« Hillary: Pledged Delegates Can Switch Candidates | Home | Rasmussen: Obama Ahead By 14 In Racially-Polarized Mississippi Primary »
Two Big Hillary Backers Say They'll Help Raise Money For New Primaries In MI And FL
Govs. Ed Rendell (D-PA) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ), who are both supporting Hillary Clinton, are now saying they would be willing to help raise up to half of the $30 million it would take to hold new full-scale primaries in Michigan and Florida.
"He doesn't think that the states or the taxpayers in Michigan or Florida should pay for the election," said a spokeswoman for Corzine. "And he's glad to help the DNC raise money to cover the costs."
The Democratic National Committee is currently in talk with the Florida Democrats to hold a much cheaper mail-in primary, while separate negotiations have gone back and forth about holding a party-run "firehouse primary" in Michigan.
Advertisement
And then when the smoke clears and she still doesn't have the delegates, Zellery will be toast. End of nightmare.
March 10, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, this begs the question. If there are "do overs" in FL and MI, does this mean the DNC will be unable to enforce their rules in future primaries? What's to stop states from scheduling their primaries whenever they please?
I'm a proponent of simply splitting the FL and MI delegates 50/50 between the candidates and have them seated at the convention.
March 10, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
As dean said there is precedence for do-over primaries. I wish they would just get on with it already. The amount of money that they are pissing away in ads can easily be used to fund the do-overs. Stop babbling and just do it.
March 10, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
One other point, the 50/50 split isn't fair to clinton or clinton's supporters. It will look like a sell out and in the long run will hurt obama. Just do a redo. He just might win both states in any event. Who knows.
March 10, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, this begs the question. If there are "do overs" in FL and MI, does this mean the DNC will be unable to enforce their rules in future primaries? What's to stop states from scheduling their primaries whenever they please?
From the DNC/rules perspective this isn't a "do-over". The first primaries in MI & FL were just 'beauty contests' / straw-polls which state parties are allowed to hold whenever they want. The ban on holding elections prior to IA & NH only applies to elections that directly or indirectly lead to the selection of delegates to the National convention.
The first FL & MI are also similar to rules-wise with the WA primary which was held separately from the WA Caucuses. The Dem primary in WA has no impact on the delegate selection process. If a state has both a primary and a caucus, or two primaries, neither is a 'do-over' from the DNC's perspective if only one counts in terms of selecting delegates.
March 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's going to be very interesting to see how the Obama campaign responds to this gesture by Clinton supporters.
Obama knows perfectly well that he doesn't do great the more democratic the process is -- it's quite likely that at the end of the primary season, he will be behind in popular votes if both MI and FL have re-dos based on actual elections. It's going to destroy his case for being the nominee if he's behind in the popular vote and has lost the major 4 swing states of OH, PA, MI, and FL. Superdelegates will not want to vote for such a candidate.
So I expect to see a lot of pretense from the Obama campaign that they want to see the democratic thing done with respect to MI and FL, but all sorts of furious attempts behind the scenes to sabotage it.
It's going to be very interesting to see it play out.
March 10, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tired of the arguments that caucuses aren't democratic, or democratic enough..whatever. How are they "less democratic" than primaries? You have to show up to a poll and actually voice your support for a candidate.
Funny, I've never heard bitching about the caucus process being "less than democratic" until a person's candidate du jour is getting trounced in that venue. Then it becomes an issue.
The interesting thing is that MI is actually trending Obama. The most recent poll shows a dead heat between Clinton and Obama. Doing a "do over" will benefit him.
Moreover, a mulligan in FL won't be bad for him either. The polls will tighten up if sufficient time is given for him to campaign.
I really hate how cynical this process has become. Both Hillary and Obama were all for disenfranchising MI and FL when the DNC issued their decree. They even put their support for the edict in writing and promised not to campaign. Obama went so far as to remove his name from the MI ballots. Now that the race is tight, and Hillary sees her chances of winning contingent on FL and MI being seated, she's advocating doing the "right thing". Har de har har. She's be silent as a cricket if the tallies were reversed.
March 10, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, all sorts of people went on and on about caucuses being anti-democratic, including, for example, Kos, until suddenly it became inconvenient for their special guy to say so. People have been registering that complaint for years and decades.
But then, if you think that caucuses are really democratic, you won't have a problem, I suppose, only including the smallish numbers of votes coming from caucuses into a larger popular vote count, will you? I've already heard from Obama supporters that including caucus states into such a count with the raw numbers of votes is "disenfranchising" voters, presumably because it reduces the number of voters. But you're not going to insist on having it both ways, are you -- "democratic" when it suits your convenience in adding up pledged delegates, but "un-democratic" when compiled into a larger popular vote count?
The simple reality is that the more people vote, the less well Obama does.
And let's just see how well he does in both MI and FL, shall we, rather than just speculate? If you're so confident he'll do just great, let's put it to the test, OK?
March 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. We can use the upcoming Mississippi PRIMARY as an example of why it's not true. Obama has won both primaries and caucuses.
Why are so many Hillary voters so intent on misleading their fellow Democrats?
Anyway, Obama didn't choose which states would have primaries and which ones would have caucuses. Frankly, most people thought that the more party activist-driven caucuses would greatly favor Hillary, but her campaign took them for granted in many places and started getting blown out, giving Obama big delegate margins and resulting in his pledged delegate lead that it is mathematically impossible for her to catch (because she can't win by the necessary 30%+ margins in the remaining states, even if FL and MI revote). Face the facts.
March 10, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only Obama supporters are obsessed with the pledged delegate count, as opposed to the popular vote. Polling shows that the vast majority of Democrats think that the rightful nominee is the one with the most popular votes.
March 10, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama knows perfectly well that he doesn't do great the more democratic the process is"
And that Zellery's idea of a "democratic process" is when Zellery is the only name on the ballot.
March 10, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, let Hillary's supporters raise the money. It will give them something to do besides destroying the Democratic Party.
March 10, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually the best argument I've seen.
I don't want any Dem donors wasting money on pointless revotes instead of running against John McCain (pointless b/c Hillary can't catch Obama in pledged delegates, regardless of whether there are MI and FL revotes or not).
Keep in mind that it's the political leaders of FL and MI who we have to blame for this situation, including Hillary supporters MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm and FL Sen. Bill Nelson.
March 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for a revote. More delegates for Obama and watch that "huge" lead in Florida dissipate daily, as he's done with nearly every "big" state.
And the recent SUSA poll shows that blue states would vote Obama if he's the nominee. So enough with the big states, small states.
Especially when the small state of New Hampshire is the reason why Clinton found her "voice" (and her tears).
March 10, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Michigan and we can not afford a "do over". We have been in a recession for years.
No one had to take their names off the ballot in Michigan. Edwards and Obama choose to take their names off the ballot. No one campaigned here according to the rules.
I say let the election stand. Clinton should get the delegates she won and Obama should get the rest.
Obama supporters are way too naive. They need to wake up. Clinton is not their enemy. They need to keep their eyes on the prize: 11/08
Clinton/Obama in '08!
Now that is a winning ticket!
March 10, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Letting it stand" is not an option. Dean has already ruled it out, you can't change the rule midstream.
Now, the question is, is the 10 delegate pick-up (my estimate) by Hillary worth all the money for a re-vote in both Florida and Michigan?
If it makes Florida turn blue, is is. Can anyone guarantee that?
March 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fact Check: Obama and Edwards took their names off the MI ballot because they were playing by the rules. They weren't being naive, they were being honest.
Hillary, on the other hand, hedged her bets and stayed on the ballot. She was willing to sign off on the rules at the beginning; now she's losing in pledged delegates, she wants to take it all back.
Emotions are running high, here. But let's stick with what really happened, okay?
March 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe for one second that in most states Obama won't have an iota of a chance if he lost the primary in that state to Hillary. I do think that Hillary will have a harder time in a lot of the states that Obama has won though. See:
http://www.surveyusa.com/
It still seems to me that a lot of the blue states may vote 62% Clinton when against McCain but still maybe 57% for Obama when against McCain, or something of that sort. A few states he would have a harder time to pick up though (but it looks a lot worse for her).
Polls have to weigh the people right to get the right results. Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Men, women, etc, etc. If they are off, it can throw their numbers off a lot, especially when you have different demographics voting extremely one way or the other (like whites and blacks in MS).
When you are doing a survey of people about their general election preferences, who cares about weighing out the results. The fact of the matter is X amount of people in a given state will vote for Obama in the general election and McCain if Clinton is the nominee and vice versa.
Without weighing the results and screwing up, what are the people telling the pollsters?
March 10, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I think a redo will benefit Obama, and put the lie to the blankly-oh, pull-it-out-of-the-fire scenarios dreamt up by the losing candidate's supporters.
Interesting, though that Hillary's backers are willing, perhaps even eager, to embrace soft money sourcing in order to try to pull off a desperation change in the numbers. That connection fits neatly into the more educateds' understanding that Hillary is the preferred dem-version candidate who does and would continue to represent the established big money players, her rhetoric to the working class notwithstanding.
March 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What concerns me here is timing. Do they schedule this late and allow Hillary to go on pretending beyond May 6th (Indiana and North Carolina)?
This isn't about her overtaking Obama with pledged delegates; she knows it's not going to happen. It's an excuse to take this to the convention where she thinks she can steal it.
March 10, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know the exact delegate net for Clinton if the invalid FL primary was recognized?
March 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink