Skip to main content

One of my diary drafts is entitled "The Florida/Michigan Revote Card, and the State of the Race".  The diary was going to argue that holding fresh primary votes in both Florida and Michigan was unambiguously in the interests of the Clintons.  Moreover, the diary was going to predict that we were going to begin to see some Clinton surrogates start to send out trial balloons about potential Florida and Michigan votes at about the time of the Ohio and Texas primaries.

I never finished the diary, and I can't really take credit for a prediction that I never got onto the public record.  But, indeed, this is exactly what has happened.  I want to at least complete the second part of the diary, and explain why the Clintons are doing this.  In fact, I would argue that Florida and Michigan revotes are an essential part of any potential Clinton path to the nomination.

Let's step back and look at this from Clinton's sort of mathematical point of view.  Her basic calculation is as follows:

It is in Clinton's best interest to hold revotes in Florida and Michigan when the left side of the equation exceeds the right side of the equation.  Namely, her expected gain in pledged delegates plus superdelegates in the event of a revote exceeds her expected gain in the event that no new vote is conducted.  

This should be fairly self-evident.  What's trickier is estimating the individual parameters.  It is not as simple, for example, as simply assigning Clinton the number of "phantom" delegates that she received from the unsanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries in the event that there is no revote (P_n), because we have to assess Clinton's likelihood of success in front of the credentials committee.  

In fact, let's tackle this parameter -- (P_n) -- first.  Marc Ambinder does a good job of explicating the mechanics of the credentials committee:

So early this summer, the 25 members of the DNC's credential committee will join 161 other members to be selected by the states.

The members do not have to be Convention delegates.

The presidential candidates get to choose them, based on the delegates allocated to them in that particular state primary or caucus.

It's proportional (of course).

So if a state has 4 members, and one candidate wins 50 percent and another candidate wins 50 percent, then each candidate gets 2 members.

What does this mean?

Let's say that ALL 25 of Howard Dean's appointees vote AGAINST seating Florida and Michigan. Let's say that 80 additional members are appointed by Obama and 81 by Clinton. 25 + 80 is more than 81. You can fiddle with the numbers and get to a scenario that might seat the Florida delegates. But it's safe to safe to say that the credential committee option for Sen. Clinton to get Michigan and Florida seated would require her to have won more delegates than she will win.

Most of the members of the credentials committee are allocated to the individual campaigns, in proportion to the number of pledged delegates that each campaign receives.  Moreover, the candidates can select whomever they please to seat at the credentials committee, so defections of any kind are unlikely.  There is also a minority of delegates who are selected in essence by Howard Dean.  Since it was Dean's DNC who applied the Florida and Michigan sanctions in the first place, one would think it unlikely that these appointees would vote to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations in any sort of manner that Mrs. Clinton would be pleased with.

Now, politics are unpredictable, and there are also some end-around scenarios by which Clinton  could attempt to force a floor vote on Florida and Michigan by filing a minority report, so we can't entirely rule out Clinton gaining some delegates through this path.  However, it is not all that likely, and in some of the scenarios where Clinton "wins", perhaps only some fraction of the Florida/Michigan delegates would be seated.  We might hypothesize probabilities like the following:

I would imagine that the majority of the time, either no delegates at all are seated, or the delegtes are seated, but split equally between the two candidates (these two scenarios are functionally equivalent).  On the other end of the spectrum, Clinton's best-case scenario -- both Florida and Michigan are seated in full, and Obama gets no credit at all for the Michigan uncommitted delegates -- seems rather unlikely, as it wouldn't pass most people's "sniff test" in terms of fairness to Obama.  In between these two cases are a whole host of compromise possibilities.

Of course, these numbers are just guesses.  But, if they are somewhere in the vicinity of being correct, I would guess that Clinton's expected value from attempting to seat the Florida and Michigan delegaets without a revote is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 pledged delegates.

Next, let's look at (P_r): Clinton's expected gain in pledged delegates in the event of a revote.  This one is more straightforward.  Rasmussen polls out today suggest that Clinton would win by 16 points in Florida, whereas Michigan would be a tie.  Obviously, Clinton would gain no ground in Michigan if Rasmussen's prediction were true.  But a 16% margin in Florida is worth approximately (16% x 185) = 29.6 pledged delegates.  This is actually more than our estimate of the number of delegates that Clinton would pick up by pressing her case with the credentials committee!

Of course, Rasmussen's numbers could be wrong, since we might be as many as three months away from a prospective revote in Florida and Michigan.  Obama has gained ground in literally every state in which he's had the chance to campaign, including states like New Hampshire and Ohio which he eventually lost.

Nevertheless, I think we can acknowledge that Florida is inherently a pretty tough state for Obama, with its combination of older voters, Hispanic voters, Jewish voters, and Southern Baptists whites, all groups that have tended to favor her in the primary process.   Florida would poll, I would guess, somewhere around 10 points behind the national trend; if Obama outright wins a vote in Florida, that means that the overall national trend has become at least a minor landslide in his favor.

Michigan, on the other hand, could well be a pretty decent state for Obama.  Michigan is my home state, and I would argue that it falls somewhere between Wisconsin and Ohio on the political spectrum, but closer to the Wisconsin end of the spectrum than the Ohio end.  It does not have the Appalachian and Southern pockets that Ohio has.  It does have two of the twenty largest Universities in the country.  It has of course tended more blue than Ohio in recent Presidential elections. It has one of the largest African-American populations outside of the South.  

We have gotten off on a bit of a tangent.  Michigan is a state Obama could win -- but it is also a state Obama could lose, and that's what matters from Clinton's perspective.  Neither candidate has any reason to be afraid of a revote there.  

The other part of the equation is the superdelegates.  I am not talking about the handful of superdelegates from Florida and Michigan themselves -- but rather, the moral claim that Clinton could make to the nomination under each of these scenarios, which could in turn sway superdelegates in all 50 states.  I would argue that Clinton's moral claim is potentially much stronger in the event of a revote than trying to stand by the initial results.

If there is no revote in Florida and Michigan, Clinton's argument is that those voters have essentially been disenfranchised, and that she deserves some sort of extra credit for that.  This is S_n in our nomenclature.  However, this claim is not likely to be especially persuasive.  For one thing, if there are no revotes in Florida and Michigan, Clinton will likely be perceived as having undermined that effort, and Obama will be able to make the case that she is afraid of a fair fight.  This is particularly the case in Michigan, where his name was not on the ballot.  For another thing, an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both Michigan and Florida want a revote; a fresh vote is favored by a 62-24 margin in Michigan and a 63-28 margin in Florida, according to Rasmussen.  

Of course, before appealing to the superdelegates, Clinton will first try and seat the delegates through the credentials committee.  If she succeeds in her effort, she will have no claim to "extra credit" at all.  And whether she succeeds or she fails, if the process becomes sufficiently nasty, some superdelegates could actually gravitate toward Obama as a result.  Thus, P_n and S_n are not entirely independent of one another; Clinton might be able to seat some delegates from Florida and Michigan or she might have an argument to press to superdelegates, but she can't really have both.

On the other hand, Clinton will be able to make a different sort of moral claim (S_r) in the event of a revote -- provided that she wins both Michigan and Florida.  This will be a version of the argument we've heard already: Clinton is capable of winning the "big", "important" states, and/or she has the momentum and has become the consensus choice of Democrats, even if she hadn't been throughout the primary season.  Clinton would be able to argue that she had defeated Obama in each of Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan.  This is potentially a rather persuasive argument, and it's something that Obama supporters should be prepared for.  In fact, I suspect this argument is at least as likely as not to succeed.  

On top of that, Obama's pledged delegate lead will have been eroded, though probably not overturned, by these victories, so Clinton's threshold for persuasion is much lower.  Let's plot out an optimistic, though not inconceivable, delegate scenario for Clinton:

State	Obama	Clinton Popular Vote
WY	7	5	Obama +17
MS	18	15	Obama +9
PA	67	91	Clinton +15
Guam	2	2	TIE
IN	33	37	Clinton +6
NC	58	57	Obama +1
WV	11	17	Clinton +21
KY	20	31	Clinton +22
OR	27	25	Obama +4
PR	17	38	Clinton +38
MT	9	7	Obama +13
SD	8	7	Obama +7
FL	75	110	Clinton +19
MI	59	69	Clinton +8
	411	511	

Under this scenario, Clinton wins Pennsylvania pretty big.  This is enough to hinder Obama's momentum in North Carolina and Indiana; they essentially tie the former state whereas Clinton comes out ahead in Indiana.  Clinton cleans up in Puerto Rico, and then wins Florida and Michigan by margins somewhat larger than in the current Rasmussen poll.  

Under this scenario, Clinton would gain a net of exactly 100 pledged delegates.  Obama would still have a net advantage of 50-60 pledged delegates, which is slightly larger than Clinton's advantage in superdelegates now.  However, we might reasonably expect that the balance of undecided superdelegates would gravitate toward Clinton, if such a scenario were to transpire.  This is basically her path to the nomination.

On the other hand, if there are no Florida and Michigan revotes, I don't think Clinton can build up enough momentum to have a strong enough moral claim on the nomination; the clock would essentially run out on her.  She would probably have to win North Carolina and Indiana outright, while finding some way to significantly close the delegate gap elsewhere along the way.  If Clinton is to make a persuasive argument that she has run the table, she needs Florida and Michigan back on that table.

So what can Obama and his supporters do?

#1, Obama should recognize he's negotiating from a position of strength.  This does not mean that Obama should try and block a Florida/Michigan revote; such efforts would make him look inconsistent, and would only weaken his moral claim to the nomination.  But he should recognize that Clinton needs these revotes far more than he does, and use that as leverage both in the way he negotiates things like dates and rules, as well as how he manages the PR aspects of the campaign.

#2, Obama needs to start working on a counter-narrative, in the event that something like the "worst case" scenario I outlined above transpired.  In particular, he needs to talk up the importance of North Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Indiana.  More delegates will be awarded on May 6 (185) than in Pennsylvania (158).  And if there's any sort of arbitrary dividing line between "big states" and "small states", North Carolina belongs on the "big state" side of that dividing line; it has nearly the same number of delegates (115) as Michigan (128).

#3, Obama could consider offering to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, subject to the requirement that Michigan's uncommitted delegates are pledged to Obama. This would cost him 56 delegates -- more than Clinton would probably expect to receive through the credentials committee.  However, it would completely neuter any moral claims that Clinton could make to Michigan and Florida.  In fact, Obama would look completely magnanimous, and would probably have an easier time framing the case that superdelegates should line up with the pledged delegate winner.  

And #4, Obama needs as many donations as possible, because these revotes are a'comin, and they're going to be expensive.

Originally posted to poblano on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:44 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tip jar (165+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deminva, JekyllnHyde, BrooklynBoy, Oregon Bear, DelRPCV, pletzs, IhateBush, Avila, Psyche, rhubarb, bawbie, jeremybloom, Ddeele, gecko, bumblebums, PBCliberal, kissfan, dpc, fabacube, bronte17, indybend, BlackGriffen, benheeha, jerseycorn, Pithy Cherub, stevetat, fishhead, roses, dgb, ivote2004, peraspera, badlands, itskevin, Shaniriver, nalin, dmsilev, webweaver, psnyder, Dallasdoc, Chicago Lulu, casperr, november3rd, redvolution, hoolia, JimWilson, desmoinesdem, skipppppp, Scarce, applegal, 2dot, ChiGirl88, dunsel, gmhowell, Nova Land, Big Tex, chumley, Pokerdad, mjd in florida, waitingforvizzini, Irons33, Penman, majcmb1, jeff in nyc, Red Bean, captainlaser, Ekaterin, ZinZen, empathy, Reality Bites Back, Prof Dave, Jsn, trashablanca, gwilson, billydanielus, Crestingwave, BlueInARedState, dharmafarmer, andydoubtless, hungrycoyote, Tiny Wurlitzer, Partially Impartial, Irishkorean, merrinc, tecampbell, Potus2020, Mia Dolan, coolsub, pseudopod, DrMicro, DBunn, factbased, dotsright, clashfan, Cottagerose, godislove, crankyinNYC, psychodrew, yoduuuh do or do not, kath25, Inventor, greenchiledem, Democrat, gatorbot, mouser68, Drowning Wave, Kentucky Kid, geejay, rrheard, scardanelli, Empower Ink, MKinTN, Dem in the heart of Texas, condorcet, Spoonfulofsugar, ratador, Minnesota Mike, LizzyPop, MikePhoenix, ozkid, pepper mint, loree920, Rick Winrod, State Department, NMLib, Nick Blas, pooh74, JedReport, tsqd, joy sinha, haruki, omegajew, allie123, Mile High Progressive, rigso, Oxy, Simply Agrestic, Scubaval, oldliberal, Tim in CA, not a cent, ronnied, Hope08, pinchesguru, nwgates, Rorgg, Namtrix, bigmikek7, SciVo, shunpike, MingPicket, zackamac, Cuseology, jhwvertigo, jwilson, supsupsup, Lisactal, geodemographics, Alter, Wit Whither Wilt, diegobnavarro, badger1968, Schul, Keith Pickering, rella, CurlyQ

    Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

    by poblano on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:42:47 PM PST

    •  another solid contribution to DKos (16+ / 0-)

      I am tipping and recommending.

      I don't care whether there is a revote or some other compromise, but some way has to be found to seat delegates from MI and FL at the DNC. We can't afford to go into the general election campaign having ignored voters in those states.

      John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

      by desmoinesdem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:45:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

        Obama should press for a compromise along the lines of the FL & MI votes counting (w/uncommitted to Obama) if 200 uncommitted super delegates pledge to vote forthe winner of pledged delegates.

        Why Clinton might do it:  This would pull her within about 90-100 pledged delegates and gives her an outside chance to win the nomination in a legitimate fashion.

        Why Obama would do it:  Obama's fear of counting the FL & MI elections is giving up the big state argument to the SDs.  If the SDs basically agree not to be swayed by anything other than the results, Obama can concede this argument.

        Why the SDs may agree:  The SDs want the winner to appear legitimate.  Also, the SDs are party leaders.  They do not want to see the DNC waste $40 million redoing these elections, which could otherwise be allocated to their states.

        •  Do people understand (9+ / 0-)

          that if we go back to counting Florida and Michigan the number of delegates needed to win also goes up? The number is now 2,025 but before Michigan and Florida were stripped of delegates the number was 2,208. Therefore, I really doubt that even if there are do-overs the race will be affected much since it's still likely no one ends up with enough pledged to win it. I think the re-vote scheme is a ruse by Clinton to have a reason to stay in. Otherwise, it's obvious Obama has the lead and can't be caught. It's time to start comparing her to Huckabee.

          Most truly profound and inspirational thoughts require more than 160 characters.

          by Joe Willy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:49:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  For that very reason (7+ / 0-)

            Hillary wil never allow a revote.  She will make sure the Bill Nelsons and the Jennifer Granholms of the world (and Carl Levin, who just tipped his hand) put the brakes on any such effort.

          •  she is nothing like Huckabee (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bluehen96

            Huckabee had no path to the nomination.

            Though you may not like it, Hillary has a clear path to the nomination within the current system.

            John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

            by desmoinesdem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:14:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I don't know if its "clear" (0+ / 0-)

              but it certainly is A path, and the words "within the current system" is key.

              Never underestimate the stupidity of our democratic leaders either. And you bet the Clinton's are working on greasing every single palm.

              Now that I think about it, her path is sorta clear...

              You know we live in strange times when hearing something as simple as the truth almost seems shocking.

              by redhaze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:00:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe it's a different kind of ruse (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Spoonfulofsugar

            I'm more inclined to think that this is a ruse to keep the Democrats focused on the Macguffin of a re-vote in FL and MI instead of the hard pledged delegate math, which does not offer Clinton a plausible route to the nomination. The whole idea of a re-vote, who would pay for it, and when it would take place, are so problematic that we could easily fill the next seven weeks with the daily drama of 'REVOTE CRISIS!' And that's great, because we can avoid the 'It's pretty much over, actually' elephant in the room.

            The Party, for its part, seems happy and relieved to spin its wheels trying to solve a problem that pretty much no one has a real interest in solving, because it allows them to avoid the unpleasant task of telling Clinton supporters that her chances of winning are extremely slim. So instead of treating these last 12 primaries like they're playing out the string, we're acting like these are the decisive dozen, which will finally give us a clear winner. It's to the Dem Party's discredit that they're letting this kind of sham idea take hold.

            •  I have to disgree. (0+ / 0-)

              While the Mi an FL Dem parties fucked up big time, there is a legitimate case to be made that the voters in those states shouldn't suffer for their leadership's mistakes. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm a small d democrat first and would like for the voters in those two states to have their say in the process. Based on principles that I hold dear, I am more comfortable with the idea of a re-vote than with any other solution, regardless of how it affects the prospects of my candidate. If Barack Obama is the man I believe he is, he would probably agree wuth me.

        •  I disagree on one point. (3+ / 0-)

          If Michigan sits without a revote the delegates should be sat equally, no matter what.

          Noone has a legitimate claim to Michigan's delegates at this point.

          38+ should be the max she receives.  Anything else  would be capitulation.

          "It is time to turn the page." Indeed.

          by tecampbell on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:59:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  How about pushing for caucuses? (11+ / 0-)

      We know the Clinton people are petrified of caucuses.  We also know they'd be a lot cheaper and more practical to organize than primaries.  Obama should start pushing for caucuses as a way to seat delegations from these states.

      A compromise then offers itself:  seat Florida as voted (for which there is a good case), and organize a Michigan caucus.  Obama stands a good chance of winning a majority of MI delegates under this plan.

      Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

      by Dallasdoc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Neither state has a tradition of IA-type caucuses (14+ / 0-)

        Michigan has a tradition of sort of caucuses in name only -- essentially party-run primaries that allow people to vote throughout the day -- which renders Clinton's opposition to Michigan "caucuses" completely disingenuous.  And I don't think Florida really has a tradition of causes at all.  It's worth a try, though, since caucuses are cheaper, and I'm sure that there are also plenty of other things that Obama might negotiate.  

        Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

        by poblano on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:00:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Talk about changing the rules!!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Partially Impartial, MikePhoenix

        We know the Clinton people are petrified of caucuses.

        So you're saying that in order for Florida and Michigan to get their delegates seated, you would require them to change their method of selecting said delegates to one the Clintons object to???? And you object to Clintonian machinations????? You're quite cynical yourself.

        A more accurate moniker might be... the Loch Ness Social Anxiety Creature. -Satchel, Get Fuzzy.

        by Judge Moonbox on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:03:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nelson is working with GOP Crist to have MAIL IN (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, Zoltan, tecampbell, Hedwig, channiga

        voting done in Florida.

        And someone has convinced Puerto Rico to change their scheduled June 7 caucus to a June 1 primary.

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's another problem (6+ / 0-)

        What about independents?  On the day of the Michigan primary, a lot of independent voters voted in the GOP primary for McCain because the Democratic primary wasn't competitive.  Should these voters be allowed to vote twice?  If it is a closed primary, Obama will object.  Clinton would probably object to an open primary.

        What a freakin' mess!  Thank you so much DNC!

        Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality.

        by psychodrew on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank You (8+ / 0-)

          Powers that be in Michigan and Florida. The DNC told 'em not to move up and what would happen if they did.

          And if they hadn't done it, they'd now be the center of effing political world. Dumbasses.

        •  I Don't Blame the DNC (9+ / 0-)

          This was the Dem leadership in both states.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:26:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not Florida (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DelRPCV, psnyder, majcmb1

            some initially went for the idea, then tried to stop it when it was made clear that the DNC was serious about stripping delegates...but once the Republicans got hold of the idea, there was nothing the Democrats could do about it. The Jan 29 primary was included in the bill that provided for paper ballots to replace paperless DRE machines in Florida in time for the 2008 state primary (also included a bunch of other provisions Dems didn't want--the Republicans wanted to make sure Dems would pay through the nose for any semblance of fair elections).

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (5+ / 0-)

              The DNC presented several solutions.. including holding later caucuses and even offered money

              florida refused

              I personally have no sympathy for the politicians in florida and michigan.

              Their whining politicians are unseemly..those are the idiots that put them in this position... I think they should be blamed and then the mi and FL voters can vote them out

              •  And a lawsuit has already been lost about this .. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mia Dolan

                In an attempt to trump the rules of the national party, leaders in Florida brought a federal court action against Howard Dean and others, charging a violation of equal protection, due process and the federal Voting Rights Act.

                In his order dismissing that case, Federal District Judge Robert Hinkle observed:

                "The Constitution makes no mention of political parties, but they have a unique and protected stature in our constitutional system. The First Amendment right to freedom of association extends to parties and protects their internal affairs from undue government interference. Thus a political party ordinarily may decide for itself how delegates to its national convention will be chosen, and the party ordinarily need not comply with state laws purporting to restrict its options. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly so held."

                Arrogance Cost Florida Chance To Influence Election

            •  Exactly. (9+ / 0-)

              The DNC rule was ripe for gaming by Florida's Republican government, although, as you point out, there were some state Democrats, like my senator, Jeremy Ring, who enthusiastically supported the move. I don't blame the DNC. They were actually trying to broaden the early voting states in a controlled way to forestall a free-for-all. They just got played. They could be faulted for not thinking through the potential for just such gaming, but the rule seemed sound enough for all the presidential candidates to sign on to.

              What I find reprehensible and unfortunately typical of Clinton is the ease with which she abandons her own voluntary agreement to the rule. First, she refused to remove her name from the MI ballot, as Obama and Edwards did in good faith. Now she cries for the results of those distorted non-primaries to be honored, not because it's the right thing to do - it's not - but because she thinks she could gain by it. The more the campaign goes on, the more she appears as unscrupulous as any Republican.

              I'm at the point where I don't think the delegates from FL or MI should be seated at all, and there should be no revote. We'll have our chance to vote in the general, which is our franchise right. Voting in party primaries is not constitutionally guaranteed. What troubles me in all this is that we seem to have gotten so accustomed to the flagrant disregard of the law by the Bush executive and of Congressional rules and norms by the Republican Congress that we no longer blink when rules are ignored or violated or when someone breaks their word. To me, the rule was clear, it was clearly broken, the rule is enforced and needs to be honored. Clinton, Obama, and the rest agreed to the rule, so they need to honor its enforcement. Period. The rest is gaming the system.

              "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

              by psnyder on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:39:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So very depressing. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                psnyder, geejay, Spoonfulofsugar

                What troubles me in all this is that we seem to have gotten so accustomed to the flagrant disregard of the law by the Bush executive and of Congressional rules and norms by the Republican Congress that we no longer blink when rules are ignored or violated or when someone breaks their word.

                That should trouble all of us.

          •  I have heard that (0+ / 0-)

            Hillary wanted to move up the Primaries in both states, she had big leads in the polls then, and she knew it would be to her advantage.  The Michigan Governor is a Hillary supporter, and the Leadership in Florida are Hillary supporters too.  This is only I theory.  But with knowing the ways Hillary works as of late, I wouldn't be surprised.

          •  I do blame the DNC (0+ / 0-)

            Where does the buck stop?  Really.  There has been a lot of bitter complaining about the schedule for several election cycles.  If we had better leadership, this wouldn't be happening.

            Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality.

            by psychodrew on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, then, we rework the whole system. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              teyigdhk

              You don't let two states say "screw you" to the other 48.

              Otherwise, what happens if we do adopt a rotating regional primary system and then Iowa says "hell with this, we still want to be first" and schedules for January 2?  Let them?  Then what's going to stop every other state?

              The DNC has to hold the rules once they're established.  It's a crappy system, but if you let everyone ignore it, there will no system at all.

              In selecting a president, I favor foresight over hindsight.

              by Rorgg on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  screw caucuses (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Baculum King, Red Bean

        they are an abomination.  I don't hate them because Obama wins them, I hate them because they are elitist, undemocratic, and lend themselves to all kinds of shenanigans.

        No f-ing way.

        Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

        by markusd on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:45:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's Counternarrative (6+ / 0-)

        First, more extraordinary work from Poblano.  Second, I think Obama's best course is to look magnanimous by be willing to agree to revotes in FL and MI -- if the conditions are acceptable.  Clinton's trying to play hardball, acting like she's refuses to consider revotes.  She's angling for an edge.  Obama needs to have a daily press briefing in which he plays Clinton on New Hampshire Public Radio in early October 2007, where she says she only kept her name on the MI ballot because she knew the results weren't going to count and she didn't want to offend MI voters.

        Third, the counternarrative the Obama campaign should be pressing now is this:  Purple States.

        Senator Clinton wants to ignore the fact that she is significantly behind in pledged delegates.  She wants to make this primary contest about "significant" and "insignificant" states.  But it's difficult to see why she wants to make that case, because Senator Obama has performed far better in battlefield states.  

        Clinton talks about CA, NY, NJ, and MA, but these are all solidly blue states; it's ridiculous to suggest that Senator McCain stands a chance in any of them.  But he will fight for states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia.  And Senator Obama not only beat Clinton in all of these states -- often convincingly; poll after poll shows him beating McCain in these states, whereas Clinton loses most of them.

    •  I don't agree with your basic premise (0+ / 0-)

      but I appreciate a thoughtful, well-written analysis.  Tip'd and rec'd.

      Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality.

      by psychodrew on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:00:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you are (0+ / 0-)

      over estimating the delegate plurality in fla and mi.

      Mrs. Teasdale: I held him in my arms and kissed him. Rufus T. Firefly: Oh, I see, then it was murder!

      by ratador on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:05:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As always, great analysis. nt (0+ / 0-)

      No more moping! Let's do something about it. Obama Viral Email Project

      by MingPicket on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:14:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Question: (0+ / 0-)

      Would Obama really lose 56 delegates if he agreed to accept the uncommitted votes from Michigan? Or does that figure also include seating Florida as is?

    •  Another primary is not happening in Florida ... (5+ / 0-)

      Set aside the politics and all that other stuff.

      Logistically, it can't happen. The Secretary of State of Florida has said it would take 90-days to set up and hold a new election. That means, in order to meet the national party deadline of June 10, somebody has to say "GO" by Monday.

      Part of the legislation in Florida that moved the primary to January 29, also changed the law about voting machines. All counties have to use optical scanners that create a paper trail before the next election. While counties are scheduled to be ready to start using the new machines for the August 26 primaries, that haven't even received all the machines and they have already begun the process of getting rid of the old touch screen machines.

      Even if they were able to get the machines up and running in time, there is the issue of training the staff and poll workers on how to use the machines.

      Other equipment on order and not received yet ... collapsible privacy booths so people can mark their ballots in secret.

      Then there is the printing. Have to print several million ballots.

      The argument continues about whether or not to have a re-vote and who is going to pay for it, but exactly how are they logistically going to do it?

      I live in Florida. Personally, I think we need to stick to the rules that were set out in the beginning. It's not like there wasn't a way out before it became an issue.

      Even before the Republican-led Legislature voted to change the date of the Florida primary, the DNC, anticipating that the earlier date would be adopted, offered a way out of the dilemma. There was discussion about a vote-by-mail process and a party-run caucus system. The DNC even offered to pay the entire cost of the caucus system, an offer without precedent. The Florida party pushed ahead.

      Arrogance Cost Florida Chance To Influence Election

    •  Here is the credentials committee allocation.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zackamac


      Click for full size, readable image.

    •  Good work. (0+ / 0-)

      A couple quibbles.

      1. I think what you have there is an expression, not an equation. Doesn't an equation need an equals sign?
      1. In your text you change the names of two variables. In the expression, you use Sv and Pv, but in the discussion you use Sr and Pr.

      "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

      by psnyder on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:44:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Poblano, your work is amazing. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yoduuuh do or do not

      "And life is grand/and I will say this at the risk of falling from favor/With those of you who have appointed yourselves/To expect us to say something darker."

      by Oregon Bear on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:04:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're absolutely right (0+ / 0-)

      I tried explaining it somewhere else without the math... basically, she needs to lengthen the process to reduce the amount she needs to win the average contest by from absurd to merely incredible.

      And then there are the narrative aspects of it as well.

      I find them clinging to the uncertified elections as really odd as they're painting themselves into a corner.  Having MI/FL not get any delegates is essentially an automatic loss, so they'll have to fall back at some point, and I can't see why they're not taking the opening to do it now.

      In selecting a president, I favor foresight over hindsight.

      by Rorgg on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:01:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Outdated (9+ / 0-)

    Granholm and Levin have now said they don't think there should be new contests and the delegates should be sat in proportion to the sham votes.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:46:00 PM PST

    •  So, #3, right? (3+ / 0-)

      I think that's fair.

      I think Obama should do it right now.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:49:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, I'm Finding Conflicting Reports... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        majcmb1, boatsie

        ...of Granholm's position (because I suspect her position keeps changing).  I did find this, however:

        Four uncommitted superdelegates from Michigan, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, DNC member Debbie Dingell and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, will attempt to negotiate a compromise, Granholm said.

        First of all, not a soul in Michigan who knows anything about the backstories regarding the primary and the campaign believe Debbie Dingell is really uncommitted; everyone assumes she's with Clinton, as her husband has publicly declared he is.  Same with Levin.  I know enough about her politics to suspect that Cheeks Kilpatrick is inclined toward Obama.  That leaves Gettelfinger, who's from southern Indiana (and thus the first UAW president since the 1930's, before Walter Reuther, who didn't work his way up through a Michigan local), is politically cautious, and would be under some conflicting internal pressures.  So if those four are supposed to work it out, I honestly don't know what the hell the results would be, especially since only one of them (Gettelfinger) delivers many votes in an internal party vote.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:59:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But they would only come up with (0+ / 0-)

          a suggestion to the DNC, right? It's not like the four of them would have any real say.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:04:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, put it this way... (0+ / 0-)

          Obama should do it right now WITH the understanding that whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of all the primaries... IS the nominee.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Dingell is as uncommitted as her husband (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joe Willy

          It's a sham, as she has to appear uncommitted enough to carry at least the appearance of fair dealing on whatever course is undertaken to reslove this thing.  The bottom line here, the more I read of it (and especially Granholm's waffling), may be that Clinton sent up some trial balloons yesterday through surrogates such a Granholm to see what the response would be, but is actually committed to taking this to the Credentials Committee and ultimately the floor.  

          Her best path--and possibly her only path--to the nomination is to landslide the rest of the primaries beginning with Pennsylvania, and continuing through the supers and Michigan/Florida come the summer.

          It's an inherently divisive strategy, but the only one open to her.

          Liberal.
          Seating the MI delegation ain't gonna get me re-enfranchised.

          by GOTV on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:15:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Levin has already gone on record (0+ / 0-)

          as being against a revote of any kind, so it doesn't seem as though there's much to negotiate.  The fix is in.

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think Obama has the right to overrule Howard Dean and the DNC on this.  

        Remember when Lieberman (can anyone remember why Gore chose him) said the late votes from overseas troops ought to be counted in the election?  That wasn't for him to say -- there were rules (laws, actually) in place.

        •  It wouldn't be an overrule... (0+ / 0-)

          whoever has the most pledged delegates at convention time controls the composition of the credentials committee.

          So, essentially, the only way Hillary can push through MI/FL without something REALLY weird going on is if she's already ahead or if she's so far behind (or has conceded) and Obama directs the committee to seat the delegations as a conciliatory gesture.

          The only time she needs them is the time she can't get them in.

          In selecting a president, I favor foresight over hindsight.

          by Rorgg on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:17:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Fair? How is that conceivably fair? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zoltan, Mia Dolan, geejay, teyigdhk

        Obama honors the rules and pays a penalty. Hillary does not honor the rules and gains by it? That's fair? Humbug.

        "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

        by psnyder on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:41:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm assuming their positions are not... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Rick Winrod

      ... set in stone.  This seems, to me, to be a very fluid situation still.

      "You can't depend on your judgement when your imagination is out of focus."
      . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:52:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Their positions are as fixed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Land of Enchantment

        as their endorsements of Hillary.  I'm sure she has made it clear to all of them that she considers this non-negotiable.  She will never agree to a revote unless it is forced upon her by the DNC.

        •  She is set on a credentials war, then (0+ / 0-)

          Unless she POs too many superdelegates and loses it there.  If the margin gets big enough, she won't gain anything by fighting it relentlessly.  Every delegate matters in the meantime.  She's not admitting that publicly, but Bill, Hillary and Chelsea all went to Wyoming this week.

          "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
          . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

          by Land of Enchantment on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:35:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And their positions? (0+ / 0-)

          If they are obviously hardened in a position based on its favorability to one candidate, they'll lose traction with the public.  The general public is more interested in fairness, one would hope.

          "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
          . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

          by Land of Enchantment on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:42:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It could be a Brer Rabbit scenario (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kanuk, Chicago Lulu, NMLib

      Don't you dare throw me into that revote, Howard Dean.  It serves both to lower expectations, and to strengthen her moral claim to the superdelegates by making her look like she's compromised when she gives in.

      Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

      by poblano on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:56:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  With Granholm I Honestly Think... (7+ / 0-)

        ...her position just changes, sometimes incoherently.  She's generally been played on this by the Republicans and by the Clinton campaign.  I love the woman personally, and have a tangential family connection (via my godmother) that's very important to me, because she did some wonderful things before she ever ran for elective office.  But her support doesn't do anything for Clinton in terms of swinging votes, as she doesn't have much of a machine, and her stature with just about everyone in Michigan is horrible.  In Florida, I suspect the Dem establishment is fairly unified, and many rank-and-file Dems don't want a revote.  But in Michigan, just about every Democrat thinks the state party leadership completely botched the primary.  Unfortunately, MDP chair Mark Brewer is taking an unfair share of the blame.  

        Anyway, I'm rambling.  Like every Michigan Dem I know, the whole thing has pissed me off and I think the party leadership (in my case exempting Brewer) has done a horrible job.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:04:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Out of curiosity (0+ / 0-)

          if it was up to you to decide, which scenario would you pick?

          •  Depends (7+ / 0-)

            There's the cost factor.  In Michigan they use a ton of soft money--labor, corporate, casino, Tribal, etc--for things that aren't candidate or partisan-based.  Remember, this is where the DeVos family on the Republican side regularly drops $15million an election cycle, but organized labor spends tons on the Dems.  But the UAW has traditionally been one of the big donors to Dems, and as you can imagine, their revenues are way, way down over the last five years.  I think they're down to a half million members nationally, when just 7-8 years ago they were over three quarters of a million active members.  

            But, if the money was there, I think from the standpoint of what's good for the state of Michigan and Michigan Democrats, there should be a proper vote.  The other one was a sham, was highly divisive, and literally not a single person I've spoken with back home is satisfied with what happened and willing to defend it as fair and good for the party.  

            From the perspective of the Obama campaign, I think it's more dicey.  This morning I laid out Obama's path to the nomination, where I wrote this:

            Don't fight against Michigan and Florida: Don't get in to a fight against new contests in Michigan or Florida.  Clinton probably can't gain enough delegates even if she won both states to make much of a difference in the overall delegate count.  Nevertheless, it's probably not in Obama's immediate self-interest to have a new vote.  However, he can't be seen as working against seating the two delegations.  Therefore, in objecting to seating the delegations under the proportions of their unsanctioned votes in January, he should simply fall back on the DNC rules, but say if both states want to have DNC-approved contests, he'd support them.  Make Clinton go through the contortions of justifying the unsanctioned votes as the basis for going against the DNC rules and seating the MI and FL delegations.  Take the high road.

            The reason I think it would be problematic is that Clinton could very well win Florida, and maybe (although less likely) Michigan.  If she did that, and these contests came at the end of the campaign, even if she was well behind and didn't make up any ground in the new delegate count (which would be altered by the addition of the MI and FL delegates, including superdelegates), she would argue that she had the final burst of momentum and taint his lead and defacto victory.  

            So it's problematic no matter what happens.  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:20:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Politico says Nelson is working with Crist (0+ / 0-)

          to have a Mail-In vote in Florida.

          <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

          by bronte17 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:08:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure that is a good thing... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Zoltan

            I can tell you that it will be a mess and I am not sure we can protect the integrity of the vote. But it probably would help Clinton unless Obama can get the AA communities to vote by mail.

            •  The AA community is the one that suffers the most (6+ / 0-)

              from the disenfranchisement and voter list purges in Florida.

              I would hope the Obama team doesn't sign off on this. If they have the choice.

              The Clinton/Nelson/Crist triangulation and rewriting the law may undermine Obama on this.

              <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

              by bronte17 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No mail-ins. A new "real" primary or nothing (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bronte17, Zoltan, Empower Ink

                 Obama will do much better than that poll suggests especially if Obama has the time to campaign and hit our major state universities.  We have alot of disenfranchised voters in this state that are Obama fans.  I have a few "Independents" that I am going to get switched to (D) this week just in case this happens and so they can vote in another "closed" primary.

                President Obama..."right" from day one

                by mjd in florida on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, you better get some Democrats down there (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mjd in florida

                  to speak up... ASAP in the morning... cause it's almost a "done deal" according to TPM.

                  Obama is being herded right now. They're attacking his advisers and peeling them off, one by one.  They need to isolate him and strip him of his strengths... and that is his judgment and his advisers.

                  We can hypothesize just who might have had a hand in the Puerto Rico switcheroo. Ditto with Florida.

                  <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                  by bronte17 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:12:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The African Americans won't vote by mail... (0+ / 0-)

                When I knocked door to door in 2004 in an African American neighborhood, I pushed absentee ballots and early voting. They refused because they did not trust the voting process. They insisted on voting in their neighborhood polling place with their own poll workers whom they trusted.

                They won't vote by mail..and we will lose them by even trying this.

                How absolutely stupid this is. Anyway we can get this info to Obama? I hope he is talking to some of the AA's in Florida.

        •  Brewer is partially to blame, too, (0+ / 0-)

          because he lacked the political will to stand up to Levin and Debbie Dingell.  I spoke to him just after the vote to sanction Florida, and he told me of him vote, which frankly surprised me.  He knew this was coming, and he was unable to stop it (and, I believe, unwilling to try).

          Liberal.
          Seating the MI delegation ain't gonna get me re-enfranchised.

          by GOTV on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:18:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ultimately He Only Succeedes Though Consensus (0+ / 0-)

            He can't control votes.  And the Governor and Debbie Dingell were spending a lot of time on the phone talking to reporters.  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:21:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, he can't control votes, and I don't think (0+ / 0-)

              he had the will to change votes.  I believe he did what was right, and that was to enforce party rules.  What my point is that he didn't have either the power or the desire to buck Levin and Dingell.

              Liberal.
              Seating the MI delegation ain't gonna get me re-enfranchised.

              by GOTV on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:27:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Granholm wants to bail out of Michigan (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kanuk, zackamac, krnewman
          She's quietly trying to do the "deliver Michigan to Hillary" strategy so she can secure a cabinet spot.  Her denials on this point have been vague and weak.

          She bought "inevitable Hillary" early on, and has grown increasingly desperate ever since Obama started breaking away.  Validating a Republican governor's statements on Democratic delegate selection...  yuck!  That's like endorsing McCain.

    •  have Granholm and Levin announced who they (0+ / 0-)

      are supporting?

      •  Granholm is Solidly With Clinton (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GOTV, Chicago Lulu

        Levin hasn't announced, is thought to be inclined toward Clinton, but his position on the primary is probably more important to him than who he's supporting.  This has been his personal crusade for 20 years or more, to break the IA/NH duopoly and move Michigan up in the calendar.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't take long (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kanuk, teyigdhk, Capt Morgan

      for Potemkin Clinton to put the word out on that one.  All her talk about hearing the people of Michigan and Florida is a complete sham.  She just wants the issue, not the delegates, and she knows a fair fight will likely result in the delegate widening (or at best, narrowing by about a net 20 for both states combined).

    •  Granholm is incompetent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mia Dolan

      And unfit to hold office.. seriously she's an idiot

      They played chicken and lost .. esp michigan

  •  Excellent as always. (4+ / 0-)

    Wish YOU were on with Keith Olbermann!

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM PST

  •  The other part of the problem: (3+ / 0-)

    How will revotes be paid for?  That's the big hot potato.  Any scenario that has the campaigns contributing would favor Obama, at least a little, because he's got more cash around.  Presumably they'd have to split their share of the costs equally.  Considering the staggering amounts of money that's been raised, the goodwill engendered by helping underwrite the cost of a redo would make sense.

    Assuming, that is, it's not a violation of federal election law.  Someone more knowledgeable than I will have to weigh in on that angle.

    "You can't depend on your judgement when your imagination is out of focus."
    . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

    by Land of Enchantment on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:49:37 PM PST

  •  more poblano goodness (4+ / 0-)

    Thanks for this.

    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

    by CaptUnderpants on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:58:38 PM PST

  •  Isn't Puerto Rico winner-take-all? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Winrod

    I would be interested in people's thoughts on this subject.

    There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

    by geodemographics on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:58:38 PM PST

  •  Numb3rs is on (4+ / 0-)

    You make me proud.

    If you want to vote for somebody with whom you are in perfect agreement, be prepared to put your name on the ballot : Tom Schaller

    by captainlaser on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:00:30 PM PST

  •  Funding for a Florida re-vote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ratador, Rick Winrod

    appears to be a standoff.  The DNC doesn't have the money.  The Florida Dems have the soft money that can be used for funding the election, and they want daddy to pay for it.  Daddy wants them to pay for it because they broke it.

    •  Florida democrats (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice in Florida, hungrycoyote

      are going to need that money for local contests. We desperately need to build our party from the bottom up and spending that much money on ANOTHER primary would be ridiculous...especially when as you say the net delegates wouldn't be that much and wouldn't change the delegate leads. Our state is slowly moving more and more to the right. I have recently gotten involved with local politics in Florida and the local party is a huge mess..and I live in one of the larger, more populated counties in west Florida. Other than maybe the Miami and Palm Beach area, we really need to spend time, money, and resources rebuilding or there is no chance of a democrat winning Florida for a long time.

    •  But Nelson is pushing for a Mail-In Vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rolfyboy6

      with Crist.

      That's not an good solution. And it's against the rules... until someone changes them in the middle of the game.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:10:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's because a mail-in primary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MikePhoenix

        is the cheapest.  Nobody wants to spend the 10 to 18 million dollars a real Primary would cost.  A mail-in would only cost 5 million.  Howard Dean has his fingers on the whole question and as usual isn't showing his cards other than to say the DNC isn't paying for it. He's stonewalling the Florida Dems about the money. The DNC only has around 4 to 5 million cash on hand right now.

        •  Well, if I had a vote on this... I would veto the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rolfyboy6, kanuk

          DNC having to pay for this.

          The Florida legislature did this deliberately to the Democrats.  

          And, taking the cheapest route is not best. It is shortsighted many times.  Definitely so in this case.

          And, the law has to be rewritten and altered for them to do this.  So, obviously, someone has thought about this at some point in the past and disallowed it.

          <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

          by bronte17 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:33:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Florida Dems have a pile of soft (0+ / 0-)

            527 money they can't use for direct election activity.  Howard Dean wants them to spend it on the Primary if they intend to have one.  As usual Howard isn't saying everything he thinks and isn't doing whatever is going on in public.  I'd prefer a real Primary the last week in May, failing that I'd settle for a mail vote.  I want the asterisk off the FLA and MIch primary results.  I agree with Howard on "You broke it, you fix it."  It's tough love they need.  Gawd, what is it with Florida?

            •  What is it? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bronte17

              It's Republicans, that's what it is. The Democratic party in Florida doesn't control jack shit. I don't know what this "pile of money" is that you're talking about, unless it's money that's been raised to actually try to build up local parties so that we'll have a chance in hell of getting back maybe one house of the legislature or even a Democratic governor (or maybe some Democrats on County Commissions who won't be totally in the pockets of developers, maybe, before the whole state's paved over).

              As for the more philosophical question--what's wrong with Florida? It's the repository for all the lazy s***'s who refuse to accept the character-building benefits of freezing weather. People come down here and figure they're on permament vacation...and that includes their brains. Suggestion to anyone with kids...schools are better just about anywhere else.

              "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

              by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:07:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Alice nailed this one. (0+ / 0-)

              My mom had a house down in Florida for many years and was involved in local politics.

              Sheesh.  I feel so bad for the real Floridians and the issues that they cannot begin to address.

              And there is no way that Obama remotely gets a fair vote with a mail-in. It's rigged from the git-go and only hurts Democrats.

              <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

              by bronte17 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:07:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Alice reacted emotionally (0+ / 0-)

                and has no idea about 527 money.  The Florida Democratic Party has been complicit in it's own demise with it's divisions and the corruption of many of its own politicians and its inability to stand up.  The endless Florida problems with elections over the past 25 years are symptomatic.

                •  Rolfy... it's not emotional to know that AAs (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zackamac

                  have been systemically purged from voter lists, illegally and unethically, for years in Florida. Greg Palast has written extensively on the voter caging.

                  Nor was it emotional for Alice to state the fact that people refuse to fund the schools in Florida and her logic for that was sound albeit for an academic purpose it would have to be cleaned up and polished.

                  My mom was a retired administrator. I've heard the stories for years.

                  <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                  by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:16:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  She's very willing to cancel what other people (0+ / 0-)

                    say about factual things due to circumstances which were not in discussion--as are you.

                    •  That is a silly accusation and I cannot believe (0+ / 0-)

                      that you, of all people, are making it.

                      Alice and I both were specifically on topic. Furthermore, adding depth to the discussion is by no means the end of the world when it is tangential applicable.

                      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                      by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:52:04 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                        •  Do you know Alice? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          zackamac

                          She's quite capable and knowledgeable and networked.

                          Smart lady.

                          Just because someone doesn't write down a dissertation every time they answer a comment here does not make them a dunce.

                          <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                          by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:05:59 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The noise machine (0+ / 0-)

                            has taken over.  It's all quicky soundbites now.

                          •  You want facts? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zackamac

                            REPUBLICAN 527s are funding Hillary in PA (and did so in TX and OH):

                            A new pro-Hillary Clinton group spent $864,000 making and airing ads in Texas and Ohio in the run-up to her victory in the March 4 primaries. And the group has at least $200,000 in the bank toward an expected air war on her behalf in Pennsylvania and the subsequent states.

                            American Leadership Project raised a total of $1.2 million – $1 million of which came from AFSCME, which has endorsed Clinton – since Feb. 21, according to a report it filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.
                            ...
                            Titelman, an attorney with ties to former Pennsylvania Republican Gov. – and McCain backer – Tom Ridge, reportedly was leading the fundraising drive. Reached by telephone in his Washington office, he declined to comment on the group’s fundraising.

                            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                            by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lets get the Democratic 527s (0+ / 0-)

                            to fund the re-vote.  What does the Republican 527s have to do with what we we discussing.  Bronte, you're getting hooked into the hysteria.  

        •  As I said upthread, (0+ / 0-)

          mail-in elections have worked very well, here in Oregon. There's no need to be afraid of vote by mail. We would want safeguards to make sure the vote is fair, but if that can be accomplished there is no reason to fear this type of election.

      •  Not pushing for it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beemerr90s, majcmb1

        I think he said it would be acceptable to him...it's all puffery anyway, because it's not going to happen. There's no money--the Florida Democratic party doesn't have the money, the DNC has already said they won't pay, and the Republican controlled Florida legislature sure as hell isn't going to spend a dime to make things easier for the Dems. In fact, I bet they find this whole thing immensely amusing.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  nope he wont be close to it (0+ / 0-)

      if fl/mi have redo especially

  •  The most politically savvy offer for Obama (6+ / 0-)

    would be to agree to seat half of the delegates as they are (with uncommitted to Obama in MI), and select half of the delegates through caucuses, defending this under the guise of not wasting money.  

    Or even offering to seat FL as is, but a caucus in MI (since Obama was not on the ballot), which will further whittle down Clinton's big state argument.

    "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

    by IhateBush on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:02:40 PM PST

  •  Your analysis is upside down. (0+ / 0-)

    Even by your very Clinton friendly apportioning of the upcoming primaries and potential revotes, by my math Obama gets to 1976, only 49 supers short of the nomination. It was suggested by Mark Shields on Newshour that Florida/Michigan delegates be split 50/50 between the candidates. Assuming a 50/50 split of all remaining primaries, that would give Obama the nomination without supers. Revotes favor Obama.

  •  Could it be spun another way? (4+ / 0-)

    Obama could consider offering to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, subject to the requirement that Michigan's uncommitted delegates are pledged to Obama. This would cost him 56 delegates -- more than Clinton would probably expect to receive through the credentials committee.  However, it would completely neuter any moral claims that Clinton could make to Michigan and Florida.  In fact, Obama would look completely magnanimous, and would probably have an easier time framing the case that superdelegates should line up with the pledged delegate winner.

    Couldn't Clinton just argue he was afraid of the polling numbers?  Couldn't that also be spun as a sign of weakness?

    I think the most important thing is that supporters of both candidates believe that the process was fair.  Both sides--Clinton and Obama--have a diehard supporters that will stay home in November if they think their candidate was robbed.

    I think that all of us should be pissed off, I mean red-faced, swearing, thumping mad, at our party leaders.  What a fine mess they have made of our nomination process.  We have delegations from battleground states that might not get seated.  We might have a fight over rules and dates for re-votes.  Our leaders are supposed to create a process that avoids problems like this. Our party leaders have failed us, miserably failed us.

    Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality.

    by psychodrew on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:08:18 PM PST

  •  One suggestion: (0+ / 0-)

    May be you could comapre your projection with Obama camp's excel sheet with all their post-Super Tuesday delegate predictions. I believe their delegate predictions were pretty conservative and they pretty closely predicted OH/TX/RI/VT delegate counts.

    Rabindranath Tagore-"We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us."

    by joy sinha on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM PST

  •  Thanks, good work, At least one Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida

    supporter can admit that she has a path to nomination. FL/MI are important parts of that, and If Obama suffers a big defeat in PA, and Clinton leads the rest of the schedule with most of the MO, and potentially claims Pop Vote, her reasoning gets even stronger.

  •  Whoever decided to boot FL and MI (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rigso

    so that IA and NH could continue their ludicrous lock on our politics needs to be thrown under a bus.

    •  That'd Be (0+ / 0-)

      The Democratic Party. You'll need a big bus.

      •  Dean was driving the bus (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HeavyJ, beemerr90s

        right into the ditch.  Frankly, though, everyone's to blame.  FL and MI were trying to get cute and play a game of chicken with Dean.  No one thought it could get this far.  It was assumed they'd be seated cause their votes wouldn't matter.  Dean's going to be the one who looks bad after this, but he had a lot of support, including Ickes, who voted for the penalties.

        •  Clinton's The One (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeavyJ, Mia Dolan, Roger Fox, MikePhoenix

          Whose done a 180 in the past few months. In Iowa and New Hampshire she campaigned on these states not counting because she respected the traditional role of Iowa/NH. Then when her ass got in a bind, she reneged on her pledged position.

          Dean may be driving the bus, but Clinton has run up the aisle, grabbed the wheel, and pulled hard.

  •  Don't Seat Florida Delegates....From a Floridian (6+ / 0-)

    Many of the options being discussed here involve some type of contest where the vote previously taken counts.  The only fair thing would be to have a true, open re-vote.

    Since that won't happen, the result will likely be biased toward Hillary Clinton.  Many of the Florida Dem. Party leaders are on her side.

    That being the case, even though I'm a life-long Florida voter and Florida Native.....don't seat the Florida Delegates.  

    •  Thanks of your local knowlage (0+ / 0-)

      of the State Party.

      A vote for Hillary will help to put a woman in the White House.....Cindy McCain

      by Lefty Coaster on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:35:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are aware that (0+ / 0-)

      without Florida or Michigan delegates, it may be impossible for either candidate to get enough delegates to win the nomination, right?

      "I do not equate my oppression with the oppression of blacks and Latinos. You can't. It is not the same struggle, but it is one struggle." Bob Kohler

      by dedmonds on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:37:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

      Florida held its delegate election caucuslast week--something that a lot of people have not taken note of. Perhaps you didn't vote in the delegate caucuses, but a record number of people did...huge numbers of people showed up this year. The Obama delegate I voted for has done extraordinary work in helping build the local party and the local Stonewall Democrats. He put a lot of effort into campaigning to be a delegate (as did many others) and when you say "don't seat the Florida delegation" what you're saying is that you would leave him and the other elected delegates out on the street. As for the results being "biased" toward Clinton...the electorate was "biased" toward Clinton. It was a peculiar election, but it was fair. Both Obama and Clinton had a limited number of "fundraising" visits, the campaigns waged were purely Florida grassroots for all the candidates.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that it sucks that the actual delegates (0+ / 0-)

        don't get to participate, but it's about the votes, and their votes shouldn't count, IMO.  It's a shame to leave a lot of good people at home, but an election without campaigning is just a beauty contest.

        •  Actually, I think it was more honest (0+ / 0-)

          people got to decide on the basis of watching the debates and news instead of dumb-ass commercials and robo-calls. Very few voters in a big state like this ever get to see the candidates close-up, anyway, and the grassroots campaigns were really wonderful--no gobs of money spent, just people who really believed in their candidate reaching out to convince voters. It wasn't a f*** up like Michigan, all the names were on the ballot, it was fair and according to state law.

          Early in the year, both Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi said that even though the primary wasn't legal, once a nominee had enough delegates from other states they would be sure the seat the Florida and Michigan delegates....well, that plan fell through. This is a DNC screw up. Michigan should do something to come up with a fairer result, but it doesn't look like they will (they've been talking about this "caucus" thing since fall, nothing's happened).

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:36:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It wasn't fair (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        teyigdhk

        What about the people who didn't vote because the elections didn't count?  In almost every state Democratic primary voters significantly exceeded Republican voters, with Florida (and Michigan) being an exception.  Florida should have had at least 500,000 more Democratic voters based on other state results.  To count the results is to further disenfranchise these people.  

        The idea that this was a valid or fair election is a sick fucking joke.  

        •  If Obama had won, (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sure you'd be demanding to have the Florida delegation seated.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:39:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pletzs, teyigdhk

            and neither would Obama.  And for that matter, neither would most politicians. Only someone really, really sleazy and dishonest would try to count those results.  Clinton supporters think everyone is like her and fail to realize just how pathetic and disgusting Clinton is.  

    •  I'm A Floridian too and I think we need to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boatsie, teyigdhk

      stick to the rules. If we start changing the rules in mid-stream just because somebody doesn't like the outcome, then we are just dragging ourselves down to Republican standards.

      Before the primary, the local news had reports that we should vote in the primary because even though our delegates wouldn't count, they would eventually be seated. The argument was that a nominee would be apparent before the convention, and whoever that was would want the delegations to get to take part in the convention.

      I think that Michigan and Florida should suck it up, and live with our bad decisions. Florida was offered an opportunity to have a caucus paid for by the DNC, but the party leaders turned their noses up at it.

      Let's stick to the rules. Finish out the primaries and if a nominee hasn't been declared before the convention, then the Florida and Michigan delegates can sit home and watch it on television like the rest of us.

      •  I tend to agree. (0+ / 0-)

        There are no good options here.  The best course is probably not to seat the delegates or revote.

        However, I will take this opportunity to say that I am very disappointed by the attitude by many in similar diaries that have shown an absolute disdain for the disenfranchised voters of FL and MI, and for any discussion of trying to find a solution.

        I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

        by beemerr90s on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:46:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  ASDF (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hungrycoyote, MikePhoenix

        If we just let the FL and MI delegates be seated, then that means that in future elections, every state will feel free to break the rules to their heart's content. We could see states holding their delegates will into the year before the election.

        It just looks like too many people are trying to pose as the injured ones, and ignore solutions. I'd rather see the delegates get seated in some fashion, but simply ignoring the rules would be a mistake.

        It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

        by A Citizen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:06:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You make the best point yet ... the future! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          teyigdhk

          I hadn't even thought of that, but you are absolutely right. If the DNC caves this time, what a mess it will be next time when other states decide to start ignoring the rules.

          As a Floridian, I am not happy about my vote not counting. However, as a citizen of a country that was created on the rule of law, I believe that rules should be followed. We've witnessed the consequences of having an administration that totally ignores the rules. What does it say about the Democratic Party if it starts ignoring its own rules? Do we really want to drag ourselves down to that level?

          Hillary Clinton is desperate, and I think less of her for wanting to change the rules in mid-stream just because it would benefit her in her quest to be President. I had a lot of respect for her before she started her campaign to destroy the party if she doesn't have her way.

  •  although obama can't link these issues... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Capt Morgan, channiga

    ...i think i'd trade just seating MI and FL based on the current vote for an agreement from hillary to drop out if she doesn't end up with a pledged delegate lead.

    i say not out of any principle, but just for expedience.

    the problem with seating MI and FL absent such a promise is that hillary will then be able to make the (bogus) case that those popular votes should count and that she was actually the winner of the popular vote.

    the only principled thing to do is a revote or recaucus, but i agree obama needs to get in front of the issue.

    here's the basic way that i'm looking at the delegate math:

    http://www.jedreport.com/...

  •  Since I flunk basic math, (0+ / 0-)

    and equations terrify me, I'm gonna have to take your word on this one.

    Yikes!

    All aboard the O train!

    by xyz on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:31:20 PM PST

  •  What I envisions is a messy convention (0+ / 0-)

    with more than one ballot, the first being a draw, then the mess that ensues, then another one, then more mess, hopefully someone gets it by the third one! But even then, the party is split, its NOT just if Hillary wins that the party is split, this site would have you think so, but as an HRC supporter who has many friends who also are, let me tell you, it would be split.  We're going to need something to unify again, doesnt have to be VP, but the loser VISIBLY working for the winner.  Because I'm hearing lots of "I wont vote for Obama" or "I wont vote for Clinton" LOTS

  •  Edwards? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikePhoenix

    What about agreeing to seat the Florida delegates, with John Edwards asking his Florida delegates to vote for Obama?  Combined, Edwards and Obama are very close to Clinton.

  •  Bottom Line - You fear a revote (0+ / 0-)

    Because it will prove once again that Obama does not have strong electability in the large, critical swing states that we will need in November.  That is essentially what you're sayiing in this diary.

    I greatly respect your analytical skills.  I wonder why you don't apply them to get to the logical and quite obvious conclusion - Hillary is proving that she is the far more electable candidate against the Republicans, because she has a stronger base of support in the very states where the election will be decided, precisely those states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.  

    Democrats who want to win back the White House should support Hillary.  Is this not a rock-solid analysis?

    Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

    by markusd on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:43:50 PM PST

    •  Except (8+ / 0-)

      those state by states numbers from yesterday or the day before showing Clinton losing Michigan to McCain with Obama winning it. But maybe in that scenario Michigan becomes a state that doesn't matter.

      Most truly profound and inspirational thoughts require more than 160 characters.

      by Joe Willy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mushy-Oatmeal Analysis (6+ / 0-)

      Flying in the face of all the data contained in SUSA's 50-state polling from yesterday and most every other recent polling.

      Obama spreads the field on the Republicans, is strong in key congressional pickup states (i.e., Colorado), and doesn't depend on winning Florida, as Clinton does.

      Depending on Florida hasn't been a real winner for the Dems lately.

    •  I don't fear a revote at all (6+ / 0-)

      But Hillary sure as hell does.

    •  what large swing states? (7+ / 0-)

      Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Wisconsin?

      Hillary could lose all those and more to mccain... heck, piss of black people enough and she'll lose illinois

      No one fears anything.

      HRC supporters fear the prospect of having to play by the rules.. because you CANT WIN UNDER THE RULES

    •  No - for two different reasons. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mia Dolan, Spoonfulofsugar

      One reason is poblano has some poor math going on up there.  He has built up his name so people are swallowing it, but it's also bad enough math that it makes Clinton have faint hope where there is none.

      The second reason is the logic you are relying on is stupid.  How Clinton v. Obama matches up is irrelevant to how Obama v. McCain matches up.

      To use a sports analogy, if Frazier beat Ali in one of the three fights, it doesn't mean Ali wouldn't beat some far lesser competitor.  Your argument essentially is that it DOES mean that, which makes you and the other Clinton folks who push this either intentionally dishonest or imbecilic.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:30:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i ahree with your second point. (0+ / 0-)

        Mind explaining your first? I don't see a big problem with his math other than probably over-estimating the amount of delegates she would get in the remaining state contests and he admitted to doing that.

        •  It's not 14 races, it is 124 races (0+ / 0-)

          Wyoming - 2 races
          Mississippi - 5 races
          Pennsylvania - 20 races
          Indiana - 10 races
          North Carolina - 14 races
          West Virginia - 4 races
          Kentucky - 7 races
          Oregon - 6 races
          Puerto Rico - 10 races
          Montana - 2 races
          South Dakota - 2 races
          [Michigan - 16 races]
          [Florida - 26 races]

          And the reason this is important is that pablano is doing a quick and dirty approach - suggest a win percentage and then multiply it as if there were only 1 race per state which distorts it because it's easier to gain when big numbers are split than small numbers.  For example, splitting a 6-delegate district requires going over 58.35%, or 16.7% margin.  4s are even harder to split.  And the vast majority of these races are 4s, 5s and 6s.  

          That distorts the math, even if you only want to do a quick and dirty math-based estimation rather than actually examine the districts.

          Take Mississippi - 4 CDs and 1 statewide race.  All the CDs get odd numbered delegates, so Obama +9% would result at a minimum in Obama +5 delegates, assuming he wins by exactly 9% in every district.  But Obama gets only +3 there.

          The point is, and I posted about this below, the quick and dirty method, if he chooses to use it, should at least be internally consistent.

          Calloused hand by calloused hand.

          by PocketNines on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:07:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is all academic (6+ / 0-)

    Hillary will make sure her stooges put the kibosh on any attempt to revote because (1) the issue is worth more to her than the votes and (2) in any revote, her margin would be sure to shrink (especially in Michigan, where she would lose both in the popular vote and the more important delegate count).

  •  The Big State Misconception (6+ / 0-)

    Even in the big states Hillary won, she did not carry the "blue" areas of the state. Obama won the cities and the College towns we need to carry in the general election. The argument she uses against Obama - that he wins in "insignificant red areas" is precisely how she won Ohio and others, by carrying the red areas of the state.

    She can't use the "Big State" argument without also admitting the legitimacy of his wins in other states.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM PST

  •  Is that all that anybody can think about at DK (0+ / 0-)

    anymore?  What benefits Clinton?  Yeah, let's be for disenfranchising whole state's of Dem voters because it could benefit Clinton.  Ya'll have lost yer minds!

    "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM PST

    •  Oh Yea (0+ / 0-)

      Let's count the votes in a state that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. How democratic!

      •  How about a revote? (0+ / 0-)

        Oh.....no.......don't do that because that could favor Clinton.  Coo coo for cacoa cacoa puffs

        "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

        by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:16:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (4+ / 0-)

          It would favor Obama. Most recent poll has them tied at 41%. Not a stretch to think that with his name on the ballot he might actually do a little better this time.

          And it's Clinton that said, on the record yesterday to US News and World Report, that there shouldn't be a revote.

          Get your talking points straight.

          •  My talking points? (0+ / 0-)

            DK rec list has diaries on it analyzing and worried about whether or not letting state's be able to seat delegates favors Obama or not.  What happened to democracy and caring about what that stands for first?  Fighting for the rights of the voters of Michigan to have their voice is sort of a no brainer unless of course we are talking about DK anymore.

            "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

            by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:29:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As someone (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mia Dolan, MikePhoenix

              who has lived and voted in Michigan for much of my adult life (not currently, though), and has many friends and family there, I don't know anybody who thinks it would be fair to seat the MI delegation as is.

              An election with only one major candidate on the ballot is not legitimate.  It just isn't.  And plenty of people stayed home, or voted for Romney or another Republican.  So, I don't think seating the delegations as is would be an accurate representation of the voices of Michigan voters.

              As for this analysis, I think it's excellent.  Yes, it's written by an Obama supporter, but it highlights the positive and negative effects of many possible routes.  Hardly an argument for disenfranchisement.

              P.S. I'm an Obama supporter, and I support a revote.  My father, who is also an Obama supporter and voted for Giuliani in the MI primary, does not.  He thinks the state party broke the rules and should pay the penalty.

              •  South Carolina broke the rules and paid nothing (0+ / 0-)

                "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

                by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:08:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And I don't believe for one minute (0+ / 0-)

                  that Michigan voters are for being disenfranchised and the Obama campaign doesn't seem to want to go there either because it would be ugly.  Maybe I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here and go so far as to say they don't want to disenfranchise anyone either.  Obama supporters though tend to be a hair nuts.

                  "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

                  by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:11:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                    I agree, but a vote- a "straw poll" as The Field put it- with one candidate on the ballot is NOT a valid vote.  Having that vote was the disenfranchisement of the MI voters, and it was a decision of the state parties.  

                    Thanks for insulting me, though, it definitely makes me more likely to agree with you.  /snark.

                •  WRONG!!!!!! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Chicago Lulu

                  South Carolina was one of the four contests that the DNC sanctioned to be held before 2/5. Get your facts straight before posting, it will keep you from looking foolish.

                  •  No you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    South Carolina broke rule #11 right along with Michigan and Florida.  I don't care what the DNC sanctioned, they seem to have different rules for different states and they've made a huge mess out of this if you are seeking some sort of reliable standard here.  But YOU are Wrong, not me.

                    "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

                    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:01:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MikePhoenix

                      There were 4 states who were permitted to go before February 5: Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC.  There might have been some jostling between them as to order, but the main rule was that they- and ONLY they- could go before "Tsunami Tuesday".

                      MI and FL broke that rule, knowing the consequences.

                      •  And why were they "allowed" (0+ / 0-)

                        and others not.  That is what inquiring minds want to know and if you weren't some Obama Maniac you might want to understand the whys too and you might even be able to acknowledge that the DNC completely fucked this whole deal up totally.  What a cluster FUBAR.  But please, don't allow me to interject any sort of rationalism into your daily worship.  I've learned that is a foolish thing to do on the Daily Obama.

                        "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

                        by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:28:05 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  OK (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MikePhoenix, zackamac

                          Back off.  Seriously.

                          Despite your attacks, I'm trying to answer you seriously.  Why were they "allowed" and others not?  Because the DNC makes the rules.  Just like the RNC makes the rules for the Republicans.  

                          Who do you think should make the rules?  Honestly?

                          The DNC chose to have those 4 states to represent 4 different regions of the country.  That is their choice.  And all of the candidates signed off on that choice nearly a year ago.  

                          So, is it fair to change the rules in the middle of the game?  If you don't like the rules, agitate to get representation on the DNC...it's actually not that difficult.  I know several members of the DNC personally, through local political action.   I suggest you take steps to do the same.

                          But in the meantime, it's not drinking koolaid to say that all the candidates should abide by the agreement they made.  If it wasn't disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters to say their votes didn't count last year, why is it doing it now?  Can you answer that, please, without attacking me for being reasonable?

            •  For f**k's sake, it an analysis not a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mia Dolan

              plan to prevent a revote. It says what may benefit Clinton, what may benefit Obama. People are talking about possible options and outcomes. They are discussing what it may mean. Like it makes a goddamn difference.

              The last time I checked the only candidate not happy about the re-vote but more than happy to go back on their pledge was named Clinton. In fact, not re-voting has been all she has talked about in regards to MI & FL.

              P.S. I think a revote would be just fine and dandy as did tons of people last night when the news came out about MI.

              Wish Clinton felt the same way and she has a load of influence on the outcome.

              But me? I'm one of a thousand voices on a frigging political blog and therefore I am completely powerless to influence jackshit. Jeesh.

              Do Not Feed The Victim

              by mentaldebris on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:33:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  All Obamites favor a revote. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mia Dolan

          You favor crack.

  •  Hey! i have an idea--since POLLS are being (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    channiga

    conducted all the time, why not have a FEW polls and average them out and use those numbers?  

    Sure, it's not ONE MAN-ONE VOTE, but, that's what happens when you BREAK THE RULES already ESTABLISHED, (c'mon--why did they hold the primaries in the first place when they were TOLD their delegates wouldn't be seated??? You have to pay a price for trying to SNEAK around the rules---)

    It should work out in the end--and it's obviously much less costly than a revote.

    HOPE: It's the new black.

    by Samwoman on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:12:29 PM PST

  •  I disagree, somewhat. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom

    The important thing here isn't which scenario leads to Clinton gaining the most delegates, but which scenario leads to her having the most likely path to the nomination.

    At this point, your path for her to the nomination involved her getting Michigan and Florida to revote, without caucuses in either state, and with a fairly optimistic string of results from here on in. Importantly, even under this near best-case scenario, she would still be behind in pledged delegates and would still need to convince superdelegates to vote for her. What are the chances all of those things happen?

    I would guess that the low % chance she has of getting the MI and FL delegates seated based on the previous results, even if the uncommitted MI delegates go to Obama, may be her best shot at winning the nomination.

    So, while I agree that the average delegate count will be higher under your scenario, I think the percentages of her finishing ahead of Obama are higher if she pushes to get MI and FL seated as is.

    •  That being said, this is excellent work... (0+ / 0-)

      as always.

    •  To put it quantiatively... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oscarsmom

      what are the chances of Clinton picking up 50 delegates elsewhere, much less 100? I'd wager they're much, much smaller than the 10% and 5% chances you give her of picking that many up with the credentials committee.

    •  Her best chance of winning is to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Red Bean

      keep gaining momentum, which she is doing.  If she can win revotes in both FL and MI, it's just two more nights that the country is watching returns and celebrating her victories.  And she gets to pump up her popular vote.  That's a lot more important than pledged delegates at this point.  Obama has to keep her from gaining momentum if he wants to win.  Maybe he could do that in MI, but right now he's headed in the wrong direction, and he has to correct that.

  •  Dude, you're a fucking genius. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chicago Lulu, zackamac

    Sorry about the profanity but you're almost too good to be on this blog.

    When I had no roof / I made audacity my roof. --Robert Pinsky

    by Crestingwave on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM PST

  •  How does the math work for this? (5+ / 0-)

  •  Here's how I know nothing (5+ / 0-)

    will happen.

    Because they all have to agree--Hillary, Obama, the states and their respective legislatures as well if a primary is involved.

    Good luck with that.  Just the amount of dissension on this thread is evidence that it will never get done.

    Hillary will appeal to the credentials committee, and if the numbers make a difference she will lose, and if they don't they will be seated.

    Never give up! Never surrender!

    by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM PST

  •  counter points (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chicago Lulu, Red Bean, zackamac

    As usual, a thoughtful and interesting analysis.  

    Here are a couple of things not emphasized in your analysis:

    (1) Allowing a revote gives Obama one other great shot at victory, which is a win in Michigan. That alone won't seal the deal for him, but it would give him a big state under his belt.

    (2) Without a revote, Obama can still lose the election.  If Hillary does indeed win PA big, as I expect she will, the momentum could possible carry her to a win not only in Indiana but also in North Carolina (unlikely but not impossible).  She could then finish out with victories in most of the remaining states, which would pull her closer in pledged delegates and over the top including super delegates.

    Taking these two points into consideration, I think a revote is a little more appealing to Obama than you suggest, and failure to have a revote a little more risky.

  •  I was just about to write that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chicago Lulu

    Someone should definitely be paying you for this stuff.  Stellar.

  •  This is why I read the Kos (0+ / 0-)

    Great analysis. Recommended.

    You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye Who cheer when soldier lads march by, Sneak home and pray you'll never know The hell where youth and laughter go.

    by Oregon guy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:55:36 PM PST

  •  Great analysis! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zackamac

    And for free, too.  Meanwhile Clinton is paying Mark Penn $10 million for his craptastic analysis.

    You're also putting the Charlie Cooks and Stu Rothenbergs of the world to shame.

  •  How About Focusing On Winning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mentaldebris, Zoltan, MikePhoenix

    Great post, but posts like these bother me.  We Obama folks are losing the "eye of the tiger."

    I know the math favors Obama, but relying on it frankly makes him sound like a loser.  Obama got as far as he did by campaigning hard and winning.  Obama did not spin his way into Iowa he won it.  Obama had to win South Carolina by a large number or he might have been done.  He put in the time and won it big.  Obama faced an awful Super Tuesday problem and he prevailed.  Obama campaigned hard after Super Tuesday and won 11 in a row.  

    There is one way to lose this.  And that is playing not to lose it--as opposed to playing it to win.  

    Rather than trying to manufacture a bunch of arguments about what is fair in Florida and Michigan.

    How about focusing on where Obama can win and how we can help him to win.  How about dailies on how we can help him close the gap in unfavorable states so the delegate lead only gets nicked.

    If Obama shows the grit he did in Iowa, South Carolina, Super Tuesday and when he won 11 in a row, he will win this without bloodshed.

    Fortune favors the bold and Obama was bold.  Let's forgot about the math--how does that empower people from the ground up and do what they can to win delegates.

    Worried about Superdelegates, blow her out on May 6th in Indiana and North Carolina.  Oregon can go 57 to 43 or better for Obama with work.  

    Michigan if there is a revote--especially in a caucus can be a big win.

    Yes, the math and fairness is on side, but so what.  But, are we substituting "Yes, we have the best arguments about Florida and Michigan" for "Yes, We Can?"

  •  I'd say (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's best shot is to agree to seat FL as is, but to support a revote of some kind in MI.  He would seem to have a real shot at winning MI outright, at least a better shot than he has in PA, and that would offer him one last opportunity at a knock-out blow before the convention.  The fact that his name wasn't on the ballot here is a convenient rationale for supporting one revote but not the other.

  •  This is lousy, lousy advice. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zoltan

    The biggest problem with all this is that you are playing right into the Clintons' framing of the game, that this is all to be decided by the superdelegates.

    The rules say the superdelegates CAN overrule the elected delegates.  This is true.  IF THEY HAVE THE BALLS.

    And that's what we need to question, relentlessly, now and through to the day of the convention.  

    Our guiding assumption should be that the superdelegates cannot possibly overlook the elected delegates to nominate a white woman, a wife of a former president, with all the privilege that that entails, over a black man who overcame great odds and who won the majority of the elected delegates.  Not SHOULD NOT, but CANNOT.  That doing so would be suicide for the Democratic Party (which it most certaily would be).  We should cut the Clintons no slack with regard to their philosophy, never entertaining it to the point of even publicly gaming out scenarios by which they could win.

    Our whole strategy should be based on this:

    1. Go to the convention with at least one extra pledged delegate, with or without FL and MI.
    1. Bristle and scream injustice at even the slightest suggestion that the Clintons can try to win the nomination through superdelegate nullification.

    We should not play their game.

    As for Florida and Michigan, I have my own thoughts on that, as well.  If there is no avoiding some kind of revote there, then Obama should be out in front, suggesting that he and Hillary can split the full cost of paying for primaries in both states.  Since he has more money than her, this is a big hardship to lay on her campaign.  Let her complain about that.  I think the delegate losses from Florida   (we would gain many from Michigan) could be minimized.  

    As long as our stated goal is to get to the convention with +1 pledged delegate, and that everybody knows that that modest goal is all we think you need, we don't have to justify ourselves by winning 100+ or more.  Certainly, if Hillary was just 1+ ahead, they would not feel the need to justify their victory.

    And do you think those superdelegates won't be scared shitless if there's a chance that a Hillary victory would provoke large walk-out at the convention?  Donna Brazile has already threatened it.

    •  Agreed. All this stuff is smoke and mirrors (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zoltan, teyigdhk

      Bamboozled.

      Delegates are the only metric of success that has any legitimacy in this race, but the Dem Party leadership is running for the hills, hoping that this mess somehow gets sorted out for them. They won't step in to clarify the terms of victory, so the door is open for Clinton surrogates to spin the public opinion into thinking that some other measure of success is more valid than the only one that matters.

      And the longer the Party lets Clinton supporters think she's got a legitimate claim to the nomination, the more livid they'll be when the hammer falls. If this continues to be unresolved, neither side's core supporters are going to accept the result if their candidate loses. I think it's going to be a huge mess.  

      •  The party won't say "no" to the Clintons (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        teyigdhk

        before the convention.  Some will, but not in any authoritative way.

        It's Barack Obama, his campaign, and us, his supporters, that have to say NO.  And the way to do that is not to argue for why pledged delegates are better, but just to scream outrage that anybody would ever even dare to try to suggest any other way.  This is not something that should be argued rationally.  

        Coordinated intransigence and outrage on the subject.  That should be our strategy.  Let's never pretend that we are trying to set up a scenario where we win other ways than by a +1 pledged delegate majority.  Let's not try to increase our lead so we have more authority.  Let's not talk about winning more of the popular vote.  Let's not talk about winning Pennsylvania to stop Hillary's momentum.  We would love to do all that, but we should not allow Obama to be seen playing by Hillary's rules at any step in the process.  

        THEY have to beat US by OUR standard: +1 elected delegate.  And if they try to apply any other standard, there will be hell to pay.

  •  two red states (0+ / 0-)

    In particular, he needs to talk up the importance of North Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Indiana.

    That will play no role in a Democrat being our next president in November

  •  Edwards also has 13 delegates (0+ / 0-)

    in Florida. I wonder what would happen to those, if the Florida delegates get seated. Perhaps they too can be a bargaining chip.

  •  Excellent Work, Poblano! (0+ / 0-)

    This lays out Sen. Obama's best options. However, I guess I'm just still confused. Both Florida and Michigan went into this with their eyes wide open, full well knowing the consequences of their actions.  If Hillary hadn't found herself in this "surprise" position of actually being behind in delagates, is this even a discussion at all?  I understand why these voters are angry, and why they feel like this isn't completely their fault. But, shouldn't this uproar have happened some months back? Perhaps they did and I missed it.

    ...Everything is permissable, but not all things are prudent ~ Apostle Paul

    by angeleyes on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:30:08 PM PST

  •  The timing of a do-over and college kids (0+ / 0-)

    If these states revote any time after early May, then it is probably going to occur after most colleges have ended their Spring terms. That would lose a lot of votes for Obama.

  •  Can Obama reach the magic numbers (0+ / 0-)

    mathematically before the end of the primary season? Is it possible for him to win before Denver?

  •  Obama should offer $1M to help fund MI/FL races. (0+ / 0-)

    Obama should turn the tables on the Clintons are offer MI and FL $1M to fund their primaries if they are held June 30.

    Obama has a shot at winning MI and FL primaries are held around June 30, giving Obama time to campaign, he can certainly do at least as well as TX and OH result where he eliminated Clinton leads and basically tied her.

    At worst, that leaves the campaign right where it is...Obama ahead in votes and delegates and with the nomination.

    At best, Obama wins both and Clinton fades away.

  •  Very informative but I disagree with the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badlands, MikePhoenix

    conclusion. I am in Florida. She won it the first time by 17% and as you mention above netted 38 phantom delegates. Only the strongest Obama supporters came out to vote that day. In the event of a revote, he would have time to campaign down here, hold rallies, assign precinct captains, make phone calls, run TV ads, etc. Also, there is a Puerto Rican population in central Florida that may lean Hillary but the majority of hispanics in South Florida are Cuban-American and Republican. Younger Cubans are more Democratic-leaning, but they're also well...  younger...  and may even things up in this demographic. In short, there is NO WAY Hillary wins a new primary in Florida by 17 points and no way she picks up 38 delegates.

    Now that's a primary, which would cost Florida taxpayers, Democrats and Republicans over 20 million dollars. An appropriation that would have to be made by Florida's Republican lawmakers. You might think they could mischievously agree to it to screw with the Democrats nomination process, but their constituents would not be amused by this in the fall. Therefore, the most likely re-vote in Florida would be a caucus, which the Miami Herald estimates would cost about 4 million, a more manageable amount for the FL Democratic party or even the FL legislature.

    The Michigan Democratic party and the DNC are ready for a caucus as well. In the event of a caucus, Obama wins Michigan outright, and Hillary would gain no significant amount of delegates from Florida.

    Hillary won't get the delegates from MI and FL seated as-is. She can decline these re-caucus offers and whine about unfairness but it won't work if its what the people of MI and FL want. The last thing Obama should do is offer to lose 38 net delegates without a fight.

  •  Objections. (3+ / 0-)

    Let me make clear that I take your overall point.  

    But you have messed up a lot of math because your quick and dirty method is flawed enough to make big error in the aggregate.  Let's just take Florida.  You say:

    But a 16% margin in Florida is worth approximately (16% x 185) = 29.6 pledged delegates.

    This is counter-productive.  Promoting that kind of false simplicity in the approach does nobody any favors, particularly since you are looked to as an authority.

    Let's see what happens if Obama loses Florida by 16%.

    3-delegate districts: 1
    4-delegate districts: 9
    5-delegate districts: 10
    6-delegate districts: 3
    7-delegate districts: 2

    Now, if we were applying your uniform math method, 16% gets Clinton +13 out of the CDs.  She gets all the odd districts by +1 and all the evens stay a tie.  Statewide, 16% gets her +6 (PLEO) but sits exactly on the 14-11, 15-10 threshold.  Total +22 or +24, using your uniform method.  That's a full 20-25% error by your rough and dirty method.  

    Worth pointing out, because if we're going to use symbols and formulas they shouldn't wind up with that degree of error.  Your "worst-case scenario" is mathematically undermined.

    I then went and looked more closely at every CD in the state, realizing that some are huge AA districts, and it looks like Clinton +23 is a very conservative projection if I give her the benefit of the doubt in a lot of places.

    So by both methods, (1) the smooth application of the statewide margin across all CDs and (2) by actually looking more closely at the districts, there is big error in the way you are scaring people at how close Clinton could pull.

    I won't go into Mississippi, but it is flawed too.  And others.

    Calloused hand by calloused hand.

    by PocketNines on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:21:19 PM PST

  •  You have to think like a superdelegate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikePhoenix

    Put yourself in the position of an uncommitted superdelegate.  That means you are thinking primarily about the general election - if you had a strong predilection for either candidate you would no longer be uncommitted at this point.

    Think about Florida and Michigan. You do not want to leave them unrepresented at the Convention. You do not want a credential battle (which in any event Obama is most likely to win). The easiest way to seat them is if seating them has no impact on the final outcome. Given that in virtually all scenarios Obama will be leading Clinton in pledged delegates by the time of the Convention, if you can persuade enough of your co-superdelegates to embrace Obama all your problems are over.

    Bottom line - its easy to seat them if they don't matter, and the only way they don't matter is if you and your buddies embrace Obama.

    Peter

  •  Popular vote (0+ / 0-)

    What you fail to mention in your analysis is that under the scenario you hypothesize might be possible, Hillary will almost certainly have won the overall popular vote.  This will add to inform the superdelegates as to not support Hillary would be tantamount to overturning the will of the people.

  •  I don't want Rush Limbaugh deciding (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teyigdhk

    the Democratic nominee. Anything other than disallowing Florida and Michigan to participate in any way at this time opens the door for the possibility that less-than-sincere "Democrats" will decide the outcome.

    It will be take it to the streets time in the minds of many true Democrats.

    An ostrich with its head in the sand is just as blind to opportunity as to disaster.

    by Spoonfulofsugar on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:28:31 PM PST

  •  Where are you getting... (0+ / 0-)

    Obama taking WY so heavily (pop vote)?  I can't find any polls or anything.  Plus, it's been so long since WY has gotten any attention at all...how does anyone have any clue how the race will turn out?

    I'm not saying it's wrong...I'm just curious what the simulations were based on for that particular race.

    "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." ~Voltaire

    by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM PST

  •  Superdelegeates WILL NOT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not

    overturn the pledged delegate result.

    Period.

  •  Let the MI and FL voters decide. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikePhoenix

    Who's to say what the playing field will look like by that time.

    Obama will lose FL but by how much? MI is probably a toss-up. Without anyone campaigning in these states who's to say which way the wind will blow.

    I have doubts a re-vote would completely benefit Clinton. If it did she would be all for it. $$$ is probably the overriding factor on her reluctance. I can also imagine she knows the fates (and the press) can turn on her just as they have turned on Obama. Too bad.

    If the voters want to re-vote then they should get to re-vote.

    Do Not Feed The Victim

    by mentaldebris on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM PST

  •  the campaign knows more than we do (I hope) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikePhoenix

    Your analysis is very solid - for an outsider.  But there is one aspect that we don't know that the campaign probably has some inkling for.  That is how superdelegates are thinking about Michigan and Florida.  They probably talk to all but the most hardened Clinton superdelegates once a week and get their thoughts about what is going on.

    Plus, they could invite the approximate 250 announced and leaning unannounced Obama superdelegates to a hotel near O'Hare some weekend soon and discuss Florida and Michigan to see if they can get a consensus of thought or action plan for Florida and Michigan.

deminva, JekyllnHyde, Oregon guy, kid oakland, taylormattd, sheba, askew, Oregon Bear, pletzs, wren, Avila, Fishgrease, CaptUnderpants, Ddeele, jamesparenti, Ruth in OR, kissfan, Dumbo, dpc, eyeswideopen, fabacube, bronte17, indybend, BlackGriffen, mentaldebris, because, bluesteel, KMc, stevetat, joe pittsburgh, Vermonter, ptmflbcs, ivote2004, peraspera, bincbom, superba, itskevin, nalin, nowness, dmsilev, The Animal, PipBody, webweaver, Getreal1246, psnyder, Dallasdoc, jddaigle, Chicago Lulu, redvolution, JimWilson, Kidspeak, desmoinesdem, mistersite, 2dot, ChiGirl88, gmhowell, tomjones, xyz, Nova Land, ebbinflo, Big Tex, nailbender, chumley, waitingforvizzini, Penman, indiemcemopants, majcmb1, fivefouranonymous, Geekesque, WisePiper, neroden, Ekaterin, ZinZen, Land of Enchantment, Reality Bites Back, Prof Dave, BlueInARedState, dharmafarmer, venatrix, andydoubtless, hungrycoyote, Tiny Wurlitzer, Partially Impartial, mattw, Irishkorean, tecampbell, Ryan Anderson, Potus2020, mang glider, va dare, Elruin, lieblingskartoffel, MadScientist, pseudopod, ipsos, AntKat, DBunn, bvljac, dotsright, godislove, psychodrew, 0wn, yoduuuh do or do not, kath25, Democrat, mouser68, Kentucky Kid, rrheard, JML9999, scardanelli, Empower Ink, cville townie, MKinTN, Dem in the heart of Texas, Spoonfulofsugar, ratador, LizzyPop, MikePhoenix, ozkid, pepper mint, afx114, Mannabass, Rick Winrod, NMLib, Nick Blas, Populista, bflaff, JedReport, tsqd, joy sinha, haruki, omegajew, allie123, rigso, Simply Agrestic, Scubaval, watercarrier4diogenes, oldliberal, NetRootsDaily, bhagamu, there will be blood, Neon Vincent, Tim in CA, Hope08, neonineten, bigmikek7, SciVo, shunpike, zackamac, davepez, oak510, supsupsup, diegobnavarro, badger1968, Schul, jackstah

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site