Wayne Barrett: Obama Blocked Revotes In FL/MI

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Misery loves company, and I want to welcome Wayne Barrett to the wrath from Obama supporters for telling the truth about revotes in FL/MI:

Since one campaign (Hillary Clinton's) was amenable to redoes, even financing Michigan's, and the other campaign (Barack Obama's) opposed every feasible proposition, it is, in a strange way, true that the two sides weren't collectively ready for a deal.

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

Welcome to my hate mail Mr. Barrett. More . . .

I want to respond to our newly minted Democrat John Cole who seems to have a hard time understanding why a credentials fight at the convention would be Barack Obama's fault. Lert me try it slowly with you John.

(1) the ONLY reason we would have a credentials fight at the Convention is over the Florida and Michigan delegations.

(2)If there were a revote in Florida and Michigan, there would be no fight over the credentials of those delegations.

(3) Barack Obama blocked revotes in Floirida and Michigan.

Is that too complicated for you John?

P.S. It sure would be nice to have a chance to win in Florida and Michigan in November. Just a thought.

< Matt Yglesias' Awkward Truth | New MI Plan Floated: Not A Revote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This Is A Great Article (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by flashman on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    And a good perspective on the details behind the Fl and MI efforts to move their primary dates.  Also a nice analysis of how these states are being unfairly punished by the DNC.  I would call this required reading for anyone concerned about why voting matter.

    SD's for democracy (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:15:07 PM EST
    Here's a wild idea. And I'm not naive enough to think SD's most of whom are politicians would do anything like this. But wouldn't it be terrific if most of the remaining SD's and maybe some who currently support Obama came out and said that until they see the MI and FL votes count in some reasonable way or until there is a revote, they will (on that condition) commit to Clinton. That is, they would get together and force democracy on the democratic party and on the DNC. That would be the coolest thing ever. But I'm not holding my breath.

    They Wouldn't Even (none / 0) (#13)
    by The Maven on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    need to say that they would commit to Clinton, merely that under no circumstances will they vote for Obama until the situation is resolved.

    Without a sizable number of superdelegates, there is no way that Obama could clinch a first-ballot nomination, and any superdelegate who votes for Obama would her- or himself be endorsing the formal disenfranchisement of millions of Democratic voters.  Put it to each SD this way, and watch them twist and squirm with discomfort.


    that's a good alternative (none / 0) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    Basically a pile of SD's could say, well, we'll vote when MI and FL are dealt with. But not until then. Ff there was enough of them to ensure the magic number wouldn't be reached, I'd wager that a solution to MI and FL would suddenly be found.

    Shows Fear (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    ...on obama's part. i expected him to strongly assert that all voters should get a chance to participate! how could a democratic country start with this this anti-democratic get-out-of-the-race talk?

    Mr. 48 (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    The MSM will install Mr. 48 by any means necessary.    Pointing out that Obama is preventing the voters of MI and FL from a full recorded vote will get you accused of bias.

    What I'd like to know is - when did democracy become a pejorative?

    For some, like Libertarians (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    it always has been a pejoritive. The Libertarian analogy that comes to mind is that "democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch". Libertarians are good at sloganeering, but not so much at thinking.

    Consideering some well-known (and lesser-known) Obama supporters are self-styled "libertarian Democrats", it isn't a surprise they hate democracy.

    But I get the feeling they're on the side of the wolves on this one.


    You get hate mail? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    I do not understand why intelligent, educated, and supposely adult bloggers would send anyone a hate e-mail. First of all, it is childish. Secondly, it only points out how right you are in your position when the other side can only sprew hate.

    Interestingly, when you were at DKos, you would just get mashed up in comments. Here, I guess they are afraid they will just get deleted so it requires the classy personal touch.

    I still laugh at that 50/50. Like in FL, just give me 150k of your votes and we'll call it even which means adding FL votes does not change anything. Ha. And THAT won't upset the people there? Fat chance.  

    I've gotten hate mail forever (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST
    that's a shame (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    because if anyone has been fair through this race, it's you and Jeralyn.  thanks to you both for that.

    Oh Imeant blogging forever (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    Since 2003.

    Re: "forever" (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    That's it; you'll never be able to run for President with that exaggeration on Google.

    Live in Michigan. Supported Edwards. Still do. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by clio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:26:54 PM EST
    Been clear from the beginning who was blocking the re-vote in the Michigan Legislature.

    Every time a problem with the re-vote was solved Obama's camp raised another one.  When no practical barriers were left Obama's campaign came out of the shadows and blocked enabling legislation.

    We in Michigan know who blocked the re-vote.

    It wasn't Clinton.

    Barrett's Piece (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by The Maven on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    should be required reading -- in its entirety -- for everyone who directly or implicitly says anything regarding the MI/FL delegations or potential re-votes, or who cites to a delegate count that pretends as though these delegates never were meant to exist.

    It would also help if such people stopped for a moment to consider the likely implications of telling the voters of those two states that the presumptive Democratic nominee favors disenfranchising them until such time as their votes no longer matter.  We will need 270 Electoral College votes in November, and essentially giving away 44 EVs for free is no way to achieve that goal.

    Oh come on its only 43 electoral (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    votes combined.  He'll make those votes up in Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma easy.  /snark

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    I still don't know why Obama is doing this (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    What is the net gain from not letting Michigan and Florida revote? There is no way that their elections would provide Clinton with enough votes to gain a delegate lead, so his "delegates are the deciders" argument would not be undermined. Clinton might get a small majority of actual votes, but that risk is fairly small and countered by the reality that there is an election coming up in November and Michigan and Florida could swing either way. Obama speaking up for their votes in the primary could help him in those states.

    He is acting like an underdog candidate who has to scrabble for every vote instead of a clear frontrunner who can afford to start focusing on the November election. Why? According to almost everybody on the web and in the media he is the candidate. Why isn't he acting like it?

    Plus, it is incredibly bad PR. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    Our candidate in the GE cannot be AGAINST votes being counted.

    If he does, then so what? (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    What is driving this man? If he wants to win the Presidency, he's going to need Michigan and Florida. Winning the primary and then losing the Presidency would be a complete disaster for him. How many people have done that and then come back to run and win later? If he loses the primary then he is well positioned to come back in 4 or 8 years (or 16, he's young) and have another run. It's not uncommon for primary dropouts to come back later and win. If he lost the primary and ran with Clinton as VP then he'd either have a clear shot at the Presidency in 8 years or would be a top tier candidate in the next election.

    He seems to be focused on winning the primary and not even thinking about the real race that's going on. Any way I look at it, Obama would be better off if he let Michigan and Florida count.


    With Clinton (none / 0) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    winning the re-votes and winning in PA, KY, WV, PR and possibly IN she would be on a major winning streak (including 3 of the 8 largest states giving her 7 out of the 8) that could very well move the bulk of superdelegates into her column.

    Go look at the popular vote projections by Jay Cost at realpolitics.com.

    Counting MI and FL as is she has a very good chance of winning the popular vote.

    Winning early and losing late wouldn't bode well for Obama.

    Any SD who ignores the MI and FL popular votes whether seated or not should have an M for Moron branded on their forehead and be given a one way ticket to the funny farm.


    Great article. However.. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Faust on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    Let me briefly add (because I have to go to work now) why I think that this issue does not get more traction in general, and does not generate more outrage.

    There are two senses in which votes count in these races. The sense in which they "count" at the convention, and the sense in which they are "relevant" in the choosing of the nominee.

    In MOST primaries historically, there are many many votes which COUNT but are IRRELEVANT. For example this is always (almost always?) the case for Puerto Rico. The citizens of Puerto Rico typically have votes that COUNT but are IRRELEVANT to the nomination since it has been decided by that time.

    Indeed one could argue that the further up in the process a state has its vote, the more relevant it becomes to the nomination. It is for this very reason that states tried to move up in the process in the first place. They wanted their state to be more relevant.

    Given that there is thus a massive historical precedent for voters in many states having borderline irrelevant or completely irrelevant votes, since the entire primary structure creates a situation where votes typically (but not this year!!!!) become less and less relevant, I think it is hard for some people to get up in arms about FL and MI because many people know that these delegations will be seated right after they become irrelevant.

    I'll admit I had not until this argument given sufficient thought to how much the normal primary season disenfranchises voters that are significantly downstream in the process, but the imbroglio over FL and MI in fact mirrors a kind of disenfranchisement that is inherent in every primary season...the disenfranchisement that is hooked to the timeline of the process.

    Obama seeks to place FL and MI at the end of the timeline...a place where they will count, but be irrelevant. This is certainly a valid cause for anger...but will that same anger be channeled into making future primaries national primaries? Because as I see it that's the only way to stop what I'm starting to see as timeline disenfranchisement from occurring every single primary season.

    And it is because it happens most (if not all) primary seasons, that I think you see less outrage over this event than some people would like to see.

    Michigan + Florida = Population of 19 Other States (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    Is there ANY Rule that the Obama campaign would NOT support?  What if instead of not counting two states, we didn't count ##19 STATES##?!?  Oh wait, that's actually not taking it to logical extremes: Michigan and Florida's combined total population is more than the combined total population of 19 other states!

    Obama loves to say he's won more states, can you imagine the outcry if instead of ignoring the voters from two states, he was ignoring the voters from NINETEEN states?  Can you imagine the outcry if NINETEEN states were not allowed to vote for the democratic nominee? The "winner" of such a nomination would most surely not be legitimate. Right?!? Well, we're doing the exact same thing by ignoring the voters of Michigan and Florida.

    John Cole's CDS (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:03:21 PM EST
    is no longer in remission, it's not only active again it has metastisized.

    His site is as bad as DailyObama or Total Pony Manure.  It's infested with HillaryHating trolls.

    The other night I watched a rational Obama supporter get bashed for suggesting that they dial down the attacks on Hillary and her supporters because they'll need us in November.

    The commenters act as if it is rational and reasonable to believe delusional ideas like Hillary accepting the job of McCain's VP.

    Yesterday John started backing away from his promise to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

    I was a regular there but I decided to evacuate before they quarantined the place.

    BTW - They hate this site, along with TM.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    John is a "team guy." He is so like Markos it is scary.

    I got drumed out of there (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:48:16 PM EST
    ...got called the "R" word.
    Went back the next day and saw that the entire website was infected with CDS so I stopped going there.
    Same thing has happened at other sites.
    My blog reading world has really shrank.
    I'm pretty sure that my interest in politics will be over the second the Dems GIVE the nomination to Obama.
    For years, I've done battle against Repubs and Bush supporters.
    For a few weeks I did battle against Obama supporters, then I realized that the far leftists were no better than the Repubs and in many cases were much more despicable.
    I have a really bad taste in my mouth now and the number of people I can agree with politically has gotten dramatically smaller.
    If you take offense to anything I've written, just know there must be thousands more people who have similar feelings.

    I agreed , except about "far leftists" (none / 0) (#68)
    by splashy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    I don't think they are the far left. I think they are the crossovers from the right, who love to fight, harass, and generally try to always get their way.

    The far leftists aren't as likely to support Obama, with his links to the nuclear industry, lack of support for universal health care, and free market ideology. I don't think they are the ones doing the bullying.


    fun with rules (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by boredmpa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:52:15 PM EST
    after reading the link i decided to crunch the numbers and found that you could spin the rule enforcement multiple ways:

    If you treat all the rule breakers (NH, SC, Iowa) the same as Fl/Mi, you get a 133 spread in AP reported delegate totals.  

    However, if you treat Fl/Mi like the other states (and use demcon watch estimates) then you get a 101 delegate spread in delegate totals.

    What this means is that of all the basic rule enforcement outcomes that rely on existing votes, the decision to treat FL/MI differently had the best impact for Obama--a net benefit of 56 votes.

    Clinton 1249, Obama 1406 (157 diff)

    With MI/FL treated like SC/Iowa/NH:
    Clinton 1427,  Obama 1528 (101 diff)

    This? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    "Look, we're going to abide by whatever the Democratic National Committee determines is fair," he says.link

    As for this quote:

    "We were told that these contests would not count," he tells Steve Inskeep.
    The same guy who said that also appears to have promised attendees of a Tampa fundraiser that he'd "do right by Florida voters" back in September. So even though he was told that Fla "would not count," he was making suggestions that he would try to figure out how to make it count.

    But then again, that was well before his campaign sent out a memo announcing that Fla would not count.

    Ultimately he points out that

    "Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated  and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.
    and then turns around and challenges most every attempt to figure it out.

    I am deleting false comments on (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    MI/FL. The issue has been hashed out. If you do not accept what we have to say on it, either hold your toungue or go elsewhere.

    This is a Serious Mistake/Misjudgement (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by bob h on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    by Obama.  He would probably still have his lead in pledged delegates, anyway, after a revote, and now he has exposed himself to the justifiable belief that his nomination will be illegitimate.  Those Clinton supporters who want to walk now have all the justification they need.

    Trying to Get at Least 1/2 Our Delegates Back (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by FedUpInFL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:05:19 PM EST
    Jon Ausman, Florida representative of the DNC has filed two appeals to the Rules Committee. Hopefully, with any luck, they will be heard.

    "The first of his two appeals asks that all 23 Florida superdelegates -- party and elected officials, including members of Congress -- be seated because they are guaranteed to a state under the DNC charter."

    "It's the second Ausman appeal that leaves politicians with a math headache. He asks that half of Florida's 185 pledged delegates be seated, saying that's the penalty the DNC rules committee should have levied in the first place."

    Orlando Sentinel

    Wayne Barrett's pretty tough. (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:17:04 PM EST
    It doesn't surprise me that he would be the journalist to write a comprehensive account of how we got into this mess with FL and MI, and to really consider the facts and make an assessment based on them.

    He's the journalist who's responsible for a great deal of the reporting about the corruption of Rudy Giuliani's two terms as mayor, and on the business shenanigans he pulled after he left office. He criticized the 9/11 Commission for letting Rudy slide and not accurately assessing his role in the events of (and leading up to) that day. And he reported on the failures of the Giuliani administration in protecting the city and adequately equipping the first responders.

    He shares a great deal of the responsibility for knocking that halo off of Giuliani's head and saving us from that particular national nightmare. He handled regular abuse from Giuliani (and lots of other pols he's investigated); he can handle the hate mail from the Obamabots.

    Psychic now, too? (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    Re: "If there were a revote in Florida and Michigan, there would be no fight over the credentials of those delegations."  Really?  Because you know it will go off without a hitch and everything will be perfect, right?  In this world,  a revote is like the clouds opening up and God giving his blessing.  Interesting.  In the real world, there is a law of unintended consequences that will come into play.  

    Hillary didn't care in 2007.  Her claim to care in 2008 is born solely of self-interest.  Obama not wanting to engage in the discussion, self interest as well.    

    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    are you expecting credentials fights in other states? Are you serious? Heh.

    No, I'm expecting MI and FL (none / 0) (#29)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    to mess up a revote just as well as they both messed up the timing of the original vote and their failure to do anything about the ensuing controversies until it was too late to do anything about it and the one candidate who really, really needs those votes began to cry about disenfranchisement.  What I'm saying is that nothing ever goes as planned and some special interest (likely one you haven't even thought of) will get their feathers ruffled and continue the fight on some other grounds.  But then I'm sure the folks who got us into this mess have it all figured out and I'm just worrying for nothing.  

    The timing? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    You mean the way Iowa, and especially, NH, messed up the timing?

    Now I know you are full of it.


    whatever (none / 0) (#38)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    you know that IA and NH get to go first. You also know that a handful of other states were allowed to go next and no other states were allowed to rain on their parade under penalty of - the threat of not having their delegates seated.  So much for the rest of us and enfranchisement.  Heck, if it was up to the first 2 states none of the rest of us would ever get to vote.  The momentum from their all-knowing decisions would be enough for us all to see the wisdom of their ways.  

    Go invent strawmen to knock down with someone else.  Your really not that fun to have a discussion with.  You and others on this site have done enough to muddy the waters with you holier than thou and oh so mighty "knowledge" of selective facts to suit your arguments.  You, it appears, simply like to argue.  So argue away about how Obama is bad and Hillary is good because she finally wants MI and FL to be counted (they were) and have their delegates seated (which they still might).  She only wants it because she needs it.  If the shoe was on the other foot we'd be seeing the other side of Clinton, the side who said last year it's unfortunate but MI and FL j ust ain't gonna count for much and the party (with presumably her at the helm) would need to sooth brusied feelings.  What a joke.  


    please. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM EST
    if the shoe was on the other foot, the outcry from the media and the blogosphere would be deafening.  i can just hear them now accusing the mi and fl legislatures of being racist.  

    david axelrod is probably banging his head against the wall right now trying to figure out a way to somehow figure out a way to make a revote seem racist.  


    The republicans not only applied (none / 0) (#40)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    their actual rule in stripping 50% of the delegates from MI and FL, they also stripped NH of 50% of their delegates for moving their primary back.  while the democratic party apparatus screwed this up royally, the republicans actually followed the rules.  go figure.  is it any wonder they tend to win?

    i don't really care what the GOP does (none / 0) (#41)
    by po on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    they have different rules and different interests.  the GOP also doesn't have superdelegates and appears to have a much more democratic nominating process that the Democrats to.  Too bad, the GOP platform is un-American and inhumane.  If not for that, heck, the GOP might not be so bad.

    GOP's interest is in winning an election (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    which may make it different from the Democrats after all.  though that would seem to be the major reason for a party in the first place.

    i'm starting to think the evil Gingrich may have been right in calling it the Democrat Party.  his argument was that it wasn't democratic, just a gathering of democrats.  getting harder to argue with that all the time.


    i have to admit (none / 0) (#46)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    the more i watch the dems systematically attack and destroy the clintons, the more inclined i am to consider the gop.  

    Again (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    Why not Caucuses in FL and Mich. IF all we care about is enfranchisement.  That seams like a good compromise to me.  If all Clinton would except is full fledged primaries, how can you say she negotiated.  She would only except the scenarios that most benefited her.

    caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    have no place in a democratic society.  sorry.  why would you accept a system that allows 1% of the voters to decide the election?  it's just a stupid system that needs to be done away with immediately.

    please (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    find me the caucus with 1 percent voter turnout?

    Caucus Attendance (none / 0) (#65)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:53:30 PM EST
    has been poor. I don't think any hit 1% though. The  Center for Electoral Politics at George Mason University has the tallies. If I remember correctly, only Iowa and Nevada exceeded 10% with a 30% and 14.5% VEP (voter eligible population) turnout. The rest were under 10%. Minnesota had close to 10%. Most hovered around 6-8% turnout. Alaska had 4% and Maine (GOP) I think was 2%.

    The primaries had much higher turnout though only New Hampshire broke the 50% threshold with something like 54%. New York and Ohio each had just north of 40% turnout. There was one other state in the plus 40% but I can't remember which. All others have been in the 20 and 30 percent range. And these are record turnouts.

    Spain for the record had a 75% turnout in its recent general election.


    Caucuses are, in my opinion, undemocratic (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by macwiz12 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    1. They discriminate against many individuals who cannot be present for an extended time on a specific date. If held after dark, they limit the participation of the elderly who often do not drive at night, parents, women, and all who work at the time of the caucus. If held on a weekend day, they discriminate against some religious groups.

    2. In many cases they do not include a secret ballot. While I have never attended one, the Iowa caucuses sound like a free for all. A secret ballot is absolutely necessary for a free vote.

    3. Now I can see a way to run a caucus that would be fair. It would need to be open from say 6 A.M. to say 9 P.M. and people could go at any time during that period and mark a form with their candidate preference. After 9 P.M. the forms would be tallied. But wait, isn't that what we call a primary election?

    You're only calling for caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    ...because you know they'll help Obama and hurt Hillary.
    This isn't sandlot football where you get to change the rules everytime you get scored on.
    Get real!

    That's EXACTLY why no caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    Because we DO care about enfranchisement.

    heh (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    (actually not funny at all. . .)

    BDT--have you seen (none / 0) (#8)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST

    It's a new plan for MI.  Thoughts?

    Plan for MI (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sister of ye on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    Base our vote partly on the national vote split? As a MI voter, I say NO. The original election should stand. Obama decided to disrespect the voters of the 8th largest state to curry favor with IA and NH. He should accept the consequences.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    Just wrote a post on it.

    I don't deny (none / 0) (#23)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    That Obama blocked the revotes and I wish he hadn't.

    That said, I want to examine the assumption that this fiasco makes it impossible for the Dems to win MI and FL in November.

    If MI and FL voters are so angry about the lack of revotes, why:

    1. Did FL elected officials overwhelmingly oppose a revote, despite Clinton's support?

    2. Did MI elected officials not approve a revote, despite Obama's opposition?

    3. Is Obama doing slightly better than Hillary in MI general election polls -- with both within the margin of error of McCain (in a week where McCain is up nation-wide)?

    I just don't see the evidence this is a catastrophe, as opposed to a problem.

    in FL's case, I think the answer is obvious: (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    Floridians consider the primary valid, especially considering the turnout. Would another primary even attract as many voters?

    Evidence, please (none / 0) (#32)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    I understand that many people are upset and that many people consider the FL primary valid.

    But if we are going to claim that MI and FL voters are going to vote Republican because of the primary fiasco, that ought to be reflected in polls.  And I just don't see it -- not necessarily in FL and certainly not in MI.

    (McCain is leading Obama by 7 in FL, but it's unclear that's because of the voting fiasco.  On the contrary, it's pretty much what you'd expect, given the demographics and the national polls.)


    Here is your evidence (none / 0) (#35)
    by herb the verb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    Not particularly (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    Florida voters didn't demand revotes; in fact, they opposed them overwhelmingly.

    Only 24% said they would be less likely to vote Democratic if the delegates were not seated.  The question did not specify how they would be seated.    

    Perhaps most importantly, virtually nobody blamed the candidates for the problem.


    Read it again (none / 0) (#64)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    Let me help you out.

    The question was "If Florida delegates are not counted, are you any less likely to support the Democratic candidate for president?"

    Not seated. Counted.

    Still confused? Look at the question prior to it.

    "How important is it to you that Florida's delegates count toward determining the Democratic nominee?"

    Not hey do you want them to seat in their chairs only after the nominee is selected? It's not confusing. Either the delegates COUNT or the nominee loses votes.

    No they don't hold the candidates MOST RESPONSIBLE according to the survey. That isn't the same as saying the don't blame them. Obviously they have some problem with them or a quarter of them wouldn't be threatening not to vote for whoever wins.


    Short term memory loss on MI, (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    where Obama sd. if the DNC approved, he would also.

    crist supports a revote (none / 0) (#52)
    by isaac on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:44:30 PM EST
    if both candidates wanted to get it done it would have happened already.  procedural roadblocks are just excuses to avoid confronting the facts that, a. you dont want MI/FL votes to count because, b. you know you will lose

    Here: (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST