home

FL And MI Governors Demand Plan To Seat Delegates:

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:39:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Marc Ambinder:

A joint statement from the governors of Florida and Michigan:

“The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. This primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise that right, and it is reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence the voices of 5,163,271 Americans. It is intolerable that the national political parties have denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their respective national conventions.

According to the DNC and RNC, Florida and Michigan have violated party rules by moving up their primaries. Today, we each will call upon our respective state and national party chairs to resolve this matter and to ensure that the voters of Michigan and Florida are full participants in the formal selection of their parties' nominees. We must restore the rights of the more than 5 million voters whose voices have been silenced.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Pssst, Governors, do I have a plan for you. Commenter Coral Gables brings us the FL Dem Party reaction:

"We thank Governors Crist and Granholm for supporting the effort to have the votes of more than five million Democrats and Republicans from Florida and Michigan recognized. . . .

"Obviously, these primaries are the talk of the political world, and some are even suggesting that Florida hold a run-off election between the top two Democratic primary vote-getters, which happen to be Senators Clinton and Obama. However, this is not a time to panic or jump to any conclusions simply because the Republicans have a nominee.

"It is important to remember that the Democratic nominating process does not end until June 10. The Florida Democratic Party continues to work with our leadership, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and the Democratic National Committee to ensure this state is fully represented at the National Convention.

"We have discussed many things, ranging from the plans for the general election to a potential alternative primary to the process for appealing to the credentials committee of the National Convention to seat our delegates as currently allocated.

"It is important also that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"The Florida Democratic Party cannot consider any alternative that does not meet these requirements. Indeed, it is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary.

This is doable people.

< The Stakes | What Will Donna Brazile Say? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FL And MI Governors Demand Plan To Seat Delegates: | 183 comments (183 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So What Happens (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    When the RNC agrees to seat them.  Because they will.  Doesn't that put even more pressure on the DNC to resolve this issue?

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:46:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Dean is reduced to saying (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    "we didn't think it would matter."

    Parent
    Which we can reduce even more (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:10 PM EST
    for him to its essence: They didn't think.

    Parent
    Here's how angry Floridians are . . . (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    . . . where, according to CNN news reports and interviews today, Dem AND GOP legislators are working together (ain't bipartisan unity wonderful?) to pass a bill that would take a party's candidates off the November ballot if they don't fix this.

    Now, of course they have been told that it would probably be unconstitutional, blah blah blah, but that misses the point that legislators are willing to work across the aisle to blow this up big-time in their parties' faces -- and apparently more so for the party that is violating its own determination that half of the delegates ought to be seated, anyway.

    So, sure, it would not pass judicial muster.  That doesn't matter, that would be months away.  Right now, this means that those legislators must be getting a lot of pressure from their constituents.  And legislators get enough of that on issues closer to home; they don't need to get it thanks to their so-called leadership of the likes of Donna Brazile.  

    And let it be pointed out that this is just going Brazile-ish right back at her, with her threats.

    Parent

    RNC (none / 0) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:49:51 PM EST
    Isn't the RNC seating half?

    Parent
    Yes, and what the DNC said it would do (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    before it, y'know, flip-flopped on its own DNC rules.

    Parent
    this push to disenfranchize (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM EST
    voters is beyond disturbing.
    I agree (none / 0) (#33)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    the push to disenfranchise the vast majority of voters by recognizing the results of a sham election is indeed disturbing.

    Parent
    This is about a revote (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    Surely you do not object to that?

    Parent
    Not at all (none / 0) (#40)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:07:39 PM EST


    Parent
    But, but, but. Now Obama's momentum (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    seems to be a bit depressed.  Not fair. Wait 'til he gets another string of victories.

    Parent
    Captain Howdy (none / 0) (#47)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    You can easily google the news stories leading up to this situation.

    Michigan and Florida were both told not to hold their primaries early, and IF THEY DID those primaries would not count. Both Democratic parties did so, knowing what the Party had already ruled. Please don't argue that the Dems in Florida were force by the Repubs, google that too. It was a bipartisan decision. The state parties, in setting those primaries early, disenfranchised their own voters.

    But to simply reinstate the results of the faux primaries disenfranchises all the voters who did not vote because they had been told that the votes would not count. I would guess that the turnout in those states was lower than what we've seen in other primaries. And, of course, to reinstate the Michigan and Florida results would be to give Hillary a large chunk of delegates for breaking her word after campaign agreed to the party rules back in November or December 2007. Wouldn't any Clinton supporters find it disturbing that their candidate would be so dishonest with the voters in FLA and MI, with the DNC and with the people of America just to obtain more delegates?

    No, I agree that the best way to resolve the two states is to run do-over primaries with the two candidates on the ballots and the candidates and their people allowed to campaign in the two states. Surely, we can all agree to that?

    Parent

    Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:52:57 PM EST
    As someone who lived in Michigan at the time and voted, and who has now moved out of state and registered in that new state - no, I don't want a revote, since my vote won't be counted.  Obama chose to take his name off, but his supporters were told to vote "uncommitted" (the purpose being, when the delegates were seated, as the state party was told was eventually going to happen), then the uncommitted could cast their first ballot for Obama or Edwards or whomever.

    If Obama voters chose not to vote, or to vote in the Republican primary, then that was their choice.  

    Parent

    perhaps you should google (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    though I recall you already being told: the FL republicans put the primary vote on a bill that required paper proof of votes on all machines.  They could not vote against that bill without being politically massacred.

    Parent
    Surely, we can all agree to that? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    we certainly can.
    I was just point out that it is Hillary who has, for whatever reason, been on the side of seating the delegates and that may work to her advantage in a do-over.


    Parent
    Actually, the turnout in FLA was very high (none / 0) (#71)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    In fact, I think it may have been a record vote. I really don't see why FLA has to be done over.  All candidates were on the ballot, no one campaigned there, and Obama had the advantage of FLA coming just days after his big win in SC.

    MI is more problematic. I like BTD's suggested resolution, but the Obamans will never go for it. I think the MI Dem totals were still higher than the Republicans, but it is much more likely that some Dems simply stayed home.

    I've always believed the DNC intended to seat the delegates in the end, because they didn't change the "magic number."  Isn't it odd that even Obama, who is ahead in delegates, needs superdelegates to put him over the top in a two person race?  It's because the MI and FLA delegates were supposed to be counted in the end.

    Parent

    It Was (none / 0) (#152)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:58:59 PM EST
    A record turnout for Democrats in FL - 1.7 million of them voted.  (Again, tv/radio ads by Obama - only major candidate to do so.)  

    I am certain it was on this site that the rules of the DNC were published abt penalties for early voting, and the typical penalty was to reduce the delegate count by half, right?  Same thing the RNC did.  But then the DNC decided to punish FL and MI further, which was Brazile's handicraft, correct?  

    ANd here's the thing people continue to forget - SC, IA, and NH ALL broke the rules, and NONE of those states was penalized at ALL.

    See, it's this kind of disparity between the states, and for whom the DNC seems to be pulling, that makes all of this much more incendiary, and disturbing.  FL should have its delegates seated, period.  MI - appoint CLinton her delegates, and give Obama all of the Undecideds, though that is probably more than he would have gotten (with Edwards, et. al - bear in mind that people are STILL voting for them), so he should be HAPPY with that.

    And then Dean and Brazile should step the heck down.  Just sayin'!

    Parent

    Hey, kids! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    New FL thread on front page!

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#159)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    And I meant to say that TalkLeft had the actual DNC rules posted not too long ago, which were EXACTLY what the RNC agreed to do, then the DNC decided to take it a step further.

    I still have a hard time understanding why in the world, after all that happened in FL, that the DNC decided to disenfranchise THEM!!!  Sheesh.

    Parent

    Michigan and Florida delegates (none / 0) (#182)
    by USAsince1680 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    Great idea! Keep it simple. Sounds like a solution the voters would agree to - especially when faced with the cost of another election.  Also, it takes care of the problem brought up by the previous blogger who voted in Michigan and has now moved and re-registered in a new state.

    Parent
    Hillary in Michigan and Florida (none / 0) (#181)
    by USAsince1680 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    First of all, Hillary did not break any rules. She did nothing dishonest. The candidates had agreed to limit their campaigning in these states. They never signed any agreement to remove themselves from the ballot or not to campaign at all.  Hillary and Barack BOTH ran ads in those states and Hillary made a few appearances (allowed under the agreement) just prior to the election in Florida. Do you really think that Barack and Hillary would have spent money on ads if they thought the election didn't matter?
    If Barack had won in those states he wouldn't be complaining -- he tried -- he lost.  Get over it.  Seat the delegates in accordance with the election results in Florida where they were both on the ballot.  The same could be done with Michigan delegates or Michigan could opt to pay for another election but, lets be clear, the state of Michigan
    will have to pick up the tab.  

    Parent
    I'm willing to be magnanimous (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    and allow FL and MI to share PA's April 22nd date. It could be the clincher.

    Obama won't accept, of course: he'd be blown out.

    Do the math (none / 0) (#14)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM EST
    In early January Clinton had 20-point leads in both Texas and Ohio and Wisconsin. Just about everywhere. Don't expect Clinton to run unopposed this time.

    Let's all hope that the Dem parties in both states go along with do-overs. I'm can't wait.

    Parent

    If they both have money, Obama will lose (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    by 10 points.

    Parent
    Money?? (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:50:11 PM EST
    "If they both have the money ..."

    Herein lies part of the problem.  A big part of the problem.

    Notwithstanding the fact that the state of FL might pay for the primary itself, re-opening Florida, and having another primary there, means both camps now have to find the money and time to campaign there ...

    Neither campaign has planned for this ... and, likley, both campaigns would have to do considerable fundraising to now contest FL.

    This is really absurd ...

    We are down to the final two candidates, we've already had a fair contest in FL - fair in the sense that nobody campaigned and it was a level playing field for the primary that was already held - campaign funds have already been spent or reallocated to other contests, and now we want to re-contest FL just for the hell of it?

    Spend another 20 million each just so we can have a more pure, "fully contested" primary.

    I'm sorry, this is ridiculous and will not solve anything.

    Whoever loses will find a way to complain and, probably, litigate the outcome.

    Nobody's supporters will be happy ... BO's will be up in arms if he doesn't win; HC's will be up in arms if her victory there is nullified and she doesn't win.

    IMO its a lose lose for everyone.

    Decide what to do based on the merits as they exist at the moment.  Don't try to manipulate the "merits" so that everyone is happy.  

    The latter can't be done at this point; its way too late.

    Parent

    Maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#62)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    I was a Mets fan when they first started. I remember when they swept a four-game series against the Braves. That's one more that Clinton's got, but, hey, let's all enjoy it. We can count delegate numbers tomorrow.

    But just so we're all agreed that this time the two states get real primaries that count. Right?

    Parent

    Oh, the others were real and democratic (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    The point is compromise. And I think that, even giving Obama the advantage of time, he would still lose.

    Parent
    Obama a Big Florida Fan Favorite (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    I'm sure Florida voters will love Obama even more after he makes them vote again because he refused to seat their delegates the first time.  I understand Florida democrats absolutely love being repeatedly told that their votes don't count.

    Parent
    not to mention (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    the campaign to disenfranchise them.
    MI too.

    Parent
    Captain Howdy? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    If you are talking about the decision to not count those primaries, that was made in 2007 and Clinton's campaign AGREED. BEFOREHAND. If you want to continue to pretend something else, you are avoiding reality.

    But certainly, instead of closing your eyes to what Clinton agreed to, wouldn't you rather let your candidate participate in both states on a level battlefield? Wouldn't you want her to show she can win those states fairly? Don't you have faith in your candidate that she doesn't need to change her mind after the fact and go back on her word?

    Parent

    and south carolina which also (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:01 PM EST
    broke the rules. that's ok! right?

    Parent
    I am talking about counting all the votes (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    and I am talking about people, like you aparrently, who do not want to do that.
    and I am just wondering what people like you would be saying if Clinton was saying to NOT count the votes of two of the most important democratic states.
    and btw
    I said do it over.
    fine by me.  seems dumb in the case of FL but whatever.  he will lose be even more the second time.

    Parent
    hmm... (none / 0) (#39)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:07:33 PM EST
    he refused to seat their delegates the first time.
    Hmm... please point out where Obama has ever refused to seat the Florida delegates.

    Parent
    Interesting point... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    Back in September he is reported to have mentioned that he'd "do right by Florida voters"...except that in January the Obama campaign passed out a memo that said
    "Our position and the position of the DNC is clear -- neither the Florida nor Michigan primaries are playing any role in deciding the Democratic nominee and we are not campaigning in either state," said the Obama campaign memo...

    At present, the only way for either candidate to sit the delegates is as the nominee.


    Parent

    Oh, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    but there were a lot of people who didn't vote at all because they were told it wouldn't count. All those who are too tired to vote again can stay home if they like.

    But then maybe if they know that this time it will count then they'll all come out and vote. Surely, you can't be against that!

    Parent

    what is your point (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    exactly?

    Parent
    point: Obama already won so let him win! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#153)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:02:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#155)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    Record breaking numbers of Dems voted - 1.7 million of them in FL.  Doesn't sound like a lot of them stayed home to me at all - sounds like a whole bunch of them wanted to prove a point that their votes should count as much as SC, IA, and NH, as much as any other Americans should.  

    Parent
    FL loving the vote... (none / 0) (#179)
    by katcan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    Yes, we love being repeatedly told our votes don't count almost as much as we love having our votes stolen.

    Parent
    This is what I want to hear (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    This nomination contest could end well if everyone takes that attitude.

    Parent
    I'm Not Inherently Against Do Overs (none / 0) (#29)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    I don't think a do-over is needed or is even necessarily fair, but if that's what it takes to resolve this fiasco created by Dean and Brazile, then do it so long as its done with rules that both campaigns agree are fair.  Personally, I would be against any that are not closed primaries because without a Republican primary I think we're just asking for trouble.

    Parent
    Yep, Agree. Has To Be Closed Primaries To Get (none / 0) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    a candidate chosen by the Democrats of those states and not by Democrats for a day..

    Parent
    And the math is the cost of $18 million (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:01:15 PM EST
    for a Florida primary alone; that's what Florida already spent on this the first time.  It refuses to do so again.  So ought it be paid by the Dem party, as they say?  If so, is that where we want our money to go that ought to be going to winning Congress as well as the White House?

    It's not where I want my donations to the Dem party to go.  Not that I'm giving another cent, as I already decided, until I see real leadership from the DNC.  So far, it may just be costing us the win that seemed so within our grasp not so long ago.

    Parent

    Vote By Mail (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:23 PM EST
    That would be the cheapest, least burdensome way for voters and the State.

    Parent
    Crist did not refuse to pay (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:05:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Crist Reportedly (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:18:46 PM EST
    Walked back his offer to pay today.

    In addition, Michigan's governor said it would have to be a caucus because Michigan will not pay for a primary.  I can think of nothing worse than replacing even the most flawed primary with a caucus.  Of course, that won't disenfranchise everyone, based on Texas it appears that Obama could still find ways to benefit from early voting.

    Several commentators including David Brooks (ugh!) and Marc Ambinder (much better) have suggested that Clinton should offer to split the costs with Obama.  The problem would remain, however, about how you hold a primary without state involvement.  I cannot imagine holding caucuses in state's as big as Michigan and Florida and where they've never held caucuses before.  That would be a disaster, especially in Florida where it would virtually guarantee only a small percentage of the participants who voted in the primary.

    Parent

    Christ (none / 0) (#147)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    Charlie Christ never actually said he would pay. That is just the way Howard Dean spun it. Dean was being less than honest when he fudged his press release that way.

    Parent
    Michigan and Florida delegates (none / 0) (#183)
    by USAsince1680 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    Of course Obama would love to support a caucus.  He sends in his "caucus" team, experts at intimidation, which gives him an edge.  If I were Hillary, I would never agree to a caucus.  I like the idea of allotting the Florida delegates per the election results and allotting the Michigan delegates by allowing Hillary to retain her delegates and giving Obama all the "uncommitted" delegates. Voila, problem solved.

    Parent
    Nelson said today that Florida won't (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    and he's only in Congress, I know. But he seemed to know from those in the know.

    Parent
    Has HRC indicated her position (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    on do-overs in MI and FL?  [I know she has advocated seating the delegates from the earlier primary/caucuses.]

    Parent
    caucus? heck no! no! no! no! (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    we are supposed to just say sure, do a caucus which is inherently unfair to clinton. yeah right! what a joke!

    Parent
    She was holding her own in (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    TX caucus according to this morning's results.

    Parent
    that isn't the point now is it! (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    florida has voted. let it be counted. why should they have to spend millions? s carolina also broke the rules. they are being counted.

    caucus is only part of the problem. obama does not serve his own interests with opposing florida.

    this is an excellent way to lose the ge. but who cares, i mean it's doesn't compare to a primary right.

    Parent

    Announcement: I refuse to (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    read another comment ever about Obama's name not being on the ballot in MI, FL voters having zip famililiarity w/Obama at the time of the FL primary, Obama's non-ad in FL, and/or Obama's non-press conf. in FL.  

    Addendum: also claim Obama (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    never sd. he wouldn't seat FL delegates.

    Parent
    what about Ohio (none / 0) (#55)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    I LOVE reading about Ohio! (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Response from Fla Dem Party (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    NEWS FROM THE FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY

    For Immediate Release: March 5, 2008
    Statement on Democratic Nominating Process

    TALLAHASSEE - Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen L. Thurman issued the following statement today on the state of the Democratic nominating process as it relates to Florida:

    "The Democratic primary gets more exciting by the day. The incredible enthusiasm for these two phenomenal candidates for President continues to prove that America wants a new direction - not a third Bush term with McCain.

    "We thank Governors Crist and Granholm for supporting the effort to have the votes of more than five million Democrats and Republicans from Florida and Michigan recognized. In Florida, more than 1.75 million Democrats voted, and they deserve to be heard.

    "Obviously, these primaries are the talk of the political world, and some are even suggesting that Florida hold a run-off election between the top two Democratic primary vote-getters, which happen to be Senators Clinton and Obama. However, this is not a time to panic or jump to any conclusions simply because the Republicans have a nominee.

    "It is important to remember that the Democratic nominating process does not end until June 10. The Florida Democratic Party continues to work with our leadership, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and the Democratic National Committee to ensure this state is fully represented at the National Convention.

    "We have discussed many things, ranging from the plans for the general election to a potential alternative primary to the process for appealing to the credentials committee of the National Convention to seat our delegates as currently allocated.

    "It is important also that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    "The Florida Democratic Party cannot consider any alternative that does not meet these requirements. Indeed, it is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary.

    "We continue to move ahead with preparations for an unprecedented coordinated general election campaign. The people of Florida, like most Americans, are eager for change - not more of the same from McCain - and in November, we will make the Democratic nominee the next President of the United States of America."

    Translation...we have no money to run a new election without all parties coming forward to help

    I see the problem (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    I guarantee you that the biggest problem is getting the candidates to agree.  I'm sure Obama wants a caucus, for instance.

    But, since the state parties get to decide how they run their elections, why can't they ask all their "delegates" to come forward and take a vote?

    Parent

    Florida has to be popular vote (none / 0) (#117)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    I don't think Obama or Clinton have a voice in it. In Florida the only issue is money. $10 million for a primary, less if "by mail". The state has never had a caucus and it's far too large a state to attempt to organize one (not to mention totally undemocratic)

    Parent
    A wise and well stated position (none / 0) (#139)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    If you want to clean up this mess, someone needs to kick in the money.

    It would be nice to see the states help fund this, but I can't see the GOP lifting a finger since they've settled on their nominee.

    The DNC could spring for it, but that hurts the national GE effort.

    Besides, the nominee is going to come down to super-delegates so lets just get to the S-Ds.

    Parent

    why do you always assume (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    i'm an obama freak.  as i've stated before, i'm not fond of either of them.  

    why is it too late . . . because the dates for their primaries have come and gone.  Good Democrats went to the polls and did what they could under the rules then in effect.  Everyone wants to play be the rules right?  Or do we just make things up as we go along to fit the needs and whims of the moment?  

    The Democratic Party brought this on itself.  Who did it or why, I don't know and I don't really care.  But, I'm pretty ticked nonetheless.  My mom is a FL Democrat.  She worked the polls in FL.  She was rip roaring mad that the Democratic Party had the nerve to do what it was doing.  

    But hey, those were the halcion days of before anyone voted when no one seemed to care and HRC was inevitable.  Chickens get what chickens have coming to them.  

    And MI, don't even put everyone's name on the ballot.  My, my, my . . . but I just don't want a do over because I'm a fraidy cat that BO won't win.  Give me a break.  

    When it mattered, there were more contenders.  When it mattered, issues were different.  When it mattered, things were done back as# backwards and no one really cared.  Now that it's "needed" well we'll just come up with a way to get us out of this jam we've created for ourselves.  Sorry, it's too late.  The Supers will decide and about 50% of those who have a firmly held opinion that one or the other is "better" will be ticked.  

    No no no! (none / 0) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    Michigan did put everyone's name on the ballot.  Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson, CHOSE to remove their names on the last day.  But they were ALL submitted to be on the ballot

    Parent
    Too late (none / 0) (#2)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:44:30 PM EST
    I know we all have plans for how the Democratic Party can "fix" that which it (unnecessarily) broke, but the dynamics have changed since the original votes and any "revote" will be tainted by whichever side loses.  And Crist should be told to shut up; he's got no dog in this fight and his time to make a difference was when his party was gumming up the works in the first place.

    Too late? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    Um, why? Are you saying a free and fair election in Florida and Ohio will not be accepted by the supporters of Obama? Why for Gawds sake?

    Parent
    because he would lose (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    obviously

    Parent
    That seems the only conclusion (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:49:48 PM EST


    Parent
    newsflash (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    if the outcome could determine the race.
    they WILL have a do-over.


    Parent
    Interesting point there (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:59:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, Isn't that (none / 0) (#161)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:15:21 PM EST
    CONVENIENT???  To have do-overs in states where Obama didn't do well.  Seriously, the people in FL and MI knew the candidates abt as well as everyone else did back then.  Just because a candidate doesn't like the outcome, or the DNC doesn't like the outcome (which seems to be a MAJOR issue), we should all just dismiss all of the people who made an effort to vote - over 2 million people.  

    The vast majority of these people had absolutely NO say in when their primaries are set, and we are going to penalize them?  

    Parent

    Two things (none / 0) (#10)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    1. Those January votes will not count. They were against party rules. In Michigan most candidates weren't on the ballot in deference to the Party ruling, which Clinton agreed to in late 2007.

    2. The Governor of Florida is offering to pay for another primary in Florida. Go for it. Continue to seek a similar result in Michigan.

    By the way, it still won't win Clinton the nomination.

    Parent
    There Was No Party Ruling (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    Requiring candidates to remove their names from the ballot that I'm aware of.  It was a power play by Obama to try to make sure Michigan didn't count and couldn't be used by Clinton to stop his post-Iowa momentum.  It backfired.

    Parent
    Finally! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    Everyone keeps acting like Obamas name mysteriously disappeared from Michigan's ballot. He removed it. He did to engender support in Iowa.

    Parent
    Yes, thank you (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    There is so much revisionist history about this mess.

    The same bone-headed DNC that created this mess also decided that we should have our convention at the very end of August, so that the nominee that comes out of a brokered convention doesn't have time to re-unite the party.


    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#78)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    there was a party ruling that the election wouldn't count.

    So what are you saying? That it should count after Clinton agreed that it wouldn't count? It appears so.

    Parent

    Maybe I'm mistaken (none / 0) (#169)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:41:55 PM EST
    But shouldn't the party have voted to not count the votes of the OTHER states that broke the rules? S. Carolina, etc.

    Either none of them count, or they all count.

    Parent

    Correction, Bob (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    Most candidates were on the ballot in MI.

    Parent
    Only (none / 0) (#84)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:36 PM EST
    one of the three major candidates was on the ballot. Kucinich and the lesser candidates were on it. So your correction is incomplete.

    But it's also incomplete because Clinton agreed that the primary wouldn't count. And it was ruled by the DNC not to count.

    So why would you want Clinton to go against her word? Why would you want to go against Clinton's wise decision to agree with the DNC in Nov and Dec?

    Parent

    The talking point (none / 0) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:28:34 PM EST
    that Clinton "agreed" FL and MI wouldn't count sure is popular, but it seems not to have much basis.  What are you going by?  The pledge that didn't even come from the DNC?  The comment she made on that one radio show in NH?  In what sense did Clinton "give her word"?

    Parent
    The only agreement (none / 0) (#177)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM EST
    was that the candidates wouldn't campiagn in those states in deference to the DNC decision.

    None of the candidates agreed that the delegates would or wouldn't be seated.

    That was an action taken solely by the DNC not an agreement between the candidates.

    If you believe otherwise, produce the proof.

    Parent

    There were only two candidates (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    of the whole Democratic crew who took their names off the MI ballot--Edwards and Obama...IIRC. As there was no actual rule about removing the names as part of the "pledge," most everyone else was on the ballot...

    Parent
    Hello. Earth to kredwyn. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:47:31 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton agreed that the Michigan primary did not count prior to the campaign, in 2007. It does not matter whose names are on the ballot if the election doesn't count. Surely, you can understand that. It does not matter that Clinton's name was on it because it did not count. That, once again, is what Clinton agreed to.

    If it counts, if the rules are changed after the fact, then it's unfair. It's as if I were running laps around the track and you decide not to run with me, then I run around the track and declare that I've beaten you in the quarter-mile. No, it's actually worse. It's all of the above and I specifically agree with you that I'm not racing you and THEN I declare I've beaten you.

    Do you understand? Hillary agreed beforehand that the primary wouldn't count.

    Parent

    Irrelevant... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    I responded to your comment that there were "rules" with regards to the candidates taking their names off the ballot in MI.

    I've read the pledge. There was no such rule.

    Two candidates chose to take their names off the ballot. But it wasn't because there was a rule regarding the removal of names.

    That is what I was responding to. As such, your ramble about MI not counting is irrelevant to my response.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:55:26 PM EST


    Parent
    I assume (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:59:18 PM EST
    you also dont want to count the states that Obama won that broke the rules.
    course you do.
    btw
    NEITER of them can now win enough elected delegates to win.


    Parent
    Captain, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    those states broke the Democratic Party's rules. Rules with which Clinton agreed.

    You can complain about Obama breaking rules. Send your complaints to the DNC. If they agree then they'll do something. The Dems all agreed, including Clinton, that the Michigan and Florida would not count. Beforehand. If it was right and good for Hillary in December 2007, why isn't it good now? How did Clinton so late come to this higher morality?

    At least admit that it's not about the people in Michigan and Florida, whom Hillary (along with her supporters) was more than happy to jettison in December. It's simply about delegates. Clinton is about 150 behind with no way to catch up. Of course her followers are willing to go back on her word. They need the delegates.

    You guys don't have to fib to yourselves. Admit it. She needs the delegates, so now you're looking for wherever she can find them.

    Parent

    see above comment (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST


    Parent
    BUT (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:49:26 PM EST
    I would like to get this straight.
    are you saying that Obama or/and his supporters do NOT want to seat the delegates from these delegate rich states?
    I would really like to know because I think the voters in those states might like to know that.
    for, you know, when there is a do-over.


    Parent
    s carolina broke the rules. let's kick that (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    vote out. i mean don't the obama supporters want to be fair?

    Parent
    Exactly. A do-over in South Carolina (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    clearly is required as well, or else don't seat its delegates.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    I think that's Florida and Michigan, but if you want to do over Ohio too, that's cool.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    Michigan.

    Oculus will be mad at my cofusing the 2.

    Parent

    Well, I think that the only problematic primary is (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by derridog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    Michigan.   No one (supposedly) campaigned in Florida, yet all the candidates' names were on the ballot.  It's not like Floridians live in a media-less bubble. They were aware of what was going on in South Carolina and I'm sure that the 1.7 million Democrats who voted there were not sitting around bemoaning the fact that they had no way of guessing who to vote for because no candidates showed up at their local high schools for rallies. So, I can't see what the big problem is with just seating the delegates in Florida.

    Michigan is a different story as Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot, as Hillary should have done but didn't. So, seating those delegates is never going to seem fair to the other side, even if they give Obama all the votes that didn't go to Hillary.  So, in that case, to make it fair they should have a revote.   Having one would be a lot cheaper than having two and, if Obama's momentum is so large as to cause the vote to go to him this time, then so be it. Each side will have had one primary decision go their way.

    Parent

    Why Should Hillary Have Taken Her Name Off (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    Because Obama and Edwards did?  That was by choice, they didn't have to.  Other candidates left their names on the ballot.  

    The idea that Hillary or any other Dem had an obligation to remove his or her name from the Michigan ballot is a rewriting of history because Obama's tactical decision might come back and hurt him.  Hillary's had tactical decisions hurt her, do we get to do re-votes in all of those states too?

    Parent

    She didn't (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    She didn't have to take her name off. She DID agree that the primary didn't count.

    So the question isn't why she should have taken her name off, it's why she now wants it to count.

    And the answer is simple: Her word means nothing. She needs the delegates. Certainly you can get behind that.

    Parent

    But At The Time (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:07:57 PM EST
    Everyone expected the delegates to be seated.  Nobody expected this situation.  And the rules appear to call for states to only lose 50% of their delegates and if applied consistently, Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC should all be stripped to. So let's not pretend that these rules were chisled into stone and carried down from the mount.

    But that doesn't even really matter because ultimately this isn't about Clinton and Obama, it's about Florida and Michigan.  Not seating the delegates is a disaster for the party.  It disenfranchises more than 2 million voters in two critical states and it does so because the Democratic Party has allowed the issue of NH and Iowa supremacy to fester for years.  That Dean managed to use candidates' need to appease Iowa and NH voters to keep them from objecting to this sanction, makes the entire thing worse.

    Parent

    The rush to appease IA and NH (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:25:58 PM EST
    has only, in the process, angered FL and MI. By not seating the delegates in some way, the Democratic Party is risking two states in the General. And, to think this won't effect the electoral votes is simply foolish. It most certainly will; and, I'm guessing, quite negatively.

    Parent
    Not angering IA and NH (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:22 PM EST
    at the cost of pissing of MI and FLA -- what kind of bizarro calculus was used to reach that conclusion?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#131)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    in restricting IA and NH to the earliest dates, while penalizing FL and MI for moving earlier the DNC inadvertently angered the latter two states. I'm not saying it was intentional. But it was an inadvertent (and inevitable?) product of allowing IA and NH to retain the prestige of "first in line."

    Parent
    And not angering SC (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    as the South has been so good to Dems, too.

    Parent
    Appease IA and NH by (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:58:16 PM EST
    throwing MI and FL overboard? This is madness. Both early states need to have their status yanked. Which is what FL and MI were trying to do.

    Parent
    According to an AP Article (none / 0) (#170)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:45:17 PM EST
    I just saw, the heads of the Dem parties in FL and MI fully expected the eventual nominee to call for the seating of their delegates.

    And in answer to Steve's repeated question, I have not found the pledge that keeps being mentioned.  I DID see a bunch of articles that took a quote from Obama's campaign manager which he ATTRIBUTED to Clinton, but not once the actual quote FROM Clinton.  ANd that is what passes for journalism these days - you take the word of the competition's main spokesperson as gospel.  Wow.  Anywho - still looking for that pledge, if anyone has it...

    Parent

    She should have taken her name off (none / 0) (#52)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:16:08 PM EST
    because the DNC asked the candidates to take their names off.  Almost everyone complied.

    Further, Harold Ickes, part of the HRC campaign, was one of the DNC people that voted to penalize Michigan.

    Parent

    That's blatantly untrue (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:12 PM EST
    Every candidate was on the Florida ballot. Of the 8 possible names on the Michigan ballot, 4 people remained on it. "Almost everyone" was SUCH a mischaracterization.

    Parent
    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sumac on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    the DNC did not ask them to take their names of the ballots. Iowa did.

    Parent
    Can you link (none / 0) (#163)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    to proof that the DNC asked the candidates to take their names off?  This seems to be another talking point that gets bandied about with no basis.

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#126)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    it is not just that someone's name is or isn't on the ballot.

    The party ruled, and the candidates agreed, that both states' primaries would not count because the violated party rules. Many people did not vote because they were told that it wouldn't count. If it had counted all candidates would have been able to participate fully.

    Neither primary counted when it occurred. If you want those two states to have a say in choosing the nomination the only fair way is to have sanctioned do-overs. If H. Clinton has really turned things around, then there shouldn't be a problem for her. Someone wrote that she'd win by twenty percentage points. Great. Let's run the elections and see.

    Parent

    Well, I have to disagree about Florida. (none / 0) (#176)
    by derridog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:31:52 PM EST
    1.7 million Dems voted in the Florida primary. It broke records. There seemed to be no indication that people were staying home because they thought it wasn't going to count. Plus all names were on the ballot and, since nobody campaigned, they were all treated equally.

    Michigan, I agree with you. I think many people who were for Obama or Edwards might very well have stayed home since there was no possibility of voting for them.

    Parent

    The problem isn't just Michigan (none / 0) (#134)
    by ItsGreg on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    You suggest the Florida primary should stand because all the candidates names were on the ballots...but that's not the entire issue. Because the state parties in Florida and Michigan willingly violated an agreement they'd signed earlier, the voters of those states knew their votes weren't going to count in the delegate race. The problem is that we don't know how many voters chose NOT to vote in the primary because they knew their votes weren't going to count.

    If we allow the Florida primary vote to stand as it is, then all those voters who chose to stay home rather than vote in a primary they knew wasn't going to count...all those voters are cheated out of voting in real primary. In effect, they get punished for respecting the rules their state parties violated.

    I agree something has to be done to give Democrats in Florida and Michigan an opportunity to participate. This isn't about Obama or Clinton; it's about every voter knowingly casting a vote in a primary they know will count.

    Parent

    Dumb statement by the governors (none / 0) (#32)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:03:36 PM EST
    "The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. This primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise that right"

    This has nothing at all to do with any Constitutional right.  Parties can pick nominees anyway they choose.  They could throw darts if they wanted.

    Er (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    they did not mention the Constitution as far as I can tell.

    Parent
    Oh no? (none / 0) (#42)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    Then what is the source of the "right to vote" that the Governors say is fundamental to our democracy?

    Parent
    Penumbra. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:16:40 PM EST


    Parent
    May I just say, (none / 0) (#94)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    this comment made my day, especially coming from someone named "oculus."

    Parent
    Happy to see a new refugee here. (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:22:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I've been popping in from time to time (none / 0) (#178)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:19:45 PM EST
    I had to admit that I was powerless over DKos before I could let go.....

    Parent
    Let me get this straight (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:56 PM EST
    Are you arguing that voting is not fundamental to democracy?

    Okaaaay.

    Parent

    No, you are not getting it straight (none / 0) (#81)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    The right to vote in a party primary is not fundamental to democracy.

    Parent
    I think you're reading this too specifically (none / 0) (#96)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:52 PM EST
    The overall concept of democracy requires civic participation. While it is not legally mandated, the  civic-elected position of President logically presupposes that, if a democratic political body names candidates, then those candidates should be chosen in a manner consistent with civic participation.

    Parent
    I probably am (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:50:04 PM EST
    and I agree with your argument.  I just find it disingenuous when politicians who just want to please their constituents deploy the rhetoric of fundamental rights.  If we're going to conform the nomination process to ideals of democracy and representative government we also have to get rid of caucuses and superdelegates.  Crist and Granholm don't want to do that.  They just want to pander to their constitutents.

    Parent
    That was the argument in (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:37:41 PM EST
    the Nevada teachers' suit, and the court ruled otherwise. Do you agree with the Nevada teachers?

    Parent
    Sorry, this was for ahazydelerium (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    but the way comments land here, I don't understand.

    Parent
    There isn't a legal obligation (none / 0) (#172)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:53:30 PM EST
    because the DNC is a private organization. Thus, it can do produce a nominee in any manner it seems fit. However, I think in the spirit of democracy, everyone deserves the opportunity to vote.

    The teacher case is a bit more complicated: there were polling sites and the caucus was open for everyone. It was more a question of number of polling sites. I would side with the teachers, in that case. What's the problem with increasing the number of sites for everyone? [Personally, though, I'm opposed to caucuses in general. So I'm a bit biased, I suppose.]

    But, I don't feel compelled to push a re-vote. I don't think it's in the same class of problem as FL and MI.

    Parent

    The Democratic party, now less democratic (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:37:21 PM EST


    Parent
    I wish (none / 0) (#129)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    I had the right to vote that Matt Gonzalez had stayed home and run as a Green against Nancy Pelosi. Now that would have been something.

    Parent
    this is dream world talk... (none / 0) (#137)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    even those of us dippy enough to like Matt wouldn't trade the speaker of the house (the first woman, at that), ever, for anything, never ever never.

    Parent
    Nah, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:09:44 PM EST
     First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

    Parent
    What does this have to do with the First Amendment (none / 0) (#48)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    Your comment is a non sequitur.

    Parent
    Bravo Bravo Bravo Governors (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:05:39 PM EST


    I tried to convince myself (none / 0) (#45)
    by Polkan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    that FL and MI need to hold a new primary. BTD's and other ways...

    But I honestly cannot rationalize it in any way other the one benefits the Obama campaign, so that he can benevolently agree to that. Wouldn't it just be lovely and wonderful!

    Despite all the spin, I think the true issue here is not the validity of the vote.

    The original issue is the seating of the delegates based on that vote.

    So I don't want to be rude, but to me it looks like moving a goalpost for a novice candidate who made a mistake taking his name off in MI. He would have taken his name off in FL if he could.

    Clinton would NEVER be given this kind of a break (Imagine Huffington Post headlines).

    Perhaps this is what I don't understand: how does allowing both candidates to compete now make the new vote more valid than when neither competed? Didn't we all have opinions about candidates before the FL/MI vote? Iowa? NH?

    Why am I not getting this FL thing? Why can't seating FL in such close contest is not acceptable to Obama, other than his loss there?

    It wasn't a bad decision (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:21:19 PM EST
    By taking his name off the ballot Obama knew that it would disqualify that vote.

    Here.  Lets put it this way.

    Clinton should take her name off Wyoming and then ask for a re-vote after Pennsylvania.

    I think Obama knew what he was doing.

    Parent

    Of course he did (none / 0) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    Obama was running against someone with vastly more name recognition than he has.  Leaving his name on the ballot would allow EXACTLY what happened in Florida.   It is the reason why Edwards did the same thing.

    Blame the state governors and blame the DNC.  Do not blame Obama for working within the rules provided.

    Parent

    I had this out with Markos himself (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:32 PM EST
    Last night.  It's all like Bill Belichick saying "Sure the tuck rule is stupid, but we won, woo-hoo!" during the post-game interview.

    I don't think you folks realize to what depths of cynicism you've sunk to.

    We would like votes to count.

    The last time I remember someone saying "My candidate knew how to work the rules better than your candidate," I was arguing with a Republican about Bush beating Gore.

    We look towards a better goal of what Democracy might be.  A goal that ends with votes determining the winner.   Not rules.


    Parent

    a goal of democracy (none / 0) (#130)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    is not to hold contests with the understanding that the stakes are very low, and then, after the result is known, the stakes are retroactively and dramatically raised.  That's called a sham.

    Have a revote where everyone knows the stakes ex ante.  Otherwise it's banana republicanism.

    Parent

    surely you will admit (none / 0) (#135)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    that the stakes are much, much higher now?

    And FL saw a huge spike in turnout for the primary.

    Parent

    The perfect system (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:26:14 PM EST
    Everyone in the country votes on the same day.

    Florida wanted to raise the stakes of their contest and the DNC said "No."


    Parent

    I don't like treating the 2 states as the same (none / 0) (#57)
    by katiebird on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    problem.

    I thought there was a rule (rule 21?) to cover Florida's situation.  Can't the Democratic Party of Florida (with Hillary maybe) push for seating the delegation?  I REALLY don't think it's fair that they have to go through this again.

    Michigan is also weird in it's own way.  Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot.  He filed but made a calculated decision to remove his name.

    I know, we're on a path that both states WILL have to have a revote -- but I think it's strickingly unfair.  

    Michigan should be seated with a penalty of 1/2 the delegation.

    Florida should be seated as they stand.

    (speaking only for myself & I know that this won't happen)

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    but I dont think the flying monkeys will accept anything but a do-over

    Parent
    they are not going to get a do over (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    in my humble opinion. and the donna brazille's, reverend sharpton's mouths will go non stop with obama's unspoken blessing. thereby making the democrats look foolish. the fence sitters will look at obama and say no thanks.

    remember a number on here said becoming the black candidate had negatives and positives. here is the negative.

    Parent

    said it before and I will say it again (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
    if the outcome of the race can be determined by a do-over.
    there WILL be a do-over.


    Parent
    and it most probably will blow (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:23:24 PM EST
    up in the dem's face.

    Parent
    Why is a revote unfair? (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    Please explain this because I am baffled.

    Both states passed laws in violation of DNC rules.  The DNC punished them.  Neither state made any attempt to correct the situation before the election.  No candidate made any attempt to correct the situation before the election.  

    Now you are saying that it would be unfair for the DNC to change their ruling and allow their delegates to be seated PROVIDED they have a revote in which both candidates can campaign and both candidates names are on the list.

    Maybe it is unfair to Edwards but that horse has left the barn.

    Parent

    factcheck (none / 0) (#99)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    Neither state made any attempt to correct the situation before the election.

    The FL dem party filed a lawsuit.  I would call that "trying to correc the situation..."

    But, let's be clear on your position here: you are saying that we should tell all the people who voted in FL and MI "tough, no do-overs" and leave them completely out of the process.

    Yes or no?

    Parent

    The only possible way (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:41:06 PM EST
    you could infer that from my comments is if you simply don't read them at all.

    The FL dem party and the governor sued the DNC.  Hardly an effort to fix the problem.

    I have no problem with a revote.  Primary or caucus is fine with me.  If it were up to me they would have a revote and be docked 30-50% of their delegates.  I don't think that breaking the rules should be rewarded.

    Parent

    have you read the lawsuit? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    read it and get back to me.

    Parent
    You mean the nonsensical Nelson/Hastings complaint (none / 0) (#136)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    that the Judge recognized as meritless and quickly dismissed?

    Parent
    yes, of course (none / 0) (#148)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    "nonsensical"

    Parent
    Would you prefer frivolous? (none / 0) (#156)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:05:13 PM EST
    Either is appropriate.  Did you read the opinion?

    Parent
    Speaking for myself (none / 0) (#127)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    While I don't necessarily think a Florida re-vote is unfair, I think it is understandably problematic in some ways. Primarily because this whole situation is problematic and can't be fixed with any clear solution.

    Here's my take:

    Everyone had a name on the ballot, and both Obama and Hillary were known to a large extent: debates had already been televised, Obama had national ads playing in Florida, Hillary is a well-known figure.

    To say that a group of people might not have voted because they didn't think it would count is a skeptical claim. In my eyes, this argument is rendered weak when you consider that so many people DID vote. More people than in the history of the state.

    Many people don't vote in primaries or the general. It's tragic, but we move on. That so many people did this time is great, and I think it raises the question: so some people didn't get to vote, how is that different from any other election?

    There's also the idea that the original vote was free from these dubious claims of momentum (on both sides). It followed in a natural progression. To have a re-vote now would heavily favor one candidate over the other, depending on the timing of the vote. Granted, this argument is rendered weak when you consider that this is the problem with every state after the first one. But, I suppose it is a consideration in that the original timing would have been less influenced by this focus on momentum since Hillary and Clinton were evenly matched and only a few contests had gone by.

    Plus, as a Hillary supporter, I can understand why other H supporters are distressed at the prospect of re-voting in Florida. After getting bashed so much by the media, it hurts for her to have to potentially give up that victory. A victory, which, isn't entirely empty (because of the first reason listed).

    Personally, I think half the FL delegates should be divided up based on the first primary. The remainder should be contested in a new primary. Michigan should have an entirely new re-vote.

    Not a perfect solution, but as I said originally, there is no perfect solution.

    Parent

    I find it incredibly hypocritical (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:09 PM EST
    for 2 governors that signed laws that they KNEW would cause the DNC to punish them to now come out and speak for the people and the right to vote.  

    I fail to see how a revote is in any way unfair to either candidate and I feel little pity for either state having to foot the bill.  

    The governors are trying to save face because they played chicken with the DNC and lost.  

    As for this comment by Polk.

    So I don't want to be rude, but to me it looks like moving a goalpost for a novice candidate who made a mistake taking his name off in MI. He would have taken his name off in FL if he could.

    Clinton would NEVER be given this kind of a break (Imagine Huffington Post headlines).

    Uhhh the states lost their delegates BEFORE the vote so I find it incredible that you think that not changing the rules AFTER the vote is somehow moving the goalposts in favor of Obama.

    Then again I'm not surprised at all.  Anything to help your candidate.  Who cares if hundreds of thousands of voters in Michigan could never vote for whom they wanted.  It's about getting your pol to win win win.

    This Game of Chicken (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:25:07 PM EST
    If that's what you want to call it is still going on and will continue all the way until the first Tuesday in November.

    I'm not sure we're going to say the DNC won then.


    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    but the time for that argument was before the Florida and Michigan primaries, not after.

    Appeals to party unity fall on deaf ears when you guys try and claim that the only fair solution is to give Hillary the Michigan delegates eventhough she was the only one on the ballot.  

    I'm voting Democrat in the fall. But if you think that changing the rules at the end of the game is somehow going to bolster party unity you are crazy.  You can pretty much forget the AA vote if that happens.

    You have a demographic that has been CONSTANTLY beaten down in this country and denied their voting rights.  And when an AA has, for the first time in our history, a chance to become President the Democratic Party changes the rules to help the other voter?  

    Their anger won't be of the "Oh the other guy was a big meanie" variety.  It will be of the "The Democratic Party has deserted us and I feel completely betrayed by them".

    Parent

    That argument (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    was made back then too.

    Dean ignored it.

    Funny.  I think Dean might have a dog in this fight.


    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#107)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    What argument was made back when?

    Parent
    That (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    If you disenfranchise FL and MI you are likely to hurt the Dem nominee in those states, no matter who it is.

    Dean rejected that argument.


    Parent

    Well it would appear (none / 0) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:46:32 PM EST
    that no matter what a group of voters may feel disenfranchised in those states.  Do you really want to affect the rest of the country?

    Parent
    OK so let's talk about it (none / 0) (#89)
    by Polkan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    You are making a point that the state lost its delegates before the vote.

    My understanding was that (a) the voters vote, (b) the state party assigns the delegates, but (c) the DNC refuses to seat the delegates at the convention.

    Doesn't this mean that the sole issue is "recognition" of the delegates and not the validity of the vote?

    Parent

    I am making the point (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:12 PM EST
    that the Democratic National Party gets to set its own rules on how to choose a nominee.  The states willfully violated those rules.  

    The sole issue is of violating the rules.  

    Parent

    Sooooooooo (none / 0) (#95)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:52 PM EST
    You are saying a GOP Legislature and a GOP Governor can prevent the Florida vote from being counted?

    Parent
    apparently, they have (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:48 PM EST


    Parent
    it was stupid then its stupid now (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:40:25 PM EST
    who thinks it would be a good idea to not count to votes of two of the most important democratic states?
    its like Iraq.  lets talk about what to do NOW.
    I say re-do it and count the votes.

    Parent
    A sensible approach (none / 0) (#110)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    A very sensible idea that I'm sure is in the planning stages in both states as to how and when to proceed.

    Parent
    yeah, right! let's have caucus. that's just (none / 0) (#124)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST
    so fair to clinton. NO!

    Parent
    And so fair to the states' taxpayers (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    to pay out millions again -- $18 million was the cost in Florida alone.  Surely, the legislators and governors in those states will take it out of their paychecks.

    Uh, no.  It will come out of the paychecks of the people, including the voters who went to the polls as citizens are supposed to do.  It will come out of the poor and the elderly who won't get as many services from the state.  It will come out of the students who will get higher costs, and their parents, too.  

    A do-over, yeh, a great idea for Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Barack Obama . . . but not for Michigan and Florida.  So easy for anyone else to say.

    Parent

    And It Is My Understanding... (none / 0) (#173)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    That the DNC changed the rules AFTER the fact.  Their original rules state a loss of 50% of delegates, if the states choose not to go through the appeals process or something like that.  FL DID go through the process, and was denied.  AFTER that, the DNC decided to not seat ANY of the delegates, so FL WAS playing by the rules, and the DNC kept changing them.  Darn those Floridians for not being clairvoyant!!

    Parent
    And the time to challenge that (none / 0) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:45:34 PM EST
    was last year, not after the election.

    Parent
    IMHO (none / 0) (#65)
    by joei on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:21:14 PM EST
    this thing is over, whether u want to redo FL & MI or not.

    all the delegate math in the world is not going to make any difference

    clinton basically gives obama a big trashing in ohio  no matter how u look at it and she hardly picks any delegates. obama picks up quite a few in idaho also.

    just no credibility in delegate count whatsoever, don't even bother doing the math.

    obama can't win one-on-one against clinton and it is becoming painfully clear with each passing day

    CREDIBILITY is what u need to be a nominee

    Let's just have a great big do over? (none / 0) (#72)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    How's that?  Everyone can vote again.  I know I'd like to.  

    And let's do away with Superdelegates, ok?  Sounds good.  

    And no more caucuses, they favor one candidate over the other, right?  

    And, let's say that all of the delegates have to go with the popular vote, ok?  

    Yeah, that's exactly how maybe the Democratic Party could have / should have / might have done things.  

    BUT, it's now how things ended up.  I wonder why?  Who benefited?  Who controlled or had the most experience with the party apparatus?  Who had the most to win or lose?  

    And based onthe rules then in place, how did the candidates decide to run their campaigns -- even those here must admit it's a lot different trying to get the popular vote v. the delegate count -- it's like studying for the test.  But, let's just do it all over.  

    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    You are objecting to people voting. Did I get that right?

    Parent
    No, you didn't (none / 0) (#90)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    Stop putting words in my mouth like this is a cross examination.  I'm all for people voting.  Wish more of them would.  Wish, under the circumstances being discussed here that more people could have voted because they believed their votes might actually have counted.  But, the Party said, in advance, that in certain cases (but not all) the people's votes would not count and any delegates awarded based on the people's votes would not be seated.  Thems were the rules at the beginning of the process.  Was a bad idea at the time which has proven to be even worse.  

    So are you for playing by the rules or not?  

    Parent

    I cannot speak for BTD (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    but the rules in question do not have the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, or a federal or state law.  There was no great principle underlying what the DNC did. It was crass pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Should we remain constant to a rule that was based on expediency, and run the risk of losing two of the most important Electoral College states in the GE?

    I say no.  There are a number of different options, but not seating the delegations doesn't seem to me to be one of them.

    Parent

    the constitution (none / 0) (#138)
    by po on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:13:52 PM EST
    has nothing to do with how a Party decides who gets its nomination.  The Party makes the Rules.  Those that want to get the Party's nomination or want to be a part of the Party FOLLOW THE RULES.  It's like a frat or sorority.  What you don't do, in any game, is change the rules midstream.  It tends to tick people off and make them wonder why you messed it up so royally in the first place.

    Parent
    If you want to say (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    People would be naive for having a different idea of what Democracy is all about, ok.


    Parent
    Neither State is Penalized (none / 0) (#83)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    Unless they don't have a vote between March 4th and June 3rd.(per Howard Dean months ago) Those were the ground rules laid out. It has been stated that both Florida and Michigan are welcome to have their delegates seated as long as they are chosen between those two dates.

    Michigan Gov. said only a caucus. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:47:29 PM EST
    Please don't let that be the compromise.

    time for the Hillary (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    to learn how to do a damn caucus

    Parent
    Even if Hillary did caucuses better (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    and she DID win in Nevada -- I wouldn't like caucuses.  They discriminate against people who work unusual hours, people would otherwise be able to vote absentee, and the balloting is not secret.

    Parent
    Caucus? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:54:46 PM EST
    A caucus stifles participation and keeps people from voting. It's the next worse thing to super delegates.

    Parent
    If she followed Obama supporters' example (none / 0) (#171)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    then that Sopranos ad will seem very prescient.

    I don't think Hillary's supporters have the contingent of brash and belligerent youth that Obama does. And since Obama has a higher population of indies and Bar-ublicans, it makes sense that it wouldn't be as 'peace-lovin' as Hillary's crowd, the dem base.

    Parent

    New Florida Primary (none / 0) (#160)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    So how exactly would we prevent the Republicans who didn't vote in the primary from messing with the do-over election?

    Michigan and Florida delegates (none / 0) (#180)
    by USAsince1680 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    The problem in Florida does not seem to complex.  Both Hillary and Barack were on the ballot and both, flooded the air waves with campaign ads.  Florida delegates should be counted as allotted in the election.  

    Now, Michigan is a different problem.  Obama was not on the ballot. However, I have to believe he was a write-in candidate by those who supported him. Again, the delegates could be alloted per the election results.  Otherwise, Michigan has options but the cost would have to be at their expense.  Both Michigan and Florida broke the rules.
    They have to pay the consequences, literally.  They and they alone should pick up the tab for their actions.    

    FL And MI Governors Demand Plan To Seat Delegates: | 183 comments (183 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment