home

Ras MI and FL Revote Polls

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:16:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for Me Only)

Ras has them. In MI:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Hillary Clinton would attract 41% of the Primary Vote while Barack Obama would earn an identical 41%.

In FL:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Sunshine State Primary Vote while Obama earns 39%.

Come on Barack, let's do the revotes. Clinton and Obama should fund them. Now Obama has nothing to fear from this. Let them vote. Full primaries. Let them vote.

< FL And MI Front And Center | Power Resigns From Obama Campaign >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ras MI and FL Revote Polls | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    From the other thread (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    Rasmussen's MI poll was based on the assumption that HALF the Democratic primary electorate would be composed of non-Democrats.  There is virtually no chance that Michigan will hold an open primary or caucus for only one party, since the opportunities for crossover mischief would be insane.

    My strongly held belief, based on 27 years as a Michigander, is that as long as the rules are relatively normal Michigan will look almost exactly like Ohio.  For some reason, I'm seeing a ton of uninformed opinion in the blogosphere saying "Michigan is more like Wisconsin than Ohio" which is really, really clueless.

    I have no iea (none / 0) (#21)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    what the Demographics are but the fact that Hillary was only able to beat uncomnitted by 16 points in Jan does not seem to suggest that Michigan is just like Ohio.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:08 AM EST
    Considering that "uncommitted" includes both Obama and Edwards voters, and Obama had a LOT more GOTV in Michigan than Clinton did, it's absolutely wrong to think of the January results as a floor.  Turnout in January was quite high in Obama's key areas, relative to other parts of the state (Wayne and Washtenaw Counties); don't assume that all of Hillary's voters showed up just because she was on the ballot.

    Parent
    I'm not assuming anything (none / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    You are the one making counter-intuitive arguments based on nothing other than your beliefs.

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    If you make an actual argument, I will present you with evidence until you are maize and blue in the face.

    Is it counter-intuitive to point out that a big chunk of the "uncommitted" voters were Edwards supporters?

    Is it counter-intuitive to point out that Obama surrogates like John Conyers and an ad campaign on black radio went all-out to encourage Obama supporters to vote "uncommitted"?

    Is it counter-intuitive to point out that Wayne and Washtenaw Counties had high turnout compared to the rest of the state, and those are obviously Obama's best areas?

    "Based on nothing other than my beliefs."  Get real.

    Parent

    There are universities aside from UM (none / 0) (#69)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    I should know.  I went there.  How was turnout in Spartyland?

    Parent
    Washtenaw County (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    is strong for Obama not just because of the students, but also the high number of young professionals, so-called "creative class" types, and the like.  Ann Arbor has a culture above and beyond what you'll find in the other college towns.

    One X-factor is whether school will be out by the time MI gets around to holding a revote.  Back in my day MSU actually stayed in session into June, but my impression is they've normalized the calendar by now.  I could be wrong.

    Parent

    Its only counter-intuitive if (none / 0) (#41)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    you either don't know, or don't care to know all the facts of the situation.

    Parent
    It's funny how (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    to Obama supporters, none of the results in FL and MI have any meaning except for her margin of victory over uncommitted.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    how you guys are so adept at parsing meaning out any comment made by an Obama supporter.

    Steve M. suggests that Hillary is going to beat Obama soundly in Michigan and his proof is he lives there.  We are supposed to discard the original vote completely and believe Steve.

    FTR, I don't completely discard the Florida vote.  I 'm fairly confident that Hillary would win a contested Florida.  The only question is by how much.  

    But carry on with your Obama supporter straw man.

    Parent

    Don't be silly (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:54:43 AM EST
    I have never said the original vote should be ignored.  It's a very useful data point.

    Since the operative assumption seems to be that Obama will obviously do better than the 15% gap between Clinton's vote and "uncommitted" in the January election, I have presented you with a number of factors from that election that actually weigh in Obama's favor.

    I don't think anything I've said is particularly tough to understand for a smart guy like you.  I certainly haven't argued that I know the results simply because I live there; in fact I don't live there!

    Parent

    How many states (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    has Hillary beaten Obama by 15 points?  3 states.  

    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#89)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    make too much about the large margins od victory enjoyed by BO over HC (which seems to be the off-hand implication of your comment).

    As I racall most of BO's large wins were in caucus states, and this group has been all over the voracity of how well the easily abused caucus rules in some states really reflect the general populations.  As I recall, BO enjoyed a massive caucus win in Washington State (something like 65 percent), but just a week or two later managed only a 3 or four point win in the "for show" primary.  That does not reinforce the image of a landslide.  We have Texas.  You've got to wonder what the democratic leaderships was thinking there.

    As for the national popular vote, isn't it a virtual toss up at this point?

    Parent

    Both Edwards and Obama (none / 0) (#36)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    surrogates in Michigan vigorously campaigned for an "Uncommitted" vote from their followers. So you can consider the Hillary vote as 16 points more than Obama and Edwards combined.

    Parent
    How do you figure? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    You're saying that being asked to vote for nobody in a primary that doesn't count is a true representation of how the state feels?

    Honestly?  

    Parent

    the post I was responding to (none / 0) (#87)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    said that the outcome of any future Michigan revote could not be compared to Ohio (as another poster had claimed). He supported the claim by pointing out that Clinton beat "uncommitted" by 16 points. I was pointing out to him that an "uncommitted" vote was heavily campaigned for by both Obama and Edwards(after they removed their names from the ballot). In other words, "uncommitted" was not a vote for "nobody".

    I am not saying that Clinton will win a revote in MI, if there is one, by 16 points. I do believe its possible that she could win it at margins similar to Ohio, and to try to glibly claim that the only one she beat in the previous MI primary was "nobody" is to settle for soundbites over substance.

    Parent

    I concur. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    I was born and raised in Michigan. Went to Wayne State there. Segwayed to NYC for 26 years. Ended up in Florida where I've been for 18.

    By the looks of the license plates from snowbirds and conversations in Publix, Michigan moves to Florida for  up to half of every year.

    I have a solution. Seriously.

    Democrats didn't change the Florida primary, no one campaigned, everyone was on the ticket, the turn out was historical, let the vote be counted.

    Michigan should revote by absentee ballot, i.e., by mail, including all registered Democrats. That should cut the cost by 80 per cent.

    Then, elevate Warren Buffet to American Hero and ask him to foot the bill for the good of the nation.

    No, it's not his responsibility. But it would be a fine gift, sealing his place in history as someone who is rich, generous, kind, and exemplifies the American dream. America would give him a standing ovation.

    Not too shabby.

    Parent

    Wayne State! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    "Great school."  [tm Casey Kasem]

    I like your idea.  I'm a little skittish on the vote by mail concept in general, but it seems to work fine in Oregon.  Certainly it's an acceptable solution for this kind of bizarre situation.

    Parent

    How can we make this happen? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    I agree completely. Florida should be seated as is, but even they could vote by mail. Would someone tell me why noone is talking about vote by mail? That is obviously the fairest and the cheapest. What can we do to make that happen?

    Parent
    A fundraiser (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    would be more appropriate.  Something unseemly about candidates paying for elections.

    Good point, even if it is a primary. nt (none / 0) (#31)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:43:01 AM EST


    Parent
    NPR this morning. (none / 0) (#39)
    by liminal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM EST
    On NPR this morning (I think!), one of the reporters remarked the state parties could use soft money to pay for a revote.  Where o where are our Democratic bajillionaires, just when we need them and can really use their money for good?  

    Parent
    That was a report. . . (none / 0) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    on a conversation that Dean and Senator Nelson had yesterday in which Dean pointed out that the state party committee can raise and use soft funds to re-hold the primary.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#59)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    I suggested online (on dK?) some time back that the DNC could hold a "Dollars for Democracy" drive, and I suspect they would get more than enough funding from individuals, corporations, and organizations for do-overs in both states, likely in just a few days.


    Parent
    Even if they don't go into their (none / 0) (#67)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    own pockets, but volunteer their time for fundraisers?

    Parent
    I still think (none / 0) (#70)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    the way to do it, if something like this were the goal, is to set up a single 527 dedicated entirely to funding the two elections, both seed it some, and have both strongly encourage supporters to donate to that 527 through a full-on media blitz.

    It'd make it harder to have arguments about which campaign is paying more or less and whether that might effect the outcome, etc.

    Parent

    They would split it evenly. (none / 0) (#71)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    That would get rid of any bickering over who did more

    Parent
    That is an awful lot of money (none / 0) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    to expect the campaigns to pay for the primaries.  That would be something like 25 Mill a piece.  

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    but if they, say, both put out a call for fundraising specifically for the revotes, I bet that would help considerably.

    I haven't donated to either candidate, but I'd toss in a few bucks to pay for elections if they're the only way to provide legitimacy to the nominee (which is increasingly looking true to me).

    Parent

    I should have read the comments (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:39:00 AM EST
    before posting.

    Seriously, such a revote campaign would further show the country why we need a Democrat as our president

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    it's always, always good to be clearly pro-enfranchisement. And showing them coming together on something for the good of the party and the voters would be terrific, too, for the vast majority of voters out there who aren't rabid supporters of one or the other.

    Doubt it'll happen, but it would be smart IMO.

    Parent

    It would be a thing of beauty (none / 0) (#60)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    and I think it would cinch the presidency for the Dem candidate. (McCain would be virtually forgotten....he almost already is LOL)

    But you're right...I shouldn't get my hopes up.

    Parent

    It would be great for voter participation (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    If each of them went on a fundraiser specifically for this purpose.

    They could call them the "voter enfranchisement tours"

    (of course it would be two tours - both of which would provide an indirect opportunity to show that they can work for solutions for the people)

    Parent

    Firehouse primaries should be cheaper (none / 0) (#3)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    Firehouse primaries would be cheaper, and MI is pretty much broke.

    Parent
    On the other hand, they've been raising bucketfuls (none / 0) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:21:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#9)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    But let's remember that the point is for one of them to win in November.

    Parent
    Dont agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    the point for Nov is to elect the most qualified competent capable truly ethical President of this Country who through tough calls and pride can stunt the decline of our country and if possible in the next 8 years turn the ship around.

    Parent
    True but (none / 0) (#20)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:34:40 AM EST
    none of that will matter if we don't WIN. See: Gore, Kerry.

    Parent
    Agree, so the least similar, should be the nominee (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    who can run up big enough numbers in the big States like Ohio and stunt and fight the shenanigans that will come at her from the RNC and their 527s like Freedom Watch.

    Parent
    I don't think parroting (none / 0) (#56)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    HRC's latest talking points sheds much light on who should pay for re-votes in FL and MI.

    Parent
    These are my points, my thoughts, my State (none / 0) (#85)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    and if I were a voter in Mich or Fla I would already have filed suit against who ever stopped my vote from counting including any Party bosses internal massaged Party rules are not a valid reason to silence any voter ever.

    Parent
    I visited Attorney websites and (none / 0) (#95)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    sent emails to a dozen different law firms nationwide, volunteering to initiate a class action suit on behalf of Florida voters.

    Two firms replied with an "on vacation" automated message. The others never got back to me.

    Can you believe it? No lawyers willing to begin a class action suit on behalf of the people.

    Where is John Edwards when you need him?

    Parent

    What about the ACLU? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:12 PM EST


    Parent
    there already have been lawsuits (none / 0) (#101)
    by delandjim on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    There already have been lawsuits, court said parties have right to make their own rules.

    I think the thing to remember is, it is not the election to office. This is the primary.

    My personal opinion is DNC did the wrong thing. if the had done the half of the delegates things like the Republicans there probably wouldn't be the publicity.

    Parent

    That's part of it too (none / 0) (#23)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    Well, I'm guessing we'd disagree on who that would be :), and heck I'm betting on whether you stressed "qualified" or "ethical" you would get completely different poll results.

    Parent
    I see that Hillary's (none / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    recent comments are starting to have an affect on you.

    The only way the Democrats lose in November is if they form a circular firing squad during the primaries.  So unless you think that John McCain is a better option than Barack Obama, a Pyrrhic victory in the primaries is hardly something you should want to see.

    Parent

    What if one thinks Obama is not (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    qualified? Is it against party principles to say so?
    Obama is far too much like GWBush for my taste: he has a very thin resume, he's extremely arrogant; he's overly dependent on saying that his advisers will fill in the gaps.
    I would say that if your own adviser says you are not prepared for the 3 am phone call, as Susan Rice did, then that's evidence enough for me that you are not ready.

    Parent
    Its against the Rules to think (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    that Obama is not qualified or that he has any weaknesses. Its even worse to mention such things in polite company. You, sir are a "monster"! ;-)

    Parent
    If you want to make this (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    a no holds barred criticism of the candidates, that's fine. We can do that.  

    But don't complain about Obama supporters parroting GOP talking points when you are doing the EXACT SAME THING.

    Parent

    It's not a GOP talking point to ask (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    if Obama is experienced! Geez!

    Parent
    Not against any rules (none / 0) (#63)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    Just interesting how, to score a few points, she's essentially bought into the GOP talking points on "Commander In Chief" and made that small part of the President's job what the whole campaign is now about.  

    Interesting, also, because she and McCain have similar records on these issues and to many supposed progressives there are infinitely more important issues facing America that fear of the next terrorist attack or some mystery 3 am phone call that Bill use to answer.  But now, we're all arguing an issue that the GOP wants us to argue about and are not arguing about issues that we want to argue about.  

    Parent

    There are a lot of national security (none / 0) (#64)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    Democrats. This is not and should not be a Republican issue. To buy into that framing is to plan for defeat.

    Parent
    Might be (none / 0) (#73)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    but IMHO their priorities are skewed.  The national security theme did John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry a lot of good didn't it? Running on "national security", especially against McCain and with a platform of Bush / McCain light, is not going to make the majority of folks who have seen through the terrorism charade very much inclined to vote for her.  Between her and McCain, the "national security" Democrats would probably rather pick McCain because "national security" is his one and only issue.  So, let's just continue playing to the GOP strengths.  Then we can just RIP.

    Parent
    Kerry was a weak candidat with (none / 0) (#77)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    foot in mouth disease. He did not lose because  because he was a hawk.

    Parent
    If you want to argue about another (none / 0) (#74)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    issue, then do so. The Obama campaign can't seem to let this go. Clinton's able to multi-task and argue on multiple issues.

      I don't think the GOP cares what we argue about at this point, and even if they did, so what? We can't talk about certain things because the GOP might want us to? The Rules keep getting longer and longer and stranger and stranger.

    Parent

    She said that neither McCain, Hillary or Obama (none / 0) (#43)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    had experience answering those 3am calls.  

    That's inarguable,  at least she wasn't talking up the Republican nominee.

    Parent

    That's not the way it willl come (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    across to voters---it's certainly not how I took it.
    In fact, it's so laughable to say McCain is not ready that you have to wonder if she's looking for a job with SNL.
    It's like the "Me too, Hillary" stuff, but backwards: "Sure, Obama's not ready, but neither are they!!"
    That's the argument from a SENIOR adviser???
    Very sad.

    Parent
    Why is McCain ready? (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    Please tell me what makes him ready.  The guy thinks that the problem with the Bush Doctrine is that it doesn't go far enough.  He sang a song "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran".  WTF?  

    Parent
    He shows up to work, for starters. (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Sorry, Mark (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    but he's got the Obama excuse, too - he's missed 57% of the votes in the Senate this Congress, and his campaign has said that he won't be spending much time there going forward lest he cast votes that can be used against him.

    But, he does have many more years there, and I'm assuming a decent record on attendance until now.

    I think, as my Dad used to say, when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you, and in Obama's case, I think he has a hard time arguing that he's done a better job than either Clinton or McCain.  No matter how valid his claim that one or the other of them didn't exercise good judgment, he gets slammed with the "couldn't be bothered to do your job" thing.

    Parent

    There's a huge difference (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by K Lynne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:47:47 PM EST

    When a long-time employee with a history of being generally responsible, reliable, and hard working suddenly has a patch where he's calling in sick or coming in late, I would expect that an employer would likely cut him a bit of slack.

    When a new employee does the same thing, he will likely be seen as unreliable.  Fair or not, there are higher expectations of new employees than there are of long-term employees, at least when it comes to things like absenteeism and such.

    Personally, I have real issues with Obama essentially 'calling in sick' for practically half of his FIRST term as a US Senator.  

    Parent

    How many 3 a.m. calls did Bill Clinton get? (none / 0) (#54)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    Do you think she was out of loop on them? She at least has had experience with what can happen

    Parent
    More girl bashing, Senator (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    Clinton represents, if you recall, one of the State that the Prince of Saudi did attack on 911 and she has been their Sneator for two terms and has effectively dealt as a leader with all the threats and terrorist loons for all that time.  She also by the way actually shows up and attends and has her team conducted her national security sub chair meetings even though she cant be there, she has the highest number of national security bills pending. Your fooling yourselves if you dont believe this women could handle any call at 3 am without diaper rash that's just wrong.  And what she is doing is getting the issue out there she has started again to run for the general.

    Parent
    Great, so she has the same (none / 0) (#84)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    foreign policy experience as Laura Bush.

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#92)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    Dubya doesn't get the 3 a. m. calls so why would Laura?

    Parent
    Ok that was just dumb her fervor showing (none / 0) (#88)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    this, however

    .....You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. . . . So to think - it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, `Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

    This from Samantha Power Obama's closet adviser the Party front runner and it has the ability to destroy the Party's leverage in 08 and should.

