes would have no impact on the delegate count for the Democratic primary.

    People took actions based on the promise that the FL and MI D primaries wouldn't count.  This fact is undeniable.  This process was irrevocably broken by the leadership in FL and MI.  Now both sides are maneuvering for advantage.  That's the truth.

    HRC was against counting MI & FL, then she was for seating as is, then she was against revotes (USA Today), then fifteen minutes later she was for revotes (as long as they follow a format that best advantages her.)


    Whereas Obama set forth (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    his position:  if its o.k. w/the DNC, its o.k. w/me.

    They always knew the delegates would be seated (none / 0) (#89)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:03:47 PM EST
    For those who weren't sure the votes would be counted - here's what the Michigan Democratic Party had to say about it in a press release dated 12/7/07 (looks like they expected the delegates to be seated even then - that's why Obama supporters campaigned for people to vote "uncommitted"):



    Have you (none / 0) (#42)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    seen polling for this state?

    A new poll just came out where BO is doing better than HRC against McCain in MI, even with all this chit chat about the primary.

    There were HRC-BO polls not too long ago where they were tied.

    The first vote is not representative of the will of the people, for reasons I've explained above.


    Cool, then Obama (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    should have no problem agreeing to a re-vote. Glad we've settled that.

    Then, based on this polling data, (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:17:44 PM EST
    Obama should welcome a re-vote.  Doesn't he read the polls?

    hmmm... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    ...a revote that will cost millions, be a huge distraction and disenfranchise people who crossed over?

     No thanks.


    Voting is such a distraction (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    from the pressing issues of the day, isn't it? How will our democracy survive the horrors of voting?

    oh brother (n/t) (none / 0) (#55)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    Disenfranchise who? (none / 0) (#135)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    People who crossed over to vote in the Republican primary so that Romney would slow down the McCain train?

    lol, are you one of those?  

    Here's what I think.  If people were foolish enough to use their vote to mess with the Republicans, they can't holler now about being disenfranchised.  I mean, it's not like they've shown that they take voting seriously or anything.


    Anyone... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:41:17 PM EST
    ...who voted in the Democratic primary can hardly be said to have taken their voting very seriously, since it was in effect gambling.

    well that's odd (none / 0) (#138)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    there were hundreds of thousands of people who went marching into the voting booths, found the names of their candidates, and voted for those candidates.

    not sure how this is gambling.

    and there was this one major blogger who understood at the time what was going on that made some of the candidates take their names of the ballot . . . tho' I think he's changed his mind about that since.  oh, wait!  it's the same guy who thought it would be sooooo funny to mess with the Republicans.

    Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates. So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

    kos in january is not the same as kos in march.  see latest post at TL.


    The HRC (none / 0) (#56)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:23:23 PM EST
    revote plan would need to exclude those who went for a second or strategic choice in the R primary instead of voting uncommitted in the MI D primary which didn't count and didn't include BO.  This is unfair to those voters.  We will have retroactively changed the rules such that these voters were tricked into voting a particular way in the first primary.

    irrevocably broken is as irrevocably broken does.


    "Strategic Choices" (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    Probably should have more respect for the Democratic Process in the first place.

    And if someone was "tricked"... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    ...blame Kos for encouraging them to vote for Romney...

    So ... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    The solution to not "disenfranchising" folks who made the CHOICE to vote Republican is to disenfranchise those who were loyal to the Democratic party?  Ummm... ok.

    The national Democratic Party ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    ... was the disloyal party in this mess.  Or rather, it was obsessed with being loyal to Iowa over Michigan and Florida.

     Remember, it was the national party who told the state voters if you vote early we will refuse to count it.  Voting in the Democratic Party is not a sign of loyalty under those circumstances.


    Again (none / 0) (#66)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    Not HRC's "plan" - the DNC RULES.

    Because he does not want to delay the process (none / 0) (#84)
    by independent voter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    He believes that enough Supers will come over and support him that this will be done by mid May. If he agrees to new votes in FL and MI, most will adopt a "wait and see" attitude. Even if he had polling showing him up 10 points, he would oppose new votes for those states.

