The Michigan compromise

This would be cheaper than spending $30 million on hasty contests.

Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

Split them all 50/50, and you've got a deal. (As if I have a say in this at all...)

•  Kos...

  I do not understand your insistence on 50/50 splits. Doesn't this amount to a feel-good disenfranchisement of voters in both states?

  by Jaiwithani on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:19:38 PM PDT

  •  What about the voters who ignored the

    election because both Hillary and Obama pledged and promised that the elections would mean nothing and thus did not campaign?  

    Do you care about their disenfranchisement?  No, of course not.  You don't care about that at all.

    by Delaware Dem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:21:18 PM PDT

    •  my brother in Broward County

      was one of those.

      I would favor a re-vote at this point.

      by desmoinesdem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:22:11 PM PDT

      •  Re-vote is the only way at this point

        It's not like somebody is afraid of people voting is it?

        by palpatine316 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:23:39 PM PDT

        •  very very true but very very expensive n/t

          by fayea on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:25:57 PM PDT

          •  Corzine said he would contribute

            Rendell and Corzine said they would help with fundraising, and Corzine said he would make a substantial donation personally.  (He spent over $50 million of his own money on his own campaigns.)

            by JPZenger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:32:03 PM PDT

            •  Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

              HRC's people are all for slush money to get some delegates...reminds me of Churchill's offer to help the IRA fight itself.

              by SpiderStumbled22 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM PDT

            •  I think it's comical...

              that two HRC pontentates would be in a hurry to put up money for a revote.  There's just something that gets my spidey senses tingling.

              by mayan on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:31:04 PM PDT

              •  If Obama loses MI & FL, he loses fair and square

                I am a big Obama supporter, but I want him to win fair and square.  I don't believe there is any innate advantage to Hillary of a revote.  If she picks up a net of 5 or 10 delegates, so be it.  At least Obama will have a proud victory.

                by JPZenger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:38:23 PM PDT

                •  I agree with this with 2 considerations

                  One, who gets to vote in the redo? All democrats or an open primary? What about those democrats who voted Republican in Michigan because they were told their democratic vote would not count. Do they get to vote again, and how would that have affected the Republican race?

                  Two, the superdelegates, who made a complete clusterf*ck of this should be barred.

                  by gradatbing on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:43:34 PM PDT

                •  I agree

                  Whoever wins the nomination will be strengthened by there having been a real primary in Michigan and Florida.  Obama would avoid the stigma of having kept their delegates from counting in the primary, which would definitely depress voting in the gen (even if not by much); Hillary would have one less stupid shenanigan driving people away from her, and the people who didn't vote because the primaries didn't count wouldn't be disenfranchised (yes, some people voted in the R primary and they would still be disenfranchised, but that's a way smaller number).

                  by jbelac on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM PDT

                •  Wrong

                  Think about this: those elections would happen on June 3. Guess what group of drunk, no-job, learnin' individuals are back home with the family pet?

                  A: Students.

                  This is especially problematic with a mail-in vote. Not to mention that many poor people and just regular folks that move, might not get their mail forwarded.

                  It's circular logic--"Let's make sure these people aren't disenfrancised by disenfrancising a whole bunch of other people"

                  PS-It's really expensive and we're gonna need that money against the guy people keep calling the Maverick.

                  by McJagger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:27:27 PM PDT

                  •  Good Point About the Students

                    The students would not be on campus to be organized, but they could still vote if they are registered at home.  I would guess that most Florida students go to college within the state, because it such a long drive to good out-of-state colleges.

                    Hopefully, the race would be decided way before June 3rd, and it will be moot.

                    by JPZenger on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:16:41 AM PDT

                •  these states opted out of fair and square

                  when they were warned of the consequences of moving their primary/caucus dates.  The thought DNC was bluffing, thumbed their nose.   This was a year in the making.  Disenfranchised should take it up with their state officials.  Revote is appeasing the squalking child--bad precident.  Money for a revote could go to much better use than ego and petulance.  Bet each states dep. of ed would be thrilled with $5-20 mil.
                      Obama played fair and square--point being no one would win these states.  Playing by the rules is winning--even when confronted with a cheater.  

                  by ambrwvs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:06:09 PM PDT

          •  and

            aren't we then rewarding these two states for breaking the rules in a very real sense? I mean, they could become even more important than they had hoped to become by jumping up their primaries...

            split or sit, and personally, sit looks good: rules is rules.

            by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:32:38 PM PDT

            •  They won't be more important

              They could only be more important if they got extra delegates than were originally intended. The timing may be fortuitous for them but the delegate number will be the same. As I said above, it's not like someone is afraid of seeing these states vote is it?

              by palpatine316 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:35:08 PM PDT

              •  fortuitous = good fortune = rewarding cheating

                you are proving my point: the timing is fortuitous, thus they are benefiting from breaking the rules.

                yes yes there is a great big conspiracy to keep MI and FL from voting, didn't you know? It was dreamed up by all the people in the states that don't matter, surely you got the message....

                I do indeed feel bad that the people in these states were not able to vote in the primary, but has their been any contrition amongst the states parties? any heads rolled? any consequences? now we are supposed to say oh ok do over when the race is close and their votes are that much more meaningful? sorry, while I do see your side of the argument, I ain't buying it. You break the rules you sure as shit better be ready to stand for the consequences.

                by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:38 PM PDT

                •  But what should happen to the people

                  Should residents of those states be disenfranchised because of a handful of politicians. Sounds like the same old politics to me.

                  I will repeat. The Democratic Party must not be the party of disenfranchisement. There is no more sacred right in this country. Do you disagree?

                  by palpatine316 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:02:11 PM PDT

                  •  I hear you, and it is painful

                    its a good thing my voice counts for very little cuz I know I can live with this one, but anything that happens now beyond a simple split (and even that) is going to favor one candidate over another and thus give these states that broke the rules an unfair advantage and reward their transgressions, particularly if someone else is footing the bill, wasn't that a condition given by Florida?

                    The best solution is for them to follow the rules.

                    On the brighter side, this issue should really step up the move to streamline and reinvent the primary process which is a tragic mess.

                    by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:06:27 PM PDT

                    •  Sorry you're wrong

                      An even split is de facto disenfranchisement i.e., since we split the vote, the vote  has no impact.

                      The best solution at this point is to re-vote. As a Hillary supporter, I'd prefer they just seat them, but recognize that's untenable given the current environment.

                      Will voting favor one candidate over the other? Yes, but that's no different than the impact of any other state's results. It's kind of the purpose of voting.

                      Fixing the process is something on which we can agree. It's totally broken.

                      by palpatine316 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:15:16 PM PDT

                      •  sorry your not listening

                        so i will stop right there, (kinda) since i heard you the first time and while i agree disenfranchisement is bad, im having a hard time takin this at face value - you support HRC, you think this will help her, good on you, but no. one. should. benefit. from. cheating.

                        have a nice day, and best of luck to your candidate.

                        if however you wanna discuss how to fix the process... i have this silly idea about blocking a week out for each time zone, and (this you will love) doing it the WA/TX way by having both primaries and caucuses. not trying to make your head explode or nothing, you go right on with your arguments, if you wish.

                        by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:39 PM PDT

                •  You're 100% right- we shouldn't have to but we do

                  Alot of Hillary supporters are kind if crazy and will be apoplectic if the perceive that she was jilted in some way.  If they were rational, they would see that that FL and MI did this to themselves and that's it.  But they aren't.  And apoplectic Dems aren't what we need right now.  It doesn't matter.  Obama will still end up ahead with revotes.

                  by Anaxamander on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:24:34 PM PDT

            •  Rewarding them for breaking the rules

              will encourage other states to ask "why should MI and FLA get all the attention?"...FLA has screwed up to elections in a row.  Why should we allow them to be rewarded for this?  They knew the rules and broke them.  How can we expect any child in the country to grow up and abide by the rules when they see this sort of shenanegans going on right in front of them?

              This entire discussion is a waste of my time and the DNC should put a stop to it now by saying "NO RE-DOS"...PERIOD...NO SEATING AS IS" PERIOD...how easy is that?

              by Kyman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:13:55 PM PDT

              •  citizens?

                The citizens of Michigan and Florida had almost nothing to do with the decision to move the primaries.  I live in Michigan and was powerless to stop the change.  Why shouldn't I get to vote in the primary for the candidate of my choice?  People can go on about the rules and the fixes, but the fundamental issue here is whether two large swing states will be spurned moving into the election.  I can say for myself and many of my friends, if I don't get a choice in the primary, I'm not giving a red cent to any political campaign.

                by abouja on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:09:07 AM PDT

          •  The value of voting is priceless

            We must not be the party of disenfranchisement.

            by palpatine316 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:33:10 PM PDT

            •  We aren't. Put the blame where it lies.

              At least in Florida, the Republican-majority legislature gamed the DNC rules, and the Republican governor signed the law. Then, when it became clear that the DNC was serious about enforcing the rule that all the presidential candidates had signed, Florida Dems began floating the idea that new legislation be passed to push the primary back into the safe zone. Gov. Crist - he who now postures as a defender of the vote, saying he supports a re-vote, but alas, how to pay for it (shrug) - said he would veto any such legislation, i.e., when he had a chance to correct the problem without any Rube Goldberg kluges, he refused.

              I'm tired of the canard that the Democratic party is disenfranchising voters or that the DNC caused the mess. First of all, it is not our franchise right to vote in party primaries. No government officials are selected in party primaries. Further, the DNC has the right and the obligation to establish the calendar and the broad rules for the exercise of its party primary. They established the calendar and the enforcement mechanism to prevent a free-for-all as they made the first, tentative steps to reform the primary process.

              I will repeat what I said in a comment a few days ago: 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 Congresses 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 being enforced and its enforcement needs to be honored, particularly by those who, like Clinton and Obama, actually signed on to the rule. Period. The rest is gaming the system.

              by psnyder on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:59:51 PM PDT

              •  That's just BS

                Saying these people should have no say in the potential choice of nominee is de facto disenfranchisement. Anyone who supports eliminating the ability of these people to have a say in that choice should also be willing to write off these states in November.

                Let's be honest, you're figuring Obama may be able to live without Florida and Michigan will vote Dem in November, therefore let's do nothing. My problem is that if candidate Obama is so strong and so likely to win the general election, why is he afraid of these two states voting?

                by palpatine316 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:09:57 PM PDT

                •  Not BS.

                  I voted for Edwards in Broward County. I will support the Democratic nominee, now that my choice is off the ticket. Don't tell me what I'm being honest about. I am honestly tired of rules being regarded as expendable when they don't suit someone's self-interest, which is clearly the case with Clinton now. Do you think she'd be demagoguing the issue now if Obama had "won" in Florida? Really? She, along with Obama, signed on to the rules. The states knew the rules. Two states chose to try to take cuts. They erred. Tough.

                  by psnyder on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM PDT

                  •  Right on, psnyder.

                    Not much use getting engaged with this guy.  The odds of a dialogue appear quite slim.

                    by mayan on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:33:10 PM PDT

                •  the problem was caused by the state parties

                  We have a representative gov't.  Florida and Michigan voters elected the very people who disenfranchised them.  Voters in those states should focus their anger on their local "leaders" and vote them out of office.

                  Does this "solution" suck?  Absolutely.  But then so do an awful lot of decisions made by our elected representatives.  Personally, I think it's outrageous that my local reps continue to vote to spend my tax money on a stupid war; that's why I take it upon myself to work to get these idiots to change their minds or get out of office, so that better decisions are made in the future.

                  by cityyear95 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:39:54 PM PDT

                  •  Yep.

                    No "retroactive immunity" for Florida or Michigan. If the state parties can figure out how to apportion delegates without any connection whatever to the bogus primaries, they can seat their delegates (according to the rules). Otherwise, not.

                    And you're right about the solution. Vote them out who put us here.

                    by psnyder on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM PDT

                  •  Maybe True, But...

                    ...in Florida it was pretty much done exclusively by Republicans, so why should Democratic party leaders be penalized?

                    Michigan is a little different, as Gov. Granholm signed the legislation.

                    by tailor324 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:10:17 PM PDT

                    •  it was a bipartisan move

                      Florida Dems voted overwhelmingly to set the date prior to Super Tuesday.  And even if what you write were true -- which it is not -- the Florida dems could still have gone their separate way.  There are number of states in which the Dems and Republicans held their contests on different dates.

                      by cityyear95 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:06:32 AM PDT

                •  It's called following the rules

                  why is that such a difficult concept for some here.  FL and MI KNEW last July that there were consequences to moving forward.  Where was the outrage for the disenfrachisement then????  There were 7 months to protest, take issue with local politicians for putting their states in this position.  That would have been fine and FAIR.  It cannot be considered fair to change the rules in mid game--don't care who it helps.  All the violin music about disenfranchisement I find a little grating.  50/50 lets there be participation--which wasnt the original deal and since HRC says delegates can do whatever they want--let her strong arm them at the convention, but leave the rest of the American public of this tantrum.

                  by ambrwvs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15:37 PM PDT

              •  brilliant analysis

                how about accountability becoming meaningful in our party and in our country once again.

                by fayea on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM PDT

            •  AOK

              I have to say..Ive admired Markos in the past but his behavior and divisiveness have really left me cold the last few weeks. That said, I kind of like this plan.

              by StuHunter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:12:53 PM PDT

              •  Markos' "divisiveness"

                is merely a rational and passionate response to the behavior and divisiveness of others.

                by cityyear95 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:42:16 PM PDT

          •  We are spending billions every day in Iraq

            What's a measly $30 million or so to insure that another election is not stolen by one party or another?  True, the next time we will have to see that Florida and Michigan get their shit together about their primarys, perhaps a comprehensive reform of the entire primary system is in order, but this one time, let's not be penny wise and pound foolish.

            by MrJersey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:34:49 PM PDT

            •  sorry but the dem parties in these two states

              already are in effect party to this disenfranchisement.  and who is to blame...?

              no no no no...... bodies .... fault but their own.

              by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:43:29 PM PDT

              •  But but but I *promise* I won't cheat again. /sna

                by Spoonfulofsugar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM PDT

                •  well then....

                  okay, you loveable scamp! Say three Hail Deans and give a little more then next time the hat comes around, eh? Now get out there and enjoy your enfranchisement!

                  by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:02:33 PM PDT

              •  So could we strip the supers from those states?

                If we want to punish the dem parties from those two states, why not hold a revote, seat the newly annointed pledged delegates, then strip the two states of superdelegates? The superdelegates, after all, are the direct representatives of the party establishments that FUBARed MI and FL this year.

                by The Polite Liberal on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:03:44 PM PDT

        •  Revotes benefit no one but the Republicans

          at this point.

          by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:48:52 PM PDT

          •  Even if this were true

            it would still be the right thing to do.

            Example: Allowing Mississippi to have Senators does little but benefit Republicans, but it's still morally imperative that every state have fair representation.

            Democracy is more important than Democrats - though the two should never be in conflict.

            by Jaiwithani on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:50:41 PM PDT

            •  Democracy is what got us in

              this situation in the first place, believe it or not.  Let them work it out with their state reps and the DNC, let's not watch while our party commits hari-kiri.

              by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:54:51 PM PDT

              •  Seriously

                This is why we vote in the first place.

                Do I feel bad for the people in MI and FL whose votes don't count? Yes, I do. And I fully encourage them to recall the elected officials who disenfranchised them.

                by young montana voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM PDT

          •  Well, the Repubs and the Dem in 2nd place

            in all of the categories. Just because FLA and MI fouled, we're gonna let Hillary shoot some free throws at the buzzer?

            Feh. Everyone knows the truth and they should quit trying to put lipstick on this pig. The Superdelegates need to grow some cajones NOW.

            by Spoonfulofsugar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:02 PM PDT

            •  She's holding the party hostage

              the longer this goes on the more her supporters will hate Obama.  We can't have that, so why not throw her a bone to cut our losses?  It won't affect the final outcome!

              by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:04:05 PM PDT

              •  Really?

                It won't affect the final outcome? Are you sure about that?

                At this point I think Hillary can gain a lot more than people think.

                by Decih on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07:46 PM PDT

              •  Well. OK...as long as that bone

                stays in her mouth.

                by Spoonfulofsugar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:12:07 PM PDT

                •  Not gonna touch that one! nt

                  by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:13:31 PM PDT

          •  I have been advocating for a 50/50 split since

            the FL and MI primaries.

            It would be a "zero sum game".

            And make everybody shut the fuck up.

            by Flippant on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:41:50 PM PDT

            •  This Michigan Voter Agrees 100%...

              50/50 split is the only way to go at this point....

              by kimberlyweldon on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:24:05 AM PDT

        •  A revote is stupid and horribly time consuming.

          Even though I do know that Obama would come out ahead. The only sensible thing is the 50/50 split. No one wins. No one loses.

          by Flippant on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:44:27 PM PDT

          •  The only really sensible

            thing is to do nothing. No one wins. No ones loses. No ones pretends to let Florida and Michigan count while actually having no impact on the race.

            by amRadioHed on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:38:19 PM PDT

      •  I am a pledged Florida Obama Delegate.

        Oath: a solemn promise, usually invoking a divine witness, regarding your future acts or behavior.

        Pledge: a binding commitment to do or give or refrain from something.  Promise solemnly and formally.  Give as a guarantee.  

        1. Florida's SOE's are a mess.

        2. My DEC never gave dedicated members access to voter file in 2004, 2006 or 2008.

        3. Known rules were broken and all parties were forwarned of dire consequences.  

        4.  You don't change rules midgame.

        5.  Parties of interest: DNC, FDP, Florida Democratic Legislators and two remaining Democratic Candidates should meet, negotiate and make final decision without interference from Media or Republicans.

        6.  FDP is responsible to bring about a meeting, negotiation and compromise that would result in an appropriate and fair Florida Delegation in Denver

        7.  No Re-Vote. It took Oregon about 10 years create their vote by mail system.

        8.  We can't afford to throw any money down the drain.  NO more money wasted!

        9.  FDP needs to focus on creating a plan to beat McCain in November.

        10.  A pledge is an oath.

        I would rather not be seated in Denver than to have the rules broken leading to the corruption of the Democratic process.  I take my pledge to my local Democatic Party and to the candidate I was elected to support, very seriously.  I take it as seriously as I took jury duty when someone's life and future was in my hands.

        by thefos on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:12 PM PDT

        •  Well I like that oath

          But I also think this is a fair deal. I have a feeling both sides will agree.

          by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:16:45 PM PDT

          •  Speaking from MI--it's a terrible deal

            Any "solution" to the clusterfuck needs to fulfill one goal and ought to fulfill another. The goal it ought to fulfill is to swing the delegate counts in favor of momentum if, indeed, either candidate is picking up momentum (in other words, break open the close race for delegates). This solution might do that--if Florida's and Michigan's super-delegates swing heavily for one or another candidate (and they are currently swinging heavily for Hillary).

            But the other--far more important--purpose for a "solution" to the clusterfuck is to enfranchise the voters who were screwed by their state's clusterfuck, and to find a real measure of the support for Hillary and Obama in each state.

            I won't speak to Florida in this case--I'd rather leave that to Florida's voters.

            But consider how this work in MI. A recent Rasmussen poll actually found Hillary and Obama tied, 41-41 (though that obviously means there are a lot of undecideds). So the 50-50 split wouldn't be terrible--except that it would transform a meaningless vote into an equally meaningless vote. It would, once again, deprive Michiganders of working to elect their favored candidate. It would deprive Michiganders of actually having a voice that mattered.

            Which would mean the super-delegates would have a voice that mattered that much more, since the possibility of dirty fucking hippy citizens affecting the vote would be nullified.

            Only super-delegates would get a meaningful vote.

            But those are precisely the geniuses who got us into the Clusterfuck in the first place! So you punish the dirty fucking citizens of Michigan, by withholding their ability to cast a meaningful vote. And meanwhile, you make the super-delegate votes more powerful!

            I think non-Michiganders simply don't get the levels of raw anger present here--anger directed at these same super-delegates who, according to this genius "solution," would pawn off the punishment for the super-delegates own Clusterfuck on ordinary voters.

            This "solution" is not a solution at all. It allows the super-delegates to avoid all punishment for their rashness. But it still leaves Michigan voters--the ones we'll need to win the state in November--with no meaningful vote.

            by emptywheel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:30:39 PM PDT

            •  Completely right.

              There IS a lot of anger that our votes got lost in the shuffle bet. DNC and Michigan Dem Party.  I'm for either a fair re-vote, so that we can have the candidates here, and build our ground game, OR (as much as I hate it) not have our existing bogus primary count at all.

              I got out to vote "uncommitted" primarily to prevent Hillary from claiming a victory...and of course, she did anyway, and it pisses me off.  She was the only major candidate on the ballot and STILL only had only 55%.  A lot of people didn't vote because it wasn't going to count.  I was angry that Edwards and Obama took their names off and Hillary didn't.  How fair is that??

              I agree that our superdelegates/party leaders are all going Clinton, and that scares me.  I'm afraid anything they come up with will benefit Hillary at (once again) voters' expense.  But if we could be sure that it is done fairly, I would support a re-vote.  Stripping the supers who caused the problem is an excellent idea.

              by marjo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:46:24 PM PDT

              •  Remember the time and money that would be wasted

                on that.  We need to begin working on beating McCain and the GOP.  I heard that he recently raised one million dollars at one dinner.

                by thefos on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM PDT

                •  The time and money was wasted in January

                  on Potemkin primaries. Paying for real primaries in MI and FL is no more a waste of time and money than paying for them in any other state.

                  by dconrad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31:31 PM PDT

              •  I wouldn't so much care WHO the supers supported

                It's really the principle. This solution solves the first problem--setting up a swing toward one candidate. But it in no way addresses giving us a vote and in fact makes it worse by giving the supers a vote.

                by emptywheel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:51:03 PM PDT

            •  Deal with your party bosses.

              Sack them, throw them out, disbar them from office for life, but don't ask the party to ignore the rules. Bush has been doing that for more than seven years and look where that got the US!!

              Malcolm

              by malc19ken on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:00:48 PM PDT

              •  Right, follow the rules

                Since there's no rule that forbids a re-vote, I guess that means you're for it, right?

                by dconrad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:33:45 PM PDT

            •  WOW someone that can think past the convention

              I suppose the current state of this site means that I first need to declare that I didn't vote for either of theses candidates in the primary. Currently am sitting it out until the general.

              I think we ought to remember that our goal is to have a non-McCain in the White House next January.

              As much as punishing Florida and Michigan may feel good to those oppose rule breaking or feel that it gives their candidate an advantage.

              Turns out that those being punished might not like it. Coming up with 270 gets a bit harder if you throw away 44 at the beginning.

              Then piss off another 21 in Pennsylvania by saying sorry we can't wait around for you to vote because your primary is too late in the calender.

              As for those who say it takes 10 years to figure out vote by mail; you are ignoring that others have implemented vote by mail using the experience that Oregon has.

              Many counties in Washington have all vote by mail elections.

              by Gym N Jim on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:09:50 PM PDT

              •  Mail-in Vote Illegal in FL

                http://edition.cnn.com/...

                by karenz on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:08:20 AM PDT

                •  And it is possible to change the Laws?

                  by Gym N Jim on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:58:36 AM PDT

          •  We need to compromise knowing that

            Florida grassroots Obama supporters and volunteers traveled to legitimate early states instead of campaigning in Florida to respect the pledge.  We wanted to make a difference according to the rules.

            I traveled to South Carolina instead of working on GOTV in Florida because I respected the integrity of a pledge.

            by thefos on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:48:57 PM PDT

        •  Hey, thefos

          You don't change rules midgame.

          What specific rule would be violated by having a re-vote?

          by dconrad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:23:37 PM PDT

          •  The rule that...

            ... FL and MI primaries won't count if they're held when they were.

            by MAORCA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:57:22 AM PDT

      •  A lot schools in FL & MI

        will make a better use of that money than a re-vote that will probably won't make much difference for Obama and Clinton.

        by christine20 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:11:24 PM PDT

        •  amen

          by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:22:40 PM PDT

        •  Imagine how much more money we'd have for schools

          if we just eliminated primaries altogether and chose the nominee in a smoke-filled room!

          Paying twice is a big waste of money. But the money isn't being wasted on the second contest. The money was wasted on the first contest, that didn't count.

          by dconrad on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:31:33 AM PDT

      •  it wouldn't help hillary win.

        so what kind of compromise is THAT?

        by amnesiaproletariat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:12:56 PM PDT

    •  Thank You

      As a Michigan native with many family and friends still in Michigan, this has been something that has bothered me a great deal.  Some of my family members voted in the Republican contest because the Democratic one was a "beauty contest".  If there's a do-over many are demanding that people who made that logical decision should be shut out from the new contest, which isn't fair.  

      by karateexplosions on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:23:39 PM PDT

      •  This can possibly be fixed

        by allowing for a closed primary, with no-questions-asked with regards to previous crossover voting. I hope/would think that there are no state laws against this.

        by Jaiwithani on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:48:36 PM PDT

        •  There's no good notion of "closed" in Michigan

          This primary was the first time someone in Michigan had to declare a party preference to the state.  Releasing who declared themselves to be of what party is the subject of an ACLU lawsuit, and other aspects of this have made it up to the Rethug-loaded Michigan State Supreme Court.  

          Michigan folks historically never had to declare any party affiliation.  They just got a ballot and voted.  Besides the primary being meaningless, the business about declaring party preference turned a lot of Michigan people off.  I suspect even some Republican turnout was depressed because of the notion of having to declare a party.

          by other72384 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:20:13 PM PDT

          •  Fairness can never be restored

            The opportunity to do it right was lost.  Anything that happens from now on is a compromise that will favor some more than others.
            That being the case, let's end the quibbling and do what favors the party and the American people most seems lkely to be for the greatest good.  To me, that would seem to be a rapid resolution of this hurtful campaign.  Seat the 50/50, shut up, and move on.
            This election should have been a cake walk for the democratic party, but between childish behavior in states like Michigan and Florida, and a Clinton campaign which can't see the forest for the trees, it may be a bit of a struggle.
            It's time to stop shouting "I want what I want" and start the campaign against Bush-lite and the regressive politics throughout America.

            by Andhakari on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:13:59 AM PDT

    •  I do care about that

      I care about that a lot. The current results are obviously undemocratic. So is a 50/50 split. I'd argue that the 50/50 split is worse (at least in Florida) - it makes sure that no voters in the two states have a say.

      Revotes would be ideal, but that might not be possible at this juncture.

      Michigan is getting totally screwed here - and I believe that if they got fair elections, Obama would win them. Alas.

      by Jaiwithani on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:23:53 PM PDT

      •  Which shows

        that unlike the other candidate, perhaps Obama's actually taking a principled stand.

        There is no way any deal with Florida and Michigan changes the dyanamic of this race other than giving Clinton another bogus excuse to extend this race and move the goal posts yet again. SHE LOST TEXAS- remember when that mattered?

        by Joe Willy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:49:26 PM PDT

        •  Democracy is more important than that

          Yes, it may let Clinton needlessly drag out the election for a bit longer. But DEMOCRACY IS IMPORTANT. Standing for the idea of democracy is more important than any single candidate or primary result.

          Obama's going to be the nominee. As a year-long backer of him, that makes me happy. But I want him to win after fair elections in all 50 states.

          We should be in favor of primaries regardless of who the candidates are, or who they might help. It's just the Right Thing To Do.

          by Jaiwithani on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM PDT

    •  That's really not fair to accuse kos

      of not caring.  You have no idea what is in his heart.  Back off please.  Trying to come to a compromise doesn't mean one doesn't "care" about the needs of one group involved in th compromise.  A good compromise actually results in all sides feeling they lost  (or won depending on how their brains are wired - not so much depending on the outcome).

      by fayea on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:25:28 PM PDT

      •  DD isn't accusing Kos of not caring

        He's accusing me of not caring, on the grounds that I think awarding a net 0 delegates between the two states without holding fair elections is blatantly undemocratic. Possibly expedient, not democratic.

        Disclaimer: long-time Obama supporter.

        by Jaiwithani on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:42:37 PM PDT

        •  Fairness is no longer possible

          Fairness is what happens when everybody follows the rules in a spirit of compassion and fair play.  The rules were broken in an effort to gain advantage.
          Now all we can do is move on to resolution and healing -- hopefully as soon as possible.

          by Andhakari on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:18:39 AM PDT

    •  giving the 1/2 vote keeps the delegates

      in ratio to the actual vote, but lowers the total number of delegates Hillary would have gotten, 19 instead of 38. No reward for Hillary this way. Making alot smaller dent in the delegate difference between Hillary and Obama when they are applied. From the polls today, Hillary would still probably win Florida, and she would get delegates. This puts a check on them.

      With polls showing Hillary and Obama neck and neck in Michigan, a 50/50 seating is probably fair, and whole lot cheaper than a new vote.

      Plus this gets this problem off the table, and stops speculation. Hillary and Obama could actually address issues, and the democratic party would not look so out of control. (well, I don't know if the not looking out of control is possible for democrats.)

      by Sherri in TX on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:35:01 PM PDT

      •  good point

        can't we have some civil discourse between the candidates in which a solution is brokered? I mean, they are politicians and their job is to smooth out this political machinations stuff, right, i mean... surely they can work with people in their own party, right?

        by potty p on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM PDT

        •  This is a good chance for Barack

          to show us how he is going to work with republicans and solve some of our intractable problems after he is elected!

          by Sherri in TX on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:47 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        I saw this earlier and thought that, overall it is probably the best of all the evils.

        I wouldn't mind seeing that 19 delegate grab for HRC knocked down to something like 15...but I guess 19 is better than 38.

        All in all, with 161 pledged delegate lead, if Obama signed on to this, giving up 19 from FL and let's say she nets about 23 from PA, he still up 119 and then heads into states like NC, IN, etc. where he could take back some of that.

        In the end, he still will have the pledged delegate lead.

        by oxfdblue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM PDT

      •  Okay I'm convinced.

        But Debbie Wasserman-Schultz still annoys the living hell out of me. More than anyone except Bill Press.

        by malharden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:02:02 PM PDT

        •  (as long as Supers don't count) n/t

          by malharden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:04:37 PM PDT

          •  Yes the supers in FLA/MI must go

            There must be punishment for those that were the prime culprits in this mess.  The supers in FLA/MI must remain stripped of their status.

            by True Independent on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:15:35 PM PDT

        •  She is bad

          and her tan-in-a-can was not wearing well today.

          by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:06:50 PM PDT

        •  More than Ferraro? nt

          by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:27:50 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      Token Michigan guy here, I want to be able to vote to not matter.

      Obama '08, and all :)

      by aerojad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:38:06 PM PDT

      •  Awwww!

        Now I want to fight for your right to not matter!  Or to want to have babies!  Or something!  LOL

        by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07:53 PM PDT

        •  It's good to see this bring out the best...

          ...in all of us.  Wink wink, nudge, nudge.  haha

          by aerojad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:54:47 PM PDT

      •  How about I adopt you?

        Then you could not matter in Virginia with the rest of us.

        by Catatonia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:23:12 PM PDT

        •  Deal, pending...

          ...pending if there's an entry level tech job there, since there are none here.

          by aerojad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:57:23 PM PDT

      •  Vote twice in the general election!

        by Andhakari on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:11:08 AM PDT

    •  I'm in Michigan

      and I had lunch to day with many people of various political stripes who all work at a small town newspaper. It was asked how many of us voted in the primary and only one raised their hand. Too many people don't understand that people in Michigan knew the vote was a sham, knew ahead of time that there was no way to separate Edwards and Obama in the Uncommitted tally, and so many supporters of both of those candidates chose not to vote. It didn't help that many were upset of the closed primary process which allowed the political parties to acquire private ownership of voter lists based on a publicly-funded election. It was a sham. Hillary Clinton never spoke up about Michigan ONCE until after she had won here. She cannot honestly portray herself as only caring about the supposed disenfranchisement of a Soviet-style election in which she was the only top candidate on the ballot.

      But let's quite falling for the Clinton campaign narrative that Michigan and Florida could possibly change the outcome of this election which is already over since Clinton cannot reach 2,025 without Michigan and Florida or 2,208 with them barring a major slime job against Obama in order to show SDs how "weak" he is. Obama's campaign needs to get on the offensive and quit reacting- frame the endgame.

      by Joe Willy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:46:28 PM PDT

    •  This is a solid deal

      Something this inane has the potential to be th straw that breaks the party's back. It is imperative that we get the Michigan and Florida mess behind us. This is a relatively fair deal; it reflects that Clinton won, but it does not give her an overwhelming delegate edge (which seating Michigan delegates as is would).

      I would only make one change to this deal: make Michigan's delegates have half a vote each too. That punishment should be uniform across both states in my view. (I say this as an Obama supporter, even though doing that would be to increase Hillary's advantage by 40).

      Still, this is a fair deal. It should be taken. We need to start talking about the issues and stop talking about the process. We're entering the period where our party is looking like it is disconnected from the real pains of America...

      by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:47:49 PM PDT

      •  how can you say she won...

        ... when i stayed home in florida because i kept hearing that IT WOULDN'T COUNT?!  this is garbage!  fair's fair and rules are rules!

        by the disinfector on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07:51 PM PDT

        •  Someone

          has to do something with the Edwards voters in FLA as well.  He got 14% of the vote, this deal basically disenfranchises 14% of those who even bothered to vote in January (oh and lets not forget the 3% Kucinich got)

          by True Independent on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:17:08 PM PDT

          •  Neither met the 15% threshold for viability

            And that means no delegates. Edwards was above in a couple districts. Kucinich was not even close in any districts.

            by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:31:28 PM PDT

        •  This doesn't influence the outcome of the nom

          And it prevents a revote in June, which would grant these states the honor of going last and the power that comes with it. It makes the elections insignificant (less influential than Maryland alone), but not completely irrelevant. It allows for there to be Michigan and Florida delegations at the Convention and it gets rid of this bogus process issue...

          by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:35:10 PM PDT

      •  you're no Obama supporter

        No Obama supporter would say that Clinton won in Florida and Michigan.  This is just more Clinton sophistry.

        by Andhakari on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:15:34 AM PDT

    •  Who is disenfranchised again?

      We forget that voters in both states were told their votes would not count. They knew their votes would not count. They voted anyway, just for the sheer thrill of participating, giving moral support to their candidates, whatever. And that should be applauded.

      But there is no disenfranchisement. You don't volunteer at the soup kitchen and then return when you need the money and say "I need the money, pay me." It doesn't work