Can anyone give me a good reason why Florida and Michigan shouldn't revote?

[Seen the light]

Lots of people saying it wouldn't be right because they broke the rules. Um...the rules said that they couldn't move their primaries up as early as they did right? So, there would still be something wrong with them moving their states way back into June or whenever the revote would occur?

I think my fellow Obama friends need to get behind this. I agree that it would be ludicrous to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan the way it is now, but I would have no problem with a revote since it would nullify any damage done by moving their primaries up so far. Even if Clinton wins both in a landslide, I would still support them being seated because not a single voter should be disenfranchised in this historic primary race.

[scheming daemons]

1. I have no problem with a re-vote....

A) Clinton won't get another 50-33 win in Florida... not with Edwards out this time

B) Clinton won't get another 55-0 win in Michigan... not with Obama on the ballot this time. Michigan is a LOT different than Ohio. Michigan would be a good state for Obama.


If Hillary would win... it would be by slim margins... it would negate her earlier "wins" and take a major talking point off of her table.

I have no problem with these two states voting the week after Puerto Rico.

[JorgeTheGood]

12. I disagee on Obama being very strong

in either state ... FL is full of older folks (retirees) that would be huge for Hillary.

The AA vote in MI would certainly go to BO but that may be it ... the unions didn't seem to help him in OH and I suspect that would also hold true in MI.

And both states are seriously 2nd amendment ... BO hasn't been tested on that one ... YET

[truedelphi]

2. A revote seems the fairest way n/t

[flyarm]

3. $25 million bucks..that is what they said on our news tonight in Tampa that it would prob cost..

the state doesn't have the money and neither does the DNC..the governor told the DNC if they want a revote..they have to pay.

is that a good enough reason??

oh and our delegates had their election saturday..that would be another election that would have to take place as well.

at a cost...

fly

[TAWS]

6. Well, million dollars worth of ads will start bombarding the state, so that might make up for it n/t

[Seen the light]

8. Should we put a monetary value on how much the right to vote should cost?

I know it's expensive and the whole thing is a mess, but the voters of Florida and Michigan shouldn't have to be disenfranchised because of the idiotic decisions of those in power there.

[flyarm]

41. Florida has alot a financial problems right now..

that there has been a run on $$$..by counties ..that couldn't even pay their employees...

$25 million for an election that has already taken place..in a closed state that only dems could vote in our primary,.. that saw 1.7 million voters as a record for a primary..will not go over well with senior tax payers here in Fla..or state and county workers who weren't getting their pay checks not long ago.

Fund Crisis in Florida Worrisome to States
Source: NYTimes

December 5, 2007
Fund Crisis in Florida Worrisome to States

By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Top Florida officials moved yesterday to stabilize an investment pool for local governments after a multibillion-dollar run prompted the state to temporarily suspend withdrawals by cities and school districts.

Local governments, which have been unable to remove any money from the fund since Nov. 29, will be allowed to start making limited withdrawals as early as tomorrow, officials said. The turmoil has left some towns and school districts unable to meet payrolls or pay bills and has raised concerns about similar funds across the country.

Florida’s governments in recent weeks have withdrawn billions of dollars from the fund because of concern over investments linked to subprime mortgages. It is unclear what losses the fund may sustain.

But the sudden flight from the fund, which came despite its relatively small exposure to subprime-related debt, points to a broader uncertainty among officials in other states over how far the credit and mortgage crisis might spread.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/business/05invest.htm...

...................

we have a serious problem here in Fla economically..are one of the top states with forclosures..and people losing their homes....and Jobs...not a real good time to charge the taxpayers with a second election...of which there are more independents or equal to democrats taxpayers.. ..and then many many republicans..no that will not go over very well.

People here in Fla are pretty damn fed up with the Washington Dem Party and the State Dem party..taking their votes and rights away with no say by the "people" about it, what so ever..if the dem party keeps it up..we will lose even more dems..and you will see Fla go to McCain.

and we are alot of Electoral college votes to win or lose.

this crap is a loose- loose for the Dem Party here in Fla..keep this up at the dem party peril...that could be very long lasting...there are very angry dems here in Florida right now..not a good formula before a general election..

you can shit on the dems now from Fla and Michigan before the convention..but do not forget..you need the Fla dems and Michigan dems for the general..again..do it at the peril of the democratic party....and gaining the White house.

fly

[kwenu]

45. The right to vote: No. The right to RE-VOTE: Yes.

[WillyT]

23. Didn't The DNC Offer To Pay For A Caucus ???

:shrug:

[JorgeTheGood]

4. no problem with re-voting

providing both are closed primary ... same as the original voting. If they change them to caucuses it will give an automatic advantage to Obama and be changing the rules which was the original argument against seating the delegates.

Keep it fair and it's fine ... otherwise, no re-vote.

[TAWS]

5. If they revote, they should lose some of their delegates n/t

[Hestia]

7. Because, just because.

We have been screaming for 7 years (more really) about how Republican's do not play by the rules. Why do any State Democratic parties get a pass for basically feckin' up and not playing by Nat'l Rules? They were agreed to and voted on by the states, then Florida & Michigan left, and decided to do it own way. Instead of blaming Nat'l, the states need to kick their party leaders to curb and get some that don't think they own the whole show. Just think, by waiting a couple of weeks, money would not have to be wasted by taking this court, everyone would be playing nice, and the delegates would be seated as normal. Get somebody who thinks they are somebody and this is what you get. DNC shouldn't back by abiding by the rules. Levin from Michigan crafted these rules - now he wants to break his very own rules that he demanded? Uh uh.

[FogerRox]

9. Absolutly none.

[DJ13]

10. I dont believe in punishment then forgiveness later just 'cause they cry loudly

It sets a bad precedent, that eliminates a good portion of the punitive value to deter future rebellion against the party.

I also am not thrilled with the Democratic party caving in to a Republican governor, but thats just me.

[Seen the light]

15. I disagree

The punishment was put in place because Michigan and Florida broke the rules and decided to have their pledged delegates be elected earlier than was elected. That wouldn't be happening under a revote and, in fact, would be putting them WAY farther back than they were originally scheduled to vote before the initial bump happened in the first place.

Besides, I think states won't try as hard to move their places up in future primaries. Not after this year where every single state from January to June will count a whole lot.

[DJ13]

30. Its a whole lotta effort for no difference in the result

So we end up with our candidates needing an additional $10 million (at least) for each candidate for ads and on the ground campaigns to run another primary campaign in the two states.

Then theres the additional costs the states must bear (it had better NOT be the party's money), though that could be reduced with caucuses.

And for what?

Another two states with the two candidates seperated by 3-10% of the votes, and delegate counts only ending up +/- 10 between them.

Then theres the fact the total delegates needed will be INCREASED for the nomination, and the effort is really a waste of time and money.

[Beregond2]

11. Too late

You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Both candidates would have done many things differently had Florida and Michigan been on the table. It is too late to rectify the situation now.

[mmonk]

13. I've always said the voters shouldn't be disenfranchised.

If however, Clinton operatives try and make it appeared they were screwed by Dean, I say the deal should be some sort of settlement instead. I don't like underhanded power politics.

[Yael]

18. Dean already offered to pay for a revote in both states with DNC funds

so whats the excuse/problem?

[mmonk]

28. I have no problem with that. But like I said, I don't care for underhanded

moves and misplaced blame.

[Yael]

37. So please explain how the voters were "screwed by Dean"

[msallied]

14. Show me the money.

And there is none to show. Millions and millions of dollars to have a re-vote, and I think government money is tied up elsewhere. Sorry to FL and MI, but they disenfranchised their own voters and should be ashamed of themselves. If they want to play next time, they need to follow the rules so that we don't even have to HAVE this debate.

[Yael]

19. Thanks -- I agree.

[Yael]

16. I am all for a re-vote

and 110% against seating the delegates.

If the DNC allows the former, the 2012 primary race will turn into a ckusterfuck of ginormous proportions and the race will be all about who collects the most cash in 2011.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Eurobabe]

17. No, I think it is over, too bad the MI and FL parties

didn't play by the rules. In football, you don't move the goalposts (unless you are Team Clinton) to suit your needs at the end of the game, so you can pinch off that 2 second field goal.

I say sorry FL and MI, take it up with your state parties and bloody them.

[bellasgrams]

35. I think Dean should be replaced. The people voted, they had

no say. Their votes should count. It's not the voters fault Dean and others couldn't come to an agreement. Our gov. said we would have an earlier date next time, but with any luck, he'll get voted out before then.

[Eurobabe]

40. No, FL and MI should look to their own state parties

We should chuck this stupid primary clusterfuck and do rotating regionals.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. There WAS an agreement. The state parties abrogated that

agreement.

Put the blame where it belongs.

[forintegrity]

20. $$$

and Michigan already has enough $$$ problems!

Ain't gonna happen, nor should ANY dlegates from Michigan be seated from our early primary since one of the two last standing wasn't even on the ballot(Obama). And...who gets the delegates for the "Uncommited" we all voted for because our candidate wasn't on the ballot?

Michigan blew it. Plain and simple. It was stupid. Plain and simple.

[SoCalDem]

21. If they had CANCELLED their original primaries, or not even

tabulated any votes, I'd say "Go for it"...but they spent the money, had the primaries, released the "winners", so no matter what the eventual primary, held later , would yield, it would always be held up next to the "original" one that did not count, and the "new" results would be automatically disputed by someone.

You cannot "un-know" something you already "know".. HRC's people "know" she "won"..It was not a fair-fight, but that's no biggie to them..

Let's say they held new ones, and Obama won or at least came close enough to remain ahead in delegates.. They would surely then complain about how the "new ones" were somehow unfair because when the first ones were held, he was a relative unknown,and the do-over was somehow unfair to her..

It's the Bush v Gore premise all over.. To continue along the path would do "irreparable harm to her" (unless she wins :evilgrin: )

[Lord Helmet]

22. because they knew what would happen and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for their stupidity

[DrFunkenstein]

24. They Knew The Consequences and Affected The Early Race

Even a 7-year-old would understand why they don't get a do-over. They should be given delegates for the convention EXACTLY proportional to the final amounts, so they can attend but have no actual say over the proceedings.

That is compassionate, but fair. And that's coming from a former elementary school teacher.

[k8conant]

25. I think a valid vote in FL and MI would definitely help Obama...

and I'd say it's up to those states if they want to do so. I had understood that they were still free to have a good vote within the designated timeframe.

[madfloridian]

26. Here is the final DNC response...played on Countdown tonight.

And laughed at by Keith, which was most irritating. The one Olbermann showed. Then he and Chuck Todd shared a snicker about the word "rules". Like they were unimportant. I was angered at that.

We're glad to hear that the Governors of Michigan and Florida are willing to lend their weight to help resolve this issue. As we've said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules, so today's public overtures are good news. The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates.We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.

"Through all the speculation, we should also remember the overwhelming enthusiasm and turnout that we have already seen, and respect the voters of the ten states who have yet to have their say.

"As we head towards November, our nominee must have the united support of a strong Democratic Party that's ready to fight and ready to beat John McCain. After seven years of Republican rule, I am confident that we will elect a Democratic president who will fight for America's families in the White House. Now we must hear from the voters in twelve states and territories who have yet to make their voices heard."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/dnc_encouraging_florida_and_mi.php

[tokenlib]

27. Michigan will embarrass Clinton

Obama has a great shot in Michigan if we had another primary. So many people are blaming Gov. Granholm for our financial hellhole--a lot of republicans could be enticed to vote to embarrass our governor --if they don't listen to Rush first.

Honestly it could be crazy and interesting...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Let's wait and see if Obama has enough delegates even if you seat them . . . .

I think he wins without a re-vote.

[Birthmark]

31. There is no reason for a re-vote in FL

FL had a fine primary with a huge turnout. Calls for a "re-vote" are absurd.

MI is different. I don't know what the hell they should do. But I trust the people of MI to figure it out without sticking my nose in their business.

[Hepburn]

32. They broke the rules....

...why in the hell should they get a second chance?

[JorgeTheGood]

33. this much is guaranteed ...

if something isn't done to get FL and MI back in the game, the dems will lose both states in the GE.

[Orangepeel]

34. Fine by me. It wouldn't actually be a re-vote. It would be their first legitimate primary.

Based on my interpretation of Tim Russert's interpretation of what Dean told him, they can have a primary before June 10. They always could have made the January vote nonbinding and apportioned delegates another way. It was Bill Nelson, Karen Thurmon and other pig headed FDP members who have resisted.

I do think that the FDP should find a way to pay for it, since they previously rejected the DNCs offer of money for a caucus.

[madfloridian]

36. The offer by the DNC to pay is now off the table.

"Under party rules, Florida Democrats can appeal to the convention's credentials committee to be seated or hold a new contest — such as another primary, a caucus or a mail-in ballot — before June 10. Crist has said he would support another vote, but neither the state nor the DNC has offered to pay the estimated $4 million tab.

DNC chairman Howard Dean said it was up to each state to deal with the penalties. "As we've said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules," he said.

A DNC staffer said the party had offered before Jan. 29 to help pay for a later contest. But that offer is no longer on the table. "They understand what their choices are," the aide said"

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flafldelegates0306sbmar06,0,4680927.story

[PurityOfEssence]

38. BECAUSE WE'D BE REWARDING THEM FOR BREAKING THE RULES!

Jesus Christ; how hard is this to understand? We'd pour tons of money into the states, give them pivotal say-so in the nomination, give them a narrowed field from which to pick, and worst of all, REWARD THEM FOR BEING ASSHOLES.

I feel sorry for the voters in the states, but the politicians broke the rules, basically said "fuck you" to other states that obeyed the rules, really hurt the lesser-funded candidates who couldn't react and just behaved deplorably. Dean did precisely the right thing.

They should get to vote on party planks and policy calls at the convention, but not on the nominee.

If we reward them for doing this, anarchy will reign.

Yeah, the old schedule is crap that doesn't represent the nation and unfairly benefits a few states, but there are mechanisms in place to change the rules rather than just pissing all over everyone else and demanding to do as they please.

Sheesh.

It's like talking to people who don't see the McClurkin affair as a cynical, bigoted, racist bit of greasy religious opportunism; those who can't see the deep, deep immorality of defying the party to vote early don't seem to understand what one's word means or the very concept of pluralism: respect for others. These people thought they were "sticking it to the man", but they were really screwing over the great majority of other states with their childishness.

As anyone who remembers '03 and early '04 around here knows, I was hardly enamored of Howard Dean, but he's been a champ as party chair and he did the right thing here.

[goodgd_yall]

39. Rewarding?

Why should the voters be "punished" for something their state parties condoned?

By having the revote even later than they would have been before the schedule was set, they lose out on being influential so that is a kind of "punishment." And if they have to dole out more money for a second primary that's another "punishment." I think they will learn their lesson and other states will be be much less likely to try defying the rules in the future. I think what you suggest is "cruel and unusual" punishment.

[kwenu]

46. Because you elect your leaders and you are subject to their stupid decisions. For example: Bush.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. The only bigger 'fuck you' to the party than a re-vote would be

to seat the delegates of the illegitimate primaries they've alread had.

If the state parties want to seat delegates, let them come up with the 4 million for a re-vote, in which ALL candidates can participate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. As far as I've seen, the only people against a re-vote are the

Hillary supporters who think she can still claim them as victories, tainted though they be. Never mind that Florida voters KNEW their votes were not going to be counted, dissuading unknown numbers from even showing up. Never mind that Hillary was the only major name on the Michigan ballot, and she was outvoted by 'none of the above'.

Voters in both states, but particularly Florida, were used as pawns in a struggle between the DLC and the DNC, and the DLC were the instigators.

[AlGore-08.com]

48. Umm... HRC got 55.23% of the vote. How could she be outvoted by anybody?

F.Y.I. "Uncommitted" got 40.07%.

http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/08PPR/01000000.html

The Detroit Free Press ran a poll right before the Michigan primary which gave HRC 46%, Obama 23%, Edwards 13%. So it's unlikely that an actual primary, held on that same day, would have given Obama a victory. (F.Y.I. for a year before that time Clinton's average poll numbers were rising, "Undecided" was rising and Obama's were falling.)

I've got a disclaimer in another post, but here goes again: I have no preference between Obama and Clinton.

But I think we should base our discussions on the facts, when there are verifiable facts to discuss.

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. My mistake - I thought they were the other way around.

But it doesn't change the very real fact that a great many potential voters didn't bother to show up because they KNEW they votes would be meaningless.

This isn't little league baseball where you can win by default. Particularly if the other team is told that it's just an exhibition game and won't count toward the playoffs.

The fact that she got 55% of the vote THAT SHOWED UP means nothing.

Also, Hillary's standing in the polls means nothing, as is evidenced by the fact that she has held a commanding lead in every contest a month out, but as they started campaigning that lead had always dropped dramatically. As campaigning in MI and FL was all but nonexistant, the straw polls they conducted did not reflect the effects of campaigning.

The only fair way to seat delegates from those states is for them both to have a re-vote, closed primary, with all (both) remaining candidates campaigning their little hearts out. DNC and the states should split the costs down the middle.

[AlGore-08.com]

43. It's harder to justify a revote in Florida since everybody was on the ballot, record turn out and

Nationally televised debates, national campaign coverage on TV and reprinted in the local papers, folks in both states could read the candidate's websites, etc.

Let's pause briefly for the usual disclaimer - - I have no preference between Obama or Clinton, I will support whoever is the nominee. Now, back to our show.

The only thing that was missing from Florida were the 30 second campaign commercials which say NOTHING of substance and the GOTV organizations. Michigan is more problematic, but - - let's get RealPolitik for a minute here - - it is the "fault" of Obama that he took his own name off the ballot before the primary. He knew that whoever won could claim momentum in the vitally important, official early primaries/caucuses, would get bragging rights to a swing state and could use those bragging rights to at least make a case to seat the delegates at the convention if necessary. He knew taking his name off could p*ss of some Michigan voters in the general. He took his name off because his internal polling showed he couldn't win it and he didn't want to give Clinton the "victory" to build momentum with. It was a tactical decision, just as Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot was tactical.

The real problem is that there is no good solution for Florida and Michigan. Any solution will disenfranchise some voters, and all of them give the Republicans pretty good talking points about what a bunch of undemocratic, hypocritical jerks we are. We could:

1.) Hold a second primary and seat those delegates. This is an extremely expensive idea - - who's going to pay for it and how? The campaigns will need to raise many more millions of dollars to compete in these vital primaries, and that money will reduce the amount available to folks in down ticket races. We could end up loosing a lot of close Congressional and state races to Republicans because the donors are tapped out. The results of a second primary would almost certainly be different - - if it's different enough to make Obama the winner in both primaries, the Republicans will use this as proof that he can't win without cheating/special help/the Democrats are undemocratic and corrupt/the Democrats really hate women/you take it from here. Finally, it sets a really bad precedent: don't like the certified results of an election? No fraud or illegalities? No problem! Hold another one next week! Keep holding them till the voters get tired for voting for the "wrong" candidate!

2.) Hold a caucus and seat those delegates. I find this the worst of the bad options. Caucuses have an extremely small number of people participating in them as opposed to primaries. People who attend caucuses tend to be middle class or better; primary voters better represent all strata of society. You only have to compare the Texas primary results (HRC 51% - BHO 48%) to the Texas caucus results (currently BHO 56% - HRC 44%) to see that you get very different results from a caucus than a primary. Caucuses favor Obama. Since that is a known dynamic in this election which will probably not change, scheduling caucuses is one step away from gerrymandering the primary or hacking into the vote tabulating machines. It's just morally wrong. It would be just as morally wrong if Clinton was the one who would obviously benefit from throwing out certified primary results in favor of holding a caucus. And again, the Republicans will have a field day running around Michigan and Florida explaining how the DNC big wigs decided Obama would be the nominee, when The People voted for Clinton. Book it.

3.) Seat the delegates based on the certified primary results. As others have pointed out, allowing Florida and Michigan to break the rules and get away with it will mean we will be voting in the 2012 Super Tuesday primary last week. (Does holding a second primary or a caucus really dissuade any state from pulling this same B.S. in a future election?) And this is yet another scenario where the nominee changes - - this time from Obama to Clinton. About the only difference in the Republican talking points is they get to claim we changed the rules in the middle of the game because we're hypocritical, racist jerks instead of hypocritical, sexist jerks.

4.) Not seat any delegates from those states and not hold a second primary or a caucus. This causes the disenfranchisement of everybody who voted in the Dem primary - - an especially offensive outcome for Florida Dems, who have been f*ing disenfranchised enough already by the Republicans. And the Republicans will spend the rest of the campaign running around Florida and Michigan reminding every Dem they can find that their own party f*ed them over this time, so why bother voting for the Dem? Vote for Honest John McCain, who got d*cked over in the 2000 South Carolina Primary, just like you! Book it in triplicate.

And if, as it appears, if these delegates are NOT seated Obama will be the nominee but if they are seated, Clinton will be the nominee... how much greater will the disenfranchisement appear? How much greater will it be?