    Delay the process? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    What's the rush?

    Obama wasn't on the ballot (none / 0) (#72)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    because he insisted his name be taken off. The DNC did not require it.

    Taking his name off made him look good in Iowa though.

    He made the play all on his own. He should have to deal with the consequences.


    Still gives Obama delegates he didn't earn (none / 0) (#22)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    I think  Clinton should get her 55% plus 1/4 the uncommitteds. That splits the delegates Edwards would have won them at the time between Clinton and Obama. The perception of fairness is important. So Clinton would get about +29 delegates from the state. This plan only gives her about +11.

    You're wasting your time (none / 0) (#141)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:52:06 PM EST
    Never going to happen. Clinton would likely win FL in a real and contested race. Her margin would be less than 10% however. Obama would either win MI or lose by a few points. So Obama will not agree to anything that gives Clinton any of the uncommitted votes. In fact, he won't agree to anything that is determinative in picking the nominee

    A mess... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    ...but finding someway to split the delegates would be a fair compromise.  That being said, you cannot really fault Senator Obama for opposing the revotes as they were planned; they disenfranchised the voters who crossed over in the primary the DNC told MI voters "wouldn't count."  Virtually all of my family members crossed over to make sure Huckabee didn't win MI.  They would have voted Edwards, and now support Obama.  

     It isn't just about counting MI; it is also about the fact that she left her name on the ballot and said that MI wasn't going to count, expecting to have the nomination locked up by Super Tuesday.

    Why should Independents and Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    matter more than Democratic voters in our primaries?

    Sorry, that argument doesn't make sense. Let the Democratic voters have their say.


    They're not... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    ...Republicans and Independents.  People crossed over because they were told, in no uncertain terms, that NONE of their delegates would be counted.  You can spin it however you want to spin it, but the reality is not what you are trying to make it.

    I don't believe you without evidence. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    I  had debates with another commenter here who insisted that Democratic turnout was depressed in FL. When I finally saw his evidence, it was flat wrong.
    I'm more inclined to believe what you are saying; however, I'd like to know two things: first, was Democratic turnout in MI depressed; second, is there any evidence that the crossover hurt a particular candidate?
    If Obama was not harmed by the Democrats voting in the GOP primary, why worry about it?
    Give him the uncommitted vote. Remember, his surrogates campaigned for him in MI, telling supporters to vote uncommitted.

    I think it is clear the Dem vote was depressed... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    ...you see it in the numbers: more votes for GOP candidates in MI than for Democrats.  Also, fewer overall votes than in comparable (big) states.

     Whether or not crossover hurt Obama is hard to determine.  I would not be opposed to giving him the uncommitted votes, but even there...well, people just stayed home instead of voting.  

     A mess, but like I said before I expect this race will be over before the convention and they will be seated without any real trouble.


    What I'd like to know is what ercentage of (none / 0) (#85)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    registered Democrats voted in the Democratic primary.
    The turnout for both parties was 1.5 million. The Democratic primary voters were 40-49% of those (from wikipedia).

    Michigan secretary of state... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:07:31 PM EST
    ... has actual numbers. Democratic turnout was 594,398 votes compared to 869,169 votes in the GOP contest.  In a year like this, something's wrong with those numbers.

    But that's two seperate things (none / 0) (#107)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    One is that some people chose not to vote (and your numbers seem to indicate that some did stay home).  Those people could still vote in a re-do.  Not disenfranchised.

    But is there any hard evidence that a large number of people voted Republican solely for strategic purposes because they didn't think their vote would count?  Ie, not because they preferred Romney to anyone in either party but because they wanted to help the democrats via republican voting (which is what you seem to indicate your family did).  I think that those numbers are likely very low, ancedotal really, but are there any numbers that would indicate that one way or the other.

    That group is the only one that could claim they are being "disenfranchised" but that was their call.  And I believe they are much fewer than not counting all the rest of the people who voted Dem or stayed home.


    That's not what I asked, and not as convincing (none / 0) (#134)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:23:34 PM EST
    as looking at what percentage of registered Democrats voted in the Democratic primary.

