FL And MI Front And Center

By Big Tent Democrat

On a conference call today, a reporter for the St. Pete Times asked Howard Wolfson, why not just split the Florida delegates 50/50? Wolfson is a professional and did not ask how stupid that reporter is. The last thing the Clinton campaign wants is to have this story go away and Wolfson leveraged that silly question to hit his talking points for the Clinton campaign, it is a close race, 1.7MM Florida voters, Obama can not win the big states - you know the drill by now.

I predicted that Michigan and Florida would come to the forefront. The day of the Texas and Ohio contests, I wrote:

[A] revote [in Florida and Michigan] could happen if Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio tonight. Why? Because it would likely be to the advantage of the Democrats, the DNC, Clinton AND Obama if Clinton sweeps Texas and Ohio tonight.

I was right that Florida and Michigan have become the big story now. The lead political story in the New York Times today? Michigan and Florida:

With the two Democratic presidential candidates in near-deadlock and battling for every delegate, party leaders and the rival campaigns started searching in earnest on Thursday for a way to seat barred delegations from Florida and Michigan. But they remained deeply divided over how to do so.

After weeks in which the issue hovered in the background, it shot to the forefront of the Democratic race as it became apparent that the delegates at stake could be vital in influencing whether Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the nomination.

. . . The fate of those disputed delegates has emerged as a battle between the candidates that could be as important as their next big primary contest, in Pennsylvania next month.

. . . “I’ll leave it up to the Democratic National Committee to make a decision about how to resolve it,” Mr. Obama told ABC News on Thursday night. “But I certainly want to make sure that we’ve got Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention in some fashion.”

. . . Aides to Mrs. Clinton, brimming with confidence after primary victories in Ohio and Texas this week, signaled that they were open to a revote under certain conditions. Aides to Mr. Obama were warier, sensing that the recent change in the electoral and psychological dynamic could work against him in any new election in those two states, Democrats said.

Clinton is on offense on this issue and Obama is on defense. He is against voters if he does not support seating Michigan and Florida. But he fears a redo in a Florida primary as it will likely be a bad result and a very bad news cycle for him - one that reiterates the problems he has in big states. Obama is between a rock and a hard place here.

< Should Cocaine Be Available at Your Corner Drug Store? | Ras MI and FL Revote Polls >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I heard Debbie Wasserman Schultz (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:22:48 AM EST
    addressing this issue - in particular, Florida.  She said that the Florida and Michigan delegations met and discussed it, and while she would not go into detail on the options they were kicking around, she was pretty adamant that, in her opinion, there would be no do-over in Florida, and that one was not needed.

    Her reasons were those that have been mentioned here: that all the candidates were on the ballot, that 1.7 million Democrats came out to vote - the largest turn out in Florida history -  and made their wishes known.  She estimated that it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $20MM to hold another vote, and that the Florida legislature just this week cut more out of the budget, so she knew there would not be money available from Florida to pay for it.

    She wasn't particularly flattering in her comments about how the DNC is handling this, and seemed especially aggrieved that her state was being punished as a result of a decision by the Republican-controlled Florida legislature, which set the date for the primary in the first place.  Her tone when discussing the need for leadership in the DNC was pretty scathing, especially when saying that Howard Dean does not make the rules in the DNC, the Rules Committee does, and he has no business going on major media outlets talking about the rules.

    She also mentioned the 50-50 split that has been suggested, mainly because it ignores the vote that already occurred that would end up awarding delegates to someone who had not received the votes that normally determine delegate allocation.

    She did seem to think there could be some sort of formulaic allocation that would weight the existing vote in determining the allocation of delegates, but she seemed to be suggesting that as a solution for Michigan, not Florida.

    She reminded the listeners - as if we needed it - that to throw out the results of the Florida primary would adding insult to injury after the debacle in 2000, and that Floridians were still sufficiently sensitive on this subject that she really did not want to contemplate the implications for the general election if those original primary votes were either rejected out of hand, or if Democrats went to the convention without having seated the Florida delegates.

    I tend to agree with her about Florida, and think it is Michigan where some creative - and fair - solution needs to be found.  

    The measure. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    In the Florida legislature passed 118-0.

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:32:56 AM EST
    it was tacked onto a fair voting bill that no one could dream of opposing.  It was not a standalone measure.

    Perhaps. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM EST
    At least one of them could have voted against it to make a statement?  

    Or made a large-scale media stink?  

    Or appealed to the candidates to fight for them to be seated before the primaries happened.

    It seems that doing nothing and demanding that your delegations be seated as is is a bit disingenuous in my mind.


    there was a large scale media stink (none / 0) (#51)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    go back and read the FL papers -- especially the letters to the editors. Might want to call Dean and see what his office got on the subject as well.  Florida Democrats were quite upset when the national party told them their votes wouldn't count and their delegates wouldn't be seated.  But the GOP brought forward the bill, tacked it on to other legislation and it was passed unanimously.  

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM EST
    you could read and research before posting?

    I did. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:36:25 AM EST
    But I stand by my statement.

    Why didn't have a single person vote against it as a sign of protest?

    Why didn't they appeal to the campaigns to appeal to the DNC?  And, if they did, why is it only now that she needs the delegates, Clinton taking up the fight?


    The Florida DNC did appeal (none / 0) (#74)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:33:01 PM EST
    and was shot down.. Setting the Primary Date

    I wish (none / 0) (#50)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    people would read the available information about the situation in Florida before posting on the subject.

    No democrat in their right mind would have voted against that bill and the republicans knew it. That is exactly why they taked the primary date measure onto that bill.

    AS a FLorida voter who voted by absentee, I want my vote to count; whether the way I already voted or in the event of a re-vote.


    It was also tacked onto a property tax relief bill (none / 0) (#60)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    Unfortunately for her (none / 0) (#44)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    It's not the DNC's fault.  They offered the Florida party several options to resolve the problem, and even offered to pay for a caucus but the Florida party refused.  Floridian arrogance and incompetence has caused a lot of trouble for Democrats over the past 8 years.

    That's rediculous (none / 0) (#61)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:03:36 AM EST
    The DNC has messed up on this from beginning to end. From the high handed, arbitrary extreme application of consequences to offering "poisoned pill" options of a caucus in a state that has never had a caucus, with limited sights offered for the whole state (yeah right that would work), to taking their chances at the convention with an appeal, to a redo vote (but duh DNC which was instrumental in causing the problem will not pay for, nor seemingly be proactive in helping to find the funding). I'm sick of the "rules are rules" bs. It's not worth risking a national election by defending the DNC's screw up by hiding behind "rules are rules"-- especially when it is the arbitrary application of rules that caused the problem. There was no requirement to disqualify all of Florida's delegates-- that was arbitrary, and is the problem.

    Like offering someone a nickle for a dollar (none / 0) (#64)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    they [the FL State DNC] argued that holding a caucus with just 150 voting sites compared to 6,700 locations for the state-run primary would hurt efforts to build the party in this key state and could affect the outcome of property-tax referendum

    150 Democratic caucus sites in Florida, while the Republicans use 6,700 polling places, now why would anyone refuse that!


    Bull (4.00 / 1) (#2)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    Re: "He is against voters if he does not support seating Michigan and Florida."  The DNC and the state parties messed up FL and MI.  It's not Obama's fault and he's not against the voters simply because he doesn't want to get the shaft by a rules change late in the primary season to coddle a bunch of whiny insiders who created the mess in the first place.  The reason why every darn state was trying to get up front was because they wanted to pick the winner and pick the moment.  Now we have the totally absurd result of REWARDING 2 states who broke the rules by giving them the ability to actually decide the whole contest.  Way fair to the rest of the voters in the other 48 states, no?  

    This does not look good for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    In general, he has won states by caucus and they tend to be not very representative of the state populations.  Caucuses suppress the votes of people who can't take off work, caretakers, mothers of young children, working mothers.  Many of Clinton's preferred demographic is unfairly impacted by caucuses.  Now he is standing in the way, albeit passively, of counting the votes of Floridians who threu no fault of their own were disenfranchised.  This is not a pattern that I would care to make obvious if I were the Obama campaign.  He is never going to win Florida.  If he makes them revote at expense to the state, he may lose even more severely than he did the first time.  If he insists on a caucus, Floridians will NEVER trust him.  Obama needs to write off Florida.  It is no win for him- except in one case.  If he magnanimous about waiving the rules for Florida, the voters will support him in the fall should he be the nominee.  And his chances of becoming the nominee are greater if he settles this now, looks like an honorable and gracious man and focuses his attention on the races that are left.  People in PA might think, "Hey, he's not a bad guy after all"  The longer he waits to cut a deal with Clinton and the DNC, the worse it looks for him.  

    I am talking perception (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    Well, reality too. But this is about the perception game.

    Sorry, but if you are denying Obama is in a tough spot on Florida, then you just are living in a different reality.


    Equally. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    Clinton is in a tough spot with Michigan.

    They had originally planned a caucas, and used them the last 2 primary cycles.

    Not only did they abandon their former ways, but also moved them up.

    She's not going to win a 15 point margin in Michigan, if at all.  Particularly if there's a caucas, which is the way the wind seems to be blowing.


    If its a Democrat only firehouse and Edwards (none / 0) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    supporters break for Hillary, it may still be a double-digit win for Hillary -

    Detroit (none / 0) (#35)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    Its a tie right now, and I think Detroit could seriously give him a push (highest AA population % at 83%+ and probably around 30-40% of the states Dem voters in the City proper).

    By the time Michigan rolls around... (none / 0) (#70)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    ...the voters may be ready to call it for Clinton.  I don't think she has anything to lose by helping to fund a do-over primary by mail or a firehouse caucus.  It makes her look really good and confident and if it happens in June, it may be just icing on the cake.  
    She should go for it.

    Hill's against re-vote as well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    Hillary's against a re-vote in Florida, I think this could end up backfiring on her (though not enough to flip the state or anything), Someone should really ask Howard if he's opposed to halving the Florida delegation (what DNC bylaws stipulate, and the penalty that the GOP imposed).

    The *difference* is... (none / 0) (#71)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    ...that she would prefer to seat the delegation as it is right now. She wants to honor the will of the voters in Florida as the vote stands.  There is both self-interest and national interest involved in her decision but in her case, she is taking the side of the voters.  
    To be honest, nothing will change in a revote in Florida except that Obama will earn the unending ire of the Floridians who may have to pay for it.  If there's going to be a revote, let the person who wants it foot the bill.  

    sorry, they're both in "tough spots" (none / 0) (#34)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion because one of them would be winning by a large enough margin that MI and FL wouldn't matter.  That was how it was working and suppose to continue to work mere months ago when one of our candidates was being proclaimed as inevitable by the MSM that now allegedly hates her and the other 8 candidates were just a distraction.  

    That's the reality.    


    Oh, No, my friend, Hillary is winning this one (none / 0) (#72)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    She is going to get the Florida delegation and she will sprint ahead of Obama a bit.  She looks really good on this one.  She supports the disenfranchised voters and she can afford to compromise on Michigan.  It is Obama who is in a tough spot.  He needs to cross Floridians off his primary list and hope they support him in the fall.  

    and the perception (none / 0) (#41)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    is that the Democratic Party is incompetent beyond belief.  Unfit to lead a  nation.  And that perception, regardless of what gets done to "fix" the mess will not really change all that much.  Everyone knew there was a problem but elected to wait until a fix was "needed" to start seriously discussing and considering what the fix should actually be and now any fix is perceived to be unfair (rightly or wrongly) by the other camp.  

    Except.. (none / 0) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    If he was behind in delegates, he wouldn't care about "the rules" and would be screaming to seat disenfranchised voters.

    You mean. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    As...Clinton is doing right now?

    Just pointing out (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    his hypocrisy - he's "above" all that, remember?  That's what he says, at least

    Probably, even the Magical Unity Pony bucks (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:29:32 AM EST
    Well, at least you're not pretending this all about Hillary pushing for voter enfranchisement or what have you

    No, (none / 0) (#55)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM EST
    I'm saying as a Michigan voter who went to vote and has since moved out of state, I would like my vote to count.

    Fire up Chips! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    YAY Chips! (none / 0) (#57)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    Sorry for the OT

    Supposition. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    You cannot say what he'd do.  He's not in that position, and to attack him on a position that you think he'd have is a bit absurd.

    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    you're pointing out your belief / opinion that he'd be a hypocrite.  Until the shoe is on that foot of his, you don't know what he'd do.    

    Welll (none / 0) (#52)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    except that he told the FLorida press last year exactly what he would do. He told them that if he was the presumptive nominee, assuming he won the state of course was the unspoken part of that sentence, that he would seat the delegation.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    Both are politicians. Obama would definitely be doing exactly what Clinton is doing if he had won those states.

    I'll betcha Floridians don't see it that way (none / 0) (#73)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:58:53 AM EST
    And neither does this voter in NJ who voted for Clinton.  Without Florida, we millions who voted for her in the Big D states lack the critical mass to push her forward.  We are in solidarity with the voters of Florida.  If I were Obama and Howard Dean, I wouldn't keep dicking around with this.  They're pissing us off.  

    Yes you did predict it. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    What do you make of this supposed New Republic scoop that a DNC "insider" says that Michigan will caucus?

    I'm sure we don't like it (none / 0) (#4)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    because Hillary doesn't like to coacus.

    It will be a firehouse caucus (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM EST
    I bet Hillary does like it.

    Firehouse caucus definition? (none / 0) (#31)
    by HadIt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    I tried a simple google or wikipedia search for "firehouse primary" or "firehouse caucus" to get a definition of what that means (other than that I'm dumb).  The closest I got was this snippet from here... does it explain things correctly?

    A party canvass or "firehouse primary" allows participants to arrive anytime during announced polling hours, cast a secret ballot, and then leave.

    If so, it basically sounds like an regular election (can vote all day, no funny dancing around) but with, I'm guessing, no machines of any sort?  Is it cheaper and, thus, preferable?


    We? What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    I was asking BTD, but you are free to weigh in as yourself if you'd like.

    Would it be a closed to only Democrats? (none / 0) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    I don't know. Maybe someone else can answer? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    Does it matter (none / 0) (#30)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    We're making rules up as we go.  Suppose the answer depends on who it benefits most.

    A Michigan voter (none / 0) (#75)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    in a later thread said that there's no party registration in Michigan. Assuming she's right, there's no way they can do a closed primary, which is bad for Hillary.

    it seems like the biggest issue is $$ (none / 0) (#3)
    by HadIt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    I mean, I get the political variables, but if a re-vote was a cheap affair, I'd think it'd just be a done deal.  Or am I missing something?

    By the way, if these election cost states 10s of millions of dollars, who exactly pays for them in the first place?  Out of curiosity.

    Not an issue (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    that will stop it. The money will be found for it.

    If Clinton herself has to pay for it.


    My suggestion (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    in the spirit of this campaign, is that Rezko's Iraqi buddy should pay for half and Bill Clinton's friend from the Kazakhstan uranium thing should pay for the other half.  So far, no takers!

    LOL, balanced and funny! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    If Hillary pays for it (none / 0) (#18)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    I'd be willing to bet she recoups that in donations from MI and FL alone. What is it, something like 18 Million?

    Not to mention all the goodwill she'd get from the voters.


    heh. OK. whatever gets it over with. n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by HadIt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    The state. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    Which is why caucases are so popular, particularly in smaller states with smaller economies.  

    Which is why they don't count.


    Ras has Obama tied in MI... (none / 0) (#10)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    ...so I'm pretty sure he'd love a caucus or "firehouse primary" (on a Saturday, hopefully) there.
    Assuming it could be done in 5-7 weeks from now, Michigan could go the Saturday before Indiana and North Carolina (or, in the alternative, late May), and Florida could go on June 7th or 10th.

    Florida will take longer to set up and finance, so this makes some sense to me.

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:11:49 AM EST
    But let's have it. This is what we need.

    Rasmussen's poll (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    was based on the assumption that HALF the Democratic primary electorate would be composed of non-Democrats.  There is virtually no chance that Michigan will hold an open primary or caucus for only one party, since the opportunities for crossover mischief would be insane.

    My strongly held belief, based on 27 years as a Michigander, is that as long as the rules are relatively normal Michigan will look almost exactly like Ohio.  For some reason, I'm seeing a ton of uninformed opinion in the blogosphere saying "Michigan is more like Wisconsin than Ohio" which is really, really clueless.


    and Obama's deceptive NAFTA flyer will bite (none / 0) (#32)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    bite him again

    Doubt it (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM EST
    No, it wont that stories dead.

    In Michigan, you bet -- and (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:44:35 AM EST
    it's just across a river from Canada, of course. The story got lots of coverage in Michigan, where the outsourced economy has hit even worse than in Ohio.

    Little known fact (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    from Detroit you actually drive SOUTH to get to Canada.

    I love telling people that I grew up north of Canada.


    As a Wisconsinite, I agree (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    that Michigan is more like Ohio.  In Obama's favor, Michigan has an AA population more like the Ohio and national norm.  But more important than demographics would be structural differences.

    If Michigan has a closed primary, unlike Wisconsin, that's one thing; if it has an open primary or, heaven forbid, caucuses -- that could change results considerably.

    Most important would be what a difference even a few weeks make.  Clinton's campaign has got it now, as was evident in Ohio, whereas Wisconsin came immediately after her switch in campaign managers, as was all too evident.  That, with the weather, meant that she only campaigned in Wisconsin for a couple of days -- and never held a major event in Milwaukee.  

    If she campaigned today in Wisconsin as she did in Ohio, and if Wisconsin was a closed primary, she would win it.  So there is far more to this in Michigan than proximity (and there is a rather large lake between them; the UP has relatively few voters) and demographics.


    Unsure of this (none / 0) (#47)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    This is a bit sketchy, 17 points is 17 points, I mean I seriously doubt she could flip it.

    I'm sure, because I'm here (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    and I know how to read the results, county by county. And I have written comments about that here. You could look it up. Or you could look up online local media coverage of the immense crossover. Or, of course, you could remain unsure.

    Jake Tapper reported on ABC Evening News (none / 0) (#11)
    by texas hostage on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:11:28 AM EST
    that the Clinton camp would not agree to a FL revote and that the FL delegates had to be seated. As for MI he didnt report on what Clinton's position was.

    I saw that Tapper piece (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    but ABC was the only network (of the Big 3) to make that assertion.
    The other networks basically said Hillary and Obama were leaving it up to the states.
    Later I heard Hillary say that.

    It's just a political stance ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    by the Clinton campaign to force the most advantageous circumstances for a do-over.

    I wouldn't take it too seriously.

    Statements like this are mainly bluster.  If a do-over actually happens, she'll agree to it.


    If the delegate count is so close that (none / 0) (#14)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    Obama cannot win without excluding the FL and MI delegations, then that by itself is an argument to seat them.
    We are all agreed that the SD's will choose the nominee. This hold regardless of whether FL and MI delegations are seated. I think they should be seated, since it's good for November, then let the SD's decide.

    Good point (none / 0) (#23)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    The SD's will likely take into consideration the voters and their ire when deciding the nominee (which they will be doing if MI and FL aren't taken care of).

    I'm sure, even if they prepared a full explanation using charts and exit polls and likely voters, yadda yadda yadda, there will be some howling in the rank and file that day.


    I still am not following your reasoning. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Klio on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    I went back and re-read that post.  How is it to the advantage of Obama that HRC won Ohio and Texas?

    I think you're absolutely right that Obama is on the horns of a dilemma -- refusing a revote will be highly damaging to him, but so will losing the revote [imho, the likeliest outcome].

    I predicted the sun would rise today. (none / 0) (#17)
    by corn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    And I was right.

    I think everyone knew this would become the the big story if Obama didn't put her away.  His task has been for some time to extend his margin to an extent that Florida and Michigan don't matter.

    The question now is how it will be resolved.  My prediction is that a deal will be struck between the campaigns that encompasses both states.  Neither will have a new vote.  Obama doesn't stand to gain much in either contest from a delegate perspective so it makes no sense.  

    Re: "how [will] it [] be resolved." (none / 0) (#29)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:23:39 AM EST
    by the superdelegates, as the national democratic party decided it should be some 25 - 30 years ago.  Why do so many here want to change the rules in the middle of the game.  it was about delegattes, but now we're all concerned about the popular vote.  It was about, can't do this before this date, now it's well, you mess up and caused all these propblems, why don't we just let you do over again -- especially towards the end when the stakes are highest.  

    why can't people here have a different (none / 0) (#66)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    idea about the rules?  The rules suck, we didn't make them, none of us are part of the DNC rules committee, and so "the rules are the rules" and asking why people are questioning them is really a waste of time.  States have caucuses by their rules, too, but caucuses are disenfranchising.  We don't have to like & accept them just because those are the rules.

    I never understand this argument, ESPECIALLY when we are talking about disenfranchising 2 million voters across 2 states.


    And yet (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    no one else actually predicted it. Funny that.

    Here's a gold star. (none / 0) (#67)
    by corn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:15 AM EST
    My point was that the shift to this story was pretty self evident, so not something many would feel the need to predict.  The brewing FL/MI storm has been well covered.  

    More interesting though, and no spite intended, what's your prediction on the resolution?


    Funny how (none / 0) (#68)
    by arnoud on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    both Clinton and Obama don´t want a revote. My prediction is both states are not going to have a revote. DNC is objecting and the cost is just too high. And rule number one: never change the rules during the game.

    Can we just stipulate (none / 0) (#76)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    that both campaigns are taking the approach that most beneifits them? Why wouldn't they? All of the talk about "hypocrisy" is just hot air. The only things that matter to them are getting the most delgates out of the situation and looking as good as possible to the voters while doing it.

    I would hope we've all learned from 2000 that you ignore the nuts and bolts at your own peril, and we've seen where Liberman's attitude of "let's take the high road and concede" got us.


    and may I just add that... (none / 0) (#78)
    by tandem5 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM EST
    regardless of what the "high road" has been framed to be, there is no higher position to take than being an advocate for the American voter.

    It seems that that Supreme Court view which was to define no precedents lives on, that irreparable harm cannot be suffered by the people who participate in elections, but by the candidates only.

    Apparently voters are not seen as superior participants in elections, but rather totaled figures to be divided between those who would represent them.


    Rules (none / 0) (#77)
    by sharon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    What happened to the 2 or 3 other states who went ahead and had their caucus or primary early, ahead of the "not before" dates the DNC gave them. Even if they only went a week or so early they still broke the rules that seem to be so important to Dean but nothing happened to them. Why?