    We in voter land for some time have been very dissatifed with the Dem Congress we elected in o6 that so far been incapable of extracting us for Iraq, this seems to say it is the Party position to say they are anti war and will extract us but again like NAFTA its campaign rehtoric to win votes is is not sincere. Ask yourselves are we being conned, lives are being lost, Party blinders would be inappropriate, everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan someone's child friend, son brother or sister dies in this was even though none of us speak of it.


    Parent

    If you are willing to (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    buy into BS soundbites such as Susan Rice's comment then it really doesn't matter what I say to you.  You are so blatantly biased it is pointless to even discuss the issue with you.

    Just make sure to create your "Hillary/McCain 2008!" posters.

    Parent

    Ah, yes, it was "just words" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    which is how we increasingly seem to have to hear so much from the Obama campaign.

    Parent
    So the answer to the suggestion that (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    Obama, whose national experience consists of less than 2 years in the Senate, and who won't even show up to do his job because he's so busy campaigning for President---in 2007, btw; and whose resume as a Senator was padded by the gift of several major bills to sponsor during his last year: the answer is that I'm buying into BS? Sorry, that won't wash---not away from the blogs.
    Obama's lack of qualifications is the MAJOR obstacle he faces.

    Parent
    And Hillary is too much like her new BFF (none / 0) (#47)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    McCain.  After all, they both have the necessary experience to answer the 3 am call.

    Parent
    And conversely (none / 0) (#96)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    What if one thinks Hillary is unethical?

    Parent
    Money. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    Not usable against McCain.

    Isn't that the real purpose of this primary?

    On a personal level, I think the campaigns should split the cost of revotes.  However, I think it's terribly unfair and undemocratic that contributers should be paying for the states to do this.  Contributers are not the ones who moved the primaries up.  Contributers are not the candidates who agreed that these delegations should be seated.  This is quite an onus to put on those not responsible to fix a situation that they had nothing to do with.

    Parent

    Think about how much pain we will save the (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    voters of PA those commercials where awful one after another after another and it may help Obama because if you are not enamored with all him the constant appearance of the narcissistic adulation was uncomfortable for many.

    Parent
    Haha! Do it for Atrios! (none / 0) (#24)
    by HadIt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    Seriously, I don't think he's looking forward to it.

    Parent
    narcissistic adulation (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    You guys are unbelievable.

    Parent
    just another day (none / 0) (#61)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    at TalkHillary.com.  :)

    Parent
    Go review them yourself (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    they even had one playing great music with adoring applauding fans to Obama's rising oratory about him ending the Iraq war, you may not be aware but Ohio like many others States, lost many beloved sons and daughter one is still missing sure we are still grieving and yes somber maybe touchy when the subject of their sacrifice isn't about them.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#72)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    But it will be a lot more expensive in the long run when a) little fundraising for the nominee comes out of FL and MI because they're ticked; b) they will have to spend more money trying to win these states in the fall, because everyone is ticked, and c) it will be really expensive when McCain wins them both if we don't get this fiasco straightened out.

    Parent
    ROFL. You're a monster, BTD! (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:18:59 AM EST


    The good thing about "monster" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    Is that it isn't sexist, at least!

    Parent
    Seriously silly season is upon us (none / 0) (#7)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    Don't act like Ken Starr Mark :)

    Parent
    When is key (none / 0) (#6)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    I knew he could win MI, though I must admit as an Obama supporter I'm worried that a late primary could hurt him (college out for Summer, some but not total decrease in College town populations and votes).

    Revote By Mail (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    It is simple and the cheapest method.

    Michigan could be done in late April or May.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    ...Florida would have to wait until June, too big to get done before then.  You have to write out the parameters, re-check and possibly re-open registration, raise the money to pay for it, and line up the poll workers as well.  

    I think he wins the re-vote in Michigan, and that Clinton's margin in Florida will be a little smaller the second time around.  (If he wins most of the remaining contests and Florida is the last, he could actually pull off a win there.)

    I am hearing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    that Florida will not reopen registration. There really is no reason to if this is a re-do and not a brand new primary. I am hearing that if it does come to a re-do they will go with all the democrats who were registered at the time of the first primary, no chance for repubs or indys to stack the registrations.

    I also think, JMHO, that Michigan will decide in any event, to have a closed primary or 'firehouse' caucus. No one is going to want to let 'silly season' happen when only one party is revoting.

    Parent

    Nothing to fear?! (none / 0) (#15)
    by corn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    He has everything to fear.  Losing those two states again would finish his campaign.

    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    He wouldn't be finished, but I think what is happening is he is going from the almost sure winner back towards a real 50/50 race (we ain't there yet though).

    And it may not take much after PA/FL/MI to tilt to Clinton.

    Honestly if I had the thing almost locked up, now I am looking toward going back towards a tie I'd be pretty unhappy. On the other hand if I had been written off and I am heading back to a tie I'd be very happy.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    And if measures are taken to make sure these are dem only contests, given that only one party will be revoting, Obama's chances go down exponentially.

    Parent
    Thus the popularity of revoting here (none / 0) (#42)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM EST
    it is presumed that it would not be good for Obama therefore it must be good for the Party.

    This observation appears even more true if the revote is a primary, not a caucus.  

    Parent

    It's good for Democracy (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:58:18 AM EST
    Obama is in the unfortunate situation that what is good for his winning the nomination is bad for the cause of enfranchising voters. Clinton is in a much easier position.

    Just as when the AUMF vote was taken, Obama was a state senator without any say in foreign policy and it was therefore easier for him to make a speech against it.  Clinton was in a much tougher situation.

    Life's unfair; deal with it.

    Parent

    Was the MI primary closed? (none / 0) (#90)
    by K Lynne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    I know FL was, but can't remember if MI was.  

    Not that you could realistically re-do MI as an open primary even if you wanted to...

    Parent

    Um. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    Unless she ran up the same margins he did against her in the Potomac Primaries and in Wisconsin, his campaign would hardly be finished.  

    Parent
    I wasn't referring to the numbers. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by corn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    Delegate counts will still be close, but the question about his ability to carry important states will be answered strongly in the negative.  Among the Supers he'd be toast.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#38)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    and he can't win without the superdelegates.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#68)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    That's exactly the avalanche effect Obama's camp must fear.  Re-vote = Clinton winning two very important states (and completely her sweep of the Big Four) = SD's giving him two choices: cut a deal with Clinton and take the VP slot or go home.

    Personally, I could think of many things far worse than a Clinton/Obama ticket, with the whole process settled two months before the convention.


    Parent

    A Clinton nomination. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    Is hardly a clear cut win.

    She's running a 50% +1.  Which has lost the last two elections.  

    It's an argument you can make, but it's not got much logical support.

    Parent

    But, (none / 0) (#91)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    a combined HC/BO ticket would be more than a 50% + 1 campaign in the GE.  It might be more like a 55% or 60% campaign.  If they were to win, despite the trash that will be thrown at them by the other side and if the Rezko stink winds down without any goo sticking (easier if BO is the VP candidate), then we would have one question to be answered.  Would the Dems screw up single party rule as badly as the other side did?  If the answer is, "No," then think of the possibility of Dems having control of the WH past 2020 (4-8 years under one, then 4-8 years under the second one).

    That could be a nightmare for the other side.  How would they attack without sounding both sexist and racist?

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#76)
    by joei on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    with puerto rico shifting from caucuses to primary, looks like hillary will end up with the popular vote.

    Parent
    Michigan "re-do" (none / 0) (#66)
    by TLE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    The taxpayers will certainly not fund a "re-do" in our state, and I don't think the state party should pay for it, either.  Obama (and Edwards, Biden and Richardson) did not HAVE to ask "how high?" when Howard Dean told them to jump, but did it anyway.  Other than cost, my objection is based on the fact that we don't register for parties in Michigan, so the only way to conduct a re-do would be to allow only paid-up party members to participate.  This sounds suspiciously like a poll tax to me.  There are many, many people who identify with the Democratic party, but are not paying members, and, frankly, can't afford to pay to vote.  The only way to avoid disenfranchising Dem-leaning voters in this purple state is to accept the results of the January primary.

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#83)
    by arnoud on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    It´s Hillary Clinton who doesn´t want a revote. Why only attack Barack Obama for not wanting one?

    Why Don't They Just Conduct (none / 0) (#99)
    by bob h on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    the Mother of all Polls by calling every registered Democrat in Michigan and Florida?  So big that the margin of error is less than 1%?  Wouldn't that be the cheapest way?

    Revote? (none / 0) (#100)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    Who is going to pay for a revote?  Neither Florida nor Michigan are going to lay out the cash.  The DNC won't, either.  The state parties don't have it, and raising the money would take time (and, as it happens, the primary would have to be organized, which isn't free).

    I don't see a good solution here, other than taking the existing vote and dealing with it.  As the FL people have said, Iowa, NH, and SC all broke the same rules.

    Ras MI and FL Revote Polls | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment