Why Obama Does Not Want ReVotes In Florida and Michigan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

There are some who hold the view that Barack Obama will welcome revote primaries in Florida and Michigan. I think that view defies common sense. I'll explain why on the flip.

First, Hillary Clinton's narrative to the Superdelegates is that Obama can not win the big contested states critical in the general election. No states better fit the bill than Florida and Michigan (along with Ohio.) These have been the battlegrounds for the past two elections. The GOP has "won" 2 out of 3 twice and secured the Presidency that way. In order to make that case, Clinton will of course want to win contested primaries in both Florida and Michigan. The perception is she won uncontested primaries. By having revotes, she can make it plain that she is the one who will win them.

Second, Hillary needs to focus on the popular vote totals, a contest she can take the lead in, unlike the pledged delegate race. She needs a "will of the people" argument, and the popular vote fills that bill. Right now, Florida and Michigan are not truly being considered in the popular vote calculation. Revotes will cause that they be considered.

Third, Hillary is actually likely to do much better in revotes. Why? Because John Edwards is now out of the race. Hillary will win the lion's share of his votes. In Florida, Edwards captured 14%, or 249,000 votes. Hillary will get most of those. She is likely to do even better in the popular vote and pledged delegate counts in a revote.

Fourth, momentum, perception and wins. Winning big states closer to the decision time for super delegates helps Hillary with the psychology of the super delegates. Suppose Hillary finishes up winning Puerto Rico, Florida and Michigan gaining a net advantage of close to 100 delegates and say close to a million votes in the popular vote. That will be the LAST bit of data that the super delegates will see. If Hillary has a plausible narrative in terms of why she is more electable (the big contested state narrative), a plausible "will of the people" argument (the popular vote lead), and the last big wins in the contest (momentum), she will have a very credible case to make and a very credible chance to win the nomination.

So why would Obama not want all this? This question is how could he possibly want ANY of it? And the one answer is this -- it will help him in the general election in Michigan and Florida. I believe that if this is not done, he will have no chance in those two states. If Obama could build a plausible narrative for not counting Florida and Michigan, he would use it. But that train has left the station. He has no choice, imo, but to put a good face on it and fight like crazy to keep Hillary from winning big in both states.

< NYTimes: Pass the Second Chance Act | When Satire Misses the Mark >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why Obama Does Not Want ReVotes In Florida and Michigan | 146 comments (146 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Another positive byproduct (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:28 AM EST

of doing re-votes (actually, two):

The mere act of setting up and running the re-votes will require party unity, and can be used productively to generate that.
The need to do the re-vote will serve to blow off some of the foam from the top of the overheated cauldron of boiling emotion. I think a lot of the Obama supporters who might be boxed in to the so-called "Cult of personality" are kinda caught up in the emotion of the moment. Having to cool off and continue the campaign should serve to allow them to get back their normal good sense and recognize the need for party unity.

and, finally, something which just came to me:
3. There will be no sell-out on FISA until there is no chance for voters to take it out on candidates during a primary. The longer we can string the primary season out, the better the chances of putting the kibosh on any FISA sellout.

Party Unity (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST

The most important thing in that regard is that it takes one of the most divisive issues off the table for Denver. I have to think most of the Super delegates are going to want that. Much better to have votes and seat delegates than have an incredibly divisive battle in Denver over the issue.


: Yup. Best way to get two squbbling kids (none / 0) (#26)
by scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST

to get along, is to give them a joint project to complete, with a downside for both if they fail.
I hit on the party unity-building earlier today, in this comment here.

Number 2 (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:22:11 AM EST

I personally want to see Obama supporters demonstrate they are committed to more than Obama. They have a newfound interest in politics and voting in new politicians to create change? Let them show it. I want to see how many will donate how much to the re-vote effort. I am disappointed Obama is not doing this. Since I am not an Obama supporter, what has Obama called on his supporters to do? I am not being sarcastic. It's just that I stopped watching his rallies over 3 weeks ago and have no idea.


: Texas Obama vote - tended to be only for Obama (none / 0) (#146)
by andrys on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:28 AM EST

I heard a report on TV that an analysis there showed that Obama voters were the ones that tended to have one ballot box marked while the other issues for voters, below the presidential boxes, were left unmarked.
The interest was not in the Democratic party but in Obama himself. The celebrity or "he's The One" vote.
I don't know what it means about all the new people he's bringing in. But I've supposed, for this election, if they stayed with him (rather than go to McCain) it would help other candidates in November. But, if the new ones are not that interested in other contests, how will that help the others? - especially if older Democrats decide to be passive because Obama has become so unattractive as a person.

Speaking of FISA (none / 0) (#36)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST

Here is a link to a story at TPM about the NSA data-sifting program, which sounds awfully like the Total Information Awareness program that was supposedly defunded by Congress years ago. The TPM story has a link to the underlying WSJ article (subscription required) in today's edition.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_292.php


Yup, and there's a big discussion (none / 0) (#70)
by scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:05:59 PM EST

about this going on over at FDL, in this thread. Worth a read.

In short, they are collating it through the TIA model/method. And, they have the capability to read and listen to everything in real time. The WSJ article makes clear that if they get a suspicious call in or out of a city, say, Detroit, they can (which I read to be "do") monitor all communications into and out of that particular city.


: Listening in real time (none / 0) (#138)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:51:13 PM EST

to everything going in or out of a city. Even if it is purely domestic. No wonder they don't want to be bothered with those pesky warrants.

He Has No Choice (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:09:05 AM EST

Obama can't win this argument. Look how defensive he and his spokemen look already and we'll have at least four more weeks of this as we wait for Pennsylvania.

Obama has two choices, permit the current delegates to be seated, which might at least blunt Hillary's momentum. Or go with re-votes. The only reason not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates is that they voted too early, there is no reason not to allow voters in those states to have their votes count if the votes occur at a later date.

I've never been a fan of "rules are the rules" argument in this process because the rules are ridiculous, but when it came to seating the delegates based on the early election results, at least it was a legitimate argument. He's going to have a hard time coming up with any such argument against revotes. It will be seen for what it is, a fear he'll lose. That is not helpful. He'd be better off agreeing to seat the current delegates than having everyone talk about how badly he'd lose Florida in a re-vote for four weeks.

It seems, at least for now, that the March 4 victories by Clinton combined with other things (e.g. start of Rezko trial, Power's unfortunate statement, MI/FL debacle) have shifted the race where Obama is now on the defensive. Whereas Clinton had been on the defensive since Feb. 5th. I thought the Clinton campaign was mixed on defense, but she personally was pretty good. It'll be interesting to see how he handles playing defense.

Obama's only real choice.. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST

... is to get behind this and go all out to win Michigan. I think it's inevitable that he'll lose in Florida, but Michigan should be close, and I think Hillary really needs the PA/MI/FL trifecta to have a strong case to the superdelegates.


it doesn't look to me that obama is (none / 0) (#90)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST

getting good advice or even worse he isn't listening. thinking that you can't lose and that the media will love you no matter what can lead to these types of actions.


The Underdog (none / 0) (#97)
by 1jane on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST

This past week Obama picked up 7 more delegates (unofficially 8)and Clinton lost 4. Even with do-overs in FL and MI the math is in his favor. Super delegates continue to move in his direction. Clinton surrogates got their marching orders over the weekend to float a trial balloon on FL and MI revotes.


: Only the delegate math (none / 0) (#104)
by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:39:25 PM EST

It may not be the determining factor is the point of this discussion imo. If it was he would have no qualms about the revote and wouldn't take PR looking like he is against it.

Maybe he still wants to go to Europe (none / 0) (#127)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST

as planned for coming weeks, to recover from that problem area of his resume (his lack of experience in foreign affairs), rather than have to cancel that to campaign in two more large primary states?


Chuck Todd on revote's advantages for Clinton (none / 0) (#147)
by andrys on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:57:16 AM EST

He pointed out that if she won Florida under a re-vote, she' be entitled to more superdelegates, something like 25-30 more.

He thinks she'd be able to get the popular vote more easily this way.

I wonder how Oregon (I think it is?) handles the vote-by-mail. How do they keep it on the up and up ?

I have visions of people going in early, lying in wait for packages and then tossing the 'wrong' type :-) -- but I guess they're not opened until primary day and in the presence of others, stamped, etc..


Obama best advised. . . (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:15:42 AM EST

to get behind full polling place primaries. I think the consensus is that mail-in primaries favor Clinton (although I'm not sure of that myself -- I think Obama could leverage his organization to get heaps of mail in voters as well).

An Obama supporter stated recently (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:46 AM EST

there isn't time to re-do FL and MI. Perhaps Obama is stalling to make sure there isn't time.

June 7 (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:21:28 AM EST

is 3 months from now.

there is plenty of time.

You know when Iowa and the other states set their final dates? About 3 months before.


on the talking head circus (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:25:01 AM EST

this weekend the opinion seemed pretty universal that the voices of voters in those two states would have to be heard. I was suprised how universal the opinion was actually.
even Dan Baltz, no friend of Hillary, chimed in.


This train has left the station (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST

Wondering if the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:33:17 AM EST

is already setting up in FL and MI whilst stalling by deferring to DNC on revoting.


: no doubt (none / 0) (#29)
by reynwrap582 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:39:04 AM EST

I have no doubt that Obama's campaign is setting something up behind the scenes to get ready to rush FL and MI as soon as a decision is made on revotes. They know something is going to happen there and they should want to be ready to run hard asap. The expectations are already pretty low for Obama it seems, they don't even have to win FL and MI, they just need to not get crushed, imo...

: I think way too much like you ;) (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:43:47 AM EST

Since yesterday I've been saying to myself "nice fake of a handoff" ;) They build their ground game, then come out agreeing to falling ticker tape and give Hillary a really hard time and ride her like Sea Biscuit. Soap operas have nothing on politics in my sick little mind.

Looks Bad (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST

All of the stalling (my opinion) looks bad. He could get some positive benefit from supporting a re-vote, but for every day he waits, the goodwill fades.

Obama took no stance (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST

Which was a bad stance...

Absolutely right on this count. Obama should have said revotes should be done and stated that case last Wednesday morning when it first came up. He could have placed himself above the fray by saying that even if Clinton is expected to win Florida, it's still important that all votes be counted. Letting people vote is far more important than winning.

He would have looked the person he projects himself to be...a man of the people. He had a pitch to hit over the fence and instead it looks like he was given poor advice. Each day he waits, he loses the advantage of winning additional Florida voters over to his side.


Obama took a stance... (none / 0) (#114)
by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM EST

... which was, essentially, "whatever the DNC says is fine with me".

What's the problem with that?


: Lack of leadership (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by xspowr on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:06:26 PM EST

Well, for one thing a wishy-washy response like "whatever the DNC says" reflects an unwillingness or inability to exert leadership when a controversial issue arises. One of Obama's major PR problems is the perception that he never takes a stand on the hard issues (e.g. all the "present" votes). Regardless of whether there is merit in that line of thinking, the perception will be that he is again passing the buck and failing to take a stand when the heat is on. Given that he's been on the PR defensive of late, it's not wise to reinforce that negative perception.

: It's a delaying tactic because (none / 0) (#128)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST

it's circular. The DNC's role is not to initiate and tell states what to do but only to approve what states come up with, and the candidates can work with the states.
That's the rules, and as Obama says, rules are rules.

: Obama took the DNC stance (none / 0) (#131)
by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:09:06 PM EST

Which is a fine and legitimate stance to take except the DNC is also who said the votes don't count. If you want to look like a candidate of the people, you come out strongly in favor of everyone voting.

This is a pretty sore point over at Big Orange. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:59:58 AM EST

I was trolled/hidden, whatever (and without comment), for suggesting, in language mild and non-confrontational, that seating Florida based on the existing vote was perhaps the best strategy for not alienating the voters of that important state.

Revote Michigan, I said, since Obama was not on the ballot there; but let Florida stand, with its turnout of 1.7 million.

Remember, I have no beef with the rating per se; only with the mindset it illustrates.

Is your username the same (none / 0) (#62)
by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:02:06 PM EST

Over there?


: Yes it is. (none / 0) (#133)
by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:10:51 PM EST

Actually icebergslim, a rabid (none / 0) (#75)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST

Obama partisan, agreed with you (and me) when I suggested the same thing a few weeks ago.
There really is not reason to consider the FL vote illegitimate. Just seat the delegates.


She did? (none / 0) (#78)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST

She's smarter than I thought. Clearly she has figured out that a revote hurts Obama worse than just seating the delegates.


Prediction: Obama complies... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by tsteels2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:06:24 PM EST

...with a re-vote in Michigan and seating the Florida delegates after winning in Mississippi tomorrow.

This independent has spoken. And he's batting a cool .500 in predictions so far.

Yes, this was about 6 wks ago. (none / 0) (#82)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:15:05 PM EST

I wonder if she is saying the same thing today.


I doubt it. (none / 0) (#102)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:36:36 PM EST

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Then again, it doesn't take a genius to realize that odds are Florida will finish about where it did originally, with a small risk to Obama that he'd lose ground there.


Am I the only one who thinks (none / 0) (#115)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST

some of those blogs are looking like Milgram experiments? You know some graduate students out there are watching and taking notes.


: Definitely. Some are doing so (none / 0) (#130)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:07:24 PM EST

as I've read on academic blogs. So are their profs.
Pssst. I don't want to go all 1984 on us -- because that was, like, so long ago, like, y'know? -- but we probably are being watched right now. . . .

Clinton should offer to pay the whole expense (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Curtis93433 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:01:30 PM EST

I am sure there are a few big players who would help pay for this. If Obama is going to stall and try to run the clock out. Hillary should suggest raising the necessary funds to finance this thing. This should at least start the process. By Obama not coming forward he will feel the back lash. One way or another Michigan & Florida has to count for something.

: can they bill his campaign in anyway? (none / 0) (#94)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM EST

just wondering if any rules like that are in place.

Edwards? (none / 0) (#4)
by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:29 AM EST

Because John Edwards is now out of the race. Hillary will win the lion's share of his votes.

Really?

Haven't the majority of Edwards' voters gone to Obama?

I was an Edwards supporter (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:28:18 AM EST

and I an now completely behind Hillary. as far as I am concerned there its no contest.
issue one is healthcare.


: Me too. Is the DNC in control or (none / 0) (#124)
by derridog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST

It may be true of JE supporters on DKos (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM EST

but I don't believe its true of JE supporters in the general electorate. I think Clinton has gotten more of the folks with whom JE's populist message most resonated.


Yeah, I think there's a big difference... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST

... between Edwards online supporters (who are more liberal and probably lean towards Obama as a second choice) and his actual voters, many of whom are in the older, blue collar white voter demographic that makes up Hillary's base.


: Interestingly (5.00 / 6) (#86)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST

I've seen a large number of Edwards' online supporters, myself included, gravitate towards Hillary.
One reason is that even if you think Edwards and Obama are closer on the issues (I do not), Clinton more clearly encapsulates the fighting spirit of Edwards' campaign. As the man said, "you cannot nice these people to death." The whole Unity Schtick is like the polar opposite of Edwards' campaign.
It's also worth remembering that there are a lot of people online for whom the Iraq war vote was an absolutely dealbreaker. All of these people were with Obama from the get-go. Edwards supporters, by definition, were people who were willing to forgive a vote for the war.

: For what it's worth: my demographic: (none / 0) (#136)
by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM EST

Mixed-race marriage -- Aframerican/Ashkenaz -- both Ph. D.'s, both now strong for Hillary (Ashkenaz originally for Edwards, but switched in time to vote for Hill.)

Definitely Got The Health Care Folks n/t (none / 0) (#47)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST

: JE really helped Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:09:48 PM EST

in that regard, because she was trying to counter Obama's "hope" and "change" message with more hope and change, when actually what she needed to do was contrast these intangibles with lunchbucket issues. I'm not saying Clinton stole the ideas from Edwards, because I think that of the three, Clinton's ideology is certainly closer to Edwards', but what Edwards did was show her how to use that to her advantage. Clinton was never going to beat Obama on hope. What she can-and has-beat(en) him on is by talking about healthcare, the environment, the economy and beating back the republicans.

I didn't go to Obama. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by Boston Boomer on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST

I've been and Edwards supporter since 2004.


Why do think they have gone to Obama? (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM EST

The demographics tell me they have gone to Clinton and in increasing numbers as of late.


Consider (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:20:29 AM EST

this exit poll and compare it to this one.


Also, think back to that computer (none / 0) (#22)
by scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST

gamey-survey thing TL posted a while back, where it asked you your position on different issues and then told you which candidate you were closest to.

Mine came out Edwards-Clinton-Obama in that order.

I'd bet a lot of others did, too.


: I cant imagine (none / 0) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:33:55 AM EST

an issue based assessment could come out any other way.

: Mine did too Scribe, and health care (none / 0) (#103)
by athyrio on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST

is my number one issue...Just got out of the hospital again with NO INSURANCE, so this is getting to be vital as far as our family is concerned...

To your point, I was Edwards at first, (none / 0) (#134)
by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:15:12 PM EST

then bailed, switched to Hillary, when it was clear he was going no where. Fortunately that was before superduper Tuesday, so I was in time to vote for her.


I'm An Edwards supporter - (none / 0) (#145)
by Boo Radly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58:51 PM EST

Totally for Hillary now. I had been at orange-satan for five years. When the insanity took over I left. There were no facts to be had or discussed, it is no longer grounded in reality. There was never any information to make me even consider BO - I'm not a star follower. I have a hard time trying to understand how a real supporter of JE could select BO - John was down to earth, clear and present. BO is a dreamer, maybe now a schemer because the true is coming out and they do not want that.


Would the Primaries both be closed (none / 0) (#5)
by Salt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:47 AM EST

and could new voters register at this stage? What's stopping the RNC from sending their members over to unseat a Hillary win they had low turn out so I am sure there are many who have not already voted, I am hearing the ticket they fear is a Clinton Methodist Minster Strickland because of the social conservatives either swinging or staying home with Strickland on the ballot?

Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM EST

They haven't much time left to change their registration if they are committed to doing this. They have a couple more weeks. I thought I read something to the effect that anyone who voted Republican could be eliminated? How I have no idea.


I have this question as well. (none / 0) (#14)
by MMW on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST

How do you guarantee no repub interference?


Registration (none / 0) (#30)
by dissenter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM EST

Only allow votes from Dems registered by the deadline of the first primary.


: Thanks - that would make sense. (none / 0) (#46)
by MMW on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST

Why would Michigan be closed? (none / 0) (#34)
by JoeA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:41:02 AM EST

It wasn't last time?

Besides, Republicans when gaming the Democratic primary seem to be more interested in voting for Hillary as what they perceive to be the weaker General Election candidate. Rush Limbaugh has spoken.


Because when the primary first occurred (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST

Repubs had a choice of voting in the Repub primary OR the Dem primary, not both.

You can't now let Repubs who voted for Romney or whoever on the GOP side come in and vote in a Democratic party now.

Imagine the mess in trying to determine who voted where the last time.


If only the facts agreed... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by znosaro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:46:19 AM EST

Obama has conistently won the GOP vote. 54-46 in Texas, I think, one of the closest margins. Of course, to further parody Roll Call Magazine, "Clearly, Republicans voting for Hillary is proof of strategic meddling supporting the candidate they think will lose in the GE, while Obama's Republican support is a manifestation of his ability to reach out and win non-traditional Democratic voters." Clearly.


It seems Bill Clinton disagrees (none / 0) (#61)
by JoeA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:01:54 PM EST

as he appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio show on the day of the Texas primacaucus following Limbaughs "endorsement" of Republicans voting for Clinton to draw out the Democratic race.


This is false (5.00 / 5) (#99)
by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:35:51 PM EST

From a commenter at DKos

Bill Clinton did not go on Limbaugh's show. Bill was interviewed by a local Dallas area talk show, hosted by Mark Davis.

Later, Davis was the substitute host for Limbaugh's show, and replayed his earlier interview with Clinton.


Link? Evidence, source, etc.? (nt) (none / 0) (#132)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:09:58 PM EST

: Bill on Rush? When Hell freezes over! (none / 0) (#137)
by magnetics on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:23:14 PM EST

Neither one of them could stand the other.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, but not that strange.

I thought that was proven untrue? (none / 0) (#43)
by MMW on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST

Can you provide a link?


Heh (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST

Sorry, the gaming nonsense has to stop from everybody.

There are not enough people who care to make gaming menaingful.


: Well (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:51:23 AM EST

there might be enough people if the Dem re-vote were left completely open. That's why we always make sure to have the primaries on the same date.
There still may not be enough cross-overs to make a huge difference, but it undermines the legitimacy of the election by leaving people wondering if there was mischief. You can bet that Michigan will have something in place to guard against this.

Hillary from winning (none / 0) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST

good luck to him on that but I think that ship has sailed.
he probably does too.

I was surprised Dean wants a complete vote (none / 0) (#15)
by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST

I was under the impression that Dean leaned toward Obama, but a complete mail-in revote will tend to favor Clinton over Obama. Dean could have proposed caucuses, which would probably have been cheaper and easier, and would have favored Obama. I'm also a bit surprised that Obama didn't take the lead on this and suggest caucuses for Florida and Michigan. He has done very well in caucuses, which heavily favor his base (young people and older professionals who have time off work to caucus) and his organizational system.

caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26:23 AM EST

Hillary and the campaign have made it very clear that was unacceptable.
and rightly so.


WIth Florida's history (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by reynwrap582 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:35:39 AM EST

Tossing caucuses into the mix in a place that doesn't normally do caucuses and has a very sensitive history of problem elections would probably be an absolute disaster. Mail-in votes may not be the standard there, but they're not nearly as confusing. You just need an address and somewhere to drop off your outgoing mail.

Even states that do caucuses every 4 years have had trouble making them work.


Absentee ballots are mail in voting (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:40:52 AM EST

And Florida has absentee ballots.

There is no science to this.


: and its easy for seniors (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST

and we know how many seniors there are in FL.

As long as the mail in vote (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:47:21 AM EST

doesn't involve butterfly ballots or chads....


Michigan does have a history of caucuses. (none / 0) (#66)
by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:04:18 PM EST

The "firehouse primary" Granholm has suggested (though I don't like the way her specific proposal disenfranchises nine-to-five workers) is pretty much what a "Michigan caucus" is: a primary election that's not run by the state, so it can bypass state rules, particularly those requiring that the polls remain open for 13 hours.


I believe they did. . . (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST

suggest a caucus in Michigan. Obviously, that's a non-starter from the viewpoint of the Clinton campaign.


Is Michigan not traditionally a caucus state (none / 0) (#64)
by JoeA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST

with experience in running them?


: I'm pretty sure. . . (none / 0) (#67)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST

that the original electoral event this year was a primary.
In any event, Clinton wants the largest possible turnout.

: A "Michigan Caucus" is pretty much.... (none / 0) (#71)
by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:06:03 PM EST

... a primary election that's run by the party instead of by the state, so it can bypass state rules about elections.

They tried. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by ghost2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST

But Michigan and Florida are adamantly against it. Clinton's campaign is against it, and they should be on board too.

Last summer, when Florida democratic party was pleading with DNC, the latter offered help to provide 120,000 ballots, and 150 caucus locations!

It would be ridiculous to throw out 1.7 million votes in Florida (a record turnout), and replace it with a couple of hundred thousands!


Wisconsin's not a big contested state? (none / 0) (#16)
by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:24:49 AM EST

10,000 vote gap last time around.

Certainly it is (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:27:48 AM EST

But the polling indicates it is safer than Florida, MI and OH.


Florida (none / 0) (#32)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST

Why do people assume that Florida is winnable? I'm just not seeing it, what am I missing, the states gotten redder over the last few years and its massively popular Governor is one of McCain's biggest supporters-- why should we believe that Florida is any more flippable for us than NJ is for the GOP?


Because Hillary beats McCain in Florida (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:55:47 AM EST

in the polling.

Obama does not.


This would be the electoral map thing right? (none / 0) (#76)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:11:44 PM EST

By that same polling set shouldn't Obama be in a stronger position? After all he's winning Ohio and she isn't.


: You are mistaken (none / 0) (#80)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST

Clinton wins Ohio more easily than Obama IN THAT SET.
In other polling, Obama loses Ohio.

: Yes, she is. They win Ohio by the same (none / 0) (#85)
by tigercourse on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM EST

percentage, going by SUSA.

: I think you mean... (none / 0) (#89)
by Oje on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST

Michigan. Both win Ohio in SUSA polling. (Scroll down the page)

McCain (none / 0) (#57)
by Paladin on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM EST

A lot of them won't vote for him. My in-laws who live in FL, staunch Republicans both, intend to vote for Hillary or Obama. Of course, that's just two votes but I suspect there are a lot of others who feel the same way.


Which polling? (none / 0) (#87)
by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST

Last I saw had McCain thumping Clinton, McCain/Obama even.


SUSA a couple of days ago (none / 0) (#135)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST

for one; there was a diary on it here. Head to head, every state -- but part of it taken before the post-Texas-and-Ohio Clinton bounce. Still, either candidate beat McCain in EC votes. And still, it's far more up-to-date than your linked info.


Thanks. More recent, similar result. (none / 0) (#142)
by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:34:57 PM EST

I suspect Obama's edge here would narrow some once word gets around he's as big a gungrabber as Clinton.


: Yes, some change (none / 0) (#144)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:23:47 PM EST

and I agree that it could change more, not only with registering the post-success bounce for Clinton but also on some issues, and you've pegged a big one.
She really ran such an abysmal noncampaign in Wisconsin, as we got the worst of the campaign-manager upheaval as well as all the weather complications, that it leaves us with insufficient info to know how it really will go here.
I do feel a bit better these days about Wisconsin staying blue. Being the closest state in 2004 gave me the willies.:-)

Another option (none / 0) (#31)
by honora on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:40:46 AM EST

Would it be better for Obama to accept the results in Florida and try to negotiate a split of the 'uncommitted' in Michigan? That way Hillary would not be able to 'win' again in these states, and Obama's supporters would be able to continue to feel victimized by the outcome.

: I think that option was on the table at some point (none / 0) (#37)
by ghost2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST

But they dragged their feet, and hence lost it.

: That would not help Obama at all (none / 0) (#49)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST

So Obama would get about 20 delegates from Michigan and Hillary would get 100? Not an option.

Well obviously (none / 0) (#48)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:49:28 AM EST

his ideal situation is that neither FL or MI are seated. This almost guarantees he will be ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote.

His next best choice would be caucuses in both states. Caucuses favor him because he has a more energized campaign.

After that would be a re-vote of some kind. This involves risk for him. A significant loss in both states could doom him. However he may be forced to go with this.

His last choice is sit the existing delegates. This is simply unacceptable for him.

Hard to handicap which option is the most likely to occur. Re-votes are easy to talk about politically but there is a lot more involved when you get to the details. Michigan would need to pass legislation to enable this to happen. I don't know know what Florida would need to do but Crist continues to argue that the current delegates should be seated and I suspect he will continue to cause trouble.

The mail-in options sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:54:49 AM EST

His last choice is NOT sitting the existing delegates.

His last choice is revoting. Even if the existing delegate are seated Obama will lead in pledged delegates.

Here Dean has ruined him as he made clear that sitting the existing delegation is a nonstarter. Sharpton also kills him.

I betcha Obama would take sitting the existing delegates in a heartbeat at this point.


Brazile said (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM EST

Seat FL and throw out MI. This was the best-case scenario for Obama, but by not advocating for it clearly, he has lost the chance to have an opinion.

I just don't understand how a campaign that, until this point, has been running so well has derailed itself so miserably. It really shows what we could expect in a possible ge with Obama. Not a pretty picture when the going gets tough. This is where the experience issue really comes in. This story has been spinning out of control for almost a week now.

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

(well, maybe if it's Orange)


: The Clinton campaign had some tough weeks too (none / 0) (#120)
by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM EST

But at least she has bounced back and in a big way. It will be interesting to see how Obama's campaign gets through these tough couple of weeks. This is exactly why the primary needs to be contested, so that we see how they perform.
I'm not impressed with how they've handled the re-vote issue so far, but they are in a very difficult spot. As far as I can tell, the only position he can take that would be consistent with his message that he doesn't play the political game is to allow re-votes that maximize voter participation. But that's also puts his nomination in more jeopardy.

Seating the current delegates (none / 0) (#68)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:05:01 PM EST

would give Hillary nearly a 120 delegate swing. It would also give Hillary the popular vote advantage.

No way that he can accept that.


Better That (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:16:14 PM EST

Than Hillary getting even more popular votes out of Florida and winning Michigan with him on the ballot. Pledged delegates aren't necessarily going to decide this. The worst thing for Obama, IMO, is - as BTD said - for Hillary to sweep a bunch of big contested states right at the end and overtake him in the popular vote. If the current results stand, at least Obama has an argument for why they shouldn't be persuasive, he will have no such argument in a re-vote.

But I agree with BTD, it looks like Dean and Sharpton may have screwed him here and left him with no choice but a re-vote. The Clinton folks seem to understand the dynamics and have jumped aboard, leaving Obama facing the possibility of having Hillary end the campaign with wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. Talk about states that hit buttons deep in the democratic psyche.


The popular vote would not be counted (none / 0) (#79)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST

in this scenario.

In a revote the same delegate swing or worse is going to happen.


What leads you to this? (none / 0) (#83)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST

I guess your assigning all the current uncommiteds to Obama in the current scenario? Because otherwise I just don't see how you reached your conclusion, Florida looks like it would probably be a similar margin to what it was last time, and Michigan should be much closer.


I thought the uncommitted would mostly go his way (none / 0) (#95)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST

anyway.

So I was counting the uncommitted as Obama delegates IF THEY ARE SEATED AS IS.

In a revote, I think Obama goes down from the uncommitted number.


: Can you explain why you think that? The (none / 0) (#126)
by derridog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:38:27 PM EST

last poll I saw showed a tie now in Michigan between the two. I'm just curious if you have some other information.

The popular vote (none / 0) (#105)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:43:35 PM EST

only matters in a political narrative sort of way. It has no tangible importance. So you are correct that it won't be counted but that doesn't matter.

It will be counted just like all the other states are. Is Hillary going to pledge that she won't use the popular vote for political purposes? Of course not.


Um yeah I don't see this (none / 0) (#81)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:14:16 PM EST

Look, there is pretty much no way that Hillary is going to outperform the current standings in the popular vote/ delegates, in Michigan she gets 300k votes and he gets none, current Florida polling shows the exact same margin as was achieved in the first run of the primary, and current MI polling shows a tie.


: This is true (none / 0) (#111)
by jcsf on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:50:01 PM EST

According to current polling. Which is why even the "popular vote" argument for Hillary, is unlikely.

What I do not see is... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by Oje on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST

How can the popular vote in Michigan and Florida be discounted? The Democratic Party has the right and the power to strip a state of delegates, but it does not have the right to send the popular votes there down the memory hole. The national party's decision may have affected the outcome, but the state party determines when and how its citizens vote as an expression of popular will. Whatever flaws there may be in that vote right now (and every election has flaws), Michigan and Florida should count to the popular vote total. So, he still loses unless Michigan revotes.


: yeah (none / 0) (#100)
by corn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:36:11 PM EST

All this talk of illegal votes etc is bunk.

Not more energized (none / 0) (#51)
by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST

Less busy! More mobile!


Give me a break (none / 0) (#74)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST

Less busy? You base this on what?

More mobile? I don't even know what to say to that.

Some of you guys are simply incapable of conceding even the slightest advantage to Obama.


: The demographics prove my point (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:11:59 PM EST

Clinton's demographics are older folks who might need a ride or some help to get there, or a class of workers who have less an ability to go to their boss and say they need the time off to go do something like caucus.
Obama has the younger folks, and such, all folks who are less weighted down with the events of daily life.

It makes political sense... (none / 0) (#53)
by mike in dc on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:55:10 AM EST

...for him to defer on this about 1 more week, to get the win in Mississippi and reduce Clinton's post-Ohio bounce before responding directly.

He should support full primaries in mid-June, perhaps Michigan first(easier to set up) and Florida second.

It's a virtual certainty, though, that Obama will end the process with more than half of all pledged delegates, whether there's a re-vote or not. The popular vote will likely be very close either way.

What some people are missing is that the uncommitted superdelegate "pool" is getting smaller every week, and the movement has been heavily pro-Obama. If the trend holds through to Pennsylvania, he could pick up another 50-100 endorsements. I think, with another 100-150 endorsements, and the pledged delegate lead, Obama could actually clinch the nomination, possibly even before the re-votes.

Current SD Standings Are Somewhat Irrelevant (5.00 / 3) (#88)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:19:16 PM EST

SDs are not required to stick with the candidate they have endorsed. So just as a couple of Clinton SDs have moved to Obama, Obama SDs could move to Clinton if the situation changes. They are politicians, afterall.


But the movement... (none / 0) (#93)
by mike in dc on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:26:04 PM EST

...has all been to Obama. If the endorsement trend since Iowa is at all reflective of the current sentiments of the SDs, doesn't it seem a bit like magical thinking to assume she will somehow command the support of most of them if she manages to come up with 48% of the pledged delegates and 50.1% of the popular vote?


: Not at all (none / 0) (#109)
by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM EST

Look at it this way: if and when there is enough for SDs to swing, they will. For the good of the party the sooner the better. TX/OH was almost at that point, but it didn't pan out.
They won't sit on the fence unless they are not ready. They are not ready.

Well There goes the idea (none / 0) (#55)
by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:22 AM EST

That superdelegates are waiting for Florida and Michigan to hold revotes before moving to Obama?


The media narrative... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by mike in dc on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:03:28 PM EST

...has paid little attention to the SDs' pro-Obama trend since Iowa. Had he actually won the Texas' primary in popular vote, and followed that up by rolling out another 50 endorsements, this thing would be over, because the media would be forced to admit the math doesn't work for Clinton. She still has a chance, but it's way less than 50% for her to win.


: Perhaps they haven't focussed on it (none / 0) (#69)
by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:05:28 PM EST

Because there hasn't been as much there there to talk about as an Obama supporter might think there is.

my take (none / 0) (#56)
by joei on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM EST

the obama gang will rather risk going into GE by taking a write-off on MI & FL and get the nomination rather than risk loosing the upper hand going into the convention. they are pretty ambitious people, sorta if u wan't to have a chance to become president first u need to make sure u r the nominee, in the process they might destroy themselves but thats another matter.

i would say the clinton gang need to start hammering the fact that how it is so unfair that the 2 states happen to be her states and not illinois or georgia

: There is no positive conclusion (5.00 / 4) (#72)
by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM EST

to be drawn from Obama stalling and hemming and hawing and equivocating and dragging his feet on whether the will of the people of Florida and Michigan should be disregarded or subverted. At some point - soon - there will be voice given to this, and it won't be from Obama surrogates but from the formerly starry-eyed press.
And if I'm a Florida or Michigan voter, I'm wondering why it is that Obama seems less interested in my vote than he is in making sure that vote benefits him - so the longer this drags on, the worse it gets for him in a re-vote.
Shoe on the other foot - if this were Clinton doing the stalling, the media would be outraged, would cast her equivocation as her not wanting the votes to count, as her only caring about the political benefit, would brand her as unable to lead on important issues, would be tying themselves in knots trying to make this about some underhanded form of racism. As always, I don't get why he's getting a free ride on this one.

The real downside (none / 0) (#59)
by cannondaddy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST

is it extends the campaign. If he were to win PA the campaign would be over, unless FA and Mi are a redo. That means it keeps going no matter what. That means spending money as opposed to raising GE funds. That means a easier path for John McCain.

Obama does not want revotes? (none / 0) (#91)
by VicAjax on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST

i think the headline of this post is a little misleading.

where did he say that? in the original post, BTD theorizes why he wouldn't want revotes... but has he or any of his surrogates said that he does not want them?

in fact, Daschle recently held that the Obama camp would be open to revotes.

I explained my thinking (none / 0) (#92)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM EST

I did not say Obama SAID he did not want revotes. I explained WHY he does not want them.

BTW, he never said he WANTED them either.

Daschle says they will accept them.

Common sense.


Does vs. Would (none / 0) (#98)
by VicAjax on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST

your argument is completely sound about why Obama "would" not want revotes, and i agree with your reasoning, even though i'm not entirely sure a revote wouldn't end up working in his favor, were he given a chance to campaign in both states.

i simply take issue with the fact that your headline doesn't use the speculative "would" rather than the definitive "does." it implies that it is a fact Obama does not want a revote, when neither he nor his surrogates have stated that (as far as i'm aware).


: All bloggers do it (none / 0) (#106)
by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST

And I think there's an equivalent in Journalism.

: If I had written (none / 0) (#110)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:46:15 PM EST

Obama Does NOT Want Revotes as opposed to what I did write, you might have a point.
But I did not.
And a reading of my post makes clear that I do not claim he said he does not want revotes.
BTW, as I asked you before, is it not clear that he has not said he wants revotes?
Do you wonder why he has not said it?

in your opinion (none / 0) (#101)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST

It's a bit presumptuous to say he doesn't want re-votes even though he has said nothing o indicate that.


If using my common sense (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:44:16 PM EST

is presumptuous then I plead guilty.


how about some common sense on this (none / 0) (#119)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:24:03 PM EST

how long do you think it will take the media to jump to the same conclusion you have? Let's assume that they are at least five times less intelligent than you are (which, frankly, is generous to them)-how long before they do the math and someone says, "Hey, look at these demographics. Look at how Obama loses in primaries. The reason we haven't gotten a definitive answer from Obama on the revote is because he knows he will lose the revote."? When that becomes the lead story, then Obama has lost the war.

Maybe Lou Dobbs will get a phone call.


They did already (none / 0) (#121)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:28:24 PM EST

Dang (none / 0) (#123)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:31:24 PM EST

I gotta stop watching Golden Girls when I'm at the gym and switch back to CNN. I haven't seen anyone make this connection except you.

And here I was thinking you were so smart!


: Well I am smart (none / 0) (#125)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST

But the Sunday shows got it pretty easily. Frankly, it is too obvious to miss.

Sick, maybe politics calls to the weak (none / 0) (#112)
by Salt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:50:20 PM EST

anti social personality who believes them selves to have been bullied by the Establishment, then the Right an now Women, certainly the techniques the campaign is using to inflame are right out of that physco warfare playbook. We all saw the same things happen to the Republican Party as the right wing wacko fringe hate parade assumed power and corrupted the Party's principals not pretty, this is a clear warning for the Democratic Party to fight off the fringe now, a minority of crazies is fine everyone has a crazy uncle the cherish. I'm wondering how the emergence of strong traditional Dem males like Strickland and Rendell not just Clinton alone vs. the Daschle, Dean, Kerry's types will have on the blogs the former three obvious winners the latter obvious losers.

: one of the least violent (5.00 / 4) (#122)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:30:37 PM EST

countries in the world is Finland. They have the lowest crime rates. They have one of the top healthcare systems in the world. They allow women and men to take up to a year off from work to be with their children. They have almost no adoptions because no one abandons their children. They have one of the highest happiness indexes of any country, the lowest infant mortality rates and one of the longest life expectancy rates. (All of this while being one of the most taxed countries)
They also have women in the majority of cabinet minister posts and more than forty percent of their members of Parliament are women.
When men see a close majority of women in power, they become less violent toward women-and other men. Bonobos are a perfect example of this phenomenon. Not that I'm saying some bloggers are acting like a bunch of feces-throwing monkeys, but if the banana fits...

There is a reason (none / 0) (#140)
by chemoelectric on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST

The reason is because it would be the right thing to do, but it's probably not right to have an election financed by one side or the other. Doing the right thing might mean not holding such an election, even if no other election format can be agreed to.

I think this all will get settled one way or another, however, and so (unless I come up with some brilliant solution) I think I will just sit back and see what they come up with.

Revotes favor Obama gaining delegates (none / 0) (#141)
by kjblair on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:05:46 PM EST

With respect to delegates from the two states, Obama would actually be better off with revotes than with seating the current delegations. Here's why.

In MI, he currently trails 73-0. Assuming Clinton would win MI with the same margin as OH, the new delegate math looks like 70-58. Clinton loses three delegates and Obama picks up 58. (And MI is slightly more favorable to Obama than OH.)

In FL, he currrently trails 105-67. Assuming Clinton wins with 60% of the vote, the new delegate math looks like 111-74. So Clinton picks up 6 and Obama picks up 7. (Clinton has only won a couple of states with this margin, so again this looks reasonable.)

So even compared to the curent totals which don't include MI and FL, Clinton would only trim 49 delegates from Obama's lead. He'd still have over 100 more pledged delegates than Clinton.

He's going to have more pledged delegates at the end of the process than Clinton. If he gets to the point where he has enough superdelegates to ensure he can get the nomination, I think any hesitation to have MI or FL revote will disappear.

: Good point, but (none / 0) (#143)
by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:56:32 PM EST

First it assume he wouldn't get the "uncommitted" in MI, which I say is probably what would happen if by some bizarre chance they just sit current delegates. So it wouldn't be so lopsided.
I think anyone who is doing delegate math on these states is entirely missing the point: this is probably about popular vote totals and the psychology of voting big states twice (or maybe the surprise of winning them).