    Favorite son factor (none / 0) (#87)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    I don't know how many registered Democrats and Republicans there are in MI, so I don't know what we should expect the split of primary voters to be. But you'd have to factor in that Romney is a favorite son and so that would lead to higher than normal turnout for the GOP. (I'm not saying Dem turnout was not supressed, only that a proper analysis would have to consider a lot of factors, such as Romney's presence on the ballot.)

    Turnout in MI (none / 0) (#105)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:14:24 PM EST
    "In 2004, about 163,000 people voted at about 250 Democratic caucus sites"


    Turnout for 2008:

    Total votes (dem primary):  594,398



    Of course, by the time Michigan voted in 2004... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    ...the momentum was pretty clear.  I voted for Clark that time around, but it was pretty clear the vote was over.  



    Crossovers (none / 0) (#73)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    If you are so concerned about Democratic voters who didn't vote for Democrats, you should be for a revote so their voices can be heard.

    But you're not, if I'm reading your responses correctly. Why?


    I would be fine with it... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    ...but the revotes planned would not have allowed people who crossed over and voted in the GOP primary to revote in the new Democratic primary.  I don't support that kind of revote.  That was my whole point.

    Sorry I missed your point. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST
    However, that was their choice. They should have voted in the Dem primary, not in the Republican one.

    In any case, I don't think we should disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of folks who DID vote Democratic for the sake of a few folks who voted Republican. Those priorities don't work for me.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    ...and it was the choice of the national party to tell them their votes would never, never, never count for anything because of what their state party did.  That was why they chose to vote in the GOP primary and boost McCain.  Now they don't get to have their say, but people who participated in what was deemed a pointless election do?  Or people who stayed home and didn't vote, giving them a voice instead of people who care about making sure the Republicans don't have something even worse than a Bush clone?  

     And people wonder why the Democratic Party has the reputation of being its own worst enemy...



    You were not "disenfranchised" (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    If you voted in the Republican party's primary, your vote is counting and you were in no way "disenfranchised".  You may regret your vote vote now (kind of like Obama when he pushed the wronng button in the Illinois legislature five times [/snark]), but you were NOT disenfranchised.

    Ok... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    ...then you were not disenfranchised by the party rules, because the party is in no obligation to give you a say in the primary.

     If you supported Senator Obama or Senator Edwards, your vote didn't count at all.  Couldn't, in fact.  

     I guess that the Dems who crossed over to prevent a religious fundamentalist from winning the GOP nomination, after being told their votes wouldn't count if they bothered to vote in the Democratic primary by the Democratic Party itself, were just...selfish.  Selfish for not just voting for Senator Clinton.  


    No (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    They could have and should have voted "uncommitted". As I posted earlier, the Michigan Democratic Party put out a press release in December that told people to do that. John Conyers and other Obama supporters had campaigns to get people to vote "uncommitted". It was all over the news and newspapers, so if someone still made a choice and voted in the Republican primary, why SHOULD they also get a vote in the Democratic primary?

    Logically, "uncommitted" should have had about 70% of the vote - then when they were seated, those delegates could vote for whomever they wanted (the whole purpose of having "uncommitted" on the ballot in the first place). But, people decided to play cute and vote in the Republican primary.  Too bad.


    The DNC... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    ...said you will not count, MI, you will not count in halfsies or in full.  So claiming that they should have voted "uncommitted" when they were told their votes would not count AT ALL is frankly dishonest.  

    From the MDP - 12/10/07 (none / 0) (#124)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    Voter Guide On The January 15, 2008
    Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary

    1. Voters will vote at their regular polling places between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M.

    2. Voters can vote by absentee ballot if they meet one of the requirements - out of town, age 60 or older, disability, etc.

    3. The deadline to register to vote is 30 days before January 15, 2008 or December 17, 2007.

    4. In order to vote at a polling place, a voter must show a photo ID or sign a statement that they do not have a photo ID with them. Absentee voters do not have to produce a photo ID.

    5. Voters will be asked whether they want a Democratic or Republican ballot, and a record will be made of which ballot they take.

    6. The voter's choice of candidate will be secret as in all public elections.

    7. The Democratic ballot will have 6 choices:
    Hillary Clinton
    Christopher Dodd
    Mike Gravel
    Dennis Kucinich

    8. A vote for "uncommitted" is a vote to send delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are not committed or pledged to any candidate. Those delegates can vote for any candidate they choose at the Convention.

    9. Supporters of Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are urged to vote "uncommitted" instead of writing in their candidates' names because write-in votes for those candidates will not be counted.



    Dishonesty runs rampant here... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    ...a vote for uncommitted is a vote that will not be seated, period: THE DNC TOLD THE STATE PARTIES NO DELEGATES WOULD BE SEATED AT THE CONVENTION.  If they were not seated, they wouldn't have counted. You repeatedly ignore that very important fact.

     Just because you wish to keep reminding people what the MICHIGAN party was telling people because you feel (erroneously) that it helps your argument, the facts remain what they are.


    dishonest, yes your argument is (none / 0) (#129)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    quite silly.  i'm sure all the voters of MI had their DNC connection tell them not to vote.  of course no one would have actually read the official voter guide.  duh

    Actually (none / 0) (#130)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM EST
    what's more likely is the voters in MI and FL said a pox on you, state and national Democratic Party, I think I'll do what I want since nothing is going to matter anyway.  They either stayed home, voted for the candidate of their choice (if that candidate was on the ballot) or voted in the GOP battle if they could.  And voting in the GOP battle, under the circumstances, would have been a good Democratic Party move.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#132)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    Mark Brewer, the head of the Michigan Dem Party (and Edwards supporter) told Thom Hartmann a few weeks back that the party told them they were stripping the delegates for now but that more than likely, they would be seated at the convention.

    So, really, THOSE are the facts.


    why should anyone in MI have listened (none / 0) (#125)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    to the MI Democratic Party after it set the date and the "punishment" had been announced?  It, more than anyone in MI, was the entity that messed its part of the process up in the first place.  

    (Sort of like W telling the telecomms to do what he wanted and all would work out in the end.  At some point, you think for yourself and do what you think is right given the parameters you're working under.)


    selfish exactly (none / 0) (#98)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:08:51 PM EST
    She was inevitable, after all.  Too funny.  The FL and MI votes did not happen in a vacuum.  Decisions were made by voters about who to vote for after the state parties decided to set their primary date for X date.  The consequences for those decisions if those decisions were not overturned before everyone started voting were disclosed and announced and reported in the media.  Hillary didn't care at the time -- she was inevitable.  Now she cares because she's not so inevitable.  

    BTW, hats off to you for recognizing the role of the Party is the party's fiasco.  But now, let's let everyone get back to bashing Obama for wanting to follow through with the original agreement amongst the contenders.  'Tis the way of this world.


    Not quite true (none / 0) (#121)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:37:05 PM EST
    Obama supporters were running ads telling people to vote uncommited in the Democratic Primary in order to show their committment to Obama. The idea was (apparently) that they would then take the uncommitted delegates and try to get them seated at the DNC convention, where they could then vote for Obama. People had 4 choiced: 1) Vote for Clinton 2) Vote uncommitted to support Obama 3) write in (meaningless) or 4) vote Republican.



    So what? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    I am talking about the DNC.  Not about what some Obama supporters did on the ground.  In January 2008, a vote for uncommitted was still a vote that Michigan voters were told would not count by the DNC, the only entity that can make such claims.  

    Why would anybody vote uncommitted? (none / 0) (#139)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    Why on earth would anybody take the time to go into a voting booth and vote for nobody if they didn't want to make a political statement? Voting uncommitted is not the same as not voting. I really don't see how you can argue that voters thought that their votes didn't count when they were told in ads that they could make their votes count by voting "uncommitted" and they proceeded to do so.

    No one was REQUIRED by the DNC or MI (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by vicsan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    to remove their names from the ballot. They did that by CHOICE. It was NOT required. Had they left their names on the ballot, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. He should NOT be rewarded in any way for removing his name when he didn't have to.

    No, we'd be having a discussion (none / 0) (#109)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:17:10 PM EST
    about whether or not all the people who could have voted in the D primary and may have wanted to actually did vote because the DNC announced the state delegates wouldn't be seated.  

    MI and FL did not happen in a vacuum.  People voted the way they did based on a number of factors, including (presumably) whether or not they thought their vote would count.  If they didn't think it would count they might have stayed home or voted some other way.  Might have, could have, etc. always leaves room for argument.  No one knows what might have or could have happened.  Everyone knew what the DNC said was going to happen.

    Changing that outcome now, way after the fact, does no one a service.  


    but how does blaming the candidates (none / 0) (#41)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    or state parties and legislatures help to include MI and FL Democrats?

    They'll be included one way or another... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:17:18 PM EST
    ...but I think the primary will be over well before the convention.

    I would not grant TX or WA (none / 0) (#74)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    as example of why expanding a caucus into a primary for the purpose of determining the popular vote would result in a HUGE increase for Obama.

    Really, the Obama caucus wins in small states would not affect the popular vote count that much.  This is an easily verifiable point.  Just go look at the number of registered voters in each state and the turnout in 04.

    Agree with you on Texas (none / 0) (#79)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    but Washington is a different animal.  Washington was a beauty contest, so it doesn't make sense to use it as a base for the popular vote, if the primary doesn't COUNT as the main contest.

    I am not saying it should be used for PV (none / 0) (#83)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    For PV counting purposes I would use the caucus figures for WA.

    My point is that turning caucuses into primaries would not result in a huge increase for the Obama PV count.  Any delta would be dwarfed by MI and FL.


    Only accurate is Michigan is counted as is (none / 0) (#99)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    Otherwise, since only 10% left remaining in the contests, that half a million lead, plus say another, what - 250K estimate for the caucus states? - gets pretty big.

    Not on a winner take all basis (none / 0) (#75)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    so you went off topic, so can I.

    Obama does not have a HUGE lead in the popular vote.

    If he did, the primary season would be over.

    Deiner Intervener will say there is no way to... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    ...accurately or fairly count popular votes: Caucuses aren't the same turnout as primaries, some primaries are closed, ect.  (I think this argument is bogus, I'm just saying that will be the DNC's response.)


    Disagree that HRC Might Agree (none / 0) (#97)
    by cdalygo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:08:06 PM EST
    Thanks BTD for having the guts to take everyone on. (That includes us Hillary supporters.)

    But I'm with you and I suspect Hillary would agree as well by this point. It's a revote or nothing. (By the way, I believe she would take Michigan at this point.)

    The revote would end speculation on both sides that either one got "cheated." It will energize the entire country behind the campaign because it keeps it exciting. (Sorry months of sniping at McCain will grow old soon - especially when press pulls rug out from under Obama.)

    She has staked out a position on a revote and (unlike Bill) is smart enough to keep her word. Besides it the revote campaign will give her more opportunities to hammer home the unfairness of the caucuses.

    Shrug. That's my two cents.

    (Oh, as for your hate mail. "Forget" them [I chose forget only to get past your censor software]. That would go even for mine if you keep calling my candidate as weak as Obama. :>)

    No it won't (none / 0) (#101)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    Re: "The revote would end speculation on both sides that either one got 'cheated.'"  Revotes will just allow the arguments to continue on, this time with new and different facts.  The process was bad before the first vote was cast. Without a landslide for one candidate (at the time, presumably Clinton), the charade was bound to fail and the punishment announced foolish and short-sighted beyond belief.  

    How about some specifics? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Publicus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    Specifically, what has Obama done to block revotes in MI and FL - except to neogtiate fairness and accuracy?

    You keep saying that, but the piece you cited here doesn't even come close to establishing it as a fact.  People that supported Obama supported move-ups, therefore Obama supported move-ups in order to poison the elections?  You must know that is an extreme fallacy - and please quit removing my coments just because you don't agree.

    wonder if it's possible (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    to calculate the Obama vote % by noting the number of Starbucks per block in an area?   :-)

    This is so depressing. (none / 0) (#131)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    I have to say, I don't have that much sympathy for the crossover voters in Michigan -- Dems who voted in the Republican primary as a tactical act. Mostly because I never thought that MI and FL would be cut off completely. It was so clear to me that it would be suicidal to hold that line all the way to the GE, and that the higher-ups would have to eventually find some way to seat the delegates. It really surprised me to see experienced political bloggers urging the crossover voting, because I didn't see how anyone couldn't see the eventual problem. I figured that they must know more about it than me, since they're political bloggers and they spend their lives immersed in this stuff. But suddenly, we're at the end, and -- yep. Turns out it's a nightmare for the GE.

    Guess this doesn't amount to anything but "I was right!" post, but still. It's depressing, because it was all so avoidable.

    I think... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    ...that was only clear to Senator Clinton and her supporters, who assumed that everyone else would be knocked out on Super Tuesday.  Now that the bubble of entitlement has been popped, they seek to use the threat of not seating MI as fodder for the GOP to (surprise surprise) seat MI and get (they hope) all the delegates:

     "Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass. In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised - before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions."  (AP Feb. 16, 2008, available at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080216/D8URLU1O0.html).  

     Even if by keeping her name on the ballot she did not violate the letter of her campaign pledge, it is clear what her campaign was attempting to do.


    Condescending and wrong (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:07:29 PM EST
    Look... you make a lot of assumptions about Clinton's supporters and their assumptions (including the assumption that anyone arguing for re-votes is a Clinton supporter and that all Clinton supporters assumed that Super Tuesday would 'knock everyone else out'.) These assumptions are both wrong and condescending.

    I don't even know who I support anymore frankly. And I certainly didn't feel any 'entitlement' was due to Clinton or that Super Tuesday would settle things. In fact, I recall that I figured Super Tuesday would NOT settle things.

    But, still, I am for re-votes because it is the only solution that will confer true legitimacy on the eventual nominee since the race is so close at this point and since so many stupid mistakes have been made by the DNC and others.

    I am not for seating MI and FL as is because it is unfair to those voters who may have wanted to vote for Obama but thought the votes wouldn't count. I am also not for giving votes to Obama from Michigan that he did not earn (e.g., a 50/50 split)> You see? Some people can actually put fairness above candidates. I know it's a novel concept but it really happens.

    Stop assuming that everyone is blinded to truth and fairness due to candidate worship. It's insulting.


    The only calls... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:31:21 PM EST
    ...for seating MI as is are coming from Senator Clinton's camp.  FL is a different story.  It would still be unfair to seat it as is, but the Republicans helped create the mess in FL.    

     I would support a revote, provided that crossover voters were permitted to participate and we could make sure that something like mail in voting could be implemented both quickly and fairly.  But the crossovers were excluded under the plan.  No support from me for that. If you had read my comments you would have seen, pretty clearly, that I am not opposed to a revote in principle.  

     I do not support the "special status" enjoyed by NH and IA.  There should be a rotation every four years.  It was the national party that screwed this one up, but nearly all of the disingenuous comments I am seeing are coming from Senator Clinton's supporters who want to pretend that those were actual elections.


    I can't see Obama letting popular (none / 0) (#140)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    votes from the rogue states being determinative. He may eventually agree to some formula that allows Clinton to claim pledged delegate majorities in FL and MI. But this will likely still leave him 100+ ahead in pledged delegates. Super delegetes will never allow these 2 states to play a determinative role, and neither will Obama. Seating them is one thing, dividing them up so Clinton has a majority is yet another. However, taking them into consideration to determine the nominee will never happen. The elections were unsanctioned and uncontested. Why is this so difficult to understand? And those suggesting that Obama will relinquish everything in MI to Clinton because he took his name off the ballot, what are you people smoking? Seriously, I'd like to know. You all do realize that Obama has veto power. And you all do realize that Obama has very significant support, including the vast majority of supers since super tuesday.