Yet Another FL/MI Plan

By Big Tent Democrat

I think a lot of folks are getting the message on Florida and Michigan. While some vociferous Obama supporters are adamant against counting Florida and Michigan, others are realizing that Obama and, more importantly, the Democratic Party will suffer badly from this situation. As a result, Obama folks like Chris Bowers and Mark Schmitt are urging a different type of solution. Schmitt aims his advice directly at Barack Obama:

Here's the answer, and it's a little off the wall: He should offer a major concession. Agree to seat the Florida delegates from the January primary, along with a do-over caucus in Michigan. Don't concede the full legitimacy of the Florida primary, but just acknowledge that all the candidates were on the ballot and the expense and political cost of a do-over is too high. Seating the Florida delegation would be conditional on a do-over caucus in Michigan. . . . The advantages to Obama here are tremendous: it puts him firmly on the record in favor of enfranchising both states, it denies Clinton a second win in Florida, it shows a more magnanimous and graceful brand of politics than the win-at-all-costs mania we're witnessing from the Clinton camp, and it draws out the actual mathematical challenge she faces, without the fudge-factor of Michigan and Florida.

I think we have made some progress on this when the position being urged upon Obama by some folks who support him, very smart folks too, is that Obama should seat the Florida delegates based on the prior vote and re-do Michigan. BTW, we have to count the votes towards determining who is winning the popular vote too. Do not pretend those were not real people voting. Otherwise, we could redo by mail.

< Rezko Trial: Recap Day One | Howard Dean : Doesn't Oppose Seating FL/MI Delegates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    well there is the 50% solution that you (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    already supported. that just might gain some traction.

    Better than that for Hillary delegate wise (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:03:17 PM EST
    But Schmitt realizes that a revote in Florida is disastrous for Obama politically.

    good point! i don't think it is (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:06:54 PM EST
    good for any of us due to voter anger and the money it would cost. it might be good for mccain, but that's about it. the only thing worse would be not to recognize the two states and work to include them.

    Any Michigan redo should be a primary not (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:06:47 PM EST
    a caucus. That's what they had. They shouldn't get to redo with a caucus system. Not at this late date.

    In the run up to the primary it was made clear that those opposed to Senator Clinton should cast uncommitted votes. Why not just give him the uncommitted votes -- that's more than generous since it would be giving him Edwards' votes too.

    We've been blasting the caucus system all season. Why should it be okay now? Because it favors Obama? Fewer voters participate in caucuses than primaries. They are far less likely to accurately reflect the views of all the registered voters in the state.

    I say no new election, seat Florida, seat Hillary's delegates in Michigan and give Obama the uncommitted.

    i have to tell you, unless you have a history (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    in the caucus system and understand it, most probably it won't go well thereby making the voters even more discouraged. the older, infirm and ill are closed out by the caucus system. keep the polls open all day for the voters and give them time. fair is fair.

    There would be no caucus (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:09:30 PM EST
    That is just a name for a place to drop your ballot.

    btd, thanks for the update. (none / 0) (#106)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:57:17 PM EST
    that is good to hear.

    I agree because a caucus will leave out (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    more people than the original primary did. Give him the uncommitted or redo the whole primary however they have to do it.

    Nope (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:16:10 PM EST
    Not one of those caucuses.  A New Mexico style "caucus." It is a primary in effect.

    It will be a State Party caucus (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by The GrandPanjandrum on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    similar to the Democratic Presidential caucus in NM (without all the screws up hopefully!). Generally a primary is sponsored and paid for by the State. A caucus is sponsored by the state party. They choose the rules. In NM our caucus was a secret ballot with polling sites open for about 8 hours. What they call it is not important. How they conduct it is.

    We were also able (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:14:25 PM EST
    to caucus by mail

    I could handle that. Eight hours to drop off (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:15:51 PM EST
    your vote or mail as an alternative.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    This can be worked out.

    Zactly (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    Agreed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:09:03 PM EST
    And Michigan is already planning what is called a firehouse primary:

    Michigan Democrats are discussing holding a "firehouse" contest in May or June that would be an alternative to a traditional primary or caucus and run by the state party, said a Democratic Party official who has been part of the discussions. "Firehouse" contests usually have fewer polling places and shorter voting hours than traditional state-run primary elections.

    this could work.


    What do they mean by shorter hours BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:12:44 PM EST
    How short? Also, what could they use as drop-offs? Would mail be acceptable too?

    Probably (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    Absentee. Everything.

    8 hours or so of voting.

    BTW, I hate you and your state.


    LOL. Share the glory big guy. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    You guys will be great next year.

    If they make voting that easy in MI, I don't see how Obama can refuse and come out looking good. And you're right about him possibly losing twice in Florida. He should agree to this.


    I thik that is the best he can do (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    Vote by mail (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    More like a firedrill primary (none / 0) (#37)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:16:11 PM EST
    - lots of chaos, no?

    This would also have some equity issues.


    There are always issues (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:22:27 PM EST
    But this is not a Texas caucus.

    You can't be sure what the ultimate (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:48:19 PM EST
    rules would be. What's floated today could end up being tossed by the wayside.

    what about military, (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:53:13 PM EST
    people who have moved out of state and people who have moved in state?  What is the cut-off day for registration?  How do you validate people are registered voters?

    Firehouse primaries are run (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST
    by the party, not the state, I assume....So, less expensive...

    Obama has said he will "abide by the rules".....So, he is waiting for someone to put forward a proposal.....If no proposal comes, he can deflect blame...."just following the rules."


    The more I think about it the more (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:07:56 PM EST
    I am convinced there should be no new elections and no do-overs. We should just seat the delegates from the votes that have taken place.

    That is simply not (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:10:35 PM EST
    going to work and even more, from your perspective, as someone who prefers Hillary, of less value to her campaign.

    Beating him again would be worth more than the delegates themselves.


    x (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    I agree with Jeralyn. Having a do-over is actually more advantageous to Obama. Here is why: during the original primaries, there were still 3 candidates in those primaries. That there are just 2 now, his vote counts get pumped up. I don't see that as fair at all. It is more than fair to give him all the MI uncommitted, since many of those would have been Edwards supporters.

    So do her vote counts (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:43 PM EST
    And just imagine the spin ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:19:50 PM EST
    I won Florida, and then I won Florida ... again.  Maybe he wants to go for best three out of five?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    If I was Clinton, I would find a way to fund a primary myself if I had to.

    I was wondering if she could do this (none / 0) (#65)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:31:15 PM EST
    but wouldn't it look like buying votes?

    How so? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST
    that's pretty funny, actually (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:51:50 PM EST
    Obama says he will abide by what the states decide.  Clinton pays for the vote to be held.  Every news cycle in the nation mentions that Clinton is the one stepping in to make this happen...talk about buying votes.  Money well spent.  Of course, Obama folks will then scream that she is buying votes, and the only option will be for him to fork over half.  Considering he's just touted his fundraising prowess, everyone knows he's got the money...

    It's an ultimate game of chicken.


    A lot of people would feel awkward (none / 0) (#89)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    about voting for candidate Y in an election funded by candidate X.  And when she won n delegates the calculation would be how much each cost.  Very divisive prospect.

    i have to say (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    i am not  a big fan of do-overs, specially elections.

    at the end of the day nothing is perfect, u cannot just keep trying to correct prior mistakes.

    to be honest, obama benefitted lot more with the caucauses which no way or perfect. so for once let hillary benefit with the process. he benefit in iowa by not being on the ballot in michigan.

    so let it be what it is.



    I agree in my heart but my brain says (none / 0) (#61)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:29:39 PM EST
    Hillary's only chance is to convince the Super D's that she has come back and beat Obama when he was riding at his highest. She can't catch him without a miracle and this would be a huge selling point to beat him in Michigan (if she can) at a point in the race where we know them as good as we're going to.

    We need MI and PA in November and if she could win there late in the primary, it will help her case. If Obama wins MI and they truly do make it as easy to vote as a primary, I'll feel better about his chance in Nov.


    i mean't seat the delegates for MI and FL (none / 0) (#78)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:44:58 PM EST
    i don't know if that will be enough for hillary to put over the top but it will be close.

    the silliest thing about the whole howard dean's rules thing is that they never stopped the elections. u had the elections and people KNOW the results of what happend in MI and FL. it is just ridiculous.


    Let what be? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:30:57 PM EST
    I do not understand your comment.

    just seat the delegates (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    and accept the prior elections.

    if obama doesn't want to do that, face the political consequences.


    Um (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:43:00 PM EST
    we face the consequences.

    The DNC will not do that. Think forward not backwards on this.


    i have some experience with (none / 0) (#80)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    elections in various countries and once u open the can of worms of do-overs, the solution typically creates a bigger problem.


    it is too late, the democrats have to live with the consequences.


    joei (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    can you expound on the problems that might arise?  It would be good to have someone with experience (inasmuch as we know you have it) to give their take on why this would be bad.  Is it just perception, as in "let's keep voting until we get the result we like" or are there greater concerns?

    well the elections in general are never perfect (none / 0) (#97)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:29:50 PM EST
    u want to make them as standard as possible with few or no variables. our system here for the most part is lot more standard other than few wrinkles.

    in england and india, which i am bit more privy to, (what can i say i come from a political family) there are lot more variables. the incumbent party has lot of power as to how or when to conduct, so they play around to make sure they benefit the most. :)

    my point is, u will always have one benefit more than the other and it just gets messy once u have different variables to play with.

    now with redo's, u have whole bunch of variables -- when, how, where. momentum, perception, resources and just the fact the u already know what happend in prior result itself makes it tainted, it is not as pure or fair as the original. they never are.

    the looser will never be happy, one blames another it just goes on.

    my .02


    Why in the world is Schmitt pushing (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:08:47 PM EST
    the Florida-Dems-deliberately-broke-the-rules lie?  And the RWesque "win-at-all-costs mania" frame?

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    No caucuses.  They are ripe for thuggery (as we saw in Texas).

    Either (1) seat the Florida delegates and hold a new primary in Michigan or (2) redo both.

    What option 1 does for Obama is that it ensures that Obama will only be smacked once in Florida.   Two Obama losses in Florida is a great argument for Hillary.

    Caucuses do notmean anything here (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:11:56 PM EST
    Schmitt seems to misunderstand this.

    Michigan would  have a firehouse primary as I explain below.

    Like a primary but with shorter voting hours.


    That is as bad as a caucus (none / 0) (#38)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:16:39 PM EST
    int erms of who it leaves out

    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:19:28 PM EST
    you can vote absentee, you have 8 hours to vote, you do not have to stay.

    you are not making any sense.


    the die hard Obamans (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    wont like this idea, like, at all.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    But the momentum for this is growing steadily.

    Well, I'm a diehard Obama (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    supporter, but if there is a reasonable offer for a do-over, it becomes very hard to oppose....

    Of course O supporters (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jen on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:10:36 PM EST
    would love to see a caucus in MI. How does this "solution" benefit anyone but Obama?

    Schmitt outsmarts himself (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:12:36 PM EST
    There will be no caucus. Michigan is already looking at something called a firehouse primary.

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#27)
    by jen on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:14:22 PM EST
    Explanation was there after I hit post.

    they will flip (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    if you try to count florida.
    based on what I have been reading.  that is not to say it should not be done.  Im just sayin.

    IMHO (none / 0) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST
    It doesn't benefit anyone but Obama.  He knows he would lose both primary do-overs.

    This way, he's already gotten the 'Iowa benefit' of having taken his name off the Michigan ballot.  Now he gets the benefit of the Michigan caucus.

    IMHO, this would delegitimize his win for everyone but his supporters.


    I'm thrilled people are finlly paying (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:12:27 PM EST
    attention to FL and MI--but I don't think a re-do will work.

    It will be resented by those who already voted.  I've heard that from the horses mouth, both on blogs and people I know personally.  They made the effort the first time, so a second chance (at a primary--NO caucuses) would be an inconvenience and would essentially disenfranchise their first vote.  

    It's amazing Gore has been able to keep quite on this the whole time (I understand why, but still...)

    We can't tell if Gore is being quiet about this (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:17:17 PM EST
    he may be working quietly.  He could have a lot of influence with Dean considering that he supported Dean quite early.

    I hope that he points out to Dean, that whatever the DNC proposes to spend during the general election is futile (penny wise and pound foolish)  if, from the outset, the party has already lost Michigan and Florida to the republicans.


    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    they can vote again and express their anger that way.

    life is hard (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:15:45 PM EST
    anyone who thought the voters in two of the most important democratic states would just be written off, particularly when it could determine the outcome, was whistling past the graveyard.

    Very interesting point (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by AF on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    that not redoing Florida "denies Clinton a second win."  

    I hadn't thought of that.  It's a very good point.  Even if the previous votes in Florida and Michigan should not count from the point of view of fairness (which we really don't need to argue about any more), it may actually be in Obama's interest to do it this way.

    Kudos to Big Tent for being out ahead on this one!

    no Florida revote (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST
    But holding caucuses in a state where they haven't been held before?
    Could captains be trained and caucus preparations take place in 3 months?

    Firehouse primary (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:20:36 PM EST
    It ends up being nothing like a caucus.

    Interesting take (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    it probably does hurt Obama more than help him to redo FL, thinking about it.

    I remain in favor of a MI redo, though I'd only really be okay with a caucus if it was a NM style, primary-in-all-but-name caucus.

    It will be a NM style caucus (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:20:57 PM EST
    Isn't it time for the HRC (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:30:39 PM EST
    campaign to make it well known that BO spent 1.4M (IIRC) on ads there--part of that national buy he couldn't stop.  She really has a leg-up on that point.  And she needs to be more clear that BO and JE CHOSE to remove their names off the ballot.  And wasn't there a campaign/effort to vote against her in MI?

    Now that the MSM has picked up on this story can she bring the above points to light without looking like she's trying to break/change the rules?  

    FWIW, tonight Lou Dobbs said that he thinks Dean and the DNC have gotten "too big for thier britches" and maybe FL and MI will show their disatisfaction by voting GOP in November, thereby handing the Dems a loss in the GE.

    I'm going to copyright my proposals :-[ (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:35:42 PM EST
    I've had two posts, one from yesterday when it first occured to me as win-win for both candidates, and one from today where I am sure I beat Chris with a timestamp.

    Look, It's Very Simple and
    A Modest Proposal

    (Damn idea pinchers. Grrrrr...)

    Sure (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:42:01 PM EST
    But that Obama supporters are pushing this idea is noteworthy to me.

    Well it's a win-win for both candidates (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:52:55 PM EST
    That's why I suggested it.  It's not surprising that they would start to support it.  And the main reason is that there is no way in Hell that Obama can win Florida.  He might as well not pique their ire.  

    first of all (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    and maybe I'm just not using to reading Schmitt, but for how much longer are we going to promote and expect a holier-than-thou-art Obama?  Everytime this Obama comes out it just gets more grating.  How does Obama 'deeming' to seat the delegation make him seem truly in favor of enfranchsing Floridians?  I can't really envision how he would be able to pull off such magnanimity in a way that would erase his role in thus far fighting against the struggle to seat them that's been happening on many different fronts (Clinton being but one).  Obama trying to seem more and more perfect is IMO at this point a losing strategy.  I am so tired of it.

    Having Michigan in play again could be interesting.  Looks good for the party.  I mean, what kind of party gets it together enough to really make sure an election is fair?  Image points there I think.  I also think it's ironic that each candidate has so much money, yet there's so much squabbling over who will fund these redos.  

    Ugh.  Props to BTD for having cared about this issue from the beginning.  

    What I find interesting is just (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    how the Obama campaign might choose to handle the possibility of re-dos.

    That possibility can very much undermine Obama's entire candidacy, because if you add back in to the overall result anything like the sorts of results we have already seen in FL and MI, then Hillary gets tremendously close to Obama's current position. Ultimately, including results from FL and MI, even in a do-over, could make or break his position.

    In general, democracy pushes very hard toward accepting delegates from FL and MI, and Obama's electoral prospects push very hard in the opposite direction.

    Somehow, even though the Obama campaign has not of late said much one way or the other about seating the FL and MI delegates, I just have a feeling that the move to seat them is ultimately going to meet with some very hard opposition from Obama.

    In any case, it will be very interesting to see how the Obama campaign handles this.

    There needs to be a proposal (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    to respond to....

    Florida Revote Favors Obama Now & November (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Coral Gables on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:37:48 PM EST
    Even in losing Florida a second time around this would favor Obama greatly if he is the eventual Dem nominee and also help him long term if he isn't.

    Florida has issues with their vote not being counted. For a candidate to come out in favor of every vote counting even if he loses....Huge, HUGE brownie points for Obama if he comes out strong in favor of a revote. It also gives him a chance for Florida voters to meet him which will close the gap from the January primary tremendously.

    I see nothing to lose for Obama. He will do better in the delegate column with a revote than with them being seated "as is", and be looked upon as a strong backer of "every vote counts" in very purple Florida.

    That is smart (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    A new Primary is too expensive; Florida is (somewhat) different than Michigan; and Obama can win Michigan in a caucus, giving him claim to the lunchbucket crowd.

    Too smart by half (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    See, Michigan is going to do a firehouse primary - and Obama can not object because Michigan has a different plan.

    The momentum is running hard against Obama on this.

    Ubderstandably. Who want to be against voting? Kid Oakland and TINS maybe but no one else.


    you don't know what MI will end up doing (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    today it might be a firehouse primary, tomorrow it could be different.

    These are ideas being floated, nothing is cast in stone. The surest way to make it fair is to go by the vote they had.


    Democracy is not too expensive (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:15:44 PM EST
    compared to the cost of disenfranchising and alienating voters. No caucus in Michigan. It has to be a primary. Since they are both so good at raising money online, Sens. Obama and Clinton can ask their supporters to chip in.

    New Primaries would be fine too (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:27:33 PM EST
    But it could be upwards of $10-20 million....The Republicans would gain an advantage....

    Mail in costs 5 milllion (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    Clinton would raise the money for it if she had to I bet.

    They raised $90 million combined (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:33:31 PM EST
    in the month of February, didn't they?  ANd February only had 29 days!

    Their supporters can come up with the $5-10 million to do a mail in. Or do the firehouse thingee with liberal absentee voting rules. Where do I send my ten bucks?


    But if Obama really went for such a plan ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:05:08 PM EST
    couldn't Clinton just say, I've been saying this all along.  Maybe we should take the rest of my prescription and seat Michigan as well.

    Plus, doesn't back up her the general argument that she won these states?  Because anyone who offers half does so because they think they'd lose both.

    I think this cedes too much to Clinton, and the Obama camp would never go for it.

    I think it's Obama's best bet. He'd lose (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    Florida in a re-vote and he'd do better in a caucus in MI and come out looking much more like he cares about the people of those states. I persnally will be mad if they do a caucus though. That's still leaving people out.

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:17:40 PM EST
    She actually wants there to be some new vote I think. Another win for her.

    Robot (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    these negotiations would go on well behind the scenes.  We wouldn't know about it until all the posturing and threats and sable rattling was over with.  (Or maybe I am giving too much credit to the DNC)

    It sounds like a reasonable approach (none / 0) (#48)
    by barryluda on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    Also, I was wondering, where would we be today -- delgatest and popular vote -- if as Jeralyn suggests, Clinton gets all of the FL and MI delegates she got in the early primaries, and Obama gets his from FL plus the MI uncommitted?

    A real caucus (none / 0) (#57)
    by jcsf on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:25:52 PM EST
    Obama's played fair, by the rules setup, so if he is looking at losing 40+ delegates, by giving Clinton a PASS on getting away with ignoring the rules, then there has to be a good reason for Obama to do this.

    Clinto would rather have (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:29:08 PM EST
    two new primaries. This does Obama a favor.

    MI <> OH (none / 0) (#81)
    by mike in dc on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    Obama has a decent chance to win a re-vote there.
    At any rate, she's highly unlikely to pile up the same margin there over him in a contested primary.

    He might suggest that the Edwards delegates in FL be either sent as uncommitted, or that they be split between the two of them.

    But I think he should hold off a week or two on ceding the FL issue.  Win WY and MS, add a couple dozen more SDs, wait for Clinton's bounce in PA to wear off.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:32 PM EST
    PA is in April. this has to be set up now.

    You can't decide to hold a primary overnight.

    Obama does not have that luxury.


    you misunderstand... (none / 0) (#107)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:07:26 AM EST
    ...I'm not talking about waiting until April, just until maybe the middle of next week to say something definitive.

    Ras has them tied in Michigan, and her up 55-39 over him in Florida, which is about what I'd expect.  Like I said, he can win a michigan re-vote, and could cut her margin in a FL re-vote.  win-win from a delegate standpoint, and if he wins Michigan, it hurts her more than losing Florida again hurts him, because she can no longer say she won both of them, or that he can't win big states.


    If Florida was fair (none / 0) (#90)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:05:56 PM EST
    then campaigns are irrelevant and everyone has been wasting a lot of time and money.

    Because (none / 0) (#92)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    The cone of silence had descended on Florida and they were unaware there was a campaign going on?

    How much campaigning was there in Alaska? Should we chuck those votes too because they were unfair?


    So do campaigns matter or don't they? (none / 0) (#93)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:13:02 PM EST
    And if they don't, why is all this effort being wasted when it could be used much more productively?  

    Also, were the Alaskan voters and the candidates also under the assumption that the Alaskan delegates would not be seated?  If not, then your analogy is faulty.


    JJE (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    what is your solution?

    Do-over (none / 0) (#99)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:33:27 PM EST
    Just do them over.  What I object to is changing a beauty contest into an actual election with stakes after the votes have been counted.  That's Banana Republic BS that I would have thought people in the Democratic Party would unanimously denounce.

    Do-Over (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    Primaries?  Who pays for them?

    Primaries are fine (none / 0) (#102)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM EST
    As are caucuses.  Why does it matter who pays for them?   Whoever is willing can pay for them.

    Campaigns matter (none / 0) (#98)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:30:57 PM EST
    But the idea that a campaign only occurs if the candidates make personal appearances and advertise within the four corners of a state is too limiting a definition.

    I don't think you can hang your hat on saying Florida voters didn't turn out because they thought their votes wouldn't count.  1.7 million Floridians voted in the Democratic primary. Yes, I know there were other measures on the ballot so they weren't coming out solely becuase of the primary.  Nevertheless, they voted.

    That said, I do think too much money is spent on campaigns. Maybe Sens. Clinton and Obama should peel off a couple of million each and donate it to Katrina relief.


    A lot of voters (none / 0) (#101)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    does not a fair and democratic election make.  Campaigns where people actually attempt to persuade voters to agree with them are fundamental, as is adherence to neutral rules agreed to before the voting is in.

    Huh, (none / 0) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    So, the people in Florida voted for Sen. Clinton because they were uninformed about Sen. Obama's wonderfulness? If they had only seen him appear on the stage in their home town, they would have voted differently?

    I think the idea that no one attempted to pursuade anyone in Florida to vote one way or the other is faulty.  1.7 million people voted but they were not fully informed by your standards so they don't count?

    Time and again on this site when people have asked Obama supporters what the Senator thinks about a particular issue, we are told "it's on his website." Fine, people in Florida don't have the internets?

    I'm not necessarily against a re-vote in Florida.  But I think you are defining "campaigns" and "persuasion" far too narrowly.


    No re-dos (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:06:14 PM EST
    I don't think political mosh pits are the way to decide the leader of the free world. I thought we were voters in this country and I thought that each vote counted equally.  Perhaps I have missed the point of having the right to vote.  I don't remember getting the right to Caucus when I turned 18.

    there is no other way (none / 0) (#95)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:21:02 PM EST
    we can say all we want that FL is fair, but there isn't going to be agreement to seat the delegates as they are, so we have to move on from this and push a solution that will fly.

    The smart folks... (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    You referred to Chris Bowers as one of the smart folks supporting Obama.

    Here's what he wrote recently in OpenLeft:

    "Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change."
    He then goes on to say, "I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

    You can't make this stuff up.

    From: "Obama To Put Conservatives in Cabinet"

    gee, i thought (none / 0) (#105)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:54:11 PM EST
    sen. obama was riding pretty high after the iowa caucuses, that he wasn't expected to win. should have given him push into the fl. primary, assuming iowa wasn't just an abberation. or........was it?

    .....it shows a more magnanimous and graceful brand of politics than the win-at-all-costs mania we're witnessing from the Clinton camp......

    my, what an arrogant twit. gee, i guess poor old sen. obama is trying to get along as best he can, no overweening ambition there boy!

    you know what? tough cookies! both clinton and obama abided by the DNC rules in FL & MI. the results are what they are. if obama doesn't like it, too bad, he can drop out in protest.

    for the FL & MI delegates not to be seated, but the SC ones allowed, will show just how desperate the DNC leadership is to get sen. obama the nomination. could they possibly be any more transparent?