Florida Revote Plan In Trouble
From the Associated Press comes this news about a press conference today in Florida where the head of the Florida Dems expressed extreme pessimism about a solution to the revote standoff...
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - The head of Florida's Democratic Party said Thursday the proposed vote-by-mail presidential primary is unlikely to go forward because of strong opposition and concerns about conducting the vote.Karen Thurman said she is asking Democratic leaders, the national party and presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to consider the option as the best way to resolve the delegate dispute. Florida had all 210 of its delegates to the national convention stripped after it violated national party rules by moving up its primary to January.
When asked if the alternative will be implemented, knowing what she knows about potential problems executing the plan and widespread concerns, Thurman said, "I have a feeling that this is probably closer to not, than yes."...
"If this becomes something that we can't do, then we can't do it," Thurman said.
There are multiple problems. First, there are procedural difficulties in getting such a thing implemented. What's more, the Obama camp has concerns about a mail-in scheme, and today on CNN Howard Dean said the DNC wouldn't back any plan that isn't favored by both campaigns: "We’d like to do it in a way that’s fair, that both sides believe is fair. Fair to the voters but also fair to the campaigns."
So what's the upshot? I checked in with DNC spokesperson Stacie Paxton, who said:
There are two options. They can resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates or they can appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee which resolves questions about the seating of delegates.
What this fundamentally means is that there's little that the DNC can do to resolve this -- if Florida officials don't agree on a plan, and one that's acceptable to both campaigns, to boot, it's all but certain that there will be no revote at all.
And what happens then? Well, Florida officials can appeal to the DNC's credentials committee, which will consider various plans to get the delegation sat in some form or other. At that point, it's anyone's guess what will happen. In short, mayhem is on the horizon.
PA becomes more important. If Obama can eke out a tie, the discussion of Michigan and Florida becomes less relevant.
Whatta mess, though.
March 13, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. No one state is going to decide the Democratic nomination. Agreeing otherwise, means, at least to me, that you are endorsing the Clinton/Penn logic.
Florida and Michigan cast their fate to chance when they moved up their primaries. As it stands, they should be HAPPY if their delegates are seated (50/50 seems like the best solution in that no one candidate gets an advantage, the states have full participation and the superdelegates from those states get to participate).
March 13, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree...
I haven't seen anything that definitively suggests we'd end up with anything but a (rough) 50/50 split of the pledged delegates, anyway. (Obama likely to pull out MI, Clinton FL.) So let's seat these yahoos if only to placate them and get on with the business of a primary election.
Of course, it's a primary season that looks unlikely to offer up a Clinton nomination. Hence the continued drama.
This all reminds me, in some small way, of just about any sporting/contest analogy you can muster...that being, sometimes the team we all expect to win loses. Well, Clinton gambled with her strategy and she lost, and she needs to accept that in a gracious way and be done. (As a further aside, she also needs to campaign like hell for whatever ticket has Obama at the head.)
March 13, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 13, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about we give Florida back to Spain?
March 13, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Florida back to Spain? Only if we can give Texas back to Mexico!
March 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
how come TPM fails to mention whenever they post something about a re-vote in either Florida or Michigan that it would require DoJ approval?
It's a pretty important piece of the story that doesn't seem to get mentioned at all.
Story here
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/would_bushs_justice_department.php
and here
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/preclearing_michigan_and_flori.php
March 13, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorta.
As per the Florida Democratic Party's website:
March 13, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Thanks Lestat and Freak.
I read a comment here the other day along the lines of "Obama wants the Justice Department to review the FL re-vote plan! For Shame! Hussein!" The implication was that Obama was being a Big Bad (Lucky to Be) Black Man and trying to "disenfranchise" the good people of FL, but I thought to myself, "aren't those 'good people' still under DOJ supervision because they ran 'not so good' elections?"
Yes, this is "Talking Points Memo," and not "Bullshit Free Zone," but it would be just friggin' awesome if we could get something other than horserace coverage and simple regurgitation of spin in a post or two.
Or three.
I mean, do we commenters have to do all the work?
March 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
sometimes i think we do...
March 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's FL party wishful thinking, not fact. DOJ would absolutely need to sign off on a voting plan for those 5 counties, and they aren't required to issue a quick ruling. But, bottom line is the mail-in vote was always a non-starter, and the party knew it, suddenly after months of inaction, they want to seem pro-active and in the "solutions" business.
March 13, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not hearing about the DoJ because they won't be a problem. I daresay the Bush Justice Department will enthusiastically get behind any political manoeuver that benefits Sen. Clinton.
March 13, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama backers will control the credentials committee if Obama has more pledged delegates (which he will).
March 13, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure?
I thought the breakdown was 50% - 50%.
It would be nice to know who will be making those decisions, though.
March 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is based on pledged delegates.
March 13, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should also add that if you dig over at Open Left, they have done extensive homework on the whole credentials committee/brokered convention scenario.
March 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I guess I misunderstood how it worked.
Never too old to learn, I guess.
Thanks again TaraV
March 13, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I hope all this attention and concern trolling by the media about what to do about Florida and Michigan puts to rest the ridiculous notion that Clinton isn't getting a fair shake by the press. If the situation were reversed, any Obama attempt to change the rules because he was losing would be treated with contempt and derision. I mean, come on, Rendell stated it was actually a tough victory for Hillary to get 55% against Uncommitted...Ugh.
March 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The state of Florida would not be in this position if it were a white man, or a woman of any color.
March 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
March 13, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in the words of Homer Simpson: if it were not "America's Wang"!
March 13, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
LeroyS and liam, I will have to let you explain to my coworkers why I just dissolved into hysterics in my cubicle . . .
March 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I've seen such a blatent example of elected and party officials so miserably failing to solve a problem that greatly affects the people. No wonder some people just get completely disgusted and don't participate in the system.
I'm not suggesting this is an easy problem to fix - but on the other hand, it's not rocket science either. Quit your bickering, get off your butts and solve the problem. Pathetic.
But the news could have been worse. We could be hearing that the MI revote is off. THAT is a real problem. At least you can kind of justify FL. How Hillary could state publicly that MI had a fair vote that should be honored is really incomprehensible to me. I thought for sure I'd see more about it today. It had me seething with anger. It's the biggest load of crap I have ever seen.
March 13, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly are the concerns over mail-in ballots?
We have had vote-by-mail here in Oregon for years and the system works far better than traditional voting.
March 13, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are talking about Florida, where they have no structure or procedures in place to handle such an operation. Florida has a reputation for suppressing the votes of African Americans. Imagine how easy it would be for them to purge many of them off the mailing lists, and who is going to challenge after the dirty work has been done, with the convention just around the corner.
March 13, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who doesn't receive their ballot in the mail can still vote on election day at any election office, whoch would also be damning evidence if there was any monkey business with not mailing ballots to targeted "black" voters, etc.
March 13, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really must be either a plant or terrible dense. Florida has purged African Americans from the rolls for years, and turned them away when they showed to vote on election days. They are talking about running the damn thing in June, and the convention is right after that. That leaves no time for anyone to organize a real investigation, even if they wanted to, and given Florida's history, who expects that they really would look into it.
March 13, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am neither of your two arrogant descriptors, but thanks for playing sparky. The timing suck if there is any move to disenfranchise targeted voting groups in either method with the same (read little) time to investigate. Mail-in balloting is actually less chance of fraud than traditional voting, because (as we have here in Oregon) if you don't receive your ballot two weeks before the deadline, you can still vote AT a polling place set up in county election offices (and other pre-set places).
Same thing can be done in this case as well. Don't get your ballot in the mail two weeks before the election? Then go vote on election day at a specified balloting location (which is what you would have to do anyway if they had a traditional vote).
March 13, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes but you've had over a decade to perfect it and get it right and work out all the kinks.
Do you really trust FLORIDA to get it right in just a matter of months?
March 13, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well by that "logic" Florida should be permanently disenfranchised for the 200 debacle alone.
March 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh.. 2000
See, the curse of Florida even causes me to make typos.
March 13, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's okay. They may have been voting badly in 200.
March 13, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
-- as far as I know.
March 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. but they shouldn't rush into a "solution" thats is soooo easily tampered with and very succeptible to fraud and abuse.
If they had a regular caucus or primary that would be a better solution if they were gonna do anything at all.
btw, i still think they should be punished because they broke the rules. if they had stuck to their initial date, they would have had huge influence and could have potentially been decisive. i just love the irony of it all.
March 13, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have the same question, sort of*...
.In the post, it says that a FL revote may not happen
OK. Who's voicing "strong opposition"? What are the "concerns" about conducting the vote? Other than a reference to the Obama campaign's "opposition" to mail-in balloting (a reference that can be read to imply that the campaign is opposed to the idea of a revote for "strategic" reasons, and not opposed to the idea for logistic reasonsthis is Florida, after all), the post is shockingly lacking in specifics.
OK, OK, you guys aren't "journalists," (but you have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express)... but could we get some more reporting, please?
* Only "sort of," because I think that a mail-in vote conducted in Florida is just ripe for all kinds of fraud. Again, this is Florida we're talking about. Those folks almost need to have Jimmy Carter coming in to oversee their elections.
March 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is the concerns are on several points:
- The "snowbirds" will be gone by June, if they don't get their ballot by mail then where would they vote "on election day".
- Minorities and lower income voters tend to move more than older voters. If they haven't updated their voter registration, then they could be blocked from voting.
- Still going to cost $8 to $10 million dollars and the state is broke.
- Timing is a big problem. Elections are not planned and executed in 2 months, it usually takes that long just to certify them.
- A big question about perception and what to do about the 1.7 million votes that were cast in January. The Florida house Dems came out on Monday to oppose a revote because they don't want to get the backlash of their constituents.
So, you can see that all parties (Clinton, Obama, the DNC, and the Florida Dem Party) have something legitimate to be concerned about in this situation.
March 14, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as stated, since Obama will have the pledged delegate lead and will control the credentials committee, he will be able to apply politics as usual and take the nomination.
I realize he'd probably win it anyway, but it doesn't look any better to the Hillary-supporting wing of the Democratic Party than a backroom power grab by her would look to an Obama progressiver-than-thou.
March 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am serious that I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that since he has the pledged delegate lead at the end of voting, that's a "backroom power grab"? I don't understand.
March 13, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, his name is a synonym for talking out of his arse!
March 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my 30 years of life, I had never heard a politician utter the words "concede the point" until Obama did to Hillary in the last debate (or at least I think it was the last debate; hard to keep track of all 20). His choice of words and overall approach in that particular situation was just another example of why I personally prefer him over her. All at once, he was able to gracefully shut Russert and Hillary up, and come out looking like the better, more prepared, more diplomatic, and more statesmenlike potential leader of the country. So, on that note, what would be the harm in Obama "conceding the point" in Michigan and Florida? Couldn't he offer Hillary 55% of the delegates in each state, keep 45% of the delegates, and know that it wouldn't make an impact on his overall lead? I'm not certain about the math here, but I'm assuming it wouldn't get her anywhere near his overall delegate count. It would save money, save time, and make him look gracious and solutions-oriented. It could be yet another example of Obama moving away from the political "silly season" and giving him the chance to talk about what's important to him I'm a political novice, and I'm assuming there are plenty of reasons why this would not work for him... I'm just curious what those reasons are.
March 13, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he can make gracious offers but they won't be enough to give Clinton enough (not there is enough) to make up her defecit. She wouldn't take the deal. But he might look better for doing it.
March 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Joey. If you missed it, I believe it was one of the CNN debates before Iowa or between Iowa and NH, where Sens. Obama and Edwards were discussing Iraq strategy where Sen. Obama drew the distinction between their plans (one would draw back to bases in Kuwait, the other would maintain some personnel in Iraqi bases) in the most collegial, civil, and substantive discourse I'd ever seen. Sens. Obama and Edwards discussed their points the way you expect from people with the finest qualities of leadership.
I was proud to be a democrat that night.
March 13, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Greg is preparing a post about this (not), but here is a link to the Obama destroying Clinton's arguments and putting them into the laughable context to which they belong:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/obama_campaign_skewers_clinton.html
March 13, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is hilarious!
March 13, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it always florida? It's so gd funny. You would think that florida would have its act together after the 2000 embarassment. I mean really, what are the odds? Maybe the sun down there is too much for the people or something.
March 13, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I saw this yesterday and LMAO but is this really legit? It's got to be a joke.
March 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it is true that Obama's people are blocking a mail in ballot he deserves to lose the election. The idea that he is blocking a primary because he is afraid he'll lose is the spin it will take. And being afraid to compete will tarnish his image very badly. It will feed the "afraid to throw a punch" meme and Obama will fail the all important "looks presidential" test.
March 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious? The only campaign with a proven track record of attempting to thwart the will of the people is Madam Hillary's. See, e.g., Nevada, Michigan *and* Florida, and the superdel shenanigans they've been pulling since they pulled their heads out of the delusional sands and woke up to the reality that they've been losing this thing since, well, Day One.
But keep it up. Assuming you want a President McCain.
March 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see Obama do better in the primaries so that he is going into the general election at full speed. Trying to coast in with a narrow win over Clinton is a bad situation for the general election. Narrowly winning without Michigan and Florida counting is poison to momentum.
March 13, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lest we mention that the state law in FL prohibits mail in elections for this purpose?? Isn't that right? I saw the actual section of the law posted on The Field.
March 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong.
From the Florida Democratic Party's website:
March 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We simply cannot know, relying upon TPM. Come on... someone do some actual reporting on this.
(Incidentally, if I were a Florida resident, I would be verrrry suspicious about a "mail-in vote," irrespective of how I thought those ballots might fall.)
March 13, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto mosquito.
Why are you saying it was Obama?
March 13, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's not blocking the mail-in vote, the law is. The mail-in plan doesn't pass legal muster, and it certainly can't be thrown together in two and a half months. It's just not possible given the time-frame. This was a feel-good Hail Mary from the state party that's sat on their hands for months.
March 13, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's is by far the best solution I've heard yet.
March 13, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the best thing that can happen is if Obama is ahead by enough after IN/NC, he agrees to seat them as is (he gets 'uncommitted' from MI) with 1/2 the normal # of delegates so there is a penalty - as long as he wins the nomination.
Of course if it is too close for that (unlikely but...) - as long as it doesn't materially change the election, I think that is the best option.
March 13, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is Obama simply trying to run out the clock now, and block any type of re-vote in Michigan and Florida, both big states where it would be a challenge for him to win? If he can hang tight in PA, then block the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated, does the math work for him? Or would some proportional allocation in MI and FL still leave him in the delegate lead? I can see where he wouldn't want to go into a convention after losing in PA, MI, and FL.
March 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
March 13, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Team Obama is trying to make sure that Clinton supporter Ben doesn't ram through an absolutely ridiculous mail-in re-vote plan that has more potential for fraud than anything i've seen before. If Team Hillary is so dedicated to making sure that disenfranchiment doesn't happen, then opt for a caucus.
March 13, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
March 13, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must be missing some critical pieces. There seem to me to be only two viable options:
First, the Democrats accept the stupidity of their party's rulings and DON'T SEAT delegates from FL and MI because they broke the rules and moved up the date of their primaries. OR:
Second, they divide the delegates 50/50 so that the STATES are not disenfranchised.
Anything else is silly, unworkable, unfair, or self-defeating. People who suggest that Clinton's 'votes' count seem especially deluded: other candidates followed the party's rules and removed their names while she broke the party's rules and left her name on the ballot. Rewarding her is merely patently unfair and undemocratic.
And spending the money for the re-dos--and thus either diverting it from the general election or bending the rules to enable contributors to punt more money to these campaigns--is utterly self-defeating.
What am I missing?
March 13, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be all those pesky questions about possible fraud in a state that wants to implement a voting procedure that it has no experience doing and is attempting to throw together at the last minute. If the obama people weren't raising all kinds of questions i'd be more than a little surprised. Lets not all forget that this is the state that can't get regular elections done right and they have years to plan for those.
March 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to count the votes in Michigan and Florida was a bad decision in the first place. Some sort of compromise should have been worked out by the DNC. Why would the DNC insist on continuing with that bad decision? It makes no sense for the fall election.
The Democrats will have enough trouble winning Florida without this decision. Florida went to the Republicans in 2000 (via the Supreme Court) and 2004.
If anything comes out of all of this mess the DNC and the state parties (example Texas having a caucus and a primary) have brought about -- it should be a reform of the process for nominating a candidate. This should push the process towards regional primaries.
The Republicans are much smarter about their nominating process.
March 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Halperin has the outlines of a plan currently under discussion for seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. Florida would be seated with half a vote each (netting Clinton 19 delegates) and Michigan would be split 50-50. According to Halperin, Clinton and the DNC would be happy with the proposal but Obama might not be.http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/13/a-michigan-florida-solution.aspx
If true, this fits in with Hillary’s popular vote plan. Now she’ll feel she can “legitimately” claim those original popular votes. The several hundred thousand net from FL and the 55% from MI (with zero to Obama). Ugh.
March 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, that scenario will never pass muster with the DNC or Pelosi. You cannot treat one state differently than the other. They each broke the same rule, the punishment must be the same. It's a fishing expedition by Camp Clinton to get the supers from those states counted.
March 13, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it actually legal for any state to run a second primary for the same nomination. How can that be. It would set a precedent that could be mighty dangerous. Future primaries could then be run over and over until a select few finalists find one to their liking. I think that both Florida and Michigan should have to live with the consequences of their calculated decisions to violate the rules that they had agreed to.
Seat all the delegates, and allow them to participate in all aspects of the convention, except for the nomination of the presidential candidate. If you let them off the hook, without any sanctions, then no states will abide by the rules from then on. Hell; if there is going to be no consequences for their actions, Florida and Michigan might as well hold their 2012 Presidential Primaries next January. Why not, if there are no enforceable rules to restrain them.
March 13, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, it is legal and actually was done before. Delaware screwed up once and had to do a "second" primary. Also, one other state did as well.
Technically, the first primary is meaningless, because it violated the rules, so it really isn't a do over or revote or whatever you want to call it. Notwithstanding clintons' campaign victory rally in florida, it was a meaningless primary. Basically, what they are trying to do is schedule a nominating proceedure, in essence for the first time, prior to the cut-off. Or, cut a deal between the candidates to stipulate, for lack of a better word, to the state outcomes.
March 13, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, the objection to mail-in voting in FL is based on:
-- the fact that it will have to be done so quickly and in the states where it works, it took many pilot plans and trial runs to get it set up so that it's reliable
-- FL law prevents the FL Board of Elections from holding mail-in elections, although that wouldn't stop an outside group, or contractor, from doing it
-- FL law also prevents the Board of Elections from sharing the list of Accredited Voters, so any mail-in vote carried out by an outside group, or contractor, could not be certified as being based on the votes of those who were actually registered to vote
It *might* be possible to develop a proposal that would still be possible in and around all those problems, but I'm not sure how......
Re: "conceding the point" - I think he would make such an offer if he could be sure that such an offer wouldn't tip the election result but as best I can figure out, it's not possible to know NOW whether it would have that effect. And, of course, it isn't likely that Clinton would agree to anything that *doesn't* change the outcome.
I've been hoping all along that the delegate count would get to the point where that could be done safely -- and trying to figure out the math to find out when that point would be. Like everyone else, I really want this thing OVER!
March 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Oregon You have to sign up in order to be eligible to vote-by-mail, and when you send your ballot in they can compare the ballot signature with the one you used during registration. Helps prevent election fraud.
Florida has no such system, nor the time or money to implement one...
March 13, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet again I ask, why wasn't this discussed earlier? Like well before January. Now everyone's running around like headless chickens to find a solution because Hillary wants the re-vote, because Hillary needs it to win, she thinks. Forget it. You blew it Fla. Again. Suck it up and move on.
March 13, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I said it when they did it, but I'll say it again: the DNC was bunch of morons for ever having gone down this road. Months of press of "the Democratic Party doesn't give think Florida counts." Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant.
Will Rogers, proven right once again.
March 13, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget FL and MI this guy deserves to lose because he's been cherry picking red caucus states and caucus states generally and now seems intent on disenfranchising democratic voters in FL and MI.
A real democrat would be advocating for the easiest ways for democrats to vote and most effective voting possible -- like PRIMARIES ONLY, voting on Saturday and Sunday, waiving all mass transit fees on election days, allowing people to register and vote at the same time, etc. Working democrats and the poor don't have three to four hours to spend debating some dork graduate student Obamaphile, or worse dork law student Obamaphile, about who's the better candidate. Caucuses are inherently elitist and anathema to democracy.
Axlerod may have come up with a brilliant game plan, but Obama will always be a loser for shouting down the voices of all democratic voters.
March 13, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
One major point being missed here is that accepting the MI and/or FL votes "as is" or having a re-vote are not about pledged delegates or disenfranchising voters. It's about the 54 superdelegates Clinton wants to help her overturn Obama's popular vote, pledged delegates and state winnings.
March 13, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The superdelegates are disenfranchised unless the DELEGATES are seated?
Hmmm...that's the closest connection the superdelegates have to anything.
Since the superdelegate system is inherently undemocratic, I am not going to cry tears for MI or FL if the ones from their states are disenfranchised.
March 13, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would recommend that the rules in place at the beginning of the campaign, and agreed to by all participants, be followed.
I have never liked that New Hampshire and Iowa always get to go first (through some sort of divine right) but I was opposed to Michigan jumping the line -- after the rules were set. Florida was more problematic -- because the state's Republicans forced them to jump the line. But Florida Democrats did have enough time (supposedly) to set a separate primary date, as clumsy as that would've been. Still, the rules were the rules, and were known by all.
If rules become a fluid concept, re-jiggered depending on outcome and calculation, then rules are meaningless.
March 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Florida and Michigan delegate selection process needs to be left to the states, as long as they comply with the rules they, the states, set up last year. The DNC is not the organization that decides how to settle this. The Democratic Convention is the place.
At the convention, if there is a problem with a states delegates those delegates are challenged. Then the appropriate convention committee, selected per the convention rules, which were also agreed upon by all of the states last yer, decides who gets to be seated as delegates.
The problem solves itself just by following the rules.
If the voters in Michigan and Florida have a beef with this process, their recourse is with their own state governments.
March 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well eff you all super smart jacks.
I'm 60. I've voted in every election I could since I turned 21, school boards included. And every vote was for a Democrat.
I now live in Florida and you effing superior beings are telling me my vote can't be counted because you are too smart or too whatever the eff you are. Right. The Republican-controlled legislature moved the primary. So because of a pissing contest between the DNC and a Republican-controlled state body you think it's a good idea to disenfranchise me and all the other Democrats in Florida, but you'll take our money and votes in November for a candidate we had no say in picking whatsoever. Democracy? Give me a break.
I never thought it'd come to this but I'll sit the election out. No one can have my pathetic couple of hundred I contribute most years and the McCain will no way in hell get my vote. If you don't want my vote now, you don't want in November either.
Rot in hell.
steven@bobker.com
March 13, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand you frustration, but you are misdirecting that frustration. Florida's Democrats agreed with the rules last year - they passed unanimously. It was their responsibility to follow those rules. When the Republicans set this up this way the Florida Democratic Party should have taken them to court, they should have refused to participate in that illegal primary, they could have immediately began to set up a Florida Democratic Party election or caucus that would meet the rules. They did none of those things as far as I know. So tell them where to rot.
March 13, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The root of the problem is the answer to your question. I understand that the Florida democratic party organization is broke, has been selling off assets in a presidential year! Can you imagine. There was no money for recourse.
I believe the republicans, knowing this, intentionally moved the primary date into the window because the dems couldn't afford to run a separate election. Separate elections were held in South Carolina (reps 1/19-dems 1/26) and Wyoming's rep caucus was inside the first four, but dem caucus was last Saturday.
I agree, bad choice followed by bad choices.
March 13, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't stop voting Steve. Your vote is important. We want you to vote. We want your delegates seated and hope that the do-over election will happen soon and fairly.
You did get a raw deal between the party and the reps. Giving up is what the dirty, rotten scoundrels want. I didn't think it was a coincidence that Karl Rove moved to FL when he left the White House. Please don't let him get the best of you.
Your sister in democracy who's working hard for your vote to count,
Melodi
March 13, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your beef would seem to be with the DNC and the Republican-controlled state body. You got a bad deal.
But your (reasonable) ire seems to have clouded your judgment: this one can't be fixed by punting money at it. There simply is no way to institute a secure procedure or implementing a scheme that is PERCEIVED to be fair to both sides. A bad procedure at this point IS worse than nothing.
And then there is the profound unwisdom of continuing this fight between junkyard dogs and drawing upon resources that are needed to defeat the Republican nominee.
Remember? That was the point: not allowing the continuation of the bleeding of America by the GOP.
March 13, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's remarkable that Clinton is offering to either sit or to revote. Recall that Obama actually said he would sit the FL. Wait, only of course if he's the nominee...
So, yeah, it's all about votes, democracy, fairness, etc.
Why are we so blind...
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking
March 13, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that the optical scan machines and scanning the signatures in time. Maybe FL can rent the machines from OR after your primary? ...just my understanding.
March 13, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, set it up and pay for it now? Oh, I should pony up the cash so I can vote? Oh, and then watch some effhead tell me poll taxes are illegal and thus they can't do that on their own. The DNC is a bunch of out of touch morons. Maybe they wanted to punish Florida a bit. I know no one on the DNC and no one knows me, so why should they care about me. They got what they wanted. Press, press and more press. And if I can't vote, so what?
My question was what is going to happen NOW. What idiocies happened back then are history. History doesn't get a vote, and I guess neither do I.
How bout we disenfranchise YOU for the next election, whenever it is. That wouldn't bother you, would it? Naw, for the good of the rulers of the party, you'd take that hit, right?
This country is now a very sad place.
steven@bobker.com
March 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I've taken my happy pill.
I'll be voting on Election Day. I just won't be voting for some person everyone else had a say in selecting, but for which I was deemed unworthy.
I doubt there will be any sort of revote and a 50/50 split is some smart person's (some smart person who got to have a say) joke. Splitting 50/50 makes more of a mock of the primary than the votes in say, Kenya or Russia, are. "We know the results before the vote." Yup, American democracy 2008.
There could be a revote. There's enough cash floating in any given month around to give medical insurance to all the insured. So instead of spending it on buying TV reporters, have both Hilary and Barack give $10 million each. With $20 million you could actually have real revotes, not mail-in, not some statistical garbage. It won't happen. There are too many greedy parties who want the money and could less about voters in Florida and Michigan. I wonder how many can even spell Democracy.
It's time to start getting real. Theory will make McCain President. Maybe it'll also make some of you feel superior or just better, but theory will not win this election. Take a look at reality. Disenfranchise 3 million Democratic registered voters and the candidate will lose Michigan and Florida. Fight the battle of disenfranchised black voters in Florida in some other way; some real way. Contribute to the lawsuits. Don't disenfranchise the other black Democratic voters in the name of your righteousness.
steven@bobker.com
March 13, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton wasn't the only one who thought the nomination would be decided by Super Tuesday, I guess.
March 13, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amending the Florida Election Code is not a "procedural difficulty". As I understand the statute, it prohibits the state from conducting the mail-in primary and from selling its voter list to a third party to run it.
A mail-in primary,however, is the only feasible election because, again this is per CNN, some counties now in the midst of equipment changes for the Nov election, do not have voting machines.
No wonder the Miami Herald called the whole notion absurd.
The only story here is the rank incompetence of the Florida Democratic Party and the yet to be examined role of the Clintons in foisting this mess onto the national party
March 13, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC is between a rock and a hard place on this. If they give in and allow the results in Florida and Michigan to stand, they will forever be unable to set any rules for primaries in the future. It will be pandemonium as the states keep pushing their voting dates forward, ignoring rules that aren't convenient, even though they agreed to those rules, and the Democratic candidate will be chosen during the midterm election cycle.
I find it hard to believe that caucuses can't be held in Florida and Michigan, for a minimal cost, followed by a bare bones state convention where the caucus chosen delegates select the delegates to the national convention. The selection of national convention delegates is strictly a party process, not a state government process, so state government (Republican) rules should just be ignored.
There is no doubt that this is an unfair process, but I don't see an alternative which is more fair.
March 13, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole thing is frustrating. What the hell were Floridians thinking by pulling this stunt now?
For a little comparison, my home state CA has long been a later primary, we have far more delegates, and we only moved our primary up to Feb 5th with the approval of the national party. It didn't make us any more decisive or influential.
We're coming off 8 years of Bush and Florida pulls this stunt? After screwing up their election twice in 2000 and 2004? Not to mention electing Jeb Bush.
Floridians should tar and feather their leadership for creating this FUBAR.
March 14, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone knows what is going to happen. Long before a Florida or Michigan re-vote can occur, Obama's lead will expand and the superdelegates will flock to him. Then Obama can let Clinton take her Florida and Michigan delegates; he'll take the uncommitted in Michigan and his share of Florida-- bogus as that is -- and everyone will be seated.
Everyone will be happy BECAUSE IT WON'T MATTER!
Hillary has already lost. Pelosi should just give the order: Go Obama!
March 14, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one has the right to keep people from voting. And through its various manuevers, the Obama campaign is acting in bad faith. They say they will do wahever the DNC and the state parties resolve. But then they bring up one roadblock or caveat after another.....they don't mean what they say. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
So the DNC and the state parties are falling into the Obama campaign trap by saying they need the agreement of both parties. Thye are giving Obama a veto; they are allowing him to deny them the right to vote. How is this better than Republican voter suppression....It is morally bankrupt to say they want Florida and Michigan to sit at the convention....they just don't want their votes to COUNT. Winning this way means losing the right to say one represents the values of the Demcoratic party.
SO TO FLORIDA....
IT'S SIMPLE....YOU DON'T NEED THEIR AGREEMENT...
HOLD A PRIMARY...THEY WILL COME
March 14, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Florida doesn't represent core democratic principles.
It's the state that can't seem to manage a simple election.
March 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Florida should be denied delegates, by both Parties, until Florida figures out one of the most basic functions of a government: holding nominally fair elections.
It is absolutely ridiculous that 8 years after the Bush v Gore debacle, the Florida Democratic Party are still struggling with this.
The Florida Democrats whining that the Republicans somehow hoodwinked them into this debacle is nonsense: they were ON BOARD.
Florida needs to read the rules and comply with the rules. Their elections are a national joke.
March 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fla Dems voted overwhelming with the Reps to move the primary up. The state pays for the primaries, so the party's financial situation had nothing to do with their vote.
March 15, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink