Howard Dean : Doesn't Oppose Seating FL/MI Delegates

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:30:13 PM EST
Tags: Florida 08, Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: Little progress has been made:

"Although there have been a lot of conversations about how to assure that our delegation is seated, the logistics and cost of any firehouse primary may simply be insurmountable," said Liz Boyd, Granholm's press secretary.
...Granholm's comment instantly deflated hopes in Michigan of finding a solution, barely a day after expressions of optimism. "That took the oxygen out of the room," said one Democrat in the middle of the discussions, who talked about the deliberations on the condition of anonymity. "I'm regrouping."

Update: A Michigan state legislator was just on CNN. He said there are no concrete plans for a do-over be it a primary or a caucus. While there have been discussions, nothing has been decided. He is an Obama supporter. He's telling everyone to slow down, a do-over decision (or whether it would be a primary or caucus) is not certain. He also acknowledged that he supported the early primary and the reason for it was to be more relevant. He said they made their bed, they will lie in it.

Contrast this to Florida where the primary was moved up because the Republican dominated legislature forced the early date on them.

Big Tent Democrat has another update below the fold.

***

Just in from the New York Times:

[Update, 6:30 p.m. The D.N.C. also wants it to be known that Mr. Dean doesn’t necessarily oppose the “re-seating” of these delegates. Mr. Dean offers up the options of a do-over or an appeal to the credentials committee.]

[More...]

While I'm opposed to any do-overs, as I stated in a comment to Big Tent Democrat's latest post, any redo must be a primary, not a caucus. They shouldn't get to redo with a caucus system. Not at this late date.

As a commenter on a Michigan blog pointed out, in the run up to the primary it was made clear that those opposed to Senator Clinton should cast uncommitted votes. I'd rather see Michigan give Obama the uncommitted votes -- that's more than generous since it would be giving him Edwards' votes too.

We've been blasting the caucus system all season. Why should it be okay now? Fewer voters participate in caucuses than primaries. Primaries more accurately reflect the views of all the registered voters in the state.

I say no new election, seat Florida and Michigan. The delegate allotment should reflect the views of the voters on the date the vote was held. A new election is too easily based on factors not in play on the date of the first election. For example, what if Al Gore or John Edwards were to endorse a candidate before the MI or Florida re-vote? That could dramatically alter the results.

I think the DNC credentials committee should lift the unfair penalties it imposed not decide on whether to hold new elections.

Update [2008-3-6 20:36:57 by Big Tent Democrat]: Jeralyn seems to be out so I am adding this Update:

Statement by Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer on seating Michigan's delegates at the Democratic National Convention:

"We are currently in negotiations over the seating of a Michigan delegation to the National Convention. Any resolution must be agreeable to all four interested parties: the MDP, the DNC, and both the Clinton and Obama campaigns because we all want a united Democratic Party in Michigan to ensure a victory for the Democratic nominee this fall. . . . I am confident that we will reach a compromise that will result in Michigan being a full participant at the National Convention."

< Yet Another FL/MI Plan | Obama Advisor Calls Hillary a Monster >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Howard Dean : Doesn't Oppose Seating FL/MI Delegates | 78 comments (78 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

According to Michigan NPR interview I heard today (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Saul on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST

that no one told the candidates they had to remove their names form the ballot. Obama and Edwards did that on their own. Kunichesk name was also on the ballot. The people came out in bad weather and voted. You remove your name from the ballot then that's your bad luck. No one should overturn the Michigan voter's decision.

Well then that means Kucinich is corrupt too (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by blogtopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:28:48 PM EST

right? Obviously he wanted to rig the system, like Hillary and all the other candidates except Edwards and Obama.

I still can't believe that intelligent people are still throwing that old argument around. Obama and Edwards VOLUNTARILY took their names off (and many think Obama was trying to sway the voters in NH by this move, and may have believed this would be the outcome - invalidation of a potential Hillary state). Not to mention the whole 'vote uncommitted for Obama' contingent.

We really have left reason at the door haven't we?


: Plus Kos urged his readers to vote (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM EST

for Romney.

you are correct (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:46:03 PM EST

Hillary and Kucinich did nothing wrong by staying on the ballot. The removal of the others was their decision. No one campaigned in the state.


: Dodd was on the ballot also (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST

: Guaranteed (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM EST

if Obama had won those states no one would be criticizing him for keeping his name on the ballot.

: Agree, (none / 0) (#13)
by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:53:41 PM EST

I think the DNC credentials committee should lift the unfair penalties it imposed not decide on whether to hold new elections.
that was the mistake that needs correcting Jeralyn is correct.

But it's irrelevant (none / 0) (#69)
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:13:06 PM EST

Nobody told anyone to take their names off the ballot. BUT EVERYONE AGREED THAT IT WOULDN'T COUNT.


: I don't believe the voters of MI and FL (none / 0) (#83)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:03:46 AM EST

agreed: in fact, since they voted, I am sure they did not.

Vote by mail (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Alvord on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:55:12 PM EST

It is cheap, fair and secure.

I heard (none / 0) (#70)
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:15:43 PM EST

a vote by mail in Florida would cost the same as a caucus, about eight million dollars. Definitely cheaper than a full election, but still not chump change.


: But at least (none / 0) (#78)
by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:29:48 PM EST

Its more democratic and fair, unlike caucuses.

Jeralyn, Here's a better link (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by LatinoVoter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:12:03 PM EST

to a story on Obama surrogates running ads in MI asking them to vote "uncommitted" so Obama could be awarded those delegates.

Source.

If it was me I wouldn't give him anything because he chose to take his name off of the ballot and disenfranchise voters and didn't give them a chance to exercise their right to vote.

Latino (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST

I think you make a very good point--and agree; however, we have to have a solution that passes the smell test. It would be no good for Clinton to win based on a perceived "stolen" election. And Obama has made no indication that he is willing to give an inch on anything. I think his statements throughout this campaign have proven he's more of the scorched earth type.

The state party in FL listed as their first criteria that both candidates had to agree on the solution.


Ooops. (none / 0) (#39)
by LatinoVoter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:28:33 PM EST

Sorry about the confusion. My sentence above after the "source" was really aimed at the poster above me that said

So give Obama all the uncomms in Mich +15 & all the uncomms in Fl + 20 and it would be fair. No do over = no seat.

I'm not really serious in that he should get nothing...I'm just pointing out that his choice led to his supporters not being able to vote for him.


: oh! (none / 0) (#42)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM EST

I think that the post you were responding to was a joke. At least I hope it was!

UPDATE (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:23:26 PM EST

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

: Jinx (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:24:27 PM EST

I agree with Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Coldblue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST

Seat them, give Mr. Obama all of the uncommitted MI delegates, and let's move on.

No caucus. No primary. No brainer.

And I must say that Gov. Dean has been a little disappointing.

The rules. (none / 0) (#71)
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:33:47 PM EST

There is no legitimacy for any votes in either primary.

A caucus is better than nothing, and a primary seems to be out of the question because no one is going to come up with the money. I suspect that there will be a deal where each delegation will be split evenly so that the states have representation at the convention but no candidate (Clinton) will benefit from the faux primaries.


: Why is it not legitimate? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:31:12 PM EST

People came, people voted. Being stripped does not make the vote illegitimate.

It is not one of those caucuses (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:35:22 PM EST

this one would be a caucus in name only.

See my description of a "firehouse primary."

BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:38:30 PM EST

you trust politicians to not jump from caucus in name only to an awful real caucus in about 5 locations?

You have more faith in them than I do.

As soon as the caucus is even accepted in name, it become an excuse to have a sham election, and give it legitimacy.


Not a matter of trust (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:40:10 PM EST

Consider this, the Governor of Michigan supports Hillary. Clinton won't get screwed here.


There are forces beyond her control (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:44:32 PM EST

Such as new endorsements. Michigan's delegate assignment should reflect the voters' preferences on the day it was taken. What if Gore or Edwards made an endorsement now? That would change things. Should voters in all states get to change their votes based on things that happen after they cast their votes?


: On the conduct of the primary? (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:53:10 PM EST

Granholm will have the final word on that.

The problem with a firehouse caucus (none / 0) (#9)
by frankly0 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:51:25 PM EST

is likely to be in the details.

How many polling places will there be? How easy will it be for people to get to them? How easy will it be for people even to know where they are, and be fully aware that they are not at the traditional polling place? And what will the hours be?

Each one of these issues can turn away a large group of voters. Voter suppression techniques typically work by reducing the participation of certain segments of voters.

Democracy is in the details.


: I think most of them (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:52:31 PM EST

Why (none / 0) (#27)
by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:16:32 PM EST

should it be a caucus? Neither MI or FL are caucus states. If Dean does decree a caucus it will be clear he is trying to give Obama an edge. That's really the whole problem with this election. The Old Men in D. C. cooked up Obama's candidacy and they are going to pull out all the stops, break all the rules, to see that Obama is the nominee. Not my idea of democracy.


: Caucuses are cheaper (none / 0) (#57)
by muffie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST

I believe this is the real reason why many states use them. It's not a very good reason.
Also, historically Michigan has had a caucus rather than a primary. This was the case in both 2000 and 2004.

That may be one idea (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST

but it's not the only one being floated. And it's important for people to know that Michigan had a primary, not a caucus.

Wouldn't it be better? (none / 0) (#8)
by cmugirl on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:49:36 PM EST

Wouldn't it be to Obama's advantage to seat them as is right now? If he gets beat in Florida again, that's a huge story and not a good sign to send the SD.

As someone else suggested on another blog - seat Michigan as is. Obama gets all the "uncommitted" where he makes up for those who didn't vote by getting the Edwards votes.

And, if the argument made by the Obama people is correct, he still is ahead in the delegate count, although by not as much.

Wouldn't it be better not to give Hillary 2 wins in both Michigan and Florida?

and as I just pointed out on another post (none / 0) (#15)
by jes on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:46 PM EST

if he receives all of the uncommited, he also gets 3% of Hillary's voters who went with that option as per the exit polls.


However. (none / 0) (#19)
by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:00:30 PM EST

It doesn't count the people who didn't come out to vote at all because

Their candidate was not on the ballot
They knew the votes wouldn't be counted at all.

Michigan voters were repeatedly told (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:08:34 PM EST

to show up and vote uncommitted if they supported Obama or Edwards.


Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by reynwrap582 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST

That Obama would get 40% of the votes despite only pulling an average of about 20% in the polls leading up to the MI election.


Voting. (none / 0) (#24)
by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:14:01 PM EST

Telling people to vote for no one in a primary that doesn't count does not equal voting in a primary where everyone is on the ballot and counts.

It'd be great if it was, but I think we can all honestly say it's not.


so, you're saying seat Florida. (none / 0) (#26)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:16:03 PM EST

On a personal level. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:20:32 PM EST

I have no problem seating Florida as is. All their names were on the ballot.

I don't mind that Hillary Clinton had a huge advantage in name and personal recognition.

But I'm not the Obama campaign. Nor am I the Clinton campaign that agreed that Florida and Michigan wouldn't be seated.

But yes, I agree. Seat Florida as is.


What about MI? (none / 0) (#32)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:21:29 PM EST

I think. (none / 0) (#41)
by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:29:35 PM EST

I think the candidates should pay for either a direct primary or a mail in primary, 50% from each camp, to get an accurate vote count.

One cannot say that Florida and Michigan must be seated as is and say that that is the only way to prevent disenfranchisement.


Obama is raking in the $$. (none / 0) (#58)
by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:53:12 PM EST

If he wants a do-over in MI, and the candidates agreed to pick up the tab (unlikely), make it proportionate to how much each collected since Jan.


So. (none / 0) (#59)
by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST

You want to unfairly penalise the contributers of his campaign because MI decided to change their primary days.

Why is 50% so unfair? Half to each campaign seems pretty fair to me. This is in the interest of getting Michigan counted accurately right?

Do bear in mind, the rules on the side of not seating them. Forcing campaign contributers to pay for a rewriting of the rules may not be a good thing for the party.


: Actually, I don't think either (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:08:48 PM EST

candidate should pay for any re-dos.

Telling people to show up for a vote that (none / 0) (#38)
by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:27:54 PM EST

doesn't count doesn't make any sense. Deciding later that the vote will count is just dishonest, and the truest sense of disenfranchisement since a lot of people certainly chose to not waste their time on a vote that did not matter.


: If you would like my litany of criticisms (none / 0) (#65)
by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:56:54 PM EST

of Obama, I would be glad to offer them to you.
To address the point, Obama knew some people would go out and vote b/c of habit or to simply make a statement in the beauty contest. As the only major candidate on the ballot, Clinton could not break 60%, which was a statement on her appeal to the state's voters.
That doesn't change the fact that it was a beauty contest. Look at all the people who voted in the WA primary. Having that contest (WA) was nonsense. Do you disagree?

: But the voters DID know (none / 0) (#85)
by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:12:48 AM EST

Except that's why the Obama and Edwards camp made a huge effort to get their supporters to vote "uncommitted" - for when the delegates were eventually seated. If they truly thought the delegates weren't going to be seated, they would have told their supporters to stay home - they didn't do that. It was also all over the media for weeks that a voter could choose "uncommitted". How the voters interpreted that message and the choices they made based on that interpretation should not allow Obama to gain from that. He took his name off the ballot as a tactical decision and it blew up in his face. Does Hillary get a do-over in North Dakota so she can spend more time there?

How does that work? (none / 0) (#84)
by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:08:27 AM EST

The delegates are apportioned based on votes, not exit polls.


I wondered about that myself (none / 0) (#18)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:57:54 PM EST

Wasn't it (none / 0) (#14)
by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:04 PM EST

Michigan's original intention to hold caucuses after Feb.5?

"Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary."

And I wouldn't say that seating every uncommitted delegate is a true representation of the voter's will. Isn't that what we're going for? Representing voters?

I'm stunned that you... (none / 0) (#20)
by sef on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:01:04 PM EST

You know that Mich & Florida were name recognition contest only. When Obama goes on the air his poll numbers generaly jump 15-20 pts. So give Obama all the uncomms in Mich +15 & all the uncomms in Fl + 20 and it would be fair. No do over = no seat.

yeah, right (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by goldberry on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:25:42 PM EST

Most people never meet the candidates. All they know of them is what they see on TV and Obama sewed that up in Florida with a $1.4M cable TV ad campaign. On Kan.29, he had just come of a SC primary that got HUGE headlines and they both had been in so many televised debates it wasn't funny. So, I don't buy this name recognition thing. Florida knew what they were doing. He lost. BIG time. And if he makes them do a do-over, I predict he will lose again. He can't win Florida under any scenario. The only thing he can do is make sure he is on their good side if he needs them in November. The problem with Obama is that he doesn't like the perception of being behind. It kills the buzz that his supporters have been on. They become dispirited and surly.


What (none / 0) (#30)
by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:19:59 PM EST

do you mean when he goes on the air his numbers jump? When Hillary campaigns in person, her numbers jump as witnessed by last Tuesday.


: True (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by hitchhiker on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:26:26 PM EST

and she beat him by 10 points after he outspent her by 3 to 1. So the argument that his numbers just naturally would have been higher if he'd only had a chance to campaign doesn't hold up.
Seat Florida. Do the cheapest possible firehouse primary or whatever you want to call it in Michigan. Move on. We've got more important riddles to solve than how to count delegates, and every day that this story plays is another day for the public to get the message that Democrats are disorganized and silly. End it.

Re: your update (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST

That are reports saying just the opposite that a do over will be announced in days.

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."
. .

Link.

well (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:27:05 PM EST

my LINK was in capital letters, so it matters more. NYAH.


is this still the firehouse caucus? (none / 0) (#44)
by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:31:33 PM EST

: No details are floating around (none / 0) (#46)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:32:44 PM EST

I would think that it would end up being whatever is more advantageous to Clinton as the Dem governor is a big supporter?

: Almost certainly (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:33:49 PM EST

It seems Michigan is going to do the right thing (none / 0) (#45)
by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:32:40 PM EST

and hold a sanctioned contest. Let's hope Florida does the same.

They will (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:33:27 PM EST

Probably a mail in primary.


: Doesn't Oregon do only vote by mail? (none / 0) (#53)
by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:42:10 PM EST

At least FL would have a model to follow that way, hopefully increasing voter confidence. Frankly, based on their luck with chads and computers, maybe FL should consider that method as a regular way of holding elections.

More on the CNN Update (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:32:51 PM EST

well, disproving it:

Statement by Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer on seating Michigan's delegates at the Democratic National Convention:

"We are currently in negotiations over the seating of a Michigan delegation to the National Convention. Any resolution must be agreeable to all four interested parties: the MDP, the DNC, and both the Clinton and Obama campaigns because we all want a united Democratic Party in Michigan to ensure a victory for the Democratic nominee this fall. A McCain presidency would continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration that hurt Michigan jobs, keep health care out of reach for millions, and make our country less safe. I am confident that we will reach a compromise that will result in Michigan being a full participant at the National Convention."

Man! (none / 0) (#51)
by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:35:19 PM EST

We really need Obama to unite us and bring us together before I start losing hope.

Where is he???


He is waiting for you. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST

Seek, and ye shall find.

You are the change you have been waiting for.

;o)


Oh my, if he's waiting for Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM EST

he better settle in for a long wait. :-)


lol (none / 0) (#63)
by hitchhiker on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:28:28 PM EST

thanks for that.


But But (none / 0) (#80)
by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST

I don't like myself! I don't me to be the change I am waiting for!


: You need some hope. Obama will hook (none / 0) (#81)
by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:43:16 AM EST

you up. He's a hopemonger.

Breaking re: MI (none / 0) (#48)
by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:33:01 PM EST

BREAKING: MI Caucus Likely, Says DNC Rules Committee--at the New Republic LINK

Please tell me they mean the Firehouse primary kinda caucus--PLEASE!

: Oh Great (none / 0) (#55)
by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:46:35 PM EST

then he can lock her people out of the caucuses as he did in TX.

Sorry if that was already (none / 0) (#52)
by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST

posted--didn't have time to read all the comments.

But now that I think about it--the whole argument about seating FL & MI is that you can't change the rules. But by having anything other than a primary, as it was originally, IS changing the rules. Right?

: Of course. Now you get it -- (none / 0) (#73)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:57 PM EST

the Dean-and-Donna Rules. Darn similar to the Obama Rules.

: Which means (none / 0) (#74)
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:00:04 PM EST

that you don't want to seat anyone from Michigan and Florida?
How about this? Rules can be changed if everyone agrees.
What the Clinton campaign wanted was to change the rules after the fact when the results were to her benefit after she originally agreed to the rules to not count the results.

I think a mixture of (none / 0) (#61)
by phat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:07:06 PM EST

massive mail-in ballots and fewer polling places for 8 hours would likely work well.

It wouldn't be horribly expensive. How many registered Democrats are there in Michigan?

The hard part would be to find poll workers.

phat

Don't want one. (none / 0) (#64)
by corn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:32:34 PM EST

This has to be the most fascinating bit of the campaign yet. The negotiating that's going on now will be an incredible read at some point.

On Michigan, as with Florida, I doubt it will come down to a re-vote. You have to assume that the process (be it primary, caucus, or some hybrid) will provide roughly the same result as a primary. Obama won't get the gift of a caucus advantage. She's going to get something close to delegates she won the first time. So the decision points for everyone are political. Clinton's negotiating position is infinitely superior. She can't lose with either basic scenario (seat as is, or re-vote). Obama on the other hand loses in both and is trying to figure out which hurts him the least (his winning scenario was to render this point moot by defeating her March 4th).

I'm guessing they're whittling down something like what's been discussed here: Florida as is, and in Michigan Obama takes the lion's share of the uncommitted votes. I'm not saying that's necessarily the fairest deal (it's close), but Obama is in a really weak position.

Fair isn't the operative element. (none / 0) (#75)
by corn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:04:55 PM EST

Whether 'what's happened in Michigan so far' should have an effect on the process is not a matter of fairness. It is a matter of what hurts Obama the least. He will take the existing result if he deems the alternative to be of less value. This debate about the fair thing is interesting but it's not what's driving the issue at the campaigns.

What's amusing to me (none / 0) (#82)
by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:01:18 AM EST

is the notion that only Obama supporters in the Florida primary stayed home. He's the one who is supposedly driving the higher turnouts, with the more dedicated supporters. So what is the reason for Hillary's supporters taking the time to vote and not Obama's?

I'm also really opposed to giving all of the MI uncommitteds to Obama. Edwards was a very viable candidate at the time. I don't see the rationale for that. I'm sure this idea would never fly, but if the polls showed a level of support for Hillary that closely approximated her vote totals, Obama should be given the percentage of delegates that was demonstrated in those polls. Obama supporters seem to like polls, so they should be willing to go along. But rewarding him for making a boneheaded (my new favorite word) move by taking his name off the ballot makes no sense.

Hillary elected not to campaign in some of the smaller states. Should we throw out those votes, as well?