« Obama: Don't Be Confused, I'm Serious About Ending War | Home | Poll: Hillary Back In National Tie With Obama; 3 A.M. Ad Might Have Helped »
Sen. Nelson (D-FL): Deal Could Be Reached Soon For New Florida Primary
After a year of arguments, lawsuits and an unauthorized primary, a deal may finally be close at hand for a do-over primary in Florida.
The details have yet to be worked out precisely, according to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), but it would involve a mail-in vote administered by the state party. "My job is clear," Nelson told Newsweek. "It's to stand up for the right of Floridians to vote as intended."
But here's the catch: The millions of dollars necessary to pay for this would have to be provided through unlimited soft-money contributions to the state party. That's right — this would be a special election funded by special interests.
Meanwhile, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has announced his firm opposition to a mulligan primary in his state.
Advertisement
Levin is one of the main sphincters responsible for engineering this deluze clusterfuck in the first place. Of course he's against a redo. Somebody ought to force him to pay for it.
March 7, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope no benevolent billionaires decide to support this ridiculous exercise, wasting money that would better be put to use helping the Democrats win the general election.
And above all else that has become clear, the Democratic leaders and elected officials from Michigan and Florida should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for self-servingly bringing this divisiveness upon us, especially including Hillary supporters Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan.
March 8, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would a revote be fair to voters that followed the RULES?
If this is ok, what's to stop me and other voters from saying, "Hey, I've changed my mind after watching Hillary, I want to vote for Obama now -- Revote Ballot Please"?
March 7, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey,
The relevant difference is this: you voted (or so I assume) in a primary or caucus, the results of which will result in a delegation being seated at the convention, whereas MI and FL voters didn't.
Here's an analogy. Suppose you and I take the SAT. My results get lost or corrupted because my local administrator failed to follow proper procedures in storing or transmitting the computer data. Your results get properly saved, transmitted and recorded, partly because your local administrator did follow proper procedures. Now, when it comes time to apply to universities, your performance counted, whereas mine didn't. I'd be entitled to re-take the test, and it wouldn't be unfair to you were I to do so.
My initial test = votes cast in MI and FL
Your initial test = votes cast in, e.g., CA
Applying to university = selecting a nominee at the convention
Yeah, I know, no analogy is perfect. But I'd say this one's pretty good.
P.S. It's not about individual voters following the rules, but state parties.
March 7, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not a very accurate analogy.
It's more like you and I take the SAT. You are told that if you open your booklet and start the test before you are allowed that your test won't count. You begin taking your test 15 minutes before you are told to open your booklet. Your results get invalidated because you failed to follow instructions. My results get properly saved, transmitted and recorded, because I followed instructions. Now, when it comes time to apply to universities, your performance didn't count, whereas mine did. You may be entitled to re-take the test, but not until next time the SAT is administered. Therefore, you will not be able to get into college this year.
Your initial test = votes cast in MI and FL
My initial test = votes cast in, e.g., CA
March 8, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, John, your criticism is inapt, as is your alternative analogy.
Remember: it's not the individual voters that decided to hold their primaries earlier than what was allowed by the DNC. Rather, it was the state parties (or, as I understand things, in Florida it was the Republican controlled state government--but that's neither here nor there). The individual voters were not responsible for the violations that resulted in their votes being discounted. So you can't properly blame them for the fact that their votes were discounted.
In any event, I should have mentioned that in my analogy:
The test administrators = the state parties (or: government)
March 8, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
But knowing the vote did not likely count means that many sat out the election. If we wish to know the will of the people, we need to hold a vote/caucus where people know whether or not their vote counts.
Would you expend as much effort on the SAT if you were told it was a practice test and you could not release the scores to your schools?
March 8, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. (I'm not sure whether you meant that rhetorical question as an implicit criticism, but it actually strengthens my position.)
March 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but your further analysis is not rooted in reality.
It doesn't matter who decided to hold their primaries earlier than what was allowed by the DNC. The rules were issued, and they were broken. The result shouldn't have come as a shock to anyone because voters knew that going in (and by the way, I am a Floridian).
Your understanding of things is quite flawed, because while it was the Republican controlled state government that floated the idea of the early primary, the Florida Democrat party went along anyway (they didn't have to). That's a significant fact that is not 'neither here nor there'.
I'm not blaming voters for the fact that their votes were discounted but that is the part that is neither here nor they.
I suppose I should have made an addendum to my more correct analogy. The DNC (SAT testing authorities) handed down the rules to the Florida Democratic party (proctors). The proctors told the test that really it would be ok to open the tests early even though the SAT board said if they did, their results would be disqualified.
The students (voters) took the test early and their results disqualified. It doesn't matter if the proctors said it was ok. Those students are still not going to have SAT scores to get into college with.
End of story.
March 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under DNC rules, States can have primaries whenever they like as long as they are (or were) held after Feb 5th. Since the new FL or MI primaries would be after feb 5st, then they would not break DNC rules.
March 8, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
March 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fun fact: no United States Senator has died since the Vietnam War! Therefore, their being the living dead, I approach these comments with suspicion. Question: if Ben Nelson is, in fact, a vampire, then is there a moral imperative to kill him? Discuss.
March 7, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you saying that? A number of them have died since then, in fact.
March 8, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is any kind of revote, it must be a primary. Texas is a great example of how utterly inaccurate and unfair caucuses are. Hillary wins the votes by 4%, with 2 million voting, but Barack wins the caucus with only 60,000 or so voting.
Also, people who voted were the only ones allowed to caucus as well, but I know people who did not vote, but were admitted to the caucus anyway, so the laws were broken during the caucus.
Let's do away with caucuses altogether since they take away the privacy of the vote, and encourage many to not attend due to a lack of privacy or personal or work schedule problems, i.e. doctors, nurses, police, firefighters, grocery checkers, etc.
March 7, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could alwasy flip a coin.
Both MI and FL broke the established rules that ALL candidates agreed to abide by. The fact that ANY do-over may be possible should be enough. If Hillary (or Barack) doesn't like the format.
Tough shit.
March 7, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If there is any kind of revote, it must be a primary. Texas is a great example of how utterly inaccurate and unfair caucuses are. Hillary wins the votes by 4%, with 2 million voting, but Barack wins the caucus with only 60,000 or so voting."
No, the TDP estimates about a million people voted in the caucus. The 60,000 you seem to be counting must be the county convention delegates selected by each caucus.
March 7, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over 1 million Texas voters participated in the caucuses. Your 60,000 number is pure fiction.
March 8, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a Michigan native, it is my considered opinion that Carl has gone soft in the head after too many years in the Senate. His state has much bigger fish to fry than this. The old swamplands are reclaiming Detroit.
A do-over is necessary, but please don't make Michigan pay for it, they absolutely cannot afford it. Go to Flint and tell me the state needs to pay for (yet another) primary election.
The soft in the head part...it is one of the chief symptoms of the danger posed by those not having been raised amid the immediacy of the world's information. The honorable thing would be to acknowledge it, and step down.
Pax,
M.
March 7, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everyone changing the rules at the end?
March 7, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually not changing the rules at all to have a primary later on. The rule was they couldn't go early.
After Feb 5th, they can have a primary whenever they want.
March 8, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delmoi,
It is against the rules to have two primaries just because a state wants to. Otherwise, any state that has already voted could hold a second primary again, after Feb 5th.
Stop twisting facts!
March 8, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope it is not against the rules. I posted this on another thread. There is actually precedent for a do over. Delaware screwed up their primary in the 70's or 80's and held it before they were allowed to under the rules. They then held a second primary in accordance with the rules. See, follow the rules and it works out so much easier. Or you could be a clinton and ignore the rules and lie, cheat and steal to futher your personal glory. Pathetic.
If she would have announced that her position was that michigan and florida counted before iowa, then I would be ok, fine if that's her position. She lied about her position and said that they shouldn't count. Of course, if she told the truth before iowa, we would now have obama as the nominee fighting mccain and she would have gotten trounced. I really cannot stand the clintons and I really don't understand how anyone with any integrity can be a clinton supporter.
March 8, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Meanwhile, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) A SUPER-DELEGATE WHO HAS ENDORSED HILLARY has announced his firm opposition to a mulligan primary in his state."
Fixed that for ya.
March 7, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we're going to redo a state that Hillary can win big and sit on a state that Obama might win?
What is this horseshit?
Do we need to go to Tanzania to get any real democracy?
Either both have re-dos, or neither do. It's that simple.
March 7, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the sort of thing that makes me ashamed to be a Democrat. There is no need for any re-vote because they already voted. Are Republicans voting again? The only reason to vote again is to give Obama a chance to buy another election. He wasn't able to exercise his 2-1 advantage in money the first time around, so now we have to go back so that all the limousine liberals can pitch in and prove who really runs the party. It makes me sick.
March 8, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having to follow the rules is such a pain, isn't it?
If Hillary had lost in Michigan (hard to do, when hers was the only name on the ballot!) and had lost in Florida, she and her supporters would have no trouble understanding the importance of not changing the rules in the middle of the game.
March 8, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! Rules are stupid! Does Dick Cheney follow any stinking rules! Does Bush just blow off whatever laws he doesn't like! Who needs a president who doesn't think rules are just for wussies!
March 8, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so sick of all the Obama fascists on this board, mascaraing as Democrats, going on and on about "the rules the rules the rules." F*&% the rules. Howard Dean's word isn't the law and the voters of Florida aren't criminals. Dean is the one who has broken the law by systematically disenfranchising legal voters, and he should be prosecuted in a court of law and thrown in prison. In a democracy NOTHING is more sacred or more important that counting EVERY vote. If you only count the votes of some of the people, it's no longer a democratic process. It's a sham. And the Democratic Primary is fast becoming a fraud.
F$%% Howard Deans rules and F^%$ Howard Dean! I had no say in whether to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. Who elected Dean dictator? I'm ASHAMED of the Democratic Party. It isn't worthy of that name. It's a betrayal of everything Democrats are supposed to believe in. Even the Republicans respected and counted the votes of Republican voters. Even they wouldn't go as far as dictator Dean did. It was a stupid and unnecessary ruling at the time, and it is doing more damage to the party the longer it is allowed to stand. If Obama becomes the nominee because of it, I have no doubt whatsoever that he will lose in November.
March 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw earlier on CNN that Florida has to get this whole thing setup by Monday if they want to get it done by the DNC deadline (apparently they have a 90 'waiting period' between when a primary is announced and held in FL)
March 8, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign has been shedding corcodile tears about "disingrngisment" of Florida and Michigan voters. Yet that same Clinton team has also been making it abundantly clear that a win delivered by super delegates is a legitimate win.
There is good possibility that a few hundred super delegates will end up giving this nomination to Clinton, ignoring Obama's popular and elected delegate majority. If at the end of the day disfringisingent of millions of Obama voters ends up being the ultimate outcome, the same Clinton who is advocating for the rights of Florida and Michigan voters will shrug and say "those are the rules of the game."
I realize hypocracy is an ever present element in politics. But the crass and adacious manner with which the Clinto people engage in it is breathtaking.
Mike
March 8, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should take the initiative and ofer 50% of the cost for the doover primary. He will get a lot of votes just because of that!
March 8, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This whole thing has a stench about it. The rules were broken with the forfeiture of the right to seat their delegates as the penalty.
This whole thing has the feel of just what we want to get away from in Washington. People break the rules and expect not to be held to them or be held accountable for their decisions. Lie, twist and distort the truth in a never ending game of oneupmanship that has nothing to do with governing and everything to do with power for the sake of power.
These are not honorable people. I am in no way inclined to have any of them having a say in the selection process. They now want a chance to modify the normal course of events in a hindsight sort of way that is altogether inappropriate. This is exactly what they sought to do and to actually allow this is absolutely ridiculous. They just need to have their TS card punched and go away.
This gives me pasue to consider if I even want to vote in November. What's the point. It isn't any different than the kind of shit we've had from Bush. The supposed common purpose, serving the citizens of this country, is anything but. If the democrats lose in November they'll have only themselves to blame. I've seen this referred to as a cluster f*** and that is exactly what it is.
March 8, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the Dems, in typical fashion seem to want to coddle the criminal (MI and FL) rather than the victim (the rest of us).
44 states were able to follow the rules.
We are a nation of *laws* (something that the Clintons and the Bushes have forgotten because of their dynasty-like rules).
It was clear that the Clintons intended to circumvent the rules from the beginning: Other Dem candidates were able to get their names off the ballot in Michigan, for example.
Here's the fair way to deal with this:
The state parties pay for a revote of their choosing. If that hurts the state Dems, so be it.
If Hillary Clinton doesn't like it, she can leave the Democratic Party. Someone should call her bluff.
We are a nation where NO ONE is above the rules and the law.
Notice that the GOP doesn't have this issue?
It's because the more mud that Hillary stirs up, the better off it is for her.
Remember, when you wrestle a pig in the mud, you both get dirty -- but the pig enjoys it. Hillary is our nation's pig.
March 8, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indelicate, but not too far off base.
The question facing us after March 4 is not how Sen. Clinton steals this nomination from the expressed will of the voters, it's how the Party allows her to do it without alienating too many Democratics.
That is the only issue here.
The Democratic Party establishment, along with the MSM, clearly believes her to be the most "responsible" candidate of the two; the one with the deepest committment to maintaining the status quo (this is what is meant by all this talk of "the adults" in the Party, as opposed to "the children", mere voters, supporting Obama). That much is plain. They might wish she didn't have to steal the nomination at the convention, but I doubt if ultimately many will have reservations about her actually doing it . . . *if* they're able to keep the damage to a controllable minimum, and *if* they can effectively conceal their hand in it.
Once they work that problem out . . . and these FL and MI do-overs are but one element of that process . . . they'll have no trouble, none, simply handing her the nomination, just as they intended to do from the start.
March 8, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Well, the Dems, in typical fashion seem to want to coddle the criminal (MI and FL) rather than the victim (the rest of us)."
So now the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan are criminals? What law did they break? And how exactly are you the victim of their criminal act of voting? Because your vote doesn't mean as much when other people vote too? In other words, you want to be a dictator, just like Howard Dean.
I'll tell you who the real criminal is = Howard Dean. It's against the law in the United States to systematically disenfranchise voters. It's a felony. Howard Dean should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and locked up in prison. Let him try to make up rules and disenfranchise voters while playing prison punk to some 300 lb. lifer named Dwayne.
March 8, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm begining to think Hillary won't give up even if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination. I wouldn't put it past her to pull a Lieberman--or a Nader.
March 8, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad that you brought up Lieberman. Unlike Holy Joe, she's likely to get the nomination, but she'll use the same tactics: run an ugly campaign in which she relentlessly smears her opponent while simultaneously telling outright lies about her own positions and record.
Lieberman ended up running as the standard bearer for the "Lieberman for Connecticut" party, and he had a lot of support from prominent state democratic officials. National figures -- including the Clintons and Obama -- gave him their tacit support by giving Lamont wide berth. Lieberman had a lot of money and ran a ton of commercials that confused voters. That's how he won.
Clinton is likely to go into the convention close enough in the delegate count and Obama will be damaged goods. The same establishment that supported Lieberman will turn it around for her.
That's what I suspect, anyway. I don't think Obama is any more liberal than Ned Lamont or Howard Dean, but they are all from the democratic wing of the party that gets its strength from the grassroots. The DLC'ers are coming from another place, obviously. And they won't give up power. This is a transformative election for the party.
So Lieberman is worth keeping in mind here.
March 8, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Levin a Hillary supporter?
I just wonder because if Michigan doesn't revote, and Florida does, that helps Hillary.
Obama probably wins MI
Hillary probably win FL
Either both or neither should be revote.
March 8, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody said he was. The governor is a diehard clinton supporter. The reason why the primary was moved up at the behest of the governor is that they wanted to give the clintons a boost before super-tuesday. Originally, they knew iowa was not good for her and new hampshire was iffy because of the war vote, among many other things, soooooo michigan, it was thought was the clintons perfect - demographic old, poor, uneducated whites. They take their lies and distortions at face value.
I still for the life of me don't understand why dems think that the clintons first two terms were wonderful. Talk about a snow job. They basically ran a republican administration. We haven't had a decent dem administration since the 60's and an argument could be made that the Johnson and Kennedy administrations weren't all that great - See Vietnam. WTF!!!!
March 8, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just keep voting until you get the results you want, and then Obama or Hillary can run third party.
March 8, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, Nelson, the guy who filed suit to force the DNC to allow the rules-breaking calendar jump, offers a new Florida 'vote by mail' ADMINISTERED by the state party---this is the same party which introduced the bill to jump the calendar and [save one legislator] en masse voted for that bill.
Yikes, I can see worrisome potential for a corrupted process or corrupted counting in a 'vote by mail' administered by the very ones who en masse were the original rule-breakers. Who receives a new ballot? All registered voters in the state, only Dem registered voters, only those who voted in January [haha]? Would the voter lists be 'pre-scrubbed' ala old Florida voter suppression tactics? And these same state party folks would be the receivers and counters of the mailed-in ballots?
It may be fine to do this re-voting. It may less than fine and possibly create further headaches or abiding uncertainties depending upon the process used. Just saying.
March 8, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama voters who stayed home in Jan. will be disenfranchised?
See, already the cheating is beginning.
Let's watch the MSM drop the ball again. Those "biased" media who are lapping up the Wolfson koolaid.
March 8, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are my fellow Obama supporters objecting to this? This is the solution we should all (Clinton and Obama supporters) desire. The rule that Florida broke was that it had its primary before Feb 5, when it was not allowed. If it holds a new vote now it will not be breaking the rules, it will be following them. To give seat the delegates awarded by such an election is not rewarding for breaking the rules - it rewarding them for following the rules. Meanwhile, it prevents any hard feelings against the Democratic party.
Finally, if you think that Clinton will win Florida this time by the same margin she won the first go around, you are just falling for the propoganda that the Clinton folks are feeding us. I expect that she will win Florida, but it will be close - just like TX. Nobody is harmed but many people are helped by this plan. No one, least of all the Obama partisans, should be objecting to this.
March 8, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Catholic, I'm not objecting to FL doover. I'm objecting to the stonewalling in Michigan combined with the rigging of it in FL.
Vote by mail is the friend of the ignorant and uninformed. At the other end of the spectrum, you have caucuses which reward the engaged and activists.
Small wondner that HRC's lapdogs would try to rig it for her benefit, since the uneducated and old are her base.
Moreover, since MI is more likely an Obama win, HRC and her lapdogs will try to prevent them from being seated. Then she can claim a "win" in FL and bolster her big state theory, even though, it won't effect the delegate race. One step closer to theft of the nomination if you ask me.
So I suggest either redo both Michigan and Florida, or just split them 50-50 and seat them.
Levin's tactics are highly suspicious. I'm sure the Awol MSM will ignore this too. (Just like they ignored Puerto Rico's sudden urge to ditch caucuses!). I guess too busy in conference calls with Ickes and Wolfson.
March 8, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This discussion is just more of the same. How can the process be engineered to help one side or the other? Any process at this point cannot be funded with special interest money and not be untainted. And any process to rescue votes in MI and FL has to be agreed to by both campaigns. I think a do-over is simply not doable. Best thing is to neutralize both states and seat their delegates 50-50. If we have more shenanigans in this closeout of the primaries, it just ensures the party is going over a cliff with a Republican blow-out in Nov.
March 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I hate to say it, but that benefits obama, which really isn't fair. The only fair solution is a do over. The do over should be paid for by the dem state parties who broke the rules. (Clinton can reimburse the Michigan state party as they were doing it as a favor to her to help her).
By the way, does anybody know what the florida delegate spread would be if the vote stands? Same question about michigan? Please. Thanks.
March 8, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that I really don't believe most of you when you say this is about following the rules. For most of you, this is about making sure that Obama keeps his delegate lead. Your insistence on following the rules is a good talking point, but it's not what's motivating you.
I voted for Clinton (in Maryland), and even I don't think the Michigan delegates should be seated when hers was the only name on the ballot. That's just not democracy.
I do think the Florida delegates should be seated, but then I have never understood why the process had to be so carefully controlled just so people in Iowa and New Hampshire could feel special. In any case, everyone's name was on the ballot in Florida, and no one could explicitly campaign there, so it was a relatively level playing field. I don't follow the delegate count as obsessively as y'all appear to, but would adding Florida really make that big of a difference to your candidate?
Still, if Howard Dean doesn't have a problem with them doing a re-do, then your insistence on not allowing one and not seating any delegates seems anti-democratic, anti-Democratic, and just plain misguided.
I don't have a big problem with a late primary in either state. I don't much like the idea of an all mail-in vote, though. It just seems like there are too many opportunities for abuse, which also means opportunities for legal challenges from all sides.
March 8, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do I continually see on these TPM comment threads that a caucaus is a public vote and takes away the privacy of your vote when many of the states have a caucus vote where the vote is done privately and then counted along with all the other votes? At least that is the way it was in the Minnesota caucus where I voted.
March 8, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I have to say that I really don't believe most of you when you say this is about following the rules. For most of you, this is about making sure that Obama keeps his delegate lead. Your insistence on following the rules is a good talking point, but it's not what's motivating you."
Nonsense.
I said either revote both Michigan or Florida, or just seat them with 50-50 spilt. (More generous to HRC than a popular vote split, which would actually be the most fair)
But to cherry pick a process and state to revote and to stonewall in the other is in fact CHEATING.
So revote, yes. Cherry-picked, rigged CHEATING, no.
And unlike HRC, I believe that whoever wins the most delegates should be the nominee. HRCs people are left to arguing that backroom deals should decide.
If HRC could in the most delegates fair and square, there would be no controversy. Instead, she not lead ONCE in pledged delegates. She's losing and yet going to try to steal it.
Totally undemocratic and hypocritical of you.
March 8, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I do think the Florida delegates should be seated"
How about Michigan. Levin, a closet Clintonite, is now stonewalling.
This is cherrypicking and cheating, since it is not a state she will win. I guess only HRC favored states count, huh?
March 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh calm down. If I were cherrypicking for Clinton, I'd say seat both the Michigan and Florida delegates without a revote. That would give her a substantial advantage.
I do think that Michigan should hold a fair vote or not have its delegates seated. I apologize if my words were sufficiently vague so as to allow a rabid ideologue to misinterpret and mischaracterize them.
Michigan and Florida are separate states, and to say that you have to revote both or neither makes no sense. My guiding principle here is to give everyone a chance at a fair vote. I believe the people in Florida had that chance, but the people in Michigan didn't.
The 50-50 split is pointless. It's the same result as seating neither state's delegates. You're just trying to provide some cosmetic cover.
Your arguments, and your tone, are a perfect example of why I don't believe that you care about following the rules except insofar as it helps your candidates. The commenters here (generally, that is: there are exceptions) are all so angry about anything that doesn't lead to a coronation of their selected candidate. Obama was not and is not my guy, but if he wins, I don't think that the universe is going to collapse or that the dead are going to roam the earth. I'll still vote for him in the general.
March 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
America needs to thwart the political establishment. Too many "public servants" operate under a sense of entitlement and superiority instead of a sense of obligation and responsibility. Hillary is not entitled to the presidency, and her behavior suggests she doesn't even deserve it.
March 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am all for a revote in both states, but the mail-in voting idea makes me very nervous. WAY too much room for corruption.
March 8, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn did an email survey yesterday of its Fla members to see what position it will take on a revote. I'm sure MoveOn will be here in Fla in force for Obama as they were in 2004 in the general for Kerry, if there's a revote here. For a mail-in primary, I wonder how you do GOTV canvassing. Anybody have experience with GOTV for mail-in campaigns?
March 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Michigan and Florida are separate states, and to say that you have to revote both or neither makes no sense. My guiding principle here is to give everyone a chance at a fair vote. I believe the people in Florida had that chance, but the people in Michigan didn't."
The problem is that Clintonites are GAMING THE SYSTEM.
You are truly ignorant if you can't understand that CORRUPTION is exactly what is angering people. The shenanigans, the lawsuits, the lackeys pulling alkl the strings. I am offended that our democracy is held hostage by puppeteers like the Florida DNC and Levin. They've rigged the calendar but it didn't work like they thought it would. Now they will seek to exclude a state HRC won't win, and include a state she will win (under the most favorable terms for her -- a mail in).
You have your head up your *** if you don't see this is cheating.
March 8, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem is that Clintonites are GAMING THE SYSTEM."
And this from someone who supports the candidate who always spends twice as much on advertising, who relies on the fact that over 90% of blacks will vote for a black candidate, and who depends upon caucuses rather than primaries.
March 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another problem with this so-called solution is that you really are doing more than just recognizing Florida's right to be heard; you are rewarding Florida for breaking the rules.
Florida moved up their primary because they wanted to have more influence in who was chosen. That didn't happen because everyone discounted the results at the time. But if you have a re-vote now, Florida really may decide who the next candidate will be. In that sense, their decision to move up the date will be vindicated. It will send the wrong message: that it's alright to move up the date because in the end, you can do it over and get all the attention that you wanted in the first place.
By simply recognizing the results in Florida, there is no further anticipation or focus on Florida. There will be no campaigning there or money spent and wasted there. Florida never gets all the attention that it wanted, but at the same time, their votes still count and they are represented at the convention. The results would probably be about the same in either case. The difference is in how big a deal we want to make out of Florida, and the message that sends to other states in the future.
March 8, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is a CHEATOCRAT.
She can't win, and can only cheat.
If she needs to cheat to get steal the nomination inside the DNC, how will this unattractive unlikable cheating loser do in a real election she can't cheat in?? The GOP will not allow her to game anything. She will be eaten alive.
Is the DNC this stupid?????
March 9, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink