My thoughts on the FL/MI Mess

Disclaimer: I live in Florida and have been actively involved in the delegate selection process, particularly the implementation of the minority goals for delegate selection.

The thought of spending millions of dollars for a re-vote in Florida and Michigan to solve this crisis is the most stupid thing I think I have ever heard. People need to get real! We are likely talking about an actual change in the allocation of Florida's delegates that would likely be fewer than 10 delegates. $8,000,000 for 10 delegates, get real. I can think of far more productive uses for this money, especially in Florida where we are trying to win one of the legislatures before 2012 so we can have a say in the next redistricting effort (the 2002 redistricting was the kiss of death for Democrats in Florida.)

For me, this really is the bottom line - I don't care where the money comes from. Spending it on this re-vote would be the gross waste of money. We wonder why the Republicans always win the "fiscal conservative" argument!

In addition, in Florida we have been proceeding with our delegate selection process, having held our congressional caucus meetings a couple of weeks ago to elect our district delegates, based upon the Jan. 29 primary. By the time the re-vote was held and the delegates re-allocated, you'd probably impact a small number of actual delegate selections - but that would be very unfair to the rank and file Democrats who came out and ran for the delegate slots.

So, how to you solve a problem like Florida and Michigan (my apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein...) ?

I think the Republican party actually showed us the better way to punish these 2 states for trying to jump their primaries ahead in the schedule. Penalize each state half of their delegates! If we did this in the first place, we would not even be in this position. At this late stage, however, I would suggest that instead of telling half of these delegates they can't go to Denver, give them only 1/2 of a vote in Denver. it would accomplish the same thing.

Yes, the Clinton camp is going to whine that they are losing votes they would really like to have. And the Obama camp is going to whine that Clinton will be gaining a few delegates advantage.

Well isn't that what compromise is all about? If both camps are whining, perhaps it has some merit.

And to add fuel to the fire, the convention rules state that if either of these states were to hold a re-vote after May 1 as their first determining step, they would receive an additional 40% of their allocated delegates. Do we really want to REWARD these states for the initial flaunting of the rules?

There is no easy solution here. But the only way a solution is going to be resolved is for the DNC and Howard Dean to sit down with the Obama and Clinton campaigns, WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE CONVENTION and come up with a workable solution that doesn't throw millions of dollars down the drain.

Each side is going to have to swallow a little here and rely upon the process that has been set in place to choose the eventual nominee in Denver.

Failure to do so, I believe, can only result in dire consequences for the Democratic party in November, and piss away one of the best opportunities we've had to gain a better control, not only in Washington, but at the state and local level as well.

I know I'm asking for a lot. An expectation that my leaders will be leaders and sit down and act like leaders. But failing to solve the delegate situation in Florida and Michigan will seriously damage the Democratic effort in both states. And continuing the rancid atmosphere that has developed between the two campaigns, which has been exacerbated by the Florida/Michigan situation, will take us down a path upon which there may be no return.

I don't want to hear any more that a plan is going to favor either candidate. What I want to hear is that a solution is forthcoming and forthcoming in days, not weeks, not months.

Is my suggestion perfect? No. It will require an admission that the Republican's had a better idea than the DNC when it implemented it's penalties. But it allows us to move on.

And we need to move on quickly.

•  I agree with you 100%

  The MOST important thing regarding FL and MI is the sense of fairness to the electoral process. You cannot change the rules in the fourth quarter (rules that the Clintons agreed to) just to allow one politician to win.

  That is the most important thing regarding these two states. The states were warned about defying the Democratic Party rules, they thumbed their noses, and so if the electorate of those two states are mad, they should blame their own state legislatures for getting them into this mess.

  They should not be allowed to change the rules so that Hillary can win.

  Reason why your fair compromise isn't being accepted is because that closes the door on the Clinton campaign. Her only longshot chance of changing Superdelegate votes to award her the nomination is to change the agreed upon rules of FL and MI.

  She can spin it anyway she wants, but that is the reality of the situation and I blame the DNC for not immediately laying down the law and stating "all parties agreed to these rules and therefore we can sit the delegates (split evenly)".

  The DNC's own spinelessness in enforcing their own rules is what is going to destroy the party exactly one month before the General Election begins.

  by EspressoAtNoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM PDT

•  50-50

  If there were a revote Obama would have advantage in MI and Clinton in Fl. Sen. Dodd says just seat their delegations 50-50 each. Point is, it's not going to change the outcome and Clinton's not going to let go of it until she can pull a rabbit out of the hat. What you are not paying attention to, is that this is a Clinton life and death struggle to maintain control of the party. And they will run the party over the cliff if they have to.

  by cmpnwtr on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:05:36 PM PDT

  •  Why do you say he's

    "not paying attention"?  Because he comes up with a solution that is not entirely Obama's best case (i.e. keeping the two delegations out or the stupid "seat them 50/50" idea which is just keeping them out in another guise)?

    Interestingly, using the results from January but cutting the delegates in half as the diarist proposes still makes it nearly impossible to win--especially if Obama ends up with the bulk of Michigan uncommitted delegates.  In fact, she's probably better off with a revote for the full delegate slates.

    by Superribbie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM PDT