This seems like a very equitable solution, actually. Truth is, HRC would probably beat Obama in FL again. Not by 20 points, mind you, but probably by 10, leading to a delegate allocation not unlike the proposal. Plus, you'd save the cost, difficulty and potential chaos of a new primary.

So its not about the voters?

The next time you get stopped for speeding, be sure to ask the police officer if you can get only half a ticket. Odds are that the officer will think this is an amazingly generous offer on your part.

If I'm Obama I don't take this deal. Either Florida did or did not count (i.e., sanctioned event). If it did not count, then split the delegates evenly and move on with the primaries or do a revote that complies with federal and state law. Even if he will ultimately lose the contest, he will narrow the popular vote totals and narrow the delegate numbers.

The reality is, Florida's vote didn't count. And giving Clinton ANY advantage based on the early poll is a disadvantage to Obama, however small. Name a state where the pre-campaigning polling held up? My point is that Clinton will use this to argue that Florida DOES count and the popular vote SHOULD count.

That's why this is a raw deal for Obama. At least in my opinion.

What would happen to Popular vote totals. She couldn't hang onto that?

I smell a rat.

Why would The Monster float this when 19 dels won't do her any good?

Nope... smell a rat.

She wants to get her hoof in the door and legitimize the bogus Florida primary. Once Obama agrees she'll say, "Well, look everybody... Senator Affirmative Action Hire says the primary was valid. Let the voters of Florida be heard! Give me all 38 delegates that I've earned!"

Don't buy it, people. Whenever Hillarat plays nice you know she's got a knife in her sleeve. If the frosting on her gingerbread house is fresh, you know that the oven inside is glowing.

i've suggested this before. I would prefer not cutting the number of delegates in half, but cutting each delegate's vote in half. Including Bill Nelson's and the rest of the rogue supers.
Same thing with michigan, Only the assignment of delegates is more problematical. Giving all votes that didn't go to Hillary to Obama is both hard to justify in a vacuum, and not enough to match what he would get in a real vote.
This was a much better solution to come to a week before the actual voting.

Obama would do better in actual voting, but holding his losses to this would be enough to end the race.

Don't take it. Florida broke the rules. No do overs.

Works for me. The candidates should shake hands on it and get this silly distraction out of the way once and for all.

I'd take the deal if she publicly agrees that the popular vote is irrelevant since the event wasn't in compliance with DNC rules. Of course, since she's arguing that MICHIGAN was fair and should count, I know what her response would be: NO.

So, call her bluff. Say no. If the DNC wants to sanction this that's an entirely different matter, but awarding delegates based on an unsanctioned event is a loser for Obama.

Works for me as long as it doesn't substantially change the outcome. The only problem is that it does legitimize the FL shenanigans and Ms Clinton's posturing but anything to end this farce will be better than a re-vote.

I agree with LeroyS (and I know it's not right, but that hoof in the door made me crack up). Hillary's strategy is to "win" the popular vote as a way to convince supers to go her way.

If the FL vote is legitimized in any way, that's her hook to claim that original popular vote. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but did you hear her nonsense about MI on NPR? She will do this I guarantee it.

Give Michigan and Florida a do over and you'll have several states trying to move up their elections in 2012.

Nelson is a moron. You ever hear that idiot speak?

FL and MI had their chance and they blew it.

The rules allow FL and MI to appeal the DNC decision to strip those states' of their delegates to the CredentialS Committee and, ultimately, to the Convention Floor, itself (apparently).

Seating the 50% of "the delegates" was the baseline sanction (and what the sanction placed upon the state of Florida by the Republican Party for the same calendar violation). The 100% sanction seems to have been levied because the FL Congressional delegations and FL state Democratic party throughouly pissed the DNC off, esp. after their 3/11/2007 meeting to discuss the calendar change.

Seating 50% of the delegates doesn't seem, at first blush, to be an entirely unreasonable way to go. However, and as others have asked, who are "the delegates"? Just the "elected" (bwaah, ha ha) delegates? Does this also include the superdelegates?

If it does, I say, sure... seat the "elected" (oh, stop it! you're killing me!) at the baseline 50% sanction... but the superdelegates--state and federal party bosses and elected officials--get bumpkus for creating this fustercluck in the first place.

They can just watch the convention from home on the tee-vee.

It clearly would be a good thing to get this to a resolution AND for Obama to continue to be able to be seen as taking the high ground.

But half is half: no double dipping. No fancy footwork with the popular vote.

And, lest this be seen as an invitation to other states to blow off any attempt to rein in the insane race to have the earliest primary, there MUST be some penalty attached here.

I think that removing votes from the superdelegates in Florida could do just that. (And possibly slow the shameless pandering and spinning on the part of the Clintonistas.)

This proposal is very deceptive. While you report that Hillary would only pick up 19 delegates, you fail to point out that the super delegates would now be sat. Hillary has a plurality of Florida super delegates that have endorsed her or plan to endorse her. Their votes don't count unless their delegation is sat. As such, Nelson campaign is an attempt to pick up more like 35 to 50 delegates for Hillary. Not a good proposal.

Obama should counter the proposal with an acceptance on the grounds that the state loses the super delegates. Such a counter proposal is fair since the Democrat leadership of the state failed the voters and now should not be given a vote because of such.

Even with this said, the idea of seating the delegates on the earlier election is a dicey proposal. If Obama's camp agrees to it, he will have set precedent that he agrees the voting process was fair. It will only be a matter of time before Hillary attempts to use that alleged concession to argue for all the delegates to count. I'm sorry, but since Hillary demonstrated she can not be trusted to hold her word already on this issue, why would anyone give her the benefit of the doubt now.

Just to be clear: While adding half of the Florida delegates might give Clinton +19, it would also increase the total number of delegates needed to win. Still, Obama should take it because the delegate strategy is over. Clinton cannot win it, even with Florida delegates.

Now, regarding the popular vote, cutting it in half as well makes no sense. A vote is a vote. Awarding delegates based on the popular vote is a different matter. Obama should be careful here, lest he grant too much legitimacy to the popular vote strategy, thus granting Clinton one of her data points. The issue is delegates, delegates, delegates. Obama should not seek to cut the popular vote in half, instead he should focus on what the rules call for: delegates.

What happens to the Edwards delegates?

Hillary was calling for Florida's vote to count and their delegates seated for four days before the primary,

January 25:
"I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan."

The she flew into the state on the night of the primary and made it sound like she was the only one willing to stand up for them.

I say FL should cut their delegates by half and then split the delegates 50/50. We shouldn't reward FL and MI politicians who play chicken with
the nat'l party and we sure as shell shouldn't reward Hillary for flip flopping so she can try to cheat the system.

I find it so convenient and humorous, really, that so many of you have a too-bad, too-sad approach to FL and MI for having broken DNC rules. If the roles were reversed and Barack were fighting his way to close the delegate lead, do you honestly think you wouldn't want the votes of citizens in FL and MI to have a full say, especially if there were a great chance that they'd favor your candidate. The quest for a fair election is actually more important to democracy than winning at all cost.

Are you so afraid that Hillary will win another delegate-rich state that often tips the balance in the general election? ;)

Postive. I even have the Fly On the Wall to back me up on this.

Does everyone realize that Hillay got less than 50% of the popular vote in the Fla primary?

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=1/29/2008&DATAMODE=

You sick, sick puppies.

I have a much better idea for you. Take the popular vote and multiply each vote by 3/5. There's ample historical and constitutional precedent for that.

You have absolutely convinced me to sit out the 2008 Pres election. I'm an effing half person.

Sit on a sharp pencil and twist clockwise.

steven@bobker.com

Obama won't win in Michigan. It won't happen. He could win, I'm with you there, but never kid yourself that he will be declared the winner. An election in Michigan will be controlled by the Clinton campaign outpost in the office of DLC Clinton ally Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

It is risky for Obama's people to imagine he can win or even come close in an election that will be run by Gov. Granholm. His campaign will waste money and effort in a Clinton-controlled election, with a motivated board of elections that will control the voting and, better yet, control the reporting of the totals. When Hillary said she was just getting started, she wasn't kidding.

At least don't ask the Obama campaign to fund Hillary's mulligan. If Hillary wants to "win" Michigan, threatening to take her donors and go home; which she will do anyway if Obama is nominated; and if Howard Dean can't bring himself to tell the Clintons and the DLC to make his day, she can at least pay for it.

Let 'em walk, and make sure they take their extortion and losing ways with them! Losers.

I'll be happy to have Big Money's paws off my party.

It may be the single biggest reason I stopped giving to the DNC, instead giving directly to candidates like Dean and Obama. The DNC's failed "let's out-Republican the Republicans" strategy the last couple decades have been a joke to say the least.

In the meantime, I'll be looking forward to giving my hard-earned dollars to the DNC again.

"HEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYAW!!!!"

Leroy, Do you kiss your mother with that mouth. Are you incapable of making your substantive points without the invective? You sound for all the world like one of those poor souls who adore Rush. If you met Hillary I think you would realise how very cruel and foolish you sound. Read a few biographies of her and you will find that she is a religious woman, whose public service is grounded in her beliefs, and who has kept her dignity through many storms. Please stop insulting people on this forum.

In Florida, the early primary was forced upon the voters by their Republican-controlled government. Despite being told their votes would not count, well over a million Democrats chose to vote. Florida is going to be a crucial state in the fall election. Why in the world would we want to disenfranchise and anger the Democratic voters of Florida. I don't believe Hillary should accept this compromise. Let's have a new primary. It is clear that there is private money out there to pay for it, and both candidates would have a fair, open, clean shot at making their case. Given the recent revelations about the views of Obama's spiritual advisor and pastor of 20 years, I can understand why he would not want a referendum on his candidacy, but it would be the fair thing to do.

The whole Florida primary is a mess due to the machinations of the Florida republican legislature. As one can note by the name calling and toxic nature of some of these posts, the republicans must be really having a good time with this. Point blank - there is no easy solution.
If both the candidates can not agree, the the primary should not count as layed out by the DNC and agreed to by all the candidates ( including HRC ). Rules are rules, so stop your whining. The only reason one candidate is pushing a particular position is because it benefits their campaign. I It is very disingenuous when a candidate wraps their cause in the name of "voter disenfranchisement". Come on, the race is almost a tie and both campaigns are doing whatever it takes to win. This includes bending the rules, standing on their high horses, and name calling.
I see not easy way out a exemplified by the tension in this forum. Lets hope the party can unite when a candidate is finally chosen this summer.