The Do Over Debate

Instead of listening to Chris Matthews and Jack Cafferty yell and scream. I propose that we have a responsible and civil DO Over Debate.

Here's the issue: Due to an incredible mess up on the part of the DNC Leadership both Michigan (MI) and Florida (FL) delegates are currently not counted. Both states moved up their primaries in violation of DNC edict and they were then disqualified. The details are a little different. In MI it seems it was a local Dem power play and in FL the Republicans had a lot to do with it. Never the less here we are.

Clinton won both these highly flawed contests and it would give her about 75 delegates more if they were counted. As things stand these delegates will not be counted at all.

The Clinton Campaign is saying they want to seat the delegates and have them count. And, of course, Obama says they should not be counted. Currently, the decision officially is in the hands of the DNC leadership.

Instead of just letting the future play out with these DNC insider folks making some sort of politically supercharged decision sometime this summer, it is clearly time, while we still have the time to engage in a Do Over Debate.

I think we the people, Obama supporters and Clinton supporters need to come together and pressure the campaigns and the DNC to do whatever is possible to get a valid result out of these two states.

Right now neither campaign wants to have a Do Over. Clinton is counting on getting the delegates seated and Obama is hoping he can stop that from happening. Honestly, it seems that it could go either way.

If MI and FL are disenfranchised it will be bad for the Democratics in the fall. We don't need any reminders of what a critical role FL can play in a national election. It may well be the case that whomever wins the contest for these delegates, the loser will be all of us if it throws the race to McCain.

I think that we Democrats need valid results from MI and FL and we need to count them.

People will say. They broke the rules and they need to be penalized. Well, it wasn't the people that broke the rules, and in any case the importance of these states can not be denied. We really do want to win in November.

There should be a Do Over, and I think that this is the time when you might be able to get both campaigns and the DNC to agree that this is the best course, particularly if there is a grass roots consencus.

Whether you are a Clinton supporter or an Obama support I ask you to consider coming to agreement on this matter. Right now we have two all or nothing propositions, and the inevitable result will be that one group or the other feels betrayed. In any case, the Democratic residents of these states feel betrayed. It is not a good situation, and it can be fixed.

Set the date after the last primary. It will extend the primary season and cost some money, but there is time and it is the only way to include these voters in the noninating process that in any way approaches fairness.

People will say that a Do Over is rewarding them for breaking the rules, and I guess that's somewhat true, but as it is now it is a disaster. Perhaps the deal should involve forcing MI and FL to hold their primaries at the very end for the next election cycle or two as punishment. But, the important thing is that the Democratic Party gets out of this mess without giving the Republicans a tremendous advantage.

I am anticipating a lot of flack here saying that MI and FL should not count. They broke the rules. I am also expecting comments about how we need to seat the delegates from the flawed results. I ask you to think about this issue more than as a partisan for your candidate.

We need to do more than win a nomination. We Democrats need to win in the fall. We need to think now about how we will emerge from the primaries. Fairness is important. Fairness to Clinton, fairness to Obama, and fairness to the people of MI and FL. It may be impossible to acheive perfect fairness, but a Do Over is the only at least half good option at this point.

What do you think?

•  Small correction...

  I think the issue of seating the delegates is up to the DNC Rules Committee... not the DNC leadership (Howard Dean et al), per se.

  by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Trix

    You are right.

    Who are these folks anyway? They may become the most important people in the world pretty soon.

    Unless something is done.

    by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM PDT

    •  I don't know...

      On a somewhat related topic, I was really surprised to read earlier that Nancy Pelosi's daughter is a superdelegate.

      by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:19:40 PM PDT

      •  She has a couple of daughters...

        I was referring to Christine.

        by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:20:58 PM PDT

•  As you may know...

  if you've seen my posting here lately, I am a Clinton supporter, but I do think that this is an issue where we can form some sort of concensus. I'm interested in your thoughts.

  by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:16:33 PM PDT

  •  As a fellow Clinton supporter...

    I've long said that I would not be comfortable with her winning the nomination only as a result of the MI and/or FL delegates being seated.

    by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM PDT

    •  One of the things that disappoints me most...

      about the Clinton campaign is that they have not come out in favor of a Do Over.

      I just heard her spokesperson saying they should be seated and the lame excuse that it would be expensive.  It would be to her advantage to get out in front of this one.

      by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM PDT

      •  Hillary wants to win

        She doesn't care how.  There isn't a principled bone in that body.

        by Bouldergeist on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:35:12 PM PDT

    •  I would think it goes without saying, but...

      the same would apply if she were to win the nomination due to some sort of superdelegate coup.

      by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM PDT

      •  Right...

        ...and not factoring valid results from FL and MI into the superdelegate "will of the people" calculus that is now playing out in the media is another serious problem in legitimacy.

        by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:28:54 PM PDT

        •  Do you know for sure whether or not...

          MI and FL superdelegates will count if the pledged delegates from those states aren't seated?

          Last week Rep. Dingell and another MI Rep. endorsed Clinton, but the A.P. article I read about it was unclear as to whether their superdelegate votes would be counted in the event MI's delegation isn't seated.

          by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:32:07 PM PDT

          •  No idea...

            Good question though.

            by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:32:51 PM PDT

          •  They won't

            IF the delegations aren't seated, that will include all of the superdeleagtes from those states being denied their seats

            by terjeanderson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:46:59 PM PDT

            •  Not that I don't believe you, but...

              do you have a source on this that you can point me towards?

              Thanks.

              :-)

              by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:48:18 PM PDT

              •  You rock Trix!

                
                

                Thx

                by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:54:49 PM PDT

                •  terjean...

                  my comment in no way refers to you in the negative. Nor does Trix, I'm sure.

                  Please supply any information about the rules, and thanks for posting.

                  by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:05:04 PM PDT

    •  not particularly a support of either

      and I've already said a do-over is a good idea, in part because I've head other supporters of Senator Clinton say similar things.

      Holding the do-overs after the last scheduled primary would allow both candidates time to prepare, and remove some of the arguments about those two states 'unfairly' affecting the states that stuck to the DNC rules.

      BTW - it's the more restrain supports such as you and those who have similar feelings, and others like you but supporting Senator Obama, that keep me from just washing my hands of both candidates after a particularly unpleasant reading session.  Rational support is good, worship is not.

      by wondering if on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:13:21 PM PDT

      •  Thanks, wondering if :) n/t

        by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:55:01 PM PDT

•  do over? michigan, yes. florida, no.

  they were both on a level playing field there.  neither campaigned and one could argue that obama had an advantage because his national ads aired on florida television sets.

  by jtorres138 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:17:52 PM PDT

  •  No Democrats

    campaigned in Michigan.   Why would you say Michigan yes and Florida no?

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:24:00 PM PDT

    •  Kucinich

      campaigned in Michigan.

      by SuperCameron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:01:43 PM PDT

    •  !!!

      because Obama was not on the ballot in MI  !!!

      by theloniously on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:16:56 PM PDT

•  the precedent is delaware 1994

  by TAPayne on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:20:31 PM PDT

  •  Not really.

    Delaware has less than one million people.  Michigan has over 10 million people.  Florida has over 17 million people.  I live in Michigan, and my county alone has over twice the population of the entire State of Delaware.

    Michigan and Florida held their primaries.  The DNC decided not to recognize them.  The DNC is free to stand by that decision, or change it.  But they have no basis to compel a new election in either state.  And neither Michigan nor Florida would pay for it, anyway.

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:29:41 PM PDT

    •  so numbers involved changes precedent?

      such an assertion denies the very basis of our legal system

      by SoltanGris on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM PDT

      •  The legal system works just fine.

        The legal system in Michigan and Florida worked just fine.  Each state had its primary, on a date designated by state law in each state.

        The DNC -- a political entity -- is choosing not to recognize either election.  That is their right.  But they have no standing whatsoever to compel a new election in either state.

        There will not be another primary election in either state.  But supposing there were, yes, the numbers matter.  Why should the people of either state spend money to conduct another election to please the DNC?

        by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:43:09 PM PDT

        •  if it were to happen

          it would have to be a party run primary, not a state run/funded one

          It is the way Michigan Dem primaries used to be

          by terjeanderson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:48:58 PM PDT

          •  But not anymore (n/t)

            by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:57:20 PM PDT

    •  wouldn't tax payer money still

      be used?

      by bonesy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:59:49 PM PDT

    •  what a stupid argument

      so numbers matter?  not counting every vote?

      rules are rules.. if hillary doesn't like them she can quit

      by Capt Morgan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:32:30 PM PDT

      •  The votes were cast.

        And they were counted.  The DNC can recognize them, or not recognize them.  Hillary can argue for their inclusion, and Obama is free to argue for their exclusion.

        by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:46:47 PM PDT

•  I honestly believe that the Florida results were

  valid.  Equal playing field, no one campaigned, everyone was on the ballot, record primary turnout for Democratic voters.  Michigan , however, would most definitely require a "do over" to have any sense of fairness to Obama, as he and three others voluntarily removed their names from the ballot, and the voter turnout was lower than anticipated.

  by PamelaD on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM PDT

  •  The Michigan ballot.

    Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel appeared on the Michigan ballot.  Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson did not.  Nothing from the DNC or in the four-state pledge precluded any candidate from appearing on the Michigan ballot. It was each candidate's choice.  

    And despite their choices, we were inundated with messages (internet, TV, print, billboard, radio, etc.) to vote "uncommitted" if you supported John Edwards or Barack Obama.  No one who knew about and voted in Michigan's primary did not know that.

    So, some chose to appear on Michigan's ballot. Some chose to attempt to ingratiate themselves with IA/NH/NV/SC voters by removing their names from Michigan's ballot. Did that help any of the candidates in those four states who decided not to appear on Michigan's ballot?  Maybe.  So if we re-do Michigan, should we re-do IA, NH, NV and SC as well?

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM PDT

    •  Well if that's how it went down, then I don't

      think a redo is called for in Michigan either.  Do you have any statistics on the turnout being lower than normal?  

      by PamelaD on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:50:15 PM PDT

    •  The four state pledge

      included the pledge not to "participate" in the any contest before Feb 5 (other than the 4 DNC sanctioned contests before then)

      Putting one's name on the ballot when you have the option not to meets my definition of "participate"

      by terjeanderson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:51:18 PM PDT

      •  It didn't meet the DNC's,

        nor the standard of the four-state pledge.

        by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:56:12 PM PDT

        •  The four state pledge

          "I (name), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate [emphasis mine]  in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC."

          How is putting your name on the primary ballot not participation? (In Florida the candidates had no way of removing their names)

          by terjeanderson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM PDT

          •  No appearances or campaigning.

            That's what partcipate means.

            BTW, all of the candidates appeared on Florida's ballot.  If they removed their names from Michigan's ballot, why not Florida's?

            by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:06:14 PM PDT

            •  baloney!!

              Sorry, but this goes beyond candidate loyalties. If you intend to argue that being on the ballot is not "participating" in a state primary, I suggest you go back to arguing what the meaning of "is" is.

              by theloniously on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:19:44 PM PDT

              •  It's not about candidate loyalties.

                It's about the free exercise of options.  Obviously, the candidates who voluntarily removed their names from Michigan's ballot did so because they thought it would benefit them in the other early states.  It very well may have.  If we have a do-over in Michigan, should there be a do-over in IA, NH, NV and SC, too?  Just to be fair?

                by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:43:15 PM PDT

            •  Because they couldn't take their names off in FL

              In Florida, the Secretary of State put all candidate names on the ballot, and the only way off was to sign a statement that you were not running for president.

              --
              Funny the dictionary defines "participate" as "to take part in" . Merriam Webster somehow managed not to include "appearances or campaigning" in their defintion.

              by terjeanderson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:22:39 PM PDT

              •  Did and of the four

                states of the pledge accuse any of the candidates that appeared on the Michigan ballot of breaking the pledge?  Are you trying to plead a case they never brought?  

                by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:44:40 PM PDT

                •  No

                  but it makes me wonder why I should ever trust anything that Clinton says

                  by terjeanderson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM PDT

      •  The states put the names on the ballot....

        by PamelaD on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:28:04 PM PDT

  •  Obama ads were run in Florida

    so you can't really say it was a level (equal) playing field. I read somewhere (sorry can't remember where so no link) that both campaigns had people on the ground there, but only Obama ran ads.

    I know his ad runs were national buys and that's why they ran in Florida. But he still ran ads there in violation of the the DNC's rules. So, level playing field? Not really. If you want to count Florida's delegates, then I think you should count Michigan's delegates. Obama didn't have to remove his name from Michigan's ballot. Another strategic error from his campaign. I sure hope he's learning something from this because if he's the Democratic party's candidate, the Republicans are going to eat him alive. And we're going to have another Republican in the White House for 4 more years.

    I don't think either state's delegates can be seated without being unfair to one of the candidates. I guess if your candidate gets the delegates, then you think it's fine to seat them.

    by dykester on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:54:59 PM PDT

    •  STOP LYING

      He bought ads on CNN.. jesus.. are you people all this intellectually dishonest?

      YOU CAN NOT COUNT A VOTE WHERE EVERYONE WAS TOLD IT WAS MEANINGLESS AHEAD OF TIME.

      Period.

      This is pure crybaby whining

      by Capt Morgan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:33:49 PM PDT

      •  Easy to call names

        especially when you don't have facts on your side. He bought ads, they got run in Florida. When the facts don't support you, you call names. Talk about intellectually dishonest . . . .

        Chill a little. Keep acting like this and you'll push all the undecideds to vote for another candidate.

        by dykester on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:40:25 PM PDT

•  No

  The cards were played the way they were, and Clinton knew that both states were disqualified, and she needs to get the hell over it now.

  If she's angling to be the most shameless, desperate, influence-grubbing wretch on the planet this is one way to gain that title.  But she's not got my respect AT ALL.

  by slippytoad on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM PDT

  •  This isn't about Clinton, its about the voters of

    Florida and Michigan.  You obviously don't live in either or you would approach the topic in a more measured and thoughtful manner.

    by PamelaD on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:33:37 PM PDT

    •  So

      We're supposed to count votes in an election where ONLY ONE PERSON was on the ballot?

      What a joke!

      by slippytoad on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:42:25 PM PDT

      •  Untrue.

        There was not "ONLY ONE PERSON" on the Michigan ballot.  Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were on the Michigan ballot.  The others wanted to kiss up to IA/NH/NV/SC and removed their names by choice from the Michigan ballot.

        by HarveyMilk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:55:24 PM PDT

        •  Sorry

          I meant only one of the people currently running.  

          The end result is the same.

          I am not defending the ordering of the primary calendar.  I'm in Kentucky, and as you might have noticed we're voting almost last (before such blockbuster states as Nebraska and South Dakota), which means that in all probability the contest will be all but decided by then.  I would like to see the primary order be randomly selected each election cycle.  

          Regardless of all that, the ground rules were set over 18 months ago and all those people knew it.  The entire point of this is that Hillary managed to stay on the ballot and her only current opponent removed himself as per the rules, and now she wants those votes to count somehow when it's plain to anyone that that is simply not right.  

          Logistically I think the chance that the states will re-do the primaries is slim to none, considering the expense, and at this juncture it's just too late and too fucking bad.  And I think that the penalty for jerking the calendar around needs to stand.  If the process is to change it needs to be in a universally agreed-upon fashion, not a fucking mosh-pit free-for-all.

          by slippytoad on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM PDT

    •  bullshit

      There's no way on earth you'd be supporting this if Obama had won those states

      And that's a fact.

      by Capt Morgan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:34:44 PM PDT

      •  And you wouldn't be fighting it!

        by PamelaD on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:31:00 PM PDT

•  michigan voter here that wants a do-over

  but it won't happen because the establishment in Lansing is totally behind Clinton.   Governor Granholm should resign if michigan delegates steal away the nomination from Obama.. resign in disgrace.    

  And thats hard for me because I've always been on her side, being a dual citizen of the u.s. and canada, I've been rooting for her for a long time.

  by soros on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM PDT

•  Do-overs for everyone!

  My objection to a do-over in only these two states is that we can apply the same reasoning to Edwards' California voters who voted early before he dropped out. We don't know who those voters might have gone to if they'd known Edwards was leaving. Why should we reward Michigan and Florida voters -- who were told ahead of time that their delegates would not be seated -- and yet penalize California voters who voted early, only to find out that Edwards withdrew before primary day? Edwards' voters did not know ahead of time that he was dropping out, so not counting their votes is even more egregious.

  Michigan and Florida voters got screwed by their state party. Bummer for them. The remedy is not to change the rules now for this election, but to throw those state bums out and put in Democrats who will make sure that their state's voters don't end up voiceless in the primary. Or maybe to go to the DNC and change the rules to provide for this situation.

  But changing the rules now for these two states and not changing the rule for others who also lost their vote for some other reason seems like someone's ploy to get delegates to which they're not entitled.

  by dykester on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:40:52 PM PDT

•  Split 'em 50/50

  Understand that's not how the election actually went down, but Hillary only had 55% of the vote in Michigan  anyway.  I think everyone can admit that the delegate count would have been pretty even, so assign them 50/50.  Then those states get to be represented but it doesn't impact the outcome of the race itself.

  -Fred

  by FredFred on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:42:28 PM PDT

  •  That actually works for FL

    but not Michigan

    In FL, Hillary got 50%, and Obama got 34% and Edwards got 14% -- it is easy enough to imagine a deal where a delegation gets seating that is half Clinton supporters, but producing net delegate lead for her.

    And there is some rationale for it -- if you argue that Florida Democrats had no control over what the Republican legislature did. (Kind of dubious in my book, but you can make the argument)

    Michigan is harder to justify - the state party just kept giving the finger to Democratic Party rules, and Democratic leaders were in a position to make it happen.

    by terjeanderson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:58:07 PM PDT

  •  A huge extensive campaign

    was pushed in Michigan for any and all Obama or Edwards supporters to vote "uncommitted" which they did. Enough said.

    by bonesy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:08:21 PM PDT

    •  Vote Romney!

      This site was encouraging any and all Obama or Edwards supporters to vote Romney because their vote would totally not count otherwise.  Some did.  Had they been able to vote for Obama or Edwards it may have been totally different.  We will never know.

      However pretty embarassing that Hillary could only get 55% when Kucinich was the only other person on the ballot.

      -Fred

      by FredFred on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:55:18 PM PDT

      •  What's embarassing is anyone that

        backs the opposite Democratic candidate on this site, always has to be pulled into a flame war with the other candidates backer. Not going there, sorry,

        by bonesy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:15:04 PM PDT

•  I'm one of the people from Mi.

  I voted for Senator Clinton, and my vote counts, just as well as anyone else's vote.

  it wasn't the people that broke the rules,

  No Do Over, thanks but no thanks.

  by bonesy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM PDT

  •  But you do know that you

    were supposedly voting for "delegates" and not specifically HRC, right? And I suppose you know that those delegates are members of the Democratic Party and are beholden to the rules of the party. So essentially your vote was for illegitimate delegates which effectively makes your vote illegitimate. I hate that for you but that's the facts as I understand them.

    Either a legitimate do-over or an agreement between the Michigan Dem Party and the National Party to equitably divide the delegates are the only solutions I see possible.

    by PresentMoment on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:03:09 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for info,and

      thanks for the

      I hate that for you

      I still feel good for my vote, and this cost 10 mil.
      no

      do over

      , no

      equitably divide the delegates.

      by bonesy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM PDT

      •  fine

        If you choose to act like a petulant child then you're vote just doesn't count at all

        rules are rules... this whining is unseemly

        by Capt Morgan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:36:27 PM PDT

        •  please,

          you give me no link to back up your statement. When I hold to my statement, which is my own thinking, you are the one that acts like a petulant child. What am I as a free American to do? Bow down to what you say, I don't think so. Let me guess you are backing Obama right?

          by bonesy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:09:41 PM PDT

•  p.s. as a matter of fact,

  the campaign for Obama and Edwards supporters to vote "uncommitted" got more air play and press then Senator Clinton did.

  by bonesy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:24:02 PM PDT