Why Obama is Lukewarm on a New Florida Election

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM EST
Tags: Florida 08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Despite Big Tent Democrat's five posts on Florida here today, not all has been said.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's campaigns are now okay with a second Florida primary:

Now the Clinton campaign has begun expressing openness to a do-over. "Let's let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it," said Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe Tuesday night on MSNBC. "Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let's do it."

Obama's campaign says it would participate if one is decided upon by the Party, but is not going to do anything to make it happen. It sounds decidedly luke-warm on the prospect:

"We're going to abide by their rules as they exist now and whatever happens in the future," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Wednesday.

"I don't think it's for our campaign or her campaign — we're in a heated contest here — to have to be the facilitators here," Plouffe said. "This is between the DNC and those state parties."

It makes sense Obama would be only luke-warm to the idea. Just look at the results from the Florida primary, a scant 5 weeks ago. He won only the northern counties closest to Georgia and the deep south. He won no county below the top of the state.

[More...]

In addition to the counties Hillary won, here are some statistics, according to her campaign:

Hillary will end up with more votes than John McCain.

She won women, men, and just about every age category. She won the youth vote.

She won 6 in 10 Latinos and nearly 3 in 10 African American voters.

More than 1.5 million Democrats voted today, more than twice the number of voters in the 2004 primary.

Among those who decided on Election Day, a plurality of those chose Hillary.

I think Obama has much more to lose than Hillary if there's a new Florida election and his response shows he knows it.

My view remains there is no need for a new Florida election: The first one should count. The voters spoke. Hillary and Obama were both on the ballot. Floridians turned out in record numbers.

So the candidates didn't personally campaign in the state. Floridians weren't living in caves and had full access to numerous televised debates and news of the candidates campaigning in other states.

Florida didn't move the election up to beat Iowa or New Hampshire. The state's Republican dominated legislature forced it on them. It was the DNC who penalized the Florida Dems because the party wanted Iowa and New Hampshire to go first. The DNC was wrong.

It's evident from the high turnout in the Florida primary -- 1.7 million Democrats voted in a primary that was not open to Independents-- that Floridian Democrats came out in record numbers. They voted early, voted absentee and voted on their primary day. In all, 4 million voters voted on Jan. 29, 41% of all registered voters. That's a huge percentage for a primary.

Hillary got 871,000 votes, 49.8% and Obama got 576,000 votes, 32.9%. The Florida delegates should be awarded consistent with those votes. They should be counted. No new elections.

< What A Way To Pick A Nominee | An Evening Open Thread >

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.

Why Obama is Lukewarm on a New Florida Election | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This is my passion!! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:59:04 PM EST

cool state (none / 0) (#7)
by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:06:40 PM EST

lousy basketball team...


: ooooooh (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:10:23 PM EST

McCain and Republican Nat. Comm (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:10 PM EST

must be enjoying this a great deal. DNC spends its money remedying its mistake, and goes broke for the GE.

We are enjoying creating (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:10 PM EST

a history of Democratic primary pathetic spending aren't we? Finally we have more money than we can spend and we immediately set out to prove that wrong ;)


helps in a slow economy (none / 0) (#21)
by joei on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:23:02 PM EST

: Ah, the trickle-down economic theory (none / 0) (#25)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:25:50 PM EST

of Reagan, supported by screwed-up Dems. The irony.

Stay on topic please (none / 0) (#28)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:28:17 PM EST

we only have 200 comments per thread. When people chatter off topic, it not only distracts from the subject matter it limits others' ability to reply. Thanks.


So (none / 0) (#36)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:40:28 PM EST

if Obama would bow out of the race, the Party would be in better shape. No?


Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:15:07 PM EST

I believe strongly that if Michigan is re-run, it will look almost exactly like Ohio. Thus it's probably not in Obama's interest to re-run either state, as the whole world will be focused on the results and they are unlikely to look good. In terms of demographics, Hillary obviously has few states as favorable as Florida.

The problem is that the party who refuses a reasonable settlement of the issue ends up looking much worse in the court of public opinion. Obama mostly has the high ground right now with his "rules are rules" position, but that goes away if he refuses to take a deal that would eliminate the disenfranchisement problem. And of course, Hillary just builds on her presumed lead in MI and FL the more she expresses how happy she would be to re-vote and let the people have their say.

I think I agree with BTD in that, while Jeralyn is right that there is no real "reason" to have a do-over in FL, it's still necessary to do so in the name of legitimacy. An overriding concern in this process ought to be reaching a result that everyone can live with, if we can get there in a reasonable way. That's one reason why all of our arcane rules and bizarre state election structures are such a bad idea - any time a consensus nominee doesn't emerge on their own, you don't have any sort of transparent process. We might as well go back to the smoke-filled room when no one expected fairness.

If BTD is correct and I believe he was (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST

Fla voters and Party officials did nothing wrong and Dean Brazil have no right to not seat their delegates other than a clear conflict and abuse of the National Committee. Any remedy must address this wrong.


A friend has a close connection (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:55:20 PM EST

to someone in the Democratic state party, and from her I've always had the impression that the Republican dominated legislature pushed the Dems into the early primary date, and that they were simply unable to push it back. Then the DNC said, have a separate Dem primary at a later date. The local party said, we can't, if we do it on the same day as the GOP the state pays, if we do it another day we have to pay. The DNC said tough nuggies. They could have offered to pay for at least part of a later primary. But nooooo.

I'm sure there are other stories floating around about exactly how we got into this mess, but the only one I hear over and over is "we didn't think it would matter."


: the repubs put the primary date (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:00:09 PM EST

on a bill that required a paper trail from all votes on machines. To go on record against such a bill in a state such as FL would have been political suicide.
So, yes, they forced the dems into voting, then when the dems filed a lawsuit, an obnoxious repub judge basically slapped them down like bad monkeys.
Of course, the key out of this is the DNC rules, which seem to be selectively enforced. They allow a state party to be excused from the pre-super Tuesday stipulation if they make all effort to adhere to the law.

Well (none / 0) (#24)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:24:27 PM EST

Florida voters obviously did nothing wrong. But the point is that the "legitimacy" of seating FL is not something you or I get to unilaterally determine. The people who object are not just a couple cranks; there's a widespread expectation that the FL primary isn't going to count.

Now, if Obama refuses to accept a do-over, and the DNC shrugs its shoulders and seats the FL delegates because it has no other choice, people are going to be a lot less sympathetic to his concerns.


I agree with Jeralyn 100%. (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by ivs814 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:07 PM EST

1.7 million Democrats voted breaking turnout records. Weren't they encouraged by the Florida Democratic Party to come out? Why wasn't South Carolina punished for moving their primary up?

: That is an excellent question (5.00 / 6) (#45)
by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:49:56 PM EST

I never understood why SC didn't get punished but Florida did. Because SC is more important in the GE than Florida, Florida, Florida?
I agree with Jeralyn that no re-do is needed in FLA. Michigan is another story. But Obama's apparent reluctance to have a re-do is very telling. He had the Big Mo, remember, when the Florida primary occurred; he had just trounced Clinton in SC. I don't think he'd do better this time around.
Really, what is most important to me is making sure that we get high Democratic turnout in Florida and Michigan in the GE. I don't understand why the DNC let this get so out of control -- "We didn't think it would matter" doesn't cut it -- and I wish we didn't have to spend money on a re-do, but the most important thing is to get the Florida Dems to come out in the fall.

: Agree (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by 0 politico on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:58:21 PM EST

I'll second that.
Why put party money into a redo, other than for economic reasons - is tourism that off in Florida this year?
Besides, then you will have to come up with a rational, suitable solution. It should be open only to previously registered democrats (possibly new registrants that vow that this is not a one vote deal). Or, open only to those that actually voted in the previous primary. What about those that will be absent on the redo? Do those who voted absentee the first time have to re-vote? It sounds odd to make them vote over.
It could well be a mess, and you have to guarantee that you will prevent Republicans from finding some way to stir this pot?

I (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:37:16 PM EST

agree that there's no need for a new primary in Florida. Obama's name was on the ballot and he campaigned in FL more than Hillary did. He was the first one to campaign in that state.

Of course, it could be that his campaign thinks if he could go there in person, he could infect Floridians with his "charisma." Whatever.

Obama is getting boxed in (5.00 / 5) (#35)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:39:08 PM EST

Clinton is going to nail two points home all week (when she's not asking about Rezko): 1. the demographics in FL and MI look great for Clinton and she is ready for a re-play (except a challenge similar to Ohio, "Meet me in FL and MI!" and lots of "I won it before and I'll win it again" stuff-maybe "re-elect Clinton" bumper stickers?) and 2. Obama is disenfranchising voters because he knows that he will lose and thus is jeopardizing the unity of the democratic party (nicely putting his own charge back on him).

The only way I see for Obama to come out of this without looking bad is to agree to a revote.

And... (5.00 / 6) (#37)
by Andy08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:41:00 PM EST

Obama was the only candidate to air TV Ads in Florida ahead of the primary (as part of a national buyout). These aired on MSNBC & CNN.

His camp says the networks said he couldn't take FlL out of the national buyout. Other reports I read said this was not true that the networks could have taken a region that included FL out (and didn't include any other state with a primary at that time).

I don't know the truth.. but it goes against the argument that "voters didn't know him" or who he was and that "he didn't have a chance to bring his message to voters".

I agree with Jeralyn's position on this 100%.

Obama should be worried now that Momentum (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by DemBillC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:41:21 PM EST

has shifted.
The new Gallup National poll out today-
Clinton 48% (+3)
Obama 44% (-1)

: and that was before the voting on March 4th (none / 0) (#53)
by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:03:52 PM EST

It shouldn't be the candidates' (5.00 / 6) (#40)
by Coldblue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:43:08 PM EST

decision. The DNC needs to eat some humble pie and seat the delegates from Florida.

I thought that a key point of the 50 State Strategy was a decentralization of national control; maybe I'm not getting it.

You're getting it (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST

The DNC is not.


: Have you convinced BTD yet? (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:00:28 PM EST

From an AP Article I Saw... (none / 0) (#58)
by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:36:41 PM EST

From the end of Jan., the state Dem. leaders of both FL and MI fully expected that the eventual nominee would ask for the delegates to be seated. Surely there was a reason they thought that?


Neither State Thought That The DNC Would be (none / 0) (#63)
by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:56:54 PM EST

stupid enough to concede their state to the Republicans by not seating their delegates.


In other words (none / 0) (#74)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:00:12 PM EST

both states felt that they could flout the rules and that the DNC wouldn't have the backbone to stop them.

Yes that is behavior we really need to reward.


: Except if you read (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by jen on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:31:56 PM EST

what Jeralyn wrote, it was the FL State Repub Legislature that set the date. Back when they passed it, that's when the DNC should have addressed it. There is no reason FL Dem Party and FL voters should be punished for this.

My biggest worry (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Lil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:46:46 PM EST

is that whatever the powers-that-be decide, about 50% of the Democratic party is going to completely flip out...give a point or two.

They'll get over it (none / 0) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST

50% of the party has flipped out before. With Hillary in the race and making fighting sense on many important issues I'm beginning to feel like a Democrat again. Perhaps I should return to the party soon and if I do all I can say is how mental have we become to be so terrified of our ownselves?


In 1980 they didn't get over it (none / 0) (#60)
by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:42:08 PM EST

Many will get over it (none / 0) (#72)
by jen on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:48:00 PM EST

but have you been to that big orange place lately? Don't think they'll be getting over anything if O isn't the nominee.


: Trying to hang at Orange is (none / 0) (#94)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:30:23 AM EST

like trying to caucus lately, bullies everywhere ;) Living an authentic life can be challenging at times like this but everyone will survive because the other choice of not surviving isn't that great. We really aren't as tender and fragile as those who want this race over today are trying to dictate. We've survived Clarkies (which I was) and the Dean scream already in the blog world and we'll survive this.

Most Democrats (none / 0) (#75)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST

will vote in November for the Dem PROVIDED neither candidate or the DNC does anything really stupid. That is a big conditional.

FTR, if your party allegiance is tied to Hillary Clinton you really aren't a Democrat at all. Sounds like you're one of those Independents that are so frequently derided around here.


i'm a solid democrat, sure, but i'm not (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by kangeroo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:17:56 AM EST

about to follow party loyalty over a cliff, either. i mean, while i'm personally willing to force myself to vote for obama if he's the nominee, i don't begrudge others for refusing to do the same. he's given hillary supporters--many of whom started out liking him--too many reasons to dislike him.


: I plan to personally hound (none / 0) (#87)
by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:52 AM EST

any potential defectors with one phrase: SCOTUS.

I became an indy when (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:33:46 AM EST

the Dems continued to give Bush all the Iraq money without oversite he wanted....spineless! I'm a soldiers wife, my spine was conflicting with their lack of spine and we did not match anymore at all and I did not want to be affiliated with them.


: I can respect that. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:05:31 AM EST

Honestly I was always Indepdendent until the past few years, eventhough I was always a Liberal. The lies of the GOP pushed me over the edge.

Long story short (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:24:44 PM EST

Why is Obama against a do over in Florida?

Because he'll lose.

Did I get that right?

;)

Short Story Long (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:19:18 PM EST

Yes Obama will likely lose but he has everything to gain and little to lose overall. There has never been a time that a state wasn't seated at the convention. The greatest move for Obama right now is to come out in favor of a re-vote. He will look like a champion of the voters and likely lose by far less than he did the first time after he campaigns here.

Obama needs to win over as many voters in Florida as possible in case he is the ultimate nominee. My last memory of Obama speaking about Florida was..."Florida votes don't count". That is not the way you want to be remembered if you are on the ballot in November.


: He does have something to lose. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by corn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:02:39 PM EST

If there is a second vote in Florida, the voters will feel that the real reason is because Obama didn't agree to accept the results of the first one. No one is trying to appease the DNC at this point. It's all about the two campaigns and their agreement will resolve the issue.
I suspect that as the Obama campaign senses the inevitability of a re-vote, he'll confess how silly that really is and support seating the existing delegates.

: Exactly! (none / 0) (#73)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:59:16 PM EST

Obama's biggest concern is that they seat Mi and Fl as is. That would be something like a 70 delegate swing most likely, since he isn't even on the ballot.
A revote doesn't hurt him too badly. While he would probably still lose in Florida he would almost certainly close the 17 point gap he had in the uncontested race. Michigan he could win. On the whole he would probably lose very few delegates. And regardless of what people on the Interwebs think, if Obama has a 100 delegate lead after the primaries he will be the nominee.
He's staying out of the matter because nothing he says will help him much and a lot of things he might say could hurt him.

Jeralyn, (5.00 / 4) (#83)
by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:08:10 AM EST

You are dead on here, and I agree with you.

A revote by caucus is simply ridiculous, it disenfranchisizes so many groups of people, including those stationed overseas.

Who would pay for a primary?

If the re-do primary is not heavily advertised, it will have a very low turn-out, which will question its legitimacy. If it is to be advertised heavily, who pays for it?

Plus, do you think voters will love the fact that they just voted, and now they have to re-vote??

Florida should be counted as it is. The rational? The original punishment was unduly harsh and unjustified. The Florida got no campaign visits, no ad revenues, and no attention, and no momentum to its candidate. This prisoner has served his time. Time to end it and seat Florida delegates.

The counties Obama won (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by glennmcgahee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:07:00 AM EST

The counties in Florida that were won by Obama would never in a million years vote for a democrat in the General Election. They are the same counties that gave us 2 terms of George W. Bush, 2 terms of Jeb Bush, and the current Florida state legislature with a Republican governor. They will be overwhelmed this year by the mid and south Florida Democrats. We are fired up and ready to go. We outnumber them bigtime and are very tired of being disenfranchised. Clinton is our girl.

the Florida memo (none / 0) (#2)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM EST

Coral Gables brought to TL's attention stated that both candidates had to participate in the solution.

Based on the Obama statement, it seems to me that he is not eager to participate.

Deal breaker.

: HRC is playing this well again (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:02:42 PM EST

per Jeralyn's quote here, saying let the people decide. Obama, not so much -- but heck, he's got the DNC on his side.

: but it also said (none / 0) (#4)
by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:03:00 PM EST

that if both candidates didn't agree, FL would push to seat delegates as they are from the original primary. I can only imagine this means law suit.

: bit of game theory (none / 0) (#12)
by joei on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST

i think they are looking at how it will look if there is a reelection and they loose AGAIN. loosing twice will look really bad vs once. :)
they might be thinking the delegate lead marketing is going to get pounded if they keep loosing key states

The Clinton side has the upper hand in Florida (none / 0) (#6)
by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:05:20 PM EST

The moral argument for seating the delegates is with Hillary and Obama should be JUMPING at the chance for a re-vote, not hedging on it.

Doesn't he realize that the delegates WILL be seated one way or the other and that there is ZERO chance he will ever win a general election (or even a Florida re-vote) if he continues to look so eager to ignore the voters there?

he just doesn't understand (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:09:32 PM EST

face-saving. The luke-warm statement is right up there with "you're likable enough" and being such a sore loser. People watch these things. They don't want to perceive pettiness in their potential leaders (at least democrats don't; apparently repubs eat it up). Obama's people assume that because they say a situation is one way that everyone else will fall in line. Granted, the press has followed the lead pretty closely, but now that they're not in lockstep, Obama doesn't know how to take back control.

This goes back-yet again-to the "seasoning" problem. Obama is not seasoned enough to know how to work this campaign.


: He can take all this in and show me he's (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:59 PM EST

seasoned. This is all his opportunity to show us all he can walk a tough guantlet as one poster already said about Clinton. Show me Obama that you can have a bad day and be presidential and do the next right thing when you feel like everything has gone wrong for you ;)

I predicted (none / 0) (#13)
by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST

Obama would say "no do-overs."

I was corrected by an Obama supporter who said they'd all (presumably Obama, his campaign, and all his supporters) jump at the chance to have another vote in Florida.

(making popcorn)

Wonder (none / 0) (#34)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:38:42 PM EST

what would happen in MI? Big AA population in that state.


Not that big (5.00 / 0) (#44)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:48:55 PM EST

Roughly the same as Ohio. The AA vote is concentrated in Wayne County, which already had a very strong turnout in the January primary (due to GOTV by Obama surrogates), so you can see that it only counts for so much.


Although HRC got more than 50% (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:57:33 PM EST

in MI in January, there was a large "uncommitted" vote. Now, the uncommitteds weren't all Obama supporters -- JE was still in the race then, and his populist platform presumably resonated there.

A lot has happened between then and now, but my guess is that Hillary would win if MI were done over, but perhaps not as much of a blow-out as Ohio.


: Also (5.00 / 0) (#67)
by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:31:28 PM EST

Kos was urging Dems to vote for Mittens just to keep him in the race, since their preferred candidate was not on the ballot.
This may not have been a big factor, but it was there.

: My uncomitted vote was for JRE (5.00 / 5) (#71)
by clio on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:36:51 PM EST

Obama wasn't big in my area and still isn't. Hillary, and every one calls her that, is not only popular, even with Republicans, but admired. The general feeling seems to be that she has endured a lot and come up ladylike and smiling. Not only that, she's smart with good ideas for jobs, housing and health care.
As far as the delegates, my 90 year old mother is just livid at the idea that her vote, and she supports Hillary all the way, might not count. If Howard Dean ever gets within tongue shot he's verbal toast. Over at Michigan Liberal someone said that Granholm was supporting caucuses as the Michigan re-do because of the expense.
Mother, and I, are both strongly opposed to caucuses. She because she doesn't want "all the neighbors knowing" how she votes - not that she won't tell them if they ask - and I because I clearly see how many people they disenfranchise.
For example, I could survive a caucus, but Mother would never make it. Mentally sharp as she is she's physically frail and tires too easily to endure the crowds, the noise, the physical stamina, and the time that caucuses require.
One of the unmentioned reasons that Obama has done so well in caucuses is because they're more a young person's game. Older people with their often decreased vision, hearing, and balance have trouble negotiating crowds, understanding speeches when there's lots of background noise, and hate repeatedly having to ask for explanations. They like to sit and look at a piece of paper, think a bit, ask for some help if they need it, decide at their own pace, then vote. But that's not a reason to disenfranchise them, is it? Nor is there good reason to disenfranchise the many others for whom the caucus format is unworkable.
If running a new election is going to cost the state money surely the campaigns and the DNC could figure out a method of reimbursement.
And for the gods' sakes the DNC need to fix this primary mess before 2012.

Florida Legislature (none / 0) (#15)
by miked on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:15 PM EST

Considering that the early primary was forced by the Florida legislature, it is pretty clear that the DNC handled this the wrong way. Meanwhile, the damage is done, and it is too late to sort out exactly what the impact of the DNC action was on the voters.

Just how costly is it to run another Florida primary? Is it really that prohibitive? A re-run doesn't leave anyone the ability to claim foul play. It seems to me that the results would have to be accepted by everyone.

I heard today that it'll cost $18 mil to (none / 0) (#20)
by ivs814 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:22:58 PM EST

redo Florida.


I heard (none / 0) (#22)
by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:24:05 PM EST

I heard it will cost about $18M (which I have in my back pocket).


: The GOP Should Pay (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:30:25 PM EST

Their majority state legislature was the one to decide on the early primary.

: I bet we could fundraise that in 5 days (none / 0) (#59)
by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST

judging from both campaigns' abilities to raise money on the internet. Speaking of which, have the Obama fundraising numbers for February come out yet?

So what about the Edwards delegates (none / 0) (#17)
by s5 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:20:34 PM EST

Who would they get awarded to (or what would happen to them), assuming no revote? Interesting to consider.

: Edwards would get them (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:43:32 PM EST

since he only suspended his campaign. Then if we later says he supports a candidate and would like his delegates to go to them, then it's up to the state rules, dnc rules, etc. on what happens to those delegates.

Obama only won in northern counties (none / 0) (#23)
by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:24:16 PM EST

connected to 3 universities.

: I wondered about that (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by MichaelGale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:48:39 PM EST

because I was under the impression that N.FL Panhandle is so Republican. I mean the neocon Republican types.

24 hours (none / 0) (#27)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:28:08 PM EST

And Team Obama will be screaming for a re-vote.

It takes them a while to think these things through.

Yes. I know. That was condescending. But once they realize Florida ia going to count one way or the other, it'll dawn on them that a revote is in their best interest, creates a net positive for them, and then that's what'll happen.

Now. I agree with Jeralyn, even though I think that's what will happen, it's true Floridians don't live in caves, had total access to the candidates through the media, had all the information that all of us had at the time they went to vote, and neither candidate spent any money or time there more than the other.

Net positive (none / 0) (#39)
by Lil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST

I am actually starting to think it may be a net loss for him. I think it is entirely possible Hillary outperforms herself in a do over. I think she's probably won over some folks recently. The folks in Fla. who are worried about electabilty and other issues, as well.


: Obama runs a different campaign (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST

heading into each primary. The problem with the do-over strategy is thatby appealing to one set of voters, he may have lost a different set he didn't think he'd have to woo again. (I firmly believe O has run a primary campaign while Clinton has run a ge campaign; like it or not, they've both pulled just about even with their respective strategies.) A do-over in Florida would put a big kink in his plan.

He's (none / 0) (#31)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:34:34 PM EST

lukewarm because he can't win it--democratically (to quote some idiot on HuffPo).

how many delegates? (none / 0) (#33)
by delandjim on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:38:01 PM EST

I forgot, how many delegates should each have?

: the delegate split for Florida (none / 0) (#86)
by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:30:38 AM EST

here

If I recall (none / 0) (#54)
by Andy08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:06:38 PM EST

correctly; didn't the Dem Party used different wording when they say the would punish FL&MI for moving their primaries?

The wording for MI seemed more definite than what they say about FL (more of a "would" rather than "will")

Does anyone remember this well? at all?

I think... (none / 0) (#55)
by reynwrap582 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:21:40 PM EST

The media should pay for it. I have a feeling that CNN, MSNBC, etc are raking it in with the extra-long primary ratings. Maybe it's time for them to pay us back a little bit for all their meddling!

That said, I'd be willing to donate money to a fundraiser for a new Florida primary, if that's what it takes.

I also think that revote in Florida could hurt Obama even more, with his and his surrogates constantly claiming that they don't count and they broke the rules (when actually it wasn't the 1.7 million Florida voters who should be penalized for it)...unless he's the presumptive nominee. I think at this point, since Hillary has been told by everyone under the sun, he is the "presumptive nominee" and he should stop being a poor sport and seat the dels.

A Florida caucus would be an ABSOLUTE cluster** though.

Unity (none / 0) (#56)
by angst on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:22:37 PM EST

Wow what a difference a day makes.

Clinton entertains thoughts of a "Dream Ticket" and is cool on a re-vote.

Yet when Obama is ask the same questions - he is focusing on winning the nomination and not warming up to a re-vote.

I like this tone of unity coming from Clinton

They both know (none / 0) (#62)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:53:41 PM EST

how to count.

I find it encouraging that Hillary appears to be willing to take the VP role. Hopefully she won't torch the bridge so bad there is no going back.


are you being misleading on purpose? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by diplomatic on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:18:41 AM EST

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt this time. But are you? Because you know that's not what she said. In fact it was much the opposite -- that she believed Ohio has spoken very clearly that SHE should be the nominee.

^^ that is what she actually said so you were either commenting while being woefully uninformed or intentionally distorting things. Neither very good.


: Whatever you want to thin (none / 0) (#97)
by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:34:28 AM EST

This is the quote...

"That may be where this is headed," the New York senator said on the "CBS Early Show." "But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
When running in a tight race you don't talk about how you might take 2nd place unless you think that you are probably wind up in 2nd place.
This is Huckastrategy.

That's not what I saw her say (none / 0) (#78)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:26:04 PM EST

and read that she said. Link?


excuse me, there is no reason for (none / 0) (#90)
by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:56:12 AM EST

hillary to be veep. obama can't win big states. he doesn't look so much like he could beat mccain either.


To me the most important thing (none / 0) (#57)
by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:22:37 PM EST

is to do whatever will minimize the division within the party. Since just seating the delegates as is or seating none of them will totally piss off one side a do over seems like it is in the best interest of the party, regardless of the effect in may have on either candidate.

I heard Dean on NPR and he seemed to be saying there was no way the delegates would be seated as is because rules are rules but coming up with a new procedure to pick them was okay.

I understand the pro Clinton view of why Fla was fair but I think it is key here to take the other sides point of view because we need to keep the party together. In pretty much every state that Obama has campaigned actively in he has narrowed the gap over time. There is every reason to think that an active campaign by him in Fla would have had the same effect. Especially earlier on he was battling Hillary's far higher recognition. Even if you think this is not true you have to recognize that it is not crazy, the other side thinks this, and we have to keep the party together.

To paraphrase Bill, its about November stupid.

: closing the gap (none / 0) (#66)
by Lil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:25:11 PM EST

That trend may not hold up much longer. Clinton may start to re-expand her lead. We should know this within a few days, i think.

I wonder if anyone has thought about (none / 0) (#61)
by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:42:36 PM EST

what the decision reached in this case will mean for the primary schedule in 4 years.

The DNC made the decision it did to keep the schedule from moving back into 2007, and to preserve the position of Iowa and NH at the head of the schedule - going forward, it has to come to terms with that, perhaps re-structuring the whole calendar in some reasonably same way.

And the caucus system just has to go.

Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing that actually come to pass, but it really does need to be addressed.

: frankly, i don't see the need for iowa and (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:57:51 AM EST

nh to be the leaders every four years. let another state have the privilege. rotate!

But isn't there a problem? (none / 0) (#64)
by ItsGreg on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST

We have no idea how many Democratic voters stayed home in Florida because they knew the DNC had stated their delegates weren't going to be seated.

I don't want to see Florida or Michigan voters disenfranchised, but I do think that in order to be sure ALL Florida Democrats have a voice it would be necessary to redo the primary.

They had record turnout. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:38:24 PM EST

Democratic turnout was also up dramatically from 2000 and 2004, with at least 1.7 million voting on that side.

Source


: But that does not tell you (none / 0) (#69)
by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:43:16 PM EST

how many would have turned out if the vote was going to count.

maybe (none / 0) (#77)
by myed2x on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:25:11 PM EST

his campaign just doesn't want to appear to be advocating for one or the other. And, that could be for any variety of reasons.

Rules... (none / 0) (#80)
by smb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:46:41 PM EST

I am not understanding something here... There were rules created by the DNC to stop large states from moving their primaries up. These states violated the DNC rules. Why are we even talking about this? If these were two states that would surely go to Obama would Hillary not being showing the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama is now? This only became something important to the Clinton campaign when it became clear that without these two states it would be nearly impossible for Hillary to win the primary.

It seems to me that Hillary more than just believes she should be president but rather believes that she deserves or is owed the nomination.

Will this be her campaign strategy against McCain? Vote for me because I deserve it?

Errr, no (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:03:52 PM EST

Its because two states crucial to the GE have been unwisely removed from the equation. And because now it matters in such a close race and to not anger millions of people in these states they should be included.

Whether they help one candidate or another is besides the point.


According to Jesse Jackson, Jr., (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:58:58 AM EST

Obama will really care about those voters in the GE.


Understood... (none / 0) (#99)
by smb on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:31:26 PM EST

I get that they are important to the GE. That is a good reason to want to bring them back into the fold. But to me it seems a bit disingenuous to only bring up the issue after they have had their primaries, after they went for Clinton and only after it became clear that without them she couldn't win the nomination.

Being that it is important to seat the delegates what are the options:

Seat them as it stands - in FL this could be somewhat fair, but MI its completely unfair as Obama followed the rules and wasn't on the ballot

Seat them 50/50 - seems the most fair to the candidates, but to some extent puts out the ~10% of people that might have voted the other way.

Rerun the primaries - huge waste of state and dem money, and extends the process much to the Reps delight

Run caucauses in both states - this would clearly be unfair to the clinton campaign.

Let it stand - some people will be upset, but I'm sure the people who would be up about it and be affected probably already are, so the best strategy it would seem would be to stop harping on it and take the candidates out of the picture and push the blame back to the state governments (one of which is Rep and an easy target).

If it is important to seat them and its not about changing the outcome of the nomination then it would seem that the only position to advocate would be to simply split the delegates 50/50 as it disenfranchises the fewest voters, has no impact on the primary race and still allows the DNC to punish these states for moving up their primaries.


what can you be thinking! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:59:48 AM EST

Solutions (none / 0) (#89)
by baltimoron on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:04:36 AM EST

Sack Dr. Dean!

De-list the Florida State Dems who voted for the primaries (or were forced/hoodwinked/cajoled, whatever!), and ban them from the party for at least one election. Let the GOP have them!

A Florida re-vote does not necessarily... (none / 0) (#98)
by Eric NJB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST

clone the original result:

Obama has substantially more name recognition nationally than he did at the end of January.

He would be running against only one opponent now, not two (since Edwards left the race, most of his votes appear to be going to Obama).

Obama improves his numbers everywhere he is able to campaign. Even though he didn't win the popular vote in Texas, you can't argue that the results from Tuesday were the same as they would have been if no one had campaigned there (weeks earlier, Clinton had double-digit leads in both states).