home

After TX and OH; On To FL And MI?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I am hesitant about raising this because, in my view, Senator Clinton needs to win the popular vote in both Ohio and Texas to have a reasonably legitimate narrative for winning the nomination - to wit, Obama has not won any contested big states key to the general election. And I do not think she will win both. But I proceed intrepidly.

Everywhere you go that is pro-Obama, places like NBC and TPM, you hear about the delegate math. Clinton trails Obama by some 160-odd pledged delegates and she will have to win around 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to retake the pledged delegate lead. Of course this accepts the Obama camp's spin that the pledged delegate result is the final word on who the nominee is. And that is simply not true. There are 700+ Super delegates who will decide who the nominee is. That is just plain fact. Neither candidate will reach the 2025 mark. But it also ignores two big pieces of the puzzle. Florida and Michigan. Under the current results, the now excluded Michigan and Florida delegation would give a net gain for Clinton of 76 pledged delegates. But of course this is not going to happen that way. But a revote could happen if Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio tonight. Why? Because it would likely be to the advantage of the Democrats, the DNC, Clinton AND Obama if Clinton sweeps Texas and Ohio tonight. I'll explain why on the flip.

If Obama loses Ohio and Texas tonight, he will have lost all of the biggest states except his home state of Illinois and heavily African American Georgia. Yes, Obama still will have something to prove. A revote in Florida and Michigan would ALSO help him as the Democratic nominee as it would assuage lingering bad feelings in those states towards him and the DNC. A revote makes sense for Obama.

The DNC can get the egg off of its face as well. And Democrats everywhere can trumpet the fact that Democrats care about the voters of Florida and Michigan. A revote makes the MOST sense for the DNC and the Democratic Party.

And it now makes sense for Hillary Clinton. If she wins Texas and Ohio, she has her big state narrative, enough money and momentum to feel confident she can win in both Florida and Michigan. Personally I think she wins Florida by double digits again in a revote.

How to do this? I stick to my proposed compromise:

I have the solution for the Florida/Michigan disaster. Seat half of the Michigan and Florida delegations based on the existing results. Then schedule a Florida primary and a Michigan [primary] in mid-May. If there is no need because Obama has already locked up the nomination in April, then, seat all the delegation based on the existing results and cancel the May contests.

This enfranchises those voters who voted previously AND ensures that Obama gets a fair shot at winning those two states. And it would be a great tiebreaker for deciding the nominee if we are still deadlocked come May. No one could complain could they? Someone will win this thing fair and square and then we can unify.

What am I missing? Is that not a brilliant solution?

< First Hand Report From Texas Voter | Rezko Trial: Day Two >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    After TX and OH; On To FL And MI? | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The mendacity elsewhere is stunning (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Jim J on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    All the pundits, "A-list" bloggers, the MSM -- none will say the plain truth: Neither candidate can hit the magic number as things currently stand.

    It's all a transparent bullying tactic to get HRC to withdraw prematurely so that Obama -- yet again -- will walk to an easy win without being tested or having to fight.

    There's no need to constantly ask "Why does Hillary stay in the race?" The answer is as plain as the nose on your face: Either candidate can still take this.

    I try to stay away from tinfoil stuff, but there seems to be a pattern in Obama's career of never having to truly finish a campaign. They all seem to be gift-wrapped for him.

    I understand life isn't fair, but this stumps and frustrates me, I confess.

    here's a scenario (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by joei on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    what if u have two different candidates as nominees based on whether u include FL and MI

    1. with FL and MI included: HRC
    2. not included: BO

    in this scenario, politically too risky to go with option 2 and the consensus will say that

    [ Parent ]
    Jim, you are exactly right (none / 0) (#14)
    by Polkan on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    and I would go even further and suggest that BTD's solution to FL and MI would perpetuate this for Obama.

    In my view, the MI and FL need to be seated by DNC revising and lifting it's punishment. The "uncommitted" vote that Obama campaign pushed for in MI should be given to him.

    [ Parent ]

    Your proposal has no chance (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:31:25 AM EST
    No do over, no delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    but what is BO is the nominee only (none / 0) (#16)
    by joei on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    by excluding FL and MI.

    EXCLUSION is a very strong word, imo

    [ Parent ]

    He won't be (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    Including FL and MI wont win it for either.

    The Superdelegates will decide the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Well let's see how the voting goes tonight (none / 0) (#46)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    This may all be a mute point. But I hope not!

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    Probably is moot.

    [ Parent ]
    you don't get to decide that (none / 0) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    I know you have an ego, but come on down, says Bob Parker.

    [ Parent ]
    The people that do decide it (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    already decided.

    Look live in fantasyland if you want.


    [ Parent ]

    It's official then? (none / 0) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:17 AM EST
    When is this re-vote taking place?

    I will agree with you on the most important point of this discussion:  If the Florida delegates don't get seated, we are guaranteed to lose Florida in the general.  Even IF they are seated, that's a tough hill to climb against McCain.

    I have a feeling he will still manage to hold on to the Cuban voters for example.  And that's just the beginning.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:56:59 AM EST
    what is settled now is that there will be no delegates from MI and FL unless and until one of the candidates has 2025.

    My proposal is an attempt to find a better way.

    [ Parent ]

    How about a Pennsylvania/Florida/Michigan tiebreak (none / 0) (#77)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    Schedule them all on that day, April 22nd.  Assume the race is practically tied and let the winner of that day be the nominee.  Sounds like dozens of rules would be broken, but fun !

    Ok I'm not serious with that.

    Damn I'm nervous.  I hope we can all be discussing these issues after tonight because it will mean Hillary is still in the race.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree on Florida (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:56:11 PM EST
    The Florida vote was fair. Both were on the ballot, as was Edwards. Floridans voted in record numbers. They had national media coverage of the campaigns. The lack of the ability to personally campaign in the state is no big deal when they could watch the candidates stump elsewhere.

    Seat Florida. It wouldn't be fair to hold another election.

    [ Parent ]

    My agreement is with (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    this comment by Polkan.

    [ Parent ]
    Plus, the Dems did not move the primary forward (none / 0) (#170)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    It was the Repubs in control of the FL legislature--FL Dems felt they had to take part i the primary bcz the Repubs also had a bad tax referendum measure on the ballot. (Passed, alas.)

    So, yes, FL Dems deserve to be seated.

    MI Dems and officials were behind their move forward. Redo the election? Caucus? I would like to see them seated.

    Perhaps Hillary and Obama can come to some agreement and petition the DNC with a joint proposal.

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Joike on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    What campaigns prior to this one haven't been gift wrapped for HRC?  Who did she beat in '00 and in '06?

    Giuliani chickened out of the race in '00.

    Please don't count Bill's victories.  She stands on her own.

    I hope she stays in the race, but let's not through in weak arguments against either candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    she started with the same negatives (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:49:57 AM EST
    in NY as nationally in 2000.  and her approval rating shot up 30 points thereafter, leading to a comfortable re-election in 2006.  but don't think for a second that that 30 points came out of nowhere, pal.  it wasn't some kind of miracle or manna from heaven.  it was won the old-fashioned way:  hard work.

    [ Parent ]
    She managed to blow 30+ million dollars (none / 0) (#87)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    fighting a re-election campaign against a nobody and to rack up an unimpressive vote total.  

    [ Parent ]
    She got 67% of the vote against John Spencer (none / 0) (#122)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    and tons of criticism for spending money to make sure she won.  

    But now she's being criticized for initially not spending money against Obama a year ago when he was also a "nobody".

    [ Parent ]

    The interpretation I read (none / 0) (#152)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    was that she was spending big to rack up an overwhelming victory to make her look good as she positioned herself for a Presidential run.  The idea that she was ever in danger of losing her senate seat in New York,  especially to a candidate such as  . . .  forgotten his name already,  is ridiculous.

    After the fact,  the eventual vote totals look like a very poor return on her investment as I would have been surprised if she hadn't won 60-40% spending nothing.  I know many on Kos and other liberal blogs were annoyed that she hadn't spread some more of that money about to help the Democrats in competitive senate and congressional districts.  It would seem to have been a better investment and would probably have paid off in goodwill for the current contest.  As it is it was a precursor to her blowing well north of $100million to finish 2nd to the junior senator from Chicago.

    [ Parent ]

    Against nobody, Pal (none / 0) (#169)
    by Joike on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    The GOP in NY is deader than Huckabee's chances against McCain.

    Just like Keyes was a joke candidate in Obama's race.

    This race has tested them both, and it's been great for the eventual winner, but neither has faced a tough campaign at the federal level until now.

    [ Parent ]

    And who did Obama beat? (none / 0) (#166)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    Four DEMCORATS he hired a lawyer for to get knocked off the ballot (including his former mentor, Alice Palmer)?

    Then there was Jeri Ryan's husband (can't remember his name) for Senate - until damaging sex stuff came  out about him and he withdrew.  Then there was Alan Keyes?  He's never had any competition.

    [ Parent ]

    Damaging divorce details were released about (none / 0) (#171)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    Obama's Democratic primary opponent. I beieve the opponent was favored to win the primary--until embarrassing details emerged.

    Maybe somethng embarrassing will be released about McCain's divorce....

    [ Parent ]

    I've always liked your compromise (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    I hope the Big Name Players can agree to it or something similar.  

    I continue to be amazed that the Obama campaign thinks he can wait until he stands alone before seating them or agreeing to your compromise.  It seems to me he will suffer badly in the general election if he doesn't make a move soon to bring MI & FL into the fold.

    Obama's fault? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    I don't see Clinton pressing a compromise either.
    I'd like to see the FL and MI delegations seated, unallocated goes to Obama, and their delegations halved.  And if there's a revote, these states can get the rest of their delegates.  Absent any revotes, that should give Clinton another 27.5 delegates, IIRC.

    [ Parent ]
    She's not actively shutting them out (none / 0) (#52)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    Or playing games with their status.

    [ Parent ]
    What the hell does that mean? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    Her position, AFAIK, is that all the MI and FL delegates need to be seated.

    Obama's position is that the DNC rules need to be followed.

    Neither candidate is publicly supporting a compromise.  Blaming that all on Obama is totally absurd.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, and it is a gift on the unallocated (none / 0) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:21 AM EST
    You had two states change their primary dates. Well, actually, you had a lot of states change their primary but only two are being punished because they chose a little earlier than Super Tuesday. They did not move them to before Iowa or NH.

    Now, if Obama took his name off of the Michigan one to stand true with the DNC, then the votes are not even his. But then, Obama did not take his name off of the Florida ballot so his votes are his votes. What was the reason for one but not the other?

    I do not agree with a do over or splitting them up. Take the egg on the face and seat the delegates and avoid the fight and hostility. AND, get it all straightened out before 2012.  

    [ Parent ]

    The DNC denied MI and FL delegates. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    The campaigns operated under those rules.  The voters operated under those rules.  If the rules were different, one probably would have seen Obama and Edwards follow a different strategy, and their supporters would have voted differently.  

    Giving Clinton the full delegate slates from these states can not be justified on the basis of democratic representation.

    [ Parent ]

    To be clear (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    The DNC violated its own rules when doing so, and yes that includes Harold Ickes.

    [ Parent ]
    But they set the rules. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    The point is that because the Obama and Edwards campaigns were operating under a set of assumptions about the rules of the game - ones that the Clinton campaign implicitly agreed to, the reinstatement of the FL and MI delegate slates cannot be justified based solely on democratic representation.

    Unless the nomination turns out uncompetitive (i.e. Clinton drops out tomorrow), there must be a compromise of some sort.

    [ Parent ]

    They BROKE the rules (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    They did not set them. They BROKE them.

    [ Parent ]
    They allocated delegates. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    Which superseded previous rules.  And that seems to be legal, even if it lacked consistency.

    The point, once more, is that the candidates agreed to and operated under a set of delegate allocations.  It is not inherently more democratic to give the states that were denied delegates their full slates.

    And I am not arguing for the hardline pro-Obama position.  I am merely arguing against the hardline pro-Clinton position.

    [ Parent ]

    No, they broke their rules (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    Your use of the word "superseded" does not change that fact.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC allocated delegates. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    It was inconsistent with their previous allocation, but appears to be legal.  You can call that breaking its own rules if you want, but that's not relevant to my argument.

    [ Parent ]
    The Republican Florida State Legislature (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    forced them to break the rules. It was either that or no primary at all.

    [ Parent ]
    All candidates - (none / 0) (#113)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:32:56 PM EST
    Obama, Edwards AND Clinton - were operating under the same rules ...

    You make it sound like she was somehow not, or that the rules somehow favored her.

    That's delusional and I'm sure you know it.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of delusional... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:36:08 PM EST
    I did not imply that in any way.

    [ Parent ]
    I did not say to give the full delegates (none / 0) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    Obama wants the Michigan un-votes. First of all, and I was a Edwards person, neither of them should have taken their names off the ballot. That was their mistake. And neither of them took their names off of the Florida ballot. Why one and not the other? Maybe because they realized HRC did not. That is why I call giving the un-votes in Mich to Obama is a gift. And he earned delegates in Florida too?  

    The state legs in Florida moved the voting date, not the DNC. Do you want all those reps in Florida thrown out of office because the DNC did not want the dates changed? The whole thing was a power struggle and the losers are the voters of those states.  Obama people do not want those votes counted because he did not win those states. I can understand the reasoning. But enough people are already disgusted enough with this campaign and the verbal abuse that has been thrown at them. If this campaign ended today, I believe you will have some non voters in the GE. If the campaigns continue on, people will just be glad it is over when it is over and vote for the Democrat.  

    [ Parent ]

    The point is... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    ... that all candidates operated under and agreed to a set of rules.  The election results are skewed accordingly, and therefore cannot be treated as the true and pure will of the people.  If you look at the exits, the MI vote for instance showed that the Clinton-Obama spread would've been ~10% instead of 55% (and is even greater than the Clinton-Unallocated spread of 15%).

    My only point is that I want to see FL and MI get representation, and I want the initial votes to mean something.  Just not everything.

    [ Parent ]

    since technically the only one to campaign (none / 0) (#93)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    in Florida was Obama, what would his different strategy been?

    [ Parent ]
    You're talking about a national ad buy. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:27:27 PM EST
    And no, IIRC Obama was not the only one to spend money; it's just that he spent more than Clinton.

    Campaigns are obviously more than television ads.  Arguing this point is absurd.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. It's only absurd (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    if it's Obama's national ad buy...if it had been Hillary's instead, it would be an outrage!

    And oh...BTW...there was also a 'spontaneous parking-lot press conference' by Obama which hit the local news.  No big deal, of course.  But imagine if it were Hillary instead.

    Just sayin'...

    [ Parent ]

    No I'm talking about his impromptu press (none / 0) (#116)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    conference in Tampa which is breaking the rules.  And BTW why did I only see Obama national campaign ads not Edwards' or Clinton's?

    [ Parent ]
    Or Clinton's SC victory rally in FL? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    Purely on the up and up?

    The point, once again, is that a real campaign between Obama and Clinton would've been clearly different from what happened.

    [ Parent ]

    That is after the fact so how is that campaigning? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A victory rally after the vote (none / 0) (#146)
    by tree on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    does not affect the outcome of the vote. Its a time continuum thing. Look it up.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    It was announced before the vote.  I'm pretty sure it had a significant effect.

    [ Parent ]
    An effect larger than the press conference. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:13:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is a silly argument (none / 0) (#156)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    I can't believe a single impromptu press conference or a speech given after the voting was over swayed any significant number of votes. But clearly the people of Florida knew there was a presidential nominating process occuring. It's not like they went to the polls to vote on some local intiiatives and said, "hey, look! There's someone named Clinton on the ballot. Don't know what that's about but it sounds good to me!"

    [ Parent ]
    There wasn't a real campaign. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ramo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:11:32 AM EST
    There was no in-person campaigning in a major state.  Since nothing was at stake, voters who otherwise might have voted, didn't.  That's not very reflective of a democratic process.

    [ Parent ]
    So, Too, Clinton (none / 0) (#110)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    might follow a different strategy and do as well or bett that she did the first time.

    Frankly, I imagine the voters of FL and MI feel sh*t upon by Obama at this point and would go even more favorably for Clinton in a revote.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, Clinton might very well do better in FL... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    ... in a real election.  I'm not sure what your point is.

    [ Parent ]
    Go reread your own posts (none / 0) (#161)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    "If the rules were different, one probably would have seen Obama and Edwards follow a different strategy, ..."

    "The point is that because the Obama and Edwards campaigns were operating under a set of assumptions about the rules of the game ..."

    You conveniently talk about how this has affected Edwards and Obama to their detriment, as if Hillary has somehow not been affected similarly ... or as if she has somehow been unfairly benefitted by what happened in MI and FL.

    Do you now agree that all three candidates have been affected in the same way and that nothing that has transpired has been any candidates' fault or to their credit?

    [ Parent ]

    What the hell are you talking about? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ramo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:39 AM EST
    You're making absolutely no sense.  I'm not sure how those out of context sentence fragments are supposed to imply what follows.

    I'm not going repeat myself again because I've made myself plenty clear.  You can choose to misread my posts if you want.

    [ Parent ]

    BarnBabe (none / 0) (#112)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    The reason for leaving all names on the Florida ballot is that the law required it.  Remove your name, you're out of the race.

    The politics of the Michigan situation makes you wonder if Obama erred in removing his name or deliberately planned to do so in order to challenge any outcome unfavorable to him.  Early on, it looked like the former...now, it looks like the latter!

    [ Parent ]

    ehhhhh, not so much (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    I could see a do-over in Michigan.  But only if it were a primary by mail.  In Florida, I can't see that the outcome is likely to change much so why waste the money?  Just seat them already.  And they should do this no matter who is ahead.  The blasted rules significantly disfavor Clinton and they were violated by a technicality.  I kind of resent the way this has been framed as having to be somehow even, like dividing a piece of cake between 6 year olds.  Clinton won Florida fair and square.  The only reason they're not in her column is becuase there are some pro-Obama people in the DNC who are still putting their thumbs on the scales, priveliging voters from NH, IA and SC and dissing MI and Florida.  
    So, MY plan is brilliant and should be adopted toot sweet!  ;-)

    No do over (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    No delegates.

    See, you are not thinking about a plan that people MIGHT accept.

    Your no do overs plan is simply a nonstarter.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's think this out (none / 0) (#27)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    Do-overs are expensive.  I am assuming that the reason that Florida, a rather LARGE state, went with the date that it did was because it was simply more efficient and cost effective to have both the Republican and Democratic primary on the same day.  Now you are asking for them to redo the primary, and this part is crucial, the state is still going to go for Clinton.  I wouldn't be surprised if she did even better than she did the first time.  So, the primary would be done over at great cost to the democratic party in Florida, taking money out of the funds it might have used for the general election for both the presidential and congressional races.  The outcome is unlikely to change and you have a poorer Florida in a year when their swing state electoral college votes will be crucial.  
    Now, what about MI?  Ok, I can see a do-over here.  We really have no reason to expect that the outcome would be the same.  It is more of a cypher and Obama could do very well because of the gorgraphy factor.  But once again, primaries are expensive.  So, why not do a mail-in primary?  There would be no need to set up polling places or recruit volunteers or any of that.  It is simply an optical scan card mailed to each individual, collected at one location, scanned and reported.  Much easier and cost efficient.  It's a primary so it doesn't favor one candidate over the other.  
    Why would we not want to do the same think in Florida?  Well, I guess you could but again, would the outcome likely change?  I don't think so.  So, why bother?  It's simply a nuisance vote.  
    So, MY plan it the perfect one.  You may concede now.  :-)


    [ Parent ]
    No do over (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:48:36 AM EST
    No delegates. What part of that do you not understand?

    As for expense, losing the Presidency will be the most expensive part of all.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#90)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    So what you are saying is that you would prefer to hold a useless and expensive primary in Florida for no particular reason.  Actually, what is your reason?  I hear your demands.  It's sort of like a hostage situation.  But I don't hear any particularly good reason for it, except that you and others are demanding it.  I have given you some very good reasons why Florida at least should be seated as is and that MI should have a mail-in do-over.  
    Now I am detecting a note of anger in your post but still no rationale for why you insist on making this demand.  Except that you can.  That seems to be the sum total of the reasoning behind this.  The DNC and the Obama campaign has the edge to be able to make these two states jump through hoops.  It changes nothing.  It just makes life more expensive and difficult.  But they have the power and what verges on a snotty adolescent attitude to make this demand with the weak argument that it is sooooooo important to the fall election.  Really, BTD, you should be able to argue better than this.
    Hmmm, I wonder what the voters in Florida are going to think about that when they have to go back to the polls and push buttons because Obama's supporters demanded it.  That their votes were not good enough before.  
    It doesn't sound very wise to me.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not to speak for BTD (none / 0) (#95)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    but IMO it's a practical question, not a philosophical one -- for FL and MI to count for something, a solution has to be worked out that gets everybody involved to more or less agree that it's fair. Otherwise, you're going to have half the party crying foul either way.

    That's just basic negotiating. Nothing happens if you don't bring the parties to the table.

    [ Parent ]

    For no particular reason? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    Are you serious? So you think ACTUALLY seating the delegates and smoothing things over in those 2 key states is no reason?

    Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]

    If that's your reason... (none / 0) (#118)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    ...then why not seat Florida NOW?  
    I already said that MI should have a do-over.  But if there is no expectation that the Florida vote will change, why antagonize them further by making them go through the motions again?  What purpose is served by it?  If the only reason is to smooth over hurt Floridian feelings (no small thing, mind you) why not just seat them?  Wouldn't that do the trick?  It's like asking them to prove they REALLY meant it when they cast their vote for Clinton.  We aren't demanding this of any other state that has had a primary where all the candidates names were on the ballot.  Why Florida?  
    Oh, I can just hear it now, "They broke the RULZ!"  Yeah, well, we've gone over that territory before.  Look if getting on Florida's good side is the goal, then making them do it again is not going to get you there.  And you know this.  
    So, what's the real reason?  Does Obama have a plan to capture the state that we don't know about?  I think it is divinely to be wished by Obama supporters but I can't see that happening and I think it would be even LESS likely if it is seen that Obama is making this demand because he didn't like the outcome the first time around.  And believe me, that's how it will be spun.  
    Not very wise, as I said before.  

    [ Parent ]
    Because (none / 0) (#125)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    realistically, it's not going to happen. FL is not going to be seated as it is, because already knowing the outcome, a huge chunk of the party will scream bloody murder if FL is seated as is (rightly or wrongly -- I actually agree with you, philosophically).

    Paying out all that money and voting a second time makes it so that nobody can realistically throw a fit about the outcome, and FL counts for something without splitting the party over the thing. That's a pretty big purpose.

    [ Parent ]

    The longer it drags out... (none / 0) (#145)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    ...the worse it is for Obama.  That's my opinion.  If he wins the nomination, it will be because he deliberately suppressed this vote.  The numbers in Florida don't favor him so he and his supporters threw a fit and made them do it over.  And the second time he forces Florida to vote, he loses by an even BIGGER margin.  But OK, fine, he has made his point- he can lose Florida twice and the bad PR that comes out of this is pretty bad.  But he doesn't want them seated as they are now because his lead in delegates just doesn't look quite so pretty anymore.  If I were him, I'd just seat them.  Either way he loses and he could end up losing even bigger down the road.  

    [ Parent ]
    I see your point (none / 0) (#153)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    but I don't agree here:

    If he wins the nomination, it will be because he deliberately suppressed this vote.

    I think that's true IF the DNC pushes for a revote and Obama's camp throws a fit.

    If there is no revote, and FL isn't seated, I think the argument is still there, and tends to be seen as valid, that those were the rules, and they might suck for FL but they don't taint Obama's win. That's how the Obama camp will see it. I don't see why they'd agree to seat FL from that point of view -- and while it's ultimately a DNC decision, the DNC has to be very careful with this one, make sure that all of the vaguely reasonable arguments one way or the other are neutralized.

    I don't expect that Florida: the Sequel would be all that dramatically different from the first Florida results as long as there's a broad primary with good turnout, but I do think that doing the sequel provides the DNC with a graceful and less divisive way to include FL's delegates.

    We're not going to see eye to eye here, I think. Fundamentally, I think you're right that FL's vote should be perfectly valid as it is, but I think it's more important to get FL seated and tamp down the tensions than it is to argue that point.


    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm, why don't we ask Floridians... (none / 0) (#160)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:40:59 PM EST
    ...how they will feel about being forced to stick to the rulz and not get seated.  there is only one person who benefits under that scenario and whether you want to think so or not, the voters are going to  feel suppressed.  
    And Floridians won't be the only ones.  Because without Florida, MY vote in NJ is worthless too.  Florida gives Clinton some critical mass.  Someone is going to feel miffed no matter who. But I wouldn't want to piss off CA, NJ, NY, MA and AZ if I were Obama or Howard Dean.  No, my droogs, that would be very bad indeed.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oy (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:46:30 PM EST
    You are not listening to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he's listening but (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    disagreeing with your position, as do I on this one.

    [ Parent ]
    My 12 year old says this to me too (none / 0) (#148)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    Ok, I'm listening, BTD.  You seem to be upset that I am not accepting your version of the proposed events.  I am not hearing your point and this is making your frustrated.  

    [ Parent ]
    both campaigns have been (none / 0) (#135)
    by tree on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    raking in the dough lately. How much would a new primary cost? Let the candidates pick up the cost. Or even better, have a national Democratic pledge drive to raise money to pay for it. Not only would Florida's and Michigan's votes count, but the Democratic party would be able to show that nationwide, Democrats were willing to put their money where their mouth was to keep Floridians (and Michiganders) from being disenfranchised.

    [ Parent ]
    Practically speaking, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lena on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    Assuming Florida needs a month to plan another primary, what's to stop Republicans from now registering Democratic in order to be able to vote in our (closed) primary? (Note: I don't know how much time in advance one has to have declared a party here before the election).

    If Florida chooses to use its Democratic primary list from January, what about new Democratic residents to the state? Can they vote? And what about people who've moved within or out of state since January? Will the Florida Democratic primary be fielding all sorts of lawsuits?

    I don't know if any of these issues would be nonstarters for scheduling a new primary, but it makes me hesitate.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't the FL governor (none / 0) (#33)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    recently float the idea of the state going ahead with another primary? If the state bears at least most of the cost to make a real primary possible, I'd be totally for it, especially if it gets plenty of publicity to build turnout. My only concern with "do-overs" is that it bugs me to, say, replace the results of a high-turnout primary with those of a lower-turnout caucus or whatnot.

    MI should absolutely be redone to be included, though I have the same concerns with turnout. Of course, it's possible that all the attention focused on the MI/FL question will make mine a moot point and build excitement for a "do-over" regardless.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    Crist said he was for it.

    [ Parent ]
    That's very magnanimous of Crist (none / 0) (#92)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    I'm sure he has the best interests of the democratic party at heart!  The worry is that this only drags out the Democratic primary ultimately benefiting only McCain.

    It may be the best solution from a bad lot if HIllary manages to win 3 from 4 today and can keep the delegate margin close.  Having said that I still think if she either loses Texas by 1 vote,  or loses the day's delegate totals overall then new Superdelegate endorsements will start to attempt to swing the contest to Obama.  

    i.e. See Brokaw suggesting that Obama has 50 superdelegates waiting in the wings.  It may be that they have them waiting to endorse in the days after today along with announcing a big fundraising month for February i.e. 50million+ and hope to use that double whammy to finish things.  Of course if Hillary manages to win big today then those Superdelegates may well choose to keep sitting on the fence!

    [ Parent ]

    so even though technically Iowa NH and SC (none / 0) (#49)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    violated the rules they don't get punished.  Yet there has to be a do-over for Fl and Mi.  Hmmmm sounds kind of Un democratic to me.  I thought the rules were the rules.

    [ Parent ]
    You go with that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    if outrage is your thing. I have moved past that and am looking for solutions.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not outrage BTD its just stating (none / 0) (#84)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    that sitting the Fl delegates if one of the Candidate has it clinched or doing some-kind of do-over is not going to do any good in garnering support for the Democratic Party in the GE in Fl.  And all it would do is allow someone like me to have enough days to change parties and be able to vote in a closed primary.  The time to address this issue is past.  Sorry, the DNC made its bed now it has to lay on it.

    [ Parent ]
    A do over will help very much (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You did not see the shakin heads of (none / 0) (#109)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    my democratic friends and wife when the news came out that Gov, Chris is willing to have another primary.  I don't think they want to vote again.  As I said IMO any move like that is too little too late.  I would just concentrate in doing as aggressive a campaign as possible come the GE no matter who the nominee is.  Too much resentment has been created in this process if they had followed the rules and done the 50% like the Republicans it might be different.  But the didn't and it isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    If FL Does A Do Over, Can It Prevent The (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:09:10 PM EST
    Republicans from voting in the new election and changing the results?

    [ Parent ]
    florida normally has closed primaries (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:15:07 PM EST
    also you have to have switched parties or registered no less than 29 days prior to the electoral event.  It all depends if special rules were to be set up for a do over.

    [ Parent ]
    Well I'm in Florida right now and feel your pain (none / 0) (#61)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    If this BTD re-vote idea takes hold at least I'll be more than happy to go vote for her again. Maybe the margin will be even bigger next time.

    [ Parent ]
    This is actually about (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by DaleA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Iowa and New Hampshire and their claim to start the primary process. The DNC is supporting these two. And willing to toss overboard two large, swing states. This makes no sense to me. IA and NH are small population, largely white states. MI and FL are large diverse states. Which would make much better starting points IMHO.

    My opinion as an outsider (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    as far as Fl I know very little about MI is, that the Damage is already done.  Any attempt by the DNC to fix it by a do-over is just going to muddle the waters even more.  As I said in a previous comment the DNC made its bed now let them lay on it.

    The proposal would be shouted down (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST


    By who? Why? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Cautious Obama candidate partisans (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Cautious about what? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    Surely they do no doubt that once Obama camapigns in MI and FL, he will sweep to victory do they? And if they do, what does that tell you?

    [ Parent ]
    I think they do and would (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    what other explanation could there be for the shrill calls for Hillary to withdraw?

    [ Parent ]
    She can put them on the spot (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yup (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    "Meet me in Florida"

    [ Parent ]
    As an Obama partisan, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    I'd be ok with Armando's compromise (or something that resembles it).

    [ Parent ]
    Texas is key. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:18:12 AM EST
    to winning the general?  You're optimistic indeed!

    Texas is key to the big state narrative (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    No chance in the GE.

    What about MI and FL?

    [ Parent ]

    FL is the only really big. . . (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:37:38 AM EST
    state key to winning the General.  Texas, New York, and California are all locked up unless you're an extreme pessimist or optimist.

    After that it's mid-size states.

    [ Parent ]

    PA and OH and MI (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:02 AM EST
    are not big states? Really?

    [ Parent ]
    To me? (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    No.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    You are a living New Yorker magazine cover.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    Why are you sticking with a caucus for Michigan when they changed to - and held - a primary this year?

    I was repritning my originally mistaken post (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    I support a primary in Michigan

    [ Parent ]
    So.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM EST
    have you submitted your compromise to the powers that be?  You know...Howard and the gang?

    Hillary can't propose it and Obama wouldn't.

    But somebody should.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary CAN propose it (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:36:28 AM EST
    and SHOULD!

    [ Parent ]
    Wouldn't any (none / 0) (#28)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    compromise proposed by a candidate be suspect and even, tainted (depending on the outcome)?

    In the current climate, I fear it would.

    Reassure me...

    [ Parent ]

    Does not matter (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:49:41 AM EST
    She needs to put Obama and the DNC on the spot on this or nothing will be done and FL and MI will be forgotten.

    [ Parent ]
    Best Argument in Favor (none / 0) (#121)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    of your proposal, BTD.

    I think she can win both handily, but I thnk Obama knows this too and will fight against it.

    But at least she will offered and will have the upper propaganda hand if he refuses.

    [ Parent ]

    Rules is rules (none / 0) (#17)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    MI and FL flaunted (broke) the DNC rules because those states became caught up in the Super Tuesday ferver. The DNC will uphold the rules. If either candidate attempts a "do-over" in MI and FL it insults all the state Democratic Party organizations who played by the rules. We Democrats need to reduce devisivness in order to win the general election.

    Candidate Clinton isn't going to suffer (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    by your firm commitment to RULES.  But candidate Obama is going to have a tough time campaigning in FL & MI in the GE if they aren't on the floor.  

    And I submit that he'll have a hard time campaigning in those states if he insists on waiting until he clinches the deal before he agrees to seat them.

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    Disenfranchising MI and FL means nothing.

    OF course you are wrong as the DNC broke the rules when it did what it did.

    [ Parent ]

    Disenfranchising FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by themomcat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    in the primaries could result in a backlash against Democrats in the General Election. Floridians might turn their backs and vote for McCain, especially if the Dem nominee is Obama. I agree there should be some kind of do-over in MI, since Obama and Edwards both took their names off the ballot.
    But the FL vote should stand, as is, for two reasons. The change of date was forced on the Democrats by a Republican controlled state legislature. The FL Democrats should not have been penalized by the DNC for something they do not control. Second, Even though the candidates did not actively campaign in FL, FL was not isolated from the media or from the candidates stands on issues, they just weren't subjected to all the rhetoric. And taking into consideration the media bias against Clinton, I do not think that a do-over of the primary will have a different outcome.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know, but (none / 0) (#50)
    by Joike on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    would the DNC have the right to change the punishment without going through a formal process?

    Again, I don't know the answer, but both states and all the candidates had plenty of time to protest the DNC's decision before it became an issue.

    I think the states and candidates surrendered their right to protest the penalty in '08 by not fighting the DNC in '07.

    I'm all for having a do-over in both states, but not for awarding any delegates based on the initial round.

    Let both states have a full voice with full awareness of the implications for the nomination and with both candidates having plenty of opportunity to campaign there.

    [ Parent ]

    They broke the rule (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    by NOT going through the formal process.

    They also violated Rule 21 which gave a safe harbor to Florida.

    [ Parent ]

    Arrogance (none / 0) (#78)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM EST
     All the states that have voted and have followed the rules should just be disregarded? The loss of credibility over MI and FL "do-overs" is unmeasurable at this time. Watching the nature and style of how the campaigns are doing gives critical clues as to what comes next. What's important to the voters shouldn't be lost.  The insincere efforts by MI and FL was an end-run, a major flip-flop during the the primary process. All that is left is a Hail-Mary which the DNC will intercept.

    [ Parent ]
    All the states did NOT follow the rules (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    and the DNC blatantly broke its won rules when it stripped Florida of its delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    How would solving the MI and FL problem (none / 0) (#157)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    invalidate the votes of people in other states?  Makes no sense.

    [ Parent ]
    How does excluding FL and MI (none / 0) (#32)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    "reduce divisiveness?"

    How about those FL chad rules? Did you find it satisfactory that in 2000 people in FL were disenfranchised because they didn't punch the stupid chad all the way through? Rules should not toss people out of the system.

    We need a solution that enfranchises voters. It's a core Democratic principle.

    [ Parent ]

    On this (none / 0) (#24)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    in my view, Senator Clinton needs to win the popular vote in both Ohio and Texas to have a reasonably legitimate narrative for winning the nomination

    I think you're largely right in terms of delegates and popular vote totals (she needs at least to close the gap on delegates, and to be able come out in the end with a strong "popular vote matters" argument).

    But in terms of the narrative for the moment, I've been surprised at how well they've managed to turn it. A week ago, I'd have figured if she lost TX, the narrative would force her out of the race -- now, I think she stays in even with a TX loss, and outside of the blogs, it will be largely accepted.

    I don't know if she can build a viable path without at least a TX popular vote win, but I'm also certainly no expert on the elections coming up.

    TX has such bizarre rules, I don't (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    see why it should be considered equally with OH.
    Hillary is going to win OH, and that is enough for her.
    If she wins TX as well, the obituaries for Obama will start coming in.

    [ Parent ]
    Average voters (none / 0) (#41)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    don't pay that much attention to other states' rules, honestly. I think that idea is mostly one that plays with the political junkies much more than in terms of the overall narrative.

    And in terms of delegates and popular vote, the narrative about whether TX is fair isn't really the point. At the end of the process, Clinton needs the numbers to provide her with a solid argument for superdelegates. I think that becomes much harder without a TX win, and her losing TX would largely give us a wash in terms of who "has momentum" in the media realm.

    OTOH, I think if she wins TX, OH, and RI today, we see a Clinton resurgence, which may give her some momentum to further build her numbers in future races.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, which raw numbers should (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    be considered in TX? There are two votes, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Obituaries for Obama, you're kidding right? (none / 0) (#96)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    Even if Hillary wins the popular vote in Texas and Ohio then this thing is far from over.

    Watch out for the overconfidence,  it's contagious.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL.. it's not confidence, it's just (none / 0) (#101)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    faith in the  media. SOME talking head will question Obama's viability if he fails to win TX tonight, don't you agree?
    By the way, it seems to me that the fact 2/3rd of Dems want Hillary to stay in if she wins OH is a bad sign for Obama. To me that seems to indicate they are just waiting for him to fall.

    [ Parent ]
    "some talking head will question..." (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    yeah, but does it count if the talking head is in Canada?

    [ Parent ]
    Or that Democratic primary voters (none / 0) (#158)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    like both candidates and don't want Hillary to lose?  Of course some of the rabid partisans on both sides seem to be doing a very good job in trying to change that.  However among the less politically active Democratic voters at large I think there are positive feelings towards both candidates and the fact that about 2/3rds would want Hillary to continue doesn't necessarily mean they all secretly want her to win or have doubts about Obama.

    There are voters on either side who really intensely dislike the other -  see conservative Hillary Haters for Obama i.e. Andrew Sullivan.

    On the other side I read an article the other day (in the Nation I think) where the journalist was interviewing overwhelmingly white blue collar union workers in a bar in Ohio about who they were going to vote for in the primary.  It was 90%+ for Hillary and he/she was getting comments like "I'm not voting for the n****".

    The vast majority in the middle, 70%+ all have a positive image of both candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    MSM pundits are (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    almost universally trying to end it and force her to concede.

    All the more reason not to.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jim J on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    they want to finish her off for good and retain the old boy's club. No one mentions that neither candidate can hit the magic delegate number as things currently stand.

    Gender is a bigger issue in society than race. This campaign is living proof.

    [ Parent ]

    Well it has to be more than that (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    Even the women in the media seem overwhelmingly consumed with Hillary hatred.  Gloria Borger, Maureen Dowd, Margaret Carlson, etc, etc.

    It's like a high school mentality where they all want to keep their seat at the cool table.

    They seem so hellbent on ignoring Michigan and Florida in their delegate math discussions while at the same time pretending that Hillary Clinton is far, far back like she's Mike Huckabee or something.  Weird stuff.

    Corporate ownership of the networks might have some influence as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Keep your comments on topic please (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:46:31 AM EST


    Why would Obama ever. . . (none / 0) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:49:18 AM EST
    agree to any solution that will cost him popular and delegate votes when he has a reasonable chance of keeping his current advantage?

    If it were merely a pro-forma matter -- if Obama had a lock on the nomination -- then I could see him agreeing for the sake of party unity down the road.  But he doesn't have and can't attain a lock, and the only result I can see of any solution to the FL / MI situation is to cut into Obama's lead and possibly (depending on today's results) cost him the delegate and/or public vote lead.

    From the point of view (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    of the Obama campaign, I agree with you.

    From the point of view of the Democratic Party, though, completely disregarding the voices of two major swing states is bad, bad politics, and philosophically I think it's also pretty lame to just completely ignore any set of voters -- we're a party that is supposed to stand up for empowering voters, not disenfranchising them.

    I don't know what the Obama campaign would agree to, at this point, because you're right that including FL and MI even with do-over primaries would probably at least cut his lead a bit. But the party as a whole needs IMO to come up with some sort of solution that allows MI and FL voters to be heard on some level. That's about a lot more than who wins the primary.


    [ Parent ]

    He does not have to agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    The DNC and the FL and MI Dem Partys do.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeez. (none / 0) (#69)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    If you think it's a mess now, imagine what it would be like if the DNC forced a revote with one campaign (that of the putative establishment candidate) salivating for it and the other campaign objecting.

    No, any compromise will at least have to have the consensus of both campaigns.

    [ Parent ]

    On what basis could the Obama campaign complain? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:09:43 PM EST
    They are on record as supporting a revote.

    [ Parent ]
    Establisment candidate? (none / 0) (#162)
    by phat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    Which one?

    phat

    [ Parent ]

    If the DNC declares are redo. . . (none / 0) (#163)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    or any other solution to FL over the objection of the Obama campaign the narrative will be that they are favoring the party establishment over the people's candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    Yes letting the voters decide is bad.

    [ Parent ]
    He'll have to make (none / 0) (#68)
    by Lena on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    the political calculation this way:

    does the (possible) short term detriment of participating in a Mi and Fl revote outweigh the long-term benefit of championing the enfranchisement of Fl and Mi voters in his general election campaign?

    He is probably also wondering whether, in the general election, he can spin the party's failure to recognize millions of Florida and Michigan voters as not reflecting on his candidacy.
     

    [ Parent ]

    The political calculation. . . (none / 0) (#71)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    is pretty clear -- don't throw away your lead in the next election because of the election after that.

    [ Parent ]
    The Democratic Party needs to decide (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    NOT Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    In my opinion. . . (none / 0) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    any solution that doesn't have the agreement of both campaigns is as much of a non-starter as simply seating the delegations as is.

    The Obama campaign must approve of any solution for it to have a chance of being implemented.

    [ Parent ]

    Consider it this way (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    The DNC and the MI and FL Dem Partys announce they have reached agreement on the delegate issue with a revote scheduled for X.

    What reaction do you expect Obama to have to that?

    [ Parent ]

    Depends on the information. . . (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    he has regarding the possible outcome.

    If he thinks he can be competitive in those two states together -- meaning he's unlikely to lose much and could possible win some -- I think he'd probably go for it.

    If his info show him losing big in Florida I think he'll object, possibly countering with an unacceptable alternative plan (caucuses to take place at 1am on Saturday on university campuses only, open only to Independents, for instance).

    But nothing will be publicly proposed, nor should it, without both campaigns having been consulted in advance.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:44:08 PM EST
    I think that is a losing position for Obama.

    No, I think he has no choice.

    [ Parent ]

    at the very least (none / 0) (#132)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    we'll know what his internals are telling him based on what stance he takes re: the revote.

    I wonder why no one has asked whether only people who voted in the first primary can vote in the second one.  Seems like one of those hair-splitting, rule parsing things pundits love.

    [ Parent ]

    It's in Obama's best interests (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    to avoid counting any Florida primary at all because the Demo is probably for Hillary...so if he has a say in the matter, what will he say?

    Neither candidate should have a say in the matter.  We're talking about winning a general election here, not about who gets to win the primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (none / 0) (#85)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    but the political calculation the party makes is a very different one. And they can apply a lot of pressure to Obama if they so choose -- what's his public argument going to be, if the DNC pushes new primaries? "I won't win there, so I don't want to count those voters"?

    [ Parent ]
    His argument would be. . . (none / 0) (#97)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    against an extremely irregular altering of the primary calendar during the actual primaries in such a ways as to handicap his chances and possibly deny him the nomination.

    If he agrees, okay.  If he doesn't, intra-Party war.

    [ Parent ]

    That argument works IMO (none / 0) (#102)
    by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    if we're talking about seating the delegates without a do-over.

    I don't think it plays so well if there's revoting. It strips him of the "I didn't have a chance to let voters get to know me" argument. If he doesn't agree, I don't see how he crafts an argument that pleases anybody but his already hardcore supporters. It'd look to most people like "my win is more important than voters", unless he found a way to craft it that I'm just not seeing.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (none / 0) (#104)
    by Lena on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    There is no way he could publicly disagree with a Florida and Michigan revote. In fact, he would have to act delighted.

    If the DNC is behind it, and Fla. and Michigan are considered somewhat important in a general election, he's going to have to be a team player. A representative of the Democratic party, if you will.

    [ Parent ]

    A re-vote... (none / 0) (#54)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    ...might be a good idea, if it's held in June.

    But, of course, if FL and MI delegates are legit, then the "magic number" is no longer 2025, it's 2207.  
    I also think that, even if Clinton wins FL by 15 and MI by 10, her delegate advantage from those would be narrower than it is (hypothetically, since they're not currently legit) now.  
    It's advantageous at the moment for the Obama campaign to not come out in support of a re-vote, simply because it gives oxygen to the Clinton campaign, and some hope that they could overcome his pledged delegate advantage.  Perhaps if Obama does as well as he can do without actually knocking Clinton out of the race tonight, he can voice support for a re-vote, after winning Mississippi and Wyoming.  
    The downside for Clinton is that Obama might win Michigan in a re-vote, and finish closer to her in Florida this time around.  
    I don't see any way he doesn't wind up winning at least 10 more states than her when all is said and done.

    Does not matter if Obama agrees (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    This is between the DNC and the FL and MI Dem partys.

    Why June BTW? Why not May?

    [ Parent ]

    I think the smartest thing Obama could do (none / 0) (#137)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    would be to basically shut up and let the DNC work it out with Michigan and Florida, and whatever decision is reached is the one he - and Clinton - live with.

    No one put a gun to Obama's head and forced him to take his name off the Michigan ballot; even if it was supposed to be a showing of respect for Iowa's and New Hampshire's head-of-the-line status (although the calculation I heard was that he didn't think he could win Michigan, anyway), which he thought would help him in those states, it ignored the voters of Michigan, who thought they were only going to get one chance to vote, and wanted and expected their votes to mean something.

    I get that Dean and the DNC were trying to keep the 2008 primary season from starting in 2007, and took a draconian measure to do it, but given the recent history of voters being disenfranchised through GOP tactics, I still cannot countenance any decision that results in the voice of the people being silenced.

    Make an allocation of delegates based on the original votes and the do-over; if Obama doesn't like it, he may just have to suck it up.  

    [ Parent ]

    Michigan (none / 0) (#155)
    by jsj20002 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    I am a resident of Michigan whose local Democratic Party protested the law adopted by the Michigan legislature well prior to the January 15 primary.  That law disqualified Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson because they had abided by an earlier request from the DNC to remove their names from the ballot.  Clinton and Kucinich did not abide by DNC request, so their names remained on the ballot.  The law also required, for the first time in Michigan, that voters identify which party's ballot they wanted. The names and addresses of who requested each party's ballot would be forwarded to each state party. (There is a lawsuit pending that may either deny the names to both parties or provide the names to all parties.)  Many voters chose not to vote on January 15 because they did not want a permanent record made of which ballot they would select. In small northern Michigan towns such as ours, many D's remain in the closet because R's hold all the elected offices, including the county clerk.  So, when D's went to the polls on January 15, they could chose the R ballot to please their friends and neighbors or they could defy their friends and neighbors, choose the D ballot and vote for Clinton, Kucinich or nobody.  But what they couldn't do under any circumstances was vote for Edwards, Obama, Biden or Richardson -- even write in votes for those four would be disqualified.   Legislative efforts to put all of the D's back on the ballot failed when the Republican Senate failed to pass a bill to do that. Giving Clinton or Kucincich any of the Michigan delegates selected in the Soviet-style primary is wrong.
    By the same token, awarding the "nobody" votes to Obama is also wrong, since many union members who voted "nobody" wanted Edwards.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why June? (none / 0) (#165)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    Because, first of all, I assume it will take some time both to work out the details, and to set up the primaries.  Second, there are already contests scheduled throughout May, and putting this re-vote on there would unfairly overshadow their own importance. Third, since there's only one or two contests in early June, putting these two on, say, June 14th would, if the race is still ongoing, maximize the media coverage and candidate campaigning/ground game in each state.

    [ Parent ]
    Even so... (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    winning 10 more red states won't matter to superdelegates and they will decide the outcome of this campaign...one way or the other.

    It's a fact.

    The question, then, is...what will sway them to either candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    Today's tracking poll (none / 0) (#55)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    Rasmussen has Hillary leading Obama in national tracking poll today. Also makes a case of why delegate count does not matter despite what the chattering class says.

    link

    Off topic (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    Please no more off topic comments.

    [ Parent ]
    Money, Money, Money (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    Are there funds and resources to get a re-vote?  More than a re-vote for Michigan and Florida are needed at some point.  If you don't like Clinton's personality or Obama's inexperience, a re-vote isn't going to unify some voters.  I don't see this happening for 3 reasons.  One:
    I don't believe the narrative will tip Clinton's way.  Obama's has 11 straight wins and isoutspending Clinton (MSNBC reported 4-1 in Ohio and Texas, is that true?). The pundit line is still she must have a blow out.  Unless she can get the media on her side, I don't see her arguing for it.  Two:  Obama is just starting to get negative media.  If he brought a re-vote up in a press conference, he will just keep getting hit with questions on Nafta and Rezko, so I don't see him arguing for it at this time. and Three:  
    Some media (Halperin/Politico)is reporting that Obama is holding back and keeping secret it's fundraising and 50 superdelegate endorsements to effect a knock out. It may not knock her out, but it will provide positive media for Obama.

    Really? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lena on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    Keeping secret that Obama has 50 new superdelegates and oodles of money from February?

    Why on earth would they keep that secret when they could have used that kind of info to win Texas and Ohio and knock Clinton out?

    But I agree that Obama will be loathe to support any sort of enfranchisement of Fl and Mi. Looks like the DNC will have to lean on him to do it...

    [ Parent ]

    Super-delegates (none / 0) (#76)
    by Joike on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    If both candidates continue past Pennsylvania, then it comes down to the Super-delegates and I really have no idea which candidate would come out on top.

    I believe that the S-Ds don't have to declare their support until the convention.  I can only imagine the pressure they'll be under to publically come out for one or the other.

    From a party stand-point (not caring about which candidate, but having a clear nominee), it would be best to be done after Pennsylvania and get on with the GE.

    It's been an amazing race.  I hope its over after Pennsylvania, but I don't see either candidate giving in.

    my solution (none / 0) (#106)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:26:13 PM EST
    seat both states, but exclude them from the first balloting for President.  

    In which case they would make a deal (none / 0) (#124)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    with California, New York, New Jersey etc. to pass/abstain on the first round until their votes would count.

    Under 'the rules' that might not fly but it wouldn't be the first time the parliamentarian drove the delegates to a frenzied floor fight by ruling against a powerful state the Democrats need to win in the fall...a state perhaps determined to call out the party chair and rules and battle to 'the political death' of one or the other.

    Not what we need...

    [ Parent ]

    The first candidate who STOPS ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:44:45 PM EST
    talking about delegate math wins!

    How's that for a solution?

    If Clinton wins both tonight, weeks of blogs and TV about math are going to be deadly dull.

    I actually hope that Clinton wins force the campaign to focus on foreign policy.

    But I'm afraid the MSM and the Village is gonna be all math, all the time.

    Just in time for a the Regents Review!

    The democratic (none / 0) (#129)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    race will not be settled unless one candidate dropout or Florida and Michigan delegates are seated. I see this race going until April. If Hillary wins big tonight then win PA the party will seat the elegates to give her te nod. if she looses one of the big two tonigh, the the party will try to persuade her to drop out. I feel an Edwards endorsement for Hillary if she wins big tonight. Her poverty talk a few days ago was not coincidence.

    I (none / 0) (#154)
    by tek on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    don't know about Michigan, but we have friends in FL and a re-vote in Florida would not help Obama.  There's just no way he's going to take that state unless he uses Dubya's methods.

    The problem with you solution (none / 0) (#159)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    First of all, Florida should count as is.  

    Listen, DNC banned the candidates from  campaigning, they were all in the equal position.  Plus, Florida democratic party had no choice in the selection of the primary date. There was a ballot question also that ensured a big turnout.  

    DNC, led by Donna Brazile (yes, surprise, surprise) in the Rules and Bylaws Committee, f&*ed up royally.  They could have gone by Republican solution, but no, they suggested to Florida that they would help them hold a caucus at 125 locations in the state!!! (125 for Florida, yes, democrats are the party of solutions, didn't you know?)

    Further, Donna went and won the argument that Florida and Michigan should be punished beyond what was called for (the provision stipulated stripping them of half their delegates).  

    Now, Florida has had a record turnout.  There is no way that turnout is matched, and there will be new political headaches in terms of a re-vote.  

    Now, Howard Dean, whom I used to respect but not anymore, is going around with the republican governor of Florida asking for a re-vote.  Even if that happens, the republicans would make sure there would be a couple of little snags there to give democrats all the bad publicity money couldn't buy.  

    My position is this: Florida democrats have had all the necessary punishments for the early date: candidates couldn't campaign there, spend money there, and the winning candidate didn't get any momentum from Florida.  As they say in the court for a bad case, the punishment is equal to the time already served by the accused.  Free Florida delegates!!

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#164)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    What everyone seems to be missing in this fiasco is that Clinton has already been hurt bigtime by what has happened, whether we have a do-over or not. Winning those 2 big states before Super Tuesday would have given her huge momentum, that I seriously doubt Obama would have gained given the Super Tuesday results that followed.

    No matter what you do - do-over or seat as is - that momentum cannot be regained. It is very likely that those 2 states would have changed the entire narrative of this primary season. It could even have ended it after Super Tuesday. That is the real damage that has been done from the candidate's perspective. Which is why I continue to believe that they should at the very least be seated as is right now. There is no way to regain the momentum, but it will restore a more real sense of which candidate has actually gotten the most support from actual democrats in states that must be won in November.

    Haw!! (none / 0) (#168)
    by QuakerInABasement on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    No one could complain could they?

    That's funny!

    The "no big states" narrative (none / 0) (#172)
    by scoutfinch on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:22:27 PM EST
    Top 15 States by population:

    1. California - HRC, solidly Dem in GE
    2. Texas - ?, solidly GOP in GE
    3. NY - HRC, solidly Dem in GE
    4. Florida - HRC, swing in GE if Crist not VP
    5. Illinois - BO, solidly Dem in GE
    6. PA - ?, Dem in GE
    7. Ohio - ?, swing in GE
    8. Michigan - HRC, swing in GE
    9. GA - BO, solidly GOP in GE
    10. NC - ?, solidly GOP in GE
    11. NJ - HRC, solidly Dem in GE
    12. VA - BO, swing in GE if Webb not VP
    13. Mass. - HRC, solidly Dem in GE
    14. Wash. - BO, Dem in GE
    15. Indiana - ?, solidly GOP in GE

    Most of the big states that have been decided so far are going to vote Democratic regardless the nominee. The sensible concern is whether Obama can win big swing states. As a Florida voter, I support a revote plan; it will be better for the party if we have contested primaries in which voters know their votes will count ahead of time.

    I don't think it's compelling to argue that because Hillary won NY, CA, NJ and MA, there's a concern that Obama won't win those states in November, any more than I think that there's a worry that Hillary won't win Illinois in the fall if she's the nominee.

    After TX and OH; On To FL And MI? | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment