Florida And Michigan: Clinton And Obama Do Not Object To Revote

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:05:10 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

This morning I watched the appearances of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Today Show. While there is much to remark upon about these appearances, I was most struck by the statements made by both candidates that they will agree to a revote in Florida and Michigan.

Clinton of course was emphatic that Florida and Michigan had to be seated. She must know that they will not be seated solely based on the January results that strongly favored her. Some type of revote will be necessary. Her position seemed like bargaining posturing to me. But she did accept the idea of a solution to seating the Florida and Michigan delegations that includes a revote.

Obama expressed no concern at all about seating the Michigan and Florida delegations instead saying he has abided by the rules and that he will abide by any ruling of the DNC, including the ordering of a revote.

There you have it. It is now up to Howard Dean and the DNC to fix the mess they have made. The two candidates have expressly accepted a revote concept. Now Howard Dean and Donna Brazile need to get it done. Again, if they need ideas, my solution is here.

< The Day After: Who Can Run Best Against McCain And The GOP | Clinton Open To Sharing Ticket With Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Florida And Michigan: Clinton And Obama Do Not Object To Revote | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

How are they going to decide who can vote is a (none / 0) (#1)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:09:29 AM EST

big issue for a re-vote.

Nope (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:10:32 AM EST

Anyone who could vote before can vote now.

Not an issue at all.


Except if I go today and change party affiliation (none / 0) (#6)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:14:03 AM EST

I will then be able to vote in the Primary.


Correct (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:15:16 AM EST

That's the way it is.


: Democrata sere. (none / 0) (#14)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:17:14 AM EST

You shouldn't get to vote in two primaries (none / 0) (#13)
by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:16:54 AM EST

If it's an open system, there's nothing to be done about cross-overs. Except that if a person already voted in the Republican primary, they shouldn't be allowed to also vote in the Democratic primary.


Problem is there is no way you can tell if you (none / 0) (#22)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:21:46 AM EST

voted in the Republican Primary. There was a very important State Constitutional Amendment on the ballot that day. The Amendment on one side of the ballot the primary vote on the other. A lot of us voted on the Amendment side and left the other side blank. Which means we did not vote in the Primary. Since there is no way you can tell which ballot belongs to whom how you going to decide who voted and who did not.


: Ah (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:38:50 AM EST

Hmm. Interesting issue. Have to think on that one.

: My Fear Also Regarding Revote n/t (none / 0) (#55)
by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:08:13 AM EST

Oh that (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:26:20 AM EST

I think that won't be a problem. If you voted in the GOP primary, you do not get to vote again.


But there is no way you can tell if they did or (none / 0) (#41)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:33:56 AM EST

not. Since this was not just a primary vote. You know that would make one hell of an argument against have Republicans vote for the Democratic Candidate in the GE.


Yes there is (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:38:13 AM EST

Voting records.


: Yes but look at the issue of I had to (none / 0) (#51)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:45:04 AM EST

vote for my taxes.

BTD what happens if we have (none / 0) (#52)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:47:29 AM EST

(God forbid) a lower turn out than on the first Primary. What will the argument be to count that vote and not the first one.


yeah (none / 0) (#3)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:10:40 AM EST

but then did Obama's folks get on the phone with Dean and say that it was all political rhetoric and not to believe it? I know this sounds snarky, but I'm serious. What he says in front of the camera can oftentimes be different from what he says when the bright lights are off.

This one's too important (none / 0) (#7)
by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:14:04 AM EST

He won't walk away from from what he said. Plus, it's consistent with how he presents himself as a candidate (he's for the people).

With a knockout blow last night, he could avoid the MI/FL question, but that option is no longer available to him and he knows it.


: Obama (none / 0) (#37)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:31:11 AM EST

is so not for the people. He got reprimanded in both TX and OH for violating primary and caucus rules. My big concern is if he starts trailing, we'll see more of this stuff. The Chicago Smackdown, as he calls it. Americans should really think hard about whether we want Chicago politics in the WH.

Kathy, the Canadians apologized (none / 0) (#18)
by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:19:52 AM EST

Get over it. It was a last-minute hit piece and it worked in Ohio. It's done.


Yes (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:25:14 AM EST

We will never see another "last minute hit piece" again.

You are funny Bob.


"get over it" (none / 0) (#28)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:25:21 AM EST

Stop being a jerk. I think it's pretty much accepted at TL that the way Obama handled that issue was embarrassing and reductive. And it's not done by any means.


Bob is like that (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:27:02 AM EST

Take it easy Kathy. He is more fun to chuckle over.


yeah, I know (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:33:11 AM EST

I am just easily annoyed by that kind of crap this morning. She won. Even with all the maneuverings, she won. Outspent a zillion to one, and she won. Out volunteered, and she won. Blasted by the media, and she won. Called to drop out of the race, and she won. And now Obama supporters are so very concerned about keeping together the democratic party when after Super Tuesday, no one was talking about the sanctity of the party. It's the same thing I keep saying: watching all the "news" coverage this morning, I feel like I am in a bizarro world where up is down.

But, I will go to the gym now and pound it out on the treadmill instead.


: annoyed by that kind of crap this morning (none / 0) (#42)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:35:15 AM EST

I would advise staying on this blog.
the blogosphere is in full hysteria mode today.
starting with Limpbaugh stealing the election and sinking from there.

: Exactly. (none / 0) (#62)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST

This is starting to look like a ridiculous cartoon. I wish we had a modeling program where we could plug in "equal media," "similar expenditure", etc, and see what would have happened.
Regardless, she won against diversity. He lost with the wind at his back most of the time.
I think this goes to her electability don't you ;-)? (to say the LEAST).

It's done (none / 0) (#38)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:31:50 AM EST

we will see if the Penn voters agree with Bob


Whaaaaaaaaaaat? (none / 0) (#66)
by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST

This is a false story and I believe you KNOW that. It's not as if Obama sent his ECONOMIC ADVISER to have a secret foreign policy meeting with the Canadians. It's clear this was not an Obama-campaign or Barack Obama decision.

What world are you living in?

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama's senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.
According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama's protectionist stand on the trail was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy."

From the NYT.

But I think that TL and TM have accepted this. Why haven't you?


: because the truth hurts (none / 0) (#68)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:15:48 AM EST

Obama said there was nothing said to the (none / 0) (#69)
by jawbone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST

Canadian embassy rep that wasn't said by him on the campaign trail. iirc


Who pays for a re-vote? (none / 0) (#4)
by robrecht on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:12:48 AM EST

The Fl governor said the state would (none / 0) (#9)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:14:44 AM EST

Thanks (none / 0) (#15)
by robrecht on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:17:54 AM EST

Is he being nonpartisan in a real way? Why is he helping the Democratic party fix this?


: Better to take the stench off of (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:24:22 AM EST

the DNC and Dems in both states.

In Florida (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:14:54 AM EST

Charlie Crist.


It further drains the Dems' coffers (none / 0) (#20)
by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:20:36 AM EST

Quite simply.


Not in Florida (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:23:37 AM EST

And it is money well invested to take the stench off of the DNC's idiotic decision.

I expect to hear your line from many frightened Obama supporters. I think they fear he will get blown out in both Florida and Michigan. Their fears very well may be accurate.


: I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm not frightened (none / 0) (#74)
by jcsf on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:30:28 PM EST

Again, democracy is best served by a revote. The highest level of win for Hilary is 10%, as if Ohio.
That isn't enough, from a pure popular, or delegate standpoint, to help change the nature of the contest.
You know, one thing - who'se hands is it in, this idea of a re-vote?
Notice that Hillary DIDN'T say that she wants a revote, which is what I've been looking for.
But it really isn't in her hands, right? If Howard Dean decides, let's revote, then she has to go along.
Right?

Obama is always talking about all his cash (none / 0) (#31)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:26:39 AM EST

Why doesn't he help pay for it?

Because, otherwise, what you are saying is that we shouldn't have a revote because we can't "afford" to pay for the election.


Then (none / 0) (#33)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:27:27 AM EST

maybe Obama should drop out. Registered Democrats want Clinton, Obama's people are Republicans.


it's not that expensive (none / 0) (#58)
by bigbay on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:14:29 AM EST

we're talking tens of millions , not hundreds. Even the two presidential camps could drop in a million.


The other issue... (none / 0) (#5)
by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:12:50 AM EST

...who's going to pay for it?

It costs a lot of money to have a re-vote in Florida. If the state won't pick up the tab, the DNC and the campaigns don't have the kind of money necessary to fund it.
I think that's part of the reason why the idea of caucuses was floated. Perhaps taking half the delegates from the two states according to the prior vote, and then deciding the rest via caucus might be necessary, due to the prohibitive expense(and the unlikelihood that the Republican-dominated lege in Florida will agree to foot the bill there).

Charlie Crist has kindly offered to pay (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:14:39 AM EST

for a Florida primary.


well... (none / 0) (#16)
by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:18:26 AM EST

...that was sweet of him. Is June 14th a Tuesday?


I would do it in May myself (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:22:30 AM EST

We'll see (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:27:48 AM EST

He'll have to explain why June. Especially if Dems request May.


May 27th is open... (none / 0) (#36)
by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM EST

...I think it would be grossly unfair to the other already scheduled states to trample all over the attention/diminish the importance they're likely to receive, just to pander to MI/FL voters. But I'm fine with late May re-votes, or perhaps one in late May and one in June.


Yes (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:37:06 AM EST

Pandering to voters is horrible. Oy.

BTW, I object to pandering voters in Iowa and NH, which led to this mess.


Pandering to voters in one state... (none / 0) (#53)
by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:57:35 AM EST

...over another is bad. Just because we already do it with NH and IA doesn't mean we should extend the practice further.
If FL and MI re-votes go on in early May, it diminishes the importance of the other states which vote that month. It would look like a pretty obvious ploy to rescue Clinton's campaign, putting two big states she has a good chance to win in right after another big state she's slightly favored to win.
The 27th is open. I think that's a good day to do it on.


but when NH IA and SC moved their events to be (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:07:24 AM EST

ahead of MI and FL technically they also violated the rules. It's water under the bridge as BTD would say but it's still a technical reality. Being selective about rules and then violating your own rules as the DNC did when it completely stripped MI and FL of their delegates instead of the 50% they should have make for bad feelings within the party.. If there is a re-vote they better make sure everything is done right or somehow this will just make matters worse. As I stated in another comment I hope there are as many or more voters if there is a re-vote or it's going to look bad.


: There are 5 other states... (none / 0) (#64)
by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST

...already scheduled for May. I just think they should vote first, before the re-votes take place.

A little late to get religion (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:15:09 AM EST

Florida and Michigan are much more important than Iowa and NH.


Will snowbirds head north by June? (none / 0) (#70)
by jawbone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM EST

: They start heading north late spring. (none / 0) (#73)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST

OMG! (none / 0) (#35)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:28:23 AM EST

I'll be able to vote for Hil in the new FL primary. Couldn't get back to IL to vote.


Crist said maybe the state would pay. (none / 0) (#11)
by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:14:54 AM EST

Finally, we get down to it (none / 0) (#17)
by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:19:46 AM EST

I've been convinced for some time that we were headed for the following scenario:

Clinton keeps the race really close--and last night certainly accomplished that.

She uses the closeness of the race to argue to the DNC that FL and MI need a do-over.

FL and MI actually do re-vote.

Most of the superdelegates then support the person with the most national delegates (no prediction from me on who that is), with some bucking the trend and voting with their constituents or simply for which person they think is most electable, etc.

We have a nominee before the convention.

We win and make history in November, regardless of which candidate is the nominee.

: yep (none / 0) (#40)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM EST

if its Hillary I still think a lot of Obama people will walk away. but we can still win.

does anyone think (none / 0) (#43)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:36:24 AM EST

she would not win both of these states?
I certainly think she will.

Florida undoubtedly (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:39:32 AM EST

Michigan will be closer.


: I think (none / 0) (#49)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:43:35 AM EST

it would have been closer before the Obama people tried to keep the MI votes from counting.

Could that even remove the superdel issue? (none / 0) (#48)
by HadIt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:42:27 AM EST

I had been out of the loop for a while and didn't know you were writing here. Coolness! Have I found a bastion of sanity on the progressive web?

I'd go back and forth from Kos and MyDD and then Americablog and I'm thinking "Has everyone lost their frakking heads?" it's getting to the point where I'm getting nasty with people who support the one I have a slight preference for. And I do not want to be nasty - not against Democrats.

Anyways, the possibility of a full revote in MI/FL is so encouraging, since it's conceivable it might be enough to definitively decide this... since I'm lazy, would it be enough to potentially decide it without superdelegates?

God, that would be pretty great at this point. Then they can dismantle this stupid primary system. (one hopes...)

No (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:14:17 AM EST

The system is designed to make SDs the tiebreaker.


: ah, right... (none / 0) (#60)
by HadIt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:17:23 AM EST

so, still somewhat ugly, since I can't sense agreement on how they are supposed to vote (ie with their choice or with the % of the state or something). So, there'll still be people on some side getting pissed and crying foul.
Of course, what's new there...

There should be a revote (none / 0) (#50)
by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:44:46 AM EST

But of course, the delegates will be determined by the revotes. The first votes should not, and will not, determine any delegates.

: We'll see (none / 0) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:13:52 AM EST

If I was Clinton, I would ask for some recognition, 20%, something for the first vote.

All but Floridians are missing the point on (none / 0) (#61)
by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:17:30 AM EST

Florida and it needs to be addressed.

Howard Dean punished Democrats for a change the Republican Governor and Republican held legislature did, i.e., changed the primary date.

Florida responded to Howard Dean by putting all candidates on the ballot and turning out in record numbers to vote.

There is no reason to waste Florida time and tax dollars, just so Dean can save face, and Obama can be coddled about Florida.

Dean was wrong. He's wrong now. He's wrong not to admit to being wrong. He's wrong not to seat Florida and count the vote.

If Obama thinks forcing a new vote is going to help him gain delegates in Florida, he should think again, and seriously about this: You would be spending our hard earned money and wasting our cherished time; two elements most important in our lives.

We were angry at Dean during the January vote. We'll be enraged if forced to repeat it .

Donna Brazile leaves this information OUT of her every argument and comment.

She also leaves out the fact that Michigan didn't have all candidates on the ballot. Only Hillary. So that new primary election might make sense.

But NOT Florida.

Here's something else being ignored for the sake of Dean and the Democrats.

Sexism.

It is rampant within the party and the media.

As is reverse racism.

To suggest Clinton drop out of this race for "the sake of the Party" shows a careless disregard for the truth, and ignores the will of the people.

Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont deserved to be heard.

So does Pennsylvania and all the other states.

It's time this NATION chose a nominee instead of just the good old boys in the back room.

The American people are hijacking this primary, and we will not be told we can't have a say until we've had our say.

Every move Dean has made is in favor of Obama. He's trying to force Hillary out. Shame Hillary out. Bully Hillary out.

Not because Hillary isn't an excellent choice, but because Dean's own ego can't accept a woman winning the White House he wanted for himself.

As for Brazile, unlike Hillary Clinton, she hasn't the courage to admit if Hillary was black she'd be less inclined to "suggest" Hillary can't win the nomination.

And, notice how she's suddenly tainting her opinions by mentioning she's a superdelegate.

Oh sure. That's what we need in the media. Someone who disrupts the playing field with prejudice every time she opens her mouth.

The fact is, Hillary didn't just win Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island as an older woman with half the money and a smaller staff.

She also beat the media.

It won't stop them from trying to get even.

But it will cost them in circulation figures and Nielsen ratings when this is over.

Because the audience the network has gained is transients who'd rather spend more time on iPods and video games than the 6:30 news and newspapers.

While the audience they're losing is women. Lots and lots and lots of women.

: Argh... (none / 0) (#67)
by CST on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:54:23 AM EST

First off, I would like to say, I sort of agree with you about Florida. Although I think Hillary should be a little worried about Michigan, she almost lost to uncommitted.
But I am so frustrated and angry with people acting like everyone who likes Obama must be sexist. Or that he has somehow used race to his advantage against Hillary Clinton. Reverse racism!!! PLEASE. Last night in Ohio 25% of the vote said race matters to them and 75% of them voted for Hillary (that is off of MSNBC). Now I am not saying that all Hillary fans are racist, that is offensive and wrong, but neither are all Obama fans sexist (not even the men in the party).
P.S. I am a white female.

: like the hijacking part (none / 0) (#77)
by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:59:09 PM EST

quite a bit. Here here. Us americans are hijacking the primary. And the DNC better just fricken leave it alone and let it take its course. And yes, seat FL as it is. A revote is very silly there. If they must, add the full popular vote but only consider half the delegates (including supers since they should suffer too, hee hee). MI should have a revote though.
It's always uncomfortable when the voters actually do something unscripted. Everyone should sit back and enjoy. And stop whining about things getting ugly. They're not. This is still nothing compared with repubs. And I agree with posts from a newer topic that the ugliness is mostly from followers. So chill out man.

I got up this morning and I said to myself (none / 0) (#63)
by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:39:11 AM EST

Self, forget the polls and lets look at the Demo's for a re-vote in Fl.
There are two large Blocks of Democratic voters in this State The AA which voted overwhelmingly for Obama on Jan 29, and the retirees Who voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. I am under the impression that the Obama vote was very near its peak on Jan 29, but I am affraid that some of the non AA voters he had may be Mad enough at the DNC that they may not vote a second time and maybe although not to as large an extend the AA vote may diminish too. I sure hope not but I just don't like the way it looks in this State. Too many people would roast Dean right now and are unjustly sometimes blaming Obama too.

: RE: I got up this morning and I said to myself (none / 0) (#75)
by FedUpInFL on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST

What is being forgotten here is that on Jan 29th, Edwards was on the Florida ballot. He didn't pull out of the race until Jan 30th.
If a re-vote happens, many of those who voted Edwards will now vote Obama. (Including me...)

Money, Money, Money (none / 0) (#65)
by waldenpond on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST

A re-vote will be expensive... if Democrats in the two states and the country support a re-vote, shouldn't everyone be donating to the DNC for this so that the states don't bear the burden of the cost alone? Would seem an appropriate issue to rally behind to demonstrate how important all votes are.

Dem Party in FL had no role in primary date-- (none / 0) (#71)
by jawbone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM EST

The Repub legislature and gov changed the date.

FL Dem Party could not pull out due to important referendum--along with down ticket primaries.

Both Hillary and Obama were on the ticket.

FL Dems showed up in record numbers and voted.

Obama did have some ads in FL due to his national buys.

I see do-over in MI bcz Dems changed the date.

I don't see letting the Repubs pull out strings, as they did in FL.

breaking news from FL gov. (none / 0) (#76)
by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:53:00 PM EST

He just came out and said the FL and MI delegates should just be seated and forget this revote nonsense. Of course he's a repub, but it will be interesting to watch this discussion.

x (none / 0) (#78)
by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM EST

Whatever happens, Donna Brazile should not be allowed within 10 miles of the decision. It is very apparent where she is coming from. And it is not for the good of the democratic party.