Newsweek: Deal for Mail-In Florida Primary Revote is "Close"

Newsweek reports:

A plan to raise soft money to pay for a second Florida Democratic primary--this one by mail--seems close to approval, according to Sen. Bill Nelson.

I hope it fails and the Florida delegates from the Jan. 29 vote are seated. Big Tent Democrat favors a revote.

We've all weighed in on this numerous times, but once more won't hurt.

< Obama vs. Obama On NAFTA? | CNN Examines Cindy McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Let LarryInNYC allocate the delegates! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    It's the only fair way.

    Just sayin'

    just so (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:52:15 PM EST
    gravel wins!

    Nothing fair about it. (none / 0) (#120)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    Really, voters voted overwhelmingly.  Why do it again?

    Of course, Florida republicans will do anything for a re-vote.  Then, they can engineer confusion, chaos, or they would be far less participation than January vote (quite likely) and they get to laugh at democrats one more time.

    Florida, the gift that keeps giving (to republicans)! Gee, they must love that state now.  How many times republicans get to mess up Florida for democrats?


    With respect. . . (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    read the title of my comment too.

    Sorry!! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:57:15 PM EST
    No worries. . . (none / 0) (#133)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:19:51 PM EST
    I'm sure you agree it's the only way out, right?

    So how does this work? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    and will the troops who got to vote before be able to vote again?

    i'm with big tent (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:41:15 PM EST
    vote by mail, and hillary will still win big, with all the attendant publicity. i just hope michigan doesn't caucus.

    Primary (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Athena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    I liked Carville's idea of Clinton and Obama chipping in to hold a primary.  And I mean a primary.

    This is slightly off-topic (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:49:48 PM EST
    Well, okay, it IS off-topic, but I feel the need to say it anyway.  (P.S. I agree with Jeralyn that the Florida vote was legit and no re-vote is necessary, but I'm okay with a mail-in primary to end the sturm und drang).

    So I was just watching KO -- yeah, I know, I'm a masochist -- and he was covering the Samantha Powers "monster" comment. Of course, political neophyte Powers just made an inappropriate, but off-hand remark. It was clearly accidental because she tried to make it off the record. She apologized immediately, and resigned immediately. In stark contrast, Hillary refused to apologize for someone comparing Obama's attempt to dredge up the 90s to Ken Starr's investigation.

    This is followed by a colloquy with Dana Milbank in which the discussion was how all this was going to work to Obama's benefit because (1) Obama acted quickly and forthrightly; and (2) POWERS WAS ONLY GIVING VOICE TO WHAT MANY OBAMA SUPPORTERS BELIEVE ANYWAY.

    Wait, it gets worse. KO said "Isn't truth a defense?"

    Who needs Samantha Powers when you've got Keith Olbermann?

    I'm writing to give MSNBC a piece of my mind. See ya later.  

    msnbc, (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    like certain supposedly liberal bloggers, has completely lost it.

    Yeah KO's been drinking Obamajuice (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:00 PM EST
    he even spits like Tweety now, just flipped it on but never watch anymore and thought ok he's been talking to Jonathan Alter and ilk Roves co worker.

    I am happy (none / 0) (#122)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    that you finally came to this conclusion.  Thanks.

    He's damaging himself now (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by catfish on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    So I'm not going to get worked up about it. The Fox people are so mellow talking about Hillary.

    Kos et al must watch now ratings (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM EST
    Orange Alert (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Athena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM EST
    Daily Frat seems flattened now when I drive-by.  Lots of hysterical titles with 2 comments each.

    Kind of a mass tantrum.  Or a yell-in.


    BREAKING (5.00 / 8) (#54)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:38:24 PM EST
    BREAKING: Hillary Clinton: Ball-Breaking Anti-Christ, or Ball-Breaking Satan?

    BREAKING: Why Obama Will Redeem Our Souls

    BREAKING: Why Anyone Who Supports Clinton Is Stoopid and Evil

    BREAKING: There Are Still Five Clinton Supporters On This Site, Go Swarm Them Now



    It used to be . . . (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    that diaries titled "Hillary Clinton Will Eat Your Children" were jokes.

    Er, I think *I* wrote that one (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:41:27 PM EST
    It was all in good fun and a way to give Edwards' people a break from bashing her.  God, was it that long ago?

    honestly. (none / 0) (#124)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:20:18 PM EST
    The Daily Show had a spoof that pops into my head every time I look at the wreck list on dkos.

    The spoof was about Putin's alleged crackdown (in Russian style) of Journalists.  John Oliver was reporting, and Jon asked him about reports that Putin had had Journalists assassinated.  John Oliver says, "Oh, in fact, I have today's papers" and starts reading headlines:

    -Vladimir Putin World's Stronglest Ten-Man
    -Vladimir Putin More Handsome Than Richard Gear
    -Vladimir Putin Actually World's Strongest eleven-Man

    But no, nothing about killing off Journalists.

    Everytime I looked at the dkos wreck list, and saw glowing headlines for Edwards or Obama, that skits popped into my head.  Every Time.


    More like (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    BREAKING: My heart

    I know (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:56:09 PM EST
    About 18 months ago my husband and I went out to dinner with friends. Lo and behold, who was seated right next to our table but Keith Olbermann and his lady friend.  I leaned over and said, "I'm sorry to intrude, but I just have to tell you how much I enjoy your show and your special comments.  You've earned the right to use Edward R. Murrow's sign-off."  Well, okay, it was a little over the top, but he seemed genuinely touched and smiled and said thank you.  I reported on this encounter at DKos and was beseiged by envious responses.

    Now, it's just another a cringeworthy memory.


    Forgiveness (none / 0) (#121)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:11:46 PM EST
    I think that after all this is over, there's going to have to be some healing, and some forgiveness. KO and MSNBC and CNN need to be reminded of everything they've done, but I have a feeling that the Obama Juice has a horrific hangover. KO will probably be banging his head against a wall at some point months from now going "What the ** was I THINKING?" I can't imagine a person who wrote those previous special comments being any less of a human being. I just think that he's a little, erm, inebriated right now on the hope machine.

    Keep up the pressure, but let's remember who they used to be, too.


    He had producers (none / 0) (#125)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM EST
    and they write the lines.  At least, that's what I think.

    It's not just the people on tv (none / 0) (#127)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:33:50 PM EST
    It's like a disease, isn't it? We have friends and colleagues whom we used to trust, basing their decisions on aspects of a candidate that shouldn't be the most important features of a person who will be effectively running the country.

    We ask them about facts and policies, and they return to us comments about corruption, un-electability, and just plain vitriol. The reactions were very emotional, and surprised us.

    I'm not saying there are people who haven't experienced the same from Hillary supporters. I'm just saying at some point we're going to have to decide if we want to welcome these people back into our lives (assuming they left).

    I'm going to welcome them back, with no condescension. I respect them still, just as I hope they respect me still.

    It is a different story for the media players, to be sure. One has to wonder what happened. People who weren't that way before Obama are the ones we should think about forgiving. Russert and Matthews-- no way.

    My 2 cents. I don't expect many to agree -- I'm not a woman, so it is probably difficult for me to understand how hard it is to watch that kind of behavior -- but I know that I want my circle of friends back when the election is over.


    I don't think so. KO (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:25:51 AM EST
    has personal problems with women -- one has been all over the 'Nets, the NY press, etc. -- and so I think we are seeing something embedded in his worldview.

    I'm a Murrow fan (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:28:34 AM EST
    -- raised on my dad's complete record collection of "Hear It Now," raised watching "See It Now," have read the Murrow bios -- and I thought that was presumptuous of KO.

    And I can say with a fair amount of confidence that Murrow would be appalled by what we witness on tv today -- starting with KO.  He can't see and hear himself now, and what he has become.


    yeah, i dropped by the other night for (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:44:15 PM EST
    a drive by. i found the whole thing just sad and really pathetic. you are right, i thought frat party and everyone trying to compete to be the most vulgar. i don't see that blog and some others making a come back to anywhere near what it was. other blogs and outlets will appear to fill the void that has been left.

    more OT (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:06:58 PM EST
    Canada: Hillary did not contact us



    Interesting and I predict... (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    ...it will be widely ignored. For some reason, all my co-workers assume I am an Obama supporter. Today two of them came to me and complained about how Hillary Clinton had contacted the Canadians about NAFTA and then put the blame on the Obama campaign! I was just shocked and said I don't think that's how it happened, but it was obvious to me that I couldn't convince them otherwise.

    ...thanks to those jerks at MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:07:30 PM EST
    Interesting and I predict... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:33:14 PM EST
    ...it will be widely ignored. For some reason, all my co-workers assume I am an Obama supporter. Today two of them came to me and complained about how Hillary Clinton had contacted the Canadians about NAFTA and then put the blame on the Obama campaign! I was just shocked and said I don't think that's how it happened, but it was obvious to me that I couldn't convince them otherwise.

    Breaking (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:56:51 PM EST
    KO still reporting that Hillary contacted Canada.

    Chris Matthews and Eugene Robinson (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:01:18 PM EST
    are as well.

    It is a more convenient untruth n/t (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:02:40 PM EST
    It should be noted that ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:44 PM EST
    although KO is the highest rated show on MSNBC, it struggles to reach 850,000 viewers even during this hyped primary season.  And only about 300,000 are in the key 25-34 demographic.

    In other words, no one watches it.

    There are blogs that are read by more people than watch that show.


    After 2000 how the DNC allows Fla Dems and their (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    votes to again be uncounted because of the Republican Legislature is beyond my understanding a revote is an insult.  A new Mich Primary I understand, dont agree with but understand.

    I am in total agreement with you on this. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:55:11 PM EST
    The MSM is not reporting the (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:59 PM EST
    part played in this by the repubs. They are saying "the Dems knew what would happen,they should pay the price" Once again slanted reporting to help Barack.

    Seating Jan 29 results hurts Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by catfish on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:58:16 PM EST
    because even though she won, or BECAUSE she won, it will look suspicious on her part.

    It will also hurt the Dem party.

    A re-vote is worth it.

    I happen to think... (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    ... that losing soundly in Florida again, even if it's a bit closer, is worse for Obama than seating the January delegates. Hillary's not going to have the most delegates, so it's best for her to have the best argument. And I do think Obama would lose a revote there, again, and badly. It's one of the worst states for him demographically.

    recount (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by honora on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:27:36 PM EST
    I agree that the first election should be counted, but the Obama people will never accept it as legitimate. If we have a mail-in revote, even more people will vote, it is easy and they are mad, Clinton will win by an even bigger margin, Obama has to lose twice, the popular vote tally goes up for Clinton, and all is good with the world.  

    Mail In (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    A mail in is a perfect solution to the Florida problem. The Jan 29th vote is totally ignored as if it didn't happen appeasing the DNC. For all intents and purposes the new vote is the only vote giving both candidates a chance to campaign in the state. I also expect it will be a closed primary just like the last one and the deadline for registering to vote for this primary will probably be the day before they even announce it preventing crossover BS.

    Read Deliver the Vote, a book (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:13:50 PM EST
    about the history of vote fraud in this country (and vote suppression, etc.).  It argues, with evidence, that mail-in voting may be most prone to fraud.

    I know it works in Oregon, so Oregonians say.  But this is, well, Florida.  With a Repub governor and legislature.  I am not at all so sanguine on this.


    Thanks for the book reference (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    this is an area of interest to me.

    As you probably know, this is an issue in the voter id cases.  For all of the concern about fraud at the polling place -- for which there is virtually no evidence -- the bigger risk is with absentee ballots


    It's very readable, and tracks back (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:04:13 PM EST
    all the way to the founding of this fine democracy -- and those upstanding founding fathers of ours who bribed voters with booze -- and takes the story through 2000 and to the present.  By the end, you'll be blazing mad and ready with me to fly Jimmy Carter back from whatever continent he's on lately to oversee our own elections.:-)

    Glad to pass on a recommend.  Hmm, maybe we need to use Open Threads sometimes to do a bit of a book club!


    If you havent done so (none / 0) (#142)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    take a look at The Nine by Toobin

    Fascinating look behind the scenes of Bush v. Gore


    I'll have to read the book (none / 0) (#57)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    you talk about.

    I know what precautions we take in Oregon against fraud and they seem reasonable enough.  ;-)  And I don't see how you Florida folks could screw up mail-in voting any worse than any other system known to the voting history of MY lifetime.  But--maybe it will be explained in the book!


    To clarify, I'm in one of the best states (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    per studies of voting, Wisconsin.  By "this," I meant the topic of the thread, Florida.

    ah, you just answered my question upthread. (none / 0) (#135)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:41:44 PM EST
    if so, i'm not too thrilled about the idea even as a compromise.  what assurances are there of adequate safeguards?

    I think a revote (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:09:03 PM EST
    here in Florida is necessary. Clinton's win should be seen as legitimate, and if it's not, her winning the nomination will always be in question. The plus side is that 2 wins here will really rub Obama's nose in it. And Obama's loss will absolutely tarnish his electability argument.

    The only wild card is where Edwards' votes will go. I imagine they would split, since Clinton has the health care plan, and Obama plays on the appearance of being anti-corporate.

    I hate the idea of a revote (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    and if I can get my end-of-the-week-addled-brain to spit out something coherent...well, let's see how it goes.

    Let's start from the beginning.

    I'm not sure who pushed the idea of these pre- Feb 5 early primary dates, but we know the logic of it: they wanted their states' contests to mean something, and I'm sure there was an economic element as well - candidates coming to town and all the ad dollars means a boost for local economies.

    They wanted it early even knowing that at that stage of the game, it would be impossible to know as much about the candidates - but they never expected the race to still be undecided this late.

    After a lot of back-and-forth, and attempts by the Dems in Florida to work something out, the legislature tacked it on to another bill, and the thing passed unanimously.  The penalty was, the delgates wouldn't be seated, and the agreement with the candidates was they would not campaign.

    As I understand it, they could not take their names off the ballot in Florida unless they had withdrawn from the race, but they could in Michigan - and Obama and Edwards did so as a tip-of-the-hat to Iowa and NH, hoping that move would boost their performances there.  Clinton stayed on the ballot in Michigan.

    While no one campaigned in either state, I'm pretty sure the citizens of Florida and Michigan have TVs, radios, newspapers and computers, and were able to follow the race and make some decisions about which candidates they supported.

    They went to the polls in record numbers - the most votes cast in any Democratic primary in Florida's history.  That's a pretty big turnout of voters who thought their votes were not going to count because there would be no delegates allocated.  Something tells me - and it's just conjecture - that a lot of people may have thought that the higher the turnout, the greater the argument that the votes should count; conversely, low turnout would say, "well, it didn't matter anyway."

    There is no question in my mind that, given the opportunity to vote again, some people would vote differently based on events that have occurred since their January primary - why should they get the chance to change their minds when no one else who voted in early primaries - or caucuses - will get that chance?

    Seat the Florida delegates as is, based on the January results.

    Seat the Michigan delegates by giving Clinton the ones allocable according to her votes, and make some formulaic allocation to Obama based on the uncommitted count.  Whatever leftover delegates there are should be seated as uncommitted delegates, who can choose to be seated with the candidate of their choice.

    I hope that made sense.


    Unless folks want it settled at the convention, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:32:04 PM EST
    this seems like a practical and fair approach.  Give both candidates a chance to go to Florida and campaign, it will make Florida critically important, give the Dems a real chance to get their message out in this key state, and make it more likely to be in the Dem column in November

    And I think this format is more favorable to Hillary than a precinct-based election.  All she has to do is sent Ace Smith to Florida now to start organizing it, and she will finish as well if not better than she did initially.

    My guess is that Obama will more opposed to a mail ballot than Hillary.  

    Registered "Democrats" in NE Florida (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by cici on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    Hi everyone....hope you don't mind another refugee coming over from DK.

    I live in Jax, Fl....where Obama won the primary with 49% of the vote compared to Clinton's 36%.   I would not be shocked to see that change somewhat if a revote was allowed.  The reason has nothing to do with either candidate, but more to do with potential republican shenanigans.

    In Jax, Democrats make up 44% of the registered Democrats, and only 36% are registered republicans.  But I know a whole boatload of registered Dems who have not voted for a Democrat in 25 years.  Tha's why, despite all efforts, Republicans rule the day down here.  Now that McCain has secured the nomination, watch those registered "Democrats" (in name only) head to the polls to vote for whoever Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote for.

    But I think a mail in vote might be the best and most economical option.  I think Oregon does mail in voting....hopefully the can institute safeguards that have worked there.


    welcome! yes, i'm worried about the (none / 0) (#134)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:41 PM EST
    safeguards thing, too.  does anyone know what the main potential problems are with the mail-in system?

    Hmm... (3.66 / 3) (#26)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    Let the faux primary that voters were told didn't count be counted even though all the candidates agreed to the rules beforehand because... ?

    Why, because Clinton would get more delegates!

    Well, Jeralyn, at least you're consistent.

    you certainly are, too (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:42:42 PM EST
    in your disdain for democracy and the franchise.

    Bob (none / 0) (#107)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    There was a record turnout because people knew their vote counted.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM EST
    you think it's a better idea for Obama to get beaten twice in Florida?

    Because this very likely will happen.  And if it's by approximately the same margin both times, it will look EXTREMELY badly for him.


    Seating Florida's delegates as is (3.50 / 2) (#47)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:30:13 PM EST
    Would be an ex post facto rule change and demonstrate the disrespect for basic principles of Western democracy that are a hallmark of the Bush administration.   It's rather of shocking to see people supporting this kind of thing for no apparent reason other than their preferred candidate will benefit.

    Except that the DNC rule is (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:38:15 PM EST
    to seat half of the delegates in states that went too soon.  What was ex post facto was the DNC changing that to deny all of the delegates.  So you want the DNC to respect its rules, so FL and MI should get to seat half their already-elected delegates, correct?

    Agreed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:33:54 PM EST
    Seating delegates as in will only happen if one of the two drop out of the race and the Florida delegates have no effect on the outcome. Seating "as is" isn't even a possibility at this point with both candidates being so close.

    Not true (none / 0) (#52)
    by honora on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    The rules allow Florida and Michigan to come back to the DNC with a plan that would meet with their approval.  Having a new election, within the time frame allowed by the DNC rules, would completely validate the results and allow Florida's delegates to be seated.

    FYI (none / 0) (#3)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    My aunt in Pensacola supports Obama but voted for Hillary just so she can say she voted for a woman, knowing her vote wouldn't count. I asked her if she voted today and it counted who sh'd vote for, and she said Obama.
    Seating the delegates from the January 29th vote is just as bad, if not worse, than not seating them at all.

    I've heard (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lil on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:55:36 PM EST
    so many stories of people voting for someone other than teir preference. I don't get that one bit.

    I have not met one yet here in Fl (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:58:01 PM EST
    who has told that they thought their vote did not count.  Mind you there may have been a couple but I've never met them

    me neither (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    I live here to, and Sen Bill Nelson was fighting all along to get the delegates seated somehow.  Anyone who pays enough attention to vote in a primary knew that.

    My first choice would be to seat the delegates based on the Jan 29 vote, but I know that won't happen if Obama thinks it will make him lose.  So my next choice is a primary revote of some sort,not a caucus.  Mail is fine I guess, since that is cheaper. I'd rather have polling places though - less chance for votes to get "lost".


    It didn't matter. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    So...why would it matter?

    I wonder how many Edwards supporters voted for HRC or BHO because they didn't feel their candidate was viable?  In Florida, maybe they voted Edwards as a statement of support for Populist politics, even if they wouldn't have voted for him in a contest that would assuredly count toward delegate seating.  Maybe those 1.7 would have been 2.5 if it had mattered, and the popular vote totals would be quite different now.

    Things are different when you think they don't count.


    Edwards non-voter (none / 0) (#38)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:15:10 PM EST
    I am one of those. I knew Edwards wasn't viable. I also knew the vote didn't count but that the outcome would be news. I walked into the polling place knowing I liked all three but would vote for either Obama or Clinton.

    I wont say who got my meaningless vote (although think I have mentioned it in the past), but I can tell you I am still on that same fence 5 1/2 weeks later not knowing who to choose if I was voting tomorrow.


    Uhh... Maybe because (none / 0) (#27)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:04:39 PM EST
    they were told their vote wouldn't count?

    I mean, if I lived in Florida, I would have voted for either of the two honorable candidates, Kucinich or Gravel, if I knew my voted didn't mean anything.


    Nobody in my family. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:08:45 PM EST
    Voted in Florida.  Granted, it's only about a dozen or so, but I don't think they're the only dozen people in the entire state who didn't vote because of the DNC situation.

    They didn't even (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    care enough to vote on the Republican property tax "reform" that will now destroy our state?

    Why not?


    I will ask via email. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:13:53 PM EST
    But I didn't get down to the referendums with them.    So I honestly couldn't tell you.

    They vote democratic because of social issues, so that may have something to do with it.


    Florida 2000 RNC talking point (none / 0) (#98)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:36:57 PM EST
    That sounds so much like the 2000 Florida race where supposedly thousands upon thousands Bush supporters, living in the Panhandle,  heard the race called for Gore on radio, 15 minutes before the polls closed in the Panhandle... so they just went home without voting for Bush.

    I didn't believe people threw their vote away in 2000 and I don't believe it now


    So based on your aunt (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    we should toss out the votes of 1.7 million people -- most of whom, we must presume, made more sense with their votes -- at the cost of $18 million to let your aunt vote again?  This is an argument?

    Yes, (none / 0) (#40)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:16:46 PM EST
    because we ALL know that my aunt is the ONLY person who voted for a candidate she didn't truly support. And even though the entire state was told their vote wouldn't count, every person who would have voted had it counted did, just for fun.

    we don't know what the 1.7 million were rhinking (none / 0) (#76)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:15:50 PM EST
    we only know what they were told. Which was: this wasn't going to count.

    This isn't fair. We need a revote.


    Another (none / 0) (#4)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:40:35 PM EST
    plan that seems open to mischief.

    I don't trust Bill Nelson. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    But that don't mean he may not have a plausible solution.

    This is a good idea. (none / 0) (#17)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:58:23 PM EST
    I think, however, that they can get away with polling places too. Cut them down in number by 2/3 or 3/4 and I'll bet they can handle it.

    The hardest part will be counting the ballots. That's time-consuming and will need a lot of oversight.


    Counting ballots? (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:01:05 PM EST
    No problem.  Florida has plenty of experience with this.

    What could possibly go wrong?


    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:02:40 PM EST

    A revote in FL makes no sense. (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:03:19 PM EST
    the turnout in their primary was phenomenal.

    At this point I think it's the best option. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:05:45 PM EST
    I don't think it's possible to get the majority of Obama supporters to accept seating the current delegates. They just won't see any good argument as legitimate. The issues have been so muddied by the Obama camp and by the Obama blogs that any reasoned debate is impossible.

    I hate to say that, but that's my suspicion.



    How are they going to spin it (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:18:50 PM EST
    When Obama loses?

    Imagine this scenario: all this money is raised, all the trouble is gone through, the media is watching closely and the result is that the second vote confirms the first.  What is that going to look like for Obama?


    Spin (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    If the Obama campaign was smart they spin right now, starting tonight, saying how great it is for the state of Florida to have a revote so their votes will be counted. Because he believes that in a democracy every vote should count win or lose...then get his ass into the state so people get to know him.

    How will it look? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:12:21 PM EST
    In a word: Awful.

    But what option does he have?  What can he do--say that the people of Florida don't get their original votes counted AND don't get a revote?  That would be so screamingly undemocratic that it would be a PR nightmare.  He has no choice but to ride the tiger that this situation has grown into, campaign hard, and try to limit the damage from FL.

    Assuming the vote goes forward, which seems increasingly likely, and assuming that Clinton wins, which also seems quite likely, then she will have one heck of an argument to present to the SD's about sweeping the popular vote in the top four states.


    It makes a lot of sense for party building (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Knocienz on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:52:13 PM EST
    Getting both Hillary and Obama to spend a few million on advertising NOW rather than letting a few more months go by where the electorate has only heard from the Republicans

    My only worry is this.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:12:22 PM EST
    ...how susceptible is a mail-in vote to hanky panky? Will they mail all registered voters a ballot? What if you don't get one? Can they be dropped off somewhere in person?

    Oregon's vote by mail goes something (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by tree on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:31:17 AM EST
    like this: Two to three weeks before the election deadline, ballots are mailed to the permanent addresses of all registered voters. If the addresses are not current, the post office does not forward, but rather returns the ballot to the county election officials. If a voter hasn't received a ballot they can go to the county or precinct office to verify their status and  receive a ballot. The ballots are optical scan, fill in the bubble, and so there is always a paper trail. The ballot, when filled out, goes inside a secrecy envelope and that envelope goes inside the return addressed envelope and the voter signs an oath on the outside of the envelope. Then the voter can either mail the ballot in or drop it by the election office in person before the deadline. If the ballot envelope is not signed the election officials will contact the voter and the voter will have an opportunity to come down to sign the envelope. If the voter doesn't sign it before the deadline the vote is not counted. The election officials will start verifying signatures on the outer envelope several days ahead of the deadline. Each outer envelope has a unique bar code to help prevent fraud.  If the inner ballot is not readable by the machines, the election people will verify that the vote is determinable by eye and if it is, its scanned and the scanned copy is sent to the reader again. (This sometimes happens because of ink being used to mark the ballot instead of pencil.)

    I hope this clears up the process.I lived in Oregon several years ago and I thought  vote by mail was wonderful. Especially helpful when the ballot has a lot of races and propositions on it, as you can sit there at your dining room table and go over the voter information pamphlet and the ballot together and make your decision at leisure. Of course, none of that will apply for a primary revote. As far as I know there's been little to no talk about fraud occurring with the system. If VBM happens for the Florida revote, I'm betting that Floridians will love it and want to vote that way forever. I think studies have shown that VBM doesn't skew voter preferences one way or another, so all parties should be willing to adopt it without worrying that it might benefit the opposing party more.


    Hanky Panky (none / 0) (#42)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:25 PM EST
    Can we really worry about Florida votes being messed up anymore than they have been in the past?

    Just asking cause... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:45:16 PM EST
    I'm not familiar with any elections that have been conducted this way and I don't have a lot of confidence in the US mail.

    We have a liberal (none / 0) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:10:28 PM EST
    "absentee balloting" system in my state.

    If you're a registered voter, you receive a ballot.  You vote, place your ballot in a sealed envelope.  The sealed envelope is placed into another envelope with your name and signature on it.

    All are verified before counting.

    I don't think it will be any more "rife" for mischief than any other balloting procedure.


    BTW: (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:12:11 PM EST
    Yes, ballots can be dropped off either to the elections office on any day, or to a polling location on election day.

    I'm sure Florida would have many locations for dropping ballots.


    Seat the delagates (none / 0) (#43)
    by Coldblue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:46 PM EST
    from the Jan 29 primary.

    It may have been the fairest contest of all that we've seen.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#50)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    Let's try an analogy: two people agree to run a race.  Before the race they agree that the loser has to pay the winner one dollar.  Then, after the race is won, the referee says "Just kidding.  The loser has to give the winner all of her assets."  Would that be fair?  Of course not.  That's essentially what seating the Florida delegates based on the Jan. 29 primary would do.

    I have two issues with this analogy... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by tandem5 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST
    First it does not follow that disputes on how to interpret the election's outcome influence the outcome itself. For example, arguing about a lottery ticket's winning status does not change what numbers were selected in the drawing.

    And secondly, I take issue with the fact that in matters of fairness the electorate is not considered. In every election there are the candidates and there are the American voters and we need to stop thinking of the latter (and most important) participants in this process as some sort of prize for politicians to fight over.


    No, see the actual DNC rules (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    in reply downthread.  The loser ought to pay 50 cents.

    Not even close (none / 0) (#67)
    by Coldblue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    to the point.

    There was no candidate that bought the voters is the real issue.

    And the 'loser' doesn't have to give up anything that wasn't earned.


    There is no 'deal' (none / 0) (#46)
    by corn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:29:46 PM EST
    This is just part of the negotiating.  

    It's in Obama's interest to do nothing and hope it goes away.  He'd rather fight at the convention.  This is Clinton's camp laying on pressure.  

    has anyone asked (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:36:12 PM EST
    what Obama thinks about this suggestion?

    Why is it in his interest to accept a revote (and let's keep in mind that he's shown he's more concerned with winning than appearing to be above it all.  Before I get in trouble for that, Clinton plays the same game.  It's what POLITICIANS do.)

    Obama Revote stance (none / 0) (#58)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:42:59 PM EST
    Throughout the campaign Obama has said he wants to compete in all 50 states. When it comes to MI and FL however he fudges a little making it 48. He has never said he favors them being seated (which is perfectly honorable under the rules) but he has never said he would be in favor of a revote. He has however said he would abide by whatever rules the DNC decides with regard to the 2 states.

    I call that a milquetoast approach that will win him no new votes as of yet.


    Anyone Flordian who (none / 0) (#69)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:01:10 PM EST
    would vote for/against a candidate because they supported/didn't support a re-vote, and not because of the actual issues, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    The again... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:34:05 PM EST
    Any candidate that isn't in favor of counting all of the votes, isn't worthy of getting a vote.

    And this is exactly the correct stance for him (none / 0) (#79)
    by s5 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:19:30 PM EST
    It shouldn't be up to either candidate to push for one solution or the other. This is between the DNC and the states. A self-interested party in a dispute will obviously advocate for whatever is in their best interest.

    So if you want it to be fair, the candidates have to stay out of the negotiation. That seems to be Obama's position, and he is correct.


    That means Barry said no to waiving the RULZ! (none / 0) (#59)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:43:09 PM EST
    He would prefer they go through the rigamaroll of another primary than accept the results of the one they already had.  Does he think his numbers will improve?  I sincerely doubt it.  But there you have it, he will be the first candidate in history to lose a primary election -twice- because it was more important to him to insult the voters of Florida and threaten to not seat them.  

    Bad move, Barry.  Very bad.  

    Beg to differ (none / 0) (#63)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    I disagree. If he plays it smart he can lose and still gain respect helping him in November (should he be the nominee) in Florida where right now he trails and shouldn't.

    Why shouldn 't he trail? (none / 0) (#108)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:47:47 PM EST
    The only way he can come out ahead is if he captures Edwards voters.  But the only reason Florida would have to vote again is because Barry wouldn't agree to waive the RULZ.  I don't know about you, but if someone came to NJ and told me I would have to revote because someone didn't like the way it turned out the first time, I'd bend over backwards to make sure the guy didn't get a single delegate more than he got the last time.  It's insulting for a candidate to suggest we don't know our own minds.  

    From the sound of it. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:08:10 PM EST
    Hillary is opposed to a revote.

    "And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated."  

    Obama has said he'll abide by the DNC decision.


    She's saying this (none / 0) (#123)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:20:08 PM EST
    to appease the voters of Florida, who undoubtedly don't want to vote again. This is in the same vein as Obama saying he'll do whatever the DNC wants, even though he favors not seating them; he knows that FL voters are pissed, and makes a motion to show some kind of support for their time and energy.

    Both candidates are positioning themselves for the inevitable re-vote.


    Oh well. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Arbitrarity on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:14:37 AM EST
    If you're telling me what the candidates really mean and why, I can just forego listening to them at all.

    No need to ask. (none / 0) (#62)
    by corn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:45:55 PM EST
    It's nothing but bad news for him.  

    This is sooo transparent.  The two campaigns, the DNC and the two state parties are negotiating a deal to seat the delegates.  I bet conceptually it's already done but they haven't agreed final numbers.  Nelson is running around Obmama's flank to keep him motivated.

    I favor a revote (none / 0) (#64)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:47:17 PM EST

    I wouldn't trust this... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:48:04 PM EST
    I agree with Jeralyn. Hope it fails and primary election results stand as valid.
    The FL vote was forced onto the people by the Rep.
    Legislature to no fault of party leaders.
    It is absurd to punish the FL voters for this.
    The Dem. Party has accepted other states to change their primary dates. Was SC which voted in January one of them ? (anyone knows?).

    I also like the idea (I think was Jeralyn's?) of
    giving Obama the beenfit of all the uncommitted votes (which seems more than fair given Edwards and other candidate swhere in the running) and let Clinton keep her percentage in Michigan.

    Why did the DNC not want Michigan and Florida (none / 0) (#72)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:07:00 PM EST
    to move up their primaries?  For the life of me I cannot understand what the beef is since Michigan and Florida went ahead and had their primary and nothing terrible happen other than a bunch of voters who went out to vote.  So other then just not obeying the DNC rules what terrible thing occurred because Florida and Michigan went ahead with their primaries. Anybody?

    This is big and GOOD news (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:07:45 PM EST
    One down and one to go.

    Hey BTD. I just read where Jerome (none / 0) (#77)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:17:51 PM EST
    Armstrong said the Michigan firehouse caucus/primary would be closed for Democrats only. Someone told him that there is no party registration in Michigan. Do you know which is true?

    No idea (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:20:12 PM EST
    I assumed it would follow the previous rule on that.

    Though IF there is registration then to save money a closed primary would be cheaper no doubt.


    Found the answer (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:22:20 PM EST
    Do I have to register as a member of a political party?

    In Michigan, we do not register a party preference. Michigan is unusual in that regard: most states require one to register a party preference or to register as an "independent." States that require registration by party do so to protect party primary elections: party registration stops Democrats from voting in Republican primary elections and visa-versa.

    Uh oh. (none / 0) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:25:46 PM EST
    How do they keep folks who already had their votes counted in the Republican primary from voting.

    Clinton better hope Rush Limbaugh has a lot of listeners in Michigan.


    I thought polling (for what that's worth) (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:28:01 PM EST
    from TX and OH pretty much showed that Obama and Clinton got the same number of repubs?

    Larry was snarking (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    In fact, Obama won Republicans easily in both states.

    That should be easy (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:25 PM EST
    Voter records normally disclose participation in electoral events.

    Oops. Just think of the Democrats who (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:33:24 PM EST
    followed the advice from Kos to vote for Romney. I guess they are out of luck in a do-over.

    LMAO (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:34:34 PM EST
    I hope that includes one of the FPers. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:35:49 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#99)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    There's a dKos front page in MI?

    No (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    Just a scandal sheet. CTs all the time.

    Hilarious as it was one of the most vociferous anti-CTers there. To be fair, so was I. But I still do not write CT posts.


    I forgot, DH lives in Washington DC? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:40:09 PM EST
    Here in New York. . . (none / 0) (#104)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:41:59 PM EST
    they would be able to determine that I voted in the primary election but not which party I voted for.  I assume it's worse in Michigan since there's no party registration at all.

    In fact, now that I think about it, were the Dem and Rep primaries the same day in Michigan?  I don't think they were.  So I guess they must have some way of determining whether you voted in this primary cycle (assuming they don't allow you to vote in both primaries).  But can they tell which day you voted on?  Because only folks who voted on the Republican day need to be ruled out.


    No, wait. . . (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST
    that's not right -- it's a closed primary and so I must have been in a booth with only the Democratic slates.

    Never mind.


    The MI primaries for Ds and Rs (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:01:41 PM EST
    were the same day.  Recall thatbecause the Dem votes weren't going to "count," kos was urging Dems to vote for Mitt Romney in order to slow down McSame's momentum.  

    Even in open states, you'd have to choose (none / 0) (#109)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    which ballot you wanted. We all vote together here but you have to choose which ballot you want on your machine. We have to sign our names for that and it's recorded in the computer while we wait.

    No, we all use the same ballot (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:38:45 AM EST
    in my state, Wisconsin, with open primaries.

    So party ballots are not a given in Michigan.


    They should be able to check to see if (none / 0) (#90)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    they voted in the Republican primary. We have no registration by party in TN but when we do phone banking, they give us a print out of everyone who voted in the last Democratic primary. I really hope they do this.

    A request of the universe (none / 0) (#78)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:19:19 PM EST
    Just once more in my life I want to see a boring election cycle.

    No post-Watergate stuff, no Iranian hostages stuff, no bimbo eruptions, no Supreme Court involvement, no primary do-overs (which I do support this time around), etc.  OK, you can argue that 1996 was pretty dull, as such things go.

    But since then--holy crap!

    I thought 2004 was very boring after New (none / 0) (#81)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    Hampshire. This has been exciting to me. If only the stakes weren't so high.

    Of All The Crazy (none / 0) (#91)
    by zfran on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    things to disenfranchise the Fl and Mi votes this year would be Democratic suicide!! How quickly we forget the 2000 election and how Florida wanted a re-vote and then it was too late and our nightmare administration began. Granted Gore should have won more states, but the damage and discord began, or continued. No voters should be punished when they were not directly responsible for the decisions of their elected individuals, unless there is some evidence they voters (residents of Florida) went along with the legislative votes. As for Michigan, and caucuses, what will be will be. Maybe they'll be more organized and fairly utilized then in Texas.

    Big Tent Democrat is wrong. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    Dean is wrong. Brazile is wrong.

    Dean told Florida Democrats we couldn't change the Primary date.

    We didn't.

    The REPUBLICAN Governor and Legislature changed our Florida primary date.

    Dean disenfranchised Florida voters for what Republicans did.

    That fact will always be an open wound if Dean doesn't just step up to the bat and admit error.

    We were disenfranchised by our own party.

    The writing is on the wall.

    We will never again be able to hold Republicans accountable for disenfranchising voters without Republicans citing Dean and Brazile as perfect examples of Democrats guilty of doing the same crime.

    And, yes, it's a crime.

    The ramifications of this are endless.

    All bad.