Frankly, to agree to a do over in either state would set a dangerous precendent. I believe that the delegates should not be seated based on what ALL parties agreed to BEFORE the race got 'interesting'. Blaming the Republican legislature in FLA (what about Michigan? I guess noone is to blame for that one?!) is copping out; I am glad that the Congressional (as opposed to state legislature) FLA Dems are opposed to a revote because they can see the larger picture.

I also hate that voters in states like Florida, Michigan, California and Ohio are usually somewhere in the middle of a political controversy that affects the rest of the country (ie recent and current presidential elections, affirmative action propositions, voting machines).

...if you're the head of the DNC heading into a close fall election, do you want to risk Mich/Fla Democrats feeling (rightly or wrongly) like they've been cut out of the process, and considering the possibility of sitting home in November?

I see your point, but pragmatically don't you think it's in the Dem party's best interest to find some way out of this morass, so they can reasonably count on these voters turning out on Nov. 5?

TonyB,

I think that I would think about it like this:
I give the voters of Michigan and Florida much credit in terms of being intellectual saavy enough to know that their own state, and not the Democratic party, is the group that prevented their votes from being counted. Now, Florida could actually go Republican if people sat at home. However, Michigan, with the state that Detroit and some of the other areas are in economically - do you think that they would *really* sit at home in November and let Republicans go out and turn Michigan red. Come on now. Detroit is experiencing one of the worst fallouts of this economy and it is likely spreading over Michigan (although i'm not sure).

I doubt the people of Michigan will sit at home in November in large numbers.

And Florida, well, I also worry about a do-over in Florida b/c there is always so much shadiness with the voting down there. A paper vote? How untrackable is that? That might be worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle only for smaller potatoes.

SC

Well, super lawyer that you are, I know you hold it down intellecutally over most of us :p

Of course, your speculations are as valid as mine are on this, but I still think the safer political play is to take possible voter disaffection (among your base) out of play.

Besides Obama -- especially if dude is not going to more forcefully challenge HRC on her flip-flop on this -- cannot be seen as "not wanting" a solution to this, it'll look like he's afraid of the outcome.

Depending on how this plays out, it'll be interesting to see how voter motivation polls in Michigan/ Fla. i.e. how likely are you to vote --strongly, somewhat, likely, not likely, etc... Obama is bringing a lot of newer, first time voters to the process. are they are more easily soured on the process (likely to sit home) if they feel they've been played?

Of course, as a former Obama law student, I'm sure he could put you on payroll and have you canvas Michigan from Labor Day through Nov. 5 and just put it on lock for him. :)

Tony, you're so funny. :)
I actually think that it would be a bad idea to allow the do-over whether it would turn out to be in Obama's favor or not. I think that it hurts the notice function in theory. That being, how can anyone ever have notice of what is going to happen (w/ these presidential elections - or at least what to expect to happen) if we keep moving the target, changing our minds, etc. It is most unsettling to think that A was the case for months and then to think that B could be the case now that other factors that were not contingencies to A, have come from out of left field. The uncertainty in the last two presidential elections b/c of craziness like this and the Supreme Court jumping in last time arguably where they had no business and then writing an opinion that is regarded by many legal experts as not being incredibly sturdy - this is craziness. We need to bring back some stability to the process and I think that that starts with abiding by the rules that are outlined at the beginning...no matter who wins.

I don't want to take a chance with disaffection either so I hear you. It's just like - what next? What if there was a movement now to try to change so that superdelegates do not count? There would be the same failure of notice to those superdelegates albeit they are way fewer in number than the populations of Michigan and Florida - but hey, one could argue that they influence could be pivotal in this election so it would not be insignificant to change the rule midstream here.

This election is becoming a big mess. Why won't people just play by the rules and stick to the issues? And may the best man (or woman) win.

SC

Lets look at the math. :) In the original vote in MI, Hillary won 55% and in FL, she won 50%; in MI, Obama is assigned the 'uncommitted' vote of 40% and won only 33% in FL. IF both states conduct new primaries, Hillary will only win 60% of the vote (she has only carried one state with more than 60% of the vote - her 'home' state of Arkansas; she carried her new 'home' state of NY with 57.4%, her next highest percentage) so she will gain, at most 10% of the popular vote. Now, lets assume that neither is Texas or Nevada (strange delegate allocation rules) and award strictly proportional delegates. AT MOST, this will gain Hillary at total of 29 delegates (21 or 10% of Floridas 210 delegates, 8 or 5% of Michigan's 156 delegates) and 200,00 popular votes (170,000 of Florida's 1.7million votes cast, 30,000 of Michigan's 600,000 votes cast). I have rounded all numbers UP in her favor. Given the current pledged delegate gap of 150 delegates and the popular vote gap of about 700,000 votes (which includes the FL and MI votes already cast), she is still CLEARLY far behind. If we add her 'gains', she is still behind by over 100 pledged delegates and half a million votes!



Sources: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html ; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...te_count.html; http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...s/scorecard/#D


Also see http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008...y-numbers.html for yourself. Worst case scenario, Obama STILL leads in pledged delegates.

Going strictly by the numbers, Obama should win the nomination, regardless of what happens in Michigan and Florida.

Its been said before, but Clinton’s “kitchen sink” strategy was too little too late and now her only hope for victory rests with the "super" delegates. However, if the nomination is “stolen”, many of Obama's supporters will simply stay home. A few, such as myself, will switch parties altogether. Those shady Clintons need to recognize, they can’t win a general election on the votes of old people and women alone. Obama is the rightful nominee, she should humbly request a vice presidential spot and find somewhere to sit down.

REALLY?! So the issues don't matter? If Clinton ends up being the nominee (fair or unfair), since she and Obama's plans regarding the issues are close, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for her as opposed to McCain? There's too much at stake here to stay home or vote for one candidate to spite or prove something to the other.

Eh unless you don't think either McCain or Clinton will really destroy the country in the next four years and you can't stand Clinton. Crossing over or voting third party is good when it makes a point. If Clinton "steals" the nomination via superdelegates, people who choose not to vote for her will be sending the Democratic party a message. That message would be half - don't overrule the will of the people and half- we love Obama/hate Clinton.

I don't have the respect for McCain that I once did, but he's not Bush and his presidency wouldn't be as bad. I'm honestly not sure Hillary's would be better.

Funny thing is that even though Clinton is ahead in terms of committed Superdelegates, it is striking to note that Obama has the edge in those who have been elected by their constituencies (governors, congressman, representatives) and trails significantly by those whose loyalty is only to the party (DNC, distinguished party leaders). More than one third of total Superdelegates remain uncommitted. http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/


Of course, he has increased his lead by picking up more delegates in Iowa and California including some of Edwards' delegates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...e_n_91719.html

Ditto, because at thaat point I would question even more the ability of the Dems to really be democratic in the running of the country. And RoyalTemptest, remember a president can have all the ideas they want--but they make no dicisions in a vacuum. The country is really run by the people with whom they surround themselves. I would really be concerned about Hilary's circle.

Ironically, that was my initially mt biggest issue with Obama--did he have the experience to surround himself with the right folx. Now after seeing how Hilary's campaign is being run, I am more concerned about that with her.

This was my issue from the beginning with Hillary. Even with everything that has come out - pastors, land deals, race card, words vs solutions, SNL, etc - I still believe that Hillary supporters/surrogates/campaign officials have committed the worst offenses.

A colleague at work has pointed out that if she cannot run her campaign, i.e., coming to the point of having spent all of the money, how can she run the country. Her campaign has experienced a number of replacements and appears to be a little disorganized - at least just from reading articles in the media. As the "CEO" of her campaign, I wonder if she would the country the same way ... supposedly giving key positions to friends as opposed to those who are really the most experienced. This is alleged as what happened with her campaign manager - for some reason, she picked someone who it is said had no experience running a campaign but that they were good friends. She ended up replacing her with someone else. Does anyone remember the name of the first campaign manager that was replaced in January or so right when HRC almost went broke and had to loan her campaign 5mil?

SC

Pat Solis Doyle was her first campaign mgr. and had been her scheduler since 1991, and during the Clinton Administration. Speculation is that there was friction (who's calling the shots?) Mark Penn, strategiest/camp. mgr? and pollster from the Clinton years, some say has emerged as a leading voice.

her current campaign mgr. is Maggie Williams, a black woman, who was her chief of staff when HRC was First Lady.

Just watched Barack Obama's "race speech" on streaming video. As political stagecraft, he hit the right notes -- elevating it from a discussion on his former pastor's excerpted comments to a broader discussion on how both sides of the issue, Black and white, have arrived at this racial impasse.

Politically and contextually, , he moved the issue to more favorable ground, a smart move. Polling usually lags events by 7-21 days so the numbers may flutctuate for a while yet, but this speech, I think, will help him get past the issue.