Sounds good to me.

As an Obama supporter, I'm happy that someone has finally taken the initiative here to put an Obama stake in the ground as opposed to just reacting (too much, this past week) to HRC leading the national discussion on everything.

The effect of splitting the delegates evenly is the same as the effect of not seating any delegates from Florida. Let's at least pretend that we're in a democracy.

Hillary won't be having this as a solution, she wants the current Michigan and Florida votes seated, regardless if the candidates agreed not to campaign in these two states and she was the only one listed on the Michigan poll.

Even counting Florida, Obama leads by over 100 pledged delegates. There's no reasonable case to be made for counting Michigan since Obama was not on the ballot there. After piling up an even bigger delegate lead in Mississippi, maybe Obama should offer to seat the Florida delegates and split the Michigan delegates as a compromise. He basically declares his lead insurmountable--which it basically is--by doing so and forces Hillary into defending an unreasonable demand against a fair compromise.

In reality, it disenfranchises voters in a sense, but in a sense every single part of our electoral system disenfranchises voters in one way or another, at least in the sense that one persons vote isn't the same as another persons vote. So really, it doesn't matter. W

e might as well do it that way and save a lot of money and a lot of hassle, and Hillary isn't going to win Michigan if they do it again, so really, Obama has a good shot at doing better than 50-50, and at most, she has ZERO hope of gaining enough delegates to make a difference, so why waste the money?

Why don't they split delegates in MI and FL based on the Gallup polls and save a bundle?

Obama supporter.

I can't agree. Either take away delegates because they broke the rules or do a re-do and give voters their say. Don't disenfranchise them by putting votes into their mouths. This amounts to the same thing as voter fraud.

Sinbad knows from his experience solving the refugee crisis in Kosovo that this is PRECISELY how you go about laying the groundwork for negotiations. One side proposes something ridiculous, the other side proposes something equally ridiculous, and then everyone agrees to split the difference.

Something like - half of the delegates will be apportioned based on the vote tally, the other half will be split down the middle. No need for a re-vote.

Clinton/Sinbad '08 - Solutions not Stand-Up!

Good luck with that, Senator Dodd!

Who do idiots like Dodd think they're fooling by this stupid junk?

Do they really think that the American people, or the people of FL and MI, will accept that they have had their voices heard if some party bigwigs just decide to split the vote 50-50? Who doesn't see that that's doing nothing more than suppressing that voice, and turning it into something that will have zero impact on the very decision in question?

Keep up the stupidity, Obama campaign! We like it when your need to win, no matter what democratic principles may be trampled upon, becomes so obvious a child could see through it.

This is analogous to splitting the baby down the middle, and calling it even. I'm an Obama supporter, but if there is no revote, then there should be no seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates, until someone has completely topped the needed delegate total.

Splitting the delegate vote would leave a bad taste in the mouths of Clinton supporters who (as wrong as they are) feel that Clinton won those two states in the first place the first time, and a split unfairly punishes her. Either revote or sit them out. There's no perfect solution, but that's life.

Maybe Senator Dodd could join Keith Olbermann in the little room for PanderBears Who Have Outlived Their Former Good Reputations.

As a Democrat and as a democrat, Chris Dodd has taken an awful position here. Florida and Michigan are key states in November, and this is an insult to the voters in each of those states.

As a partisan supporter of Hillary Clinton, to paraphrase what that poster called idiotic says, this is without a doubt great news for Hillary. This disenfranchisement won't play in Peoria, and it will definitely not play well in Miami or Dearborn.

The Clinton campaign has just been handed a gift that will keep on giving.

How about Clinton just admit defeat and then we just let them count.

Look, Obama people, if Obama has any authentic interest in democracy, all he has to do is shut the mouths of idiots like Dodd-ering and say loud and clear that he supports re-votes in MI and FL, and will do everything in his power to make them happen.

Why isn't he doing so? Because it doesn't serve his narrow self interest. And that's why this moron Dodd, who surely knows what the Obama campaign really wants, is floating this incredibly stupid and insulting notion instead.

You can't solve the problem in both states with one solution. Michigan was not fair. Obama was not on the ballot. Voters deserve to vote. Florida is another matter entirely because it was not the Democrats that created this mess. It was the Republicans who forced this on everyone.

What if it were Illinois we were talking about? Would it be okay with Obama and his supporters to split Illinois 50-50? I don't think so. For Dodd to say this is demeaning to these states and to Hillary. The voters deserve to vote and have their vote taken seriously. The Florida Republicans should be forced to pay for an other election.

Either re-vote or follow the rules and don't seat MI and FL as-is. The minute you start violating the rules, it will open the door for additional back-door revisions.
If this happens, the democrates should not be surprised to loose the general election and key local elections.
Michiganders are watching....

Michigan definitely needs a revote. In Florida, I don't know if I've said this here, either revote (which I think is ridiculous on one hand and awesome on the other cause I vote in Florida and i'd love to feel like a Texan =) -OR- Assign the delegates to Clinton and Obama, take the delegates won by other candidates (all of them were on the ballot, from my recollection), and split those between them, or come up with some other way to split the remainder). I don't know if that would make any difference at all, but just throwing it out there.

And is it me, or is John Edwards one of the most powerful members of the Democratic party right now? He has 26 delegates. Four years ago, that wasn't anything. This year, thats huge.

Also, what happens if they revote in those states, and Obama wins (unlikely in Florida, but significantly more likely in Michigan where they are currently tied and where we all now know that the Clinton campaign was also playing footsie with Canada over NAFTA)? No way Clinton will accept the results, right?

Hmm...

I truly don't understand the kerfluffle, here. MI and FL moved up their primaries. The consequences to that were made completely clear. The voters in those states could've - had they wanted "their voices" to be heard - pounded their representatives not to push forward with a pointless and stupid plan. Didn't happen. None of the Democratic candidates were terribly concerned about having MI and FL count before they started battling over every single vote, but NOW we're all expected to care? Sorry. Both states opted to break the rules, and are now paying the price - as they certainly should. Dodd's idea is (with all due respect to a man I admire) ridiculous. Consider the ramifications for the next go-round: if this proceeds as he's suggesting, it will be a free-for all in the next primary season.

Of course, I don't really care when any state has its primary, and I see no problem with changing that rule going forward. But changing it now is total bullshit. These were the agreed-upon rules. There's nothing more to discuss, beyond how it could be handled better next time.

Also, what happens if they revote in those states, and Obama win...No way Clinton will accept the results, right?

What she wants is the votes to stand as is, which isn't going to happen. Barring that, she wants to have Florida revote and then sat, while Michigan get caught up in a debate about cost where no one steps up. That's looking less likely to happen, but who knows. I have faith that the Obama camp will cut off that potential out for Clinton in the same why they've systematically cut off her other potential outs since she fell behind. They know what they're doing, while Clinton's team seems to be trying to make it up as they go along.

If Hillary hadn't voted to authorize war, the two now-poor states would have plenty of money in their budgets to fund new primaries.

This is ridiculous.

Why are we bending over backwards to make sure everyhing is fair to Obama and Clinton. The only thing that should count are the voters who actually came out and voted. If he wanted to, Obama could have been on the ballot in Michigan. All the candidates could have campaigned in Michigan and Florida. Last time I checked, there was no law preventing them.

I guess bowing down to Howard Dean and his little DNC dictatorship is most important.

How about this. She steps down. That saves the frigin cash.

I'm not buying that Hillary would win Florida even in a re-do. If history is any guide, Obama starts as a huge underdog, then closes the gap to the point where he either wins or loses veru narrowly (except in Ohio, and I still want to know where Traficante and the secretary of state were on primary night). Point is, I can think of no circumstance where Obama concedes the Florida result as is. Re-do before June 1, or nothiing (delaying further only benefits repubs, which Charlie Crist would be happy to do for his buddy and hopeful running mate McCain).

I have to say that as a Clinton supporter, most of the Obama people on TPM come across as sanctimounious prats.

Assuming he wins the nomination, why would I want to be associated with the likes of you people

I've been wondering about that.

That's what any mom would say: okay, kids, here's what you get for breaking the rules: you're welcome to be seated at the convention, y'all come, par-tay, but your votes are split down the middle, and you don't get to change them. No one will court you, no one will care. You'll be the only delegations in the convention hall that are irrelevant.

You don't like it, it's time out in the stairway. Next time, follow the rules.

Well just color me stupid! What I didn't consider was that this brings the SUPER DELEGATES of Florida & Michigan into play. That changes the math more than the delegate win. Duh on me.

Dodd has never been the brightest kid on the block. It was good for him that his father left him his senate seat otherwise I just don't think he would have amounted to anything.

All the back and forth regarding Florida must acknowledge two truisms: 1) voters in these states should NOT be disfranchised; and 2) the rules, as accepted by the nominees, must be honored.

And therein lies the rub. These two truths have been in direct conflict from the start. Everyone over at the DNC knew long ago that they were disenfranchising voters in these states by not agreeing to honor their primaries. And every voter in these states should have known this same fact going in. And they should have been outraged long before this mess became the topic du jour on cable news. Of course, no one thought that it would matter. You know: Hillary. Inevitable. All of that malarkey.

It seems to me that a compromise of sorts is needed here. Hillary wants/needs these delegations seated. At worst, she would settle for a do over primary that gives her another shot or narrative or case at Presidential political life.

Obama is happy with the status quo (thank you very much), but must know that an asterisk of sorts lingers nears his name without a resolution by way of vote from these two important states. At worst, he would settle for caucuses where his activated base could rally a good showing. He might not win, but odds would be very high that Obama would keep it close.

So why not split the baby on what these candidates would settle for? A little Texas style primary/caucus hybrid.

Start with a do over primary by mail (for cost considerations), although some mail polling stations may need to be set up for those who want to guarantee receipt and submission of their ballot. This is especially critical to lower income and/or urban voters who often change addresses often. Where could such a mail poll station be located? Ummm. How about the post office? Seems those fun-loving places need to be involved in any case.

And here is the important part: the mail-in primary allocates only 50% of the delegates. The other 50% is allocated through a caucus. Hillary is kind of happy. Obama is kind of happy. Dems everywhere are kind of happy. Best of all, the sun indeed rises in the morning.

A few weeks of campaign time and all is fair. May the best man or woman win.

Of course, the two remaining hiccups—who pays and how such a system fits with current Florida and Michigan law—are beyond my purview and pay grade. I'd only suggest the following on financing. Floridians and Michigan folk (are they Michiganians or Michiganers?) should pay to fix their own mess. They and their short-sighted legislatures and state chapters of the DNC created it. End of story. If someone else wants to chip in fine, but if the candidates ask me for money (or anyone else for that matter), I'll tell them to go fly a kite. After all, I just gave something much more valuable—a perfectly tenable solution.

A revote in FL & MI will not make the loser, HRC, into a winner... what will it take to make HRC understand she is a loser, John McCain in the WH? The bitch needs to be stopped before she destroys the Democratic Party. Someone needs to tell her, She is not the Democratic Party. She is a Goldwater Girl.

Michigan and Florida: Superdelegates

What about this idea:

If Michigan and Florida have “do overs”, their super-delegates should be striped of their votes because they were the cause of the problem. The super-delegates in sundries of ways were responsible for moving the respective primaries forward, so they should be held accountable and not the regular party members.

Bison, good idea. Just a bunch of corrupt party hacks.

--------------

Register online in PA by March 24
Spread the word to anyone you know there!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/pahome

This isn't new or dreamed up by Dodd (although I applaud him for publicizing it);
I heard this suggested on a NPR discussion weeks ago.

How does this give her any credit for a lead in FL? Splitting them negates them for each side. It is the same as seating no delegates at all, except it gets someone toward the total faster.

It seems to me that a fair solution would be to seat the Florida pledged delegates, hold a firehouse caucus (really a primary, but with consolidated polling places and possibly not quite as long hours)in Michigan. Then strip Florida and Michigan of ALL Super Delegates and Add-on delegates.(The Add-ons are selected by the state party executive committee in both states.)

The idea is to punish the knuckle-headed leadership but ensure the rank and file have their votes counted.

Hillary is not a democrat anymore

She's a CHEATOCRAT

We wouldn't have this problem if we had:

6 months to campaign, 6 debates, 1 national primary
6 months to campaign, 6 debates, the General Election.

This cuts out the need for multi-million dollar campaigns, unreliable open caucuses, "states Racing" to be relevant (Dean inadvertently did just that for FL and MI anyway), or meaningless bickering, whining, name-calling, fear-mongering, and plain idiocy.

Wait, that would give guys like Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, et al. a chance to win the nomination. Nevermind, just get this election over with.

This is an utterly asinine idea. And I'm saying this as someone who, over the course of the past two months, has gone from "I'd like Obama or Edwards, but Clinton would be fine" to "Good lord, Clinton is acting completely repugnantly."

"Let's give them delegates! And let's proportion them in a way that neither reflects whatever it is that they may think, nor has any effect whatsoever on the results!"

That's supposed to solve what, exactly?

Why not do a mail revote for the to vote for the Pledged delegates and leave all the Superdelegates out. I think they are who caused the problem and should not be allowed their percs for voting or for the camapaign. This way their would be no disenfrnchisement for the voters but the party officials that made this royal mess would have to go to Denver as pledged delegates or not at all.

An unavoidable fact remains, the votes in MI.& FI. were not sanctioned by the DNC.

The basic question = MONEY? Followed by DNC Approval of any plans in MI or FL!

The issue is not disenfranchisement or a lack of democracy? With a vote regardless of format, she will not meaningfully close the gap, and may loose ground.

The issue and goal is Clinton keeping the clock running as long as she can! At this point it appears futile, her only chance is a total breakdown for whatever reason by Obama.

Super delegates are going to continue the march to Obama. At the current rate he should exceed Clinton's total count by the end of March, her current campaign narrative & spokespersons( Penn, Wolfson, Ferraro, etc.) will accelerate this march if they do not seal their mouths. Absent a blow out on April 22 she is toast, the various assertions( CinC, foreign policy exp, Nafta, V.P. etc.) of the past will hurt her on April 22.

At this writing Mississippi is a lost cause, & for March Clinton should be down by 20 to 30, the total pledged delegates lead for Obama of 160- 170.

I love how Greg Sargeant and Josh Marshall are so in the tank for Hillary. They are subtle but good. I have yet to see a headline, "Hillary Backer Ed Rendell" or some such. Wonder if such a standard is forthcoming. TPM is pathetic. Phil Singer has a direct line of communication with these hacks. They talked about it with Olbermann tonight. I wonder if they cultivate relationships with the Obama camp. Somehow, I doubt it.

A month ago nobody was talking about Florida and Michigan. Once it became clear that mathematically Clinton couldn't catch Obama, suddenly Florida and Michigan became a "crisis".

The problem in addressing the situation now is that every political figure has political motives to argue for one method over the other. The time for a common sense approach has passed.

Ultimately, all sides agreed to the rules before a single vote was cast. And while that may not be the best solution, it is what was agreed upon. Sometimes doing nothing is the best alternative.

Michigan and Florida chose? Aren't you conflating the Democratic Parties, the state legislatures of those states and the ordinary voters of those states?

Obama chose to take his name off the ballot ostensibly because he couldn't campaign there but in actuality he was making a campaign decision when he did that. He argued he couldn't win because Granholm would support Clinton and Edwards would get the labor support. It was a political decision by him putting his own political well-being by currying favor in Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of helping to make sure that voters from industrial states also had an early say. Sen. Carl Levin points out that Michigan set its primary only after New Hampshire moved out of its zone too. New Hampshire wasn't penalized.

There's only one solution here: Let the damned rules that were agreed to by both Obama and Clinton stand! No revote, no clusterf**k.

I don't hear the people of FL and MI clambering for a revote. Not a one. Only the superdelegates supporting Clinton are making the argument in those states--go figure.

All this hand wringing that the dems will get punished for not seating FL and MI in November by those constituents is just that--hand wringing. All this talk about "squelching democracy", etc., etc is hot air. The time for this debate was months ago when the rules were agreed to. Democracy is not just about voting: it's primarily about the Rule Of Law. And the rules were agreed to by all involved parties. There's nothing MORE UNDEMOCRATIC then changing the rules mid-stream because one's candidate stands to gain from the change. That, my friends, is the definition of a "banana republic". So for the sake of democracy, let the freaking rules stand and move on.

I presume ChrisNBama's devotion to the rules includes a devotion to the rule that allows superdelegates to choose the candidate they prefer without reference to who is leading among the elected delegates.

All of the parties did not agree to the rules-- only the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns agreed to the rules in order to preserve Iowa and New Hampshire's precious monopoly. The people of Florida did not agree to the rules. The people of Michigan did not agree to the rules. The Democratic Party of Florida did not agree to the rules. The Democratic Party of Michigan did not agree to the rules.

In law there is a concept called equity. It means fairness. Courts use it all the time to trump the letter of the law if an outcome is patently unfair. Anyway, the rules of how a party decides its nominee are NOT laws. A party is a private organization that can decide its internal procedures according to how it sees fit. That being said, I think the presumption should be toward democratic outcomes. That means if I were a superdelegate I would vote for the winner of the popular vote. And that means the people of Florida and Michigan should be allowed to participate like the rest of us.

Does anyone have any idea about what the current delegate breakdown is in florida and michigan? I have seen some posts indicating that it really isn't that much. Anybody know? Please.

If its really not that much, maybe obama should just say fine. 55/45 split for both and let's be done with it. It would make him look better and net clinton only 10 or 20 delegates. So what, she will never catch up in any event.

DemD wrote:

I presume ChrisNBama's devotion to the rules includes a devotion to the rule that allows superdelegates to choose the candidate they prefer without reference to who is leading among the elected delegates.

I guess you are trying to suggest that I hold inconsistent views that favor my candidate over the established rules. For purposes of full disclosure, I do support Senator Obama for President. I'm sorry to disappoint you, however. I "reject and denounce" the Obama campaigns arguments that the superdelegates should back the will of the people. While that sort of rhetoric probably holds appeal to you(or maybe not depending on whether you are a Clinton supporter who argues through a partisan filter), I find it to fly in the face of the spirit of the rules vis-a-vis the superdelegates. The superdelegates were established to prevent the sort of electoral disaster that occurred when the dovish McGovern was nominated by the dems and was consequently destroyed in the general election. I fervently support the idea of superdelegates to make their own reasoned decisions regarding who they think will be the best candidate to defeat John McCain in the fall. They are specifically called to be tie-breakers, and we will see them in action come August (barring a radical change in the perceived outcome). If they think Clinton is the stronger candidate, so be it. If they think Obama is the stronger candidate so be it.

All of the parties did not agree to the rules-- only the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns agreed to the rules in order to preserve Iowa and New Hampshire's precious monopoly. The people of Florida did not agree to the rules. The people of Michigan did not agree to the rules. The Democratic Party of Florida did not agree to the rules. The Democratic Party of Michigan did not agree to the rules.

So what if the DNC representatives for MI and FL didn't agree to the rules? They were overruled. This is called representative democracy. Inevitably, someone or party is "disenfranchised". If the people of FL and MI feel disenfranchised as a result of the rule breaking of their leadership, then they should vote those representatives out of office. This is how democracy works. Unless you advocate mob rule.

In law there is a concept called equity. It means fairness. Courts use it all the time to trump the letter of the law if an outcome is patently unfair. Anyway, the rules of how a party decides its nominee are NOT laws. A party is a private organization that can decide its internal procedures according to how it sees fit. That being said, I think the presumption should be toward democratic outcomes.

You should have ended your argument at the DNC has the right, as a private organization, to establish its own rules. Because, in the end, this is the reality. They established their rules, and those rules should be enforced. Your definition of fairness amounts to the destruction of the rule of law. Moreover, let's not quibble on the semantics of the differences between rules or laws. The "rules" are "Laws" with a lower case L. Either they mean something or they don't. Either they're enforced or they're not. I advocate that the rules matter and should be enforced. If they are not, then why establish them if they are simply going to be rewritten by a candidate who deems them inconvenient, thus "disenfranchising" those who abided by the rules. See how this works? The best of all outcomes is to simply abide by what's established. Let the chips fall where they may.

ChrisNBama: "Your definition of fairness amounts to the destruction of the rule of law."

No, because the law encompasses the concept of equity. Law is not only rules but justice. In fact, it was the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan that was the banana republic move. Party leaders decide to throw out the votes of millions of people just to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire? The contest does not exist for the sake of the DNC or the Obama campaign or the Clinton campaign, but for the sake of the voters.

Furthermore, it is not breaking the rules for the party to decide, in its wisdom and in accordance with its rules, to reverse a decision. If the rules didn't allow them to do it than they couldn't do it. But the rules grant the party leaders the power to reverse their decision.

It is not mob rule or the destruction of the rule of law to suggest the presumption should be toward democratic outcomes. I say presumption because I'm not trying to lay down a hard and fast rule, only a preference for democratic outcomes. Contrary to the arguments of most Obama supporteres on this blog, I agree with you that superdelegates should exercise their independent judgment. I indidcated how I would vote if I were a superdelegate, not how ALL superdelegates should vote.