Great news about Michigan, a tie today means an Obama victory tomorrow

Keep in mind that even WITH Florida and Michigan, Hillary CANNOT catch up to Obama's Delegate count.

It's about the delegates folks -- as Hillary's camp INITIALLY said back in January.

This is, of course, before Barack Obama starts campaigning in either state, assuming they give him time for that. I wonder, does he have a local organization in either state? I assume he must, if only a volunteer group, though he couldn't campaign in either one before the primaries.

This goes to show why the Clinton campaign wants to seat the delegates from FL and MI as is, without a revote. If a revote happens, she will very likely lose most, if not all, of her current advantage in delegates.

Here's how Obama was should talk about the new election in MI: "Hillary didn't care about having your voices heard, what she wanted to do was steal them, in a soviet-style single candidate election! now you'll have a chance to have your voices heard!"

I think Obama could pickup pretty good support in MI.

As a friend of mine told me yesterday, Obama can only do better than he did in the original contests, and Hillary can only do worse.

Don't expect Hillary to like any "re-vote scenario" at all. Expect her to contest any re-vote no matter where it is on any grounds.

GOBAMA

LOL.

With these new Fla. numbers, you can bet Obama and his Obamamites will be inventing new reasons why not only should the Jan. Fla. votes NOT count but why they should also NOT allow a re-vote.

Clinton already won Fla. even tho she did not campaign there and Obama broke the rules and DID run t.v. ads there. He could have excluded Fla. in his cable t.v. ads but chose NOT to. In spite of being the ONLY candidate who advertised in Fla. he still lost.

whine whine whine

But, but, but...

... Frankly0 told me that MI would be just like OH. Do you mean to say that he was just talking out of his @$$? I cannot believe it...

Seriously though, those numbers warm my Obama loving heart. There is not an election yet where she has won by the same margin of advantage she had more than three weeks out. If she is ahead by 16 pts down there right now, her ultimate victory will be nearer to 10 or less. As such, the only Florida delegates that have a chance to be seated will favor her by only a few heads. Bring on the re-vote. I will happily chip in to pay for it if cost is the issue.

Incidentally, I thought about a solution to the "who will pick up the tab" question last night. I would like to lay it out there and see what folks think.

I think that Obama should agree to pay for most or even all of each vote. This makes him look generous and concerned for democracy. Clinton can hardly object because this is the only way to get those delegates seated, and now that she has called so strongly for their seating she would look like a craven hypocrite if she stood in the way of the only means by which they would. If she waffles he can tighten the screws by talking about his respect for democracy and the rule of law and the good of the citizens of MI and FL; she will not be able to withstand the pressure that will build and will have to cave. The states in question will not object because it costs them nothing. The DNC will not object for the same reason.

But, Obama will be laying out a considerable chunk of change. He should expect something in return. This is the something: the Florida and Michigan superdelegates who cooked up the schemes to move their primaries (i.e. Sens Levin, Stabenow and Nelson and Gov Granholm) have to agree to switch their votes to Obama. Not their endorsements, mind you, but their superdelegate votes. They will agree to this because presently they have a lot of egg on their faces and they know that a not insubstantial number of voters in their states are pissed off at them for effectively gambling their enfranchisement and losing. Obama will be offering them a lifeline to prevent being booted from office on a tidal wave of resentment in their next election cycles. At the same time, however, he will be embarrassing them just enough to make clear to anyone else contemplating a similar gamble next go around that it is not worth it.

What do folks think?

When exactly did Hillary 'steal' the vote?

Did she force people to vote for her in Michigan or Florida? Did she steal the ballot boxes?

Both Michigan and Florida had fair elections. The fact that Obama chose not to have his name on the ballot in Michgan and both chose not to campaign in either state is irrelevant

The results from FL or MI will only count if Hillary wins those states.

The bottom line is that elections are only legitimate if Obama wins.

I can't wait to see what the Obama nuts on this site complain about next.

If he is the nominee, John McCain will have no problem getting elected.

It is often said that neither candidate 'campaigned' in Florida. I disagree with this statement.
On the weekend before the Florida vote, Hillary Clinton got headlines throughout Florida by announcing that she would have a 'victory' party in Florida on the evening of that vote. Hillary has repeatedly taken actions in the final days before a vote, in order to get get folks to pay attention to focus attention on her.

That announcement right before the Florida voting WAS campaigning in Florida. To clearly not be campaigning, she would have announced on the evening AFTER the voting that she would go to Florida to throw a party and 'thank her supporters'.

Greg DeLassus at 12:24: "In principle, dear Fractal, I see no reason why Clinton should not be allowed to help with the costs. My thought, however, is that she does not have the money to spare and would, as such, never agree"
===
That's the beauty of it. If the Obama campaign comes out and offers to split the costs of a revote with the Clinton campaign, he either eats up a large chunk of the Clinton campaign's cash or he makes them look like they've got money problems while simultaneously alienating Florida and Michigan voters. It's win-win for Senator Obama.

These forums get more and more disturbing every day. If the Obama democrats become the new "base" of the party, I will probably never vote Dem in a national election again. I hate to say this because I only feel this way when I read all your inane posts. Normally, my rational side prevails. But even with all the important issues on the table this cycle, it may be more vital that we save the party from the likes of all of you. If that means voting third party or for McCain, so be it. Polls suggest a lot of Hillary supporters are starting to feel this way, including many that I know personally. The smug self-righteousness of Obama's supporters in most Internet forums just makes me physically ill. But my vote against him won't be out of spite; it will to be to prevent the progressive left from being hijacked by a cult of personality mentality just as has happened to the right.

Before you Obama supporters get too giddy, you might note that Rasmussen figures that half of the voters in the Michigan primary will be non-Democrats. Besides the fact that it's not certain Obama will turn out independents and Republicans in a re-vote, it has not been determined that it will be an open primary. They may well go for a closed primary in order to make it more manageable, not mention more reflective of the party.

I'm out -- lunch.

Meanwhile, somebody needs to forward our idea to Barack for Obama's campaign to counter-offer to split the tab for the MI caucuses!

Wow, I agree with das2003... a tie in Michigan, with no campaigning as of yet is good news for Obama. IT'S ALL DEFENSE FROM HERE TO THE CONVENTION. She won't get the delegate numbers, even after winning Florida, to put a dent in his elected delegate lead. Moreover, the negative campaigning bump that she's seen recently will come at the cost of valuable superdelegate votes, regardless of the appearance of momentum. He just needs to stay above the fray at this point.

Doesn't seating the FL/MI delegates push the 2025 goalpost up to more than 2200 delegates needed for the win? Given the remaining pledged delegates available, how does this revote help us exactly?

If you were to split FL/MI according the cast vote/caucus percentages of the rest of the country, it's damn near a wash. Certainly not enough of a shift for Clinton to have her panties in a bunch. Incidentally, I would be equally happy to have the votes split thusly...

MI: Clinton gets the percentages of people who voted for her, Obama gets the Uncommiteds plus the stragglers who voted for candidates now supporting Obama.

FL: Clinton gets her votes, Obama his, Edwards and the candidates who are now supporting Obama.

Without a revote, these are the only reasonable scenarios. AND THEY REPRESENT VERY LITTLE SHIFT IN THE DYNAMIC. Obama is still ahead and the delegate count makes it even HARDER for Clinton to come out ahead.

There are some interesting discussions going on at the Tournament of President’s website. It’s an initiative put on by the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies that asks people to vote for the president who they think should win the tournament.

This year’s question is “Which former president should be our next president’s greatest role model, regardless of party affiliation? Is anyone here Wilsonian?

Michigan does need a new primary, Florida's results should be counted since both candidates were in the race and only Obama cheated paying for commercials.

Awesome! Good for you! I mean, afterall, your candidate and McCain agree 99.99% of the time anyway. This is only natural, warmonger.

Hoost:

I guess anyone who's not an Obamanut like you is a warmonger.

Pathetic

Can we be done with the discussion that Michigan had a fairly contested primary, as a few people here are saying?

We were under the impression that all of the candidates would remove their names from the ballot. When Hillary didn't, it was a big surprise.

I also know many Democrats who crossed over to vote in the Republican primary to vote for Mittster. We were told our vote didn't count, so people from all over were bombarding us to confuse the Republican side a bit more. I didn't want a part of that, so I cast my vote for the Democrat I most wanted to win, knowing full well that it would merely be a statement. In a real primary or caucus, there is no way Hillary would have pulled the numbers she did even back then.